As always, thank you for your wisdom.
A quote from the Theo Epstein news conference:
"But, look, we’re looking for assets. We’re going to scratch and claw and do everything in our power — in the draft, internationally, small trades, waiver claims. We need to build assets because we don’t have enough of them. We’re not going to look past one that might be sitting right there in our organization.” I’m not sure LaHair will ever be a productive Major Leaguer, but that’s the attitude you want the guy in charge to have."
Realistically, it would take a miracle for the Cubs to compete in 2012, and unlikely that they will be ready to win in 2013. The Brewers, Reds and Cardinals are going to be better teams for the next two years. I cannot see any way we realistically could catch up to them any time soon.
If that is so, do the Cubs try to trade players of value now? While it may sting, would it be the right thing to trade the most valuable pieces such as Matt Garza who are currently in their prime and who may not be once it is time for the team to compete. He is currently 27. At what point do pitchers generally become "past their prime?" The concern, I guess would be that we would hold onto him while he is effective during a period we have little or no chance, and by the time we do he would be on the downswing of his career. We have a history of holding onto players too long, and not trading them while their perceived value was high.
Do you think it would be possible to raid a team that is "going for it" such as the Indians, Tigers, Red Sox, and especially Rangers and get perhaps an even better return than what we gave up for Garza in the first place?
A player like Castro is only 21 and so it would make sense to hold onto him; he may be at his prime when we have a chance. The same is true of players like Andrew Cashner, and ... gee I am not sure who else. Should the Cubs be stockpiling talent like this and then become aggressive in free agency when the time is right?
Of course, if you think the Cubs DO have a chance by 2012 or 2013 this would make no sense. If one is being realistic however, should the trade happen now? I don't think we would ever get more from him than now.
1. The free agent market for pitchers is incredibly thin, and next year is going to have a lot of talented starting pitchers.
2. Garza is only to get older
3. He was pitching in the NL for the first time, which ? may have thrown off batters who have never seen him before. Once they get used to him, do you think he may be less effective?
4. Do you think he can reproduce his numbers from this year? His numbers were outstanding, and one has to wonder whether they will be as good next year (was this year a fluke? 2010's numbers were not nearly as good). If we hold onto him too long, to the point where he becomes less effective, his trade value will drop. I can't help but think of the Marmol situation. He seemed amazing, too, but things do happen with age.
5. Unfortunately, I cannot think of any other tradeable players that are "valuable" and that would net a decent return. If we are in desperate need of "assets" then would this be the next logical step?
Remember, this is coming from a fan who is not an expert, so if the idea is stupid please let me know WHY as opposed to simply insulting the poster or saying "NO".
As always, thank you in advance for your input.