Jump to content

Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:

Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:

Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays


The Matt Garza Saga

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Morken


    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

Why is Matt Garza's name synonymous with "trade"?

Why, as a Cubs fan, do I have to temper my excitement for Matt Garza's ability, because such an investment would be short-term?

The Cubs most glaring hole, going forward, is quality starting pitchers, in their prime. Such pitchers will be necessary for the Cubs to become competitive, come 2014. So why, amongst the disappointment of missing out on Anibal Sanchez; the whispers of overpaying for average starters; and the looming crapshoot of the 2013, free-agent market; why isn't EXTENDING Matt Garza a top priority?

Let's get the "no shit" portion of this post out of the way. The Cubs will not get back anything close to what they paid for Garza(Lee, Archer). Garza's peak value has come and gone, with the unfortunate timing of his injury being the main culprit. Trading him now, would be settling for pennies on the dollar.

With Garza's value, thanks to his injury, at the lowest it will be for a while. Why not buy-low on a player we already have? Why not use Garza's currently lowered value, to sign him at a friendly, long-term extension?

Amongst the noisy traffic of trade chatter, fans are far too willing to part with known commodities for the allure of the "can't miss prospect". Sometime we forget that the player we are so willing to unload is a pretty good player. Sometimes we forget that Matt Garza is a really good pitcher!

#2 Carew


    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:20 PM

I agree. I would much perfer to keep Garza, for the reasons stated. Good, relatively young, starting pitcher, good

#3 King Jeff

King Jeff

    King of all Cubs fans!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,478 posts
  • Twitter:@peaceknuckle
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:47 PM

I really hope we haven't seen Garza's peak value, and if we have, then you shouldn't be advocating for an extension. I like Garza, I liked the trade for him when it happened, and I would love for him to stay healthy this year and stay a Cub for a while. I think we have to think about his durability, and it's a double edged sword. If they extend him now, they could get him at a discount, and risk having a long-term DL resident on the payroll. If they wait to extend him until he pitches a whole year and stays healthy, then they could end up overpaying to keep him. I think the only logical reason to trade Garza is if they get multiple-MLB ready pieces in exchange, otherwise keep him around and see how things play out. I'd rather be forced to pay because he performs, than be forced to pay him to sit on the DL.

#4 rcleven


    Bleacher Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,069 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:25 AM

To argue the other side.
1) Garza had talks last season with the Cubs. Money was reasonable and length was if I rember right was 3 yrs., also reasonable IMO. The hang up? Garza asking for full no trade. Talks were discontuined.
If kept and not able to reach an agreement he walks as a free agent returning no value to the team .
2) Lee/Archer is out of the equasion. 3 years of Garga was needed at the time of the trade(one in the hand worth two in the bush type of thing).
Lee/Archer may be coming into their own maybe not.
3) I don't see buying low on Garza. After seeing the other free agent pitchers sighn for $ Garza's agent knowes what his value is and will squeeze every penney.

I have no problem extending Garza for another three to four years. If he continues to demand no trade then all bets are off.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).