Olney: Garza Makes Perfect Sense For Blue Jays

zilby · Post #1 » by **zilby** » Sat Jun 2, 2012 10:01 pm

Matt Garza Rumors: Yankees, Blue Jays Tied to Cubs Starter

The Chicago Cubs are willing to trade right-handed starter Matt Garza "for the right offer", according to Buster Olney of ESPN. Olney speculates that the Toronto Blue Jays seem to be the team that makes the most sense when it comes to acquiring Garza. It was reported yesterday that the New York Yankees are interested in Garza.

@Buster_ESPN
The Cubs would trade Matt Garza for the right offer, and the team for which he'd make the most sense is Toronto. (more)

Before being traded to the Cubs, Garza spent three seasons pitching for the Tampa Bay Rays. Olney believes this experience pitching in the American League East coupled with the Blue Jays deep farm system and need for a veteran starter make Garza a fit for Toronto.

Garza’s AL East experience is also what the Yankees like about the 28-year-old. New York could be interested in acquiring a starting pitcher this summer, and Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reported yesterday that the Yankees covet Garza because he "is battle-tested" in the AL East.

On the season, Garza has maintained a so-so ERA of 4.22 but his WHIP is standing at a more impressive mark of 1.163. The right-hander has posted 8.3 SO/9 and 3.2 BB/9 this season. Over his career Garza has a 3.85 ERA and 1.295 WHIP.

http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2012/6/2/30 ... -cubs-2012

Anyone think trading for Garza is likely? If so, for who?

Randle McMurphy · Post #2 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Sat Jun 2, 2012 10:16 pm

Garza would have made a lot of sense in the offseason, but I wouldn't get your hopes up about the Jays being buyers this season. They have no real expectation of making the playoffs with this club at the moment and somebody like Garza certainly won't propel them there (making him less valuable to them for the rest of 2012 than other contending teams).

whysoserious · Post #3 » by **whysoserious** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 4:45 pm

Wouldn't Dempster be a better option?

Raptor_Guy · Post #4 » by **Raptor_Guy** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 5:55 pm

If they're asking for one of our top prospects I'd say it doesn't make sense to trade one of our young pieces for 1 1/2 years of Matt Garza.

flatjacket1 · Post #5 » by **flatjacket1** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 6:12 pm

Raptor_Guy wrote:If they're asking for one of our top prospects I'd say it doesn't make sense to trade one of our young pieces for 1 1/2 years of Matt Garza.

I agree. We should be more patient, trading for a big name when our core is like 25 years old is a bad idea. Also he could just bail on us and be a "rental". Either way not worth it. FA is another story.

Wo1verine · Post #6 » by **Wo1verine** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 6:18 pm

I'd rather keep the assets and hope Rogers actually decides to spend some meaningful loot next winter on a SP.

flatjacket1 · Post #7 » by **flatjacket1** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 6:30 pm

Wo1verine wrote:I'd rather keep the assets and hope Rogers actually decides to spend some meaningful loot next winter on a SP.

You mean AA.

Wo1verine · Post #8 » by **Wo1verine** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 6:44 pm

flatjacket1 wrote:
Wo1verine wrote:I'd rather keep the assets and hope Rogers actually decides to spend some meaningful loot next winter on a SP.

You mean AA.

I mean Rogers. Since they bought the team they have not spent much $$$ on the roster..

flatjacket1 · Post #9 » by **flatjacket1** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 6:45 pm

Wo1verine wrote:
flatjacket1 wrote:
Wo1verine wrote:I'd rather keep the assets and hope Rogers actually decides to spend some meaningful loot next winter on a SP.

You mean AA.

I mean Rogers. Since they bought the team they have not spent much $$$ on the roster..

They started spending money left and right when JP asked for it, and AA has never been denied money. Based on that I'd say it's AA who is reluctant to spend, not Rogers.

baulderdash77 · Post #10 » by **baulderdash77** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 9:45 pm

As much as I like Garza as a pitcher, I really like what Hutch is giving us as the #5 starter. I'd rather develop him than get a 4 month rental.

Hamyltowne · Post #11 » by **Hamyltowne** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 9:52 pm

We're not there yet to be acquiring any rentals--even 1.5 year rentals.

Hamyltowne · Post #12 » by **Hamyltowne** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 9:58 pm

baulderdash77 wrote:As much as I like Garza as a pitcher, I really like what Hutch is giving us as the #5 starter. I'd rather develop him than get a 4 month rental.

2013 Status: 3rd-Year Arb Eligible (Super 2)

Earliest Free Agent: 2014

flatjacket1 · Post #13 » by **flatjacket1** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 10:13 pm

Hamyltowne wrote:We're not there yet to be acquiring any rentals--even 1.5 year rentals.

If Garza started saying "Oh I love Toronto! I want to go there!" I'd say trade for him, but he could just come here and not resign, thus wasting a few good prospects with lots of control.

nonc · Post #14 » by **nonc** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 10:46 pm

not worth it.

Randle McMurphy · Post #15 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 10:51 pm

JP had one above average payroll during his time as Jays GM. The plan was for there for two more above-average payrolls in 2009 (100M) and 2010 (110M), but Beeston was brought in after Godfrey's departure to reduce the payroll for Rogers (which they did swiftly under the narrative of another rebuild and the need for a new GM).

It would be incorrect to say that Rogers has shown any consistent or significant commitment to winning since it bought the team. It's very much been the opposite.

flatjacket1 · Post #16 » by **flatjacket1** » Sun Jun 3, 2012 10:57 pm

Randle McMurphy wrote:JP had one above average payroll during his time as Jays GM. The plan was for there for two more above-average payrolls in 2009 (100M) and 2010 (110M), but Beeston was brought in after Godfrey's departure to reduce the payroll for Rogers (which they did swiftly under the narrative of another rebuild and the need for a new GM).

It would be incorrect to say that Rogers has shown any consistent or significant commitment to winning since it bought the team. It's very much been the opposite.

AA should try asking for money then. Because he hasn't done that yet.

Rogers tried to force AA's hand in acquiring a 4+ fWAR FA, and AA shut them down. Beeston has chased more FA's than AA.

dballislife · Post #17 » by **dballislife** » Mon Jun 4, 2012 1:30 am

hes a 2-3 pitcher on good team and 3-4 on a contending team, not some1 i would give up a lot for, if i price is right i would not mind...cant expect all 3 of drabek, alverez and hutch to keep this up, they still too young

torontoaces04 · Post #18 » by **torontoaces04** » Mon Jun 4, 2012 1:49 am

Moving on from if ownership would pony up or not....

What sort of package would we have to put together?

Noah Syndergaard, Carlos Perez, Chad Jenkins, Eric Thames? More? Less?

flatjacket1 · Post #19 » by **flatjacket1** » Mon Jun 4, 2012 2:01 am

torontoaces04 wrote:Moving on from if ownership would pony up or not....

What sort of package would we have to put together?

Noah Syndergaard, Carlos Perez, Chad Jenkins, Eric Thames? More? Less?

Why would we trade prospects so low in our system? We never get fair value on those.

I'd say JPA + Hech would get it done.

Hamyltowne · Post #20 » by **Hamyltowne** » Mon Jun 4, 2012 2:02 am

torontoaces04 wrote:What sort of package would we have to put together?

Noah Syndergaard, Carlos Perez, Chad Jenkins, Eric Thames? More? Less?

For whom, Garza?

I don't think he's worth half that. Well, maybe half.

His stock is high because of interest from other clubs and so the actual price will be well above what he is worth and that is not AA's style. I just don't see it happening.