Garza to Cubs?
by Savoy on Jan 7, 2011 11:21 AM EST
Email
PrintThe rumored return: prospects Chris Archer, Hak-Ju Lee,Brandon Guyer and Robinson Chirinos.
With the Rays losing some key pieces this offseason, are they back in rebuilding mode? Can they even compete with Boston & NY at this point. They seem to me to be a 85 win team at this point.
The links:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/07/the-cubs-are-nearing-a-deal-for-matt-garza/
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5998431&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_espn_5998431
346 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
ESPN is reporting Sam Fuld going to TB as well, with the Cubs getting back a MiLB hitter and pitcher
"I don't give a flying f**k who you think I look like"
Fernando Perez as the OF PTBNL
The Daily Herald is saying that the minor-league hitter is poet and speedster Fernando Perez.
by AndrewTorrez on Jan 7, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmm
I kind of like this for the Rays. They save some upcoming money by getting rid of Garza and can immediately plug in Hellickson, who is probably the better pitcher anyways. Then they add an impact pitching prospect in Archer, an up the middle guy who should be a great defender in Lee, and some under the radar guys in Chirinos and Guyer.
Um, wow.
Unless the OF is Jennings or the minor league pitcher is Moore, Friedman has done it again. That’s a huge haul for a non-elite player.
Friedman’s greatest strength is letting players loose when there are signs that their perceived value is higher than their actual value. Great, great haul. Pending the identity of the hitter and pitcher (who I suspect won’t be your run of the mill PTBNLs given the talent coming back), Friedman may have outdone himself on this one.
Massive Package?
TB gets a promising pitcher in Archer with control problems. A young shortstop who is YEARS away. And two older prospects that project as reserves in the future. The Cubs get a proven workhorse who is just 27 and under contract for three more years.
The only question I have is why did Hendry not offer this same deal to KC for Greinke?
much better?
I think it really comes down to what you are looking for … the Royals seemed to want pieces they could plug in immediately. The Rays were willing to look a bit more long term. The Royals targeted a CF while the Rays really wanted to add a catcher.
Lee gets compared to Escobar, but Lee might have a better offensive ceiling. That said, Escobar is “ready”. Archer probably, IMO, has a higher ceiling than Odorizzi. Both carry risk – one because he has to improve his control, the other because he’s far away.
Overall, the packages feel relatively close to each other. Just comes down to what each team was looking for and wanted.
I don’t agree that Archer has a higher ceiling – Odorizzi has a very similar one. Both rec’d a B+ from John. Escobar was a top 20 prospect in the minors – Lee is not there yet. Both have show similar bats in the minors and both are good gloves. Escobar is about 3 years ahead where Archer is about a year ahead of Odorizzi.
I really like Odorizzi
but I haven’t heard of anyone suggest that he had plus-plus stuff with any of his pitches.
Agreed
If we’re talking ceiling, it has to be Archer. Odorizzi is probably a safer bet to be a solid mid-rotation guy, but that doesn’t make him a better prospect.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
Yes, massive package
A top 50 prospect, a top 100 prospect, and 2 guys who could be 2nd division starters for a mid-rotation starter. In this trade market, that is a huge return.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
this is a really sweet trade for Tampa Bay
Fills a number of short-term holes AND gives them a couple of high upside players.
Basically, I’m floored on this one. I really like Garza and he should pitch really well in the NL (fastball-dominant guys always do much better when they don’t have to worry about DHs), but this is an all-in move by Jim Hendry.
It's Amazing
How there is no such thing as a Cubs’ prospect … until they get dealt to another team. Also amazing is how Hendry got lambasted when he traded Mark DeRosa for Archer, Gaub & Stevens just over two years ago. Finally, how could TB possibly have the best farm system when you have to add 3 or 4 Cubs’ prospects to fill out their top 20?
Archer is at best the 9th best starter in their organization, Fuld is a AAAA player, Chirinos a backup and will be 27 this year, Lee will be lucky to evolve into Alcides Escobar 2.0 in 5 years and Guyer is a 25 year old minor leaguer and probably a 4th OF.
You say Garza’s perceived value is higher than his actual value? Well, I say the same thing about Archer. His value will never be higher than it is now. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that Hayden Simpson will be the better prospect by this time next year.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Jan 7, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with this.
I think Tampa still comes out ahead in the deal, but it’s a quantity not quality package that they’re getting.
Also agree
Archer and Lee are the only two of interest. And unless Archer can gain some more control, he’ll end up in the pen.
I'd challenge the notion that those are the only two of interest
I wouldn’t be shocked if Robinson Chirinos was the starting catcher for the Rays … this year. His age means a lot of people will push him aside, but he’s a strong defensive catcher (best in Southern League), who calls a good game, is able to handle young pitchers, has a good work ethic, has a good offensive approach, and has some pop in his bat (not suggesting he’ll hit anywhere close to the power he showed in AA, but most believe that the power development is real, to some extent).
I’d also caution the idea that Archer is definitely headed to the pen. He has the arsenal … he doesn’t need top control, he just needs decent control to have a shot as a starter, and he’s shown enough flashes to make me believe that he can achieve that with more work and consistency. His control/command improved a lot this past year.
Didn't say Archer would definitely end up in the pen
that just seems to be the path he is on. As for Chirinos, I’m sure TB will give him a chance to compete for the job. A chance he’d never have gotten with the Cubs which is why he’s not a big loss for them. I can see him being a Jaso type player with better defense. But he’s still not all that interesting a player to me.
A Jaso-type player with better defense
would already be one of the more valuable catchers in the bigs. If he shows better power than Jaso (and I think he will), we’re looking at what … one of the top 5 -8 catchers in baseball.
By no means am I saying he’s going to be that good … just … for me … if my team added a guy like that … I would think it would be plenty intriguing.
I’m not sure why the path Archer on is the pen. I don’t see that. He may end up there. He’s stayed a starter, improved his durability, stuff, arsenal (and changing to a slider), and control. Dunno why the pen is the path he is on. If you wanted to say that for, Rafael Dolis (just picking a Cubs prospect I know), a guy who is still in the minor league rotations, I can buy that, as Dolis doesn’t really have a 3rd pitch. Just not sure why the path he is on is the pen.
you must really think highly of Jaso
I didn’t make that comp to hype Chirinos. I think Jaso is a useful player, but mainly in a backup role. I just don’t see either player as someone to get excited about.
Jaso
I don’t think that highly of Jaso, but he did post, what, a 2.5 WAR last year? That was 12th best for catchers, according to fangraphs.
Garza was a 1.8 WAR pitcher last year.
If Archer gives the Rays 1-1.5 WAR for a few seasons at his price, it’s a win. If any of the other pieces of the deal perform at above replacement value, it’s a win. Every single player the Rays got would have to fail to reach the majors for this to be a loss.
Way too simplistic
First, Garza was a 3 WAR pitcher the prior two years, and averages ~3 WAR the last three years, so that is a reasonable baseline for what he will give the Cubs.
It’s way too simplistic to say every player TB traded for would have to not make the majors for the trade to be a loss for them. Many, many players reach the majors and are fairly mediocre. None of the players Chicago gave up are bonafide superstar prospects; Wayne is exactly right in implying these guys are getting way overhyped on this thread. It is perfectly realistic that a few or all eventually make the majors, but do not become valuable regulars.
its also too simplistic to not consider Garza's contract and the Rays' payroll limitations
and considering what Garza will be paid over the next few years compared to what the Rays will pay Archer/Chirinos/Fuld over the next few years, so they can better allocate their money to a different area of need, aside from SP, which is a current strength.
And it's also too simplistic not to consider Garza's contract for the Cubs
For a team like the Cubs he’s CHEAP! And under control for three more years! That’s huge for a team looking to reduce payroll over the next few seasons. Archer was behind Carpenter and Jackson, and on the same level as McNutt. Lee wasn’t going to see the majors for at least another 3 years. Chirinos was blocked by Castillo and Soto. And Guyer has been a career minor leaguer that all of a sudden has value.
TB did well, but the Cubs did well too. But I’d much rather have the proven player then a bunch of potential.
side note
Cubs aren’t really looking to shed in 2012 and 2013. A lot of contracts are coming off the books. The money issues tied more directly to this upcoming season.
Archer was behind Carpenter and Jackson?
I think not. First, one of those two is going to be a reliever and the other two isn’t more than a mid-rotation type. And second, one of those three was Baseball America’s top prospect, and it wasn’t Carpenter or Jackson. Even if you don’t think much of Archer, it’s hard to imagine him being blocked by those guys unless he sucks.
Very easy to see Archer being blocked by both
since both Carpenter and Jackson will most likely see the majors before Archer. Prior to 2010 Jackson was pretty highly considered within the Cubs organization…..pretty similar to Archer. I like all three pitchers and think it’s pretty much a crap shoot as to which one(s) establish themselves. But both Jackson and Carpenter would have been given a shot before Archer.
that's absolutely not true
Archer was going to be given a look this spring in the rotation. They might ponder Carpenter in the pen … but he’ll likely head back to AAA. Jay Jackson has fallen a lot for the Cubs.
not saying that I wanted Archer to be given a rotation shot
but that was the word coming out of Cub land.
the issue with Jay Jackson is that his secondary offerings has disappeared. So despite his improvement in control … that combined with his other issues last year has hurt him (actually, he sort of reminds me of the minor league version of Matt Garza).
I actually like Carpenter a ton and think he’s getting a bit overlooked by fans, but the Cubs seem to want to shift him to the pen. Now, it’s possible, with Archer gone, that he’ll be given a longer look in the rotation, but even then, Cashner is still ahead of him.
The only guy that might’ve been blocking Archer, in terms of young arms, was Cashner. And it troubles me deeply, but there are still indications that the Cubs might prefer him in the pen long term (cashner that is).
bleh, one additional comment
Not that I think Cashner will definitely succeed as a starter – just that I think he should be given a longer look in the rotation. Here’s hoping he’s starting in Iowa.
I don't know about Cashner
I’ve seen enough of him to have soured quite a bit. The bullpen very well might be what is best for him. I am very high on Carpenter and think he definitely ends up in the rotation within the next year. And I am still very high on Jackson as well, but need to see a rebound in 2011.
Once of those guys along with Archer was expendable for a guy like Garza. I knew they’d have to trade either Carpenter or McNutt or Archer to get him, and of those three I was happiest to see that it was Archer. Only time will tell though.
Cashner
He may end up showing that he deserves to be in the pen. But early in 2010, he was showing durability (a big concern), a plus slider, a solid change, and control, to go with his plus fastball, in the minors as a starter. I’d hate to not give him a look in the rotation before settling for him being in the pen.
Carpenter’s control and durability are still issues. His change is probably on Archer’s level, and his control has issues. There are enough rumors/spec that the Cubs liked what they saw out of Carpenter in Arizona as a pen arm and may prefer him there.
Don’t get me wrong – I like Carpenter a lot and believe he is a tad underrated, but he’s far from set for being in the rotation. If we could’ve landed Garza with Carpenter instead of Archer though … would’ve made that move in a heartbeat.
yeah, don't get this one either
Why would somebody have soured on Cashner from this year? He was a little rushed to the majors, but he looked great in AAA prior to the callup and his stuff is top-notch. If he had stayed in the minors all year, I think he’d most likely be a Grade A- prospect right now.
surprisingly
a lot of Cubs fans have soured a bit on Cashner. He struggled a bit out of the pen, as many kids do … but if you go on Cubs boards, you’ll find a surprising number of people that feel that Cashner can’t start/shouldn’t start/should be in the pen or something along those lines.
people on team fan forums rarely have much of a clue, from what I've seen
They’re very rarely objective about . . .anything.
Cash$
I can’t believe that anyone could sour on Cashner, most know that I am/have been a big backer of his, but to say it was a ok/bad year for him is just not true-imo. He was pretty near dominant from AA to AAA and then was OK going back to the pen in the bigs. His circle-change made significant strides, as did his command. Contrary to Klaw, I think this move helps stabilize his spot in the rotation, and the Cubs would be crazy not to let him work in AAA to start [monitor IP] and then bring him up when needed.
i wonder
if this move might actually give the Cubs a reason to have him break north as the 5th starter, provided he shows well in the spring. With Dempster, Garza, Zambrano, and Wells, you potentially have 4 guys who can give you around 180-200 innings (potentially). They might be able to baby him and control his innings as the 5th starter. It sounds like Gorzelanny is the most likely to be moved, leaving Silva/Samardzija/Coleman as the main blocks to Cashner as the 5th starter if Gorzelanny does get moved.
Either way, I simply hope that he gets to be in a rotation, whether in Iowa or Chicago.
Are you a Cubs fan?
Cause I am, and live in the city, and never once heard Archer was going to be given a shot this Spring. They were obviously high on him, but everything I had heard said both Carpenter and Jackson were going to get a shot before him. Knowing how the Cubs promote their pitching prospects, I’d find it hard to believe Archer was going to get a real chance this year. Very had to believe.
And Jackson did have a bad year and will need to re-establish himself. But I don’t get the sense the Cubs have lost confidence in him.
yes i am
and off the top, bruce miles blog (I think … I haven’t combed through so I’m not going to swear on it, but it had been reported that he was going to be given a look) had indicated that Archer was going to be given a look in the rotation in 2011.
Part of the issue with Jay Jackson has to do with off-field stuff (well, not necessarily off-field, but non-game related). I don’t know if I would say the Cubs have lost confidence in him, but he’s clearly down on the Cubs list. One easy way to view these things is Ba’s prospect list. Much as BA would like to protest, a lot of those lists are heavily based upon club officials input (I’m sure they adjust it a bit to their own tastes), but Jay was off the Cubs Top 10 … and Rafael Dolis was on it (the cubs were quite high on Logan Watkins last year, and hence why he was on the top 10 … when many felt he didn’t deserve to be).
The Cubs were that high on Archer.
I don't put too much stock in those lists
As they chance week by week. Jackson’s bad 2010 certainly dropped him down those lists. And Archer’s 2009 and 2010 certainly bumped him up. But both pitchers have issues they need to figure out. Of all the Cubs prospects there were only two I did not want to see trade and they were Brett Jackson and Carpenter. So I am very pleased with the addition of Garza while at the same time being able to keep both of them.
curious why you prefer Carpenter over Archer
Archer had better stuff and it’s not as if Carpenter’s control was a lock for him to be in the rotation. It was a bit more consistent than Archer’s, but control and command was still an issue for Carpenter. He’s also older than Archer by 3 years. A 3.61 BB/9 for Carpenter in AA was decent … but not exactly anything to set the world afire.
The one disappointing thing about Carpenter to the pen is that he might go more 4-seamer, so he can pound the zone with upper 90’s heat out of the pen. I do love the 2-seamer that he runs in the low 90’s as a starter.
Cerpenter over Archer
Main reason is because I feel Carpenter is much closer to being ready then Archer. I much prefer pitchers that came out of college than high school. Both could end up being successful mlb pitchers, but if I had to choose one right now I’d definitely take Carpenter. Just my preference.
closer to being ready?
Curious as to why you feel that way. Stuff wise, Archer is better and has a deeper arsenal (the change is a bit more advanced). I’m not sure the control advantage that Carpenter has on Archer is enough for me to buy that Carpenter is more ready. Both aren’t really ready for the rotation … and Archer is more ready to fill a critical role in the back end of the pen (Carpenter’s breaking ball struggles a bit more than Archer’s).
just a quick browse
I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that they were going to give him a long look this spring, but this was the first blurb I could find. It loosely suggests the Cubs hope that he would be ready by spring.
It’s from Bruce Miles Nov. 3, 2010 blog post over at the daily herald.
Pitcher Chris Archer, the Cubs’ minor-league pitcher of the year, soon will be added to the 40-man roster. “He’ll come to camp as a 40-man roster guy, and I hope he gives Mike Quade and (pitching coach) Larry Rothschild something really positive to look at. We all think he’s a high-end guy. Whether he’s ready at the end of camp or somewhere during the season remains to be seen. I think we’re certainly seeing a whole lot of quality pitchers in the big leagues in their early 20s. It will be real simple. If Mike and his staff deem that he’s ready, then he’ll get a look sooner than later.”
That's Bruce Miles
hoping he gets a long look. Not saying it’s not true, but I never once heard that Archer would get a serious look. And again, knowing how the Cubs promote their young pitchers, I’d find it hard to believe he’d get a look before Jackson for sure….and Carpenter.
But at this point it doesn’t matter any more. He’s gone and Garza is here and I’m happy. Now let’s see if Hendry can unload Zambrano and Fukadome.
that's not bruce miles
that was on bruce miles blog. It was a quote from Jim Hendry.
no, it isn't
Carpenter is likely a reliever due to his 3-5 MPH bump out of the pen and lingering durability issues. Jackson doesn’t have Archer’s raw talent. Archer wasn’t the consensus Cubs No. 1, but he was either the first or second pitcher in the farm system for just about anyone. If he were to become as good as he could be, neither of those guys would stand in his way. Of course, maybe you don’t think Archer is really that good – your posts in your thread would certainly suggest that.
total side note on Carpenter's durability
I fully acknowledge that enough people feel that durability is still a relatively big concern for Carpenter (and fully acknowledge that you aren’t suggesting it’s a big concern, just a lingering one, really just a side comment here)..
i’m also still a believer that Carpenter can start in the bigs, but considering his age, and the fact that if Carpenter in the pen means Cashner getting a long look in the rotation, I’ll be fine if he’s in the pen. That said … he ended up logging around 150 innings this year. IIRC, his collegiate arm problems had nothing to do with baseball – I believe, IIRC, a basketball incident as a freshman, and cleanup in his sophomore year. He did get nicked up a bit this year (can’t remember what the issue was right now). That said, he improved his innings total, and his average innings per start. I mean, there are certain arms that strike me as big durability concerns, but this year, that issue sort of went by the wayside for me (of course, I guess there were those couple of reports that said they felt that his stuff weakened a bit in the 5th inning or so of games, so that is a factor, but I didn’t hear a general consensus that suggested that).
I prefer the sink on the fb that he gets when he runs it in the low 90’s. I feel like the movement he gets can be quite nasty at times, and coupled with the slider (Cubs are a slider organization, I’ll be curious if that changes a bit with Larry Rothschild gone from the top of the pitching heap, but my guess is probably not), and a passable change, I feel like you could possibly have a mid-rotation arm if they give him some more time.
Of course, again, if Carp in pen means Cash with a long rotation look … I’ll live. Add in his age and he’s gotta make that move up the bigs quick. He’s basically hitting his prime and only finished with AA.
No knock on Archer
More praise for Carpenter as I think he is underrated. Having seen him pitch a few times I think he’s going to make a very good mlb pitcher. Hopefully as a starter.
But my main point out of all of this is I think the Cubs actually did well here. Yes, they gave up a lot…..but I would not call it a massive package. They lose one of their prospect pitchers and replace him with a young, proven mlb workhorse starting pitcher. They lose a catcher they had no use for. They lose a very young shortstop that may or may not ever amount to anything (I do like Lee, but it will take quite a bit of time before we ever know if he’ll be useful). And they lose a 4th outfielder.
So from a Cubs fan perspective I love it.
At some point the ability to consistently out-perform your FIP and xFIP has to be a skill.
A team having a little bit of money (or being prone to overpay) doesn’t alter a player’s relative bargain status. If Bill Gates pays $10 for a Kit Kat, he’s still getting screwed even if he feels the sting less than I would.
Garza’s no $10 Kit Kat. He’s a pretty good value in 2011, and possibly in 2012 depending on whether you think he’ll revert to 3 WAR form.
posted too soon.
last part was going to be: But the point’s the same. A player’s either a good deal or he isn’t. One of the players the Cubs traded panning out would have saved the cubs more than Garza will even in the best-case scenario.
Garza’s a nice pickup in a vauum. The Cubs just paid way too much IMO.
How many Cub prospects pan out?
“One of the players the Cubs traded panning out would have saved the cubs more than Garza will even in the best-case scenario.”
I’ll take my chances on getting the proven player any day. Especially having watched the likes of Juan Cruz, Corey Patterson, Felix Pie, and many others come up through the Cubs system being hyped as the “next best thing” and “untouchables”. They still have enough quality and quantity in the minors after this trade.
And yet somehow...
every single quality major league player was at one point an unproven prospect.
You realize the last time the Cubs had a truly great team, it was on the backs of star performances from three starting pitchers with a combined four seasons between them, right?
Letting other teams develop proven veterans for you is a great way to remain mediocre in perpetuity. But you’re a Cubs fan. I’m not telling you anything new.
wow, whups.
That quote was still in my clipboard. What I meant to quote was:
And it’s also too simplistic not to consider Garza’s contract for the Cubs
For a team like the Cubs he’s CHEAP!
Total reply fail on my part.
You don't seem to understand the idea of value.
Money matters. The Rays get these guys for six years, three of them at the league minimum. They also get $12-14 million they otherwise would have had to pay Garza to avoid arbitration. They will spend it on other players who will cut into that 3-WAR per season (if you ignore the downward trends in multiple indicators of future success we saw from Garza in 2010).
But you’re right, I was being deliberately simplistic. The math is there to back me up though. If any of these players reach the majors and stick, even in a utility role, the Rays win.
In order to not over-simplify, let’s do some analysis. I’ll give you the benefit of the full weight of that Garza projection: 3 WAR per year for the next 2 years. I’ll estimate his arbitration raises at $5 and $7 million (i think that’s low, but i’m trying to draw every inference in favor of Garza here). So, 6 WAR for $12 million. At ~5 million per WAR market value, that’s a surplus value of $18 million.
Now, let’s assume the Rays get exactly market value for the $12 million they just saved (also not a safe assumption given the glut in the current DH market, which is exactly where they’re going to spend the $). That’s $0 in excess value.
To equal Garza’s market value, they need to make up $18 million. At that same $5 million/WAR market rate, the players they get back would need to produce 3.7 WAR, + 0.1 WAR for each additional player/season they take to hit the total (more if he doesn’t make it up until his arbitration years). In other words, if 1 player becomes a major leaguer, he’d make the Garza deal a wash by totaling 3.7 WAR in 1 season, or 3.8 in 2 seasons, or 3.9 in 3 seasons.
If two players make it, they’d need to total 3.8 WAR in 1 season, or 4.0 WAR over 2 seasons, or 4.2 over 3 seasons (these are rough numbers – it’s actually lower. I’m putting their salary as $0.5 million, when league minimum is closer to $0.4). The required total becomes higher the more players you introduce into it. And there’s the added comoplication that it’s more valuable to get your WAR out of a single player rather than spreading it out, which adds another requirement of something like 0.2-0.4 WAR per additional player you’d need to make up Garza’s value.
But the basic concept is, even if everything goes right for the Cubs with Garza and the Rays get zero excess value from the money they save by dealing him, all they’d need is three quality seasons out of one utility player or back-end starter to make it a wash. Anything more, and it’s a big win.
by slamcactus on Jan 7, 2011 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And...
I assumed Garza as a straight 3-win loss for the Rays there, which isn’t true. With Garza, you lose ~200/year. So that 6 war is spread over 200 innings. The above calculation presupposes that the pitchers who fill in those 200 innings perform at replacement level, which almost certainly won’t happen.
More likely, trading Garza means Davis and Niemann both keep their rotation spots in 2011 despite Hellickson’s promotion. Assuming Davis would have lost his spot otherwise, he’s a decent bet to throw something like 130-160 innings at a rate of something like 0.8-1.2 WAR (with potential for more, but again, I’m trying to keep it low here). The other 40-70 innings would likely be snapped up by a combination of a #6 starter (Sonnanstine/McGee/one of Moore/Torres/pitcher X who’s currently off the radar) and extra work for the bullpen, since the rotation lost a major innings-eater and they’ll probably be called on earlier in some starts. The other arms probably won’t account for much more than 0-0.4 WAR or so.
So, assuming the middle ground on both the rotation replacement and the #6 starter and extra bullpen innings, and TB is able to account for 1 of those WAR per season by dispersing Garza’s 200 innings among other options (all of whom make roughly the minimum). Now, all you need is one other player from the deal to produce 2.8 WAR for one season, or 2.9 for 2 seasons, or 3.0 WAR for three seasons, and it’s a wash. Anything more than that is pure excess value.
There. Now you understand the reasoning behind my above shorthand. I would’ve preferred to leave it at the conclusion, but hopefully now you don’t think my reasoning is too simplistic.
+1
Exactly.
I’ve been saying Garza is a borderline 2 in the AL East, and a good bet to be a solid 2 in or just a really good pitcher in the NL. Plus, he’s 3 years away from FA , “battle” tested, and at 27 he’s early prime at best maybe…I also think he’s got a really good arm.
Also,
what’s with this assumption that Hellickson will step right in and throw 200 innings?
OMG...
Another “sky is falling” Cubs fan… big surprise….
Archer is a COMPLETELY different pitcher now compared to what he was when the Cubs got him from Cleveland. The Cubs developmental staff deserves a LOT of credit for taking a guy that was looked at as purely a future releiver and turned him into a top 50 prospect.
side note
one thing that really bugs me about some Cubs fans is how they go on and on about how the Cubs need to totally revamp their minor league operations/staff. Perhaps you could make a case on the positional side (and even then … they did develop Starlin Castro and their strength and conditioning guy has done wonders) but on the pitching side, the Cubs actually do a fairly solid job. There’s misses, but there always is. Mark Riggins went from minor league pitching coordinator to major league pitching coach partly due to the good work he did with all the kids sent to him with issues.
No doubt
I think part of the problem they have is they tend to rush their positional prospects. They promoted guys like Pie and Corey Patterson way before they were ready (though some of that was due to need at the MLB level). I think the bigger issue might be drafting.
it's certainly something to do with drafting
Although I wonder how much of that is the Cubs being unwilling to spend on the draft and how much of that is Hendry just being his typical short-sighted self. The guy will do absolutely anything possible to tread water. Like trading 4 prospects, all of which have solid chances of contributing to a major league team in the future, for a veteran starter that might get the Cubs to fourth place this year.
I’m sure the Cubs will spend next to nothing on the upcoming draft as well, and then blow a huge wad of money on a few pricey veterans next off-season, because that’s what Jim Hendry does. He’s got like $50 million of terrible contracts coming off the books, which is all the license he needs to go out and give out $70 million of terrible contracts for the 2012 season.
to be fair
Hendry has spent in regards to player acquisition – they spend big bucks in Asia (after all, they did essentially give first round money to Jin Yeong Kim this past year), and they do a fairly good job of spending in Latin America (no real high priced signings, more spreading it out a lot). A lot of Cubs fans are disappointed in their draft spending, and hope that the new ownership’s desires to build from within will lead to more spending in the future.
My belief as to why recent Cubs history struggled tied more into drafting, and in regards to that, scouting. It is my belief that, under the Stockstills, they went more for … physical capability than baseball capability, with arms and bats.
As a side note, Hendry’s trading history isn’t bad. He’s had one clunker of a deal (by clunker, I’m saying a ridiculously bad deal) and that was the Juan Pierre trade (on the flip side, others have aruged that his “great” trades were a product of circumstance, and that most of them happened early in his tenure). I’m neither a Hendry hater or a Henry apologist. I think he’s just another GM. I’ve noted this one Cubs sites before, but Hendry and Co. do a rather good job of mining lower level “sleeper” talent, particularly as it relates to arms, which sometimes makes me wonder if Hendry might be better off as a small market GM, where he simply doesn’t have the money to spend.
Not spending on the draft...
“Although I wonder how much of that is the Cubs being unwilling to spend on the draft "
Didn’t the Cubs spend 10 million on Smardjiz (sp?) and quite afew bucks on Prior. I don’t think the problem has ever been a willingness to spend money. At least not over the past ten years. The problem has been the ability to spend it wisely.
overall
the Cubs, in recent history, haven’t been viewed as a team that aggressively goes after overslot guys. That isn’t to say they haven’t signed any overslot guys – after all, Trey McNutt and Nick Struck were both overslot guys. But typically, for a big market team, the Cubs draft spending is on the lower side of the spectrum.
this is what I meant
They’ve had a few overslot guys . . .Samardzija obviously, McNutt and Struck, the regrettable Chris Huseby a few years ago (did he officially switch to playing the field?), Reggie Golden got slightly overslot, and Ben Wells this year. But at the same time those overslot deals have been tempered by the loss of draft picks for free agent signings and holding very close if not right to slot on high-round picks. It shouldn’t be forgotten that when they drafted Samardzija, they took Tyler Colvin in the first to hold to slot, and then didn’t have 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round picks. I understand that they might be a bit gunshy on big bonuses after the Pawelek debacle, but that was just a bad read on the player – he never seemed motivated to get himself into shape and to properly rehab from his injuries.
I imagine they’ll have one more chunk of money to go around from the 2010 draft, though . . .I’m guessing that Matt Szczur will sign a revised deal with the Cubs to keep him from going pro in football. In football he’s rated as a 3rd-5th round pick, but seeing as he’s from a smaller school that lacks premium exposure, I could see his draft stock rising after the NFL Combine.
TB
The idea that the Rays will win 85 or fewer games in 2011 strikes me as a worst-case scenario.
They’ve lost Crawford (a 4-5 win player) and maybe two wins out of the bullpen. Pena was a league-average 1B, and Hellickson can almost certainly duplicate what Garza gave them last year. So assuming that the team does nothing and gets no help from the minors, they’re looking at 90 wins at worst.
Now if you assume that TB is able to snag a plus DH for cheap (Thome, Manny, Vlad?), that’s probably a two-win improvement on the sinkhole they had at the position in 2010. If they can swing a trade for a 1B (KC, for Billy Butler?), you’re talking about the Rays being just as good in 2011 as they were last year even without Crawford.
With respect to the trade: I don’t love it, because I think when you trade your best commodity, you ought to get back a top-25 guy as opposed to a pile of top-50 guys. That being said, there’s no doubt in my mind TB got more for Garza than the Royals got for Greinke, which is kind of amazing.
I think..
in term of the Cubs they’re really only dealing Archer as the other prospects are from a position of strength where they will all likely be without a spot. Lee is blocked by Castro, Chirinos is blocked by Soto, Guyer/Fuld are blocked by Colvin or Jackson, though Archer is legitimate need. Still, not bad.
I don't like...
thinking this way with prospects. That would be like saying since the Rays had lots of SP, that Hellickson would be expendable. The Dodgers probably thought this way, so they traded Carlos Santana. Oops.
I like the Butler idea
Would be a good swap for both teams. The Rays could probably land Kila for a little less too if they don’t want to pay quite as much.
How do you rate Desmond vs. Crawford?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jan 7, 2011 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
A massive drop-off.
No question. I’m concerned about Jennings’ ability to hit for power and stay healthy; two years ago you could see him as the next Rickey Henderson, and now he’s more like the next Coco Crisp.
by AndrewTorrez on Jan 7, 2011 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Coco Crisp is a good player
It’s not really a massive dropoff when you suggested Crawford was a four-five win guy.
by CaptainCanuck on Jan 7, 2011 2:02 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Uhhhhh.... when you trade your "best commodity"?
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 7, 2011 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
Sure
Who are the Rays going to trade who’s better than Matt Garza?
There's a difference when you talk about a teams "Best Commodity" and "Best Tradeable Commodity"
If the Pirates trade their best tradeable commodity it doesn’t necessarily mean they should get a “Top 25 prospect” because every team is different.
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 7, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
What confuses me about this deal
Is that this package seems to be more useful to the Royals, who can wait another year or two before their defense-first SS comes up, while the Rays could use an Alcides Escobar more. It’s strange that if the Cubs were willing to put this package together for Garza, that they couldn’t make a deal work with the Royals.
I do like this deal for the Rays too, though
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
I agree with you
But it seems like the Royals decided they couldn’t wait a year or two.
it does seem a little odd
This is a large package, but it doesn’t include Brett Jackson, Trey McNutt, or Josh Vitters. The Royals probably would have also really liked Chris Carpenter. Would you add in a Jackson or a McNutt and find room for Carpenter in a deal to get Greinke rather than Garza? I’d think that if you’re going to go all in, you might as well get the best.
the reports are suggesting
that the Cubs weren’t that high on Greinke and had concerns about his fit in Chicago.
that's nutty
Greinke is excellent. He had an off-year last year with his focus waning for a non-competitive team and he was still a very nice arm. And you can’t tell me that the team that’s watched Carlos Zambrano have an annual blowup for the last 5 years doesn’t have concerns about adding a fiery personality like Garza to the mix. The Twins traded Garza in part because they weren’t very fond of his attitude, and he didn’t exactly rub shoulders with the people in Tampa Bay especially well all the time, either.
I cannot disagree more
he didn’t exactly rub shoulders with the people in Tampa Bay especially well all the time, either.
Garza absolutely flourished in Tampa Bay and there’s no question that his absence will be felt.
I didn't say that wouldn't happen
He’s an absolute bulldog, I love his focus on the mound. But those guys aren’t always the easiest guys to keep around, either.
don't get me wrong
I wish the cubs had pursued Greinke with this package, but there’s been a couple reports (the well-respected Bruce Miles comes to mind right now) that the Cubs had concerns about Greinke.
I understand that
A worthwhile question, though, for you. This trade still leaves the Cubs with Brett Jackson, Trey McNutt, Andrew Cashner, and Chris Carpenter. Could the Cubs have decided to pull a Milwaukee and completely sell off the farm? This package could have landed Garza, but I have to believe that the first four prospects would have gotten Greinke or close to it. Maybe they would have needed to do some shifting with Lee going to the Royals and somebody else going to the Rays, but I think both deals could have been completed, especially with some flexibility in trading some of the SP bulk.
So, would you have preferred that? The Cubs probably could have landed BOTH Greinke and Garza.
personally
I wouldn’t have wanted them to sell the farm for two arms. I still believe that the Cubs are more situated for rebuilding the core for a run starting around 2013, and I don’t really believe the Cubs had the capability to sell the farm and make a legitimate run in 2011 (flukes do happen). The biggest issue is the fact that the Cubs didn’t have that much money to play with. Even if you made those two big splashes, the team still isn’t strong enough, and the Cubs would’ve still needed to get a first baseman and other pieces..
Had it been selling the farm for say … Greinke or Garza and … say, Adrian … then that’s a different story. I might’ve been okay with that. Not two arms, though, even if it might’ve been Greinke and Garza.
Grienke also has a history of nervous breakdowns
Which might not be the best thing in a big media market like Chicago
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
I thought he had one?
As somebody who has struggled with similar (although not identical) issues throughout my life and especially the last year, I have a lot of sympathy for Greinke. It’s not much fun to have an episode – I have to believe it’s even worse to have one and then for everybody around you to be doubting your ability to perform your job because of it. I’m sure it’s hard enough on him, and probably the best thing for him would be for everybody to just drop that talk already.
I'm glad you're doing well now bud.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
the thoughts are appreciated
I’ve got a long way to go, but I’m on the road to recovery and I’m thankful for that. Baseball isn’t just a passion for me, but it’s an escape for me too – it’s gotten me through some very hard times in recent months.
Good luck Mrkupe
You are a class act and I know that you have the strength and work ethic to concur any challenge put in front of you.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 7, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
Thoughts
I remember a few years ago when I was going through chemotherapy that I really threw myself into this site. I did the community list and became involved in most of the fanposts. It is funny how a simple blog like this really can be a haven to escape from our real problems.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 7, 2011 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
Nice thoughts KBR
I’m looking for work right now and this is one of my favorite sites to day dream about working in baseball so it really is a haven :)
"I didn't really say everything I said."-Yogi ism
It's just a legitimate, lingering concern that might have soured Chicago on him a bit
Not trying to beat up on him or anything
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
The Chicago media can be pretty brutal
Probably second worse in the nation only to NY. I can totally understand why the Cubs had some concerns.
Social Anxiety disorder and "nervous breakdowns"
have nothing to do with each other. “Nervous breakdowns” is an outdated term for a psychotic episode or a manic episode, neither of which Zach Greinke has ever had.
by philadelphiacub on Jan 7, 2011 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I may be alone in this, and I'm a massive TB homer
But I think there’s a significant (35+%?) chance that Garza outpitches Greinke next year. I think his stuff plays really well in the NL, and his weaknesses (big innings, relying too much on the fastball, deep counts) are minimized in the non-DH league.
Right away Garza becomes one of the guys I intend to target in NL-only roto, in much the same way that Ted Lilly shaved half a run off of his ERA and basically shaved his walk rate in half when he went from the AL East to the Cubs.
by AndrewTorrez on Jan 7, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
This could suck for the Rays, since fans will forget that Garza went to a weaker enviroment.
Fans always find something to complain about down here.
Agreed
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 7, 2011 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
Go to a game
Otherwise you fanboys will lose your team.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 7, 2011 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
I have probably been to more games in Tampa then the average fan
And I live in Toronto. Lots of other teams have arenas in bad locations yet still go to the game. Tampa fans couldn’t even sell out the first season. I understand now why David Price called them out.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 8, 2011 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
Greinke's pitching in the NL next year too.
I also think there’s a significant chance Garza outpitches Greinke next year, but only because pitchers get hurt a lot. Not because I think a healthy Garza has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually being the superior pitcher to a healthy Greinke.
thats b.s.
I think it’s sadly as simple as the Cubs not being able/willing to afford Greinke at 13M for the next 2 years
by philadelphiacub on Jan 7, 2011 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
Even if Greinke has issues
he is elite. Garza was a LAIM in 2011. There really is no comparison.
"The Mets are gonna be amazing!" - Casey Stengel
whoa
I’m a bit floored right now. all winter long, the indications were that Archer was untouchable.
Part of it comes down to who the unnamed players are, but at first glance, and I certainly have my biases, but … I’m not sure I really like this. It seems like a lot to give up. Chirinos is older, but he’s a plus defensive catcher who is basically ready to help in the bigs.
I’ll wait and see who the other pieces are.
well
according to Bruce Miles, one of the returning pieces is … Fernando Perez, which does absolutely zilch for me.
Perez
Is a hell of a poet and a fantastically nice guy. On a more serious note, he is absolutely the fastest runner in the organization — faster than Crawford and Upton. But the wrist injury has completely sapped his ability to hit, it seems.
Still, Perez + the pitching PTBNL are essentially the return for Fuld, who isn’t worth a whole heck of a lot.
by AndrewTorrez on Jan 7, 2011 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure why TB needed Fuld
this feels like a case of Hendry moving someone to give them a better opportunity, but … what’s the need for Fuld? I think Fuld can be a useful major league depth OF, and I wish the Cubs had given him a longer look … but I don’t see the need for him there.
As for Perez, I guess he’ll fill a pinch runner void, or be given a chance to.
Off the top of my head
I’d say that there was an organization-wide desire to get more speed. You think of the Rays as the run-run-run organization, but most of the guys they have now as their core are athletic but not particularly speedy (Longoria, S. Rodriguez, Brignac, Joyce, Jaso, etc.).
The offensive players they’ve brought into the system this offseason (excepting the catcher, Chirinos) are all absolute burners.
by AndrewTorrez on Jan 7, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
as a side note
I wouldn’t be surprised if Chirinos, if given the opportunity, is the best player in the short term in that package. Very good mentor, very good work ethic preparation, has improved his defense behind the plate a ton, and has enough discipline that he likely won’t be a hole at the plate. That said, last I checked, Rays have 4 catchers on the 40.
He’ll also be very good at working with young arms in the minors, if that’s their plan for him this year.
I'm impressed with the trade, certainly
I was talking with my brother a few days ago and theorized that the Garza package would be Jackson, McNutt and Chirinos. I got the first two wrong . . .I thought the Rays would be more intrigued by McNutt than Archer, and Jackson is apparently too important to move. But the Rays got back a real bundle of goodies here, and Chirinos was a very sneaky nice add to this deal.
+1
Just a question. How is Chirinos not ranked higher? Is it his age? I could see a Chirinos/Jaso platoon hitting .280 with an OBP of .400+
Age, lack of consistent hitting history
took him until age 25 to make it to AAA
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Sounds a lot like John Jaso, actually
I suspect the Rays are looking for a way to dump Shoppach, whose defense and ability to hit lefties both suddenly departed last year.
by AndrewTorrez on Jan 7, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
He hit lefties to the tune of an .823 OPS
I don’t think his ability to hit them has disappeared, but that being, said, Chirinos is better defensively. Thing is, they have a great defensive catcher who can kind-of hit lefties in the form of Lobaton, and I’m not sure how big of a jump Chirinos is over him, especially if he is going to be serving in a platoon role. Not that Jaso can’t under perform expectation (in which case I’d far prefer Chirinos to Lobaton as the starting catcher), but it was still a bit strange to me.
The Rays...
With the Rays losing some key pieces this offseason, are they back in rebuilding mode? Can they even compete with Boston & NY at this point. They seem to me to be a 85 win team at this point.
I’ve said it in another thread, but the Rays really aren’t losing much besides Crawford. Now don’t get me wrong, Crawford is a huge loss, and Desmond Jennings won’t make up more than a couple of wins from Crawfords 6-7 WAR, but other than that…Carlos Pena was a 1-win player in 2010. He sucked. And he sucked for $10 million. Jason Bartlett was worse last season than Reid Brignac, and the move from Bartlett to Brignac full time should actually improve the team.
Garza has put up some quality seasons, but his strikeouts and ground balls are both trending the wrong way. I think it’s more likely than not that Hellickson will be the superior pitcher in 2011, and it should at least be a wash. A 4.42 FIP isn’t all that hard to replace, especially when you have one of the best collections of young pitching in baseball.
More importantly, the Rays’ core is still very, very young. In 2011, Sean Rodriguez will be 26, Reid Brignac and Evan Longoria 25, BJ Upton 26, John Jaso 27, Ben Zobrist 30, and Matt Joyce 26. It’s much more likely than not that as a group, these players will perform better in 2011 than they did in 2010. And they haven’t signed a DH yet, and there remain a few very attractive options for not too much money on the market.
This isn’t rebuilding, it’s retooling, dealing from a position of strength to keep the farm system among the game’s very best despite no longer drafting at the top. The 2011 rotation should be just as strong as the 2010 version, and the farm system just got a hell of a lot stronger. 2011 will be a rough year in the AL East with the Red Sox’ two monster additions, so the Rays may not make the playoffs, but they’re very much in the thick of it for the next couple of years.
Maybe too strong
When I said rebuilding, I didn’t necessarily mean Florida Marlin-esque rebuilding. Their current minor league system would probably rank #2 behind the Royals so their help is coming for sure.
Maybe I should have said that it looks to me as if they will be taking a minor step backwards this year (85 wins is still probably a top 12 team in MLB) while they reload for 2012 and beyond.
It just doesn’t seem to me at this time that they will be in the mix for that AL East wild card spot. They are definitely still closer to Bos & NY then they are Balt & Tor.
The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.
I think this is wildly optimistic
I think it’s more likely than not that Hellickson will be the superior pitcher in 2011, and it should at least be a wash.
The majority of pitchers struggle in their rookie year, even top prospects. Hellickson could be the rare pitcher that is great right of the gate, but odds are that Garza will outperform him next year.
I agree with this
Although I could see Wade Davis + Jeremy Hellickson 2011 outperforming Garza/Davis 2010.
I'm okay with 180 IPs
The shoulder problems seem to be in the past, and I’m pretty confident in the training staff + Dr. Andrews to handle him. He’ll never be a 250 IP guy, but that’s okay.
I think a bigger issue as far as Tampa is concerned is who the loss of quality innings
will leave picking up the slack on the end of a chain. They’ve got more depth than most to cover it, but they’re likely not getting that value back in the trade, at least for 2011, which makes them quite a bit more vulnerable to injuries derailing their season.
Moore will be at AA
But Torres/Archer/Cobb is pretty good depth, plus Andy Sonnanstine has been a league-average starter for his career. The Rays are fine, depth-wise, in terms of eating 2011 innings even if they get unlucky in terms of injuries.
sure, but none of these are quite as certain of putting in quality innings as Garza,
and in a couple of the cases, the Rays might be rushing the players if they get the call. They’re fine, but not nearly as fine as they were yesterday in this department.
Well, sure
The Rays have less pitching depth now that they’ve traded away one of the ~40 best starters in baseball. No argument there.
The question is whether the Rays have the immediate organizational depth to make this move without crippling the team in 2011, and I think there the answer is clearly yes. You have the best right-handed pitching prospect in baseball (Jeremy Hellickson) ready to step in and take Garza’s spot, plus you can anticipate improvement from Wade Davis, plus you can anticipate a regression to the mean from Jamie Shields’ miserable luck in 2010.
AND you have 3 potential front-of-the-rotation guys starting off at AAA, at least one of whom (Torres) is clearly ready to pitch in the major leagues right now. If a starter gets seriously hurt in June, the Rays will have the luxury of choosing the best performer between three very good prospects.
AND you have a league-average guy in the bullpen in Andy Sonnanstine who can fill in without hurting you in the event that one of the top 5 starters goes down in spring training.
That’s the best possible scenario for dealing a starter, isn’t it?
The best possible scenario would be if all the above were true and the team wasn't competing with the Red Sox or Yankees.
I don’t think you can take a credible stance that says the Rays 40 man roster is as strong now as it was yesterday, and given the level of competition they’re up against, I think that’s a pretty important aspect that shouldn’t get overlooked. Again, I think the Rays long term come out ahead in this, but short term, it weakens the franchise, which is a pretty big risk to take in their position.
I somehow doubt the 40 man roster will look the same
Going into April as it does now. Presumably this is one step in a chain of moves.
I wouldn't doubt it.
I’m just trying to accurately judge this on what we know right now and it seems to me that maybe Friedman’s getting too much advance credit for this one. It might be that the overarching plan is sound, and again, it’s a good move long term. It seems the short term risks aren’t being fairly assessed.
If we don't add a bat
It won’t be a competitive team in the AL East, whether it’s Garza, Hellickson, or Sonnanstine taking the mound. (In the NL, the team might win 220 games) This way, the team has a shot if things break right.
you do realize that the pendulum is swinging the other direction right now as far as league strength
The AL’s edge is quite a bit smaller than it was a couple of years ago. With Garza, I could see the Rays being a 92 win NL team, probably inferior only to the Phillies, but now without him you’re dropping a little closer to the rest of the pack of NL contenders in current talent.
What do you take me for?
Do you really think I would be basing my claim off of six games? It’s an ongoing shift in talent that we’re seeing continue this off-season plus measures of run production and other peripherals over the entire Interleague schedule.
Who cares?
The organization improved greatly without a big loss to the current team. It also freed up funds to allocate more advantageously.
Would it be possible to get a consensus from Rays fans on Garza?
Either he’s a top 40 MLB pitcher, which is a big loss for any team, or he’s something considerably less which would make him not “a big loss”.
Oh, he's a top 40 pitcher
You’ll get arguments from Rays fans for why he is trending downward, but Garza’s talent and presence is undeniable. He was also a big presence in the clubhouse.
That all being said, the dropoff from Garza to Hellickson minimizes the loss for the Rays far more than it would for another team. The flexibility to add a bat could make a much larger impact.
Why can't it be both?
A player can be a top-40 starter (as I believe Garza is), but if they player replacing him projects to be roughly similar (as I believe Hellickson does), it’s not a “big loss” because the term “big loss” is relative.
If this were the Orioles making this trade, it would be a “big loss.” Hell, if it were just about any other team in baseball, it would be a “big loss.” For the Rays, it’s not as drastic of a loss for the reasons I specified above (to which I think you do not disagree).
Obviously, any time you lose a player of Garza’s talent, your immediate team takes a hit at the MLB level. I don’t think anyone is here to argue that the Rays are BETTER in 2011, right now, having traded Garza for prospects. That’s self-evidently not the case.
But if the Rays aren’t much worse on the basis of this move, AND they’re better down the road, AND they can use the payroll flexibility to acquire a DH, 1B, and shore up the rotation then the Rays might well be a better team in 2011 alone for having traded Garza.
They still have to do the back end of that, of course. If the Rays go into the 2011 season with the roster they have right now, they’re ticketed for 3rd place. But if they use their depth to trade for Butler, sign one of Manny/Thome/Vlad to DH, and pick up a couple more relievers, I’d say the 2011 Rays could be as good as they were last year.
I have no doubt that this is easier to see as a neutral observer.
Your arguments all lean to rosy upside projections, which if they come true certainly could have Tampa Bay as good as they were in 2010. The likelihood however, based on the sum of talent going in and out, is considerably lower than that.
Sure
But by the same token, the Yankees haven’t exactly set the world on fire with additions, and a year of time passing for their players will be felt more keenly than for the Rays.
A player can be a top-40 starter (as I believe Garza is), but if they player replacing him projects to be roughly similar (as I believe Hellickson does), it’s not a "big loss" because the term "big loss" is relative.
I agree with you on the conclusion, but it’s a fallacy to consider this as Garza vs. Hellickson. Before the trade, the Rays had both of them. It wasn’t either/or. Now, they only have one. More likely, it’s Garza vs. Davis, as he would’ve been out of a rotation spot if the Rays hadn’t traded a starter.
I don't think so
If the Rays didn’t trade Garza, I’m think they would have been more inclined to keep Hellickson toiling in AAA for at least another half a year for service time purposes.
Don't forget
the Blue Jays are a pretty decent team and the Orioles improved themselves and were one of the best teams in the AL East the last two months of the season.
vr, Xei
That's actually not true.
It’s actually not at all uncommon for pitchers to peak in their first 1-2 years in the majors. Pitchers are different from hitters, and if they have the stuff and the polish, they often succeed right out of the gate. The ones who don’t usually are people who have an incomplete arsenal. Hellickson doesn’t need any more polish. He’s not a Michael Pineda-type situation where he still needs to improve in one specific area before he’s ready.
And bear in mind, I didn’t say he’d be a star, just that I think it’s more likely than not that he’s better than Garza, who at this point is a roughly league average starter. I think Hellickson will be better than that out of the gate.
Yeah it is
More often than not, rookie pitchers struggle in the initial transition to the majors. That is a fact, although there are isolated instances where some pitchers do not.
But the point is, it is incorrect to assume Hellickson will outpeform Garza this year. Of course he COULD do it, but I doubt most projection systems are expecting it to happen.
You got a study?
MGL’s research over at the book blog charts pitchers ages as steadily declining from their early 20s onward. I’ve never seen anything contradicting it.
Also, since you mentioned projections...
Zips prefers Hellickson on a rate basis but projects Garza for more innings. Zips has Hellickson at a 3.54 ERA to Garza’s 3.83.
We’ll see where the rest of them come out, but I suspect this will be the trend.
The projection systems aren't out yet.
If you think Garza’s a 4-win player, then sure, Hellickson likely won’t outperform him. If you think 2010 was ~ his true talent level, there’s a very good chance.
it is incorrect to assume Hellickson will outpeform Garza this year.
I’m not assuming he will. I do, however, think it’s more likely than not to occur.
ZiPS is projecting Hellickson to be better (formatting probably won't stick):
Player T Age ERA W L G GS IP H ER HR BB K ERA+
Jeremy Hellickson R 24 3.58 10 6 24 24 135.7 126 54 11 47 119 118
Matt Garza R 27 3.84 14 9 34 33 208.7 194 89 25 67 171 110
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2011_zips_projections_-_tampa_bay_rays/
http://bullpenbanter.com/
If true, love this deal for the Rays
They get great return for Garza and can insert Hellickson into the rotation. They may take a step back in 2011 but with one more year under their belt Jennings, Hellickson and Davis should be better making the Rays make more of a factor in the AL East in 2012 and beyond.
as a side note, where do you guys slot the prospects
curious what others think … I’m looking at John’s Rays list right now
I think I’d put Archer ahead of Jennings and McGee, but I’m sure, considering how CPL voting went, that others will feel differently.
I’d probably place Lee ahead of Sale, but that might be a debate to many.
Does Guyer’s polish get him the top B- slot? He seems more ready than the other B-’s I see listed right now.
I feel like Chirinos would squeeze into the top 20 at the end.
yeah, no... I'd consider maybe slotting Archer #5, above Torres, but I don't even think I'd do that
Hellickson
Jennings
Moore
McGee
Torres
Archer
and then Cobb/Colome/Wilking/Cruz/Hak-Ju/Beckham
in some order before getting into Leslie/O’Conner/Guyer/Chirinos/etc.etc.
I could see an argument for Archer as high as #4 and as low as #6 or #7, but no way is he the #3
Torres ahead of Archer
I can see the cases for Jennings and McGee (that said, I was looking at John’s list and he had Moore as 2).
I’m very curious to hear the argument for Torres ahead of Archer. Archer has better stuff, both have small control issues. Does Torres’ lefty status really bump him up enough for you?
Torres has as good stuff. 4 above average pitches is pretty good stuff.
Plus change and curve (or slider, one of the two).
sure
but comparing stuff … I think Archer is clearly ahead. Plus stuff on fastball and slider when his control is spotty … plus-plus when his control is on.
Torres' changeup has been considered plus
his fastball is at least above average if not plus itself
and I’ve read reports which state that both of his breaking pitches are plus with added consistency. He has a 4 pitch repetoire and should generate just as many if not more GB than Archer long-term because of the effectiveness of that sinker (not that Archer’s GB rates are anything to sneeze at). Archer and Torres both have control concerns, but I feel they are more pronounced in Archer’s case, and Torres has the repertoire to stick in the rotation I believe, while I’m not as convinced about Archer.
Archer has ace potential with his two plus plus pitches, but he needs to continue developing his change-up and improve the consistency of his FB and SL, while Torres’ stuff, in large part, is already major league ready. They are only separated by two spots on my top 100, but I’d rather have the guy with the Floor of a #4 and the ceiling of a #2 than the guy with the floor of a set-up man and the ceiling of an ace.
I feel that nationally Torres’ isn’t widely revered because of his size, but every report I read I see glowing reports about a pitch, usually a different pitch than the one before. He has a lot of offerings and gets GBs despite the height issue, and if he isn’t having trouble generating GBs then I don’t see why the height is a major issue.
re:
I think Torres is probably being underrated as well.
Couple points on Archer -
Compared to his fastball (which has very good life) and slider (which is just plain filthy), his change isn’t that good. But overall … his change is probably decent-solid. It is more than a show me pitch. If there was an argument for why Archer should be ahead of McNutt, it lay with stuff and the development of the change (as Archer’s a bit further along, I think McNutt’s change is a bit underrated as well). His change is about an average pitch that, on good days, shows as above average, and on bad days, might be a tinge below. Overall, I don’t believe arsenal is a big issue for him in regards to staying as a starter. The change will likely never be a plus pitch (considering how good his fastball and slider are, he just won’t use it that much to develop it, at least, early in his career).
Archer’s control is much improved. His stuff is so good that he doesn’t need top shelf control. He just needs decent control. He’s shown the capability to have good control, so as of now, it looks like a matter of improving on the consistency he showed this past year.
I don’t know how you are defining major league ready. Archer’s fb and sl were were plus pitches when his control was spotty (couple games, when his control was really off, the slider would vary). That’s about as major league ready as I can think. I saw a game this summer where he wasn’t that sharp, but he was still dominating hitters.
Look at Price in 2009 for the Rays.
Two plus-plus pitches, but he was not ready. They really need a third usable pitch. The he got the curve.
my point was
that I believe his change is already more than usable (I’m assuming usable equates to “show-me” type of pitch).
My list
- Jeremy Hellickson
- Matt Moore
- Desmond Jennings
- Chris Archer
- Jacob McGee
- Josh Sale
- Hak-Ju Lee
- Alex Torres
- Alex Colome
- Justin O’Conner
- Jake Thompson
- Enny Romero
- Wilking Rodriguez
- Drew Vettleson
- Nick Barnese
- Joseph Cruz
- Alex Cobb
- Tim Beckham
- Luke Bailey
- Robinson Chirinos
- Brandon Guyer
It may be blasphemous, but I think I like this system more than the Royals’
http://bullpenbanter.com/
+1 on the rankings
- 1 on liking more than the Royals, though I could see you being able to make a good argument. The gap closed a lot, and TB solidified itself as #2 by a sizable margin in my mind.
If everybody likes you, then either no one knows anything about you, or you're dead.
Fantasy Prospect Central: http://fantasyprospectcentral.blogspot.com/
It's awfully close
KC has a safer system since their top 3 are hitters, but I think the top is comparable and that TB makes up ground in the back of that top 20.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
I agree its very close
Tampa’s got the edge on top end pitching, looking at depth and upside its about a wash. KC’s got the edge on hitting upside and the depth is about the same for me, so that’s what puts them over the top for me.
If everybody likes you, then either no one knows anything about you, or you're dead.
Fantasy Prospect Central: http://fantasyprospectcentral.blogspot.com/
i think it has better depth
than the oryals system
yes, nobody comes close to matching Myers/Moose/Hosmer
and those three just put KC so far over the top, that even as deep as TB is right now, the potential starpower in those 3 bats is just too much
Guyer > Chirinos
John has Guyer a B- and Chirinos a C+ (which strikes me as correct). I think I’d slot in Guyer somewhere in the high teens.
I like Chirinos more
Think his age is underrating him a bit. I agree with a C+, but think he’s one of the better C+’s.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
I think people are really underrating how good Guyer is, though
Take a look at guys playing in the high minors (AA and AAA), who are 25 and younger, sorted by OPS:
1. Mike Stanton (1.125, AA)
2. Brandon Belt (1.075, A+, AA, AAA)
3. Carlos Santana (1.044, AAA)
4. Clint Robinson (1.035, AA)
5. Matt Joyce (1.004, AAA)
6. Dexter Fowler (1.002, AAA)
7. Mike Moustakas (.999, AA-AAA)
8. Buster Posey (.995, AAA)
9. Starlin Castro (.990, AA)
10. J.P. Arencebia (.986, AAA)
11. Brandon Guyer (.986, AA)
12. Domonic Brown (.980, AA-AAA)
That’s pretty much a list of guys who can hit, no?
I think you are overrating Guyer
He had the best year of his life in 2010 at the age of 24. I think he’ll end up being a Matt Joyce type player.
he's not rating Guyer there
he organized that list by minor league OPS.
nvm misread
you were responding to his initial comment. Overall, I think Guyer is a 2nd tier starter and a 1st tier 4th OF, Eric Byrnes type.
I think Lee can be a plus defensive SS
Don’t feel anywhere near the same way about Beckham.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
Late season scouting reports would disagree
The org. asked Beckham to prioritize defense over offense last year. Same thing they did with Brignac, developmentally.
He has a thicker lower half than you'd expect
He’s definitely NOT in the Brignac mold of SS. But I think the traditional mold has been fairly well shattered, and he’s moving well right now.
I don't know about that.
Here’s a spring training picture that I have. Personally, I keep him at SS for now, body type and all, but I won’t be arguing that he looks like a prototypical SS.
he doesn't look fat to me
But I have a hard time believing he’s going to move well enough to be much of a shortstop by the time he’s major league ready, just from looking at him. Lower half is definitely still thick, and it’s pretty obvious that he’s going to fill out significantly in his upper body (don’t look at the baggy uniform, look at his shoulders). More of a 2B/3B build.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltd_Vd_R2Mk
Note that this is a 2010 clip. Anybody have any more extended clips of him to make me think otherwise?
you might be saying that, but some of the others in this thread aren't
Also, there’s a difference between a player having good defensive actions and a player having the range to stick at shortstop. It sounds like the bulk of complaints on Beckham stem from the second problem (and I can see that), so I am comfortable with projecting him to be a pretty fair 2B or 3B. In most orgs I’d say try him at 3B first to take advantage of his arm, but obviously for TB he should get work at 2B.
I’m still lukewarm on his bat, but if he concentrates on adding upper body strength, he might have something here. The thick lower half suggests he could probably fill out considerably. I’m wondering if perhaps the physical demands of being a shortstop are holding back a proper training regimen for him?
"physical demands of being a shortstop "
might be partly this and also him not wanting to bulk up because of the position he plays…
also, like someone mentioned before [think it was here but might’ve been on draysbay] … Rays’ FO had him concentrating on defense much like with how they developed Brignac… and when they did so [after Brignac’s big Cal-league numbers], his offensive production dropped off as he moved up, but his glove became plus…
the second is actually what I was referring to
Shortstops need to stay as lightweight and as agile as possible. Beckham looks like he’s trying to do that, but as been noted elsewhere, his body type has changed a bit as he’s matured and I don’t think it’s necessarily the best move for his development. After reviewing some video and pictures, I have little doubt that he can get significantly stronger, with a fair amount of room to add muscle on a as-of-yet unmature upper half.
2B/3B build??
Typically, when you move a guy off of shortstop in the minors, the guys with the thick lower body and strong arm go to 3rd, and the little guys with weak arms go to 2nd. You do indeed see utility players shuffle between second and third in the majors, but I don’t think of there being a 2B/3B “build” from a scouting perspective.
Of course, the Rays have a little bit of a roadblock in Beckham’s way if he’s going to play third….
well, figure it out
Unless you want to develop him as a utility guy/trade chip, he’s not going to 3B in this organization. But he has traits of both 2B and 3B – he’s not very big, but his body and arm suggest 3B would work best. By “2B/3B” I meant he’s a bit of a tweener in that he’s clearly an infielder but not a future SS – not a knock on him as there have been some players with similar profiles who have gone on to outstanding careers. As he’s a current SS who’s played there for years and a decent athlete, I think he could handle 2B well enough.
Personally, my move would be to move him to 2B immediately, get him to work in the weight room, and develop him as an offensive-minded 2B with enough middle infield training, instincts, and athleticism to play the position well. He won’t need to focus as much on being agile and flexibility at 2B, which would probably take a huge weight off of him as he won’t be fighting his body quite as much. I could see this being very interesting.
that'd be a last-minute type of thing for me
He’s played infield thus far, he played it in high school, I wouldn’t want to just throw out all of that training unless it was something really worthwhile. I don’t see a reason to think he’d be a better RF than a 2B. But I do think that it’d be smart to make a decision on this sooner rather than later. Keeping Beckham at SS might be a move to help him maintain his athleticism, but if it’s holding back his bat then that’s not doing anybody any favors.
Of course, if he could play CENTER field, that’d be a very different story. But I haven’t gotten the impression from anybody that he’s got the wheels you’d look for in making that transition.
agreed. that's what I would do
but I may also be higher on Brignac and even Lee than most… but I envision Beckham as a Weeks/ChrisNelson hybrid… his wrists have always been his best tool anyway. let him put on some muscle and put those wrists to use.
eh, I'm fine with okay
But yeah, I do think there are a lot of extremes when it comes to defensive forecasting. I rarely see a top prospect’s defense described as “perfectly acceptable!”, even though the reality is that most guys are going to end up being best defined as so.
That being said, it’s important to have high standards for catcher and shortstop defense. Major league teams have EXTREMELY high standards for defense at those positions, and as we can all see, even then there’s only a handful of teams that are truly pleased with the defensive contributions they get at those positions.
mine
1. Matt Moore
2. Jeremy Hellickson
3. Desmond Jennings
4. Chris Archer
5. Josh Sale
6. Alex Colome
7. Hak-Ju Lee
8. Jacob McGee
9. Tim Beckham
10. Alex Torres
11. Enny Romero
12.Jake Thompson
13. Wilking Rodriguez
14. Justin O’Conner
15. Nick Barnese
16. Joseph Cruz
17. Alex Cobb
18. Luke Bailey
19. Drew Vettleson
20. Robinson Chirinos
question for you
Do you think Beckham starts at AA next year or does he repeat in A ball? I ask this because Hak-Ju Lee is probably headed to the FSL next year and it’d be hard to see him not playing shortstop. Or do you think it might be something where both repeat at the same level for half a year and then get moved up a level at the same time?
good Q
i dont think there was ever a consensus as to where Beckham would be…. throwing Lee into the mix only raises more questions… my gut is telling me that Beckham goes to AA, and my heart of hearts is waiting for his Mesoraco-esque breakout where I dance on Dewey’s grave and spit in his face
This probably also means
that Tyler Bortnick’s days of playing short are over. Haven’t seen him in person, so I can’t really say if he’s a major-league SS.
since i have time today
who is ben zobrist 2.0 then?
Sean Rodriguez
Although you could make an Elliot Johnson argument in here as well, if one was so inclined.
I wouldn't be shocked if he gets skipped to AAA
But he’s really a better 2B than an SS. He’s playing SS mostly so he can utility in the majors.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
I don't disagree that he projects out as a utility guy
But I strongly disagree that the Rays organization would take a guy with just 41 (crappy) PAs at advanced A-ball and send him to Durham. My guess is that he’s the everyday 2B for your 2011 Port Charlotte Stone Crabs, with some chance to move up to AA by the All-Star break.
Lee performed just as poorly offensively as Beckham did last year.
So why repeat one and not the other?
because people still compare Beckham to Posey/Alvarez
instead of to other high-school/teenage/shortstops
In a tougher hitter's league at the same age last year, Beckham hit better than Lee.
Then ina tougher hitter’s league this year he had the same OPS. Yes, I realize Lee is faster, but both have questions on defense and Beckham’s bat has a ton more power potential. I just don’t get it.
Lee has less of a track record
In this case, it’s a good thing.
Put it this way: more people had Tim Beckham rated higher on their pre-2009 prospect lists than on their pre-2010. Why? Because Beckham’s 2009 was pedestrian, so you could do more dreaming about him breaking out.
Similarly, Lee has 1 1/2 professional seasons under his belt as opposed to 2 1/2 for Beckham AND Lee’s 2009 is superior to anything Beckham has done with the bat so far. Therefore, he’s a better prospect at this stage.
Look — I’m still a Rays fan and I still think there’s reason to believe Beckham could explode at AA in 2011. I’d love that. But right now, objectively, you have to rank Lee > Beckham even without factoring in expectations.
It's not really about spots
It’s about Lee being a B/B- prospect and Beckham being a C+. Given the sheer number of B- arms the Rays have, that pads out a lot of space between the two without there being a huge objective difference.
to be fair
Lee’s defensive questions are more a matter of consistency. A couple years ago, there were some arm strength concerns, but he has all but erased that. It’s simply a matter of fine tuning, and to the best of my understanding on Beckham, despite his improvements, he’s still not viewed as that big of a lock to become a solid defensive shortstop.
Beckham's issues are footwork.
I’d say that’s fairly similar. He doesn’t have Lee’s range, but he has a much better arm.
much better arm?
I think that’s going overboard. Sure, Lee doesn’t have the plus-plus arm that some thought he might have, but it’s still a plus arm.
Also, range is a huge difference.
Range is the single most important thing...
differentiating those who can stick at SS from those who can’t. Arm is second, but a different kind of “plus arm” is needed for SS than the other IF positions. Scouts look at fluid arm actions – ability to throw from many different arm angles with accuracy and power – rather than pure arm strength from good SS prospects. I’m not sure Beckham’s arm is any better than Lee in that respect.
my list
1. Hellickson
2. Moore
3. Jennings
4. Sale
5. Archer
6. McGee
7. Torres
8. Lee
9. Cobb (I’m on board with the bump-him-to-a-B arguments)
10. Romero
11. Guyer
12. Vettleson
13. Barnese
14. J. Thompson
15. O’Conner
16. W. Rodriguez
17. Cruz
18. Shuman
19. Brett
20. T. Beckham
That bumps Chirinos, Leslie Anderson, and Braulio Lara all to the “OTHERS OF NOTE” list, even though I really wish I could find a spot in the top 20 for them. I also really like Derek Dietrich, Cody Rogers, and some of the ’09 guys (Jeff Malm, Luke Bailey and Todd Glaesmann) as C+ fliers.
I also think there’s a hard black line between #9 and #10 and another one
maybe i was a bit harsh on Cobb
he’s anywhere between 13-17 for me right now. would have to give it more thought/research to put a definitive stamp on it
for curiousity's sake
why sale over archer? Sure, Sale offers huge power potential, but we’re talking about an arm with 2 plus to plus-plus pitches and a decent-solid change in AAA. There’s a huge … readiness gap there … and Archer’s ceiling is plenty high for a pitcher.
You're probably right
Objectively, a guy who just dominated AA at 21 probably ought to rank above a guy with no pro experience.
Subjectively, Sale was the guy I was hoping would fall to the Rays on draft day — we literally had a watch party at my house and cheers went up when he was available at #17. This may say more about my general level of prospect geekery than Sale’s future as a cleanup hitter, but hey — you have to believe in your guys, right?
I have to ask
What does this do to Garza’s fantasy value? Getting out of the AL east is a benefit, as is going to the NL in general, but are the Cubs a good situation for him? I’ll admit to not knowing a lot about the team defensively, but they seem like an average team in every way at the moment.
-1 and only member of the Nick Weglarz fan club!
I am no fantasy guy anymore
but shouldn’t the AL-NL move, along with the fact that he’s leaving a division with 4 of the top 8 offensive friendly parks be a plus? that said, I guess the flip side is that the advantage gained will be dulled a bit by moving from the Trop to Wrigley, where he’ll give up a lot more homers. so … maybe he doesn’t gain that much.
Defensively, Cubs are fairly pedestrian defensively. Decent up the middle, but overall, fairly pedestrian.
I made the Ted Lilly comp on another thread
and it seems to me to be fairly instructive for Garza, too. That would suggest shaving 0.5 off of his projected ERA, a slight bump to Ks, and a fair bump to projected WHIP. This might be counteracted by a slight dip in projected wins (if you project wins; I generally don’t).
Overall I'd expect him to stay in the same runs allowed range.
The park’s going to hurt him, facing the Pirates occasionally might help, but it’s not like Milwaukee, Cincinnati or St. Louis are cupcake lineups to get through.
His career ERA+ of 107 is what Casey Coleman had last year with a 4.11 ERA, so I’m thinking anywhere from 3.50 in a particularly strong season, to 4.50 in a down year.
This is a terrific forum but the "Prospect Bias" is humorous
The Rays shed a quality pitcher, who can predictiably log 200 IP’s and has passed the injury nexus of young pitchers (and still doesn’t make big money) for one pitching prospect, who’s upside case is to attain the level of proficieincey that Garza already is at, plus 3 spare parts who don’t project as major league starters.
Yet, many here “love the deal” for the Rays.
Note to self regarding any trades of proven MLB talent for prospects — take the consensus barometer of this site and adjust it by at least ~ 30% to obtain a balanced reading.
Fat man is no more,
Bursting on through Heaven's Door
Come on in, says Bill
Hak-ju lee doesn't project as a major league starter?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
The problem is that lee is still 2 years away
a lot can happen in that time for a prospect so I rather like what Wilbur had to say…..at the very least it is humorous how we inflate prospect status by 30%
"I didn't really say everything I said."-Yogi ism
not without significant improvement in his hitting skills.
He reminds me of Kaz Matsui with less gap power. I think Lee’s a second division starter, but that almost certainly precludes him from a starter’s role with his new franchise.
His defensive potential at short
is higher than what Matsui ended up being stateside, at least the Kaz that I recall. Certainly, it’s just potential.
Kaz didn't knwo how to backhand a ball.
But he’s azn so the comp is fair. Just like Archer being the next Ed Jackson.
this is probably a fair criticism of that comp.
I was trying to think of a speedy, light hitting infielder who actually held some MLB value, and he’s the guy that popped into my head. I don’t doubt that unintentional racial profiling might have played some part in it.
thinking about it, Neifi Perez would actually be another similar player.
As you can see, I also have a former Rockies bias.
Matsui was a four time gold glover at shortstop in Japan.
His defense was supposedly so good that the Mets wanted to move Jose Reyes to second at first. On reputation, I would say that’s similar potential.
sure
I get that. I’m just saying that Lee’s potential is viewed as being far better than what Kaz ended up being.
sure
but when you compare reality to potential, that’s what often happens. It’s certainly possible he doesn’t polish his defense up (although he was viewed quite highly in MWL, best defensive SS there).
it turns out that
Japanese Gold Glove: American Gold Glove::American Dollar: Japanese Yen
So by this principle, it would take about 100 Japanese Gold Gloves to equal one American Gold Glove. And after seeing Matsui, I’d say that’s about right.
Derek Jeter correction factor
Is it already factored into this equation?
Thanks for 50 Great Years Bobby Cocks - (celebration cake from the US Senate)
I'd challenge the 3 spare parts who don't project as major league starters
At C and SS, plus defensive players can start with minimal offense. Add in Lee’s speed and both having good approaches, the idea that Chirinos and Lee don’t project as major league starters is debatable.
Guyer is a fringier case. Some people like him, some people don’t. I feel like he might be a starter on a 2nd tier club, a 4th OF (with some pop, some speed, and able to play all three OF spots) on a good club.
It’s certainly fair to critique the idea that prospects somehow trump known quantities that are young, but I’d simply challenge the notion that those guys can’t be starters.
Compare
I should say right off the bat that I don’t “love the deal” for the Rays in a vacuum — if I’m Andrew Friedman, I’d rather get a single A-level prospect back (Trout, Montero, Ackley?) than the package the Rays received. But of course, I have no idea if those guys are available in trade. I assume probably not.
So what we can do is compare this trade to the other big-name trades that have gone down.
San Diego got Casey Kelly, Anthony Rizzo, and Reymond Fuentes for Adrian Gonzalez. That’s pretty clearly an inferior package to what the Rays got for Garza; Archer > Kelly, Lee > Rizzo, and Guyer > Fuentes even without factoring in Chirinos.
KC got Jake Odorizzi, Alcides Escobar, and Lorenzo Cain for Zack Greinke. Again, this seems pretty straightforward to me: Archer = Odorizzi (at least; I think Archer’s better, but hey), Lee is roughly equal to Escobar, and Guyer > Cain. Again, Chirinos is a bonus.
So if the Rays have gotten more for Garza than the Padres got for A. Gonzalez and the Royals got for Greinke, it’s pretty hard to argue that the Rays didn’t do awfully damn well.
I'll play devil's advocate-ish
I didn’t love the KC return. That said, Cain can stick in CF, which gives him value over Guyer, who is a corner OF that can spot in CF. Escobar is ready.
As for comparing to the AGon trade, Kelly might be a safer bet to be a starter, Rizzo probably has a bit more star potential.
I think the deals are all fairly close to each other in value.
The one question I have, just for fun, is how you would rate Lawrie. Would you have preferred Lawrie or the package? I think that’s the comparison to be made, since the general perception was that Garza was a notch below Greinke. To be fair, the fact that Garza was sort of last big starter on trade market standing probably helped boost his value a bit. (just to put my 2 cents in, but I think this is clearly a better deal than just getting Lawrie).
Fuentes was the gem...that would be Lee.
I will miss that guy. I buy the hype on him.
Still think the Cubs won this deal…Garza should do really well.
both comparisons here look very, very rosy
R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix
especially the Gonzalez trade comparison
i’d take Kelly over Archer without thinking once. Ditto Fuentes over Guyer. Lee and Rizzo are both back end top 100 (if that) quality, so they are comparable.
R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix
Kelly vs. Archer
Me personally … I think it’s much closer (you make it sound definitive that Kelly is better). I think Archer has a higher ceiling than Kelly, but Kelly has a higher floor. If you’ve got the coaches and time to work with Archer (and the Rays certainly do), that’s a good situation for him.
Disagree...
I think that Kelly is a much better bet to remain a starter.
Your prospect comparisons are a little weird.
I don’t think many scouts would agree with you that Guyer > Fuentes. In fact, you’d likely get laughed at for the suggestion. A lot of people pretty strongly prefer Kelly to Archer, too. His repertoire is better and deeper.
Lee = Escobar is pretty weird too. He’s nowhere near Escobar’s glove. I’d also take Cain very Guyer.
The packages are comparable, especially given the throw-in of Chirinos, but the specific player comps here are wonky.
I would not take
Lee over Rizzo or Guyer over Fuentes. Maybe Lee over Escobar, but I didn’t like Escobar at all. As I said in the over/underrated prospects thread, I am a bit afraid of Lee not developing with the bat. I think he’ll still make it on defense.
by PrincetonCubs on Jan 7, 2011 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
Eh, I think you are wrong but not by a lot. This is a prospect site afterall, you can pretty much expect this type of opinion (which you seemingly do expect, just saying it is a bit much). The opinion that pretty much all prospects don’t have value until they produce at the MLB level is too far the other direction too. I could see every piece the Rays got as having varying amounts of value at the MLB level.
Well...
The Rays actually shed 2 years of a quality (if by quality you mean ~ average) pitcher who can be pretty safely relied upon to eat some innings. Those two years will cost something to the tune of $12-14 million. There’s also a very good chance they won’t take any step backwards on the current rotation, as they’re not without replacement options. In return, they get three solid to very good prospects (Chirinos = solid, Lee = solid, Archer = very good), each of which has a decent chance to give them 6 club-controlled years if they pan out.
If even one of them becomes a solid MLB player, it’s a win. That’s why there’s a “prospect bias.” Prospects who turn into productive MLBers are more valuable than the final two years of a decent but not great player’s club control.
And...
let’s not forget that the Rays just shaved $5-6 million in payroll off their 2011 squad, which they can use to spend on a DH (Manny, anyone?) and to fill out their bullpen.
Garza is an "average" SP if on a very good team
He is at least a strong #2 SP on most other teams. There is also a lot of value in health, durability and his ability to throw ~ 120 pitches without diminishing velo.
Garza will be neck and neck with Dempster as the best starter on the Cubs.
To be fair, I don’t the returns that KC got for Greinke either but that shouldn’t be the standard.
Fat man is no more,
Bursting on through Heaven's Door
Come on in, says Bill
in terms of stuff
Garza should have the best “stuff”. I do have questions on what happened to his K rate this year. I also have huge worries about how his fb rate is going to play with the change from Trop to Wrigley.
I would note that Randy Wells has had better FIP/xFIP’s the last 2 years than Garza. I don’t actually think Wells is better than Garza, but I also think the gap that people assume is between the two hasn’t been shown in productivity.
Garza was worth 1.8 WAR last year.
There is, indeed value in durability. That’s why WAR accounts for innings pitched.
If you prefer the ERA-based number to Fangraphs’ WAR (which is based on FIP), he was worth 2.0 WAR last year. You shouldn’t, though. The ERA-based number ignores defense, and TB’s is much, much better than Chicago’s.
Garza’s an average to slightly above innings eater. His Ks and ground ball rate are also trending the wrong way, which is a red flag and could lead to a quick decline. He’s not a special talent. He also costs $12-14 million over the next 2 years, which can be spent elsewhere. The Rays didn’t just subtract him from the major league squad, they also got a heap of cash to spend elsewhere.
Garza will be neck and neck with Dempster as the best starter on the Cubs.
Dempster has been a superior starting pitcher in each of the last 3 years. It’s possible Garza will outperform him, but for that to happen, either Garza needs to get significantly better, or Dempster needs to get significantly worse.
You’re overrating Garza pretty significantly here. He’s not as good as you think he is, by either traditional or advanced metrics. He’s useful, to be sure, but he’s not an elite pitcher.
Garza vs Dempster
I expect Garza to get a significant bump moving from the AL East and getting to face Hous/Pitt repeatedley.
Wrigley is a very weather dependent park, some years it does not spew HR’s.
I expect Garza to have a much improved K rate as well.
We will see how the Rays “spend the money”. So far there “external” purchases have been very lacking. Much more likely the money goes into their own pockets.
Fat man is no more,
Bursting on through Heaven's Door
Come on in, says Bill
what the hell are you basing this on?
“We will see how the Rays "spend the money". So far there "external" purchases have been very lacking. Much more likely the money goes into their own pockets.”
more insightful dribble drips out of my ass.
Friedman consistently waits and let’s the market shake out before he lunges at whatever name he likes. he does this every year. he waits for the surplus, or the “forgotten players”, and then gets them at more reasonable prices than what the first names taken bring.
what we are looking at is a pool of :
Thome
Manny
Branyan
Damon
Giambi
etc etc….
mostly older or injured guys. we will likely offer incentive laden deals. and Friedman will likely get the name he wants in the end. whether it turns to fruition or not, Friedman understands what it takes to play in the ALE and utilizing the budget he has been given, he does an incredible job.
The ERA-based number ignores defense, and TB’s is much, much better than Chicago’s.
This is false; you should look at how the stat is actually calculated before bashing it.
Just because unearned runs are taken out doesn't mean ERA doesn't factor in defense
because hits that aren’t gotten to by a slow defender are still hits, even if the defense is bad. Fewer balls that would have been hits (not errors) with a worse defense actually fell with the Rays defense. That being said, NL Central should balance out defensive lapses over the long run I’d think (though I’m not sure).
taking unearned runs into account normalizes for official scorer variance.
It doesn’t do anything about defense. It gets you maybe 5% of the way there.
Missing piece
Has anyone heard who the Cubs are receiving as the 3rd piece of the deal? All I’ve heard is minor-league pitcher.
it's speculated to be
a low level, 2nd tier type of guy, something Hendry and Co. actually do a decent job of mining. Anyone have a list of upside, lesser known arms in the low levels of the Rays system?
a few...
Wilking Rodriguez, Enny Romero, Jake Thompson, and Alex Colome all come to mind quickly.
If Hendry can get Romero or Colome...
that would be a minor coup…
Yeah, I doubt they're involved.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see them get Wilking Rodriguez though. He’s an eerily similar player to another pitcher the Cubs picked up this offseason (Robinson Lopez).
this would kill me inside
Here’s to hoping its someone like Quate/Shuman/Fleming or maybe Lobstein/Lara/etc.
Big Rodriguez fan I take it?
I’ve cooled on him substantially. Good arm, very disappointing results.
I don't think the results dissapointing
I like the fastball/curveball combo with that command. Seems a lot like Enny Romero if he had another year (Romero’s fastball may be a touch better)
He is #11 for me on my Ray’s list, but he could be anywhere from #8 or #9 to #15 or #16 and I wouldn’t have a huge problem with it.
while there's no set "guide"
In his history, when Hendry mines for low level arms, he has a tendency to go for raw guys with good fastballs, but sometimes needing work on the secondary stuff (some guys that come to mind: Jose Ceda, Marcos Mateo, Robinson Lopez; Chris Archer was a guy who had a polished secondary pitch, but the Cubs switched him to the slider). Most of these guys, pre-trade, were fairly down the radars of their respective teams (even Archer was somewhat lower on the radar scale).
Again, no set guide, but I’d look for a raw arm that’s in the low levels, with a good to big fastball, that probably ranks in the 20-30 section of a prospect list. That’s just my hunch.
from my cursory knowledge of these lower guys
I’d say Shuman may be a strong possibility.
I think this is a good deal for both sides
The cubs didn’t have to give up Jackson, Cashner, or McNutt (who I preferred over Archer) while receiving a 27 yr old who could be a solid #2 in the NL, and the Rays got a nice group of prospects who really deepen their system. And Hellickson’s no longer blocked. I think the Rays got a good return, but it doesn’t compare to Kelly/Rizzo/Fuentes in my mind. I think it was better than the Brewers’ package for Greinke, but I don’t know if he would have come to Chicago (or if the Cubs were all that interested, for whatever reason.) Plus the Cubs might get a nice young arm in return as well.
Good deal for both, I think.
Hak-ju's floor
if nothing else, saves Tampa money in not needing to hire any musicians/concert specials.
My Updated Rays Top 30
to add a bit more perspective to the lists already thrown out there. Still attest this is a very good haul for the Rays.
1) Jeremy Hellickson
2) Desmond Jennings
3) Matt Moore
4) Jake McGee
5) Alex Torres
6) Chris Archer
7) Nick Barnese
8) Josh Sale ((top 100))
9) Hak-Ju Lee ((might drop him a bit, not sure yet))
10) Alex Cobb ((might move to 9))
11) Wilking Rodriguez
12) Alex Colome ((top 150))
13) Tim Beckham
14) Enny Romero
15) Joseph Cruz ((top 200))
16) Justin O’Conner
17) Jake Thompson
18) Brandon Guyer
19) Drew Vettleson
20) Robinson Chirinos
21) Luke Bailey
22) Tyler Bortnick
23) Leslie Anderson
24) Ty Morrison
25) Scott Shuman
26) Cody Rogers
27) Cole Figueroa
28) Ryan Brett
29) Derek Dietrich
30) Jesse Hahn
Guevara / Glaesmann / Lobstein / Lara / Nommensen are probably my guys through 35
I love this depth, and one of these guys has to pan out in the middle infield, right?
Guevara probably gets in there
Maybe I'm just too low on relievers (it took coercion to get Shuman into my top 30)
but Quate will be in the 35 – 40 range probably mixed with Suarez (who should probably be #31, looking at it again) / Sweeney / Lobaton / Kendall / Cesar Perez
Just don’t see it over someone like Brandon Gomes, in terms of Quate
I kind of like Quate
Have him right around the same area as Shuman. Could be a solid bullpen guy relatively soon.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
If they move him its an organizational move, one that I wouldn't do
his changeup is at least average if not slightly above. I have faith he could be a very good starter with two plus pitches and a develop third pitch. Durability is a bit of a concern, but if I were looking at it I wouldn’t tank his value by moving him to the bullpen.
What seperates him from someone like, say, Zach Stewart (not to get into an argument about Stewart) is that there are aspects of Stewart’s profile as a prospect that make him particularly more likely to relieve. With McGee, I don’t see them as his command isn’t an issue (even if it isn’t perfect), his stuff isn’t bad (as in, expected to take a huge / necessary jump by moving to relief like someone like Heath Rollins), and he has three major-league ready pitches.
I’m not really sure I want to knock him because the organization is rushing him because of depth at the position. I don’t buy the durability stuff quite yet, he did fine with the workload last year and I would like to see him try and build on that.
Keith law
Saw his write up of the trade and he feels hak ju is the star of the trade and a potential monster at ss. Law also went on to state lee was his #1 prospect for the organization. Anyone else feel that way?
not me ... but
if you buy, and iirc the Law comments, he seemed to buy it, that Lee will develop decent/passable power … then perhaps. I mean, a lot of people are down on Lee because they assume that his offense will only be marginally better than Escobar’s. If Lee does develop passable/decent power, then he becomes a plus glove guy with enough offense, and if that’s the case, sure you could make the argument that he might be more valuable than Brett Jackson or the two arms.
I’m just not sure I buy the power development … yet. I want to see something to make me believe it, and one additional note is that his swing path isn’t going to be conducive to power.
Final piece of the trade
Rays send Zach Rosscup to the Cubs…
Don’t know anything about this kid but he looks like he could be a decent SP, though not necessarily a world-beater. Curious to see how much of that is a result of the Rays’ methodical working of SPs or just natural talent.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa502404&position=P
I think it's more
being a polished college arm and crushing the hell out of kids half your age in short-season leagues.
Given that the Cubs were allowed to select an organizational arm, they did a nice job picking up a lefty with a ~2%(?) chance of maybe making the majors, instead of your typical 28-year-old-in-AA with no chance. But still — Rosscup isn’t one of the 50 most valuable TB minor-leaguers. He’s not a prospect.
by AndrewTorrez on Jan 8, 2011 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
Why the Garza deal favors the Cubs
http://baseballnumbers-diamondfutures.blogspot.com/2011/01/zack-greinke-matt-garza-and-shawn.html
Finally a good article that I agree with.
it's an interesting article
but it doesn’t reach the conclusion that the Garza deal “favors the Cubs.” Rather, it points out that teams may be able to leverage being the top prospect in an organization without A-level talent. I think this is probably true at the margins, FWIW.
by AndrewTorrez on Jan 12, 2011 9:13 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Minor League Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
