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

#21 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 845 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
  • 3,798 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

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 1,650 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

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
  • 9,218 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

    Cooperstown

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,420 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 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,585 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!

 "1 out of 17 ain't bad"


#29 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,585 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.

 "1 out of 17 ain't bad"


#30 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 9,218 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.

#31 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:47 AM

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).


Garza's elbow is a ticking time bomb.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#32 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:53 PM

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.


I really have no idea what you're talking about but let's start here. When a starter is assigned a #, it's based on stuff, make up, and stats. It can be quite subjective. Many on this board believe we will contend in 2015. I'm surprised you are unaware of this. We both agree Santana is not one of the 10-15 best pitchers in baseball.

Edited by howieramone, 25 February 2014 - 02:02 PM.


#33 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 February 2014 - 03:42 PM

. When a starter is assigned a #...it can be quite subjective.

Concur.

#34 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 9,218 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 04:25 PM

[quote name='howieramone']I really have no idea what you're talking about but let's start here. When a starter is assigned a #, it's based on stuff, make up, and stats. It can be quite subjective.[/QUOTE]

I thought we were talking levels of performance. I am not really interested in what numbers or roles are assigned a player unless they can actually perform. Remember when Rondell White was assigned to be our cleanup hitter? Or Worley/Diamond were assigned to be our opening day starter?

What's more important to team's record: a pitcher's run prevention ranking ~30-45 in the league (i.e. #3 starter performance), or you or even Gardy calling him "our #3"?

[quote name='howieramone'] Many on this board believe we will contend in 2015. I'm surprised you are unaware of this.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what this means. I get that you are optimistic, yes. I was presenting a subjective interpretation otherwise, and presented past performance as evidence. I'm optimistic too, but I hope our 2015 contention hopes don't really too much on "stuff" and "make up".

[quote name='howieramone']We both agree Santana is not one of the 10-15 best pitchers in baseball.[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of pitchers outside of the top 10-15 that could improve this ballclub, even in our glorious projected future of 2015.

Besides, the 10-15 best pitchers in baseball are based on stuff, make up, and stats. It can be quite subjective. I'm surprised you are unaware of this. :)

Edited by spycake, 25 February 2014 - 04:28 PM.


#35 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,798 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 07:08 PM

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.


Hughes has 4.5 career ERA and two of those are prospects. Maybe they turn out but you are very optimistic that they will hit their upside by 2015. Santana wouldn't be an ace but he would be the best pitcher on the Twins (Nolasco could be near him) for the foreseeable future. The loss is a draft pick that probably has a 10-20% of being an average player in 2018. I can handle the loss of that draft pick if it means adding a pitcher better than anyone that we currently have.

#36 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 7,113 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 25 February 2014 - 07:09 PM

I thought we were talking levels of performance. I am not really interested in what numbers or roles are assigned a player unless they can actually perform. Remember when Rondell White was assigned to be our cleanup hitter? Or Worley/Diamond were assigned to be our opening day starter?

What's more important to team's record: a pitcher's run prevention ranking ~30-45 in the league (i.e. #3 starter performance), or you or even Gardy calling him "our #3"?



I have no idea what this means. I get that you are optimistic, yes. I was presenting a subjective interpretation otherwise, and presented past performance as evidence. I'm optimistic too, but I hope our 2015 contention hopes don't really too much on "stuff" and "make up".



There are plenty of pitchers outside of the top 10-15 that could improve this ballclub, even in our glorious projected future of 2015.

Besides, the 10-15 best pitchers in baseball are based on stuff, make up, and stats. It can be quite subjective. I'm surprised you are unaware of this. :)


Moderator note -- let's please tone down the sarcasm.

#37 howieramone1406390264

howieramone1406390264

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 715 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 08:08 PM

Hughes has 4.5 career ERA and two of those are prospects. Maybe they turn out but you are very optimistic that they will hit their upside by 2015. Santana wouldn't be an ace but he would be the best pitcher on the Twins (Nolasco could be near him) for the foreseeable future. The loss is a draft pick that probably has a 10-20% of being an average player in 2018. I can handle the loss of that draft pick if it means adding a pitcher better than anyone that we currently have.


I agree I am optimistic, but they are not a pile of 4's and 5's. Hughes, Gibson, and Meyer have all been highly rated in the not so distant past. To me Nolasco is roughly equal to Santana and I never felt the 2nd pick was in the way of the right deal. Over the last few months, we have heard it both ways. That said, I would be very happy if we signed Santana.

#38 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,798 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 09:02 PM

the only way we are contending in 2015 with a Nolasco, Meyer, Hughes and Gibson staff is if some magic happens. 3 of those pitchers have potential but the Twins would basically need all 3 of them to hit their potential very quickly. Those odds are not that good but they get better if you have Santana and only need 2 of those pitchers to turn out.

#39 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,585 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 12:14 AM

the only way we are contending in 2015 with a Nolasco, Meyer, Hughes and Gibson staff is if some magic happens. 3 of those pitchers have potential but the Twins would basically need all 3 of them to hit their potential very quickly. Those odds are not that good but they get better if you have Santana and only need 2 of those pitchers to turn out.

I would toss Pelfrey in that group as well as I believe he still has some upside.

 "1 out of 17 ain't bad"


#40 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,798 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:38 AM

I would toss Pelfrey in that group as well as I believe he still has some upside.


Pelfrey has no upside beyond a quality #4. He's thrown 1000 innings and never posted a K/9 >6 nor is he good at not walking guys. And if he's your #4 on a playoff team then there is a big temptation to skip him in the playoffs and run your starters out there on short rest.