Yesterday was the deadline for submission of salary proposals for unsigned arbitration eligible players. I think most Giants fans are relieved and happy that they agreed to terms with all but 2 of the arbitration eligibles. In addition, Romo's contract looks like it's all but done and there's even reason for optimism about Tim Lincecum's contract and the likelihood they will avoid an arbitration hearing in his case.
Angel Pagan was the first announcement Monday evening, 1 year, $4.85 M. This a a great deal from the Giants perspective. It's market value for approximately 1 WAR. Pagan had an uncharacteristically terrible defensive season last year, possibly caused by a nagging injury. He still put up 0.9 WAR. In the two prior years, he put up 2.9 and 5.3 WAR. If he returns to form on defense, he is likely to perform to a WAR of somewhere between 3 and 4, yet the Giants are only paying for the likely worst case scenario. The 1 year deal leaves the door open to a future of Gary Brown taking over in CF/leadoff in 2013. If Pagan puts up a 3+ WAR season, he will likely command a multi-year deal on the FA market. All the Giants need to do is offer 1 year/$12 M and they get exra draft picks.
Melky Cabrera signed a very similar contract, 1 year/$6 M. Cabrera has a career average WAR of about 1.2 per 150 games so his contract is close to that with a small bonus for putting up 4.6 WAR last year. Again, it's low risk for the Giants. if he reverts to being a 1 WAR player, they can bid him adios after the season. If 2011 proves to be a breakout and he puts up 4+ WAR again, they can make the same 1 year/$12 M offer and get even more draft picks in compensation. Of course, there is still the option of re-signing both Pagan and Cabrera as FA's next offseason.
Santiago Casilla agreed to a 1 year/$2.2 M contract with $200 K in incentives. I regard Casilla as the backup closer over Romo and Affeldt. He performed that role admirably last season. Another nice deal for the Giants here.
The biggest surprise came later yesterday with the announcement of a 3 year contract for Pablo Sandoval. Sandoval is coming off a tremendous season marred only by a hamate fracture that cost him about 6 weeks but from which he appears to be fully recovered. This was Pablo's first year of arbitration eligibility. He submitted a request for $4.25 M while the Giants countered with $3 M. His projected arbitration award was $3.2. As the Giants did 2 years ago with Timmy, they ended up settling for close to the Giants number in year 1 of a multi-year deal with raises in ensuing seasons. Pablo's total deal is reportedly 3 years/$17.15 M. The deal gives the Giants cost certainty through Pablo's arbitration years but does not buy out any FA years. If Pablo does what I think he might over the next 3 seasons, this will end up being a very favorable deal for the Giants, especially in 2014.
Lastly, Nate Schierholtz and the Giants agreed to a 1 year/$1.3 M contract in Nate's first arbitration year. While a million dollar contract doesn't buy you financial security in this day, it's a nice start and it's nice to see Nate start to get rewarded for all the years of hard work he's put into his career. Maybe he'll get a bit longer leash now that the Giants have some money invested in him too?
Sergio Romo reportedly submitted a $1.75 M salary request while the Giants countered with $1.3 M. It seems his deal should be done in short order and not go anywhere near an arbitrator's courtroom.
That brings us to Tim Lincecum and his unique situation. I don't think any pitcher in history has won 2 Cy Young awards, won 3 strikeout titles and pitched his team to a World Series title all during his pre-free agency years. We are definitely looking at uncharted territory here. Since arbitration, by its very nature, considers precedent heavily, Timmy's situation becomes very dicey for everyone involved.
The Giants offer was for $17 M, the highest arbitration offer in history by a sizeable margin over the $14.25 M offer the Yankees made to Derek Jeter in 2001. Now THAT is rarified air! Timmy countered with a request for $21.5 M, just short of Roger Clemens' record request of $22 M in 2005. Clemens' situation was different in that he was well past the usual arbitration years and accepted the Astros arbitration offer as a free agent. I think it's pretty clear Timmy's agent did not want to tweak the tiger's tail by matching or exceeding Clemens' request.
Timmy has said that he is happy going year to year with his contracts which has caused a lot of Giants fans to become anxious that he intends to become a free agent on schedule after the 2013 season. The extension of that notion, of course, is that some team out there will blow the Giant out of the water with an offer to Timmy that the Giants can't and shouldn't match. More recently, Timmy's agent floated the idea of an 8 year contract as an alternative to the year to year thing. The Giants appropriately rejected that proposal as a non-starter. The Giants did indicate that they are seeking 4 year deals for both Timmy and Matt Cain.
I believe the Giants are still very much in control of the situation here. First of all, I believe that if it goes all the way to a hearing, the arbitrator is much more likely to decide on the $17 M than on the $21.5 M. While Timmy had two sensational 8 WAR seasons in 2008 and 2009 with the accompanying Cy Young awards, he has regressed in the last 2 seasons to WAR's of 4.9 and 4.4. While I doubt that the arbitrators have even heard of WAR, it does seem to be a fairly good measure of market value. Right now, the open market price is somewhere between $4.5 and $5 M/WAR. Based on Timmy's last 2 seasons, his open market value is somewhere between $20 and $25 M per year. The Giants have every reason to expect a discount during the pre-free agency years which makes the $17 M look about right. Secondly, if the Giants are seeking a 4 year deal to extend into Timmy's free agency years, they can make an offer of about $20 M/year and force Timmy to make a choice between the likely arbitration award of $17 M or about $80 M in the 4 year offer. Different agents take different approaches and I'm sure ballplayers have some say in the matter. Scott Boras almost always advises his players to take the risk of free agency over long term financial security and it usually works out for them, although not always. Timmy's agent is not Scott Boras and I don't know what attitude Timmy's agent leans toward, but $80 M is a lot of money to walk away from.
I have to say, I'm not so sure the Giants should be seeking even a 4 year deal with Timmy. Let's look at the progression of some of Timmy's stats over the last 3 seasons:
K/9: 10.42, 9.79, 9.12.
BB/9: 2.72/3.22/3.57
FIP: 2.34/3.15/3.17.
Those are still very good numbers, but there is a definite progression in the wrong direction there. While it's not panic time or "let's trade Timmy before he collapses" time, if I'm in Brian Sabean's position, I'd like to see those numbers reverse direction or at least stabilize before making an $80 M commitment. Keeping this contract to the pre-free agency years may be in the Giants best interest as much or even more than Timmy's.
We have seen in Timmy's first arbitration experience and now with Pablo Sandoval agreements that take the Giants offer as the number for the first year and the player's request as the number for the second year. When all aspects of Timmy's situation and recent precedent are taken into account, I believe the most likely outcome of the Giants negotiations with Tim Lincecum will be a 2 year contract for $39.5 M, $17 M in 2012 and $21.5 in 2013. It gives Timmy financial security while preserving his options of testing free agency in 2014. It gives the Giants the contract they want in 2012 and cost certaintly in 2013 while limiting their risk that Timmy's performance might continue to decline or that he might get injured.
A lot of Giants fans will look at that and say, "see, the window is closing! The Giants have just 2 years to win another World Series or the opportunity will be lost forever." I don't see it that way. Even in the worst case scenario, which would be Timmy's performance falling off a cliff or injury, the Giants can still re-allocate the money they would have paid him in his free agency years. If his performance remains high, they still have the option of signing him in free agency or they can trade him for top prospects and still re-allocate the money or they can get draft pick compensation plus re-allocate the money. I'm not saying I want to see Timmy pitching for the Yankees or Mariners after 2013, but it would not represent the closing of the Giants window of opportunity for winning championships.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great analysis of the situation! Especially Lincecum. You make a great case that two years is the way to go. The Giants could always revisit an extension next off season.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that the window does not close when Tim is gone, but it would get smaller.
Excellent review of the days events. On Timmy and his regressive stats, I believe that scouts have a book on him and he needs to adjust. Specifically the changeup/split finger whateveryoucallit he puts in the dirt. I see hitters holding up on that pitch when they used to swing a lot more. I believe he's an exceptional pitcher and he will come up with a new pitch/strategy to deal with the book on him. I'll also admit that there are times he just looks spacey and unfocused out there. Both are small reasons for concern, so a wait and see strategy isn't the worst idea in the world. He'll be expensive no matter what.
ReplyDeleteTimmy leaving would be a big time blow. As discussed previously, Sabey Sabes might not be the best guy to go get value in trade for his ace. The more I think about it, the Giants will most likely have the same attitude as the arbitration hearings - we're going to take this down to the wire. I don't see them trading for prospects, it'll be the draft picks. And that'll be a bitter pill. I would go higher years and money than most for our aces.
The draft pick schemes you outlined for Pagan and Cabrera was something I was thinking about as well. If they have good years they could possibly command 3/27-33 on the open market. There is a good chance they would take the security of a long term over the larger short term contract. The only question for me is does that signing team surrender the draft pick to the player losing team still? I'll have to look that part up. The Giants of course have the option of bidding more seriously on both players if they like their performance enough.
Had to research this, good because my initial thought was wrong, but my original answer of NO is correct, with a new nuance: the signing team does lose their pick, but the team losing the free agent does not get that pick, instead they get a pick in the Supplemental first round. Those signing with picks in the top 10, however, would instead lose their second round pick, but the losing team would still get a Supplemental first round. So losing teams would only get one supplemental pick for their free agent, a very poor pick in terms of talent and value, while the signing team still loses a relatively good pick, in fact, now more teams lose first round picks, basically any losing team remotely close to .500 could lose a pick. Discourages teams like Rays to pick up a lot of picks via free agents, but still penalizes the better teams for signing free agents (though still no where close to what they are acquiring).
DeleteThinking more about it, I can see Melky getting that big a contract and moving on if he has a season anywhere close to his 2011 season. Pagan, however, I don't know if that is true. Melky is much younger than Pagan, for one. Pagan strikes out a little too much to consistently hit for a high BA, whereas Melky has been able to do it during his career, keep his contact rate high. So I can see teams viewing a Pagan good season as a reminder of the Gary Mathews Jr. experience.
I also think that the Giants would try to sign Melky mid-season or very soon after the season, if 2011 turns out to be a breakout season and he has a great 2012 season, so we might not get to the point of arbitration with him.
OGC - thanks for the research - where did you get that info? I've been on MLB, BA and MLBTR and I don't feel like I have an accurate picture of how it works. For example, does the player losing team get a 2nd compensation pick like before? One of the quotes in MLBTR is this: "Going forward, It appears possible that teams will still obtain two picks for losing free agents after offering arbitration. The signing team forfeits one of its top selections and the club obtains a selection at the end of the first round."
DeleteThat doesn't jibe with MLBs "D. The Player’s former Club will receive a selection at the end of the first round beginning after the last regularly scheduled selection in the round. The former Clubs will select based on reverse order of winning percentage from the prior championship season."
If you're coming off a great season, say top 8 as the Giants might in 2 years, they could get backed up by other signings and not pick until 35-40 for losing Lincecum. The old system would have given the signing teams pick (usually in the 20s because of being competitive) and a supplemental. That seriously hurts the losing team, and encourages trading for prospects big time. Any way to confirm there is no 2nd pick as a supplemental? I didn't see it in the MLB.
I searched using key terms and found a bunch of articles on the MLB that discusses this. Unless MLBTR can document this possibility, I would go with what the MLB says. In an article titled "Key points of Collective Bargaining Agreement", it noted, "Compensation for losing such players will consist of one Draft pick at the end of the first round.
DeleteSo, yeah, you are right, they would get pushed back on what pick they would get. And prospect trading would probably pick up, but each team will need to decide whether it is better to compete that one last year with the player or start rebuilding soon, or at least reloading.
Frankly, the two pick system wasn't that valuable for the losing team anyway, they get roughly a 15% chance at a good player, with the two picks for losing, say, A-Rod, hardly equal compensation, and if the GM knows what he is doing, he should be able to get at least 3 prospects with much greater probability of making the majors than the two picks for free agency, no matter who the free agent is.
So the key is how quickly is your window closing? If you are near the end, keeping the player could make sense if you are willing to extend your upcoming rebuilding period by not getting the prospects you would have gotten. It would also make sense if you already have his replacement waiting in the minors, ready to take over. It is just a matter of understanding the tradeoffs and balancing all the factors.
I asked Fla-Giant today about it, he maintains the pick doesn't vanish into thin air for the signing team and so it will be a maintaining of the current 2 picks, the signing teams pick as long as they aren't bottom 10 and then a 1-sup based on winning percentage. Then the weird lottery for the poor low market/budget (cough - yet another boondoggle for Billie Beane and frat brothers of Bud) teams at the end of the 1st sup and 2nd rounds.
DeleteI'm not sure what to believe. Its not very clear so far. Fla-Giant gave me a link I'll post. http://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=6410
I got into a spirited debate with Fla-Giant that a couple people joined in on about possible compensation for Melky/Pagan. He thinks no way Sabey Sabes goes that route. I maintain the Giants could easily offer up 1/12-13MM if either player puts up 3-4WAR. Its doubling their salary. Looking at the CF market for 2013, they are pretty key, the other headliners are Hamilton and Victorino. I could see, with great seasons as a big time variable, a lot of demand for them. If they take the offer, we've overpaid a bit, but its only for another year, and it would be a prime year at that.
I looked at the perfect game description. Nowhere does it say that the draft pick forfeited goes to the team losing the pick.
DeleteHere is the MLB explanation: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20111122&content_id=26026776&c_id=mlb
While they don't make clear that the pick just disappears, the point is made pretty clear on what the losing team gets: "Compensation for losing such players will consist of one Draft pick at the end of the first round." It does not say "and the pick forfeited by the signing team."
And again, the Perfect Game description does not anywhere say that the forfeited pick goes to the losing team. Oh, I see why Fla-Giant says that now, it is the part where Perfect Games says it is "still unclear if the free agent compensation process will continue, for the most part, as it has in recent years."
I think the MLB key points is pretty clear that compensation is just one pick. OK, here's the smoking gun, I guess Perfect Game needs an analyst or lawyer on their staff: "The current compensation system for losing "Type A" and "Type B" free agents will be eliminated." I think that pretty clearly says that the free agent compensation process will NOT continue. I think Perfect Game was confused by the fact that the CBA allowed the current system to continue for this off-season while making some special rules for certain classes of players, relievers if I remember right. That's what they call "grandfathering" in agreements (lawyer talk that I'm familiar with) to deal with the present, but then the new rules would apply going forward beyond this off-season.
Here is the summary document released by the MLB and MLBPA: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/2011_CBA.pdf
DeleteFirst line in the section on free agent compensation: "1. Starting in 2012, “Type A” and “Type B” free agents and the use of the Elias ranking system will be eliminated.
2. The current system of draft pick compensation will be replaced with the following
system: "
Seems pretty clear to me, obviously Perfect Games did not even look at this document, perhaps they read the MLB Key points article that I provided the URL to in the other thread.
The ESPN account of the new CBA makes it ver yclear that things totally change: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7269300/major-league-baseball-players-owners-sign-new-labor-agreement
"Major league free agent compensation will be completely revised in 2013, with a team having to offer its former players who became free agents the average of the top 125 contracts -- currently about $12.4 million -- to receive draft-pick compensation if a player signs with a new team. It eliminates the statistical formula that had been in place since the 1981 strike settlement."
"The new rules for free agent compensation under baseball's new labor deal will take effect next winter. This winter, for most players, the old rules governing draft picks awarded as compensation will apply." But there are exceptions.
Perfect Games totally dropped the ball on this one (and I love their site, FYI).
ESPN also covered this in another article: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7272337/details-baseball-new-labor-deal
Delete"Free Agent Draft Pick Compensation
This offseason-Type A free agents are reduced from 21 to eight.
Starting with following the 2012 World Series, Type A and B free agents are eliminated. In order to be eligible for compensation for losing a free agent, a player must have been with the team for the entire season and a team must by the fifth day after the World Series make a qualifying offer to its players of the average of the 125 highest contracts by average annual value. The average would have been in excess of $12.4 million this year, and it cannot go down. A player has until the 12th day after the World Series to accept or reject the offer. If a player receives a qualifying offer and rejects it and then signs with another club, his former club would receive a draft pick as compensation at the end of the first round. The club signing that player loses its first-round pick in the following amateur draft, unless that pick is among the top 10, in which case the club signing that player loses its next-highest pick."
This illustrates why I don't read one source for any interpretation of new rules, I read multiple sources, or if I do read one, I read it from the organizations that agreed to the new rules.
DeleteI did both in this case, I read the MLB CBA plus had read other articles discussing the changes involved.
Good research tip. :^)
Thanks for the links. I read the MLB pdf, its the same as the one I read plain text on MLB. The thing that bothers me, it could just be sloppy language where they didn't explicitly say "Forfeit the draft pick to the Players Former Team" and just said forfeit the draft pick instead. Its not explicit either way, more of an implication. A lawyer didn't get technical enough. I agree with what you say, it appears the draft pick gets tacked on to the back of the 1st, but its not clear enough still.
DeleteThe one thing that gives me pause, teams losing a player they might offer that 12-14MM would be pretty pissed off with a high 30s pick as total comp for an all-star. I can't see them agreeing to that actually. The back end lottery seems like a way to throw the small market manipulating teams (ie Oakland, Tampa Bay and Toronto) a bone to stop their type B mediocre player compensation games.
I think the wording I quoted is very clear and explicit.
Delete"Compensation for losing such players will consist of one Draft pick at the end of the first round."
"Starting in 2012, “Type A” and “Type B” free agents and the use of the Elias ranking system will be eliminated. "
"The current system of draft pick compensation will be replaced with the following
system: "
"D. The Player's former club will receive a selection at the end of the first round beginning after the last regularly scheduled selection in the round."
Key terms: old rules are gone, kaput, eliminated, do not use to reference things going forward. Only get a pick after the first round, period, the end, fin. New team forfeits. The language is very clear to me.
Yes, teams are very pissed off, from the articles I read, about a number of the new rules. The small market teams benefit from the new system is that the bigger spenders are capped as to their spending. So prospects can no longer threaten to ask for more in order to drop to a bigger money team. They get the same, whether big team or small market.
And frankly, I've been making the point that these picks are in no way full repayment for the talent lost, that is why I advocate trading any players who clearly want to go free agent on you (though I might make the exception for Timmy, I waffle back and forth), because, as the Dan Haren trade showed, you can get a lot of talent back for that player, to speed up your re-build or re-load, depending on where the team is in its team cycle of rebuild, compete, decline.
Taking away that extra pick and making the actual pick less valuable (because it's now in the supplemental round, about but under half the value of a back of first round pick) and requiring full year ownership would discourage teams from trading to get picks mid-season, and force them to be more strategic about how they run their teams, I feel.
For that plan to work, you need to pick up around 5-10 picks, depending on where they get the first round pick and how many Type B picks they get. Unless, of course, you are that much better at picking than other teams (after the Brown and Panik picks, as well as Belt and Crawford, I am beginning to think that Barr IS that much better), then all you need is additional picks.
Really, the A's shot themselves in the foot not trading away Giambi and Tejada and getting a bushel of prospects. Lucky for Beane, he learned from that, but his trades of Ethier, CarGon/Holliday, Hudson, shows that his organization does not have anyone capable of telling who is a keeper and who is not, plus again, are signs of him changing strategy much more frequently than a team should in its team cycle, that just stalls the rebuilding you hope to do. I think that they are guided a bit too much by the saber side and don't have the scouting skills that the Giants front office has.
Oh, and I neglected to add all the great picks that we've been mentioning here from 2011, Susac, Crick, Oropesa, Osich, etc. And Hembree, oh yeah, the list just goes on and on.
DeleteI'm in Nerdvana with how the Giants farm system is doing now that the obvious top picks have move up (Posey, Bumgarner, Lincecum), because I appreciate the difficulty of actually finding such players via the draft.
Timmy: Keep him. If the Zito/Rowand contract mess was not in the picture, would we even be having a discussion of keeping Timmy/Cain? Ideally the Giants Brass see the Zito/Rowand contracts as past bad decisions, and thus, sunk cost (RDF B.S. aside). If the Giants are going to manage a 4 - 10 year window based upon a dominate starter/bullpen staff, then locking up Timmy and Cain is critical. "Timmy for Two" that should be the refrain. Split between the $17MM and $21.5MM over two years saves face for all. I also think this fits with DocB's solid analysis points above plus Timmy's avowed 1-2/yr-at-a-time approach.
ReplyDeleteNote I personally think Timmy's 1-2/yr-at-a-time approach reflects his laid back yet supremely confident and competitive nature - he knows he will produce. He also knows the $$$ will follow. I don't think its about moving home to Seattle, or NYC $$$, or the Giants lack of run support, though the last one doesn't help (and hopefully changes somewhat this year).
Note I also think in two years the Giants will have a good idea if any of their young stud minor league arms will pan out to replace Zito and then offer insurance if either Voglesong falls apart and/or Timmy leaves.
Cain: "Cain for Four" seems to work as well, though I would be happy with up to six years given Cain's health and positive trending stats track record. Get it done this Spring, Giants Brass.
Pablo: Christmas in January! Really happy to see him getting rewarded and the Giants getting a great low-risk/All-Star upside deal. Also Pablo fills a key offensive/defensive position for which the Giants have no current minor league replacement depth.
Pagan/Melky: Like the low-risk, one-year, see-who-produces approach. With Brown on the horizon for 2013 and Huff's $$$ and one of Pagan/Melky $$$ coming off the books, the Giants are well positioned to reward the best player of the two and field at least an average OF offense which will have gotten younger, defensively better, faster and cheaper. Plus the Giants should get a supplemental draft pick with one of Pagan/Melky leaving. Very good management of players, assets, and $$$ here by Sabes and Company.
Very happy also for Casilla, Nate and Romo (at either figure).
Frankly, such a discussion should have been around when the Bonds big contract was signed. That was a huge risk and I held my breath each season. The Zito and Rowand contracts just made it plainly clear to most fans.
DeleteI think DrB has a great point: do you really want 8 years of Lincecum at $20-25M per year and his arm blows in 2012-2013 and he's never the same? Wood and Prior were mechanically sound, according to most experts (even BP) and both of their arms blew out while they were young. Even a 4-5 year contract would put this risk there of paying $100M for nothing.
This is truly a difficult situation because of all the factors. It makes sense to not give in and sign him long term to see if he can do it at least one more season because his price tag shouldn't go up any higher then it currently is but you also run the risk of him putting off signing long term knowing he would only have one more year of arb. The desire for him to sign long term could also be BS and if the Giants hold on to him too long and all they get after he leaves is the 35th overall pick in the draft in 2014, this will be a disaster even though we would have extra cash to sign someone else. If we trade him right now you run the risk of pissing off the fan base but you also have the highest chance of getting cheap quality in return in the form of prospects or young major league talent with upside.
ReplyDeleteI think the bottom line is that the two worst case scenarios are if we sign Timmy long term and he doesn't perform up to his price tag (likely in my opinion) or if he walks after 2013 and all we get is a supplemental. How do we avoid these 2 things from happening? We either trade Timmy now or before his trade value gets any lower which is probably before the start of the 2013 season. It is possible that his trade value could be at its highest at the trade deadline either this year or in 2013 but you run the risk of injury or his performance taking a dive.
I realize that trading Timmy is a concept that many Giants fans adamantly reject but I will continue to try and convince you guys that it makes more sense to flip him then keep him. Is it fair to assume that Timmy's best years are behind him? I would argue that they are considering the stats above and if you watch the games, you may have noticed that he used to throw 96-98 his first 2 years and has lost velocity ever since. He has also lost accuracy which is why I think his stats have gone downhill gradually each year. He doesn't hit his spots as often as he used to and has gotten by each year by adding pitches to his repertoire like the changeup/splitty 2 years ago and the slider last year. He used to have a devastating curveball that he seems to have lost along with his fastball.
So working under the assumption that Timmy's best years are behind him, we are already walking away from the table winners as we have gotten 8 WAR for peanuts but as you pointed out Dr. B, his WAR over the life of his next long term contract will probably be closer to 4-5 yet he will be getting paid based on his 8 WAR seasons just like all free agents. If you look at it as a business and don't attach the feelings that most of us have for guys like Timmy and Cain and BWizzy, the decision will start to make more sense. This is the best way to have a sustainable formula without blowing up the budget. If we get 3-5 good prospects or a package that included someone like Cano or Bautista or Hanley then that is a much better scenario then either having an expensive sucky Timmy or the 35th pick in the 2014 draft.
Preaching to the choir, I've been saying this for a number of years now, that we need to trade Lincecum for a huge package of prospects if it becomes clear to management that he's going to test free agency. I like the Dan Haren package as a good example of what I would like to get from the other team.
DeleteI'm more hesitant to do this now, because we don't really have anyone who could come into the rotation and be a good #4 starter (assuming Zito is OK at #5). A rotation with Cain, MadBum, and Vogelsong is a pretty strong rotation. Surkamp might be ready by mid-season or 2013, but not now. So getting a pitcher ready to come up soon is probably an imperative of any trade and the off-season after 2012 is probably the best time to do it, as it would be clear by then whether or not Lincecum will sign long-term with us. More so if he has another declining season.
Reading through DrB's prospects list, I feel like we should have a better feel for the potential of a number of them for being ready to come up and take a spot in the rotation this season. Hopefully we get a breakout of sorts by someone.
Pato - I really appreciate what you put down. Its a well reasoned protect and grow the franchise argument. A long term contract is definitely a risky contract. I'll admit I do let my feelings get in the way of a rational case at times with our aces. Would like to point out that Timmy might have topped off at 96-98 but he didn't pitch there, and most pitchers do dial down their velocity as they age. I put up top my argument for some his stat regression along with my belief he is talented enough to adjust to it. I'll readily admit to being worried about the regression and his spaciness though.
DeleteI just don't see the Giants getting a Cano, Bautista or any player like that. Pan/Orgone Donor recently suggested the Texas SS prospect Profar for Timmy. I guess I'd have to say Texas would be as good a fit as possible - high risk GM/Owner who like high profile trades with some history of trades with Sabey Sabes. I'm not confident in Sabean getting value for Timmy. But if we want arms, Texas has them. The Mike Adams trade for SD got them 2 really good arms from Texas.
So that's my "if you have to trade him" idea. But I really think everybody needs to slow down, look at Tom Seaver, other exceptional pitchers who have maintained. Maddux signing with Atlanta? Yes, you look at the 100MM club and its a very shady mixed bag. But there haven't really been a big enough sample size yet for that to be ironclad if you ask me. Timmy is young. I wouldn't bury him with the regression numbers yet.
Here's a crazy 'what if" on Lincecum. What if the Giants had offered him to the M's (his home town, just think of the draw he would be), include Joseph or H Sanchez for Pineda and a couple of additional young arms? The M's appear ready to spend. Timmy goes home. Giants get a near ace arm (attached to a big, strong body) under control for five years, and some quality prospects............then go sign Prince.
ReplyDeleteWell, not so crazy, but too late now...
DeleteAlso, I don't see why we have to give up a nice catching prospect to the Mariners, Lincecum is still under control for two seasons and still a great pitcher. We should get Pineda and the other arms straight up for Lincecum.
OK, I see, you are thinking that they replace Montero in the deal. Well, they better give us some really good other prospects then. I just don't see them doing such a deal then. Maybe if they throw in Smoak?
But yeah, with him out of the picture and payroll, then signing Prince would have been a good alternative. Too bad it's too late now, though NYY might be willing to do it to get their hands on Lincecum.
Toronto or even KC might be interested or at least they have really interesting prospects! I gotta think there have to be at least 8-10 teams out there that would have interest in giving up either high level prospects or rising stars for Timmy. I also think we could get an arm in the trade that could fill in the rotation right away at least short term, wouldn't have to be the center piece but part of the deal would include an adequate starter.
ReplyDeleteIf they do end up trading for prospects, Dr. B might have to rewrite his list! The money they would save without Timmy would be huge and down the road it could give them the flexibility to sign Timmy back in 2 years if we want! I wonder if something like that has ever been pulled off, trade a star for a boat load of prospects and then sign the guy back a season or two later.
Pato - don't know if you have BA, here's a story on the history of trading aces.
Deletehttp://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/column/2011/2611135.html
The crown jewel of aces trades was Colon for Lee, Phillips and Sizemore, but that was an MLB/Omar Minaya production. The Royals got some good pieces for Greinke. Trader Billie got good returns for Haren both ways but squandered his riches. There's also a bunch of meh.
Prospects are risky propositions. I think every team would be very reluctant to put a genuine A prospect such as Profar in the mix for Timmy. Coupled with a GM who has a 15 year history of valuing proven major leaguers much more than prospects and I don't see the Giants going the Timmy-prospect route. I support that position personally, I don't think they'd get the value necessary and I don't think it even gets on Sabean's radar.
To flesh out the Texas scenario though, I'd want Jurickson Profar, a position project such as Christian Villaneuva, a righty such as Cody Buckel and a lefty, say Will Lamb. I bet Daniels hangs up, but they do like big names in Texas. That bunch wasn't just going down their top 4 guys, you could be more hard nosed than that and go after this young 2b Roughned Odor (not a type and apparently he's pretty good so far).
Really disagree about trading Timmy now. Frankly I think it is too much like managing by spreadsheet and forgetting about your organization's strengths and your customers. Think one WS already in the books, think dominate pitching, think a pretty bad management track record on large multi-player deals, think fan base marketing.
ReplyDelete1. Again take Zito/Rowand $$$ out of the picture and would we be arguing about Timmy $$$? No. Timmy for Two should be about the ideal deal.
2. Trade him and who is going to replace Timmy right now? Really? Big hitters everyone seems to dream about? Big hitters to build an above average/great offense? As OGC points out so well this is NOT the way to win at Willie Mays Plaza and is of zero advantage in the postseason.
3. Think how many Giants trades of one of their big time pitchers have worked out? I am waiting...
Do Timmy for Two and see what you have next year. Yes there is risk, but there is also reward as in a dominate playoff performance or WS win or does this not show up in the stats?
Shark - you are preaching to my choir now. Tom Seaver. Tom Seaver. Gaylord Perry. Did I mention Tom Seaver? Yeah, there's the Tom Tango study about 27 year olds being the ideal pitching age. You crunch enough numbers you'll get ideal median ages blah blah blah. Show me human beings capable of amazing athletic feats. That's the wheelhouse. There's risk in every single baseball contract. There's risk in regression. But there is risk in the opportunity you give up to further excel as well. The Giants know Timmy better than anybody. If they want to lock it down for the 2 years and take their chances after that, I'm on board.
DeleteIf, as I often say, you are smart if you see things my way, then, Dr.B, you are brilliant. actually, if memory serves,
ReplyDeleteOGC also sees Timmy's situation as you do. These numbers are extremely instructive. First, I agree, I think the Giants can make an offer 80 mil for 4 yrs that would be very, very difficult, even foolish, to walk away from. And it is completely within their discretion whether or not they want to go on the limb for 4 years. And, if they don't, they are completely in the drver's seat with a 2 yr offer. I don't see how the player h as any leverage to push the dollars north oh $17 + $21.5. I think the Gs should give a big sigh of relief as they are pretty well protected no matter the outcome.
Hey team!
ReplyDeleteI was just searching for info on 2014 free agents. Didn't find much, but picked up a few hints that the 2014 FA class is shaping up to be huge right at a time when a lot of teams are going to be tapped out setting up a situation where there may be some major bargains for teams that do have money to spend. Now, you don't suppose.....Aw Sabes, you sly devil you! Does anyone have any info on the potential 2014 FA class?
Yeah, MLBTR is my go-to and they haven't updated. Robbie Cano. Kinsler. Brandon Phillips for 2013 FA class. The 2013 pitching class is pretty good. You have to assume Philly can only keep one of Pence or Hamels. So Pence in 2014 if they stick to their pitching guns and get Hamels back. 2015 is my white whale of them all Mr. McCutch.
DeleteWord is the Yanks are determined to get their payroll down to $189 M by 2014.
DeleteCano and Granderson both are up for FA in 2014. They have a fair amount of guys coming off though - Jeter, Burnett, MoRiv, Soriano. 75MM in current commitments. They'll be able to throw lots of money at Cano. Still it'd be fun to at least bid on him.
DeleteBoston has 94MM in commitments (I'm just looking at Cot's and not worrying about Arb cases - the Yanks and Sox could have a bunch more payroll to add). Ellsbury is a FA in 2014.
Unbelievable. McCutch somehow isn't a super 2. He's not a FA until 2016... Ugh. Neil Walker in 2017. The Pirates could be good if their pitching turns out similar to what we got, they have some nice players and prospects.
Joey Votto is a FA in 2014. There you go. Not great fits, but Brian McCann and Tim Hudson are both FAs in 2014. Hudson on a vet deal could be sweet, he's a baller. Ryan Zimmerman is another great FA in 2014, maybe not the best fit for us. The Nats are rumored to be trying to tie him up.
Everybody's darlings the Rays: club options galore. How does that GM do it? Zobrist til 2015, Longo til 2016, Shields til 2014 (trade bait), David Price is a FA in 2016 but he'll get traded because he hasn't bowed down to the club option special. BJ Upton will get traded this year most likely. Wade Davis through 2017 and Matt Moore through 2019. Wow.
When I start poking around at other clubs, I really appreciate our core a lot more. The D-backs - Stephen Drew could become available in 2014. Upton FA in 2016. On the Indians Choo and Cabrera are both FAs in 2014. The good Cabrera, Asdrubal. That doesn't sound right, Cot's has him going from Arb3 to FA in 2014 though. In Texas Kinsler is a FA in 2014, Andrus in 2015. The Doyers have 92MM in 2013 commitments and another round of arb with Kershaw. Thanks Agent Ned!
I got a couple more names in that rambling for ya!
DrB - I'm sure you saw the non-roster invite list. Youngest player in camp? Tommy Joseph!
ReplyDeleteFYI, Urbs has a blog post talking about an interview with Bochy he had: http://www.urbsunchained.com/2012/01/19/bochy-on-freddy-zito-niners-more/
ReplyDeleteHad a lot of good word on Zito, said that he has been working with pitching guru Tom House and that he has added weight and velocity, which we all know is key, because his fastball needs to be at 87 MPH for him to be relatively effective (that is, low 4, high 3, ERA).
FYI, DrB, Giants video include Oropesa: http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?topic_id=7964484&c_id=sf
nice segment about 4 minutes into the video, interview plus talk about him. part of great segment up first on the Giants prospect workout session they hold every off-season. Ricky, Andrew and Kyle are good looking!
And wow, Barry Bonds was called in to talk with prospects!
Nice report on Posey and Franchez's rehab too, at end.
OK OGC. If Zito gets that velocity back and pulls an Alex Smith I will cheer him loudly and often. I have my doubts, but that is at least a good start. Thanks for the link.
DeleteI just posted about the MLB video - has me drinking orange cool aid big time. And it was cool seeing Barry, Willie Mays and even the hacker himself Dunston talk to the kids.
Goes back to one thing the Giants do very well - they are hugely aware of their legacy, and seem to have a very good relationship with former players. There are exceptions - Brenley and Williams come to mind - but a huge percentage of ex-Giants consider the G's home. I love that.
Brenly because he was an SOB in commenting about players on the air. I mean, he won the Championship for AZ and yet he ended up in Chicago, tells you something about whether it's the team or him.
DeleteHowever, Williams isn't because he had a bad relationship, at least I don't believe so, but he wanted to be in Arizona because his daughter was living there with his ex, and being one of their key players during their early years, he just naturally stayed with their organization. Also, the AZ front office was filled with ex-Giants personnel (Lurie era) so it was probably more familiar to Williams than the Magowan front office.
Plus, you may well be right, maybe Williams don't want to return because Sabean traded him away. But there are reasons why he wanted to be in AZ for a long time (I think his daughter should have grown up by now, but now he's ingrained in AZ) that I think was a bigger factor.
About Zito, we'll see in the season. I'm not absolutely sure Zito will come back and be a good #5 starter, but based on his history and work ethic, I believe that he'll be a more economic choice than us going out and spending $5M on another starter (in that his salary is a sunk cost).
DeleteSome people don't realize that sunk cost does not mean that he's not valuable still. If he can produce better than what we can purchase, it does not make much sense to kick him to the curb. But obviously, you need to believe he can produce better. Based on his 2009-10 and work ethic, particularly to get back to the majors in 2011, I think he can.
I also think that his marriage will hopefully stabilize him with a regular home life. I can still recall seeing him in a TMZ segment, picking up girls (and not that I watch TMZ, I just happened to catch it while waiting for the news program to start, so maybe there were more of those segments). That type of lifestyle could not help him at all during the baseball season, so maybe home life, coming back to his wife (are they local? I assume they are) instead of carousing, will help him be more consistent during a season.
I also think that he's maturing. The wedding is a sign of this. I think his father's death probably got him thinking as well. I would also add his near-death car accident, that might have gotten him thinking as well, especially since he had all that down time during 2011 with the injuries and long DLs, to contemplate his life and choices.
Though there is a part of me that wonders about the marriage. Did he have to? If not, it does not seem like he knew her that long, though perhaps he has been friends for a long while too, but single. There has been very little info on his wife and relationship, so that does make me wonder.
I'll admit looking at his BR page there is a lot to like as far as past history, if you throw salary expectations out the window. He has always been susceptible to the long ball, its only 53 innings so a short sample size but he was getting tee'd off on last year. 1.7 HR/9, and yes one of those was to Matt Kemp in a mop up game so it might be skewed against him, but you throw slop and MLB hitters will punish you.
DeleteIf he can pitch angry with some attitude, which I did see in late 09 and early 10, he could be OK. Its harsh to call him a mental midget, but a lot of his problems start with him giving into hitters, which obviously is counter to what the Giants preach.
Don't know about the stabilized home life or the car wreck, but they both seem like things that could help this year. Also, at some point, he's just going to have to let go of the expectations and just let it ride, pitch to the best of his ability. I think that's what happened with Smith. Limit his options, drill conservative choices and hope for the best.