Otto von Ballpark

I kind of like that Hughes is a flyball pitcher. The Twins always seem to target groundballers, and I think that has backfired on them a few times. Good to know the front office is keeping an open mind in that regard. (Though I wonder if we'll hear "Hughes needs to get the ball down in the zone" all the time, like we did with Baker ) It would have been nice to get one guy among our major acquisitions whose rWAR/bWAR matched his fWAR, but if nothing else, this should be a lot more interesting to watch and discuss than the last couple seasons rotations (whose rWAR may have matched their fWAR but both were pretty lousy!). The Twins seem to have staked out a position for once, in favor of xFIP... never thought I'd say that...

How much does it matter that Nolasco is a Sosnick client (Willingham, Doumit, etc.)? Part of me worries that TR made this commitment due to familiarity more than talent, and it could just be a one-time move to stabilize the rotation. The Hughes deal is a decent follow-up, I suppose, but it would be nice to see TR definitively prove he wants to consistently use FA to get good talent or even premium talent and accelerate the rebuild. Hard to do in one offseason, though, so I'm giving TR some more rope for the next couple years. As great as the Nolasco and Hughes deals are (and believe me, I had a very happy holiday weekend thinking about them), they still represent pretty much the bare minimum offseason moves for a rotation so stupendously awful in 2012-2013. Will be fun to finally discuss Twins FA signings on merit, though, and not just completely in terms of money saved or trainwrecks avoided.

Oh yes. The Twins should be all about guys like that (although glad TR got the message this offseason not to be *exclusively* about guys like that!).

I wouldn't say "blow their wad on FA every year" but aggressiveness when you see players you like is a good thing. And yes, under that principle they could afford another pitcher this offseason -- it's one of the perks of being cheap/inactive so long. Seriously, this team hasn't taken on any contracts of note since Mauer in 2010, and before him, it was Morneau, Nathan, and Cuddyer in 2008. That's 4-6 years of subtracting players and salaries.

I wouldn't dump Worley yet either, not with this roster. But the fact that Worley came over to the Twins so cheaply, followed up by his awful 2013 season (5.3 K/9 in AAA? Season ended early July?), does not bode well for his future prospects.

Pre-surgery Pelfrey = Derek Lowe? Careful here. Lowe averaged a 112 ERA+ while never missing a start for 9 seasons. Pelfrey had a 93 ERA+ over his 4 full seasons. Lowe only once posted an ERA+ below 105 before age 36, and never posted an ERA+ below 88 until he was 38 years old and was basically finished as an MLB SP at that point. Pelfrey posted marks of 78 and 81 in full seasons pre-surgery, after he was already an established MLB starter. Don't get me wrong -- Pelfrey may be on the comeback trail and may be a good acquisition for someone at the right price, but he has never been the equivalent of Derek Lowe. (Unless you mean Lowe today )

We're probably mostly in agreement, then. But when do you think the current Twins farm realistically comes into its own? Even if you think 3 years (although most of our farm pitchers seem further away than that), at that point Nolasco will have 1/12 left and Garza would have 2/32, and none of our young studs will even be arb eligible. Also, performance-wise, while "decline phase" is as good as we can get for predicting averages, it varies a ton by individual pitchers. While I don't expect either to be 100% of the pitcher they are today in 4 years, it's probably not likely that they both follow the same pattern. Garza could struggle in 2014 but rebound, Nolasco could do it in 2015 and be toast, etc. Again, look at Lackey, Burnett, Pavano, etc. -- not that comebacks are likely, but decline isn't always linear and predictable for individuals. The Twins need to concern themselves with adding talent -- both durability and upside. The next 5 years for the Twins are about as clear as an MLB team can get in terms of contractual commitments, this side of the Astros and Marlins. No need to get cute about synching payroll and performance phases.

I can pretty much guarantee that multiple pitchers will be available every offseason that match Nolasco's average performance. In fact, we even grabbed one last offseason for 2/10. A few years ago, we signed one for 2/16. More Nolasco's exist than Garza's. The core hasn't even hit MLB yet. Their salaries won't "peak" for at least 5 seasons. I agree, don't sign Garza beyond 5 years. You're never going to get everyone to "peak" at the same time and it's foolish to pursue that as some sort of Grecian ideal. John Lackey wasn't a good bet to "peak" in 2013 but he certainly helped the Red Sox. Same with AJ Burnett. I agree, no rush to add that type of pitcher, and if Garza isn't it for whatever reason, that's fine. I just don't like the idea of rejecting him out of hand because of the fifth year, or potential 2017 payroll flexibility, or basically any non-performance or non-market reasons.

But 4 year contracts for lower upside pitchers have a much better success rate? Again, not advocating Garza particularly, but in the abstract, with the numbers we know, I'm just not seeing that much of a difference between Nolasco 4/48 and Garza 5/80 or whatever. Guaranteeing a fifth year is a negative, as is the slightly higher AAV, but there also appears to be a not insignificant upside benefit to the Garza side of the equation. (The odds are pretty good Nolasco never posts a 110 ERA+ again.) Also Garza is one year younger, FWIW. They are both probably market deals and a wash to this outside observer. (Scouting and medical could swing it but are beyond me) And as much as the Twins need average pitchers as much or more than upside guys, we shouldn't be excluding upside guys just because we're scared of a fifth year or a few mil in AAV. The odds are still pretty low that the Twins (or anyone) will develop their own workhorse or ace in any given window of time; it wouldn't hurt to take chances on that in the FA or international markets too. Actually, one could argue that Nolasco's average performance is more easily replaced on a year-to-year basis (see Kevin Correia's 2013, for example, or Carl Pavano, or any number of older pitchers looking at 2-year contract offers right now) -- there is less need to lock that in for 4 years (unless you're the 2013 Twins, of course). A "Garza type" (age 30, 110 ERA+) or even "Ervin Santana type" (age 31, 210 IP, 105 ERA+) is a more difficult commodity to acquire or develop. The Twins shouldn't be targeting type at the expense of the other (and fortunately we seem to have the budget room to target both).

Even signing Garza now doesn't push them to 100% of their budget, does it? Not saying I recommend it, but I don't think we're really that close to that figure yet. Certainly not close enough to pass on a player you otherwise like if they are available. There's no guarantee a better 30 year old will be available in 2016. Also, if you're talking AFTER 2016 (when Garza will turn 33), by all estimates he would only have something like 2/32 left on his deal at that point. Even if his arm fell off and you had to eat the whole thing, 2/32 doesn't justify passing on a good pitcher you think could legitimately push you to 100 wins or a title. And in most scenarios, even if Garza isn't that pitcher anymore in 2017, he still keeps some value. Maybe he replaces your Correia type making $5 mil at the back of the rotation -- now his excess salary is more like 2/22. Or he replaces a Guerrier type pitcher in your bullpen who's making $3 mil. Or he's traded somewhere with a little bit of cash.

Since becoming a full-time starter, Garza is a 110 ERA+ pitcher. Nolasco is at 95 -- almost exactly average for a SP. And actually, since 2009 (last 5 seasons), Garza is 108, Nolasco 90 which is below average (Nolasco's best year by far was his first year as full-time starter). Depending on where you draw the line, Ervin Santana is in the 100-105 ERA+ range too. Another factor is obviously durability, and Garza has missed time the last two years. Ervin Santana would seem to take the cake here -- he has multiple seasons of being a 220 IP workhorse, something no other FA pitcher offers. Nolasco has been something like a 195 IP, 90 ERA+ guy. If you think that's absolutely worth 4/48, what value do you put on 200 IP, 105 ERA+ (Santana's rough average)? Or 175 IP, 110 ERA+ (Garza's average)?

Outside of Cano, I don't think any FA contract this offseason would have a significant impact on the Twins payroll in 4-6 years. They have so few commitments now, and their top prospects haven't even hit MLB yet. 4 years is the absolute earliest any of them will get more than peanuts through arb. I mean, what's the high end expected contract for Garza (or Santana)? 5/80? That's basically Nolasco + Hughes, and as others have mentioned, those two deals have barely dented our budget. Not saying I recommend Garza etc., but the Twins absolutely should NOT be holding back on FA they like due to money concerns like this.

Agreed on the Gardy thing. On the original point, Correia just equaled his career best in starter ERA+ and basically equaled it in IP too (at least IP per GS). If Correia deserves any "adjustment" because he would have been better with a decreased IP load, basically the same adjustment would be valid for any starting pitcher in MLB and thus becomes pretty meaningless. He had a average-ish season on an average-ish contract. That has value, as we've learned so painfully the last few years; let's just appreciate it for what it was (and what it hopefully can be in 2014 too).

Correia had a decent season, on a pretty insignificant contract (not much over league average salary, for just two years). No problem with it in isolation, at the time or now. But he was the most "expensive" pitcher we signed, and arguably the only healthy one. Regardless of the process (whether he was motivated by cheapness, or cheapness was a result of a lack of good options), TR went cheap on fixing the rotation last offseason and overall it didn't work -- a bad rotation stayed bad. Correia kept it from getting worse, I guess. Good to see him actively and seriously participating in the FA market this winter, possibly for the first time ever. It's going to be a lot more interesting to debate his offseason moves now that we've moved beyond the money issue.

To be fair, that's probably on TR too. Whatever he did, he didn't really get health or durability last offseason.

Could be, I was just basing that estimate on MLB average salaries, which have gone up from roughly $3 mil to $3.5 mil in that time.

I suspect that is what will happen -- contracts often aren't officially confirmed/announced for several weeks after (it makes for a confusing read at MLBTR sometimes!).

Fangraphs did some crowdsource predictions of the free agent market -- and Nolasco was pegged at 4/50: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/fangraphs-crowd-the-top-47-free-agents/#7 Of course, the same exercise also has Ervin Santana at 3/39 which seems absurdly low. Garza (4/59), Jimenez (4/49), Kazmir (2/17), and Hughes (2/16) seem pretty realistic, however. Also, fWAR was the stat of choice presented with each free agent, so that probably skewed things in Nolasco's favor a bit.

MLBTR predicted a 1/8 make-good contract for Hughes. i'd take that, although I am also intrigued by their predicted 2/16 for Kazmir (and they actually guessed that the Twins might sign him in their predictions). They were fairly close on Nolasco's -- predicted 3/36 but did talk about the possibility of the 4th year and the Edwin Jackson contract (4/52) as his "ceiling".

Interestingly, Carlos Silva signed almost the exact same contract (4/48 plus an option) with Seattle after 2007 (although with inflation, that might be equivalent to 4/56 now?). At the time, Silva was 2 years younger than Nolasco is now, and he had a 102 ERA+ and averaged 193 IP and 2.2 bWAR as a starter, with ERA generally matching his FIP. Nolasco has a 95 ERA+ and averaged 192 IP and 1.8 bWAR (most of that bWAR coming in 2008, fWAR: 3.2 average). Kyle Lohse's 4 full seasons with the Twins: 99 ERA+, 189 IP and 1.9 bWAR average (2.3 fWAR), tracking 4 years younger than Nolasco. Suggests both Lohse and Silva were underrated, particularly Lohse who was unceremoniously dumped at age 27. Hopefully Nolasco tracks closer to Lohse than Silva over the next 4-5 years!

Vargas got $32 mil. 4 years, $8 mil per.

Of course, Fangraphs value is based on FIP rather than actual runs allowed, and Nolasco has been a fairly spectacular FIPS underperformer. Fangraphs also thought Mike Pelfrey was worth $10.7 mil last year in only 152 IP.

I agree with the above sentiments -- glad to see TR finally made a move in free agency. That said, Nolasco's been a full-time starter for 6 seasons, and has posted a league-average (95) or better starter's ERA+ just twice. Dude has really under-performed his FIP -- according to B-Ref, he hasn't exceeded 1.8 WAR in a season since 2008. Vargas is the same age and has basically had equal or better results the past 4 years. Still glad we got him. Hopefully we're still looking and bidding competitively, though. I have a feeling this is it (well, this and Pelfrey).

This is where I think you are getting off-track. I am pretty sure it follows more of an offer, counter-offer pattern, rather than an open bid auction where the price keeps escalating. Teams wouldn't stand for that, and frankly, with the quantity of free agents available, they generally don't have to. Occasionally a team may bid high to cut off the competition, but most of the time, a guy signs a reasonable deal that 4 other clubs would have done too. Nobody has to be the outright highest bidder, just the preferred competitive bidder that was willing to seal the deal. That's the product of a blind, offer then counter approach.

In regards to teams having a "responsibility" not to overbid? I don't think that's a "responsibility" to other teams, it's just a good business practice. Yeah, the Twins could go 5/100 for Nolasco, but even with cash to spend, that would be a terrible business move when the guy is looking at a likely 4/52 deal. Occasionally I am sure deals like this happen (i.e. Zito), but usually driven by ownership, though, not GMs. GMs that make too many moves like that will be losing a lot of money (or handicapping their franchise) -- "responsibility" doesn't even have to enter into the equation.