Exchanging Bad Contracts

[JohnBriggs12]

We all know the Brewers have one with Garza.

 

Anyone out there with an equally bad contract it might makes sense to trade with?

 

One name that comes to mind is Adam LaRoche who's got one year and $13 million left as opposed to Garza's 2 and 25.

 

LaRoche looked done at 35 in Chicago with a horrible season. Maybe he'd have some value with a little turnaround as a soft platoon partner with Rogers at 1B if Brewers deal Lind.

 

Anyone else have suggestions?

[MrTPlush]

Problem is Garza has the bad press. After his reaction to being taken out of the starting rotation I can't see any team ready to jump on him. He is a bad contract swap candidate, but LaRoche has $12mil less on his contract. I think the White Sox would prefer that though Garza is a better bounce back candidate.

[ewitkows]

The only gut you might be able to trade garza is papelbon and I want no part of that

[DuWayne Steurer]

I would rather wait and hold onto Garza and see if he can regain any value. Prying another dead contract away from someone in what is likely to be a lost season is little more than a lateral move. If there's no point in it for us, what point is there for the White Sox?

 

We're most likely not going to contend this year. We don't need a LH hitting 1st baseman. I'd bet that Matt Clark is more likely to out-value LaRoche anyways.

 

The more likely scenario is that Garza pitches better in 16 than he did in 15, and could actually net a low A nugget that doesn't cost a 12 million dollar contract in return.

[LouisEly]

Francisco Liriano and Edinson Volquez both had two bad years in a row and have bounced back nicely (actually, 3 bad years out of 4 for Liriano).

 

Garza had one bad year in which he was hurt. Estrada had a problem with the gopher ball in MIL - his HR/9 was increasing and he was 30 years old and supposedly washed up. Gallardo left and his HR/9 went down.

 

I'm not convinced that Kranitz wasn't a significant part of the problem, and I'd like to see what a new pitching coach will do before writing Garza off, especially for an older player who is much less likely to rebound. Look at what Bosio has done with the Cubs staff, particularly Arrieta. I'd much prefer to see if a new approach improves results.

[nate82]

Crawford and Ethier are probably the only bad contracts I would take on for Garza.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Crawford and Ethier are probably the only bad contracts I would take on for Garza.

 

 

Somehow I don't think the Dodgers are ready to dump an .850 OPS outfielder for a guy who was one of the worst starters in the entire league last year.

 

Ethier is a bad contract, but he was almost a 3 WAR player, so it's not like he doesn't provide something to the team he's on. Yes, the Dodgers have a glut of OF, but so do we, and getting rid of a bad contract to take on another big contract at a position that's not a need doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

Crawford was actually negative WAR last year, and is owed more than Ethier.

[jerichoholicninja]

Crawford and Ethier are probably the only bad contracts I would take on for Garza.

 

 

Somehow I don't think the Dodgers are ready to dump an .850 OPS outfielder for a guy who was one of the worst starters in the entire league last year.

 

Ethier is a bad contract, but he was almost a 3 WAR player, so it's not like he doesn't provide something to the team he's on. Yes, the Dodgers have a glut of OF, but so do we, and getting rid of a bad contract to take on another big contract at a position that's not a need doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

Crawford was actually negative WAR last year, and is owed more than Ethier.

 

I'm not in favor or against acquiring a bad contract for Garza but there's no reason that acquired bad contract can't be "Arroyo-ed" to get a prospect or even Garza himself.

[Polish Falcons]

I would rather wait and hold onto Garza and see if he can regain any value.

You're going to be waiting around for nothing, in my opinion. I would certainly move Garza for another bad contract that is comparable, and a bench/platoon bat would be worthy. I would move him for anything.

 

I am appalled by Garza's refusal to pitch out of the bullpen and his negative comments in the press towards Melvin, considering he was perhaps the worst SP in all of baseball, and the Brewers have plenty of young SP with more potential, who actually proved they are better than Garza once finally given the chance. He acts so entitled.

 

Garza is an aging SP deep in decline and I don't see him as a candidate for bounce back season. Barring any trade I think the Brewers should just eat his contract so we don't have to go through this Wolf/Lohse/Suppan final year charade yet again. He has No value.

[RockCoCougars]

There is no way that the Brewers will just dump Garza at this point, considering that they owe him two more years.

 

I've been thinking about one possibility where the Brewers could dump Garza and fill their gaping hole at third base. You have to think the Twins would do just about anything to rid themselves of Ricky Nolsaco, who has pretty much the same contract (signed, I believe after they 'missed' on Garza). How about trading Garza/Khris Davis for Nolasco and Plouffe? The Twins needs to clear a spot in the lineup for Sano, and they look to be a bit thin in the corner outfield (Davis could also be hidden at DH). Plouffe is nothing to write home about, but would be a better option than anyone on the free agent market. This would also clear a spot for Santana. Nolasco is pretty much trash, but I wouldn't expect Garza to be much better.

[Roderick]

Garza is an aging SP deep in decline and I don't see him as a candidate for bounce back season. Barring any trade I think the Brewers should just eat his contract so we don't have to go through this Wolf/Lohse/Suppan final year charade yet again. He has No value.

 

I think the best move would be to keep Garza for at least a couple of months. If he is poor, then he gets moved to the pen and if that doesn't work then out the door. If he does well, then I would look to move him for whatever asap. Get him out before he comes up with some injury. All this has the additional benefit of keeping the service clock from starting for some minor league pitcher.

 

The new GM would have some leeway with Melvin's mistake, but just think if he cuts him now and Garza produces for his new team, while we are paying the bill.

[Polish Falcons]

Garza is an aging SP deep in decline and I don't see him as a candidate for bounce back season. Barring any trade I think the Brewers should just eat his contract so we don't have to go through this Wolf/Lohse/Suppan final year charade yet again. He has No value.

 

I think the best move would be to keep Garza for at least a couple of months. If he is poor, then he gets moved to the pen and if that doesn't work then out the door. If he does well, then I would look to move him for whatever asap. Get him out before he comes up with some injury. All this has the additional benefit of keeping the service clock from starting for some minor league pitcher.

 

The new GM would have some leeway with Melvin's mistake, but just think if he cuts him now and Garza produces for his new team, while we are paying the bill.

 

 

 

Sure, but the way I see it playing out in reality is that Garza will be terrible for two months. There will be some saga about moving him to the bullpen, way later too late, then the trade deadline hits and we have a SP who is 3-10 with an ERA north of 5.

 

Or let's say he turns it around and is average SP, which I think is unlikely but possible. Even under this best case scenario his trade value is so low that it's not worth keeping him around. He is blocking development of younger and better SP's with more potential. And he is being let off the hook for refusing a bullpen assignment which I find unacceptable.

 

The chance of Garza netting a trade of any significant value is completely out of reach.

[jerichoholicninja]

Garza is an aging SP deep in decline and I don't see him as a candidate for bounce back season. Barring any trade I think the Brewers should just eat his contract so we don't have to go through this Wolf/Lohse/Suppan final year charade yet again. He has No value.

 

I think the best move would be to keep Garza for at least a couple of months. If he is poor, then he gets moved to the pen and if that doesn't work then out the door. If he does well, then I would look to move him for whatever asap. Get him out before he comes up with some injury. All this has the additional benefit of keeping the service clock from starting for some minor league pitcher.

 

The new GM would have some leeway with Melvin's mistake, but just think if he cuts him now and Garza produces for his new team, while we are paying the bill.

 

 

 

Sure, but the way I see it playing out in reality is that Garza will be terrible for two months. There will be some saga about moving him to the bullpen, way later too late, then the trade deadline hits and we have a SP who is 3-10 with an ERA north of 5.

 

Or let's say he turns it around and is average SP, which I think is unlikely but possible. Even under this best case scenario his trade value is so low that it's not worth keeping him around. He is blocking development of younger and better SP's with more potential. And he is being let off the hook for refusing a bullpen assignment which I find unacceptable.

 

The chance of Garza netting a trade of any significant value is completely out of reach.

 

Can we stop stating this as if it's fact. The truth behind this has been muddled by over zealous reporters trying to make a story.

[MNBrew]

... and also muddled by fans who don't read carefully and/or assume their own bias/slant beyond stated facts to be correct.

 

I believe Garza could prove to be a positive rotation asset IF he pitches like or better than he did in 2014 (which wasn't great but was still pretty respectable) and IF we get a new pitching coach who's A) competent and B) successful at getting through to Garza and gaining his trust . . . . Counsell being who he is, I have some hope that we can get a new pitching coach who might just be what the doctor ordered for Garza & the whole staff.

 

Because 2015 ended with Garza in a tizzy and pitching like a total mess in a downward spiral, it's easy to assume that's the whole picture of him. That could still prove to be the case, even quite easily. But it's also possible he'll pitch more like he did over the previous 8 or whatever years of his career, which, even when not really special, generally was pretty decent.

[BrewBalls]

What about Garza plus $6M ($3M per year) to the Indians for Chris Johnson. Johnson can play either 1B or 3B and is expendable with the emergence of Urshela. Seems like a win-win for both teams.

[jerichoholicninja]

What about Garza plus $6M ($3M per year) to the Indians for Chris Johnson. Johnson can play either 1B or 3B and is expendable with the emergence of Urshela. Seems like a win-win for both teams.

 

Johnson brings zero value of anything. I get trying to get rid of Garza but if that is the best they can get I would take my chances on holding on to him and hopes he puts up a decent enough season that someone offers something of real value before the 2017 season.

[nate82]

The Brewers owe Garza $25m over the next two seasons. The two players that stick out that have a higher per season cost are Jose Reyes, Matt Kemp, Crawford, and Andre Ethier. Ethier has the most value out of the three and I don't think the Padres are going to give up Kemp without getting someone else in return so that leaves Crawford and Reyes. Reyes is owed $48m more over the next three years ($44m '16-'17 and a $4m buyout in 2018). Crawford is owed $20.75 in '16 and $21m in '17. If Garza's option doesn't vest it would be a savings of $16m for the Dodgers or $3m if it does vest. For the Rockies it is a savings of $23m or $10m if the option vests.

 

The Rockies would be a better fit for Garza and the question now becomes what does $10m in savings buy you in a prospect? The $10m savings would be the worst case scenario and if Garza is on the DL at the end of the 2017 season which is possible then it is a $23m savings which might be something the Rockies may gamble on for someone like McMahon?

[JohnBriggs12]

What about Garza plus $6M ($3M per year) to the Indians for Chris Johnson. Johnson can play either 1B or 3B and is expendable with the emergence of Urshela. Seems like a win-win for both teams.

 

Johnson brings zero value of anything. I get trying to get rid of Garza but if that is the best they can get I would take my chances on holding on to him and hopes he puts up a decent enough season that someone offers something of real value before the 2017 season.

 

Johnson plays a position where theoretically he wouldn't be blocking anyone for the next couple years and his floor is at least bottom third starting 3B quality and he is just 3 years removed from a peak season so there's some upside still. Plus, he's a career .314 hitter vs. LHP so he'd be an ideal part of a platoon with a LH bat who could play 3B assuming they could find one. Defensively? Not so good.

 

Garza on the other hand is blocking arms that need to be evaluated, and even if he reverts to the kind of average pitcher he was in 2014, the demand for his services would still be minimal. Big market teams can do better than Garza and small market teams would rather take chances on cheap young alternatives.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I would rather go with a younger guy like Perez and hope he develops a little bit of a power stroke and could OPS .700 or so (which isn't that much of a stretch, honestly) and provide at least a WAR of a bench player. Johnson hasn't even been replacement level the last 2 years.

[bill hAll Star]

Johnson is Casey McGehee, just with bigger LH/RH splits and needs 2 more years to catch up to McGehee's weak career stats (Johnson is 2 years younger).

[Roderick]

...... if Garza is on the DL at the end of the 2017 season which is possible then it is a $23m savings ......

 

He would have to start 58 games in 2016 and 2017 to have his contract vest. I don't really think that is going to happen, assuming the Brewers are smart and he is #5 at the start of the season and after the all star break. So hopefully we don't even have to worry about the other criteria about being on the DL at the end of the 2017 season.

[JohnBriggs12]

How about either Nick Swisher or Michael Bourn for Garza?

 

Both are coming off awful seasons, but in the case of Swisher he's rebounded in the past from off years, and he at least has patience. Should the Brewers deal Lind, Swisher would be a soft platoon option at 1B with Rogers.

 

Bourn's not near the burner he once was, but as a guy who can share CF with Santana he would seem to have value.

[pacopete4]

Could we take on a horrible contract like CC Sabathia at $30 mil for the next season but get prospects from the Yankees in return for doing so? Allow them to have Garza in the process.

[Roderick]

Could we take on a horrible contract like CC Sabathia at $30 mil for the next season but get prospects from the Yankees in return for doing so? Allow them to have Garza in the process.

 

I doubt the Yankees would give up much in prospects to save $16M. They have unlimited pockets, and they can spend as much as they want and still run in the black. The only reason I can think for a team like the Yankees, Dodgers, etc to care about trimming payroll is for public relations purposes.

 

I think a team with limited finances would be more ready to give away prospect(s) to unload a bad contract. I assume the Diamondbacks were maybe in that position when they traded with the Braves?....