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

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

follow up to garza trade


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 preacherman86

preacherman86

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Facebook:Josh Ruiter

Posted 23 August 2013 - 05:24 PM

As far as discussing haul or not, I think you have to put it into perspective of what the Cubs originally gave up, Garza’s history, his control, the return and then evaluate. So let’s do it now real quick.
Cubs and Rays original trade for Garza:
Cubs get:
1. Fernando Perez
2. Zach Rosscup
3. Matt Garza
Rays get:
1. Chris Archer
2. Brandon Guyer
3. Hak-Ju Lee
4. Robinson Chirinos

At the time Lee was a solid defensive short stop, good enough on that side of the ball to be an immediate defensive stud in the majors, but his stick was a question. Lee remains in the minors putting up decent numbers, but is no longer real young for his level and his bat is yet to show it can play in the bigs. At this point he will be a below avg. offensive ss or a very solid defensive utility guy.
Guyer, was a 24 year old outfielder who had just been named cubs minor league player of the year. He was never seen as a future stud, with the ceiling of a 4th outfielder. That is somewhat where he could end up, though he is yet to stick in the bigs and remains toiling in the minors trying to impress. He is now 26 or 27 and is yet to really break in in any way.
Robinson Chirinos didn’t last long in the system and is now in the Rangers system. He is a usable piece, but was never thought to be a future piece more than a back up or emergency type guy, and a guy who at the time sat behind a couple of catchers in the cubs system, one of them being Wellington Castillo.
And then you have the belle of the ball, Chris Archer. Remember the front office, yes even that F.O. didn’t want to give up Archer, and it very nearly nixed the deal for the Cubs. But in the end they did include him to get their guy. Archer was a projected MLB rotation pitcher, probably in the 2/3 range in a high praise scenario. Certainly not an ace type and still isn’t. You also have to remember, he just finished a career year in which he rocked a 15-3 record with a 2.34 era in 28 games, and minor league cubs pitcher of the year. BUT, he was also 22 in that season, not exactly young for either level. And it came on the heels of a lackluster track record as he was the guy who came over for super utility Mark DeRosa in the Cubs/Indians deal a year earlier.
Fuld, I don’t need to say much, sorta a speed/hustle guy who was never going to be awesome, but could perceivably work his butt off for PT and be an energy off the bench. That is exactly what he was two years ago in Tampa, but now finds himself back in the minors….a Tony Campana comparison isn’t out of order here.
That was given up for Rosscup, Perez, and Garza. Perez was essentially a long shot, throw in, change of scenery guy that quickly ended his tenure with the cubs so we will leave him off. Let’s look at the other two though.
Rosscup, at the time was a 22 year old starter, who at low a had a 3 ERA. Rosscup wasn’t highly touted but has always been highly effective! He is now in Iowa and has dominated this year in a relief role and could earn a call up or a bullpen shot starting next spring.
Garza, what is there to say about Garza? when the Cubs got him he was a 3, with 3 years of control, and peripheral numbers that suggested at least #2 stuff. He did exactly that with the Cubs, dominating at times, struggling some, but overall the best pitcher on the roster during his tenure as far as pure stuff. And he had injuries while with the Cubbies that kept him out of action for nearly a full baseball year. In those three years Garza went 21-18 with a 3.6ish ERA on a real shitty team, and brought enthusiasm and passion every day.
Now look at what got back in the Garza trade this year. Remember it was a return for not 3 years of Garza, but merely 3 months and coming off a year and half which saw him have arm injuries twice leaving him out for nearly a full season before a month and a half tryout for the trade deadline essentially.
Mike Olt, a guy who is battling yes, but came into the season as a top 25 prospect in baseball, a power hitting, defensive wiz at 3b. He is in a down year, where his hit tool is severely in question, but with the upside could be a solid everyday 3b still. Questions avail, but less than with anybody they gave up to get garza!
Neil Ramirez, a peculiar piece of the trade, just completed obviously. Ramirez is somewhat of a conundrum because at age 22 he lit up AA and AAA in the Ranger system, only to see it fall apart last year at both levels. Then this year he reopened in AA and has been effective to the tune of a 3.8 ERA in AA but hasn’t gotten the bump to AAA, in part because of a glut of pitching in texas and a DL stint this summer. Still this guy has what could be a very solid 4 in a major league rotation if he continues to put it together. That being said, the cubs could have possibly elected to take a Hak Ju Lee type in the Rangers ss prospect, but with the glut of infield prospects they opted for a pitching prospect.
Justin Grimm, another 25 year old starter was a prospect in the Ranger system before forcing his way to the Rangers team, with some aid from injuries on the big league roster. Grimm is in AAA now and is getting mixed results. He has a less than stellar but not awful 4.8 era in the hitter friendly PCL, but notably has seemed to iron out the HR issues which plagued in the big leagues with Texas this season. Grimm is another guy that is more than a serviceable 4/5 candidate next year if he keeps the HR down and just pitches instead of thinking a bit.
And finally we get to the belle of the ball in this trade. C.J. Edwards. At just 21, a year younger than archer at the time they were each traded. Edwards b/w A and A+ has put up a 1.84 era in 22 starts. He has flat out dominated and should be seen as a prospect as good or better than Archer was. He comes with #2 potential, and with his ability to get a swing and miss, and avoidance of the HR who knows where he could go. But this kid is a legit prospect, probably the best pitching prospect in the last 20 years in the organization not named Wood or Prior. I know that is a very bold statement, but with all outside factors included I like him better than Vizcaino, Johnsen, and anybody else at this point.
All in all, I would say yes, that is a haul. We got far superior value in this trade compared to what we gave up for Garza in the first place. And we got 3 years not 3 months of Garza. It is not far fetched to see all four of the guys we got in this deal in Chicago in 2-3 years, and that equals haul for any pitcher you only get for 3 months, regardless of name or ability. Remember Garza just came back from fairly serious injury, is gone in a month and a half, and brought back four very capable prospects who could all find themselves in the organizational top 30 at years end. That, my friends, is…… a………HAUL

 



#2 MichiganGoat

MichiganGoat

    Give me a BEER

  • Moderators
  • 3,798 posts
  • Twitter:MichiganGoat
  • Facebook:michigangoat
  • LocationGrand Rapids, MI

Posted 23 August 2013 - 05:52 PM

Okay that is real close to a tl;dr

MichiganGoat on Twitter

"There are a lot of guys who are respected but not liked" - Ron Santo


#3 preacherman86

preacherman86

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Facebook:Josh Ruiter

Posted 23 August 2013 - 06:44 PM

sorry man, what is a tl;dr?



#4 fromthemitten

fromthemitten

    sleeps in too late to answer the calendar trivia

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts
  • Twitter:fromthemitten
  • Locationin a van down by the river

Posted 23 August 2013 - 06:47 PM

Very good analysis, I'd say our haul is even better than what the Rays got though Olt and Ramirez were buy low options

tl;dr = too long; didn't read. which is what [insert bush or obama depending on your political affiliation] said about the constitution [zing!]

#5 jkppkj

jkppkj

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 04:50 PM

I'd say that's a bit of a rose colored view of things.  I'm happy with what the Cubs got for him but I think it's about the same as what they gave up.

 

The material piece that has moved is Archer.  While I don't disagree that his value and C.J. Edwards value at the time of the trades is comparable, the old adage of "one in the hand is worth two in the bush" applies.  At all of 155 pounds, Edwards could blow away in a wind storm, struggle with control once he adds weight, wear down over a large number of innings, or grow into his frame and end up being an ace.  Archer could end up being a flash in the pan too, but a 24 year old with top of the rotation stuff who is performing at the ML level is always going to be more valuable than a prospect like Edwards.  Ignoring contract and current contention issue ask if Tampa would have traded Archer for Garza straight up?  Or Archer for Edwards and a prospect like Olt?

 

Olt looks really bad this year, while Hak-Ju Lee was off to a really hot start before tearing up his knee.  Both have solid upside but are damaged goods, I'd say they have equal relative value at this point.  However, Lee wasn't damaged goods when the Cubs gave him up and was 20 at the time of the first trade.  I'd say Lee had much more value than Olt at the time of the trades.

 

Also, I'd say 3 years of Garza during a rebuild is only worth a little more than 3 months of a postseason race plus the postseason starts.  There's also something to be said for the fact that Texas probably has the inside track on resigning him if they want to.  That's all about opinion though, I can definitely see how 3 seasons is 6 times as valuable as half a season.

 

From the Cubs perspective, I'm calling the comparison between Archer and Edwards a slight disadvantage, Olt and Lee a slight disadvantage.  Grimm and Ramirez are nice pluses, but (imho) I don't think two back end of the rotation prospects equates to an unbalanced haul.

 

It's very possible that Archer is a top end of the rotation guy for years while collectively Grimm, Ramirez, and Edwards could end up not making much of an impact in the majors.  That would be the poop? colored glasses interpretation.

 

So far for the Rays the trade is a win as Archer looks to be a very good player on a good team and Lee could be a solid piece in the next couple of years too even if only as a utility infielder who plays good defense and adds speed to the bench.  If one or two out of Olt, Grimm, Ramirez, or Edwards ends up being a very good player then the Cubs win on the trade too, I'd say the best chance for that is Edwards. maybe in 2016?



#6 preacherman86

preacherman86

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Facebook:Josh Ruiter

Posted 25 August 2013 - 12:53 PM

jp.... I wouldn't disagree with your points. My point in the article isn't evaluating both trades today. In hindsight, the Cubs would also prefer to have Archer currently. All discussion could end with that as Archer has looked like a very good 2/3 at age 24 in bigs.

My point was at the time of the trade is when we are evaluating. And at the time of the trade, Archer was coming off his first really good year in minors, age 22 in a season split between A, AA with track record of the Indians giving up on him for the likes of Mark DeRosa. Lee at the time was a very light hitting defensive wiz, whose bat has always been in question, and the other three pieces were periphery pieces at best, never truly seen as big league regulars at the time of the trade.

What the Cubs received is a better "potential return" as Ramirez is seen as a potential 3 in the future, with down side of a strikeout pitcher who could succeed in the bullpen if starting doesn't work out. Grimm, as Brett has said, outside of normal ERA type stats, has been great at Iowa and has the making of a solid back end of the rotation guy. Olt, IMO, is a much higher ceiling guy than Lee ever was, evidenced by his prospect ranking going into the season as well as the potential power bat. My comparison to Lee is weak as the position is different, but what you probably can put as a floor for Olt is good defensive 3b, 1b, LF utility type who has a power bat with contact issues. The ceiling is that of an every day above avg. 3b. very good defense, above average power, strong arm, potentially a .270 type hitter with elevated k's but not obscene. Lee is a floor of a middle infield defensive replacement, not a pinch hitting type option, and pinch runner. Ceiling of an everyday ss, defensive wiz in a premium position, but a weak bat, maybe .280 type hitter with no power, gap power at best. Albeit at a more premium defensive position I still prefer to have Olt's ceiling/floor than Lee's.

And bottom line, this trade will be compared in the long run in the Archer/Edwards trade off. BUT, at the time, Edwards is a more promising arm, with a better track record and more dominant stuff/control.

so looking at all pieces

Grimm>Fuld

Ramirez>Guyer

Olt>or= Lee

Edwards>Archer

(all considered AT TIME OF TRADES)

Pair that with 3 years vs. 3 months of Garza PLUS we got Rosscup!(a very solid bullpen prospect right now).

And just a reminder, when we traded for Garza we were in win now mode. Lineup consisted of Soriano, Castro, Carlos Pena, ARam, Soto(with high expectations), Fukudome, Byrd, and Barney. Garza was slotted as our #3 too remember behind Demp, and Big Z, followed by "hopefully promising" Randy Wells, and young stud Cashner. We also had a presumably good BP with Woody, Marmol(good then), Russell, Grabow(good then), Shark. We anticipated winning in 2011 not rebuilding! Granted it went to hell in a hand basket, but not the idea when we got Garza.






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).