Why the Rays Got Better Today
I already wrote earlier about my thoughts on Matt Garza, and Joe covered the Cubs’ end of this deal, but let’s tackle how this trade affects the Rays for 2011. I’ll leave the prospect analysis of Archer, Lee, and Guyer to Marc, and just say that they’re generally considered to be some of the better players in the Cubs system. All three will likely spend a good chunk of 2011 in the minors, however, so we’ll set them aside for now.
For the upcoming Rays season, this deal essentially amounts to a swap of Garza for Robinson Chirinos and approximately $6 million in cash – the money they would have otherwise had to pay Garza through arbitration. In name value, it’s a big step backwards, and will likely be viewed as just a cost-saving move by the general public. In reality, though, there’s a good chance that the Rays will be better next year by trading Garza away.
Let’s start with Chirinos. While he’s a 27-year-old who has never set foot in the majors, he’s actually a pretty interesting piece. I asked Baseball America’s Jim Callis to compare him to John Jaso, and Callis stated that Chirinos was essentially Jaso with better defense, a little more power, and the ability to also play shortstop if need be. While he’s now a catcher, he’s a converted infielder, and he still has the speed to handle duties up the middle in a pinch.
Like Jaso, he’s not a scouting favorite, but his numbers are simply too good to be ignored for a catcher. Given Callis’ positive review and Chirinos’ superior minor-league performance, it wouldn’t be out of the question for him to get some significant playing time in the big leagues this year. At the least, he provides insurance in case either Jaso or Kelly Shoppach struggle or deal with injuries, and there are scenarios where he could simply outplay either (or both) of them.
Even if we take a lot of the air out of his minor-league numbers (he was a 26-year-old in Double-A, after all), it’s hard to project Chirinos as worse than a one-win player for 2011. Ronny Paulino was a one-win part-time catcher last year by hitting .259/.311/.354, and he didn’t run well or fill in at shortstop in his spare time. Given that few teams manage to get through an entire season with just two catchers, it is likely that Chirinos will play in the big leagues in 2011, and he might play quite a bit.
Still, swapping a roughly three-win pitcher in Garza for a possible one-win part-time catcher in Chirinos is a downgrade in talent. However, there are two other factors to consider, given the Rays current roster.
The most obvious is Garza’s replacement, who will almost certainly be Jeremy Hellickson, the Rays top pitching prospect and one of the best pitching prospects in the game. While he doesn’t throw as hard as Garza, he has better command and secondary stuff, and there’s a pretty good argument to be made that he will be at least Garza’s equal in 2011, and could be straight-up better.
If we look at Dan Szymobrski’s ZIPS projections for both, in fact, Hellickson was projected to throw 135 innings with a 3.58 ERA, while Garza was projected for 208 innings with a 3.84 ERA. On a rate basis, ZIPS prefers Hellickson, while Garza makes up some of that ground with his durability. Even if you don’t trust young pitchers, this looks like a wash, or close to it anyway.
Of course, Hellickson would have pitched for the Rays anyway, so we can’t just assume he’s going to be the recipient of all of Garza’s innings. By getting a rotation slot to begin the season, he’s probably in line for an extra 100 innings, while the other 100 will go to various pieces that will fill the role that Hellickson would have had. So, this isn’t a straight-up push, as Garza + Hellickson project to be about one-win better than Hellickson + Others. That win is essentially made up by the acquisition of Chirinos, so we can say that the Rays didn’t experience much of a shift in expected results today. There is not much difference between a Garza, Hellickson, and Replacement Catcher trio and a Hellickson, Chirinos, and Replacement Pitcher group.
However, this deal doesn’t end for the Rays today. By moving Garza, they also have another $6 million or so in cash to spend that they would not have had previously, and they still have a pretty glaring need for a designated hitter. As we laid out last week, there is an abundance of bat-only types on the market, and with $6 million to spend on the position, the Rays should have their pick of the litter.
Whether they use their new-found budget room to sign Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Vladimir Guerrero, or Johnny Damon, the Rays will be adding something like a +1 to +2 win DH to their roster. When you add that value to the extra innings they can give Hellickson and the addition of Chirinos as catching depth, it’s pretty easy to see the Rays actually coming out ahead of what they had with Garza still on the team.
Even if they hadn’t also acquired three other prospects from the Cubs, this was a deal worth doing for the Rays. The fact that they get additional future value simply puts this over the top as a big win for Tampa Bay.
12
That is pretty much point for point what I thought when I saw the news this morning. There are going to be a lot of people surprised when the Rays do well next year.
I hope and imagine readers of Fangraphs will not be surprised. The population at large, however, aught wear Depends.
My friend just said it’ll be the “Sox and Yanks” in the AL East in 2011.
But anyone who cares about minor leaguers knows the Rays have a steady supply of cheap talent ready to come in. Garza is also horribly overrated (I just don’t get it, it’s not like he’s a low-BABIP, low-ERA man, his ERA the past two seasons is almost 4.00. That’s a #3 starter on a good team maybe).
I honestly won’t be surprised to see the Rays comfortably beat out the Yankees in the standings. After all, they won last season and even if we assume the Rays will be worse in 2011 (and they probably will be), the Yankees will be worse, too, pending Montero’s arrival and impact.
I’d say it’s far from a “big win.” It seems like a worthwhile deal, and I agree Garza is overrated, but they take a big depth hit in the rotation. Hellickson hasn’t pitched more than 150 pro innings in any year, Wade Davis’s 168 last year was a career high, and Price’s 220 was a career high by around 60. It would be nice to have had Hellickson as more of a 6th starter given the potential injury problems in the rotation (as well as Shields’ questionable quality).
Also, is there any indication they are going to use that $6 mil to help the team, or is that just speculation based on what a team that wasn’t trying to save money would do?
I have to disagree. I’m with Cameron on this, it’s a big win for TB. Hellickson as a #6 is a terrible idea as he’s probably better than Davis and Niemann right now, but he probably won’t get all of the innings. If you’re worried about a #6, they have these kids named Jake McGee and Matt Moore that could fill in too. They’re good.
As far as the innings of those other guys, they’re young, they’re not supposed to come up the majors and throw 225 innings. But add to it that TB is very conservative with their development of pitchers, I don’t see that being a factor at all.
This deal doesn’t look bad for TB no matter how hard you look for a downside.
I didn’t say it looked bad for them. You’ll note I disagreed that it was a “big win.” If I was building a team that I wanted to contend in 2011 in MLB’s toughest division, I wouldn’t make the trade as I’d rather have the rotation depth.
My point about the innings was that the young pitchers can’t be counted on to be workhorses like Garza could. With the losses of Soriano and Benoit that could be important too.
Also time and time again I see rookie starters get hyped, and time and time again they disappoint at first. Price, Buchholz, Joba, etc.,etc. Counting on McGee or Moore to step in and fill in at a high level is foolish.
Although I agree with your comments, I think the premise you carry is wrong and the actions of TB should give you the answer. Your premise is that TB is trying to contend with Boston and NY in 2011.
If they were having Jennings replace Crawford, Johnson replacing Pena, Brignac replacing Bartlett, and then letting go of Soriano (although he is still available) would be the opposite of what I would call trying to contend.
IMO they are trying to cut payroll while being in the mix and hoping their system can develop (maybe this year, probably 2012) to compete.
So yes, I agree that if they were trying to contend, some of these moves seem just ok when factoring in the things you mentioned. I just don’t think that’s their main goal right now.
I think that is what they’re trying to do, too. But Cameron’s article makes the argument that they are better in 2011, which would imply that they made this deal with the idea of contending, and I don’t agree with that.
They already saved money. Speculation was they’d trim about $20-30 million from the ’10 payroll this offseason. Pena+ Crawford + Bartlett = $24 million. Their replacements (Johnson, Jennings, Brignac) cost the team ~$1.8 million. Burrell’s another $9 million coming off the payroll, though his replacement is TBD.
Garza’s 5-6 is pure profit, and they’ll almost certainly reinvest some if not all of it back into the 2011 team. At the very least, they’re not going to go into the 2011 season with only Quad-A options at DH. I’d be shocked if one of the DH candidates Dave mentioned didn’t end up signing with the Rays.
“but they take a big depth hit in the rotation. Hellickson hasn’t pitched more than 150 pro innings in any year, Wade Davis’s 168 last year was a career high, and Price’s 220 was a career high by around 60.”
They’re not exactly without starting pitching depth. Sonnanstine is already with the big league club, Matt Moore, Alex Torres, and now Archer are waiting in the high minors. I’d love it if my team had those kinds of fallback options.
I’m dubious about Andy Sonnanstine and three guys who haven’t pitched above AA ball (or in Moore’s case, single-A) providing quality innings this year.
Good thing they already have 5 very high quality starting pitchers. Not many teams have a #6 starter who’s a lock to be league average or better. Your standards for rotation depth are too high.
Well, the standard for pitching depth is in their division, and they don’t have the offensive firepower of the Yankees, so once again, if they’re hoping to compete they should hold themselves to a higher standard.
Right now, the Yankees’ #4 starter is Ivan Nova, and if they can’t coax Andy Pettite out of retirement, their #5 guy is probably Sergio Mitre. After Matsuzaka, the Red Sox’ #6 starter is…hm…I really have no idea. Probably still Tim Wakefield.
The Rays have a better top-5 than either team, and better prospects in the high minors.
I repeat, teams just don’t carry the kind of SP depth you seem to believe is absolutely necessary if the Rays are going to have a chance. You need to adjust your expectations for what makes a quality rotation downward.
The Red Sox have Doubrount and Bowden, both of whom have MLB experience (Doubrount with a few decent starts and solid bullpen innings last year) as their presumptive 6 and 7 starters along with Wakefield who is decent when healthy.
Having Archer as a long-term plan to fill the closer vacancy cannot be understated. I am a huge rays fan and I see Garza as holding us back at this point due to expense and just slightly above average production. If Wade Davis and Jake McGee just don’t struggle we have an impressive team. The addition of Vlad could provide some much needed power.
Archer is a starter, not a closer from what I understand.
Archer is seen as a future closer/Archer is currently starting. Both true. The Cubs were just doing the old school technique of bringing him though the minors in the rotation to let him get more chances to work on his stuff.
sourbob, that’s far from being the case. Archer was being groomed as a starter. this wasn’t a Jose Ceda case where the Cubs had him work as a starter in A+ to get him an opportunity to work on his stuff. This wasn’t a Rafael Dolis type situation, where everyone anticipates dolis will eventually be mvoed to the pen. Archer was being groomed as a starter, with the understanding that there was a chance he might end up in the pen. He has a starter’s arsenal (plus to plus-plus fastball and slider, along with a solid change).
Who are the other two guys that are heading to Chicago?
Fernando Perez and a minor league pitcher.
zach rosscup … an older low level lefty that was off the prospect radar.
I’m a Cubs fan, and I totally agree not just with this post, but with the argument that the Cubs paid way too steep a price for Garza.
I understand where you’re coming from, Dave, when you “take some of the air out” of Chirinos’ numbers, but I think you’re exchange with Callis suggests there may be a lot more than just one-win in value to be gained in Chirinos. Those numbers are pretty gaudy that’s he put up the past few years. I this guy will be seen as an absolute steal a year from now.
On the flip side– for the Cubs, I think this is a pretty marginal upgrade; maybe as few as a one or two-win upgrade.
As per usual, I’m with Jack on this. Unless the Cubs ship Tom Gorzellany and Carlos Silva off and somehow net Prince Fielder as a result, this is still a middling team earning a middling upgrade.
I guess it makes more sense if Hendry is thinking about 2012 and 2013 — years in which Garza will be under team control. By then, the Cubs rotation depth will have slimmed considerably. But, by then, couldn’t Arhcer have entered the equation?
It’s befuddling from the Cubs side of things.
What if the Cubs are able to ship Randy Wells to the D-backs for Kelly Johnson? I don’t know if the D-backs would be interested but the prospect of getting a 3 win pitcher with 4 years of team control should be enticing. That probably adds another couple of wins to the Cubs b/c it’s a big upgrade at 2B. That would put them right in the thick of things in the NL Central.
All I have to say is “Praise the Lord” you are not the GM of my San Francisco Giants. Matt Garza is another Matt Cain and you foolishly value him like he is Aaron Harang.
Matt Cain’s WAR the last 3 years: 11.2
Matt Garza’s WAR the last 3 years: 7.9
Plus Garza’s a year older.
Oh, and I’d rather have 1/5th of Dave Cameron than Brian Sabean.
But one pitched primarily against NL West bats including pitchers while the other pitched primarily against AL East bats including DHs. Over the next three years I expect this gap to narrow alot if not disappear completely now that Garza gets to pitch primarily against NL Central bats with pitchers instead of DHs.
Brian abean now has a Ring and Dave Cameron never will.
Enough said.
Any advantage Garza has in the NL has to be neutralized or lost by the fact he doesn’t have the Rays outstanding defense behind him. Plus Wrigley is more of a hitters park, which will hurt Garza and his FB ways.
The component that makes up WAR (namely, FIP) accounts for the different offensive context.
Actually FIP in and of it’s self does not. Pitching War tries to by adjusting for run environment but this is not sufficient in my judgment.
FIP has a multiplier that accounts for run scoring environment.
Facts disagree with you.
Garza’s useful, but he’s not special.
Actually they do not when you look at all of them and not just the select few that support your positions and biases.
Ok, so what, pray tell, are these “facts?”
I’m looking really, really hard for any way that anyone could believe Garza is anything more than a pretty good, non-elite pitcher. I really don’t see it. Advanced stats don’t support it. Traditional stats don’t support it. The eye test doesn’t support it. Scouting reports don’t support it.
Apparently I haven’t found any information that doesn’t support my positions and biases” yet. Please enlighten me.
First off don’t compare Garza and Cain. Cain is a much better pitcher and much more valuable.
Secondly, the Giants don’t have Jeremy Hellickson to take Cain’s spot in the rotation. If the Giants had a major league ready top 3 pitching prospect waiting for a rotation spot I would definitely consider it.
You are comparing two completely different situations here. Let it go man.
“Ok, so what, pray tell, are these “facts?”
Career xFIP, K/9, BB/9, and GB% are almost identical.
4.43, 7.44, 3.37, 38.3 for Cain.
4.45, 7.10, 3.18, 39.7 For Garza.
The stuff is also very similar with Garza actually having the higher velocity.
What is different is HR/FB, ERA and FIP.
7.0, 3.45, 3.84 for Cain
9.4, 3.97, 4.26 for Garza
Give Garza a pitcher to face instead of a DH and Cain a DH to face instead of a pitcher and these differences will likely reverse.
I wasn’t asking you to compare Garza to Cain. I was asking what makes Garza a special pitcher. None of those numbers are particularly good. Useful, yes. Great? Not really. Dominant? Definitely not.
You’re right. Matt Cain would generate worse results if he pitched in the AL East. That doesn’t make Garza any better.
And that’s ignoring the troubling downward trends in Garza’s rate stats. His Ks took a huge dive last year, and he posted the lowest full-season GB% of his career.
JH – giantsrainman’s original point was that Garza was as good as Cain, and a bunch of people replied disputing that. I think that’s the only point he’s trying to make here…
Lets look at some stats:
Matt Cain (past 3 years)
ERA+ 118, 148, 130
WHIP 1.34, 1.18, 1.08
FIP 3.91, 3.89, 3.65
XFIP 4.5 4.22 4.18
Matt Garza
ERA +119, 110, 101
WHIP 1.24, 1.26, 1.25
FIP 3.7, 3.95, 3.91
XFIP 4.48, 4.21, 4.51
They are trending in opposite directions and one is younger. Additionally Cain has better GB/FB rates.
Lets all remember that Matt Cain is also a good number 2 or very good number 3 for a playoff team. When you say he is the next…….. It insinuates that they are the next elite talent. Which Cain is not.
Garza on the other hand is a good # 3 and an excellent #4 for a playoff team.
Wow. A #4 for a playoff team
Looks like golden boy Theo is in trouble then, because I only see one pitcher (lester) on his bazillion dollar team that is clearly better than Garza
Oh, and the even more expensive Yanks have only one that I can see too.
So on the 2 most talked about hyped up teams in baseball, Garza would likely be #2 for both of them
The mistakes in your logic are glaring.
You can’t take Garza out of the picture and say Hellickson would replace those innings at a similar value therefore it’s a wash (which is not exactly what you said, but on principle you did.)
If Hellickson is a 4 WAR/200 IP player (which is very roughly what a 3.58 ERA would put him at), he’s clearly going to see full time in the bigs next year regardless of the Garza deal.
Therefore you replace Garza’s innings with your REPLACEMENT starting IP, which ain’t Hellickson if he’s throwing like everyone assumes he will. It’s Wade Davis or whoever is sucking the most but still starting.
In case any of this doesn’t make sense, look at it this way: (Keep in mind the actual numbers don’t matter, just that they are approximate estimations of what they would be worth assuming they are the fully inthe rotation)
PRE TRADE
Price – 5 WAR
Shields – 3.5 WAR
Garza – 3 WAR
Hellickson – 3 WAR
Niemann – 1.5 WAR
Davis (bullpen/traded/garbage innings) – 1 WAR in those roles
16 WAR (not counting Davis’ 1 WAR)
POST TRADE
Price – 5 WAR
Shields – 3.5 WAR
Hellickson – 3 WAR
Niemann – 1.5 WAR
Davis – 1 WAR
14 WAR
You see what you did there?
Word Locke. You have to assume Hellickson would repalce the worst pitcher on the staff, which isn’t Garza. This post read as if Hellickson and Garza couldn’t possibly be in the same rotation, as if bumping Davis or Niemann from the rotation would push the Earth of its kilter.
The trade may work out for Tampa, but build your analysis off a faulty assumption.
Exactly. The crux of the argument is just flat wrong. Truth is, I like the rest of the pieces and think the Rays really did nicely for themselves with this trade, but the argument Dave makes RE: Garza/Hellickson is horribly flawed.
That’s what happens when you have the conclusion before you do the analysis… things seem to get slanted in the direction of the conclusion.
The other issues is the 1 WAR bench catcher assumption… that is only an upgrade if the existing bench catcher i s0 WAR…. The problem with these straight WAR stackups is you also have to look at who they are replacing…. If say the Red Sox added a 4 WAR 1st baseman for a 3 WAR pitcher you could say it was a win, but it’s not necessarily, making the team better if they have an equivalent or better guy currently in that role.
How the hell did he say that “in principle?” He devoted an entire paragraph to pointing out that Hellickson was there anyway and therefore can’t just be straight-up substituted for Garza in the calculaion, and concluded “So, this isn’t a straight-up push, as Garza + Hellickson project to be about one-win better than Hellickson + Others.”
Did you even read the piece?
If Dave meant for the two not to be compared as to value because they could co-exist, why did he do just that? The posters above make a good point and they get extra credit for framing their arguments by kicking a 40 yard field goal through the moving uprights, give them their due, JH. You on the other hand, have quite effectively marginalized Jeff Nye and Typical idiot fan and taken the early lead in the “USSM Lackey of the Year” race.
“If Dave meant for the two not to be compared as to value because they could co-exist, why did he do just that?”
Um, because he didn’t? Seriously. Read the 4th to last paragraph. Dave specifically did the analysis that Locke slammed him for ignoring. He acknowledged it wasn’t Garza v. Hellickson, but rather Garza + Hellickson, vs. Hellickson + others. Again, look at Dave’s conclusions, and look at Locke’s WAR breakdown. They’re 1-WAR apart. The only difference is Locke looked at it starter by starter, and Dave generalized.
If pointing that out makes me a “lackey,” I guess I’m ok with that, because I’m not sure how much clearer he could have addressed this concern. This particular criticism is really, really weird.
W/R/T the 16 WAR rotation vs. the 14 WAR rotation: so, your big problem is Dave came up with a 1-WAR hit to the pitching staff by going from Garza + Hellickson to Hellickson + X, while you figure it at more like 2 WAR? And you acknowledge that the specific numbers don’t matter?
This is a weird objection.
This was my first thought when reading that part of the article, but keep in mind that the Rays would never get this type of return for Davis or Niemann, nor could they shed $6 mil salary unless they moved Garza. Throw in Chirinos and the monies that could be used to acquire a serious DH, and the Rays have a chance to come out of the trade slightly ahead in for 2011 based on the repercussions of this deal.
There’s a very real chance Hellickson would have started the year in Triple-A in order to delay his arbitration clock, as the Rays have done with a number of players.
I would argue there’s a decent chance he still does considering they have Andy Sonnanstine still hanging around and seem to be emphasizing development during the upcoming season.
In my view, the Rays have lost something for 2011. Hellickson threw 131 innings in 2009 and 157 innings in 2010. It is unlikely that the Rays will give him more than 175 this year, and that number wouldn’t likely have much less if Garza had been around. Most of the innings will come from significantly lesser pitchers than Hellickson and that’s going to cost them a lot more than the benefit from the right-handed half of a catching platoon. It might be particularly important because of the losses in the bullpen.
Of course, the Rays could take the $6 million and invest it in players who could help the team in other ways in 2011. I think that it is more likely that they have decided that it is not prudent to attempt to compete in 2011 and the money will go into the draft budget.
Locke, I think your logic is flawed. Knowing how the Rays Front Office work, I think the options had Garza not been traded are:
1) Trade Shields, but you are selling low on him and GM’s might not trade much for him.
2) Have Hellikson waste in AAA.
3) Keep him as a spot starter/relief option.
4) Trade Neimann or Davis which seems unlikely
It seems unlikely the cheap Neimann and Davis get replaced from the rotation as both are solid pitchers.
Hellikson would not be replacing Davis’s innings as it is pretty unlikely that the RFO give up on Davis.
Good post Dave,like the analysis as a Rays fan.
Anyone who gives themselves the moniker, “Locke”, is bound to have an inflated and possibly overzealous opinion of their intellectual talents. :)
Good point…
Based on everything I’ve read, it’s hard to argue against this trade from a production standpoint. The Rays can reasonably expect to replace Garza’s on-field production this season while gaining several valuable prospects for the future.
The valid criticism of this deal is going to be from the PR standpoint, that they’re trading one of their few fan favorites and that the casual fan won’t understand that. But to be honest, I think Rays fans have lost the benefit of the doubt. While there is an excellent core of intelligent and articulate fans, the majority of Rays fans just don’t support the team, and don’t deserve to have their considerations taken as a factor. You sell out home games and maybe management will be less likely to trade the guys you like. But if the Rays think a move can win games for them both now and later, then I say they get to do whatever they want until their fans can be bothered to buy tickets.
This.
Locke & Lou: Go back and read the article again. Dave brings up that exact point. He realizes that Hellickson won’t replace Garza straight up but he will probably get more innings with Garza out of the picture.
I guess I’m the only one who thinks the Cubs did a great job to get a legit, proven #3 for a good closer prospect, a SS who doesn’t field or hit near as well as the one they already have for six more cheap seasons, and a 4th outfielder on a 2nd division NL team. If I’m not mistaken, Chirinos is out of options, so while he has upside he’s truly filler because they either try to get him to accept a minor league assignment at the end of Spring Training, or figure out what to do with Shoppach.
Garza has been basically the same pitcher for three years, but last year his FIP and WAR took a hit because he didn’t strike out as many guys and he maintained his consistently low BABIP. Look at his pitch values and you’ll see a guy who is at least as good as he was for the two years prior, or potentially better as the change appears to be improving. Both FIP and WAR are penalizing him for a consistently low BABIP and LOB%, both of which are skills established over 3+ consecutive seasons. I’m not saying he’s a huge star, but take his arsenal to the NL and I think he can take a pretty big leap in value. Facing the pitcher alone is going to increase the strikeouts, which his stuff is fully capable of delivering.
I’d be really happy if I was Cubs fan today. I think the Rays have significant questions regarding Davis and Niemann, and are foolish to count on a full bounceback from Shields. They just put themselves in position to have one legit frontline starter in the toughest division in baseball. Good luck with that.
So you think Garza’s consistently low BABIP is a skill? Or could it be that the Rays arguably have had the best defense in baseball the past three years?
Garza as a frontline starter, maybe, that is if 2.9, 3.2 and 1.8 WAR in 2008, 2009, and 2010 excites you.
Yes, being out of the AL East will help, but the Rays play roughly half their games outside of the AL East.
Still, we will see who the pitcher is. Fernando Perez is no great ‘get’ for the Cubs. As a Rays fan, I would rather have Sam Fuld.
As a Cubs fan… I’d rather have Sam Fuld… but the Cubs have had Sam Fuld and done nothing with him… so I’m more concerned with the possibility that they might actually use Fernando Perez.
Over that time span Garza ranks 40th in MLB in pitcher WAR, and 31st in ERA. There are 30 MLB teams. Matt Garza has been a legit frontline starter in the best division in baseball for three years.
I’m amazed that most analysis supports the view that Matt Garza is somehow an expendable, marginal MLB innings eater. The facts simply do not support that argument.
Ok, I’m not saying that Garza is an innings eater. Maybe we differ on the definition of a front-line starter. To me that means a #1 or #2 starter. On a team that has consistently competed for the playoffs and the World Series, Matt Garza isn’t a front-line starter. The Rays have equal or better options for much cheaper. Also, for 2011, the trade frees up valuable money for a position of greater need: DH.
As for the Rays’ returns, no Sam Fuld isn’t the return in this trade. However, he will likely be useful in 2011, as will Chirinos. As Dave aptly pointed out, any catcher, no matter how pitiful a batter, can muster 1 WAR in ample playing time. Chirinos has a good chance to be a better than a pitiful offensive catcher.
I truly believe that this trade makes the Rays better in 2011. Chirinos will stick with the Rays in some capacity. They wouldn’t have traded for him just to turn around and DFA him after spring training. He provides organizational depth at a key position, especially after Shoppach’s lackluster 2010.
As for the rest of the returns, one of Archer, Lee, and Guyer will turn out to be a good MLB player. It doesn’t matter if the rest bust, the Rays win this trade hands down.
And this comes from an in-the-closet Cubs fan.
p.s. How can you not be an in-the-closet Cubs fan with their management.
Let me expand on the front-line starter concept. According to advanced metrics, Garza is an average to above-average starter. That makes him a #3 starter. 4 and 5 starters are generally below-average. The Rays got a fantastic return for an average to above-average starter.
He’s 40th in WAR over a 3 year period, which I must assume is one of the advanced metrics you rely on since you did so in your original post. Out of 30 teams, that makes him a #2 starter. Period.
As to your point that they have in-house options that are better, that is literally false unless they have an in-house option who has a similar or better WAR over the same period or longer, and who is replacing him. They don’t. They have the minor league player of the year from last season, who is quite good. So was Alex Gordon. I could go on and on.
Nothing in this deal makes the Rays better next year – in reality. Hellickson will need to have a ROY season to replace Garza, not to mention that I find it hard to believe he will approach anything close to Garza’s 200 innings.
Of course, those 200 innings is another ding for this deal, because their bullpen is big troubles. I think this is Friedman’s “Jack Z” moment, and could very well lead to people getting fired when they tank this year, but probably not him.
Are you arguing just to argue?
The OP clearly states in line #1, “I guess I’m the only one who thinks the Cubs did a great job to get a legit, proven #3″
In 100 words or more, you go on to disagree, but at the same time agree- that Garza is basically a #3 starter.
So what was your point again?
In response to: “I think this is Friedman’s “Jack Z” moment, and could very well lead to people getting fired when they tank this year, but probably not him.”
That’s absurd. This is already being viewed as a rebuilding year (equally absurd) so a bad year won’t have people losing their jobs. I also don’t understand what place it has in your argument.
“According to advanced metrics, Garza is an average to above-average starter. That makes him a #3 starter.”
Says who? The science of advanced metrics is settled? If there are 30 teams, then there would be 60 starters better than Garza to make him a #3, generally speaking. I know I’m one of those ignorant heathens, but there is a lot of assumptions made to support the case put forth here.
I like the trade and all, but let’s sign a bat and another bullpen arm and we’ll be in a better position to assess 2011.
The slavishly clinging to FIP as the a means to evaluate a pitcher’s value is really disheartening, not to mention that Garza has the stuff to improve his FIP if he can’t get by with pitching to contact like he allegedly does in TB.
When I added in a minimum of 100 IP, it left Garza as the 46th best SP in WAR over the last 3 years. However, 3 year WAR is a bad way to view SP’s in the aggregate because of course Garza will have more WAR than many better pitchers who were not yet in the big leagues in 2008. Garza has accumulated 7.9 WAR over the last 3 seasons while Yovani Gallardo, Jake Peavy, Ricky Romero, Tommy Hanson, Randy Wells and Brett Anderson all accumulated at least 6.4 WAR in last 2 seasons and Dallas Braden is at 6.4 WAR for slightly more than 2 seasons. Using your 3 year WAR metric, Garza > all of those listed because they are penalized for pitching one fewer season. They (and others) all eclipse Garza if you look at WAR per season or WAR per IP over the last 3 years.
So it’s okay to use 3 year WAR for a guy if you’re ripping him, but not the other way around?
No, it’s okay to use 3-year WAR to do comparisons that are as close to apples-to-apples as possible like James Shields’s 3-year WAR is 10.2 while Garza’s is 7.9 and Jeremy Guthrie’s is 6.2. Therefore, we can say that Garza has been more valuable than Guthrie, but not Shields. It’s not okay to use 3-year WAR to conclude that Garza > Ricky Romero because Garza’s 3-year WAR is higher than Romero’s when Romero has only pitched for 2 seasons.
Further to my reply, there’s a problem with the denominator that you used in your equation. You claimed that Garza was 40th in 3-year WAR; there, he was 40th out of 150 (5 SP’s per team * 30 teams). However, the screen you did only listed 67 P’s, so Garza was 40th out 67.
I’m not on here trying to bash or overrate Garza. I’m just saying that it’s inaccurate to use 3-year WAR to conclude that he’s been (and will continue to be) a #2 SP .
HK: I fully understand the math and I’m not disagreeing with that, but two points. First, he has performed over a longer time span than Romero or others. That’s relevant. To counter your argument that I am penalizing pitchers with less experience, I’d say that when you include them without accounting for the value of cumulative performance, you’re penalizing Garza.
Note that even when you expand the field, which I agree is reasonable, he’s still objectively one of the top 60 starters in baseball, and with 30 teams I don’t see how that doesn’t count as a frontline starter, which I define as a guy you expect to take the ball every turn and you expect him to put your team in a position to win.
My argument regarding 3 year WAR was a response to a claim that his 3 year WAR was nothing special. True, it’s not special, it just literally makes him more valuable than over 50% of starters or potential starters in the game.
Paul,
I missed the comment knocking his 3-year WAR. It surely wasn’t by me. I now partially see your point, especially when comparing Garza to guys like Peavy, where health and durability are issues. However, I disagree when you’re comparing him to Romero, who was too young to be in MLB in 2008. In the case of comparing those two, we have 2-year WAR where Romero fairly significantly beats Garza, 6.8 to 5.0. If you want to somehow include Garza’s 2.9 WAR 2008, you could say that he’s averaged 2.6333 WAR over the last 3 seasons, but that still pales in comparison to Romero’s 3.4 average over the last 2.
Having said all of the above, I agree with you that Garza’s better than half and maybe even as much as 60% of the starters. I just don’t agree that he’s top 40, which is what I thought you were saying originally.
I don’t quite follow how you say Lee is a worse defender than Starlin Castro when Lee, in most scouting reports, is reported to play much better defense than Castro; the idea for some Cubs fans was to move Castro to 2nd when Lee was ready, which says quite a bit about his defense at short. Also, you can’t really say that Archer is a closer prospect because the Rays usually MO is develop their best guys as starters (Price, Hellickson, Moore, Colome, Torres, Barnese, etc.) and so it is not a guarantee that the Rays will view Archer the same as the Cubs; the Rays very rarely develop top pitching prospects as relievers.
See, e.g., Jake McGee.
Or J.P. Howell.
So his K’s are down, which is certainly a skill, but his consistently low BABIP was the same, so he’s still the same pitcher? You realize that he pitched in front of one of the best defenses in baseball, right?
Pitch values are the same. They measure results. Meaning a ball in play that would’ve been a hit if anyone but Evan Longoria fielded it generated a plus result. Pitch values are far from defense-independent.
So last year on these electronic pages I recall an article praising Zack Grienke for his comments about pitching to contact because he had a plus defender in DeJesus in LF. In that case his low BABIP essentially was justified by his skill. Of course, the point was to emphasize the importance of defense in run prevention, and who better to help make that case than a Cy Young winner, nevermind that we all know he doesn’t have any control over balls in play.
In Garza’s case, a low BABIP is proof of the theory, since the defense was so good behind him, Garza is actually the perfect example of DIPS theory.
We have reached the point where valuing one pitcher or another is necessarily selective and biased. It should be noted that Bartlett and Pena struggled on defense last year, the majority of the defensive value comes from two guys on the same side of field. His SO’s decreased but the overall outcome that actually matters (how many runs he allowed) maintained despite poor defensive play at two former positions of strength, and concentrated outstanding defensive performance elsewhere.
Why isn’t Matt Garza the perfect example of a pretty good pitcher who makes the most out of his ability?
Actually Greinke has stated that he uses FIP and the concepts behind it to evaluate his pitching. In other words, he doesn’t use BABIP.
[1] Grienke’s BABIP is always higher than average.
[2] How does he influence hitters to hit it to LF?
[3] Most hitter power if to the pull field. Actually the pull field stats vs center and oppo are amazingly higher.
How can he get players to hit fly balls to LF without more of them leving the park?
But really, if Greinke did make those comments, he would have been onr ecord making 2 contradictory statements (IMO).
http://fackyouk.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-zack-greinke-really-understand-fip.html
Circle: You’re right, it was Bannister who said Zack pitches to induce hitters to hit fly balls at DeJesus. Should not have attributed that particular quote to him, since it’s way too many words.
The FG article praising this is no longer attached to his profile and I can’t find it with minimal effort. With the exception of the linked article above which seems to support your argument.
My point is really that I think the concepts behind defensive metrics are now used to buttress two contradictory arguments where one is supported by some other important metric. I’m not smart enough to pull that off.
It’s a leap of faith to assume Chirinos will be a +1 player for Tampa in 2011. He’s had only 60+ PAs above AA as a 27y-old, and only spent one season as a full-time catcher.
Exactly!
Dave covered this. It’s actually a leap of faith to assume he won’t if he’s on the roster.
You are dreaming. Lots of AAAA players that have had big years in AAA at age 27 totally fail at the MLB level. His defense and pitching staff management with just one year of experience at catching is a hugh risk as well and to foolishly think otherwise is well just foolish.
If you convert his AA numbers to MLB numbers (according to minorleaguesplits) he would have ranked #4 in OPS among qualified starters at catcher in 2010. He also didn’t just move to catcher last year, he started in 2008.
The theory of AAAA hitters, is mostly explained away buy guys who have taken a few years to master the level, and rack up big HR numbers by striking out a ton. That doesn’t apply to Chirinos, who has dominated a A, AA the winter leagues and hit decently in his crack at AAA last year.
Catcher’s careers don’t tend to last as long, but catchers usually start playing heavily at age 18/19. Chirinos didn’t start catching a lot, really until this year, so his legs are relatively fresh. It doesn’t guarantee he’s going to hit until he’s 33, but it gives him a leg up.
It’s not that tough for a catcher who gets a decent amount of playing time, and plays a little shortstop as well, to get to 1 win, as Dave pointed out w/ his Ronny Paulino example.
Swapping a near-ace pitcher for a career minor leaguer improves your team?
interesting.
and by “interesting” I mean “stupid”.
I find calling Garza a ‘near-ace’ to be very ‘interesting’
Actually that’s a fair label. He has very good stuff. Comes in #12 for FBv. Perhaps a new pitching coach, a new 2 seam grip, a splitter and his k/9 goes up.
It’s a fair label when compared with, say, me. Not when compared with the universe of pitchers generally considered “aces.”
If Garza’s a near ace because he’s got a big FB, then AJ Burnett, Edwin Jackson, Mat Latos, and Johnny Cueto are all “near-aces,” too. Hell, if “all” it takes is a new pitching coach (meaning an overhauled approach/delivery), a new grip, and a new pitch, then Franklin Morales is a “near-ace,” too! So’s Dan Cortes. Or any other reliever you can name who throws hard.
That’s a lot of words to say “they traded a player @ a position of depth to fill a hole.” I don’t need W.A.R. or xF.I.P., just B.R.A.I.N.S. to realize that.
“traded an excellent player @ postition of depth to fill a hole with a career minor leaguer”, you mean.
The hole to me is DH, which is in theory will be filled (according to Dave). Either way I dont need an econ degree and sabermetrics to figure out this thought process.
Everyone who’s ever been a good major league baseball player is a career minor leaguer until they aren’t anymore. Ignoring the merits of the specific player in question in favor of a diminutive label is a foolish thing to do.
All due respect to Dave and Callis, but Chirinos is a 10-year minor leaguer and hasn’t played much SS since he was 23. I still say it’s a stretch to rely on him for what Dave’s illustrated above
Furthermore, do we really expect Tampa to drop a draft pick on Manny or Vlad? :S
Neither is a Type A, I think. So TB won’t have to give up a pick for them.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/elias-rankings/
Says here they’re both Type A
just a fan – but I believe neither of them was offered arbitration, so there won’t be any draft picks involved.
Ding ding ding!
I don’t really anticipate Chirinos to do much in the infield. He’s an excellent defensive catcher, though.
I’ll make two assumptions, but two assumptions that i think are fairly reasonable –
a) Chirinos’ defense is legitimately an asset. Most acknowledge how good he is behind the plate – hard to imagine that things would collapse on a guy who is viewed as a strong work ethic, mentor type of player.
b) Chirinos’ discipline will stay very strong.
If those two things are true, he is basically more valuable than Jaso, and that already makes him one of the more valuable catchers in the majors. If he has more power than Jaso, which seems like a reasonable guess, then Chirinos becomes quite valuable.
No one in the Rays organization will be pitching in October anyway, so I don’t think this really matters.
Do we know for sure that this isn’t salary dump? Do the Rays have the money to spend the savings?
@Dave Cameron
Boy am I glad that you’re not running the Rays. Take the $6M and spend it on “DH types”? Johnny Damon? WHAT? They have this guy named Matt Joyce. They have Zobrist. They also got Sam Fuld, who I know nothing about except that he gets on base, he can get some steals, and he walks. So you have basically cheap low-risk talent and then you go and blow $6M on some washed up bat…Thanks but no thanks, I’d rather see the kids get some playing time. Damon’s made his money, give the kids their turn. So far this winter Rays management has shown they’re more inventive than that and I hope they keep it up. All three deals they’ve pulled off have been A/A- IMO. (Garza/Bartlett/letting Crawford walk w/ Jennings in the wings).
Why would the Rays blow their wad on some washed up FA?
Sometimes it works out real well bringing in a veteran bat for a bounce-back year.
Can’t tell if you’re being ironic.
Hell yeah.
Or bringing in a veteran bat like Cliff Floyd to teach the kids how to play the game a la 2008.
right now, this is what’s on the Rays’ official depth chart:
2B – Rodriguez
RF – Zobrist
DH – Joyce
so if they signed Damon, it’d look like this:
2B – Zobrist
RF – Joyce
DH – Damon
I don’t see a big difference defensively there. Zobrist is an extremely good defender at both 2B and RF (his career UZR/150 is above +20 in both positions), while Rodriguez and Joyce are above average at 2B and RF respectively. what I do see is a potential .100 point OPS increase from Rodriguez to Damon. also, obviously, you’d have Rodriguez as the main utility guy and a versatile option if someone gets injured.
Do players ever get injured?
Article about Fuld and his great D:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4391911
Don’t think they necessarily bring in Damon, as has been said repeatedly. Vlad and Thome are still out there, and either one would be a significant 1-year sign at DH for the Rays.
Yeah, I have no idea why on earth any team would even consider signing Damon to be a full-time DH given the other options still available on the FA market. A league average hitter who can’t effectively field even LF anymore is only about a win above replacement level. Maybe he regains a bit of ISO by getting out of Detroit, but at 37 the guy has extremely limited upside compared to the other options.
Is it safe to say the Cubs did well to acquire a relatively young arm with great stuff? He comes in 12th overall in average fastball velocity. Perhaps the cubs pitching coach (Rothschild??) can improve Garza’s 2 seam fastball and get more action out of secondary pitches. Pitchers with his kind of velocity always have potential to put together stretches of dominance as long as they can locate, sink/cut, and change speed. And if a postseason run is in the cards for the Cubs, you’ve got to love a power pitchers chances late in the season.
Rothschild is the Yankees pitching coach. His specialty was getting career knuckleheads to pitch, so he would have been a good fit for Garza. Mark Riggins is the Cubs’ coach. He’s unproven.
wouldn’t call Riggins unproven. He’s worked hard with some of our minor leaguers, particularly those that had mental blocks to work through. He also has a history in the bigs (I believe with the St. Louis Cardinals, but I could be wrong).
Hey, there’s a guy out there with according to PitchFX had almost the same exact average fastball velocity as Garza last season, (93.3 to 93.2). This pitcher pitched in the NL Central. He threw a 2 seamer much more often than Garza and had the same exact 4 seamer fastball velocity last season, again, according to pitch FX. He had a GB% over 10% higher than Garza last year. His K rate was slightly higher and his BB rate was slightly worse. He had serious home run issues though and has a very good chance of not even starting in what looks on the surface to be a bad rotation, can you name this player?
Who cares. What does this have to do with anything?
Yep.
Well Scout Finch mentioned a couple times how he had a his high heat and increased use of a 2 seamer could make Garza improve. I was making the point that having a high fastball velocity, a 2 seamer, and being moved to the NL Central does not guarantee success. Made the mistake of creating own post instead of replying, my bad, I feel stupid for that.
Oh, and to be generous I will give a couple more hints, with the second being a giveaway. This pitcher is 14 days younger than Garza. He also had a BABIP 90 POINTS higher than Garza last year.
ME!
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say Johnny Cueto.
I can’t find anyone in the NL Central who matches those numbers. Cueto is there for velocity but not age or BABIP. Parra is close on GB% and BABIP but not age or velocity. I think you’re making this person up.
Unless you’re talking about me. I knew I was unlucky on balls in play this season, even given my heat and groundball tendencies.
Charlie Morton.
yup, it was Morton.
Man – reading through all these posts and the orb’s have started to bleed. Let me throw a few non-statistical things out there. Garza, who has great off speed stuff, will probably be called on more often to throw it playing at Wrigley and the NL Central. I think he will flourish for the Cubs unless the Cubs have another team slump. Who knows Pena could surprise and hit .260 with 40 HR’s and who with Ramirez healthy and Soriano actually proving he isn’t totally washed up – who knows.
As a Rays fan I do not believe the extra money the Rays have will be spent on any FA that will cost more than 2M. Remember Stu said they went deep in the red last year – any extra cash will be used to cover loss profit margin.
Additionally, I truly believe Stu is in his ‘lease busting’ phase and will put a 30-40M team on the field – even less if they can do it.
St.Pete is officially on the clock.
How are picthers like Hellickson (and to a lesser extenxt W Davis) supposed to gather enough pre 25 year old innings to become a 4+ WAR starting picther? If Garza had stayed, one of the younger SPs would have had his development delayed. When young SPs are ready to join a MLB rotation in order to maximize their growth, management needs to clear a spot. This concept seems lost on fans from teams like the Cubs and Yankees…
People are bashing Tampa. How can they do that? They don’t have Yankee or Angel payroll potential and yet they found the playoffs 2 out of the past 3 years. How many times have the Orioles or Blue Jays found a way to break into the wild card spot over the past decade? How about the Rangers before last year? I would like to see the Cubs try to win in the AL East.
Just another move by the Cubs ensuring that their everlasting futility will continue forever.
As a lifeong Cub fan all I can say is beware of Cubs ‘prospects’. Outside of Starlin Castro ( still a work in progress but talented)- name me the best players from their system to become even solid major leaguers? Former ‘top’ prospects- remember 5-tool players like Felix Pie and Corey Patterson who were untouchable because they were the second coming ? The reason we have languished so long is because our system rarely produces top talent.
Now with Archer I think that may be reversed -but remember he was an Indian farm system guy first..I think that is the gem of he deal for the Rays- but who is he ? He’s Matt Garza with plus to plus-plus FB and potentially better secondary stuff, but unproven. He may end up better than Garza but there’s some risk involved. A catcher that was never going to play ahead of Soto, a shortstop who was never going to play ahead of Castro who has much more bat.
As far as Garza as a FB pitcher – remember almost 70% of the time the wind blows in @ Wrigley and it’s cold– not much carries. Ask Ted Lily how it worked out for him as a FB pitcher- pretty darn well
I don’t think we got an Ace but we surely got a solid starter a 2 or a 3 and we needed it.
Grunching – From Dan Szymbroski in the comments section for San Diego’s 2011 ZiPS projections: “Playing time should be the part of all projections taken the least seriously – it’s just that it’s better than simply expressing everything as a rate.”
You didn’t mention Sam Fuld but I think he’s an underrated guy with good speed and good outfield defense. I expect to see contribute in Tampa next year (not Durham)
I observed a website yesteday that appeared much like this, are you positive somebody isn’t duplication this web site?
Regards for that advice, happen to be looking many days because of this.