Moving Garza

[clancyphile]

If Garza is back to career norms in 2016, and he is healthy, then the Brewers could get a good return for him around the deadline. Probably MORE of a return than for Gallardo, since he would be under contract for 2017 and possibly 2018 (depending on if he is vested).

 

I'm not worried, especially since he's pitching lights-out since he came off the DL.

[Boomer5]

If Garza is back to career norms in 2016, and he is healthy, then the Brewers could get a good return for him around the deadline. Probably MORE of a return than for Gallardo, since he would be under contract for 2017 and possibly 2018 (depending on if he is vested).

 

I'm not worried, especially since he's pitching lights-out since he came off the DL.

 

They could easily trade him now. Any starter than can go 7 with 2 ER vs a playoff hitting line up with a contract that is not horrible will have potential playoff teams calling who ever is in charge now.

[brewcrewdue80]

Gotta wait til the off-season with Garza. His trade market will be a lot bigger. And trades in August just don't seem to net much of anything than a outside a teams top 10prospect type in return.

Garza to me is worth more than what he has provided thus far. Now the team wanted to move him and no one bit. Who wants a 5+era pitcher for the year your competing to be Champs with less than 70games left? Any Garza trade is with the future in mind, not this year's present. Save trading him when that future is 29other teams to involve and not 1-3.

[LouisEly]

You can't trade anyone on the 40-man in August without exposing them to waivers first, so anyone received in return for Garza in August will need to be recent draft picks not eligible for the 40-man yet. While there may be some high-upside guys, it isn't the Brewers M.O. to trade for A-ball players. So I agree, I doubt he will be moved this season.

 

But like I've said before, I don't think he made it very far in waivers (if he has even been put on waivers yet) without being claimed. Aside from teams taking a flyer on him, I would be extremely surprised if he made it past the Giants with Leake, Hudson, Lincecum, and Vogelsong as free agents after the season, Leake on the DL and Cain pitching poorly after coming back from the DL, and not much in the upper minors for starting pitching prospects.

[adambr2]

And I'll disagree again and say Garza would almost assuredly clear waivers right now.

 

James Shields just cleared waivers, and if the Giants weren't interested in claiming him, I doubt they would claim Garza. Worse contract, but better pitcher, and having a lot better year than Garza, in the AL to boot. If the Giants wanted nothing to do with the $65 still owed to Shields, I can't see them jumping all over Garza for $40M.

 

I'd go as far to say that it's pretty likely that Garza has already cleared as,

 

1) We almost certainly placed him on waivers as we were actively looking to trade him last month and there is literally no downside to putting him on waivers.

 

2) Had another team put in a claim on Garza and we had either negotiated with them or pulled him back, I think it's very likely we would know about it.

[mrn1ceguy]

Thoughts on moving Garza in a bad contract for bad contract swap? Getting a prospect without throwing in money this winter is probably slim to none, but getting a serviceable player in a bad contract swap might be do-able. Doing this may get us a serviceable player, or better, for about the same amount of money while playing our young pitchers and not blocking any prospects. I would only target positions we have no prospects and no one serviceable to play (3B, maybe bull-pen) or free up someone to be tradeable (1B to move Lind, C to move Lucroy, or CF to slide Santana into RF and then trade Braun, Davis, or Lind).

 

A couple players with similar (and manageable) bad contracts which could be swapped:

 

1B Mark Teixeira (1year-22.5M)

1B Ryan Howard (1year-25M w/ 10M buyout)

C Miguel Montero (2year-28M)

CF Michael Bourn (1year-14M w/ 12M vest)

CF Melvin Upton Jr (2year- 22M)

 

A small prospect may be needed on one side or the other. Also, doing this allows the team to put a "named" starter to save face to the casual fan after trading away the current starter (Lind/Lucroy) for prospects.

[trwi7]

The only bad contracts there are Howard, Upton and maybe Bourn depending on what the vesting option is. Teixiera has a .906 OPS his year. Montero is a 2 WAR player so far in less than 300 at bats.

[mrn1ceguy]

I guess I didn't look up Texiera's stats, I've just heard his name mentioned as a "bad contract." As to Montero, I figured he would be jetisned as a salary dumb to make room for Schwarber at catcher. Oh well, I'm sure their are other examples of moveable contracts out there in similar regards.

[logan82]

No reason to trade Garza. We won't get anything good back. We don't need anymore crappy players. We need good talent. Might as well hang onto him to see if he can build his value back up.

[JohnBriggs12]

No reason to trade Garza. We won't get anything good back. We don't need anymore crappy players. We need good talent. Might as well hang onto him to see if he can build his value back up.

 

They are likely to let Garza "start anew" for 2016, but if he doesn't perform the first couple months they may have to do what the Cubs did with Jackson and just eat a whole lot of salary. No sense throwing him out there if he's holding back a young arm.

[logan82]

I don't think we have enough arms that "need" to be in a starting rotation next year that will be held back by Garza. We have to pay him anyway, might as well buy a year of service time from someone.

[reillymcshane]

Moving Garza right now means cutting him or trading him for an equally bad contract. No one is going to give us anything - even minimal salary relief. He's been awful. If Matt was a free agent right now, it's hard to believe that anyone would give him more than a minor league contract. There's no reason to risk anything more than that. That makes his trade value nil.

 

I think you just hold on to Garza, bring him to camp, and if he looks okay, put him in the rotation. Maybe he can rebound to is pre-2015 form, and he has some value by mid-season and we can dump him at that point if we want. We can probably afford to give him a long leash since we probably aren't going to be that good next year and he's not blocking anyone major (Cravy and Pena are probably the only guys at this point - other players in AA right now - Lopez and Wagner, will probably spend at least 1/2 year at AAA).

[LouisEly]

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, and that applies to 2015 just as much as pre-2015. No one knows how he will pitch next year, but what is clear is that 2015 for whatever reason is the outlier.

 

Using the Gallardo trade as a comp, if Garza returns to 2014 form the trade package the Brewers could get would be at least the equivalent of Sardinas/Knebel/Diplan (top 100 prospect, potential closer, high upside low level SP). The opportunity to add another prospect haul like that to the organization is too valuable to pass up.

 

Francisco Liriano and Edinson Volquez, both very similar in age to Garza, have had multiple and consecutive poor seasons but now would fetch a very nice haul in a trade. A.J. Burnett had back-to-back poor seasons at age 33 and 34. They Yankees dumped him after that age 34 season in 2011 and gave cash to the Pirates to take him off their hands. Oops.

 

The potential return that Garza could fetch at the trade deadline next year - if he returns to career norm - is too valuable to not take that chance. Absolutely give him 2016 to rebound. I don't know that Lopez and Wagner are ready to make the jump from AA, and spending a year in the bullpen did nothing to hurt the development of Carlos Martinez or Adam Wainwright.

[FVBrewerFan]

We don't know yet if 2015 was an outlier or a trend. But I agree with you, there's no reason not to start him next year to find out. I think even if he does have a season similar to 2014 there's no way he'll get a Gallardo type deal in return. Yo was 28 at the time, Garza will be 32 next year when a trade is made. Not to mention Garza's reputation. Bu that's ok, I would take any trade offer whatsoever just for salary relief.

[JohnBriggs12]

I don't think we have enough arms that "need" to be in a starting rotation next year that will be held back by Garza. We have to pay him anyway, might as well buy a year of service time from someone.

 

Well nobody "needs" to be in a starting rotation, but the Brewers have multiple guys that might have to be sorted out, and that's not all that easy to do strictly on their minor league performance. I'd rather they do that in 2016 than 2017. Buying service time for all but premier prospects, especially pitchers, is rather foolhardy. How many pitchers stay in the same rotation until their control is up anyway?

 

I'd give Garza around a dozen starts next year. If he's gives you 6 quality starts in those first dozen, fine, give him another 10 or so but if not, then pull the plug. His value will be negative and he won't be in the plans for 2017. They have to figure out who will be.

[FVBrewerFan]

Buying service time for all but premier prospects, especially pitchers, is rather foolhardy. How many pitchers stay in the same rotation until their control is up anyway?

 

The good ones. Not that the Brewers have a lot of experience in drafting/ developing starting pitchers but Yo is one example. Peralta is headed there. Nelson certainly showing signs he could be in the rotation for 6 years.

 

Here's how I look at 2016. Yes, I would love to jettison Garza, and use that spot in the rotation to test drive guys like Pena, Thornburg, Suter, etc. However, I would not want to start the clock on guys who could be top of the rotation guys like Lopez, Hader, maybe Wagner and Houser too. With all that said, I think you need to bring a guy up when he's ready. If Lopez (for example) has a lights-out first half of the season you almost have to bring him up. All I'm saying is paying attention to service time is not foolish, it's something to consider with your best prospects. (Same goes for Arcia and Phillips by the way.)

[brewcrewdue80]

As I just posted in the other Garza thread. Garza likely just became more tradeable with his shutdown since a team will have that 5mil option in 2018 to consider. 2/25 or 3/30 with no chance of 3/38. Some team may bite like the Yankees on that kind of contract.