Garza To Rangers -- Olt, Edwards, Grimm to Chi (Post 607)

[chibears55]

Don't know if anyone caught it, but Ken Rosenthal discussed that Oakland has began a serious push to acquire Garza and potentially Nate Schierholtz, but only "if the price is right".

havent heard anything.. and guessing their price would be low if garza involved, considering garza would be a rental and they tend to savior their prospects for themselves as a low budget franchise.

 

[CSF77]

At best I see the Cubs fielding Baez and Bryant late 2014. 2015 sometime Soler and Almora. So the teams will not be good for 2014 at min. So that is 15-18 mil wasted on a #2. Even beyond this point: what would every one say if: they invest big $ into Garza but a year from now the Rays start dangling Price. But due to the investment given to Garza the payroll could not sustain both? (And not getting into the they can because they are not and that is what matters now.). How many saying spend now would stick to that stance knowing that it could prevent signing Price? In theory that is.

 

[SilenceS]

im not comparing careers, im just pointing out that when people say ERA numbers are high because they pitch in AL EAST, is stretching it a bit.. i just showed a few starters from each AL team that has been able to sport more respectable ERAs while pitching in AL EAST..

didnt say garza wasnt a good starter or wasnt solid for Rays, i just dont care for the AL East ERA excuse.. no need to stretch it into a different debate.

hurray for his 2008 ALCS MVP, he won his 2 starts against the redsox going 13 IP and giving up 2 ERs.. what happened against the whitesox and phillies ? he sucked
that another thing some over react with when talking about garza.. he can be dominant in some games, but he is inconsistent.



i said he was having a great season this year..




you might be right, but IMO and we will shall see what type of offers he gets this off season.. do teams risk 16 + MIL per for the next 4-5 yrs on a maybe ? I doubt it..



you said 5 yrs before.. if he willing to take a 3 yr deal, then yes offer it..
as far as replacing him.. stats wise, your looking for someone who can go 6+ IP with a high 3 ERA

I think the cubs would like to keep him but not at 4-5 yrs 16+ Per... we will see if a team is willing to go that high this off season.



no, just saying Garza IMO and others is not worth risking 4-5 yrs at 16 + Per.
despite what he has shown this year.. seen a lot of players have big FA years and crumble to AVG. or worse the next year.

Hmmmm a couple of things,

I knocked it down to three years of the Cubs finding a replacement because you said five was to long not to replace him. Nothing to do with contract offer.

Matt Garza- 1098 IP, 3.80 ERA, 16.8 WAR

Anibal Sanchez- 967 IP, 3.66 ERA, 17.5 WAR.

Sanchez got a 5 year 88 million dollar. How are you seeing no team offering Garza 16plus for 4-5 years? Garza is 3 months older.

Garza from 2010-2012

506.1 IP 3.68 ERA

Include this year and he has been pretty damn good. He also is a better second half pitcher.

Garza is going to get paid and deservedly so.

 

[SilenceS]

At best I see the Cubs fielding Baez and Bryant late 2014. 2015 sometime Soler and Almora. So the teams will not be good for 2014 at min. So that is 15-18 mil wasted on a #2. Even beyond this point: what would every one say if: they invest big $ into Garza but a year from now the Rays start dangling Price. But due to the investment given to Garza the payroll could not sustain both? (And not getting into the they can because they are not and that is what matters now.). How many saying spend now would stick to that stance knowing that it could prevent signing Price? In theory that is.

If you aren't willing to spend on Garza, they aren't going to be willing to spend on Price cause he is going to cost at least 60 million more plus uber prospects.

 

[CSF77]

My point is if they are going to pay up it should be on a legit ace. Fact they gave Jackson 52 mil as a career .500 pitcher with a 4. Era was a waste of future potential payroll. Call me crazy but if manage sets limits to spending I would rather spend on all star talent at top prices. Then fill in the roster with the farm. Pretty reasonable vs using payroll to signing meh players with hopes to flip.

 

[SilenceS]

My point is if they are going to pay up it should be on a legit ace. Fact they gave Jackson 52 mil as a career .500 pitcher with a 4. Era was a waste of future potential payroll. Call me crazy but if manage sets limits to spending I would rather spend on all star talent at top prices. Then fill in the roster with the farm. Pretty reasonable vs using payroll to signing meh players with hopes to flip.

You consider Garza a meh player? I don't think he is great, but he is pretty damn good. I don't see us getting Price anymore. I just don't. I think they are going to try to draft a top arm and go that route. We wouldt win a bidding war in FA for Price and the Cubs seem to hold their prospects by their left titty and then to put out huge cash. I just don't see it anymore. Garza is a power arm. Those aren't easy to come by.

 

[chibears55]

At best I see the Cubs fielding Baez and Bryant late 2014. 2015 sometime Soler and Almora. So the teams will not be good for 2014 at min. So that is 15-18 mil wasted on a #2. Even beyond this point: what would every one say if: they invest big $ into Garza but a year from now the Rays start dangling Price. But due to the investment given to Garza the payroll could not sustain both? (And not getting into the they can because they are not and that is what matters now.). How many saying spend now would stick to that stance knowing that it could prevent signing Price? In theory that is.

that is basically what i think is going on... no matter what your opinion is on near ready prospects, epstein and hoyer are banking on the above mentioned as being part of the future core, whether its 2014 or 2015..
their goal now is ( or hopefully is ) to improve the roster with young(er) core players that will be ready to compete and contend in 2-3 yrs.

not saying garza is old at 30, but if the plan is to have these young(er) core players ready in 2-3 yrs to compete and contend, is it worth keeping garza around for his price ? does garza really want to stick around, unless he being paid a healthy amount knowing their a couple of years away from competing ?

 

[Cubs2008]

I think if your plannis to compete by 2015 then yes, why wouldn't you want Garza then. If we're still talking abiut it being 2016 or later then no, ship him off for whatever you can get.

 

[CSF77]

You consider Garza a meh player? I don't think he is great, but he is pretty damn good. I don't see us getting Price anymore. I just don't. I think they are going to try to draft a top arm and go that route. We wouldt win a bidding war in FA for Price and the Cubs seem to hold their prospects by their left titty and then to put out huge cash. I just don't see it anymore. Garza is a power arm. Those aren't easy to come by.

I put out he is a #2. Not Meh. Point being is if I was calling the shots: I am spending big on 2 players. 1 a ace. Period not a 2 or a 3 or a 4. And for sure not a 5. A ace and I will over pay if needed because I am not wasting payroll on role players or potential flips etc. 2nd investment is into a core hitter. I am not going to build around gambles. Basically what we were hoping for in Sori. Now who knows he could have been dirty and cleaned up and his body broke down. Who knows but they need center pieces to build around. No Rizzo is not that. 3rd to a lesser degree is a proven closer. So basically invest into a core then build around via farm.

 

[chibears55]

Sanchez got a 5 year 88 million dollar. How are you seeing no team offering Garza 16plus for 4-5 years? Garza is 3 months older.

sanchez returned to his team, who consider themselves world series contenders and kept the best starter available..
they truly over paid in fear of losing him..

i guess i shouldnt say no team will, because there always one team willing to over pay..
i just dont see the cubs offering him that now, or many teams getting into a bidding war for those yrs and amount.. but we shall see..

Include this year and he has been pretty damn good. He also is a better second half pitcher.

Garza is going to get paid and deservedly so.

i dont disagree that he has been good and great this year, i just dont see him as a 1 or 2 type starter for a good contending team, as many baseball people dont either. can he become a stud from here on out? of course.. should he get paid as one now ? NO. will he get a nice pay day this off season ? Yes.

If Garza finishes out the year winnig, eating Innings, and keeping his ERA respectable then i can see him getting 4 and 75 Easy from a team, But if he looking for more PER, dont know if there will be more then 1 or 2 team willing to go higher without having options involved.

He also is a better second half pitcher.

that a little problem i have and im sure a lot of GMs look at too..
If your going to pay a pitcher a huge sum of money, you want to see consistent positive results for the whole year not half..
bad games and losses in first half , usually means 2 more games you need to win in the 2nd half..

 

[chibears55]

Cubs Rangers deal was Garza and another player ( unknown ) for Neil Ramirez, Luis Sardinas, Mike Olt, and CJ Edwards
it was shot down because one player from the Rangers had a medical red flag.. guessing it was either ramirez or Olt.
supposedly the deal is still pending if they can agree on a replacement player..

im thinking they didnt like the results for Olt, considering ramirez is scheduled to pitch Friday for AA Frisco..

To concur with JosMins.. I did read where Oakland have spoken to the Cubs about Garza and have an interest in making a Deal, if price is right

 

[nwfisch]

Cubs Rangers deal was Garza and another player ( unknown ) for Neil Ramirez, Luis Sardinas, Mike Olt, and CJ Edwards
it was shot down because one player from the Rangers had a medical red flag.. guessing it was either ramirez or Olt.
supposedly the deal is still pending if they can agree on a replacement player..

im thinking they didnt like the results for Olt, considering ramirez is scheduled to pitch Friday for AA Frisco..

To concur with JosMins.. I did read where Oakland have spoken to the Cubs about Garza and have an interest in making a Deal, if price is right

[video=youtube;1ytCEuuW2_A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A[/video]

 

[Boobaby1]

I think if your plannis to compete by 2015 then yes, why wouldn't you want Garza then. If we're still talking abiut it being 2016 or later then no, ship him off for whatever you can get.

If the Cubs plans are to compete at anytime, they need to trade Garza.

If the FO can't get anything in return to aid the team, plus people that they have drafted, international prospects and whatever else anyone can come up with to fill the spot of Matt Garza and others and cost little to nothing, the whole managerial staff from Theo all the way down should be fired.

EVERY team in baseball has brought in Matt Garza's and/or better through their system. Why in the world can't the Cubs do that and more if indeed Theo and the staff are what they are made out to be?

People need to quit with the Garza is important thing. Hell, according to most around here, Jim Hendry smelled as a GM and he was able to put some ACES on the mound without even trying. I would think Theo is capable of doing that if he truly knows what he is doing. opcorn:

 

[dabears253313]

Yeah, I'm with ya. I get trading him...but the thought of securing him, Shark and Wood...solidifying our rotation for 4-5 years...it's intriguing.

Yeah exactly. That would be a very good rotation. You can also add in Edwin Jackson as your number 4 pitcher when Jackson would probably be a number 3 on most teams and a number 2 on a few teams and then you throw in one of the Cubs young pitching prospects to seal the rotation.

Matt Garza is proven and no one knows how the prospects will turn out.

Keeping Garza gets the Cubs closer to competing instead of trading him and waiting another 5 years for a prospect to develop.

 

[Boobaby1]

Yeah exactly. That would be a very good rotation. You can also add in Edwin Jackson as your number 4 pitcher when Jackson would probably be a number 3 on most teams and a number 2 on a few teams and then you throw in one of the Cubs young pitching prospects to seal the rotation.

Matt Garza is proven and no one knows how the prospects will turn out.

Keeping Garza gets the Cubs closer to competing instead of trading him and waiting another 5 years for a prospect to develop.

Does it really matter how good the rotation is if they don't add pieces around them?

Hey, I am all for adding pieces to the parent club and wish it was already happening, but it isn't. Furthermore, keeping the same rotation as this year does exactly what?

To me, locking up Garza slows this whole process down, and Matt represents a good way too add talent to the farm.

For example, take a look at the Iowa Cubs. When you see guys that are 31,35,32,33, and 28 years of age and starting, that shows you how weak the system is. Our talent is at AA right now and younger.

I know some are with the parent club now, but AAA is very weak for the Cubs, and until that has a surplus of talent, I don't see Theo moving anywhere with the parent club.

 

[mountsalami]

Still trying to figure out why Hemmoroidys' medicals didn't play a large factor in the Manhole'm trade and the rest that have overfilled the handicapped parking in the player's parking lot.

Boo. BTW I love the aging under-performing verterns at the triple A level. I'm sure that they are there for vetern leadership and have passed the Cubs Way written test only.

 

[JosMin]

We take you live to Cubs headquarters where team president Theo Epstein continues to review the laundry list of offers from teams around baseball for Matt Garza.

 

[SilenceS]

Ben Badler ‏@BenBadler 5h
According to @JeffWilson_FWST, stalled deal was Olt, Sardinas, N. Ramirez and Edwards for Garza & another Cubs player


Also reading, Ramirez has had shoulder issues off and on for over a year and that Olt has concussion concers.

 

[dabears253313]

Ben Badler ‏@BenBadler 5h
According to @JeffWilson_FWST, stalled deal was Olt, Sardinas, N. Ramirez and Edwards for Garza & another Cubs player


Also reading, Ramirez has had shoulder issues off and on for over a year and that Olt has concussion concers.

Wow so the Cubs would have traded the "always injured" Matt Garza in return for Neil Ramirez with shoulder issues and an already 25 year old average player Mike Olt. People have given up on Brett Jackson who has been average and Josh Vitters who was injured his first few seasons, so why would people want Olt or Ramirez?

Never wanted Mike Olt. I want the Cubs to keep Garza but if they traded him I would rather have CJ Edwards and Luke Jackson who have been mentioned before but they aren't even major league ready.

 

[mountsalami]

Ben Badler ‏@BenBadler 5h
According to @JeffWilson_FWST, stalled deal was Olt, Sardinas, N. Ramirez and Edwards for Garza & another Cubs player


Also reading, Ramirez has had shoulder issues off and on for over a year and that Olt has concussion concers.

Hemmoroidys has had arm soreness issues since being in the Yankee organization. Not so sure why it would matter at this point.

Theo actually puffed his chest out at the return he got for Manhole'm and wanted to do more deals as successful as that this season.

What's he waiting for.