Buster Posey in September
I know this has been discussed in other various areas on this site that Sabean and the Giants have no plans to bring Buster up in September. Can you more level headed people convince me why we shouldn't bring him up? I don't know if I understand the reasoning behind this. He won't be playing in September anyway and the only two catchers on the 40 man are Bengie and Eli Whiteside (not counting Pablo)
Email
PrintComments
I’d rather see Buster over Jacks.
I think the reason why it won’t happen has to do with starting his arb clock.
by Lars The Wanderer on Aug 18, 2009 12:11 PM PDT reply actions
That makes sense in a way but Sabean was willing to trade Barmes and Alderson for a chance to get to the playoffs this season. I don’t know if anyone could argue that Buster wouldn’t more in September than Jacks.
Jesse Foppert: I Still Believe. Maybe a little less now.
"I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen." ~Bob Lemon,
by AndYourBirdCanSing on Aug 18, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait- we had Clint Barmes?
;-)
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
Quiet you
Jesse Foppert: I Still Believe. Maybe a little less now.
"I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen." ~Bob Lemon,
by AndYourBirdCanSing on Aug 18, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Can someone explain how the hell the arbitration clock works in these cases?
Because last year, the Rays brought up David Price late in the season, but then they kept him in the minors for the first several weeks of 2009 precisely to avoid starting his arbitration clock. This leads me to believe that September callups wouldn’t affect the clock. But other people seem pretty sure it does. I’m just confused.
Brian Sabean wants to kick tires. I want to kick Brian Sabean.
Adopted Giant: Fred "OBP and UZR, Dammit!" Lewis
they have a specific number of days for players with 2+ yrs of experience. If you have over x number of days in the majors and have two years of experience then you get a fourth year of arb
I R 5
by say hey nation on Aug 18, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe it’s not a number of days, but rather it’s the top 20% of two year players get Super Two status (or some percentage like that). So essentially you’re trying to make sure your prospect doesn’t have a higher number of days than 80% of other two year guys…
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Super 2 is a 3-part rule
To be Super 2 arb eligible the player must:
1. Have been on the 25 man roster (including days on the 15 day disabled list) for 2 years (362 games).
2. Have been on the 25 man roster or 15 day disabled list for > 85 days in the season just completed.
3. Have more total major league playing time (including 15 day disabled time) than 82% of all MLB players currently in their 3rd year of service in the season just completed.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
If he is the opening day starter, the a call up this year wont change his arb date. However if the want to avoid super 2 status then bringing him up would push back his debut next year
I R 5
by say hey nation on Aug 18, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah everybody would like to sign their young guys to ridiculously lobsided contracts that pay their player like 1/4 of what he’d get through arbitration…
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
In the Dark Tower
Stephen King called those lobster things that snipped of Roland’s fingers “lobstrosities”. I thought that was a very clever name combo.
by Lars The Wanderer on Aug 18, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Just check Cot’s….DAMN…6 yr 17 mil…WTF Longorias agent!!!
I R 5
by say hey nation on Aug 18, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
whoever his agent is, he got a player with 6 days of MLB service time $17 million guaranteed. That hardly seems like a failure.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Aug 18, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
It was a massive failure. EPIC level failure that should warrant immediate termination. $17 million is nothing and Longoria will be locked up through all his peak years and beyond.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
$17 million is actually a pretty large amount of money to guarantee to a 22 year old kid. It could probably sustain him for a few years. He’s going to be a free agent at age 28, if you think he will beyond his peak years at age 28, then it really will be a damn good thing he got that guaranteed money.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Aug 18, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
He’s locked up through 2016, his age 30 season.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
It’s all about opportunity cost. Longoria passed up on TONS of money he would have made through arbitration. At the rate Howard has been setting the arbitration bar, Longoria would have a lot more than that in 2 years, much less 6. Is the security really worth giving up that much money? The chances of Longoria being a good player were very high at the time he signed the contract, given his age and production. At worst I feel Longoria could have gotten a contract at the exact same time for another $10M more than that and STILL gotten a bad deal…
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
right, because no baseball player has ever failed to live up to the expectations people had of them on their 6th day in the big leagues
by FluLikeSymptoms on Aug 18, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Absolute worst case scenario
For the Rays was wasting an average of $2.8M a year over 6 years. Big whoop.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
that would have been fine for the Rays, but it would have cost Evan his last chance at financial security
by FluLikeSymptoms on Aug 18, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
People say this like it’s a big deal. Expected values and risk aversion aren’t hard concepts to work into your calculations…
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Is the security really worth giving up that much money?
Yes, because the marginal utility of the first $17 million is much much higher than the next $30.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
It cracks me up how people lose all sense of reality is something like this. If you tell me at age 22 that I have two options: A: you’ll give me $17 million but the bad news is that if everything goes my way I might miss out on a chance to make $35 million, or B: I’m going to make $300 grand a year for the next 3 years and then after that if everything goes well I might have a chance to make $10 million a year over the next 3. Personally, I’d take the financial security. I can see it either way, but to say people failed the kid by advising him to take the security is pretty absurd in my book.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Aug 18, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions
And you seem to be missing the point that there was no need for him to sign a 9 year contract to lock up his financial security.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
Plus he always could have waited longer to lock up his financial security at very little risk. For instance, if he waited until the end of last year, he could have demanded a huge amount more money. Maybe he doesn’t have as good of a season, though (since at the time obviously he didn’t know he was going to put up that monster year) – he’s still a big time prospect and will command some money, even an ok year would give him some options for financial security if that’s what he wanted.
I’m still convinced at the time the Rays signed him he could have gotten them to give him the exact same contract for $10+M more…
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, the team options for the first 3 years of free agency are ridiculous. At that point he’ll start getting paid more than before that, but still way under his market value. They couldn’t at least get mutual options? Really?
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 7:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, i can completely understand players taking security in that situation, you may end up being a little less rich but you don’t have to worry about what’ll happen if things don’t work out. As good a prospect as Longoria was, he’d not proven anything at the major league level and there’s a decent chance of every prospect failing to live up to their potential (and he’d certainly have to be a very good player for a few years to earn the $17M he’d be giving up).
That said, i think they still should have been able to work out a better contract as it was a pretty poorly negotiated one.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
“and he’d certainly have to be a very good player for a few years to earn the $17M he’d be giving up”
Now, obviously Evan Longoria is similar to Lincecum in having surpassed all reasonable expectations of him as a prospect. I just want to take this time to point out based on Fangraphs calculations Longoria earned his entire contract and then some in his rookie year. Obviously he wasn’t going to get paid free agent market value for his team/cost controlled years, but he’s on pace to be worth almost 10 times his contract value, and that’s before taking into account the 3 years of team options into his potential free agency years. I doubt you can find another contract with a disparity in value/salary as much as half that number.
Pujols earned $46M for his first 6 years. He gave a little more than 3 times more value than he was paid. I did find one guy that was about half – Mauer in his first 6 years only made ~$21M and provided just under 5 times more value than his salary….
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions
As you say the only thing that matters to him is how much he’s paid, not how much he’s been worth. And to earn that much money given he’s cost controlled requires him to perform fantastically through his arbitration years or perform well for a decent length career (into his free agency years at least)
Now it’s no suprise that Longoria is likely to have a good enough career that he’d earn that money anyway, but there’s a non-negligible risk for any player and one that’d have a huge impact on his life.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
I do understand marginal utility, however, we’re talking about a HUGE difference here. I understand to some people it’s worth it, but we’re not talking like he gave up a chance at $5m or $10M, he gave up a chance at $40-$50M on top of the $17 in the contract. Just to throw some evidence out there since I hate unsubstantiated claims, Ryan Howard is being paid $64M for the last 4 team controlled years of his rookie contract. $17M is a lot, for sure, but $65M provides for your family, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren. Professional athletes are also notoriously bad with money and a large number end up going broke, but here we’re talking amounts of money you can’t lose if you try (unless you’re Michael Vick)…
by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions
But do teams ever offer contracts like Longoria’s? He signed that contract the week he got called up, and it seemed to be widely considered a risky move for the Rays by the msm.
you don’t understand, you’re supposed to look at these contracts through 2 years of hindsight
by FluLikeSymptoms on Aug 18, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Who thought it was a risky move? There was almost no risk at all. No hindsight needed, most people were dumbfounded with how great that contract was for the Rays the second it was signed. Longoria was one of the least risky players to come out of the minors in years.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
I feel the same way about Posey
which is why it would be a good idea to get him locked up through arbitration whenever we call him up
Not just through arbitration, but through his first 3 years of free agency, too!
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Of course all the statty internet baseball freaks recognized it as a great move, but I recall traditional baseball minds being alarmed at what a risk the Rays were taking in committing a bunch of money to an utterly unproven player. And it’s true, sometimes uberprospects go the way of Alex Gordon or Delmon Young.
Anyway, I was responding to this:
Yeah everybody would like to sign their young guys to ridiculously lobsided contracts that pay their player like 1/4 of what he’d get through arbitration…
I think the Rays were just the first team to try it. Traditionally one waits a year or two before trying to lock up a great young player. The Rays were smart enough to see what a bargain they could get by not waiting. Would agents turn down such a contract now for Posey or Smoak? I doubt it (though they would hopefully get rid of some of the option years).
And I recognize the trade off between getting the money guaranteed to get financial security and the risks associated with waiting. It was a great move by the Rays. I think Longoria could have gotten more from them, and I think if Smoak or Posey went that route (just under the assumption they’re equal prospects in equal situations to what Longoria was in when he signed the contract) they’d get a better offer.
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Gordon
Assuming he would have gotten the same contract Longoria got, he’s already been worth more than that contract. And he’s been a “disappointment” so far.
Delmon Young is a different story, but even still, the risk of $17 MM over 6 years is almost nothing. But I don’t think Delmon would have ever even been considered for a contract like that, given his character issues.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
I agree with the premise of your thoughts, but "worth the contract’ isn’t as much what we’re looking for considering it’s a given they’ll get less than market value. For instance, let’s say Alex Gordon ends up being an average player (2 WAR per year) for those 6 years. How much would he get on a year to year basis for that, and how does that compare to the $17M? I was going to go through some numbers but have now realized I don’t want to figure out how much an average player would get in arbitration….oh well. The point is does the difference make up for the risk Gordon took? What kind of value does the team get out of it, and how does that compare to the value they’d get if they took it on a year to year basis? Basically this is a long winded way of saying a guy like Gordon isn’t going to get fair market value so putting it in those terms is a bit misleading…
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I was just saying that so far, in his first 3 years, he would have already been worth the entire value of the contract (and more, actually). Given that he could still improve and that he would have 3 years left on the theoretical contract, he’s a good bet to have been worth it.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
Yeah, probably, I understood the point and agree with what you’re getting at, I just made a way too long explanation for why I didn’t like the way you said it. My bad… :)
by Missing Barry on Aug 19, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions
whatever
as long as he’s the starting catcher next year, and not bengie molina, that’s all I care about at this point.
as long as not Bengie Molina is the starting catcher next year, that’s all I care about at this point.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Aug 18, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
They might just want to let him rest. This was his first full season and he got banged up a bit along the way. I certainly wouldn’t mind if they just shut him down when the minor league season ended.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
Baggs says he’s playing with Team USA:
In the notebook, you’ll find info on Buster Posey playing baseball in September – not for the Giants, but for Team USA in a World Cup tournament in Europe.
Didn’t include this nugget in the notes, but shortstop Brandon Crawford is supposedly on Team USA’s list as well. And perhaps another player or two from the Giants organization. Not Roger Kieschnick or Thomas Neal, though.
Also, it isn’t in the Web version of the notes, but Posey is set to rejoin Fresno on Tuesday. He was out a couple days after a collision at the plate and was temporarily taken off the Grizzlies’ roster in a procedural move. I’m not sure if he was just shaken up or what, but apparently he’s fine now.
Insanity is just a state of mind.
So, he’s not being shut down and he’s not playing for the Giants. He’s going to play in a World Cup tournament? WTD
Jesse Foppert: I Still Believe. Maybe a little less now.
"I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen." ~Bob Lemon,
by AndYourBirdCanSing on Aug 18, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
GREATEST AMERICAN HERO
Tommy Joseph is the Dingerzball Wizard
by SoFa King Mike on Aug 18, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
good. I think this is better for his development than playing in MLB next month
by FluLikeSymptoms on Aug 18, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I want to see Jacks get called up just so I can tease Wilriv about it everytime he K’s.
by Lars The Wanderer on Aug 18, 2009 12:23 PM PDT reply actions
You’re going to be busy in September.
Jesse Foppert: I Still Believe. Maybe a little less now.
"I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen." ~Bob Lemon,
by AndYourBirdCanSing on Aug 18, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Check the Pumphouse.
No , you.
NL West TempestTeapot
Nothing matters , and what if it did?
by victor frankenstein on Aug 18, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Two main reasons as far as i see it:
1) To avoid starting his service time clock. Assuming that he spends at least 1 month in the minors he’ll have an extra year before he reaches free agency. Now that extra year of Posey in his prime is worth a lot more than a month or two of his early struggles
2) He’s not really ready so there’s no need to rush him. It’s worth remembering that he’s not even had 100 at bats above A+ yet. He’d probably do alright anyway and it’d be unlikely to have a longtem impact if he didn’t. But it doesn’t really make sense to put someone in as a learning process, or more likely just sit him on the bench, when we’re in the middle of a playoff race. Especially when we’ve got reasonable options anyway.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
Yes on both – it’s bad player development to bring someone up prematurely and unnecessarily.
Duane Kuiper: Hall Of Fame broadcaster.
by Johnny Disaster on Aug 18, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I think this move means we won’t see Buster as our opening day catcher.
I could see the Giants either offering Molina arbitration or signing another free-agent catcher to hold the spot down till June. Then they will bring up Posey, if he is ready, and move Molina/free agent to the back-up role.
Really I think that would be the best thing anyways and wouldn’t as much pressure on Posey to produce right away.
Allowing him to finish the year at AAA and then play on the USA team makes sense. I imagine at spring training they will evaluate his play and if they haven’t resigned Bengie (please no – unless to a one year deal only) or signed another top line FA catcher [does one exist?], they will give him a shot to earn the starting spot, regardless of Arbitration status.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
