Moving Garza

[igor67]

Post DL stint Garza now has a 3.28 ERA with a HR rate more in-line with career norms.

[Boomer5]

He could be moved pretty easily at this point.

[And That]

I don't know if Garza would be easy to move, but I am holding out hope that the Brewers can find a match in August. It would be nice to have a Peralta/Nelson/Jungmann/Cravy/Davies (or Wagner?) rotation the rest of the way. If they can't be competitive, may as well be interesting.

[LouisEly]

Post DL stint Garza now has a 3.28 ERA with a HR rate more in-line with career norms.

[sarcasm]No one would pay 3/$39M for that.[/sarcasm]

[StearnsFTW]

"Dump Garza" ... no, not at this point. He's 31, having a bad season, not 36.

 

The money's already spent, baseball contracts are guaranteed, so book it, they signed him, and the money's gone. No one would claim Matt on waivers right now, and I don't see the point in paying part of the money, to get a weak return in a trade - why not bring him back next year, to see if his value improves? Yovanni Gallardo was a mess two years ago, but he has since pitched better, been traded for three young players, and will now get a nice contract in free agency.

 

One thing to watch for ...

 

Garza's contract is through 2017, with a vesting option for 2018. Assuming he's here for the next two seasons, he needs to be used out of the bullpen in 2017, here's why:

 

Garza's contract vests at $13 million for 2018 if Garza pitches in 110 games during the first four years of the contract, and he is not on the disabled list at the end of the 2017 regular season, and he pitches at least 115 innings in 2017.

 

You've got him for two more years - stick him at the back of the rotation for now, and see if he comes around. As time passes, and the guaranteed money gets smaller, his value may improve some, to at least get a viable prospect. If the cash wasn't guaranteed, sure, cut him when the season's over if you want, but since it is, you don't really gain anything by dumping him.

 

I don't think (could be wrong, haven't read too deep) that anyone is suggesting just dumping Garza and eating the rest of his contract. That would be a really bad move at this point in his deal -- completely different situation and point in his career and contract than Lohse.

 

The debate the way I understand it is whether or not we would let Garza walk for nothing (I would) in the event that someone claimed him off waivers in August and thus was willing to take on the rest of his contract like Rios in 2009 (unlikely).

 

This. 100 %.

[StearnsFTW]

He could be moved pretty easily at this point.

 

Lol. I wish.

 

It'll be the best tasting crow I've ever eaten if we can dump him.

[adambr2]

Post DL stint Garza now has a 3.28 ERA with a HR rate more in-line with career norms.

[sarcasm]No one would pay 3/$39M for that.[/sarcasm]

 

If you can find a GM foolish enough to pay $40M for a guy based on 4 starts, by all means get him on the horn with Melvin.

 

Even this year aside, Matt Garza is nothing special. His 3.92 career ERA would make him a slightly below average starting pitcher in today's game. Given his age and recent trends, most GMs assume that they'll get worse than the career numbers moving forward, even if not as bad as this year.

 

Many fans IMO tend to drastically overestimate the kind of money that other teams are willing to throw away on our guys. No one gave Garza $13M on the FA market, when all 30 teams had the opportunity to bid for his services, and yet 2 years later and following a mediocre stretch some fans assume that they'll be willing to now.

 

The chance that another team would claim Garza's contract outright are extremely unlikely. Much better players than Garza clear waivers in August based on salary alone, and teams frequently have to eat salary when parting with much better players than Garza.

[Boomer5]

Starting pitching is erratic and changes day to day. Teams are running Garzas out there all the time.

 

I'm sure the Brewers could trade Garza right now for Shields and the much discussed Porcello and who would have thought that 4 months ago? They could probably trade him for Fister or Strasburg (sp) now too.

 

I'm not suggesting Garza will bring us Seager, obviously. But with the cost of pitching, only going up, Garza isn't all that pricey and he has been relatively decent since coming off the DL.

[adambr2]

Once again, just because Garza's price tag may be approximately 'market' for a middle of the rotation starting pitcher does NOT mean that teams are willing to take on free agent market value in a trade. I'm not saying that Garza is untradeable, but how much of his salary we are willing to eat will absolutely be a part of the conversation, and if the answer is nothing, the other GM is hanging up.

 

Real world example - when we traded Gallardo to the Rangers in the winter, we had to send them 4 million, almost a third of his 2015 salary, to get it done. This is despite several advantages we had in the Gallardo trade over Garza right now: 1) He had a much better year last year than Garza is having this year, 2) he didn't come with a very long term commitment, which does scare teams off, 3) he was traded in the offseason when teams are better able to fit trades into their team budget.

 

And yet, we still couldn't trade Yo despite all that. How anyone believes that someone is just going to take $40M in future commitments off our books and send a prospect our way for Garza, just because there are worse contracts out there, is beyond me.

[igor67]

Every indicator on Gallardo was pointing down, Garza's first half has been his only real blemish.

 

If one must indulge a talk radio mentality "how anyone can still believe that teams won't take on contracts is beyond me" The last 15 years+ of baseball is littered with teams finding ways to trade guys that people said were untradeable. Yes some of those were junk for junk deals, a substantial number have involved including some cash, but you don't even have to get beyond Aramis this year for the hyperbole about untradeable guys to be shown false. One can quibble about a player's precise value, but even if Garza pitches to a 4ERA the rest of the year he has mainstream tradeable value to someone. There are always teams that lose out on the big name starting pitchers in the offseason, and Garza's option year is nicely structure to minimize the risk of the contract turning into a long term issue.

[LouisEly]

Real world example - when we traded Gallardo to the Rangers in the winter, we had to send them 4 million, almost a third of his 2015 salary, to get it done. This is despite several advantages we had in the Gallardo trade over Garza right now: 1) He had a much better year last year than Garza is having this year, 2) he didn't come with a very long term commitment, which does scare teams off, 3) he was traded in the offseason when teams are better able to fit trades into their team budget.

 

And yet, we still couldn't trade Yo despite all that. How anyone believes that someone is just going to take $40M in future commitments off our books and send a prospect our way for Garza, just because there are worse contracts out there, is beyond me.

1) Gallardo was/is set to become a free agent. Because he is in the last year of the deal he is not eligible for a qualifying offer and thus can leave as a free agent and get nothing in return. That represents greater risk for a team, and greater risk needs to be offset with greater reward.

 

B) How much do you think Gallardo will sign for as a free agent this off-season? Give us a number, please. You like to say "Player X isn't worth this much" or "there are much better players than Player Y" but you fail to name them. If you're that confident in your assessments, please back them up with names and numbers. Hold yourself accountable.

 

3) What in the world do you mean by "we couldn't trade Gallardo"? Gallardo wasn't given away - he netted Sardinas (a top 100 prospect in the majors by age 21), Knebel (hard-throwing bullpen arm in the majors 1.5 years after being drafted), and Marcos Diplan (high upside 18-year-old doing quite well in high Rookie ball). How does that constitute "not being able to trade" someone? He is set to become a free agent, and that's what he netted in return.

[TURBO]

 

I'm sure the Brewers could trade Garza right now for Shields and the much discussed Porcello and who would have thought that 4 months ago? They could probably trade him for Fister or Strasburg (sp) now too.

 

 

I fixed that for you...

[jerichoholicninja]

1) Gallardo was/is set to become a free agent. Because he is in the last year of the deal he is not eligible for a qualifying offer and thus can leave as a free agent and get nothing in return. That represents greater risk for a team, and greater risk needs to be offset with greater reward.

 

Gallardo is eligible for a QO because the trade happened before the season. Only players that are traded after opening day are ineligible.

[hyerbro1]

I don't recall a team ever just letting a player go for nothing in return, but I suppose it would be possible.

 

Alex Rios in 2009.

Wasn't that some closer going to or from San Diego once, too, a number of years prior to Alex Rios? I was thinking it was Randy Myers, but checking baseball-reference.com, it was someone else.

 

 

Your initial thought was correct, per wikipedia.

 

The Padres' 1998 waiver claim of Myers is considered one of the biggest blunders in the history of the waiver wire. The Padres did not want Myers, mostly because of the $12 million and two additional years remaining on his contract as well as the fact that they already had an established closer in Trevor Hoffman, but placed a waiver claim in order to prevent him from going to the rival Atlanta Braves. They expected the Blue Jays to rescind their waiver claim, but the Blue Jays instead allowed the waiver claim to go through, leaving them responsible for the rest of his contract.

[MNBrew]

^^ Thanks.

[adambr2]

Real world example - when we traded Gallardo to the Rangers in the winter, we had to send them 4 million, almost a third of his 2015 salary, to get it done. This is despite several advantages we had in the Gallardo trade over Garza right now: 1) He had a much better year last year than Garza is having this year, 2) he didn't come with a very long term commitment, which does scare teams off, 3) he was traded in the offseason when teams are better able to fit trades into their team budget.

 

And yet, we still couldn't trade Yo despite all that. How anyone believes that someone is just going to take $40M in future commitments off our books and send a prospect our way for Garza, just because there are worse contracts out there, is beyond me.

1) Gallardo was/is set to become a free agent. Because he is in the last year of the deal he is not eligible for a qualifying offer and thus can leave as a free agent and get nothing in return. That represents greater risk for a team, and greater risk needs to be offset with greater reward.

 

B) How much do you think Gallardo will sign for as a free agent this off-season? Give us a number, please. You like to say "Player X isn't worth this much" or "there are much better players than Player Y" but you fail to name them. If you're that confident in your assessments, please back them up with names and numbers. Hold yourself accountable.

 

3) What in the world do you mean by "we couldn't trade Gallardo"? Gallardo wasn't given away - he netted Sardinas (a top 100 prospect in the majors by age 21), Knebel (hard-throwing bullpen arm in the majors 1.5 years after being drafted), and Marcos Diplan (high upside 18-year-old doing quite well in high Rookie ball). How does that constitute "not being able to trade" someone? He is set to become a free agent, and that's what he netted in return.

 

1) Wrong, Gallardo spent all year with the Rangers and they can make him a QO. Has nothing to do with why we had to eat 4M.

 

B?) Red herring that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. To answer your question since I'm apparently not 'holding myself accountable ', I think Yo will get a contract in free agency fairly comparable to what we gave Garza, or a bit better. . Still has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about regarding a team's willingness to take on Garza's full salary in a trade.

 

3). I meant that we couldn't trade Gallardo without eating some of his salary to accommodate the trade. I thought that was pretty clear from the context. My mistake. Obviously we did trade Gallardo.

[adambr2]

Every indicator on Gallardo was pointing down, Garza's first half has been his only real blemish.

 

If one must indulge a talk radio mentality "how anyone can still believe that teams won't take on contracts is beyond me" The last 15 years+ of baseball is littered with teams finding ways to trade guys that people said were untradeable. Yes some of those were junk for junk deals, a substantial number have involved including some cash, but you don't even have to get beyond Aramis this year for the hyperbole about untradeable guys to be shown false. One can quibble about a player's precise value, but even if Garza pitches to a 4ERA the rest of the year he has mainstream tradeable value to someone. There are always teams that lose out on the big name starting pitchers in the offseason, and Garza's option year is nicely structure to minimize the risk of the contract turning into a long term issue.

 

Again, as I have said repeatedly I don't think Garza is untradeable , just not tradeable without either eating a substantial amount of his remaining deal or taking on a similar contract like you mentioned. Which makes it very likely that he stays for the time being.

 

Also, every indicator on Yo was pointing down when we traded him? How so? He had a nice statistical year in 2014 and his ERA was back down to his career norms. There's no evidence at all to say that every indicator on Gallardo was pointing down when we traded him but yet that it's somehow not on Garza.

[LouisEly]

No, it's not a red herring, it's a comp. If you think Gallardo is going to get as much or slightly more than the Brewers gave Garza, then the cost to acquire Gallardo this off-season will be at least 4/$55M (5/$63M if it vests). The cost to acquire Garza this off-season will be 2/$30M (or 3/$38M if it vests).

 

So if teams aren't willing to take on Garza for at most 3/$38M because of his contract, then why would a team sign a similar player in Gallardo for 5/$63M (or more)? Why take the risk of the extra two years and $25M plus potentially give up their first round pick?

 

Yes, Garza had a bad first half, because he was not 100% and tried to pitch through it. He went on the DL, got healthy, and now has been pitching like his career norm. And if the Brewers had to "eat" $4M to trade him, how are you valuing the prospects in the deal? Based on the Braves eating $10M in Arroyo (who can't pitch at all) to take on Toussaint, I'd say the $4M was to get an additional prospect or upgrade to a better prospect; I'd say Diplan is comparable to Toussaint, plus the Brewers got a top 100 prospect and potential closer on top of that.

[adambr2]

Well, I don't believe that Garza's value right now is the same as Gallardo in free agency this year. Yo is better, and younger. I also don't think it would be worth trading Garza right now if we had to eat, say $15M of his remaining deal. I don't think Garza is currently worth what he was when we signed him, and I don't think anyone is paying him $15M a year right now even on a short term deal. I guess we'll see.

 

And yes I'm sure the $4M we sent Texas did positively impact the return we got from them. Worth it or not, we'll find out in the future. I'm not especially high on Sardinas, but the package was a fair return for a year of Yo.

[JohnBriggs12]

The jury is still out on the return for Yo. It might turn out to be rather minimal or could still be a nice package. Sardinas is a smooth glove but with a questionable bat. Knebel throws hard but so do a lot of short relievers these days. Diplan is years away.

[Boomer5]

The jury is still out on the return for Yo. It might turn out to be rather minimal or could still be a nice package. Sardinas is a smooth glove but with a questionable bat. Knebel throws hard but so do a lot of short relievers these days. Diplan is years away.

 

While I don't hold out much hope for Sardinas hitting, the two pitchers look promising and this return was for a year of Yo.

 

Seems pretty good to me?

[JohnBriggs12]

The jury is still out on the return for Yo. It might turn out to be rather minimal or could still be a nice package. Sardinas is a smooth glove but with a questionable bat. Knebel throws hard but so do a lot of short relievers these days. Diplan is years away.

 

While I don't hold out much hope for Sardinas hitting, the two pitchers look promising and this return was for a year of Yo.

 

Seems pretty good to me?

 

Well it depends. There are a lot of variables. Gallardo might have been worth close to that return at the deadline too, and had they kept Yo and dealt Lohse for a slightly lesser package over the winter, they might have come out about the same return or slightly better overall with a few more wins though not likely enough to prevent the sell off. If they had to do it all over, I'm sure they'd have dealt Lohse and held on to Yo.

[DHonks]

Doesn't Garza throw harder, work deeper in games, and have a more devastating breaking ball? I'd rather have Garza. Yo was solid, but I miss the Yo of his rookie year that attacked hitters, went deep in games

[endaround]

Gallardo started off strong but has come down fast. He's down to 5.92 K/9 from 6.83 last year which was his low up until that point. Gallardo might be younger than Garza but his fastball is 2 mphs slower and he is King fewer per 9 than even an injured Garza has been. Gallardo's ERA might get someone to jump but I would not want my team signing him to a major deal.

[Boomer5]

The jury is still out on the return for Yo. It might turn out to be rather minimal or could still be a nice package. Sardinas is a smooth glove but with a questionable bat. Knebel throws hard but so do a lot of short relievers these days. Diplan is years away.

 

While I don't hold out much hope for Sardinas hitting, the two pitchers look promising and this return was for a year of Yo.

 

Seems pretty good to me?

 

Well it depends. There are a lot of variables. Gallardo might have been worth close to that return at the deadline too, and had they kept Yo and dealt Lohse for a slightly lesser package over the winter, they might have come out about the same return or slightly better overall with a few more wins though not likely enough to prevent the sell off. If they had to do it all over, I'm sure they'd have dealt Lohse and held on to Yo.

 

I think we can all play the hindsight game until eternity. We all agree trading Lohse last year would have been the smarter move. Or better yet, not signing him at all.

 

But as for Yo, the guy was simply not getting it done here. How many 100 pitch, 5 inning performances can you take from your #1? It was time for him to go. Did they get the best possible trade for him? I have no idea, but judging the deal in a vacuum, Im OK with the return vs a year of his meh production.