About Brien Jackson

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

7 thoughts on “Heyman: “No favorite” in Garza trade talks

  1. I'd go after Garza. He would be a guy that could back CC up better than what Nova, Hughes or Garcia would be able to provide at this point in either of those three pitchers' careers. We'll see what it takes for the Yankees to get him, but I would still be shy to trade Betances and Banuelos for him. One of those guys, plus Romine or Sanchez, and two guys from the Noesi, Warren, Phelps and Mitchell crowd would be guys I'd offer. If one of our catchers don't mix in with the Cubs' need, I'd add Mason Williams to the mix.

    • I agree that they should go after him, for the reasons you mentioned. Though I would be willing to give up Manny for him. The Cubs want pitching and I dont see how we could trump a Tigers offer without Bannuelos. Plus, Manny wouldnt really be ready to step into the rotation until next year, and even then he'd still have an innings limit. I think a deal centered around Bannuelos, Warren, Corban Joseph, and either another pitcher or one of the catchers (not Montero) should get it done. And thats a price I'd be willing to pay

      • Making Banuelos unavailable in discussions for Garza would be absurd. Montero I could understand, but refusing to move Banuelos at all would be the true jump the shark moment of prospect hugging.

        • Who is saying don't include Banuelos? We both said we would include Banuelos, I just said I would not include both him and Betances, that's all.

  2. Why do people keep pointing to Garza's AL East experience as such a good thing?
    2008 4.18FIP 4.41 xFIP
    2009 4.14FIP, 4.42 xFIP
    2010 4.42 FIP, 4.31 xFIP

    He also had a rather massive home/road ERA split those years (which can happen when pitching at the Trop) Sure he spent 3 years in the AL East, but shouldn't the quality of those years (and things beyond simple ERA) matter as well?

    This is Danks all over again – the longer the name is on the market, the more the myth overtakes the reality.

    Unless people think last year was an inflection point in Garza's career (which it very well could be), why exactly is he such a hot commodity? Why are people so excited at 4.1-4.5 FIP/xFIP in his AL East years? The only thing missing is bulldog / gamer / fiery terminology.

    I wouldn't include Banuelos in a deal, not because I'm unwilling to deal Banuelos – I'm just not buying into what could have been a career year for Garza. If you look beyond ERA, Garza pre-2011 was a mid/back of the rotation starter. If it's 2 years of that, I don't think Banuelos is worth it.

    • Well I was being sarcastic, since I don't put a whole lot of stock in A.L. East triumphalism, but I'll have more on this tomorrow. For a preview: Garza was a young pitcher then and his approach and repertoire changed this year.

      • My comment on the AL East thing was about the MSM narrative (was not directing it at you)

        I'm sure you'll talk about pitch mix…. (and how he threw more sliders, fewer fastballs, more change ups). Hopefully you'll be able to isolate out how much switching leagues and facing a bunch of these hitters for the first time influenced things as well.(As a pitcher often has the advantage the first couple of times against a batter).

        I also hope you'll throw in guys like Greinke and Lee who didn't really change their repertoire but saw rather large improvements in their peripherals switching leagues (FIP, xFIP, K rates) without really altering approach.

        I'm interested to see how you isolate approach/repertoire from the league switch.