An in-depth look at the Trade Deadline (What we've got and who may want it)
I went through the depth charts for the teams in their respective division / wildcard races (with exception of the NL West) in an attempt to figure out which teams have a need for what we could be selling. After deciding that doing a breakdown for 1st base, Lefty Reliever, and SS would be too long, I decided to combine as best I could). This is what I came up with:
*Disclaimer: This is all pure speculation, feel free to tear me a new one.*
Catcher
Like it or not, Bengie is our most marketable and desirable asset this year. Although he's slumped as of late, he's still an above average catcher who could add offense to a team. Here are the teams who could use Molina's services.
1. Florida Marlins - The Marlins have two catchers on the roster, and both are having absolutely abysmal years at the plate. For a team who is so focused on the HR (they lead the league), their catchers have produced relatively no pop, a shown a complete aversion to getting on base, as both are hitting below .235. Although Bengie hasn't hit a ton of homers this year, he has hit for a decent average and some good power numbers. The team depends on its offense, as their starter's ERA is around 5. This seems like a perfect fit, and I'd love to pry AA infield prospect Chris Coghlan from them, as he's currently blocked by Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez. It was pointed out in another thread that the Marlins may be hesitant to take on Bengie's salary, but if they want to make a serious run at the playoffs, Bengie might be an option.
2. LA Angels - Bengie's former team, the Angels, would also seemingly love to have his services. Jeff Mathis is hitting .209 for the year, leaving alot to be desired at the position. Bengie would be a huge upgrade, and as sharksrog pointed out in the "Trade Bengie Now?" thread, Bengie still has alot of friends in the organization. As far as prospects we could ask for in return, give me AAA SS Sean Rodriguez, who's behind both Macier Izturis and Eric Aybar. Thanks to Dan from NM for bringing up the possibility.
3. Yankees - With Jorge Posada down, and with the hole left in the offense due to Matsui's injury, could the Molina’s be reunited in NY? The Yankees could always use the extra offense, and Molina is more dependable at the plate than his younger brother. If he wasn't catching, Molina also provides insurance if the Sexon signing doesn't pan out, as he could fill in as DH. What could we ask for in return? How about Class A+ 2B Damon Sublett or SAL League 3B Bradley Suttle? Both could fit well in the Giant's system. I suggest packaging him with Aurilia as well, as the Yankees could use some insurance at 1B if Sexon doesn't pan out.
Other Options: Phillies, Mets, Red Sox (even though Varitek is struggling, I don't see a scenario where they bring in anyone to replace him, even though Molina would be a better option at the plate)
Outfielder
It's hard to market an outfielder who is somewhat pop-less. However, Randy Winn is a good asset for a team to have, as speedy utility type outfielders who can hit near the top of the order aren’t necessarily easy to come by. Here are the teams where I think Sabean should look to send Mr. Dwight Winn. I see him as a 2004 Dave Roberts type, older outfielder who hits for average with good base running #'s (19 SB, 1 CS).
1. Chicago White Sox - Nick Swisher has been absolutely awful in center for the White Sox, and they gave up a bunch to get him this off-season. He's currently hitting .237 with some pop (14 HR's), but he's also been playing atrocious defense in the outfield (just listen to KNBR's own Bob Fitzgerald). Randy Winn would give them a good defensive replacement for Swisher, and wouldn't cause too hefty of a drop off in production if they decided to start him in an outfield spot. The White Sox could also use his speed, as they rank 25th in the league in SB's. Winn wouldn't command as much as Molina, so how about John Shelby, a Class A+ 2B/OF?
2. Texas Rangers - Who would you rather have? Marlon Byrd or Randy Winn? In my opinion, Winn would be a significant upgrade over Byrd, and if the Rangers decide to go for it, Winn could be a great addition to the team. He leads Byrd in all major batting categories, and could add some more speed to a team who ranks 18th in the MLB in SB's. Possible return? Class A+ 3B Johnny Whittleman. He's fallen out of favor a little in Texas, but he's a good young player (20) who could still turn it around. Packaging Aurilia in the deal could also be a possibility, as 1B is a position of weakness for Texas as well.
(As an aside, I'm hoping we could package Walker in this deal, for obvious reasons)
3. Tampa Bay Rays - This is a little bit of a longshot, but reuniting Winn with his old team may work out for both parties. He wouldn't be getting a starting role, but Winn would be a better 4th OF option than either Johnny Gomes or Gabe Gross. Winn adds speed and defense, and a better on base percentage than Crawford in the two hole. You could also bat Winn 9th, as an additional set up spot for the top of the order. Hinskie is only playing against righty's right now, and Winn could supplant Gross as the starting RF against left handed pitching. I would consider sending Taschner as well in this deal, but I still wouldn't expect to get alot in return. I'd love someone like Reid Brignac... but a more realistic return would be someone like Fernando Perez.
Other Options: New York Mets (They seem more interested in a power hitting OF, which Winn just aint), Minnesota Twins.
CONDENSED - Aurilia, Taschner, Vizquel
Aurilla - Yankees, Rangers
Taschner - Yankees, Tigers, Angels, Cardinals
Vizquel - Red Sox (only as a defensive replacement) - Don't expect this one.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
5 recs |
185
comments
Comments
Thanks for all your thoughts. I hope we trade them all.
Proud father of Eric Surcamp! I sure hope we sign him.
by The Thrill on Jul 23, 2008 8:49 AM PDT 0 recs
White Sox?
Apparently the White Sox need starting and relief pitching so bad that they might make Josh Fields available now, and go with Joe Crede next year. Since Fields was thought to be off limits and a major part of their future, the Giants might be able to get a ready-made 3B for 2009 with the right package. The problem is that it would cost them at least Taschner and Winn at a minimum, and at the most Brian Wilson since I don’t see Sabean sending any of the Big Three elsewhere for a major league-ready 3B, but perhaps he would.
Meet my three little friends: Timmy, Dirty, and Cain
by Buck Henry on Jul 23, 2008 9:30 AM PDT 0 recs
if this is true I would be thrilled to send them Brian Wilson plus another minor piece in exchange for Fields. I love Brian Wilson and all but closers are very replaceable. Third baseman with the raw power that Fields has are much harder to find (and don’t we know it).
by FluLikeSymptoms on
Jul 23, 2008 10:15 AM PDT
up
0 recs
here is an article that discusses the fact that the White Sox are trying to decide whether or not to trade Fields to go for it now.
by FluLikeSymptoms on
Jul 23, 2008 10:38 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I haven’t really been following Fields’ numbers, but Taschner and Winn for him seems like a HUGE steal for us. Thus, probably won’t happen.
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on
Jul 23, 2008 10:41 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Add Pucetas?
Angel Villalona: Treatin' all pitches like fastballs since '07.
by AngelintheInfield on
Jul 23, 2008 10:49 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Yeah- to our roster
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on
Jul 23, 2008 10:51 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Haha
I would throw in Pucetas for Fields, as he is probably on our second tier of starters to be. I like him, but not as much as I would like to have Fields.
Angel Villalona: Treatin' all pitches like fastballs since '07.
by AngelintheInfield on
Jul 23, 2008 10:56 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I bet Wilson and Taschner could get it done
And I would be willing to do that
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on
Jul 23, 2008 10:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
there is no way in hell they give Fields away for Winn and Taschner. I don’t even think they would want Winn if we were giving him away. He would not be much of an upgrade (if any) over Swisher and they would be on the hook for his salray next year. It is going to take something good (as in something we don’t really want to part with) like Wilson to get Fields.
by FluLikeSymptoms on
Jul 23, 2008 10:54 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Did you actually read my post?
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on
Jul 23, 2008 11:06 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I don't know how to read, I'm illegitimate!
disregard all that crap I said.
I agree with you I think Wilson and Taschner could get it done and I would be willing to do that.
by FluLikeSymptoms on
Jul 23, 2008 11:15 AM PDT
up
0 recs
You both are crazy to think that Winn and Taschner gets the deal done.
Wilson and Taschner are a different story, though.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler
by JRPhillips on
Jul 23, 2008 11:49 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Instead of that...
what if we sent Wilson and Taschner?
The All-Father is now a Giant!
by EliminateMe on
Jul 23, 2008 11:53 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Because
there’s no WAY they take Winn and Taschner for Fields.
But if we offered them Taschner with someone like say… Brian Wilson… I think that could git’er done.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler
by JRPhillips on
Jul 23, 2008 11:56 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Calm down, people
I think we should be considering Wilson and Taschner.
by Natto on
Jul 23, 2008 12:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I think this website needs to add a feature that allows you to delete your own comment
you should see how much white out I have on my desk. I need a virtual safeguard against idiocy
by FluLikeSymptoms on
Jul 23, 2008 12:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
just email your comment to me first.
I’ve been dying to add “Virtual Safegaurd Against Idiocy” to my resume.
you can't block the Bocock
by oldjacket on
Jul 23, 2008 12:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If they made whiteout for idiocy...
...I’d be buying it by the truckload.
The All-Father is now a Giant!
by EliminateMe on
Jul 23, 2008 12:50 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Armando Benitez was our best closer
Cody Ransom plays solid D under pressure.
can i sign up too?
by Giant Voodoo on
Jul 23, 2008 3:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm In...
Where do I get my Josh Fields “Gigantes” Jersey?
by toofruss on
Jul 23, 2008 11:17 AM PDT
up
0 recs
We finally get a good closer and then we trade him away?
This makes None-sense.
And if I were the ChiSox, I would go for that trade too, a good experienced closer plus a good setup guy, who could possibly close, for an unproven 3B who couldn’t beat out Crede, who displays similar qualities to Pedro Feliz.
I agree that Winn and Taschner wouldn’t do it (mainly because they don’t need another OF), though, it would take more of our young pitching and Sabean said that he’s not trading young pitching.
Adoptive parental unit of Kevin "Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.
"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on
Jul 23, 2008 3:19 PM PDT
up
0 recs
here is one quality that is entirely dis-similar to Pedro Feliz
Fields hit 23 HRs last year in 373 MLB at bats at age 24. Pedro Feliz has never hit that many HRs in any of his full MLB seasons. Or to put it another way Fields has averaged a homerun every 16.4 at bats in his brief time in MLB when he was 23 and 24, while Feliz has averaged a homerun every 26.3 at bats.
by FluLikeSymptoms on
Jul 23, 2008 3:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
blah blah blah
closers are horribly overrated in terms of value. especially ours, who is an all-star and a 4.08 xFIP. He’s not a top closer, despite his gaudy and ridiculous Save numbers.
ChiSox are run by two idiots in Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen. They picked Crede because he had one of the best spring trainings ever and was the incumbent. Josh Fields wasn’t given a chance.
Fields is an excellent young player who is being blocked by a lesser player.
ergo, Wilson + Taschner = good trade. actually a steal. We’d have to throw something in for that deal to work in my opinion.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on
Jul 23, 2008 6:47 PM PDT
up
1 recs
Would Walker, Taschner and Winn get it done? (I think Winn is indeed an upgrade over Swisher)
Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.
by Goofus on
Jul 24, 2008 8:53 AM PDT
up
0 recs
closers are horribly overrated in terms of value.
I think proven closers are over-valued and therefore over-paid. Nonetheless, finding guys with the “closer mentality” and stuff to go with it is hard to find, which makes Wilson more valuble because he’s cheap for years to come. That’s why I want to keep him. Wilson has shown me more at this stage than Accardo or Nathan and I didn’t want to see either of them go.
I’m not confident we have another closer in the making among the young pitchers. (I’m not counting on Hinshaw because Idon’t like lefty closers and have too many concerns regarding Merkin’s health). I hate hate hate the idea of having to go hire a closer when we’re ready to compete again in the next couple of years.
Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.
by Goofus on
Jul 24, 2008 9:00 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Not to mention
I hate to think what the Giants record would be w/o Wilson this year.
Nay-sayers be dammed – Wilson has been lights fuckin out in save situations this year. I don’t even get nervous with him anymore because my confidence is so high.
I’m still developing a justification for why Wilson can be a good closer even w/ borderline peripherals. Getting there.
FWIW, while his ERA is high, his FIP is 3.68 – which is pretty damn solid. The benefit of a high k/9 and low HR/9.
Depending on how you look at them, his peripherals aren’t so bad. I think the most important thing for him moving forward will be limiting his walks.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 9:11 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Just looked
And, by WPA Wilson is 9th of all ML releif pitchers with > 30 IP.
by FIP, he is a much worse 62nd.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 9:14 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I’m still developing a justification for why Wilson can be a good closer even w/ borderline peripherals.
Luck?
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
by delorean on
Jul 24, 2008 9:30 AM PDT
up
0 recs
+1
Though, as I’ve said before, I still think Wilson has the goods to be a lights out closer, he’s just not there yet (and yes, not pitching like shit in non-save situations is a part of being a lights out closer). If we got a real good offer for him (like a legitimate starting quality position player), I’d trade him without a second thought.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
by jponry on
Jul 24, 2008 9:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Cute.
Luck is certainly part of it, I don’t think his peripherals suggest a 93% save percentage. However, I do think there is a difference between being an effective closer and being an effective reliever (In some ways I think being a closer is easier, just requires a different skill set) and I am experimenting with different methods to illustrate this.
A closer is a unique pitching situation in baseball. That inherently changes the requirements to be effective as such.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 10:10 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I guess we fundamentally disagree
The goal of a pitcher is always the same, regardless of the situation.
Also, I wasn’t trying to be cute. It’s Occam’s Razor, baby.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
by delorean on
Jul 24, 2008 10:21 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The Goal of a pitcher is not always the same.
You would argue that a pitcher w/ 0 outs and bases loaded in a tie game has the same goal as a pitcher w/ a 15 run lead in the bottom of the 7th?
There are distinct differences, and it applies to the closer position as well.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 10:58 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The goal is to record outs.
To retire hitters. To not allow baserunners. There are high- and low-leverage situations, but the ultimate goal is always the same.
We can go back and forth on this, but we obviously have a fundamental disagreement on this point. I’d rather see the best reliever get used in the game’s highest-leverage situations, which are often NOT in the 9th inning. I think saves are a dumb stat, and are generally overvalued. I think Wilson is due for some serious regression, and that we should trade him for something awesome while his value is at its peak (i.e., now).
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
by delorean on
Jul 24, 2008 11:04 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Like I said
I am still developing a sensible argument for this. The goal is record outs, but the way you play probabilities to do so is extremely different. (There are different unacceptable outcomes, and as such the probabilities of each have to be diminished, which results in a different pitching approach.)
The goal of a pitcher in a tie game is to not give up any runs (HR’s, RBI hits) at the expense of base runners (bb’s) while recording outs. The goal of a pitcher with a large lead is to record outs at the expense of urns (HR’s and RBI’s) without giving up baserunners (BB’s).
Completely different approaches. The closers role is similarly different from a 7th inning reliever, for example.
Maybe that is where we are bumping heads. I agree that the best reliever should be used in the highest leverage situation. 7th inning, etc. However, I maintain that it is possible to be an effective closer without necessarily being your team’s best reliever. (which is why I think Wilson is a better closer than he is reliever).
In many situations, the closer has an easier task than the set up or 7th inning man. He is allowed to give up as many as 2 runs in the process of recording 3 outs and still be successful. The 7th inning man giving up 2 runs w/ a 3 run lead would be considered a failure.
There are different skill sets that will lend themselves more or less successfully to different situations, and often the situation of the closer is significantly different than that of the 7th or 8th inning.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 11:33 AM PDT
up
0 recs
unrelated, but interesting
Righties are hitting .318 against Wilson.
.318!!!
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
by delorean on
Jul 24, 2008 11:36 AM PDT
up
0 recs
SSS!
Career, .242
Also, that .318 is on a .393 BABIP!!! Jesus!
Unlucky much>?
Since we are going there: In Save Situations
2.76 ERA, 2.23 K/BB, WHIP 1.13
That line supports a 93% save percentage.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 11:51 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The guy is so fucking Bi-Polar sv. vs non-sv. it's kind hard to beleive it is all luck
Non Save:
9.82 ERA, 1.5 K/BB, WHIP 2.36
And i Fucked up the WHIP for save situations it’s: 1.23
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 11:54 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I was spending all this time on a response using that very information...
Oh well.
But, yeah, it seems to me that the .318 BAA could be the fluke, not the success in save situations.
I always get caught in the middle during arguments about closers. On the one hand, I agree that saves are a bad stat and are over-rated and that the relief ace should be used in the most difficult situations not just in the ninth inning.
On the other hand, I believe that there is a “closer mentality.” Not because there is something special about the ninth inning, but because there is a perception that the ninth is special. Just because we see that the ninth is just another inning does not mean that the relievers themselves see it that way. We all know that the perception exists, why wouldn’t the relievers have this perception? And if most relievers have this perception then some are going to be overwhelmed by the job (Octavio Dotel for example).
I believe there are also those who thrive on the perceived pressure of the closer position. Brian Wilson for one.
So, really, he might be over-valued for his performance thus far by some. But I think he’s being a little under-valued for his value going forward by some as well.
Only 873 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on
Jul 24, 2008 11:56 AM PDT
up
1 recs
It is an interesting debate
I think a lot of STATS guys (and I love me some stats too, btw) tend to forget that sports are played by people, and people react differently under pressure. If you have never played high school or higher sports yourself, you may not understand this – but some guys are absolute choke artists, while others benefit from increased focus.
So the “closer mentality” could have a lot to do with the human element. I don’t even argue so much for the “closer mentality” as I do for the 9th inning being a special circumstance because there is no more baseball following.
Being that it is a special circumstance, it causes you to play the probabilities differently than you would in other situations. As a result, a pitcher may make a good closer because of the way the probabilities shake out – but only a so-so releiver.
Brian Wilson’s peripherals indicate he may be that guy. However, his sv vs non-sv split would indicate that the dude is a fucking head case and has a hard time concentrating in non-sv situations. His sv-situation perpherials certainly support the success he has had so far, and if he had that line across the board we would all be lauding him as the second coming of Dennis Eckersly.
In that case, it is perception creating reality. He thinks the 9th inning is special, and as a result reacts as such.
Who knows… but I predict continued success for our potentially mentally unstable closer.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 12:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I’m an agnostic about the “closer mentality.” But it seems clear that the only way to find out whether a guy has it or not is to thrust him into the role, and once he’s there the only way to assess his performance is through small and idiosyncratic samples, like measuring how Brian Wilson has done in nonsave situations—which is what, ten or twelve innings this year? Ten or twelve innings is nothing. C.C. Sabathia started out this season with twelve innings of 13.50 ERA, even though his peripherals were terrific. (I remember this vividly, as he was supposed to be the ace of my fantasy team). And look at him now.
So how can you trust a measurement that is so susceptible to distortion or random noise? Given some really compelling evidence, I’m going to assume that a good pitcher is a good pitcher is a good pitcher, and not worry overmuch about what role he’s in.
by Evan on
Jul 24, 2008 12:18 PM PDT
up
0 recs
(that’s what I meant to say)
by Evan on
Jul 24, 2008 12:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
11 IP
in non save situations.
He’s given up 12 runs in those situations.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 2:53 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I see that Jerome Holtzman still has his share of followers
I don’t think anybody is arguing that they want to trade Wilson (like in the same way that people WANT to trade Winn). But a guy who leads the NL in saves and goes to the All Star game while actually being a good but not great pitcher is always going to be over-rated by the “market.” To get something you need (like a power hitting 3B) you have to give up something of value. As much as I would love to trade Roberts and Aurilia for Fields, I would be willing to give up somebody over-valued like Wilson to bring in a young stud like Fields.
by FluLikeSymptoms on
Jul 24, 2008 10:51 AM PDT
up
1 recs
I don’t see it. Crede’s agent is Scott Boras. They’re not going to trade Fields and take the chance that they can’t sign Crede after the season.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
by rxmeister on
Jul 23, 2008 6:57 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Please trade them all...
I am totally with you and hope Sabean realizes that he no longer has to showcase these players and we need to take what we can get. Molina would be a tough loss, but he probably has the most value. I think I can live with Holm or Alonzo for half the season. Winn definately needs to be moved to make room for Schierholtz. One other player not mentioned is Roberts, who is a complete waste on this roster. Not sure if anyone would want to pay his salary for next year (6.5) if traded.
Here are the salaries for next year:
Winn: 8.25 mil
Roberts: 6.5
Molina: 6
Off the books:
Vizquel: 5.2m club option (guaranteed with 140 games or 525 PA’s) doesnt look like its going to happen! Thank god
Durham: 8.5
Aurilia: 4.5
Well looks like about 18 million is coming off the books, heres hoping we can dump Molina and/or Winn and/or Roberts to some unsuspecting desperate contendor for some midlevel prospects. In the case of Roberts, for a bag of sunflower seeds. Get er done! Thats a possibility of shedding almost 40 million. I am not advocating going out and spending the extra cash on overrated free agents (Zito). We obviously are not going to contending next year. Lets just play the kids, plug some holes and hope our emerging farm system (Villalona, Sandoval, Posey, Noonan, Fairley, Gillespie, Alderson, Madbum, Sosa) pop out some stars!! Wishful thinking
by krazybalr on Jul 23, 2008 9:32 AM PDT 0 recs
If we get 40 m off the books + the 14 M we are under the 90m "cap" now
We might as well USE that money for the next few years until Caincecum’s payday instead of just letting it pile up in ownership’s pockets.
Crede, Dunn, Etc. would all be ways we could use the money to make the team better (and more enjoyable) in the short term w/o hampering the development of the “youth”.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 23, 2008 9:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The very first thing money should be spent on is locking up Lincecum and Sanchez long term.
After that, then sure, spend smartly in FA. Crede and Dunn don’t really fall into that category, in my opinion.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Jul 23, 2008 10:09 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That is the fallacy, however
I don’t know if Crede and Dunn are for sure the perfect fit – I haven’t done the necessary research.
But it’s not Win now. It’s spend the money you’ve got ‘cause if you don’t it will go away.
Yes, lock up Cain, Lincecum, and Sanchez longterm. That is part of the deal. The argument is until you do that, you might as well spend the “extra” money to get some additional talent – even if it is at an inflated rate.
This year, the Giant’s ownership group is pocketing 14m of the salary as compared to last year. If it were up to me, I would much rather have signed some FA @ 3b or SS to a 1-2 year deal with that money instead.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 23, 2008 10:14 AM PDT
up
0 recs
No, the fallacy is that money evaporates.
First of all, it’s silly to say that if we don’t spend money now, we won’t have it later. The opposite is true. If you don’t spend it now, you DO have it later (or some portion of it).
Second, the ownership group is entitled to some sort of return on their investment. It can certainly be argued that they will realize that return when they sell their share of the team, because over the last 20 years, that is how owners have made money—not during their ownership tenure, but when selling the team later. Fine. But it IS their money and they would not be wrong for wanting to “pocket” some of it, even while increasing spending on development, scouting, signing bonuses for top-shelf draftees, and so on.
Third, periodically, the GM has to go to ownership and make a recommendation that they, out of their own money, throw in some more money to sign a huge free agent. We are not in those times right now, but we have been before and will be again. If the owners “pocket” some of the money now, do you think they would be more likely or less likely to kick in extra money down the road when we need a boatload of cash to sign Lincecum & Cain etc? Obviously, more likely. And more able.
Money isn’t perishable. I’m all for spending it wisely, but to say that if we don’t spend it now then we lose it forever defies all sense.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on
Jul 23, 2008 10:43 AM PDT
up
0 recs
In a business environment, Money DOES evaporate.
The ownership group has stated that they are willing to maintain the approximate 90m payroll of last year. I have seen zero evidence however that the ownership group is willing to carry unused money over.
Since we only used 74m this year, should we expect the ownership to allow Brian to go up to 106m next year? Or if we are at 60m next year, does that mean in 2010 we can spend 136m? I doubt it. I have never seen any evidence of the team practicing this sort of financial forecasting. In my workplace, you are assigned a budget for your project. At the end of the project any money you did not spend is taken back. You do not get to carry that over into the next project. This is a very common method of accounting. It is also why shit built for the government costs so much, but that’s another issue ;)
As a result, money not spent is money lost. From this perspective, unless your objective is to protect the financial well being of the ownership, It is in the team’s best interests to spend as close to 90m as possible. That means that, in any given year – if you can find a player who helps the team (short or long term) that costs money that would otherwise be unused that season – you should acquire him.
The only time spending money for a player hurts is when it puts to close enough to the 90m “cap” that it prevents you from acquiring another player whom you want more. A little foresight is all it takes to prevent this situation.
EX: We are paying Roberts 6.5m to sit the bench this season. Is there another available player that we would rather have for that 6.5m? Obviously no, because we are still UNDER the self imposed 90m “cap”. Roberts salary, regardless of how bad, is not negatively effecting the team because Brian has 16m he elected not to use this season, indicating he did not see any available players he wanted.
I realize that this seems asinine, but it is a fairly common method of accounting – and I would be surprised if the Giants operated any differently.
There is, of course, the exceptions wherein Brian could ask for money over the 90m “cap” for a specific player and argue that 2-3 years prior well below the “cap” justified this – but again I have seen little evidence of this type of approach.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 23, 2008 11:12 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The question is "Is our owners learning?"
I’ve never been convinced that there actually was $90mil there to spend this year. It is possible that the ownership “planned” to spend less this year based upon anticipated ticket sales drop off, in spite of what they said publicly.
Regardless of all of that, does the $74m you are counting here include Bonds money still being paid to him? If so, how much are we paying him, and for how many more years? Do we still owe Steve Kline after this year? Any other dead wood contracts I cannot think of at this point?
It is encouraging that there will be some margin there, and based upon the math in this thread there should be about $32m there. I agree with giving Timmay and Durty some love, but I would also hope we don’t go bonkers on someone just because we can. What is the forcasted FA crop this year in the 5 to 10 mil range? I’ll take one, two if they are real juicy.
by toofruss on
Jul 23, 2008 11:28 AM PDT
up
0 recs
My #'s come from cot's. I'm not sure what all it includes.
For free agent list, look here. Interesting names include, Crede, Blalok, and Cabrera. (SS and 3b).
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2002/02/2008-09-free-agents.html
I guess my underlying point is, if we can sign someone at a black hole (3b or SS) for next season in the ~ 10m range to a 1-3 year deal, it won’t hurt us at all and can only help.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 23, 2008 11:38 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Cabrerra – NO for any more than one year. And I mean it!!
Crede – OK for 3 years
Blalock – Why only 85 games in 07-08? Like that he is only 28, but this worries me.
by toofruss on
Jul 23, 2008 11:54 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Don’t forget the Giants are now spending more money on Dominican players and drafting higher, which means they spend more money there too. They also drafted without regard to signability. Alot of that money “saved” on the payroll is going to go there.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
by rxmeister on
Jul 23, 2008 7:01 PM PDT
up
1 recs
Great point.
Although I think most of us see money spent on prospects and money spent on this year’s team as an apples and oranges situation, the Tucker/draft pick debacle showed the Giants don’t necessarily see it that way.
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on
Jul 23, 2008 7:05 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Good point, but
When you amortize the cost of signing bonuses, it is basically nil.
Posey, for example, IF he goes for ~ 9m works out to around 1.5m per year of control. That’s round off error in the magnitude of ML Salary.
Villalona, Rodriguez, etc are much much less. Current total amortized cost of signing bonuses is probably definately < 10m, probably < 5m.
Not really breaking the bank.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on
Jul 24, 2008 8:31 AM PDT
up
0 recs
“When you amortize the cost of signing bonuses, it is basically nil.”
If this is truly the case - or more to the point, if the Giants think this is truly the case - then please explain their rationale behind punting a 1st round pick in order to save money in their budget to strengthen that year’s team.
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on
Jul 24, 2008 1:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs


