PDA

View Full Version : Jays after Garza?



masTOR_shake1
06-05-2012, 01:05 PM
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2012/06/05/blue_jays_matt_garza_report_trade_rumour/


"The Toronto Blue Jays are two games over .500 at 28-26 and are currently sitting in fourth place in the ultra competitive AL East.

They are also just three games out of first place.

In other words, between now and the July 31st non-waiver trade deadline, the Blue Jays must decide whether they are contenders or pretenders in 2012.

The club has several short and long-term needs in the bullpen, left-field, first base/DH and potentially, the starting rotation.

One name that could address some medium term needs, at least as far as the rotation is concnerned, is Chicago Cubs' starter Matt Garza.

On Tuesday, Ken Rosenthal of foxsports.com reported the Blue Jays have been "sniffing all over" the 28-year-old right-hander, at least according to a rival executive.

Watch Connected Tuesday night for more from Ken Rosenthal.

Garza would not be a rental player as he is under club control for the 2013 season as well.

In 10 starts this season, Garza has posted a 4.10 ERA and 1.146 WHIP in 59.1 innings. He has 55 strikeouts and 20 walks."

Pens_fan_21
06-05-2012, 01:30 PM
He is 2-4 on the year. On other sites I have seen a fans take on what a trade would look like...its embarassing :p Jays fans certainly undervalue their own talent and are willing to toss it away to get a 2-4 guy. I'll believe it when I see it

North Yorker
06-05-2012, 01:49 PM
He is 2-4 on the year. On other sites I have seen a fans take on what a trade would look like...its embarassing :p Jays fans certainly undervalue their own talent and are willing to toss it away to get a 2-4 guy. I'll believe it when I see it

Why the heck are you bringing up W/L record for a SP??

It's meaningless.

alistar
06-05-2012, 01:55 PM
He is 2-4 on the year. On other sites I have seen a fans take on what a trade would look like...its embarassing :p Jays fans certainly undervalue their own talent and are willing to toss it away to get a 2-4 guy. I'll believe it when I see it

Felix Hernandez barely had a 500. winning percentage when he won the Cy Young. I guess they should have traded him too.

saskjaysfan
06-05-2012, 02:56 PM
Garza would be a solid addition being under control next year too. I would offer 2 or 3 of: Drabek, Snider, Thames, Sierra, and other lower level guys.

Eagles4Lyfe
06-05-2012, 03:05 PM
Been harping on getting this guy in the trade threads so many times, but I just don't know what the possible price would be. He's stuggled a bit this year but I'll take him as our ace over Romero a million times out of a million.

the_jon
06-05-2012, 03:11 PM
I had a dream about a month ago that we would trade for Garza. Of course now that people are publishing reports saying the Jays are interested, it probably won't happen. He'd be a great pickup though for sure.

1hardcore
06-05-2012, 03:13 PM
same old song

wagnall
06-05-2012, 03:23 PM
I had a dream about a month ago that we would trade for Garza. Of course now that people are publishing reports saying the Jays are interested, it probably won't happen. He'd be a great pickup though for sure.


I agree. Seems like everytime you get a name, AA does something comletely different. Garza would be nice, but I just feel he`s going to do something out of left field and large. When you look at the division now, and expect Boston to get better once the herd of guys come back from injury, and that Tampa will get better when thier 2 big hitters come back and the Yanks just find a way.

Just a thought :)

Kelly Gruber
06-05-2012, 03:24 PM
Thames, Lind, and Cecil for Garza and LaHair...

What, it works in the video game... :)

wagnall
06-05-2012, 03:27 PM
Thames, Lind, and Cecil for Garza and LaHair...

What, it works in the video game... :)


If we throw in Laffey we may just get it done :)

wagnall
06-05-2012, 03:29 PM
I haven`t heard, is EE out or is he okay to go.

Valleyfella
06-05-2012, 03:36 PM
Been harping on getting this guy in the trade threads so many times, but I just don't know what the possible price would be. He's stuggled a bit this year but I'll take him as our ace over Romero a million times out of a million.
Ace? He's got a 4.10 ERA in the NL. I like him, particularly with Drabek's difficulty finding the plate, but I wouldn't give up more than 1 solid prospect for him.

North Yorker
06-05-2012, 03:38 PM
I haven`t heard, is EE out or is he okay to go.

day to day with a bruised hand.

As for Garza, what would be a fair package?

TdA is off the table as far as Im concerned.

One of Gose/Marisnick+ one of our better SP specs?

Eagles4Lyfe
06-05-2012, 03:58 PM
Ace? He's got a 4.10 ERA in the NL. I like him, particularly with Drabek's difficulty finding the plate, but I wouldn't give up more than 1 solid prospect for him.

Don't tell me after 10 starts your saying a guys not an ace because of his era:speechless:..
You might as well have said his WAR
Rickey Romero has an ERA of 4.04 but he's our ace no?? Garza is only a year older than Ricky too so its not like he's a old scrub.
The one problem with him though is he wasn't that good against the AL East in his tenure with the Rays but hopefully that new arsenal has improved him a bit.

Garza was flat out amazing last year and developed a new pitch and was simply beasting. He's regressed a little so far and taking a look at his numbers it seems like he's been flat out awful outside of Wrigley but I'm counting on him bouncing back.

But hopefully your right with his struggles hopefully it doesn't take a hectic package but he's under team control for a year or 2 more so atleast 2 prospects and a major leager maybe gets it done?

TRIUMPHATOR
06-05-2012, 04:03 PM
Pls,pls,pls,...just no TDA and no Gose.

Eagles4Lyfe
06-05-2012, 04:07 PM
I'd start it with Drabek+

dtmagnet
06-05-2012, 04:18 PM
I remember in the offseason the Cubs were asking for wayyyy too much for him.

T.O. Fan
06-05-2012, 04:23 PM
How many times have we read/heard the Jays are interested in X over the last couple of years and nothing happens? Then all of a sudden AA pulls off a move that no one reported or even expected.

I doubt Garza is coming to Toronto.

Eagles4Lyfe
06-05-2012, 04:27 PM
Josh Johnson or Jake Peavy :pray:

MrForever
06-05-2012, 05:38 PM
Garza would be a solid addition being under control next year too. I would offer 2 or 3 of: Drabek, Snider, Thames, Sierra, and other lower level guys.

Tossing drabek away for garza would be hideous.

Dol-Fan
06-05-2012, 05:59 PM
Tossing drabek away for garza would be hideous.

Yeah, for the Cubs.

MrForever
06-05-2012, 07:03 PM
It's sad how fast you guys give up on prospects. Does every rookie, sophomore have to maximize their potential before the age of 22 to not fall under the bust category?

You guys are such leaf fans.

nithanyo
06-05-2012, 07:34 PM
Garza pitched well for the rays. I would love to have him. Obviously he's no ace but an upgrade over KD

Jamiecballer
06-05-2012, 07:49 PM
yeah, for the cubs.

+1

Eagles4Lyfe
06-05-2012, 08:27 PM
It's sad how fast you guys give up on prospects. Does every rookie, sophomore have to maximize their potential before the age of 22 to not fall under the bust category?

You guys are such leaf fans.

Explain to us all exactly what his potential is and at this rate by the time he gets it together he'll be what Garza is now anyways.

ByShine
06-05-2012, 09:08 PM
drabek and some other trash for garza but keep hutchinson

BlueJayFanDan
06-05-2012, 10:25 PM
I love how people are so eager to give up Drabek. Typical Jays fans. A guy struggles and he's not good enough to play for us, even if he has less than 30 career starts, and was once our top prospect. I like Garza a lot, but if it is going to cost us Drabek+ I am not nearly as sold on it. Personally, I have never liked Deck McGuire. If we can unload him and another solid prospect or two for a guy like Garza I would be pretty pleased. Save Drabek for a bigger fish like Josh Johnson or Felix Hernandez.

Dol-Fan
06-05-2012, 10:29 PM
Drabek's ceiling is about Matt Garza with more walks. Like a notch below, AJ Burnett, Carlos Zambrano type at BEST. I don't see why the Cubs would deal Garza for a guy that might, one day, be a bit worse than Garza is right now.

GNick
06-05-2012, 10:32 PM
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2012/06/05/blue_jays_matt_garza_report_trade_rumour/


"The Toronto Blue Jays are two games over .500 at 28-26 and are currently sitting in fourth place in the ultra competitive AL East.

They are also just three games out of first place.

In other words, between now and the July 31st non-waiver trade deadline, the Blue Jays must decide whether they are contenders or pretenders in 2012.

The club has several short and long-term needs in the bullpen, left-field, first base/DH and potentially, the starting rotation.

One name that could address some medium term needs, at least as far as the rotation is concnerned, is Chicago Cubs' starter Matt Garza.

On Tuesday, Ken Rosenthal of foxsports.com reported the Blue Jays have been "sniffing all over" the 28-year-old right-hander, at least according to a rival executive.

Watch Connected Tuesday night for more from Ken Rosenthal.

Garza would not be a rental player as he is under club control for the 2013 season as well.

In 10 starts this season, Garza has posted a 4.10 ERA and 1.146 WHIP in 59.1 innings. He has 55 strikeouts and 20 walks."

Rosenthal was on Prime Time and said this was false. He said Jays the ability to get a Garza with all their exciting prospects. But he said it would not be a good idea given the price to acquire Garza would be high and only 1 more year of control on him for around 12ish million after this year. Jays are more than 1 player away.

Listen starting at 5:30

http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/on_demand/

Halladay
06-05-2012, 11:41 PM
He hasn't been as good this year as he has in the past and that's in the NL. The cost would be massive and we aren't a Garza away from being a playoff team IMO. I just don't think this is the time to make a deal like this.

scottythegreat1
06-05-2012, 11:42 PM
Id love to have Garza, but AA isnt going to give up the farm for this guy either. Theo Epstein & Co. arent going to let him go for nothing less than Kyle Drabek, probably another top pitching prospect and a mid level fielding prospect. I know the Cubs are going to probably gut the team soon, so it would be a good start, we have everything we need for it, but I wouldnt bet the farm for Garza.

I wouldnt trade him UNLESS we are at the trade deadline and ready to make a run at it (ie. we are LESS than 4 games behind the leader). We will need all the pitching in the world to make the playoffs, and with such a rough second half to our schedule (ie. 29 games in 31 days in August and 24/27 games against the AL East in September), we need it.

Halladay
06-06-2012, 12:00 AM
I love how people are so eager to give up Drabek. Typical Jays fans. A guy struggles and he's not good enough to play for us, even if he has less than 30 career starts, and was once our top prospect. I like Garza a lot, but if it is going to cost us Drabek+ I am not nearly as sold on it. Personally, I have never liked Deck McGuire. If we can unload him and another solid prospect or two for a guy like Garza I would be pretty pleased. Save Drabek for a bigger fish like Josh Johnson or Felix Hernandez.

Didn't you say the exact same thing about Thames?

Dol-Fan
06-06-2012, 12:01 AM
Didn't you say the exact same thing about Thames?

and Lind

Eagles4Lyfe
06-06-2012, 12:14 AM
:laugh: You guys beat me to it

BlueJayFanDan
06-06-2012, 12:27 AM
Didn't you say the exact same thing about Thames?

No? I like Thames, but I never said he shouldn't be traded...

Lind I will always defend though.

MrForever
06-06-2012, 01:16 AM
Didn't you say the exact same thing about Thames?

Thames was never a top prospect. Drabek was. Comparing the two is pretty offside.

What jayfandan is saying is correct.

Halladay
06-06-2012, 04:00 AM
Thames was never a top prospect. Drabek was. Comparing the two is pretty offside.

What jayfandan is saying is correct.

He was never a prospect? so what was he then? How could he not be a top prospect considering how quickly he jumped from college to the majors.

mtf
06-06-2012, 07:41 AM
He was never a prospect? so what was he then? How could he not be a top prospect considering how quickly he jumped from college to the majors.

Playing in College means you shouldn't be spending an exorbitant amount of time in the minors, unless you're really struggling.

Of course Thames was a prospect, but not a top prospect. He was someone who was a stop-gap player because of the inconsistencies last season and happened to play around .300 ball with bad defense for a couple of months, which could not be reproduced this season.

StayOnBoard
06-06-2012, 08:12 AM
Playing in College means you shouldn't be spending an exorbitant amount of time in the minors, unless you're really struggling.

Of course Thames was a prospect, but not a top prospect. He was someone who was a stop-gap player because of the inconsistencies last season and happened to play around .300 ball with bad defense for a couple of months, which could not be reproduced this season.

Well... the bad defense was certainly reproduced here all year long :rimshot:

Too bad that average was a myth lol

AA09-?
06-06-2012, 09:37 AM
No? I like Thames, but I never said he shouldn't be traded...

Lind I will always defend though.

:crazy:

ah nuts
06-06-2012, 09:39 AM
He hasn't been as good this year as he has in the past and that's in the NL. The cost would be massive and we aren't a Garza away from being a playoff team IMO. I just don't think this is the time to make a deal like this.

x2

+ maybe drabeks value is a little too low right now to trade.

MrForever
06-06-2012, 11:08 AM
He was never a prospect? so what was he then? How could he not be a top prospect considering how quickly he jumped from college to the majors.

Are you illiterate. I said he ways never a top prospect.

No he wasn't a top prospect. Darnaud, drabek, Lawrie etc were and are top prospects. Thames is a mid range prospect, which is far from where drabek was.

es0terik
06-06-2012, 04:57 PM
Stopped reading at "at least as far as the rotation is concnerned"

darius
06-06-2012, 07:47 PM
No? I like Thames, but I never said he shouldn't be traded...

Lind I will always defend though.

I was a big backer of Lind until this season. I'm done. Lind is dead to me. Like Cecil is also dead to me.

Halladay
06-07-2012, 12:18 AM
Are you illiterate. I said he ways never a top prospect.

No he wasn't a top prospect. Darnaud, drabek, Lawrie etc were and are top prospects. Thames is a mid range prospect, which is far from where drabek was.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Thames was near the top of our prospect lists for a while meaninngggggg derpppppp he was a top prospect.

StayOnBoard
06-07-2012, 08:22 AM
You have no clue what you're talking about. Thames was near the top of our prospect lists for a while meaninngggggg derpppppp he was a top prospect.

Really? I'd beg to differ on this one....

For example:

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/12/23/1217661/toronto-blue-jays-top-20-prospects
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/top-10-prospects-for-2010-toronto-blue-jays-and-kansas-city-royals/
http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20101003221106571

This was in 2010.... and obviously it's only one website, but Thames wasn't even listed in the top ten (though Drabek, Lawrie, TDA and Brett Wallace pre-trade) all were.

I don't know if I've EVER read Thames being a Jays top 3 prospect.... ever.... if you could show some articles or websites that show otherwise I'll happily be corrected.


EDIT: I added two more websites - one that had Thames ranked 10th and the other where he wasn't mentioned at all.

In other news - what a difference a few years makes... some of these guys aren't even in our system anymore and we have WAY better prospects than what these lists say. I thought that was interesting :)

alistar
06-07-2012, 08:54 AM
You have no clue what you're talking about. Thames was near the top of our prospect lists for a while meaninngggggg derpppppp he was a top prospect.

If this was true, itís more indicative of how ****** the teamís prospects were at the time rather than Thames being a top prospect.

MrForever
06-07-2012, 11:45 AM
You have no clue what you're talking about. Thames was near the top of our prospect lists for a while meaninngggggg derpppppp he was a top prospect.

No he wasn't ahah.

How many times did anyone, EVER, rave about Thames like they did about Drabek?

Stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

Krylian
06-07-2012, 12:06 PM
Thames was not a Top Prospect. Period. He was on the prospect list but was never considered one of the hot up and comers...that's what 'TOP' prospect means. It's like saying Sean Nolin is a Top Prospect now. Sure he's having a very nice year in Dunedin and he looks like he might have a future, but he's not a Top Prospect.

Eagles4Lyfe
06-07-2012, 01:52 PM
Ya Thames was never on top of any prospect list. Even when we had a crap farm he still wasn't there in the top 10.