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

#61 rico7961

rico7961

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 04:54 PM

To me, there are about 3 no-brainer facts about this signing. 1. I would take Garza at 4/52 over either one of Nolasco's or Hughes's contract's. 2. The Twins have the money to pay all 3 and probably tried. 3. FO executives must know more about Garza's injury history then we do. I can't see him going at that price with the number of teams looking for a starter with the numbers of his past accomplishments.

#62 SgtSchmidt11

SgtSchmidt11

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 05:15 PM

I'm curious what the Twins offered for two years? Signing him for 2/36-38 wouldn't have looked too bad honestly since it was so short.

#63 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Twins Win!!

  • Twins Mods
  • 10,445 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 06:03 PM

I still can't wrap my head around this, there has got to be more we don't know. Maybe it's medically related, maybe Garza just had zero appetite to be a Twin again.

It's hard to fathom Garza just slipped past everyone in the market for 52 million, makes no sense. Hard to fault the Twins, they aren't alone obviously, I support their aggressive approach early. At the end of the day, my gut tells me the Twins got the right guy anyway, that's not a slight on Garza.

Edited by twinsnorth49, 23 January 2014 - 10:23 PM.


#64 Jim H

Jim H

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 439 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 06:47 PM

I think Garza is largely a mid rotation starter, I really don't see how anyone puts him up to a top of the rotation starter. Largely that is what is Nolasco is, as well. Hughes, if he somehow pitches to his ceiling, is a mid rotation starter as well. Pelfrey, at his best is a mid rotation starter. So, I am not particularly excited about adding another mid rotation starter when what is really needed is a top of the rotation starter. If the Twins are going to have a top of the rotation starter, it is likely to come from the group of Meyer, Stewart and maybe some of the other guys in the minors. They aren't going to get one in free agency, at not this year.

#65 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 13,240 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 06:50 PM

If Jimenez, E Santana and Arroyo all end up with comparatively lower contracts and it turns out the guys who signed in November got the better money/years, it will be interesting to see how that affects the market next fall.


I think that's the most interesting part. The Twins seemed to have learned from their mistakes last year when they sat back and the market blew past them before they knew what happened. This year, strangely, has been the exact opposite. Maybe it was the first year with the extra money floating around and GMs were hesitant about how that would change things? Either way, the Twins were right to do things how they did them.

I'm still baffled people are dogging Garza like this. If we had signed Garza for 4/52 and someone else signed Nolasco for 4/52 - we'd be laughing to the bank about this value by comparison. I feel like we're being protective of the guy we got rather than looking at this objectively. I guarantee in the reverse people wouldn't be taking this same "Nolasco and Garza are worth about the same" tact.

#66 Willihammer

Willihammer

    Nostrombolimus

  • Members
  • 7,252 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 23 January 2014 - 06:54 PM

I really thought he'd get more. In any case, good for Brewers fans. That club always seems trapped under a glass ceiling, maybe Garza can punch them through.

#67 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 11,087 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 07:24 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)?


Paging Scott Baker!!!!!

#68 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 11,087 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 07:45 PM

Eades, Melo Chargois and Goodrum will at least try and make you eat your words


I'l take a word meal of 1 "definitely" (on a 4-year deal) over 4 "maybes" in the 2nd round every time the opportunity is presented.


Anthony Swarzak is typing a sternly worded letter of dissent right now.




I know you were speaking glibly, but in all seriousness, finding another long relief/low leverage specialist with a career ERA+ of 93, 4.45 ERA and 5.6 K/9 in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th........etc.,.....round...... shouldn't really be all that difficult for a club's scouting department to discover, now should it?

#69 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 07:47 PM

Apperently the deal isnt complete, maybe Terry should make a call to Garzas agent and offer him the same money just front load it 31 million the 1st year and 7 million each of the last 3 years? see if we can get him to move West a little?

#70 EephusKnuckler

EephusKnuckler

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:12 PM

Apperently the deal isnt complete, maybe Terry should make a call to Garzas agent and offer him the same money just front load it 31 million the 1st year and 7 million each of the last 3 years? see if we can get him to move West a little?


lol that's ridiculous.

If the Brewers are now saying that no deal has been made, then maybe it's because Garza has some injury concerns.

#71 mnfireman

mnfireman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 282 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:15 PM

The issues with the contract not being completed aren't medical according to MLBTR. Maybe Garza realized he got Nolasco money and decided to hold out for more!

#72 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:40 PM

lol that's ridiculous.

If the Brewers are now saying that no deal has been made, then maybe it's because Garza has some injury concerns.


why would it be ridiculous? To me front loading a contract in a year where we have a big pile of unspent money,makes sense, it increases Garza trade value later, it lowers the next 3 years payroll , not hindering us ,if we need a leftfielder or shortstop in the future

#73 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 15,556 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:43 PM

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with your point, just snarking a bit.


http://www.baseball-...ft_type=junreg

Saying "last 10 years or so" might be cherry picking the end date to make a dubious point, since the jury is still out on the most recent such picks and because just outside the 10 year range from 2002-2005 the Twins obtained Crain/Baker/Swarzak/Slowey - only some shortstop named Drew Thompson broke that streak of positive-valued second rounders.

Baker's probably the only one to make you stop and think twice about signing a premium FA of course. Consider it a second round of snark. :)

#74 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 15,556 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:44 PM

the fact that Garza and the Twins don't really want to get back together for personality reasons


Source?

#75 Joe A. Preusser

Joe A. Preusser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,147 posts

Posted 23 January 2014 - 10:03 PM

I would have definitely paid Garza that contract, even a bit more, and considered myself getting the better of it as a GM. That said, I have a very strong feeling that Nolasco's overall stats for the next 4 years will beat Garza's. I am glad we locked up Ricky instead of Garza.

#76 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,532 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 02:06 AM

IIRC, (IF) thre is a curious phenomenon of ballplayers taking more years over more money per year. They take the contract that nets them the most money

#77 savvyspy

savvyspy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 227 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 10:29 AM

I am not going to bash the Twins for the Nolasco deal at all. He is Cy Young compared to the garbage that has been taking the ball for the Twins the last few seasons. I don't think to can underestimate what the signings of Nolasco and Hughes mean until you realize you didn't pay $150 to see Cole DeVries or Pedro Hernandez take the hill at Target Field.

As for Garza, there has to be some information we don't know yet. Why would he sign a well under market contract hours after Tanaka's huge deal presumably left him as the top picher available and a bunch of teams looking for piching?? Why would he go to the Brewers? If I had to guess there is something in his medicals that were causing teams to balk at more than 3 years and he scooped up the best available deal before more details came out. I am obviously just speculating but something is odd here.

#78 Dantes929

Dantes929

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,746 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 11:23 AM

[QUOTE=Jim H;192462 . So, I am not particularly excited about adding another mid rotation starter when what is really needed is a top of the rotation starter. If the Twins are going to have a top of the rotation starter, it is likely to come from the group of Meyer, Stewart and maybe some of the other guys in the minors. They aren't going to get one in free agency, at not this year.[/QUOTE]Or probably ever. I will get excited about mid rotation guys especially if we have 5 of them with a strong possibility of Meyer becoming more than that. The problem the last three years is that we have had back of rotation guys. Give me a rotation of ERA's between 4 and 4.5 and you have just shaved off 1 run per 9 compared to what we have seen lately. 1 per game is pretty huge statistically. Unfortunately, we need the same kind of improvement from our offense. So far, I am not seeing where that will come from though I am a big believer in everyone improving slightly resulting in a big improvement as a whole.

#79 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 22,954 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 12:30 PM

http://www.baseball-...ft_type=junreg

Saying "last 10 years or so" might be cherry picking the end date to make a dubious point, since the jury is still out on the most recent such picks and because just outside the 10 year range from 2002-2005 the Twins obtained Crain/Baker/Swarzak/Slowey - only some shortstop named Drew Thompson broke that streak of positive-valued second rounders.

Baker's probably the only one to make you stop and think twice about signing a premium FA of course. Consider it a second round of snark. :)


Look over the last 20 years, starting 5 years ago....and the story is not pretty.

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#80 DaveW

DaveW

    Aaron Hicks update (5/17): .326 BA .464 OBP .616 SLG 1.080 OPS

  • Members
  • 12,753 posts
  • LocationNYC aka Aaron Hicks Ville

Posted 24 January 2014 - 12:59 PM

Look over the last 20 years, starting 5 years ago....and the story is not pretty.

Yeah, the only 3 worthwhile players that came out of the last 25 years were: Jacque Jones, Scott Baker and Jesse Crain. All nice players, but not exactly world beaters. So basically you have a 1/8 chance in giving up a useful player down the line if you give up a 2nd round pick to sign a premium player like JD Drew, Ubaldo etc in my eyes, you shouldn't hesitate in a heart beat to pull the trigger. I'd much rather have them give up a 2nd rounder this year for a SS or high upside pitcher, then watch them finish in the top half this year and not have a protected 1st round pick next year (and have to give up that pick for the missing SS/High upside SP)