Brewers + Matt Garza; 4 yrs, $50MM + incentives, 5th year option

[Outlander]

I am hopeful this will turn out different than some of their other free agent pitching signings because Garza has better career numbers than many of them and Garza will be 34 at the end of year 5 if he makes it that far so there shouldn't be regression like a Suppan or Wolf.

[gregmag]

On paper, in a vaccuum, this seems like a good deal relative to the contracts big money teams are paying to starting pitchers.

 

But in our situation, it seems a bit odd. Sure it should make us better, but we just signed a guy in what is supposed to be our farm's biggest area of strength, blocking several MLB ready guys, while we're trotting out Francisco/Overbay/Reynolds at 1B and Weeks/Gennett at 2B. Segura looked like a MVP candidate for a few months and then fell off a big cliff, and his only back-up is Bianchi, with the closest help on the farm playing in the low minors. Our 3B is old and missed half of last season to injury. Maybe there wasn't a viable upgrade available at any other position, but it seems we had areas of greater need.

 

I'm glad that we look to be going with Segura, Davis, Gennett, and Peralta as starters as we need to trust young players, but then we block Thornburg and Nelson, who are around the same talent level of these guys, with Garza. This really makes me believe that at least one of Thornburg/Nelson is going to be moved for a first baseman, because on a relative basis, the drop off from a good 1B to what we have is far greater then the dropoff from Garza to Thornburg/Nelson.

 

So the signing is a "good deal" relative only to the deals which are out of our league (the ones teams like the Dodgers and Yankees sign). We did outbid everyone else for him, so I guess that means it was a "normal free agent deal." It doesn't break our budget, and Garza is 30, which should be safer then the 34-year-olds Melvin has signed the past two offseasons. I don't think this move vaults us past anyone else in the division, although it does help with the team's number one priority, which is exciting the fan base so they buy tickets.

 

I like Garza, and the move should make the Brewers better this year. From a "fan in the seats" standpoint, I guess that's good. I'll have to reserve full judgement until I see the follow-up move, because I would be surprised if we don't trade some "MLB ready" starting pitching prospects for a first baseman. My guess right now for a real "all in" move would be Thornburg+ for Butler.

You make a bunch of good points, but I think I feel better about the deal than you do.

 

First, as others have mentioned, the rotation for a season isn't realistically just your top 5. Somebody is going to get hurt, maybe a couple of somebodies. Peralta's in the rotation. Nelson looks ready; he'll almost certainly end up logging serious innings as our number 6 starter. Whether or not Thornburg is ready seems like a trickier question. More time at AAA, which kicked his butt last year, doesn't seem like a bad idea. Again, we're likely to need him at some point. After those guys, the "strength" of SPs in our upper levels gets a lot more questionable. I won't even start to believe in Hellweg until he can get close to 2:1 K:BB. Jungmann could probably come up today and pitch like a borderline MLB starter; maybe he's better than that. Anyway, I don't think this deal in the aggregate disserves our SP prospects.

 

As to your other point -- why a SP and not a 1b or 3b -- I think you mostly answered it: lack of viable alternatives. First of all, I remain convinced that 1b will work out. It's just too easy a position to find guys. I'd do Hellweg or Jungmann for Ike Davis, but I wouldn't look to deal for a Corey Hart type. As for 3b, you can't go out and get a meaningful 3b with Ramirez still on the team. But even assuming you prioritize those needs, at some point you have to ask "What useful resource can I get for a good price?" The Garza deal, assuming he's healthy, looks like a good price for a valuable asset. We can use him now, and it frees us up to trade one of our other SPs for a positional upgrade later. In that sense, Garza's a fungible resource.

 

I've got the Bucks on the brain, where losing is important (and inevitable). A baseball rebuild doesn't have to work that way. We're integrating Segura, Khris Davis, and Gennett into the lineup. Hopefully we can come up with young corner IFs at some point using resources we have and also integrate one or more young SPs. Win some games while still getting younger. Not a bad plan; let's see if DM can make it work.

[Roderick]

As for 3b, you can't go out and get a meaningful 3b with Ramirez still on the team.

 

ARam could always go to 1B if we traded for a 3b starter today.

[PrinceEatMeat]

As far as trading for Ike Davis goes, it's just not gonna happen. They were talking to Garza for weeks, and obviously knew before they signed Reynolds and Overbay that they had a great chance at signing him. Melvin wouldn't have bothered making those moves if he was planning on trading a SP for Ike Davis after signing Garza. Reynolds was told that he had a good shot at starting too. They made those moves trying to avoid giving up anything in a trade. It's just not gonna happen, and I'm glad that it won't. I like Roderick's idea of trading for a 3B and moving Ramirez to 1B a lot better if a trade was going to be made. That makes a lot more sense to me. The 1B options out there are just incredibly underwhelming for their price tag in a trade.

[gregmag]

As for 3b, you can't go out and get a meaningful 3b with Ramirez still on the team.

 

ARam could always go to 1B if we traded for a 3b starter today.

Good point, assuming ARam is willing to move in a contract year. So presumably they looked around at 3b and didn't see attractive pickup options.

[torts]

has ramirez ever said he'd be open to 1B? or does that even matter?

[monty57]

As far as trading for Ike Davis goes, it's just not gonna happen. They were talking to Garza for weeks, and obviously knew before they signed Reynolds and Overbay that they had a great chance at signing him. Melvin wouldn't have bothered making those moves if he was planning on trading a SP for Ike Davis after signing Garza. Reynolds was told that he had a good shot at starting too. They made those moves trying to avoid giving up anything in a trade. It's just not gonna happen, and I'm glad that it won't. I like Roderick's idea of trading for a 3B and moving Ramirez to 1B a lot better if a trade was going to be made. That makes a lot more sense to me. The 1B options out there are just incredibly underwhelming for their price tag in a trade.

 

I'd say they wouldn't "count their chickens before they're hatched." They may have been in talks with Garza, but Garza wasn't moving until the Yankees signed Tanaka, and the Brewers had to do something about 1B. They could've had a two-pronged approach:

 

If we sign Garza, we go for it and make a trade for a good 1B

 

-or-

 

If we don't sign Garza, we make do with trash-heap players at 1B and probably end up trading some players mid-season to build for the future.

 

Since we did sign Garza, I could very well see the front office feeling that what we have at 1B is not enough, and determining that now that we have Garza for the rest of his career, we can afford to trade one of Nelson/Thornburg plus some other prospects for a good 1B. I think they'll aim higher than Davis, and look at someone like Butler, who would no doubt be far better than what we have, could even be enough to get us into the playoff conversation, but who will be gone after one season, meaning we'd be trading away some good prospects for a one-year window. Another option would be Carp from Boston, who isn't as good as Butler, but who has more "team control," so he may be a better target.

 

I'm not saying this is the route I would've taken, but I think it fits the Attanasio m.o.

 

edit: after posting this, I see there is a thread in the trade forum titled "Impact of Garza Signing on 1B," so I will stop talking about this here

[Warning Track Power]

As far as trading for Ike Davis goes, it's just not gonna happen. They were talking to Garza for weeks, and obviously knew before they signed Reynolds and Overbay that they had a great chance at signing him. Melvin wouldn't have bothered making those moves if he was planning on trading a SP for Ike Davis after signing Garza. Reynolds was told that he had a good shot at starting too. They made those moves trying to avoid giving up anything in a trade. It's just not gonna happen, and I'm glad that it won't. I like Roderick's idea of trading for a 3B and moving Ramirez to 1B a lot better if a trade was going to be made. That makes a lot more sense to me. The 1B options out there are just incredibly underwhelming for their price tag in a trade.

I definitely understand you not wanting to trade for Ike specifically, but I just don't understand the thought of having another player who hasn't played 1B, be our regular 1B. Haven't we learned our lesson with Francisco, Gonzalez and Betancourt?

[PrinceEatMeat]

As far as trading for Ike Davis goes, it's just not gonna happen. They were talking to Garza for weeks, and obviously knew before they signed Reynolds and Overbay that they had a great chance at signing him. Melvin wouldn't have bothered making those moves if he was planning on trading a SP for Ike Davis after signing Garza. Reynolds was told that he had a good shot at starting too. They made those moves trying to avoid giving up anything in a trade. It's just not gonna happen, and I'm glad that it won't. I like Roderick's idea of trading for a 3B and moving Ramirez to 1B a lot better if a trade was going to be made. That makes a lot more sense to me. The 1B options out there are just incredibly underwhelming for their price tag in a trade.

I definitely understand you not wanting to trade for Ike specifically, but I just don't understand the thought of having another player who hasn't played 1B, be our regular 1B. Haven't we learned our lesson with Francisco, Gonzalez and Betancourt?

 

The difference is that Ramirez isn't a middle IF or a butcher at 3B like Francisco. I feel that he could be a decent fielder at 1B. It wouldn't be my first option. I was just saying if a trade was going to be made, I'd rather pick up a 3B than a 1B. Ramirez will hold up better health wise playing 1B too.

[RobDeer 45]

Monty - I think we will still see Thornburg/Nelson, but not need them to be studs right from the get go. Bullpen roles or coming up to fill for injuries. Plus Yo is gone next year isn't he? So I don't think this blocks anything, just allows them to slow play their moves in to the bigs.

 

I also am waiting to see. I could see DM trading Yo, or maybe a prospect or two (which I think I'd hate, but just depends on the return). I'm all for keeping young pitching while trading guys like Yo at the end of their contracts.

[TooLiveBrew]

edit: after posting this, I see there is a thread in the trade forum titled "Impact of Garza Signing on 1B," so I will stop talking about this here

I'm going to quote monty's edit to remind people to please keep this thread on Matt Garza. Plenty of other threads to use to discuss 1B.

[adambr2]

In the short term, I'm happy, because at least for now, it gives us some excitement for this season in regard to our chances.

 

In the long term, I feel like signings like this don't address the root of the problem, which is our minor league scouting and development.

 

I have to think that our MLB pitching staff is right up there as far as least homegrown players. I haven't checked that, though. The lack of homegrown players is what causes signings like this. In essence, I feel like Melvin and Mark A continue to build this team on a house of cards through backloaded deals and pricey pitching that they really can't afford, a foundation which is bound to collapse at some point.

[xisxisxis]

The lack of homegrown players is what causes signings like this. In essence, I feel like Melvin and Mark A continue to build this team on a house of cards through backloaded deals and pricey pitching that they really can't afford, a foundation which is bound to collapse at some point.

 

It's a focus entirely on the now and maximizing the current years revenues without a real plan for the future. Given we are this far into the Melvin years and we still have an abysmal scouting and player development record is just mind boggling. It's one thing to have loyalty to those you have hired, but when that loyalty masks abysmal performance than the only hope to change course is if we lynch the captain....

 

In my profession, there are the big players who have most of the resources. One of the leaders in the field, who is well regarded, has a sign up at his lab that says "we don't have the resources of the ______ so we have to be smarter". Even though he has a great reputation for doing good work he reminds his people every day that the mission is to be smarter if they are to succeed. What irks me about the Brewers is that they don't even have a clear idea that they need to be smarter....

[Fear The Chorizo]

In the long term, I feel like signings like this don't address the root of the problem, which is our minor league scouting and development.

 

So what? Because management can't scout and develop their own homegrown players, they shouldn't be allowed to sign big league free agents? That would just put more pressure on the very thing that's a weakness of the organization. I feel like signing a pitcher of Garza's talent improves the organization, from the top down. Yes, they need to get much better at improving from the bottom up, too, but I don't think signing Garza hamstrings them from a player draft/development perspective. If that's a continued problem, then there needs to be a housecleaning of their scouting/development staff, something that isn't likely unless Melvin goes with them. The problem I see is that Melvin's able to maintain a reasonably competitive major league team on the field regardless of how strong the Brewers' farm system is, and Mark A. isn't ready to just jettison him and do a Marlins, Astros, or Cubs-esque rebuild that would net them multiple top 5 draft picks.

 

Garza's signing helps the big league club and his cost isn't restrictive for the rest of the organization - player scouting and development should be an entirely different discussion.

 

Right now the Brewers have a big league roster that can compete...100-win talent by no means, but it's good enough to earn a playoff spot if things go their way. In all honesty as Brewers fans, with how the game is structured financially today that's about the best we can hope for year in/year out.

[monty57]

Monty - I think we will still see Thornburg/Nelson, but not need them to be studs right from the get go. Bullpen roles or coming up to fill for injuries. Plus Yo is gone next year isn't he? So I don't think this blocks anything, just allows them to slow play their moves in to the bigs.

 

Yo has an option for 2015, and Lohse is signed through 2015, Estrada will be in his third arby year in 2015 and Peralta is under team control through 2018. The Garza signing means our entire rotation is intact for 2014 and 2015, with three guys leaving after 2015. Thornburg is 25 years old and Nelson is 24, so they're both already past the "too young" stage, and by 2016 will be around the "no longer considered a prospect" age. You also have Jungmann (24), Hellweg (25), Blazek (almost 25), Pena (24), Gagnon (23) and Bradley (23) all knocking on the door. That's also more than we can stash in AAA, so at least two will either need to be in the Brewer bullpen or have to spend another year in AA.

 

I understand that Garza is more of a "sure thing" than any of the prospects, but I see this as being akin to signing a LF to a multi-year deal because he is more of a "sure thing" than either Davis or Gindl. Both Thornburg and Nelson are more highly thought of than Davis or Gindl, so if Davis (with Gindl as insurance) is okay for LF, why isn't Thornburg (with a lot of guys as insurance) not good enough for the #5 starter spot? He wouldn't need to be a stud, just a #5 starter.

 

If you spend money for the marginal upgrade from Thornburg/Nelson to Garza, it should mean that that marginal difference is going to benefit you in a meaningful way. I know Thornburg doesn't qualify as a prospect anymore, but since he's in this spot, I'll consider him, Nelson, Jungmann and Hellweg as the top four prospects in the organization. We shouldn't need to sign a good-but-not-great player to a guaranteed $50MM deal just to make sure our top four prospects (all with MLB experience) stay in AAA for the next two years or get relegated to bullpen duty.

 

So again, Garza is a fine player, and when compared to the ridiculous deals being signed by the big money teams, we got him "cheap." It still doesn't seem like a necessary move, but rather one done either just because we had money and no better options, or more likely done to spur fan excitement to increase lackluster ticket sales.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Really good discussion all around.

 

I wonder, am I missing something on Thornburg? Not to say he isn't a nice player to have, but are folks really suggesting that, when healthy, Garza isn't a big upgrade? Granted, he might not be healthy, but then you've got Thornburg pitching.

 

I guess I just don't see this move "blocking" anyone who's really earned MLB starts at this point. I could be wrong. I ask with all sincerity, what do others see in Thornburg that I'm not considering?

[endaround]

Monty - I think we will still see Thornburg/Nelson, but not need them to be studs right from the get go. Bullpen roles or coming up to fill for injuries. Plus Yo is gone next year isn't he? So I don't think this blocks anything, just allows them to slow play their moves in to the bigs.

 

Yo has an option for 2015, and Lohse is signed through 2015, Estrada will be in his third arby year in 2015 and Peralta is under team control through 2018. The Garza signing means our entire rotation is intact for 2014 and 2015, with three guys leaving after 2015. Thornburg is 25 years old and Nelson is 24, so they're both already past the "too young" stage, and by 2016 will be around the "no longer considered a prospect" age. You also have Jungmann (24), Hellweg (25), Blazek (almost 25), Pena (24), Gagnon (23) and Bradley (23) all knocking on the door. That's also more than we can stash in AAA, so at least two will either need to be in the Brewer bullpen or have to spend another year in AA.

 

I understand that Garza is more of a "sure thing" than any of the prospects, but I see this as being akin to signing a LF to a multi-year deal because he is more of a "sure thing" than either Davis or Gindl. Both Thornburg and Nelson are more highly thought of than Davis or Gindl, so if Davis (with Gindl as insurance) is okay for LF, why isn't Thornburg (with a lot of guys as insurance) not good enough for the #5 starter spot? He wouldn't need to be a stud, just a #5 starter.

 

If you spend money for the marginal upgrade from Thornburg/Nelson to Garza, it should mean that that marginal difference is going to benefit you in a meaningful way. I know Thornburg doesn't qualify as a prospect anymore, but since he's in this spot, I'll consider him, Nelson, Jungmann and Hellweg as the top four prospects in the organization. We shouldn't need to sign a good-but-not-great player to a guaranteed $50MM deal just to make sure our top four prospects (all with MLB experience) stay in AAA for the next two years or get relegated to bullpen duty.

 

So again, Garza is a fine player, and when compared to the ridiculous deals being signed by the big money teams, we got him "cheap." It still doesn't seem like a necessary move, but rather one done either just because we had money and no better options, or more likely done to spur fan excitement to increase lackluster ticket sales.

 

Or because both Thornburg and Nelson to project to be replacement level players.

[BarneyStinston]

Well, if the guy doesn't break down from injury, shores up his field play, doesn't continue to be a head case on the mound, and stays off twitter to prevent him from looking like a douchebag, he might be valuable for 2 1/2 years.

[MNBrew]

I still think it comes back to pitching & defense. And with signing Garza, our pitching got better. (Defense may be another matter, but Overbay/Reynolds at 1B & Gennett at 2B is an improvment over Weeks & the 2013 Crappy Misplaced-SS Collection.) Our offense is quite respectable, too, although, like that of most teams, inclined toward some streakiness.

 

One thing that's come up little in the discussion is that part of it for Garza is that he likes pitching in the Central. He's had success in this division & it obviously is a factor re: his comfort zone. In that way, he's not unlike Aramis Ramirez, who obviously preferred to stay near his Chicago home.

[endaround]

Overbay/Reynolds is likely a downgrade(both are bad) and Gennett likely isn't better than Weeks.

[brewers4eric]

I still see our bullpen as a potential weakness, but adding Garza gives us another option for the rotation that can pile up 160 plus innings and take some of the pressure off of the guys that need to get the ball to Henderson. I like Estrada, but he hasn't exactly been a picture of health (much like Garza last year) and I don't think Marco has ever thrown more than 130 innings in the majors. We'll be able to see what we have with Thornburg, Nelson, and Smith at some point this year, without putting two hundred innings worth of mileage on their arms.

 

If the Garza signing signals a philosophical change on the part of Brewers management toward pitching, I'm for it. I like the three run bomb as much as anyone but our recent playoff rosters have included names like Greinke and Sabathia. Our pitching is deeper than it was last week, and our offense still features a mix of power and speed. We didn't beat very many good teams last year, but I think we are at least capable of competing with the good teams on paper at this point.

[trwi7]

Overbay/Reynolds is likely a downgrade(both are bad) and Gennett likely isn't better than Weeks.

 

Overbay and Reynolds are bad but they're likely better than what we got from 1B last year. It'd be almost impossible not to be.

[MNBrew]

Overbay/Reynolds is likely a downgrade(both are bad) and Gennett likely isn't better than Weeks.

 

Overbay and Reynolds are bad but they're likely better than what we got from 1B last year. It'd be almost impossible not to be.

Thanks, trwi7. That was my point -- not that they're necessarily good, but they're much better than JF21 & Yuni B. And Gennett showed a very respectable glove when he was up.

[homer]

Overbay/Reynolds is likely a downgrade(both are bad) and Gennett likely isn't better than Weeks.

 

Overbay and Reynolds are bad but they're likely better than what we got from 1B last year. It'd be almost impossible not to be.

Thanks, trwi7. That was my point -- not that they're necessarily good, but they're much better than JF21 & Yuni B. And Gennett showed a very respectable glove when he was up.

 

Better? That's like saying dog poo is better than pig poo. I don't know if they'll be measurably better to the point that it amounts to more wins.

[DoubleSwitch]

There's no such thing as too much starting pitching depth in my opinion. Nelson and Thornburg will both get innings and if they're good enough to force their way into the rotation than that's a good problem to have. To project that the mediocre collection of "Jungmann (24), Hellweg (25), Blazek (almost 25), Pena (24), Gagnon (23) and Bradley (23)" will be "knocking on the door" in two or three years is beyond foolish. If a single person in that list turned out to be an average major leaguer I'd be more than thrilled. This move makes the team better at a fair price and it doesn't cost a pick or harm future development in any way. I don't see what's not to like.