Cubs, Garza Avoid Arbitration

The Cubs avoided this morning's scheduled arbitration hearing with Matt Garza, agreeing to a one-year, $9.5MM contract for 2012. Garza's agency, CAA, tweeted the news and noted that the deal includes performance bonuses.

The Cubs had offered $7.95MM and Garza had asked for $12.5MM for a midpoint of $10.225MM. As MLBTR's Arbitration Tracker shows, the Cubs have agreed to terms on 2012 contracts with all of their arbitration eligible players.

Garza, 28, posted a 3.32 ERA with 9.0 K/9 and 2.9 BB/9 in 198 innings for the Cubs last year. He's a super two player who will be arbitration eligible for a fourth and final time next offseason. I examined the possibility of an extension between Garza and the Cubs earlier this offseason.


Leave a Reply

31 Comments on "Cubs, Garza Avoid Arbitration"


Guest
3 years 5 months ago

‘Snot bad. Guess Theo decided against flipping him… unless this turns into another Lannan situation (doubtful).

Member
jb226
3 years 5 months ago

I don’t think it means he’s less likely to flip him; if anything, possibly moreso.  It just means Theo didn’t want to take the risk of seeing a $12.5MM award, which not only hurts his trade value this year but next year as well, since players pretty much always get arbitration raises and Garza would go through again after this season.  Much better to go through arbitration from a $9.5MM base than a $12.5MM base.

I expect there to be some increased trade interest in the next couple of weeks, but ultimately I don’t think he gets traded until midseason.

The good thing about Garza–and I know pretty much every fan and executive says this about their teams’ players, usually as an attempt to keep leverage–is that he really is the kind of guy you can build around.  I’d like to see him traded because he’s the Cubs’ best trade chip and god knows we could use the help, especially in near-MLB-ready starting pitching, but I also wouldn’t be heartbroken to see him locked up and kept around.  As a fan, it’s nice to have a situation where you feel like you can’t lose no matter how it plays out.

Member
3 years 5 months ago

Garza is a great player. But he is not an ace on a contending team. He’s a good number two, and an amazing number 3. You don’t build teams around 2’s. He would pull back a good package, but I doubt they’ll get the same amount back as they already gave to get him.

Member
jhfdssdaf
3 years 5 months ago

This makes him significantly more tradeable.  $3 million less hit to someone else’s bottom line.

Member
tfsmag
3 years 5 months ago

Awesome! I like this new front office more and more with every move.

Member
Bones
3 years 5 months ago

Barring injury, he will be traded by the All Star Break for 2 Top level and 2 mid level prospects. I’m thinking Tex or Det with Bos or Tor also in the mix.

Member
3 years 5 months ago

By “Top Level” do you mean two A prospects? And by mid level do you mean B prospects? Because that ain’t happening.

Guest
3 years 5 months ago

ok so Garza is making 10mm, Redsox are owed compensation. Theo was making 6mm with the sox this year, redsox have 5mm left over from the scuataro deal. does this not make sense for the sox to give up the 5mm and get garza in return? cubs would make out cash wise. sox get what they need. get it done

Member
ubercubsfan
3 years 5 months ago

Cubs don’t need cash.  The only cash savings they are doing is when they unload unwanted contracts.  The Red Sox fans need to realize the compensation is going to be a Cubs prospect around #20.

Guest
3 years 5 months ago

probably right but if selig wants to make a stand like he said he did, he will give the redsox a good player. cubs are going to make splashes next off season anyway. plus they could always resign him next year unless redsox extend him. selig wants to avoid gms leaving before their contracts are up. you have to admit.. its nice to dream.

Member
melonis_rex
3 years 5 months ago

You don’t give up a good player as compensation this late in the offseason. If the compensation was anything good, it would’ve been decided in November/December, not now.

edit: disqus.

Member
Nv
3 years 5 months ago

Selig just got involved and he is the one making the decision. It isnt up to theo/cherrington anymore. Im not saying it happens but its possible. 10% chance

Member
ubercubsfan
3 years 5 months ago

Wasn’t it said that no MLB talent would be traded?  I’d assume that would also include 40-man roster.

Member
jhfdssdaf
3 years 5 months ago

Brett Jackson isn’t on the 40 man roster.

Member
Tyler
3 years 5 months ago

Good luck landing Brett Jackson. haha

Member
ubercubsfan
3 years 5 months ago

There is no way the Cubs are giving up any of their top 10-15.  

Member
jhfdssdaf
3 years 5 months ago

I doubt the Cubs will have much choice in the matter, but my point was that you shouldn’t simply hope that it is someone off the 40 man.

Personally, I’d bet on Vitters being the comp.

Member
Tyler
3 years 5 months ago

Well Selig isnt gonna go out and dismantle an already awful farm system by moving one of the top 5 guys.

Member
jhfdssdaf
3 years 5 months ago

Based on his performance last year, I don’t know that you can still consider Vitters to be in the top 5.

Member
cachhubguy
3 years 5 months ago

I don’t think Selig said he wanted to take a stand. At least I haven’t seen a quote. The quote about “significant compensation” came from an unnamed GM, not Selig.

Member
BlueCatuli
3 years 5 months ago

An unnamed AL GM at that. My money is on Nick Carfado getting that line from Ben Cherrington.

Member
Tyler
3 years 5 months ago

I think your dream is just a tad clouded. 

Member
BDLugz
3 years 5 months ago

Soriano is making 18 million.  Theo was making 6 million with the Sox.  Does it not make sense for the Cubs to send over the 12 million difference and give Soriano to the Red Sox?  Red Sox would make out cash wise.  

Yeah… both our ideas are stupid.

Member
laffingrass
3 years 5 months ago

Yeah, the Cubs are going to give up one of their most valuable MLB players in return for a front office executive.

Please.

Guest
3 years 5 months ago

seriously?