Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: Twins offered Garza 3 year deal

  1. #1
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,756
    Like
    1
    Liked 103 Times in 73 Posts

    Twins offered Garza 3 year deal

    Tweet from Jerry Crasnick:

    Heard today that #twins offered Matt Garza a 3 yr, $42 million deal before he signed with #brewers.

    We all knew they were following Garza closely but it is interesting to hear they offered him a contract.

  2. This user likes cmb0252's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    twinsfan34 (02-22-2014)

  3. #2
    4/$56 would have bankrupt the franchise!

  4. This user likes Marta Shearing's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    mike wants wins (02-24-2014)

  5. #3
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer Monkeypaws's Avatar
    Posts
    601
    Like
    77
    Liked 114 Times in 68 Posts
    It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the Brewers. It's one of those contracts you could see going horribly wrong.

  6. #4
    Twins Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    3,679
    Like
    955
    Liked 1,315 Times in 710 Posts
    I can't fault the Twins for offering more annually with less years, it's a competitive offer, injuries played a factor obviously.

  7. #5
    Senior Member All-Star Thrylos's Avatar
    Posts
    4,178
    Twitter
    @thrylos98
    Like
    36
    Liked 446 Times in 273 Posts
    Blog Entries
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Marta Shearing View Post
    4/$56 would have bankrupt the franchise!
    Interesting enough, that was the exact Twins offer

    With the fourth year conditional on performance. He chose to sign with the Brewers for less money...
    -----
    Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
    http://tenthinningstretch.blogspot.com/
    twitter: @thrylos98

  8. #6
    Twins Moderator MVP ashburyjohn's Avatar
    Posts
    8,685
    Like
    2,656
    Liked 3,308 Times in 1,755 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrylos View Post
    He chose to sign with the Brewers for less money...
    That's one way of looking at it. Or, he signed for more guaranteed money.

    Here's one back-of-the-envelope analysis of the risk angle. Twins guarantee 3 years for a total of $42M. After that, various things can happen in Year 4, one of which is the triggering of the vesting option. By comparison, the Brewers guarantee $50M for 4 years. So, from a monetary standpoint, it comes down to what the odds are that he'll get more than $8M in that fourth year if he takes the Twins offer.

    If for simplicity's sake you assume only two possible outcomes, either the Twins $14M vesting option happens, or else it's $0, then if he thinks it's 50/50, he's money ahead taking the sure $8M. Do you gamble $8M in hopes of winning $6M? You need good odds for that.

    Of course other possibilities exist for that fourth year, and you also have to factor in the question of Year 5, which under the Twins plan is free agency and with the Brewers is a vesting option for $13M. So I'm sure his agent went through various scenarios, and gave the spreadsheet program a good workout.

    If he's completely not confident in his own health for the long-term, he'll take the greatest guarantee, period. But even with good confidence, the potential payoff has to be pretty high in order to make a gamble worthwhile.
    Last edited by ashburyjohn; 02-22-2014 at 06:52 PM.

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

    Willihammer (02-24-2014)

  10. #7
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,369
    Like
    1,324
    Liked 1,297 Times in 750 Posts
    Good info, thanks.

    I'm comfortable with what the Twins did based on the posts above. I might feel differently if I thought they could have signed him for a guaranteed 4/$56 early (before Nolasco/Hughes) but it seems like he was going to wait until after Tanaka signed. Given the deals already in place by the time he did sign, I have no problem with the Twins limiting the length. I do think that 4th year is more of a flyer on Garza than on Nolasco (but i guess we'll see).

  11. #8
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    337
    Like
    26
    Liked 51 Times in 35 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    I guess this answers the questions as to what Gardy talked about the FO going after someone they had talked to before.

    I think if I were Garza, I would have bet on myself, and signed the higher AAV contract. SP prices could be much higher in 2017, and he only would have needed to get a contract greater than $8mm to make it worth his while.

  12. #9
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,409
    Like
    420
    Liked 827 Times in 520 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by AM. View Post
    I guess this answers the questions as to what Gardy talked about the FO going after someone they had talked to before.

    I think if I were Garza, I would have bet on myself, and signed the higher AAV contract. SP prices could be much higher in 2017, and he only would have needed to get a contract greater than $8mm to make it worth his while.
    Except that if it didn't vest, it's likely b/c he was hurt or something like that. I find it interesting that he didn't bet on himself.

  13. #10
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,689
    Like
    3
    Liked 337 Times in 214 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Credit to TR for trying to score another asset in an apparently down market. Hopefully it wasn't just the familiarity of Garza or the lack of draft pick comp -- he really should be similarly in the hunt for Drew and Ervin Santana (and Jimenez before he signed).

    That said, it does look like a smarter offer by Milwaukee. If one is willing to pay 3/42 for a player of Garza's age and ability, tacking on an extra year at 8 mil guaranteed and shifting the vesting option to year 5 is pretty low risk. Plus, the contract language adding a cheap option year in case of injury is another great move by Milwaukee -- we are seeing the value of that with Boston and Lackey right now. Would love to hear TR's thoughts on that concept.

  14. #11
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,134
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,607 Times in 834 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    The Twins did exactly what they should have done in that situation. More money over fewer years, walk away if the player doesn't bite.

  15. This user likes Brock Beauchamp's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    birdwatcher (02-24-2014)

  16. #12
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,251
    Like
    108
    Liked 105 Times in 77 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ashburyjohn View Post
    That's one way of looking at it. Or, he signed for more guaranteed money.

    Here's one back-of-the-envelope analysis of the risk angle. Twins guarantee 3 years for a total of $42M. After that, various things can happen in Year 4, one of which is the triggering of the vesting option. By comparison, the Brewers guarantee $50M for 4 years. So, from a monetary standpoint, it comes down to what the odds are that he'll get more than $8M in that fourth year if he takes the Twins offer.

    If for simplicity's sake you assume only two possible outcomes, either the Twins $14M vesting option happens, or else it's $0, then if he thinks it's 50/50, he's money ahead taking the sure $8M. Do you gamble $8M in hopes of winning $6M? You need good odds for that.

    Of course other possibilities exist for that fourth year, and you also have to factor in the question of Year 5, which under the Twins plan is free agency and with the Brewers is a vesting option for $13M. So I'm sure his agent went through various scenarios, and gave the spreadsheet program a good workout.

    If he's completely not confident in his own health for the long-term, he'll take the greatest guarantee, period. But even with good confidence, the potential payoff has to be pretty high in order to make a gamble worthwhile.
    Or maybe Garza was gambling that he could do much better than the Twins' offer. Garza didn't act on the Angels' offer. It's difficult to say Garza "lost" when one tries to count $50MM.

  17. #13
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    288
    Like
    10
    Liked 39 Times in 27 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    The Twins did exactly what they should have done in that situation. More money over fewer years, walk away if the player doesn't bite.
    Agreed. There should be no bitching about the "cheap Pohlads" after this offseason. I am certainly looking forward to a competent starting staff this year

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

    birdwatcher (02-24-2014)

  19. #14
    Junior Member Rookie
    Posts
    25
    Like
    40
    Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TKGuy View Post
    Agreed. There should be no bitching about the "cheap Pohlads" after this offseason. I am certainly looking forward to a competent starting staff this year
    Twins are bringing in an estimated extra $25 million of revenue because of the new mlb TV contract, and have bumped up payroll about $1 million from last year, which was already way low compared to what they said they'd spend. They are far from shedding the "cheap" label.

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

    mike wants wins (02-24-2014)

  21. #15
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,369
    Like
    1,324
    Liked 1,297 Times in 750 Posts
    Good insight from Bartlett on Garza's interest in YEARS and money. I didn't realize the Milwaukee deal had a 5th year vesting option:

    http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_2...uit-matt-garza

  22. #16
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,721
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 568 Times in 372 Posts
    Well, they tried. That's at least a good sign. Of course, succeeding at adding good players is more important than trying to, but the fact they tried is a good sign. Let's hope they succeed more next year.
    Lighten up Francis....

  23. #17
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,134
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,607 Times in 834 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    Well, they tried. That's at least a good sign. Of course, succeeding at adding good players is more important than trying to, but the fact they tried is a good sign. Let's hope they succeed more next year.
    Again, I think the Twins made the right move. They already committed to Nolasco and Hughes. They have a handful of young players coming in the next 12 months.

    Taking a swing at grabbing Garza for less years and more dollars and walking away if it didn't happen was the smart play.

    So they didn't get Garza. That's fine. What's important is that they saw a market inefficiency and tried to steal a player in a soft market, even though they don't *really* have roster space for more pitchers.

    It's exactly the type of attempt at market manipulation many of us have been screaming to see for ages. It didn't work out this time but maybe next time, they'll get their guy. To me, what's important is the mindset change that led to the offer in the first place, not whether it succeeded or not.

  24. These 7 users like Brock Beauchamp's post and want to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    big dog (02-24-2014), ChiTownTwinsFan (02-24-2014), Dman (02-24-2014), JB_Iowa (02-24-2014), mike wants wins (02-24-2014), PseudoSABR (02-24-2014), twinsnorth49 (02-24-2014)

  25. #18
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,721
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 568 Times in 372 Posts
    I never said anything about them "failing" or doing the wrong thing. I agree with your last paragrpah. My comment on bringing in good players was a general statement. I don't care how hard the Twins try off the field, I care if they succeed at bringing in players. At least now they are legitimately trying, which is a step. At some point, they will need to "overpay", and I'm ok with this year not being that year for more SP......
    Lighten up Francis....

  26. #19
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,689
    Like
    3
    Liked 337 Times in 214 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    So they didn't get Garza. That's fine. What's important is that they saw a market inefficiency and tried to steal a player in a soft market, even though they don't *really* have roster space for more pitchers.

    It's exactly the type of attempt at market manipulation many of us have been screaming to see for ages. It didn't work out this time but maybe next time, they'll get their guy. To me, what's important is the mindset change that led to the offer in the first place, not whether it succeeded or not.
    Agreed. It's kind of like the Nolasco signing in that sense -- I like what it shows us about the front office (willingness to spend), maybe more than the actual results of the move. Would have like a slightly more aggressive or creative offer, though -- something to hope for next time. (And hopefully, TR extends his targets to less familiar faces, like Ervin Santana etc.)

  27. #20
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,689
    Like
    3
    Liked 337 Times in 214 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Seems like the best place for this question: what if Ervin Santana would be willing to sign today for Garza's 3/42 offer? Or maybe Nolasco's 4/49? Given what Ubaldo Jimenez settled for, that's not an unrealistic proposition.

Page 1 of 3 123 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.