When I wrote about Matt Garza's trade value last month I showed that it's not that high. Aside from the Cubs kicking in some money to cover the rest of his salary this year, the Cubs couldn't expect to get all that much in return. People have consistently told me I'm wrong. Apparently some anonymous GMs were on record (can you really be on record if you're anonymous?) as saying he had more trade value than Cole Hamels or Zack Greinke, both of whom are far better pitchers. The additional year that Garza has beyond this year certainly matters, but I've argued that it's not a cheap year. If Garza were under contract for $12 million next year I've wondered if people would feel the same way. He is essentially under contract for $12 million next year because that's what he'll likely receive in arbitration.
So why is Matt Garza worth more than I think? The first reason I can come up with is that he's pitched in the AL East. From 2008 through 2010 Garza threw nearly 600 innings for the Rays and he allowed under a hit per inning, just over 3 walks per 9 and struckout enough to have a K/BB of about 2.3. His ERA was 3.86 and his ERA+ 109. Neither of those numbers are fantastic by any means, but an ERA 9% better than league average in that division is probably better anywhere else. He was an above average pitcher in the best division in baseball.
A lot of teams in the AL East wonder how a pitcher will do when he comes into that division. It's something the Red Sox and Yankees have concerned themselves with for a long time. They don't have to worry about that with Matt Garza. He's been there and done that.
There are no games that have a higher stress level than those in the playoffs. Garza reached the postseason in 2008 and 2010. In 2008 the Rays went to the World Series. In all, Garza made 5 postseason starts and threw the ball quite well against the league's best teams. He has a career postseason ERA of 3.48.
Garza is still just 28 years old. A player's peak is typically between the ages of 26 and 28 so Garza is right there. A team could realistically expect Garza to be as good or better than he's been in his career.
Although it's not a cheap 2013, he does have more than one year remaining before he can file for free agency. That year is likely to provide value above what a team may think they can get on the free agent market for the same cost. It also gives the team some time to explore a long-term contract with Garza, which would give them a team friendly contract for several years.
Overall, teams may look at Garza and believe he's more valuable because of the experience in the AL East, the postseason, his age and his contract. These have nothing to do with what we typically use to assign value, but it's entirely possible this is why Garza might be more valuable than the numbers show.
Comments
How many GMs are left that put a ton of weight into small sample splits like performance vs. the AL East, or five playoff games? I agree that’s why FANS probably think he has more value, and I can guess some old-school guys might be persuaded as well, but how many actual GMs actually think like that anymore?
Anonymous GM quotes just don’t carry a ton of weight with me since they probably have an agenda. Maybe they are the Orioles or Toronto GMs trying to get the Yankees or Red Sox to get scared into over-bidding (or vice versa). Maybe it is guys in the NL trying to scare away a team like Pittsburgh or Cincinnati by over-stating the Cubs’ price tag. I don’t know.
It does seem that the trade market is picking up, though. If there are multiple bidders, then the price will go up and I think we’ll be happier than we expect to be with the return.
I’m still sticking with Garza gets traded and Dempster does not. I think shit is going to have to get nuts before Dempster gets dealt.
Aisle424Quote Reply
i just posted this on twitter
Something i just thought: If we keep dempster we will have a bigger draft bonus pool. We need a big return to justify giving up a sandwich pick and a loss of draft pool
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
TTO = ?
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ bubblesdachimp:
Wait. Why will we have a bigger bonus pool? I thought that was tied to finish in the standings.
Aisle424Quote Reply
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
Three True Outcomes, I believe.
HR, BB, K
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
More picks more money to sign said pick….. Right?
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
@ bubblesdachimp:
Haven’t I read from Keith Law and others that next year’s draft is not that good? I believe I read an article or two the other day after the Pirates didn’t sign their draft pick that the prospects for next year are not that promising.
If that is the case, how important is getting a pick in a lackluster draft as opposed to getting something you may like now both for the Cubs and for any team looking to trade for Dempster?
Another thing that I haven’t seen mentioned as it pertains to what the Cubs do going forward is this current 12-4 streak they are on. Has the promotion of Rizzo and this hot streak affected attendance in the ballpark? Are the no shows lessening? Are the tickets sold going up? Will it have any affect on having the ability to gut the team and risk sales?
We have no idea what goes on behind closed doors or what the business side may be trying to tell the baseball side to do. I think that may play a higher role in who the Cubs trade than draft pick compensation.
J.J.Quote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
Not many. Probably close to or equal to 0. I’m just trying to think like some of the other people are. Some people here too. Some anonymous GMs. This is what I can think of. To be fair, I’m going to write an article today or tomorrow about why he might be worth less than I think because I think that’s as likely as him being worth more.
mb21Quote Reply
424, I also agree about the anonymous GMs. I don’t believe a word they say. They may be totally honest, but I don’t buy it.
mb21Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
The compensation pick creates an extra slot and thus extra money, I think.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ bubblesdachimp:
Yeah, if they have more picks they have more money to spend. I’d also keep Dempster to get the compensation pick because I think it will be more valuable than what they get in return. I’m also not opposed to the Cubs signing him to a one year extension either.
mb21Quote Reply
bubblesdachimp wrote:
Yeah, but it’s all slotted, so it’s not like free money. In theory, we get enough to sign whoever it is we pick. But I agree that a sandwich pick is pretty valuable and someone will have to do better than that to move him. Which is why I don’t think he goes anywhere. Most everybody I’ve interacted with on Twitter disagrees, but I’m sticking with it.
Aisle424Quote Reply
J.J. wrote:
I always have a hard time believing we know how good a draft is a year before it takes place. I’ve also come to the conclusion that drafts that don’t have a Strasburg or Harper are considered weak by a lot of analysts.
mb21Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
A week ago I’d have agreed with you and I still kind of do, but I’m starting to think he’s going to be traded too. I think it’s much more likely Garza is traded. If Dempster goes there’s a 100% chance Garza goes.
mb21Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
It is slotted, but the teams have done some fancy footwork to sign guys who have no leverage in the later rounds for $1000 or $10K to create more money to sign the early picks, so that extra money could still be important. Just not sure how much, but a comp pick should be worth at least $750K more in pool money, and maybe more depending on who signs Dempster (I’m not smart enough to figure out how the comp round would be set up until all the free agent signings are done this offseason).
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I just don’t see how an anonyomous GM would have anything valuable to say. If the GM was interested in trading for Garza, they sure wouldn’t go on record about how much they think he’s worth. If anything, they would try and downplay his value.
If the GM in question isn’t trying to trade for Garza, then they probably haven’t spent much time trying to figure Garza’s value out, so they probably just give a BS answer. Or maybe they’re worried that their competition is trying to pick up Garza, so they decide to talk Garza’s value up to try and inflate the market. Either way, if they’re not bidding on Garza, they don’t matter. The only GM’s that matter are the ones who will actually trade for Garza.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Yeah, but all that maneuvering adds, what, 10% over slot to a player? Whoopee.
Can a team not sign someone and take all of their money to give to the #1 pick? I don’t know why anyone would do this, given the lack of leverage the players have now, but that’s the only way I can see a top pick getting dramatically over slot and the allotted overall money pool making that big of a difference.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
I tend to agree with you. I bet the return is better then we think if he is moved
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
Edwin wrote:
This.
Aisle424Quote Reply
God it will be miserable if both garza and dempster leave and are replaced with wells and lopez
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
or even worse wells,lopez, coleman
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
I thought during the offseason there were GM’s or scouts who said that Garza was only a middle of the rotation pitcher. Apparently that was why the Cubs had a tough time selling Garza. Did they change their mind after his brilliant first half or something?
EdwinQuote Reply
mb21 wrote:
The market is picking up faster than I thought it would. That’s encouraging, but a half year of a 35 year old good-but-not-great pitcher still doesn’t seem like it will command more than the value of a comp pick, yet.
Aisle424Quote Reply
From KG today
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
bubblesdachimp wrote:
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
No, the money is forfeit if the pick in the first ten rounds doesn’t sign. So they have to sign those guys. Apparently the extra $ saved does matter to a lot of the draft signees though; saving the $ in later rounds to throw at guys like Almora and Underwood seemed to be part of the plan and squeezing every last drop out of the Cubs prior to forfeiting future draft picks was the goal of the agents, even if it was just an extra $50 or $100K.
I think that Dempster is probably going to get traded so this point is moot anyway.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
Yeah, this is exactly why I think fans are expecting way too much for Garza. If he was worth as much as they think, they’d have dealt him in the offseason. They couldn’t get a deal they liked and now he’s having a much worse season than a year ago.
mb21Quote Reply
@ Edwin:
yeah exactly. why the hell would a GM divulge any information unless it is misinformation designed to screw over other teams.
J.J. wrote:
i have a really hard time believing that you can predict the quality of a draft a year in advance. we’re talking about completely untested kids. think about the amount that you physically develop between the years of 16 and 22. one year makes a huge fucking difference w/r/t coordination and muscle mass. the amount that a 17-year old kid can improve in one year is enormous. likewise, some big-for-his-age 16-year old kid who looks like the next babe ruth might end up looking not nearly as impressive 2 years later when all the other kids have physically caught up to him. not to mention, the talent levels across leagues is so wildly divergent that i really don’t think you can accurately assess the draft class as a whole in real time, much less a year out.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Rosenthal says the Cubs wanted a Gio Gonzalez like return for Garza last offseason. Why not, but if that’s what they want now they’re delusional.
mb21Quote Reply
Gio Gonzalez was better and had more years of club control. And he was younger.
mb21Quote Reply
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/19594927/stock-watch-cubs-dempster-is-hottest-item-on-pitching-market
Aisle424Quote Reply
Mish is going to be pissed.
http://www.happyplace.com/16977/mtv-incorrectly-identifies-batman-characters
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
Even if the other GM’s are being truthful, they probably aren’t giving relevent answers because they haven’t done the research. If I asked you right this minute how valuable Starlin Castro is in a trade, what would you say? Would you have anything more technical than “He’s one of the best young SS in the game today so he’s worth a lot”?
Until you know more facts, it’s tough to give a valuable answer. You might have an idea how valuable Player X is, but when you run the numbers, you might come away with an entirely different answer.
EdwinQuote Reply
Israel @iidonije
@MattForte22 Congrats Bro!! #BearDown
Retweeted by Waddle and Silvy
Did he get paid?
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
Matt Forte ——-> paid
4 years, money not reported yet.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Looks like it
Dane Brugler @dpbrugler
RT @seankjensen BREAKING: #Bears agree to terms with Pro Bowl RB Matt Forte on a long-term contract, according to source close to situation
As a bears fan i am happy. I want no distractions
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
minor league shit up
dylanjQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
You know, I’m more inclined to believe that Dempster has more value than the numbers show because he’s been so good this year. I’m less inclined to believe it with Garza because he hasn’t been all that good.
mb21Quote Reply
I don’t think we deal Dempster because of the new CBA rules. If a player is traded in season and is a free agent following this season, the team that traded for him does not get pick compensation.
This means the Cubs will be looking for pick compensation plus the value of Dempter. But the team he is traded to will only want to give compensation for Dempster’s added value. This discourages trades for players who will be free agents.
Garza is much more likely because he has the extra year of control and comes with the possibility of draft pick compensation if he turns down arbitration and signs elsewhere.
mb, this is also why people are saying Garza is more valuable than Hamels or Grienke since they are FA after this season.
jtsunamiQuote Reply