Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Store

Recent Blogs

Photo

Article: Twins making a "strong push" for Nolasco

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Parker Hageman

Parker Hageman

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 1,208 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 01:24 PM

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.co...ush-for-Nolasco

#2 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 6,963 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 01:42 PM

Likewise, effectiveness wanes noticeably too as well as starting pitchers begin approach their mid-life crisis.


Obviously Parker backed up this statement, but it's another factor in showing that Terry Ryan isn't wrong in thinking that free agency is not the best way to build a team. You're paying (more than any other team is willing to) for what the pitcher did before he became a free agent at 30-32 years old, but in most cases, you won't get the same caliber of pitcher.

Obviously the fact that Nolasco has managed to stay healthy this long is great! In my cynical mind, it also increases the likelihood that sometime during his 4-5 year contract, he's going to miss a year or more to go along with not pitching as well.

It's a scary proposition when $60-100 million is on the line.

That said, I'd be happy if the Twins signed Nolasco and Kazmir!!

#3 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 498 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:00 PM

The problem with focusing on risk in free agent contracts is that the price already reflects the level of risk. In other words, if someone like Nolasco was risk-free, he would be massively more expensive. The most extreme examples are short term deals for guys like Josh Johnson, but the principle impacts all player contracts.

The Twins' risk is also mitigated by the fact that they are so far below their self-imposed budget constraints. They can sign multiple guys and still have plenty of space.

#4 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,205 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:07 PM

Obviously Parker backed up this statement, but it's another factor in showing that Terry Ryan isn't wrong in thinking that free agency is not the best way to build a team.


Well... Yes. But, if you don't do that (and some teams have proven that you can build World Champions via free agency) you got to follow the Cardinals' and Tigers' model and play young players. Look at Wacha this season. Verlander was in the majors the year after he was drafted. In those teams Gibson and Meyer (and not the likes of Hernandez, Albers et al) would have started for the Twins last season in the majors. I'd give you the injury concerns. But this season, Meyer is healthy. He should be in the starting 5. But the Twins do not do that either.

Cannot have it both ways, otherwise you do not build winners.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#5 Winston Smith

Winston Smith

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,320 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:23 PM

If you're looking for the perfect player at the perfect price that is certain to perform above his pay grade for the entire contract you'll be losing 96 games every year waiting.

They have the money, get us some better players so this team is at least watchable next year.

Please!!

#6 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 889 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:35 PM

Well... Yes. But, if you don't do that (and some teams have proven that you can build World Champions via free agency) you got to follow the Cardinals' and Tigers' model and play young players. Look at Wacha this season. Verlander was in the majors the year after he was drafted. In those teams Gibson and Meyer (and not the likes of Hernandez, Albers et al) would have started for the Twins last season in the majors. I'd give you the injury concerns. But this season, Meyer is healthy. He should be in the starting 5. But the Twins do not do that either.

Cannot have it both ways, otherwise you do not build winners.


That's a pretty nice false dichotomy. This idea that the Twins don't promote guys is silly. Look at Buxton, look at Arcia, look at Mauer. Also, look at what Wacha and Verlander did in their short time in the minors. None of our guys have done that. Those teams don't have some set perogative that any pitcher they draft will be in the majors the next year. It is very much the exception to every team's rule.

#7 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:39 PM

MLB Trade Rumors had Nolasco and Jimenez in the same ballpark for expected contract (Nolasco 3/36, Jimenez 3/39 or 4/52).

If you have to go 4/52 for Nolasco (which recent rumors are suggesting), how does that compare to 5/75 for Ervin Santana? Since 2008, Santana's got a 104 ERA+ to Nolasco's 95, with an added 10-20 IP per year to boot. Gives you a little more workhorse/ace potential.

#8 DeepFriedTwinkie

DeepFriedTwinkie

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 03:24 PM

The problem with focusing on risk in free agent contracts is that the price already reflects the level of risk. In other words, if someone like Nolasco was risk-free, he would be massively more expensive. The most extreme examples are short term deals for guys like Josh Johnson, but the principle impacts all player contracts.

The Twins' risk is also mitigated by the fact that they are so far below their self-imposed budget constraints. They can sign multiple guys and still have plenty of space.


I really like this comment, and I think that it's a point that is often missed. The "price" that a GM pays for a free agent is already adjusted for the perceived risk of that player geting injured or underperforming. It is also adjusted for the perceived "risk" that the player outperforms.

Unfortunately, I think that in many cases the team that ends up signing a free agent is often the team that most severely underestimates the risk associated with the contract.

#9 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 03:48 PM

Obviously Parker backed up this statement, but it's another factor in showing that Terry Ryan isn't wrong in thinking that free agency is not the best way to build a team.


Has anybody ever disputed this? Obviously it is preferable to draft cheap good pitchers, but when you fail at that for a number of years, "overpaying" for a free agent or two is much preferred to punting multiple seasons, especially when you have so few financial commitments over the next 4-5 seasons.

#10 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,623 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 03:57 PM

MLB Trade Rumors had Nolasco and Jimenez in the same ballpark for expected contract (Nolasco 3/36, Jimenez 3/39 or 4/52).

If you have to go 4/52 for Nolasco (which recent rumors are suggesting), how does that compare to 5/75 for Ervin Santana? Since 2008, Santana's got a 104 ERA+ to Nolasco's 95, with an added 10-20 IP per year to boot. Gives you a little more workhorse/ace potential.


I wonder if Santana's partially torn UCL is a factor in the Twins interest. He's pitched with it for several years and has been durable, but it's a red flag and you'd have to think a guy with a partially torn UCL may not be the pitcher you want to give a four year contract out to despite his track record. It just seems like a time-bomb.

#11 BigTrane

BigTrane

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 242 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 07:08 PM

Ok, fine- if Twins sign oldish Arroyo and youngish Nolasco, then I can see stability to the SR, & added credibility for FA signings going forward, without breaking the budget.

Question is: what are his contract terms, and why would he leave '14 faves LAD for MIN?

#12 zchrz

zchrz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 219 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 03:00 AM

Yes free agency is a big gamble, I would like to see them bet on a player with a little more risk and a higher upside. Nolasco has consitency on his side, but his consitency is more of a solid 3rd or 4th starter. The risk is low that he flames out or struggles too much but its also a low probabilty he puts up better numbers and becomes a 2. Ubaldo on the other hand should cost in the same neighborhood of years and money, comes with more risk but could be a solid number 2 even possible ace. I think consistency can be had for cheaper than dominance if they are going to spend big on someone take the risk and the upside.

Edited by zchrz, 16 November 2013 - 05:51 AM.


#13 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,315 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 05:02 AM

I am deadset against Nolasco if the contract is for 5 years (or even 4). that's just silly money for someone that has had ERA's of 4.48+ for 4 out of the last 5 years. I would strongly prefer a contract extension to Correia and that shouldn't be viewed as an endorsement.

#14 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 4,444 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 07:14 AM

Yes free agency is a big gamble, I would like to see them bet on a player with a little more risk and a higher upside. Nolasco has consitency on his side, but his consitency is more of a solid 3rd or 4th starter. The risk is low that he flames out or struggles too much but its also a low probabilty he puts up better numbers and becomes a 2. Ubaldo on the other hand should cost in the same neighborhood of years and money, comes with more risk but could be a solid number 2 even possible ace. I think consistency can be had for cheaper than dominance if they are going to spend big on someone take the risk and the upside.


There's upside with Nolasco too. He gets Ks quite well and his peripherals scream number 2. Results on the other hand have said otherwise. I'm not sure the advanced metrics are right in calling this bad luck, but I do think that he's maybe one or to "ah ha" moments from suddenly meeting that potential.

#15 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 08:16 AM

There's upside with Nolasco too


Upside? 101 ERA+ last year, four straight years prior below league average (less than 95 ERA+).

If a guy's upside is "unrealized potential" you should be getting a discount or shorter term on him, like the Hughes 1-2 year suggestions, not the rumored 4/52 for Nolasco.

#16 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 8,792 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 16 November 2013 - 09:22 AM

What happens in Rice Lake Wisconsin.

1. When 30 people walk into the only liquor store at the same time.
2. There are only 20 cases of beer left in the entire store.
3. All the top brands of beer are gone
4. Half of the cases left are "Natural Light" "Milwaukee's Best" and "Michelob Ultra".
5. It's A Friday Night.

AND... All 30 people got an extra 25 million dollars from a Rice Lake TV deal.

I'm worried it might have an effect on the price of beer.
A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

#17 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 3,429 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 16 November 2013 - 09:26 AM

What happens in Rice Lake Wisconsin.

1. When 30 people walk into the only liquor store at the same time.
2. There are only 20 cases of beer left in the entire store.
3. All the top brands of beer are gone
4. Half of the cases left are "Natural Light" "Milwaukee's Best" and "Michelob Ultra".
5. It's A Friday Night.

AND... All 30 people got an extra 25 million dollars from a Rice Lake TV deal.

I'm worried it might have an effect on the price of beer.


LIKE.

But does it mean you don't buy the beer? And doesn't this happen every Friday night?

#18 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 8,792 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 16 November 2013 - 09:40 AM

LIKE.

But does it mean you don't buy the beer? And doesn't this happen every Friday night?


I don't know but that TV deal could make this Friday night different than the others.
A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

#19 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 09:48 AM

I don't know but that TV deal could make this Friday night different than the others.


RB, when you ran over the Business Manager carrying her coffee, did you get one of those sticky things for your helmet?

#20 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,007 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 10:02 AM

Upside? 101 ERA+ last year, four straight years prior below league average (less than 95 ERA+).

If a guy's upside is "unrealized potential" you should be getting a discount or shorter term on him, like the Hughes 1-2 year suggestions, not the rumored 4/52 for Nolasco.


Precisely this. I am very confused by the Nolasco situation. Anyway, it would seem like the Twins could get any two of Kazmir, Hughes, Haren, Arroyo, Johnson, and the like for roughly $50 million over less than 4 years.

#21 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 8,792 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 16 November 2013 - 11:06 AM

RB, when you ran over the Business Manager carrying her coffee, did you get one of those sticky things for your helmet?


Yes I did
Attached File  image.jpg   27.84KB   88 downloads

BTW... Any resemblance between my helmet and an Ohio State helmet is purely coincidental.
A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

#22 jmlease1

jmlease1

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 12:44 PM

I think I'm more interested in getting Kazmir & Hughes than Nolasco and whomever (Arroyo?). Last season was a bounce-back year for Nolasco after a couple years in a row where he gave up a TON of hits and the K rate kept going down. He's also pitched his entire career in the NL.

Kazmir has red flags too: injuries and ineffectiveness nearly ended his career. But his peak was higher, he did it in the AL, his K rate is higher, he's younger, and he's likely to be a) cheaper, and B) not insistent on a 5 year deal.

Hughes has been up & down over his career, but a move to Target field should help him, and he's still on the good side of 30.

I'm not opposed to Arroyo per se, but I'd like the Twins to be a little more aggressive than that. Again, Nolasco's not terrible or anything, but I have trouble with the idea of giving a 4-5 year deal to a guy who has hit 30 and posted an above average ERA+ exactly twice. (and was convincingly below average 4 of the past 5 years)

#23 jcphitman

jcphitman

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 01:05 PM

It was a very good article! A nice breakdown of Nolasco.

It sounds like from what MLBTR said, we aren't as far as people thought we were here on Nolasco, but it is encouraging to see our name in these rumors as what appears to be a serious suitor.

As for Nolasco and even a 4 (or worse 5) year contract, I still don't get it. I read the article, but looking at his career stats doesn't help me understand. Why? He's never been an amazing pitcher. He's pitched in the NL his entire career. It kind of makes me think Kevin Correia is a poor man's Nolasco in all honesty. Nolasco is better and younger, but not by huge margins IMO to deserve 4 or 5 years. He's on the wrong side of 30 and breakdown is much more possible now than before.

I see why the Twins are in on Garza. He's on the right side of 30 and has what we need in a pitcher. Plus we developed him and have an idea of what we'd be getting back. I see why we'd go after Hughes. He's not as good as Garza, but being in a pitcher's park and on the right side of 30 helps his cause. I could see Garza getting 5 years from us and I could even see Hughes getting 3-4 years.

Nolsaso though? Someone help me here. Even Arroyo ... he's 37 and durable, but 3 years? Maybe 2 years, but not 3.

What am I missing here? Help...

#24 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 981 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 01:31 PM

I think I'm more interested in getting Kazmir & Hughes than Nolasco and whomever (Arroyo?). Last season was a bounce-back year for Nolasco after a couple years in a row where he gave up a TON of hits and the K rate kept going down. He's also pitched his entire career in the NL.

Kazmir has red flags too: injuries and ineffectiveness nearly ended his career. But his peak was higher, he did it in the AL, his K rate is higher, he's younger, and he's likely to be a) cheaper, and B) not insistent on a 5 year deal.

Hughes has been up & down over his career, but a move to Target field should help him, and he's still on the good side of 30.

I'm not opposed to Arroyo per se, but I'd like the Twins to be a little more aggressive than that. Again, Nolasco's not terrible or anything, but I have trouble with the idea of giving a 4-5 year deal to a guy who has hit 30 and posted an above average ERA+ exactly twice. (and was convincingly below average 4 of the past 5 years)



We all would love to have certain pitchers. But the reality is that the Twins front office have to deal with agents who realistically WANT to place their clients with a team like Minnesota, as well as players THAT WANT to play for a team like Minnesota. If a player and/or agent suggests that a Minnesota tie-in would be explorable, then you pounce on it. You can't wait for a Hughes to say "maybe I will play in Minnesota" if he is avoiding making a discussion commitment or has expressed salary demands above-and-beyond (see Santana) your team is capable of giving, or that a pitcher truly wants to play only for a "winner."

The only way we (the Twins) can possibly get around something like that is to totally throw an unbelievable contrat at the player -- "Hey, Hughes...we want you. How does $20 mill a year sound, you tell us 3 or 4 years...your choice."

Otherwise, you go after "friendly" players and make a serious offer "Hey, Ricky, right now, today...we will give you $14 mil for 4 with a $4 million buyout or $15 mill option for year 5. If we don;t hear back from you by tonight, we are moving on tomorrow." A fair offer. If you don't hear back...you got $60 million to easily spend elsewhere.
Joel Thingvall
www.thingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com

#25 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 02:51 PM

We all would love to have certain pitchers. But the reality is that the Twins front office have to deal with agents who realistically WANT to place their clients with a team like Minnesota, as well as players THAT WANT to play for a team like Minnesota. If a player and/or agent suggests that a Minnesota tie-in would be explorable, then you pounce on it. You can't wait for a Hughes to say "maybe I will play in Minnesota" if he is avoiding making a discussion commitment or has expressed salary demands above-and-beyond (see Santana) your team is capable of giving, or that a pitcher truly wants to play only for a "winner."

The only way we (the Twins) can possibly get around something like that is to totally throw an unbelievable contrat at the player -- "Hey, Hughes...we want you. How does $20 mill a year sound, you tell us 3 or 4 years...your choice."

Otherwise, you go after "friendly" players and make a serious offer "Hey, Ricky, right now, today...we will give you $14 mil for 4 with a $4 million buyout or $15 mill option for year 5. If we don;t hear back from you by tonight, we are moving on tomorrow." A fair offer. If you don't hear back...you got $60 million to easily spend elsewhere.


The way to get around it is with our 5-15 prospects. Every deal has a walk away price and the night is still young. Let's see how this plays out.

#26 DAM DC Twins Fans

DAM DC Twins Fans

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 472 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 06:21 PM

I am deadset against Nolasco if the contract is for 5 years (or even 4). that's just silly money for someone that has had ERA's of 4.48+ for 4 out of the last 5 years. I would strongly prefer a contract extension to Correia and that shouldn't be viewed as an endorsement.


I am dead set against giving any of these guys 4 (or god forbid) 5 year deals. They are not that good. I would go for 3 years (max) for younger guys (Hughes, Johnson maybe, Garza). Correia has one spot, Gibson has one spot. Hopefully Meyer claims a spot next year--Diamond/Deduno gets a spot. In 2016 (hopefully) the young guys in A or lower will start coming up (Stewart, Gonsalves, Thorpe, etc etc) We don't need 34 or 35 year old pitchers hanging on then.

#27 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,315 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 07:13 PM

I am dead set against giving any of these guys 4 (or god forbid) 5 year deals. They are not that good. I would go for 3 years (max) for younger guys (Hughes, Johnson maybe, Garza). Correia has one spot, Gibson has one spot. Hopefully Meyer claims a spot next year--Diamond/Deduno gets a spot. In 2016 (hopefully) the young guys in A or lower will start coming up (Stewart, Gonsalves, Thorpe, etc etc) We don't need 34 or 35 year old pitchers hanging on then.


Guys that can toss <4.00 ERA's are that good.

You also greatly overestimate the Twins rotation both next year and down the road.

#28 TwinsAce

TwinsAce

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 08:15 PM

Nolasco isn't my favorite pitcher out there, but to give him a 4-5 year deal isn't the end of the world. When people say they don't want to block our young pitchers, they forget that the Twins would always have the option of trading away the older pitcher. As long as Nolasco stays similar to his career marks, he would still have a trade market in year 3 of the deal. And that's only if the Twins have a glut of pitching, something we have no idea will happen for sure.

#29 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,007 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 12:15 AM

Some interesting things being said. I agree with those who question the wisdom of signing Nolasco to a 4-year deal and over $40 million. It is *clearly* absurd to do that. The consideration of doing this blows my mind more than the Eric Fryer love and that is bizarre. Those two things, together, however, with this team run by these people . . . perfect sense.
Nolasco is Correia+. Do people deny this? I am asking. Christ, ARROYO is Correia+. And Arroyo is a 50/50 chance to actually be better over the next two years. Seriously.

Let me frame this another way: I also think that Trevor May is a 50/50 chance at being better than Nolasco over the next four years. And at a very low fraction of the cost.

Think about that.

Signing 4th starters for tens of millions of bucks over several years is going to damage FA signings by this team in the next 3 years.

Edited by Shane Wahl, 17 November 2013 - 12:21 AM.


#30 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,007 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 12:17 AM

Nolasco isn't my favorite pitcher out there, but to give him a 4-5 year deal isn't the end of the world. When people say they don't want to block our young pitchers, they forget that the Twins would always have the option of trading away the older pitcher. As long as Nolasco stays similar to his career marks, he would still have a trade market in year 3 of the deal. And that's only if the Twins have a glut of pitching, something we have no idea will happen for sure.


Another reason not to sign a slightly above average (in his good years!) pitcher to a 4 or 5 (!) year deal: NO ONE trading for him until year 3, 4, or 5. Nolasco wouldn't be traded in 2014 or 2015. No team is dumb enough to do that.