The Giants have dilemmas and conundrums at almost every position and shortstop might be the biggest of all. The best shortstop in Giants history is coming off an injury-marred down season and entering the final year of a 2-year contract at age 36, which is approximately 63 in shortstop years. At the same time, the current shortstop free agent class is as good as it's ever going to get and much better than next year's class(I looked ahead). So here's the current depth chart:
Brandon Crawford .231/.308/.344, 9 HR, 458 PA. The Giants lack of depth at the position at the MLB level was exposed when they first had to play Donovan Walton at the position despite disastrous fielding lapses and later had to trade Raynel Espinal RHP to the Cubs for Dixon Machado. Machado actually held his own, both in the field and at the plate but for just 5 games until Crawford could rush back. Both management and ownership have all but said they are going after one of the top tier free agent shortstops and are not going to let Crawford's contract get in the way. The tougher question is how will they deploy Crawford if they successfully land one? Will they risk offending a near-franchise icon by telling him to take his $16 M and live life?
Thairo Estrada- .260/.322/.400, 14 HR, 21 SB, 541 PA. Estrada won over the fanbase with a plucky performance and by playing the game with passion and enthusiasm. He was one of the few Giants who looked like he was having fun out there. He filled in at SS well but when he did, 2B was weakened by his absence on the right side of the infield.
Ford Proctor- .111/.182/.460, HR, 22 PA. Hard to envision Proctor playing SS except in a dire emergency.
Shortstop Prospects of note:
AAA Will Wilson(3 levels)- .250/.346/.452, 13. HR, 289 PA. Just as Wilson seemed to be gaining some serious traction at the plate, he went down with a hamate injury and missed two months. He ended up with a decent season and probably should be in line to be added to the 40-man roster this winter. There is still a question whether he is a SS at the next level. If not, the bat may not be quite enough for an alternate position. Rule 5 draft eligible.
AA Tyler Fitzgerald- .229/.310/.424, 21 HR, 20 SB, 519 PA. Intriguing power/speed combo if he can bring the BA up just a smidge. Rule 5 draft eligible.
A+ Marco Luciano- .269/.350/.467, 11 HR, 257 PA. Currently listed on the AA Richmond roster, Luciano played the full season(when healthy) at A+ Eugene. Maybe just a tad disappointing on the performance side and missed 2 months with a back injury. Ticketed for AA in 2023. If he plays well there, he could MLB ready before the end of 2023. Rule 5 draft eligible and will have to be added to the 40-man roster.
A Aeverson Arteaga- .270/.345/.431, 14 HR, 11 SB, 565 PA. International bonus baby in his own right. Some analysts believe Arteaga, not Marco Luciano, is the Giants SS of the future due to being a superior fielder. Impressive batting line for a 19 yo in A ball.
Correa is the youngest and has no QO — would SF go there considering his role in the sign stealing scandal?
ReplyDeleteHowever bad that was, it did stop LA in the 2017 WS, so there's that plus!
IMO, Correa is a better choice of player to build around than Judge due to the position he plays and his age. I have no problem with the Giants signing him. Of course, they can afford to sign both Correa and Judge!
DeleteThis is an interesting parade of very average players, some were good, some might be good, and some neither.
ReplyDeleteFZ can be forgiven for not making BIG changes with 2021's very Best Ever Team but has no excuse not to do something BIG with this roster of the very ordinary.
If He goes for One-and-Done, look for a repeat season, considering the expected decline in the rest of the roster.
A Star like Judge should make the same decision Harper did: the Giants aren't serious about getting better — unless they are and show it.
Totally agree Dr. B that Correa would likely be the better long term building block. Judge is of course everyone’s dream. Rumor is that we want to sign a couple players in addition to Judge. Would it be too bold to suggest Contreras for a vet upgrade at Catcher? Love Barts promise but not sold he can reach it. Would be interested to see what he could return in a trade.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, do you think Crawford would be unwilling to play a backup role? Or is that unrealistic since he likely wouldn’t play other positions?
Love your work sir!
Back in August you wrote: "Giants have a huge cohort of Rule 5 eligible prospects. 2020 has a lot to do with that. Most likely they are not the only organization with a Rule 5 roster crunch."
ReplyDeleteSince then you've pointed out Rule 5 eligible (and some not-eligible) 30+ times which has been very informative.
Could you could lump all that together when you finish the terrific Depth Chart analysis?
Haha, just what you want — something else to do!
The list is scary although Rule 5 players very rarely make much a splash — perhaps because their development is interrupted? Often, it seems, they are relievers who can pitch a lost inning often enough especially for teams that lose a lot of games. They might even be less valuable than FZ's Churn. There have not been many Johan Santanas.
FZ doesn't need amateurs second guessing him nor even taking our advice, but it seems that, after Webb, Doval, Villar, Estrada, maybe Bart, Junis, and a couple of relievers, who is part of the future? Not many of the 30 and over crowd who make up half of the 40-man + injured reserve group.
Who among the 20 players born in 1992 and earlier will have an over 2.0 WAR next year?
I think interrupted development is a huge negative of the Rule 5 Draft and makes a well-intentioned rule designed to give players more opportunity is actually quite harmful to them. I would be in favor of eliminating the Rule 5 Draft while allowing minor league free agency earlier. That give the player control to decide if the organization that drafted/signed them is serious about developing them or if they truly have a better opportunity with a change of scenery.
DeleteWouldn't that require the MLBPA to concur? Think that would ever happen?
Delete0-0-0
Not going to happen but I think more because ownership would reject it.
Delete