Question: trade players of value now?
by nickler on Oct 30, 2011 10:12 PM CDT
Email
Print
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.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
91 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I can see your line of thinking here but
we are a BIG market team who draws 3 million fans a year. Giving up isnt the call of order. We will sign free agents, out spend the central, and HOPEFULLY compete.
by zach katz on Oct 31, 2011 1:50 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Compete in '12?
There are too many holes…and we’d have to sign Sabathia, Fielder, plus more just to compete. You really think that is gonna happen?
Arizona Diamondbacks fan on October 31, 2010
Compete in ‘11? There are too many holes…and there’s not enough free agents this year to compete. You really think that is gonna happen?
How’d that work out?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Al tell us why this team can compete
you watch this team everyday, you know it better than anybody else, why can this team compete next year? I wanna here it…..I don’t think they are even close to being a contender but would love to hear your reasoning or what moves you would make.
Personally...
… I’d spend money (or make trades) for pitching. Starting pitching was this team’s biggest hole in 2011.
I’m not saying, necessarily, that it WILL compete. Only saying that you cannot write off any team at any time. The D’backs a year ago looked just as bad as the Cubs do now.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
It's possible to compete...
…but I don’t think Theo will be trying to do that by throwing long term big money contracts around (not at this point). He will likely do it with “smart” roster assembly, through trades and or a mid level FA signing or two.
It hasn’t been lack of spending that has held the Cubs down, it has been poor decisions on players. Theo can fix that quickly, but he will also be limited in how much he can do in one offseason.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Agreed with that.
All I’m saying is that I don’t think he will throw the towel in on 2012.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I'm not so sure
We were so bad in 2006, with so many holes, and not enough free agents to fill the voids, there was just no way we were going to compete in 2007.
It’s like the Rays in 2007 when they were in last place, they clearly just threw in the the towel for 08.
Oh, wait..
by KButler on Oct 31, 2011 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good point.
I like these discussions. I’d like them more if they did not begin with “well, next year’s a wash but…” Let’s try to employ the power of positive thinking. I know its difficult guys and gals, but c’mon.
Theo’s quote about assets; Garza is an asset. Both with intangibles and metrics. I think he stays.
Well, "no", to both of your examples.
The 2006 Cubs were awful. They improved due to a massive outlay of cash for free agents. They got good for 2 years, and then crashed again. The “candy headache” school of “rebuilding”. Theo isn’t going to do that.
The 2007 Rays? Seriously? Literally everyone knew that they’d assembled a pretty awesome array of young talent and that very, very good times were ahead. The Cubs aren’t in that situation, either.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Nov 1, 2011 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Correct...
…the manner in which Theo tries to compete in 2012, will likely just be a tad different than 2 or 3 years down the road.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I think he will go for many small signings with possible positive returns.
That way if they don’t work you can get rid of them, guys like Francis and Chen from KC, Sizemore from Cleveland. Players that can be productive and not cost an arm or a leg. He will try and acquire pieces, if we happen to get a big name for the right price/years to go with them great/
I think your right...
…he is going to look for “pieces” to fill out a puzzle that will do everything to make them competitive. It won’t be a matter of finding the biggest name, it will be a matter of getting the “right” players to complete the puzzle.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
core was younger, more likely for upside
guys like Ian Kennedy, Justin Upton, Chris B Young, Daniel Hudson, formed the core of the team and the farm system had some guys ready to contribute if needed
The Cubs are a different animal. Much of the core is still older and thus unlikely to surprise significantly on the upside.
It doesnt mean there’s NO HOPE for contention next year, it just means its a bit less likely than a team like the DBacks that has more of its core hitting peak or still below-peak years
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 1, 2011 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Farm system is the real problem
The “compete is 2012” scenario would be much better if there were a couple of high-upside guys who could break into the 2012 lineup (especially if one was a pticher). Just don’t see that there right now.
I'm not sold that starting pitching is the biggest need
I’d much rather see a whole new outfield, plus we need a new first baseman and, potentially, 3rd baseman.
As it is, we have 1 good and 3 decent starters: Garza, Dempster, Z & Wells.
I think the internal solutions at SP like Marshall, Cashner and even potentially Spellcheck and McNutt could be sorted out to form a decent rotation— and better than anything on the FA market.
I’d spend the $ on hitting and defense first.
The sun is up. They sky is blue. It's beautiful, and so are you. Dear Prudence, won't you come out to play? ~Lennon & McCartney
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 1, 2011 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Garza, Dempster, Z and Wells??
not exactly the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Garza is the real deal.
Dempster was mediocre last year and it seems unlikely he will be much better in 2012.
Z has to go. The relationship cannot be repaired.
Wells is a bottom of the rotation guy, nothing more.
Marshall should stay in the pen. There he is high quality, as a starter, not so much.
Cashner, Samardzija, and McNutt. Sure give them a shot this spring to see what they can do. But you say they could be better than anything on the FA market, but the reality is they could be a lot worse, too.
Bottom line, while they are hurting for pitching and hitting, they have a much bigger need for pitching than hitting.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Nov 2, 2011 8:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Dempster was mediocre last year, but
if you take away 7 or 8 innings where Q should have taken him out and didn’t, leaving him in to get pounded, I’ll bet his numbers look a lot more solid. He and Z both have the potential to improve their #’s.
As far as Z is concerned, the management is different, so who knows. His relationship with you may be impaired, but maybe not. If you give him another 5 starts, he throws 180 innings last year, so you should expect that anyway. I wouldn’t release him or give him away without at least 50% salary relief. At the moment, he’s still on the 40 man, so I consider him part of the rotation.
Wells also pitched hurt when he came back, making his numbers worse than they could have been.
So, yeah, the rotation is full of 3-5 guys, but some of those guys have upside. I think a healthy season from the rotation would make more difference than signing Buehrle or Malholm. You could sign Wilson, which seems unlikely unless you throw ridiculous #‘s at him, but if the back-end isn’t healthy it makes no difference.
And you may get a Wilson type season out of Marshall in the rotation for 20% of the price. If not, move him back to the pen with nothing lost. I wouldn’t say he’s better off there for certain.
Really, the pitching is OK if healthy. Get some bats and better D, and then take a look around at the trade deadline if you want to make a run.
The sun is up. They sky is blue. It's beautiful, and so are you. Dear Prudence, won't you come out to play? ~Lennon & McCartney
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 2, 2011 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Really, the pitching is not as good as you think
it is time for change.
Finally,
And you may get a Wilson type season out of Marshall in the rotation for 20% of the price.
Wow, now there is some unbridled optimism.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Nov 3, 2011 7:44 AM CDT up reply actions
one way to compete is to get rid of all the viruses on this team
We got rid of two of them Quade and Rameriz now we have to get rid of the other two Soriano and Zambrano. This will help this team out a lot. We add a couple of other players, then we can show people that the team is coming up. We might not go to the playoffs but we are going to compete. Then another year of free agency and this team will be competing for the WS.
There are some differences IMO...
The average age of the 2010 Diamondbacks was 26.6 vs Cubs 29.4. So they have a younger core that works with each other. They also hit for more power with 180HRs/301-2B/34-3B vs Cubs 148-HRs/285-2B/36-3B.
Their team was young and hungry compared to an old and just going through the hoops.
Cubs: .256 / .314 / .401 / .715
Backs: .250 / .325 / .416 / .740
by ubercubsfan on Oct 31, 2011 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
The other big difference
is that the Diamondbacks got otherworldly pitching performances this year. They had four starters with ERA under 3.7 in 2011, 3 of them under 27. Hudson’s results were somewhat expected, but Kennedy really emerged and Saunders and Collmenter were better than expected.
We simply don’t have the MLB ready talent that they had in the rotation. And their lineup was a bit better than ours right now.
Is it possible that we could compete next year? Sure, I think a .500 season isn’t unreasonable. I’d say that a Diamondbacks-like season is unreasonable. Partly because I think the Diamondbacks had was pretty unreasonable.
hadnt gotten to this comment yet when i posted
rec’d
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 1, 2011 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Different Division
The West is weak…the Central isn’t.
The cubs lost
91 games, and just lost their best hitter to free agency.
I agree that they need pitching, but they also need a lot of hitting if they want to compete.
No Cubbiegoon, I am Deep Goat
BUT...
How did the Diamondbacks compete?
NOT by throwing money at free agents. By trading away their very best pitcher in Danny Haren, getting prospects, and giving them a chance to play. This is exactly why their rise was so improbable.
I would argue that the Indians did the same.
This team is nowhere close, and paying a ton of money for CJ Wilson is only going to be reproducing the same mistakes made before. Maybe we SHOULD try to do exactly what the Diamondbacks did.
The Diamondbacks had to do it that way
There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Nov 1, 2011 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, but that's because those are small market teams
They went that route because they had to do it that way. We don’t have to do that.
How do the Red Sox compete? How do the Yankees compete? How do the Phillies compete?
Big market teams can change their identity without a fire sale. I don’t think we should make bad investments and mortgage the future. But we also don’t have to mortgage the present in an attempt to invest for the future.
That is not how the Diamondacks competed this year.
By trading away their very best pitcher in Danny Haren, getting prospects, and giving them a chance to play. This is exactly why their rise was so improbable.
The mediocre Joe Saunders took Haren’s spot in the rotation, so the trade did not actually give any prospects a chance to play.
In fact, no one acquired in that trade (other than Saunders) contributed significantly to their improbable playoff run this year. There’s zero doubt that they would have been better this year with Haren.
That’s not to say the prospects they received aren’t good – they just have yet to contribute at the major league level.
Pitchers past their prime at 27?
Not really. That is usually when they enter their prime.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Oct 31, 2011 7:48 AM CDT reply actions 3 recs
Agreed, he more than likely has ten years left.
And 6 or 7 as one of the top 25-50 pitchers in the game.
I am of the mind that
No player is “untouchable”. So, on your general question, if I were Theo, I would field calls on anyone.
To pull the trigger, I would have to be overwhelmed to deal Garza and avalanched to deal Castro. Barring that, no deal. Everyone else is available.
I agree that competing in 2012 is essentially out of the question, but 2013 is not, and should not be, out of the question. The reasoning: the Cubs have the “spare parts” around… what they need are difference makers.
If Theo could acquire / develop, say, three difference makers (sounds like a lot, but sign one FA each offseason and make one “Garza trade”) to add to Garza and Castro, I would think the Cubs could “compete” (in the WC discussion, if not better) in 2013.
So, rather than looking to deal the lynchpin of your rotation and lineup, I’d be looking for smaller deals that can still bring some potentially useful return. I’d start with Soto. While he is generally undervalued around here, he will be a catcher on the wrong side of 30 in 2013, which makes it likely his cost will outpace his production.
Then there are other pieces that could be dealt for “assets” like salary relief and/or minor leaguers that are further away (Marmol, Byrd, and to an even lesser extent, anyone else on the roster).
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
by fsuapollo on Oct 31, 2011 8:40 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Thoughts on trading Garza...
…shouldn’t revolve around whether he will be effective or not over the next 5-7 years, but rather on whether the Cubs will be able/want to retain him after his arbitration/team-owned years end in 2013.
If the Cubs don’t plan on extending him now or paying him large a large contract after 2013, there is really little reason to keep him on the team for what in all likelihood appears to be two rebuilding years. So in some circles, the thought is that may as well trade him now to get the most value in return for him.
If they do plan on keeping him around, they should try to sign him to a 6 year year deal, where you get some overall savings vs. market rates, but pay him a bit more in his final two arbitration years. Maybe 6/$80M or something like that. I am all for that, but do need to watch for injury concerns as he looks like he throws super hard (big effort to get his velocity) and somewhat across his body.
Largely agree
Though IMO a six year deal is too long for almost any pitcher. I would be down with four years at $48-52M.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
by fsuapollo on Oct 31, 2011 12:31 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
4 years...
…ain’t going to get it done. Especially at 12-13 million.
If I’m Garza, I would tell the Cubs to suck it on that offer.
I think the minimum years you are going to have to offer is 5.
Then you deal him.
Very, very few long term SP deals work out. If he won’t sign an extension that is less than five years… deal him away. The Cubs “only” control his rights for one more year.
His arb price this year will be around 9 or 10 million. So, I don’t know why a four year deal stacked like this would be some sort of rip off for Garza:
2012: $11M
2013: $12M
2014: $14M
2015: $15M
(total $52M)
He’s surely hasn’t proven that he’s a pitcher worthy of a ton more than that. Now, he could become a guy with that kind of value… and that’s why a four year deal makes some sense for him. He’d be 32 at the end of that contract… and still have a chance to score one more “big deal”. If you push him out to six years, he’ll likely be at a point where he’s settling for one or at most two year deals at age 34.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
Because I think his arb price....
….in 2013 will be around $13M if he pitches well again in 2012. So if I’m him, I’m going to want an average of at least $75M over the course of 5 years, especially if I am just as effective in 2012.
If CJ Wilson is rumored to get something $90-100M, that’s what I’m shooting for if I’m Garza. However, you give a discount overall because you are paying him more now than he would through regular arbitration.
As for the 5 year deal and completing that after my age 32 season, I would guess he would be just fine with that for two reasons: a) huge guaranteed money now in the case of injury and b) you are still in line for another large 4-5 year contract if you are still pitching well. Of course, I am wrong all the time, so you never know.
And overall, I agree that long term deals for pitchers are not a great idea, however, sometimes you have to bite the bullet a bit and take a couple years at the back end where you need to do a bit of finger crossing in order to get a large chunk of a good pitchers prime years (28-31). Its not like he’s 32 now.
Either way, if they don’t intend to extend him, I do agree its not a bad idea to trade him.
He doesn't have an arb price in 2013.
He’s a UFA if the Cubs don’t extend a multi-year deal.
I have no doubt Garza would want a five plus year deal. If I’m the Cubs, I’m not offering a 5 year deal. I don’t disagree with your “bite the bullet” concept, but Garza’s had one excellent year (following some “just” good years). I’m not giving that pitcher a five year deal. To be clear, I was saying Garza could look at a four year deal as having the advantage of getting him back to FA quicker, while he is still in/closer to his prime. But yes, most guys would take more guaranteed money up front.
On Wilson, there are some key differences. First, he’s a UFA, which drives up the price. The Cubs would have the advantage with Garza of giving him more $ in 2012 than he would get through arb. The trade off is getting a better deal down the line.
IMO, Wilson isn’t getting $100M unless someone goes to seven years. I could be wrong, but I kind of doubt many teams, even the Yanks, want to guarantee him that kind of annual salary in his mid to late 30s.
That said, and while acknowledging he is older and thus has less upside, Wilson has been very, very good as a SP… and has been better than Garza (plus he’s LH). Check out his #s… and keep in mind he pitches in what is, by far, the most extreme hitter’s park in the game.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
Garza does go through arbitration...
…one more time after this year. He’s a Super Two.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tt7HjIernphaSrv4wMWdUYg&output=html
How does Wilson make sense on the age thing if Garza doesn’t?
I’m also not a Garza backer by any means, but the price of starting pitching, and even average pitching at that, has spiraled out of control, to the point that the best pitchers are receiving an insane $650K (22M/34 starts) per start. If you can lock up an above average starter for $440K (15M/34 starts) per start, or a 32% discount from the top tier, you do it.
My original point of all of this is that if the Cubs aren’t planning on locking him up long term, trade him now where you can get the most value out of him. I’m sure there are a lot of teams that would be very interested in him.
Huh. My bad on the arb.
I swear the last time I looked at that Cot’s sheet, it had ‘12 as his last arb year… so I didn’t recheck. So my apologies on that.
As far as “locking up”… I’m fine with that in principle. But I still don’t want to sign any SPs beyond 4 years. You might convince me of a fifth year if the price is really right. And if the Cubs control Garza for two more years… then all the more reason to get a “discount” on some of those later years if you are guaranteeing money when you don’t have to do so.
I stand by the four year contract “rule”… and would certainly not go past that for Wilson. Though it is worth mentioning as one thing in Wilson’s favor that he’s only been a SP for two years, so his “arm age” isn’t the same as a guy who, at the same age, has been a SP his whole career (like Garza).
But I don’t see this as Garza vs. Wilson… I don’t believe the Cubs have to choose one or the other.
I agree on your last point and have stated as such.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
This makes me wonder whether...
…Jesus Montero could be had from the Yankees with Garza as the centerpiece of the trade.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
Probably
But how is Montero going to DH for us?
by Josh Timmers on Oct 31, 2011 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
He's 21 years old.
Get him a first baseman’s glove, get him a coach and get him out there. I still think it’s a ridiculous waste of a 21-year-old body to have him sitting in the dugout for nine innings and only moving to walk up to the plate four or five times.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
I think it is.
I don’t necessarily want it. But I think it is inevitable.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
good point
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Nov 1, 2011 7:39 AM CDT up reply actions
Could we perhaps cut down that need for three difference-makers...
…to two if Brett Jackson is as good or better than projected?
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
I put three
because I’m assuming ARam is gone. So I was counting on Jackson as a contributor… and then figured you need to add at least one big run producer (e.g., Fielder), one more top end SP, and then another “difference maker” either in the line-up or rotation.
So I hadn’t forgotten about Brett… for the Cubs to compete in 2013, I figure they were already counting on him.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
On Castro...
…I don’t think Theo would entertain trading him this offseason, even if someone came hard after him. Now, after one year of eyeballing him, Theo may determine Castro is someone they can deal to strengthen the club.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Perhaps
But if someone came in with a “blown away” offer, Theo has to, at worst, consider it.
That doesn’t mean he’s looking or hoping to deal Castro.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
Not now...
…considering the lofty status Castro has, I just don’t see Theo dealing him right now so early in his tenure.
Down the road, Theo may figrue out that Castro (while talented), really isn’t his type of player and he could move him while his value is high for something Theo values more.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I don't see it happening, either.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
Maybe...
…maybe not, but I think Theo and his gang will watch him for a year to get a read on where he is at and where he is likely to go in the future.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
He is talented...
…but the vast majority of guys like him just cant change their approach at the plate that much. You never know, he may get a little better, but sometimes when you screw with these guys that are really aggressive, you end up messing with their heads.
Right now, I don’t think Castro thinks much when he hits (which is what works for him). He just sees the ball and feels his awsome hand eye coordination will allow him to hit anything and so far it has. You can live with a guy or two like this on your club, as long as they are surrounded by guys that make it tougher on the pitcher.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Remember, he is just 21 years old.
A lot of talented players his age are still playing Double-A ball.
It might not happen, but you’d think someone that young could still learn a more patient approach without giving up his hitting ability.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
believe it or not, OBP and patience do get better as players enter their prime years
just take a look at practically any MLB hitter and their OBP increases. Jeter, ARod, ARam, DLee, Fielder, countless other examples. While Castro will likely never be a .400 OBP hitter, I’m almost certain he’ll put up a 360-380 OBP in his prime, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be because he’s developed more patience. This kid could be a consistent .320 hitter with just slightly better command of the strike zone and with his current walk rate would have him hovering around 360-370 OBP.
It will likely be a combination of higher BA and more walks, but this statement
the vast majority of guys like him just cant change their approach at the plate that much.
is just not true, there is a wealth of empirical data indicating that OBP (a proxy measure of plate discipline) increases as hitters enter their prime years and Castro has 5-6 years before he even enters his prime, yet you believe he is incapable of just a slight modification/improvement in his plate approach, even after seeing the same pitchers over and over again? That’s a big stretch IMHO………..
Soriano tell you that?
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Nov 3, 2011 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions
My apologies for not using the saracsm font for you
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Nov 4, 2011 8:02 AM CDT up reply actions
I feel when/if Castro fills out more and power starts coming around...
he’ll develop more patience knowing he can wait for that good pitch to drive far. Right now he’s got just a little power and unless he gets the sweet spot it’s not going out.
I think your original premise is faulty, so the rest is somewhat moot
I don’t think it’s unlikely that we could contend in 2013. As such, I don’t think we need to be in a “sell now” mode.
Obviously if the right trade is available, you take it. Nobody should be untouchable in that regard (realistically unlikely to be traded, maybe, but not untouchable).
We should look to be competitive in 2012 and to contend in 2013. But we should not look to be competitive in 2012 at the expense of being legit contenders in 2013-2015. Trade guys who you don’t think can provide value for 2013 and beyond, and avoid getting “stopgap” guys for anything longer than 2012.
Unlikely to contend in 2013?
Why? Are only committed salary in 2013 is Soriano, and by that time Jackson, Szczur, McNutt, and other prospects could be contributing, and Cashner and Castro could both make big strides two years from now. Throw in 5-6 signings and trades and we should at least be able to contend for a playoff spot with the right moves.
Agreed to this.
If The Stat Pack can get us to 81 wins in 12, they should be able to get us to contend in 13.
"Our only..." not "Are only..."
Sorry for the nitpick. That just happens to be a personal pet peeve of mine.
I agree with the rest. With the financial relief we’ll be getting by 2013 and the two offseasons the new regime has to work with (as well as some of the pieces already in place), there’s no reason this team can’t compete in 2013. And we don’t have to mortgage the future to do it either.
I guess another way of thinking of this is...
is Matt Garza THAT good, and is he likely to be that good in the future?
Again, I am not sure his value will ever be that high. The only FA pitcher out there is CJ Wilson who absolutely stunk it up in the playoffs (Garza did not when on the big stage). And aside from him, the only other “high end” options are… Edwin Jackson and Joel Piniero neither of whom are earth-shattering.
Next year, there are a ton of quality FA starting pitchers available. I am hoping that we can get a huge haul from a desperate team that feels their window is rapidly closing and who doesn’t want to deal with overpaying CJ Wilson who just posted one of the worst postseason ERA’s in history.
Garza's postseason record is a little inflated.
He’s been solid, but not spectacular.
He’s made 5 starts (2-1), pitched 31.0 IP, 3.48 ERA (4.80 FIP, 4.05 xFIP).
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
That's pretty damn good
Remember, they are playing the elite teams come playoff time. That is a better ERA than Justin Verlander posted this year, and I think just about anyone would say that Verlander is an elite pitcher.
It is fine.
But people act like he’s been Walter Johnson in the playoffs based off his ’08 game 7 ALCS game.
While acknowledging that we’re dealing with a real SSS issue, if we look at the game log, he’s had three good starts and two poor starts.
Again, as I noted above… that’s solid.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
We should be locking Garza up long-term, not trading him.
We’re not a small market team – why are so many fans in a rush to build that way?
Garza is a rare talent and is the kind of player we should be buying out of arbitration and locking up long-term. Build around guys like him.
There aren’t a ton of talented players we can probably afford to trade off – Wells and Soto are probably the best candidates but we’d be selling low on both.
Agreed on Garza.
In fact, presuming Castro puts up another good year in 2012, they should buy out his arb years, too.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I don't understand why so many Cubs fans
think they’re cheering for Kansas City or Arizona.
A lot of people didn’t want Garza in the first place.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Nov 1, 2011 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm fairly certain that I'm not rooting for Kansas City.
Still, I would consider trading Garza but only to fill a position of need (first base) spectacularly and for a long time going forward. Thus, my suggestion of Jesus Montero above. And that’s admitting it would be a gamble that Montero would be able to learn to play the position defensively at an acceptable level.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
That seems like a bad deal - an established young starter for a questionable 1B
Scarcity value favors the SP.
Perhaps.
But I don’t think Montero’s bat is questionable — only his defense. And he’d be playing one of the easiest positions on the field. Even if he’s never great defensively, I think his offensive production would make up for it, and he’d be another very young piece to help build the core of young players the Cubs need.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
Matt Garza is a young piece that can help build the core, too
Good pitching is hard to find.
Lock him up for the long term and be done with it.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Nov 1, 2011 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Again, perhaps.
But Matt Garza is a pitcher, and locking up a pitcher long term is huge risk — especially one who’s throwing more sliders than ever before. I’m not suggesting the Cubs trade him for nameless “prospects,” I’m suggesting they trade him for a specific player who was one of the top prospects in baseball and has already shown the ability to hit well in an AL East playoff race. And by making that trade, the Cubs would avoid having to pay a huge, long, risky contract to Prince Fielder.
It would obviously be a huge loss to trade Garza. And it would hurt the team’s pitching situation in the short term. But they’d also be solving the big question mark at first base for a long, long time going forward.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
Locking up Garza, a proven commodity,
seems a lot lower risk than trading for an unproven Montero.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Nov 2, 2011 8:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Maybe the level of risk is fairly close...
…if only because Montero is so young and would have to learn a new position. But it’s still one I think would be worth strongly considering.
That said, I love watching Matt Garza pitch and certainly wouldn’t be outraged if TJ locked him up for a reasonable period.
Baseball is pitching, offensive production, baserunning and defense.
I know, NBF.
But what if Garza could be traded for several young pitching prospects who project to be very good in a year or two.
You’ve now turned your elite pitcher into several elite pitchers.
Granted, you would have to be blown away by the deal. That said, if you are going to get blown away, this is the year for that to happen since again there are few FA pitchers available.
I'm not sure such a deal would materialize
And prospects … are just that. Maybe they’d pan out. But they probably wouldn’t.
Stick with the young, tried and true, in this case.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Nov 1, 2011 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions
I totally understand, and you're probably right.
He is tried and true, and we are not the Indians.
However, a global question for all who think we can contend in 2013, how on earth do you think we can do that?!
1. The rotation stinks.
2. The lineup stinks.
3. The bullpen stinks.
I mean, who’s going to drive in runs? Darwin Barney?
I think a lot of you answered my question insofar as that pitchers are just entering their prime at age 28, so it would make no sense to trade Garza now.
Short of going absolutely bananas on free agent pitching next year however, I cannot really see how we are going to be anything close to contenders.
We would have to:
1. Sign CJ Wilson this year, or trade whatever is left in our farm for a pitcher like Shields (I doubt we even have enough left there, and Epstein noted that we have no assets so probably not going to happen by trade)
2. Sign two more elite free agents next year, such as Hamels and Greinke.
3. Rely on pitching to get us through.
Do you think the management will be willing to pony up that much of free agent pitching?
If they can get a legit closer
and avoid injuries to the starters The Cubs can contend right now.
Fielder or Pena is money better spent than Pujols
I would rather have Garza than Wilson, but for the right package, Theo would trade his mother.
Build around Castro, but again if a Hershal Walker type deal is offered, go for it.
DeJesus in right has to be better than DeJesus waving in runners from 3rd
Trade Z or change his title from SP to mascot
Have we compensated Boston yet? They can have Soriano
Thanks and all, but don’t look back Rami, Need to get younger at the hot corner
Chicago Cubs - Arizona Cardinals 168 combined years and no rings
I guess I'm a masochist
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bleed Cubbie Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
