Phil Rogers gets it.
A little over a year ago I was so miffed by the Cubs giving up 5 players, including 3 of their Top 10 prospects, for Matt Garza (and a prospect) that I wrote not ONE, but TWO articles criticizing the move.
Now the Cubs are in between a rock and a hard place concerning Garza, they can either sign him to an extension, at the risk of him becoming the next Carlos Zambrano, or they can trade him and get less in return than they gave up.
Basically, on his way out the door, Jim Hendry made sure that he made at least one more move to screw up the Cubs' future.
You can say that the Cubs got the better end of the deal, because none of the players they gave up had much impact in 2011, while Garza was the Cubs' best starter. But that is not the point.
The point is that, even with Garza, the Cubs finished in 5th place in the NL Central, while the Tampa Rays made the playoffs. Sure, none of the players the Cubs gave up really helped the Rays win, but they improved the team's minor league depth and, if just one of the players becomes an above average regular for the Rays, it will have been worth it.
The Rays were able to deal Garza, because they had young stud Jeremy Hellickson waiting in the wings. When was the last time the Cubs were able to trade a starting pitcher because they had a younger (and better) pitcher waiting in the wings?
The Cubs need to turn their minor league system around so that they are the ones trading the Garza's of the world for prospects and, with Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer at the helm, it appears that they are on the right track.
The next 3 to 5 years will be the true test of the new regime and we, as fans, need to be patient for this new approach to bear fruit. Just as the team is doing, we need to get out of the "win now" way of thinking and allow the process of building from within to work.
I was against this trade at the time, being infatuated with Hak Ju Lee, and believing Archer was destined to be a #2 starter...but a year later I'm not so sure Cubs fans should be that upset about this deal. Archer's control issues are worse than people thought, and while Lee is continuing to move up top prospect lists, Garza remade himself as a pitcher and even without the NL factoring in, he was more effective for the Cubs than he ever was for the Rays. I think the Cubs could still deal him at the deadline and receive a better haul than Lee and now former top 100 prospect Archer. Chirinos looks like a flash in the pan, and while the jury is still out on Guyer, are we really going to miss him?
ReplyDeleteIt would be great to still have Hak Ju, but I think this trade could still work out in the Cubs favor.
I think Hak-Ju Lee could have been the answer for our second base issues--as Lee would play short and Castro would move to second, where he would hopefully not make as many errors.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is the Cubs need to develop more starting pitching from within. Pitching is expensive to acquire via trade or free agency. Looking at the projected rotation, only Randy Wells was developed in our system and he isn't that great.
Its no coincidence that the last time the Cubs had a legitimate shot at reaching the World Series (in 2003), they had homegrown pitchers Kerry Wood and Mark Prior leading the way.
I would love to see the Cubs system end up like the Rays, where they can churn out pitchers like David Price, Jeremy Hellickson, James Shields, Matt Moore, etc. year after year and not miss a beat.
Until that happens, I have little hope for the Cubs.
The Diamondbacks don't exactly seem to be making sound moves this off season, possibly the Cubs could fleece them in a Garza deadline deal for part of their stable of starters, maybe including Archie Bradley...
ReplyDelete