More Framework for a Matt Garza Extension

by Tommy Rancel on Feb 6, 2009 11:00 AM EST

While working on the DRaybay Season Guide(coming soon if you haven't heard), I almost missed another young pitcher signing an extension with comparable numbers to our own Matt Garza. Last Friday, the Pirates locked up Paul Maholm to a 3 year deal worth $14.5 million dollars. There is an option year that could push the deal to 4 years, $24.25 million. Even further, there is a performance incentive that would max out the deal at 4 years $25.55 million.

A few differences before we get to the similarities. One, Maholm is left handed and there is always a premium on left handed pitching. Two, Garza will be a super 2 arbitration player meaning his service time will be less than that of Maholm's at time of first arbitration eligibility. Maholm has 96 career starts and just over 600 career innings. If we pencil in Garza for another 30 starts and 185 innings, he'll go into arbitration with 84 starts and 502.2 innings, so that will skew the numbers slightly. Maholm was also 26 for most of his arb-eligible season while Garza will be 25.

Now to the similarities in numbers. If you look at Marcels projections he has Garza putting up very similar numbers to 2008 and that's with a near 20 point increase in BABIP. Marcels has Garza's ERA jumping from 3.70 to 3.94, but his FIP lowering from 4.14 to 4.10 because of a slight increase in K/9 and a slight decrease in HR/9. So let's assume that Garza's 2008 will be pretty close to his 2009. If that is the case then we have a bench mark for a deal. Look at the numbers for each pitcher in 2008

2008	Garza	Maholm
GS	30	31
FIP	4.14	4.15
ERA	3.7	3.71
K/9	6.24	6.06
BB/9	2.88	2.75
K/BB	2.17	2.21
HR/9	0.93	0.92

That is an amazing comparison. The biggest discrepancy is a 0.04 difference in K/BB ratio. Now we're assuming Garza is going to put up similar numbers in 2009 so he might have a better case to argue since this is Maholm's best season and Garza might have two of these seasons in his back pocket. Even if we go a little higher than Maholm's 4/$25.55 mill max contract or Ubaldo Jimenez's 6/$23.75 mil max, we have a pretty good idea of the framework for a Garza extension. Since the Dioner Navarro long-term negotiations have stalled, I think maybe the Matt Garza negotiations should start, and soon.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

My question is

In three years, will it be worth paying him 5-7 mil a year when we have a glut of SP waiting to play for 400,000 a year? I know you can never have enough pitching, but if you have the pitching the Rays have waiting, will Garza be worth 6 million more than Wade Davis will be worth in a couple of seasons? I don’t think signing too many long-term deals is in the Rays’ best interest. When Garza gets close to arbitration a trade for some really good young talent means we can keep building for the future, which is how we got to where we are in the first place. Cheap young talent and a few cheap role players. Deals like Longoria’s and Kaz’s should be the exception, not the rule.

I could be wrong though

by staplemaniac on Feb 6, 2009 11:38 AM EST reply actions

Garza has already proven he's an above average starter

While Davis, Hellickson etc. all project to be they are not yet. You can’t really say well we won’t resign Garza because Davis will be just as good in 2 years. It’s too uncertain. Plus with the Rays figuring to be really good for the next 4-5 years we will be picking at the end of each round in the draft so the talent pool might thin out in the minor leagues. It will be up to R.J. Harrison and staff to keep finding late inning wonders like Sonnnastine/Shields for us to sustain success. If you have good young pitching and you can lock it in at market value or below you do it.

by Tommy Rancel on Feb 6, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions

When Garza gets close to arbitration a trade for some really good young talent means we can keep building for the future

He’ll be more valuable to a team locked up with an exact cost.

by rglass44 on Feb 6, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions

Hmmm

He’ll be more valuable to a team locked up with an exact cost.

Like Scott Kazmir? I kid, I kid.

by Tommy Rancel on Feb 6, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions

He is more valuable to a team...

our team, another team, any team. If we got his equal in a position player I would consider trading him.

by rglass44 on Feb 6, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions

Justin Upton or bust

Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.

~George Costanza~

by Sandy Kazmir on Feb 6, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

Ryan Braun. Keeps with the theme of former Brewers

by Tommy Rancel on Feb 6, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions

Gross in Center, Braun in Left, Kapler in Right

Shouse on the mound

Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.

~George Costanza~

by Sandy Kazmir on Feb 6, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

Balfour

by Erik Hahmann on Feb 6, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions

If that's your only qualification, we'll give you Corey Hart :)

We got a Longoria-like deal on Braun, he’s not a free agent until 2016.

The reason I came in this thread was to point out that Maholm’s first name is actually Paul, not Pat.

Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.

by Jordan M on Feb 6, 2009 8:06 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly.

Garza’s expected arb payout is probably higher than what the Rays would get him to sign a deal for. It’s not like arb players are free, you just don’t know exactly what you’re going to pay them yet. And there’s no way the Rays cut Garza.

You can always trade a guy. The more favorable the contract, the more you get in return. Anyone think teams will still want dominant, relatively cheap young pitching in a couple years?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Feb 6, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions

I wasn't saying don't sign him to a long-term deal

But as has been shown the Rays don’t (can’t afford to) pay the same as most teams per win, and deals like Kazmir’s, while at good relative value, are more than the Rays can afford long-term. I don’t see that business model working. We’ll see what they do with Kaz, if you sign them then trade them, that makes sense partially because that adds value that they won’t have to pay for if they make a trade.

I could be wrong though

by staplemaniac on Feb 6, 2009 7:48 PM EST up reply actions