Posted 23 January 2014 - 12:48 PM
This is notable for several reasons. The first being that this is a substantial savings from what he was originally projected as being worth going into the free agent season. At Twins Daily, we estimated that Garza would reach five years and $75 million. Instead, teams shied away from him. The second interesting piece is that this deal is basically the same one that the Twins gave starter Ricky Nolasco earlier in the winter (4 years, $49M + options).
Comparatively, Garza, who is a year younger than Nolasco, has had a slightly better career. However, since 2010, the pair has been surprisingly similar:
What you see is that while the raw numbers are very alike, Garza gets better marks for his ERA, xFIP and FIP for spending time in the American League while Nolasco has been in the National League.
Of course, one of the biggest concerns by teams making these sizeable investments is how a player will hold up over the course of that agreement. In Nolasco’s case, he has been rock solid over his career meanwhile Garza has been in-and-out of infirmaries for arm-related ailments (Nolasco’s have been mainly truck and thigh).
NolascovGarza.png 43.28KB 144 downloadsShould the Twins have waited for Garza at the same rate? What are your thoughts?
Posted 23 January 2014 - 12:57 PM
That said, the injury issues are legitimate
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:01 PM
Should the Twins have waited for Garza at the same rate? What are your thoughts?
I know this isn't your stance, Parker, or at least it probably isn't your stance but I find this argument to be untenable upon examination.
The bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and all that. The Twins have been burned in recent years by "waiting the market out" on pitchers and ended up scrounging junk off the pile because of it (well, that and dollars and years).
There was no reason to expect Tanaka to hold the entire market hostage for two months. There was no reason to expect teams to shy away from Garza for as long as they did.
Would I prefer Garza over Nolasco at the same price? Sure, I think that's pretty obvious... But if you're Terry Ryan in November, you can't bank on either Nolasco or Garza being available in late January or you're going to get burned on the free agent market almost every season if you wait it out and hope "your guy" is still available.
You go get the guy you want at the price you're willing to pay. It's as simple as that. If there are "leftovers" at the end of the offseason, sure, you reevaluate at that time but don't delay your offseason plans in hopes that a guy will float in limbo for two months and that it will drive down the price... Because that's a pretty rare occurrence and can't be reliably predicted (or every team would employ this strategy every offseason).
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:06 PM
It would of and should of been the Twins signing Garza, wow It would have been the best off season since gravey was invented, the Twins adding a Legit #2/3 and #3/4 starter, and still having Stewart and Meyer in the pipeline....wow
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:16 PM
They probably could have waited before signing Pelfrey but even with Pelfrey signed, I think they still could have signed Garza -- I just don't think it was very likely as Thrylos stated.
At this point I would rate the Twins' off-season at about a C+/B-. But they still have time (and money) to do a little more work.
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:18 PM
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:29 PM
I can't get over this price. It really makes me wonder what Garza's medical reports look like because I can't fathom how a 30 year old pitcher of his quality only gets 4/$52m in this market.
Well that should come out before they actually sign him,Kinda like Baltimore did.
If he is healthy and signed for this , I will be really depressed, as it is another missed oppertunity
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:30 PM
If the Twins had signed this, we'd all be rubbing our eyes to try and believe they managed it. This is a REALLY good deal for the Brewers. Even if he flops and has injury issues, right now there is no way to judge this as anything but a huge win.
Fans of the Orioles and other near-contenders with needs and money to spend have to be just hating this.
Edited by TheLeviathan, 23 January 2014 - 01:34 PM.
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:36 PM
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:40 PM
Can you imagine the crap that would be raining down on the Twins FO by now if they hadn't done anything but sign Hughes and Pelfrey by now? You know Nolasco would have signed elsewhere by now if the Twins hadn't signed him and you certainly can not assume they'd have ended up with Garza anyway. More likely, they'd have ended up with neither pitcher.
Brock's right, when you absolutely need pitching, you target the guys you want and pay what you believe is a fair price to sign them as soon as you can get them. Twins played this hand correctly and, honestly, four years from now, given the two guys' respective health histories, I think odds are pretty good that we'll look back and see Nolasco was the better choice.
Edited by Jim Crikket, 23 January 2014 - 01:47 PM.
~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:44 PM
Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:45 PM
I think odds are pretty good that we'll look back and see Nolasco was the better choice.
I don't think they're very good at all. Odds are that this deal looks fantastic, so I doubt Nolasco's odds look better.
That doesn't mean, however, that the Twins weren't right to be aggressive. It was just hard to foresee something like this.