Poll: Greinke Or Garza?

As the reactions to yesterday's Matt Garza trade poured in, ESPN's Keith Law said he believes the Rays received more in return for their young right-hander than the Royals did when they traded Zack Greinke to the Brewers. He explained that Tampa "focused less on position and more on overall value" after saying the exact opposite about the deal Kansas City made (Insider req'd for the last link).

Obviously, the trades are not equal in a number of ways. The Cubs are receiving two young players in addition to Garza, one being Fernando Perez. Greinke, however, is a former Cy Young Award winner and according to WAR, his last three seasons were all better than Garza's best season (2009) by a considerable margin. He does lack Garza's postseason experience though. The pitchers were born less than a month apart, but the Cubs will get three years of Garza while the Brewers get just two of Greinke (at a higher salary).

So, knowing what we know about the players, do you prefer the package of Lorenzo Cain, Alcides Escobar, Jeremy Jeffress, and Jake Odorizzi or the package of Chris Archer, Brandon Guyer,Robinson Chirinos, Hak-Ju Lee, and Sam Fuld?


Leave a Reply

84 Comments on "Poll: Greinke Or Garza?"


baseballz
4 years 6 months ago

I still think the Royals got the better package, but something tells me that Chirnos may become very good. The Rays have been on him for quite a while so they must really have wanted him for some reason. I think because of the proximity of these two deals that they will be compared together for a long time to come.

slider32
4 years 6 months ago

The Rays got a much better deal! Archer is a top 50 prospect, Guyer, Chirinos, and Lee are B prospects according to John Sickels who is well respected. They all did very well in the minors last year.

grant77
4 years 6 months ago

Seems like the Royals got the better talent. Odorizzi and Archer are fairly equal in my eyes and the Royals obviously got the better position prospects, at least as we evaluate them right now.

FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
4 years 6 months ago

Royals did get a better package than the Rays. However, Greinke could’ve fetched much more than what the Royals actually got, and the Cubs overpayed for Garza. So in terms of who made the better trade, the Rays win it by a landslide

start_wearing_purple
4 years 6 months ago

Kinda what I was thinking. Greinke has shown he can be an ace, if he can get his head on straight with a potential contender he might be more consistent. Garza is a good pitcher, but he’s also certainly no ace. The packages both teams received seem close to similar so it seems to be then overall the Rays made the better trade.

RedSoxDynasty
4 years 6 months ago

To say Garza’s not an ace is true right now but not by much. A solid playoff tested, hard-throwing 27 year old no.2 in the AL East is a no.1 on a lot of team, including his new one, the Cubs!

BlueCatuli
4 years 6 months ago

Your comment contradicts itself.

FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
4 years 6 months ago

no it really doesn’t

SpeedS28
4 years 6 months ago

Which would mean the Brewers got a better deal than the Cubs?

SpeedS28
4 years 6 months ago

Which would mean the Brewers got a better deal than the Cubs?

4 years 6 months ago

How can we compare a trade in which only the center piece went the other way to a trade in which 2 other players are going the other way … fernando perez for sam fuld seems even… robinson chirinos for a young pitcher seems about even… so now that trade is down to garza for archer, lee and guyer compared to greinke for escobar, cain, jeffress and odorizzi… looks a little more comparable when you take out the other variables i’d definitely take the royals trade over the rays trade

4 years 6 months ago

And people seem to completely ignore the cost of the players. Garza’s not as good as Greinke, but he’ll cost maybe $15 million through arb over the next two years (assuming he stays pretty good–he only made $3.35 in 2010), while Greinke’s locked in at $26 million. So, the $11 million or so difference between the two players is also a pretty massive part of the story.

mozelpuffski
4 years 6 months ago

agreed: esp considering three teams involved are cash conscience and the cubs have some bad contracts on their plate.

4 years 6 months ago

Either of these guys could win a Cy Young Award out of the National League Central… remember that Garza is coming from the toughest division in baseball

NL_East_Rivalry
4 years 6 months ago

and moving into a hitter friendly park. I don’t have much faith in the NL Central bats though.
You also have to consider the influx of pitching into the NL, there will be a lot more people challenging for that one pitching spot this year in the NL, so it might be easier to win it in the AL. I say King Felix wins it.

BlueCatuli
4 years 6 months ago

For as many days as Wrigley is hitter friendly, there are an equal amount of days where it is just the opposite. Aside from the power alleys, Wrigley is a fairly average sized park. Big home runs seem to go farther because of the shallow bleacher seating.

Sixto_Lezcano
4 years 6 months ago

No, it’s a definite home run friendly park. Look up the park factor.

Sixto_Lezcano
4 years 6 months ago

Garza sucks, look up his peripherals.

The Brewers got TWO pitchers much better than Garza (Greinke and Marcum) for less than the Cubs paid for Garza. Hilarious.

4 years 6 months ago

Garza was also backed by one of the best defensive outfields in the game and is a flyball pitcher.

How about that Cubs outfield?

I think people are going to be disappointed when Garza doesn’t show a performance boost with his move to an “easy” division.

RedSoxDynasty
4 years 6 months ago

He’ll easily win 15-20 in the NL next year!

4 years 6 months ago

Ask this question in 2 years. You’ll see the Rays fared better. Cubs gave up too much but Garza can be an easy 20 game winner in Wrigley. Can’t wait to see him pitch to Pujols. Gonna be fun.

dbclaxton
4 years 6 months ago

One thing that is being overlooked is the value of dumping the Betancourt contract which is not a minor part of that deal.

dbclaxton
4 years 6 months ago

One thing that is being overlooked is the value of dumping the Betancourt contract which dimished some of Greinke’s value.

vonno
4 years 6 months ago

Shouldn’t the fact that Garza is cheaper and under team control for one more year than Greinke have some influence on their value? I think it will still be interesting to see how the numbers compare later in 2011 after both have a full season in the NLC.

shockey12
4 years 6 months ago

So is it safe to say that if the Jays waited we could have gotten more for Marcum?

Guest
4 years 6 months ago

If the Jays had of waited, Lawrie could have been traded in the Grenkie deal.

optionn
4 years 6 months ago

Garza was the overall better value deal. He is much cheaper, played for a contender, and the Cubs didn’t have to pickup Yuniesky Betancourt who is subtraction by addition.

rzepczynski
4 years 6 months ago

Lawrie is the best player of the three deals…
but it seems the jays could of got a lot more for marcum
Marcum will make like 8 mill over then next 2 years
seems to me like they could of got more even though they got the best player

4 years 6 months ago

And I think Marcum is the best pitcher of the 3. Last 3 years he’s 34 and 21 and a 3.72 ERA and that’s pitching in the Al East too. 3 years in TB Garza went 34 and 31 with a 3.85 ERA. Garza was backed by a better team too.

FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
4 years 6 months ago

waaaaaaait a sec. you think Marcum’s a better pitcher than Garza and Greinke?

4 years 6 months ago

Better than Garza and if you take out Greinke’s 2009 year, better than him too. Greinke’s first 5 years he had 1 10+ win season and had over a 4.00 ERA.
Marcum’s first 5 years had had 2 10+ win seasons and 3 of which he had more wins then losses and under a 4.00 ERA.
I think they’re all close in greatness. Statistics may show Marcum a little better pitcher… But Obviously will have to wait and see for 2011.

4 years 6 months ago

Better than Garza and if you take out Greinke’s 2009 year, better than him too. Greinke’s first 5 years he had 1 10+ win season and had over a 4.00 ERA.
Marcum’s first 5 years had had 2 10+ win seasons and 3 of which he had more wins then losses and under a 4.00 ERA.
I think they’re all close in greatness. Statistics may show Marcum a little better pitcher… But Obviously will have to wait and see for 2011.

berniebrewer
4 years 6 months ago

Marcum put up better numbers then Garza in the same division

RedSoxDynasty
4 years 6 months ago

No one in their right mind would trade Garza for Marcum!

4 years 6 months ago

I like how some people said that the Cubs gave up way too much for Garza. I’m going to break it down.

Chris Archer- Had a dynamic year. He was the Cubs best pitching prospect and has the tools to become a fine #2 or #3 starter. Yet, We gave him away because Trey McNutt, Jay Jackson, and Chris Carpenter are better and closer to MLB ready then Archer.

Hak-Ju Lee- A fine speedy shortstop. Another top 5 prospect going to TB. But, we have Starlin Castro, and with Blake DeWitt, Darwin Barney, Tony Thomas, and Ryan Flaherty starting and developing, he was going to be blocked. Plus, if Hendry doesn’t like these guys I’m sure he will go after someone in free agency in years to come.

Brandon Guyer- The Cubs #6 prospect. He had a great year hitting .344 and producing. I can only see the Cubs trading him cause he was blocked by Colvin, Byrd, Sorinao, Fukudome and Cubs have #1 prospect Brett Jackson waiting to come up.

Robinson Chirinos- A fine catcher, should a good back-up or starter given a chance. Could be a Rod Barajas if he should start. Cubs have Geovany Soto and Wellington Castillo in the works so he was easily let go.

Sam Fuld- A solid fielding 4th outfielder, not so much hitting. I could see Hendry letting him go because he wasn’t going anywhere in the Cubs franchise. We basically got a younger Sam Fuld in Fernando Perez.

FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
4 years 6 months ago

regarding archer and lee, it doesn’t matter if prospects are blocked. It still doesn’t mean that you should just give them away for a player who could be had for less

baseball52
4 years 6 months ago

Archer could be either a Garza type or a bullpen arm, it seems to me that the Cubs believe he would have ended up in the pen. Lee is years away, being in A ball right now, and still needs to develop his hitting skills. It seems to me that the Cubs value the Castro at shortstop and D.J. LeMahieu at second. Chirinos and Guyer look to be both backups and Fuld is eh.

It all comes down to the way the Cubs saw their depth heavy system. It seems that Archer and Lee weren’t as high on the ranks as many had seen. Considering the staff’s success in building up a system since the minor league staff was overhauled a few years ago, I trust their evaluation.

Guest
4 years 6 months ago

I also don’t like how people are evaluating this trade purely from a sabremetric point of view. The Cubs realistically had to get younger. The best available option for them was Garza considering who was available to them via trades and financially. When you look at trades, others available that could fit their budget were Carmona and possibly Blanton. Garza’s better than either. And looking at next years FA starters–I’m not exactly enthused by what I see.

RedSoxDynasty
4 years 6 months ago

you nailed it! Its only gonna get harder to get young, quality, cost controlled pitching as free agency gets barer and barer every year due to teams locking these guys up!

4 years 6 months ago

The staffs success??? What success??? A team that hasn’t won a championship in over 100 years, that over uses its rookie pitchers into burn out and spends money in the worst way by over paying for used up players? that’s success???

baseball52
4 years 6 months ago

The Minor League Development staff that’s been around for 3 years. You know, the one that built up one of the worst systems in baseball to one of the deepest today.

4 years 6 months ago

and they just sent all their hard work to TB for a #2 starter who could have been gotten for less

baseball52
4 years 6 months ago

All their hard work? What about depth heavy do you not understand?

4 years 6 months ago

I understand it plenty, what you’re not understanding is you don’t just give away players because you have depth at their positions. Their was no need to give away 3 top 10 prospects for Garza. Those players traded could have gotten used to bring in far more then what Garza has offered so far in his career. just because you have excess players, doesn’t mean you ship them all off for 1 hardly above average pitcher.

baseball52
4 years 6 months ago

Gave them away? They got a 27 year old #2 starter under control, cheaply, for 3 years aligning with what seems to be a plan for contend in 2012 and 2013.

The players traded were not likely rated that high by the Cubs, Archer was no clear cut #1, especially in a depth heavy system where opinions are more numerous on player ranking. Personally, I’d rank McNutt, Jackson, and Carpenter ahead of Archer in the pitching department. It seems the Cubs are thinking similarly.

RedSoxDynasty
4 years 6 months ago

Not just a no.2 but a no. 1 on the cubbies staff!

FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
4 years 6 months ago

The Cubs already have a decent rotation but a mediocre offense. Instead of choosing to upgrade the lineup, they trade for a pitcher, who isn’t even a legit elite starter.
I just don’t see them keeping up with the Cards, Reds, and Brewers in 2011 or even 2012

FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
4 years 6 months ago

The Cubs already have a decent rotation but a mediocre offense. Instead of choosing to upgrade the lineup, they trade for a pitcher, who isn’t even a legit elite starter.
I just don’t see them keeping up with the Cards, Reds, and Brewers in 2011 or even 2012

4 years 6 months ago

Its not really WHO the cubs are giving away, its the fact that it’s too much for one #2 starter. Ya some of those players are blocked, but why not try and trade for someone better with those players, or instead of using your best prospects on 1 barely above average player, use them for 2 barely above average players. getting a great short stop in Lee would have been hugely beneficial to a lot of teams, he could have easily been a center piece of a trade in years to come if he keeps improving, not to mention the guy stole 57 bases in 2 years, which would be pretty nice for a lot of teams.

4 years 6 months ago

Way too premature to say who got the best return no? Everybody loved when Cleveland received Matt Laporta as he was loved by BA and other prospect outlets, but reality is not every player will pan.

I say TB will miss Garza more than KC will miss Greinke. But in terms of return, too early.

slider32
4 years 6 months ago

Get George Brett more involved with this team they always seem to be stinning their wheels and now its all about their young talent. Stats show that only a few of these players will be good big leaguers. Farm systems today should be used to build teams but not totally.

4 years 6 months ago

TB has 5 solid starters without Garza, in Price, Neimann, Davis, Hellickson and Shields, KC has….no one solid, or really any good in their rotation unless u wanna count Meche, or Hochevar. KC just lost its one bright spot, but with their farm, who knows what they will come out of spring training with.

RedSoxDynasty
4 years 6 months ago

Tampa has one ace in price and several ok pitchers but losing Garza, in my eyes, guarantees they are out of the division hunt next year! With him, they had a shot!

bonestock94
4 years 6 months ago

The fact that this is even a poll highlights the difference between a good front office and a terrible one.

slider32
4 years 6 months ago

It’s safe to say that the Rays have been much better at evaluating minor league talent than KC. That alone would lead you to think the Rays got a better deal.

mcchampions
4 years 6 months ago

I don’t know that’s necessarily the case when it comes to minor league talent. Major league yes, minor league…that’s debatable.

4 years 6 months ago

First of all, these are Cubs prospects we are talking about. Remember that. Castro, Soto, and maybe Colvin are hopefully the beginning of a trend of improvement from the crappy Cub system. Only Lee & Archer are even worth considering. The rest are marginal at best, and Fuld is nothing, much less valuable than the guy they got coming back. It’s crazy how much value all the “baseball experts” place on prospects. Lee hit .280 at low A, with absolutely no power at all and a cast iron glove to boot. Maybe he’s got range but he’s no dazzler with the glove. Maybe he’ll grow into extra base power, maybe not. Archer, maybe someday a closer, maybe a #3, but who knows he may bust out into a number 1. The point is, the Cubs are not producing that much from their system and Garza is a young, solid, battle tested pitcher. As a life long Cub fan, I’m glad they ditched the “prospects” and took a chance on a possible stud pitcher. The real problem is their lineup stinks. Consider the signing of Carlos Pena. The best 1B we had in the minors was Hoffpauir, I mean, that’s bad!

4 years 6 months ago

What is it with you Cubs fans who say this was a good trade because past prospects didn’t pan out? Stop bringing up Patterson, Pie, Choi and Brownlie to make your point. I’m sure EVERY MLB team has had prospects for who they had high expectations for, but just don’t seem to pan out. This “maybe” card you’re playing should go back in the deck. “Maybe” Garza brings his attitude to Chicago and becomes a smaller Zambrano; nobody knows. This trade just didn’t fit with what the Cubs stated their plan is, and that’s to build their farm system. You don’t partially scrap that plan for a #3 pitcher, especially when it POSSIBLY (Brewers could be better along with Cards and Reds) guarantees you 3rd place.

Guest
4 years 6 months ago

And yet everyone rips Hendry for bad decision-making…wasn’t Choi traded for someone….oh yeah, Derek Lee. Look, what you want appears to be the Royals philosophy applied to the Cubs. That’s just not happening. “Maybe Garza brings his attitude to Chicago and becomes a smaller Zambrano”….and maybe Greinke brings his fragile psyche to Milwaukee and bends under pressure…costing the Brewers much more. And maybe Archer turns out to be oft-injured once he hits the big leagues. I remember when Prior came up and everyone was raving about his mechanics.

4 years 6 months ago

I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think Choi was labeled a bust when he was included in the Lee trade. Lee had an excellent 2004, but wasn’t exactly a game-changer the rest of his time in a Cubs uni. I didn’t state that I want the Cubs to build through their farm system; the owners and Hendry did. That was the plan they sold to Cubs fans. As far as Greinke’s psyche, I don’t deal in hypotheticals. I talked about Garza’s attitude to say that there are always variables that can screw up a situation, and people should stop dismissing Archer and Lee because “maybe” they wouldn’t have panned out. And yes, we all know that Prior’s mechanics weren’t so perfect, but he and Chris Archer aren’t the same person, so…

Guest
4 years 6 months ago

You don’t deal in hypotheticals and yet you’re wondering what kind of attitude Garza’s going to bring with him to Chicago. You’re also wondering if Lee and Archer would have panned out for Cubs. I’m wondering if the last statement I just made is the reason the Cubs got Garza???

4 years 6 months ago

Again, I only mentioned the possibility of Garza with an attitude problem to show that there are indeed variables in every situation. You don’t worry about them if you can help it, though. And if you really read, I wrote that others weren’t sad to see Lee and Archer go because other Cubs prospects haven’t cut it at the big league level. I’ve heard many Cubs fans use failed prospects to make the argument that trading away two top prospects won’t be that much of a loss because, hey, others haven’t panned out.

4 years 6 months ago

Again, I only mentioned the possibility of Garza with an attitude problem to show that there are indeed variables in every situation. You don’t worry about them if you can help it, though. And if you really read, I wrote that others weren’t sad to see Lee and Archer go because other Cubs prospects haven’t cut it at the big league level. I’ve heard many Cubs fans use failed prospects to make the argument that trading away two top prospects won’t be that much of a loss because, hey, others haven’t panned out.

4 years 6 months ago

As a big market team, you can never truly be in a rebuilding mode. The Cubs, for the first time in years, saw that they were not immune to the economy and fans won’t just show up to watch a crappy product; therefore, this is an attempt to show fans that they are still trying to win games. Just because a trade won’t make you the favorite to win a division doesn’t mean you don’t try to get better. The Royals have had a good farm system for how long and where have they gotten? You build a good system so you can put solid guys on your ML team, whether that’s by bringing them up or shipping them out is irrelevant as long as the club improves. Furthermore, getting, what I believe, is a solid #2 pitcher in the NL and having him for 3 years is the key because the Cubs will have only about $75-$80 million committed after the 2011 season. Now, they can sit back and focus on spending the big bucks on 1B and 3B which will be vacant while having a rotation of Big Z, Garza, Dempster, and probably Cashner for 2012.

4 years 6 months ago

Excuse me, but did you just compare the way the Royals have run their farm to the way the Cubs do? Before the trade, the Cubs farm system was as deep as it’s been in my lifetime (I’m only 25). There were no “can’t-miss” prospects, but the Cubs had depth. Castro, Colvin, Marmol and Soto are a few recent examples of the Cubs finally getting something out of their farm system. Over the years, the Cubs haven’t exactly been known for having a great farm. There was usually that one “stud”…Patterson, Pie, Prior, Choi, Brownlie, etc., who didn’t quite make it. Regardless of who was blocked, I’m sure Hendry and Quade could’ve found a place for a worthy Archer or Lee. It’s not about hoarding prospects; it’s about being smart with them, whether it’s promoting or trading them. Also, you’re relying on Z to get back on track, Dempster–who isn’t getting any younger–and an unproven Cashner to surround Garza on a hopefully much-improved 2012 team. Garza makes the team only slightly better, which is why I’m not a fan of it.
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

Guest
4 years 6 months ago

Hard to call Fuld and Chironos can’t miss prospects. And no, I remember when the Cubs farm system was just as deep as it is today and was producing the likes of Wood, Prior, and Zambrano over the course of several years. Plus the Cubs are a big market team. Don’t Cubbies412 was comparing the Royals and Cubs so much as to serve the distinction that the Cubs cannot operate like the Royals and afford to wait around for prospects to develop–if they do. No big market team operates that way. The Cubs had to get younger–you even state that in your post here. They couldn’t go after Cliff Lee or Greinke because of finances, so they went after the best option for them. Just look at the FA starters next year and tell me who compares to Garza. Very few. And I know that being the big-market Cubs, they’re gonna sign FA before the 2012 season–because that’s what big-market clubs do.

4 years 6 months ago

When did I call Fuld and Chirinos can’t-miss prospects? It’s funny that you say you remember when the farm was deep, and yet you named 3 prospects over a what…5, 6 year period? To mention Wood and Prior among those prospects, too…yeah…okay. Again, I wrote that going into 2011, the pool of Cubs minor league talent was pretty deep. It’s why the Cubs were able to trade 3 of their top 10 prospects (according to Baseball America) and it didn’t drain their farm system. I also NEVER said I wanted the Cubs to sit around and wait for their prospects to become studs, even though Archer is only 22 and Lee just turned 20, if I’m not mistaken. I simply didn’t understand why 2 good and 2 decent prospects and a major leaguer were needed to get Garza and what I’m assuming are two nobodies.
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

Guest
4 years 6 months ago

Yes you did say that the Cubs should bide their time because you FIRMLY believe they should have held on to these prospects instead of trading them away. What else could you be implying? As for Big Z and Mark Prior, they came up during the same 1-2 year window along with can’t miss prospect Patterson and another prospect (that you felt at the time he was traded could have been a can’t miss prospect in Choi) and like ypu, others in the baseball world felt the same. So experts felt during 2002-2004 that the Cubs farm system was deep, not knowing how these players would pan out. Sorry, shouldn’t have included Wood in that group. As Cubbies412 said, the club doesn’t hold on to ALL of its prospects because it’s a big-market team. It can afford to based on the economy and the revenue it generates through merchandise and ticket sales.

4 years 6 months ago

Did I say it or imply it? Those are two different things, and I did neither. All I said was, to get a #3, I didn’t feel that package was necessary. I thought it was too much, and that was before I read that the Brewers gave up less to get Greinke. If the Cubs were to give up those prospects for AGon (or Greinke); fine. Garza doesn’t contribute on the hill what AGon does at bat or at 1B. The Cubs aren’t rebuilding, but they aren’t in a position to contend, either. Go through 2011, and hopefully Archer and Lee get called up so you can see whether or not they’ll contribute. A con to that is they don’t, and you can’t include them in a package for a stud, but those are the risks of running a MLB team. For the last time, I don’t believe I in hoarding prospects; just being smart with them.
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

Guest
4 years 6 months ago

Does it matter whether it was said or implied? You want to see these prospects with the Cubs in the majors. Being smart with prospects in the Cubs plan for 2011, wouldn’t have involved trading for the LIKES of Agon or Greinke because they couldn’t afford either’s pricetag. Not to say that it was smart how they got to the point where they did financially.

jb226
4 years 6 months ago

Due respect, if you’re going to talk about Lee being bad on defense you obviously should just stop speaking. You know nothing of the prospects and are clearly going on bad data and small sample sizes to sound like you do.

4 years 6 months ago

There was no respect at all in anything you just said. You could have disagreed or even corrected the guy without being such a heel about it.

You sound like old Southern women… “Bless your heart, but (something horribly judgmental and awful).” Adding the words “Due respect” in front of what you say doesn’t forgive the rest of the post being snotty and condescending.

(All that said, I completely agree with you on Lee, jb226.)

baseball52
4 years 6 months ago

Keep in mind that the Royals had much less to bargain with. They needed to trade Greinke in the offseason and could only trade him to a limited amount of teams.