Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Article: Twins Looking for Another Pavano in Arroyo?

  1. #21
    Arroyo put up similar numbers to Pavano in the AL East back when he was with the Red Sox. And his home park over the last 8 years is a bandshell. Arroyo isn't guaranteed to succeed, but more so than Pelfrey, Albers, Diamond, Correia, Hughes, and even Deduno and Gibson.
    I would rather the Twins go after Garza, but if not, Arroyo is still worth it in the current pitching market.

    You can never have enough pitching. Ideally, by the end of this year, there are pitchers in the minors pushing for spots, leading to a deadline trade or two.

    Imagine that Nolasco and Arroyo put up close to sub-4.00 ERAs and 180+ innings. Hughes improves for the most part, while Correia starts off strong again before fadiing. Mays dominates AAA, along with Gibson, forcing the Twins hand to either demote their #5 pitcher or trade one of the other pitchers. Is that really a bad thing? And if they fail, you still have pitchers at AAA.

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

    raindog (12-13-2013)

  3. #22
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    319
    Like
    24
    Liked 50 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Arroyo compared to Garza:

    H/9 - 9.2 vs 8.6
    HR/9 - 1.2 vs 1.0
    K/BB - 2.55 vs 2.37
    WHIP - 1.28 vs 1.29
    ERA - 3.84 vs 4.19
    ERA+ 108 vs 104

    Garza is definitely better, but the difference isn't as big as I would have guessed. Arroyo wouldn't be that terrible of a move, for a much cheaper deal. Arroyo has also cut down his walks every year for the past five.

  4. #23
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    319
    Like
    24
    Liked 50 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Oops, I started reversing those halfway down. Fixed (career numbers)
    Arroyo vs Garza
    H/9 - 9.2 vs 8.6
    HR/9 - 1.2 vs 1.0
    K/BB - 2.37 vs 2.55
    WHIP - 1.29 vs 1.28
    ERA - 4.19 vs 3.84
    ERA+ 104 vs 108

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

    glunn (12-11-2013)

  6. #24
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer minn55441's Avatar
    Posts
    512
    Like
    13
    Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    I could be wrong, but I don't think the Twins are making a choice between Arroyo and Garza. If we can believe the rumors, the choice is between Arroyo and Pelfrey. I'm still undecided on the better option.

    It sounds as if we have already offered Pelfrey a two year contract and we are using Arroyo as leverage or else there is a legitimate chance that if Pelfrey does turn down the current 2 year contract, they will offer something similar to Arroyo 2 or maybe three years.

    What do you think? Who would you rather have Pelfrey for two or Arroyo for 3?

  7. This user likes minn55441's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    glunn (12-11-2013)

  8. #25
    I think minn55441 is right about the Arroyo/Pelfrey choice. Honestly...I don't see a spot in the rotation for Pelfrey if they sign either Garza or Arroyo.

    I was in the camp that I thought a two year deal for Arroyo from the start was a good idea. I think if he can be had for two years (with a club option and a $1M buyout for a third) that it's a great idea. The key is to get a deal that makes him a tradeable asset this year if two of Gibson, Deduno and Meyer start to click.

    But if rumors are true, the Diamondbacks are hard core wanting Tanaka. If that's the case, the Garza thing could actually happen here. And if you can get Garza for $3m a year more than Arroyo, it seems like a no-brainer. I don't think any of the top of the rotation trade options are really options anymore.

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

    glunn (12-11-2013)

  10. #26
    Question: Why don't teams in financial situations like the Twins do $36M three year deals that front load higher dollars in the first year and make the third year less, to make the ability to trade the player more workable? For example, instead of $12M a year, pay the guy $14M this year, $14M next year and $8M the third year? If he's still a 180+ inning caliber starter, any number of teams would be interested in him as a 4th or 5th two years from now at that price. Is there something in the CBA that prevents that kind of front end loading of contracts?

    That said...with Correia coming off the books at the end of 2014, Hughes in 2016 and Nolasco potentially in 2017....to me signing a 2 year innings eater makes sense as a place holder while our A & AA talent progress. You open up a slot a year and get money back every year to either replace that lost starter or to meet another need as team-controlled cheap pitchers fold into the rotation.

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

    glunn (12-11-2013)

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by sconnytwinsfan View Post
    For example, instead of $12M a year, pay the guy $14M this year, $14M next year and $8M the third year?

    That said...with Correia coming off the books at the end of 2014, Hughes in 2016 and Nolasco potentially in 2017....to me signing a 2 year innings eater makes sense as a place holder while our A & AA talent progress. You open up a slot a year and get money back every year to either replace that lost starter or to meet another need as team-controlled cheap pitchers fold into the rotation.
    This is really smart. Why not just sign Garza and Arroyo?

  13. #28
    I don't think arroyo is that interested in Minnesota. Where Garza is interested we can give him the years he wants. But I don't get why we don't give him 14-15 mil a year instead of 12 mil to arroyo. The pohlads are finally worried about putting people in seats. 4yrs 60 mil with a fifth year option

  14. These 2 users like mako83's post and want to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    glunn (12-11-2013), Trevor0333 (12-11-2013)

  15. #29
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    310
    Like
    4
    Liked 42 Times in 28 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by mako83 View Post
    I don't think arroyo is that interested in Minnesota. Where Garza is interested we can give him the years he wants. But I don't get why we don't give him 14-15 mil a year instead of 12 mil to arroyo. The pohlads are finally worried about putting people in seats. 4yrs 60 mil with a fifth year option
    This is where I am at also, give me Garza at 4 guaranteed years over Arroyo for 3 any day.

  16. This user likes Trevor0333's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    glunn (12-11-2013)

  17. #30
    Pavano turned out to be good for another couple years. How would a long term contract have worked out? Arroyo would require many more years than a Pavano comparison would justify.

  18. #31
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,270
    Like
    32
    Liked 120 Times in 78 Posts
    Arroyo at 3/36 is just silly. I would much rather have Pelfrey at 2/12 (latest offer).

  19. #32
    Senior Member Triple-A mcrow's Avatar
    Posts
    275
    Like
    0
    Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    I think the fact they are still looking for experienced starters tells you that they are not confident at all with what they have in them minors. If you sign Arroyo and already have Correia(if he pitches well this year they're going to want to resign), Hughes for 3 years, and Nolasco for 4 you'd have 4 starting spots locked down for at least 2 years. So these moves would indicate they don't expect much help from the minors over the next couple of season at least.

  20. #33
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,024
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,520 Times in 794 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by kab21 View Post
    Arroyo at 3/36 is just silly. I would much rather have Pelfrey at 2/12 (latest offer).
    My thoughts exactly. I don't like Pelfrey but if you look at his second half, it's likely he'll provide Arroyo-esque performance at less years and half the yearly salary.

  21. #34
    Senior Member Triple-A mcrow's Avatar
    Posts
    275
    Like
    0
    Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    My thoughts exactly. I don't like Pelfrey but if you look at his second half, it's likely he'll provide Arroyo-esque performance at less years and half the yearly salary.

    Hard call, Arroyo has a much better track record in recent years. Maybe you have a guy in Pelfrey that you can have for 2 years instead of three for Arroyo but Pelfrey is probably 5th starter or maybe 4th at his best. Arroyo can be a 2nd or 3rd starter, assuming he continues to pitch well. So do you take a guy who might be a mid 4's ERA type of guy for 2 years or a guy who might be a mid to upper 3's for 3 years? Chances are that 3rd year wouldn't be a good one but there is no reason to think you can't get another two good seasons out of Arroyo. There is a chance that Pelfrey isn't even good enough that you'd want him in your rotation this year.

  22. #35
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    691
    Twitter
    @LoganTibbits
    Like
    498
    Liked 202 Times in 122 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrow View Post
    I think the fact they are still looking for experienced starters tells you that they are not confident at all with what they have in them minors. If you sign Arroyo and already have Correia(if he pitches well this year they're going to want to resign), Hughes for 3 years, and Nolasco for 4 you'd have 4 starting spots locked down for at least 2 years. So these moves would indicate they don't expect much help from the minors over the next couple of season at least.
    I don't completely agree. You can never have too much pitching, as has been said many times on this board. Look at what the Cardinals did last year. They had a couple injuries to the pitching staff and brought guys up from the minors without skipping a beat. A lot of our higher rated pitching prospects were in the lower levels last year. A couple of those guys might be fast movers, but I wouldn't expect those guys to be up for a couple of years like you said. However, we do still have Alex Meyer and a couple of other guys that will be in AA this year or were in AA last year that could make an impact soon. Having too much pitching isn't a real problem. You can always trade guys away or release them if you have to.

    I think these moves are more a factor of losing so many games the last three seasons along with Joe Mauer beginning to age and two of the top prospects in baseball getting close to the majors.

  23. #36
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,024
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,520 Times in 794 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrow View Post
    Hard call, Arroyo has a much better track record in recent years. Maybe you have a guy in Pelfrey that you can have for 2 years instead of three for Arroyo but Pelfrey is probably 5th starter or maybe 4th at his best. Arroyo can be a 2nd or 3rd starter, assuming he continues to pitch well. So do you take a guy who might be a mid 4's ERA type of guy for 2 years or a guy who might be a mid to upper 3's for 3 years? Chances are that 3rd year wouldn't be a good one but there is no reason to think you can't get another two good seasons out of Arroyo. There is a chance that Pelfrey isn't even good enough that you'd want him in your rotation this year.
    That's true. At two years, I'd take Arroyo every time. I guess it boils down to a value judgment over that third year.

  24. #37
    Senior Member Triple-A mcrow's Avatar
    Posts
    275
    Like
    0
    Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    That's true. At two years, I'd take Arroyo every time. I guess it boils down to a value judgment over that third year.
    Unless Arroyo is a complete trainwreck and can't even make it in the rotation at all, if the Twins got two more years like his recent years that would be a pretty decent deal, IMO.

  25. #38
    Senior Member Triple-A mcrow's Avatar
    Posts
    275
    Like
    0
    Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Tibs View Post
    I don't completely agree. You can never have too much pitching, as has been said many times on this board. Look at what the Cardinals did last year. They had a couple injuries to the pitching staff and brought guys up from the minors without skipping a beat. A lot of our higher rated pitching prospects were in the lower levels last year. A couple of those guys might be fast movers, but I wouldn't expect those guys to be up for a couple of years like you said. However, we do still have Alex Meyer and a couple of other guys that will be in AA this year or were in AA last year that could make an impact soon. Having too much pitching isn't a real problem. You can always trade guys away or release them if you have to.

    I think these moves are more a factor of losing so many games the last three seasons along with Joe Mauer beginning to age and two of the top prospects in baseball getting close to the majors.

    Sure, you can never have too many starters but if TR thought he had a good chance of getting some good starters out of the minors soon he wouldn't be looking to sign a 36 year old to a 3 year deal either. If you think you have a good chance of having 2-3 major league ready starters coming up over the next two seasons you might be looking to sign a vet to a 1-2 year deal.

  26. #39
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,625
    Like
    1,121
    Liked 535 Times in 354 Posts
    Rumor is they offered a two year deal to the slowest pitcher ever.....I don't get it.
    Lighten up Francis....

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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.