Why the Matt Garza Trade is a Bad Deal for the Cubs

It all truly depends on the other prospect. As for the value of the Greinke/Garza trades, let’s look at that a little closer, as most people tend to give the values of the prospects involved a pretty equal grade.

Brewers get 2 years of Greinke (he’s a 5 win pitcher, so 10 wins without any league adjustments) for $27 million; 1 year of Betancourt at likely .5 wins for $6 million, and a big downgrade in CF, likely costing them at least 2 WAR over the next 2 years going from Cain to Gomez.

Cubs get 3 years of Garza (he’s a 3 win pitcher, so 9 wins without any league adjustments) for likely $6 million in 2011, $8.5 million in 2012 and probably $11 million in 2013 – essentially 9 wins for $25.5 million, plus the pitching prospect, who is reportedly a good prospect.

Overall, the Brewers deal for Greinke (according to my estimation) nets them 8.5 wins over the next 2 years for $33 million.

The Cubs deal nets them 9 wins over the next 3 years for $25.5 million, plus whatever the prospect turns out to be. Not nearly as bad as everyone’s initial reaction.

I will say that I think there’s virtually NO chance that Gorzo or Wells will contribute more than Garza (unless Garza gets hurt).

I said yesterday that posters who think the Cubs are more than (or, at least) fringe contenders like the trade, while those who wanted to rebuild hate it. I’ll go a step further with this …

Those who trust Hendry’s ability to assess talent (Not Bruce, Al) like this trade, while those who think the guy would probably buy beachfront property in Arizona and/or worry that he’s got to make moves to save his job are at the very least very concerned.

I’m holding out hope that the last player in the deal will dull the pain that many of us are feeling now.

that they probably need to at least be decent in 2011?

The Fielders and Pujols of the world aren’t going to want to play for a 75 win team with no realistic shot at contention when they could probably just sign with a team closer to contention.

Garza is probably going to be a 2-3+ WAR pitcher for the Cubs in 2011-13, this trade may also allow the Cubs to move Wells to the bullpen, which strengthens the relief corp as well. I see the 2011 Cubs as a 77-85 win team right now, get some 3-4 WAR performances out of guys that have posted those types of numbers in the recent past (ARam, Pena, Soto, Soriano, etc) sprinkled with a breakout season for Castro, and this team could flirt with 87-92 wins this season, add a deadline deal for a 2-3 WAR player and that might put you over the top.

DCF had a great post in another thread about Garza showing a small chance for the Cubs to contend in 2011, so, while its not likely, its possible….

I’m not saying I’m happy with the trade, but it’s not the end of the world, most prospects fail to make an impact, most analysts don’t believe any of these players are going to be elite MLB players. While Archer has the best chance, he’ll probably need to half his BBs/9 innings from 4 to 2 to reach his ceiling of a high #2 starter.

I feel like your looking at this trade in a vacuum, but you have to realize that the Cubs have to look like they want to compete so that potential elite FAs or elite guys that could be acquired via trade have a reason to want to approve a trade to the Cubs or sign with the Cubs.

Also, regarding prospects, I’m actually more excited about Junior Lake than HakJu Lee, some scouts believe JLake has a higher ceiling than even Castro if he continues to show the improvement he displayed in the latter half of 2010, and Cashner & McNutt > Archer because both have better command, BJax >> Guyer because he’s likely to stick at CF and is closer to a true 5-tool player than Guyer. So the Cubs were really operating from a position of depth here.

I agree with you that you need prospects in waves because most are likely to fail, but in this trade, the Cubs probably got rid of their #2 prospect at each position, IMO. You could quibble over the JLake > HLee comparision, but I’m pretty comfortable projecting JLake to have more impact than HLee at the moment because JLake was good at AA and therefore closer to making an impact in Chicago.

Either way, good post.

First off let me say JSB, that was a wonderfully written, well thought out and acutely explained post. Even if I wanted to “disagree with everything you fucking say, do, eat, and penetrate.” i have to much respect for how you presented your case to not at least write back with the same respect that you showed in your post. I’m a sarcastic bastard and tend to argue in broader strokes, so it will be tough for me. But I’ll try. Here’s where you lose me….

1) This “Holes in the future” idea. What are these holes? Which Positions in particular? Who’s going to be available to fill this hole? Do you know when B.J. Upton is going to be available instead of Matt Garza? You’re positive Matt Kemp is going to be free? Substitute any name you want really. You don’t know who’s going to be available for trade in the next year or two. Neither Do I. Neither does Jim Hendry I’d imagine. We could be needing a center fielder. Maybe a third baseman? Where does Vitters play? 3rd? 1st? even at all? What if Dempster decides to climb another fence? Garza WAS available and Hendry decided to go get him.

2) The whole “this doesn’t make them viable contenders” angle. So Hendry should what? Not try? Insult our intelligence by saying that Randy Wells is ready to make that jump to front of the rotation starter? I know the Cubs weren’t very good last year. But I also know they played with their head up their rectum for a good portion of if not all of the Lou Pinella portion of the 2010 Cubs. I’m not saying they’re the 6 hundred and whatever winning % team they were under Q2 ( Quenneville being Q) but I believe the Q2 version was a more accurate showing of the Cubs potential. And who the hell knows if they’ll be compete. I know nobody picked the Reds last year. Fucking Nobody. I like the Reds this year especially with Dusty’s track record with young pitchers…….there I go again with the sarcasm…..But I mean c’mon!???!!!! Dusty and young pitching? I’ll set the over/under on Johnny Cueto’s DL/tommy john surgery at July 4th. You going over? The cardinals added the riot and a 38 year old beer bellied left fielder. And last year I saw the Padres come one game away from beating the World champions and winning the West with solid pitching, Adrian Gonzolez and ten people named Hariston……and we have no chance? No chance whatsoever…….sigh. fine. ( Sarcasm. Sorry)

3) While it’s a safe bet that one of Cashner-Archer-McNutt and oh what thell Chris Carpenter might become Garza in 2013, it’s also safe to say that one maybe two of those people will “Ruffcorn” their way right out of the league. Ruffcorn referring to Scott Ruffcorn, the ol’ White Sox “Can’t miss Kid” who….well…..missed. badly. I could have just as easily said Lance Dickson. But he had injuries as an excuse. And it’s more fun to say “Ruffcorn”! Not as much fun as it is to say McNutt! but fun nevertheless. Getting back to the point ( ah, that!) Archer might be a 21. Maybe HACK Jool E will too. but we don’t know. The second card is either face down or hasn’t been dealt. Garza is a straight up stick on 18 and God knows we can use a winning hand.

 I guess I should point out in addition to Sarcasm and broad strokes, I like to use metaphor too. Anyway, that’s my rebuttal. I hope I’m right..Because that means the Cubs are winning. And if you’re right….well you won’t be…. but if you are, well I can always just beat the shit out of you. Sarcasm!

Thanks for your time.

Then many of the arguments must be taken to heart.

If because of this trade, however, Hendry can
 - Dump salary for increased flexibility come trade deadline . . .
- Remove players from the outfield so that we can get a truer evaluation of our younger talent . . .
- Partially restock the farm system because he’s got ~3 redundant midlle of the rotation starters that other teams are likely to want, especially as they get desparate in February/March

Then I think the value of this trade needs to be completely reevaluated

nothing else to add. fair to both sides, well laid out. nicely done

It’s a good idea to have a productive farm system, but I don’t get the stockpiling of young talent as a goal. All teams should want to be perennial winners. Differences in revenue potential lead to a different emphasis on the use of young talent. I don’t think the Cubs have to duplicate what the Rays and Twins do, but those teams do a good job especially as of late.

Repeating from other comments on different threads: I don’t think it is necessary to make the crosses that Ricketts put over the 2011 season a darker shade of whatever color ink he used. If the Cubs think an some improvement is possible by acquiring Garza and ths is what they can afford, then I’ll take this over standing pat on the rotation. Replace “Ricketts” with “players with bad contracts” if you want.

Garza does have to come through for this to be a good deal for the Cubs. The prospects traded to the Rays have to come through in order for this to be a good deal for the Rays. Anything else, for each team respectively, gets into smoke and mirrors.

The 2010 WARs for Silva, Gorzelanny and Zambrano really don’t address the areas of concern about each pitcher being able to take the mound and pitch throughout this next season and Lilly is gone. No doubt they are hoping Zambrano has the success he did last Aug-Sep. There is room for a trade now and fair liklihood for a young pitcher to get starts in the rotation.

I don’t know where Pena is filing a hole and Garza isn’t or won’t. Reading that Garza won’t make a difference and not clear on whether the thought is that Pena will or won’t. Too confusing for me! Sure hope both play well.

The Brewers have a higher $ committment for Greinke than the Cubs do for Garza, which is understandable. I would rather have had Greinke in a trade, but the Brewers could have gotten a heads-up on the Cubs, or the Cubs might be one of the teams that Greinke doesn’t want to play for. Just don’t buy what was reported about the Cubs wanting Garza from the get-go. Can’t tell if affordability influenced which player the Cubs pursued or, again, whether the issue was even relevant. Whenever the prospects traded put in the work their team will end-up paying them accordingly; they won’t work for peanuts.

out what package the Cubs offered to SD for Gonzalez. If they wouldn’t offer a package like the one they sent Tampa, then it makes me dislike this deal and Hendry all the more.

As it stands, I thought it was just an ok deal. I’m not that high on the guys we gave up, so I’m not too upset about it. But if the Pads were high enough on the package that they would’ve given us Gonzalez—that would piss me off.