Jump to content

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

The Store

Photo

All's quiet on the Garza front

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 TKGuy

TKGuy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 291 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 08:47 AM

It's been very quiet on the Garza front. With all the crazy news, I have hardly seen him mentioned. Would it be out of the realm of possibility that the Twins sign Garza? They have plenty of $$ to work with this year. I am guessing it will take around $15 million a season to get him. After this year, the Twins have Willingham, Correia and Doumit, and maybe Duensing off the books and will be replaced by relatively cheap talent. The team got added TV revenue to more than offset this investment. If we aren't getting another catcher, why not go after him? He just turned 30 years old. It sounded like Gardy didn't want to trade Garza in the first place when Bill Smith made that boneheaded move.

Having Garza, Hughes, Nolasco, Meyer as the top four in the rotation for the next three years will be very formidable.

Hey, why not, I never thought we'd make a big splash anyways, so why not go all in?

#2 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,705 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:05 AM

I doubt the Twins will pay what it takes for Garza and I'm not sure they are ready to give up on Worley and/or Gibson as a longterm starter.

#3 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,315 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:07 AM

I'm for it but I think the Twins spent the money needed to sign Garza on Nolasco and Hughes. Yes, they still have more money available but I have a hard time believing that they are going to commit all of that money to FA's in one offseason.

it would also be nice to save some of the payroll flexibility in case it makes sense to go after Bailey (next year) or Price (in two years) or some other FA who would be closer to his prime while the prospects are hopefully peaking.

#4 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,423 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:08 AM

I wouldn't go all-in because it's going to take five years to get Garza.

If the Twins had signed Garza instead of Nolasco, that would have been fine but I don't like the idea of signing two 30 year olds to four and five year contracts in the same offseason. At that point, you're locking up $30m of salary in two guys who will probably be lock-step in the same decline phase.

If the Twins need a Garza-type guy after the 2014 season, then go get that guy. Spend this offseason patching other roster holes with short-term pick-ups.

#5 twinscowboysbulls

twinscowboysbulls

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 444 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:21 AM

Is there any chance Garza could go for less than predicted?

The market has started to shake out. Almost every contract that has been handed out has been for less than I and most of you have predicted it would be. Now that quite a few pitchers are off the board for fairly decent contracts, it's possible that Garza will have to lower his demands.

Trade market has started to heat up too. If Cubs trade Jeff Samardzija, I could see them re-signing Garza. If the Twins were able to get Garza for 4 years and money similar perhaps a little more than Nolasco, I'd jump all over it. If we are going to go 5 years guaranteed, I'm not sure I would like it at all.

Garza, Nolasco, Hughes sure sounds appetizing at the top of the rotation for the next three years though.

#6 twinscowboysbulls

twinscowboysbulls

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 444 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:21 AM

I wouldn't go all-in because it's going to take five years to get Garza.

If the Twins had signed Garza instead of Nolasco, that would have been fine but I don't like the idea of signing two 30 year olds to four and five year contracts in the same offseason. At that point, you're locking up $30m of salary in two guys who will probably be lock-step in the same decline phase.

If the Twins need a Garza-type guy after the 2014 season, then go get that guy. Spend this offseason patching other roster holes with short-term pick-ups.


RP, what happens if there isn't a Garza type next offseason? Who is supposed to be available?

#7 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,423 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:23 AM

RP, what happens if there isn't a Garza type next offseason? Who is supposed to be available?


Homer Bailey, for one.

There are always Matt Garza types in free agency. He's not an elite pitcher.

#8 twinscowboysbulls

twinscowboysbulls

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 444 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:27 AM

Homer Bailey, for one.

There are always Matt Garza types in free agency. He's not an elite pitcher.


What would you classify Garza as? Ace, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?

I think this is what I'm struggling with, I see the Twins are spending big bucks this year and it's very new to us. I'm worried that we are signing these guys and we will win 75 games and the FO will still have the 25 million to spend next off-season but we will pocket it and be satisfied with the 75 wins and up and coming prospects. Is it wrong of me to feel that way? Maybe. I just can foresee the Twins in the mindset of "use it or lose it" this off-season.

I think Bailey is going to be traded and extended. Hopefully to us, that'd be fantastic.

#9 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,423 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:37 AM

What would you classify Garza as? Ace, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?

I think this is what I'm struggling with, I see the Twins are spending big bucks this year and it's very new to us. I'm worried that we are signing these guys and we will win 75 games and the FO will still have the 25 million to spend next off-season but we will pocket it and be satisfied with the 75 wins and up and coming prospects. Is it wrong of me to feel that way? Maybe. I just can foresee the Twins in the mindset of "use it or lose it" this off-season.

I think Bailey is going to be traded and extended. Hopefully to us, that'd be fantastic.


Everything I've heard about Bailey suggests that he's going to explore free agency come hell or high water, which is why I used him as an example free agent.

It's possible the Twins will pocket next year's money... But it was also possible they were going to pocket this year's money and they didn't do it. I'm not going to fret over next offseason quite yet.

I'd classify Garza as a solid #2 that borders on a #3 some seasons.

#10 twinscowboysbulls

twinscowboysbulls

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 444 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:39 AM

Everything I've heard about Bailey suggests that he's going to explore free agency come hell or high water, which is why I used him as an example free agent.

It's possible the Twins will pocket next year's money... But it was also possible they were going to pocket this year's money and they didn't do it. I'm not going to fret over next offseason quite yet.

I'd classify Garza as a solid #2 that borders on a #3 some seasons.


Fair enough. Are you saying it's "Too Early" to judge next off-season? I was just going to start a new thread about that...

#11 Marta Shearing

Marta Shearing

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 10:35 AM

They should offer him the same contract they gave Nolasco.

#12 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 11:30 AM

They could get someone like Arroyo to fill in for a couple of years. But Garza is a long-term investment. So, to answer this question, you need to ask another question: What does the rotation look like in three years? If we start this year with what we have right now, this is what it looks like:

2014:
Nolasco
Hughes
Correia
Deduno
Gibson/Diamond

2015:
Nolasco
Myers
Hughes
Gibson
Deduno/May

2016:
Myers
Nolasco
Stewart
Hughes
Gibson

2017:
Myers
Nolasco
Stewart
Gonsalves
Thorp

And that does not take into account several other prospects like Wimmers, Summers, Melotakis, etc. who could easily develop into major league starters. Upshot: I could see a two-year deal for Arroyo here, but Garza will be blocking better talent as early as 2017.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#13 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,423 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 11:34 AM

I see a startling lack of Berrios on that list. Do you not believe he'll make it as a starter?

It's a legit concern, just wondering if it was intentional or not.

#14 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,211 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 11:42 AM

2017:
Myers
Nolasco
Stewart
Gonsalves
ThorpE


Hold on to your horses with the last 3, especially the last one, at least until they can go out and buy a six pack...
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#15 minn55441

minn55441

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 512 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 11:55 AM

Having Garza, Hughes, Nolasco, Meyer as the top four in the rotation for the next three years will be very formidable.

Hey, why not, I never thought we'd make a big splash anyways, so why not go all in?


I think Nolasco, Hughes and Garza will look good leading our staff this year, but three years from now I have a feeling we will have a different view. If we are truly going to raise our expectations to complete for a spot in the post season, we will need better starting pitching than this. Either through additional FA signings or getting some help from our existing minor leaguers.

I like the flexibility of being able to go out and sign a big name starter as we get closer to where we want to be. Spending all of our money now seems foolish. One of those three will not turn out to be a productive starting pitcher in year two three or four. No inside knowledge, just the law of averages.

#16 Brandon

Brandon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 756 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:01 PM

We can always trade a pitcher in a salary dump like Fister...so sign him for now and trade one later when the need arises... Money or rotation spot for someone younger and better.

#17 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,423 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:05 PM

We can always trade a pitcher in a salary dump like Fister...so sign him for now and trade one later when the need arises... Money or rotation spot for someone younger and better.


Doug Fister was not a salary dump. He's a guy who has posted an ERA+ over 110 in each of the past two seasons and is 29 years old.

Detroit needed salary relief and that played into why they traded him, sure... But it was not a dump.

#18 ericchri

ericchri

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 347 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:09 PM

I'd prefer they take a rest from adding more starters at this point, at least of the veteran FA variety. If there's a youngish starter available in trade, I'd be OK with that, if the price was right. If we'd signed Garza instead of Nolasco that would have been great, but I don't want him in addition at this point.

I think Brock is advocating most strongly the plan I believe in. We've hopefully stabilized our rotation for the year, but we still have a lot of evaluating to do with younger guys moving up. Why tie up so much of your rotation with aging guys now when there should be somebody similar available in a couple years if you decide you still need something. Shore up the other weaknesses on the team if you feel it necessary, but another 30+ year old pitcher on a 5 year deal doesn't feel like the right move to me at this point.

#19 Lonestar

Lonestar

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 127 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:13 PM

I would be surprised if Garza signs before the Tanaka outcome is known. IMO he's better value than Ervin Santana or Ubaldo Jiminez, especially when you figure draft pick compensation. I would be surprised if he gets 5 years. I would not be surprised he gets $17 AAV.

#20 twinscowboysbulls

twinscowboysbulls

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 444 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:19 PM

Maybe he knows something we don't...Trade?

#21 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:25 PM

I see a startling lack of Berrios on that list. Do you not believe he'll make it as a starter?

It's a legit concern, just wondering if it was intentional or not.


Nope, just an oversight. Good catch. I can't remember when the Twins have had this much starting pitching depth. Given that, one long contract is plenty.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#22 halfchest

halfchest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:32 PM

I'm back and forth on Garza for many of the reasons listed here. We have the money but next year is very interesting. Lester, Bailey, Scherzer, Masterson are all scheduled to be free agents.

I probably like them all more than Garza, problem is they're likely going to cost more plus a draft pick or prospects if we trade for them and good prospects not getting them for parmelee and plouffe, sorry. I'm betting Lester and Scherzer sign extensions soon. Just a guess with the Tigers clearing cash and the BoSox losing Salty and Ellsbury they have money to burn. If Bailey stays with Reds he could end up being closer to 25 million a year than the 15 it would require to sign Garza. Masterson might be nice but again, it's a long time between now and free agency 2014.

I guess if Garza is willing to sign for very similar to what we gave Nolasco, 4 years, plus option at a slightly higher AAV ( like 4/56 or 4/60) then I would be all over it. That's 34 million committed to 3 pitchers per year, not too bad to get 60% of your rotation for 35% of your payroll . Considering the youth coming up, it seems like a decent gamble as they'll all be nearing the end of their deals before our prospects hit arbitration. Worst case is you trade one of them or if Hughes starts to suck you move him to the bullpen to open up a spot.

Garza
Nolasco
Hughes
Correia
Gibson/Deduno/Worley/Diamond

I assume at least one of the nine mentioned above starts the year on DL just law of averages stuff, etc. Then we can at least give an extended look at one more of Worley/Diamond/Deduno. If we sign Garza I assume Gibson starts in AAA due solely to him having an option remaining.

#23 Trevor0333

Trevor0333

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 313 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:43 PM

The last top SP FA are waiting for the Tanaka signing.

#24 amjgt

amjgt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 517 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:51 PM

3/50 for Garza

As was mentioned above, about that time our youthful pitching depth is starting to mature.

Also worth mentioning is that 3 years from now Garza will (hopefully) be looking for one more big contract. That means a) he's likely to take a high AAV and give up some years so that he can cash in at a younger age than if he got a 5/60ish offer now, and B) he would be unlikely to accept arbitration.

The three new pitchers would provide a bridge from when we have almost exclusively young hitting talent to a time when we'd have hitting talent in/near their prime and young pitching talent hitting the majors... and it would come at a time (2014-2016) where we have a significant amount of money available are quite a few cheap contracts coming.

#25 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:55 PM

I'm lukewarm on Garza. I seem to change my mind on him from day to day. I'd certainly take him before I'd offer anything similar for Santana or Jimenez. I guess I'd say I'd be OK with the Twins shelling out money for Garza and I'll be OK with it if they don't.

I understand being concerned about handcuffing yourself by tying up too much money in long-term contracts to SPs this year, but I don't think a deal for Garza would be debilitating that way.

I also think some people are being overly optimistic on projected arrival dates for guys like Berrios, Stewart, Thorpe, etc. There's a fair chance none of them ever share a rotation with Nolasco during the period of the contract he just signed with the Twins.

Sounds to me from the answers to media questions yesterday that Ryan is not done shopping for FA starting pitchers and the fact that he didn't condition his comments with any of the expectations-lowering conditions that he's been infamous for using in the past makes me tend to think he is hoping to make another fairly major signing. I could see either Arroyo or Garza being that guy.
I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at Knuckleballsblog.com while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com.

~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~

#26 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,211 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 01:03 PM

Sounds to me from the answers to media questions yesterday that Ryan is not done shopping for FA starting pitchers and the fact that he didn't condition his comments with any of the expectations-lowering conditions that he's been infamous for using in the past makes me tend to think he is hoping to make another fairly major signing. I could see either Arroyo or Garza being that guy.


I also got the impression that he pretty much said that they are not done, but my gut says that it is because Hughes has not been announced yet...
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#27 ScottyB

ScottyB

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 544 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 01:36 PM

Kershaw is also on next year's FA list. And of the best names next year, virtually all the best will get extensions - Kershaw; Lester; Scherzer; and Masterson (I just don't see the Indians losing Ubaldo, Kazmir and Masterson in 2 short years).

If you take the $7-$8MM+ that Salty or AJ would have cost and the $5MM we supposedly offered Pelfrey, that's $12-$13MM. Now that we're going with Pinto and no veteran catcher, why not spend another $2-$4MM for Garza. If we can convince him to take a 3-year deal, that would be ideal, but I'd go four years if I had to (with a limited no trade clause). As long as we have the ability to trade when the kiddie corps comes of age, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Here's a list of next year's FA's:
http://www.mlbtrader...ree-agents.html

#28 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 01:41 PM

I also got the impression that he pretty much said that they are not done, but my gut says that it is because Hughes has not been announced yet...


Yeah I had that same thought about the fact that he could just be referring to a Hughes announcement. Maybe thinking he was referring to something more was just wishful thinking on my part.
I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at Knuckleballsblog.com while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com.

~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~

#29 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,769 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 02:39 PM

Garza would be a nice add, but how does the team score any runs if you blow the budget this year on pitching (which I've raised in another thread)? Or are we just writing off 2014?
Lighten up Francis....

#30 twinscowboysbulls

twinscowboysbulls

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 444 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 02:40 PM

Doug Fister was not a salary dump. He's a guy who has posted an ERA+ over 110 in each of the past two seasons and is 29 years old.

Detroit needed salary relief and that played into why they traded him, sure... But it was not a dump.


Salary dump as in, they didn't get **** in return... no pun intended.