I think the trade deadline will speak volume about the direction this team is going, if they trade Garza I think that means we're in worst shape than they thought and we're 4,5,6 years away. If they resign Garza long term it might mean we're 2,3 years away, just my thoughts on the matter...

Somebody last week posted some rating from last year, not sure exactly what it was or how it was determined, but he was ranked I think in the top 20 starting pitchers.

There are 30 teams .........so do the math, and some teams like the Phillies, Giants and I think Angels had 3 pitchers ranked in the top 20, so going by those rankings there was atleast 13 teams that didn't have a pitcher ranked as high, so he's be classified as an ace.

True. Or it could just be Ricketts looking to dump more salary.

hmmm...he's good, obviously....but not an ace "in my book"...

Nor mine. Borderline.

It's looking good for a trade in the not-too-distant future ... not that I would
want it, but the YANKEE'S, BOSOX & DETROIT (the powerhouses in major league
baseball) have just sustained major 'hits' to their pitching staffs.

Just WHO could the Cubs get from the Yankees? Very interesting possibilities,
I'd say!

I would not trade Garza. He is a top tier starting pitcher in his prime, and we have the money to extend him if we really want to. There's no reason to trade him, IMO. When you trade a guy like him, it's incredibly difficult to get the same quality back, and you're taking a big risk.

One thing that people forget is that top tier talent is way, way harder to collect than mid-tier talent (like the difference between a #1 starter vs a #3 or a #4 starter). It's rare that top-tier talent is available at all. When it is available, you usually have to overpay for it either in $$$ or in years (signing guys way into their mid- or late-thirties). Giving up a #3 or a #4 for prospects is a lot less risky, because the chances are much greater that one of the prospects coming in will one day perform at that level.

When it comes to prospects, even the BEST pitching prospects are a 50-50 proposition. There have been a million "can't miss" pitching prospects who have missed. Even getting two elite prospects in exchange for Garza would be very risky, and no team would part with two elite prospects for him.

The chances that a Jacob Turner will become as good as Garza is maybe about 10-15%, if that. The chances that he will be BETTER than Garza are very, very low (virtually nil). So, to make the trade to work, you need Turner to equal Garza and another prospect to develop into something good, as well. The odds are against it working.

It might be worth trading for Garza if we couldn't afford to extend him, but we are a big market team and we are under budget. That is one of the few advantages we have right now. I would prefer to leverage that opportunity by extending Garza. If we have to overpay a little bit, so be it. We need to collect as many guys like Garza as possible.

i would have to be wowed by an offer to trade graza.

A Garza in the hand is worth any number of prospects in the bush(es). As someone else said, even highly rated prospects are a crapshoot.

I would go with no only because Garza is still young and if the Cubs plan on being good in 3-5 years Garza will still be in his prime.

Yes he could yield a lot in return but they are only prospects.

I am on the fence with this decision, and I think this thread has turned out pretty well. There are good arguments for both sides. Overall, I think we can all agree that if he is traded somebody better over pay!