When the Giants announce their non-roster invitees to spring training, you know the hot stove is on it's last embers and spring training cannot be far ahead. The 25 man roster is set, barring injury, so I don't expect too much excitement to be generated by this crop of invitees. There were not too many surprises. The one name that caught my eye was Mac Williamson. I would take this as a great sign that his arm must be just about ready because I doubt the Giants would invite a guy to big league camp just to rehab.
Giants minor league pitcher Ethan Miller had a positive drug test for amphetamines. He'll serve a 50 game suspension. He pitched at Salem-Keizer last year and needs to get some traction on his pro career. This won't help.
Marco Scutaro was released last week. He's not going to be ready to contribute this year after major back surgery anyway. This just makes the obvious official. Scutaro might have been the single biggest reason why the Giants won the World Series in 2012. Whatever he got paid for however long, he earned it in those 3 months of play when he was about as hot as a hitter can possibly be. I mean, talk about a base-hit machine!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Don't get me wrong, I loved watching Marco play for the Giants. Sabes caught lightning in a bottle which rarely happens in baseball and with such a wonderful benefit to the team. I agree that Scutaro was hugely responsible for the Giants 2012 WS. I would submit that the Giants paid Scutaro for those three months about 6 million too much. It was clearly too much to sign a guy of his age for 3 years. I get that management wanted to keep intact the WS team of 2012 for PR reasons. Hope that the next time this decision comes along, a different course of action takes place.
ReplyDeleteBoth Scutaro and Pagan leveraged an extra year from their 2012 contributions. Cost of doing business and building a dynasty. Money well spent.
DeleteAnd honestly, happy for Scutaro who had to grind out every contract as non-impact hitting middle infielder. Glad he got paid.
And as for Giants, I don't think the bank is broken.
Three flags flying high...
Did that $6 M that you say is too much prevent the Giants from acquiring players they needed to win last year or this year? Look, the Giants believe in rewarding their players who deliver for them. Did you really think the Giants thought Tim Linceucm was going to be worth $40 M last year and this year? Of course they didn't! They are making sure a guy who literally turned the franchise around is set for life.
DeleteI know that is not how the bean counters at Fangraphs think it should be done, but you really can't argue with success. One reason why players not only want to play in SF but are willing to sacrifice personal goals and glory to help the team win is because the Giants take care of their own. They take care of them financially, and not just while they are still playing. They treat their retired players better than any other team in baseball. Once they've played for the Giants, they are part of the Giants family.
So Derald, if you really think that $6 M is a difference maker to anybody or anything but Marco Scutaro, you really are rooting for the wrong team here.
I meant to say that the Giants not only take care of their retired players financially, they take care of them emotionally too, welcoming them back to the ballpark for various ceremonies and celebrations and making them feel like a necessary part of the team.
DeleteAnother p.o.v. Is that the Giants, in giving Scutaro $20M for three years did give him $6M too much because of his injury: in 2013, the first year of his three-year contract he was worth, according to Fangraphs, $13.7M. Had he been able to play last year or this coming year, not both, at about half as well as he played in 2013, his contract would have been a slight bargain. Of course one expects an older player to decline and be more subject to injury; but if Scutaro had declined as one might rationally expect and suffered injury as was reasonable to suppose, his probable level of production would have justified the contract he received, and I mean justified it by the most hard-headed Ebenezer-Scroogish accounting.
DeleteThis is not to gainsay DrB's point about the quasi-familial care that players get in the Giants organization. But it is to insist that unless one demands that teams be clairvoyant about injuries above and beyond rational expectations, the Giants were smart to keep Scutaro from the Cardinals in the 2012-13 offseason by giving him the contract they did. He was two-thirds of the way toward justifying it after only one of the three years it guaranteed.
I think it is some of both. Yes the Giants wanted to keep Scutaro because they believed in his ability to help them win. Yes, it was a year too long. Yes, the Giants knew that. No, they did not care because of what he had already done for them.
DeleteI agree with DrB that it was a year too long, but I think they care, though not necessarily regretting it - what is done is done.
DeleteI also agree that the Giants are different from other 'modern' teams. They treat people like people, not commodities - buy low and sell, happily, high or unhappily, low. It's very rare to see these days and we should be gratefully.
In a way, they are anti-Walsh, the football genius (a real one, not the movie/book/media celebrity who pretends to one) who is know to rather to early in letting go a player than late.
With Sabean, we have seen many players retired with us perhaps later than they should have been.
To me, there is no one perfect way of winning. Every approach has its pluses and minuses. We won 3 championships even with all the mistakes. I would not say, punting on a first round pick did not prevent us from winning those rings and therefore we should not shudder at such a decision. I would therefore deem the one-year too-long mistake as a mistake we hope we can avoid, to the extent it's compatible with treating players well and rewarding them for their contributions.
What is done is done. But certainly something to keep in mind in the future.
I don't think it was a year too long. Scutaro was not the kind of player to eat/lazy himself out of shape and fall apart. So it'd been very reasonable to believe he'd finish out his contract while playing well each-and-every season and then hang them up after 2015.
DeleteInstead he got a very unpredictable, career-ending injury.
And, also, I seriously doubt the Scutaro $6 million makes any difference. The Giants, last I read, with Scutaro contract on the books are not in the Luxury tax and are not a Top-5 salary expenditure team.
You wrote, "Did that $6 M that you say is too much prevent the Giants from acquiring players they needed to win last year or this year?" Well they won last year, so no argument there. But as a fan, I want my team to remain pertinent in the future. I seriously don't think the Giants giving Scutaro another year and another $6 million on top of $13.2 million is necessary to engender player loyalty. Don't you think that 13.2 million USD will set a family man from Venezuela for life? Yes I want the money spent on Marco and Timmy to be used on a player such as Yoan Moncado if Giant management thinks that is a reasonable bet. The risk/reward factor has improved dramatically over the last ten years with the Giants, but the Scutaro and Lincecum signings do not reflect wise judgement in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteYou also wrote that, "If you really think that $6 M is a difference maker to anybody or anything but Marco Scutaro, you really are rooting for the wrong team here." I have been watching this team since before Bobby Bonds took Downtown Ollie Brown's spot in right. When I watch Joe Panik play 2nd base I am also watching in my mind Tito Fuentes, Ron Hunt, Jeff Kent and a host of others thinking of how they would make that play. I am not rooting for the wrong team at all and if I discussing there moves with a critical eye makes me a stronger fan who can savor their success with both eyes open.
You know, someone raised the question to Larry Baer himself whether the Giants were using wise judgment in "overpaying" to keep their players. Baer's response was that the Giants are not an organization that tries to get every last penny of value out of their players. The Giants want their players to feel wanted and respected. It is part of their business model and part of their on-field strategy. So, you are welcome to your opinion that the Giants do not make wise judgments with their money. Larry Baer would look you in the eye, flash 3 World Series rings and say you are wrong.
DeleteAs for Moncada, whether the Giants do or don't sign him has nothing whatsoever to do with Timmy's or Scutaro's contracts. It will be based on their assessment of Moncada as a prospect and player balanced against what they judge his worth to be. Just remember, though, that it will likely cost $60-80 M of upfront money to sign Moncada when you include the penalties. All that really buys you is his first 3 years in the majors followed by 3 more arbitration years. If he is what everybody seems to think he is, his salary in arbitration will go up really fast! So, is Moncada THAT guy the Giants have to get? Not so clear in that light, is it?
I agree, Derald. You want to reward loyalty and outstanding service, but you also want to retain flexibility for the future. It can be a fine line, but the Scutaro contract was clearly an overpay, to me.
DeleteThe money saved can be spent on Moncada, or Lester, or whomever the FO believes helps the most, as the team's needs change. Whether or not Moncada, specifically, is the right guy is beside the point, is seems to me.
Oh man! I just had to put on my hip boots to wade through this muck! Really? The Giants are going to pay Marco Scutaro $6 M this year. Jon Lester's contract was for well over $100 M. Moncada will likely cost $60-80 M upfront before he gets paid a red cent in salary. Do you really think Scutaro's measly $6 M has anything at all to do with whether or not the Giants sign Lester or Moncada?
DeleteMuck? How nice. I don't ridicule your opinions.
DeleteThe point is not to compare $6m to $80m. It's the concept of flexibility. If you waste too much money in one area, you might be not able to afford a semi-major purchase elsewhere.
Well, I did think of some other metaphors for the notion that a $6 M contract is going to somehow impact a $100M+ contract in today's MLB world, but muck seemed like a nicer way to put it.
DeleteOK, flexibility. The Giants have had some pretty darn "bad" contracts over the years. Please point to one, any, of them that has kept them from getting the players they need to win.
I couldn't agree more. Every year bloggers complain about how the FO spends, now too "cheap" and now too profligate, on the basis of what? Certainly not the know-how of running a complex, multi-million dollar organization. Not a good sense of the market of available players. Not personal knowledge of players, negotiations, GMs, scouts, and other professional staff. And not knowledge of the actual amounts in and constraints on the budget.
DeleteIn the case of Scutaro, none of those who think he was overpaid seems to recall that the Giants were trying to compete with an offer from the Cardinals, trying to re-sign Pagan, who was (according to both of them) in frequent contact with Scutaro as to their returning to the Giants as teammates, and assessing the current market for second basemen before 2013. Since, as I pointed out above, Scutaro gave the Giants over $13M value for his $6M contract in 2013 (by Fangraphs' estimation), one would expect that an argument for Scutaro's being overpaid would show that by some reputable projection--ZIPS, Steamer, BP, or some other-- he was unlikely to generate another 1.5 WAR as a Giant in the remaining two years. But all I've seen is unsupported opinion, flourishes of accountancy without accountability.
A budget is a budget- How can you say that Lincecum's $35 M contract over two years has nothing to do with what the Giants pay for a prospect such as Moncado? They like any organization has a finite budget. Timmy gave us 155 IP last year to the tune of 4.74 ERA. Aaron Harang gave the Braves 204 IP to the tune of 3.57 ERA for $1M. Look What Yusimero Petit gave us? Unless Timmy returns to Cy Young form, I seriously doubt Larry Baer can look me in the eye and tell me they were right in giving Lincecum that contract based on his results. I was under the impression that Moncado was going to cost $30-40M, but admittedly do not know what kind of bite the tax will take. I do love the game, but am already priced out of going to too many games....
ReplyDeleteWhatever Moncada's signing bonus is above the signing team's international bonus pool, which for the Giants is somewhere between $1.5 and $2 M, there is a 100% penalty that has to be paid to MLB. Both the bonus and the penalty have to be entirely paid within 12 months. So, if Moncada gets a bonus in the range of $30-40 M, the total cost to the Giants, if they are that team, will be $58-78 M all payed within 12 months. Now, any yearly salaries he would get would be over and above that signing bonus plus penalty. They could pay him MLB minimum salary for the first 3 years he is in the major leagues, but after that he would be eligible for arbitration for then next 3 years then free agency after 6 just like any other player. Larry Baer commented on Moncada and correctly pointed these things out and correctly said it is not so obvious that signing Moncada for that kind of up front money is a good deal for the team even if he performs up to his very high expectations.
DeleteBack to the discussion of "bad" contracts. The Giants have yet to sign an "albatross" contract with any player. Barry Zito's contract did not keep them from winning the World Series in 2010 and 2012. Aaron Rowand's contract did not keep them from winning in 2010. Timmy's contract did not keep them from winning in 2014. I am so sick of reading people carping about bad contracts. You want to see a bad contract? The Washington Nationals just signed a contract with Max Scherzer that, even if he stays healthy for the entire length of the contract, will still pay him $15 M per year for 7 years AFTER he is no longer playing for them! Yeah, a budget is a budget, but believe me, ANY MLB team can afford to sign ANY player they really want at ANY price. Just ask the Florida Marlins and Giancarlo Stanton.
So yes, Larry Baer WOULD look you in the eye and tell you they were right to give Timmy that contract based on the entirety of his results while playing for the Giants. He would also look you in the eye and tell you he would do it again if he had a chance to do it over.
From what I'm reading, only the tax above the teams international bonus slot is due within a month of signing, the actual contract to Moncada would need to be paid in full within 3 years.
DeleteEven though teams can split up the payout to Moncada, that price will still be a problem for some teams
DeleteI had not read the 3 years for the bonus payout thing. Maybe you could post a link? Still, that is a whopping amount of upfront money to basically only buy you 3 years of service time.
DeleteNo problem. It's a piece written by Ben Badler of Baseball America entitled Why Rich Teams Have The Edge For Yoan Moncada. Wouldn't it be for more than three years since he can't sign a Major League contract anymore? Wouldn't you get his prearbitration years as well as 3-4 years of arbitration depending on Super 2 status? The Giants will probably kick the tires, but come up short preferring to sign guys like Edie, Mejia and Ysla to spread the cash around
DeleteYes, you get the arbitration years, but if he's all he's cracked up to be, his salary will escalate rapidly during those arbitration years which would be on top of the upfront money you already paid him at signing.
DeleteTreating people well is a business strategy. Price is what you pay value is what you get, I believe Buffett says.
ReplyDeleteI get warm fuzzies thinking about my giants, probably the same way spurs fans do in the nba. Not just because they're my team and they win, but they do it "the right way"
Dr. B, You are right that pretty much every team has what I would call "bad contracts." It is part of the culture of MLB. If you compare the Giants to the Dodgers it is no contest. Start with the Brian Wilson contract- and the list goes on. I celebrate what the Giants have done over the last 5 years and yes, they have done it with team chemistry and more teams should look at the way the Giants are a team (and our GS Warriors are a team). But I will differ with you in stating that the Giants won those three flags despite the "Bad" contracts of Zito, Rowand and Lincecum, clearly not because management was sending a message out to the rest of the team that we take care of our players.
ReplyDeleteIt is abundantly clear, based on multiple comments made by both players and Giants management, that the "we take care of our own" culture has been a huge contributor to the team's recent run of championships.
DeleteEvery team has bad contracts. The Giants (with the exception of Rowand and Zito) were for their own guys. Pagan's contract isn't looking so good right now given his injuries, Scutaro's was at least a yaer too long, Who knows if Posey/Pence/Cain will come back to bite us (although there is certainly some potential there). I don't think that the bad contracts of completely impaired what we were willing to do, I do think it has some impact. Dr. B, you have commented that is very unlikely Timmy goes into the pen, but if contracts were not a factor I'd think he'd be strongly considered for that (much more than Huddy). Moreover, the bad contract leads to a waisted roster spot (which was true with Rowand until they cut him, and certainly they probably delayed that because of the cost).
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting the Giants are a bad FO, nor do I have any particular complaints with their contract decisions. I'm just suggesting I do think bad contracts have an impact. In terms of management, I would say the Giants are one of the best managing (now that they've gotten away from pricey FAs). They are in a far better position to assess guys on the team, and they are willing to trust their decisions on that front. As you note, it also buys them love from their players which I think promotes the club house chemistry that is vital to winning. By corollary, while they've dipped into the FA market, they've been smart about not getting too enamored with anyone guy when it doesn't pencil out. They've managed to keep grounded, while still being compettiive in bidding for Panda, Lester etc. You can always pick on what doesn't work right, but this is a game not a science and a certain amount of guessing wrong is par for the territory. You just want to do it less than the other guys.
The Giants had no problem taking Timmy out of the rotation for the 2012 postseason. They had no problem taking him out last season and relegating him to mop up duty in the postseason. I do think Timmy will be given another chance to start in 2015 both because of his contract and because of what he has meant to the organization. I do not think he will have a long leash and the Giants will make their decisions based on what gives them the best chance to win.
DeleteWell said PiLamBear. I particularly applaud the fact that the Giants' FO have improved so much on FA spending.
ReplyDeleteWhat it seems that we are debating is not that the fact that the Giants taking care of their own is a good thing. I stand by the position that the Giants can have a culture of community where they honor their players, award them with ample contracts, but keep an eye on excessive/unnecessary contracts. Looking forward to spring training.
And what I'm objecting to is the suggestion, even if it is just a suggestion, that excessive/unnecessary contracts are a problem that anybody needs to keep an eye on given the Giants recent record of 3 championships in 5 seasons.
DeleteI don't think you can just say that because we won the WS that some contracts were kinda bad. I think Scutaro contact was reasonable. He was Panda insurance and even Sabean said Panik wasn't ready. We all think Timmy was an overpriced deal but looking at K/9 he still has good stuff, but I seriously doubt they gave him an extra 10 million just because they like him. To me his marketability to the fan base had some input in the decision. Same with Panda potential contract. It would've been an overpay but they would have gotten it back in marketing. Plus positional scarcity. I think the Giants are very good on paying a bit more if they get the years they want. Everything not gonna always work, but they have a solid mix of risk mitigation as OGC says. This is a solid team that's built for postseason games. Farm looks good and we pursued excellent talent this off-season. Just missed. It's okay but the FA market next year is crazy talented.
DeleteThere are obviously multiple factors that go into any contract. Yes, several people have made the excellent point that all Scutaro had to do to earn his, what, $21 M over 3 years is average about 1.2 WAR per season. On the other hand the fact that they were on the hook for 3 years instead of 2 was more palatable because of what he accomplished for them and with them in 2012.
DeleteWith Timmy, there was the still pretty good peripheral stats, the not terrible second half in 2013 including a no-hitter and his marketing cache. Still, $20 M is a lot of money for a guy whose performance was clearly on the downhill slide. I believe that extra ingredient that made the deal palatable for the Giants was they just like to reward guys who have been good Giants. I don't think you can quantify the reward factor in exact dollars. It definitely was not the entire $20 M. Was it $2 M? $5 M? I don't know, but I am quite sure it helped get the deal done.