How do you figure? If you're talking about immediate impact, then yes. That's the point of acquiring prospects, after all. If you're talking about long-term impact, especially when you consider Garza's injury history? Who knows? It's a risk the Cubs are obviously willing to take.
Doesn't matter if I am talking immediate impact or impact five years down the road.
If traded, there is a very small chance that any of the prospects acquired will become an above average major league player.
Garza is already an above average major league player.
The odds are greatly in Garza's favor of providing a greater impact this year, next year and five years from now than any prospect acquired for Garza.
I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but it is the facts.
Where are you pulling these transparent "facts" from? Is it fun being this delusional?
Please.
Half the board whines about any veteran FA proposed to be signed for the Cubs will be at the end of his career in 4-5 years when the Cubs are competitive in the best case scenario baring massive FA spending.
In 4-5 years Shark will 33-34 years old. The same age many are whining are over the hill and worthless to a contending team.
To argue otherwise admits ignorance to what has been posted on this board by many people.
If the value was there, in terms of contract length and salary, and Samardzjia had shown improvement during his arbitration years and the ability to stay healthy, then I'd absolutely love to keep him -- so would most others. Nice generalization there. The same goes for Garza. The desire to potentially trade him has nothing to do with his age -- it's his injury history and the potential return on investment. People are acting like the Cubs gave up superstars to get Garza. Sam Fuld and Chris Archer are the only two guys who've even reached the majors for the Rays in that deal. Hak-Ju Lee has regressed greatly. At this point, I'd say the Cubs have won that trade, hands down.
I would say the Cubs won the Garza trade hands down also.
But that also is the same exact logic that I am using to speculate the Cubs will lose any trade involving Garza right now.
The Rays lost trading Garza away several years ago forfeiting years of team control but yet now you think the Cubs will win trading away Garza to a team that will only have a couple months of team control??
Those statements completely contradict themselves.
This is contradictory to the statement you and Pat made a few days ago -- stating that Garza and Samardzjia were both more valuable to the Cubs as rotational building blocks. Which is it?
It isn't contradictory at all.
Both Matt Garza and Jeff Samardzija hold more value to the Cubs resigning and retaining their services than any return they will get.
It is simple logic.
A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush.
However I don't think either player wants to stay in Chicago. So if the players don't want to stay unless they are totally overpaid. If you don't want to overpay them, you have to take the worse option and trade them for pennies on the dollar.
