The great migration of pitching to the National League continued this weekend with the announcement that Matt Garza had been traded from the Tampa Bay Rays to the Chicago Cubs in an 8 player deal. There were several players included in the trade that appear to be inconsequential. The core of the trade was Garza going to the Cubs with RHP Chris Archer, SS Hak Ju Lee, C Robinson Chirinos and OF Brandon Guyer going to the Rays. The trade makes some semblance of sense for both sides, but is just quirky enough to make it interesting to analyze. Let's break it down:
Cubs: Matt Garza is a very good pitcher who is probably a bit underrated because he seems to have not lived up to his perceived immense talent. He is also a bit like Matt Cain, though not as good, in that his ERA has outperformed his FIP's for several years running which drives sabermetric analysts crazy. If you want to read an interesting analysis of this phenomenon and a nice compare/contrast on Garza and Cain, check out the ongoing discussion on Splashing Pumpkins. I'll just say here that both Garza and Cain are power pitchers with strong flyball tendencies and good, but not great, K rates. Something to ponder....
Anyway, I think Garza will do just fine in Chicago and strengthens the Cubs rotation significantly. They lose a top ranked pitching prospect plus a couple of guys who were blocked in the organization. The loss of Archer may hurt in the long run, but in the short run they are stronger with Garza who is not FA eligible until 2014. The question is whether the rest of the team is strong enough to support an enhanced rotation. The Cubs are in a pretty bad bind with an aging lineup that contains several very bad contracts so a rebuild/remake of the lineup is very difficult, if not impossible. It may well be 2014 or beyond before they are a really competitive team again.
From Tampa Bay's perspective, They were willing to give up Garza because Jeremy Hellickson is ready to step into the rotation. Now, Hellboy is a darn good prospect, but for him to equal Garza's contribution to the rotation is a tall order, especially out of the box. Besides, they could have kept Garza, who will still be a bargain even with an arbitration fueled pay raise, and replaced a lesser starter, like James Shields or Jeff Niemann with Hellickson.
Strangely enough, the one guy the Rays apparently had to have in the trade was the catcher, Chirinos. It seems the Rangers had been trying to get Chirinos from the Cubs just so they could include him in a package for Garza! Chirinos is a bit old, but only recently converted from shortstop, is a good defende and has hit well in AAA. The Rays apparently want to give him a chance to be their starting catcher in 2011.
Archer provides a nice replacement at the AAA level for Hellickson. Some analysts think his stuff is better suited to closing, so perhaps the Rays think he might be Soriano's replacement?
The Rays already have a couple of shorstop options including Reid Brignac, so Hak Ju Lee gets more time to develop in the minors.
Guyer is a potential 4'th OF.
Summary: Garza makes the Cubs better, but maybe not good enough to be serious contenders. The Rays may come out OK in future years, but the notion that the trade makes them immediately better is pretty far-fetched. The biggest story here may be the continued mass migration of pitching from the AL to the NL. Since pitching is about 70% of the game, is it possible the balance of power is shifting from the AL to the NL? How much of this sudden league wide interest in stockpiling pitching is due to teams trying to keep pace with the Giants?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cain is way better in every single way than Garza is. Garza is a poor man's Cain
ReplyDeleteI should have been more precise about that. They are similar pitchers in certain aspects of their statistical patterns, but yes, Cain is clearly a better pitcher.
ReplyDeleteI think we have only seen glimpses of Cain's true potential. I know that is a bold statement given his track record and already being a phenomenal pitcher, but I think it is true.
ReplyDeleteA few things standout to me about Cain's progression. First, is that he has become elite in stealing strike one. This can be attributed to a few things, but I think it is obviously his command of three pitches that he is willing to throw at any time. Very few starts this year did I see Cain show up without superb command of at least 2 of them. Secondly, he is very consistent in his pitch counts, which tells me that he is in control and actually pitching to contact. Other than elite strikeout pitchers, being able to intentionally pitch to contact is what sets all-star pitchers apart from pretty good ones. Lastly, I think we are beginning to see the fruits of pitching in close games with no run support. The guy is absolutely fearless and has now been tested on the highest level and passed with flying colors.
At his age, his size and his uncanny ability to get batters to do exactly what he wants (to the tune of a .276 OBP in 2010), I think he may be one of the most undervalued pitchers in all of baseball.
JH,
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agree with that. It's been a slow process, but Cain has been steadily developing his secondary pitches to the point where he can use them to put batters away either through a K or weak contact. He will still get into one of those mano-mano things where the batter keeps fouling off high fastballs, but he's gradually figuring out how to get out of those situations more quickly.
It wouldn't shock me if we see the Matt Cain who dominated down the stretch(except for one game) and in the post-season do that for a full season and win some awards.
I said this clear back when he was a rookie, but I'm tellin' ya, he is really Tom Seaver's clone child!
The biggest part of Cain's improvement hasn't been his ability to induce weak contact -- that's been pretty consistent. It's been the decline in his BB-rate.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I have only seen Garza pitch a few times and then seen him sparingly on nightly highlights. I think a worthy topic of discussion on Garza is how he will fare outside the AL East, which at one time I would have thought would make a pretty big difference. Although the Giants sort of debunked the theory in the NLCS and WS, good hitting over time will wear on a good pitcher. Maybe Garza is better than we think.
ReplyDeleteJH,
ReplyDeleteIf anything, I would say Garza has better raw stuff than Matt Cain, but he is more erratic. IMO, the thing that makes Cain a better pitcher than Garza is something you can't measure with stats, and even scouts may not notice. It's his even temperment, equanimity in the face of frustration and disappointment, and bulldog determination. Garza is a fiery guy and that's sometimes good, but it also gets him into trouble and tends to make him more inconsistent.