Garza to the Pen?

[Boomer5]

One bad year almost never kills someone's trade value. If he get off to a good start he will be easy to trade mid season.

 

If he comes out and does anything he can be traded based on his contract not being THAT bad at this point and his decent resume.

 

I wouldnt trade him at this point since his value is about as low as it can possibly get.

[gregmag]

Garza made bad choices and indefensible public comments. I'm pretty sure I'm capable of critical thinking, and I've read the accounts, and critiques of the accounts, quite carefully. I'm fully persuaded that Garza stepped far outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior for a responsible employee / teammate / person. His defenders also tend to ignore his past instances of bad behavior, which BP Milwaukee documented quite well in a piece a couple of months back to which I linked in another thread.

 

I take the point, made by numerous smart people, that Garza has a chance to bounce back and that, if he does, he may regain some trade value. I'm somewhat dubious. Since his age 27 season in 2011, he's been about an average MLB starter except for two stretches: his excellent 71-inning stint with the Cubs in 2013, and his appalling 149 innings last year. During those years he hasn't thrown more than 163.1 innings in any season. To bet on a bounce-back is to bet against age, declining velocity, and injury history / risk.

 

But even if you win the bet, what does a bounced-back Matt Garza really give you? 160 innings of league-average starting pitching at $15 million, with the odds growing every month that he won't be able to sustain it? There's no reason, no actual evidence, to think he will ever top out at anything better than that. I don't see a whole lot of trade value in that scenario, even if we ignore the fact that (in my considered judgment and humble opinion) he's an immature jerk, which puts a drag on his value.

 

We've had some interesting discussions recently about the best use of rotation slots on a rebuilding team. For a rebuilding team, rotation slots are valuable for two purposes: developing young pitchers and showcasing trade bait. At this point, we have four young pitchers who belong in the MLB rotation: Peralta, Nelson, Jungmann, and Davies. Then we have the AAA guys, led by Lopez and Hader, whom we may want to rescue sooner than later from Colorado Springs hell. We've also kicked around proposals to try to develop current relievers as trade bait: Smith most prominently, maybe Blazek or Thornburg. Plus we could conceivably pick up a reclamation candidate.

 

With all those potential uses of rotation slots, and given Garza's mediocre prospects, I think it's tough to argue that putting him in the 2016 rotation is a sensible use of resources. Personally I want the FO to dump him, because I think using him as a message that new management won't tolerate schmucks is about the likeliest way to get any value out of him. But the bullpen idea has some appeal. It gets you part of the anti-schmuck impact, and it gives Garza an easier job to try to do well.

[MrTPlush]

Matt Garza's velocity has not declined so you might want to re check that. The only difference, other than about a .5mph decline on his fastball in the past 7 or so years, was his slider velocity last year. His slider was sitting incredibly high in the first half of the year and went back to career norms towards the end of the year.

 

Probably one of the main reasons a lot of people have hope for a rebound. Not that velocity is every thing, but it gives hope it was just an injury or he was just off. If he comes back and has a sub 4 ERA at the deadline he is an easy trade away.

 

I think the decision is pretty easy. You put him in the rotation and if he is an absolute disaster at the end of May maybe then you cut the cord. Why not give it a try? What is two months going to hurt. Neither Lopez or Hader should be on the MLB roster at the start of the season and Smith, Blazek, or Thornburg in the rotation...? No thanks

[pacopete4]

Here's to hoping a fresh pitching coach can bring Garza back to the consistent pitcher he has been throughout his entire career. If he can do that, and stays healthy, there will be plenty of suiters to trade Garza to as some have stated his team friendly deal when looking at some of these contracts.

[monty57]

If he comes back and has a sub 4 ERA at the deadline he is an easy trade away.

 

Made easier by the Brewers' decision to sit him down at the end of the year so that his option won't automatically vest. Garza shouldn't have vented publicly, but he knew getting benched probably cost him a guaranteed season and a lot of money, so I can understand his frustration even though I don't condone his actions.

 

as some have stated his team friendly deal when looking at some of these contracts

 

The Brewers may be able to trade Garza if he pitches well to start the season, but I wouldn't go so far as to say his contract is "team friendly." It was a contract that never should have been signed, and there is a good chance that the Brewers will cut him and pay millions of dollars for him not to pitch for a team at the bottom of the standings. Awful deal and hopefully we can salvage something from it, even if that is just someone picking up some of his salary.

 

I think Garza should start the year in the rotation in hopes the Brewers can get something for him at trade deadline, but there is a good chance he will just be dumped after a few months. While the Brewers have some promising young arms, starting Garza in the MLB rotation is not going to hurt the guys who will start out at AAA and AA. It may even turn out to be a blessing if we have a couple of injuries, and don't have to rush someone who is not ready just to fill out the rotation.

[gregmag]

Matt Garza's velocity has not declined so you might want to re check that. The only difference, other than about a .5mph decline on his fastball in the past 7 or so years, was his slider velocity last year. His slider was sitting incredibly high in the first half of the year and went back to career norms towards the end of the year.

 

Probably one of the main reasons a lot of people have hope for a rebound. Not that velocity is every thing, but it gives hope it was just an injury or he was just off. If he comes back and has a sub 4 ERA at the deadline he is an easy trade away.

 

I was just thinking about the inevitable loss of velocity with age. But you're right; the fact that he hasn't lost velocity yet is a point in favor of his ability to bounce back to mediocrity.

 

Made easier by the Brewers' decision to sit him down at the end of the year so that his option won't automatically vest. Garza shouldn't have vented publicly, but he knew getting benched probably cost him a guaranteed season and a lot of money, so I can understand his frustration even though I don't condone his actions.

 

Excellent point.

 

While the Brewers have some promising young arms, starting Garza in the MLB rotation is not going to hurt the guys who will start out at AAA and AA. It may even turn out to be a blessing if we have a couple of injuries, and don't have to rush someone who is not ready just to fill out the rotation.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I absolutely agree that, if you find yourself needing a starter, then you plug in Garza. But, by the same token, if you find yourself needing to rescue a prospect from Colorado Springs, or if you think the percentages favor moving a reliever to the rotation, or if you have a shot to sign a better and/or cheaper reclamation project than Garza, then he shouldn't stand in the way of any of those things. The team should treat him as the lowest grade of rotation filler.

 

The main thing I'm concerned about is that he'll get extra chances because he's making real money. To me, that's throwing good resources after bad. If the team can pretend he's making three million and just make a baseball judgment, then I'll be satisfied.

[monty57]

The main thing I'm concerned about is that he'll get extra chances because he's making real money. To me, that's throwing good resources after bad. If the team can pretend he's making three million and just make a baseball judgment, then I'll be satisfied.

 

That's a valid concern, but for now I'm optimistic and believe/hope that the Brewers recognize what they have in Garza and won't hesitate to cut him if he starts the season out poorly.

 

I don't know why I feel this way, but I think Attanasio had an epiphany over this past season, and has come to the realization that he needs to get good baseball people in place, take a step back, and let the baseball people do their jobs.

[brewcrewdue80]

When the Brewers told him that they were going to remove him from the rotation in September to take a look at younger players, he reacted predictably (with anger). The team responded by sending him home for the rest of the season and told him to stay there.

 

I don't think that conversation will change, since Garza knows the best way to earn another contract next offseason is to pitch well in the starting rotation. I don't think he's going to play nice with a plan that involves a demotion to the pen.

 

And that right there is your answer. Garza himself won't pitch anywhere but as a SP. He won't be in the bullpen. Put money on that. Thread can be closed. Ain't happening, no way no how.

[MrTPlush]

Why must we "rescue" pitchers from Colorado? What are you going to save? Save them from a horrible MEANINGLESS AAA statline? I don't get it. What exactly is a pitcher going to change just to do better in Colorado? A pitcher is going to go out and do what he needs to do. Whether it hurts or helps his statline.

 

I am just throwing this out there, but Taylor Jungman pitched in Colorado and then proceeded to throw quality start after quality start at the MLB level.

 

I can see an argument for a hitter with the whole changing their swing theory, but even that has no proof to really back it p. That has as much evidence as the HRD ruining a power hitters swing.

[LouisEly]

I was just thinking about the inevitable loss of velocity with age. But you're right; the fact that he hasn't lost velocity yet is a point in favor of his ability to bounce back to mediocrity.

Excluding his rookie season and last season, how are ERA+ of 104, 105, 105, 118, 100, 110, 119. and 117 as a starting pitcher in predominantly hitter-friendly ballparks (MIL, TEX, CHC) "mediocrity"?

[Polish Falcons]

One bad year almost never kills someone's trade value. If he get off to a good start he will be easy to trade mid season.

Plenty of GMs would rather take a $30M risk that Garza will rebound than a $100M risk on a free agent pitcher.

 

No GM would take that risk on Garza. If they would he'd be gone by. Now. Goodbye. Gone

 

I said it in the other trade thread and few agreed with me but I would just drop Garza now and have it done with. It's just going to be this continuing saga. He'll start with a long leash and continue to log terrible starts. Then there will be some inevitable drama about his demotion to the pen. He will probably embarrass himself in the media again.

All the while he will block younger and more capable pitchers with a potential future worth looking at.

Then he'll finally be gone without any return worth the agony watching him pitch every five days or without any return at all.

[gregmag]

I was just thinking about the inevitable loss of velocity with age. But you're right; the fact that he hasn't lost velocity yet is a point in favor of his ability to bounce back to mediocrity.

Excluding his rookie season and last season, how are ERA+ of 104, 105, 105, 118, 100, 110, 119. and 117 as a starting pitcher in predominantly hitter-friendly ballparks (MIL, TEX, CHC) "mediocrity"?

I specified in my post that I was assessing his performance after his age 27 season in 2011. You can contest that choice if you want to, but don't muddle the issue by asking me to justify statistics that I explicitly set aside. If you had asked why I set those statistics aside, I would have told you that Garza had put together several seasons' worth of pitching after age 27 that look very different from the several seasons' worth of pitching he put together before age 27. I would have noted that such a difference isn't surprising, given that 27 is the most common age at which players peak.

 

The "117, 119, 110, 100, 118" sequence you cite (readjusted to reflect actual chronology) is Garza from ages 23 through 27. The "105, 105, 104" is 28-30. I don't know enough about how Garza's home parks affected his performance to know whether or how much the parks should count in his favor. That's certainly a fair point to raise.

 

The raw numbers show us three straight years of just-above average ERAs. I also pointed out that Garza hadn't sustained that performance over a great many innings: He topped out at 163.1 in 2014. An ERA+ of 105 for 160 innings looks like a reasonable expectation of the performance level to which Garza, in the best-case scenario, could bounce back. That looks to me like just about the definition of mediocrity for a starting pitcher.

 

Another way to approximate Garza's performance, of course, is WAR. Garza, from ages 23 to 27, put up 1.1 (in a partial season), 3.1, 3.0, 1.9, and 4.1 fWAR. From 28-30, he put up 1.0, 2.0, and 2.7 (before last year's 0.6). Those comparisons look a bit flatter, but he still put up three seasons through age 27 that he wasn't able to match in the three after 27.

 

Since his age 27 peak, leaving aside last year's disaster, Matt Garza has been a mediocre starting pitcher.

[gregmag]

Why must we "rescue" pitchers from Colorado? What are you going to save? Save them from a horrible MEANINGLESS AAA statline? I don't get it. What exactly is a pitcher going to change just to do better in Colorado? A pitcher is going to go out and do what he needs to do. Whether it hurts or helps his statline.

 

I am just throwing this out there, but Taylor Jungman pitched in Colorado and then proceeded to throw quality start after quality start at the MLB level.

 

I can see an argument for a hitter with the whole changing their swing theory, but even that has no proof to really back it p. That has as much evidence as the HRD ruining a power hitters swing.

Obviously I don't care about the stat line. I care about young pitchers' ability to put the stat line, and the rockets that inflate it, into proper developmental perspective, and I care about the coaching staff's ability to continue pitchers along a positive developmental path under atmospheric conditions that can seriously mess with pitches.

 

You're right that I'm just floating an argument. I think it's plausible enough to factor into our considerations. You throw out Jungmann in response. Maybe you're right; maybe every pitcher will come through CO Springs like Jungmann did (assuming Jungmann's for real). I'm not inclined to bet the farm on that possibility, but that's just me. If anybody has any data on how extreme hitters' parks affect pitchers' performance, I'd love to see it.

[jerichoholicninja]

JA Happ just signed for $13MM a year and has a career 96 ERA+. Garza is being paid basically the same (but less actually) and has a career 102 ERA+. Certainly last year was a disaster for him but his numbers were just so much worse than his career norms, and he's not really that old at 32, it's not crazy to think he's done being an above average pitcher. I'd be curious to know how many GM's would take 3 years of Happ at $13MM a piece over 2 years of Garza at $12.5MM a piece. Happ is also a year older than Garza.

[1992casey]

The tricky part about saying "mediocre" is that there multiple ways that the word can be used.

 

From dictionary.com:

 

adjective

 

[list-sp]

1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate:
   The car gets only mediocre mileage, but it's fun to drive.
   Synonyms: undistinguished, commonplace, pedestrian, everyday; run-of-the-mill.
   Antonyms: extraordinary, superior, uncommon, incomparable.
    
   
2. not satisfactory; poor; inferior:
   Mediocre construction makes that building dangerous.
   Synonyms: meager, low-quality, second-rate; so-so.
   Antonyms: excellent, superior.

[/list-sp]

There are distinct and conflicting ways to use and interpret the word, all of which are correct. Ordinary, barely adequate, not satisfactory, and poor cover quite a range.

[pacopete4]

 

I said it in the other trade thread and few agreed with me but I would just drop Garza now and have it done with. It's just going to be this continuing saga. He'll start with a long leash and continue to log terrible starts. Then there will be some inevitable drama about his demotion to the pen. He will probably embarrass himself in the media again.

All the while he will block younger and more capable pitchers with a potential future worth looking at.

Then he'll finally be gone without any return worth the agony watching him pitch every five days or without any return at all.

 

Were you a fortune teller in a previous life? Seems really silly to just dump a player that can hold value. Not really using our resources very well by doing that. On top of that, it's not like dumping him saves us any money. It actually costs us more because now you're calling up another player or signing another player to fill that hole. Really... really silly GM's do this.

[CheezWizHed]

I tend to agree. Even if Garza does exactly that, what harm is it to give him the chance this year? The upside is that he comes back to a sub 4.00 ERA type pitcher as his history suggests. Then we have the ability to trade him. If not, we are in the same situation as now: salary dump.

 

I think we need to take the chance unfortunately.

[jerichoholicninja]

Mike Pelfrey just got $16MM over 2 years. Garza is becoming more of a bargain by the day.

[brewcrewdue80]

Mike Pelfrey just got $16MM over 2 years. Garza is becoming more of a bargain by the day.

 

Yovani Gallardo declined a 15.8mil QO from Texas. He'll now cost his signing team a draft pick plus salary....A SP that wasn't even a #4 at best in minds in 2013.

[MrTPlush]

Mike Pelfrey just got $16MM over 2 years. Garza is becoming more of a bargain by the day.

 

Someone give Boras a trophy for that contract.

 

EDIT: And to think someone wants to give The Shark $90mil+...

[LouisEly]

I don't know enough about how Garza's home parks affected his performance to know whether or how much the parks should count in his favor. That's certainly a fair point to raise.

 

The raw numbers show us three straight years of just-above average ERAs. I also pointed out that Garza hadn't sustained that performance over a great many innings: He topped out at 163.1 in 2014. An ERA+ of 105 for 160 innings looks like a reasonable expectation of the performance level to which Garza, in the best-case scenario, could bounce back. That looks to me like just about the definition of mediocrity for a starting pitcher.

 

Another way to approximate Garza's performance, of course, is WAR. Garza, from ages 23 to 27, put up 1.1 (in a partial season), 3.1, 3.0, 1.9, and 4.1 fWAR. From 28-30, he put up 1.0, 2.0, and 2.7 (before last year's 0.6). Those comparisons look a bit flatter, but he still put up three seasons through age 27 that he wasn't able to match in the three after 27.

 

Since his age 27 peak, leaving aside last year's disaster, Matt Garza has been a mediocre starting pitcher.

You forget that ERA+ factors in relievers, not just starters, and in this day of bullpen specialization a 3.75 ERA from a reliever is mediocre. While starters account for ~60% of innings pitched (5.8 IP/start last season), relievers account for ~40% of innings pitched. I'm not sure how to calculate it just for starters, but an ERA+ of 105 for a starter is better than for a reliever. No matter how you cut it, it is above average.

 

Also, it has been calculated (this was a year or two ago) that one WAR is on average worth ~$7-9M in salary league-wide. His 2.0 and 2.7 WAR seasons would have been worth approximately $16M and $21.6M in salary from an equivalent player, making him and his salary those seasons a bargain. I'd strongly argue that is not "mediocre" performance. The 1.0 WAR in 2012 was due to making only 18 starts; extrapolate it to 32 starts and you have a WAR of ~1.8, worth about $14.4M in salary. Based on that, yes, I'd say that plenty of GMs wold take a chance that he would recover to career norms because prior to last season his salary was a bargain.

 

Regarding park factors, and if you want to limit the analysis to performance since 27 (we'll say since he left TB), Globe Life Park in Arlington is rated as the 15th most hitter-friendly park, Wrigley Field the 10th most hitter-friendly, and Miller Park the 2nd most hitter-friendly. He hasn't had the benefit of having half of his starts in Petco, Citi, or Dodger Stadium.

[gregmag]

Those are very good points. I'm still not convinced, mainly because I don't see examples of GMs shelling out meaningful prospect hauls for the privilege of paying for that kind of production at that price and because I wouldn't bet on the best-case scenario for Garza's comeback (or for much of anything else).

 

The case for putting Garza back in the rotation is entirely rational, especially if you aren't as unhappy as I am about his character issues. I just don't think that case is anywhere near as airtight as most people seem to think it is. I think there could be good reasons for not putting him in the rotation, and I fear his salary may cause the org to overlook those reasons. If he doesn't come back at least somewhat strong, then putting him in the rotation long enough to take his measure will have wasted a useful resource.

[LouisEly]

30-year-old (almost 31) Jeff Samardzija just got 5/$90M. Last season he was almost as bad as Garza - led the league in hits given up as well as earned runs and home runs, and his K rate dropped by 1.1 K/9 from 2014. Samardzija is 14 months younger than Garza, and is now signed through age 35 at $18M/year. Garza is signed through age 34 at <$13M/year.

 

Starting pitching is expensive.

[brewcrewdue80]

30-year-old (almost 31) Jeff Samardzija just got 5/$90M. Last season he was almost as bad as Garza - led the league in hits given up as well as earned runs and home runs, and his K rate dropped by 1.1 K/9 from 2014. Samardzija is 14 months younger than Garza, and is now signed through age 35 at $18M/year. Garza is signed through age 34 at <$13M/year.

 

Starting pitching is expensive.

 

Not to forget the 1 or 5million option. So 3/31mil. And yes I expect Garza's option to get picked up. RPs will likely avg the 5mil for a FA signing. This is why I've been harping Garza's contract is a steal. There is so much time for him to regain trade value. That Option is golden when Garza can't kick it in himself at 13mil. And the demotion in September really makes it hard to believe Garza can.