Article: Brewers sign Garza to deal similar to Twins' Nolasco

[twinsfan34]

ESPN

 

 

HardballTalk

[Craig Arko]

Per Ken Rosenthal. 4/52

[S.]

Not happy about this one bit.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Wow. That's a pretty sweet deal for the Brew Crew.

[johnnydakota]

wow, did we miss out on this deal? would it have been posible to get a 3 year 48 million dollar deal? Well good luck Garza

[notoriousgod71]

I'd rather have Garza than Nolasco and Hughes.

[Parker Hageman]

Sources indicate that the Milwaukee Brewers have now signed pitcher Matt Garza to the tune of four years, $52 million.

 

This is notable for several reasons. The first being that this is a substantial savings from what he was originally projected as being worth going into the free agent season. At Twins Daily, we estimated that Garza would reach five years and $75 million. Instead, teams shied away from him. The second interesting piece is that this deal is basically the same one that the Twins gave starter Ricky Nolasco earlier in the winter (4 years, $49M + options).

Comparatively, Garza, who is a year younger than Nolasco, has had a slightly better career. However, since 2010, the pair has been surprisingly similar:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2013&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=3340,3830

 

What you see is that while the raw numbers are very alike, Garza gets better marks for his ERA, xFIP and FIP for spending time in the American League while Nolasco has been in the National League.

 

Of course, one of the biggest concerns by teams making these sizeable investments is how a player will hold up over the course of that agreement. In Nolasco’s case, he has been rock solid over his career meanwhile Garza has been in-and-out of infirmaries for arm-related ailments (Nolasco’s have been mainly truck and thigh).

 

Should the Twins have waited for Garza at the same rate? What are your thoughts?

[Boom Boom]

Eh, he throws too many fastballs anyway.

[johnnydakota]

we could have had him for 1 million a year more then Nolasco, if we got both it would have been a great off season , now , not so much

[DaveW]

Wow! Would have been nice for the twins, but who knows, seems like he left money on the table regardless.

 

Hopefully the twins can go get ubaldo. Or just wait for bailey next off season

[johnnydakota]

I'd rather have Garza than Nolasco and Hughes.

 

we could have had all three, and I would be eatting crow for 6 months

[Mike Sixel]

If that is all it took, I wish they'd have signed him and not Pelfrey.......

[Thrylos]

Despite what the Twins (and Garza) have been saying publicly, I find it really hard to believe that a reunion could ever be possible, after what happened at his first stint with the Twins, which led to his departure. Not if the people involved then are the same who are running the team now.

 

That said, the injury issues are legitimate

[Brock Beauchamp]

Should the Twins have waited for Garza at the same rate? What are your thoughts?

 

I know this isn't your stance, Parker, or at least it probably isn't your stance but I find this argument to be untenable upon examination.

 

The bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and all that. The Twins have been burned in recent years by "waiting the market out" on pitchers and ended up scrounging junk off the pile because of it (well, that and dollars and years).

 

There was no reason to expect Tanaka to hold the entire market hostage for two months. There was no reason to expect teams to shy away from Garza for as long as they did.

 

Would I prefer Garza over Nolasco at the same price? Sure, I think that's pretty obvious... But if you're Terry Ryan in November, you can't bank on either Nolasco or Garza being available in late January or you're going to get burned on the free agent market almost every season if you wait it out and hope "your guy" is still available.

 

You go get the guy you want at the price you're willing to pay. It's as simple as that. If there are "leftovers" at the end of the offseason, sure, you reevaluate at that time but don't delay your offseason plans in hopes that a guy will float in limbo for two months and that it will drive down the price... Because that's a pretty rare occurrence and can't be reliably predicted (or every team would employ this strategy every offseason).

[johnnydakota]

Just goes to show you have been putting your hand in the wrong bush:th_alc:

It would of and should of been the Twins signing Garza, wow It would have been the best off season since gravey was invented, the Twins adding a Legit #2/3 and #3/4 starter, and still having Stewart and Meyer in the pipeline....wow

[JB_Iowa]

It was pretty clear that the Garza camp was waiting until after Tanaka was resolved. Frankly, given the abysmal state of Twins pitching in 2013, I don't think the Twins could wait to see what happened with him. They needed to sign Nolasco and Hughes early.

 

They probably could have waited before signing Pelfrey but even with Pelfrey signed, I think they still could have signed Garza -- I just don't think it was very likely as Thrylos stated.

 

At this point I would rate the Twins' off-season at about a C+/B-. But they still have time (and money) to do a little more work.

[iTwins]

With the Brewers getting Garza for a reasonable rate, I wonder if they were one of the few teams that offered a 4th year? There was quite a bit of speculation that many teams (the Twins included) were "in" so long as they didn't have to go too long in years. Perhaps the Brewers offered a 4th year other teams weren't comfortable with and thus got Garza for a good price. It'll be interesting to see how close other teams were as more details come out on his signing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I can't get over this price. It really makes me wonder what Garza's medical reports look like because I can't fathom how a 30 year old pitcher of his quality only gets 4/$52m in this market.

[johnnydakota]

I can't get over this price. It really makes me wonder what Garza's medical reports look like because I can't fathom how a 30 year old pitcher of his quality only gets 4/$52m in this market.

 

Well that should come out before they actually sign him,Kinda like Baltimore did.

 

If he is healthy and signed for this , I will be really depressed, as it is another missed oppertunity

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, on the face of it, this will be by far the best contract any team inks this offseason from a value standpoint.

 

If the Twins had signed this, we'd all be rubbing our eyes to try and believe they managed it. This is a REALLY good deal for the Brewers. Even if he flops and has injury issues, right now there is no way to judge this as anything but a huge win.

 

Fans of the Orioles and other near-contenders with needs and money to spend have to be just hating this.

[johnnydakota]

I can't get over this price. It really makes me wonder what Garza's medical reports look like because I can't fathom how a 30 year old pitcher of his quality only gets 4/$52m in this market.

 

I had him pegged in the 16-17 million dollar range

[DaveW]

I can't believe the rangers wouldn't match that contract either (or a ton of other teams for that matter....)

[Trautmann13]

Im not sure I would like Garza over Nolasco at these numbers. Given I have a personal bias for Ricky being one of my favorite players, and always being annoyed by Garza's attitude. Even with that aside, Garza had a horrendous second half last year and has a glaring history of injury. Nolasco is basically the opposite. Am I way off here?

[PseudoSABR]

One wonders how cheaply Santana and Jimenez can be had given the addition of the draft pick a team has to give up. Good deal for the Brewers; would have been nice for the Twins to have nabbed him.

[pierre75275]

I wonder what this does to the Jimenez and E Santana market. Does that lower their value to the Kyle Loshe range? Give or take?

[Jim Crikket]

Anyone who would argue the Twins should have waited things out to get Garza instead of Nolasco is being a little bit delusional, I think.

 

Can you imagine the crap that would be raining down on the Twins FO by now if they hadn't done anything but sign Hughes and Pelfrey by now? You know Nolasco would have signed elsewhere by now if the Twins hadn't signed him and you certainly can not assume they'd have ended up with Garza anyway. More likely, they'd have ended up with neither pitcher.

 

Brock's right, when you absolutely need pitching, you target the guys you want and pay what you believe is a fair price to sign them as soon as you can get them. Twins played this hand correctly and, honestly, four years from now, given the two guys' respective health histories, I think odds are pretty good that we'll look back and see Nolasco was the better choice.

[DaveW]

I wonder what this does to the Jimenez and E Santana market. Does that lower their value to the Kyle Loshe range? Give or take?

 

Hopefully, and it would be a good time for the twins to strike, when they only have to give up a 2nd rounder

[johnnydakota]

Sorry wrong thread, but someone was asking about the Twins spring training telecasts,the Trib says they will broadcast every home game this year

[bird]

On the surface this looks to be a high-quality decision by the Brewers. Sounds like a steal. We'll probably never know if the Twins were presented with and rejected a similar offer. I think it's fair to say that in any event it was wise to pull the trigger on Nolasco and Hughes when the opportunity presented itself.

[TheLeviathan]

I think odds are pretty good that we'll look back and see Nolasco was the better choice.

 

I don't think they're very good at all. Odds are that this deal looks fantastic, so I doubt Nolasco's odds look better.

 

That doesn't mean, however, that the Twins weren't right to be aggressive. It was just hard to foresee something like this.