BrewersCubs • Garza signs

Old Style · by **Old Style** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 9:54 am

CAA Baseball @CAA_Baseball
Matt Garza agrees to $9.5 Million contract + Performance Bonuses to avoid arbitration. #Cubs #MLB

Old Style · by **Old Style** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 9:55 am

I'm happy he's staying. Our rotation needs an anchor.

sedgy145 · by **sedgy145** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 10:14 am

I"m also glad it's under $10M. I'm a big proponent of things like that steering teams away from wanting to trade for him. $10M versus $9.5M isn't a huge difference....but honestly, it looks bigger than it is. I don't know, I'm weird like that. I think it's a mental thing.

Old Style · by **Old Style** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 10:24 am

sedgy145 wrote:I"m also glad it's under $10M. I'm a big proponent of things like that steering teams away from wanting to trade for him. $10M versus $9.5M isn't a huge difference....but honestly, it looks bigger than it is. I don't know, I'm weird like that. I think it's a mental thing.

I think there's something to that. It's why prices almost always end with .99 rather than the even dollar. It sounds like a lot less than it is. $9.99 vs. $10.00.

sedgy145 · by **sedgy145** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 10:25 am

And I shouldn't say keeping teams from trading for him specifically, but just in general. And you're correct with your example Old Style. Perfect example.

kizzfastfists · by **kizzfastfists** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 2:58 pm

I don't think this means he's staying this just means that he now actually has a price tag for this season so teams that were worried he would win in arbitration and make more might be willing to give up the prospects for him now. I don't think it changes the odds of him being back with the Cubs next year if someone, i.e. Detroit is going all-in for the next few years and think he is the missing piece they need.

Goathater1328 · by **Goathater1328** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 3:46 pm

GOOD! Bout time this trading our best pitcher stuff came to an end. Thumbs up!

sedgy145 · by **sedgy145** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 4:16 pm

Goathater1328 wrote:GOOD! Bout time this trading our best pitcher stuff came to an end. Thumbs up!

Who or where does it say Garza won't be traded?

Goathater1328 · by **Goathater1328** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 4:58 pm

sedgy145 wrote:
Goathater1328 wrote:GOOD! Bout time this trading our best pitcher stuff came to an end. Thumbs up!

Who or where does it say Garza won't be traded?

So we're going to sign him for 9.5 Mil just to get rid of him by July? How stupid would that be anyway? If Detroit is balls to the wall trying for Matt like everyone is saying then how come he's not wearing their uniform and he just re-signed with us? Old Style's right our rotation needs an anchor, trading him is silly now especially.

Boozer1011 · by **Boozer1011** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:00 pm

Goathater1328 wrote:
sedgy145 wrote:
Goathater1328 wrote:GOOD! Bout time this trading our best pitcher stuff came to an end. Thumbs up!

Who or where does it say Garza won't be traded?

So we're going to sign him for 9.5 Mil just to get rid of him by July? How stupid would that be anyway? If Detroit is balls to the wall trying for Matt like everyone is saying then how come he's not wearing their uniform and he just re-signed with us? Old Style's right our rotation needs an anchor, trading him is silly now especially.

You should read up on how MLB contracts work during arbitration years. Should the Cubs not offer him a contract and let him walk?

Goathater1328 · by **Goathater1328** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:03 pm

Boozer1011 wrote:
Goathater1328 wrote:
sedgy145 wrote:
Goathater1328 wrote:GOOD! Bout time this trading our best pitcher stuff came to an end. Thumbs up!

Who or where does it say Garza won't be traded?

So we're going to sign him for 9.5 Mil just to get rid of him by July? How stupid would that be anyway? If Detroit is balls to the wall trying for Matt like everyone is saying then how come he's not wearing their uniform and he just re-signed with us? Old Style's right our rotation needs an anchor, trading him is silly now especially.

You should read up on how MLB contracts work during arbitration years. Should the Cubs not offer him a contract and let him walk?

I am well aware on how arbitration works Boozer, I'm not an idiot. Just think price is a little high for someone who we're only keeping for 3 months. I don't understand how we're doing business anymore. Everything I've ever understood about how this kind of stuff works is going out the window under this new regime.

Boozer1011 · by **Boozer1011** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:06 pm

Goathater1328 wrote:
Boozer1011 wrote:
Goathater1328 wrote:
sedgy145 wrote:
Goathater1328 wrote:GOOD! Bout time this trading our best pitcher stuff came to an end. Thumbs up!

Who or where does it say Garza won't be traded?

So we're going to sign him for 9.5 Mil just to get rid of him by July? How stupid would that be anyway? If Detroit is balls to the wall trying for Matt like everyone is saying then how come he's not wearing their uniform and he just re-signed with us? Old Style's right our rotation needs an anchor, trading him is silly now especially.

You should read up on how MLB contracts work during arbitration years. Should the Cubs not offer him a contract and let him walk?

I am well aware on how arbitration works Boozer, I'm not an idiot. Just think price is a little high for someone who we're only keeping for 3 months. I don't understand how we're doing business anymore. Everything I've ever understood about how this kind of stuff works is going out the window under this new regime.

Why does the price matter? You do know that when a player is traded, the team stops paying his salary, right?

BassmanUW · by **BassmanUW** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:08 pm

Goathater1328 wrote:
Boozer1011 wrote:
Goathater1328 wrote:
sedgy145 wrote:
Goathater1328 wrote:GOOD! Bout time this trading our best pitcher stuff came to an end. Thumbs up!

Who or where does it say Garza won't be traded?

So we're going to sign him for 9.5 Mil just to get rid of him by July? How stupid would that be anyway? If Detroit is balls to the wall trying for Matt like everyone is saying then how come he's not wearing their uniform and he just re-signed with us? Old Style's right our rotation needs an anchor, trading him is silly now especially.

You should read up on how MLB contracts work during arbitration years. Should the Cubs not offer him a contract and let him walk?

I am well aware on how arbitration works Boozer, I'm not an idiot. Just think price is a little high for someone who we're only keeping for 3 months. I don't understand how we're doing business anymore. Everything I've ever understood about how this kind of stuff works is going out the window under this new regime.

But Goat, you do realize that if we trade him we probably aren't paying him whatever the remainder of that contract is. So if we traded him to, say, Toronto at the exact mid-point of the season, we'd pay him $4.75 million and the Blue Jays would pay him $4.75 million, unless the terms agreed to do otherwise (e.g., the Cubs paid some of Garza's remaining salary in return for a better prospect haul).

Or are you saying the Cubs shouldn't trade anyone with a bigger money contract unless/until they decline and are terrible? Because that is not the way to build the team.

The Cubs should see what the trade market looks like for Garza as the season progresses. If it looks like the Cubs can get a good return for him, they should probably take it. If they can't they should extend him, in my opinion.

Goathater1328 · by **Goathater1328** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:13 pm

You do know that when a player is traded, the team stops paying his salary, right?

Then how come we're sending $15 million to the fucking Marlins (like they need it since they are printing money apparently) for Zambrano?

Boozer1011 · by **Boozer1011** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:15 pm

Goathater1328 wrote:
You do know that when a player is traded, the team stops paying his salary, right?

Then how come we're sending $15 million to the fucking Marlins (like they need it since they are printing money apparently) for Zambrano?

Because Zambrano is unmovable otherwise.

BassmanUW · by **BassmanUW** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:17 pm

Goathater1328 wrote:
You do know that when a player is traded, the team stops paying his salary, right?

Then how come we're sending $15 million to the fucking Marlins (like they need it since they are printing money apparently) for Zambrano?

Because that was part of the agreement. The trade was specifically for Zambrano plus $15 million to the Marlins for Chris Volstad. Because that's what it took to get another team to give up ANYTHING to take on Carlos Zambrano. However, unless it is otherwise arranged for in the trade agreement, the new team picks up the player's salary. When you have a crappy overpaid player, the other team isn't going to want to take him for the amount of money you paid him. They want him for what they view him to be worth. But if the other team thinks the player is good or worth the salary he is being paid, that changes the equation.

kizzfastfists · by **kizzfastfists** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:19 pm

Goathater1328 wrote:I am well aware on how arbitration works Boozer, I'm not an idiot. Just think price is a little high for someone who we're only keeping for 3 months. I don't understand how we're doing business anymore. Everything I've ever understood about how this kind of stuff works is going out the window under this new regime.

I'll give you the simple version. Bad business practices, overpaying players in decline, is over. Good business practices, trading players right before they decline for high-end kids, has started. It might take a few years for you to get used to it, but trading Garza right now, with a contract that is much more friendly to being traded for a nice prospect haul then the $12.5 million Garza wanted in FA actually increases the odds of him being traded it doesn't reduce it. It was reported when the arbitration numbers were announced that Garza wanting $12.5M scared the Tigers from going through with anything. Now that they know they are looking at under $10M, like they initially expected, they could be right back in the hunt.

Short version: Garza is now MORE likely to be traded before training camp. I realize you find that hard to understand, but the lower the contract the more likely a team is to give up what Theo and Jed want for him because he can fit in their budget better. If the Cubs had won the arbitration case and Garza was only going to make $7.5M do you think suddenly the Cubs aren't paying too much and they can trade him? Why would it matter? The Cubs would pay nothing of either contract if they traded him.

Goathater1328 · by **Goathater1328** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:19 pm

I realize how that deal had to go to get done and believe me we will be the better for it, but that's not what was said, what was said is when a player is traded the team stops paying his salary.

Goathater1328 · by **Goathater1328** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:21 pm

So basically we did this to make a trade happen?

kizzfastfists · by **kizzfastfists** on Feb 3rd, 2012, 5:29 pm

We did this because there was no other option. We did this because Hendry traded two top 100 prospects and others for Garza and the Cubs can't let him walk during arbitration. We did this in hopes we can trade him for at least what Hendry gave up for him to undo one of his many mistakes.

Theo and Jed did this because they had no other choice once Garza asked for $12.5M in arbitration and everyone stopped bidding because they know he is a $8-10M pitcher and not a $12m pitcher.

Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Re: Garza signs

Who is online