Matt Garza

[brewerfan82]

I disagree with people thinking there is no rush to deal Garza and are willing to hold onto him into next year.

 

The issues of 2015 can reappear and then the value he has disappears.

It's better to deal Garza during the off season (perhaps during the winter meetings) to get value while you can.

 

I realize it's not the SOP of DS to package his assets together in a trade, but I would be interested to see the package (or single upgraded prospect) that the Crew could get be sending Garza and one of the many OF guys (like Phillps) out together.

Wonder if the Yankees would bite and trade off Justus Sheffield & JP Feyerisan for that pairing. Probably just wishful thinking on my part...

I think the difference between those that want to deal him right away and those who think you can wait is the presumed value you'd get for him this offseason. If you can get a legit prospect for Garza in the offseason, then yes, do it in a heartbeat. I just don't think he's going to bring that back after a nice half season that followed a horrible full season and a half season long injury. If you can't get a decent prospect for him, then you might as well hold onto him for another half season since we don't need to shed his salary and you're not losing any value on him even if he does plummet again.

[adambr2]

I disagree with people thinking there is no rush to deal Garza and are willing to hold onto him into next year.

 

The issues of 2015 can reappear and then the value he has disappears.

It's better to deal Garza during the off season (perhaps during the winter meetings) to get value while you can.

 

I realize it's not the SOP of DS to package his assets together in a trade, but I would be interested to see the package (or single upgraded prospect) that the Crew could get be sending Garza and one of the many OF guys (like Phillps) out together.

Wonder if the Yankees would bite and trade off Justus Sheffield & JP Feyerisan for that pairing. Probably just wishful thinking on my part...

I think the difference between those that want to deal him right away and those who think you can wait is the presumed value you'd get for him this offseason. If you can get a legit prospect for Garza in the offseason, then yes, do it in a heartbeat. I just don't think he's going to bring that back after a nice half season that followed a horrible full season and a half season long injury. If you can't get a decent prospect for him, then you might as well hold onto him for another half season since we don't need to shed his salary and you're not losing any value on him even if he does plummet again.

 

Why? He's not any part of the future, and he's blocking younger options.

 

A legitimate prospect is not a possibility for Garza IMO. If you can get someone to take most of his salary off our hands and send us whatever in return, I'd do it.

 

There is $17.5M in potential savings here for a move that makes us no worse, to dump a guy who won't be here when we're relevant again anyway. That's a great salary shed. Just because we can afford to pay the rest of the salary doesn't mean we should do it if we have a chance to get out of it.

 

Think of it this way, if Garza was a free agent this offseason and required a 2 year/$17.5M contract to bring him to Milwaukee, would anyone want us to sign him to that? I would think not, it would make zero sense for where we're at.

[brewerfan82]

I think we disagree on a couple things: 1.) That him being on the roster for a couple months next year will block another player in a way that will hurt their development or affect the way we can assess that player in some way, and 2.) That he has no chance of bringing back a decent prospect if he finishes the season strong and plays well the first couple months of next season.

 

1.) As outlined a few posts above, I don't think he's going to cause any problems finding a spot in the current rotation and I don't think any of our prospects had performed so well that they can't wait a couple months to be called up next year.

 

2.) If he finishes the year with a 4.00-ish ERA and starts the year even better next season, with his history outside of last season (which will be two years away at that point) and his remaining salary (about $6m for the remainder of '17 and $5m for '18), I think he definitely is valuable to a contending team and has a chance to bring back a nice nugget for the farm system. Not Lucroy or Gomez type of return, but possibly along the lines of what we got for Lind, Hill or even Segura.

 

At this point in the rebuild I probably wouldn't go out of my way to grab a $8-9m/year bounce back pitcher in hopes to flip him (unless they were included in a deal that included another prospect ala Segura for Diaz/Hill), but we already have him and I'd rather take a chance at turning him into an okay prospect than to just dump him for salary relief.

[adambr2]

I think we disagree on a couple things: 1.) That him being on the roster for a couple months next year will block another player in a way that will hurt their development or affect the way we can assess that player in some way, and 2.) That he has no chance of bringing back a decent prospect if he finishes the season strong and plays well the first couple months of next season.

 

1.) As outlined a few posts above, I don't think he's going to cause any problems finding a spot in the current rotation and I don't think any of our prospects had performed so well that they can't wait a couple months to be called up next year.

 

2.) If he finishes the year with a 4.00-ish ERA and starts the year even better next season, with his history outside of last season (which will be two years away at that point) and his remaining salary (about $6m for the remainder of '17 and $5m for '18), I think he definitely is valuable to a contending team and has a chance to bring back a nice nugget for the farm system. Not Lucroy or Gomez type of return, but possibly along the lines of what we got for Lind, Hill or even Segura.

 

At this point in the rebuild I probably wouldn't go out of my way to grab a $8-9m/year bounce back pitcher in hopes to flip him (unless they were included in a deal that included another prospect ala Segura for Diaz/Hill), but we already have him and I'd rather take a chance at turning him into an okay prospect than to just dump him for salary relief.

 

Hmm, all fair points. I guess for one, we disagree on the definition of a decent prospect. You mentioned a Hill, Lind, and Segura return, and I see big differences between the 3. A Hill return I think is the most plausible return for Garza. Partial (but not total) salary relief, and a couple minor league fillers with little chance to every contribute at the MLB level.

 

Lind is probably a little step up, and I suppose a return of one of those types of players is possible with a strong finish. In no scenario do I see us getting an Isan Diaz type prospect back, and it's tough for me to see any scenario where we aren't required to eat some salary IIRC correctly even when we traded Gallardo we had to pay some of his remaining year.

 

I also have doubts as to what a 4.00 ERA type starter is really worth these days, even in a down starting pitching market.

[1992casey]

Look at Matt's contract information at Cots:

 

• 14-17: $12.5M annually 18: vesting/club option
  
• 2018 option vests at $13M if…

 

The vesting option is out, but the club option is still there:

 

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

 

And if he spends a significant amount of time on the DL next year:

 

• 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

 

Nothing is said about a buyout. It looks like all he is owed is $12.5 million for next year. If he's any kind of pitcher at all, his team can have him for $5 million in 2018. If he sucks next year and his team wants to take a flyer on him, it can have him for $1 million in 2018.

 

Thanks to Mass Haas for his post in the draft forum that got me to re-read Matt's contract terms.

[MadThinker88]

Considering the contracts coming off the books for the Yankees, I think they should be a target for the Brewers to deal with...

 

They could easily handle the Garza contract and they have a surprising amount of young talent (in majors, high minors and lower minors)...

[jerichoholicninja]

Call Dave Stewart before he gets canned. I'm sure he would love another gritty, proven veteran in that rotation so they can win the division next year.

 

But on a serious note, the Orioles generally roll out a trash rotation. Garza for Jimenez (who I think is making a million or so less than Garza but for one more year) and have Baltimore throw in a Stearns Special.

[JohnBriggs12]

Considering the contracts coming off the books for the Yankees, I think they should be a target for the Brewers to deal with...

 

They could easily handle the Garza contract and they have a surprising amount of young talent (in majors, high minors and lower minors)...

 

A Chase Headley for Garza deal could make sense as a swap of similar salaries and ages. Headley could be used at 1B and allow them to sell high on Carter.

 

If you could get the Yankees to pay some of McCann's contract, that's another possibility.

[LouisEly]

Put this in the IGT from last night but not sure how many people would see it.

 

I wonder if there is such a thing as "strength of schedule" for a pitcher. 10 of Garza's 19 starts have been against playoff contending teams with an additional four starts coming against the Pirates; while the Pirates are two games under .500, they are six games under .500 against the NL Central and have a winning record against the rest of the league.

 

Looking at runs scored by team, only two of Garza's 19 starts have been against teams in the bottom half of their league (AL/NL) in runs scored - one vs. SFG, one vs. ATL. Cincy is in the middle at #8 in the NL, but Garza has only pitched two games against any of the bottom seven teams in the NL in runs scored (SFG, ATL), and SEA and TEX are both in the top five in the AL in runs scored.

 

I'm sure there are advanced metrics out there somewhere to counter-argue this point, but perhaps those advanced metrics are the result of a skew towards pitching against better hitters than the average SP.

[brewmann04]

if they can move Garza then please do so.

[reillymcshane]

To me the only thing the Brewers get in a deal for Garza is a little salary relief. Plus moving him opens up a roster spot for a young player.

 

I look at it this way - if Garza was a free agent at the end of the season, what would he fetch in the open market? I'm guessing $2-3 million - maybe with some incentives. Just a guess.

 

Once you establish Garza's value, that's how much the Crew gets back in salary relief. If he's worth $2.5M, then we send him to the team that wants him - along with $10M (that is the balance of his $12.5M salary for 2017). We get a nominal non-prospect in return, and save $2.5M (plus we open a rotation spot for one of our young players).

 

If we increase the money we send - say $11M, we get a different prospect (a better one). How much a $1M buys a prospect is another question, but you get the idea.

 

Garza's option for 2018 doesn't have a chance to vest at $13M (he needs 110 starts from 2014-17, and has 71 right now). That means he has a $5M team option for 2018. If he pitches okay, that's not a bad price. So perhaps that adds a little value to his deal - but right now, I just don't see it as anything that gets people too excited. He still has to pitch okay, and he's had two bad years in a row, so that doesn't instill a lot of confidence.

[reillymcshane]

I noticed that Garza has a 1.4WAR with Fangraphs. His bWAR is -0.4, which makes for two very different views of the guy. But maybe a team will see something in Matt that will make them want to take a flyer on him.

[sveumrules]

I wonder if there is such a thing as "strength of schedule" for a pitcher.

 

It looks like BP keeps track of the average OPS faced by each pitcher in MLB. Looks like the average batter in 2016 has slashed 255/322/418, I left in pitchers since Garza has faced several. Per BP the average batter faced by Garza has had a triple slash of 261/326/421, ever so slightly above league average. Results against Garza this year have been 283/341/432 so the batters he has faced have fared better off of him than they have against the rest of the league.

[MKE81]

Majority of people on this board only evaluate solely based on the previous season rather than body of work in combination with breaking down performances and using their eyes

 

Anyone who actually reads this board knows that statement is obviously false. Even if its falsity weren't obvious, you haven't even tried to back it up. Making an obviously false, unsupported claim about how true and well-supported your own views are makes you look not very credible. When your false, unsupported, self-aggrandizing claim also insults the "majority of people on this board," it makes you look . . . just not good.

 

There's strong, serious evidence that Garza has declined sharply over the past several years. People have made those arguments, and the arguments the other way, very well on this board. You should read it sometime.

Your first line is false. People on this board have made comments about how Brewers fans not on this board know absolutely nothing, in general about how baseball teams operate as well as the Brewers. Back it up? So you want me to post a hundred links? You're a big boy so go do what big boy's do - research. Glad to see you speak on behalf of the majority of the board being insulted.

 

Garza is a prime example of what I was referring to (I have read it, on several threads, hence not only my statement you quoted but also the rest of that same comment I made that you chose not to quote). Take your head out of the sand and you'll see it too. Peralta is another. Nottingham another. BRAUN another (go read the Alex Gordon thread where both players were compared heading into this season based on performance/comp/value/injuries - the general consensus was Gordon is better, especially for the value, and Braun needs to be dumped immediately (including citing the value of his contract, which the majority of people here were wrong in that regard as well given his contract clearly is a better deal than what folks got in FA this year and it'll only get better for Braun). I said Braun was better than Gordon in every aspect of the game over their entire careers except defense, and continues to be, and I literally was laughed at. I'll even cite Flores as another example based on my comment - people look at his overall numbers and say he's not even a halfway decent backup OF and has no career. Yet if you watch him play you see a guy who can play all 3 OF spots average or above average (depending on position) with a decent arm, understands the strike zone, puts the ball in play line to line and has some pop and base stealing ability. He's had a lot of success in the upper minors and needs a bit more MLB experience (see Hernan Perez). But he's written off because he's 24 and didn't perform amazing this year in his first year at this level.

 

"There's strong, serious evidence that Garza has declined sharply over the past several years." Not sure if you're actually stating this or alluding to other people making this remark. But if it's you saying this then you're a hypocrite on the basis of your response to me. Since this topic is about Garza lets look at your (or others) statement while using statistics. Lets define "several" as past 3-4yrs. I think we can agree on that number.

 

2013 - 155.1ip, 150h, 42bb, 136k, 3.82 ERA (3.88 FIP)

*split between Cubs/TX - TX 4.38 ERA and had 1 terrible start otherwise 3.93 with TX in line with career*

2014 - 163.1ip, 143h, 50bb, 126k, 3.64 ERA (3.54 FIP)

2015 - 148.2ip, 176h, 57bb, 104k, 5.63 ERA (4.94 FIP)

*had 26 starts and if i recall correctly he was injured too playing a factor but i could be wrong. but in 21 of those 26 starts he had a 4.03 ERA, which means his FIP is going to be lower than that most likely given the difference between his overall ERA and FIP. 5 starts ballooned his ERA to 5.63 so he wasn't this unbelievably horrendous pitcher the overwhelming majority on here speak of*

2016 - 101.2ip, 117h, 36bb, 70k, 4.51 ERA (4.32 FIP)

*missed first 2.5 months due to freak injury then came back and took 1.5 months to settle in (first 2 good, next 5 not good starts). since then, over the past 2 months and 12 starts, he's sitting at 65.1ip, 66h, 23bb, 48k, 3.72 ERA. in 10 of those 12 starts he's sitting at a 2.65 ERA. see above regarding FIP over these past 2 months*

 

So, based on statistics, it's clear to see that he's essentially performed at his career norms the vast, vast majority of the past 4yrs. Where exactly is this "strong, serious evidence" spoken from with such conviction?

 

To touch on Peralta as well, he showed promise/potential in 2012/2013 then took that next step in 2014. Last year, similar to Garza, he wasn't nearly as bad as what everyone says and complains about. in 16 of his 20 starts he had a 3.34 ERA. Those other 4 starts took his ERA up to 4.72. But when you look at his overall numbers it looks like he sucks. Like Garza, when they have a bad start, it's usually a terrible start (6ER in 3ip) that greatly affects the ERA, etc. Peralta this year started out terrible the first 13 starts - his velocity was down, control wasn't there and that all contributed to his poor performance; clearly things were wrong and needed to be corrected. But poor performance isn't always indicative of one's ability. Clearly when he came back his velocity and control were back - changes were made and his past 9 starts he has a 3.12 ERA, which is consistent with 80% of starts in 2015 and all of 2014. And he's 27. So basically everyone saying Garza and Peralta suck are looking at everything, over the past year or so, on the surface without digging into it further. These numbers don't lie. The only "strong, serious evidence" here is the general consensus on this site saying both aren't good. Hence my comment.

 

Now, I agree that both players need to be traded but only because they're 1-2yrs out from FA. It's consistent with what Stearns is doing.

[adambr2]

He hasn't performed at his career norms since 2014. How can you call that the 'vast, vast majority of the last 4 years,' and how can you use numbers from 2-3 years ago and use them to project future performance, particularly for a pitcher who is almost 33?

[reillymcshane]

Majority of people on this board only evaluate solely based on the previous season rather than body of work in combination with breaking down performances and using their eyes

 

Anyone who actually reads this board knows that statement is obviously false. Even if its falsity weren't obvious, you haven't even tried to back it up. Making an obviously false, unsupported claim about how true and well-supported your own views are makes you look not very credible. When your false, unsupported, self-aggrandizing claim also insults the "majority of people on this board," it makes you look . . . just not good.

 

There's strong, serious evidence that Garza has declined sharply over the past several years. People have made those arguments, and the arguments the other way, very well on this board. You should read it sometime.

Your first line is false. People on this board have made comments about how Brewers fans not on this board know absolutely nothing, in general about how baseball teams operate as well as the Brewers. Back it up? So you want me to post a hundred links? You're a big boy so go do what big boy's do - research. Glad to see you speak on behalf of the majority of the board being insulted.

 

Garza is a prime example of what I was referring to (I have read it, on several threads, hence not only my statement you quoted but also the rest of that same comment I made that you chose not to quote). Take your head out of the sand and you'll see it too. Peralta is another. Nottingham another. BRAUN another (go read the Alex Gordon thread where both players were compared heading into this season based on performance/comp/value/injuries - the general consensus was Gordon is better, especially for the value, and Braun needs to be dumped immediately (including citing the value of his contract, which the majority of people here were wrong in that regard as well given his contract clearly is a better deal than what folks got in FA this year and it'll only get better for Braun). I said Braun was better than Gordon in every aspect of the game over their entire careers except defense, and continues to be, and I literally was laughed at. I'll even cite Flores as another example based on my comment - people look at his overall numbers and say he's not even a halfway decent backup OF and has no career. Yet if you watch him play you see a guy who can play all 3 OF spots average or above average (depending on position) with a decent arm, understands the strike zone, puts the ball in play line to line and has some pop and base stealing ability. He's had a lot of success in the upper minors and needs a bit more MLB experience (see Hernan Perez). But he's written off because he's 24 and didn't perform amazing this year in his first year at this level.

 

"There's strong, serious evidence that Garza has declined sharply over the past several years." Not sure if you're actually stating this or alluding to other people making this remark. But if it's you saying this then you're a hypocrite on the basis of your response to me. Since this topic is about Garza lets look at your (or others) statement while using statistics. Lets define "several" as past 3-4yrs. I think we can agree on that number.

 

2013 - 155.1ip, 150h, 42bb, 136k, 3.82 ERA (3.88 FIP)

*split between Cubs/TX - TX 4.38 ERA and had 1 terrible start otherwise 3.93 with TX in line with career*

2014 - 163.1ip, 143h, 50bb, 126k, 3.64 ERA (3.54 FIP)

2015 - 148.2ip, 176h, 57bb, 104k, 5.63 ERA (4.94 FIP)

*had 26 starts and if i recall correctly he was injured too playing a factor but i could be wrong. but in 21 of those 26 starts he had a 4.03 ERA, which means his FIP is going to be lower than that most likely given the difference between his overall ERA and FIP. 5 starts ballooned his ERA to 5.63 so he wasn't this unbelievably horrendous pitcher the overwhelming majority on here speak of*

2016 - 101.2ip, 117h, 36bb, 70k, 4.51 ERA (4.32 FIP)

*missed first 2.5 months due to freak injury then came back and took 1.5 months to settle in (first 2 good, next 5 not good starts). since then, over the past 2 months and 12 starts, he's sitting at 65.1ip, 66h, 23bb, 48k, 3.72 ERA. in 10 of those 12 starts he's sitting at a 2.65 ERA. see above regarding FIP over these past 2 months*

 

So, based on statistics, it's clear to see that he's essentially performed at his career norms the vast, vast majority of the past 4yrs. Where exactly is this "strong, serious evidence" spoken from with such conviction?

 

To touch on Peralta as well, he showed promise/potential in 2012/2013 then took that next step in 2014. Last year, similar to Garza, he wasn't nearly as bad as what everyone says and complains about. in 16 of his 20 starts he had a 3.34 ERA. Those other 4 starts took his ERA up to 4.72. But when you look at his overall numbers it looks like he sucks. Like Garza, when they have a bad start, it's usually a terrible start (6ER in 3ip) that greatly affects the ERA, etc. Peralta this year started out terrible the first 13 starts - his velocity was down, control wasn't there and that all contributed to his poor performance; clearly things were wrong and needed to be corrected. But poor performance isn't always indicative of one's ability. Clearly when he came back his velocity and control were back - changes were made and his past 9 starts he has a 3.12 ERA, which is consistent with 80% of starts in 2015 and all of 2014. And he's 27. So basically everyone saying Garza and Peralta suck are looking at everything, over the past year or so, on the surface without digging into it further. These numbers don't lie. The only "strong, serious evidence" here is the general consensus on this site saying both aren't good. Hence my comment.

 

Now, I agree that both players need to be traded but only because they're 1-2yrs out from FA. It's consistent with what Stearns is doing.

First, I would argue that it's impossible to say if the majority of this board evaluate players and the team based solely on the past year. But I like to think we are more educated group, and many people do take a holistic look at a player. That a person weighs the last year of data is logical - and often times a wise thing.

 

In the end, I think your statement - Majority of people on this board only evaluate solely based on the previous season rather than body of work in combination with breaking down performances and using their eyes - is not a fact - just your opinion. Are there people like that? Sure. And they definitely come out when a player is struggling. But I don't know if it's the majority. That's my opinion.

 

Second, I do think there are signs Garza is a declining pitcher. He's displayed higher walk rates and lower strike out rates the last three years (2014-16). His ERA and FIP have gone up the last two years, and his WHIP the past two years is 1.500+. His velocity isn't much different over the last three years - maybe his slider has lost a mile or two - but things look pretty even. Matt had a fine 2014 - solid numbers all around - but two mediocre/bad years start saying that his work this year is the norm - not a aberration. It's not uncommon for any player to just lose a little of something around the age of 30, so that he starts showing some signs of age wouldn't be shocker. I also worry about his nearly yearly injuries (he hasn't started more than 30 games since 2011). Perhaps they are just eroding his all around skills. In Garza's defense, the team defense has been less than stellar during his time here.

 

Finally, I am really wary of removing results - saying things like "If you don't count this block of At Bats, he did much better" or worse or whatever. Without question, it can come into play in evaluating a player. If someone was playing for a month with an injury, I can understand that. But just removing a pitcher's five worst starts just isn't how to evaluate a player. You can't take away the bad and just say those crappy performances don't matter. They all do. Good and bad - it part of each person's makeup as a player. In the end, all of it counts. Not just the good or the bad - but all of it.

[adambr2]

Also to touch on his statement that people here just focus on the recent season rather than the entire body of work, even if it's true, of course they do. Recent performance is way more relevant in projecting future performance. Especially for veterans, the further you go back, the less relevant the data is, in my opinion. This is especially true now that Garza has 2 mediocre years back to back, not just one. Of course you do need to consider the entire body of work, but it's much more heavily weighted on recent performance.

 

People weren't talking about getting top prospects for Braun a year ago. His current value is based heavily on the fact that he just put together a great, relatively healthy season. Yes, his entire career is considered, but he would have been worth significantly less a year ago, and trading him would have definitely required eating a substantial amount of money. Remember last August, when we were trying to give Kyle Lohse away? He wasn't worth the remaining few million on his deal to anyone just to take him off our hands for nothing. Had his entire body of work been the main consideration, of course somebody would have taken a flyer on him.

[JosephC]

Garza seems like a reasonable "hold" candidate through this off-season. It just doesn't seem like the Brewers could get anything of value at this time. However, teams are always looking for veteran starting pitchers that are performing fairly well leading up to the trade deadline. If Garza has an ERA in the low 4's and a WHIP in the low 1.3's in mid-July next year I believe he'll hold more value than he currently does. If the Brewers deal him this off-season I think the max return would be nothing more than a fringe prospect. About the only real gain to be had by trading him in the off-season is the Brewers would unload a percentage of his 2017 salary, and with the team's payroll so low there really isn't much of a benefit in that either.

[Outlander]

Flores is garbage, I have watched him plenty and see he will likely never hit at the big league level. I have stated you are wrong there and will continue to.

[adambr2]

Garza seems like a reasonable "hold" candidate through this off-season. It just doesn't seem like the Brewers could get anything of value at this time. However, teams are always looking for veteran starting pitchers that are performing fairly well leading up to the trade deadline. If Garza has an ERA in the low 4's and a WHIP in the low 1.3's in mid-July next year I believe he'll hold more value than he currently does. If the Brewers deal him this off-season I think the max return would be nothing more than a fringe prospect. About the only real gain to be had by trading him in the off-season is the Brewers would unload a percentage of his 2017 salary, and with the team's payroll so low there really isn't much of a benefit in that either.

 

There's always a benefit in unloading salary, since that money can be reinvested in other areas either in the present or future. Garza's return, either now or next summer, will likely be nothing more than a fringe prospect.

 

Now if you can't get anyone to take more than 3M or so of his salary on, I agree it's not worth it and you may as well hold and see what happen next summer. But if a team was willing to take on Garza this offseason and pay all or most of his remaining salary, I'd do it in a second, regardless of return.

 

We all keep holding our breath for Garza to put together a dominant month and have his trade value spike, and I'd say he pretty much is what he is at this point. A veteran bottom of the rotation starter. He's not worthless, but he's also not valuable. If this was the NFL and we could cut him free and clear after 2016 and not owe him an additional penny, I guarantee we'd do it.

[brewerfan82]

There's always a benefit in unloading salary, since that money can be reinvested in other areas either in the present or future. Garza's return, either now or next summer, will likely be nothing more than a fringe prospect.

 

Now if you can't get anyone to take more than 3M or so of his salary on, I agree it's not worth it and you may as well hold and see what happen next summer. But if a team was willing to take on Garza this offseason and pay all or most of his remaining salary, I'd do it in a second, regardless of return.

 

We all keep holding our breath for Garza to put together a dominant month and have his trade value spike, and I'd say he pretty much is what he is at this point. A veteran bottom of the rotation starter. He's not worthless, but he's also not valuable. If this was the NFL and we could cut him free and clear after 2016 and not owe him an additional penny, I guarantee we'd do it.

My problem with this is that our payroll is going to be so low I don't think Garza's salary is holding up spending money on anything that could benefit the team. For instance, if we see an opportunity to obtain an international player for x amount, I don't see the front office or Attanasio blocking the deal just because Garza's salary is still on the books. We have a ton of financial flexibility right now. Garza's not going to prohibit the team from making any new financial commitments that make good baseball sense, so you might as well hold onto him and try to get some value back that's a tangible improvement to the system.

[reillymcshane]

To me, the biggest thing about Garza is that he blocks other players from getting a chance.

 

I don't think he's ever going to fetch much by way of trade - now by the trading deadline next year. But whatever you can get for him, you get. Because by moving Matt you open up the rotation spot for other guys.

 

I'd rather figure out the rotation with Nelson, Davis, Peralta, Guerra, Hader, Anderson and Jungmann. That's seven guys right there, and then there's fringe guys like Suter. But all these guys are with the team longer term, and I would rather give them the ball every fifth day than Garza.

[tmwiese55]

True, I get your point. We might have 5 guys in Nelson, Davies, Peralta, Guerra, Anderson who you'd prefer over him. But after that comes the young guys who you'd kind of prefer to have their innings down or in the case of a Hader, not to come up until later in the year to save service time. So at that point Garza is your 6th guy and obviously injuries to pitchers is very very common. So I'd have no problem starting Garza at the beginning of the year and hoping he regains more value to trade for a minor leaguer who might have a chance. In that situation I'd probably have Anderson as the odd man out at the beginning if everyone is healthy, but I'd bet money someone is hurt in spring training (actually most likely that would be Garza)

 

Notice, I said I wouldn't have a problem with it. Of course if someone gives you what you want you should just pull the trigger and put the money to use elsewhere. But if you're eating most of his salary and still not getting anything back (basically a deal you hate), then you might as well keep him and have him eat up 80-100 innings and hopefully trade later since we don't really need to save money.

[adambr2]

There's always a benefit in unloading salary, since that money can be reinvested in other areas either in the present or future. Garza's return, either now or next summer, will likely be nothing more than a fringe prospect.

 

Now if you can't get anyone to take more than 3M or so of his salary on, I agree it's not worth it and you may as well hold and see what happen next summer. But if a team was willing to take on Garza this offseason and pay all or most of his remaining salary, I'd do it in a second, regardless of return.

 

We all keep holding our breath for Garza to put together a dominant month and have his trade value spike, and I'd say he pretty much is what he is at this point. A veteran bottom of the rotation starter. He's not worthless, but he's also not valuable. If this was the NFL and we could cut him free and clear after 2016 and not owe him an additional penny, I guarantee we'd do it.

My problem with this is that our payroll is going to be so low I don't think Garza's salary is holding up spending money on anything that could benefit the team. For instance, if we see an opportunity to obtain an international player for x amount, I don't see the front office or Attanasio blocking the deal just because Garza's salary is still on the books. We have a ton of financial flexibility right now. Garza's not going to prohibit the team from making any new financial commitments that make good baseball sense, so you might as well hold onto him and try to get some value back that's a tangible improvement to the system.

 

Just my opinion, but here's how I look at it.

 

Money saved is potentially useful later, no matter whether payroll is a problem or not. 12.5M is 12.5M (hopefully more invested), whether used now or in 5 years. We could buy a High A affiliate with that, or use it in 5 years to push the payroll to 125M and grab that FA at the deadline to try to put us over the top.

 

No, Garza's salary isn't preventing anything, but it's still money that can be used later. Maybe that's too simplistic of a view, but I'd always rather save money when possible rather to pay for something that we really don't need.

[LouisEly]

I wonder if there is such a thing as "strength of schedule" for a pitcher.

 

It looks like BP keeps track of the average OPS faced by each pitcher in MLB. Looks like the average batter in 2016 has slashed 255/322/418

I think it would be best to remove the AL and look at just the NL. Including the AL is going to overweight DH's and underweight pitchers. Only two of Garza's 19 starts were interleague. You also need to remove the Brewers because he never faces them.

 

But the rest of the numbers don't seem to make sense given how such a high % of the teams he faced are in the top half of the league in runs scored. Unlikely that those run producers were on the bench to start games and then PH later when Garza was out of the game. Are the numbers weighted based on the number of times that he faced them, or just an average of who he has faced?