OK, I'm looking for some feedback here. The Hot Stove has been burning pretty hot lately, although the Giants don't seem to be in the room much. I'm sure it will continue to stay stoked up through the Winter Meetings, but then things will die down rather quickly. What are some of the topics you would be interested in reading? Possibilities include fantasy thoughts such as position rankings, breakout candidates, sleepers and prospects. I've also thought of doing some draft reviews. I plan to continue the series on Scouting the 2015 Draft. Of course, I will also be doing my annual Top 50 Giants Prospects list. What would you like to read about?
Also, please feel free to submit any questions you might have that I could provide my thoughts on.
Lastly, please tell me who you think the Giants current #1 overall prospect is and give me your reasons why you think that. Of course if you want to do a top 3 or top 5 or top 10 you can do that to.
Thanks to everybody for coming here, reading and commenting every day. Readership has been at an all-time high continuing right into the postseason and I am thankful for that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I still think Crick is the top prospect, although I tend to like to be a "swing for the fences" kind of guy and value top end ceiling a bit more than the height of the floor. I think he has top notch stuff and could be a Matt Cain type if he can develop a release point he can locate more regularly.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on the hot stove:
I think Sabean knows that the market for these top end guys is going to inflate over time. A couple things can come into play: 1) The Giants can temper their interest publicly to try to keep the price down or 2) They can drive the price up on particular guys before withdrawing and trying to plug 3 or 4 spots with above average players as opposed to just filling 1 or 2 with a hometown hero (Sandoval) or a top tier arm (Lester).
My feeling just on looking at stats and peripherals is that a guy like Jon Lester and the contract length and value it would cost to get him is probably not as valuable as a James Shields or Ervin Santana type. With the glut of pitching, it will be interesting to see how the market develops for the 2nd and 3rd tier guys - maybe Peavy comes back relatively inexpensive or perhaps the big spenders over do it on the top end bats and leave a guy like Markakis, Morse or Rios looking for a short pact at high dollars so they can get back on the market again soon?
Maybe a piece on how we can better determine contract value? I think we all know Miguel Cabrera is better than say, Brandon Belt, but at their contract levels, the Giants are able to use resources elsewhere. Maybe I'm new to this and don't know there's already something? Thanks for an awesome blog, I love checking it out from time to time.
Andy in SD
Thanks, Andy. I think the Fangraphs guys do about as good a job at contract valuing as anybody. I just am skeptical that "value" has any meaning in today's game with the tidal wave of money that pretty much any team seems to be able to come up with whenever they decide that's what they want to do.
DeleteProspects:
ReplyDeleteOn potential, it's got to be Crick though I'm worried he's going to stall and not make it. OTOH, if I think 'ready to contribute' in 2015, I'd go with Law (thought he might stick last year) and Duffy (I think he might be able to beat-out Arias as utility).
Hot Stove:
I'm hoping for Headley and two pitchers. Two pitchers because we have this 'rotation' on the roster today -- Bumgarner (#1), Cain (#2/#3), Hudson (#4). Possibly Lincecum at #5. I'd look for a #2 to push Cain to #3. I'd look for a #4/#5 guy and push Lincecum to the bullpen as relief and a spot-starter. -- a #2/#3 guy and a #4/#5 guy. I'm not looking for Lester though I'm not opposed as he's a darn good pitcher.
I think Cain's a good pitcher and is likely to come-back to a #2 role as good as ever. But if he got dropped to #3 because we got someone better, no problem...
I think Hudson is good, but needs to be rested more frequently, which would sort of 'down-grade' him to a #4/#5 role.
I think Lincecum might be done as a starter even though I'm rooting for him to return to some semblance of old... I think, at this point, he's likely to end up as a middle reliever in the bullpen even if Bochy wants to put him back into the rotation. If he does make the rotation, it's got to be at #5. It's been too many years of 'mechanics' problems for him to be considered anywhere else.
I am quite sure Lincecum will start the season in the rotation. Whether he ends up there is another question. I think he probably still has some good games left in him(he did pitch a no-no last year, right?), but the general trend will continue to be down.
DeleteA few FA names that I think might be undervalued: Jason Hammel, Aaron Harang, Kyle Kendrick. I think Peavy's price may have taken a hit with his postseason performance. He may be undervalued. I think Vogey may have one more year in him if the price is low enough. Masterson, McCarthy and Santana are names you commonly see as possibly undervalued. I think Santana would cost a draft pick- no thank you. If Masterson and McCarthy are considered values by enough teams, they may well become overvalued!
DeleteLester, Scherzer and Shields are all going to get the type of contract teams should always just say no to, although the idea of a Lester or Scherzer in the rotation is exciting to think about. I think both still have very good peripheral numbers unlike Zito when he signed his contract.
I bleieve that once Pablo Sandoval signed with Boston and the Giants received a supplemental pick in the first round that they are now willing to give up their first draft selection, assuming they can sign a quality pitcher who can be the #2 or # 3 starter in 2015. I would include the following pitchers in that category: Max Scherzer, Lester, Shields , Santana and McCarthy.
DeleteDon't see the Giants giving up their first draft pick for any of the position players currently available as free agents.
I'd say Hammel is very close to the same level as Volquez and Liriano in overall metrics/performance. I use a 'projected' line for pitchers of 660 PA by batters, to show how many Full Total Bases (fTB) would be taken (incl. IBB, SB, sac hits, etc.).
DeleteLiriano: 3.38 ERA, .218/.314/.331/.645, 95 ERA-, .294 wOBA, 4.26 BF/IP, 280 fTB
Volquez 3.04 ERA, .235/.315/.359/.674, 86 ERA-, .305 wOBA, 4.20 BF/IP, 273 fTB
Hammel 3.47 ERA, .235/.289/.390/.680, 93 ERA-, .300 wOBA, 4.05 BF/IP, 287 fTB
The metric that stands out to me is Hammel's batters faced per innings pitched (4.05).
That's equal to Lester, Bumgarner, Zimmerman, Hamels, Keuchel. Scherzer & Cashner 4.10. Lots of guys like Shields, Norris, Hudson, Santana, McCarthy 4.15. Lincecum 4.32. Kendrick & Workman 4.35. Hellickson & Capuano 4.41. Bedard 4.52. Masterson 4.60. Casilla 3.74, Kershaw 3.78, Felix 3.86, Petit 3.94, Peavy 3.99. In 2013, Barry Zito was 4.56.
IMO, BF/IP is a measure that encompasses how well a pitcher works through things like runners reaching on errors, sac hits/flies, not having one's best stuff, and when things generally tend to go wrong. Maintaining. IMO, yeah, Hammel could be a very strong value at anything less than 3/$42M. Cheers.
Any votes out there for Beede as the #1 Giants prospect or if you are a high floor/proximity to the majors kind of person, what about Susac?
ReplyDeleteI have left players with any MLB experience out of my prospect rankings in the past, but this year I have decided to follow the accepted method of including guys under the MLB service time cutoff points. With that in mind, Susac is my clear #1 prospect in the organization. He was #2 for me last year (for you as well, if I recall), but I'd say he clearly jumped over Crick with his performance after his MLB call-up. As high as I was on Susac, I'll admit he looked better than even I imagined. At this point, I see a guy (although currently blocked) with the potential to make some all-star teams down the road. Personally, I think he has more offensive potential than Mike Zunino, and Zunino was the #3 pick in baseball.
DeleteCC, that is a great comp to Zunino. He really came into his own with the Mariners this past season, yet having Susac come up and contribute (both at the plate and behind it) - through the Fall Classic. Great prospect! If he was on the Cards, he'd be ROY!
DeleteNWGiantsFan
DtF!!!
Susac is definitely #1 overall. #2 Crick. #3 Law #4 Carbonell (SP) #5 Beede/Willamson
DeleteI have a question I'd like to pose. Since it has been recognized that offense & power are down in MLB, what factor is most valuable?
ReplyDeleteDefense? If game scores are often going to be 4-3, eliminating an XBH, SB, or infield single could be key. Catching and pitch framing. Having an elite pitching staff from starters to bullpen, even if the lineup is only "average" at best. These factors, are they worth paying a premium for? Is it worth starting *more* players with limited offensive potential? Should a guy like Darwin Barney be considered good starter material? Is Headley worth 3/45M or 4/50M+ based largely on his defensive abilities? Obviously a team can't build out a roster with ALL "defense, no bat" guys- so how many can a lineup reasonably hold?
Speed. If runners like Aoki or Revere can get on base more often with infield singles... If a guy like Hamilton can steal 2B, maybe a team 'pitches around' the next batter to again allow for the DP? Scoring from 1B or 2B on a hit. Pressuring defenses to make perfect plays/throws. Is it worth carrying a pinch runner for key situations, as one of the few bench spots?
Power. Maybe the two factors above are still somewhat peripheral (I'm not saying they ever are). In a game where power is limited, maybe the power bats simply become even *more* valuable. Scarcity increases demand and all that. Guys like Morse and Trumbo, from Butler to Cruz. You score more, that alleviates pressure from the starters and bullpen. Easier to 'play through' a key error. Allows comebacks when down late. Maybe paying near $12M/year for Yasmany Tomas isn't so crazy, based on his power potential? Dunno.
Depth. So many key players hit the DL. Like Tulo, CarGo, Fowler, Cuddyer, Votto, Bruce, Belt, Pagan, Machado, Hanley, Lawrie. So many pitchers having TJS or shoulder injuries. Is it better to have a heap of above average players, who can step up; rather than 3-4 superstars that are massively paid?
One can choose to wish for (varying examples of each):
- power (J Upton, Morse, Cruz, Juan Francisco)
- overall balance (Melky, Valbuena, Markakis, Blanco, Plouffe, Hammel, Volquez)
- defense-first/pitching (Headley, Beckham, Arias, Lester, Scherzer, Miller, Robertson, Neshek)
- low-budget (Callaspo, Denorfia, Nava, Betemit, Vogey, Blach/Blackburn/Heston, Matt Albers, Workman)
- risk (Rasmus, Bruce, Kang, Tabata, Morrow, Masterson, Anderson, John Danks, Venters, Marshall)
- older veterans (Torii, Rios, Mark Ellis, Ichiro, Kuroda, Wandy, Harang, Capuano).
Those are really good questions. Of course, the Holy Grail is the almost mythical true 5-tool player who hits, hits for power, runs the bases and plays great defense. In a world where the vast majority of players only do 2,3 or at the most, 4 things really well, then you have to pick your poison. I would say that the days of allowing a truly terrible defensive player to take the field, no matter how good a hitter he is, are pretty much over. If you analyze the teams that made the postseason and then performed well once they got there, contact was the common denominator on the offensive side. In an era where K's are skyrocketing, putting the ball in play with authority has become the most valuable offensive weapon.
DeleteIn summary, the key to winning for position players is 1. Hard Contact 2. Be able to play at least average defense.
I would add to carmot's list an extra consideration under "depth." That is, how consistent a player is. The DOM/DIS ratios beloved of OGC speak to consistency among pitchers, separating the dominant starts, the disastrous ones, and those in between. What about hitters? Depth isn't about season totals but about game-by-game resources to reach a sufficiency of runs. Game-by-game carries with it the need for consistent production.
DeleteI would like to see if analyses of volatility would be as useful in figuring out how to put together a baseball team as they are in figuring out ideal stock portfolios. Lots of attention is paid to players being injury-prone, and so underperforming or not in the lineup at all. It makes sense to me to pay equal attention to players who become drags because they're given to slumps.
Thanks both DrB and campanari for the interesting thoughts added. DrB: your premise is something I looked into a bit. I have a spreadsheet with about 150 MLB players (I'm just too lazy to input "all" players, I guess?). 20 players would have 180+ SO in 660 projected plate appearances. 5 of those were Giants (Belt, Hicks, Colvin, Sanchez, and Ishikawa). I think Kemp was one of the worst defensive players and Morse wasn't a lot better. Wasn't Hanley rated the worst def SS? I'm not sure how to grasp this. Maybe one major weakness is diminished, compared to many slight weaknesses on defense? Hmmm, dunno.
DeleteGood point campanari. Consistency. It's way beyond me to figure this one out. But sure... 1 hit/game from every batter *probably* supports a greater chance of winning than having players go 0-for-20 and then 9-for-12. We've seen things like leadoff triples wasted. Or slow runners on 1B requiring 2-3 sequential hits to drive them home. If players go 0-for-8, we're more likely to lose 2 out of 3 games, and the last is still only as good as a good pitcher and a (favorable) coin flip. A team with 8-10 hits per game (and probably 2-4 walks?) can have a chance to win *every* game, right? Even defensive miscues, as we've seen. Those games where we were two-hit or shutout, ouch. lol.
You bring up a point that 5-tools doesn't encompass everything. And campanari elaborates on things like health and consistency. Leadership/character is sometimes mentioned as well. I'm all for a "higher" average performance with fewer spikes up/down. Take a 3.50 ERA starter with 60% quality starts (Hammel) over a 3.40 ERA starter w/ 48% QS (Liriano)? OR... I sometimes believe in bigger risk, bigger upside. Masterson or Morrow, Matt Albers, Valbuena, Moncada. Cheers.
Measurement of consistency is beyond my ability as a mathematician. You would have to crunch enormous volumes of numbers and have knowledge of and access to a computer program capable of doing the processing.
DeleteOne area where we have scratched the surface is in looking at starting pitching, where inconsistency may actually be a good thing! If Barry Zito has 22 quality starts with an ERA in those starts of 1.99, but has 10 terrible starts in which his ERA is around 9, he really hasn't hurt you anymore than if his ERA in the non-QS starts was 5 even though his complete season ERA would look a lot better as would his FIP and xFIP, because losing by 5 or 6 runs or more is no worse than losing by 1 run.
Another obvious example of where inconsistency is your friend is in how hits are distributed in a game. It is far better to get 9 hits in 1 inning with none in the other 8 than to get 1 hit in each of the 9 innings.
DeleteI'm not troubled by representing consistency: a graph would do it, as would scrutiny of the splits that are as a matter of course available.
DeleteDrB is quite right that sometimes inconsistency works better. Zito with a good number of DOMs could afford an uncomfortable number of DISs. But it's also true that if a team scored 4+ runs every game, but never more than 6, say, it would have an extraordinarily good record. OGC has a sidebar at his site which tells how the Giants did when scoring 4+ runs and how the NL teams did, for evidence for my assertion (though the limit of 6 is my own unsupported guess).
Like carmot I prefer consistency over giddy roller-coasters, and in the examples he gave of Hammel and Liriano, would take Hammel with a higher ERA but more quality starts. But because this preference is based on common sense, that is to say, untested guesswork, and in light of the examples DrB adduces, I would like to see a testable statistical tool to measure the value of consistency, just as we have such tools for pitching (ERA, ERA+, ERA-, FIP, DIPS, and so forth).
I don't comment as much as I once did, but I still stop by to read as often as I can. I don't know how you put so much content out there, but it sure is fun to follow along!
ReplyDeleteSusac is my clear #1 right now. I'm not giving up on Crick (as most of the national media types are), but I'll admit it's very close for me between Crick, Beede and Mella for the 2-4 spots. I've got Blackburn at 5, and then it gets very muddled. More details on the big list are coming in the next few weeks!
You know what I would like to see DrB? How about a post (or series) where you are the GM? You could set it up however you like, but I think that we are alike in trying to predict things based on the tendencies of Sabean and the organization. I'm very interested to see how you would put the 2015 Giants together, or how you think Sabean will build the club. Just an idea!
Thanks Covechatter. Just an aside: I tried to sign up on your new site and somehow got sidetracked into my Google+ account that uses my real name as a screen name. Now I can't seem to undo it or make a new account with my alter ego name, DrBGiantsfan. Still working on it. If I'm not posting there, it's not because I don't know about the site or appreciate it. I still visit your twitter page every day, or even a couple or 3 times per day!
DeleteAs for content, I just write whatever comes to my mind. I have a system for rapidly researching stats and I have become a fast typist, so it does not take as much time as it might appear.
Thanks! Sorry for the commenting confusion. I like the Disqus setup, but you do have to have the account. If you continue to have issues, don't worry about it. Not that important! Glad you got to check out the new site.
DeleteI'd still like to see you post some kind of a GM-type offseason plan some day!
You moved your blog. I found it. Are you going to continue your prospect count-down? I think your Prospect list is great and it pretty much mirrors mine, but I don't count Susac as a prospect anymore. I think he's the back-up catcher and has replaced Sanchez.
DeleteMy top 11 prospects in 2015 are:
ReplyDelete1. Susac
2.Crick
3. Beede
4. Osich
5. Williamson
6. Duffy
7. Blacjburn
8. Stratton
9. Duvall
10. Arroyo
11. Law
12. Hall
Meant Top 12/
DeleteThe only one I would strongly disagree with is Osich at #4. The fact that the Giants did not protect him from the Rule 5 Draft by adding him to the 40 man roster should tell you something there. I guess we all have our favorite players, though.
DeleteDo you maybe mean Steven Okert? If that is the case, then #4 might be a reasonable place for him as he is looking very promising and very close to the majors right now.
DeleteI did mean Okert. My fault for confusing you.
DeleteI am eliminating Susac and Duffy as I think they are no longer prospects.
ReplyDelete1. Beede
2. Blackburn
3. Williamson
4. Crick
5. Okert
6. Law
7. Mella
8. Mejia
9. Horan
10. Arroyo
Beede as #1 due to the arm and I think the Giants can clean up his control problems. I have Blackburn as a close second due to his control which I think gets him to the show as a 3 or 4 starter. I also love Okert who looks like the replacement for Affeldt and Horan looks like a Giant, gritty player who will push his way thru the system.
Deletehow do you determine when a guy is a prospect or not a prospect anymore?
DeleteBA's criteria are 130 AB's for a hitter and 50 IP for a pitcher. Relievers have a time limit due to relatively few IP.
DeleteSusac & Duffy both=prospects.
DeleteAnybody else think Mikey Edie might be a top 10 prospect or is the DSL just too far away?
ReplyDeleteThe DSL is just to far away for me, late teens maybe.
Deletetoo far away dudes.
DeleteI feel the same about guys like Christian Arroyo and Kuery Mella as well. Cal League is a line in the sand for me.
I actually had him as high as 4... until dropping him down a few rungs.
DeleteRyan, would the "line in the sand" at the Cal League have included Madison Bumgarner when he was at Augusta in Low A ball, a level lower than the Cal League?
DeleteDefinitely think he could be top 10
DeleteBumgarner was special. He really popped.
DeleteDid Mella with his shoulder injury, less that 9K/9IP really pop at Augusta?
Not so much. Let's see how he fares in the Cal League.
Just pointing out that a great prospect is great no matter what level they are at. I mean, Bryce Harper would have been #1 on most teams' list immediately upon being drafted out of HS and rightfully so.
DeleteWell sure, but not all prospects have that great, blue-chip, can't-miss shine. The lower level prospects have tests to pass and being further away from the show tend to have less value on the trade market.
DeleteI don't completely agree here. If you have two prospects of equal ceiling and one is in AA and the other in Rookie ball, of course, you would rank the guy in AA higher. Personally, I believe ceiling trumps proximity to majors, so if you have a high ceiling kid who performs well at a low level, I am going to rank them higher than a guy in AA or AAA who profiles as a bench player or #5 starter.
DeleteNo problemo.
DeleteI'll rank Blackburn higher than Mella even though Mella has a higher ceiling because there is a considerably more between Mella and the Big Leagues than Blackburn and the Bigs. But I would put Mella ahead of Blach even though Blach might be closer than Blackburn.
Agreed. See, we found common ground!
DeleteI like John Sickels' list for the most part.
ReplyDeleteSusac at top as he is the most valuable and accomplished of the lot. He seems to be up to the task of being a major leaguer, much like Joe Panik and possibly Matt Duffy.
I like Blackburn at #2, because I believe there is enough stuff and movement to make him a good candidate to do well enough in MLB to stick around. Crick and Beede both have a lot of potential because of their stuff and are therefore a cut above everybody else who can be shuffled any which way. Maybe Hunter Strickland is #5 and Matt Duffy #6 and Ty Blach #7 with Steve Okert right behind. I don't know :-)
Sorry for giving you a hard time sometimes, Doc. Keep up the good work.
I''m surprised the consensus seems to be so low on Adam Duvall. 27 HR, 90 RBI, 215 TB in less than 400 PA at AAA.
ReplyDeleteProject that up to 660 PA, he's a 35 2B & 45 HR guy. That's territory shared by Kris Bryant, Sano, and Gallo. With fewer strikeouts and more RBI. Above Joc Pederson, Correa, Lindor, or Buxton. And he did it at AAA! Doesn't strikeout a ton for a power guy. He's going into his age-26 season. If there is one thing we need, maybe it's a chance for him? Otherwise, I hope we ship him to an AL team so he can get his shot.
I'm also puzzled by how many Giants fans are willing to go with Duffy or Adrianza as some form of starter on our infield. Or Susac. No back-up plan behind that? Whoa. I'm fairly certain these same fans would be crying for anybody else *IF* this player happens to fail from the start. What then? Like Duvall in MLB (so far). Or Perez. Kieschnick, Peguero, Noonan, Gillespie, Culberson, Dominguez, Kickham, Dunning, Strickland, Edlefsen, Surkamp, Graham, Christian, Ford, Tanaka, etc. The lack of confidence in a serviceable guy like Tony Abreu. I remember many fans wanted Chris Stewart gone for "any catcher that could hit better."
My point is, I guess I'd offer more patience to some of our own guys. IMO, Duvall is deserving of 120+ PA's to see if he can settle into a groove. I don't believe his 8 games and 30 PA per month offered enough indication that he truly has no future in MLB. But (some) others seem to have already written him off. Huh. I dare wonder "what if" Adrianza or Duffy or Susac or Panik start that same way in 2015?
Sickels put Duvall at #20 with a C+ and a qualifier. "If he can sharpen up contact... and I think he can with more AB's in the majors." Well, with Adam Duvall's power, low-ish SO rate, and seeing that we struggle to develop hitters... That definitely puts him top-5 in my ranks. I want to believe in Williamson (Horan, and others), but I also recognize how many we've had that hit in SJ, but no further up. YMMV.
To my eye, Duvall looks like another Lance Niekro/Brett Pill, Tantalizing power, but just not enough contact to make use of it. In addition, I believe he has never really overcome his throwing yips from 3B. As for his AAA stats, you have to take PCL stats with a grain of salt, especially in the western division. Lots of very hitter-friiendly parks in that PCL West.
DeleteI do agree, DrB. All that you say is true. The stats, park factors, throwing yips... Well, it is *your* opinion about the Niekro/Pill comp. Even still, we don't get guys that graduate from AAA with those numbers. I'm not sure he can evolve past his throwing issues, I recall watching Knoblauch at 2B never sort it out... Affeldt still prefers underhanding to 1B on plays... The potential of having that powerful bat, wowzers. But I guess it's 3B or nowhere. I mean elsewhere = trade?
DeleteI guess I wonder, why people are more optimistic on Crick's 6 BB/9 (and sometimes losing his breaking stuff) as opposed to Duvall's defensive issues? If both continue their trend, each disallows them from sticking in MLB, right? Crick is still way up there, Duvall isn't. That's all. Just wondering.
It is actually much easier to project pitchers from the minors to the majors than hitters. The big problem with pitchers is injuries, not so much performance. Crick has that elite FB and K rates and age vs level all going for him. With Duvall, he simply joins a very long list of PCL hitters who are probably not going to ever come close to that kind of production in the majors. It's not any one single factor. It's the swing, the pitch recognition, the league, his age and defense all working against him here. Yes, he's got power, but is it usable power at the next level? That's the, literally, $ Million question. In Duvall's case, there are a lot of reasons to believe that his AAA power does not project to MLB. Hope for his sake and the Giants I am wrong.
DeleteI think a good list and analysis on potential giants free agent pick ups that would be a good fit and who you think they'd go far. Also, love the top 50 prospect list. Wouldn't mind reading more about their prospects and their ceiling and floor to their potential
ReplyDeleteThe Giants seem to be kicking tires on everybody right now and sending out very mixed signals in the process. On the one hand they say they have a budget then turn around and schedule a meeting with Jon Lester. It seems to me that all bets are off on who they might sign. The possibilities are the universe of free agents!
DeleteI'm skeptical about Lester or Scherzer. My guess, we'll "seriously go after" them and coincidentally finish 2nd or 3rd in the bidding! Signing one of them puts us very near the CBT threshold. No bueno. Hicks, Colvin, and Ishikawa helped win us a few games. Romo saved some. Gutierrez aided us in the first half. Morse, Sandoval, Vogey, and Peavy won some...
DeleteAre Lester and Cain supposed to replace ALL of that? Seriously?
Dang. Along with some ST invitees, and maybe Duffy, Adrianza, Kontos, Strickland, Hall, Okert, and Blach/Blackburn? Blanco starting? Some new player like Nava, Callaspo, Betemit Kouzmanoff, or Denorfia? And then... what if Pagan goes down again? What if Scutaro holds a bench spot but can only play twice per week? Huh. I'm not believing the Lester/Scherzer dealio stuff. Nor the "talked to Melky and Cruz" stuff. Moncada? Not at all. YMMV.
I love the idea of Jon Lester. Pencil him in for 4-5 WAR and those are his numbers pitching in hitter friendly parks. AT&T could pad his stats even more. However, he will need runs. So we cant just throw someone in LF and 3B. I wouldn't mind guys like Morse, Rios or Aoki platooning with Blanco. But for 3B I think we need a guy like Headley. I would want to think Sabean calls the Twins on Plouffes availability first though. I think the Giants would spend a little more to field a team with those additions.
ReplyDeleteAs for prospects I think Blackburn is #1. Look at that control. 405K/76BB. Only 18HR in 395 innings of work. I am thinking he could be molded into a great 3 or 4. If in 2016 it was Bumgarner, Lester, Cain, Blackburn and (put a cost controlled 5th guy here that can eat innings) we would have one of the best rotations in baseball.
As I have said many times and taken a lot of heat for, I would have no problem with Blanco starting in LF. Giants would need a better 4'th OF than Perez if that was the situation, though.
DeleteThey could do a lot worse than sign Headley to play 3B. Not sure if there is a Bochy connection with Headley. Headley broke in with SD right about the time Boch left.
If they are serious about Lester, then I think an equal offer just might get it done due to the allure of pitching in a run suppressing environment and the recent track record of championships.
Oh, and I don't think we'll see more than one "big" signing. If they sign Lester, no Headley. If they sign Headley, there is space for 1 or 2 more 2'nd or 3'rd tier guys but no Lester.
DeleteGood call, Rog'. Blackburn right up there with Susac. We're thinking alike with roster maneuvers.
DeleteMy list would be:
ReplyDelete1. Blackburn
2. Carbonell
3. Beede
4. Mella
5. Crick
6. Susac
7. Blach
8. Law
9. Arroyo
10. Okert
You might want to check out the Fangraphs article about the Cubans in the AFL before you put Carbonell at #2. As I pointed out in the comments, what he is describing is not consistent with Carbonell's performance for San Jose, but the article does give you pause and drain some of the exuberance about Carbonell's start to his pro career away.
DeleteSaw your comments on the F/G article. Here's the rub though: he's given up switch hitting, so he's facing righties as a right handed bat for the first time. That's a big adjustment. I found, as it happens from time to time, the authors comments to you snarky and dismissive. Bernie P saw him as well, noticed the swing miss but also the athleticism. But I do think you have to give him time with 2/3 of the at-bats being a totally different look. There might be some wooden looking at bats (that might be dismissed as "weak" by an amateur evaluator) for a while.
DeleteYeah, I know anybody can look good in a small sample size, but it's hard to see a player who is as bad as that guy described Carbonell, doing as well as Carbonell did for San Jose, even give the SSS.
DeleteI remember what Sandoval looked like in 2011 when toward the end of the season his hand was injured so that he had to face RHP right-handed. He was pathetic. Beltran at the same time refused to make the same compromise, preferring to relax on the bench instead. My inclination would be to cut Carbonell a great deal of slack.
DeleteThat said, it seems premature to rank him among prospects, because we don't know what he'll be able to adjust to and what he won't. This is further complicated by the negative report on his defense, where the Fangraphs article makes him sound like the second coming of Fred Lewis. It's further complicated too if one reflects that the fine batting he did during the regular season includes stats from his left-handed hitting, at which he's so faulty as to give it up entirely. Once he gets used to hitting righty off righties, he should improve on his Cal League numbers, one would think.
Interesting thoughts on Carbonell. I admit I hadn't read the fangraphs article, and very good chance I'm being overly excited about his potential. I suppose my reasoning for putting him #2 originally in my list was that A. He's a potential 5 tool guy. B. He was highly touted coming out of (Cuba is it? Sry if I'm forgetting the country) C. He had a very good season at High A and didn't miss a beat moving up to AA for the playoffs. and D. I personally liked what I saw from the videos of him on Youtube. No red flags. Seemed like a humble relatively quiet guy, the type of player I personally like and the Giants seem to like as well.
DeleteIt would definitely not hurt my feelings at all if the Fangraphs guy turned out to be completely wrong.
DeleteCarbonell can't hit. I'm with Dr. B I want Lester in part because I'm ok with Blanco in LF and Perez. In some ways I feel Blanco has earned a starting gig! He may not be a leadoff hitter, but he has earned to play everyday. Duvall can only be 1B which isn't a need. I do like his power off the bench, but he shouldn't be in the Top 10 prospect list. Crick is #1. He is either going to be a solid starter or a great strikeout reliever. It would suck if he turns out to be a RP, but he would throw even harder out of the pen! In the WS we saw how important RP's can be.
ReplyDeleteEveryone doesn't agree with how Beane runs the A's. I think the Giants should take notes. You could trade Belt (and parts) for Andrew Heaney and Austin Barnes. The Marlins are looking for a young 1B. They also are on record to be willing to give up Heaney. Not sure if they are keen on Mr. Belt, but the Gmen should check in. May be you can keep Heaney as 4th starter or you can flip him to another team to get the 3B that Sabean wants. May be you can flip Heaney(and parts) for Justin Upton like Beane would do. I don't think the Giants like Upton's salary or if they are looking for LF, but the main point is the idea to be creative. Re-sign Morse and put him at 1B. Sign Lester. Trade Heaney for 3B.
A question for you Dr. B. What would you do with Lincecum? I know he has a no trade clause, but isn't it best to shop him? Talk him into being ok to be traded to the team of his choice. 1, The Giants could use his salary in better ways. 2. He needs a change of scenery. 3. Do the Giants trust him anymore? So, Dr. B is Lincecum a starter or RP?
Tim Lincecum will begin the 2015 season as a starter for the Giants. I don't know how long that will last. He is definitely not a closer as many people seem to think. He also has no trade value. The only way you get anyone to take him is for the Giants to pay most of his remaining salary. They're better off trying to get another half season or so out of him as a starter then wishing him the best at the end of the season.
DeleteAs for making trades and flipping prospects, Sabes has never done it and I don't expect him to start now. Pretty hard to argue with his track record, if you ask me. Why would a GM who has won 3 WS in the last 5 years be taking notes from a guy who has washed out of the playoffs 3 years in a row and now appears to be burning it all to the ground so he can start over?
Heard Kemp to the O's for Bud Norris and Dylan Bundy! Yes, Giants don't let Lester leave without signing!
ReplyDeleteI think that would be a bad trade for the Dodgers, but I'm down with a Lester signing.
DeleteI am not sure where Kemps value is. He still 100M on his contract, and this past year could be viewed as an out-lier. I am not sure the O's would make that deal due to the contract that is attached.
DeleteBecause of the PA requirement the Giants have two high level Rookies still. Susac and Duffy are a nice 1-2. The 3 best fastballs are Crick, Beede and Mella. Which guy gets it under control and put together? The arms of Strickland, Law, Okert and Hall are nice looks. Mac Williamson is the advanced bat, and Christian Arroyo is the guy the Giants hung their hat on. With Panik's success, does he get more rope or is he buried for his (injured) struggles in the Sally? Blach and Blackburn look solid, but we just don't know how they'll do in the PCL, just like Escobar and Kickham. Mikey Edie is a long way away, but he's the youngest guy in the system, had a solid start. Getting Gustavo back is a great wild card.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the Giants have 3 starters, 4 relievers and 3 bats that can threaten the 25 among their prospects. That's pretty dope, and that would indicate a good degree of system depth. The starter pitchers have the most volatility, and most likely won't be the first or second choice.
And if Nelson Cruz is indeed going to Seattle, the Giants just moved up to the 19th overall pick. They need to go large in the IFA, one of these Cubans, maybe the pitcher as he'll cost less. They don't really go over the 300K level anyways very often.
I liked what John Sickels had to say about the Giants prospects. Kind of middle of the road system, but a lot of the players, especially in the lower minors have breakout/high ceiling potential. It only takes 1 or 2 of those to hit it big and they are in great shape for the future.
DeleteAlso, if they move up into the teens for their draft pick, I really hope they don't throw that away on signing a QO FA.
I like the Nellie Cruz signing for the M's, and for the Gigantes as well. Pick No. 19 and counting! I like your positive outlook on the King Street Boys. And a great post from DrB!
DeleteNWGiantsFan
DtF!!!
I have my top 3 set as...
ReplyDelete1) Carbonell
2) Beede
3) Crick
While I prefer to see production out of the fall leagues, it is not critical, so I don't read too much into Carbonell's struggles there. However, I respect all the opinions here, and seeing how he is not even a consensus top 10, maybe I need to re-evaluate...
I'm trying to remember if Scuturo was playing 3B for Colorado when the Giants traded for him. After the trade did they moved him to 2B? Also, why hasn't Scuturo had back surgery? News of any kind of surgery would make me feel better about his chances to play next season.
ReplyDeleteSurgery is not a cure for all back problems. I assume they have considered surgery for Scutaro and have concluded it is not likely to be beneficial or else they would have done it a long time ago. I also assume Scutaro's career is essentially over.
DeleteYep, he's 39 and qualified for a parking placard...but darn it, he does have over 100 games at 3rd (including a few for the Giants), so let's at least call him a remote (extreme muy very) possibility to play 3rd for the Giants in 2015.
DeleteI don't read too much into reviews when there is such a small sample size. Carbonell doesn't even have a full year under his belt. For every sure thing there is a guy that comes out of nowhere. James Shields (16th round), Tim Hudson (6th round), Wade Boggs (7th round), Don Mattingly (19th round), Mike Piazza (62nd round) to name a few. Give a prospect a year or two before we completely write them off or as a utility player. You also have to think he is just getting used to a new country and all of the stress that comes with acclimating to a new environment. I am very optimistic about Daniel. Show us what you got!
ReplyDeleteI am still cautiously optimistic on Daniel Carbonell. There are two issues here. Statistics which can be written off as small sample size in all cases. Then there is observation of his hitting mechanics by someone who claims to know what they are looking at. You do not need large sample size to make a judgement there. On the other hand, it is usually smart to question the reliability of the observer when it comes to scouting reports like that. A swing that is "stiff, weak wristed with no shift in weight" is probably not going to produce 4 HR's in 150 PA's at any level, so I have to question they guy's observation while at the same time making note of it.
DeleteFair enough on bad mechanics and all, but in 100 ABs in SJ his OPS was .928.
DeleteThat along with Rookie and AZL totals less than 200 ABs. One year.
He might be a bust. But can't we just wait until he crashes on the rocks of the Eastern like most every other Giant farmhand before we wash him out?
Nobody here is giving up on Daniel Carbonell!
DeleteIs it just me or is the hype of Matt Duffy getting out of control? The guy raked in AA but played in only 97 games before going straight to the show. He was terrible in his limited time with the Giants. I'm excited about him as he posted great minor league numbers but I think anybody advocating him being the starting 3B is getting a little ahead of themselves.
ReplyDelete"Terrible"??
Delete.267/.302/.300/.602 as a pinch-hitter as a rookie. Maybe not ROY Candidate numbers, but FAR from "terrible". Also, I have not seen a whole lot of hype for Duffy. There is certainly appreciation that a low pick has developed into what looks like a nice utility (or better) player, but I don't see any hype.
Are people advocating him to start at third, or are they saying that he might start at third, and that the team should look at him in ST instead of rushing into an expensive contract with a free agent or making a costly trade out of desperation? If someone is advocating Duffy, they are jumping the gun. If someone is saying that we don't need to start feeling terrified about how Pablo is irreplaceable, because some internal options might fill the gap, then they are being sensible IMO.
DeleteI agree. .267 in a pinch role is hardly terrible. I am not saying to pencil him in at 3B or even keep him on the 25 man roster. I think he could still benefit from some work at AAA. However, I am definitely not writing him off. I think he might want to start a better weight training regimen. It couldn't hurt to add another 10-15 pounds of muscle. The guy looks way too scrawney to me at 6'2" 170lbs. I am 6'3" 200lbs and I couldn't imagine losing 25-30 lbs. I would look severely malnourished.
DeletePat Burrell for 3B coach...
ReplyDeleteI know the coach doesn't have to play for Giants...just think his personality will fit with job/team. I know he also is a scout for team. Just a thought. Anyone else have ideas on 3B coach?
I would think Roberto Kelly might be the top candidate for 3B coach, although I think Kelly's forte is base stealing so they might want to keep him at 1B.
DeleteShawon Dunston sounds like a good name for the 3B coach job but I don't know if that would be a promotion or demotion. I don't know exactly what he does for the Giants but I always see him around.
ReplyDeleteThe Giants have now moved up from the 22nd spot to the 19th spot in the 2015 draft .
ReplyDeleteIs it me or does Lester seem like a guy that is going to age well? He's basically got the same velocity as Bumgarner right now and he also features the cutter. I can see this guy still boring that thing in on RHB at 90 mph in 5 years and being plenty effect.
ReplyDeleteAlmost a zero chance of a Barry Zito phenomenon where the guy is throwing an 83-85 mph fastball.
Lester is as good a risk as any you are going to find with that type of contract. Still probably would not do it at the track record of huge longterm contracts for SP's is dismal.
Deleteconsider it a miracle if a free agent performs up to contract near the end of it.
DeleteJust consider the cost of buying a stud as spread out 5-7 years for 2-4 years of top performance. the cost of business.
I'd like to see a roundtable type discussion of SF Giants off-season affairs. Id like Dr., OGC, overcharged and Grant.My number one prospect is Crick, Blackburn and Beede. I'm looking forward to the prospect rankings too.
ReplyDeleteLol maybe a podcast. Do it big ! Do it giants
I meant to type Covechatter.
ReplyDelete