Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Twins offered Garza 3 year deal

  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,767 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 01:08 PM

Tweet from Jerry Crasnick:

Heard today that #twins offered Matt Garza a 3 yr, $42 million deal before he signed with #brewers.

We all knew they were following Garza closely but it is interesting to hear they offered him a contract.

#2 Marta Shearing

Marta Shearing

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:00 PM

4/$56 would have bankrupt the franchise!

#3 Monkeypaws

Monkeypaws

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 677 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:04 PM

It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the Brewers. It's one of those contracts you could see going horribly wrong.

#4 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,762 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:09 PM

I can't fault the Twins for offering more annually with less years, it's a competitive offer, injuries played a factor obviously.

#5 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,303 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:11 PM

4/$56 would have bankrupt the franchise!


Interesting enough, that was the exact Twins offer ;)

With the fourth year conditional on performance. He chose to sign with the Brewers for less money...
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#6 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,838 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 22 February 2014 - 06:50 PM

He chose to sign with the Brewers for less money...


That's one way of looking at it. Or, he signed for more guaranteed money.

Here's one back-of-the-envelope analysis of the risk angle. Twins guarantee 3 years for a total of $42M. After that, various things can happen in Year 4, one of which is the triggering of the vesting option. By comparison, the Brewers guarantee $50M for 4 years. So, from a monetary standpoint, it comes down to what the odds are that he'll get more than $8M in that fourth year if he takes the Twins offer.

If for simplicity's sake you assume only two possible outcomes, either the Twins $14M vesting option happens, or else it's $0, then if he thinks it's 50/50, he's money ahead taking the sure $8M. Do you gamble $8M in hopes of winning $6M? You need good odds for that.

Of course other possibilities exist for that fourth year, and you also have to factor in the question of Year 5, which under the Twins plan is free agency and with the Brewers is a vesting option for $13M. So I'm sure his agent went through various scenarios, and gave the spreadsheet program a good workout.

If he's completely not confident in his own health for the long-term, he'll take the greatest guarantee, period. But even with good confidence, the potential payoff has to be pretty high in order to make a gamble worthwhile.

Edited by ashburyjohn, 22 February 2014 - 06:52 PM.


#7 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 3,808 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 22 February 2014 - 07:22 PM

Good info, thanks.

I'm comfortable with what the Twins did based on the posts above. I might feel differently if I thought they could have signed him for a guaranteed 4/$56 early (before Nolasco/Hughes) but it seems like he was going to wait until after Tanaka signed. Given the deals already in place by the time he did sign, I have no problem with the Twins limiting the length. I do think that 4th year is more of a flyer on Garza than on Nolasco (but i guess we'll see).

#8 AM.

AM.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 07:43 PM

I guess this answers the questions as to what Gardy talked about the FO going after someone they had talked to before.

I think if I were Garza, I would have bet on myself, and signed the higher AAV contract. SP prices could be much higher in 2017, and he only would have needed to get a contract greater than $8mm to make it worth his while.

#9 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,686 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:20 PM

I guess this answers the questions as to what Gardy talked about the FO going after someone they had talked to before.

I think if I were Garza, I would have bet on myself, and signed the higher AAV contract. SP prices could be much higher in 2017, and he only would have needed to get a contract greater than $8mm to make it worth his while.


Except that if it didn't vest, it's likely b/c he was hurt or something like that. I find it interesting that he didn't bet on himself.

#10 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,910 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:04 PM

Credit to TR for trying to score another asset in an apparently down market. Hopefully it wasn't just the familiarity of Garza or the lack of draft pick comp -- he really should be similarly in the hunt for Drew and Ervin Santana (and Jimenez before he signed).

That said, it does look like a smarter offer by Milwaukee. If one is willing to pay 3/42 for a player of Garza's age and ability, tacking on an extra year at 8 mil guaranteed and shifting the vesting option to year 5 is pretty low risk. Plus, the contract language adding a cheap option year in case of injury is another great move by Milwaukee -- we are seeing the value of that with Boston and Lackey right now. Would love to hear TR's thoughts on that concept.

#11 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,798 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:17 PM

The Twins did exactly what they should have done in that situation. More money over fewer years, walk away if the player doesn't bite.

#12 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,294 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:22 PM

That's one way of looking at it. Or, he signed for more guaranteed money.

Here's one back-of-the-envelope analysis of the risk angle. Twins guarantee 3 years for a total of $42M. After that, various things can happen in Year 4, one of which is the triggering of the vesting option. By comparison, the Brewers guarantee $50M for 4 years. So, from a monetary standpoint, it comes down to what the odds are that he'll get more than $8M in that fourth year if he takes the Twins offer.

If for simplicity's sake you assume only two possible outcomes, either the Twins $14M vesting option happens, or else it's $0, then if he thinks it's 50/50, he's money ahead taking the sure $8M. Do you gamble $8M in hopes of winning $6M? You need good odds for that.

Of course other possibilities exist for that fourth year, and you also have to factor in the question of Year 5, which under the Twins plan is free agency and with the Brewers is a vesting option for $13M. So I'm sure his agent went through various scenarios, and gave the spreadsheet program a good workout.

If he's completely not confident in his own health for the long-term, he'll take the greatest guarantee, period. But even with good confidence, the potential payoff has to be pretty high in order to make a gamble worthwhile.


Or maybe Garza was gambling that he could do much better than the Twins' offer. Garza didn't act on the Angels' offer. It's difficult to say Garza "lost" when one tries to count $50MM.

#13 TKGuy

TKGuy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 10:03 PM

The Twins did exactly what they should have done in that situation. More money over fewer years, walk away if the player doesn't bite.


Agreed. There should be no bitching about the "cheap Pohlads" after this offseason. I am certainly looking forward to a competent starting staff this year

#14 sandbun

sandbun

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:29 AM

Agreed. There should be no bitching about the "cheap Pohlads" after this offseason. I am certainly looking forward to a competent starting staff this year


Twins are bringing in an estimated extra $25 million of revenue because of the new mlb TV contract, and have bumped up payroll about $1 million from last year, which was already way low compared to what they said they'd spend. They are far from shedding the "cheap" label.

#15 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 3,808 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 24 February 2014 - 11:58 AM

Good insight from Bartlett on Garza's interest in YEARS and money. I didn't realize the Milwaukee deal had a 5th year vesting option:

http://www.twincitie...ruit-matt-garza

#16 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,135 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 12:50 PM

Well, they tried. That's at least a good sign. Of course, succeeding at adding good players is more important than trying to, but the fact they tried is a good sign. Let's hope they succeed more next year.
Lighten up Francis....

#17 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,798 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:12 PM

Well, they tried. That's at least a good sign. Of course, succeeding at adding good players is more important than trying to, but the fact they tried is a good sign. Let's hope they succeed more next year.


Again, I think the Twins made the right move. They already committed to Nolasco and Hughes. They have a handful of young players coming in the next 12 months.

Taking a swing at grabbing Garza for less years and more dollars and walking away if it didn't happen was the smart play.

So they didn't get Garza. That's fine. What's important is that they saw a market inefficiency and tried to steal a player in a soft market, even though they don't *really* have roster space for more pitchers.

It's exactly the type of attempt at market manipulation many of us have been screaming to see for ages. It didn't work out this time but maybe next time, they'll get their guy. To me, what's important is the mindset change that led to the offer in the first place, not whether it succeeded or not.

#18 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,135 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:27 PM

I never said anything about them "failing" or doing the wrong thing. I agree with your last paragrpah. My comment on bringing in good players was a general statement. I don't care how hard the Twins try off the field, I care if they succeed at bringing in players. At least now they are legitimately trying, which is a step. At some point, they will need to "overpay", and I'm ok with this year not being that year for more SP......
Lighten up Francis....

#19 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,910 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:27 PM

So they didn't get Garza. That's fine. What's important is that they saw a market inefficiency and tried to steal a player in a soft market, even though they don't *really* have roster space for more pitchers.

It's exactly the type of attempt at market manipulation many of us have been screaming to see for ages. It didn't work out this time but maybe next time, they'll get their guy. To me, what's important is the mindset change that led to the offer in the first place, not whether it succeeded or not.


Agreed. It's kind of like the Nolasco signing in that sense -- I like what it shows us about the front office (willingness to spend), maybe more than the actual results of the move. Would have like a slightly more aggressive or creative offer, though -- something to hope for next time. (And hopefully, TR extends his targets to less familiar faces, like Ervin Santana etc.)

#20 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,910 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:36 PM

Seems like the best place for this question: what if Ervin Santana would be willing to sign today for Garza's 3/42 offer? Or maybe Nolasco's 4/49? Given what Ubaldo Jimenez settled for, that's not an unrealistic proposition.

#21 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 792 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:57 PM

Seems like the best place for this question: what if Ervin Santana would be willing to sign today for Garza's 3/42 offer? Or maybe Nolasco's 4/49? Given what Ubaldo Jimenez settled for, that's not an unrealistic proposition.


I would prefer not because of draft compensation. The only way I would do it, is if we got him for 4/50 (because he will be bad next year and year 3, so at least we get TWO good years), and also sign Drew. The draft pick is a big deal to me. I don't think Santana makes this team that much better honestly. Even with 3-4 WAR we are still at 75 win team at best.

#22 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,430 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:03 PM

I have no problems going after Santana even with the draft pick concern. A 75 win team becomes an 85 win team much easier than a <70 win team. Santana would be a pretty big upgrade since he would replace the worst starter on the team and he gives the team another legit #3 going forward. It's easy to say that he's only a couple of wins better than the rest of the team but playoff teams weren't made out of a pile of #4/5 starters.

#23 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:19 PM

I have no problems going after Santana even with the draft pick concern. A 75 win team becomes an 85 win team much easier than a <70 win team. Santana would be a pretty big upgrade since he would replace the worst starter on the team and he gives the team another legit #3 going forward. It's easy to say that he's only a couple of wins better than the rest of the team but playoff teams weren't made out of a pile of #4/5 starters.


We won't be going to the play-offs this season. In 2015, I have Nolasco as a 3, Hughes as a 3-4, Gibson as a 3, Meyer as a 2. That should be good enough to contend.

#24 h2oface

h2oface

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 393 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 11:52 PM

The front office is so willing to spend........ that the payroll is virtually the same as last year. Personally, I think Garza would have needed an over the top offer to come back to the Twins since the same behavior modifiers are still in place here.

#25 Marta Shearing

Marta Shearing

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 09:09 AM

Interesting enough, that was the exact Twins offer ;)

With the fourth year conditional on performance. He chose to sign with the Brewers for less money...

Wow, I stand corrected. Garza's an idiot. Or I guess he just had zero faith in himself to stay healthy. Or he was just using the Twins to drive his price up and never would have considered them because of his rocky relationship with Gardy & Andy.

#26 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,910 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 09:46 AM

In 2015, I have Nolasco as a 3, Hughes as a 3-4, Gibson as a 3, Meyer as a 2. That should be good enough to contend.


I like your optimism, but Nolasco has been a 3 exactly twice in 7 seasons, Hughes has thus far peaked as a 3 and was a 5 last year (and has been a 5 for 2 of 4 seasons since starting full-time), and the likely starter you left out (Pelfrey) has been a 5 starter in 3 of his 6 full seasons, and was also a 5 last year. So you're basically hoping for roughly peak seasons, that have thus far been 50% likely or worse, from 2 of 3 veterans.

And given that record for the proven MLB vets, even if the guys both successfully transition to MLB (still a big "if"), what are the odds that both post 2-3 type seasons in the same year in 2015? When one has 10 MLB starts of sub-5 quality, and the other has yet to pitch above AA?

Not to mention you seem to be banking on going 4 of 5 in SP health. What are the actual odds of all of this happening for 2015?

And given our modest offense, all that good fortune gets the wonderful descriptor of "should be good enough to contend".

What happened to "you can never have too much pitching"? Ervin Santana has a better rate of 3rd starter seasons (5 of 8 full seasons), a higher and more recent peak (127 ERA+ last year) than anyone on our current staff, more durability (both in-season and across seasons) than anyone on our current staff... and he appears to be available for roughly the same commitment (4/50) as the guy you list as our hopeful #3 starter in 2015.

Not saying he'd be an ace, but the 2015 (and beyond) rotation results you are hoping for would appear to be much more likely by adding Ervin Santana to the mix.

#27 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,713 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 09:47 AM

Wow, I stand corrected. Garza's an idiot. Or I guess he just had zero faith in himself to stay healthy. Or he was just using the Twins to drive his price up and never would have considered them because of his rocky relationship with Gardy & Andy.


No, I think people are interpreting the contracts incorrectly. The Twins allegedly offered three years with an option for a fourth. The Brewers offered four years with an option for a fifth. Garza took the better deal as far as guaranteed money goes. Almost all free agents hold out for more years even though in almost every case they could get a slightly better average per year on a shorter deal. No doubt Nolasco did the same thing.

#28 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,134 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:01 AM

I would have probably liked Garza over Nolasco, but it's not a huge gap IMHO. Nolasco's durability will be a Godsend for this rotation. Encouraged that the Twins made a very legit and smart offer for Garza, who I tend to think is a bit over-rated amongst these circles.

Hopefully this means the Twins would still be willing to spend this off-season on a guy like Drew, and then fill in more gaps next off-season as well. Many encouraging reasons to be a Twins fan right now!
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"- L. Harvey Oswald

:whacky028::whacky028: :whacky028::whacky028:

#29 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,134 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:05 AM

The front office is so willing to spend........ that the payroll is virtually the same as last year. Personally, I think Garza would have needed an over the top offer to come back to the Twins since the same behavior modifiers are still in place here.

Virtually the same....but this team is clearly better than last years! The offseason is far from over as well, they can still add another bat or another arm (thus boosting up the payroll this year) however if they don't and only sign a couple cheap guys, I won't be too bummed as well, as that just opens up more money for next off-season. As I have mentioned time and time agian I think the only areas they should be looking to spend legit money on at this point are:

1. SS
2. SP

Everything else has a lot of in house/young options available at this point. I guess you could sign a DH still, but I think Willingham is going to slot in their just fine (and Kubel) at this point. I definitely wouldn't give a multi year deal to a guy who has no defensive value, with the exception of maybe Morales if the deal is affordable enough at 3 years. 3B we have Sano, OF we have Arica, Hicks, Buxton who all need to be given regular at bats at some point in 2014. 1B is set, 2B is set. Catcher is....still a question mark, but there is no one left to pick up.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"- L. Harvey Oswald

:whacky028::whacky028: :whacky028::whacky028:

#30 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,910 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:06 AM

Wow, I stand corrected. Garza's an idiot. Or I guess he just had zero faith in himself to stay healthy. Or he was just using the Twins to drive his price up and never would have considered them because of his rocky relationship with Gardy & Andy.


Your last point may be true. I feel like TR may have only offered the deal because he was familiar with Garza (drafted and signed), and that Garza only really listened to improve his market value.

But your opinion of Garza's intelligence or health seems a little off base. He's not getting less money from the Brewers.

First, he's getting $50 million guaranteed from Milwaukee, which is more than the Twins offer of $42 million guaranteed. Second, if the proposed Twins option vested and he made $56 million total, the Brewers option is likely to vest too and he will make $63 million total from them.

The Brewers deal also includes $1 million in incentives each year (which should be met most years, if the option vests), bringing his potential total up to $68 million. Not sure what incentives the Twins deal may have contained, but the Nolasco deal did not contain any.

So, any way you slice it, he's getting more money from the Brewers. His only downside to the Brewers deal is he will hit FA again one year later (roughly age 34 vs age 33 if he took the Twins deal), but by that point in his career, his age is going to be a lot less important than his track record.

Also, for "intangibles", he's also going to be pitching in the same league and division as he has the past several seasons, and playing his home games very close to where he played them the past few seasons (Chicago). And he's joining what promises to be a better team in 2014 and probably 2015 too.