Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Hot Stove Update: Giants Trade Sanchez For Melky!

The Giants officially gave up on Jonathan Sanchez yesterday, something that probably happened in reality sometime around mid-season 2011. In the process, they were able to fill a need in CF that likely would have cost a lot more had they gone the free agent route. Ryan Verdugo was a throw-in and probably will ultimately prove to be a non-factor in the trade. Let's break it down:

You might recall that I listed The Melkman as a possible solution in CF back in my post on Scouting the Centerfielders. Here's what I had to say about him: "The Melkman had a pretty darn good season for KC. They have Lorenzo Cain waiting in the wings and may be looking to sell high on Melky. He has one more year of arbitration and will get a nice raise from the $1.2 M he made last year, but it will probably not be a huge amount and it's a short term commitment. The price in prospects could be steep though."

"The price in prospects could be steep"! The Giants were able to land Melky for a player who has underachieved and is getting expensive, a much better deal than if they had to give up a couple of Top 10 organizational prospects. To me, the deal is a winner right there. The only serious alternative for CF on the FA market was Coco Crisp. I'm a Coco fan, but the guy is a huge injury risk and would have required a minimum of a 2 year deal for more money per season. The option of letting Sanchez walk and using the money to sign Crisp was not as good. Maybe BJ Upton might have had better upside, but Upton has been an underachiever himself and would have cost a lot more in trade. The option of going into the season with Andres Torres as the CF starter was not an option in the Giants minds nor mine.

The trade leaves the Giants with tons of flexibility. I think it puts them in slightly better position to sign Beltran both in terms of payroll and Beltran's request that the upgrade the offense in other areas. If they fail to sign Beltran, they can still go after another LF or they could even get another CF and move Melky over to LF.

If you are looking for an in-depth discussion on regression, BABIP, and who won or lost this trade, I would suggest going to Fangraphs and reading several articles there about it. Bottom line: Both Melky and Sanchez have had their ups and downs. They are both capable of bigger and better things and are both capable of turning into pumpkins. In both cases, their success or failure going forward will depend more on attitude and conditioning than BABIP's and Regressions. To me, it's an even trade that does a nice job of addressing several major problems for the Giants. I'll take it.

I've liked Melky since he was coming along with the Yankees. I always though he was on the verge of a breakout, but the Yanks always blocked him with the parade of veteran OF's they brought in. Melky was a similar tool and skill set to Bernie Williams and I would think Bernie would be a pretty tough act to follow in NY. It's likely that Melky will never live up to his early promise, but he's 27 and coming off the best season of his career in a park that is at least as tough to hit in as AT&T. If he keeps his word about staying in shape, he could be a big addition. At his age, I wouldn't be upset if the Giants used his last year of arbitration eligibility to leverage a team favorable 2-3 year deal. At worst, he would still be tradeable under that.

I'm bit sad to see Jonathan Sanchez go. I think I'm the first guy who noticed him as a promising prospect way back when Dobbsie and I were holding down the Prospect Thread on the Giants Message Board. I wrote a post about his performance in Winter ball that Dobbsie forwarded to someone he knew at BA. Shortly therafter, BA had a short blurb about him on their site. So, I've always been partial to J Sanchez.

Last year could not have been more disappointing. He was poised for a breakout season and basically threw it away. It wasn't just the poor performance. He appeared to be out of shape. He had some of the worst body language I've ever seen a pitcher have out on the mound. Any little thing that went wrong he'd get flushed in the face, stare out at nothing, walk around the mound. He often looked like that was the last place in the world he wanted to be. Baggs has come out with some anecdotes that suggest attitude had become a serious problem. At one point Sanchez was asked if he was concerned about losing his place in the rotation. He replied "I'm the #2 pitcher, I'm not worried" as if pitching on day 2 of the season made him the Giants second best pitcher! Come on, Sanchez! It was just to keep Timmy and Cainer from going back-to-back! After he went on the DL, he said he felt unappreciated by the organization and would probably be out until September. That comment got the Giants brass upset enough to talk to him about it. Earlier in the spring, Baggs asked Sanchez if cutting down on walks was a goal for the season. Sanchez responded by saying it wasn't and he didn't think he needed to change anything.

Maybe a change of scenery will be good for Jonathan and he'll win the Cy Young Award his stuff let's him be capable of. I wouldn't bet on it though. If he was unhappy in SF, I'm not sure how he's going to find it in a place like KC. Then again, Melky got his ship righted there.

58 comments:

  1. I was reading the article in the WSJ about Yogi Berra going to see Moneyball when it hit me: the division on Melky Cabrera, and this trade, is split between those who are "sabers" vs. those who still think that players are humans and that scouting can make a difference.

    In going through all the articles where the trade is blasted, not one noted that one of the big differences for Melky in 2011 is that he finally got into shape. Not one mentioned that he was unhappy with his 2010 season and resolved to work to get himself into shape. They focused just on what their numbers told them.

    And if numbers is all that is available, sure, I can understand that, but these are people, humans, and you have to take other non-numeric factors into account.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it was a decent trade. To risk around 6 million to see if Sanchez could put it all together would be a bad mistake. Even the year he had the no hitter he still had huge issues with control. There is something about the guy where one night he would be lights out and the next start it would be like batting practice. Inconsistency is a pitcher's worst enemy. It okay to have a couple bad starts here and there but with him it was more than routine. Something had to be done. Normally I would agree it may have been better to go after prospects but I believe we are in win-now mode. Depending on whether Cain and Lincecum stay past their contracts, the franchise could be in some trouble. I would feel much better if we went all in to try to win while we still have this dominant pitching. I think Cain will end up signing a 5 year deal but if Lincecum does not want to sign a multi-year contract by 2013, he may be traded before he reaches free agency. I think Lincecum could return a king's ransom so it may not be the worst thing for him to leave. But keeping Cain should be our top priority.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good points about the trade, getting back to the post. :^)

    Yes, you did point him out as a possibility, you da man!!!

    FYI, Royals park is actually hard on HRs, 87 (100 being neutral) for RHB in KC, so his HR power was damped down a bit there and thus he could hit more homers with the Giants.

    I think you hit it perfectly with your tone and reasoning. I saw so many sabers announce that CarGo had made the change, but had nothing to back up why his BABIP would go that high. With Cabrera, there is a good reason why he broke out: he grew up, he matured, he got tired of struggling and got himself into shape before the 2011 season and learned his lesson there, going forward. He actually had some speed coming up the minors, but he let himself get out of shape. You cannot divine that out of the numbers, no matter how you slice the data.

    I think the possibility of an extension is one area that people are missing from this trade. There was no way Sanchez was going to extend with the Giants. In fact, from the details that are coming out from Baggarly about the inside stuff about Dirty, it sounds like Sanchez had gone as far with the Giants as he ever was going to, sounds like he was half out the door during the 2011 season. That is another bit of info that you cannot get from the numbers.

    I would be happy to sign Cabrera to an extension, cause while we have OFs coming up, none are sure-fire prospects other than Brown, so we don't know if they will ever pan out. And if they do, Melky should be tradeable, as you noted.

    I was not that early on Sanchez, but I was one of the few over the past few seasons who said the Giants should hold onto Sanchez during the past few years while most other fans either wanted to DFA him or trade him for players who, at best, were no better than what we got in Melky.

    And he's given us some great memories. The first Giants no-hitter (and at home!) in too many years. The clutch wins in 2010, helping us to our World Series Championship. I don't see us winning had he been traded, he was an ace down the stretch in late 2010.

    In addition, the trade, as you noted, makes it that much more likely that the Giants can possibly re-sign Beltran, or at least put all the ducks in order to enable that. All it would take is one desperate team overbidding to draw him away. But since he seems he wants to stay in the OF, I think a Giants 3 year offer could still be competitive with an AL team's 4 year offer because there is the possibility that the AL team would DH Beltran after 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I totally agree with Roger, in particular that Cain is the top priority, for as Baer noted, we have several chances to try to get Lincecum signed up long-term.

    And particularly good point too about winning now. I've teetered between optimism and pessimism about Lincecum signing, but if he does not sign long-term, that would give us only the small two year window to win now. Particularly with Wheeler traded and no real great prospect sitting in the minors looking to make a big splash in the majors in a couple of years, it could just be Cain and Bumgarner atop our rotation in 2014. That is a sharp dose of reality that was needed in this situation.

    But yeah, the prospects we can get for Lincecum could probably fuel the Giants into the second half of this decade, should it come to that, so it won't be the worse thing in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great points about Sanchez DrB, I really think he gave up on the team, not the other way around. I have a huge soft spot due to game 162 and the no-hitter, but I just can't see the Giants committing long term money to Dirty with all the other pitchers actually earning that honor through performance, day in day out. I don't agree with people who call him a head case, but he does have a distinct personality. Mainly his physical conditioning was really poor last year.

    I really like that Sabean has satisfied his early grab tendencies without committing years or a lot of money at anybody and opened up some flexability. A run at Beltran is open, but if it falls short there are other plays. Just hope we can avoid any ex-Oakland A's, if Beltran doesn't pan out Ross/Torres would be a better shorter option than Crisp or Dejesus.

    About this BABIP brew ha - since when is 30 points over average a huge deal? That seems perfectly sustainable to me if he's in better shape. Its not like he had a career 250 BABIP and was at 400 last year. Melky drank and ate himself off the Yanks, and that was a ton of pressure to succeed Bernie Williams at 20 years old. He's 27 - Mitch Williams called him new paint on an old car on MLB Network last night, a pretty weak comment - and is going into his prime years. I really like that Sabean got a young player in his prime. Much better pickup than Angel Pagan (Who apparently is being tendered - or traded)

    One thought about Wheeler - I know you would have traded Brown instead DrB - don't we trust the Giants not to trade away the next Cain/Bumgarner? If they thought that was his ceiling, I don't think they make that trade. Yes, you always need cheap pitching and their depth is low right now, but if there's one thing the Gints can develop its pitching. (If they'd stop trading away their B arms at a rapid rate as throw ins)

    Thanks for the hat tip on the Yogi article OGC - stats are awesome but when they become dogma it gets tiresome. Kaufman stadium is a hard place to hit, and Melky kept at it all year long. And hey, Dave Cameron of all people liked the trade for the Giants. He wasn't able to get in any remarks about magic air or magic Raggs either.

    Please sign Matt Cain already. My idea for a 5th starter: Sign Paul Maholm. Yup, it would cost money and shrink precious resources. He could be awesome at PacBell with some Raggs magic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another thing that came to mind was one commenter saying that the Giants should have held onto him to mid-2012 and then trade Dirty for more.

    There are a lot of fallacy with that.

    First, there is no guarantee that we could get a Melky-level player for Dirty by mid-season. He could have a repeat of 2011. Heck, he could repeat almost every season of the past few seasons, there always seemed to be a reason why he starts off slow. And injury is not a stranger either. So the Royals are now taking on this risk.

    Second, if we keep him, Zito most probably goes into the bullpen. I see this as a big dividing line, as most of the people against this trade are also against Zito. People forget that he's the #5 starter in this rotation, and the performance hurdle is very low for that. Even his poor 2007-2008 seasons would be passable for a #5 starter in this league, plus there is the value of lasting a full season without needing a #6 starter come up and fill in. That made Dirty expendable and the best trading chip because nobody would give much for Vogelsong, and LCB is the core of our rotation.

    Third, we need offense but our budget is pretty much spoken for, so Sabean needed to trade an asset where we have surplus in (SP) and get something to upgrade the offense at a position of need (OF/CF), if we are to even hope of signing Beltran. The Giants could even save some money through this deal, particularly now that we can non-tender Torres and save $2-3M. Rumor is also that we might be able to sign Cody Ross as 4th OF and platoon partner with Schierholtz (probably only $1M contract, I would think).

    Fourth, this shows Beltran that the Giants are serious about improving the offense now, instead of waiting in the market for Crisp or whoever to sign with the Giants. Particularly since there was the possibility that the Giants might have non-tendered Sanchez (as many rumored) in order to save the $5-6M, so he could have been gone in any case, but instead we pick up a useful hitter, who had a great breakout year in 2011 (which players tend to trust more than sabers who point out his high BABIP vs. career levels).

    The market could have moved to the point where Beltran signs with another team by the time the Giants sign someone to improve the offense, meaning that they would have to overpay in years and money to get that player in place just to get the chance to sign Beltran. So the Giants pretty much had to move quickly, and we can argue about what Cabrera might do in 2012, but Beltran most probably sees the Giants adding someone who hit .300, plays CF (which we need), scored 102 runs, drive in 85 runs, and had 20 SB (albeit 10 CS).

    This was a move the Giants had to make now. Was it as much as what we could have gotten for Sanchez before? No, but at that time, we needed him in our rotation. Now we don't. Times change, circumstances change. More importantly, it sets the stage for the possibility of re-signing Beltran. Getting Melky helps solidify CF and the offense, and get us into the playoffs. Getting Beltran could help us win the championship again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It always perplexed me how the Giants could really get so much out of guys with far less stuff than Sanchez and yet, for some reason he just couldn't find consistency. I've heard on TV, radio and read it all over: Jonathan Sanchez may have had the nastiest stuff on the entire staff, which meant nothing when he wasn't throwing it in the strike zone.

    I am more or less neutral on the trade. I'm not totally amped about Melky Cabrera, but I think you hit it on the head DrB: letting Sanchez walk and then using the money on a CF would have cost more for a player who likely wasn't even as good.

    I sure hope we lock up Beltran. I think with the switch hitters of Melky/Beltran/Pablo alongside Buster, Freddy and hopefully a revitalized Huff, we are looking at an above average offense to go with a pitching staff that didn't lose much from last season...

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Ross goes to arb, he will likely improve on the $6.3m he made in 2011. But now we have an outfielder who matches his versatility as to position, and improves upon it by being a switch hitter. If we release Ross we gain the $6m plus the difference between Cabrera's and Sanchez's salaries. That would allow us to make a strong stab at getting Beltran or Reyes, with the multi-year possibilities financed by Huff's and Rowand's leaving the payroll in 2013. Numbers of baseball pundits doubt that we will go after Beltran, for money reasons, but I am not sure whether their comments make me less rather than more hopeful of the Giants' successfully doing just that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Campanari - Exactly, can you imagine Brian Sabean giving the straight shoot to Jon Heyman? Twitter is such a double edged sword - really cool to get news quick, but some of the crap sportswriters throw at the wall... Ross IS released, he is a free agent and can sign anywhere. As a type B he doesn't cost teams anything so if somebody wants him before the deadline, that would be sweet. Most likely the G's will have to decline his arbitration when the deadline comes. He doesn't cost towards the 2012 season right now though.

    Just to be devils advocate on Beltran for a second, last year was his first relatively healthy year in the last 3. He's 35, and his knees are slowing him down. He has to be considered a pretty likely injury risk. I think he's the best most likely bat for the Giants, but there are some pretty big risks involved.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Giants should not worry about raising payroll to sign Beltran or Rollins. The thing they should be worried about if they don't. Fans are not stupid. If they see a team with a ton of potential but don't go the extra mile, they could stop believing that management really wants to win and stop going to games. I live about 10 miles from Angel Stadium and every time I drive by the stadium they are thousands of empty seats. But, if you look at the paid attendance, they say it was a sellout. So basically season ticket holders just don't go to as many games and are not buying food, programs, etc. I think mainly this is because the fans think the team is mediocre and that management doesn't go the extra mile like with Texeira and Beltran. I never saw that many empty seats 4-5 years ago when the team was better. I don't want the Giants to be this way. Management needs to get us over the hump and get that extra player for 2012. Rowand and Huff account for about 20 million coming off next year. The amount of arbitration raises will not exceed that. So we should spend more this year so we don't have to next year. Free Agents for 2013 look pretty bleak so this is the year to spend.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Roger - Forbes quotes a operating income of 230MM for the Gints, with a 20-30MM kick for the world series, and 1.5MM/month for merchandising revenue which will slow down as the WS fades. There is some chatter that the Giants have raised ticket prices as much as 20%, I have not confirmed that (My best friend has had full 81 game seats for every year at PacBell - I asked him about the renewal haven't heard back) (His comments on the Giants use of the float for playoff tickets are x-rated and hilarious)

    Fans are not idiots. While we don't expect the Giants to match drunken sailor Amaro (at it again btw - 4/44 with an OPTION for Madson? And Giants fans bitch about Affeldts 5MM or Lopez contract?) we should definitely expect them to do better than this. Rainy day funds and arbitrary budgets are pretty weak sauce in the face of rabid sellouts. On the other hand, Minny just cut their "budget" and Atlanta threw down their budget talk as well, and both those teams are generally regarded as well run.

    But you're right, Rowand/Huff done, Zito the next year, why not throw down for 2 years of Beltran? It has its risks, but its a great fit.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So my buddies tickets went up 12%, but he figures some others went up 20%. His take - minority partners money grab and Larry Baer playing the front man perfectly. He also notes that they sent out bills even earlier than usual - he always pays within 24 hours of deadline and hates them getting the float, sees them as hyper aggressive about it.

    Don't have a problem with ownership taking profits, do have a problem with PR games. If they're lifting tickets that much they'd be smart to throw down to improve the product on the field.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey everybody! Thanks for all the great comments. Is this the most stimulating baseball talk out there or what?

    Here's an interesting tidbit from MLBTR: Someone is reporting the Yankees are disappointed that Sanchez went to KC as they felt they had more to offer for him than what the Giants got. Talk is cheap, but I'm intrigued by the Yanks reported interest and what they might have been willing to offer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr B - this is my take: A Jon Heyman tweet is the basis for the Yankees offering more. This from the team that has clenched the Killer B's, Nunez and especially Montero tight to their prospect hoarding breast for the past 3 years is suddenly going to roll out for J. Sanchez? Sorry, I'm not buying that. Sounds like sour grapes on Melky not being the next Bernie Williams and getting Robby Cano drunk too many times to me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I saw that tidbit too, DrB. I have to think that they probably offered more prospects than a useful productive MLB player right now. Short of Granderson, I can't imagine who would be better than Melky right now for the Giants, in terms of filling a position of need, and I know Sanchez is not enough to get him. Swisher would not have been a better offer too, unless they were going to pay his salary for us, and if Melky is marginal at CF, Swisher is even more so.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Shankbone, I think you mean $230M in revenues, their operating income should be in the $30M-ish range for 2010, if I recall right. Wow, that's a big bumpup for ticket prices, I'll have to check the Forbes estimates to see how that translates into revenues.

    ReplyDelete
  17. About revenues. Didn't the Giants should be done with the reimbursement of the ATT Park by now ? I remember years ago fan's talks saying that the end of the loan would free up an extra 20 millions of dollars per year. Does anybody remember this ?

    GIP

    GIP

    ReplyDelete
  18. Aloha Drb, maybe the Yanks included one of their top pitching prospects either Manny Banuelos or Dellin Betances in their offer, tempting but Melky fills an immediate need for them in CF.. I don't think Sanchez could handle the pressure of pitching in NY anyway. Good trade for both teams.. The Royals are desperate for starting pitching and the Giants needed a CF.. If the Royals had decent starting pitching to go along with their young position player talent like Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, Billy Butler, they would have a .500 record. If Melky can give the Giants at least 12-15 hrs and 50 rbis and a 270 ave, he would be a nice pickup for the Giants. It'll be interesting to see where he will bat in the lineup..

    ReplyDelete
  19. dont think the loan gets paid off till 2020, not that it matters...they write it off

    giants org cooks the books, the way every club does

    trust me...to uncle sam, the giants org doesnt make anything

    and doc, you were following durty before 05? really?

    cuz that is when he made his big splash

    for the life of me, i still cant figure out why they kept him in augusta the entire year...he shoulda moved to sj to work with wilson

    i have criticized the handling of sanchez since 06...i didnt like the way the org messed around with him, moving him from sp to pen and then back again...more than a few times

    this is a good move...for the org and durty

    it was apparent that he wasnt happy...why? still not sure

    he will get exposure to al clubs...which has gotta help him for his fa...huge motivating factor

    he will have a bunch of young kids to mentor...will help his discipline and maturity

    and he will find that while a much smaller fan base...the core group are just as nutz as giants fans

    and there is nada to do in kc...more help with focus

    i wish him well...hope he wins the al cy young

    as an aside, the fact that he was due a raise, only because of arbitration, again shows how idiotic the owners were back in the day

    charlie o warned them all...they didnt listen

    its not fa that has driven salaries, its the insanity of arbitration

    im happy that most players make enough in their arb years to live comfortably the rest of their lives...but the whole system has killed small market teams

    btw, just watched moneyball last night

    sorry...the 02 season was more exciting

    no...beane and depo did not will that team to win

    no...howe is not the shithead he was portrayed as

    no...scouts are not that clueless

    no sign of the big 3 at all

    no sign of byrnsey (except at the very end when hatterberg ph's for him)

    no miggs?

    no scenes of the players interacting....the stories that are told of their insanity are legendary

    there is more to moneyball than just a computer stat sheet....it was/is the concept that the team is what wins...not the individual superstars

    was nice to hear bill king making calls

    oh...and no, until the 20 game win streak...wasnt much talk on radio about the a's or beane...nobody was calling for his head

    and wouldve liked to see more of the relationship stuff....only reason bean stayed with the a's was cuz of his daughter

    gotta say though there were times when i actually thought that pitt morphed into beane

    ReplyDelete
  20. I noticed Sanchez' K rates in winter ball the year he was drafted, not sure what year. It's not that unusual to move young pitchers from pen to rotation and vice-versa. I don't see that as having anything at all to do with Sanchez' struggles in 2011. I don't see him mentoring anybody until he gets his own act together. The Royals have been somewhat successful in getting pitchers to throw strikes though, so maybe it's a good situation for him.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sanchez may do well in KC, may win the Cy Young. But that guy will never, ever mentor anyone. It is not in his makeup.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I see a rumor going around that Giants offered contract to Willie Bloomquist. Also that the Yankees reported offered more than KC. Both came from Jon Heyman

    Just remember that Heyman is Boras's shill in the press. Boras is Sanchez's agent, and probably wanted to embarrass the Giants with this leak since we traded him to a losing team like KC. In Bloomquist's case, again, Boras is his agent, and if you will recall, he likes to create "competition" for his clients in order to get more money out of the winning bidder.

    Given that the only two teams being rumored is AZ and SF, and AZ is rumored to be the team Bloomquist favors, I would suspect that SF's name is just being thrown out because 1) it creates "demand" in the eyes of the D-backs (hopefully), 2) SF is a team known for chasing veteran players, 3) Sabean don't discuss things like this publicly and certainly wouldn't tell AZ whether this is true or not, makes SF a good team to throw in play via the rumor mill.

    I see this as a good exercise for people to show their colors and take a potshot at Sabean, like saying he's just balancing the team after getting Melky or saying another typical Sabean move (seen a lot of these on Twitter, which is pushing me away from that medium, very aggravating).

    Now, for some rumors, if confirmed by our crack reporters, I think that would be good enough to think there might be more flames than smoke, but for Heyman, I first think about how this might benefit Boras and if something makes sense (like the above), then I'll wait for the other shoe to drop before I consider the rumor real.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have seen rumors that the Giants are in on Bloomquist, offering a contract. I also saw something on the Yankees offering more for Sanchez. Both were from Jon Heyman.

    You can't trust anything coming from Heyman. He is Scott Boras's shill in the press. Anytime anything comes from him, I think about how it might benefit Boras. In the NYY case, it embarasses the Giants and makes them look bad for trading his client. He's probably mad that Sanchez got traded to KC and not to a good team expected to win, get in the playoffs, and let his client show off how good he is.

    In Bloomquist's case, he's Boras's client too. If you saw the rumor, only AZ and SF offered contracts, but they prefer AZ. More likely Boras is creating phantom competitors for his clients services again to push AZ to give his client more money.

    So any rumor I see from Heyman, I take with a boulder of salt, particularly if it involves one of Boras's clients.

    If anything, these rumors gives Giants fans a chance to show off their true colors. Many use these false rumors to take their potshots at Sabean, like saying how bad Sabean is, or typical Sabean move, or Sabean is making up for the fact that he got a young player (see so many of these on Twitter today, ugh!)

    ReplyDelete
  24. DBacks just signed Bloomquist to 2 years.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am not too worried about Bloomquist. Brandon Crawford has an excellent glove and is very cheap. We can always get Fontenot for cheap if we need another utility guy. Fontenot always seems to have some nice clutch hits and I actually like him. I have no problem giving Fontenot 1 - 1.25 million to come back for another year. I think Burriss is out of options soon, maybe he can step up and be the utility guy. It is always nice to have a guy with his speed for late pinch running. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have no problem with how Sanchez was handled by the Giants. They handled him almost perfectly by the TINSTAAPP principles.

    The idea is that there is no pitching prospect, either he is a pitcher or he isn't. It is a Y/N, on/off, 1/0 type of thing where he is either a MLB pitcher or he isn't.

    Part of that concept is that if he is a pitcher, then you are wasting his arm by keeping him in the minors for any additional pitches, because arms have a short shelf life usually, and you don't know when that will come due, so you must put him in the majors at that point or risk wasting good MLB pitches on minor players. His various DL's for arm problems should be a huge red flag about that.

    Sanchez was striking out so many guys in the minors that it was pretty clear that he could get MLB hitters out with his stuff, except that he was effectively wild and also walked a lot.

    But as much as the Moneyball wannabes say that walks are the be all and end all, guys like Dirty who can strike out so many batters can walk more guys and get away with it because with so many more K's and BABIP at .300, you effectively trade one hit given up for each walk (plus extra out) when you strike out so many, resulting in very effective runs avoidance.

    Now could Sanchez have benefited from staying in the minors longer? Probably, but not as much as he would have being put in the majors, I think.

    That's because of the way his brain works. Frankly, he's no Cain or Lincecum. As good as Cain and Lincecum have been, they have worked hard to add pitches to make themselves that much more better. Dirty has not really been worried about that. His comment about "I'm #2 so I'm not worried" showed that status is all he cared about, not performance.

    His having Boras as his agent also showed, combined with this fact, that money is a huge driver, not performing well. The cart (money, status) is before the horse (performance) for him. Boras draws two types of clients: while all want more money, some are willing to work and perform well and just want to be paid for that hard work, and the others just want more money. I think Sanchez is the latter.

    Another example of how his brain works, a couple of years ago, on the brink of breaking out after a great first season starting, he starts copying Johan Santana's pitching mechanics in spring because he idolized Johan, and he was on the WBC team and got to see Johan a lot. Did he do it to get better? No. He did it because Johan was his hero.

    What he didn't figure out and refused to change until he got benched, was that the mechanics work for Johan because he's much shorter than Sanchez is. It don't work for Jonathan, who was much taller. Yet, he was unwilling to change until benched, despite very poor pitching up to then. Of course, as we all know, in his first start after that benching, he threw his no-hitter, now that his mechanics were all cleaned up.

    I think the Giants knew how Sanchez ticks. Keeping him down to face AAAA pitchers would not have done anything for him, he would not have learned anything because he can get those guys out like nothing. His arm would have been wasted there. The challenge of MLB hitters is what motivated him to do better, but as you'll recall, it took him a couple of years of relief pitching to start putting that together. And even after all these years of starting, we still are not sure what we will get when the season starts.

    The Giants did right by him in how they used him.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes, Burriss is out of options, so we either keep him or dump him in spring.

    I've seen it posted here that Gillaspie still has one option because of that quirk in the rules, and I agree, Linden had the same thing too, but by my count, if you include the first season where he got the September call-up, that's four options that should have been used already, as he has had 3 full seasons in the minors now. Or did that first season not count for some arcane reason and he still has one option left? I like his bat, even though we don't have anywhere for him to play, even on the bench, really, unless he can play LF some, as well as 2B and 3B. But he's not known for his defense.

    Yeah, I think Bochy likes having speed on the bench (see what he did with Ford on the bench), plus Burriss provides good defense at 2B (usually) and he does at least get the bat on the ball at a good rate and with his speed stay out of double plays at a greater rate. I think that he could win a spot on the bench, if only to save some money on the roster.

    However, if the Giants want a better alternative around in case Franchez is not ready (or is injured), then they will probably get someone to do that. Is Fontenot that guy? Based on what he did before, that makes some sense, but the local reporters keep on rumoring that the Giants are looking for someone in case Franchez is not ready, which suggests that neither Burriss or Fontenot are considered that guy. Though it could also mean that the Giants are waiting until January to see if they can get a cheap upgrade at that position, and if not, then Burriss and Fontenot is fine.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey OGC - I admit it, I threw a comment at Sabean balancing out trading for a 27 year old with going after Bloomquist. Very immature of me. Sometimes I feel like throwing up the jinxes is a good thing though. I still do not trust Sabean to do the right thing, even though he has been moving in that direction in the past few years. So Bloomquist is back with AZ for 2 years almost 4MM. Ouch. If Sabes had made that move the Gints blogosphere would go crazy. This is all Boras/Heyman and you are dead on about not only driving up the market for mediocre backup IF/OFs but also a quick potshot for Sanchez heading to KC. Boras loves to direct where his players go.

    On Gillaspie - the first season wasn't considered a pro-ball year based on when he signed and how many games he played. Yes, arcane.

    On Burriss, you can't steal first base. I think he's had enough time at the MLB level to sink or swim and despite being a super nice guy (and sharing a birthday with me) I think he has to go. Maybe freak circumstance will keep him here one more year, but he just can't hit a lick.

    Discussed before, but Clint Barmes seems like the best bet for a combo 2b/SS because he can platoon with Crawford nicely (lefty masher) and provide really good D and Franchez backup. He'll most likely get close to a Sabes special of 2/12 based on demand and his 4MM last year.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think its OK to joke about Sabean, keeps you sane:

    Scene: Cal Ripken, Steve Finley and Jim Leyritz are sitting on a couch in the Opryland hotel.

    Observer: “All that’s missing is Brian Sabean and a pen.”

    Still one of the best (2007 Winter Meetings) Made me laugh today.

    I like the consensus being against Sabean on the Melky trade. Too many people haven't really looked at just how much the Giants have done to bring Sanchez around. If Raggs can't do it, I don't think its happening in KC. I wish Dirty luck, but I think he's too stubborn to get coached up. Now Mr. Cabrera - holy crap there was even more BABIP talk on the fangraphs today, enough to get a normally calm DrB to throw down a defense of our GM. Again, 30 points above average on the BABIP with his increase in physical conditioning is not a big deal.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Shankbone,

    I would much rather have Fontenot for 2 years at 4 million then Barmes at 2 years 12 million. The 8 million we save can go to someone who could actually help the team everyday than a backup.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Roger - If Crawford can't jump the Mendoza or Freddy's shoulder is a no go Barmes would be a pretty nice piece as a starter, as opposed to Fonty who just hasn't been able to take on a full time role in his career. I like Fonty and a cheaper RH bat as our backup as well, and I realize this budget is getting filled up quick. Everybody's favorite (not mine) Jamey Carroll has to be pretty excited about Bloomquist getting 2/4, I bet he can easily get double that and maybe even close to a Sabes Special now.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Shankbone,

    I agree with Crawford's and Freddy's shoulder. But I do not agree with bringing in more mediocre offense if it is expensive. We can all agree that besides the last couple weeks of the 2011 season and his presence in the clubhouse, the DeRosa 12 million project was a complete failure. We need to avoid washed up players with big contracts like Barmes. Even the 3.9 million he made last year wasn't worth it. I recommend either get a nice upgrade or keep it in-house. I would rather call up people from AAA like Gillaspie than to overspend on mediocre players. I really think we missed the bus on JJ Hardy. He was on the trading block when he was in Minnesota and he had a monster year.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oops. Crawford's offense not shoulder.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Roger - Don't get me started about Miguel Tejada and Sabean not trying to work the SS market last year. You are correct, gotta stay out of the middle market. Internally we have Burriss who can't really hit but defends and pinch runs well, and Conor G, who can't really play anywhere but third yet, and is sort of Bill Meuller lite lite. You are right though, the downgrade isn't much compared to the salary bump.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Baggs twitter: Giants are looking for a SS as a fallback to Brandon Crawford. I can tell you Clint Barmes has some big fans on the Giants coaching staff.

    They are moving aggressively to get comfortable with the middle infield contingencies. And apparently we beat AZ on the Bloomquist offer but he chose them, this is from the AZ beat writer not Boras' mouthpiece.

    Hate to say it OGC but on this one I'm with the twitter crowd. Getting into a bidding war for Willie Bloomquist for multiple years even at 4MM total is pretty silly. I imagine this is about his 59 games at SS last year.

    So who besides Roger is pissed if they go 2/12 for Barmes?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Gotta say, I like Clint Barmes, but if it's going to take 2/12 to sign him, I'd have rather gotten Bloomquist for 2/4 or even a little more. Heck, I'd even take Bloomquist at 2/6 over Barmes at 2/12! I'd rather have Bloomquist at those prices than Fonty at whatever they are going to have to pay him.

    I just want to say, BABIP's and regressions have their place, but they can also be overdone and misused. Both J Sanchez and Melky have the talent to be a lot better than they've performed so far, even last year for Melky. They've both been held back by behavioral issues. In the case of this trade, you can talk BABIPs and regressions until the cows come home and it's not going to tell you a thing about how this trade will turn out for either team. Personal behavior will be the major factor in how these two players perform in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I can't even believe this discussion honestly. Bloomquist and Barmes and the like are the EXACT SAME THING that this front office has been throwing at the field and saying "these guys are proven producers with great experience. These guys really know how to win". Really? Really?

    Honestly, with the Giants being the 3rd most attended team in MLB last year, having just won the world series, getting a massive Comcast contract and selling more Panda and Giraffe hats than bags of peanuts, it is totally unfathomable to me that we are not in the running for the ACTUAL producers at the SS position - Jimmy Rollins and Jose Reyes. While Reyes may be beyond expectations, Rollins should be an absolute prime target.

    The Giants still have no leadoff hitter - and Melky Cabrera does not fill that void. No obp, only marginal SB rates. Cabrera should be a 5th or 6th slot hitter with his ability to hit for extra bases. And we still have no SS. Handing the role outright to Crawford is like stepping off a cliff and hoping it's not that far down, and that for some reason there will be a soft landing...

    This is a cycle that will never end. For every year that we add only one piece and do not actually produce a good offense is another year that we will have to try to play catchup the next offseason. The players are there for the Giants THIS YEAR, and the money is there too. It's only us fans being content with replacement level players that allows the FO to continue to sign and shovel out those players.

    Cain and Lincecum will surely leave town after another few years of this.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Nick decent assessments. However, ask the Giants how they are liking the backend of the Rowand or Zito contracts. (Hell, for that matter ask the Nationals how much they're liking the front end of the Werth contract.) FA value is devolving. Steroids are not keeping players competitive into their mid to late 30's anymore. I agree, the Giants are making more $$ than they are letting on. But it's not a bottomless well.

    ALSO, I don't want to be the Phillies or the Yankees or Boston. Half the fun of winning in '10 was winning with our guys and castoffs.

    Everyone is all excited about Reyes. A dynamic player (currently) to be sure. But, he's an injury-risk coming of a career year. He is WAY overvalued right now. Let's not jump into that mania.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think we are talking about backup/utility roles when we are talking about Bloomquist and Barmes here. The problem with Reyes/Rollins isn't so much the money for this year, it's the length of contract. In the very near future, the Giants are not only going to have to pay top dollar for Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain, but MadBum, Pablo and Buster are going to be getting paid and paid a lot too. It is likely that even with Zito/Rowand/Huff coming off the books, the Giants are going to have to trade somebody out of the that core group. I don't think we want them to have to trade an extra one or two while they pay for the last 2-3 years of a long termer on one of this year's FA's. 3 years for any FA signing, max!!

    ReplyDelete
  40. I agree with you Nick from LA, its depressing as hell to talk about utility guys this early in the offseason. But that's obviously on Sabean's shopping list, and he's going at it, so we're talking about it.

    The Werth/Crawford contracts from last year don't look good right now, and will most likely look worse in a couple of years. I would be very leery of giving a 7 year deal to Reyes with his work ethic and hamstrings. But if Clint Barmes is going to get 2/12 for example, it is worth letting the Jimmy Rollins market at least develop to see what happens, maybe you can snag him for 3 years if the chips fall the right way (doubtful though). The black hole at shortstop isn't getting any smaller having Willie Bloomquist around.

    Shortstop has been a big time problem. Last year Sabean refused to let the market develop and it got us Tejada, an absolute disaster. I don't understand the strategy of committing to a cost controlled guy like Crawford if you're going to supplement him with a utility guy, until you throw in the Freddy Sanchez uncertainty, then it makes some sense.

    Clint Barmes is the consolation prize once Reyes/Rollins/Furcal come down. Maybe 2/12 will look cheap in the end. My preference is for some patience here, we have a guy in Crawford who can get thrown out there. I do have to disagree with you though DrB - I think Barmes is worth the extra dough. Not saying they should rush out and get him, although it looks likely right now, but there is a pretty big difference in his bat and his glove from Bloomquist. It does look like stupid money all the way around, utility guys are best signed late in the offseason.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Because I can't help myself: None of that Player A/Player B crap that everybody likes these days though:

    Last 3 years from most recent, per Baseball Reference
    Overall WAR:
    Rollins: 3.7, 2.0, 1.0 for a total of 6.7 WAR
    Barmes: 2.9, 1.3, 2.0 for a total of 6.2 WAR
    DWAR: Rollins 0.7, 0.5, -0.5 for 0.7 DWAR
    Barmes: 1.5, 1.3, 1.4 for 4.2 DWAR

    HR in last 3 years:
    Rollins 16, 8, 21 for 45 total
    Barmes 12, 8, 23 for 43 total

    Career slash lines:
    Rollins 272/329/761
    Barmes 252/302/703

    SBs are where Rollins shines, 78 in the last 3 with only 17 CS. Barmes is 18 with 13 CS.

    Barmes huge value is the ability to handle SS AND 2nd with a very slick glove. While Rollins is a superior offensive option who might be able to leadoff as well, his aging will take those offensive numbers down, including the SBs. Both players defense is considered above average to excellent, but I'm surprised by Barmes superior DWAR stats. Rollins is a switch hitter and has very even R/L splits, with an advantage hitting in Citizens (812 OPS). Barmes is a RH with massive splits favoring hitting against lefties, and is also fueled by Coors field.

    Still, presented with a choice of Barmes at 2/12 versus Rollins 3/36 or 4/48, I think Barmes might be a better fit for the Giants given Freddy Sanchez injury woes. But I tend to overvalue defense up the middle. And the mid summer combo of Cabrera and Keppinger was truly terrible last year.

    ReplyDelete
  42. If Ramon Santiago doesn't resign with DET. I could see him being a guy under Sabes radar for SS/MI depth. Could probably be had much cheaper than Barmes and maybe even Fonty. More so ard the same salaray as Fonty. Anyways, he also has a good glove and is a switch hitter, but has hit much better from the right side the past few years. Santiago was used heavily in these past playoffs, starting 10 of DET's 11 games at 2B. He hit .289 with 2 RBIs and 2 XBHs in 38 AB this postseason. He's said to want more playing time in 2012, but Peralta is blocking him at SS and Raburn looks to be the guy at 2B for the Tigers next yr. Worth and Rhymes are also expected to compete for 2B in spring. So maybe he could be enticed in a passible platooning situation with Crawford at SS. As well as being Freddy's insurance plan. With that said I'm sure he'll see there's opportunity for him in SF. Just a thought...

    ReplyDelete
  43. I think it's OK to joke about Sabean too; the only thing is while I know you are joking about it, most other people are not, they are dead serious.

    Cool, I like Gillaspie despite his shortcomings, hope he can get something together in 2012 and be part of the roster in 2013.

    My understanding of the mortgage was that it was for 20 years at $20M per year, ending in 2019. Forbes in one of their annual valuation issues estimated it at $15-18M per year (and that might be where it is now, because the principle portion of the payments are not deductible off your income, so the interest payments at that time should have been in that range).

    In any case, that is not cooking the books, that is normal business practices that any business that owns a large real estate asset can do. Now what they can do about players' salaries, I've heard that that is "cooking" the books, if you will, because of the way the U.S. IRS allows them via the rules, but since they are just playing by the rules they are given, I don't see that as real cooking the books, even if it is really different from other professional services based businesses.

    I'm still laughing at the thought that Sanchez will mentor young kids. I didn't see him mentoring Bumgarner (if anything, Madison could mentor him) and as late as 2009 he still needed mentoring from Randy Johnson.

    "Yes, change your mechanics to throw like Lincecum. So what if your body type don't work for that motion, he's really good, don't you want to emulate a good pitcher?"

    Did you really watch the whole movie, bacci? All the reviews I read about the movie said that Beane's relationship with his daughter was a central theme running through the movie. Or did I get the wrong impression from the reviewers? (more than one, I would note). Anybody can confirm either way?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Shankbone, I looked for the AZ beat writer and he reported that "according to sources" Bloomquist was given an offer from SF.

    Well, not to be totally jaded, but I'm suspicious about that because he did not note "internal" sources, which mean they were external sources, and if he heard it from Boras and Bloomquist, then they are "sources". And whatever Towers said about the situation, it is from whatever Boras told him.

    I'll believe it when one of the Giants beat writers confirm this.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The thing about the Giants finances is no matter how you want to characterize it, they are paying out $20M more per season, just for the mortgage. They also have to pay for the upkeep, there is a lot of electricity involved in providing one night game at the park, lots of personnel they have to pay to make things comfortable for the patrons. So maybe they have the 3rd most attended, but at $20M more that they have to generate just to pay the mortgage, assuming average $30 tix (not sure what is average, so chose one), that's 8,000+ in attendance just to break even on the mortgage over the season. That reduces overall attendance by roughly 700,000 ticket sales in a full season. That drops them from 3rd to 13th, just ahead of Detroit. That's not counting electricity and personnel, and property upkeep, but I assume their tax savings from deducting the interest will cover a good portion of that.

    Put another way, Forbes estimated the revenues of each team and had the Giants at 7th with $230M (while they make a lot of money with attendance, they apparently suck at other revenues). Take away $20M and that puts them at a tie for 9th with the White Sox. While they save on taxes on the deductibility of interest, that drops every year as principle payments increase, interest is probably down to slightly more than half the $20M now, so I think 10th is more likely, and with Cards at 11th with $207M and Rangers at 12th with $206M and Mariners 13th with $204M, they could be as low as 13th if running the park costs them at least $6M (which I would guess it would).

    Let's say we go by operating income, where the Giants are 4th with $29.9M according to Forbes (here BTW: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_rank.html). Interest was roughly $11M in 2011 (probably a bit more, but to be conservative, I went with $11M), which is something they have to deduct from their operating income, dropping them to roughly $19M, which would rank 17th in the majors. If I add back $3M for tax savings, that leaves them at 14th.

    Any way you look at it, with the $20M mortgage, their financial performance when adjusted to account for the fact that they are paying expenses that other teams are not is more like a mid-tier team than a top-tier team.

    ReplyDelete
  46. OGC,

    Yes, the movie spent considerable time on Billy's relationship with his daughter and while it was not spelled out, it was pretty obvious she was a big part of the reason he did not take the Boston job.

    As for the mortgage, since the Giants own the park, don't they get something for the Cal games and concerts and Bowl games they host? Is it possible that revenue is a big part of the mortgage payment, or does that get counted in separate ledger?

    ReplyDelete
  47. I see Grant is pimping Clint Barmes over on MCC too. Here's the thing about Barmes, he's played all his home games in either Coors Field or Minute Maid Park his whole career. His Home/Road splits were better the last 2 years but he was abysmal on the road before that. He's a good fielder, so I wouldn't mind him as a utility guy, but I just don't get all this irrational exuberance for Clint Barmes.

    ReplyDelete
  48. For Melky, I think he's already took a step up in the last three seasons. His 2011 season balanced his poor 2010 season. Over the past three seasons, he has hit .282/.332/.420/.752, which is about what he did in 2009. While not great, that's acceptable with the Giants offense.

    In fact, people don't realize but the average leadoff hitter in the NL hit .269/.331/.401/.732, so Melky over his past three seasons is at or above that. And averaged 12 HR and 12 SB. And before 2011's horribleness in stolen bases, he was OK at 77% success rate. Maybe Roberto Kelly can help with improving that.

    And he appears to be able to adjust to where he is hitting in the lineup. While he is a career .276/.331/.401/.732 hitter as a starter, he has hit .272/.353/.376/.728 as a leadoff hitter, in 368 PA. Looking at his numbers, he really suffered batting 8th in the lineup. Taking that out, he has hit .286/.336/.413/.749, which again I would take leading off for us.

    I think Melky is adequate at leadoff. Not ideal, yeah, but he's above average for the NL, and if it really was a breakout season, then he much above average. He don't have a lot of speed, but despite being out of shape 2008-2010, he was slightly positive each year according to Bill James in baserunning. I'm waiting for my 2012 Handbook (just ordered), but I would think that he's at least positive again.

    Ron Shandler's book notes in his toolkit of rules and metrics: "While batters may peak at about age 27, the players most likely to exhibit the most dramatic spike in performance are those aged 26 who have several years of major league experience."

    Also, the best hitters have contact rates at 85% or higher. He is at 87% for his career. So he should reliably be in the .270-.280 range, which with his walk rate, should still keep him in the .330 OBP range.

    All these suggest that Melky at minimum is an average leadoff hitter with some speed, not great speed, but that is a lot more than what we got in 2011 from leadoff: .232/.292/.357/.649, with 22 SB and 10 CS.

    Plus, more importantly, for just $2M more, we are pretty sure of getting that, while we have to wait to see if Torres can get his meds right (and as we saw this season, he could never get it right at all). After May, it was four months of suckitude. If his meds are OK, sure, I'll believe that he can produce, but right now, I think we'll get something closer to the late season 2011 Torres than the early 2011 season Torres, who was near .800 OPS.

    Yeah, defense probably takes a hit, but he was OK defensively in CF a few years back, so there is the potential that he could return to some semblance of OKness there. And the Giants reportedly do a lot of work with their OF in positioning them and have their own custom defensive metrics that they use. Heck, Burrell, who was considered a statue in LF before, was actually productive as an OF for us in 2010.

    Is it ideal? No. Is he good enough? I think so, based on his hitting and hopefully improved baseball conditioning that he pledged to continue this season (but we've heard that before).

    Our pitching cleans up in wins with an average offense. Getting Melky gives us slightly above average offense leadoff at minimum, and potentially plus production there. With Franchez 2nd, Sandoval 3rd, Posey 4th, we should be at or much above average in the top half of the our lineup, and if Huff or Belt can come through, we have another above average hitter batting 5th. And Schierholtz should be better than average at 7th. That leaves 6th and 8th, which would be Belt/Huff and Crawford, at this moment. And the threshold is low for 8th, only .246/.315/.359/.674. And with his plus defense, that should make up for whatever negative offense he generates.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes, DrB, they do get money for the events but I don't have an idea how much they generate for the Giants. The Cal games will give them a boost this season. But I can't imagine they get a lot for one concert or even one bowl game.

    Thanks for confirming my impression of the movie. bacci must have been sleeping through most of the movie then, unless he really wanted the movie to be about the relationship alone since he wanted more.

    Not sure what you mean about revenues and mortgage payments. Those are separate income statement items, in any case, so there should not be any relation between the two.

    Do you mean that the revenues from these events help pay for the mortgage? If so, yes, then, but only as much as any other revenues help pay for the mortgage. Certainly, though, it does help to offset those payments. I just don't think that there is enough generated to offset the mortgage payment.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hey now DrB - First off, I got my post down way before Grant decided to pick up on Barmes. Second, I had all sorts of disclaimers attached - but yeah if we're in on B-team he's my choice. Third, I listed all that info on home/road splits in the comparison to Rollins, I was surprised at how close they would be with a little regression from Jimmy. Unfortunately, there is no easy choice with SS, and Sabean muddies the waters beyond that by not committing to Crawford.

    OGC - Great point about confirmation, but Baggs did re-tweet it and obviously trusts the guy to some extent. On Sabean, he is just a classic, the rabids have no idea what they are going to miss when he's gone. He does have his weaknesses, but he also has a lot of character, which I like a lot. And he's a baseball guy through and through. When I get serious, I do get pissed off about people questioning his baseball IQ, he's forgotten more than armchair GMs can learn in a lifetime. Still, you have to admit you're a little nervous he's going to turn around and sign Betancourt right? Just a little?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Short of signing Reyes or Rollins, I'm all in with Crawford. He won't lose games because of his D and if he hits even a little better than last year, he could win several games. Rollins is a bit overrated as Shanks numbers illustrate and Reyes, well, he's just going to be too expensive for too long, but of all the FA's on the market, I think Reyes is the most likely to play up to the value of his contract for the duration.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I'm all in on Crawford too, and I would rather not sign either Reyes or Rollins because I want the money to be used to keep our young stars in the fold. Only if they can keep the young guys plus get one of the R's would I go for that.

    I loved the way Crawford handled his bat all season, didn't strike out much, and I loved the way he came back in September and hit really well, then continued some of that in AFL (he's not walking at all there and is striking out a bit too much, but hitting really well).

    He does not have to hit much better to not be such an anchor on the offense, particularly if he's hitting 8th most of the time. And his D makes up for a lot I think, and should only get better with experience (have you seen his acrobatics with the ball during fielding practice on YouTube? Made me think of Harlem Globetrotters, the magic he weaved in that video).

    I would rather take a chance on DeRosa as the backup. I don't see any other team offering him a backup utility job at $1M or more. He really wants to join Atlanta, but if there is interest, one would think that given his injury problems that the Braves would have already offered him something just to get that out of the way. The Giants might be able to get him for $1M by being aggressive and offer him now before they are set, but let him know they are looking and will not wait for him. See who blinks first.

    He won't be great at SS, but he's been plus plus defensively at all other positions plus was a SS when he first turned pro, so between him and the other MI backup (Fontenot or Burriss), SS should be OK if Crawford has any sort of setback.

    I'm OK with Barmes, as long as not for big money (and I think 2/$6M is not too bad for him), but would prefer DeRosa over Barmes at 2B. He's better at SS, so it really depends on how ready they think Crawford will be next season.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Crawford for sure. I've argued that everybody is down on him because they read Keith Law tweets and its popular to rag on him. He's going into his 4th year now, and he's been rushed every year at every level. He raked in SJ for the first month of his pro ball - over 1K OPS! - I really think they drew the breaks on Gary Brown because of their experience with throwing Crawford to the Eastern League wolves. He doesn't have to be Cal Ripken. His defense is awesome.

    Reyes doesn't have enough heart, and those quad hamstring injuries are piling up. If he's not legging out triples and stealing bases he becomes a different proposition. Add in the very real chance he might get Zito money and its madness.

    Even though I just threw down those #s on Rollins, I like him more than the numbers. He has some intangibles, he's a good ballplayer. I think they should try to be in on him to drive up Philly's price or maybe win a surprise. 3/36 is an overpay but it might be worth it in the end.

    I'd love for them to sign DeRosa. It seems like Sabean wants to be comfortable with a backup plan if Crawford flails. It is a legit concern that signing a vet ss of any kind might encourage Bochy to play him a lot. And then whats the point of having a cheap d-first guy? I think Barmes will get more because of his power, defense and the demand: apparently the Doyers and the Rockies are definitely in on him as well.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Just saw on MLBTR that Jamey Carroll is nearing a multi-year deal with some team. Hope it's not the Giants! Love JC on a one year deal but he's 37 yo for crying out loud! Now there's a guy who's been underrated for so long he might be overrated now.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The Twins get him for 2/7MM! Drunken Sailor Amaro lives up to his rep, 4/50 for Papelbon with a vesting option! If they get Cuddyer as well, I don't see how they have money for Rollins. I think Sabean should back off his cheap backup and get a bid in on J-Roll.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I guess Amaro showed Ryan Madsen who's boss. You don't want 4/$44 M? We'll just get someone who will do it for less....oh, wait!

    ReplyDelete
  57. And this is making Affeldt/Lopez look entirely under market and smart. I am beginning to see OGC's point, lots of chatter from internet GMs raging on Sabean about "10MM for mediocre relievers". Its always the years more than the dollars, and wow is Amaro loading the deck for the Phils to completely crater.

    I am completely confident now that Lopez could have a 3/15 and Affeldt a 2/12 easily in this market. Getting them for less money and more importantly less years is huge, especially as they are more important to the Giants than other teams. The whole saber conceit that lefties grow on trees and you can just go replace them is not correct in the current MLB labor supply. There is actually a dearth of lefties. I haven't got a good answer when asking these 2 questions: name 10 better lefty relievers in MLB than Lopez/Affeldt and name 10 guys you can go out and grab right now to replace them legit. Every time its fWar quotes about how Sabean overpaid and its not a good use of scant money that should be somehow squeezed into a good hitter.

    The famous Sabean line about Vlad is getting banded about a lot. Its annoying me, because Affeldt and Lopez are actually extremely accomplished pitchers, unlike Brower Herges and Hermanson. They were a big factor in our world series run and they put up top 10 numbers last year. And we'll need them to get into and participate in the playoffs.

    I guess I need to just laugh it off. This budget is being imposed by ownership, and things are a lot different than 10 years ago. And the offseason is just starting. OGC tell me a Sabean joke, quick!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hmmm....Maybe I'll make my next Depth Chart post on LH Relievers.

    ReplyDelete