Twins "kicking the tires" on Garza

[DaveW]

I'd be shocked if TR was looking for more than a one-year make-good deal for Garza. Remember that Garza and Gardy didn't exactly see eye-to-eye when he was coming up. I'd bet TR is offering one-year at about $15 mil with a club option for year 2 just in case nobody else makes a move on him before spring training. Any longer than two years would shock me.

 

There is no way the Twins would offer him only one year, that would be the king of all insults. Additionally, Garza WILL get 4 years...at least. I'd be willing to wager a large amount of money on that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not saying Garza wouldn't be nice but I think he's being overrated a bit around here.

 

I actually think just the opposite -- Garza seems to be getting underrated here. Offer 3/45 or walk away? That's nuts. Garza is almost certainly a lock for a 100-120 ERA+, as much as any pitcher in baseball. He only just turned 30, a full year younger than Nolasco. And his injuries the past two years have looked relatively minor (I wouldn't be surprised if they were related -- missing the end of 2012 contributed to his strain in spring training 2013 -- and he seemed to bounce back from them just fine).

 

If you're willing to give 4/49 plus a vesting 5th year to Nolasco, who looks like a 85-100 ERA+ guy, and he's easily your best pitcher currently under contract, and you've got payroll flexibility, you should absolutely be willing to go 4/60 plus a vesting 5th for Garza, I think. Probably even higher.

 

The Twins rotation depth is indeed improved, but it isn't all that great yet. These guys have performances all over the map, and sadly even the better ones (Nolasco, Correia) seem to top out at 100 ERA+. And there isn't that much immediate help from the minors either -- Meyer strikes me as the only guy with Garza upside who could establish himself in MLB within the next 4 seasons.

[Siehbiscuit]

Fangraph's just ran a story about "#6" starters on MLB clubs. Essentially, saying that on average 32 starts were made by pitchers that were not supposed to be in the rotation. The Tigers were extremely healthy and the MLB-low at 6 starts and the Twins the high at 48, followed by the Rangers at 44.

 

My point is if the Twins get Garza and have a rotation with: Garza, Nolasco, Hughes, Correia and Pelfrey, having more capable starters is a GREAT thing. With Gibson, Deduno and Meyer (even Diamond, Worley or Albers) available to be the fill-ins when an injury or sub-par performance gets an original starter demoted, the Twins are throwing out capable pitchers. No more DeVries earning a rotation gig, or soft-tossers like Diamond being the team ace. Now they are the fill-ins, the replacements and the backup plans. Meyer will hopefully be dominant in AAA and force his way to the bigs by June. Meyer has more upside than anyone, including Garza. When he is ready, move Correia or another struggling pitcher to the pen. This is about getting better, not about making sure every penny is at it's peak value. Having too many capable starters is not a bad thing. It would be a GREAT thing. Now if only we could acquire a veteran difference-making bat.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Now, I'm not saying you have to go all-in on Garza now, but if he's legitimately interested in signing here for a reasonable market contract (i.e. above Nolasco's but less than Sanchez), I don't think the Twins can pass that up. Given the Twins record on free agents, and free agents alleged opinions about coming to Minnesota, this is not the kind of team that can afford to pass up opportunities like that because of our "success cycle" position, or because our roster is already stuffed with lesser pitchers.

[thetank]

Hitters. For that amount of money the Twins should sign or trade for a good position player. They need to score more runs. Garza in 4 years will likely miss 20 starts or more.

[NDSUFARMER]

If the Twins do sign Garza, is there any chance that it could be part of a trade Perkins and move Hughes to the back end of the pen plan?

[cmathewson]

My point is if the Twins get Garza and have a rotation with: Garza, Nolasco, Hughes, Correia and Pelfrey, having more capable starters is a GREAT thing. With Gibson, Deduno and Meyer (even Diamond, Worley or Albers) available to be the fill-ins when an injury or sub-par performance gets an original starter demoted, the Twins are throwing out capable pitchers.

 

Three of those guys will likely not be available for fill-in duty because they are out of options. That's why I proposed trading Correia if they sign Garza. Perhaps they can get by with him while Deduno is on the DL. But once he is ready, he is a big upgrade over Correia, as is Gibson.

[Jim H]

Three of those guys will likely not be available for fill-in duty because they are out of options. That's why I proposed trading Correia if they sign Garza. Perhaps they can get by with him while Deduno is on the DL. But once he is ready, he is a big upgrade over Correia, as is Gibson.

 

I agree with the option thing. It might be hard to keep all of Worley, Diamond and Deduno around because they are out of options. I am not so sure any of them are a big upgrade over Correia. I sure hope Gibson could be(a big upgrade over Correia). Part of the problem with the whole trade Correia thing is this, the only one of all the potential starters coming into spring training that actually pitched better than Correia in 2013, was Nolasco. With all the talk about potential and upside Correia was a pretty good pitcher 2013 and was healthy all year. Outside of Nolasco, you can't say that about Hughes, Pelfrey, Worley, Diamond, Deduno, or Gibson. I don't think you can even say that about Garza.

 

So, I am not in any big hurry to see Correia traded. Until you are sure that at least some of the above guys can be healthy and capable of pitching to their "upside", I would like to see the Twins keep Correia around. There isn't likely any big market for him anyway. I think he is worth more to the Twins right now than any return is likely to be.

[kab21]

I really don't get all this Deduno love. He's 30, he K's 6/9IP (and BB's 4/9IP) and he is coming back from a significant injury. I understand that Corriea is boring with zero upside (other than stability) but Deduno (if healthy) seems more like a guy that you move in and out of the bottom of the rotation instead of opening a spot for him.

[Paul Pleiss]

Sign Matt Garza, give him lots of money and nick name him "Gravy" because everyone loves Gravy.

 

I don't know how signing Garza could be a bad idea. Even if his arm blows up I like the commitment by the front office. Sign Garza. Sign Stephen Drew.

 

A proven MLB commodity seems like a better bet than wishing and hoping and praying on prospects. And I love prospects. But prospects will break your heart.

[howieramone1406390264]

Sign Matt Garza, give him lots of money and nick name him "Gravy" because everyone loves Gravy.

 

I don't know how signing Garza could be a bad idea. Even if his arm blows up I like the commitment by the front office. Sign Garza. Sign J.D. Drew.

 

A proven MLB commodity seems like a better bet than wishing and hoping and praying on prospects. And I love prospects. But prospects will break your heart.

 

The loser of the Tanaka saga may well pay Garza 5 years for 75-85M. Garza, Santana, and Jimenez are not sitting around because they feel the price is going to drop. At least 2 of those 3 will probably be signing albatross contracts. I would sign Arroyo for 2 years and trade Corriea when the time is right.

[Mike Sixel]

What is an albatross contract? Teams are floating in unspent money. The income will continue to go up. Contract prices will continue to go up. SF signed Zito, and won two WS after that. The only contracts that are albatross like are the ones where you sign an awful player because you are too cheap to sign good ones. Remember when the entire board said Hunter would never be worth his contract in CA, and he'd be done before that contract expried? You are good with signing Nolasco for 4 -5 years, but not Garza, who is younger by a year?

[oldguy10]

It is mentioned here trade Correia when the time is right. What MLB team really needs Correia anyway and why would they trade for him - simply makes no sense.

[twinsfan34]

The loser of the Tanaka saga may well pay Garza 5 years for 75-85M. Garza, Santana, and Jimenez are not sitting around because they feel the price is going to drop. At least 2 of those 3 will probably be signing albatross contracts. I would sign Arroyo for 2 years and trade Corriea when the time is right.

 

I think this 1st part of this is absolutely true...

 

Garza, Jimenez, and Santana are waiting...and in waiting, they will get that extra $2M-$5M per season as a result.

 

For the Twins, I'm not particular enamored with any of the 3 for the Salary/Years and the lost Draft pick.

 

I haven't looked to the 2015 Free Agency class either - maybe 1 year of patience would be prudent.

[Mike Sixel]

It has been three years of patience already....and next year people will say "they only wond 75 games, why would you spend on FAs when they aren't one player away" again....

[DaveW]

What is an albatross contract? Teams are floating in unspent money. The income will continue to go up. Contract prices will continue to go up. SF signed Zito, and won two WS after that. The only contracts that are albatross like are the ones where you sign an awful player because you are too cheap to sign good ones. Remember when the entire board said Hunter would never be worth his contract in CA, and he'd be done before that contract expried? You are good with signing Nolasco for 4 -5 years, but not Garza, who is younger by a year?

 

You bring up Hunter, which ended up working out for the Angels, but they are a perfect example of having albatross contracts:

 

Pujols, Wells, Hamilton are all going to prevent them from winning.

[Kwak]

I think this 1st part of this is absolutely true...

 

Garza, Jimenez, and Santana are waiting...and in waiting, they will get that extra $2M-$5M per season as a result.

 

For the Twins, I'm not particular enamored with any of the 3 for the Salary/Years and the lost Draft pick.

 

I haven't looked to the 2015 Free Agency class either - maybe 1 year of patience would be prudent.

 

Allow me to be the 17th poster to state: "There isn't any lost draft choice if Garza is signed. His cost is simply a rotation spot and his salary. This fact improves the desirability of Garza over other free-agent pitchers because there is no draft-choice penalty associated with signing him.

 

Correira. He was the most productive SP for the Twins over the entire season of 162 games. He wasn't especially good, just better than the rest. That, plus his "good health" should guarantee him a spot in the rotation come April. Trade him? If someone make a solid offer--sure--but I don't think one is forthcoming. Trade him because he's "blocking" younger pitchers? Foolish! The reason he's "blocking" people is because they aren't good enough. Consider: The Twins have signed three free-agent pitchers not because they are enamored with spending on baseball players--but because the alternative was worse.​

[cmathewson]

You bring up Hunter, which ended up working out for the Angels, but they are a perfect example of having albatross contracts:

 

Pujols, Wells, Hamilton are all going to prevent them from winning.

 

But they have unlimited money, so they can just sign more players!

[brvama]

....

Consider: The Twins have signed three free-agent pitchers not because they are enamored with spending on baseball players--but because the alternative was worse.​

 

I totally concur with Kwak on this. Somehow many of us become enamored with the players we have. That is not a bad thing until it gets in the way of making moves to improve the current team. After rational judgement of what is out there and what the Twins have, there is one question that should determine if a FA signing or trade be made -- Does the player(s) improve what we already have. If so, you get it done.

 

I believe some of us have gotten away from that premise.

[Mike Sixel]

You bring up Hunter, which ended up working out for the Angels, but they are a perfect example of having albatross contracts:

 

Pujols, Wells, Hamilton are all going to prevent them from winning.

 

We know they aren't going to win now? We know it is because of these contracts, and not because they made a bunch of other bad decisions?

 

'tis better to have loved and lost, than not to have loved at all......

[Monkeypaws]

we know they aren't going to win now? We know it is because of these contracts, and not because they made a bunch of other bad decisions?

 

'tis better to have spent and lost, than not to have spent at all......

 

fify

[jokin]

I totally concur with Kwak on this. Somehow many of us become enamored with the players we have. That is not a bad thing until it gets in the way of making moves to improve the current team. After rational judgement of what is out there and what the Twins have, there is one question that should determine if a FA signing or trade be made -- Does the player(s) improve what we already have. If so, you get it done.

I believe some of us have gotten away from that premise.

 

Excellent 2nd post, brvama. We have multi-paged threads-worth of teeth-gnashing over "losing" the likes of Joe Benson and Alex Burnett. I'm firmly in the Howard Sinker camp- ie, a turnover of 2 dozen of the Twins 40-man at or below replacement-level rosterees is fully justifiable, by definition, after 3 season of embarrassing futility.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You bring up Hunter, which ended up working out for the Angels, but they are a perfect example of having albatross contracts:

 

Pujols, Wells, Hamilton are all going to prevent them from winning.

Wells was a trade (and a bad one), while Pujols and Hamilton cost $125-250 mil each. Don't think these pitchers are getting that money.

 

Another Angels contract -- CJ Wilson -- might be the better comp. And it is a lot tougher for those level of deals to be albatrosses. We're talking a modest step up from Nolasco's deal here, not a mega-deal. If Nolasco is really worth 4/49 plus a 5th year vesting option, these guys could very well be worth 5/75.

[DaveW]

Wells was a trade (and a bad one), while Pujols and Hamilton cost $125-250 mil each. Don't think these pitchers are getting that money.

 

Another Angels contract -- CJ Wilson -- might be the better comp. And it is a lot tougher for those level of deals to be albatrosses. We're talking a modest step up from Nolasco's deal here, not a mega-deal. If Nolasco is really worth 4/49 plus a 5th year vesting option, these guys could very well be worth 5/75.

Yeah, I don't think a reasonable 4 year deal would be an albatross at all. I was just pointing out, they certainly do exist.

[howieramone1406390264]

It is mentioned here trade Correia when the time is right. What MLB team really needs Correia anyway and why would they trade for him - simply makes no sense.

 

No where on earth does Correia have less value than on this board. The same could have been said for Butera and Doumit. An inning eater for 5.5M is going to be attractive at some point in time.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Yeah, I don't think a reasonable 4 year deal would be an albatross at all. I was just pointing out, they certainly do exist.

 

I am struggling to think of a 5/75 type deal that proved to be any kind of albatross. It just isn't that much money in modern MLB.

[Monkeypaws]

I am struggling to think of a 5/75 type deal that proved to be any kind of albatross. It just isn't that much money in modern MLB.

 

Not an albatross, but you don't want to many guys making 10 million + on your roster that aren't producing. Bad contracts tie up resources better spent elsewhere.

 

Not that I think Garza wouldn't give some bang for the buck on those terms.

[cmathewson]

Excellent 2nd post, brvama. We have multi-paged threads-worth of teeth-gnashing over "losing" the likes of Joe Benson and Alex Burnett. I'm firmly in the Howard Sinker camp- ie, a turnover of 2 dozen of the Twins 40-man at or below replacement-level rosterees is fully justifiable, by definition, after 3 season of embarrassing futility.

 

I think it's a bit simplistic myself. You also have to think about the long term. He could get hurt and you'd use a lot of resources on him for nothing. You also have to manage risks.

[jokin]

No where on earth does Correia have less value than on this board. The same could have been said for Butera and Doumit. An inning eater for 5.5M is going to be attractive at some point in time.

 

The time might be right during spring training or soon after the season starts, when an obvious or up-and-coming contender suddenly needs a reliable 5th starter. For example, not saying it will happen, but let's say Ryan Vogelsong fails to bounce back for the Giants, the GM who signed Correia originally is still there, and may feel comfortable with a guy who has put up better recent numbers and stays reasonably and reliably healthy at a bargain price.

[jokin]

I think it's a bit simplistic myself. You also have to think about the long term. He could get hurt and you'd use a lot of resources on him for nothing. You also have to manage risks.

 

Wow. Why ever sign an upper tier player then- they could get hurt? And those who want Garza are thinking in the long-term, one of the best and affordable guys on the market who doesn't cost you a pick, and a chance to lock him up into the longer-term- assembling a rotation for the long-term should be a process and not a single offseason event- that's also managing risk.

 

What I hear you saying is we're sure to be successful at mitigating risk by NOT signing better players and keeping a stable-full of below replacement guys? That seems like you prescribe that we remove all risk of ever regaining contender status any time soon.