2010-11 Cubs Offseason: I, For One, Welcome Our New .196-Hitting Overlord

[J. Walter Weatherman]

He has 5 years worth of MLB data at this point....so I'm not compelled by what his minor league numbers were.  They sort of don't matter at this point.

The point of looking at Garza's minor league numbers was not to convince you that Garza's teh frigging awelsome. It was about having some perspective re: Archer's minor league success and his major league ceiling...

His minor league numbers are pretty good, but they're not otherworldly like, say, Matt Garza's minor league numbers were.

Compared to Archer's 70 innings in AA, Garza's a relative known quantity and that itself is worth something.

(And, yeah, you're probably right that that sort of thing worth more to a team in the hunt than it is to a team few expect to contend for anything that matters—with the flexibility to 'see how it plays out.' But it has value nonetheless.)

[Internet Apex]

The Cubs are going to be a lot better than you turds think this year. What that means, I don't know but regardless, they're working toward 2012 when some big contracts expire. At that point, a starter of Garza's caliber would be a major priority. And the prospects they traded today may never have the value of Garza again. By this time next year at least two of them could be injured or signifcantly lower-rated. And dipshit Cub fans would sit around and bitch because Hendry let them rot on the vine when he could have gotten value for them.

Hendry traded DeRo at the last possible opportunity to receive value in return. Look at the value he received? Chris Fucking Archer, so fucking great he got traded for Matt Armcock Garza. Now, guess what, those contracts are Still coming off the books in 2012, and they've already scored a frontline starter.

So shut your lip, drink your Miller Lite and beat off to your Baseball Prospectus pinup calendar.

[Lance Dicksons Arm]

So shut your lip, drink your Miller Lite and beat off to your Baseball Prospectus pinup calendar.

I only do that on Tuesdays.

And Thursdays.

[Internet Apex]

So shut your lip, drink your Miller Lite and beat off to your Baseball Prospectus pinup calendar.

I only do that on Tuesdays.

And Thursdays.

They don't call you Lance Dicksons Armcock for no reason.

[Bort]

Archer won the organizational pitching triple crown.  I'm not sure where the idea comes from that becoming Garza is his ceiling.

Because most analysts have referred to him as having the ceiling of a No. 2/3 starter due to his control issues.  Some were even talking about eventually moving him to the bullpen because of his command.  Even when he had such good results at AA last year, he was walking over 5 guys per 9 innings.  His minor league numbers are pretty good, but they're not otherworldly like, say, Matt Garza's minor league numbers were.

If a team develops a prospect who turns out to be a No. 2/3 starter, that's a great showing for their farm system.  It's an even better showing if they can trade that prospect for a pitcher who's already proven he's a No. 2 starter.  

Archer has promise, but unless he magically figures out how to cut his walks in half as he faces tougher competition, he's not going to turn into an ace.

Summarize your exact feelings and justification for this trade into a couple sentences that I can condescendingly pass off to my friends as my own thoughts.

He is an extremely talented if somewhat controversial player entering the prime of his career. But his attitude and ability to lead are widely questioned. He can be brilliant and he can be otherwise and he can be a royal dick. When he entered the league, he was touted as a future star, though has yet to actually crack the ceiling that his ability suggests. The team gave up a fortune for him and it was worth it because...

ARMCOCK!

That work?

I'm on board the TRAINWAGON^TM

[Oleg]

Archer won the organizational pitching triple crown.  I'm not sure where the idea comes from that becoming Garza is his ceiling.

Because most analysts have referred to him as having the ceiling of a No. 2/3 starter due to his control issues.  Some were even talking about eventually moving him to the bullpen because of his command.  Even when he had such good results at AA last year, he was walking over 5 guys per 9 innings.  His minor league numbers are pretty good, but they're not otherworldly like, say, Matt Garza's minor league numbers were.

If a team develops a prospect who turns out to be a No. 2/3 starter, that's a great showing for their farm system.  It's an even better showing if they can trade that prospect for a pitcher who's already proven he's a No. 2 starter.  

Archer has promise, but unless he magically figures out how to cut his walks in half as he faces tougher competition, he's not going to turn into an ace.

Summarize your exact feelings and justification for this trade into a couple sentences that I can condescendingly pass off to my friends as my own thoughts.

He is an extremely talented if somewhat controversial player entering the prime of his career. But his attitude and ability to lead are widely questioned. He can be brilliant and he can be otherwise and he can be a royal dick. When he entered the league, he was touted as a future star, though has yet to actually crack the ceiling that his ability suggests. The team gave up a fortune for him and it was worth it because...

ARMCOCK!

That work?

I'm on board the TRAINWAGON^TM

You know that's just a stripped down hatemobile, right?

[Slaky]

Archer won the organizational pitching triple crown.  I'm not sure where the idea comes from that becoming Garza is his ceiling.

Because most analysts have referred to him as having the ceiling of a No. 2/3 starter due to his control issues.  Some were even talking about eventually moving him to the bullpen because of his command.  Even when he had such good results at AA last year, he was walking over 5 guys per 9 innings.  His minor league numbers are pretty good, but they're not otherworldly like, say, Matt Garza's minor league numbers were.

If a team develops a prospect who turns out to be a No. 2/3 starter, that's a great showing for their farm system.  It's an even better showing if they can trade that prospect for a pitcher who's already proven he's a No. 2 starter.  

Archer has promise, but unless he magically figures out how to cut his walks in half as he faces tougher competition, he's not going to turn into an ace.

Summarize your exact feelings and justification for this trade into a couple sentences that I can condescendingly pass off to my friends as my own thoughts.

He is an extremely talented if somewhat controversial player entering the prime of his career. But his attitude and ability to lead are widely questioned. He can be brilliant and he can be otherwise and he can be a royal dick. When he entered the league, he was touted as a future star, though has yet to actually crack the ceiling that his ability suggests. The team gave up a fortune for him and it was worth it because...

ARMCOCK!

That work?

I'm on board the TRAINWAGON^TM

You know that's just a stripped down hatemobile, right?

These days all I can afford is a Hatejalopy.

[Eli]

The Cubs are going to be a lot better than you turds think this year. What that means, I don't know but regardless, they're working toward 2012 when some big contracts expire. At that point, a starter of Garza's caliber would be a major priority. And the prospects they traded today may never have the value of Garza again. By this time next year at least two of them could be injured or signifcantly lower-rated. And dipshit Cub fans would sit around and bitch because Hendry let them rot on the vine when he could have gotten value for them.

Hendry traded DeRo at the last possible opportunity to receive value in return. Look at the value he received? Chris Fucking Archer, so fucking great he got traded for Matt Armcock Garza. Now, guess what, those contracts are Still coming off the books in 2012, and they've already scored a frontline starter.

So shut your lip, drink your Miller Lite and beat off to your Baseball Prospectus pinup calendar.

Pretty much all of this. Hendry's dumb, but he's not dumb enough to ignore all the money coming off the books after 2011.

Remember the good ol' days when we disagreed on everything?  Me neither, Apex. Me neither.

[Ivy6]

Not a single "Guys like Matt Garza grow on trees" joke this whole thread.  Good work, everyone.

[Internet Apex]

The Cubs are going to be a lot better than you turds think this year. What that means, I don't know but regardless, they're working toward 2012 when some big contracts expire. At that point, a starter of Garza's caliber would be a major priority. And the prospects they traded today may never have the value of Garza again. By this time next year at least two of them could be injured or signifcantly lower-rated. And dipshit Cub fans would sit around and bitch because Hendry let them rot on the vine when he could have gotten value for them.

Hendry traded DeRo at the last possible opportunity to receive value in return. Look at the value he received? Chris Fucking Archer, so fucking great he got traded for Matt Armcock Garza. Now, guess what, those contracts are Still coming off the books in 2012, and they've already scored a frontline starter.

So shut your lip, drink your Miller Lite and beat off to your Baseball Prospectus pinup calendar.

Pretty much all of this. Hendry's dumb, but he's not dumb enough to ignore all the money coming off the books after 2011.

Remember the good ol' days when we disagreed on everything?  Me neither, Apex. Me neither.

Apparently, I got a lot smarter and you got a lot dumber. And vice versa.

[JD]

I'm not sure why anyone would be against this trade.

[SKO]

I don't remember ARMCOCK ever being applicable to baseball. I should have trademarked that shit when I had the chance.

[Ivy6]

I'm not sure why anyone would be against this trade.

I'm against the guy who made it.  Does that count?

[Pre]

I'm not sure why anyone would be against this trade.

I'm not strongly against it, but I also don't think the trade is all sunshine and rainbows.

I don't have much of any faith in Cubs 'prospects', but it seems like giving away the
chance for some cheap useful years for the right to pay Garza a lot of money.  And
the thing is that I just don't think a ton of Garza.  Maybe it's because he looks like
Matt Clement with a spray tan.  I am very skeptical that the AL East->NL Central
move will be a bigger impact than the Rays Defense->Cubs Defense, and
Tropicana->Wrigley for a severe fly ball pitcher.

If you think that Garza will be a big contributor for the Cubs then it's definitely it's a
hell of a good trade.  I just don't see that as the case.

[CT III]

I'm not sure why anyone would be against this trade.

I'm not strongly against it, but I also don't think the trade is all sunshine and rainbows.

I don't have much of any faith in Cubs 'prospects', but it seems like giving away the
chance for some cheap useful years for the right to pay Garza a lot of money.  And
the thing is that I just don't think a ton of Garza.  Maybe it's because he looks like
Matt Clement with a spray tan.  I am very skeptical that the AL East->NL Central
move will be a bigger impact than the Rays Defense->Cubs Defense, and
Tropicana->Wrigley for a severe fly ball pitcher.

If you think that Garza will be a big contributor for the Cubs then it's definitely it's a
hell of a good trade.  I just don't see that as the case.

He looks more like Joaquin Benoit to me.