Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Burning Question #4: What Does the Future Hold for Aaron Rowand?

Aaron Rowand's career would make an almost perfect case study for Sports Management 101 on what type of player to not sign to a long term contract. I mean, it's all there: Career year, playing in favorable ballparks, age, reckless style of play risking injury, unorthodox, even bizarre swing mechanics. The Giants signed Aaron Rowand to a 5 year, $60 M contract before the 2008 season. He was coming off a sensational season with the Philadelphia Phillies in which he had hit 27 home runs. The Giants were in desperate need of hitting in the aftermath of Barry Bonds non-retirement. They had been spurned the previous year by Carlos Lee and Alfonso Soriano and the 2008 class was much thinner. Surprisingly, a lot of Giants fans were not terribly upset by the signing. Most of the ones who did question it fretted more about the length of the contract than whether Rowand would produce in the short term. Yes, they reasoned, Rowand's numbers might slip a little playing in AT&T Park, or whatever it was named at the time, but he'd still be good for 20-25 HR's, a much needed addition to a lineup almost devoid of power.

What those fans, and apparently the Giants, failed to account for is that Rowand's numbers would not be taking a hit from his career year of 2007, but much more likely from his more average two prior years.

2005: .270/.329/.407 with 13 HR's.
2006: .262/.321/.425 with 12 HR's in 109 games.

Hmmm.....a 10% park effects hit on those numbers doesn't look so hot, eh? A popular sentiment amongst Giants fans is that Aaron Rowand has been a bust from the very beginning of his contract. Well, if the Giants were expecting him to repeat his 2007 season every year of the contract, they would have signed him for $20 M/year as that's what his 2007 season was worth. In fact, the $12 M they paid him was not too far off from his value if he had repeated his prior 2 seasons, and he pretty much did:

2008: .271/.339/.410 with 13 HR's
2009: .261/.319/.419 with 15 HR's.

When adjusted for park effects, those two seasons were actually a bit better than his 2005/2006 seasons. His WAR, according to fangraphs.com was 2.5 in 2009 worth $11.2 M. His WAR of 1.4 in 2008 was held down by an inexplicably poor UZR which is known to be innacurate over sample sizes of less than 3 seasons, so it is likely that Rowand came very close to earning his salary his first two seasons of his SF Giants contract.

That brings us to 2010 and a lost season. Rowand actually started out 2010 in fairly good fashion. After 10 games, he was hitting .304/.333/.457. In the 10'th game of the season, Rowand got hit flush in the left orbit by a Vicente Padilla fastball. In typical Rowand Gamer fashion, he probably came back too early, but had a horrible May going .194/.228/.370. He recovered in June and July hitting .273/.344/.436 and .286/.338/.397. Good BA's for him, but he was not hitting for power and his playing time was already starting to diminish with Andres Torres playing a bigger and bigger role on the team and Brian Sabean making acquisitions for the title run right and left. With diminished playing time, he numbers cratered in August and September and he finished with a career worst season of .230/.281/.319.

If Aaron Rowand were to be the starting CF for the Giants in 2011, there is a decent chance that he could come close to a 2.5 WAR season, what he would need to earn his salary. The problem is, the Giants have moved on. The desperate need for hitters in 2008 is no longer as acute. Andres Torres is a better CF both defensively and offensively, barring a major regression for Torres, and Rowand just doesn't hit enough, even with optimistic projections to be a starting LF even in the NL West. I don't think there is a Giants fan alive who doesn't think that some combination of Aubrey Huff, Pat Burrell and Brandon Belt woudn't be a superior LF option than Aaron Rowand. I don't think there is a Giants fan alive who doesn't think an OF of Andres Torres, Cody Ross and the aformentioned combination wouldn't be superior to any combination including Aaron Rowand.

So, where does that leave Rowand? There is no way the Giants are going to get any salary relief in a trade of Aaron Rowand. Brian Sabean flat out said that Rowand would be nearly impossible to trade because of the contract situation. Say what you will about Sabean, but he has always called it straight at his post-season press conferences. The Giants have two choices with Aaron Rowand: 1. Release him and eat the last two years of his contract, or 2. Keep him as a very expensive 5'th OF. As long as Rowand is willing to accept that role, and as long as he is not blocking a better option, it's probably better to keep him as insurance against a huge regression by Andres Torres or Cody Ross, both of which are very possible.

Signing Aaron Rowand for $12 M/season was not a significant mistake. Signing him for more than 3 years was.

BTW: The Giants announced today the re-signing of Aubrey Huff for 2 years/$22 M with $2 M in the form of a team option for $10 M in year 3. Aubrey Huff is a much better bet to outperform that contract than Aaron Rowand was to perform up to his when he was signed. Almost perfect contract for Huff!

14 comments:

  1. I think there is more the an outside chance that the Giants could get $3M/yr of salary relief for two years trading Rowand back to the Philles for a C- prospect. The Giants would have to sent $9M/yr to the Philles for the remaining 2 years on Rowand's contract but the would save $3M/yr.

    ReplyDelete
  2. wont complain about huff's new contract...it makes a ton of sense (if sabean is to be believed that he matched another clubs offer)

    it is league avg for the numbers huff put up, and the guy did finish in the top 10 of the mvp balloting

    it is also not to big that he cannot be traded if belt keeps up his offensive numbers but cannot transition to lf

    rowand is a different story...they gotta dump the guy

    eat the majority of the contract and get a low level minor leaguer for him...hopefully the phillies interest is real (the guy can hit in that band box)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not holding my breath on Rowand.

    Huff's contract may be league average for his career average WAR, but a 5.7 WAR is worth, well, 5.7 X $3.5 M = $20 M and that's at last year's prices. There is already evidence of salary inflation this offseason. Huff can have a significant regression over the next two years and still earn his keep. I don't expect him to put up 5.7 WAR again, but if he stays in shape and maintains a burning desire to win, this contract will be a bargain for the Giants. I wouldn't be saying that if they were locked into a full 3 years though. Keeping it to 2 years with an option was key.

    BTW, word on the street is that the team the Giants matched was the Dodgers! Looks like Sabean was able to match the offer and open up a can of championship whup ass on Ned Colletti. Go Giants!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. DrB,

    Do you happen to have a link to that "word on the street"? I have heard this too from posters on other blogs but never have I seen a link.

    ReplyDelete
  5. first, here is a great article by verducci on why the giants should be si sportsmen of the year

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/sportsman/11/15/verducci.giants/

    regarding the word on the street about the other club...the rumors i have heard are cubs, bums or rangers

    to me, the only club that makes sense is the rangers...who are in need of a versatile guy who can dh and play the field...and they are now flush with cash

    cant see the bums having the scratch to do any big fa deals...unless the boss man wants to make sure that wifey will get nothing if the team is forced into sale

    i think it is important that sabean doesnt get roped into any deals that go beyond 2013, or he is gonna end up losing 2 out of the big 4 (he may anyway) i can already see the yanks salivating at the thought of grabbing timmy and cain

    it just would be nice if sabean can figure out a way to get some of the rowand cash off the payroll...and get rowand out of the lineup

    dude is a nice guy, and seems to be a great teammate...but as the mlb is a biz, he hurts the bottom line

    ReplyDelete
  6. A poster of Extra Baggs seems to think that the Cubs could be other team, Baggs confirms that, so it was maybe the case.

    Anyway Huff is a Giant for 2 years. I think it's a good move, with our pitching intact (and hopefully healthy) the window is still open to win at least another pennant next year, so we have to go for it.

    What do you think the Giants will do with Ishikawa and Schierholtz, they are still young and are working for cheap money. But with the Huff move and the rising Belt, their future seems to be in another organization.

    Do you think they could have some value and be traded for a shortstop ?

    Go Giants !!!

    GIP

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, the Dodgers comment was just a poster in the Extra Baggs column. Cubs seem a lot more likely. It sure would be great if it was the Dodgers though.

    I don't really see Travis or Nate having a lot of trade value, maybe as part of a package? There are several clubs who are almost desperate for relievers. I would think that's where the Giants have a bit of a surplus they could use to get a SS, maybe Tampa Bay for Jason Bartlett or Yanks for Eduardo Nunez if and when the Yanks sign Jeter? Boston could use relievers too, maybe the Giants could trade a couple for Scaturo or Jed Lowrie?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Correction. The comment I saw about the Dodgers was in El Lefty Malo's column.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is also a note on MLBTR that has Ken Rosenthal saying the Dodgers had "serious interest" in Aubrey Huff before the Giants re-signed him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I don't really see Travis or Nate having a lot of trade value..." That makes the Pill transaction more curious. The general consensus among the Lunatic Fringe is that Pill and Ishikawa are interchangable, with a slight bias toward Pill. Since Travis is heading into his arbitration years, and presumably will make more than the league minimum, why wouldn't you keep Pill instead. Does the Giants' management see more in Ishikawa than we think?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think Travis and Brett Pill are at all interchangeable. One is lefthanded, the other isn't. All things being equal, you would go with the lefthanded pick at first base. Travis has had enough success in the majors to be a dependable defensive replacement and pinch-hitter. Pill has not done anything at the big league level. Also, although Travis had his struggles in AA ball, his best seasons in the minors were way better than anything Pill has put up so far. Besides, why would you hang onto Pill when you have Brandon Belt coming along? No way is Pill going to be on the MLB team and Belt is going to be the first baseman in Fresno, if not the majors.

    As for trade value, I don't think defensive replacement/pinch-hitter first basemen have much.

    I would classify the Pill love as part "Shiny New Toy Syndrome" and part the herd mentality that develops on some internet sites.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not only has Pill not done anything at major league level, he hasn't done anything in the minors either, certainly nothing to the level that Ishikawa has, as DrB noted. I really don't understand the fan love for Pill either.

    The major problem with the herd is that they don't really understand what is good and what is not good in the minors. They see numbers that are good in the majors and automatically think that the prospect is good, when, really, the prospect has to look like an elite player in the minors, Pujols like, to be an average regular in the majors or better.

    I think also disappointment seems to last a long time in some people's minds, a la Sabean, a la Ishikawa. Both have disappointed in some way, and so they are pushed to the side of the road while, as DrB aptly notes, the "shiny new toy" has no dings in it, they just don't notice that the new toy isn't as good as the old one.

    If Schierholtz or Ishikawa had been a highly rated prospect, then there would be some trade value. Strong defensive/poor offensive position players are not that valuable, they will pick it off the floor if you throw it down there, but they are not going to pay you good value for them.

    That is why I was hoping Ishikawa or Schierholtz would get more playing time once DeRosa was out of the picture, so that they would have the opportunity to show their value, as I think they can still be OK players in the majors. Not major cogs, but complementary players have some value too.

    But I don't think they are going to get the opportunity to do it here, particularly Ishikawa with Belt coming up soon, his writing is on the wall. Hopefully they can trade him to Seattle so that he can play in front of his home crowd and family, plus they seem to have an opening at 1B every year too. I think he can be OK offensively at 1B (mid to high 700 OPS) while playing great defense, which is not that bad compared to what we had after Snow.

    Schierholtz, however, I think the Giants will hold on to, lots of question marks in OF, and he's a defensive wiz in RF.

    ReplyDelete
  13. just to throw out a thought

    if the halos dont offer kfran arbitration, think that sabes would kiss and make up with the kid and offer him a gig as the utility guy?

    he is a cheaper (and better defensive) option than fotenot

    as for ti...unless belt makes the team out of camp, cant see the giants trading him before the season starts....cheap defensive replacement and the best bat off the bench

    the only way i can see them cutting nate loose is if sabean cant figure out a way to get rid of rowand

    ReplyDelete
  14. I could see the Kevin Frandsen thing happening, although I think Fontenot is a better hitter.

    ReplyDelete