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

[KBisBack!]

Everything, price-wise gets jacked up.

The Cubs prices are already jacked up. They are already one of the top 5 average costs to see a ballgame probably.

If you honestly think baseball...or any sport, for that matter...ISN'T about accounting, you're kidding yourself. See what happens when payroll reaches approx. $200M. Everything, price-wise gets jacked up. When those players don't perform, you're now stuck with a bad team, immovable contracts, and no one going to the games.

You are clearly not paying attention around the league and instead choose to believe whatever propaganda is spoon fed to you.

Teams like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Miami and now Houston are fielding teams with 'cost effective' players.

Tampa has actually played good baseball the last few years, but no one goes to the games.

Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Miami and have been bad teams for most of the last 20 years. Miami decided to spend a couple years and won the WS twice.

Miami, Tampa and Houston have the three lowest average home attendances in baseball this year. No one is going to their games.

Kansas City is 25th and Pittsburgh is 22nd in attendance.

No one is going to their games either.

The Dodgers have been playing what you would call bad baseball. They lead the majors in attendance.

Whoops.

They were the ones who built their team with a list of guys who have had a history of injury problems (i.e. Crawford, Beckett, Hanley missing games in 2011). Their $230M payroll has gotten them squat so far. And yes, I DO think they will miss the playoffs.

Their $216M payroll has them 2.5 games out of first place now.

They will make the playoffs.

They way they have been playing ball the last 30 days, they will be in first place by the end of the month. They are 3 games better than any team in the NL over the last 20 games.

Almora was widely considered by draft 'experts' to be the best player available in the entire draft, much less just who was left at #5.

Bullshit.

Appel was the best player last year hand's down.

Hell Almora wasn't even considered the best HS player in the draft. The Twins got the best HS player in Buxton.

The Cubs made Randy Myers the 14th highest paid pitcher in the game (and 2nd highest-paid closer). How did that work out again?

Pretty well.

Myers led the league in saves in 2 out of his 3 seasons. The two seasons he was healthy all year and was an All Star in two out of his three seasons and his first year with the Cubs he set a then NL record with 53 saves.

I think anyone with a brain would say that worked out pretty well.

I choose to deal with reality and not fairy tales.

 

[KBisBack!]

your forgetting one huge difference, the cubs would be able to keep (pay)their star kids from the system

So?

You are forgetting one huge difference. The kids from the system have to actually turn into stars first.

So far the Castro and Rizzo deals are not looking like they will be good deals.

which is the main reason why their in the position their in now..

Wrong.

The main reason why they are in the position they are in now at the major league level is that the major league level has been almost completely ignored and sacrificed in order to add lottery tickets to the system.

THAT is the main reason the major league team is as horrible as it is now.

 

[JosMin]

I still love this ridiculous fantasy that people think if the Cubs spent another 20 or 30 million on our payroll, we'd suddenly be a playoff contender. That amount equates to two or three above-average to top-tier free agents. Shit, look what $25 million a season is getting the Angels with Josh Hamilton -- a guy who weighs more than his batting average, a guy who lost a tremendous amount of defensive value when he had to shift from center to a corner outfield position, and he's probably about two more seasons away from needed to go to first base. His pitch recognition has been terrible up to his recent upswing. Shit, stay on the same team. Look at Pujols, I don't need to say anything about him.

What's funny is that the two best players on the Angels, Mike Trout and Howie Kendrick, are.... holy shit, wait for this....ARE PRODUCTS OF THEIR FARM SYSTEM! They aren't high-priced flashy guys. Sure, Trout is obviously going to be one of those guys eventually, but he's a supreme talent. A once-in-a-generation guy who transcends the game on both sides of the ball. He's worth whatever he asks to be paid. If it's a 10-year, $300 million contact, then shit, I'd offer that to him without batting an eyelash. And Kendrick himself signed a very reasonable 4-year, 33.5MM deal last year. He's a guy who generally plays above-average defense, hits around .300, and gets his fair share of doubles, homers and steals. He's a valuable guy to have.

It flabbergasts me that people think one or two people puts the Cubs in a better situation then they're in now. Going from 70 to 74 wins still keeps them out of the playoffs. Hell, with Pittsburgh coming on strong (Oh man, with them using homegrown talent and drafting well -- who would've figured?!?!), the NL Central has become much more difficult, as the Cubs ghastly in-division record can attest to. I mean, would you feel better if they would've signed Michael Bourn and Anibal Sanchez, but they'd still win 75ish games? Does that mean, "the front office is trying more," just because they're spending money on the Major League level? A $107 million dollar payroll is still a lot of money. And all things considered, the Cubs have played fairly well. Theo made it clear it was still his goal to make the playoffs this season, and if they fail, then they fail. Stranger things have happened.

The argument that, "There's no guarantee with spending money on prospects and international players" is so tired. News flash -- there's no guarantee that giving a free agent $100 million is going to get you any closer to a World Series, either. Again, look at the Angels. Look at the Dodgers, they aren't in first place. Look at Toronto, Philadelphia, San Francisco.... I could keep going. On the flip-side, look at Oakland, Tampa, St. Louis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. The Cubs made their plan clear when Epstein and Hoyer were hired -- they're creating an infrastructure. Their extra funds are being spent on play development and scouting. That's the way the plan on building the major league team and the minor league system. It's a proven method. The Cubs look at it this way -- the more talent you funnel into the minor league system, the higher chance you have for some of them to turn into Major League contributors, All-Stars, superstars, etc. What happens if we have scraps for a minor league system? The Cubs are giving themselves flexibility -- if they want to keep their youngsters on lockdown, they can afford to pay for them. A lot of other teams aren't afforded that luxury. If they want to trade them away to acquire stars, they have the depth where their farm system won't become depleted. And once the results of player development become apparent, then they can go out and fill holes with free agents. With so many holes on the major league roster, what sense does it make to put a band-aid over a shotgun blast? Building a winner takes time. Be patient.

 

[JosMin]

Expectation is the root of all heartache.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Fifty-five percent of the respondents said the team should deal him for a top prospect. These are smart, reasonable people who understand what management is trying to do with a franchise that hasn’t won a World Series since 1908.


That leaves the 45 percent who said the team should sign him to a long-term contract. I worry about these people.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/21236207-419/morrissey-its-time-to-deal-matt-garza.html

This is from the Sun-Times today.

 

[KBisBack!]

I still love this ridiculous fantasy that people think if the Cubs spent another 20 or 30 million on our payroll, we'd suddenly be a playoff contender.

And yet somehow thinking all the prospects in the minors right now will turn into above average major leaguers is realistic??

LOL!!

Ok.

 

[KBisBack!]

Fifty-five percent of the respondents said the team should deal him for a top prospect. These are smart, reasonable people who understand what management is trying to do with a franchise that hasn’t won a World Series since 1908.


That leaves the 45 percent who said the team should sign him to a long-term contract. I worry about these people.

That just proves what I have thought for quite sometime now.

Cub fans just arent that bright.

 

[JosMin]

And yet somehow thinking all the prospects in the minors right now will turn into above average major leaguers is realistic??

LOL!!

Ok.

When did I ever say that all the prospects will turn into above-average major leaguers? It's a game of percentages, just like it is when you give a player more than market value for his services VIA free agency. You're acting like throwing a shit-load of money at a roster with tons of holes at the major league level is going to magically turn this team into the '92 Blue Jays. It's a ridiculous fallacy that you won't let go. The number of teams who're successful right now in baseball do so by creating infrastructure at the minor league level and keep their talent in house is greater than the teams that just ship away minor leaguers for "stars" that either don't pan out, don't play up to their contract, or they eventually can't afford -- and that's a fact. You and a few others are in the minority with your thoughts of how this team needs to be ran and you wonder why your posts, which never actually discuss how you truly think this team needs to be pieced together, are constantly questioned by us who use examples and actually discuss how this franchise is coming together.

If you want people to take you seriously, explain how you want the Cubs to tackle free agency. Who are some people you think they should've signed, or at least taken a swing at? What about for next year? Do you think prospects are more valuable as trade assets as opposed to eventual talent for a major league roster. You're under some blind assumption that people are ignoring your points, when in fact, you aren't making any. That's why people can't have an intelligent conversation with you. All you do is rehash the same tired arguments instead of adding some kind of substance to your whining.

 

[FirstTimer]

When did I ever say that all the prospects will turn into above-average major leaguers? It's a game of percentages, just like it is when you give a player more than market value for his services VIA free agency. You're acting like throwing a shit-load of money at a roster with tons of holes at the major league level is going to magically turn this team into the '92 Blue Jays. It's a ridiculous fallacy that you won't let go. The number of teams who're successful right now in baseball do so by creating infrastructure at the minor league level and keep their talent in house is greater than the teams that just ship away minor leaguers for "stars" that either don't pan out, don't play up to their contract, or they eventually can't afford -- and that's a fact. You and a few others are in the minority with your thoughts of how this team needs to be ran and you wonder why your posts, which never actually discuss how you truly think this team needs to be pieced together, are constantly questioned by us who use examples and actually discuss how this franchise is coming together.

If you want people to take you seriously, explain how you want the Cubs to tackle free agency. Who are some people you think they should've signed, or at least taken a swing at? What about for next year? Do you think prospects are more valuable as trade assets as opposed to eventual talent for a major league roster. You're under some blind assumption that people are ignoring your points, when in fact, you aren't making any. That's why people can't have an intelligent conversation with you. All you do is rehash the same tired arguments instead of adding some kind of substance to your whining.

Post of the year.

 

[Parade_Rain]

When did I ever say that all the prospects will turn into above-average major leaguers? It's a game of percentages, just like it is when you give a player more than market value for his services VIA free agency. You're acting like throwing a shit-load of money at a roster with tons of holes at the major league level is going to magically turn this team into the '92 Blue Jays. It's a ridiculous fallacy that you won't let go. The number of teams who're successful right now in baseball do so by creating infrastructure at the minor league level and keep their talent in house is greater than the teams that just ship away minor leaguers for "stars" that either don't pan out, don't play up to their contract, or they eventually can't afford -- and that's a fact. ...

I think what they are doing is seeing what talent is really developing in the MiLB before they make huge splashes in FA signings. The Cardinals are a decent example of using home grown talent and signing FA smartly. They are usually on the leader board somewhere. The Cubs are trying to get there. If you look at this season's team, outside of the offensive struggles, they got decent starting pitching. The RP needed to be strengthened, too.

 

[X]

When did I ever say that all the prospects will turn into above-average major leaguers? It's a game of percentages, just like it is when you give a player more than market value for his services VIA free agency. You're acting like throwing a shit-load of money at a roster with tons of holes at the major league level is going to magically turn this team into the '92 Blue Jays. It's a ridiculous fallacy that you won't let go. The number of teams who're successful right now in baseball do so by creating infrastructure at the minor league level and keep their talent in house is greater than the teams that just ship away minor leaguers for "stars" that either don't pan out, don't play up to their contract, or they eventually can't afford -- and that's a fact. You and a few others are in the minority with your thoughts of how this team needs to be ran and you wonder why your posts, which never actually discuss how you truly think this team needs to be pieced together, are constantly questioned by us who use examples and actually discuss how this franchise is coming together.

If you want people to take you seriously, explain how you want the Cubs to tackle free agency. Who are some people you think they should've signed, or at least taken a swing at? What about for next year? Do you think prospects are more valuable as trade assets as opposed to eventual talent for a major league roster. You're under some blind assumption that people are ignoring your points, when in fact, you aren't making any. That's why people can't have an intelligent conversation with you. All you do is rehash the same tired arguments instead of adding some kind of substance to your whining.

To be completely fair, he has mentioned Fielder several times -- however I think MOST Cubs fans really wanted to pursue him. That being said, Prince, like most highly coveted free agents, won't be worth his contract in the latter years ($24M from 2014-2020, where he'll be 36), and, to me at least, it didn't make a ton of sense to throw that kind of money at him when he'd be nearing the end of his prime by the time the Cubs get people around him to succeed at the major league level. :shrug:

 

[JosMin]

I think what they are doing is seeing what talent is really developing in the MiLB before they make huge splashes in FA signings. The Cardinals are a decent example of using home grown talent and signing FA smartly. They are usually on the leader board somewhere. The Cubs are trying to get there. If you look at this season's team, outside of the offensive struggles, they got decent starting pitching. The RP needed to be strengthened, too.

The Cardinals are a great blueprint, and I agree with your assessment. They spend wisely in free agency on players with proven, steady track records that fit the mold of what they're trying to do as a franchise. They don't go out and throw the checkbook at every big name. The Matt Holiday and Carlos Beltran signings were savvy. Two All-Stars who aren't super high profile guys that contribute year in and year out and can help mentor young players. At the same time, they're smart enough to give their prospects time to develop and don't rush them into situations they aren't ready to handle. They, like the Cubs, have shown they aren't afraid to spend money. By the same token, they are more willing to spend money on players they've developed, guys they know best.

I've always felt like if you're going to make a splash in free agency, it's easier to defend throwing big money out on a pitcher as opposed to a position player. Pitchers have a much longer road in development, and injuries can be much harsher on them (for the most part) than position players. If you're going to throw huge money out, say on a guy like Cliff Lee, Felix Hernandez, etc, that's much more defensible. Those guys have proven to stay healthy, proven they can produce at the highest level, and have shown they can lead a rotation. Since the Cubs' farm system has much less high-ceiling talent for pitching, it would make more sense for them to go after elite pitchers on the free agency market, since its less likely they'll be producing a frontline rotation guy out of their current cache of guys.

 

[JosMin]

To be completely fair, he has mentioned Fielder several times -- however I think MOST Cubs fans really wanted to pursue him. That being said, Prince, like most highly coveted free agents, won't be worth his contract in the latter years ($24M from 2014-2020, where he'll be 36), and, to me at least, it didn't make a ton of sense to throw that kind of money at him when he'd be nearing the end of his prime by the time the Cubs get people around him to succeed at the major league level. :shrug:

Meh, I understand the allure most fans saw for Feilder (always stays healthy, good power hitter and run producer, can hit for average) but I was never a fan of wanting Fielder because signing him would've rendered the Cashner-for-Rizzo swap pointless. To me, a first basemen is probably the most unnecessary place on the diamond to spend premium dollars. It's an easy position to find offense and its rare to find a first baseman that's truly bad defensively. It's also good you brought up the contract because, as you've said, the last few years of it are going to be absolute murder.

 

[DewsSox79]

The best way to build the rotation is home grown guys with a little bit of luck. For instance, Chris Sale, locked up to a reasonable deal...Thats what the cubs need to do through the draft and or trades. It will take a lot of luck, but right now pitching is what the cubs do NOT have. So Garza gets traded....Shark, Wood, Jackson, (4) (5) You would need to shore that up. Do you trust wood? Do you think Jackson is better than a 4? Shark is not an ace. If you are looking to win a world series...the pitching needs to be shored up.

 

[JosMin]

The best way to build the rotation is home grown guys with a little bit of luck. For instance, Chris Sale, locked up to a reasonable deal...Thats what the cubs need to do through the draft and or trades. It will take a lot of luck, but right now pitching is what the cubs do NOT have. So Garza gets traded....Shark, Wood, Jackson, (4) (5) You would need to shore that up. Do you trust wood? Do you think Jackson is better than a 4? Shark is not an ace. If you are looking to win a world series...the pitching needs to be shored up.

Shark is a #3 in a very good rotation. Wood and Jackson are both #4 or 5 material. That's the issue the Cubs have had over the last decade or so -- no true ace. A bunch of potential #2s (Garza, Dempster, Zambrano, etc.) but no guy that you can hand the ball to and say, "Go toss us 8 shutout innings and win the game." Like I had mentioned before, if we're going to be frivolous with spending, I'd rather have it be on two frontline starters, not a first baseman or an outfielder.

 

[Parade_Rain]

The best way to build the rotation is home grown guys with a little bit of luck. For instance, Chris Sale, locked up to a reasonable deal...Thats what the cubs need to do through the draft and or trades. It will take a lot of luck, but right now pitching is what the cubs do NOT have. So Garza gets traded....Shark, Wood, Jackson, (4) (5) You would need to shore that up. Do you trust wood? Do you think Jackson is better than a 4? Shark is not an ace. If you are looking to win a world series...the pitching needs to be shored up.

Shark is a #2. Wood is doing well. Jackson is a back of the rotation guy. What the Cubs had this year was SP. What they didn't have, at least at the start, was everything else.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Shark is a #3 in a very good rotation. Wood and Jackson are both #4 or 5 material. That's the issue the Cubs have had over the last decade or so -- no true ace. A bunch of potential #2s (Garza, Dempster, Zambrano, etc.) but no guy that you can hand the ball to and say, "Go toss us 8 shutout innings and win the game." Like I had mentioned before, if we're going to be frivolous with spending, I'd rather have it be on two frontline starters, not a first baseman or an outfielder.

And that makes sense once the team has position players (read as players who can actually hit the ball regularly) and the closer/RP is there. Otherwise, to me, it's a bit of a waste. Good SP can only hide team flaws for so long.

 

[JosMin]

Back on topic for Garza -- there was some pretend trade that Jim Bowden threw out there -- Garza and Gregg to Detroit for Avisial Garcia, Rick Porcello and minor league pitcher Jake Thompson (their #1 in '12). If they swapped out Porcello for Smyly, I'd strongly consider that deal. I'm just not too hot for Porcello. He seems like a #4, at best, and if the Cubs are giving up a guy that's an established #2, it wouldn't make sense to get less potential back.

 

[DewsSox79]

Shark is a #3 in a very good rotation. Wood and Jackson are both #4 or 5 material. That's the issue the Cubs have had over the last decade or so -- no true ace. A bunch of potential #2s (Garza, Dempster, Zambrano, etc.) but no guy that you can hand the ball to and say, "Go toss us 8 shutout innings and win the game." Like I had mentioned before, if we're going to be frivolous with spending, I'd rather have it be on two frontline starters, not a first baseman or an outfielder.

oh I agree. You can never have enough pitching. Prior IMO was the closest thing they had. If he would have stayed healthy he would have been a top 10 easily.

 

[Boobaby1]

To be completely fair, he has mentioned Fielder several times -- however I think MOST Cubs fans really wanted to pursue him. That being said, Prince, like most highly coveted free agents, won't be worth his contract in the latter years ($24M from 2014-2020, where he'll be 36), and, to me at least, it didn't make a ton of sense to throw that kind of money at him when he'd be nearing the end of his prime by the time the Cubs get people around him to succeed at the major league level. :shrug:

Not saying you said this, just debating the whole contract issue.

What purpose does it serve to re-sign Garza to a 4-5 year deal if the Cubs don't plan on being competitive in at best, 3 years from now? Isn't that a wasted contract? opcorn: