The Giants DFA'd RHP Cody Hall earlier this week to make room on the 40 man roster for Denard Span. Apparently Hall was not going to make it through waivers, and the D'Backs stepped up with a trade offer to put them a the front of the line, while the Giants do not lose him without compensation. The return is reported to be a Player To Be Named Later(PTBNL) or cash. Usually a deal like that ends up with a cash return in the range of $50-100 K.
Hall was a 19'th round draft pick in 2011 and had worked his way up through the Giants farm system as a relief pitcher. He's a big kid at 6'4", 220 lbs and throws hard. Last year in AAA he put up a line of 1-3, 3.46, 67.2 IP, 7.32 K/9, 3.46 BB/9. He got in a few MLB innings during a September callup posting a line of 0-0, 6.48, 8.1 IP, 7.56 K/9, 4.32 BB/9. According to PitchFx, his FB averaged 92.8 MPH and his main secondary pitch was a split-fingered fastball. He was a flyball pitcher in AAA, but has a GB/FB of over 2 in his short MLB stint.
This trade brings back memories of when Joe Paterson went to the D'Backs in the Rule 5 Draft. I believe Hall can develop into a solid middle-innings reliever, possibly as soon as this year. If he wants to succeed in Arizona though, he'll best keep the ball on the ground. The other candidates for DFA on the Giants roster were Ty Blach, Cory Gearrin, Mike Broadway and Steven Okert. Blach is a SP and left-handed. Okert is a LHP. Gearrin has more MLB experience than Hall and Broadway throws a lot harder. I'll guess those were the considerations. Can't really argue with that, but it's hard to lose a guy you've followed up the system. I really like Cody Hall as a pitcher and wish him the best, except when he pitches against the Giants. I had him ranked as the #26 prospect in the Giants system. I've dropped him and moved Steven Okert into the #48 slot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I remember Paterson getting Rule 5ed, and sticking all year and doing great. Then got lit up in a few appearances in 2012, got sent down, and had an ERA of 37.13 for the year. Which I thought was really amusing and very unusual.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, checking his stats, same thing happened to the guy in 2014. Just a couple of appearances, got lit up, and had an ERA of 33.75.
I wonder if any pitcher has managed that, two years with ERAs that high?
Hurts to lose Hall, but its a sign of the depth the Giants are developing. But I was hoping the Giants could somehow keep him, but I guess that was foolish on my part. ZiPS showed his potential last season by projecting him to be a mid-2 WAR, highest among our prospects. Nice story on Hall and how he got to majors from Baggs: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/giants/2015/09/03/extra-baggs-energy-more-precious-than-time-for-giants-chris-heston-says-he-still-has-something-to-prove-cody-halls-baseball-dream-began-in-a-plumbing-warehouse-etc/
ReplyDeleteSurprised to see Okert on your list of possibles, and more so that you had to add him to the top 50 list. Did not realize that he had fallen that far in your estimation. I still like Okert a lot, expect to see him on 25-man eventually, hopefully paired up with Osich as proto-Affeldts, lefties who can get our righties also.
But, wow, your list of possible DFAs would/could hurt if the Giants had to drop any of them too.
According to article on mlb.com, the Giants are now focused on improving their bullpen from within, listing some of the above (Broadway, Okert). Guerrin also has some MLB successes that look promising, wonder why the Braves gave up on him (perhaps it was because of his lost year due to surgery). Perhaps its an issue of focusing too much on what he can't do and not enough on what he can do.
I had been hoping to see the Giants pick up Lincecum, but since there is no news yet about his showcase, there must have been some problems with his rehabbing, maybe he's not coming back as fast as he was hoping, because one would think that he would have announced one by now, we are half way through January already. If he don't have a showcase by spring training, hopefully the Giants just pick him up on a minor league deal, and let him rehab with us until he's ready. I still think that he can be a very effective as a reliever, and potentially be a super-reliever type like he was in the 2012 playoffs.
Time to let Timmy go. He is not coming back.
DeleteTwo points:
ReplyDelete1. This is the trade-off in protecting as many players as possible in advance of the rule 5 draft. To illustrate my point, suppose the Giants had not protected Jake Smith? The chance of him being drafted is relatively low. Even if he was drafted, the chance of him sticking on a 25 man roster for a full year is low as well. Therefore, if they had not protected Smith, they would have a roster spot open for Span, and it is likely that they could have kept both Smith and Hall as well.
2. Having said that, there are still 25 pitchers on the roster, with many more coming up in the next two to three years. There is no way the Giants can keep/use them all. They have no choice but to trade or release several to many of these players over the next few years. That's the "problem" with a deep system. Fortunately, the Giants do a very good job at keeping the best young players.
Oh, I think there is a high probability that Jake Smith would have been taken in the Rule 5 draft.
DeleteThe 40 man list seems like a rather archaic way of continuing to do things. Do you think major league will ever make it a 50 man list or something that allows better flexibility for prospects to come in and replace injured / traded players so that not as many people need to be DFA'ed?
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, I'm not too sure if the Giants on a whole are hurt or helped more by the increased movement of players that occur because of the 40 man list limitation. What do you think?
I don't know if the owners would want to expand the 40 man roster. Since expanding it would further limit player mobility, the Players Association would not agree to it without something in return. They could ask for MLB Active Rosters to expand to 26 or 27 players which would create more MLB jobs. I'm guessing the owners would not want to expand the 40 man badly enough to increase Active Roster size.
Delete