Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Twins offered Garza 3 year deal

  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,896 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
  • 1,009 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
  • 5,966 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
  • 5,342 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 Fan

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,599 posts
  • LocationIt's complicated.

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

    Let's Keep Winning!

  • Members
  • 5,974 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.

    Always in Moderation

  • Members
  • 667 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
  • 6,348 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
  • 4,938 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
  • 12,208 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
  • 1,939 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
  • 346 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
  • 33 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

    Let's Keep Winning!

  • Members
  • 5,974 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
  • 10,178 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.

#17 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 12,208 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
  • 10,178 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......

#19 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,938 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
  • 4,938 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.