The rumors surrounding teams interested in Matt Garza have been around for a long time. Every year teams have inquired on his availability so it’s no surprise he’s once again the target of trade speculation. Ken Rosenthal reported yesterday that teams were also interested in Sean Marshall. The Cubs are set to undergo a rebuilding project that will likely take a few years at the very least. As a result, every player on the roster is available for the right price.
Garza has two years left while Marshall has only one year remaining. We’ve talked about Garza’s trade value before, but haven’t looked at Marshall’s. He’s set to earn $3.1 million in the final year of the 2-year contract he signed last offseason. He’ll be a free agent at season’s end so his value is limited. Marshall ranked 5th in fWAR among relievers in 2010 and 3rd in 2011. He’s combined for 5 fWAR the last two years and has established himself as the best reliever on the Cubs. He’s one of the better relievers in baseball.
Oliver projects 2 WAR from him in 2012. That makes him worth $10 million and gives the Cubs a surplus trade value of $6.5 million. The compensation system changes dramatically next year under the new CBA. In order to qualify for draft pick compensation a team will have to offer their free agenta qualifying offer for more than $12 million. There is no chance that the Cubs or any other team would offer Sean Marshall that kind of money. Marshall would have been a type A under the previous CBA and would have been worth an additional $5 million. That’s not so anymore. His total surplus trade value is the $6.5 million mentioned before.
A Grade B pitcher is valued at $7.3 million while a grade B hitter is worth about $5.5 million. Using last year’s Cubs top prospects by John Sickels we see that Chris Carpenter and Jay Jackson were grade B pitchers. Josh Vitters was a B-. That gives you an idea of the caliber of player the Cubs could expect in return. It’s difficult to say whether he’d be worth more or less. Teams tend to overpay for relievers, but realistically speaking you’re probably better off expecting a somewhat marginal return. Marshall is good, but he’s a reliever. He’s going to pitch 70 innings per season for a team that will pitch about 1450 innings. He’s a very small piece to the puzzle, but he is good enough that he’s going to provide significant value.
Comments
The bitch of it is that I bet if he had a few saves, his perceived value would go up because he can get the “hardest outs in the game.”
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]The bitch of it is that I bet if he had a few saves, his perceived value would go up because he can get the “hardest outs in the game.”[/quote]If he became the closer this year early in the season he just might be worth offering that $12 million to on a one year deal. If he pitches as he has and in that role he’d be getting a lot of very large offers next offseason.
mb21Quote Reply
Papelbon got a contract worth over $12 M per year so if that is the market, then Marshall could be worth about $9M in trade.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]If he became the closer this year early in the season he just might be worth offering that $12 million to on a one year deal. If he pitches as he has and in that role he’d be getting a lot of very large offers next offseason.[/quote]
And, yeah, he could also tag on that extra value of being Type A for getting a high enough Qualifying offer.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]The bitch of it is that I bet if he had a few saves, his perceived value would go up because he can get the “hardest outs in the game.”[/quote]I honestly wish the FO would trade Marmol and push Marshall into the closer role just to increase his value. Then again I really hope they are attempting to trade Garza/Marshall as it does appear the return on both should be very good.
JManQuote Reply
That’s based on the average of the top free agent salaries or something, right?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Do teams tend to offer a better package of players during the offseason or during the trade deadline? I wonder if the Cubs should try to trade Garza at the deadline when contending teams might be a little more desperate.
MuckerQuote Reply
They’d offer less because the player would have less years of club control. The other risk you take with waiting until the deadline is health and for a pitcher that’s never something I’d bet on.
mb21Quote Reply
I’m guessing the Cubs have interest in 5 years and around $100 million.
mb21Quote Reply
Answered my own question:
So I guess that’s where the $12MM comes from.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Yeah, last year it was about $12 million.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]They’d offer less because the player would have less years of club control. The other risk you take with waiting until the deadline is health and for a pitcher that’s never something I’d bet on.[/quote]
They SHOULD offer less, but that is when the pressure to DO SOMETHING is at its highest as teams claw for a playoff spot. Fiscal responsibility and prudence in regards to a farm system is all well and good in the off-season when the playoffs are an abstract thought. but if you are looking at your team and you think you NEED a closer to finish the deal, I would think you would be under tremendous pressure to pay the elevated price because shots at the playoffs don’t happen every year for most teams.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]I had a friend who worked as a guidance counselor at a private high school, and it was in her contract that her employment could be terminated if she drank alcohol. They even asked at her interview if she drank at Thanksgiving with her family.[/quote]
A friend of mine worked at a rural LA high school – one of the gym teachers was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock last year. I don’t think it was in the contract. My friend doesn’t work there anymore, but she was worried she might get fired/otherwise shit upon if someone put the pieces together and figured out that she doesn’t go to church (she said that she was some denomination that conveniently didn’t have a church in the county).
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]They SHOULD offer less, but that is when the pressure to DO SOMETHING is at its highest as teams claw for a playoff spot. Fiscal responsibility and prudence in regards to a farm system is all well and good in the off-season when the playoffs are an abstract thought. but if you are looking at your team and you think you NEED a closer to finish the deal, I would think you would be under tremendous pressure to pay the elevated price because shots at the playoffs don’t happen every year for most teams.[/quote]A few years ago I’d have agreed with you, but in recent years teams have been very reluctant to trade prospects. The type of trades we saw for relievers 5 or 8 years ago rarely happen these days. It seems to me that teams are now more aware than ever before how important and valuable prospects are. I also think they’re aware of how little a guy really improves the team when acquired in late July. All you need is one team willing to overpay though.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]A friend of mine worked at a rural LA high school – one of the gym teachers was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock last year. I don’t think it was in the contract. My friend doesn’t work there anymore, but she was worried she might get fired/otherwise shit upon if someone put the pieces together and figured out that she doesn’t go to church (she said that she was some denomination that conveniently didn’t have a church in the county).[/quote]I forget that in some parts of the country it’s still 1950.
joshQuote Reply
http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/reds_cubs_talking_trade/8859868?new_post=true
Marshall for Travis Wood deal being discussed.
That would be…. interesting.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/reds_cubs_talking_trade/8859868?new_post=true
Marshall for Travis Wood deal being discussed.
That would be…. interesting.[/quote]. By interesting you mean awful right?
JManQuote Reply
I like the trade, though I think that’s a steal for the Cubs and there must be more. Marshall is an great reliever but he’s still a reliever, and one with one year left to FA. I’d also gladly take the under on that 2 WAR projection.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I like the trade, though I think that’s a steal for the Cubs and there must be more. Marshall is an great reliever but he’s still a reliever, and one with one year left to FA. I’d also gladly take the under on that 2 WAR projection.[/quote]
Reds might also want Marlon Byrd…
Seems kind of weird to have an in-division trade set up like this.
Plus where would Drew Stubbs be?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Also, what is the point of having a guy like Marshall around for what looks like another 70-75 win team.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I don’t know why the Cubs don’t attempt to move Marshall to the rotation.
He’s become a considerably better pitcher since he’s last started. And it’s not like they have the rotation set.
RodrigoQuote Reply
Wow, this cricket match is still going on. Unfortunately, it’s under weather delay.
ACTQuote Reply
The weather has been conspiring against my attempts to watch cricket, just as it tried to keep me from watching Zambrano last week.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Rodrigo]I don’t know why the Cubs don’t attempt to move Marshall to the rotation.
He’s become a considerably better pitcher since he’s last started. And it’s not like they have the rotation set.[/quote]That ship sailed last season when they put him in the pen again. Now if they try to start him they’d just be stretching him out for whoever he signs with. Marshall would probably love it if they did, would mean more $$ for him (as HP pointed out last night, CJ Wilson and his agent would agree)
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]That ship sailed last season when they put him in the pen again. Now if they try to start him they’d just be stretching him out for whoever he signs with. Marshall would probably love it if they did, would mean more $$ for him (as HP pointed out last night, CJ Wilson and his agent would agree)[/quote]
I don’t think the Cubs should keep him, but I am extremely disappointed that this is all they would get back in return for a guy who is one of the best in the majors at what he does.
It just serves as yet another reminder, before the season even starts, just how fucked this team is and how long it is going to take to unfuck them.
Aisle424Quote Reply
The in-division thing aside, is this that bad? You’re sending a top-line but 30-year-old reliever in exchange for a 24-year-old starter who doesn’t walk too many people and strikes out a ton while keeping the ball in the park. Maybe I’m naive but it sounds like a pretty good deal…
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]That ship sailed last season when they put him in the pen again. Now if they try to start him they’d just be stretching him out for whoever he signs with. Marshall would probably love it if they did, would mean more $$ for him (as HP pointed out last night, CJ Wilson and his agent would agree)[/quote]
Good point. But maybe they can stretch him out during the off season. Then if he’s successful as a starter they can get more back in a trade.
RodrigoQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]The in-division thing aside, is this that bad? You’re sending a top-line but 30-year-old reliever in exchange for a 24-year-old starter who doesn’t walk too many people and strikes out a ton while keeping the ball in the park. Maybe I’m naive but it sounds like a pretty good deal…[/quote]
5 years of control for a lefty starter age 24 for 1 year of a 30 y.o. reliever being paid 3.5M? Where do I sign up. I like Marshall alot, he probably is the best LH reliever in MLB at this point, however, he wasn’t 2 years ago and he won’t be in 2 more years. The shelf life on relievers is really small. I say cash in.
Also, what’s not to say Wood isn’t included in something for Rizzo. I hope Garza goes to Toronto.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=Rodrigo]Good point. But maybe they can stretch him out during the off season. Then if he’s successful as a starter they can get more back in a trade.[/quote]If he’s somehow successful as a starter, wouldn’t you want to keep him for a bit, or offer him the one-year $12MM contract and watch him go elsewhere and pocket the pick?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]5 years of control for a lefty starter age 24 for 1 year of a 30 y.o. reliever being paid 3.5M? Where do I sign up. I like Marshall alot, he probably is the best LH reliever in MLB at this point, however, he wasn’t 2 years ago and he won’t be in 2 more years. The shelf life on relievers is really small. I say cash in.
Also, what’s not to say Wood isn’t included in something for Rizzo. I hope Garza goes to Toronto.[/quote]At some point they’ll all be flipped for Nolasco.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Travis Wood isn’t bad, but his extreme flyball rate raises questions whether he can maintain his low home run rate.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Travis Wood isn’t bad, but his extreme flyball rate raises questions whether he can maintain his low home run rate.[/quote]I recall asking the same question about Matt Garza.
Then there’s this guy:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cainma01.shtml
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Cain has kept it up much longer, so we don’t have to regress his home run rate as much.
ACTQuote Reply
I’m thinking if the Cubs are in fact targeting Wood, they’re also asking for someone else in addition. Given what Mike Adams obtained for SD last year, I’m not worried about Hoyer’s ability to extract value for set-up men. I kinda hope this report was leaked so that other teams will know the Cubs are serious about dealing Marshall, and will line up with their offers.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
KG says Wood’s ceiling is back-end starter.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Cain has kept it up much longer, so we don’t have to regress his home run rate as much.[/quote]I don’t really know the math needed to do that kind of analysis but for Wood, his minor league homer rate is about the same as what he put up in parts of two seasons in the majors. So maybe it’s sustainable?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Possibly. I just don’t know if we can assume it.
ACTQuote Reply
James Russell could be a 24 year old lefty starter this year. He [quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I’m thinking if the Cubs are in fact targeting Wood, they’re also asking for someone else in addition. Given what Mike Adams obtained for SD last year, I’m not worried about Hoyer’s ability to extract value for set-up men. I kinda hope this report was leaked so that other teams will know the Cubs are serious about dealing Marshall, and will line up with their offers.[/quote]
That would be nice.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]James Russell could be a 24 year old lefty starter this year. He [/quote]
…was so awesome that they cut all his starts short this past season.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]KG says Wood’s ceiling is back-end starter.[/quote]KLaw says Wood can be closer to a 3 with a pitching change. Not sure what that means however….
JManQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]The in-division thing aside, is this that bad? You’re sending a top-line but 30-year-old reliever in exchange for a 24-year-old starter who doesn’t walk too many people and strikes out a ton while keeping the ball in the park. Maybe I’m naive but it sounds like a pretty good deal…[/quote]He’s not much of high K/9 guy. Wood has averaged about 7 per 9. So if they feel he’s a guy that can keep it in the park they need to upgrade the OF defense pronto.
JManQuote Reply
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/7496/source-cubs-reds-close-on-marshall-deal
Guess it’s been upgraded from just a rumor then.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/7496/source-cubs-reds-close-on-marshall-deal
Guess it’s been upgraded from just a rumor then.[/quote]Be interesting to know who the two minor leaguers are.
JManQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Things I have to look forward to next baseball season:
1. Incremental improvement from Starlin Castro.
2. Sean Marshall making left-handed batters look silly.3. The draft.
4. ???[/quote]*sigh*
ACTQuote Reply
I’m not knocking the deal; don’t get me wrong. But it still saddens me.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]I’m not knocking the deal; don’t get me wrong. But it still saddens me.[/quote]
Yes. This.
It’s a perfectly fine and intelligent deal, but it is depressing as hell.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Way to rub it in, ESPN.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Yes. This.
It’s a perfectly fine and intelligent deal, but it is depressing as hell.[/quote]
I like the deal. A young starting pitcher with many years of team control is exactly the kind of rebuilding I want to see.
Selling Garza however would be pretty sad to me, because it would mean they don’t even bother trying to win games in the next couple of years.
At least I fail to see how the Cubs could get better by selling him.
DamageControlFreakQuote Reply
[quote name=DamageControlFreak]I like the deal. A young starting pitcher with many years of team control is exactly the kind of rebuilding I want to see.
Selling Garza however would be pretty sad to me, because it would mean they don’t even bother trying to win games in the next couple of years.
At least I fail to see how the Cubs could get better by selling him.[/quote]They pick up minor leaguers and rebuild from the ground up. That’s what “getting better” is going to mean until we have a decent system, I suspect.
joshQuote Reply
Wow, word is that there are two minor leaguers coming along too. Wonder if they’ll be of any consequence.
BerseliusQuote Reply
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/BBWAA-defends-Bill-Conlin-after-child-sexual-abu?urn=mlb-wp28883
BerseliusQuote Reply
I really like this trade though it’s hard to imagine it’s just Marshall going to Cincy.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I really like this trade though it’s hard to imagine it’s just Marshall going to Cincy.[/quote]Dusty was always a little miffed the Cubs “reloaded” after 2006 rather than before it. Maybe they’ll take Soriano?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
After sleeping on this Bubbles is kinda intrigued.. Does anyone want the scouting report for Wood from BA from like 2 years ago?
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
James Russell was actually pretty good in the pen last year…
I also like Gaub and Maine more than most around here. If this can get us what we need to get Rizzo I would be happy.
I am shocked we havent been able to get a bite on marmol
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
If we get Travis Wood I don’t want him traded for Rizzo.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]Dusty was always a little miffed the Cubs “reloaded” after 2006 rather than before it. Maybe they’ll take Soriano?[/quote]edit: (dying laughing)
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I’m fine with trading parts away and restocking system, I just hope they also spend the money that they save.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]If we get Travis Wood I don’t want him traded for Rizzo.[/quote]
Wow. You cant just throw that out there and not explain rationale
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
According to fangraphs, both Bill James and the fans have Wood projected for an under-4 FIP in 2012. It seems like the new regime is targeting both LH pitchers and hitters. I realize the Cubs didn’t have many last year, but I wonder if they’ve also found that lefties would do a bit better in Wrigley based on some park factor stuff they’ve done.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
Interesting article as we discuss prospects
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7370324/the-mlb-prospect-bubble
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/BBWAA-defends-Bill-Conlin-after-child-sexual-abu?urn=mlb-wp28883[/quote]
I don’t have that much of a problem with the statement itself; the “in good standing” might not be the best wording, but that’s it. I believe they said something similar a week ago when Braun was accused of PED usage (they wouldn’t take away his MVP). And far as I know, Jack O’Connell has never been one of those linked to faux moralizing like much of the rest of the BBWAA.
That said, it sure will be fun to see if all the “STRIP BRAUN OF THE MVP” crowd will say anything similar about this. Because remember, PEDs = bad, child molestation = acceptable.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I’m thinking if the Cubs are in fact targeting Wood, they’re also asking for someone else in addition. Given what Mike Adams obtained for SD last year, I’m not worried about Hoyer’s ability to extract value for set-up men. I kinda hope this report was leaked so that other teams will know the Cubs are serious about dealing Marshall, and will line up with their offers.[/quote]
Thats what i said yesterday on Twitter. i hope you are correct
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]I don’t have that much of a problem with the statement itself; the “in good standing” might not be the best wording, but that’s it. I believe they said something similar a week ago when Braun was accused of PED usage (they wouldn’t take away his MVP). And far as I know, Jack O’Connell has never been one of those linked to faux moralizing like much of the rest of the BBWAA.
That said, it sure will be fun to see if all the “STRIP BRAUN OF THE MVP” crowd will say anything similar about this. Because remember, PEDs = bad, child molestation = acceptable.[/quote]
Yeah, it’s just a dumb thing to say. It reminds me of Ron Swanson’s speech about Marlene Griggs-Knope in the first season. “it is true that you have won this award”
BerseliusQuote Reply
Also, Ron Swanson speeches > all other speeches
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]Wow. You cant just throw that out there and not explain rationale[/quote]Wood is 24 and has at least 5 years of club control. He’s super cheap and he provides about average production. The Cubs are rebuilding. You don’t acquire a guy with that much surplus value and then trade him for another player. Trade the veterans that you already have to acquire additional cost controlled players.
mb21Quote Reply
jcrasnick Jerry Crasnick
The pending Wood-Marshall trade, reported by @ken_rosenthal, not good news for Paul Maholm or Jeff Francis
When did this go to Pending?
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]Interesting article as we discuss prospects
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7370324/the-mlb-prospect-bubble%5B/quote%5DI stopped reading after this:
.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Wood is 24 and has at least 5 years of club control. He’s super cheap and he provides about average production. The Cubs are rebuilding. You don’t acquire a guy with that much surplus value and then trade him for another player. Trade the veterans that you already have to acquire additional cost controlled players.[/quote]
Bub bubbles would give up Marshall for Rizzo so he would 100% give up Wood for Rizzo
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]jcrasnick Jerry Crasnick
The pending Wood-Marshall trade, reported by @ken_rosenthal, not good news for Paul Maholm or Jeff Francis
When did this go to Pending?[/quote]Is “pending” more advanced than “close”?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]Is “pending” more advanced thatn”close”?[/quote]
To me pending = waiting for physicals
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]They pick up minor leaguers and rebuild from the ground up. That’s what “getting better” is going to mean until we have a decent system, I suspect.[/quote]I feel this would be the wrong approach to “rebuilding”.
Sitting around and hoping for some minor leaguers to pan out is a gamble, not really a strategy.
If the Cubs had a starting pitcher to spare, it might be worth taking a risk, but not when it means crippling the rotation without any replacement.
So far Theo and friends have done a decent job finding people that will (hopefully) help next year AND the years to follow, some more short term that others but still.
DamageControlFreakQuote Reply
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/12/20/2650433/washington-nationals-top-20-prospects-for-2012
Now that’s a system.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]To me pending = waiting for physicals[/quote]
Thats how i take it.. Maybe we can get Aroldis Chapman too
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]To me pending = waiting for physicals[/quote]We need songs with pending in the title.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
ACTQuote Reply
New stuff:
http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/the-cubs-superfriends-are-obviously-morans.html
AndCountingQuote Reply
.
WaLiQuote Reply