dew1679666265

You're probably right, and as I've said before, if a team doesn't meet your demands then you re-sign Garza. We don't need to trade him, so we shouldn't operate like we do. I've not answered that yet, actually, so don't feel bad. That's a hard question to give a direct answer to without considering specific players. I've mentioned targeting guys like (not these guys specifically, but guys like these) Delgado/Skaggs/Bauer as the primary piece of a Garza deal. If there's a guy a little further away who's pretty polished, but still has TOR upside, I'd probably consider him. I guess if I gave a somewhat specific answer, I'd say he'd have to be AA or higher, preferably either in the majors or within a year or two of reaching it but not necessary depending on the player.

It's going to be really, really tough if the best you get for him is a better version of Travis Wood and a guy who's 2-3 years away from throwing a pitch in the majors (if he makes it at all). At least it is when the major league roster is this bad. That said, I've never even stated that we should not trade Garza. I've simply argued that if we trade him, we need to get a guy who has the upside to replace him and is close enough that there's some certainty that he can hit that ceiling.

I'd be interested to know what Hendry has anything to do with this. Other than, I guess, anybody who wants to win games soon must be pining away for him or something.

If the plan is to tank the next couple of seasons just for the chance of adding Rohon or Ward, then yeah trading Garza is by far the best option. But there's simply no good reason why we need to do that. I'm not going to get into the game of predicting what the Theo regime is going to do in the future, I tried that last year and was wrong - they're much smarter than I am. You and a lot of other smart people on here are making one argument, while a lot of other smart people are making the exact opposite argument (that the Theo regime isn't punting the next season or two). I don't think any of us know for sure what their plans are. What I am arguing is what I believe is the best plan for this organization to win now and later, instead of just now or just later. Keeping Garza is a part of that plan, but if a team makes a good offer for him (i.e. a high upside, near ready player and another mid-rotation arm) then you should take it. And again, I still don't see how a trade where the most likely scenario is that we get a better Travis Wood and nothing else is a good trade for Garza.

It needs more, but in the past two years we've added quite a bit (Baez, Soler, Almora, Rizzo, Vizcaino, and maybe guys like Maples and Johnson) and we have another chance to add a few more pieces next year with a top 1-3 pick and a large draft/IFA budget. We don't need to be trading away very good major leaguers who can help us for multiple years to come for no reason other than to stockpile more. We need to start thinking about building both the majors and the farm now. There's no way I'd trade a TOR starter who's 28 who we don't financially need to trade for a guy who has legitimately great upside but also has plenty of questions surrounding whether he'll even make the majors, much less become a TOR pitcher himself. Not really, no. I wasn't in favor of firing him just for the sake of it, but I felt like it was time for him to go and felt comfortable that Ricketts would have a plan if he fired him. Overall, I thought Hendry was probably an average GM, give or take a little.

He's been one for back to back seasons now, I don't know why he wouldn't be going forward. I realize the WAR numbers are down for him this year, but everything else (outside of HR ratios and defense) are either dead on with last year or possibly a little better (GB% and BB/9 in particular). He's not the elite ace that he looked like he could be in 2011, but I don't think there's much doubt he's a TOR pitcher and he'll only be 29 next year. I still don't see how a trade where the most likely scenario is that we get one mid-rotation starter and maybe another major leaguer (who knows how good) is a sound tradeoff when we're trading a guy with the ability of Garza who we don't need to trade.

I think going into this offseason with the specific intent of trying to build a team that will contend in 2013 is a mistake because there's a good chance it leads to overpaying somebody we shouldn't (like an Anibal Sanchez). What I think the goal this offseason should be is to make incremental improvements with an eye on contention by 2014. Find value buys or potential value buys like Upton, Liriano, maybe Sanchez (if injuries scare teams away), etc, who are more than just placeholders and can help for more than just next year. Retain guys like Garza, Russell, DeJesus/Soriano (definitely one, maybe both), unless you get a great offer for them, and then fill out the rest of the holes with guys from the minors (probably Vitters, BJax, and a pitcher or two). That way we're continuing to develop a core, while also adding some pieces that can help us possibly contend in 2013 and certainly contend beyond that, but we're not adding anything that's likely to hurt us in the future.

Right, it's for reasons like this that we shouldn't be setting artificial deadlines on ourselves to make a decision on a guy like Garza. There's a lot of time between today and the trade deadline next year. It's plenty of time for us to work out a deal with a team and then that team work out a contract extension with Garza so that they ensure he's not a rental. If we start to get fidgety and insist on trading him this offseason just to ensure we get something, then we're all but guaranteeing we won't get maximum value. And there's no reason for a team in our position with our front office to not get maximum value.

I was afraid somebody would get hung up on the specific names, that's why I prefaced what I said by explaining that they were meant more as comps and not that I was saying we should target those specific players. There's a big gap between them specifically, but the consistent in all three is that they're all TOR, high upside arms who are pretty close to the majors (or there already). If we can get a borderline TOR guy (like Delgado, who I've seen listed as #2 type upside) then I want a little better secondary piece, but if we can get a clearcut TOR type guy then I'd take a lesser secondary piece (or maybe none if the primary guy is good enough, that's another debate though). The key is, I want a guy who's close to or in the majors and has TOR upside if I'm going to trade a 28 (29 next year) year old, TOR pitcher who I have the money and ability to re-sign. The idea is, if we trade Garza we're not planning to contend for the next year or two, but a team acquiring Garza probably is. Thus, they get a legitimate TOR pitcher who's pitching at that level right now who can help them win today and tomorrow and we get a guy who likely will become that, but isn't quite there yet.

So if teams aren't willing to give what we demand this offseason, then keep him and try to work out an extension. If we make no progress on extending him by next year's deadline, then work on trading him again and try to get a desperate team to bite. We had Randall Delgado for half a season of Dempster this year, there's no reason we can't get the equivalent of Delgado plus more for Garza at next year's deadline if it comes to that. I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Hamels is one of the best pitchers in the majors and he's still relatively young (29 next year). He got a very big contract but one that is somewhat reasonable when you consider his ability and age (he'll still only be 34 when the contract ends). It's not a discount by any means, but it's not really overpaying either (unless you're just scared to ever give a pitcher a 6 year contract). Listening to reports leading up to Hamels accepting the deal, it sounded like the Phillies were going to have to overpay severely for him. We're hearing similar things with Garza right now, that he's asking for more than he's worth and he wants Matt Cain money. It wouldn't shock me if we keep hearing that up to next year's deadline and then we see Garza sign a much more reasonable (i.e. not a discount, but not an overpay) contract by next year's deadline.

But if Bradley flames out (a very realistic scenario), then all we have to show for Garza - a TOR pitcher - is a mid-rotation guy. I'd be looking at guys like (these are comps, probably not these specific players) Delgado/Skaggs/Bauer who are high upside guys and either in the majors or close. Then you get the mid-rotation guy who's further away. If you can't get that, then you re-sign Garza.

I didn't know those specifics, but I did know he's a very high upside guy. My concern is that while there's a ton of reward with him, there's also a ton of risk. If we're getting just a mid-rotation guy as the secondary piece, I want the primary piece (which Bradley would be) to be more of a sure thing. As great as Bradley's potential is, there's a very real chance that all we'd get out of the Garza trade would be a better version of Travis Wood if Bradley flames out. I'm not satisfied with that.

A "good" deal to me is 1 high upside, major league ready arm as the centerpiece and then a secondary piece of a lower level, mid rotation type guy. I'd be pushing right now for the 2 high upside arms, but could be talked down from that in time. Garza isn't the pitcher he was in 2011, but he's closer to that than he is to the pre-Cub version of Garza (if you believe in peripherals). To me, we have a relatively young, TOR starter and we don't need to trade him. If you don't need to trade him, then you need to ensure (as much as you can) that you're getting a replacement in return. If that replacement is in A ball, then there's way too much doubt involved. That's the biggest reason I'm in favor of keeping demands very high - it means basically nothing what either side is saying right now. If Garza's agent is earning his pay, then he's threatening every day that Garza wants to test FA. If the Theo regime is worth what they're being paid, they're shopping him around and trying to get him on the most team friendly deal possible. Way too much can change between now and a full calendar year later when Garza will actually hit FA for us to settle for a lower offer now. Over the past few months all we've heard was that Hamels wanted to test FA and he wanted a 7-8 year deal. He ended signing for a relatively reasonable 6 year contract. If we're going to deal Garza now, it needs to be one that strongly favors us.

I realize stats aren't the be-all, end-all in the minors - especially the low minors - and you know better than me about Bradley's stuff, but I'd be really concerned about making a guy the headliner of a Garza deal who's walking almost 6 guys per 9. I have no doubt that he's got TOR potential if you say he does, but he's also a long way away from the majors and already has a legitimate issue that needs to be resolved. I have strong reservations about him being the centerpiece of a Garza deal.

I'm saying that I would expect the Garza camp to be posturing right now, just as I would expect the Theo regime to be trying to get Garza to sign an extremely team friendly deal. If Garza is saying that he wants to test FA, there's a very good chance it's a negotiating ploy. A large number of experts, if I recall correctly, were saying that Hamels was a likely candidate to test FA this coming offseason and the Phillies ended up signing him to a (relatively) reasonable contract. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't shop Garza. I'm saying don't take a lesser deal just to trade him because you're afraid you might not be able to re-sign him during the season. We've got more than a full calendar year to negotiate with him, if Garza's agent isn't throwing around the idea of testing free agency right now then Garza needs to fire him.

I'll admit I don't know enough about individual prospects to comment with any real knowledge on specific packages. From the guys I have some idea about, though, I'm not real excited by Bradley and I like Syndergaard but he's a little far away to be a headliner for Garza. The Royals, Braves, and Rangers packages might intrigue me, but I'd want more than just those two players in each.

This seems like a really bad idea - it sounds like trading him just for the sake of trading him. I hope Theo and Jed don't do that, but I also didn't think they'd tank 1+ seasons and they've done that so we'll see I guess.

I could probably be swayed on the secondary piece, but I think it's a must to get a high upside, major league ready (or near ready) arm as the headliner for Garza. As a major market team with ample resources, I don't believe we should trade away a proven TOR pitcher who's still moderately young for uncertainty. There's too much risk that the young pitcher doesn't develop, even with the excellent talent evaluators we have. I realize that's a very unlikely package to get, but that's ok. We don't need to trade Garza, so we shouldn't accept a lesser package just to move him.

That means keep the talent on the major league roster awful enough to achieve, at a bare minimum, a top 5 pick - if not a top 2 pick. So let's say we really tank next year and finish with the #3 pick. I realize Rodon or Ward could fall outside the top two (pretty unlikely I'd guess, but possible), but what happens if we add a few pieces next offseason and then miss on both players? Do we trade off the pieces we added and intentionally tank another season? Because we still don't have that game changing talent you're arguing we need to be able to compete. Or do we just move on and accept that we tanked a season and only got a marginal benefit out of it? Let me put it this way: We can always make the farm system better and insisting on making it as good as possible before competing at the major league level is a never ending process. Each year we can tank the season and make the farm system that much better, does that mean we should do it each year? A #1 farm system can be built while we win games at the major league level, it should not be a one or the other type of thing. We have a good base of high upside prospects right now and we have a chance to add more next year and then even if we make some effort at the major league level, we're probably still looking at a top 10-15ish pick in the following draft. We're in a good position now to start adding some to the major league roster and increase our chances of contending sooner while not hurting the farm and, in fact, continuing to build it.

Haha, good point on the numbers. Clearly I don't know which of 25 and 30 comes first. Anyway, everything I've read and seen on Garza tells me he's got top end stuff. I was very wary of Garza at the time we acquired him because he hadn't put up the numbers to justify the package, I felt. Now, however, he's posted an elite type season and one that's not terribly far behind (if he can just play some semblance of defense and keep the ball in the park). The numbers are catching up to the stuff and I have real issues calling him a #3 type starter and looking for that type of return for him.

That's interesting, thanks. I am confused, though, because you referred to Garza as a 3 before, but now say he's definitely a top 30 guy (which would make him a 2 according to this). That may be nitpicking, but Garza's always been a guy with top end stuff who just hasn't put it together completely on the mound (the numbers didn't match the stuff, basically). I have trouble believing he's no more than a mid-rotation guy when looking only at his stuff. I just don't like giving up a clear TOR pitcher like Garza for guys who might slot in around the middle or bottom of our rotation long term. It doesn't really benefit us much. If we're going to trade Garza, I think we have to get at the very least one high upside, major league ready arm and another high upside, lower level arm. We will have next year's draft where we have a top 1-3 pick and a large draft/IFA budget. That should be 1-2 more (at least) elite level players and very possibly more with the Theo regime running things. And again, I'm not saying we must contend by 2013, I'm simply arguing that adding guys who can help long term like a BJ Upton can be very beneficial and take some of the pressure off of us in the offseason prior to us seriously contending. With a few breaks it might also allow us to get into the crapshoot that is the playoffs and pull off a Cardinals-esque fluke. The ultimate goal should be dominance year in and year out, but I don't believe at all that we have to tank multiple seasons to be able to do that.

I agree. Theo ended up getting pretty fair value for Demp and that seemed nearly impossible after Demp shot down the Atlanta trade and tried to force his way to LA.

The expected production of Maholm in 2013 should be pretty easy to replace. Maholm's had a huge first half, but I strongly expect him to decline sharply in the second half and if not in the second half, certainly in 2013. He's been pretty pedestrian his entire career and I'm not adjusting my expectations for him after one really good half season. DeJesus would be tougher to replace, but I don't expect him to be dealt unless we get somebody like Upton and can't move Soriano.

If both are back-end type guys, I'd hate that deal for Garza. That wouldn't even get us a guy who has the upside of Garza right now, much less better. We absolutely need more upside than that to warrant dealing him. Right now, no we don't have quite the flexibility we need to make those kinds of moves. But we have a high draft pick and a large draft/IFA budget for next year and probably will have a fairly high pick and good draft budget again after next year (assuming improvement but not serious playoff contention). Basically, we won't be picking in the 20s within the next couple of years. By the end of 2013 we may have that flexibility and we certainly should by the end of 2014. If our major league roster is all but barren at that point (because we've been plugging holes with buy low guys and AAAA scrubs) save for Castro/Rizzo/maybe BJax and Vitters, then we'll really have our work cut out for us to contend by 2014-2015. But if we've added a few pieces along the way, then we'll have the core (the farm products previously mentioned) and most of the supporting cast (the few FAs) already in place and all we need to do is swing one big deal instead of hoping everything we need is there in one offseason. Like I just said, Upton will be 28 until August of next year. By 2015 he'll be in his age 30 season, turning 31 in August. He's posted 4-5 WAR in 4 of the past 6 seasons. Is he really going to be washed up by 2015? Anibal will be 31 in 2015, so he might be beginning to hit his decline but should still be pitching very well. If you wanted to pass on him in favor of a Liriano/E Jackson type, I'd fully understand. Again, I'm not saying we must sign specifically BJ Upton and Anibal Sanchez or we'll have a miserable offseason. I'm simply saying we should take seriously the parallel fronts comments that Hoyer made last year and make some effort to start preparing for being good and stop intentionally tanking seasons. Trying to do everything in one offseason or relying on the farm to supply every bit of the talent on the major league roster (be it with players actually on the roster or by trading minor leaguers for players) is a recipe for failure.

I really like the minor league numbers from both of those guys. What kind of upside do they have? If they're TOR, #1-2 type guys, I'd be really intrigued by that trade. I like Syndergaard too, so he could be swapped in for Nicolino as well. Ideally we get somebody closer than Nicolino/Syndergaard, but if their upside is enough (and Syndergaard's seems to be) then I'd be ok with either. Out of curiosity though, you referred to Garza as a #3 type pitcher - a mid-rotation guy. If that's true (which I disagree with), why do you think a smart GM like AA would give up highly rated prospects for him? I guess I just figure that since you seem so down on Garza, it's strange that you think we could get an elite type package for him (which is the only way I'm trading him). By the end of next year's draft, we'll have had 3 straight very high draft picks and large draft/IFA budgets (that includes the last year before the new CBA kicked in). So far, we've added a lot of upside to the low minors in guys like Baez, Almora, Soler, Vogelbach, Maples, Johnson, etc. We've also gotten some moderate to high upside guys through trade in Vizcaino, Torreyes, and Villanueva. Sure we could use more, but we could always use more. There has to come a point where it becomes more important to win major league games than it is to purely get high picks. With 3 straight very good drafts and likely another deadline to trade off expiring contracts, we should have restocked the farm enough that we don't have to continue tanking at the major league level for the express purpose of getting high draft picks. Especially since our FO's primary strength is in evaluating and developing young talent.