Garza done starting for the season

[JJHardy7]

Just Google Matt Garza is an...

 

I've never liked the guy.

[bjkrautk]

The way I read it when I first saw it was that he was told he was out of the rotation but if he wanted to pitch out of the bullpen he could. Somehow that became Garza refusing to play. I'm not sure which is true but it seems like writers are trying to make a story where there really wasn't one.

 

If he's not starting, and declined to pitch out of the bullpen...how else is he going to get into a game? You can call it semantics, but Garza declined the opportunity to pitch again this season, upon learning he would no longer be part of the starting rotation. If I'm Counsell, I wouldn't even consider letting him pinch-bunt, given where his head is at. His reaction to the demotion made it a story.

 

(I actually like that he's mad about being lifted; it gives me hope he's going to buckle down in the off-season and make sure he's on his game for 2016.)

[brewcrewdue80]

Edit: Also, incentives can be based upon time spent on the DL as well. If it was intended to be 100% based upon health, they could have built the incentives around that as opposed to number of starts. That requires health and some amount of performance.

They do have some of the contract based around time on the DL.

 

4 years/$50M (2014-17), plus 2018 vesting option

 

signed by Milwaukee as a free agent 1/27/14

 

14-17:$12.5M annually. 18: vesting/club option

2018 option vests at $13M if Garza 1) has 110 starts in 2014-17, 2) has 115 innings in 2017 and 3) is not on the disabled list at end of 2017 season

club holds $5M option for 2018 if it does not vest at $13M

club may exercise 2018 option at $1M if Garza spends more than 130 days on disabled list in any 183-day period from 2014 to 2017

$2M annually is deferred without interest, to be paid in four installments each Dec. 15, 2018-21

annual performance bonuses: $0.5M each for 30 starts, 190 IP

 

 

Has anyone else posted the truth behind this decision is simple to see? Garza's Vesting contract is for 110 Starts between 14-17 with 115IP in '17. Why is Garza "Ticked" The Brewers just stole 4 to 5 of those 110 starts. His contract just became 3/30mil essentially vs. 3/38mil. Which is a better Trade chip? And not only trade chip, but let's say Garza Pitches well from this funk over 16&17. 5mil team option? Why not? 5mil will be easy to trade if he's anywhere near 4ERA as a SP. And if he's near 4ERA he's solidifying the backend of the Brewers rotation in 2018.

 

If Garza had say .5-.75 less ERA and hadn't been awful with his stats he'd have a right to be ticked. But truthfully, the Brewers are making a great contract move by doing this and this shows exactly why I like the contract signing to begin with.

[TheCrew07]

If Garza had say .5-.75 less ERA and hadn't been awful with his stats he'd have a right to be ticked. But truthfully, the Brewers are making a great contract move by doing this and this shows exactly why I like the contract signing to begin with.

 

I understand the spin you're trying to put on this, however I'll ask how is spending any money on a below replacement level performance a good deal?

 

Every long term deal the Brewers have signed has turned out the same way, with way too much dead money in the contract. It doesn't matter if it's Ramirez, Garza, Wolf, Lohse... whomever. Dead money is wasted, and there's really no excusing it away. People rationalized Wolf's bad year because the first 2 were good and are doing the same with Lohse, but the truth 33% of the contract was a complete waste regardless of how it's spun. Is that acceptable for a small market franchise with limited means? I would submit no.

 

It's foolish for the Brewers to try and do anything meaningful in FA because they just don't have the dollars to spend against the big boys, and every a bad year from a player like that eats up roughly 10% of the available payroll. A different tactical approach to organization building is required for the Brewers, I know it's not fair, I wish MLB was a level playing field, but it's not. That's why the Brewers need to exploit the short term outlook so many franchises have and stay away from that mindset themselves. If they want to consistently win, which is something the Brewers haven't done even through these "good" years, then a different approach is required.

[brewcrewdue80]

If Garza had say .5-.75 less ERA and hadn't been awful with his stats he'd have a right to be ticked. But truthfully, the Brewers are making a great contract move by doing this and this shows exactly why I like the contract signing to begin with.

 

I understand the spin you're trying to put on this, however I'll ask how is spending any money on a below replacement level performance a good deal?

 

Every long term deal the Brewers have signed has turned out the same way, with way too much dead money in the contract.

 

Only to BWAR Garza was worth 7.1WAR the previous 4 seasons over 106starts. Worth 1.4 the 1st year of his contract. That's 8.5WAR prior to this year. They didn't invest money to a Below replacement level starting pitcher. You know that. You should also know like I that many a bust SPs are paid over 5mil on 1year deals. Have the Brewers wasted 3/37.5mil yet? There's 2 seasons to find out. They sure didn't waste the first 12.5mil.

 

If Garza becomes the next waived before end of his contract Wolf or Suppan obvious bad deal. We're halfway maybe less than halfway with option before determining this a bad deal. KRod was awful in 2012. Gave him a chance after that season and he's only been great for Milw.

[trwi7]

If Garza had say .5-.75 less ERA and hadn't been awful with his stats he'd have a right to be ticked. But truthfully, the Brewers are making a great contract move by doing this and this shows exactly why I like the contract signing to begin with.

 

I understand the spin you're trying to put on this, however I'll ask how is spending any money on a below replacement level performance a good deal?

 

Every long term deal the Brewers have signed has turned out the same way, with way too much dead money in the contract.

 

Only to BWAR Garza was worth 7.1WAR the previous 4 seasons over 106starts. Worth 1.4 the 1st year of his contract. That's 8.5WAR prior to this year. They didn't invest money to a Below replacement level starting pitcher. You know that. You should also know like I that many a bust SPs are paid over 5mil on 1year deals. Have the Brewers wasted 3/37.5mil yet? There's 2 seasons to find out. They sure didn't waste the first 12.5mil.

 

If Garza becomes the next waived before end of his contract Wolf or Suppan obvious bad deal. We're halfway maybe less than halfway with option before determining this a bad deal. KRod was awful in 2012. Gave him a chance after that season and he's only been great for Milw.

 

$12 million for 1.4 WAR isn't good value for a small market team.

[brewcrewdue80]

Pitchers don't accumulate WAR like a Position Player can. 30th best last season Meaning ACE If spread over 30teams was 3.49. 60th a #2 2.46

 

Garza didn't pitch 30+starts as most of these pitchers in top 60 likely did. Pretty much Looking for 2.5WAR from him if he pitches 31-33starts.

 

You're right the team didn't get it's 12.5mil value but Garza was near being on track to do so.

[CheezWizHed]

(I actually like that he's mad about being lifted; it gives me hope he's going to buckle down in the off-season and make sure he's on his game for 2016.)

 

The problem is that he is mad at the wrong person. Its all about the Brewers pulling him, not about how crappy he has pitched.

 

And whomever said his ERA needs to be 0.5-0.75 less...try 1.0 to 2.0 less. Any ERA above 5 is a red flag in your starting lineup. Above 4.5 and you can deal with it, but look to replace long term. Dropping 1.0 off his ERA only gets you to 4.63.

[monty57]

The only reason I'd want Garza pitching in the rotation next year is under hopes that he could rebuild some trade value. Otherwise, I'd much rather give the rotation spot to one of the younger guys.

 

It stinks for the Brewers, as they either have to use a roster spot on him and pay him to pitch, or cut him and pay him to pitch for someone else. With his refusal to pitch, it would be nice if they could somehow not have to waste a 25-man roster spot on him. It doesn't matter now, since it's September, but it could matter next year if they want to make him a reliever and he refuses. He shouldn't be rewarded for that behavior by essentially being able to force the team to cut him so he can be signed (and paid) elsewhere while still getting paid by the Brewers. I'm all for both sides being obligated to the contract, but if he refuses to play, he is not living up to his side of the deal, so the Brewers should be able to opt out of the contract, thereby forcing Garza to either pitch out of the bullpen or give up the money still owed on the contract.

 

It's the MLB. Players get demoted or moved to the bench all the time. They normally don't get a full season of terrible play to get things together. Garza needs to shut his mouth, accept his role, and work hard to try to regain a spot in the rotation. He should also call his agent and thank him for finding an owner gullible enough to get him an extra year on his contract. He may lose some money with the Brewers' move here, but he'd probably be out of baseball making nothing a year earlier without his agent's direct line to Attanasio.

[LouisEly]

If Garza had say .5-.75 less ERA and hadn't been awful with his stats he'd have a right to be ticked. But truthfully, the Brewers are making a great contract move by doing this and this shows exactly why I like the contract signing to begin with.

 

I understand the spin you're trying to put on this, however I'll ask how is spending any money on a below replacement level performance a good deal?

I understand the point you are trying to make and generally agree with the principle. However, this assumes that in-house or cheap FA replacement level pitchers were available. I can't speak for free agents, however Jack Z's last few drafts didn't exactly stock the cupboard with starting pitching.

 

You can point to Seid, but Garza was signed prior to the 2014 season. It generally takes at least 3-4 years for a college-drafted pitcher to make the majors, and at least 4-5 years for high school pitchers to make the majors. Thus only Seid's first two drafts would have had the time to be ready to step in prior to the 2014 season (only his first draft could have possibly expected a HS pitcher to be ready). For all the criticism that Seid got, every draft of his produced a legitimate starting pitching prospect. Despite the botched first two rounds of 2009, he came away with Fiers and Cravy (and Burgos). In 2010 the Covey pick was a MLB failure, not a Brewers failure, but they still came away with Nelson and Thornburg (and as a HS pick, Covey wouldn't have been ready by 2014). In 2011 they came away with Jungmann and Lopez (and everyone knew Lopez was at least five years away). Fiers and Thornburg were up in 2+ years, but it took Nelson and Jungmann four years to get ready.

 

Jack Z's last three drafts yielded Odorizzi, Scarpetta, and Hand as anything relating to starting pitching prospects. Yes, Odorizzi was traded, but there should have been more than him coming from three drafts. That's why the franchise got to where they had to dip into the FA starting pitching pool. Replacement level wasn't available in-house; thus Garza's win value last year is likely higher than the WAR numbers suggest because alternates would probably have been below replacement level. (If they would have went with Thornburg, he lasted only two months in 2014 before his elbow injury; FA's aren't available in June. Then they certainly would have had to use below replacement-level.)

[monty57]

So yes, if the only players you add to your farm for about a decade come from the draft, while you routinely trade from the farm to add to the MLB roster, then making moves like the Garza signing became "necessary," as long as you are still trying to extend your "window."

[torts]

I wouldnt be upset if they trade count chocula off to someone else, but I also wouldnt be upset if they keep him.

[pacopete4]

I just want him to pitch well. Just give us a full season of pitching well. I don't think that's a lot to ask for.

[tmwiese55]

I'm fine with shutting him down now and just telling him to worry about coming in 100% for next year. With the plan being to give him his spot in the rotation and hope he does well so you can trade him. Not winning it all next year anyway so let him take on some innings from the young guys and hope you can re-coup his value.

[reillymcshane]

 

Contracts in baseball are not supposed to be performance based. That's what the MLBPA has fought for.

 

Yes it is. They are the ones who negotiate the contract. Making sure all the i's are dotted and the t's crosses is a major part of their job. They add all kinds of crazy things in them. AS far as them not supposed to be performance based I don't know where you are getting that from. Alex Rodriquez has incentives if he hits certain career milestones. A lot of players have all star bonuses in their contracts. If those aren't performance based I don't know what is. If Garza and his agent wanted to negotiate the clause to mean only lost playing time due to being on the DL then they should have clearly written it out to say that.

SRB is correct in that contracts cannot be 'performance-based' - meaning you can't tie statistics to pay. You can't say in a contract 'if you hit 20 HR you get an extra $1M'. You can, however, have playing time bonuses linked to pay (games played, days on roster, starts, games finished, days not on the DL, etc.), as well as awards and honors (all star game appearances, silver slugger award, MVP votes, etc.).

 

It might be a bit of a fine line between 'performance-based' and 'participation-based' bonuses, but there is a difference.

 

As for A-Rod, he had three bonuses that were agreed upon that were considered 'historic events' - and thus not really performance bonuses (again, fine line). I believe one was passing Willie Mays in the HR list. The others I don't recall, but one is probably passing Barry Bonds on the all-time list. These bonuses - each $6M - had to be approved by MLB.

[1992casey]

Games played, games started, etc. actually are stats. But yeah, contracts can't be tied to performance.

[SoCalBrewfan]

I don't have much sympathy for Garza...of 85 qualified pitchers in the majors, his ERA is 83rd and his FIP is 82nd. I'm sure it's a shock for him for a team to feel that they're better off if he just doesn't pitch any more, but I think it's hard to argue that the Brewers aren't justified.

 

Still, I wonder if they Brewers have a good plan for controlling innings for the younger pitchers on the roster. Having Garza and Lohse suck up a few innings might well be a good investment in the future.

[And That]

I honestly don't know the answer to this question as my knowledge of contract/union law is pretty light... could the Brewers try to get out of Garza's contract now that he's refused to perform his duties as a pitcher? I assume there's a reason why they can't do that, just curious.

[trwi7]

I honestly don't know the answer to this question as my knowledge of contract/union law is pretty light... could the Brewers try to get out of Garza's contract now that he's refused to perform his duties as a pitcher? I assume there's a reason why they can't do that, just curious.

 

I'd imagine the only thing they would be able to do is fine him for the rest of the season if he refuses to pitch.

[jerichoholicninja]

I honestly don't know the answer to this question as my knowledge of contract/union law is pretty light... could the Brewers try to get out of Garza's contract now that he's refused to perform his duties as a pitcher? I assume there's a reason why they can't do that, just curious.

 

I'd imagine the only thing they would be able to do is fine him for the rest of the season if he refuses to pitch.

 

It's also pretty sketchy whether he refused to pitch or declined an offer. Two vastly different things.

[trwi7]

I honestly don't know the answer to this question as my knowledge of contract/union law is pretty light... could the Brewers try to get out of Garza's contract now that he's refused to perform his duties as a pitcher? I assume there's a reason why they can't do that, just curious.

 

I'd imagine the only thing they would be able to do is fine him for the rest of the season if he refuses to pitch.

 

It's also pretty sketchy whether he refused to pitch or declined an offer. Two vastly different things.

 

Yeah, they made it sound like it was up to him, which I don't get at all but in that case they wouldn't be able to fine him or void his contract.

[MNBrew]

(I actually like that he's mad about being lifted; it gives me hope he's going to buckle down in the off-season and make sure he's on his game for 2016.)

 

The problem is that he is mad at the wrong person. Its all about the Brewers pulling him, not about how crappy he has pitched.

 

And whomever said his ERA needs to be 0.5-0.75 less...try 1.0 to 2.0 less. Any ERA above 5 is a red flag in your starting lineup. Above 4.5 and you can deal with it, but look to replace long term. Dropping 1.0 off his ERA only gets you to 4.63.

Garza's commented in many, many game stories this year about how frustrated he's been over how badly he's pitched. He admitted it again in near the end of that spiel over the weekend (paraphrasing, "It's on me because I didn't pitch well."). IMO, he didn't need to say much about it all over again b/c he's been honest about it all along.

 

He's a competitor and still wanted to work his way through his lousy pitching. I like that part. I'd even suggest he has a right to be mad (it's his opinion, after all) about being pulled from the rotation, though if I'm the Brewers, I'd do it again after that many similarly terrible starts.

 

I wonder if his frustration about it is exaggerated due to simply being told about it rather than being asked, consulted, or given some actual input that might've had a bearing on the outcome. I'm guessing that's primarily why he's so upset.

 

He talked about this creating a chip on his shoulder going into the winter & next year. I sure hope so. He has something to prove. And based on his words, he knows it & has admitted it.

 

And looking at the picture of the next two years, it's probably fine that he's ticked at Melvin because Melvin's moving away from the role at the center of this swirl anyway.

[brewcrewdue80]

On the .5-.75 less. It's the point that Garza is at or below 5ERA with 4-5 starts looming to have a "run" and bring his ERA to a respectable 4.25 at year's end. Garza would have a little bit of an argument to say he can do that. But at 5.63 a 4-5 game run would maybe drop him just below 5ERA and still prove the season a lost one regardless. I wasn't making the point that he's pitching near his value. I was making the point whether he deserved to be arguing or not and It's a big NOT since his ERA is 5.63. Not like 4.85-5.05 with a chance to decline to 4.25 or so with a run of quality starts. Garza has no right to make an argument.

 

You say above 5 red flag. above 4.5 and you can deal with it. If Garza's ERA was almost at 5, he could bring it to that 4.5 you're looking for.

 

Can Pitchers pitch less effective but avoid injuries while doing so?

[CheezWizHed]

Even if he admits that he has pitched poorly, he denies the Brewer's right to take him out of the SP lineup.

 

“It’s not my decision,” said Garza. “I didn’t get much say. It’s completely taken out of my hands. That’s it. I didn’t have any say at all. It is what it is. It’s just (expletive).”

 

To the point where he even called his agent to talk to the Brewers... what is next? His mommy? He shouldn't be shocked or insulted that the Brewers pulled him. And if he was really interested in improving this year, try it from the BP.

 

You say above 5 red flag. above 4.5 and you can deal with it. If Garza's ERA was almost at 5, he could bring it to that 4.5 you're looking for.

 

I didn't qualify my statement with time. Obviously, any start over a 5ERA would have doomed all of our SPs to begin the year. But look at what Garza has done this year:

March/April: ERA 4.60; WHIP 1.568; OPS 807 - 29.1 IP

May: ERA 6.34; WHIP 1.500; OPS 786 - 32.2 IP

June: ERA 5.52; WHIP 1.516; OPS 863 - 31.0 IP

July: ERA 3.57; WHIP 1.642; OPS 844 - 17.2 IP

August: ERA 6.75; WHIP 1.530; OPS 857 - 33.1 IP

Sept: ERA 7.71; WHIP 2.357; OPS 840 - 4.2 IP

 

There was a brief time in July after he returned from the DL where he looked like the ship might be righted (although his peripherals said otherwise). August was his worst overall month. What makes anyone think he would even have a chance at recovery when you look at his Aug/Sept numbers? If anything, he should thank the Brewers for shutting him down before he passed up Lohse for the worst ERA in the league.

[pacopete4]

the point where he even called his agent to talk to the Brewers... what is next? His mommy? He shouldn't be shocked or insulted that the Brewers pulled him.

 

This is called being a professional. He didn't storm up to the front office and make a scene. He did the chain of command approach because he is frustrated with the situation and probably himself as well. Had he stormed up there, all people would be talking about is how big of a jerk he is and would hate him. I commend him for being a bigger person and taking the appropriate steps in this matter. Sure he's sucked this year, but this is one area you can't knock him on.