Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??

[dacbrewers]

So people hate Garza for that reason, but those same people probably love Braun. Seems logical.

 

Not a big Braun fan. I guess Garza being the chiseled veteran can do whatever he wants, but if an employer asks you to do something (and being paid by the employer) and you refuse, most of us would have been shown the door permanently. Maybe Garza would be better out the pen, they tried it with Peralta. And I do understand that since he has a guaranteed contract that they would never let him go and the option will get picked up but I think we have two or three guys in the minors that could be in a 5th starter role.

[OnTheBlack]

Hopefully Garza goes 6-0 the remainder of the season, his pep talk results in a Brewer turn around and he dominates in 2018 in a Brewer uniform. Realistically, he is an aging pitcher with declining velocity and endurance (D.L. stints, short starts). I fear his contract will be the second worst on the team in 2018 (besides Thames).

 

 

I'm still waiting a player who's NOT aging. Like a Clayton Kershaw type who just stays 27 years old his entire career until his arm falls off.

 

Seriously though, all those things are true. What's also true. 5 million for a back of the rotation pitcher isn't very expensive. Especially when you're only committed to one single year.

 

Only way they come cheaper is if you've developed them or traded for them while they are in the minors...

 

Which kinda describes Davies, Suter, Woodruff... y'know, three-fifths of the current Brewers rotation.

 

 

As well as Nelson. He still playing on a pre arby contract this year. And we have a nice group who could follow these guys starting with Burnes, Ortiz and Peralta potentially as soon as next year and then guys like Bickford, Supak, Diplan and others right behind them(I know I left a whole lot of guys out).

 

Yet there's always a need for pitching prospects. And a guy like Garza is basically like a lottery ticket. You trade him to a team that has some question marks in their pen and to a team that expects to contend and you target a couple 18 year old kids and hope that like Peralta blossomed from that Line trade, they do the same. If they don't, it's not like it cost you anything(just talking about the team option next year, not his contract as a whole).

[KCBrewerfan34]

Has Garza cleared waivers?

[KeithStone53151]

 

 

I'm still waiting a player who's NOT aging. Like a Clayton Kershaw type who just stays 27 years old his entire career until his arm falls off.

 

Seriously though, all those things are true. What's also true. 5 million for a back of the rotation pitcher isn't very expensive. Especially when you're only committed to one single year.

 

Only way they come cheaper is if you've developed them or traded for them while they are in the minors...

 

Which kinda describes Davies, Suter, Woodruff... y'know, three-fifths of the current Brewers rotation.

 

 

As well as Nelson. He still playing on a pre arby contract this year. And we have a nice group who could follow these guys starting with Burnes, Ortiz and Peralta potentially as soon as next year and then guys like Bickford, Supak, Diplan and others right behind them(I know I left a whole lot of guys out).

 

Yet there's always a need for pitching prospects. And a guy like Garza is basically like a lottery ticket. You trade him to a team that has some question marks in their pen and to a team that expects to contend and you target a couple 18 year old kids and hope that like Peralta blossomed from that Line trade, they do the same. If they don't, it's not like it cost you anything(just talking about the team option next year, not his contract as a whole).

 

$5 million for a back of the rotation starter isn't that expensive, but it's not like it's this steal of a deal. We can likely get similar production with much more upside from Woodruff/Hader/Suter next year, while also having much more upside and offering growth for the future by letting these guys pitch at the mlb level. Generally speaking, our goal should be not to have any back of the rotation type starters in our rotation. Hence why we need to give the prospects a chance as they have more upside than back of the rotation. The types of teams that sign back of the rotation guys are teams like the 2008-2012 brewers that had next to no farm and no prospects to call up and give a shot to. I can't imagine a scenario in which Garza is on this team next year.

[bill hAll Star]

I get wanting to have higher upside players in the rotation, but the reasons why it's still fine to have a "back end of the rotation" guy like Garza in there are:

 

1. We should have so much room to spend that saving $5 million by declining Garza's option likely will not do us any good. If Mark is willing to spend $110 million during contending seasons, I'm not sure that we can even get there with or without Garza's deal.

 

2. I think Suter is really a AAAA guy and unless Guerra's velocity returns, so is he (see how this matters in point #3).

 

3. Most good teams have 8 or 9 MLB caliber starters these days. Either you make it through the season healthy with 5 or 6 of them and deal with the other ones by optioning them, giving them long relief bullpen roles, or dealing them...or do what a lot of teams are doing and string the season along with 10-day DL stints.

 

Nelson, Anderson, (probably) Hader, Woodruff, Garza can start the season. If there are no injuries to start the season, Davies maybe replaces Woodruff or Hader who eventually come up to fill a role at some point. Suter and Guerra hold their options hopefully and remain AAA depth or relievers early in the year.

 

There are one or two guys I'd even consider adding in free agency (I would love to overpay Tyler Chatwood) given that the Brewers have some room to spend this offseason.

 

If there is an overflow of guys that have to be in the MLB rotation, you can deal Garza, Davies, Suter, Guerra, or Jungmann for younger guy that has a Suter ceiling to be your future #8 starter or for a reliever to a team that is desperate to fill out the back of their rotation in the offseason.

[tmwiese55]

Overall what Bill Hall Star said is why I think they'll bring him back, assuming he finishes ok here and doesn't fall off a cliff. Though I'd expect Davies to be firmly in the rotation and one of Hader/Woodruff in AAA to start the year to keep their innings limited. Then when someone inevitably gets hurt (or flops), they're the replacement. Could go either way on Garza though, I'm not going to get too worked up regardless which way they go.

[KeithStone53151]

It absolutely is fine to have a back end guy like Garza, if your farm sucks and you have no better options and/or no hope of contending in a given year. It's also much easier to carry a back end guy like Garza when you have a TOR pitcher or 2 like most contenders. Since we don't currently have that, we need to have a rotation full of #2 and #3 starting pitchers to compete. We also need to give our pitchers a chance to develop at the highest level. Arcia didn't hit the ground running, but he's sure looking like a good player. Perez went through significant struggles at the MLB level before he got to where he's at now. Knebel was a middle reliever last year, he's a closer now.

 

This team has to give talented players a chance to develop and grow at the mlb level or we'll never be successful. Spending $5 million on a guy like Garza at this point is a recipe for consistent failure. To compete with the Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, etc, we need to develop better players because we can't compete with them on the market. If you don't give said good players a chance to play and instead rely on the market, you're literally guaranteeing failure. They'll pay more money for better players and be a better team. This really isn't that complicated of a concept.

[bill hAll Star]

Competing with those teams also requires smart asset management. Keeping Garza and then flipping him for 1 or 2 lower ceiling Suter/Davies type-guys or a flamethrowing reliever that might need a change of scenery is a better idea than letting Garza walk and probably not spending the money that you've saved up to what your owner is willing to pay anyways.

 

And again, you want to have 8-9 guys that can pitch in the majors and not kill you. That is almost as important as having 1-2 top-end pitchers for the regular season, at least. If the Brewers can navigate the roster crunch for the month or two that they need to, they'll then have the depth to survive the regular season and get to the playoffs.

 

The Brewers' problems 2007-2015 weren't really lack of elite players (a huge issue was lack of elite pitching, that is true) but rather team depth. There were plenty of years that the Brewers may have been a playoff team in 2009, 2012, or 2014 if they didn't have to turn to Yuni Betancourt or try to call Randy Wolf out of retirement when an injury occurred. The lack of depth in the system was an issue.

[KeithStone53151]

Competing with those teams also requires smart asset management. Keeping Garza and then flipping him for 1 or 2 lower ceiling Suter/Davies type-guys or a flamethrowing reliever that might need a change of scenery is a better idea than letting Garza walk and probably not spending the money that you've saved up to what your owner is willing to pay anyways.

 

And again, you want to have 8-9 guys that can pitch in the majors and not kill you. That is almost as important as having 1-2 top-end pitchers for the regular season, at least. If the Brewers can navigate the roster crunch for the month or two that they need to, they'll then have the depth to survive the regular season and get to the playoffs.

 

The Brewers' problems 2008-2015 weren't really lack of elite players (a huge issue was lack of elite pitching, that is true) but rather team depth. There were plenty of years that the Brewers may have been a playoff team in 2009, 2012, or 2014 if they didn't have to turn to Yuni Betancourt or try to call Randy Wolf out of retirement when an injury occurred. The lack of depth in the system was an issue.

 

8-9 starting pitchers is fair. Start with Nelson, Anderson, Davies and 2 of Woodruff, Hader, Suter, Jungmann, Guerra, even Wilkerson as options. You hope the 8th and 9th starter see very little action and merely spot start occasionally, if 2 or 3 of the top 5 go down with injury...it just isn't your year. Those guys could likely get us through to July when we could add at the deadline if needed and/or Burnes/Ortiz might be ready by then. I wouldn't be surprised if we picked up somebody on a minor league contract/major league invite type situation.

 

I think most expect Stearns to pick up the option and trade Garza, if we go that route we wouldn't get nothing for him.

[bill hAll Star]

Exactly. I'm looking at an offseason like this:

 

Walker at 2 years, $30 million (a bit more $ to keep the contract short)

Chatwood at 3 years, $30 million (this one is a bit of my own obsession)

Swarzak at 3 years, $18 million

Pick up Garza's option and trade him for Mark Rzepczynski given that Seattle is probably desperate for MLB pitching

Trade Suter and/or Guerra for lower ceiling guys that are in A or AA ball to fill those roles later

 

Sign another guy out of the Cishek/Reed/Nicasio mold for 2-3 years.

 

I do not expect the relievers signed or Walker to "live up" to their contract but I do not necessarily care as you've turned your bullpen from a weakness into at least neutral and probably a strength.

 

That roster costs somewhere around $90 million after non-tendering some of the relievers that you don't need anymore.

[KeithStone53151]

Exactly. I'm looking at an offseason like this:

 

Walker at 2 years, $30 million (a bit more $ to keep the contract short)

Chatwood at 3 years, $30 million (this one is a bit of my own obsession)

Swarzak at 3 years, $18 million

Pick up Garza's option and trade him for Mark Rzepczynski given that Seattle is probably desperate for MLB pitching

Trade Suter and/or Guerra for lower ceiling guys that are in A or AA ball to fill those roles later

 

Sign another guy out of the Cishek/Reed/Nicasio mold for 2-3 years.

 

I do not expect the relievers signed or Walker to "live up" to their contract but I do not necessarily care as you've turned your bullpen from a weakness into at least neutral and probably a strength.

 

That roster costs somewhere around $90 million after non-tendering some of the relievers that you don't need anymore.

 

I didn't realize until I just now looked how dreadfully thin our 2018 bullpen appears to be on paper. Knebel will close, Barnes will be in the back end somewhere, Suter likely will be a swing man if not traded. Ideally 2 of those spots will go to Webb, Wang, Derby, Scahill, Ventura, Lopez, etc...guys with options that can be rotated to AAA to keep fresh. Torres and Jeffress we can offer arbitration to, probably for close to 3 million each(I feel like we should keep 1 of these 2 at most). I don't even want to think about seeing Drake anymore, and Swarzak/Hughes I believe will be FA. Probably need to fill 1-3 spots with vets that can fill the back end. There seem to be a lot of quality RH relievers on the market, so we should be able to get a couple very good options...just a matter of price.

[wildcat2237]

Exactly. I'm looking at an offseason like this:

 

Walker at 2 years, $30 million (a bit more $ to keep the contract short)

Chatwood at 3 years, $30 million (this one is a bit of my own obsession)

Swarzak at 3 years, $18 million

Pick up Garza's option and trade him for Mark Rzepczynski given that Seattle is probably desperate for MLB pitching

Trade Suter and/or Guerra for lower ceiling guys that are in A or AA ball to fill those roles later

 

Sign another guy out of the Cishek/Reed/Nicasio mold for 2-3 years.

 

I do not expect the relievers signed or Walker to "live up" to their contract but I do not necessarily care as you've turned your bullpen from a weakness into at least neutral and probably a strength.

 

That roster costs somewhere around $90 million after non-tendering some of the relievers that you don't need anymore.

 

I didn't realize until I just now looked how dreadfully thin our 2018 bullpen appears to be on paper. Knebel will close, Barnes will be in the back end somewhere, Suter likely will be a swing man if not traded. Ideally 2 of those spots will go to Webb, Wang, Derby, Scahill, Ventura, Lopez, etc...guys with options that can be rotated to AAA to keep fresh. Torres and Jeffress we can offer arbitration to, probably for close to 3 million each(I feel like we should keep 1 of these 2 at most). I don't even want to think about seeing Drake anymore, and Swarzak/Hughes I believe will be FA. Probably need to fill 1-3 spots with vets that can fill the back end. There seem to be a lot of quality RH relievers on the market, so we should be able to get a couple very good options...just a matter of price.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the bullpen.

 

Those spots can be filled with waiver wire pickups etc. Its not hard to bring in 6-7 guys with MLB experience to compete for 3 spots in spring training. Brewers could also look internal with Suter/Ventura/Jungmann/Wang/Guerra.

 

And that is not even getting into possible trades. The Brewers are going to need to figure out what they want to do with Broxton/Phillips/Brinson/Santana/Braun

[bill hAll Star]

Exactly. I'm looking at an offseason like this:

 

Walker at 2 years, $30 million (a bit more $ to keep the contract short)

Chatwood at 3 years, $30 million (this one is a bit of my own obsession)

Swarzak at 3 years, $18 million

Pick up Garza's option and trade him for Mark Rzepczynski given that Seattle is probably desperate for MLB pitching

Trade Suter and/or Guerra for lower ceiling guys that are in A or AA ball to fill those roles later

 

Sign another guy out of the Cishek/Reed/Nicasio mold for 2-3 years.

 

I do not expect the relievers signed or Walker to "live up" to their contract but I do not necessarily care as you've turned your bullpen from a weakness into at least neutral and probably a strength.

 

That roster costs somewhere around $90 million after non-tendering some of the relievers that you don't need anymore.

 

I didn't realize until I just now looked how dreadfully thin our 2018 bullpen appears to be on paper. Knebel will close, Barnes will be in the back end somewhere, Suter likely will be a swing man if not traded. Ideally 2 of those spots will go to Webb, Wang, Derby, Scahill, Ventura, Lopez, etc...guys with options that can be rotated to AAA to keep fresh. Torres and Jeffress we can offer arbitration to, probably for close to 3 million each(I feel like we should keep 1 of these 2 at most). I don't even want to think about seeing Drake anymore, and Swarzak/Hughes I believe will be FA. Probably need to fill 1-3 spots with vets that can fill the back end. There seem to be a lot of quality RH relievers on the market, so we should be able to get a couple very good options...just a matter of price.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the bullpen.

 

Those spots can be filled with waiver wire pickups etc. Its not hard to bring in 6-7 guys with MLB experience to compete for 3 spots in spring training. Brewers could also look internal with Suter/Ventura/Jungmann/Wang/Guerra.

 

And that is not even getting into possible trades. The Brewers are going to need to figure out what they want to do with Broxton/Phillips/Brinson/Santana/Braun

 

I generally like that method to building the bullpen (bringing in former starters, etc.), but given that it is a known weakness next year and that most of the rest of the roster is a known commodity, I'd like to use some of our extra money to bring some known vet commodities in on short contracts. We definitely will fill some of it in by trading Broxton, Garza, etc.

[wildcat2237]

They could spend some money on the bullpen. However, you run a big risk of signing the next Neftali Feliz, David Riske, Eric Gagne, Neil Cotts.

 

I'd prefer the money be spent elsewhere.

[MNBrew]

They could spend some money on the bullpen. However, you run a big risk of signing the next Neftali Feliz, David Riske, Eric Gagne, Neil Cotts.

 

I'd prefer the money be spent elsewhere.

Don't forget Todd Ritchie! Oh yeah, he was a starter. Never mind.

 

Seriously, though, you run a risk with any signing -- whether that means deciding to or not to sign any player -- and no GM has a near-perfect record. At some point you have to stick your neck out and take risks. The main keys there seem to boil down to favorable odds re: the risk/reward aspect and your successes significantly outnumbering your failures.

 

On those last points, I feel Stearns' track record has rightly earned him my trust thus far (not that he cares what I think). I also like that at least with the relievers, he's not afraid to DFA someone who's just not cutting it over enough of a period of time or with grotesque-enough results (Feliz being the obvious example, but also Blazek, Peralta, Marinez, and Goforth, among others, this year alone).

 

On the original topic, I think it would be foolish not to pick up Garza's option. If enough young guys are proving they deserve to be in the rotation -- in other words, once he's legitimately blocking guys and the FO decides Garza's staying on the roster is detrimental to the long-term growth of the team and development of those prospects -- there are plenty of teams for which Garza would be a significant rotation upgrade, and the price makes him fit into other teams' budgets much more easily than guys making QO salaries getting similar or worse results. (I think the veteran leadership piece is meaningful, too, but that's already been well-debated here over the years with most folks' positions seemingly mostly unchanged by all the discourse.)

[bill hAll Star]

 

I'd prefer the money be spent elsewhere.

 

If you look at this roster...where?

[JohnBriggs12]

Garza's ERA up to 4.81. If he ever did have trade value, it's disappearing quickly.

[JosephC]

FIP and xFIP over 5. Thought for sure a couple weeks back that the Brewers would pick up the 5 million dollar option and at a minimum hold onto him for insurance, but now it doesn't even look like he's worth the relatively small investment.

[adambr2]

Garza's ERA up to 4.81. If he ever did have trade value, it's disappearing quickly.

 

He has none at this point. Depending how the last month goes, if they have a better plan in mind they might be better off passing on the option, rather than picking it up and finding out he has no trade market like they found out with Scooter last year.

 

My guess is you could pick up the $5M option and trade him, but if you don't want to keep him, what's the point? He isn't bringing anything of value back. At this point I would guess they either pick up the option and plan on him as their #5 next year, or just straight pass on it. I don't think a pick up option and trade strategy makes much sense at this point when you're just not going to get anything worthwhile.

 

Garza has a 5.10 FIP and 5.04 xFIP to go with his poor ERA, so he hasn't just been unlucky. Add that to his troubles staying healthy, there's not going to be much of a trade market for a year of this guy, even for $5M.

[nate82]

I am not sure what every ones definition of a #5 is but Garza is basically the definition of a #5 starter and at $5m that is an extreme bargain thus having surplus trade value. A #5 starter is going to give you somewhere between an ERA of 4.50 to 5+ ERA which is what Garza is doing. Their FIP and xFIP are also going to be around the 5.00 mark so again that is where Garza is.

 

Garza next year will be around a 4.50 to 5 ERA which is your #5 starter. To get that same #5 starter in free agency that is going to cost you around $8-10m a year or you are going to have to gamble on someone who hasn't been a starter for awhile or someone coming off a significant injury and that is still going to cost you about $5m. If you want to get a pre arbitration player or even a player in arbitration you are looking at giving up someone in your top 20-30 prospect range.

 

To get Garza it is going to cost less than a pre arbitration player obviously. You are looking at someone who might be a rule 5 pick or someone that is down in A ball or in the Dominican summer league. Trading Garza for that is how to positively use your assets just dumping Garza at the end of the year is how you negatively use your assets. Keeping Garza for another year is still a good idea as you never know when an injury is going to occur. Woodruff, Ortiz, Lopez, and others could all or some get injured between now and the start of the next season. Keeping Garza for insurance at a small salary is not a bad idea you may not like the idea but that does not make it a bad idea.

 

Take the Mets for example they thought they had a lot of depth at the starting pitching level and now look at them. They do not have the depth that they thought they had one or two injuries can completely derail your depth if you just let someone go.

[BrewCrewBlueDevil]

If you have no pay role flexibility, a five million dollar #5 starter might make sense. Milwaukee has a ton of flexibility and prospects to go get a #1 or #2 starter. If you insert someone at the top of the rotation everyone bumps down a spot. A 34 year old, #5 starter who has deteriorating velocity and K rates will leave the rotation worse off than what it was this season (average).

[nate82]

If you have no pay role flexibility, a five million dollar #5 starter might make sense. Milwaukee has a ton of flexibility and prospects to go get a #1 or #2 starter. If you insert someone at the top of the rotation everyone bumps down a spot. A 34 year old, #5 starter who has deteriorating velocity and K rates will leave the rotation worse off than what it was this season (average).

 

Adding a #1 or #2 starter to this team would be adding nothing. You would get a net gain of nothing as the win expectancy of this team wouldn't increase any higher than what it is by getting a #1 or #2 starter. Basically adding another #1 or #2 puts the team at an 81 win team instead of an 80 win team. You are adding one win to a team that is barely a .500 club to a .500 club. Why would you trade assets only to get a +1 win?

[adambr2]

If you have no pay role flexibility, a five million dollar #5 starter might make sense. Milwaukee has a ton of flexibility and prospects to go get a #1 or #2 starter. If you insert someone at the top of the rotation everyone bumps down a spot. A 34 year old, #5 starter who has deteriorating velocity and K rates will leave the rotation worse off than what it was this season (average).

 

Adding a #1 or #2 starter to this team would be adding nothing. You would get a net gain of nothing as the win expectancy of this team wouldn't increase any higher than what it is by getting a #1 or #2 starter. Basically adding another #1 or #2 puts the team at an 81 win team instead of an 80 win team. You are adding one win to a team that is barely a .500 club to a .500 club. Why would you trade assets only to get a +1 win?

 

Wait what? So you're saying, hypothetically in the off-season, if the Mets were to make DeGrom available, or the Giants were to make Bumgarner available, like Sale became available last off-season, and we were to pull a blockbuster and acquired DeGrom or Bumgarner in trade, and either traded Garza or let him walk, DeGrom or Bumgarner over Garza in the rotation is worth 0-1 additional wins over the course of a full season?

 

There's no way that's true.

[rcc]

What is the fascination with a #5 starter who will ONLY make $5 million and can't get anyone out and the bullpen has to come in by the 4th inning each and every time!

 

Garza is not worth it. Just give the game away and the other team has batting practice. I can't believe the thinking there.

 

He's done as a good pitcher. He left that in Tampa.

[KeithStone53151]

If you have no pay role flexibility, a five million dollar #5 starter might make sense. Milwaukee has a ton of flexibility and prospects to go get a #1 or #2 starter. If you insert someone at the top of the rotation everyone bumps down a spot. A 34 year old, #5 starter who has deteriorating velocity and K rates will leave the rotation worse off than what it was this season (average).

 

Adding a #1 or #2 starter to this team would be adding nothing. You would get a net gain of nothing as the win expectancy of this team wouldn't increase any higher than what it is by getting a #1 or #2 starter. Basically adding another #1 or #2 puts the team at an 81 win team instead of an 80 win team. You are adding one win to a team that is barely a .500 club to a .500 club. Why would you trade assets only to get a +1 win?

 

Wait what? So you're saying, hypothetically in the off-season, if the Mets were to make DeGrom available, or the Giants were to make Bumgarner available, like Sale became available last off-season, and we were to pull a blockbuster and acquired DeGrom or Bumgarner in trade, and either traded Garza or let him walk, DeGrom or Bumgarner over Garza in the rotation is worth 0-1 additional wins over the course of a full season?

 

There's no way that's true.

 

I'll second that, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. People get way too caught up in WAR and crap like that...That's where a lot of these nonsense comments come from. It's a useful tool, but it's one of many tools and you can't base much of anything about a player solely on WAR.