Timing

by B.Bruce on Jan 22, 2012 10:43 PM CST

The Cubs have tried to explain to the media that they aren't rebuilding, however they are to a degree. They just prefer the term builing instead of "rebuilding". To refresh the farm system with prospects, Theo and Jed need to trade players, which they see as short-term assests, at their highest point of value.

Value can be calculated in many other ways besides performance however. Some of the the ways it's calculated by are, team control, salary, and the market for that position. For example, right now would be a bad time to trade Geovany Soto since he has two years of control left. The ideal way to handle his situation would be to wait to the trade deadline and hope he's having a great year. The often talked about Matt Garza is being held on to at the moment, for this we should all be giving props to General Manager Jed Hoyer. He has held on to Garza long enough where the market for starting pitching is almost all gone, with Oswalt and Jackson the last two big arms on the market the demand for Garza will sky rocket. Especially for the main suitors such as the Red Sox and Tigers. What would be good be a good package for Garza? I over value him most likley so I will not guess. However the value for him is now much higher than it was at the begining of the offseason because of the Cubs upper staff holding on to him.

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.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Actually I am going to point to three benchmark dates

Pitchers and catchers report, three day before Opening Day and Aug 31st.

Then performance will dictate how good their strategy or plan is.

A friend once told me: "I don't buy the idea that a team learns anything from a loss, the only thing they learn is how to lose games."---Knight

by Ivy Walls on Jan 23, 2012 8:40 AM CST reply actions

I'd already rate their performance as stellar.

Best. Off. Season. Ever.

Seriously, this off-season has been WAY more enjoyable than the 2011 season.

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Jan 23, 2012 6:00 PM CST up reply actions

Seriously, this off-season has been WAY more enjoyable than the 2011 season.

It would have been hard NOT to be more enjoyable.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Jan 24, 2012 7:25 AM CST up reply actions

Not sure I agree with you

If it works, then yes.

by Not Bruce Froemming on Jan 24, 2012 1:54 PM CST up reply actions

What?

Did you enjoy anything about the 2011 season? IT WAS MISERABLE. Worst case this offseason becomes “meh”, so as long as its not disasterous then it’s better than the 2011 season. Best case, Wood, Volstad, Stewart, and Dejesus bounce back to previous levels and Maholm repeats his 2011 season, while Torreyes establishes himself as the 2b of the future. Not to mention we have a very good chance to get Concepion, Cespedes, and/or Soler, which could really put a bow on the offseason. We added low risk upside without really giving up much of any long term value and saved up money to spend for when we’re ready to make a push, hopefully one year from now.

by Dcr18 on Jan 24, 2012 4:22 PM CST up reply actions

I think the expected value for Garza is overstated

You listed 3 non-baseball attributes – team control, salary, and the market for that position. From a buyer’s perspective, Garza fails on 2 of those – team control and salary – $10M + for 2012. But with team control for only 2 years, Garza does not compare to the recent trades for Cahill, Gonzalez, and Latos. Those buyers got 4 years of team control when they made those trades.

When Theo and Jed speak of turning short-term assets into long-term assets, they are not just talking about a trade. They have also said they would consider extending Garza.

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Jan 23, 2012 11:15 AM CST reply actions 1 recs

And, to hammer home the point...

Those “2 years of control” become just over “1 year of control” if the trade is completed on August 31st. So, he’s actually losing value in that his “team control” days are getting less and, in turn, he is getting closer and closer to FA money.

This life's hard, man, but it's harder if you're stupid.

- Jackie Brown

by Tackle Box on Jan 23, 2012 11:36 AM CST up reply actions

Agreed.

I don’t see Garza’s value skyrocketing. If you assume that Boston signs Oswalt which seems reasonable that means the Yankees, Red Sox and Rangers have added a big pitcher. So that still leaves Detroit looking. I don’t see where the sky-rocketing demand will come from.

John Grabow - Who will pay you $4.8 million in 2012?

by rlpete on Jan 23, 2012 11:49 AM CST up reply actions

Toronto, KC, Cleveland, Miami, Washington

all teams that could develop interest depending on how the season develops. Probably 1 or 2 others I missed.

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 Jan 23, 2012 12:08 PM CST up reply actions

I was mainly thinking of pre-season.

During the season there may be some additional interest but as you said, it depends on how the season goes. I don’t see KC as a buyer.

John Grabow - Who will pay you $4.8 million in 2012?

by rlpete on Jan 23, 2012 12:25 PM CST up reply actions

I think, come trade deadline,

the Red Sox and Yankees might have rotation issues needing addressed.

D98 mistaken, a hyperbole as in a funny or revisionism as in trying to make a new fact to confirm a prejudice

by Kansas25 on Jan 23, 2012 4:34 PM CST up reply actions

Don't forget that many people thought those teams needed to do something last trade deadline

and they didn’t. Teams are much less willing to give up prospects for high priced players. To get the kind of prospects that people here want, the Cubs need to find a team willing to put out the big dollars to sign Garza.

John Grabow - Who will pay you $4.8 million in 2012?

by rlpete on Jan 23, 2012 4:50 PM CST up reply actions

I agree with your point...

but was there a top-tier starter available at the deadline last year?

Ubaldo Jiminez was moved, but I can’t recall if there were any other elite or near-elite pitchers available.

D98 mistaken, a hyperbole as in a funny or revisionism as in trying to make a new fact to confirm a prejudice

by Kansas25 on Jan 23, 2012 9:46 PM CST up reply actions

NYY have some big time question marks in their rotation

Pinedo, can he duplicate last year?
Nova, see above
Hughes, is he recovered?
Burnett, is he done?

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 Jan 23, 2012 4:58 PM CST up reply actions

An injury to another team's rotation might add to the intersted parties

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 Jan 23, 2012 4:55 PM CST up reply actions

Your overall point holds

but salary for 2012 is still TBD. We don’t know that it will be $10M+.

If they do go to an arbitration hearing, it could be as low as less than $8M (Cubs win!). If Garza wins a salary over $12M… his value drops precipitously.

Of course, it is still rather likely they will agree somewhere in the middle, which should be around $10M. But, that’s not certain just yet.

"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 Jan 23, 2012 2:14 PM CST up reply actions

Garza's extract salary is not the key

The key is that Cahill, Gonzalez, and Latos all made $500K or less in 2011 and the new teams knew they could control that salary for X years into the future. And that’s not the case with Garza. Whatever Garza’s 2012 salary is, it’s a big number. And then bigger in 2013. And then free agency.

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Jan 23, 2012 2:58 PM CST up reply actions

I wonder

if him going to arbitration will be viewed similarly to when Theriot went to arbitration, or if the change in management means that arbitration is viewed more dispassionately…

Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.

by drewishdrewid on Jan 23, 2012 4:09 PM CST up reply actions

Team control and value provide further granularity to the market

Teams that were bidding on Gonzalez and Latos were in the market for a long-term asset. That’s why years of team control were significant in that discussion, and why Garza would have had less value (since he is, at least currently, not a long-term asset).

As the season grows closer and then wears on, teams that are in the market for a short term asset identify themselves. Some will suffer injuries to prominent starters, some will get extraordinary performances that keep them in pennant races they didn’t anticipate, and some will see underperformance and need just one more piece to keep up with their rivals. That’s where Garza’s value will increase, when short-term situations need to be filled with a short-term asset.

by CJK on Jan 23, 2012 5:24 PM CST up reply actions