Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Article: Brewers sign Garza to deal similar to Twins' Nolasco

  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#21 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:34 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.


I had him pegged in the 16-17 million dollar range

#22 DaveW

DaveW

    Bullies never win

  • Members
  • 11,326 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:35 PM

I can't believe the rangers wouldn't match that contract either (or a ton of other teams for that matter....)

#23 Trautmann13

Trautmann13

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:36 PM

Im not sure I would like Garza over Nolasco at these numbers. Given I have a personal bias for Ricky being one of my favorite players, and always being annoyed by Garza's attitude. Even with that aside, Garza had a horrendous second half last year and has a glaring history of injury. Nolasco is basically the opposite. Am I way off here?

#24 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 3,323 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:36 PM

One wonders how cheaply Santana and Jimenez can be had given the addition of the draft pick a team has to give up. Good deal for the Brewers; would have been nice for the Twins to have nabbed him.

#25 pierre75275

pierre75275

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:38 PM

I wonder what this does to the Jimenez and E Santana market. Does that lower their value to the Kyle Loshe range? Give or take?

#26 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:40 PM

Anyone who would argue the Twins should have waited things out to get Garza instead of Nolasco is being a little bit delusional, I think.

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.

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~

#27 DaveW

DaveW

    Bullies never win

  • Members
  • 11,326 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:43 PM

I wonder what this does to the Jimenez and E Santana market. Does that lower their value to the Kyle Loshe range? Give or take?


Hopefully, and it would be a good time for the twins to strike, when they only have to give up a 2nd rounder

#28 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:43 PM

Sorry wrong thread, but someone was asking about the Twins spring training telecasts,the Trib says they will broadcast every home game this year

#29 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,629 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:44 PM

On the surface this looks to be a high-quality decision by the Brewers. Sounds like a steal. We'll probably never know if the Twins were presented with and rejected a similar offer. I think it's fair to say that in any event it was wise to pull the trigger on Nolasco and Hughes when the opportunity presented itself.

#30 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 12,398 posts

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.

#31 Parker Hageman

Parker Hageman

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,375 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:51 PM

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.co...o-Twins-Nolasco

"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." -- Jim Bouton, "Ball Four"


#32 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:52 PM

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.


If Garza stays healthy all 4 years, yes, it will look fantastic. I just don't see that as a given. And if Garza misses something close to a year's worth of starts over the length of the contract, then Milw gets essentially 3 years for their $52 mil AND they have to fill a hole in their rotation that he's left during the time he's on the shelf.

I know it's silly to argue this stuff now when none of us will know the truth for 4 years and yes, I'd have liked to have Garza at that price. I just think Nolasco's reliability is as likely to be a difference maker as any comparative preference we might think Garza has talent-wise.
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~

#33 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 16,391 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:54 PM

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.


Eh, hard to say. Garza hasn't been durable the past two years while Nolasco has been durable over the past three seasons.

Of course, past injuries don't automatically mean future injuries will occur and all that but at the end of the day, I think Nolasco has a decent shot of being the better signing. Not 50/50 by any means but the two pitchers just aren't that far apart in talent/age/stuff when you get right down to it. Garza has an advantage in stuff (but really, his stuff hasn't been great the past two seasons) but Nolasco might have the edge in durability, as much as one can predict such a thing.

#34 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 12,398 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:56 PM

I know it's silly to argue this stuff now when none of us will know the truth for 4 years and yes, I'd have liked to have Garza at that price. I just think Nolasco's reliability is as likely to be a difference maker as any comparative preference we might think Garza has talent-wise.


I would suggest that if reliability was as important as talent, it would reflect in contracts, but it doesn't. There is plenty that could go wrong both ways, but right now the odds are that this is a much better deal. It's just crazy to expect the Twins to have known quality #2 starters are out there for 50M.

#35 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:58 PM

If I could pick, I'd take the Garza deal by a hair. It'll be interesting to see which ends up being a better value in the end, but I'm not sure it really matters given the timing situation that others have pointed out. Same offseason, different situation.

#36 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 12,398 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:59 PM

Eh, hard to say. Garza hasn't been durable the past two years while Nolasco has been durable over the past three seasons.

Of course, past injuries don't automatically mean future injuries will occur and all that but at the end of the day, I think Nolasco has a decent shot of being the better signing. Not 50/50 by any means but the two pitchers just aren't that far apart in talent/age/stuff when you get right down to it. Garza has an advantage in stuff (but really, his stuff hasn't been great the past two seasons) but Nolasco might have the edge in durability, as much as one can predict such a thing.


Nolasco has been a league average starter his entire career despite pitching most of it in a pitcher's wet dream. And now he's coming over to the place NL pitchers come to die.

Durability is great, but it's not substitute for talent. If it was, we'd all love Correia a lot more than we do.

#37 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 02:00 PM

I'm also relieved to see the response to this so far -- rational and comprehensive of context. I was afraid it'd be more of the smash fest we see going on in other threads. Maybe those folks just aren't here yet though...

#38 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 16,391 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 02:02 PM

Nolasco has been a league average starter his entire career despite pitching most of it in a pitcher's wet dream. And now he's coming over to the place NL pitchers come to die.

Durability is great, but it's not substitute for talent. If it was, we'd all love Correia a lot more than we do.


Fair enough... I guess it all comes down to whether 2014-2017 Nolasco looks more like 2013 Nolasco (league average despite being rather unlucky) or 2010-2012 Nolasco (not a very good pitcher).

Did he figure something out? Did he just hate Miami? Was 2013 a lucky aberration, despite his peripherals suggesting he was better than his numbers? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

#39 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 02:07 PM

I'm also relieved to see the response to this so far -- rational and comprehensive of context. I was afraid it'd be more of the smash fest we see going on in other threads. Maybe those folks just aren't here yet though...


Im here :banghead:
hehehe

#40 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,713 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 02:14 PM

Combining threads eat posts.

Back to subject.

I believe the Twins always planned to re-sign Pelfrey--it was just a tweak of the price that held things up. The approved budget probably didn't include enough to sign Nolasco and Garza plus that necessary for arbitration settlements, and a veteran catcher--but there was enough to sign Hughes and one of either Garza/Nolasco. Nolasco took the deal and Garza didn't.

On a curious note, why is it that Milwaukee has become the collection basin for free agent pitchers with issues ​(Lohse and Garza)?