Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61

Thread: All's quiet on the Garza front

  1. #41
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    204
    Like
    106
    Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    What about the Cardinals Lance Lynn or Joe Kelly? Lynn who won 33 games over the last 2 years may be put in the bullpen next year. Kelly may be, also? Not sure what the Cardinals would want from the Twins in regards to prospects though.

  2. #42
    Member Rookie
    Posts
    33
    Like
    5
    Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    If the Twins trade Berrios, May, Rosario for Saradzija, the starting rotation looks like this:

    Samardzija
    Nolasco
    Corriea
    Hughes
    Dedundo/Gibson/Diamond/Worley

    With Meyers on the way, and Stewart, Gonsalves, Thorpe, Jorge, Eades on the way from 2016-2018, the Twins are fine on the farm, too. Kind of a no-brainer, eh?

  3. #43
    Member Rookie
    Posts
    33
    Like
    5
    Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Yeah, something like this. The Twins have prospects, but they're just PROSPECTIVE major leaguers right now, let alone 2/3 type starting pitchers like Samardzija, Kelly, or Lynn. Use the ammo ya got while ya got it.

  4. #44
    Senior Member All-Star Thrylos's Avatar
    Posts
    4,167
    Twitter
    @thrylos98
    Like
    36
    Liked 444 Times in 271 Posts
    Blog Entries
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by richardkr34 View Post
    "We don't have the pitchers to trade them"? Are you serious? Go ahead and look at baseball prospectus's Twins Top Ten, Prospects on the Rise, and Factors on the Farm. Out of those pitchers, Berrios, Gonsalves, Eades, and May could be jettisoned; throw Gibson in there and to sweeten it, put Rosario in the mix. Make your own package from those players and tell me again how the Twins don't have the pitching prospects to get something done.

    Examples: Berrios, May, Rosario
    May, Gonsalves, Rosario
    Berrios, Eades, Rosario
    Gibson, May, Rosario
    those two cannot be traded until next July
    -----
    Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
    http://tenthinningstretch.blogspot.com/
    twitter: @thrylos98

  5. #45
    Member Rookie
    Posts
    33
    Like
    5
    Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Ah, very well. Switch them out for Melontakis and Darnell or something. Or just go with a Gibson, Berrios, Rosario package. Seems fair.

  6. #46
    Banned All-Star
    Posts
    1,498
    Like
    419
    Liked 75 Times in 49 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrylos View Post
    those two cannot be traded until next July
    Cant they be PTBN? and then in June traded?

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

    goulik (12-05-2013)

  8. #47
    Senior Member Triple-A Don't Feed the Greed Guy's Avatar
    Posts
    426
    Like
    219
    Liked 219 Times in 94 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by ericchri View Post
    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.
    Spot on. The Twins need to stagger free agent dollars over a period of contract years in order to ensure the proper balance of risk vs. reward. Nolasco and Hughes are Twins because Terry Ryan had no other choice than to play "Free Agent Roulette" this offseason. There's enough money on the wheel already. Wait a year, and see how Gibson, Meyer, May and others develop, or if Doumit, The Hammer, or others emerge as "sell high" trade bait over the first few months of 2014. Hopefully, the Twins don't have to press their luck next offseason, but if they have to walk back into the free agent casino next, they will still have some chips to push in. Don't spend all the chips this year.

  9. #48
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    434
    Like
    0
    Liked 42 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    I think calling Garza a #2 starter is giving him the benefit of the doubt. He has seldom pitched that well. Giving a mid-rotation starter the money per year and the years he is likely to get is(I think) a mistake. If the Twins are going to have a top of the rotation guy, it will most likely be from recent trades(Meyers or May), high draft choices(Gibson, Berrios, Stewart) or one of the international signings. You can get a top of the rotation starter in free agency but it doesn't happen every year and good share(most) of them aren't top of the rotation throughout the length of the contract. It will also cost you huge money.


    I think going after Garza is not a particularly good idea.

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

    minn55441 (12-04-2013)

  11. #49
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,281
    Like
    32
    Liked 124 Times in 80 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by richardkr34 View Post
    "We don't have the pitchers to trade them"? Are you serious? Go ahead and look at baseball prospectus's Twins Top Ten, Prospects on the Rise, and Factors on the Farm. Out of those pitchers, Berrios, Gonsalves, Eades, and May could be jettisoned; throw Gibson in there and to sweeten it, put Rosario in the mix. Make your own package from those players and tell me again how the Twins don't have the pitching prospects to get something done.

    Examples: Berrios, May, Rosario
    May, Gonsalves, Rosario
    Berrios, Eades, Rosario
    Gibson, May, Rosario
    It's not that the Twins don't have pitching prospects. It's that the Twins have finally addressed this horrible weakness in the minors. Trading a couple that we have for a FA in 2 yrs could really hurt the team long term.

  12. #50
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,093
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    48
    Liked 1,581 Times in 822 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by kab21 View Post
    It's not that the Twins don't have pitching prospects. It's that the Twins have finally addressed this horrible weakness in the minors. Trading a couple that we have for a FA in 2 yrs could really hurt the team long term.
    Yep. Right around the time the Twins are waving Samardzija good-bye in free agency, Buxton and Sano are (hopefully) coming into their own.

    And for the privilege of picking up Samardzija, the franchise is now short at least two minor league arms who could complement Sano and Buxton.

    Best case scenario is that the team gets to pay Samardzija $80-100m to stick around through his declining years.

    Yay all around. If the Twins absolutely must pick up a pitcher, throw money at Matt Garza. At least that way you don't lose prospects for the honor of overpaying a pitcher. The Twins have money and no team has ever complained about having too many prospects.

  13. These 2 users like Brock Beauchamp's post and want to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    Brandon (12-05-2013), Jim Crikket (12-04-2013)

  14. #51
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,281
    Like
    32
    Liked 124 Times in 80 Posts
    And just for the record I'm all for trading prospects (big trades) at the right time. But this is not the right time.

  15. This user likes kab21's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    Major Leauge Ready (12-04-2013)

  16. #52
    Senior Member All-Star Jim Crikket's Avatar
    Posts
    1,094
    Like
    15
    Liked 122 Times in 61 Posts
    Blog Entries
    77
    The only pitching prospects that should be considered trade chips for a starting pitcher who would only be controlled for 2-3 years (or less) would be those that look unlikely to be significant rotation contributors this year, but are out of options or you project as being minor league free agents before you think they'll be ready to contribute. If you can get something for those spare parts, fine. Otherwise, what kab and Brock said.
    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~

  17. #53
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    395
    Like
    3
    Liked 149 Times in 78 Posts
    We have plenty of money to spend. If Garza takes a similar deal to Nolasco, we are still only at $90 million and are fine for 2015 and 2016. If the problem is blocking younger guys, that implies that guys like Hughes are pitching well enough to be traded when the time comes.

  18. #54
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    742
    Like
    28
    Liked 57 Times in 46 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    I am all for signing Garza or an other pitcher that can help. As for when the other pitchers are ready to come up from the minors... We can always trade Hughes, Nolasco or Garza for a position player or other prospects. Why not get an asset for now and flip it for something useful later when we have other options.

  19. #55
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,600
    Like
    3
    Liked 320 Times in 202 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim H View Post
    I think calling Garza a #2 starter is giving him the benefit of the doubt. He has seldom pitched that well.
    Garza's career ERA+ is 108, and he's basically been right around that mark every season of his career. That 108 would rank around #40 among all MLB qualified starters in recent seasons. Last year, Bailey, Lester, Burnett, and Hamels were just a few of the notable guys right around that figure. I think that's definitely #2 starter quality.

    Now, if you simply meant Garza has "seldom pitched" at all (hasn't qualified last two seasons), I'd agree that's definitely a strike against him. (Although with durability, a consistent 108 ERA+ could be borderline ace material, as evidenced by the names listed above, and Garza himself a couple years ago.)

  20. #56
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,093
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    48
    Liked 1,581 Times in 822 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    Garza's career ERA+ is 108, and he's basically been right around that mark every season of his career. That 108 would rank around #40 among all MLB qualified starters in recent seasons. Last year, Bailey, Lester, Burnett, and Hamels were just a few of the notable guys right around that figure. I think that's definitely #2 starter quality.

    Now, if you simply meant Garza has "seldom pitched" at all (hasn't qualified last two seasons), I'd agree that's definitely a strike against him. (Although with durability, a consistent 108 ERA+ could be borderline ace material, as evidenced by the names listed above, and Garza himself a couple years ago.)
    If Matt Garza is a borderline ace, then Brad Radke was a legit ace pitcher.

    And I don't think many people will make that argument about Radke.

    Garza is absolutely a #2, though... Maybe a borderline #3 a couple of seasons.

  21. #57
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,600
    Like
    3
    Liked 320 Times in 202 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by cmathewson View Post
    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.
    "Easily"?

    If everything breaks right for the Twins and their prospects, we won't have room for Garza... 4 seasons from now? Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

    You're assuming that three 18 year olds who haven't pitched above rookie league ball yet will all be healthy and capable MLB starters by age 22. You're also comfortably predicting that our ace will be a guy who has yet to pitch above AA, missed about half of last season with shoulder problems, and was only ranked #59 by BA before those shoulder problems surfaced.

    I am excited about Meyer and the younger guys as much as anyone, but if it was this easy to develop and project starting pitchers, the Twins would not be in their current situation. Again, there are plenty of fine arguments against signing Garza -- that there's just no room for him on our 2017 depth chart can't possibly be one of them.

  22. These 3 users like spycake's post and want to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    mike wants wins (12-05-2013), scottz (12-05-2013), Siehbiscuit (12-05-2013)

  23. #58
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,600
    Like
    3
    Liked 320 Times in 202 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    If Matt Garza is a borderline ace, then Brad Radke was a legit ace pitcher.

    And I don't think many people will make that argument about Radke.

    Garza is absolutely a #2, though... Maybe a borderline #3 a couple of seasons.
    I think Radke was just about a legit ace. In his prime, he averaged 226 IP with a 118 ERA+ for 6 seasons. He obviously wasn't ever the best MLB starter, but for 5 of those 6 years, he ranked in the top 29 for ERA+ and in the top 15 for IP. Not his fault he was stuck on some awful teams.

    In the lowest year of his peak, Radke dipped to a still very respectable #33 for IP and #39 for ERA+. I'd say that one season was borderline ace, and pretty much 2008-2011 Garza ranks.

  24. #59
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,093
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    48
    Liked 1,581 Times in 822 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    I think Radke was just about a legit ace. In his prime, he averaged 226 IP with a 118 ERA+ for 6 seasons. He obviously wasn't ever the best MLB starter, but for 5 of those 6 years, he ranked in the top 29 for ERA+ and in the top 15 for IP. Not his fault he was stuck on some awful teams.

    In the lowest year of his peak, Radke dipped to a still very respectable #33 for IP and #39 for ERA+. I'd say that one season was borderline ace, and pretty much 2008-2011 Garza ranks.
    Fair enough. I guess it all depends on where you draw the line for "ace". Personally, I tend to believe that not every team has an ace and if a guy is outside the top 20 in MLB starters, he cannot be called an ace.

  25. #60
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,600
    Like
    3
    Liked 320 Times in 202 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    Fair enough. I guess it all depends on where you draw the line for "ace". Personally, I tend to believe that not every team has an ace and if a guy is outside the top 20 in MLB starters, he cannot be called an ace.
    Ace is definitely subjective, and I like your 20 estimate.

    But here's Radke's rWAR ranks among pitchers, for the 5 season period beginning in 1997:
    17, 13, 5, 5, 18

    Prefer fWAR?
    10, 14, 17, 8, 11

    Looks top 20 to me. And consistently so -- filter out the Joe Mays 2001 types from the above lists and Radke could be even higher.

    I'll grant that a healthy Garza may be better characterized as a very consistent #2 rather than a borderline ace -- his performance, while very good, has never spiked that high. That consistency might actually be more valuable then some borderline aces, though, who may have a spike "ace" type season but much lower lows (i.e. Jimenez, E. Santana).

  26. These 2 users like spycake's post and want to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    Brock Beauchamp (12-05-2013), scottz (12-05-2013)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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.