Matt Garza, Savior?

[brianod]

Garza is 29 and Guthrie is 33. Garza numbers are trending upward in comparison to his career averag. He K's more than Guthrie, walks fewer, has a lower career FIP, and most imortantly gives up fewer HR's. Garza is in the middle of his prime. Guthrie's best season would barely equal Garza's career average season, if at all.

With the number of innings he's thrown, I would argue that a 30 yr old pitcher is not entering into his prime. I would argue that he is beginning his decline. Very few post steroid era pitchers are effective after 35 and many begin to falter after 4-5 years of heavy innings. Garza is only trending up if you ignore his 3-6 record with a 4+ era in the NL this year. Hardly anchor or ace stuff.

[crawjo]

Garza would become either the #2 or #3 starter on this team, depending on how you rate Chen. He'd be a huge upgrade, but he's not a TOR or a "savior." He's just a good, reliable pitcher.

[primetime]

With the number of innings he's thrown, I would argue that a 30 yr old pitcher is not entering into his prime. I would argue that he is beginning his decline. Very few post steroid era pitchers are effective after 35 and many begin to falter after 4-5 years of heavy innings. Garza is only trending up if you ignore his 3-6 record with a 4+ era in the NL this year. Hardly anchor or ace stuff.

I agree some of your points but I don't know that anyone is annointing Garza as an anchor or savior. If they are, they have the wrong idea of what he is. Generally speaking, the price tag for true of the rotation guys at the deadline is really high and not something that O's can afford to pay because we don't have the pieces to do it.

For me, I would see Garza as a solid middle of the rotation type, which I feel is exactly what we need. Their last starts notwithstanding, we have Hammel and Chen pitching like front end starters and I believe that this rotation is desperate need of guy that can go 6+ and 3 runs or less 3 out of 4 times. Garza profiles like that guy.

Don't get me wrong, I wish there was an ace out there with a bad contract that could be had but that's not in the Cards. If we could work out a deal for Garza, he provides stability to the middle of the rotation.

[El Gordo]

With the number of innings he's thrown, I would argue that a 30 yr old pitcher is not entering into his prime. I would argue that he is beginning his decline. Very few post steroid era pitchers are effective after 35 and many begin to falter after 4-5 years of heavy innings. Garza is only trending up if you ignore his 3-6 record with a 4+ era in the NL this year. Hardly anchor or ace stuff.

This is completely specious. Look at his peripherals this season and compare them to his carrer average. And just when did the steroid erea end and the post steroid era begin. If you think that it is over then it probably ended 2005-2006 when testing began. I doubt that enough data could be collected in 5-6 years to say anything about post steroid era SP, in comparison to the steroid era SP. You pulled that one out of your service entrance IMO. Got some numbers?

[Prayin4Reign]

For all the snarky comments about Ws, as technically correct as they may be, the OP has a valid point. Garza isn't a great pitcher by any stretch of the imagination. He's Jeremy Guthrie. Is a season and a half of Jeremy Guthrie worth giving up a top prospect? Not in my opinion.

Wow...Jeremy Guthrie? Really??? I understand you think people overestimate Garza's worth, but I think you underestimate his value even more.

[El Gordo]

I agree some of your points but I don't know that anyone is annointing Garza as an anchor or savior. If they are, they have the wrong idea of what he is. Generally speaking, the price tag for true of the rotation guys at the deadline is really high and not something that O's can afford to pay because we don't have the pieces to do it.

For me, I would see Garza as a solid middle of the rotation type, which I feel is exactly what we need. Their last starts notwithstanding, we have Hammel and Chen pitching like front end starters and I believe that this rotation is desperate need of guy that can go 6+ and 3 runs or less 3 out of 4 times. Garza profiles like that guy.

Don't get me wrong, I wish there was an ace out there with a bad contract that could be had but that's not in the Cards. If we could work out a deal for Garza, he provides stability to the middle of the rotation.

I said he would anchor our rotation. To me that means he would slot in at 2-3 and give us IN. I don't think that means he is a TOR. If I thought thatI would have said that. He is a good SP and would help us win.

[brianod]

I agree some of your points but I don't know that anyone is annointing Garza as an anchor or savior. If they are, they have the wrong idea of what he is. Generally speaking, the price tag for true of the rotation guys at the deadline is really high and not something that O's can afford to pay because we don't have the pieces to do it.

For me, I would see Garza as a solid middle of the rotation type, which I feel is exactly what we need. Their last starts notwithstanding, we have Hammel and Chen pitching like front end starters and I believe that this rotation is desperate need of guy that can go 6+ and 3 runs or less 3 out of 4 times. Garza profiles like that guy.

Don't get me wrong, I wish there was an ace out there with a bad contract that could be had but that's not in the Cards. If we could work out a deal for Garza, he provides stability to the middle of the rotation.

I agree. Garza would help and be a solid 3. My gripe is with those on the board that seem to think this is worth a top prospect. I want to win for 14 years, not make a desperate effort to compete for this year. If the cubs want to dump his salary for a minor prospect or a couple of minor prospects, ok. But, I'd rather see Tilman given another chance then to overpay for a solid, unspectacular pitcher. And, I don't understand the effusive praise for this guy who has basically done nothing spectacular his whole career.

[brianod]

This is completely specious. Look at his peripherals this season and compare them to his carrer average. And just when did the steroid erea end and the post steroid era begin. If you think that it is over then it probably ended 2005-2006 when testing began. I doubt that enough data could be collected in 5-6 years to say anything about post steroid era SP, in comparison to the steroid era SP. You pulled that one out of your service entrance IMO. Got some numbers?

Haha. You continue to look at his peripherals and predict greatness. I prefer to simplify and look at the bottom line. The bottom line says slightly above average pitcher who can throw 200 innings. I see nothing that warrants anything other than a couple of minor prospects. Garza is good and he would be an asset but he isn't great and doesn't warrant grasping for.

[crissfan172]

I should clarify - I would not give up Bundy, but I would give up Machado.

[El Gordo]

Haha. You continue to look at his peripherals and predict greatness. I prefer to simplify and look at the bottom line. The bottom line says slightly above average pitcher who can throw 200 innings. I see nothing that warrants anything other than a couple of minor prospects. Garza is good and he would be an asset but he isn't great and doesn't warrant grasping for.

This is what I mean, as specious. Please point out where I predicted greatness. Is saying he is better than Guthrie the same as saying he is great? Is aying he is a #2#3 on this team the same as saying he is great? And if you want to ignore peripherals and go by W/L I don't know what to tell you, other than most here won't take you very seriously, if they do now. I am not sure what your point is, it seems to keep moving around. Mine is simply Garza is a good(not great, but better than Guthrie)SP addition ,that would help our team win more, if he didn't cost Bundy and/or Machado. Are you sayng he isn't worth trading anyone for?

[primetime]

I agree. Garza would help and be a solid 3. My gripe is with those on the board that seem to think this is worth a top prospect. I want to win for 14 years, not make a desperate effort to compete for this year. If the cubs want to dump his salary for a minor prospect or a couple of minor prospects, ok. But, I'd rather see Tilman given another chance then to overpay for a solid, unspectacular pitcher. And, I don't understand the effusive praise for this guy who has basically done nothing spectacular his whole career.

I think we pretty much agree. I just have a slightly different perspective on the situation.

Under the status quo of the last decade plus, I would say run Tillman out there and/or keep sending Matusz and Arrieta out there. However, the start to the season, the circumstances within the division and the additional wildcard have changed things for me. I wouldn't mind adding a solid, dependable, middle of the rotation guy and allow us to be a bit more choosey with who our #4 and #5 are.

There's value in what Garza has done in that he's been able to get big league hitters out with a certain level of consistency for the last 5 years or so.

Again though as you said, it comes back to the cost. If we can piece together a deal that will allow us to keep our big 3 prospects, I think it's definitely worth a long look. However, I think the discussions might be moot because I think some team is going to ridiculously overpay for Garza and make any offer we put on the table look like peanuts.

[El Gordo]

If I could get Garza for some combination of one of Schoop/Avery, Matusz/Arrieta/Tillman, and Hoes/Flaherty or a PTBNL. I'd do it. Is tha giving up our top prospects and mortgaging the future?

[Il BuonO]

I think we pretty much agree. I just have a slightly different perspective on the situation.

Under the status quo of the last decade plus, I would say run Tillman out there and/or keep sending Matusz and Arrieta out there. However, the start to the season, the circumstances within the division and the additional wildcard have changed things for me. I wouldn't mind adding a solid, dependable, middle of the rotation guy and allow us to be a bit more choosey with who our #4 and #5 are.

There's value in what Garza has done in that he's been able to get big league hitters out with a certain level of consistency for the last 5 years or so.

Again though as you said, it comes back to the cost. If we can piece together a deal that will allow us to keep our big 3 prospects, I think it's definitely worth a long look. However, I think the discussions might be moot because I think some team is going to ridiculously overpay for Garza and make any offer we put on the table look like peanuts.

Here it is in a nutshell. It doesn't matter because someone, not us, will overpay for his services. DD and Buck won't sell the farm for a number #3 no matter how much value you think he adds.

[El Gordo]

In the AL the MFY, TEX, DET, and the O's could use him. In the NL, ATL, Mets, MIA, STL and LAD, IMO. The question is which team can afford to offer the best package and also be willing to take on some of Soriano's contract?

[Pickles]

Read this back and ask yourself why you think you need to say things like this to make your point?

It takes away from an otherwise extremely solid point, that I happen to agree with 100%.

Just my .02 cents. (not that you care)

As for the OP, I actually agree with Brianod (not with using W's as a measurement). Garza is no savior, and will likely be too expensive.

If someone wants to make boorish, insulting posts I'll respond in kind. Maybe that isn't particularly noble of me, but I'm ok w that.