On Monday, the Cubs completed the Matt Garza Trade Part II, sending him to the Rangers for C.J. Edwards, Justin Grimm, Mike Olt, and a PTBNL (either Neil Ramirez or presumably two lower-level arms). Olt is a potential power-hitting third baseman with a good glove, though there are questions about his ability to make contact. Edwards is a high-ceiling arm who has emerged from obscurity to show great stuff. Grimm is a rookie pitcher that potentially has mid-rotation upside. Ramirez is a 24 year old AA-arm whose stuff is well thought of.
This trade comes nearly two and a half years after the Cubs' acquisition of Garza from the Rays. In that trade, the Cubs sent Chris Archer, Hak-Ju Lee, Brandon Guyer, Robinson Chirinos, and Sam Fuld. Currently, Archer is having some success in the Rays rotation, though he still doesn't look to have solved the control issues that were a question mark at the time. Lee is out for the year with an injury, but has progressed steadily through the Rays' system. He has yet to show much with the bat in the high minors, but his defense is supposedly very good. Guyer is in the midst of his second solid season at AAA for the team, though the Rays' depth makes it seem that his promotion to the majors is not near. Chirinos has since been released and Fuld is a defense specialist.
At the time of the first Garza trade, the Rangers were also thought to be suitors, but the Rays preferred the Cubs' package. The reports were that the Rangers offered Tampa a package around young lefty Derek Holland that included Frank Francisco and Engel Beltre. Holland is finally showing high-end results that many predicted for him in the minor leagues; the lefty seems like he could be a solid #2/3 going forward, but looked like more of #3/4 prior to this season. He will be a free agent after the 2016 season. (EDIT: Holland has two club options for the 2017 and 2018 seasons at $11 and $11.5 million). Beltre is a bench bat for the Rangers, and hasn't shown much. Francisco has bounced around a bit and struggled with injury. He is currently on the Mets' DL with elbow problems.
Assuming the Rangers were offering this, the Cubs could have flipped Garza for the Holland package in 2011 had they wanted to. So the question is, setting aside all of what has happened with all of these players in the meantime, if you could pick either of these three packages for Garza today and going forward, which would it be? Assume that the PTBNL is Neil Ramirez and you could make a trade with any of the players involved between now and the deadline if you wanted. Three choices, only considering the present and future, or you can stick with Garza, impending free agency and all.
[poll id=”5″]
Comments
i should also mention that Holland had some shoulder issues last season that don’t seem to have amounted to much
GWQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Best it’s been since 2002. That year the Cubs had 5 in the top 50 and 2 in the top 6. 7 in the top 100.
2. Mark Prior
6. Juan Cruz
40. Hee Seop Choi
45. David Kelton
48. Bobby Hill
68. Nic Jackson
80. Carlos Zambrano
Sometimes people forget how stacked the Cubs system was back then. In 2001 they had Patterson 2nd, Cruz 17th, Choi 22nd, Christensen 37th, Zambrano 68th, Montanez 73rd, and their top pick in the draft was sure thing Mark Prior.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
3 out of those 8 top 100 prospects were successful rest bombed out.
2883Quote Reply
Gillespie’s catch: http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?cid=mlb&content_id=29051795
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I probably should have included Zach Rosscup in options A and C, though I don’t think that will matter to most people
GWQuote Reply
I went with Olt and others, but it’s awfully close. Archer was ranked in the 20s and Lee near the end of the top 100. Fuld was a bench guy with great defense. Guyer had hit everywhere he’s been and Chirinos was probably a backup. I don’t think there’s a lot of difference between what the Cubs got and that package.
The Holland package is interesting. Holland was great in the minors, but that’s similar to Olt. I’d probably take the position player over the pitcher.
That said, if Olt turns into Holland in terms of value I’ll be ecstatic.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ 2883:
True. Pretty good ratio when you think about it.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m guessing Olt + runs away with in this poll because we’re Cubs fans and really happy with what we got.
GW, which deal did you vote for?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
fair enough. i think it’s the holland package and not particularly close. i understand the position player/pitcher argument, but you would also have the option of trading holland from this point forward.
GWQuote Reply
And Brownlie and Pie were added shortly after. Andy Sisco was a top 100 guy as well if I remember correctly.
Bellwether MeltdownQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Not terrible no, but what the Cubs were able to do in mortgaging Hill and Choi into extremely productive players was what I considered the most impressive aspect of that era.
They were about average in developing pitchers, but below average in developing hitters…
2883Quote Reply
@ GW:
Crap. I didn’t take that into consideration even though you mentioned it. Wish I could change my vote. Definitely Holland considering that. Agreed. Not particularly close either.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
also, i’m just asking about today and going forward, completely hypothetical and with the benefit of hindsight.
GWQuote Reply
@ Bellwether Meltdown:
In 2003 Sisco was just outside the top 50 and Pie something like 72nd. They also still had a young Kerry Wood at the MLB level.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ GW:
I can’t read. I was sure you meant based only on what we knew then even though I know you specified otherwise. I screwed my poll answer up. Oh well. Not the worst mistake I’ve ever made.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
(dying laughing). maybe i should edit the post
GWQuote Reply
14/5/3 for olt/holland/archer, and I’ve bolded relevant sections to make things clearer. see if that changes things going forward.
GWQuote Reply
Is this poll assuming it’s all in hindsight, because if so I think Holland is a no-brainer. I think it’s pretty safe to say he is a good bit more valuable than Garza right now and could then be traded for a package better than the Olt one. I’ll take a still cost controlled for several years established good starter than a lot of prospect packages.
AndrewQuote Reply
Andrew wrote:
yes, though apparently that wasn’t clear enough.
Andrew wrote:
agreed
GWQuote Reply
@ 2883:
Yep and it’s what I expect we’ll see from the Cubs this offseason. Maybe even before the deadline. Now they need to acquire MLB talent.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ GW:
Wasn’t your fault. I read every word, but my problem was that you emailed me about setting up a poll and I had plenty of time to think about an answer. You couldn’t have said anything or bolded anything in this post once I’d done that. That was my problem. I assumed you meant something else before you even published this. Not your fault.
Kind of surprised at the results since you are fairly clear in your post.
dmick89Quote Reply
The Garza trade looked terrible at the time but now it looks much better considering we got 4 prospects that are pretty comparable to what we gave up PLUS 2 years of a good starter (which theoretically has a lot of value though for the Cubs, being a worse team over the last few teams maybe has more value).
MWQuote Reply
I actually went with Archer/Lee/Guyer. If we’re going with the full benefit of hindsight, give me the guy that doesn’t go to arbitration until 2016 (when Holland makes 10 million). Holland has had his share of injuries (though you’re right, they haven’t been significant thus far). I see Holland as a strong #3, but Archer is a cheaper potential ace that is under team control until 2019. Even without any other considerations, I’d say Archer is pretty close to Holland (though in a vacuum, I’d definitely take Holland). Add in Lee, who has potential as a backup MINF, and Guyer, who on most teams would already be a COF/4th OF in the majors, and the Archer package looks better to me.
Comparing the Archer deal to the Olt deal, I’d rather have Archer instead of Olt by a long way. It’s really, really hard to find MLB-ready pitchers with #2 upside, and the track record of guys with as much swing-and-miss at AAA in their game as Olt isn’t huge. Edwards is a really nice prospect, and probably better than Lee, but I’d still almost rather have Archer than both Olt AND Edwards (though I’m a much bigger Archer fan than I probably should be). The rest of the packages (Lee/Guyer/Fuld against Ramirez/Grimm) are pretty close to parity, with a nod to the TB package in my opinion.
Really though, it’s crazy that these packages are so close in value. You could argue literally any configuration and I’d have no qualms. I’m looking at it more, and really doubting my pick. I’m wondering if Texas would trade Holland for Archer straight-up. I don’t think either team makes that trade, honestly.
MylesQuote Reply
I realize I said Archer is a potential ace. I misspoke, there’s little chance of that happening. He’s more like a potential #2. He’s not Verlander or anything.
MylesQuote Reply
Can I just take a package of Holland, Olt, Edwards and Archer?
MuckerQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Is (was) Montanez the last man standing from those lists? If you had that in the pool, take a bow.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ GW:
I doubt it does. Cubs fans are too excited to have gotten what they did.
dmick89Quote Reply
2883 wrote:
That’s pretty standard
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
fair enough. it definitely depends on your archer/holland opinions. i think it’s holland and not close.
dammit. just looked it up and holland has an $11 M club option in 2017 and $11.5 in 2018. that may change your valuation. i’d take holland even if those options weren’t there.
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
i should say, though, that I was never that high on archer.
GWQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
i have to say that i’m still a little shocked at the extent of that excitement.
GWQuote Reply
completely even split between archer/lee/guyer and holland/beltre at this point. interesting.
GWQuote Reply
GW wrote:
This is the correct answer.
RynoQuote Reply
And I’d like to add that I’m totally OK with this trade if it’s the precursor to moving Perez + to TOR for Bautista.
RynoQuote Reply
Holland is actually under control through 2018 as he has two club option years in 2017 and 2018 at 11.5 per year. Given that Holland is already looking like a 3rd or 4th starter (pitching in the AL and in TX) and is beginning to show promise as a 2, I go with the Holland package. He would be under control during the cubs theoretical contending years, and as long as he performs, you can trade him away for a similar package of prospects. If you go with the Olt, Edwards, etc. package, one has to assume that at least one of these guys turns into a valuable piece, something worth more than a middle of the rotation starter under club control. That could happen, but why not go with the known commodity with upside rather than guys that are virtually all upside and little else. As a Cubs fan, I certainly hope Olt turns into Mike Schmidt, and Edwards is the next Nolan Ryan, but the odds are against it. Regardless, the package the Cubs got back for a 2 month rental is nothing short of outstanding. I would certainly rather have Olt, Edwards, Grimm, etc. + 3 years of Garza than the package the cubs gave up to get Garza to begin with and no Garza.
Tim RQuote Reply
you think linccecum gets a major league deal?
He sucks
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
@ GW:
I’m not all that surprised. I think the excitement of this deal over the hypothetical deal here also has to do with the current overall strength of the Cubs minor league system.
Also, Holland isn’t a number 1 starter so my guess is that if you had a random poll about which pitcher was better, Garza or Holland, Cubs fans would overwhelmingly answer Garza. I wouldn’t even be surprised to see Cubs fans pick Travis Wood as the better pitcher than Holland. It’s not true. Holland has way more value than Garza did and Wood isn’t close to as good.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Ryno:
wow, hadn’t heard that rumor
GWQuote Reply
I think Holland is underrated because the 2011 World Series is the first a lot of people saw him, despite the fact that he had a pretty good year. Then he had a down year last year, which I attribute to the tremendous workload increase the previous year.
Now he’s having a “bounceback” year, but I think this is closer to what he is.
The people around here don’t like him, and it’s ridiculous. The rhetoric is that he’s pitching better this year because he stopped doing impressions and being funny and started focusing on pitching.
But these are the same people that want Ian Kinsler gone and root for the dallas cowboys…
RynoQuote Reply
@ GW:
I just made it up.
TEX is too smart an organization to trade for Garza the way they did. They could have let CHC sweat and drag their feet until the deadline, but they pulled the trigger now…with time to pull off a deal for what they really need: A corner OF.
Cruz is a FA after this season, and that would leave David Murphy, Leonys Martin, Craig Gentry and Profar in the OF. Martin is wasted in the corner, Profar is wasted in the OF, Gentry should only be in CF and Murphy can’t hit.
RynoQuote Reply
Leandro Linares ——-> Indians, $1 million
dmick89Quote Reply
GW wrote:
Me neither. Even more so for Lee.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Ryno:
makes sense.
it will be interesting to see how Cruz handles the biogenesis situation. it would probably be in his personal best interest to serve his time now and not have it hanging over his head going into free agency.
GWQuote Reply
I imported the poll into this new shit: http://obstructedview.net/minor-leagues/cj-edwards-profile.html
dmick89Quote Reply
For what little it’s worth, Engel Beltre is a plus-plus defender. I only know this because I saw him presented with a minor league gold glove at a RR game a few months ago. Of course, if it’s anything like the big league awards it’s not that great of an indicator (dying laughing).
BerseliusQuote Reply
dpleeted
GWQuote Reply
That is a bias poll because outside of recent Garza trade people have years to evaluate trade.
George NickeronQuote Reply