Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 103

Thread: Article: Brewers sign Garza to deal similar to Twins' Nolasco

  1. #81
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    242
    Like
    106
    Liked 73 Times in 50 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nicksaviking View Post
    When the Twins signed Nolasco there was no way to know that Garza would be going for this price... As it turned out, the Twins couldn't be aggressive AND sign Garza, it was a Catch-22 for them.
    That was the gist of the MLBTR story, and the angle I find most interesting here, as I have been a critic of TR's historic complacency/reluctance w/regard to FAs. So given the close debate as to Nolasco & Garza's respective risks & upsides, I have to give credit where it is due and say good job, TR.

    By being proactive, the Twins got a comparable arm at comparable terms before the whole Tanaka logjam kicked in- without having to give extra years (beyond what they felt comfortable offering) to Garza. Smart read of the market.

    Whether or not there really was a Catch-22, we may never know. But if there was that perception in the Twins org., then a call to pull the trigger on Nolasco ASAP seems uncharacteristically decisive, and represents a major change. Personally, I like that.
    Feel free to pile on about Suzuki.

  2. #82
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,247
    Like
    107
    Liked 105 Times in 77 Posts
    Let me pose the question: Why not both Nolasco and Garza?

  3. #83
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,131
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,605 Times in 832 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwak View Post
    Let me pose the question: Why not both Nolasco and Garza?
    Personally, I think it's a bad idea to sign two pitchers to four year deals that might go through their decline phases at the same time, making them bad values in years three and four while eating $25m+ in salary.

    I'd rather see the Twins work on shoring up the offense on shorter-term deals... Say, offering Drew a two year contract at a high yearly value and see if he bites.

  4. #84
    Twins Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    3,669
    Like
    945
    Liked 1,310 Times in 706 Posts
    I agree with the sentiment that a bat is likely a better idea than Garza at this point, especially with a 4 year deal. Rome wasn't built in a day and the Twins have made some important, necessary additions to the rotation, time to add a bat and see what shakes off the FA tree next year for some pitching.

    Although if Gibson, Meyer and May progress positively, that might be priority B.

  5. #85
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,131
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,605 Times in 832 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    I agree with the sentiment that a bat is likely a better idea than Garza at this point, especially with a 4 year deal. Rome wasn't built in a day and the Twins have made some important, necessary additions to the rotation, time to add a bat and see what shakes off the FA tree next year for some pitching.

    Although if Gibson, Meyer and May progress positively, that might be priority B.
    Which is why I believe in incremental free agent signings. It mitigates risk by acquiring/dropping contracts on a staggered basis instead of all at once and it allows you flexibility to change your roster on the fly.

    Say the Twins sign Garza. He has an awful season or gets hurt. Meyer takes his place and kills it. Now you're saddled with a $14m/year guy you can't trade and don't want on the roster.

    As you said, Rome wasn't built in a day. That doesn't mean Ryan should sit on his hands but it certainly doesn't hurt to spread around the wealth a bit instead of putting all the eggs in one basket, mixing short/mid-term contracts between hitters and pitchers.

  6. #86
    Where as Garza has already peaked I think Nolasco is still improving in the mental part of pitching. I think the Twins did well to sign Nolasco and Hughes for the prices they did, but I feel like they missed when they decided to bring back Big Pelf. There has to be a better option than the human pitching machine. Pelfrey's career WHIP is very close to 1.5 and was over 1.5 last year!

  7. #87
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    4,011
    Like
    104
    Liked 394 Times in 208 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    Which is why I believe in incremental free agent signings. It mitigates risk by acquiring/dropping contracts on a staggered basis instead of all at once and it allows you flexibility to change your roster on the fly.

    Say the Twins sign Garza. He has an awful season or gets hurt. Meyer takes his place and kills it. Now you're saddled with a $14m/year guy you can't trade and don't want on the roster.

    As you said, Rome wasn't built in a day. That doesn't mean Ryan should sit on his hands but it certainly doesn't hurt to spread around the wealth a bit instead of putting all the eggs in one basket, mixing short/mid-term contracts between hitters and pitchers.
    That is a little silly Brock, Garza has had his injury issues throughout his career, but we have found out time and time again that he has been an asset worth trading for multiple times. Even if he did lose a year or whatever, there is a good chance he would bounce back the next year and be "tradeable"

  8. #88
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,131
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,605 Times in 832 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    That is a little silly Brock, Garza has had his injury issues throughout his career, but we have found out time and time again that he has been an asset worth trading for multiple times. Even if he did lose a year or whatever, there is a good chance he would bounce back the next year and be "tradeable"
    Perhaps, maybe even likely. But I don't like the idea of signing two 30 year old pitchers to four year contracts at the same time, not when the offense looks the way it does right now.

    Ryan did enough to make the pitching staff competitive next season. I think he'd be better served by shifting his attention to the offense at this point.

  9. #89
    Banned All-Star
    Posts
    1,498
    Like
    419
    Liked 75 Times in 49 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    Personally, I think it's a bad idea to sign two pitchers to four year deals that might go through their decline phases at the same time, making them bad values in years three and four while eating $25m+ in salary.

    I'd rather see the Twins work on shoring up the offense on shorter-term deals... Say, offering Drew a two year contract at a high yearly value and see if he bites.
    So why not front load a contract and then trade him in 2 years ? you know for a left fielder, shortstop or a catcher? Rule #1 you can never have to much pitching,right?

  10. #90
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,865
    Like
    184
    Liked 670 Times in 379 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by OldTwinky View Post
    Where as Garza has already peaked I think Nolasco is still improving in the mental part of pitching.
    Well, at least this suggests (rightly) that Garza is the better pitcher. Though I'm baffled where and how you draw that line.

  11. #91
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    438
    Like
    0
    Liked 42 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    I have been a little leery of Garza for 3 reasons. A lot of his perceived value is fueled by strikeouts and stats like FIP which are heavily strikeout dependent. Strikeouts are fine, but they aren't the only stat to look at. 2nd, it has always bothered me that if Tampa Bay would have thought he was a top of the rotation guy, why didn't they keep him and build the rotation around him? The same is true of Chicago. They are in the same place as the Twins, why not keep him and build a rotation around him? Two different management teams have been trying to trade him from Chicago for 3 years.

    Finally there are the injury concerns. I guess I am not as high on Garza as others seem to be, largely for the reasons above.

  12. This user likes Jim H's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    thetank (01-27-2014)

  13. #92
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,357
    Like
    1,316
    Liked 1,296 Times in 750 Posts
    Kind of boggles the mind that Garza reportedly received "only" $50m over 4 years w/vesting option for $13m in the 5th.

    Who saw that coming in November?

    There are also reportedly some extras that could bring the 5-year total to $67m -- incentives of some kind, I suppose.

  14. #93
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    204
    Like
    106
    Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    I agree with the sentiment that a bat is likely a better idea than Garza at this point, especially with a 4 year deal. Rome wasn't built in a day and the Twins have made some important, necessary additions to the rotation, time to add a bat and see what shakes off the FA tree next year for some pitching.

    Although if Gibson, Meyer and May progress positively, that might be priority B.
    There are no bats worthwhile on the FA market including Drew. The offense should have had more developed players from the minor leagues.

  15. #94
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    204
    Like
    106
    Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    That is a little silly Brock, Garza has had his injury issues throughout his career, but we have found out time and time again that he has been an asset worth trading for multiple times. Even if he did lose a year or whatever, there is a good chance he would bounce back the next year and be "tradeable"
    If Garza gets hurt again and bounces back unlikely he will have much trade value without throwing in a bunch of cash. Might depend upon how he was hurt and his bounce back record, but, still...
    Last edited by thetank; 01-27-2014 at 10:46 AM.

  16. #95
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,407
    Like
    420
    Liked 823 Times in 517 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    The Twins found out last year that you need to be agressive early on in FA or you will be at the mercy of the market. Garza was banking on the losers of the Tanaka deal and I don't think it quite worked out for him. The problem as I see it is that Garza wasn't going to sign for 4/52 early on in FA as he expected to make more. Nolasco on the other hand thought that was as good a deal as he'd get, so he took it.

    If the Twins decided to hold out for Garza, I'd argue that they:
    1) would have had to pay more than 4/52
    2) would have run the risk of not getting either guy.

  17. #96
    Senior Member Triple-A h2oface's Avatar
    Posts
    373
    Like
    72
    Liked 43 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    Nolasco on the other hand thought that was as good a deal as he'd get, so he took it.
    I think you are spot on about that. I also don't think anyone else would have given Nolasco any where close to what he got, and as it is shaking out, appears to be way more than the market.

  18. This user likes h2oface's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    thetank (01-28-2014)

  19. #97
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer jay's Avatar
    Posts
    889
    Like
    13
    Liked 52 Times in 33 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Details on his contract from the AP:
    Garza gets $12.5 million a season, with $2 million annually deferred without interest. The deferred money is payable in four installments each Dec. 15 starting in 2018.
    He can earn an additional $1 million annually in performance bonuses: $500,000 each for 30 starts and 190 innings.
    The deal includes a $13 million option for 2018 that would become guaranteed if he makes 110 starts during the next four years, pitches 155 innings in 2017 and is not on the disabled list at the end of that season.
    Milwaukee has protection against an arm injury in two ways. If he is on the disabled list for 130 or more days during any 183-day period for a right shoulder or elbow injury, or an injury resulting from instability in the shoulder or elbow, Milwaukee gets a $1 million option for 2018. If he has fewer than 90 starts during the next four years, the Brewers have a $5 million option.
    That's a LOT of injury protections. The only way I could see this deal happening is no other team was willing to go that long due to injury concerns and the Brewers needed extensive protections to do it. The AAV is a red flag as well.

  20. This user likes jay's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    Willihammer (01-28-2014)

  21. #98
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,687
    Like
    3
    Liked 336 Times in 213 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    That's a LOT of injury protections. The only way I could see this deal happening is no other team was willing to go that long due to injury concerns and the Brewers needed extensive protections to do it. The AAV is a red flag as well.
    Those injury clauses are not necessarily a red flag. John Lackey had a very similar clause in his contract about injury time adding a cheap option year, and he was known as one of the more durable pitchers in the game at the time. It's a fantastic clause for teams, and I wonder if it isn't becoming more popular due to contract insurance changes (i.e., if you can't insure the contract as much, add a cheap option year in event of injury).

    All told, I think it's a very solid deal for the Brewers, and the Twins debate shouldn't be whether they should have waited on Nolasco to sign Garza, it should be, why didn't they simply try to sign both? The Twins rotation is improved now but far from perfect, and Garza has better upside/projections than pretty much anybody we have.

    (I do think the Garza reunion was never meant to be, personality-wise, and I also think the Twins never had any intention of signing more than one "big" contract this offseason.)

  22. #99
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer jay's Avatar
    Posts
    889
    Like
    13
    Liked 52 Times in 33 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    Those injury clauses are not necessarily a red flag.
    The guaranteed option can't be viewed as anywhere near even likely. He's met those requirements exactly one time in his career (2011). At that point, the deal becomes 5/$51M or $55M with incentives worth up to $4M. With the deferred money, the real value is even less.

    Given he was originally projected to get more like 5/$75M or more (without considering these clauses), help me understand how all of that doesn't equate to injury red flags? What caused his market to drop so far?

  23. #100
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,865
    Like
    184
    Liked 670 Times in 379 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    What caused his market to drop so far?
    I'm not sure you'll get an answer here, too many convinced he got what he deserved. (As in, same as Nolasco)

    On the other hand, I'm as perplexed as you are. This is too good a pitcher for this contract with that many insurance clauses for the Brewers. It's a steal.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.