There were a couple more signings this week in the Hot Stove League worth mentioning. First, Anthony Santander OF signed with the Blue Jays for a reported 5 yr/$92.5 M with $35 M in deferrals which puts the present value of the package at around $70 M and the AAV for CBT purposes at just $14 M. Santander is relevant to Giants fans in that Buster Posey has stated several times he still wants to upgrade the Giants lineup and Santander was one of the better hitters on the free agent market averaging 35 HR's over his last 3 seasons including 44 last year. He is 30 years old and a switch-hitter but is a below-average outfielder which may be why the Giants were not more enthusiastic in their pursuit.
The second signing was Giants nemesis Jurickson Profar OF who signed with the Braves for 3 yr/$42 M. Profar's career has been inconsistent to say the least but he's coming off a strong season with a slash line of .280/.380/.459 with 24 HR's and 10 SB. He is also a switch-hitter and the type of hitter who "keeps the line moving" so would fit with Buster's stated lineup vision. Profar is not popular with the Giants fanbase and his inconsistency may be why there was never much speculation about him coming to the Giants. I think Bob Melvin managed Profar with the Padres so maybe he is not a fan either?
With less than a month to the opening of spring training, the available free agent list is dwindling down. Pete Alonso 1B and Alex Bregman 3B remain unsigned as well as several third tier options like Randall Grichuk OF, Austin Hays OF, Ramon Laureano OF, and Alex Verdugo OF. My reading of the tea leaves point away from Alonso or Bregman. The Giants have reportedly talked to Grichuk and he makes a lot of sense in several ways. My concern is none of the third tier guys are slam-dunks to be upgrades over just rolling with the young depth currently on the Giants 40-man roster.
Dodgers President & CEO Stan Kasten said "The team's spending is a good thing for baseball!"
ReplyDelete"The Dodgers in 2025 are projected for about half a billion dollars in payroll, benefits and luxury taxes, and team President & CEO Stan Kasten said that is really good for baseball, according to Bill Shaikin of the L.A. TIMES.
"There are those in baseball that believe the Dodgers' spending is ruining the game. However, Kasten said on the entertainment side, it is really good when there is one team beloved by their fans, who come out in record numbers, leading all of baseball in attendance, while that same team can be hated and lead baseball in road attendance.
"Kasten said that’s a win-win for baseball. He said the Dodgers also are really contributing to the enhanced globalization of central baseball around the world.
"Shaikin noted in Japan, thanks primarily to P/DH Shohei Ohtani, Dodgers games are regularly aired on television. Kasten said that the Dodgers plan to launch fan clubs in Japan." Kasten: “That is something Premier League and European soccer clubs already do, amassing international fans. We’re doing a pilot program to start that and see how it does.
"Shaikin noted the Dodgers have two massive financial advantages beyond league-leading attendance, including a record $8.35B TV contract that by itself covers much of the payroll, and Ohtani’s record $700M contract that basically pays for itself through boosts in attendance, advertising, and sponsorships.
"So, the Dodgers are running half a billion in payroll and taxes without losing money!"
L.A. TIMES, 1/23
"Greed is good!" Gordon Gecko
DeleteI think that is the old way of thinking and it only pertained to Baseball when it was KIng......Now it is the 3rd sport...and options galore out there...Instead of hating a team for money and just outspending, fans just might tune out because of the inevitability
DeleteSteveVA
Giants are the only team in their market, they live in the economic engine of America if not the world. If they cannot keep up we need to blame ownership for failing to figure out how to do business in the Bay Area. We can’t blame the Dodgers for being a great organization.
Delete- Fan
I don't blame the Dodgers for being a great organization. I am upset about loopholes in the rules they have been allowed to exploit, IMO, to the detriment of the overall MLB: Specifically the extreme deferments in Ohtani's contract, not treating Sasaki as the established ace he is and make them bid against other teams at full market prices and although I cannot prove it, I sure feels like some MLB players are colluding to create "superteams" like we have seen in the NBA. And again, I will not criticize ownership for not wanting to operate at a deficit. I admit I do not know enough about MLB and Giants finances to know whether they are operating at a deficit or not so I arbitrarily use the CBT threshold as a surrogate for that. Again, I believe a well managed organization can field a playoff and even championship team at the CBT threshold. For now I think we have to trust Buster is the right man to do that but it's a tall order to expect him to do it in one offseason no matter how much money he spends.
DeleteSplit up their local TV revenues among all teams already. They have been reaping that competitive advantage for decades.
DeleteYea I think this is one area where we will continue to respectfully agree to disagree here Doc.
DeleteI do think if the Posey Admin doesn’t succeed (and I really hope I’m wrong) we will then have 3 administrations and would have had over a decade of failure. At that point there would be no question in my mind that ownership is probably the weak point.
Right now I have my hunch. But I will be the first one to say I hope I end up with egg on my face.
- Fan
In other parts of the country, MLB is lower than third sport with NCAA football and basketball surpassing it.
DeleteFsn: on the surface of it, I agree with you that ownership might be the weak point but its not that simple. There are about 20 different entities that make up the ownership group and it is irresponsible for the team to spend like Paris Hilton to keep up with the Dodgers and operate at a loss if it endangers even one of those entities unless they all sign off on it. Also, as I've mentioned on another thread, the Mission Rock Project is losing money and while Mission Rock revenue is separate from ballclub revenue, losses on the Mission Rock side affect the ballclub. Mission Rock will probably lose money for a while but even if it became a cash cow, Johnson has stated that it might net them an extra ballplayer but not much more than that.
DeleteThe Dodgers have a really lucrative TV deal and do not have as many separate investors making it easier for them to sign off on big deferrals or big deals. I count nine separate investors and 5 of those 9 are part of Guggenheim, including Magic Johnson. Billie Jean King is part of the remaining four. Its easier to do a cash call on 9 groups rather than 20. Also, the Guggenheim voting bloc is probably over 50% whereas I think the Johnsons have the largest bloc and only at about 25%.
I'm not a fan of Greg Johnson or Larry Baer but they are not cheap and the budget is a lot more complicated than ins and outs. It also involves TV contracts, real estate, financing, and so forth. I get that the Warriors and 49ers spent more freely but I think the Giants' money situation makes the Dodger spending strategy non-sustainable if the Giants tried to use it.
Attabait and Doc, you guys make eminently reasonable posts. And that is where I run out of steam in my anti-ownership sentiment. Sure, I complain like heck that the Giants owners aren't capitalizing on their market and geography. But I also have no real ideas for how Johnson and Baer can find new revenue streams, besides consolidate ownership and sell someone with deeper pockets.
DeleteI will light fireworks specifically if the Johnsons sell. They have been solid stewards of the team (albeit horrible Americans). However, I no longer think the Johnsons & the diverse ownership group have the ammunition to compete with the Dodgers. Thats why I think it's time for them to throw in the towel for the sake of the team and the fanbase.
This might not be a realistic ask, but a fan can dream.
- Fan
I clearly remember the years between 2002 and 2010 when Giants fans on message boards said the team could never win a championship with ownership's business model and were screaming for them to sell the team to Larry Ellison.
DeleteActually, I get the impression that the Johnsons are not the group that is holding up spending because they seem to be big fans. I feel the ones limiting the spending are the smaller investors that no one has heard of. Those were the ones that came aboard when the team was trying to move to Tampa and that is why there are a lot more ownership pieces than what the Dodgers have. The Johnsons and the Burns groups have deep pockets due to Franklin Templeton but the smaller investors are civic minded types that bought small shares to keep the team in SF and they tend to be eccentrics. They also are not as wealthy as the more famous owners but together, they constitute a sizable voting bloc but I don't have a handle on it. My estimate is that the bigger investors like the Johnsons, Burns, Baer, Mrs Magowan probably have 10-25% each and the total of the small investors is about 30%. In case you have fantasies about the whole group selling to someone like Joe Lacob, they are tied into Mission Rock so they are not likely to sell unless they are forced to.
DeleteThe key might be to re-negotiate TV rights like the Dodgers did and really start to promote the heck out of the Giants in Asia (like the Dodgers are now doing).
The ray of hope is happening in Anaheim where they are trying to unload an old and declined Mike Trout. In a couple years, I can see the Dodgers having four players like that and in about four years from now, double that. Even a team with "limitless" money will have trouble with that many players declining at once and, also, the new CBA will be aimed to counter the Dodgers' money strategy.
DeleteA little if not a lot disappointing that somehow both of these players were perceived as too expensive or not needed. I feel like all the frustrations we had with FZ are repeating themselves now with Buster and it is neither of their faults ultimately. This ownership group continues to be cheap and at a time when they could most afford to spend to at least give fans the impression that they are trying. The excuse of not getting a 1B like Santander or Alonso because of Eldridge is laughable at best. Did they forget about the DH in the NL? We don’t have the bats to compete with the current roster and instead of claiming they are trying to compete why can’t they be honest with fans and say we are going to take 2 years to draft and develop? One is treating your fans with respect by being upfront and honest and believing fans will appreciate the transparency and the other is the same hot smoke they have been blowing up our tailpipes for over 6 years now. I’m not impressed and hope the fans see through the lies as they started to the last few years with FZ. I fear this is the norm and it will get worse as the Giants gain more control over the NorCal market and aren’t forced to do anything more than pretend to compete. We will finish 4th in the NL West this year and maybe that doesn’t change with the addition of Santander or Profar but the impression the fans get which equals more butts in seats is nowhere near what it could be with either of those guys added. Kinda sucks to be rooting for a team that is going to replace the A’s and fisher as the worst ownership group in CA.
ReplyDeleteI feel your frustration but both the Santander and Profar contracts would have kept the Giants under their cap so there may be baseball or off-field reasons why Buster wasn't interested in them and there are still options left on the market. Even if Buster does not make any significant additional additions, I am not writing the season off quite yet. Adames is a huge upgrade at SS. We hopefully get a full season of Jung Hoo Lee in CF and Verlander is a good bet to provide more pitching WAR than they got from Snell last year. In addition I think there is merit in taking a season to give Matos, Encarnacion, Luciano, Fitz, Schmitt et all a chance to emerge as long term keepers.
DeleteMy frustration is that between a totally inferior platoon at 1B and every single OF the team has having a question mark next to their name that POSEY or the GM (what does he do anyway? Can he at least make a trade?) has yet to obtain a desperately need proven, consistent bat. There is still time but ignoring this need and just going with what they have will be idiotic in my book.
DeletesteveVA
While I would not thumb my nose at an upgrade at 1B, I can live with Wade Jr and whatever RH platoon bat they pair him up with until Eldridge arrives. I agree the OF makes me nervous but it also could end up surprisingly good through several scenarios. I would love to see Buster add another significant bat but I'm not ready to write the season off if he doesn't.
DeleteI was pleasantly surprised that ownership was willing to spend over the luxery tax last season. Looking back it seemed like they were willing to signed anybody who wanted to come, but maybe FZ had no plan on the type of team he wanted to build, so the team finished 80-82. Unfortunately the 2025 team has to pay for not going over luxery tax for 2nd straight year. It was frustrating at 1st, but going over a 2nd straight season is not worth it maybe unless the right player came along
DeleteBoth Santander's and Profar's contracts would have fit under the CBT threshold so I have to believe there was a baseball or non-baseball reason why the Giants did not show interest in either of them. Maybe Santander's bad D? Maybe Santander wanted to stay on the east coast? Maybe Profar has been too much of a hot dog for Buster's taste? Maybe his career has been too inconsistent? While I believe Buster wants to at least make the playoffs in 2025, I also believe he is more focused on building a sustainable playoff team over gunning for a one-season run.
Delete"maybe that doesn’t change with the addition of Santander or Profar"
DeleteDon't mean to be snide, but maybe we give Buster a chance to remake the team.
According to fangraphs, payroll for 2025 projected 26 man roster $181 mil. Payoll for luxery tax stands at $221 mil. Approximately $19 mil under luxery tax of $241 mil which owners clearly don't want to go over again. Signing Alonso or Bregman puts them over luxery tax and with additional penalties. Not worth it. As for trades, I hope Buster goes to spring training to see Giants major and minor league players up close to scout and get to know the player better. That should help in future trade discussions. I'm guessing he hasn't seen much of Giants minor league players except for the ones who were called up
ReplyDeleteI am not saying I am in favor of Alonso or Bergman but why wouldn't it be worth it for the right player? It (the tax) is only money that I am sure ownership has but just wants to pocket. How important is winning to them? If the bottom line trumps winning then, heck, jsut play kids and vagabonds
DeleteI hope Buster does what you say also, but that shouldn't have to be a precursor trade. Isn't that what all the people he has hired, including the GM, are for? to give him their expert advice a on players and carry out acquisitions?? I hope we have a solid GM in place
SteveVA
I believe if there was a player Buster told the rest of the ownership group he coudn't live without, that player would get signed regardless of cost. Pretty sure Adames was the only player who fit that description in this FA class.
DeleteSteveVA mentioned that ownership wants to pocket money but I hear they are losing money on the Mission Rock Project due to real estate downturn. Mission Rock is separate from the team and ballpark in the sense that revenue from Mission Rock does not necessarily flow directly to the baseball team. However, they are connected where losses incurred by Mission Rock might hinder the spending ability of the baseball team. Its not as simple as "opening the books". DrB has mentioned that spending around the level of the competitive balance tax (CBT) should be sufficient and if they were spending much less than the CBT would mean that they are being cheap and pocketing the money (which is not the case).
DeleteBuster is fully aware of the deferral scheme that the Dodgers use but the Giants opt not to go that route. Remember, decisions are not just made by Buster alone. It is a consensus of him, Minasian, Evans, and Barry so the solutions are going through a lot of people and geared more to a long term, sustainable fix. Signing Santander and Profar might have endangered a sustainable fix, especially with the years and money they got.
Although no rush, how ‘bout signing Ha-Seong Kim and let Fitz play flex role at 2B and outfield?
ReplyDeleteNot a terrrible idea. Maybe Kim could come back early and DH while he waits for his shoulder to fully heal?
Deletethe thing I keep focusing on is money being set up to go as high as necessary for Tucker next year
ReplyDeleteI believe & hope that is the plan.
DeleteTucker is a monster.
While we concentrate on the Giants, the Padres are in disarray.
ReplyDeleteFrom MSN by David Hill, Yardbarker:
The San Diego Padres offseason has gotten worse.
The Padres are one of two teams that has not added a player to the major league roster this offseason. The widow of former team owner Pete Seidler, sued her two brothers-in-law for control of the organization. Trade rumors have swirled around pitcher Dylan Cease and second baseman Luis Arraez as the Padres look to cut payroll. It is not the type of offseason one would imagine that a team that won 93 games and gave the Dodgers their most difficult test in the postseason would have.
Where do the Padres go from here? There are holes at short, in the outfield and in the bullpen. If Cease and/or Arraez are traded, that opens up another area of need.
Plus they have lost Tanner Scott, Jurickson Profar, Ha-Seong Kim, Donovan Solano, Wandy Peralta, Martin Perez, and more.
Meanwhile, other contenders in the NL West have gotten better. The Diamondbacks added a top-of-the-rotation starter in Corbin Burnes while acquiring first baseman Josh Naylor in a trade with the Guardians. The Giants signed shortstop Willy Adames to a seven-year, $182 million contract, and future Hall of Fame pitcher Justin Verlander on a one-year, $15 million deal.
Disarray?
While we look wishfully at 2024's San Diego Padres, they may well NOT be better than the Giants in 2025!
Santander and Profar don't really make sense from a baseball standpoint. Even Zaidi felt that more improvement would come from internally (minor league system) than adding expensive (and declining free agents). If the players do not fit into Buster's overall improvement plan, it would not make sense to go after them for the sake of going after them. I see where DrB is coming from and Buster said he would not acquire a DH-only type (like Soler or Santander) because they wanted the flexibility to rotate players through the DH to give them rest. He did mention that some players would end up being DH more than others.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the Giants signed lefty Joey Lucchesi to a minor league deal that could earn him up to $1.5 million if he pitches in the majors. This looks like a deal to add depth to the bullpen as they are sparse on lefty relievers. I follower Lucchesi when he was a starter from 2018-19 with the Padres. ERA's of 4.08 (130 innings) and 4.18 (163 innngs) were serviceable. He had a herky windup that was similar to Kershaw's. Could be interesting to see if a move to the bullpen could help the Giants.
ReplyDeleteGiants didn’t move on Santander because they are no fools and don’t want to be the ones stuck paying for a mediocre player because he hit a lot of home runs for 3 seasons in a row leading up to age 30. You want to sign the guys that you know are going to be studs, not guys who you feel like you’re going to be stuck with. Santander is a guy who’s Jays are now stuck with
ReplyDeleteOne factor in our hitting may be that YtY and Wade are in their walk years, so their production could mean millions in future earnings. I'm not saying it will happen, but I can see either one (or both) having a real good year.
ReplyDeleteFlores & the Rogerses are FAs, too.
DeleteMurphy will be also.
Walk years used to be the ones where players would make a big push but nowadays, with all the analytics, trends and total body of work will be factored in, as well.
DeleteDr B is correct in saying that it would be unwise to play keep up with the Dodgers. The Dodgers use a deferral strategy but there are reasons why all teams don't do it. The main reason is that it makes members of the respective ownerships less able to sell their shares. This is because sellers would be passing the deferral burden onto the buyer.
ReplyDeleteFree agency should be used to supplement foundational or cornerstone pieces, not comprise most of the team. The earliest age most players reach free agency is 28 or 29, but the majority are age 30 and over. Going the free agent route is expensive and paying top dollar for players in decline phase. I think the Dodgers' strategy will work well for the first few years and when the expensive players get older or injured, they will be paying a lot of money for declining players.
Manfred did not act on the Dodgers this offseason but other teams are crying foul so something will probably be built into the next CBA. I've watched baseball for about 60 years and its not as easy as buying all the players in December and January and expecting to win a WS. They still have to play the 162 game season and there is wear and tear on players who have gone deep into the playoffs each season.
I have to believe there is still a day of reckoning ahead for the Dodgers when they find themselves with significant fraction of their roster older and declining and under contract fro many years to come.
DeleteDodger Blue says their next target is Munetaka Murakami (a power hitter). He's wearing an upside down LA cap so its no secret where he wants to go after the 2025 NPB season. They say there was no collusion in Sasaki's case but I feel there was collusion with Ohtani's deferrals allowing them to sign Yamamoto (and subsequently Sasaki). Also, Dodgers are starting fan clubs in Japan and having games televised. Technically, it is not collusion but the Dodgers are making Chavez Ravine the most compelling destination for Japanese players.
DeleteAlthough, with all the money Los Angeles has in a seemingly bottomless pit, they can and probably will eat the bad contracts and keep spending for the "next" year.
DeleteThey have established a game plan that only the Yankees could match, and they (LA) have the advantage in Asia due to a thousand mile difference. LA's proximity disadvantage in the Caribbean is balanced by climate: not too many places better to live weather-wise than Southern California.
Given the haplessness of their geographical competitors, they are in, for the moment, a league of their own.
Their only obstacles are the long season, the competitiveness of the post season, and the streak nature of baseball: they have to peak at the right time. They still have to fear a hot eighty-something win team that is streaking such as the 2021 Braves or the 2014 Giants and other "inferior" team that "get the bounces" in a short series.
That's a whole lot of bad contracts to eat. I am not sure even the Dodgers have the resources to do that. We'll eventually see.
DeleteYou're right, but they seem to have bottomless pockets and ownership that just doesn't care, at least now...
DeleteThey might have finally hit some sort of upper limit with regard to Corbin Burnes, who wanted to go to the Dodgers but ended up with Arizona instead.
DeleteDodgers also did not go all in on Soto, which could have replaced Freeman. They may be saving up for Tucker?
Delete