The Cubs' asking price for Matt Garza is "out of the question" for the Yankees, Wallace Matthews of ESPNNewYork.com wrote yesterday. The Cubs want at least two of Jesus Montero, Manny Banuelos and Dellin Betances from the Yankees, one of many teams with interest in the right-hander. Here are the latest rumors on Garza:
- The Yankees weren't willing to meet the Athletics' asking price for Gio Gonzalez, and they preferred Gonzalez to Garza, according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post (Twitter link). Sherman says the Yankees are "essentially not in" on Garza.
- The Yankees are actively seeking rotation help, but don't like Garza at his current price, according to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports (on Twitter).
- David Kaplan of CSNChicago.com hears that the Cubs’ asking price is "tremendously high" and that "interested parties" are seeing how high the bidding will go (Twitter link).
- Dave Cameron of FanGraphs says Garza would be worth a position player prospect in the #11-50 range or a couple of prospects from the back end of the top 100 in MLB. Jed Hoyer and Theo Epstein are evidently hoping for more.
I think it’s time to stop talking about this (for the Yankees) because I doubt the asking price will come down and there is no way Cashman is going to accept that. I like Garza, but why don’t we take a chance with Oswalt…don’t get it.
Or Gavin Floyd, who will come much cheaper.
Exactly theres really no downside to signing Oswalt if he only wants 1 year
Rangers not Yankees fan but I like Oswalt with Yanks, there is a history there with aging former start pitchers turning in a couple really good years and Oswalt is perfect in that sense.
If both the jays and the yankees are out because of the price then chances are the price will go down otherwise he’d have to settle for what the tigers and the marlins could offer which isnt a lot.
Great call on Oswalt. Should be cheap(ish), and if he’s happy and doing well, you could extend him.
better than trading 2 of your top prospects or paying Edwin Jackson $75-85 mil over 5 seasons.
When did Oswalt become a viable option to be anything other than a 4 or 5?
to Tigers for Turner, Oliver/Crosby, Brantly, and Paulino.
wow
Care to elaborate?
I think he’s saying wow as in that’s a lot to give up.
As long as we get to keep Smyly and Castellanos, I don’t mind.
You should mind. Turner is a high enough prospect where he might be a little overcompensation for just 2 years of Garza. Who even knows Turner could be putting up better numbers as soon as next year, and you want to give all of those extra pieces..?
You think so? I see one really good prospect (top 10-15 probably) and 3 non-top 100 prospects, which is not to say that either Cosby/Oliver will never move back into top 100 or that Paulina or Bryant might not ever be top 100’s after 2012 season.
If the writer is correct, and I’m not saying he is, then I wonder if the Yanks could overwhelm the Cubs with something like….
Gary Sanchez + Heathcott + Noesi + Adams
or
Betances + Mason Williams + Warren/Phelps
I’ve never heard Sanchez mentioned in trade rumors before or heard any refusal to part with him.
”
You think so? I see one really good prospect (top 10-15 probably) and 3 non-top 100 prospects”
“Gary Sanchez + Heathcott + Noesi + Adams”
In other words: one really good prospect (30 on BA) and three 3 non-top 100 prospects.
or
One really good prospect and two of three non top-100 rated prospects.
The only Yankee players you named who’ve ever hit the top 100 were Sanchez (Peaked at #30 pre-season 2011, dropped out of the top 50 for midseason) and Betances (Peaked at #26 midseason). None of the others have ever cracked the top 100 with BA. Meanwhile, three of the guys he mentioned (Turner peaked at #11 on the midseason, Oliver was #87 in the pre-2011 ranking, Crosby peaked at #47 preseason in 2010).
A) The writer said ”
Garza would be worth a position player prospect in the #11-50 range or a couple of prospects from the back end of the top 100 in MLB”.
That would be Sanchez who was struggling PRIOR to the mid-season report but FINISHED strong in 2011 and should remain around top 50 (he was ranked at #4 on this year’s top 10). He had a great month of August hitting 7 home runs and a 1.647 OPS before breaking his finger on going on the DL in late August.
While the other three are non-top 100 guys, there’s more upside to them. One is mlb ready pitcher (Noesi pitched 50 innings last year w/ a 4.09 FIP mostly out the pen in the majors and had a sub 3.00 FIP in 150 IP in 2010 as a starter). He’s 25 and ready to go.
Adams is a 2b who has always posted great numbers but had a bad ankle injury hamper his 2010 and early 2011 season but came back strong. He has a lifetime .822 OPS and a .375 OBP.
Heathcott has had some shoulder issues but is an excellent defensive CF and a highly touted 1st rnd pick in ’09.
Oliver WAS a top 100 guy in 2011 (#87) and was probably rushed but had a poor 2011 with a 4.30 in AAA and a poor mlb showing in 2010/2011 (6.44 FIP in 10 starts). True, small sample size and I’m sure the results aren’t equal to his true talents. But he certainly won’t be a top 100 guy pre-2012 listings.
Cosby is in the same shoe box as Oliver. He WAS a top 50 in 2010 BUT fell out of the top 100 for 2011 and followed up a injury riddled season (only 12 innings pitched) with a poor 2011 (4.32 FIP and 5.26 BB/9 in 130 IP at AA).
So in those two, you have 2 former top 100 guys (one in 2010) who are trending downward and won’t be top 100 again without a great 2012 season.
In Brantly you have a 22 year old C who has never played above A+ with a .713 career OPS w/ 11 hrs in almost 700 AB. He also had an OPS of .561 in 166 AB at A+. SSS yes, but still. No power, low career OBP and avg at best contact hitter who hasn’t advanced past single A yet.
Paulino is VERY young (19 in Feb), looks VERY talented but has only pitched 5 innings above the GCL Rookie league. No idea what to expect from him. BA hasn’t listed Detroit’s top 10 yet. Sickles had Paulino as their 17th best with a C+.
So with the the package you called me out on:
Sanchez, Noesi, Heathcott and Adams I just think you have more of what the writer suggested in 2 up the middle position players, and guys who still have high prospect status in Sanchez, are trending upwards in Noesi or have been highly regarded but have slight health issues in 2011 but are still good prospects in Heathcott and Adams.
As for this package:
Betances + Mason Williams + Warren/Phelps
Bets is still going to be a top 40-75 guy. Mason has been ranked 5th by BA in their top 10 and Sickles ranks him aggressively w/ a B rating. Very good shot he debuts around top 80-100 in his 1st season. Warren is another MLB ready prospect with a #3 ceiling (3.60 ERA/4.09 FIP in 150 + IP @ AAA).
”
You think so? I see one really good prospect (top 10-15 probably) and 3 non-top 100 prospects”
“Gary Sanchez + Heathcott + Noesi + Adams”
In other words: one really good prospect (30 on BA) and three 3 non-top 100 prospects.
or
One really good prospect and two of three non top-100 rated prospects.
The only Yankee players you named who’ve ever hit the top 100 were Sanchez (Peaked at #30 pre-season 2011, dropped out of the top 50 for midseason) and Betances (Peaked at #26 midseason). None of the others have ever cracked the top 100 with BA. Meanwhile, three of the guys he mentioned (Turner peaked at #11 on the midseason, Oliver was #87 in the pre-2011 ranking, Crosby peaked at #47 preseason in 2010).
As a White Sox fan…….please do that deal!
Psh, and everyone thought Kenny’s asking price for Danks was ridiculously high….
Wait until you hear what he wants for Floyd. (Although I don’t think he will trade Floyd).
Has any team offered a position prospect in the No. 11-50 range or two prospects in “the back end of the Top 100”?
If they have, Jed Hoyer should have taken it by now. I find Garza rather over-rated. He IS NOT an ace.
True that Garza is not an ace, but he is better than Floyd.
Agreed.
Yeah I would like it if we could get Oswalt on a one year deal. Anybody with good pitching to trade are gonna ask for the same prospects which Cashman rightfully has said no to.
To me he’s an obvious one year fix.
Sabathia + Oswalt + Nova + Burnett + Hughes/Garcia would be a decent enough rotation with a good offense and bullpen.
Theo is banking pretty hard on teams believing that Garza’s K-rate spike is more than an NL-created mirage, rather than the evolution of his slider.
I think the improved stirkeouts can be traded against the hightened injury risk in throwing so many slidepieces.
The Cubs don’t have to trade Garza, nor are they approaching other teams. Teams are calling them. Supply and demand. The Cubs have something other teams want. They can meet the price or not. It’s only going to go up.
If the Cubs want to speed up their rebuild process, then yes, they do need to trade Garza.
I think it’s a win/win for the Cubs. They get some good prospects if some team meets their asking price. If not then they still have a solid 28 year old #2 starter for the next 2 seasons.
Exactly. I would be pretty angry if they traded for anything less. I don’t wanna see Garza go but if one team unloads the farm on him, then I don’t really mind.
If they trade him now, they’ll get the maximum value that a #2 pitcher with 2 years of control will garner. If they wait until this year’s trade deadline, maybe the GM’s will be a little more ambitious, but you’ve lost a meaningless 3 months out of Garza’s service time, which means the Cubs will probably get the same returns they’re being offered now. Wait any longer and it’s lost value.
The Cubs have some leverage, but it’s not anywhere near being as one sided as it’s being perceived.
He’ll have a solid #2 starter on a team with a bunch of replacement level players and rookies. Not exactly a good idea. If the Cubs are going to suck for 2 years then what’s the benefit of having Garza? I GUESS he could mentor the youngsters but is that worth missing out on prospects?
It is if they extend him for 4/5 years after the 2 years.
A) The rebuilding process is probably going to take longer than 2 years.
B) Who is to say Garza will be the same pitcher 4 to 5 years from now with 2 or 3 years left on that deal?
It matters how high level of prospects they are. Garza is a proven commodity. Most prospects don’t pan out. So you trade a good SP for a couple of maybe’s. To me, the deal would have to blow you away.
Be careful when you use words like “proven”. I’ve always liked Garza and always thought he had the stuff to be a top of rotation guy but if you say PROVEN then you have to stare at the 3 years from 2008-2010 with the 4.25 FIP a lot longer than you do the 1 year with the 2.95 FIP, especially if you’re a AL East team. And if a team is demanding 2 or 3 of your best prospects then you have to make sure you are getting as close to the real deal as possible and 1 year with a sub 3.00 FIP vs the 3 previous isn’t close to being a proven TOP OF ROTATION commodity.
Yes, but how many times do you see prospects, some labeled as “can’t miss” never pan out? As a Cubs fan, especially in recent history, I’ve seen it too many times. Plus, the Cubs don’t need to trade Garza now. Right now I think he is a “sell high” kind of guy. It’s just that you don’t know what that “high” will bring back.
And I did say “proven commodity” and not “proven #1”. To me a guy who has pitched as Garza has is proven. We’ll see where he goes from here if the Cubs decide to keep him. If he moves it up a notch, then they can sign him long-term. If not, they let him go without breaking the bank.
Yes, but how many times do you see prospects, some labeled as “can’t miss” never pan out? As a Cubs fan, especially in recent history, I’ve seen it too many times. Plus, the Cubs don’t need to trade Garza now. Right now I think he is a “sell high” kind of guy. It’s just that you don’t know what that “high” will bring back.
And I did say “proven commodity” and not “proven #1”. To me a guy who has pitched as Garza has is proven. We’ll see where he goes from here if the Cubs decide to keep him. If he moves it up a notch, then they can sign him long-term. If not, they let him go without breaking the bank.
using win and cubs no longer fits together, sorry dude, its lose on prospects and lose in the regular season for them
So 2 meaningless Cubs seasons with Garza now somehow is leverage? The Cubs aren’t winning with him, so if you find solace thinking the 2 losing seasons with Garza and the 2-picks is worth more than the prospects that may be offered up, you’re only pulling covers over your eyes, and those covers are 104 years old, and counting.
Still better than mediocre return. Chicago is a big market, and fans deserve some cores even if it is rebuilding. I don’t think Cubs FO want 100 losses even in rebuilding period, that’s not the big market way of rebuilding. It will result lesser and lesser revenue.
By having and maybe extending Garza, Cubs may get much better return in future, draw some fans at least, have some cores to start rebuilding. It ain’t going to take a decade for rebuilding process. It took Toronto only 3 years to be a good team. Within next 2 years, Cubs would have 100+ millions to spend as they get rid of garbage off their book except Soriano.
If Garza keeps up similar number as in 2011, he would be still great at age of 30-31.
Cubs DON’T have to trade but I guarantee you they WANT to trade and I also guarantee that Theo put the word out that they are open for business on everyone. You are really arguing semantics on that point. Theo MUST get the best value on his best assets and now is the time to do so on Garza.
Garza will be worth as much, if not more at the AS break/7/31 non waiver deadline that he is now.
Fans of teams who may be wanting him now may be thinking his value is the highest ATM, but 1 1/2 and 2 years of team control is not that huge of a difference when he will be one of the key people available regardless at the deadline should he not get moved this winter.
Not true. Teams COULD be desperate, anything is possible. But also, 2 full seasons is more than 1 year and 2 months. A team is looking to fill needs NOW. Right NOW you know who the buyers are. If Hughes, Nova or AJ have great 1st halfs, or Aceves or Bard start off strong or one of the Jays rookies or Drabek perform well then maybe they aren’t as desperate then as they are now.
What if Garza has a bad start next year? What if he gets injured?
Right now, you have several starters who aren’t on the trade block now but might be by the deadline. Maybe the team knows the player isn’t going to sign an extension or simply they are unwilling to offer one to them? What if the Brewers (Greinke, Wolf or Marcum), Giants (Cain), Twins (Liriano), Marlins (Sanchez), Indians (Carmona, Jiminez or Lowe) or some other team has a starter having a great 1st half but the team falls out of contention and they decide to move them? What if Zambrano has a great 1st half and other teams are willing to trade for him and the Cubs are willing to eat most of the contract just to get a decent prospect back?
Right now, Garza’s value is set. He’s the brand new car on the lot with zero mileage. Once he rolls out on opening day all types of scenarios can come into play and most are likely to hurt his value (injury, poor performance or more trade options in the market) rather than helping (another great year with a sub 3.00 FIP).
Ohh. But very true..
Just because some teams are wanting Garza right now does not mean that Epstein has to trade him and Epstein is smart enough to realize that come 7/31 even teams with low budgets looking for the playoffs will be looking for an impact upgrade in the rotation and Garza is not someone anybody expects to fall off of a cliff and is not a severe injury risk either like some who have been held onto lately.
The price will be high if he is not moved now come the middle of July. most are not expecting the Fish and SFG to be out of the playoff chase, nor the brewers, not to mention Sanchez am thinking Luria will eventually get around to a LT contract anyway.
You are out there wanting to make something so that isn’t. year and a half control, figure half dozen teams involved and even some like (just saying) the Pirates who are desperate for a playoff team and might need that extra arm? His value does not go down and Epstein is no Hendry and realizes it very well.
How can you say the Brewers aren’t expected to be out of contention with Fielder not in the lineup and Braun gone for 50 games?
How can you assume that Loria, who most were shocked spent money this season, won’t trade Sanchez if he wants to save some money when he just laid out two hundred million for Reyes, Bell and Buerhle.
Garza doesn’t have to fall off a cliff to revert back to his pre-2011 form. Why is that such a hard concept to imagine? It amazes me how 1 year out weighs the previous 3 yet people are running away from Edwin Jackson when he’s had 4 straight years of an improving FIP and xFIP. Garza could have a bad April and end up with an FIP around 4.00 by July.
“You are out there wanting to make something so that isn’t”.
Really? Did you not see how different Ubaldo Jiminez trade value changed from being untouchable in 2010 to available in 2011? Did you not see a better pitcher like Greinke have his ERA jump by 2 runs and his FIP by a 1 run after his amazing Cy Young season?
It’s more unrealistic to expect the things Garza can control (his performance) and the things he CAN’T control (injury or more better and/or cheaper trade options) to stay the same than it is for them to change.
Everyone thought the Yanks would be super desperate for a starter last July. Who expected Colon, Garcia and Nova to perform the way they did? Who expected them to stay pat and pass on Jiminez? The market place is fluid and right now it’s safer to trade in a stagnant market than it is in one in flux where the variable changes.
You assume there will be more buyers in July for Garza’s services yet ignore that there could be more sellers in July as well as teams fall out of contention or realize they can’t afford to sign a soon to be free agent.
Not sure exactly where to start responding to this and what is even worth responding to….
“Garza doesn’t have to fall off a cliff to revert back to his pre-2011 form.”
What form? The 200+ IP form and solid #2 on a Rays team no less that Garza was for 3 years before he was flipped to the Cubs??
“Did you not see a better pitcher like Greinke have his ERA jump by 2
runs and his FIP by a 1 run after his amazing Cy Young season?”
Now the crux of your feelings become clear.. Thinking Garza is a 3-4SP anyway and 1 year wonder grienke is a stud.
Check over the rest of their collective histories, on top of that incredible Cy Young season Girenke has never come close to replicating. Not much of a difference is it? Garza’s done vs the AL east also, not AL/NL central.
If you just don’t like the guy and think he should be cheaper..Say so rather than give it all away with that whopper.
Not saying he isn’t a good pitcher but YOU used the word PROVEN COMMODITY. What has he proven? That his last 3 years in the AL East he had a 4.25 FIP in 2008-2010. That’s not horrible but is it reasonable to expect anyone to cave and give up 2 certain and 3 probable top 60 prospects? Heck no.
AL EAST PITCHERS w/ FIPs better than 4.25 from 2008-2010:
Dice K 4.20
Burnett 4.17
Marcum 4.05
are any of them “true” #2’s based on their FIP’s?
You can say what you want about Greinke but his FIP over the same 3 years (2008-2010) was 3.05 with 19.4 WAR vs Garza’s 4.24 and 7.5 WAR. Even if you want to disregard Greinke’s Cy Young season he’s never had an FIP over 3.56 in the last 4 years compared to Garza whose ONLY year under 4.00, let alone 3.50 or 3.25, was this year when he posted a 2.95 in the NL Central.
I’m not saying Garza is a 4. He’s probably a borderline #2 on most teams, but that’s based off of what he did in 2011 alone and to say he a shoe in to repeat it is more hope than anything based off of his history.
BTW: From 2008-2010 the Rays staff ranked as follows:
Price w/ a 3.87 FIP
Shields w/ a 4.02 FIP
Garza w/ a 4.24 FIP
And that’s including Shield’s off year when he posted a 4.24 FIP. So he was definitely a #3 on that staff, albeit a very good staff.
And I still shake my head that you give so much credence to Garza based off of 1 year of above average success and his 4.24 FIP 3 year span with the Rays and yet dog Edwin Jackson who has had a 3.86 and 3.55 FIP in the last 2 years while pitching in two very hitter friendly parks for 1/2 seasons in Comerica and whatever the Dbacks stadium is called.
Again, the price the Cubs are demanding doesn’t seem appropriate considering his track record beyond 2011 alone.
Think it is both of us shaking our heads here and trying to give various reasons why the other should see there own point of view to no avail.
I already said in our last long exchange was not going to rehash the reasons am against anyLT contract for him and am not going to start that up again.
Neither of us are going to change mind with regards to Garza either it seems and looks like yet another that needs just..dropped..
the price is definately coming down as no one is willing to bite at what they are asking for
If there isn’t a team overpaying, I would definitely do what Sox did. Extend Garza, give him deal something like Danks’, 5/55 would be enough as he would only make 14-15m next 2 years. If Garza puts up similar number next year, which means FIP 2.95 with 200+ K, plus Hamels and Cain extend then Cubs can ask whole universe for 4 years of Garza. Given his K/9:8.95, BB/9:2.86, FIP:2.95, WAR:5.0, I would definitely do it instead giving him up less than what Cubs compensated to acquire him. It ain’t going to kill Cubs for extending him nor it’s not like they don’t have money to do so.
Halladay is a stud at age of 35, and Garza was only 27 this season. Halladay turned into solid pitcher at age of 25 and becomes cy-young caliber pitcher at age of 31. Instead giving him up for cheap price, it would be much better just to extend him and see how things go.
I don’t see the “extension” strategy working for two reasons:
(1) Your primary market (Jays Yanks & Red Sox) have a strong funnel of top pitching prospects. As time passes, they have less of a need for Garza and Danks.
(2) Jays primary interest in top extension candidates was based on getting compensation draft picks as the player reaches free agency and gets replaced by a pitching prospect graduating to the big leagues. The draft picks allow them to continue feed their prospect funnel. I suspect Yankees and Red Sox are in the same mode. It explains their “value” shopping.
There will be always great demands for top of the rotation pitchers. I don’t buy Red Sox has a strong funnel of top pitching prospects. Please don’t give me names like Ranaudo. Find about the very recent scouting reports on Red Sox farm. It is heavy on position players only. For Yanks, I wouldn’t be surprised 2B’s would fail miserably as their fellows, Joba and Hughes. Due to their walk rate and size concerns. Sickels recently commented that Banuelos is at best #3 and possible future for Betances is long man in bullpen.
You just compared Garza to Halladay……..think about that.
You compared Betances and Banuelos with likes of Nolan Ryan, Johan Santana, Tim Lincecum, Randy Johnson in regard with those Yankee prospects’ scary walk rate/size concerns. I think comparing to that, Garza to Halladay makes much more sense. Anyway, it’s free to think Garza doesn’t worth more than Betances who has Daniel Cabrera written all over him then just forget about achieving him via trade and do some rosterbation getting King Felix via trade, heck, they would ask the whole universe with him and Yankee fans will scream once again. This is how the market goes. Supply and Demand. Yankee fans all day call for, say, Cubs must trade blah blah Mariners must trade blah blah well that stands, but not at that what’s called “fair market price.” They will extend or hold onto their core pitchers instead of giving them up for future bust prospects.
What’s so difficult? It ain’t like Theo is threatening teams to buy Garza. He publicly states so many freaking times that Garza could be core of the team and he’s willing to extend him. But he first wants to hear what other teams would offer and he would bite if there is a super lucrative deal on the table. If teams not interested, fine, then just get off. Instead giving bull craps why he is not worth this that and that prospects.
You’re so impossible to talk to. Get past what team I root for because I’m clearly not the only one that thinks Garza isn’t worth 3 top 50 prospects. And if you paid any f’n attention then Theo has made it clear what his intentions are. HE’S REBUILDING and Garza is his best asset. if you really think he’s going to extend Garza then good luck to you, but you are in for a shocker.
As for Bans/Bets vs Ryan, etc, I NEVER compared the ABILITIES just the precedent of young pitchers who had good stuff but control issues that they figured out fairly early in their mlb careers.
But of course, why would I expect a person like you to comprehend the point. You see key words and say “Oh I can make a name for myself by trying to disrespect a Yankee fan. Oh, I love to go blah, blah, blah about the Yankees”. How about this, YOU should start to assume that not every Yankee fan is a -SS and I’ll assume that not every Cubs fan is a *ick like you? Cool?
Also, the logic I offered isn’t limited to a “Yanks perspective” but to all interested teams. Why? Because it’s rooted in logic according to Garza’s circumstances.
BTW, what’s more absurd? Me proposing that Bans (1 year of poor control) or Bets (a 6’8) pitcher might improve on their control ala Ryan, Sabathia and the Unit or you insinuating that Garza might reach “elite ace” status late in his career?
“Halladay is a stud at age of 35, and Garza was only 27 this season. Halladay turned into solid pitcher at age of 25 and becomes cy-young caliber pitcher at age of 31”.
Not to say Garza doesn’t have talent, but he’s had 1 year of “ace” level performance and comparing him to Halladay is just bad logic.
You misunderstood the point also. I didn’t say Garza would be an elite ace like Halladay. I only wrote that it took years Halladay becomes stud and similar things could happen to Garza due to all kind of stats supporting the argument. 2011 Garza was not by luck. Not at same level as Doc, but Garza could be much better pitcher than he was years ago. It would make more sense than 2B’s can refine their command alas Ryan, Johnson, etc. At least Garza just had 1 year of ace-like year. What those 2B’s have done? To me, young pitcher who’s only 27 just finished ace year would develop to be better pitchers in future is better logic than prospects with command issues refine them and becomes stud pitcher in big league. Given to the facts only 1 out of 8 top100 pitchers survive in big league and the hardest thing for pitchers is to refine their command.
I don’t think Garza worths 3 top 50 prospects, but Cubs would ask for 2, if not centering around strong position prospect with good upside low level prospects. If only return they would get is package like Betances who just mentioned in BA chatting that good comparison is Daniel Cabrera plus Romine and other low level prospect then hell no. Theo would definitely extend him. He has leverage and he is not rushed in trading Garza.
———————————————-
Should the Cubs look to extend Garza, they’ll have more leverage than their cross-town rivals did, since the extra year of control buys Epstein and GM Jed Hoyer time. Garza projects to earn a total of $20MM or more in the next two years and the Cubs may look to buy out an additional two seasons for $14-15MM apiece if they explore a deal. Perhaps a four-year, $52MM deal would work for both sides.
————————————————
“[Matt Garza is] exactly type of pitcher we want to build around” said Epstein according to Gordon Wittenmyer of The Chicago Sun-Times (on Twitter). He added that his current mode is “to listen on everybody.”
“We’re not rushing into anything with [Garza],” added Epstein according to Wittenmyer (on Twitter). They’re still weighing the right-hander’s trade value against a possible contract extension.
————————————————
a) Bans has never had control issues, and in fact was one of his strengths prior to reaching AA last year. My guess is he was trying to be too fine instead of trusting his stufff.
b) Bets is more of an issue because it’s been more of a career issue for him. Even still, his ranking takes into ACCOUNT his control problems and he would be a top 10 prospect without them. He still allows less than 7 hits per 9 and k’s more than 10 per 9.
c) I never said that IF they gained control they would be as good or better than Ryan, etc. I simply said control is something that some pitchers gain with maturity, especially for a guy like Bans who never had the issue before.
d) Of course Theo is going to say publicly that he would want to extend Garza. It maintains his leverage. No sense it letting it be known you aggressively wants to get rid of him. He wants to maintain the appearance of options.
So what did KW do? Did anyone think he would extend Danks? I’ve been all over KW extending Danks if only package he could receive is gamble prospect like Betances and he actually extended. I’m not saying Theo’s first option is to extend Garza, but if price range is nowhere closer to what Cubs FO thinking, it is better extend him. As I am high on Garza, I think you are also too optimistic with 2B’s. Of course command may come around with maturity but mostly it happens rarely. Banuelos may refine his command since his command wasn’t bad in 2010. But his command now is awful and it does hurt his current value to outsiders.
It is proven fact that most prospects with great stuff never make starters in big league as they cannot solve their command issues no matter how young they are. Of course there are pitchers who did improve but it’s not even 50/50. That being said, to me, Garza being stud following years and possibly repeating his awesome 2011 season has much more logic than prospects with current and/or career command issue puts everything together and refine their command.
I do agree all 3 of Montero and 2B’s are unrealistic as prospects value is much higher than what it was decades ago. Fair price for Cubs, not Yankees, would be Montero plus two low level prospects, both of Ban and Bet plus C prospect, or Ban plus some high ceiling low level prospects like Williams. Of course I do agree Yankees may find the price too steep and refuses to deal. That has good logic also for Yankee’s point of view.
My logic is if the offered package is not good enough, then it’s better to extend him and wait for better market condition. Garza has had 5 consecutive seasons with ~200 innings and he is not injury prone. If injury does not hold him back, once he repeat his numbers in 2012 then his possible trading value would be sky high, at least as much as National’s package for Gio. I am not the only person who thinks Cole, Peacock worth more, if not, as much as 2B’s and A’s also received solid catching prospect who would make top 100 plus low ceiling pitching prospect ready to contribute in big league right now.
DIdnt you once say casey kelly was a yankee prospect? why should could i care about what you have to say about prospects? Betances has nothing in common with cabbrerra absoluty zzero scouts would say that.
i wouldnt want montero anyways
I can’t believe the Yankees preferred Gio to Garza.
Why, he’s cheaper, they have to be budget conscious now since they’ve reached the luxury tax limit, he’s left-handed, left-handed pitchers are always preferred with that short right field porch at Yankee stadium, and he has 4 years while Garza only has two years. Not all that surprising to me.
Gio- 5.79 ERa vs Red Sox, 0 post season games
Garza- 3.83 vs Red Sox, 5 games post season with a 3.48 era
I thought the Yankees were always in win mode? Garza is the clear choice to win now.
I don’t buy the Yankees being out. Garza has proven success in the AL East and is dominant against the Red Sox. I can’t imagine a more perfect fit for the Yankees number 2. They’ll cave and the Cubs will get either 2 of the 3 top prospects or they’ll take 1 plus a larger overall package. I don’t see a better match and the yanks are desperate for a solid number 2. No better fit for either team. If I’m the Cubs i try to get Gardner plus a top pitching prospect if the yanks don’t want to give up Montero.
Garza is a good pitcher but let’s not distort reality. His proven success equals a 4.25 FIP from 2008-2010 in the AL East. Also, his career ERA (don’t have access to FIP vs Sox) is 3.84. That’s good but doesn’t scream dominant. Oh….and in 2010 in 6 starts (1 relief) and 35 IP he had a 5.14 ERA.
History has also shown (hopefully) that you can NOT acquire pitchers based on how they dominate YOU or your biggest opponent. AJ Burnett is the best example of that.
Simply put, you can NOT assume that Garza’s 2011 is going to be the norm going forward. It would be risky to assume that and giving up 2 or 3 of Montero, Bans and Bets can be a huge mistake. If the Yanks felt motivated to move all 3 my guess is they would’ve done so for Latos with Montero being sent elsewhere for something else they could use.
Bans + Bets + Mason + Noesi probably would’ve got them Latos imo.
The Yanks perhaps did prefer Gio to Garza. Latos and Gio are younger than Garza and under contract for a longer period. Garza pitched quite well in the A.L. East. Walks less batters than Gio and has a no hitter and playoff experience under his belt. Latos and Gio pitched in more pitcher friendly parks. Based on this, Garza should command a return very much like the other 2. The Cubs aren’t going to contend this year for sure. Probably not next year either. They have chopped 50+ mil off the payroll from the beginning of the 2011 season. They wil drop another 40+ after this season. Balance that with F.A. signings and possible trades(Garza, Byrd, and Marmol) and they should have quite a few dollars to spend on rebuilding. I don’t expect immediate results obviously but i think they are headed in the right direction.