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

[Jim H]

I have been a little leery of Garza for 3 reasons. A lot of his perceived value is fueled by strikeouts and stats like FIP which are heavily strikeout dependent. Strikeouts are fine, but they aren't the only stat to look at. 2nd, it has always bothered me that if Tampa Bay would have thought he was a top of the rotation guy, why didn't they keep him and build the rotation around him? The same is true of Chicago. They are in the same place as the Twins, why not keep him and build a rotation around him? Two different management teams have been trying to trade him from Chicago for 3 years.

 

Finally there are the injury concerns. I guess I am not as high on Garza as others seem to be, largely for the reasons above.

[JB_Iowa]

Kind of boggles the mind that Garza reportedly received "only" $50m over 4 years w/vesting option for $13m in the 5th.

 

Who saw that coming in November?

 

There are also reportedly some extras that could bring the 5-year total to $67m -- incentives of some kind, I suppose.

[thetank]

I agree with the sentiment that a bat is likely a better idea than Garza at this point, especially with a 4 year deal. Rome wasn't built in a day and the Twins have made some important, necessary additions to the rotation, time to add a bat and see what shakes off the FA tree next year for some pitching.

 

Although if Gibson, Meyer and May progress positively, that might be priority B.

 

There are no bats worthwhile on the FA market including Drew. The offense should have had more developed players from the minor leagues.

[thetank]

That is a little silly Brock, Garza has had his injury issues throughout his career, but we have found out time and time again that he has been an asset worth trading for multiple times. Even if he did lose a year or whatever, there is a good chance he would bounce back the next year and be "tradeable"

 

If Garza gets hurt again and bounces back unlikely he will have much trade value without throwing in a bunch of cash. Might depend upon how he was hurt and his bounce back record, but, still...

[diehardtwinsfan]

The Twins found out last year that you need to be agressive early on in FA or you will be at the mercy of the market. Garza was banking on the losers of the Tanaka deal and I don't think it quite worked out for him. The problem as I see it is that Garza wasn't going to sign for 4/52 early on in FA as he expected to make more. Nolasco on the other hand thought that was as good a deal as he'd get, so he took it.

 

If the Twins decided to hold out for Garza, I'd argue that they:

1) would have had to pay more than 4/52

2) would have run the risk of not getting either guy.

[h2oface]

Nolasco on the other hand thought that was as good a deal as he'd get, so he took it.

 

I think you are spot on about that. I also don't think anyone else would have given Nolasco any where close to what he got, and as it is shaking out, appears to be way more than the market.

[jay]

Details on his contract from the AP:

Garza gets $12.5 million a season, with $2 million annually deferred without interest. The deferred money is payable in four installments each Dec. 15 starting in 2018.

He can earn an additional $1 million annually in performance bonuses: $500,000 each for 30 starts and 190 innings.

The deal includes a $13 million option for 2018 that would become guaranteed if he makes 110 starts during the next four years, pitches 155 innings in 2017 and is not on the disabled list at the end of that season.

Milwaukee has protection against an arm injury in two ways. If he is on the disabled list for 130 or more days during any 183-day period for a right shoulder or elbow injury, or an injury resulting from instability in the shoulder or elbow, Milwaukee gets a $1 million option for 2018. If he has fewer than 90 starts during the next four years, the Brewers have a $5 million option.

 

That's a LOT of injury protections. The only way I could see this deal happening is no other team was willing to go that long due to injury concerns and the Brewers needed extensive protections to do it. The AAV is a red flag as well.

[Otto von Ballpark]

That's a LOT of injury protections. The only way I could see this deal happening is no other team was willing to go that long due to injury concerns and the Brewers needed extensive protections to do it. The AAV is a red flag as well.

 

Those injury clauses are not necessarily a red flag. John Lackey had a very similar clause in his contract about injury time adding a cheap option year, and he was known as one of the more durable pitchers in the game at the time. It's a fantastic clause for teams, and I wonder if it isn't becoming more popular due to contract insurance changes (i.e., if you can't insure the contract as much, add a cheap option year in event of injury).

 

All told, I think it's a very solid deal for the Brewers, and the Twins debate shouldn't be whether they should have waited on Nolasco to sign Garza, it should be, why didn't they simply try to sign both? The Twins rotation is improved now but far from perfect, and Garza has better upside/projections than pretty much anybody we have.

 

(I do think the Garza reunion was never meant to be, personality-wise, and I also think the Twins never had any intention of signing more than one "big" contract this offseason.)

[jay]

Those injury clauses are not necessarily a red flag.

 

The guaranteed option can't be viewed as anywhere near even likely. He's met those requirements exactly one time in his career (2011). At that point, the deal becomes 5/$51M or $55M with incentives worth up to $4M. With the deferred money, the real value is even less.

 

Given he was originally projected to get more like 5/$75M or more (without considering these clauses), help me understand how all of that doesn't equate to injury red flags? What caused his market to drop so far?

[TheLeviathan]

What caused his market to drop so far?

 

I'm not sure you'll get an answer here, too many convinced he got what he deserved. (As in, same as Nolasco)

 

On the other hand, I'm as perplexed as you are. This is too good a pitcher for this contract with that many insurance clauses for the Brewers. It's a steal.

[jay]

It's a steal.

 

I think they actually just priced in a TJ somewhere during the 5 years and it's a pretty fair deal. Figure the elbow gives out mid-season at some point and he misses the rest of that season, part of the next, and rehabs the end of that next season. You're then talking basically 3.5/$51 and pretty darn close to his AAV at the 5/$75 range originally projected.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think they actually just priced in a TJ somewhere during the 5 years and it's a pretty fair deal. Figure the elbow gives out mid-season at some point and he misses the rest of that season, part of the next, and rehabs the end of that next season. You're then talking basically 3.5/$51 and pretty darn close to his AAV at the 5/$75 range originally projected.

 

This is my only guess as to why Garza got so little comparatively speaking. On paper, he's a better pitcher than Nolasco. Not infinitely better, but better. And he's a year younger.

 

At that point, the only reason I can come up with why he received that contract is "medical records". Something in his history is throwing up red flags, something we don't see as fans.

 

There are just too many MLB teams that need quality MLB starters to pass up on Garza so readily, especially when they can get him without draft pick compensation.

[TheLeviathan]

I think they actually just priced in a TJ somewhere during the 5 years and it's a pretty fair deal. Figure the elbow gives out mid-season at some point and he misses the rest of that season, part of the next, and rehabs the end of that next season. You're then talking basically 3.5/$51 and pretty darn close to his AAV at the 5/$75 range originally projected.

 

Could be, but I look at probably the best pitcher on the market (other than the question mark that is Tanaka) and they got him for a better deal than Nolasco and didn't have to give up a draft pick.

 

For a free agent signing, I'm not sure you can do much better.