Why the Kansas City Royals Should Trade for Matt Garza
Denis Poroy/Getty Images
With the 2012 regular season set to begin in less than four months, the Kansas City Royals are still in the market for more starting pitching.
After already acquiring former Giants right-hander Jonathan Sanchez in a trade that sent outfielder Melky Cabrera to San Francisco, KC still has more work to do in improving their rotation for next year and beyond.
If you look at their projected starting rotation for next season, you can see why GM Dayton Moore still has some likely unfinished business with his rotation.
Of the five projected starting pitchers for the Royals in 2012, only two of them are right-handed pitchers.
It seems obvious that Moore will be strongly pursuing a veteran right-handed starter to plug into his rotation for next year.
After examining the list of current free-agent starting pitchers, there isn't too much out there right now for KC.
They would likely have to trade for pitching this offseason, which could be better than greatly overpaying for a free agent anyway.
One pitcher who has received some interest from other teams this offseason is right-handed starter Matt Garza of the Cubs.
The 28-year-old Garza had a career year last year with Chicago, going 10-10 with a 3.32 ERA, while collecting 197 strikeouts in 198 innings of work for the year.
Should the Royals trade for Matt Garza?
The one-time Twins prospect has turned in two solid seasons in a row, and appears to be only improving with each passing campaign in the majors.
The only problem with trading for a player like Garza is the hefty return that Chicago would likely demand for him.
According to MLBTradeRumors, the Cubs have already told another team that it would take an overwhelming offer for them to even consider trading Garza.
It's time for Dayton Moore to unload a few of his prospects from Kansas City's top-ranked farm system and make the offer to land Garza.
Getting a player like Garza would put the Royals one step closer to becoming a contender for not only this year, but for many years into the future as well.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?