Matt Garza was eligible for arbitration for the third time this year, but since he was a super two he'll have one more year of arbitration. After the 2013 season he's eligible to file for free agency. The Cubs have a few options: trade him, keep him through next year or sign him to an extension. Like most players, maximum value for the player in the trade is in the past so the Cubs have already seen his value lessen. Garza's performance this year pales in comparison to last so that too has undoubtedly affected his value.
In his first season with the Cubs Garza was quite good. The second season has some bright spots, but overall he's been considerably worse. He's still been above average if you look at defense independent pitching stats, but his ERA and RA are below average. The reason for this is actually simple to explain.
He's getting shelled with men on base and in scoring position whereas last season he didn't. Obviously if batters hit better with men on base more runs will be scored. His K-BB% is nearly identical. He's striking out just a few less batters, but walking a few less too. His line drive rate is down and so is his BABIP. Also down is the number of infield fly balls he's allowed. Last year he allowed a career best 12.0% infield fly ball ratio and this year it's back to 8.3% (career average is 8.6%). We should have expected some regression there. Another huge difference is the number of fly balls that are leaving the ballpark. Last season only 7.7% of all fly balls left the park. This year it's 15.7%. His career is 9.5%, which is right where we'd expect it. We should expect his HR/FB ratio to regress this season and we also expected it to regress a bit entering the year.
What you have is a guy who is getting hit the hardest when there are men on base and he's allowing more home runs than you'd expect. The result is an ERA and FIP higher than you expected, but an xFIP in line with what did expect.
As for trade value, we need to establish his talent level first. PECOTA pegs him for 1.1 WAR the rest of the year in 113.1 innings pitched. ZiPS projectsa 112 innings and a 3.64 FIP, which is good for about 1.5 additional WAR. Oliver projects 125 innings and 1.1 WAR. The average is 1.2 WAR over 116.2 innings. Over 200 innings that is 2.1 WAR.
Over the remainder of the contract it's more than reasonable to expect about 3.3 more WAR from Garza. At $5 million per win he's worth $5.5 million the rest of the season. We can estimate it's $5.5 million next year making him worth $11.6 million. That gives us a total of $17.1 million in value.
Garza is earning $9.5 million this year so he has about $5.1 million remaining this season. He's arbitration eligible next season for the final time so we'd have to estimate his salary at about $12 million. Garza is owed approximately $17.1 million prior to becoming a free agent.
I assume you can do the math at this point. $17.1 million in value. $17.1 million in salary. Equals no trade value. We should add in the $5 million in value for the draft picks the team will collect as he's very likely to be offered the minimum salary entering arbitration. So his surplus trade value is $5 million.
This is considerably less than the $17 million I found it to be this past offseason in a guest post I wrote for Bleacher Nation. At the time, to keep things simple, I used Oliver. I can't remember why exactly. Maybe it was the first available. Maybe I had just re-upped my subscription and wanted to use it. I don't know, but I do know that we later found the average WAR for the projections was 3.0. Had I waited a couple months to write the article for Brett, I'd have used the projections Berselius combined in that post. As a result, the trade value entering the season wasn't anywhere close to $17 million.
A surplus trade value of $5 million will get a Grade B hitter. The idea of the Cubs getting multiple top prospects for Garza was always a stretch and it's even more a stretch now. This begs the question: should the Cubs just re-sign him?
Well, I don't know that answer. I don't think the Cubs do either. When are they going to contend? Things don't look good for the next few years. At that point Garza will be well past his prime and it's not like he's going to increase his trade value while earning more money than he currently does. I see no point in re-signing Garza. A Grade B prospect isn't at all a bad prospect. Entering the season Mike Olt was a strong B prospect according to Sickels. DJ wondered if we might get him for Ryan Dempster. I suppose it's a possible return for Garza, but I'd be surprised if the Cubs can get someone quite that good.
Olt was the 65th ranked prospect by Sickels so if you want an idea what the Cubs might get look around that spot in the rankings. The 109th ranked prospect, Javier Baez, was a Grade B entering the season.
Could the Cubs package a more middling prospect (someone like Vitters) as well as pay his remaining salary to get a better prospect in return?
Also, there is something to be said for inflated value for desperate teams. The problem is that there just doesn’t seem to be any desperation out there. Texas acquired Oswalt so they are good. I don’t know if the Cardinals are going to get desperate seeing as they just won the World Series and have the luxury of not having to take their eyes off a longer strategy. Maybe Detroit? The Yankees are fine, the Rays will go with whoever they have in-house, though the Hellickson injury might create a bigger need. The Orioles will have to stick in this right until the end of July to pull the trigger on a deal, and even then they might know it is a fools errand.
I don’t know. I just don’t even see a market for starters like Dempster and Garza. There is no impending deal of a pitcher like Sabathia or Lee that is pressuring teams to figure out what they will do if/when their rival lands that stud pitcher.
Off to see the I Cubs tonight. Hopefully Rizzo actually plays, unlike the last game I went to (dying laughing)
Speaking of Matt Garza and trades, Chris Archer makes his ML debut tomorrow against Strasburg, and GBTS will be there.
I understand your value of Garza Maddog, but I still believe he brings a considerable package more than the value you’ve given him. What the Cubs have going for them is he is one of the top 2-3 pitchers available and has proven he can win in the AL East. With that they will drum up interest and will get a couple teams to start bidding. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Cubs throw in a considerable amount of his salary if they do decide to move him. The one thing this front office has been able to do is nobody knows anything until something has already been done.
They could pay the remaining salary this year and that could bring them a much better prospect. The bidding to desperation could always increase the package, but one thing to remember is that the cubs shopped him all winter and couldn’t get an acceptable return. I think whatever the cubs come away with is going to be underwhelming but it only takes one team to offer more than you’d expect.
Aisle424 wrote:
THIS. Which contender is going to pick up a stud SP forcing another contender to overreact? The one thing we don’t know yet is the impact on the trading deadline that the additional playoff teams will have. Could increase value. Could be the opposite. Could remain the same. Don’t know yet.
I think you could package him with someone like Vitters to get more, but I don’t see it happening. I just don’t see them trading prospects.
I could see the White Sox or a team where the division is close overreacting for a SP.
@ GBTS:
Does the explosion happen next?
Cubs lose.
@ GBTS:
This must be the part where Yellon clubs Mish/Batman with a bologna sandwich.
Amazing catch by Castro: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22420595&c_id=mlb
With his excellent 2-inning, 3-strikeout, no-walk performance today, Sean Marshall has finally brought his ERA down under 3. I wish the Cubs had a guy like this in their bullpen.
@ ACT:
James Russell’s ERA is 2.53, assuming no runs score against him tonight. heh heh heh
@ SVB:
Marshall has a K/BB of 35/6. Russell has 26/14.
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
@ Aisle424:
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
@ ACT:
I chose to cherry-pick the ERA stat to pull your chain, ACT.
But if it makes you feel better (Sean) 35+6+2HR= 43 while (Jeff) 24 +16 +3 HR= 43, so they are equal, according to New (TTO) Math.
Aroldis just gave up a walk-off 2-run homer in the 10th.
@ SVB:
Eh, I’ll take it.
Marmol time!
@ ACT:
I’m trying to channel Josh’s beer gut guy’s logic.
Aramis just hit a grand slam.
A-Ram is now at .264/.341/.481. Quite good considering how bad his April was.
@ ACT:
to Asdrubel Cabrera
@ ACT:
Both these guys are on my fantasy team, so my night just picked up considerably.
ACT, can you post something about Carlos Quentin hitting a HR too, please?
Cubs…win?
@ Rice Cube:
Hooray. 2 in a row. It’s a sign!
I think most of your “value” analyses are objectively accurate for the most part, but you never seem to consider the supply and demand issues that go along with your projections. Teams are willing (and should be willing) to pay a premium for certain players that are in scarce supply. When teams are in contention and need a specific piece of the puzzle, that player is actually worth more than the “expected” market value. The price is even higher when multiple teams in contention are seeking the same commodity (greater demand, same supply = higher price). I know you are a smart fan and most likely realize this to some extent, but it is rarely acknowledged. There is not an infinite supply of pitchers like Dempster and Garza. There are hardly any shortstops like Castro. Soto and Barney even have some value because they may indeed be “above average” for their positions….and so on…
A player may be worth “x” on paper, but supply and demand determines the actual value.
@ Rice Cube:
I left a picture for you in the Forum
FAWK. Padres losing. Goodbye for now, #1 pick.
I love how Peavy pitched a complete 9-inning game, but still lost.
Wow.
After the last out, Marmol looks like he’s saying “Fuck you. Fuck you, motherfucker.” Maybe it’s “Fuck yeah,” though. He looks angry.
@ Aisle424:
That was a sweet play.
Dammit, I already linked to that video. It’s not my fault I don’t have privileges to embed.
http://toddzwillich.tumblr.com/post/25447401556/sen-harry-reid-d-nev-channels-nationals
(dying laughing)
http://lipstickandpolitics.com/politics/game-of-american-thrones
(dying laughing) @ Ned Stark
@ ltdan001:
I think you are correct. Teams operate not on how fan graphs rates players but a how shit is happening scale. When it all boils down Garza? should get something good. I fully think these projections are stupid because they dont deal with supply and demand. If there was a projection system that could deal with service time vs. other pitchers on the block it would be better. But teams in contention will always pay a premium on top not pitching if they think it can get them over the hump.
I think Demps might get a lot too.. Why? Because in the end he is pitching out of his fucking mind.
@ bubblesdachimp:
I agree let’s get our hopes way WAY up that we’re going to get Bryce Harper in return for these guys.
It’s fine to talk with gusto about supply and demand, but then let’s see the data that shows that teams consistently overpay for a couple of months of above average pitching. I’d like more recent data especially, since teams are a hell of a lot more savvy about that kind of thing lately. Back it up with some evidence.
.bubblesdachimp wrote:
The projections are the projections, they are what is going to happen based on evidence and have nothing to do with supply and demand. I imagine you are talking about the value. The value is based on the history of what teams have paid. Are there going to be differences? Yeah. Some teams are going to overpay, some will underpay, but on average that’s what you can expect. MB alludes to the fact that the demand can change all the time so teams may overpay. He had a real good comment a few days back about value & worth. He also looked back on the Greinke trade and the trade was exactly equal on both sides based on projections. If I could find it I’d link you to it, otherwise I guess you have to read every word (dying laughing)
WaLi wrote:
Speaking of which, is there a way to search comments? There used to be, but it seems like the search only looks through the main posts.
@ WaLi:
You might see some variation and prospects can sometimes surprise or disappoint, but I’m guessing if you look at the averages at the time the trades are made, most trades are more or less fair. Free agent signings, on the other hand, have been crazy lately.
@ WaLi:
and, besides, the projections give you a yardstick by which you can measure the trade. Even if you believe market forces will greatly change the value of Garza, you have to temper your expectations. Is it likely that people will pay twice what he’s worth? Three times? At some point you have to be realistic about what you have.
@ WaLi:
I also looked at the two biggest trades of this past offseason (Gio Gonzalez and Mat Latos) in that post that was published on Bleacher Nation.
I’m also far from convinced supply/demand is an issue here. It doesn’t seem to have much of an impact on free agent signings and teams typically enter trade discussions with a maximum amount they will give up. When it passes that amount they bow out. More often than not, in my opinion, it’s up to the team to take the best deal on the table and not for that team to increase its offer.
But people are free to run these numbers themselves. They’re freely available so for those who have issues with it, do some of these yourself. Show me a number of trades that show these to be stupid as bubbles says. As for that comment, I think bubbles fails to comprehend them. The only possible way you could call them stupid is if you just don’t know what they are. I’ve explained them many times and while I’ve gone back and forth with several over this issue, I won’t do so with someone like bubbles. What he said is stupid, but bubbles is the most unrealistically optimistic Cubs fan I have ever encountered in my life so I’m not surprised he doesn’t like something that doesn’t show his Cubbies to be worth infinite money.
Itdan001 in comment 30 speaks about supply and demand and wonders why I don’t include it. The answer is because I have no idea how much of an impact, if any at all, it may have. There’s no way to quantify it’s affect. So I ignore it entirely. This does not mean I don’t think there are other factors involved. There are. There are a number of other factors. As I said recently, these numbers are a baseline. It’s a ballpark estimate of the player’s trade value. It takes the player and turns it into a dollar figure so we can more accurately compare the trade values of others and the objectively analyze trades as they are completed. The subjective stuff involved? I have no clue what they are and have even no interest in including them. Or even discussing them because they are subjective. I readily admit they exist and have admitted a number of times that it can affect the value a team receives in return.
One thing I’d add here is that every person who has argued about these numbers is that they’ve ALWAYS argued in favor of the player being worth more. That’s completely irrational to think the numbers are wrong in only one direction. Not one person that I’m aware of has looked at one of these trade value posts and said there’s no way Ryan Dempster is getting that much in return. It’s always about how the player will get more.
This leads me to believe it’s more about home team bias than anything else. We already know that fans are quite biased. The fans projections on Fangraphs have to be lowered by about 15% to make up for this. Cubs fans are 15% more optimistic about their players than the other 29 teams are and this is true for all team fans.
This is also why I don’t bother to get into the subjective in these pieces. It seems to me that Dempster and Garza are worth slightly more, but that’s my bias. I’m a Cubs fan and I think all their players are worth more than they are.
I’ll say it again: these numbers are a ballpark estimate of the player’s trade value based on his projections and the value of prospects. The projections and the value of the prospects are relatively accurate. Matt Garza’s trade value is roughly $5 million. Will the Cubs get more? Sure. They could also get less. Some trades will result in more and some less.
@ WaLi:
I noticed that too. It’s a WordPress thing. I don’t even use this search anyway and didn’t with Joomla. I just use google to search for things on this site. Let me see if there’s a plugin we could add.
new shit up
@ josh:
Every GM I’ve ever heard talk about trades has said the same thing: you want the trade to benefit both teams and you want it to be fair. It’s clear to me GMs enter trade discussions with the idea to create a trade that benefits both teams and is fair to both.
One other thing is that teams miscalculate value all the time so what the Cubs need is to find some team who thinks Garza is better than he really is.
@MB21
I was hoping you wouldn’t get too defensive in your reply, and for the most part, I’m glad you didn’t just freak out at the slightest hint of disagreement like Kurt from GROTA. I obviously appreciate your work as I check out this site daily, and I thought I could add to the discussion with my comments.
In my opinion, projecting value is quite accurate with free agents unless a team is willing to overpay because they REALLY want THAT player for whatever reason. With the top free agents, grossly overpaying happens all the time. Trades are a bit more complicated because teams are not just “buying” the player with cash. Availability (supply) must be factored into the equation either way, but teams can get especially desperate with the trade market because they can’t buy desirable free agents mid-season. Much like financial assets, the baseline value for players available for trade is expected future performance (just like projected cash flows). However, the supply/demand aspect is very real in the trade market. If 10 teams want a top line starting pitcher and there are only 5 available, then the price required in trade obviously has to increase from projected value if all teams follow through with their attempts to upgrade. The water also gets muddied because of the trade pieces–a team might have the overall value needed to complete a trade, but they might not be the pieces desired by the selling team. Thus, they might have to give up a little extra in prospects to complete the deal against the competition. Also, trying to equate value for both teams becomes increasingly difficult as the number of players in the trade increases.
I definitely wasn’t complaining about your valuation methodology–I just think that supply/demand and the complexity of a multi-player deal are game changers. We could be pleasantly surprised by the return received for Dempster and Garza because they are somewhat rare commodities.