Hairyducked Idiot

How about both and he's a 3.5 WAR pitcher going forward?

We care about an 18-year-old's stats now? Might as well look at high-school numbers.

I'm still not entirely sure what a "question mark" is supposed to be as a baseball player. Other than some generic term for "Player I'm not excited about."

At best a 4 or 5 starter for 7M. Who is what 3-4 years away? Prior cost less. Prior cost money and the No. 2 overall pick in the draft. That's a ton more.

Wainwright and arguably Liriano, iirc. Oh, and Oswalt's back. It was pretty mixed. Nolasco was on there, as was Liriano. Ricky Romero just missed the cut (55.3%). Too much work.

Who are those pitchers? Garza's improving performance throughout last year(including a lights out August/September) don't do much for the notion that his change in repertoire is a fad that will be quickly figured out. You're gonna make me go through the list again? Too much work. Off the top of my head, I remember Wainwright, Carpenter, Kuroda, Oswalt, and Nolasco all making appearances on the list.

So previous to 2011 he was just mediocre? What would you call a pitcher who averaged 2.5 fWAR per full season, including 1.6 in his most recent?

Okay, fine, here we go. Projecting Matt Garza. From 2008 to 2010, his first three full seasons in the majors, Garza had a very clear ability level. Actually, his partial seasons with the Twins matched up pretty well, too, but we'll skip those to be fair. FIP: 4.14, 4.17, 4.42 xFIP: 4.42, 4.14, 4.31 Those are pretty mediocre numbers, and it's not hard to see why. The K-rates (6.2, 8.4, 6.8) averaged out to above-average but uninspiring, while he walked a little more than you'd like (2.9, 3.5, 2.8) and gave up too many home runs (0.9, 1.1, 1.2). He was also a fairly extreme fly ball pitcher, which explains his consistently .270ish BABIP. In 2011, three things changed, and they are all somewhat related. 1) He switched leagues out of the difficult AL East. 2) He went from throwing 72% fastballs to 53%, with the difference split up among his curve, changeup and slider. 3) He went from extreme flyball pitcher to a fairly neutral one. The result was a new high in K-rate (9.0) and a decrease in home runs (down to 0.6), resulting in impressive 2.95 FIP and 3.19 xFIP. Okay, so how sustainable is it for him to throw offspeed stuff on 47% of his pitches and maintain that success? I'm skeptical. Using fangraphs, in 2009 and 2010, there were 17 pitcher seasons when the pitcher threw fastballs (including cutters) less than 55% of the time and had at least a 3.5 fWAR. 15 of the 17 saw a decrease in their fWAR the next season, with an average change of -1.9 fWAR. Relying heavily on breaking balls for improvement looks pretty ephemeral to me. It increases the risk of injury, and eventually the hitters just plain catch on. Combine that with a huge jump in performance, and I say the plexiglass principle is about to hit Matt Garza very, very hard. He'll likely never be more valuable on the trade market than he is right now.

We got Paul Maholm. I don't know how much more you want on the MLB front than that. Heck, he's only averaged half a fWAR less than Garza the last four seasons. That certainly seems like an intellectually honest thing to say. I can't find the eyeroll face thingie, but it's got to be on here somewhere. If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about Garza's projections and how to reconcile his 2011 with his previously mediocre years, I can do that. In the meantime, I don't think a little factually true snark is going to lower the tone too much. Oh wait, there it is, between devil horns and winkie face. :roll:

Maybe the parallel fronts were Des Moines and Daytona. Both look pretty intriguing this year, and have been significantly improved by offseason moves.

We got Paul Maholm. I don't know how much more you want on the MLB front than that. Heck, he's only averaged half a fWAR less than Garza the last four seasons.

The owner came in, talked a ton about building the farm system, and threw a bunch of money at it. Then he went out and hired a bunch of guys for the front office who have a history of excellent drafting, and he said that's why they were hired. So yeah, that's kind of the plan.

Well, yes, there's always risk. There's risk to every decision. By holding on to Garza, you are gambling that Garza is the pitcher you hope he is, and not the guy who averaged 2.5 fWAR from 2008 to 2010, including 1.6 in 2010. We are talking about a pitcher who is one season removed from a year that barely matched Darwin Barney's projection. Sell high.

Thick as you are, pay attention! My words are a matter of pride.

WTH does "uninspiring" mean? The purpose of the organization's move are not to make you feel all tingly and inspired. If you need that feeling, here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0AiN8vrn9Y If we need a very good starting pitcher in 2014 or whenever, and the choices are projecting Matt Garza from where he is now, or taking our chances with the free agent and trade markets in 2014, I'll take my chances with the markets.

Yes. We trade Garza because we hope to sign one of two elite starting pitchers who may someday be free agents. That's the motivation.

I look at our 40-man roster, and I see half-a-dozen guys that are barely above roster-fill status. I'm not that worried about hauling two very nice prospects for a few years.

"Don't like" is the wrong term. I like it just fine. Just not at the cost (in dollars, of a market-price extension) and the opportunity cost (compared to what we could get in a trade). He's exiting his prime years, he's never had a season like the one he just had, and he's suddenly relying on a ton of breaking stuff. Classic sell high candidate.

Or you sell high and get while the gettin's good.

What's wrong with paying for a stud pitcher's 30-34 seasons? Are we afraid he's going to eat himself into Sidney Ponson? I'm not quite willing to anoint the guy with one 3.5+ WAR season a "stud" pitcher.

We've talked about the value of a prospect who hits all offseason. Getting six cost-controlled years of useful MLB players can be worth tens of millions of dollars. Multiply potential value by the percentage chance of reaching it, and $7 million doesn't seem steep at all to me for a nice prospect.

I'm just not hugely excited about paying for his age 30-34 seasons, or whatever the extension would be, compared to the sort of returns a trade is rumored to be able to bring.

A pitcher who is showing no signs of being interested in a team-friendly extension, who has only been "great" occasionally, and will be 30 at that point. Everyone is obsessed with buying low these days, but there's another half to that equation.

I don't want anything that was rumored from Boston or Toronto, so I don't care about them. You seem really intent on trading Garza for whatever the best offer is, and I'm really struggling to understand why. Because after 324 games in which I'm not expecting a ton from the Cubs, he's a free agent and all we get is draft pick compensation.

It's a risk, sure. But he's a teenage pitcher. There's a 20% chance he's too good to have to worry about this, and a 75% chance he won't end up being good enough to worry about it.