 Latos for prospects, why would they turn around and trade prospects for Garza? It’s a decent question, but one with possible, even probable answers. The answers, though, all depend on how much you believe in the players within the Padres farm system and their ability to translate to Major League success.
Let’s start with the facts being thrown out by the naysayers. First, Garza will make an estimated $8.7 million through arbitration for the 2012 season. That could be bumped to upwards of $10 million for his final arbitration year in 2013. The Padres are a rebuilding team, clearly focusing on young prospects who come cheap.
Second, it makes little sense to trade away the club’s best player in Latos for prospects if the team is in turn just going to ship other prospects out for an older, more expensive pitcher.
Third, Anthony Rizzo is more valuable than Garza would be if the Padres planned to flip Garza at the trade deadline next season.
These are all valid arguments if you don’t believe in players like Cory Burns, Yonder Alonso, Jedd Gyorko, Brad Boxberger, and Yasmani Grandal. I’m guessing Josh Byrnes and the entire Padres organization believe in every one of these players. Now, I’m by no means an expert. However, there are very plausible responses to each of the concerns above.
In the span of a couple days, the Padres made moves that brought in two prospective future closers in Burns and Boxberger. Huston Street‘s buyout for next season is already paid for, so after 2012 the team will be dropping $7.5 million from their books. In the meantime, Street gives both Burns and Boxberger a chance to develop further and even get their feet wet with a few Major League innings next season. By the time Street moves on, either Burns or Boxberger may be ready to step in and take the reins as the club’s new closer, and they would do so for a salary of under a million per year. Assuming either Boxberger or Burns becomes the closer in 2013 and is making somewhere around $500,000, the Padres would be saving $7 million with Steeet gone.
Chase Headley is already attracting a lot of attention. He is still relatively cheap but will surely be making quite a bit more in the coming years. In 2012, Headley is due $3 million. If Gyorko continues to develop or the Padres pursue a cheaper third baseman through trade, they have the ability to move Headley, save about $2 million per season with his replacement, and even pick up some more solid prospect in the return deal for his trade.
Finally, Nick Hundley is penciled in as the Padres main guy behind the plate going forward. However, they just picked up David Baker, a solid addition, and they hope Grandal can continue his quick development. Now Hundley is not in the same class as Street or even Headley as far as salary, but he is raising some eyebrows across the league. If he has another solid year for the Padres, he could become another valuable trade chip during next year’s off-season. If Grandal can fill a void left by Hundley and the team can pull in a solid return for Hundley, the move may make sense.
All combined, the above moves could save the Padres at least $9 million a year in salary. So, we come back to Matt Garza. Rather than view him as a short-term player on the roster, Byrnes could trade for him and immediately work on a long-term contract. If the team can work a deal that averages out to $10 million a year for Garza over the course of multiple years, they are really only adding a million to their payroll if the other moves I mentioned happen. They would have a solid number one pitcher, Edinson Volquez as their number two if he can overcome his control issues, and still maintain a fully stocked farm system.
Everyone seems to view a move for Garza as a short-term deal, but there is no reason the above moves couldn’t work out. Obviously things change, players get hurt, players under-perform etc. But at least Byrnes seems to have a plan and a path to competing in mind going forward. Matt Garza could quickly help the club compete next season and for years to come if things fall into place just right.
Topics: Anthony Rizzo, Brad Boxberger, Cubs, Jedd Gyorko, Mat Latos, Matt Garza, MLB Trade Rumors, Padres, Yasmani Grandal, Yonder AlonsoWe are seeking a highly motivated Water/Wastewater Facilities Health & Safety (H&S) Professional to be a part of our team. This position will assist in the development, implementation, and administration of safety, health, occupational health, fire protection and prevention, and equipment and property protection.
• Identify and recommend resolution of hazardous/potential hazardous conditions and follow through to ensure corrections have been made.
• Perform oversight of contractors to ensure compliance with site and regulatory H&S requirements.
So far we've covered forward and backward passes, the critical path and total slack. Now we're going to discuss free slack and what that means. Free slack is the amount of time a task or activity can be delayed without delaying the early start of a successive task. In order to calculate the free slack of each task, you take the minimum value of the early start of all the successor tasks to that given task, minus the early start of the current activity, minus the duration of the current activity. I know this may seem a little confusing. But I'm going to show you how to do it, and how it works next. Typically, the Free Slack is listed under each task or node. Let's look at task A. The early start of its two successors are 0 for C and 0 for B. So, we have to choose 0. So, 0 minus A's early start of 0, minus its duration of 0, equals 0. This one is pretty simple, now let's move through the rest of the diagram. Going to C, we take the early start of task E, which is 30, subtract the early start of C, which is 0, minus the duration of C, which is 30, and we get a free slack equation is 30 minus 30 is 0. For E, we do the same thing. The early start of its successor F, is 60. 60 minus the early start of E, 30, minus the duration of E, 30, is 60 minus 30 minus 30 which is equal to 0. Now F, take the early start of G, 100, minus the early start of F, 60, minus the duration,40, it's 100 minus 60 minus 40 or 0. And for G, we have the early start of H, which is 110 minutes, minus the early start of G, 100, minus 10, so 110 minus 100 minus 10 equals 0. So as you can see, this is showing the critical path. Now, as we move to the other branch of our project, let's look at B. So we take the early start of D, which is 5, minus the early start of B, 0, minus 5, so our free slack is 0 for this activity. And for D, we have the early start of G, 100, minus the early start of D, 5, minus the duration of D, which is 15, and we have a free slack of 80. So 100 minus 5, minus 15 equals 80. So what does this mean? It means that we can delay task D by 80 minutes before it affects the earliest start of it's successor G. But if you delay it by 81 minutes, it's going to to affect both the early start and total project time. But if we look at task B, it's slightly different. As you can see by the total slack, that you can delay B by 80 minutes. But if you delay by 81, because the free slack is zero, it will cause the early start of D to be late which will delay the entire project. So in our project, the only task that has any float, that you may be able to use, is activity B. There's a total of 80 minutes that this task can be delayed. Now we've covered how to determine slack, forward and backward passes and calculate the critical path. But what can go wrong? We're going to cover some common errors next.Discussion in 'New Talent & Track Reviews' started by LiquidTurtle, Jan 27, 2013.
Yup, it`s an experiment i`m working on, please leave some feedback
Like the choice of breaks...Ima big fan of the splashy, live-sounding cymbals. Synth chords and piano notes are nice too. Its too repetitive at the moment though, the track needs to have more of a progression, and put some more bass in there!
Separate names with a comma.Next week is my 28th birthday. And next week I’ll be moving myself, my bike, and a stuffed little Honda Civic across the country to Colorado.
Here I am, on the edge of a huge, gigantic, mega-enormous and exciting life change and all I keep thinking is: am I doing it wrong?
 I started that direction for a bit, and then last year my life up-ended when I ruined the best damn relationship I’ve ever had. 
Last year I wrote something around this time, when things really started to fall apart—also around the time of my 27th birthday—and even though I was feeling then how I am now…I’m doing something about it.

