Saturday, October 8, 2011

Hot Stove Update: Scouting the Shortstops

The Giants had problems at multiple positions in 2011, none more disastrous than shortstop. Edgar Renteria was a World Series hero in 2010, but was playing with a torn tendon and clearly could not be counted on for more than a backup role. Juan Uribe played remarkably well there but is not a shortstop, and Ned Colletti grossly overpaid to see if some of his Clubhouse Presence might rub off on the Dodgers. The people who thought Uribe was in for a severe regression proved to be right. The market for shortstops last offeason was even bleaker than the market for centerfielders this year. Sabean gambled that Miguel Tejada had one year left in him. He didn't, and there was no backup plan. Tejada couldn't field the position and was overmatched at the plate much of the season, finally going down with an injury. Desperate, the Giants called up Brandon Crawford who himself had started the year with an injury and was basically rehabbing with Single A San Jose. Crawford had never played above AA and had struggled there. He predictably struggled at the plate in the majors too, but a lot of Giants fans found his young athleticism on defense to be a breath of fresh air for the positions. A late season trade for Orlando Cabrera was not greeted with enthusiasm and Cabrera turned out to be little better than Tejada, if at all. Crawford got another look in September after the Giants were all but eliminated and was actually able to hit a little.

Crawford is the Giants in-house option to the the starting shortstop in 2012. Ideally, he could probably use another 500 minor league AB's, but his approach at the plate is already pretty good and he could also continue to develop as a hitter at the MLB level while providing plus defense. Although Crawford was less than a replacement player on offense, his fielding and baserunning enabled him to produce a +0.5 WAR in 507 innings for a value of $2.2 M. I think it's fairly safe to assume that Brandon would be no worse in 2012 and probably better with more experience. Worst case scenario over a whole season is about a 1.3 WAR or about $6 M, very close to what the Giants paid for Miggy Tejada last year, except Crawford will cost less than $500 K! While Sabes went out of his way to say the Giants have no internal options for CF, he did not say the same for SS even while commenting on Crawford's lack of readiness when he was called up last season.

With that starting point, let's take a look at outside options for the shortstop position in 2012:

Free Agents

Jose Reyes- Reyes is one of 3 premium free agents available this year. He's been a consistent 6 WAR player when healthy. At age 28, he should have at least 4 prime years left. A 7 year contract would end at age 35. The question is not whether Reyes would make the Giants a better team, but whether his contract fits into the their payroll structure over the next 7 years. I think it will take a minimum of 7 years/$140 M to get him signed and possibly more. Based on Brian Sabean's comments in the postseason presser, I would have to guess that Reyes won't be wearing a Giants uniform next season.

Jimmy Rolllins- Rollins is not the player who rang up a 6.9 WAR in 2007 and never will be. Next year will be his age 33 season so his time for delivering 3-4 WAR seasons is probably growing short. That would be a huge upgrade from what the Giants have gotten from the position in recent years but it won't come cheap. Rollins has said he is looking for a 5 year deal and I wouldn't bet against him getting it from somebody. I would think $12 M is probably the starting point for yearly salary too. Honestly, if the Giants are going to spend that kind of money on the position, I'd rather they go all in and sign Reyes.

Rafael Furcal- Furcal has a $12 M option that St Louis will certainly not pick up. He's coming off a terrrible season in which he put up a 0.5 WAR in 1.5X the number of innings as Brandon Crawford. Sure he might rebound to a 3-4 WAR player next year, but he's been injury prone for several seasons now, and Crawford could develop into a 3 WAR player too. I say pass.

Clint Barmes- Barmes is a player who might interest me for the right price. He's a plus fielder at SS and has some pop in his bat. On the other hand, he's put up his modest offensive numbers playing his home games in Coors Field and Minute Maid Park so no telling what he'd hit playing 102 games in SF, LA, SD and Oakland. Could be a 1- 2 year stopgap option if the Giants feel Crawford needs more time in the minors. He'll be 33 years old in 2012.

Alex Gonzalez- Was the SS for ATL in 2011. Has a bit of pop in his bat with 15 HR's but does almost nothing else positive at the plate. His defensive stats have been sliding the last 3 seasons and went negative last year. His 1.1 WAR over a full season of play is less than the minimum projected for Crawford. No thank you! 34 yo.

Yuniesky Betancourt- Yuniesky has hit 13 and 16 HR's the last 2 seasons but is allergic to walks and is a negative fielder. Call him a poor man's Juan Uribe. Has a $6 M option with a $2 M buyout. Touch choice for the Brewers, but he has put up < 1 WAR for 4 consecutive seasons. Again, I'd much rather have Crawford for equal price and Crawford will be much cheaper.

Marco Scutaro- This guy knows how to get on base and has a bit of pop in his bat. He's approximately neutral as a fielder. Some of the pop may go out of his bat moving from Boston. He has a $6M club option, $3M player option with a $1.5 M buyout. He's good for about a 2.5 WAR which is a bargain at $6 M so I'm guessing Boston re-ups him unless they want to clear the way for Lowrie. In that case, they would probably trade him before buying him out. He could be an asset to the Giants at $6 M for 1 season if the trade price wasn't too high. 36 yo.

Jamey Carroll- A very pesky hitter who knows how to get on base. Has put up 2.2 and 2.5 WAR the past two seasons for LA. Probably not a full time SS unless you are desperate. I would see him more as a utility guy to back up FSanchez and Crawford than a starting SS. He's a slightly negative fielder at all positons by UZR and that is unlikely to improve at his age. It would have to be no more than a 2 year deal and under $5 M for my taste. 37 yo.

Jack Wilson- Wilson has been something of a white whale for some Giants fans for a few years now. He is a terrible hitter whose fielding is starting to slip. He put up exactly 0 WAR in 2011. Thanks, but I'll take my chances with Crawford.

Nick Punto- Punto might just be the most underrated player in all of baseball. A plus fielder, even at SS, he's great at getting on base. Has accumulated 3.1 WAR in 454 AB's over the last 2 seasons. I would be happy with signing him on a 1 or 2 year deal as either a utility guy or as a stopgap starter at SS. 34 yo.

Trades

I can't think of any shortstop obviously better than Crawford who would be on the trading block. If there were, they would be very expensive in terms of prospects the Giants would have to give up.

Summary:

Brandon Crawford is a solid bet to put up at least a 1.5 WAR as the full time starting SS and has a chance to do quite a bit better than that, all for the MLB minimum salary. Short of a major outlay of FA $$$$ for either Jose Reyes or Jimmy Rollins, I think the Giants need to put their faith in Brandon Crawford and go with him. Fontenot can be the backup at both 2B and SS to start the season, alternatively, the Giants could let Fonty go and try to sign Nick Punto or Jamey Carroll as utility IF. Desperation trades can be made in-season if necessary.

18 comments:

  1. If we can't sign Reyes or Rollins, then Crawford should be our man. He has great defense and would be millions less than similar WAR shortstops. If either could stay healthy, and that is a big IF, Reyes or Rollins would look great in black and orange. They solve 3 of our issues at once; leadoff hitter, improved offense and SS. Crawford only solves one of those. The way I look at it that we were paying Tejada 6.5 so we shouldn't look at it like we would pay either of them 12-15 million a year but 6-9 million more than what we have which isn't outrageous. Just by letting Rowand off the books next year that is about enough. With Zito coming off shortly, that money could be split up between our pitchers. Hopefully we can just give Cain and Lincecum back loaded contracts until Zito comes off the books.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would be great if Sabean could pull off a trade for an outstanding young SS prospect by all reports like the Rangers Jurikson Profar.. He's only 18 yrs old, a switch hitter, and capable of making Elvis Andres look over his shoulder soon.. I know I'm dreaming here and Profar would come with a big price, but the Rangers already have an outstanding SS Andres, so Profar may not be untouchable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Because Rowand and Zito are sitting right in the middle of our 2012 payroll at over $30,000,000, I can't see how the Giants can go after Reyes or Rollins. And, speaking of Zito, the Giants would be best to shy away from those FA mega contracts. You just get killed on the back end. Sometimes on the front end (Werth, Crawford...Zito). Free Agency is not what it used to be without steroids.

    That being said, if you can plant Craw down the lineup (8th) for the WHOLE season, I'm in. Take his defense, and take our lumps for his bat while he learns/refines his craft at the MLB level.

    (And for that matter, subject for another posting, but let's plant Belt at 7th for ALL of 2012 as well.)

    Otherwise, I still say Furcal, at the right price, is an asset. I'm watching the guy in the playoffs, and he has an impact. He always is an impact player when healthy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As always, thanks for the comments, everybody.

    The smart thing for the Rangers to do would be to hang onto both Andrus and Profar until Profar is ready. By that time, Andrus will be well into his arbitration years and approaching FA. They can then trade Andrus for more young talent and have Profar for cheep for several years.

    IMO, the Giants can afford to sign whoever they want to regardless of Zito/Rowand. I agree that long term contracts seem to be biting the teams that give them right and left. Look at what just happened to Ryan Howard!

    I"m a little worried about Crawford down in Arizona. I don't know if he's just getting some time off to get married or what, but he's not playing despite being designated as the everyday player the Giants were sending.

    Yeah, I can think of worse things than simply putting Crawford and Belt in the lineup everyday and live with their ups and downs. I love Crawford's potential as a hitter, especially from the SS position. That short stretch in September, you could easily envision his turning into Stephen Drew at the plate which would be outrageously awesome.

    Agree with your take on Furcal when healthy. He is a huge injury risk though. 2 years max.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Crawford is attending a friends wedding this weekend. He'll be back in this week.

    Furcal has giant injury risk, but I agree he has looked great in the playoffs. Watching him the past 2 years (when healthy) he has looked 2 steps slow. Interesting to see him tearing it up. Can the Dodger stink wash off?

    Reyes won't possibly be worth the contract, and the outbid on Philly for Rollins will be a 4th year at 12MM per so that is looking bad as well.

    I like Scutaro a bunch, but it looks like he was too consistent not to have that option picked up. Punto could be a nice caddy to Crawford.

    The Reds, Braves, Brewers, Cards, Phillies and Mets are in on all these guys, and thats just the National League with teams that should contend or retain their players. Reyes/Rollins and yes Furcal will be expensive. Shortstop is just not a offensive position in MLB anymore, with few very high paid exceptions. Go cheap with Crawford and improve elsewhere. Great summary!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Aloha Drb, thank you for your excellent analysis of the SS market. It sure has got me thinking of the hot stove league. I'm on the fence right now about going with Crawford and signing a utility IF like Carroll, Punto, or signing/trading for a 1 year stopgap at SS like Marco Scuturo. I lean toward trading for a Marco Scuturo, who had a good year for the Sox, thus giving Crawford more time in the minors to work on his hitting. Sabean admitted guys like Crawford, Belt, Sanchez were rushed last year, so having Crawford at AAA is not a bad thing.. One more thing, still can't believe the Rangers got Feliz and Andres from the Bravos

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice rundown of the options available at SS.

    I wasn't there after the season ended, about Crawford, but now I agree that Crawford is most probably our SS for 2012. His September was very encouraging and a sign of improvement. Not that I'm saying he's in this player's level, but few remember that Robin Yount's first year in the majors was just as putrid at Crawford's (only I think he was only 19 YO). He just learned on the job in the majors.

    Tough for us to say whether Crawford can learn in majors or not, hopefully Giants management was monitoring his moods as to how badly he was taking things. And I think they were, I recall a post-season session with Sabean where he said that Crawford was handling the pressure of bad offense much better than Belt was handling it.

    Rumors I saw on MLBTR about Rollins is that insiders think Rollins will get 3-4 years $12-14M per. I can't see doing that, I would have been iffy with a Renteria type contract of 2 years at $9M per, but this rumor is even worse on both counts. I would love to add him, particularly since he grew up a Giants fan, but I can only go two years and it looks like it will take more to get him. Pass.

    And, as DrB noted, if the Giants are going to go that high, may as well go all in with Reyes.

    Still, I think that is too high a price, I would rather keep our young guys into their free agent years than do that, particularly our pitchers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Our offense next season should be much improved with a healthy Posey and Belt more comfortable with his role in the majors. That should be enough to win the division with our pitching, as is, barring a whole raft if injuries again. I calculated the lineup run potential with Crisp as our leadoff (and I realize that he is not ideal) and we should be around 4.3 runs scored per game, using career averages for the players in recent years. That is enough to win 92-95 games with our pitching.

    That is with conservative averages for the vets (basically baseline recent years after peak performance) and career averages for the young players, plus I think the Giants SS average for 2011. That is basically .710 OPS for most lineup positions, plus Pablo (used 2011) and Posey (used career), and .632 OPS for SS.

    2011 was bad, but it shouldn't have been as bad as it was. The lineup should have scored around 3.65 RS per game but ended up at 3.52. That is supported by Baggerly's stats about how poorly Giants hitters did in RISP situations. That would have gotten us another 2 wins, leaving us at 88.

    And, as badly as the offense did and could do in 2012, I dread more giving Reyes or Rollins a long-term big contract, we are just soon to get out from under Rowand and Zito's contracts, I don't want to add another one on top and start the cycle all over again. If we are going to over pay someone for their declining years, I would rather they do it later with Lincecum and Cain, etc., than now with those guys. I would rather see how our team can do without outside big money help, and if we are to get someone, I would rather get some vet for 2 years, mid- single digit millions per year, like a Roberts, DeRosa, etc. Small contracts we can eat if necessary, but could be huge win if he delivers.

    I can see Furcal becoming that if nobody offers him a contract. I had not thought of Punto, did not know he so good defensively, I would be OK with him taking the Uribe utility role. Given Sabean's statement about defense, I can't see a poor infielder being signed and thus good fielders like Punto should be getting a strong look. People forget but DeRosa was actually a very good infielder at multiple positions, so Punto could take on that role, good defense plus OK offense.

    But I am not sure where to fit someone in then, probably Stewart got one bench position, Torres another one (once DFA and re-sign for less), Pill another one (1B and 2B plus maybe LF), and I believe that Conor Gillaspie is out of options (anyone conform? should have used 4 options already; probably can play 2B as well as 3B), and I have to think that they are going to keep him around. That leaves one spot for SS backup. Fontenot would be the obvious choice for that, and then there is Burriss, who is also out of options (he is probably gone, or released at end of spring training with nobody picking him up, so he ends up in our system again). Is Punto a better choice than Fontenot? Depends on the commitment to Punto in years and money.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe Conor Gillaspie is out of options which goes a long way toward explaining Bruce Bochy's irrational exuberance for him in his comments near the end of the season.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For what it's worth, MARCEL, a projection system developed by sabermetrician Tom Tango projects Brandon Crawford's slash line for 2012 at .237/.311/.354. Compared that to his 2010 line of .204/.288/.296. If his full season WAR projects to 1.3 at his 2010 level of offensive production, a bump up to his MARCEL for 2012 should easily raise his WAR above 2. Maybe as high as 2.5. That's worth $8-10 M on the open market and the Giants would be getting it for under $500 K.

    Let's say you pay Jimmy Rollins $12 M hoping for a 3.5 WAR season for him. That means you are paying $11.5 M for 1 more win. When you add in the fact that you have to pay for at least 4 years of Jimmy Rollins, possibly 5 and he is unlikely to be producing 3 WAR seasons by the end of that time, there is no way he is a better deal than Brandon Crawford.

    Spend the $$$ on upgrades to CF, reserve IF, and reserve C!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brandon Crawford went 3 for 4 with a triple in tonight's AFL game to boost his AFL BA to .333.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Those 4 days of grounders at 2nd for Gillaspie will sure come in handy!

    Jimmy Rollins reiterated he wants 5 years. Crawford is looking like a sane alternative, despite the batting woes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think we should give Crawford until the All Star Break. His defense will save games for us that Tejada blew for us last year. I counted at least 4 games that an error by Tejada effected the outcome of the game. So right there he is a plus. I don't think his offense can get any worse. Hopefully he can get his average above .260. He has some pop and he may be good for 10-15 homers a year when he gets his confidence at the plate. If by the All Star Break he isn't cutting it, we might want to think about a guy like Punto, Scutaro, or Furcal. One of those might be available.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What about Aaron Hill? He's played some shortstop in his career, still young, has some power and could probably be had fairly cheap. I'd take a flyer on him myself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm pretty sure Aaron Hill is not a shortstop anymore if he ever was.

    ReplyDelete
  16. He was drafted as a SS and played it in the minors and a little but in the pros. Defensively he is challenged there but he has to be better than Tejada and Cabrera with a lot more upside offensively. If Crawford does step up then Hill can slip over to 2B when Sanchez leaves. He's a Northern Ca kid too

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hillaa01.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hill isn't exactly young. I'm pretty sure SS is in his rearview mirror. I might be a bit tough to stomach is Mendoza like BA's too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. DrB I appreciate your view (and blog!) Hill is only 29 and has a lifetime .267 batting average. He has also hit as many 36 HRs. I think he could be a Sabean classic dumpster dive only younger. The way I am looking at it is all of the options at SS have flaws. We are not going to get our SS of the future and at best can hope to catch some lightning or buy some more time. Hill would appear to be as viable as the other names being mentioned.

    ReplyDelete