Advertisement:

Why a Fielder signing for the Cubs could turn out worse than the Soriano signing

Why a Fielder signing for the Cubs could turn out worse than the Soriano signing

I've been pretty lukewarm about signing Prince Fielder for a while now.  I've tried to articulate my thoughts on how much of the value would come while the Cubs were building and that by the back end of the deal, Fielder wouldn't be anything near a $25M player anymore.  I've had just mixed success in that regard, but hopefully the following information can help me explain my thoughts better...

 

Dan Szymborski, the statistical guru behind the ZiPs projections we've used on this site in the past, just tweeted this regarding free agent Prince Fielder's value over the life of the rumored 10 year deal Boras is seeking...

ZiPS sees Fielder value the next 3 years making up 77% of value from 4 year deal, 64% for 5, 56% 6, 50% 7, 46% 8, 44% 9, 43% 10.

Most of the value comes in the first 3 years of the deal, according to Szymborski...

ZiPS says 3/83 is FMV (fair market value) and if you're in a position in which each win is worth more (say, 85 win team), you can justify higher.

The Cubs are not a team most people figure to reach the 85 win plateau, so the timing seems wrong for the Cubs.  It's also highly questionable whether Fielder would want to spend his peak years in an obvious rebuilding situation anyway.  Signing with the Cubs on a 3 year deal, even at that high amount, is probably not going to be his best option if he at all cares about putting himself in the best situation to win in the short term.

 

What's more, going back to the first tweet, it justifies a suggestion I had earlier in that a Fielder signing wouldn't be all that different than an Alfonso Soriano deal.  This upset a couple of people when I mentioned it, but Szymborski's calculations lend creedence to that idea.  In case you're curious, using Fangraphs' estimated market values, here is the percentage value Soriano gave the Cubs in total after his 4th and 5th years as a Cub...

After 4 years: 83% of total contract value
After 5 yrs: 73% of total contract value

That's actually better than what ZiPs projects for Fielder!  Also like Fielder, most of Soriano's value was used up early.  In Soriano's case, over half the value he has accrued so far from the contract came in the first two years.  The difference then is that the Cubs were trying a short-term thinking strategy to a) raise the value of the club so before selling it and b) hopefully stumble upon a World Series title in a short 2-3 year window.  As we all know now, the first part happened and the second part didn't.  But at least the Cubs were able to make a run while Soriano was still providing value.

 

That is entirely different, however, from today.  There is no short-term plans to build the financial value of the franchise.  The Cubs aren't lookng at a 2-3 year window to contend.  They're looking at a 4-5 year window to build the organization from top to bottom.  So, by the time, the Cubs build that strong organization capable of contending annually, Fielder would be an albatross, with a value worth less than 2/3 of his contract --- with most of that value likely having been used up in the first 3 years as the Cubs are rebuilding.

 

I think many Cubs fans have moved on from the idea of signing Fielder, but this should be the last nail in the coffin.  It's neither  the right player nor the right time -- even on a short term deal.  Perhaps when the Cubs look ready to make a run for a World Series ring, the Cubs a 3-5 year deal on that kind of player will make sense.  But for now, it looks like a bad idea that could only set the franchise's rebuilding efforts back.

Filed under: Cubs, Free Agency

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I do not want the Cubs to sign Fielder for a number of reasons

    1) Does not fit with the Cubs long term philosophy
    2) To much money and years
    3) Weight issue (only as a baseball player)

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    Agreed! That sums things up very nicely, emartinez.

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    His weight issue becomes a health/injury within the next years. BleacherNation wrote about Boras promoting Fielder's leadership. If he was such a leader that would 'add value' to the club, I would think he'd have to be willing to loose the weight, but he's given no indication to do that.

    Doesn't fit! Absolutely, Fielder doesn't fit the philosophy that Theo and Jed have been professing because if you have a guy like that locked up for that long you negatively impact the club by not developing a 1st baseman so you'll be starting that perpetual 1st baseman by free agency. Haven't we had enough of that?

    Furthermore I don't understand the fascination the national media has in linking Fielder and Rizzo to the Cubs. If you have one why do you need the other? If you're interested in signing Fielder why would you be discussing a trade for Rizzo? Just doesn't make any sense.

  • fb_avatar

    Good stuff John, and as you know, I already agree.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Thanks Michael! I do. And I think a lot of us are on the same page on this one. It seems the more info we get, the worse the idea of signing Fielder sounds.

  • fb_avatar

    John, non-thread related, but what are your thoughts on the young Cubans we signed today?

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Off the cuff, they look kind of so-so to me. I was going to write something up, but I was in the middle of writing the Fielder piece. Will read some more on it but may not write a post until tomorrow on it.

    In a related incident, my computer blew up yesterday. Figured it was only a matter of time after over 5 years of heavy duty use. Result is I'm using my phone and researching is more tedious.

    Anyone got a good recommendation on a laptop? Been a while since I bought one!

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I've got a thinkpad which is about 3.5 years old and still runs great. Original battery and everything.

  • In reply to Eddie:

    Thanks. I've heard some good things about Think Pads.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    MacBook.

  • In reply to clarkaddison:

    Another one I've been thinking about. Thanks for the suggestion!

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Carlos Martinez can't be that bad, I have an uncle by that name

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    LOL!

  • I'm with you as well. If they are going to spend any kind of serious money on a free agent, I like Cespedes.

  • In reply to Eddie:

    Cespedes, Soler, Concepcion...all seem better investments to me since this is the last year you can spend big on int'l FA. Plus they all have a chance to still be around when the Cubs are good.

  • I'm ok with LaHair as a bridge to someone like Rizzo. Are there any other "blocked" prospects who warrant interest? Justin Smoak might be available if SEA picks up Prince but I'm unclear on his future.

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    I like Smoak. Great glove and I think the bat will improve. Probably won't be a top offensive 1B, but could be a good Cubs fit with good D, OBP, and hopefully better slugging numbers.

  • I would also like to add John that I agree with you 100 % on Fielder. If the Cubs are rebuilding, signing Fielder would run counter to that philosophy. Like everyone else here has been saying, the money is best spent somewhere else.

  • In reply to Steve Flores:

    Exactly..spend it on guys who will actually be in their prime when the Cubs are good. You can still spend $25M on a guy down the road if you want. In 3 years or so you can make a similar investment on a player who's in his prime then.

  • I hear you on Smoak but I worry about "settling" , offensively , at 1B. That seems to be a place in the lineup where we're looking for an impact stick. Otherwise, we'll need to make up at another
    position.

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    We do have a good, and still improving hitter in Castro at SS. He should carry some of that load. I do agree with you though, I'd rather have an elite hitter at 1B. Maybe in two years it'll make more sense to hand out a massive contract to a 1B. Just in time for Votto to hit the market.

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    Good point.

  • No sense trading away a good prospect for a 1st baseman unless
    its a great dea. Let Lehair try it for 1 year, if he does not
    do the job then maybe Riding might be ready by 2013.

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    I agree. They really have to weigh a trade vs. upgrade and long term value.

  • I think Theo tipped his hand by trading Marshall. This trade confirmed we're in re-building mode. He only gets one chance to tear it down completely, and signing Fielder doesn't fit that strategy. Boras is going hype the Cubs interest in his client, and Theo seems to enjoy the smoke screen. That's why the Fielder talk is all sizzle and no steak.

    John, on a side note when do you think we'll hear something about Kerry Wood re-signing?

  • In reply to ccia:

    That was the turning point for me too. I thought they were leaning toward rebuilding anyway, but that deal put it in stone. And I think you're right that it's just a smoke screen so that the Cubs can get on with their real business.

  • John, lump me in with the against Fielder folks, but is there any concern that with losing our two biggest bats to FA, too much pressure will be put on castro to carry this team?

    As much as I like Barney's glove & game, maybe we should look hard at 2nd for a potential second bat in our lineup, but not sure who that would be...

  • In reply to socalcub:

    Consider yourself lumped! That's an interesting question. As an outside observer I would say the Cubs won't put that pressure on him -- but it doesn't mean he won't put it on himself. I'm sure they'll have a talk with him, just keep doing what you're doing...stuff like that. But he was already our second best offensive player last year, so maybe it won't be too big a jump for him, especially if one other player comes through.

    I think at some point the Cubs will have to upgrade on Barney too. Kelly Johnson would have been a big offensive upgrade, but he's going back to the Jays. Not sure there really is anyone capable of carrying that load and playing 2B out there right now.

  • Great post John.

    I'm not in the signing Prince Fielder camp for many of the reasons you pointed out in your post.

    Brett Taylor made a point that "A good team is easier to market. Fielder, in theory, helps that in the near term."

    My point was:
    "The thing is that in the near term, Fielder doesn’t help the Cubs. Maybe helps them get a few more wins in the next couple of seasons, but then they drop a few places in the 2013 and 2014 drafts. Considering the Cubs were big on Bubba Starling in last years draft, 4 spots in the draft made a huge difference."

    The Cubs would still be a mediocre team. That would be difficult to market.

    I don't want to see the Cubs be mediocre for the next several seasons and get a couple of free agents to "sell tickets". I'd rather see the Cubs draft the best players they can. Any great building needs a strong foundation and I feel that the Cubs foundation for consistent success is strengthened by the farm system.

  • In reply to Alex:

    Thanks Alex. I think Brett and I have slightly different opinions on this. He seems more open to a Fielder signing than I am. Baseball can still be very subjective so it's fun to exchange differing ideas from time to time. We had a discussion once on Twitter about it.

    That being said, I really agree with your points here on all counts -- even the part about being just a few wins better doing more harm than good long term.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    For the money Fielder is asking even for 4 years, I think the Cubs can sign Cespedes, Soler AND Concepcion. Not that they can get all three, but I would rather see the Cubs invest the money in that direction.

    Quick question. I was looking at the Cubs 40 man roster on Cubs.com and didn't see Reed Johnson's name. Is there a reason his name hasn't been added yet? My count has the roster at 39 not including Johnson. Are they holding back on announcing this because they want to keep a roster spot open in case of a trade or signing? And no I don't mean Fielder.

  • I think I'm more in favor of signing Prince Fielder than most. I want to see a power hitter added to the lineup. He's the best one. I don't think the Cubs will sign him. So it's kind of a moot point. But the truth is, if the Theocrats don't believe Brian Lahair is any kind of answer then there's no option at 1B for now or the forseeable future. He wouldn't be blocking anyone's progress. Voglebach's years away.

    This isn't gardening. You don't just put 8 rookies out there and let them "grow" into a winning team. You could rebuild the team around Prince Fielder. You can rebuild the team around Matt Garza. There are hundreds of ways to rebuild the team. Some include Garza. Some include Fielder. Many of them don't. I do know that if they were to even entertain getting into the Fielder sweepstakes it would mean that they dumped more of Soriano's contract than any of us would think was possible. It also probably means they found a way to jettison Zambrano too. You mean to tell me you wouldn't be in favor of that?

    Again, there are so many ways to climb this damn thing. But whether you see the Cubs being competitive in 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, you're going to need people to hit the damn ball onto Sheffield and Waveland. And the good teams- you know the Red Sox, the Yankees, the Rangers, the Angels, they want the bleeping best! And the best person to hit the ball into the bleachers is Prince Fielder.

  • In reply to felzz:

    I'm all for trading Z and/or Sori, but it doesn't mean I'd connect that with a Fielder signing. Just because we have extra money, doesn't mean we should tie ourselves up and sign a guy who will may be vastly overpaid in 4 years...especially if this winds up being a 7-8 year deal. I don't like it at any length really...but at least a shorter term contract won't kill them. But I really don't see the point...for a few extra wins on a team that's rebuilding? I'd rather save the payroll space and get a guy a couple years down the road when the Cubs are closer to winning.

  • In reply to felzz:

    The Cubs don't make the TV revenue that the Red Sox, Yankees, Rangers or Angels do (man they need to get out of their WGN and Comcast deals somehow). Nor do they generate revenue from their ball park like the other teams do (Video scoreboard, advertising etc..).

    It was easy for the Angels to spend all that money on Pujols when they get a new TV deal for $150 Million/year for the next 20 years.

    The revenue isn't there yet, but it will come and the Cubs will become players in the market soon enough.

  • I'm with you and against you, Felzz. There needs to be somebody to build around, and prospects won't cut it. That's why I'm still unsure about trading Garza, but he might not be in his prime when the Cubs contend again.

    Prince Fielder, on the other hand, is a much more interesting case. When we all talk about Fielder, we assume that somebody will sign him at the current price Boras is asking for. While Boras may have a tendency to pull off overpriced deals, this isn't one of them. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to take Prince Fielder at 10 years, 250 million. When all is said and done, he will be lucky to get a 7 year deal, or one worth over 160 million. At some point Boras will lower the price to the point where he becomes feasible to at least one club. Not the 3 year deal the Peter Gammonses of the world would like to believe, but he will be affordable. When all is said and done, Prince Fielder may be valuable to this ball club. But I'm not making up my mind until I see the dollar figures.

  • In reply to elusivekarp:

    I don't like this even on lesser terms on the 7 year deal. I'm all for getting a veteran or two, but why one who will be expensive, declining, and basically a DH by the time you're done "building around him". I agree with the idea, but not the timing and the cost with this player.

  • I'm just saying the Cubs don't entertain even the IDEA of talking to Fielder unless Z and Sori are figured out. Now they may dump Z and Sori and still not sign Prince. But Prince doesn't even enter the picture until those two depart.

  • In reply to felzz:

    I can definitely agree with that. Signing Fielder while still paying Soriano would be like getting drunk again before you're even over your hangover.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Agree or not that is an excellent analogy!!!!

  • In reply to Hubbs16:

    Thanks!

  • In reply to felzz:

    Well, I don't actually agree with this statement. They have plenty of money left this off season to sign Prince if they want to.

    I have been right alongside with Brett the whole time on this one in that they sign him only at THEIR terms (sorry John!!), but to be honest, those stats from ZiPS are really changing my mind. I am a bit concerned about the weight as he gets older, and those stats seem to bear out that his effectiveness will go down when we really need him.

    I may be starting to sway more towards John's side now!! Either way, I trust that the boys in charge know what they are doing and they will do the best thing for the team.

  • In reply to Still Love the Cubs:

    The basic thing for me is the only years he'll probably be worth his contract will be the ones where the Cubs are still building. By the time the Cubs are good, he'll still be good but overpaid, and by the end of his contract, we'll be cursing it the way we curse Soriano's right now (if it's 7-8 years)

  • In reply to felzz:

    I said he'd be lucky to get that much money. I'd have no problem if the Cubs got him for 5 years, 115 million, with an option. I highly doubt any team is willing to go over that.

  • In a healthy, annually competitive organization these types of players should be acquired to put you over the top. Currently we are not that kind of organization. You should build around a young, cost and year controlled budding star (Castro). Buying Fielder ($$$) and then trying to build around him is silly unless you buy all the other pieces for a short term window of going for it. Then we're just running in place and will end up in worse shape than we are now. With the condition of our farm, IF we're gonna blow it up and build it right, now would be that time. I'm willing to be patient for that to happen with the talent we now have in ownership and the front office.

  • In reply to Bill:

    Well said, Bill. Agreed on all counts.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Me three,,,,but I still prefer the "hangover" line. :>)

  • In reply to Bill:

    Also agreed.. Great points Bill.

  • Those stats also seem to show that only at 6 years or so, and more, does the deal really start to look bad. 3 years makes up 77% of value, instead of 75%, from 4 year deal; 64% for 5, instead of 60%, is not that bad. Now many of us here were OK with a deal of 4-6 years, I think I checked 4 or 5 years on the poll. And the numbers don't really change that.

    So.. while I was never all that hot on signing Fielder I would still be good with a deal on the Cubs terms - and I assume that the Cubs terms would be for a low years deal (and I know what Boras said, but this is all speculation). The good reasons for this would be that it would keep a few more butts in the seats, the money is there for the next few years, and Fielder would be one heck of a bridge to Shoulders, Vogelbomb, Gretsky, or any of the other first basement down in the lower levels.

    Realistically, I have a hard time imagining what team is going to cave in and give Boras what he wants. But I always have a hard time and it (almost) always happens. So, my point is moot, but it is all speculation and all in fun.

    And I got my kid a Gateway real cheap on Tiger Direct a few years back. It is a little tough on batteries but that only matters if you need to use it unplugged a lot - and it was very reasonable and still works great. So I recommend the vendor and the laptop.

  • In reply to bruno14:

    I think I'd be okay if it was a reasonable. Not thrilled and not angry about it. And it would be fun to watch him mash even while we stink, but I think if we buy him for 5 years, the Cubs might be good for 2 of them -- and they probably will be the last two, when he'll probably drop off some and not be worth the salary.

  • Long time follower, first time poster. John - you do a great job and I enjoy reading your work.

    First, no Fielder - he doesn't fit for what we're trying to do here right now and I think Votto will be much better timing in a few years. Plus Votto is a better player.

    Second, what about a swap of Byrd for LaRoche? LaRoche isn't a great player but 1) he's a league average 1B, 2) he fills a position of need, 3) he may be slightly more valuable in Wrigley as a lefty, 4) he only has one year left on his deal, and 5) we have surplus in the OF - we can plug Sappelt / Johnson / Campana in at CF until BJax is ready. If we swap salaries we could probably even get a B- prospect with some upside out of the deal. It would probably also be a good deal for Washington as they can move Morse back to his more natural 1B position and they'd be better defensively in CF with Byrd in the lineup. Obviously, the Fielder rumors are still out there for Washington but if they sign Fielder, then they won't need LaRoche anyway.

  • In reply to JasonB:

    Thanks Jason! Appreciate the kind words!

    I think I'd do that deal if taking on the extra salary nets us a better prospect than trading Byrd alone would. LaRoche doesn't excite me though, and I'm not sure he'll be better than LaHair. But it would be nice to have a plan A and plan B at 1B since neither are sure to have a good season next year....not a bad idea.

  • Interesting post, Jason. It makes more sense than many trade suggestions I read about because it takes BOTH teams' needs into account.

    As far as the proposed deal, as much as I'd like to move on from Byrd, LaRoche just doesn't do anything for me. I'd much rather take a look at LaHair, in the event we don't snag someone like Rizzo. LaRoche is pretty locked into a .775-.800 OPS ceiling at this point in his career. Frankly, I think LaHair might be able to do a bit better for a lot less $.

  • There is a nice article on LaHair on csnchicago.com

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    I think Theo/Jed are not afraid to give a LaHair a shot if there isn't an obvious upgrade that makes a lot of sense. One of Hendry's biggest weaknesses was his tendency to always throw money at problems without fully exploring cheaper, in-house solutions. For example, this offseason Hendry wouldve been quick to re-up Pena or trade for someone like LaRoche because they already have a track record, even if unspectacular. I strongly believe LaHair can match, if not exceed, the production of those two, if given a sufficient chance-at a fraction of the cost.

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    Thanks Carl - I should probably have more faith in LaHair than I do. If it comes down to it, maybe it isn't a horrible idea to give him a shot to see what he can do.

  • Off to get my new laptop...which, of course, means the Cubs will be making a major move while I'm gone. I always seem to be away from my laptop when big Cubs news happens. Will have my phone, though.

  • fb_avatar

    Since John is out right now, let me fill in. The rumor mill hasn't stopped just because it's NYE. There are several different rumors going around about Garza.

    Detroit is definitely a player.

    NYY and TBJ both are said to be balking at the asking price.

    Boston is quietly telling people they don't have the pieces to get a Garza deal done.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I'm all for dealing with Detroit..Some people are questioning Jacob Turners top of the rotation ability, i'm not and if they do give the Cubs an offer of Turner, Castelleros, Oliver and another player who we could flip to San Diego with McNutt or Carpenter for Rizzo why not?? I think Dave Dombrowski is the most likely GM to do this trade..Remember the big deals he's pulled in the past..Cabrerra for 5 guys comes to mind..I trust Theo, Hoyer and McCleod to pick the best..unlike Hendry who couldn't pick shit!!! Oh and Boston doesn't have the pieces cause they traded like 5 guys to get Bailey and Meleachon...I bet Theo would have liked Riddick and Lowrie as part of a deal with some arms..i would have..It's a shame Texas won the Darvish bid..A deal would have been done by now otherwise!!

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    I think he has top of the rotation stuff as well. I'm not sure we get all of those guys. but I think we can get one of Turner or Castellanos and hopefully Oliver or one of their other lefties, plus another good prospect or two.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Thanks Michael.

  • If NY, BOS and TOR are all backing away, it seems to me that would mean that a trade is Detroit or nothing. While I wouldn't be opposed to moving Garza for a haul of stud prospects (I am actually much more in favor of the move now, then I was a month or more ago), if Theo/Jed can't get what they are asking for, they shouldn't cave in. If you can't move Garza for the type of return you want, then keep him, maybe even extend him. The rotation will need someone at the top for the next few years and Garza's drive, his passion for the game are definitely welcome. One of the great things about having a pitcher of Garza's talent, is that you can move him to speed up the rebuilding process or keep him as a solid building block.

  • In reply to supercapo:

    I hope they're still in it, but I wouldn't put it past Boston and NY to be bidding to get the price up. They've done it before.

  • per MLBInsider deal imminent with Det.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    I don't know this guy's source, but his biggest claim to fame so far is spreading a false rumor about Evan Longoria. I'm going to wait until I hear it from a source I know and trust.

  • just to add Rosenthal doesnt believe Both Turner or Castellanos are in deal one or the other . Better be Turner .

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    I agree with Rosenthal here. Best case scenario to me is we get one of these guys and then one of the LHP starting pitchers, plus another decent prospect or two.

  • Bryan,

    Do you have a link for these?

  • In reply to supercapo:

    Hey supercapo, MLBInsider is just a guy on twitter. I'm not saying if this guy is legit or not, but he's not a guy I use for info.

  • fb_avatar

    If we're supposedly close to a deal with Detroit, taking a look at John Sickels' rankings and brief notes on Detroit's top 20 prospects is worth a peek:

    http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/10/30/2525941/detroit-tigers-top-20-prospects-for-2012

    He ranks Turner as far and away their best pitcher, and Castelleros very highly, but there are also 3 other starting pitchers who sound intriguing.

    Maybe the Cubs could get 1 of the 2 top guys and another of the next 3 pitchers, and perhaps a lower level prospect. I'm not sold that we'll get 3 or 4 blue chip prospects for Garza, especially depending on how good the first two prospects are, but we'll see.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Thank you for the link. I put the website on my desktop.

  • fb_avatar

    You're welcome.

    I keep checking for Sickels to write his 2012 Cubs prospects list, he's done quite a few other teams so far, but not the Cubs. His 2011 list was updated mid-season and he was pretty down on how many of our top guys were having bad seasons at that point (which mostly carried through the entire year).

    http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/7/26/2293839/chicago-cubs-2011-pre-season-top-20-prospects-in-review

  • fb_avatar

    White Sox just dumped Carlos Quentin on SD. Quentin makes Soriano look like an average defensive outfielder. Horrible, horrible fit for SD and those large NL West ballparks.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I thought about that too. They need a bat, I guess. On the bright side, they didn't give up a whole lot. Simon Castro was a nice prospect...about 2-3 years ago.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I take it you got your new laptop and it's up and running? Hooray!

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I did! Very excited. My other laptop was so old but it was comfortable...like an old shoe. It was time, though!

  • Looks like the Marlins have just joined the fray for Garza.

  • Marlins don't look like a good fit or am I missing something?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to GoCubs:

    According to John Sickels' ranking of Marlins prospects, they don't have any real top pitching. Their best pitching prospect, Jose Fernandez, was just drafted this season, and unless the CBA changed it, he can't be traded until June 2012, so he's out.

    http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/12/18/2644961/miami-marlins-top-20-prospects-for-2012

  • In reply to GoCubs:

    Marlins want to offer a bunch of spare parts like they did with Gio. I can't imagine the Cubs are taking their offer seriously right now. I don't consider them a likely landing spot for Garza.

  • The more the merrier!

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Agreed! A bidding war for Garza can only increase the return if he does get traded.

  • fb_avatar

    I don't think it necessarily makes a lot of sense to trade Garza (or anyone right now) for a package of players with 2-3 years of MLB experience, which the Fox Sports report says are the main guys being shopped by the Marlins. If we are 3-4 years away from contending, trading for guys who are knocking on the door makes more sense, more long term control.

    http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/miami_marlins_interested_in_matt_garza/9048817

    They also say one guy the Marlins are shopping is Jose Ceda, whom we traded to the Marlins for Kevin Gregg.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Agreed. Marlins offer is not even close to being good enough.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Eh. Mike Stanton has a year+ service time, and I'd take him for Garza. I'd trade our entire rotation for him actually.

  • In reply to Eddie:

    I would too. But I'm assuming he's not part of the offer. The players they are believed to be offering are the same ones they offered for Gio -- Matt Dominguez, Gaby Sanchez, Jose Ceda...

    No thanks.

  • fb_avatar

    Hey John, Happy Holidays, merry belated Christmas, glad you got a little break in there last week.

    You guys would actually trade the entire Cubs rotation for Stanton? I guess that would be a nice salary dump of zambrano and demspter I guess, but then who's going to pitch for the Cubs? Sonnastine and Rusin and who else? time to call up Doug Davis again? And throw in Wood after we just got him? I don't know if I would deal Garza for Stanton even straight up. Seems like we need pitching even more than we need hitting and although Stanton is certainly younger, I still think it may be best to lock up Garza long-term because as you said, ace pitchers don't grow on trees. I'm not necessarily buying the wait 3-4 years to contend thing either. I don't think you go after a bunch of high-priced free agents that will hamstring the team, and I know it may take that long to build a proper foundation with our farm system to compete consistently, but I'm not putting in past team Theo catching lightning in the bottle with some of these low-cost pick-ups. Certainly it's not looking likely that the Cubs will compete next year, and I'm ok with that, but 3-4 years seems like a long time to me even though I have already waited my whole life. I just feel that Theo will still try to remain somewhat competitive, if not this year, then at least starting next year, without sacrificing the farm or blowing a hole in the budget.

  • In reply to Gary Kueper:

    Thanks Gary, taking a mini-break today too! Mostly to run errands and then go to a NYE party later. Will keep an eye on Garza developments, though, and post if something happens.

    I was agreeing with the part of trading Garza to get Stanton than the whole rotation. That would cause way too many problems -- anyway, I don't think Miami is giving up Stanton under any circumstances. Cubs may be better off trying to get Christian Yelich, who's in A ball but really looks like a good bet to be a MLB player.

    I think this year is a bit of a step back, but I think they will start moving forward beginning next year when they shed some more big contracts. After 2012, Soriano's the last guy left and maybe you consider buying him out -- or perhaps he becomes easier to trade if they can't do it this year. Not saying they'll go after big FAs yet, but they may be more flexible as to the type of players they add.

  • fb_avatar

    We have a big party for my kids at the Y we're going to here in a bit. Big stuff-bounce houses, laser tag, light displays, exciting stuff! have fun at yours and enjoy the new laptop. I'll be interested to see who they get for Garza if they indeed trade him. I would hope it would be more major league ready types and not these Marlins scrubs.

  • In reply to Gary Kueper:

    Ha! Sounds great. Will try to get a quick, short piece on Garza in before I leave.

  • Just took a quick look at the Marlins' "prospects". Their system might be in worse shape than the Cubs'.

Leave a comment