Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Article: Twins making a "strong push" for Nolasco

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 14,375 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 16 November 2013 - 11:06 AM

RB, when you ran over the Business Manager carrying her coffee, did you get one of those sticky things for your helmet?


Yes I did
image.jpg


BTW... Any resemblance between my helmet and an Ohio State helmet is purely coincidental.

A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

 

President of the "Baseball Player Positional Flexibility" Club 

Founded 4-23-16 


#22 jmlease1

jmlease1

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 12:44 PM

I think I'm more interested in getting Kazmir & Hughes than Nolasco and whomever (Arroyo?). Last season was a bounce-back year for Nolasco after a couple years in a row where he gave up a TON of hits and the K rate kept going down. He's also pitched his entire career in the NL.

Kazmir has red flags too: injuries and ineffectiveness nearly ended his career. But his peak was higher, he did it in the AL, his K rate is higher, he's younger, and he's likely to be a) cheaper, and B) not insistent on a 5 year deal.

Hughes has been up & down over his career, but a move to Target field should help him, and he's still on the good side of 30.

I'm not opposed to Arroyo per se, but I'd like the Twins to be a little more aggressive than that. Again, Nolasco's not terrible or anything, but I have trouble with the idea of giving a 4-5 year deal to a guy who has hit 30 and posted an above average ERA+ exactly twice. (and was convincingly below average 4 of the past 5 years)

#23 jcphitman

jcphitman

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 01:05 PM

It was a very good article! A nice breakdown of Nolasco.

It sounds like from what MLBTR said, we aren't as far as people thought we were here on Nolasco, but it is encouraging to see our name in these rumors as what appears to be a serious suitor.

As for Nolasco and even a 4 (or worse 5) year contract, I still don't get it. I read the article, but looking at his career stats doesn't help me understand. Why? He's never been an amazing pitcher. He's pitched in the NL his entire career. It kind of makes me think Kevin Correia is a poor man's Nolasco in all honesty. Nolasco is better and younger, but not by huge margins IMO to deserve 4 or 5 years. He's on the wrong side of 30 and breakdown is much more possible now than before.

I see why the Twins are in on Garza. He's on the right side of 30 and has what we need in a pitcher. Plus we developed him and have an idea of what we'd be getting back. I see why we'd go after Hughes. He's not as good as Garza, but being in a pitcher's park and on the right side of 30 helps his cause. I could see Garza getting 5 years from us and I could even see Hughes getting 3-4 years.

Nolsaso though? Someone help me here. Even Arroyo ... he's 37 and durable, but 3 years? Maybe 2 years, but not 3.

What am I missing here? Help...

#24 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,862 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 01:31 PM

I think I'm more interested in getting Kazmir & Hughes than Nolasco and whomever (Arroyo?). Last season was a bounce-back year for Nolasco after a couple years in a row where he gave up a TON of hits and the K rate kept going down. He's also pitched his entire career in the NL.

Kazmir has red flags too: injuries and ineffectiveness nearly ended his career. But his peak was higher, he did it in the AL, his K rate is higher, he's younger, and he's likely to be a) cheaper, and B) not insistent on a 5 year deal.

Hughes has been up & down over his career, but a move to Target field should help him, and he's still on the good side of 30.

I'm not opposed to Arroyo per se, but I'd like the Twins to be a little more aggressive than that. Again, Nolasco's not terrible or anything, but I have trouble with the idea of giving a 4-5 year deal to a guy who has hit 30 and posted an above average ERA+ exactly twice. (and was convincingly below average 4 of the past 5 years)



We all would love to have certain pitchers. But the reality is that the Twins front office have to deal with agents who realistically WANT to place their clients with a team like Minnesota, as well as players THAT WANT to play for a team like Minnesota. If a player and/or agent suggests that a Minnesota tie-in would be explorable, then you pounce on it. You can't wait for a Hughes to say "maybe I will play in Minnesota" if he is avoiding making a discussion commitment or has expressed salary demands above-and-beyond (see Santana) your team is capable of giving, or that a pitcher truly wants to play only for a "winner."

The only way we (the Twins) can possibly get around something like that is to totally throw an unbelievable contrat at the player -- "Hey, Hughes...we want you. How does $20 mill a year sound, you tell us 3 or 4 years...your choice."

Otherwise, you go after "friendly" players and make a serious offer "Hey, Ricky, right now, today...we will give you $14 mil for 4 with a $4 million buyout or $15 mill option for year 5. If we don;t hear back from you by tonight, we are moving on tomorrow." A fair offer. If you don't hear back...you got $60 million to easily spend elsewhere.
Joel Thingvall
www.thingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com

#25 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 02:51 PM

We all would love to have certain pitchers. But the reality is that the Twins front office have to deal with agents who realistically WANT to place their clients with a team like Minnesota, as well as players THAT WANT to play for a team like Minnesota. If a player and/or agent suggests that a Minnesota tie-in would be explorable, then you pounce on it. You can't wait for a Hughes to say "maybe I will play in Minnesota" if he is avoiding making a discussion commitment or has expressed salary demands above-and-beyond (see Santana) your team is capable of giving, or that a pitcher truly wants to play only for a "winner."

The only way we (the Twins) can possibly get around something like that is to totally throw an unbelievable contrat at the player -- "Hey, Hughes...we want you. How does $20 mill a year sound, you tell us 3 or 4 years...your choice."

Otherwise, you go after "friendly" players and make a serious offer "Hey, Ricky, right now, today...we will give you $14 mil for 4 with a $4 million buyout or $15 mill option for year 5. If we don;t hear back from you by tonight, we are moving on tomorrow." A fair offer. If you don't hear back...you got $60 million to easily spend elsewhere.


The way to get around it is with our 5-15 prospects. Every deal has a walk away price and the night is still young. Let's see how this plays out.

#26 DAM DC Twins Fans

DAM DC Twins Fans

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 06:21 PM

I am deadset against Nolasco if the contract is for 5 years (or even 4). that's just silly money for someone that has had ERA's of 4.48+ for 4 out of the last 5 years. I would strongly prefer a contract extension to Correia and that shouldn't be viewed as an endorsement.


I am dead set against giving any of these guys 4 (or god forbid) 5 year deals. They are not that good. I would go for 3 years (max) for younger guys (Hughes, Johnson maybe, Garza). Correia has one spot, Gibson has one spot. Hopefully Meyer claims a spot next year--Diamond/Deduno gets a spot. In 2016 (hopefully) the young guys in A or lower will start coming up (Stewart, Gonsalves, Thorpe, etc etc) We don't need 34 or 35 year old pitchers hanging on then.

#27 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,549 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 07:13 PM

I am dead set against giving any of these guys 4 (or god forbid) 5 year deals. They are not that good. I would go for 3 years (max) for younger guys (Hughes, Johnson maybe, Garza). Correia has one spot, Gibson has one spot. Hopefully Meyer claims a spot next year--Diamond/Deduno gets a spot. In 2016 (hopefully) the young guys in A or lower will start coming up (Stewart, Gonsalves, Thorpe, etc etc) We don't need 34 or 35 year old pitchers hanging on then.


Guys that can toss <4.00 ERA's are that good.

You also greatly overestimate the Twins rotation both next year and down the road.

#28 TwinsAce

TwinsAce

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 08:15 PM

Nolasco isn't my favorite pitcher out there, but to give him a 4-5 year deal isn't the end of the world. When people say they don't want to block our young pitchers, they forget that the Twins would always have the option of trading away the older pitcher. As long as Nolasco stays similar to his career marks, he would still have a trade market in year 3 of the deal. And that's only if the Twins have a glut of pitching, something we have no idea will happen for sure.

#29 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,605 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 12:15 AM

Some interesting things being said. I agree with those who question the wisdom of signing Nolasco to a 4-year deal and over $40 million. It is *clearly* absurd to do that. The consideration of doing this blows my mind more than the Eric Fryer love and that is bizarre. Those two things, together, however, with this team run by these people . . . perfect sense.
Nolasco is Correia+. Do people deny this? I am asking. Christ, ARROYO is Correia+. And Arroyo is a 50/50 chance to actually be better over the next two years. Seriously.

Let me frame this another way: I also think that Trevor May is a 50/50 chance at being better than Nolasco over the next four years. And at a very low fraction of the cost.

Think about that.

Signing 4th starters for tens of millions of bucks over several years is going to damage FA signings by this team in the next 3 years.

Edited by Shane Wahl, 17 November 2013 - 12:21 AM.


#30 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,605 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 12:17 AM

Nolasco isn't my favorite pitcher out there, but to give him a 4-5 year deal isn't the end of the world. When people say they don't want to block our young pitchers, they forget that the Twins would always have the option of trading away the older pitcher. As long as Nolasco stays similar to his career marks, he would still have a trade market in year 3 of the deal. And that's only if the Twins have a glut of pitching, something we have no idea will happen for sure.


Another reason not to sign a slightly above average (in his good years!) pitcher to a 4 or 5 (!) year deal: NO ONE trading for him until year 3, 4, or 5. Nolasco wouldn't be traded in 2014 or 2015. No team is dumb enough to do that.

#31 Alex

Alex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 978 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 06:51 AM

That's a pretty nice false dichotomy. This idea that the Twins don't promote guys is silly. Look at Buxton, look at Arcia, look at Mauer. Also, look at what Wacha and Verlander did in their short time in the minors. None of our guys have done that. Those teams don't have some set perogative that any pitcher they draft will be in the majors the next year. It is very much the exception to every team's rule.


To be fair, you're talking about a player who hasn't played above A-ball, another who the Twins moved through all levels of the minors, and one of the best hitting catchers in the history of the game. None of whom are pitchers. What they continue to do with Buxton will be interesting.

Not that the Twins had a pitcher that they should have considered recently and they've actually bungled moving players recently who they've moved quickly or had skip levels, so I agree there's far more to this than two opposing methods.

#32 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:11 AM

"Nolasco is Correia+".

Wouldn't that be the point? To get pitchers into the rotation who are better than Correia? And at this point, isn't money next to meaningless for the Twins, since they have oodles of it going unused, and won't that be the situation for the next half decade at least?

#33 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,862 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:26 AM

"Nolasco is Correia+".

Wouldn't that be the point? To get pitchers into the rotation who are better than Correia? And at this point, isn't money next to meaningless for the Twins, since they have oodles of it going unused, and won't that be the situation for the next half decade at least?


That is the one point about trying free agency. There is money to spend. What has it been spent on (Toshi, draft picks, Blackburn and Baker out for a year). It doesn't move to the next year. And the Twins have quite a bit they can spend this year. They lose Correia, Willingham and Doumit next year which is the price of a high-priced free agent with few players getting arbitration raises. They are still salary light going into 2016 and 2017, assuming that your potential free agents are the likes of Plouffe and Parmelee and Swarzak and Fien. Go figure. There is money to "try" something new for the organization. If it fails, it just means ... well, someday we will learn where ALL that unspent money does go.
Joel Thingvall
www.thingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com

#34 beckmt

beckmt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,158 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:32 AM

Would still prefer 2-3 years of Kazmir and 1-2 of Josh Johnson. This will save money(shorter term contracts) and not block the pitchers coming up. If you want to spend major money throw it a Garza(at least he has a high upside and no qualifying offer)

#35 beckmt

beckmt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,158 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:34 AM

Issue would be if Garza, Johnson and Kazmir will come here. I would offer more money for the shorter length contracts and see if they take it, if not move on to plan B. But don't wait for the higher ranked pitchers to see what they want to do, make an offer, give them(or their agents) 2 days to accept and if not go to plan B.

#36 jmlease1

jmlease1

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 10:55 AM

We all would love to have certain pitchers. But the reality is that the Twins front office have to deal with agents who realistically WANT to place their clients with a team like Minnesota, as well as players THAT WANT to play for a team like Minnesota. If a player and/or agent suggests that a Minnesota tie-in would be explorable, then you pounce on it. You can't wait for a Hughes to say "maybe I will play in Minnesota" if he is avoiding making a discussion commitment or has expressed salary demands above-and-beyond (see Santana) your team is capable of giving, or that a pitcher truly wants to play only for a "winner."

The only way we (the Twins) can possibly get around something like that is to totally throw an unbelievable contrat at the player -- "Hey, Hughes...we want you. How does $20 mill a year sound, you tell us 3 or 4 years...your choice."

Otherwise, you go after "friendly" players and make a serious offer "Hey, Ricky, right now, today...we will give you $14 mil for 4 with a $4 million buyout or $15 mill option for year 5. If we don;t hear back from you by tonight, we are moving on tomorrow." A fair offer. If you don't hear back...you got $60 million to easily spend elsewhere.


$14M per year on a 4-5 year for Nolasco isn't fair value, it's stupid value. I realize it only takes one moron to screw up the market on a guy, but let's try hard not to be the first idiot at the buffet. Just because Nolasco's agent likes us doesn't mean he's going to give us a good deal.

Hughes is not going to be a $20M per year player. Hughes is not going to be a $15M per year player. Moreover the Twins do have a number of selling points to offer a guy like Hughes: willingness to pay him on a 2-3 year deal while he gets time to bounce back and get one more big payday, a ballpark that plays well to his fly-ball tendencies, a media market that isn't going to immediately crush him the first start he's not Andy Pettite or Mike Mussina, and a bunch of young offensive players in the pipeline. Why not court him? Why not get him in to the Twin Cities and have him hang out with Joe Mauer over at Target Field?

Hughes is a guy that's on my radar because he's a guy that a) is gettable, and B) should have success here at a reasonable price. Nolasco is a guy that already seems over-priced and destined to bust.

#37 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 01:11 PM

If Nolasco wants crazy money and to many years,Why not Target E.Jackson, he has 3 years left at 13 million per, his numbers have to be close to Nolasco.Then adding Arroyo(2years) and Johnson(1 +1 ..1 year 9 million and an option year at 16 million) and hope 2 of the 3 work out. Jackson while struggling still had better numbers then over half of the 11 pitchers the Twins ran out and has a better upside

Edited by johnnydakota, 17 November 2013 - 01:14 PM.


#38 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,549 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 07:59 PM

"Nolasco is Correia+".

Wouldn't that be the point? To get pitchers into the rotation who are better than Correia? And at this point, isn't money next to meaningless for the Twins, since they have oodles of it going unused, and won't that be the situation for the next half decade at least?


The only thing I care about at this point is that they spend the money on legitimately good players instead of spending silly money on players that are as good as Corriea. I don't even care what position the players play as long as they are legitimately good.

#39 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,549 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 08:03 PM

Would still prefer 2-3 years of Kazmir and 1-2 of Josh Johnson. This will save money(shorter term contracts) and not block the pitchers coming up. If you want to spend major money throw it a Garza(at least he has a high upside and no qualifying offer)


The Twins are in no position to be concerned about blocking pitchers coming up. They would have to have an insanely great success rate with their pitching prospects for it to be an issue. And good pitching prospects (blocked) are one of the best assets that a contending team can have in today's trade market.

Summary - it's not going to be an issue and it's an awesome issue to have if it did happen.

#40 richardkr34

richardkr34

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:16 AM

Setting aside 2014 (since the Twins won't be competing), here's what I hope they do and what the rotation looks like in 2015 (pitching-wise):

1. Sign Garza to a four-year deal. He's consistently put up 3/4 starter numbers for the last six years, has made at least 24 starts in 5/6 of those years, and has had a cumulative era of under 4.00 in every one of those years. He's expressed a desire to come back to Minneapolis and shouldn't be that much more (if at all) expensive than Nolasco, so why not?

2. Trade Rosario and a throw in (Levi Michael?) for Porcello. Porcello is on the upswing, has two years of control left, the Twins will have money to resign him, and Rosario is expendable with the emergence of Dozier.

3. Sign Phil Hughes to a two-year deal. He's splits indicate that Yankee stadium is his problem. Two years bridges the gap until 2016 and also allows Meyer to fine tune his approach in AAA for 2014 until post-All Star break.

4. Draft the highest ceiling arm in the draft. The Twins need to keep the cupboard stocked.

So, to start 2014, the Twins could have a rotation looking like this:

1. Garza
2. Porcello
3. Correia
4. Hughes
5. Gibson

and have Deduno, Worley, and Diamond in the mix

Around the trade deadline, I would want the Twins to trade Correia for whatever they could get, getting a prospect (a bad one, I'm sure) and opening up a spot for Meyer. So, on opening day 2015, the rotation would look like this:

1. Garza
2. Meyer
3.Porcello
4. Gibson
5. Hughes

Which isn't a bad set up, considering the 2013 rotation. Hopefully, Stewart, Berrios, Eades, etc would be able to push for rotation spots in 2016 just as Sano, Buxton, and Arica are hitting their strides and the supporting cast of Hicks, Mauer, Pinto, and Dozier are contributing.