LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  [ 114 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??

Author Message
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#81

Posted: May 18, 2017, 5:49 AM Post
Posts: 10176
brewmann04 said:
I think you move Matt if he continues pitching well as he is not going to be part of the rebuild


But he's a key part of a first place team a quarter into the season and rebuilds guarantee nothing. The object of rebuilds is to build a contender that can sustain it for few seasons. Well right now they are contending and almost the entire roster is under team control for 2 more years. Can't believe I'm saying this but if they are contending in July and Garza is still pitching well, they need to keep him. Then after the season, they can pick up his option and see what his market is this winter.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#82

Posted: May 18, 2017, 5:59 AM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4070
JohnBriggs12 said:
brewmann04 said:
I think you move Matt if he continues pitching well as he is not going to be part of the rebuild


But he's a key part of a first place team a quarter into the season and rebuilds guarantee nothing. The object of rebuilds is to build a contender that can sustain it for few seasons. Well right now they are contending and almost the entire roster is under team control for 2 more years. Can't believe I'm saying this but if they are contending in July and Garza is still pitching well, they need to keep him. Then after the season, they can pick up his option and see what his market is this winter.


I agree with your sentiments about 24/25 players on the roster, but not Matt Garza, simply because I think we have better options in the minors, and Garza is the most logical option to move that is blocking them. Also, his last two seasons demonstrate that he will regress and that this is simply the grace period before he gets hurt/quits randomly/starts sucking/punches sogard/etc.---so he should be traded.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#83

Posted: May 18, 2017, 7:57 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4109
pogokat said:
Also, his last two seasons demonstrate that he will regress and that this is simply the grace period before he gets hurt/quits randomly/starts sucking/punches sogard/etc.---so he should be traded.

The prior 8 seasons suggest that the past two seasons were the outlier and that he would improve.

He's not a 2.43 ERA pitcher, and he's not a 5.63 ERA pitcher. He's a 3.75 ERA pitcher/4.00 xFIP pitcher.

I'm also not convinced that there are better options in the minors. Woodruff - likely. Hader - maybe, but not this season (depends on how much CS is affecting him, as he was dominant in AA) as his innings limit will be around 150 so you can forget about him starting in September. Lopez - unlikely (his peripherals are much better than his ERA, but again the question is how many innings he can go as well as making the jump from AA).


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#84

Posted: May 18, 2017, 8:23 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1142
The fact of the matter is our pitching is still overall not good enough for us to sustain this run and the FO needs to keep their eye on the big picture. If they get a good offer for Garza, Stearns should take it. Chances are we'll hit the skids before the trade deadline and this will all be moot, but if Garza can get us a good asset, we should take it before he turns back into a pumpkin.

fangraphs still gives us less than a 10% chance of making the post season FWIW.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#85

Posted: May 18, 2017, 8:36 AM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5079
MillerParkSouth said:
The fact of the matter is our pitching is still overall not good enough for us to sustain this run and the FO needs to keep their eye on the big picture. If they get a good offer for Garza, Stearns should take it. Chances are we'll hit the skids before the trade deadline and this will all be moot, but if Garza can get us a good asset, we should take it before he turns back into a pumpkin.

fangraphs still gives us less than a 10% chance of making the post season FWIW.


We won't know what will happen until it happens. That's why everything here is just theoretical.

If we're sitting in first place in July and Garza is still pitching well, then we are not very likely to trade him away.

If we fall back in the standings and Garza is still pitching well, then there should definitely be some teams willing to give us a decent return in trade.

Regardless of anything else, if Garza starts to suck it hurts the team, so I just hope he continues to pitch well.

"The most successful (people) know that performance over the long haul is what counts. If you can seize the day, great. But never forget that there are days yet to come."

~Bill Walsh


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#86

Posted: May 18, 2017, 9:26 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 7634
I am very optimistic about what DS can get back if all goes well


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#87

Posted: May 18, 2017, 9:38 AM Post
User avatar

Resident Hipster
Global Moderator
Posts: 10382
MillerParkSouth said:
fangraphs still gives us less than a 10% chance of making the post season FWIW.

Baseball Prospectus has generally been more bullish on the Brewers this year, and they currently have the team at 36%.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#88

Posted: May 18, 2017, 10:42 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 296
I think Knebel solidifying the closer spot could translate into a couple of extra wins for the Brewers this summer.

I think a 36% chance at the playoffs is too optimistic. If you split the difference between Fangraphs and BP it gives Brewers a 23% chance which is maybe more realistic.

2017 NL Playoffs
5 teams (3 division winners and 2 wild cards)

Nationals
Cubs
Dodgers

I think these 3 are shoe-ins even if they don't all win their divisions.

That leaves 2 spots up for grabs

NL EAST
It's hard to see any team in the NL East challenging for one of those other spots although I'll say that the Mets or Marlins have potential still.

NL WEST
I think at least one if not two of the open spots will go to teams in this division.
I think one of Rockies or Dbacks will make the playoffs as the first Wild Card
Giants will still be a factor if they can hang around until Bumgarner returns.

NL Central
Cardinals will continue to compete for a playoff spot all year.
Brewers and Pirates can hang in it if their pitching can hold up.

So here's how I'd rank the "contenders" for the last (2nd Wild Card) NL playoff spot:
1. Rockies/Dbacks (which ever isn't the first WC)
2. Cardinals
3. Mets
4. Pirates
5. Brewers
6. Marlins
7. Giants

So that's 7 teams fighting for the last Wild Card with the Brewers somewhere in the middle of that pack.

By MLB adding the 2nd wild card, it gives the fans of teams 3-7 on this list a ray of hope until AT LEAST sometime in August.

If anyone was against adding a 2nd Wild Card in the past, I hope this convinces them that it's ultimately good for baseball.


Last edited by A Swing and A Drive on May 18, 2017, 10:46 AM, edited 1 time in total.

 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#89

Posted: May 18, 2017, 10:46 AM Post
Posts: 1419
Garda has been our best pitcher and he is incredibly cheap.

He should have a lot of value on the trade market if we want to trade him.

At 23-18 I'm not sure the Brewers should be selling unless the deal is significant.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#90

Posted: May 18, 2017, 11:01 AM Post
Posts: 1729
The chances that both the Brewers and Garza keep performing as well as they are seem slight. If either one tanks, this becomes an easier question.

Another factor in the decision, I think, is the rest of the rotation. Right now Garza is pitching like a reliable vet. He's been, in his few starts, our most reliable starter. If Davies gets his act together, Nelson keeps pitching well, and Anderson pitches competently, then Garza's reliability gets somewhat less important. Rolling the dice on a Woodruff or a Lopez becomes easier to manage.

But yeah, what everyone said -- if you can spare him, and if the offer knocks your socks off, let him go. Otherwise, that option still makes him an attractive chip in the offseason.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#91

Posted: May 18, 2017, 11:17 AM Post
Posts: 1729
LouisEly said:
The prior 8 seasons suggest that the past two seasons were the outlier and that he would improve.

He's not a 2.43 ERA pitcher, and he's not a 5.63 ERA pitcher. He's a 3.75 ERA pitcher/4.00 xFIP pitcher.

I see three serious problems with this argument.

First, the premise doesn't quite hold up. In the first four of the eight seasons you're talking about, Garza's xFIP was considerably higher than 4.00. His good stretch was the next four years, 2011-2014. His xFIP was under 4.00 for all those seasons, though it rose each year during that span. Garza looks like a typical guy who took some time adjusting and then hit a peak. He pitched well for a while there, but it's not a steady or unified story.

Second, writing off a player's past two years as outliers based on a few weeks of contrary evidence seems unduly aggressive to me. Two years is a lot of information, and the two most recent years generally provide a lot more relevant information than the earlier ones. This relates to . . .

Third, aging is bad for baseball players. Expecting a player at 33 to be the player he was at 27-30, when he wasn't that guy at 31-32, doesn't make much sense, other things equal. Garza was never a world-beater. We should expect him to be in a major decline at 33.

I don't know what to make of Garza right now. I've been saying he's bad for years, but he sure isn't pitching badly right now. The peripherals, to the extent the samples are large enough to matter, point in different directions. His BABIP is really low, .279, and his HR/FB is a bit lower than it's been for him in most recent seasons. He isn't striking out a lot of guys. OTOH, he isn't walking anybody, and his groundball rate is way down from last year (though it was around the same when he stunk in 2015).

Players make adjustments. Maybe Garza has made the adjustments he needs. If I had to bet, I'd bet on a pretty strong regression, based on 2015-2016, the aging curve, and his BABIP and K rate. But I'd love it if he's figured out a sustainable way to match his peak performance.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#92

Posted: May 18, 2017, 12:22 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 918
A Swing and A Drive said:
So here's how I'd rank the "contenders" for the last (2nd Wild Card) NL playoff spot:
1. Rockies/Dbacks (which ever isn't the first WC)
2. Cardinals
3. Mets
4. Pirates
5. Brewers
6. Marlins
7. Giants


The Brewers should be squarely the #2 or #3 team on that list.

We're only 25% of the way into the season and I know that one of the teams that are dead in the water always seem to surprise us and make a run, but...

-Pirates have a really bad offense and they're without Marte for 2 more months, Polanco has been dinged up all year (DL10 right now), and Taillon might not be back this year.

-The Giants could maybe hold on but their offense is also really, really bad and they may be out of it by the time Bumgarner comes back.

-The Mets' pitching will probably get slightly back on track and add Cespedes back into the mix and I'd give them a shot...but they're also in trouble. They have probably the worst bullpen in the league and Familia is done. Matz/Wheeler/deGrom might be able to string some wins together, so you could maybe argue them as tied with the Brewers.

-The Brewers and D-Backs are basically a clone of each other. I think the Rockies are legit so they'll get WC1 or maybe have a chance of winning that division.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#93

Posted: May 18, 2017, 12:32 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1142
The Brewers are in the bottom half/very bottom of a lot of pitching and defense categories in the NL and are basically being carried by our offense. That's not a recipe for success. Now if Guerra/Espino/prospects can bring some stability to the rotation, it might be a different story, I just don't see it.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#94

Posted: May 18, 2017, 12:47 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 918
MillerParkSouth said:
The Brewers are in the bottom half/very bottom of a lot of pitching and defense categories in the NL and are basically being carried by our offense. That's not a recipe for success. Now if Guerra/Espino/prospects can bring some stability to the rotation, it might be a different story, I just don't see it.


Yes and no.

That's definitely the reason that I'm not buying the Brewers too much going forward, but right now on Fangraphs, the Pirates (mentioned as a better team in that list), Cardinals, Astros, Nats, and Mets are all "worse" in defensive rating. Cubs, Indians, Yankees, Dodgers, Orioles are not very far ahead of the Brewers.

In terms of WAR for pitching (probably not the best, I know), the Brewers are 9th. I'd imagine that the bullpen has something to do with that. 20th in xFIP, which is probably more where they belong.

I'd bet a lot of money on the Cubs at least being a top 5 (playoff) team, but I actually believe there is a sliver of a chance that they don't make it at this point. Maybe some callups will help, but with Heyward out right now (soon back), no Fowler, Schwarber back in, etc...their defense is much worse this year. I'm sure they'll go on a huge run and probably run away with the division, though, but I do see some holes in their team.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#95

Posted: May 18, 2017, 12:49 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 296
I respectfully disagree that the Brewers are a clone of the Dbacks.

1. Zack Greinke is a Top of the Rotation Starter. The Brewers don't have a SP with his talent. Heck, I'd argue the Brewers don't even have a SP with the talent of a Taijuan Walker.

2. Paul Goldschmidt is one of the Top 5 players in baseball.

3. The Dbacks are not at the stage of a re-build the Brewers are. With Goldy's contract expiring at the end of 2019, the D-backs are likely in a window of contention between now and then.

I agree that both teams offensives are filled with underrated players from top to bottom. I think the pitching clearly separate the D-backs however.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#96

Posted: May 18, 2017, 1:00 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 918
A Swing and A Drive said:
I respectfully disagree that the Brewers are a clone of the Dbacks.

1. Zack Greinke is a Top of the Rotation Starter. The Brewers don't have a SP with his talent. Heck, I'd argue the Brewers don't even have a SP with the talent of a Taijuan Walker.

2. Paul Goldschmidt is one of the Top 5 players in baseball.

3. The Dbacks are not at the stage of a re-build the Brewers are. With Goldy's contract expiring at the end of 2019, the D-backs are likely in a window of contention between now and then.

I agree that both teams offensives are filled with underrated players from top to bottom. I think the pitching clearly separate the D-backs however.


I guess I am conflating a little bit of the Diamondbacks' horrible relief pitching issues on to this season. I do think that bullpen may be an issue for them going forward, but they can buy if they need to.

You're right that the Diamondbacks are probably a slightly better team at this point.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#97

Posted: May 18, 2017, 1:15 PM Post
Posts: 340
LouisEly said:
pogokat said:
Also, his last two seasons demonstrate that he will regress and that this is simply the grace period before he gets hurt/quits randomly/starts sucking/punches sogard/etc.---so he should be traded.

The prior 8 seasons suggest that the past two seasons were the outlier and that he would improve.

He's not a 2.43 ERA pitcher, and he's not a 5.63 ERA pitcher. He's a 3.75 ERA pitcher/4.00 xFIP pitcher.

I'm also not convinced that there are better options in the minors. Woodruff - likely. Hader - maybe, but not this season (depends on how much CS is affecting him, as he was dominant in AA) as his innings limit will be around 150 so you can forget about him starting in September. Lopez - unlikely (his peripherals are much better than his ERA, but again the question is how many innings he can go as well as making the jump from AA).


I agree with you, LouisEly.

Woodruff might be ready to go, but I really really don't want to rush him after a whole 6 weeks at the AAA level.

Hader screams reliever to me.

Lopez IMHO is the closest to ready but he sucked at AAA last year.

Ortiz is still at least 1 year away.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#98

Posted: May 18, 2017, 1:41 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 244
I really don't think the Brewers current offense is a fluke, but we are probably due for some regression as the season continues. If some of our top prospects can come up and keep this momentum going then we have a shot to make the playoffs, otherwise our rotation will torpedo any shot at even the wild card. Bashing out 11 runs every game to win is just not sustainable.

However, it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that we're in or within a few games of 1st place by the trade deadline. If that were the case, and Garza is still pitching well, and the pitching in general has improved (lots of ifs), I could see the Brewers keeping Garza through the end of the year, then revisiting a trade for him with his $5M option in the offseason. That way he would have a season plus a few months of good results behind him and that $5M option would look really sweet to a lot of teams out there trying to stay under the luxury tax and in need of a solid #4/#5 guy.

However, if Garza is still pitching like he is and the Brewers can't keep up in the NL Central or Wild Card races (or honestly even if they can), I think it makes too much sense to get a great return for Garza while we still can. The fact is he's pitching out of his mind right now compared to his previous years with the Brewers and would have tremendous value to a team looking to make a playoff run, and his relatively low cost could be an intriguing option to teams that either can't afford guys like Cole or Quintana or just aren't willing to meet the big price tag those guys would command.

I feel like this year is gravy and the sign of great things to come for the Brewers in 2018. I honestly think the rebuild is almost over, but I don't think it's quite over, and the truth is that Garza won't be around for much if any of this team's next premium window, and I'd rather get something in return for players like that if possible instead of just clinging to pipedreams of the 2nd WC instead of planning for a brighter future.

Long post made short: it wouldn't kill me if they decided to keep Garza and revisit trading him during the offseason, but I think you get the best value from players at the trade deadline and I don't think our team is well rounded enough yet to justify holding onto him just for this year. And by next year there are bound to be better options for the rotation.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
#99

Posted: May 18, 2017, 2:02 PM Post
Posts: 35
OnTheBlack said:
Greenleaf1 said:
If Garza can pitch close to how he's pitching now until July, I hate to admit it but I think the return for him could be pretty good.

I'm not ready to say he can do that yet, been burned by him too many times, but Garza has looked, dare I say it, pretty good so far this year, and a relatively small money commitment for a year and a half of him could get us a couple mid level prospects.


I wouldn't say I expected this by any means...didn't know what to expect. But I knew he was capable of this. This is a guy who's been a good pitcher throughout his career. Pitched his team to the WS when he was...what, 22, 23 years old? He always had good stuff. Has always been extremely aggressive and competitive. Never been a lazy guy who doesn't seem to keep himself in shape.

Of course his last two years in Milwaukee he was injured, threw 250 innings with a ERA over 5(though a FIP was half a run lower) and a whip over 1.5. Still, he was an extremely reliable guy prior to that with an ERA of 3.74 before that and was always kinda a bulldog. So this certainly isn't the craziest turnaround...and having a proven starter who you can bring back for just 5 million dollars next year certainly has to look enticing to a team like...say New York who has just nothing but question marks in their rotation(CC looks like he's on his last leg, Tanaka's elbow, Pineda always injured...the young horse who's name eludes me, but he's a guy in his early 20's and Montgomery is young as well). They have a deep farm system.....especially with young guys who may not be highly rated, but have huge upsides.

They have a few guys not ranked in their top 10 who throw in the upper 90's and have ace or elite reliever upside...even a guy like Dillon Tate. This seems to be the type of trade where we could get back 3 prospects who the team acquiring Garza doesn't project to be future contributors, but who could be lottery type players for us. I guess we'll see.


Coming from the guy who didn't think Espino should have or was going to get called up.. In what world do you live in that you think the Brewers would get back 3 "lottery" type prospects bk for Garza? If they have pitchers they think are going to be good, wouldn't they just call them up rather than trading for a pitcher who has not stayed healthy or pitched good for entire yr since he was at Texas? They did it for Montgomery and Severino. If the Yankees trade away "lottery" type of players for a pitcher it would be a legit good pitcher. Not Garza..


Last edited by leitermab07 on May 18, 2017, 2:05 PM, edited 1 time in total.

 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: May 18, 2017, 2:26 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4109
gregmag said:
see three serious problems with this argument.

First, the premise doesn't quite hold up. In the first four of the eight seasons you're talking about, Garza's xFIP was considerably higher than 4.00. His good stretch was the next four years, 2011-2014.


Except that his career xFIP, including the last two seasons of sucking, is 4.07. So that holds up.

gregmag said:
Second, writing off a player's past two years as outliers based on a few weeks of contrary evidence seems unduly aggressive to me.


When the past two seasons the player was hurt, it's reason to believe it was an outlier.

gregmag said:
Third, aging is bad for baseball players. Expecting a player at 33 to be the player he was at 27-30, when he wasn't that guy at 31-32, doesn't make much sense, other things equal. Garza was never a world-beater. We should expect him to be in a major decline at 33.


1) Ervin Santana, Marco Estrada, Zack Grienke (who has rebounded nicely this season), Jon Lester, all of those guys are pitching as well as they ever have at age 33+. Hell, last year the only Cubs starter under the age of 30 was Hendricks. Lackey was still going strong at 35/36. Tell that to those guys.

B) Garza isn't a world-beater, no one said he is. I said he is what he is - a career 3.75 ERA/4.00 xFIP pitcher.

Do players regress as they get older? Yes! But no one can predict down to the individual level who is going to do what. The stats are built on the aggregate of data (and I've seen how they calculate the aging stats and disagree with some of the methods - I work in market research and use data and statistics to come to conclusions all the time, it literally is my job), but you can't use aggregate of data to project for an individual data source without projecting a range. To say an individual data source, with certainty, will do X because the aggregate of data has shown Y... well, you will usually be wrong.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  [ 114 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brew4U, wibadgers23 and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test