A Modest Proposal (for improving the Giants' offense)
by skellync5 on Dec 24, 2011 2:38 PM PST
Email
Print<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 0 1 1245 7097 59 14 8715 11.1539 </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> 0 0 0 </xml><![endif]-->
I've been waiting -- apparently in vain -- to hear rumors that the Giants will make a run at Angels' 1B (& occasional OF) Mark Trumbo. Trumbo would fill the Giants' most glaring immediate need: more offense. Trumbo is a right-handed power hitter with a whole lot of upside. After the Angels' acquired Pujols, Trumbo no longer has a natural position in the Angels' starting lineup, and if the Giants can offer a package of players that would fill a more immediate need for the Angels, all things being equal, the Angels ought to be willing to deal.
I concede that one of the Giants' most significant needs is for a SS, but it appears unlikely that the FO will make a move for one -- and even if they were inclined to do so, I'm not sure there are many trades that make sense at the SS position. However, given the fact that Trumbo can play 1B, LF or RF (the latter two positions admittedly not as well), and given the Angels' need of left-hand pitching (both SPs & experienced RPs) -- I suspect that a deal could be put together that would send either Jeremy Affeldt or Javier Lopez to the Angels, probably along with one or two prospects (Joe Panik, Francisco Paguero, basically anyone not named Gary Brown) in exchange for Trumbo.
The Giants would benefit from the addition of a young, high-upside offensive talent, while the Angels would benefit from the addition of a seasoned LH reliever (& one or two good prospects who project to play at the ML level, but are unlikely to become stars). The move also makes sense for the Angels because of the bottleneck created at 1B by the Pujols acquisition, which makes Trumbo an expendable asset (albeit a valuable one), if trading Trumbo would fill a more immediate need for the Angels.
The move makes sense for the Giants because, while both lefty relievers are excellent, the fact remains: both are lefty specialists (I believe the term is "loogy"). So while it's a nice luxury to have Affeldt & Lopez, we don't absolutely need both (particularly when this leaves the team weaker in an area where the team has genuine need). So trading Affeldt or Lopez to fill the more pressing need (offense) appears to me to be the logical move.
Whichever lefty is traded can be replaced in the bullpen by some combination of Dan Runzler, Barry Zito (who we all know won't be the 5th starter -- and since Zito can't be demoted to the minors, reality is what it is, he will remain on the roster, where he might be a decent lefty middle reliever, and maybe better than decent -- who knows what the role-change might do for Zito's psyche).
As for which reliever the Giants should prefer to part with, arguments can be made for & against Affeldt and Lopez. Affeldt has a hotter FB, and can close if Wilson goes down (obvious value). But since Affeldt is only under team control for the 2012 season (and should be more expensive to retain thereafter), this weighs in favor of trading Affeldt.
On the other hand, Lopez has been consistently outstanding against lefty hitters ever since the Giants acquired him in 2010. However, Lopez's FB velocity is, on average, about 5mph slower than Affeldt's, which partly explains why Affeldt is the better option at closer (if Wilson goes down, heaven forbid). [Lopez's average FB velocity in 2011 was 87.9; whereas Affeldt's average FB velocity was 93.1. As an odd side-note, in 2011 Affeldt threw his 2-seam FB at slightly higher (avg) velocity than his 4-seamer: 92.8 vs 93.2 (which I mention only because it strikes me as counterintuitive).] And while Lopez is consistently excellent against lefty hitters (presumably because of his deceptive delivery, above average control, and effective use of changes of speed), the same cannot be said of Lopez's efficacy against righty hitter. Against righty hitters Lopez is average at best (I suspect the reason for this is two-fold: 1) Lopez's relatively slow FB velocity, and 2) the fact that righty hitters have a far better view of Lopez's delivery, which likely negates the advantage of his deceptive delivery when viewed from the left-side batter's box). As a result, Lopez is not a viable option to close if Wilson goes down. One final relevant factor to weigh is the value of Lopez being under team control for two more years (vice one year for Affeldt), at a semi-reasonable rate (though not much cheaper than Affeldt). So projections regarding the number of availably lefty relievers after the 2012 & 2013 seasons (& their likely cost) would be relevant considerations in judging whether there is a major cost down-side to trading Lopez over the Affeldt.
Lacking projections regarding availability & cost of lefty relievers after 2012 -- and based solely on Affeldt's versatility & ability to close if Wilson goes down again -- I'd view Affeldt as the lefty the Giants should retain. And based on the fact that Lopez is under team control for two years (vice one), my gut tells me this would make Lopez slightly more attractive as trade-bait from the perspective of the Angels (and thus more likely to prompt the Angels to move Trumbo, assuming we can add one or two acceptable prospects to the deal -- and they'd need to be acceptable to the Giants just as much as the Angels, so obviously, Gary Brown should be off limits).
Looking back, I believe the Giants made a strategic error when they tied up a significant part of their remaining budget on two lefty relievers who fill similar needs, but who do nothing to fill the team's the most pressing need, which is obviously a quality middle of the order bat. With limited dollars to spend, the Giants should have opted to sign only Affeldt or Lopez, and then use the funds left over to bring in another bat. However, I don't view this mistake as irreversible because Affeldt & Lopez both represent valuable trade chips (particularly considering the paucity of quality lefty relievers available). As such, trading one or the other for a middle of the order bat should be feasible -- both in practical terms (i.e., other teams have need), and in financial terms (because trading Lopez would free up $4.25M in salary for each of 2012 & 2013; or if Affeldt is the one traded, his loss would free up $5M in salary for 2012). This is money that could be used in any number of ways, including: as part of the structure of a Trumbo deal; to make a run at one of the few available FA shortstops; improving the bench -- or heck, it could even be set aside and used to help extend Lincecum & Cain. But as things stand today, the Giants have better relief pitching than they arguably need, and they have significantly less offensive talent than they will need to contend. My parting thought deserves more than one sentence (and could be a post all by itself), but Giants ownership & the FO need to reflect seriously on whether they will be able to successfully extend Lincecum & Cain -- which is their stated goal, and why no further money is available for bats -- if they neglect to improve the Giants' offense to the level needed to make Lincecum & Cain actually WANT to sign extensions. As the lineup stands today, I am highly dubious that both can be extended. The Giants haven't yet given Lincecum of Cain sufficient reason to opt out of testing free agency, where both stand to make far -- FAR -- more than the Giants are likely to offer by way of extension. Right now -- here, today -- if I were either of them, I simply would not extend with the Giants because the Giants haven't yet shown a commitment to winning. Plain & simple. If I was
Cain, I'd play out my final year under contract and let the Giants compete with all the other teams for my FA talent. And if I was Lincecum, I'd extend only for the remainder of the team's control (the last two years of arbitration), and then I'd follow Cain toward the great, green pastures of free agency, where the big market teams shower premier pitchers with money, and where those same teams also support their pitchers with top-shelf batting orders. The Giants need to give these guys a reason to stay. Money alone won't do it -- and besides, it seems rather apparent that the Giants won't compete financially with the big guys -- so even in the money department, the Giants are second tier at best. Why on earth would a pitcher choose the 2012 Giants over free agency, genuine offensive support, and a HUGE paycheck? Tell me again, what are the Giants offering that these guys won't be able to get as free agents? As of today, the answer is (sadly) not much.
I welcome the thoughts of my fellow Giants fans. Thanks for your time.
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.
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Umm no
Lets say it together : “No”
Down in Front Meat!
by homerdrew415 on Dec 24, 2011 3:41 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Why?
I appreciate your succinctness (a skill I have yet to master). But why do you say no? I’m confident that you & others will have valid reasons to disagree with me. I’d just like to know what they are. [Stated another way, how can I learn from my flawed logic if you won’t tell me the reason that it’s flawed?]
Thanks,
S.
Pass
Don't think he can cut it in the bigs? Brock Bond will be the bigger man and walk walk walk away.
Why not?
[Copied from my response to homerdrew415]
I appreciate your succinctness (a skill I have yet to master). But why do you say no? I’m confident that you & others will have valid reasons to disagree with me. I’d just like to know what they are. [Stated another way, how can I learn from my flawed logic if you & others won’t tell me why you view my reasoning as flawed?]
Thanks,
S.
Improving the Giants
It’s not that the Giants don’t spend the money, It’s they spend almost all of it on pitching, including giving 5 Mill to a relief pitcher. Spending almost the money all on pitching is just stupid. They have left no room to put any kind of lineup on the field. The only way the Giants get back to more balance is to be very bold. They are either going to have to put a trade together or start drafting position players better. If they are going to do a trade they might as well get as much as they can. Just look at some of the starting pitching that is getting traded, and what they can bring in return. Look what the Nationals gave up for a good but not great pitcher in Gio Gonzalez.
by Giants-Just-Win on Dec 24, 2011 4:24 PM PST reply actions
I agree with half of your response
I completely agree with the first half of your comment. That is, if the Giants FO knew going into the winter meetings that they had a strictly limited pot of money to work with, then devoting a significant chunk of that pot of money to two lefty relief specialists doesn’t make sense when the team’s most glaring need is offense, not pitching. By their very nature, our two lefty relievers typically pitch in very specific, and very limited situations — and this is doubly true for Javier Lopez who is used almost exclusively against LH batters (and for good reason). If the Lopez money had been used to acquire a starting position player, that player would presumably start 130-150 games, and he would log roughly 10 times the number of innings that Lopez (or Affeldt) would — hopefully in a way that contributed to the team in the form of runs scored (and runs prevented if a decent defender). I’m not minimizing the need to prevent runs, and I do not contest the fact that both Lopez and Affeldt prevent some number of runs from scoring. But the key calculation would be this: does Lopez (or Affeldt) prevent at least as many runs from scoring as the hypothetical position player would cause to be scored? If the answer is no — i.e., that the position player causes the team to score more runs than Lopez (or Affeldt) would prevent, then the math suggests the obvious answer — the position player, on balance, improves the team’s likelihood of winning. It should be that simple (unless my logic is flawed — and I trust someone will tell me if it is).
As for your second point, until & unless it becomes clear that the Giants will not be able to extend Cain or Lincecum prior to either player reaching free agency — until this becomes clear, it’s premature for the Giants to attempt to trade either. I’d very much like to see both remain with the team. But I fear the Giants will not be able to retain both (for reasons stated in my original post). When/if this becomes clear with regard to either pitcher, then and only then should the Giants’ FO look to trade the relevant pitcher. And any such trade should be timed so that it maximizes the value that the Giants would receive in exchange for the pitcher. I agree that the A’s have done a good job of extracting value for players they can no longer afford. But the A’s are in a clearly different position than the Giants are — specifically, the A’s are competing in an AL West that has grown too strong for the A’s to compete with its original roster, and under its fixed budget. The Giants are in a far weaker division, and so long as the Giants have dominant pitching and can score ~4 runs per game, they have a bona fide shot at winning their division (whether they can score about 4 runs a game remains to be seen). In any event, since negotiations are still ongoing (or will be as Lincecum’s arbitration hearing date nears), I’d prefer that the Giants postpone any decisions about whether to trade Cain or Lincecum until only after it’s become clear that the team won’t be able to reach a contract extension with one or the other. As of now, there’s still the possibility of deals with both (I’m not optimistic, but that doesn’t mean the time has arrived for the Giants to adopt the A’s strategy of gutting the team and rebuilding — at least not yet). When and if that changes, I would agree with you that the Giants absolutely need to make a trade, but only when it’s most advantageous to the team. In any event, you and I probably don’t disagree greatly on the bigger picture.
Improving the Giants
We don’t need to make a trade right now, but in the first month or two of the season it becomes clear were not scoring runs, were 10 games out and Cain is not signed long term, the giants just have to make a trade. They cannot just let him walk or hope that he re-signs in the offseason. I do question the wisdom of signing two starting pitchers to 20MILL pluse each. What does that leave for the rest of the team. Your sinking 40 Mill into two starters another 10-20 Mill on the rest of the pitching and bullpen and were right back at the point we are now. 80 Mill or so for pitching and nothing for bats. Yes were going to lose Zito’s contract but even so, I just really doubt that the Giants at 130 Mill can pay two starters that kind of money. Again the only way we can do this is that if the Giants farm systems comes to life, and starts producing some young position players that can hold down a full time job.
by Giants-Just-Win on Dec 25, 2011 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
AGREE, AGREE & (mostly) AGREE!
I think you’ve pretty well nailed the issue when you say that the Giants lack balance as a team. It’s nice to have top-shelf pitching. But even the best pitching doesn’t win games without a batting order that can produce more runs — consistently — than the opposing team scores off your pitching. From a certain perspective, I wonder if the 2010 World Series Championship might not have been a curse in disguise. I say this because it seems to have convinced the Giants FO & ownership that great pitching couple with “just enough” offense is a reliable combination for winning championships. In my view this simply isn’t so. The Giants won in 2010 not merely because of their great pitching, and their “just enough” offense — but also because over the course of the season & postseason, the Giants benefited from more things going for them than against them (I suppose luck is one way to phrase it, but I hate to use that word because I don’t want to devalue what the 2010 Giants accomplished). Anyway, my thesis is that more often than not, great pitching & “just enough” offense will only get a team so far — particularly when many of the teams you face in the postseason have great pitching of their own, and a great deal more than “just enough” offense.
As to whether it makes sense for the Giants to tie up $20M+ per year for two pitchers — I’m not entirely convinced this is a terrible idea. What it comes down to is how much the team can spend overall on payroll (presently that figure has been set, apparently arbitrarily, at $130M), and whether the amount left over after paying these two pitchers (~$90M) is used effectively to field a competitive team — both in terms of the remainder of the pitching staff, and obviously the offense. For 2012, the answer would have to be no, the remaining funds aren’t being spent in a way that returns sufficient value to the team. This is primarily a function of a few imprudent and overly expensive, yet unproductive contracts (in 2012 alone, Zito, Rowand & Huff will combine to account for $42.6M (subtract ML minimum from this figure if Rowand breaks camp with a ML team). That’s nearly HALF of the team’s available payroll (assuming the arbitrary figure of $20M/ea for Cain & Lincecum, and $130M payroll ceiling). The combination of well-spent money (Cain & Lincecum) and poorly spent money (Zito/Rowand/Huff) leaves the Giants with only $47.4M to spend on the entire rest of the team — both pitching and hitting. If the Giants had not entered into imprudent contracts with these three players, then the Giants would not be putting themselves in a pinch by spending $20M/ea on a pair of pitchers (both of whom, in my opinion, have demonstrated that they are worth that kind of money). In any event, once these bad contracts come of the Giants books — and assuming they’re not merely replaced with other bad contracts (fingers crossed) — then the Giants should be able to field a competitive team within ownership’s established payroll constraints, and unless Cain or Lincecum take a southward turn (or fall prey to injury — again fingers crossed that this doesn’t happen), the Giants’ commitment of $40M to the combination of these guys won’t break the team or make it uncompetitive. Alas, the freakin’ problem is the bad contracts (I still scratch my head over the Huff contract — sure he was a hero in 2010, but hero or not, giving him $20M/year for 2 years (plus a $2M buyout of the 3rd year option) was a gross overpayment compared to Huff’s market value).
Anyway, I agree with you far more than I disagree. The Giants need balance. I’m not sure signing Cain & Lincecum to big contracts is a bad idea based on their track records. But the Giants definitely need to avoid other bad large contracts.
Correction
Second to last paragraph, final sentence: that’s a typo. I meant to refer to Huff’s deal as “$20M for 2 years (plus a $2M buyout if the Giants decline to exercise the option for year-three)”.
Improving the Giants
I think even if the Giants can afford two 20MILL + contracts is it wise to tie them to tow long term contracts for starting pitchers ? I guess it would all depend on the years were talking about. If both Cain or Lincecum both want 6-7 years, I am not sure I would want to take that risk. Cain has been injury free however is he going to continue this way for another half dozen years. As great as Lincecum is he has gotten into funks, an not just because were not scoring runs for him, although I think that might be part of it. Truly I would like the Giants to get Cain for 5 years with a couple options, and maybe try and move Lincecum, if he wants a mega deal. If we can get three or four top postion players, ie 2nd base, SS and maybe another starting pitcher back in the deal, we may very well be better off in the long run. Through the Bonds years the Giants never wanted to add that second real large contract, I can’t really see them changing now. Neither Lincecum or Cain are really in any kind of position to offer any kind of home town discount. My guess is Cain seems to be a little bit more willing to stay then hit the market. It seems Lincecum really wants to hit the free agent market.
If the Giants can get a SS that hits for average, gets on base at a high clip, has drop dead d, along with someone at 2b that can hit 15-20 HR a year, drive in 90-100 runs a year, along with another young starting pitcher back, then the Giants should really explore something. With three or four cheap position players, you can round out the rest of the roster. Maybe we get a little more balance.
Now if the Gaints had a bunch of players in the farm system that consistanly show up in the top 10 then I would scratch the entire idea, but other then Brown, I don’t see a lot of press on any other position player in the entire Giants farm system. The Giants know how to draft pitchers so that is why I would be willing to look at trading Lincecum, for top position players. I don’t see that the Gaints have been able to draft and develope position players, other then Posey.
I just don’t see the Giants going anywere this year, with the kind of lineup they have.
by Giants-Just-Win on Dec 26, 2011 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
Now I Agree With You Completely (100% & without reservation)
I was almost finished with a fairly lengthy response to your most recent post — in which I expressed complete agreement with you — but I hit the wrong damn button & lost it all. It’s probably for the best since I still need to work on expressing myself concisely . . . As we say in the Army, it is what it is. I’ll take another hack at responding, and maybe this time it will be less verbose.
1) I agree that the Giants should be very hesitant to give 6-7/yr contracts to either Cain or Lincecum. I love ’em both. But 6-7/yrs is huge long-term risk, and all it takes is a little Brian-Wilson-Elbow to turn an apparently solid investment into a trashcan full of money lit on fire.
2) If either pitcher can be had for $20M/yr for 4 years, I’d be in favor of the Giants jumping at it. Problem is, I doubt either will sign for $20M/yr for a 4-yr term. If either will sign for a term of 4/yrs (doubtful re Cain; and even less likely for Lincecum), then the $$ per year will need to be bumped up to get the deal done. And beyond $20M/yr, we’re starting to get into silly money, and if this offseason is any indication, ownership will squeal uncle before they reach the magic number needed to sign either pitcher.
3) Cain appears to be the more signable of the two (but by no means a lock). And since he’s a FA after next season, the Giants need to (or should) be focusing first on Cain. My concern is that the various grunting sounds I keep hearing from the FO seem to suggest that the FO believes they can get Cain at a discount (mostly because wife & kids are settled here). If that’s how the FO plans to approach negotiations, and if they genuinely expect to get a meaningful discount — well, then we’re in real trouble. Because even if Cain was stupid (I don’t think he is at all), he’s still represented by an agent. And Cain’s agent’s job is to: 1) extract the maximum value from the Giants that the team is willing to pay; and 2) while the agent is negotiating to extract maximum value from Giants, to constantly remind Cain of his projected value as a FA, and that his 2012 salary isn’t exactly peanuts ($15.3M). So unless Cain lacks business sense, or is far more sentimental than the ordinary ballplayer, he isn’t going to be signing a contract for significantly less than his FA value (a small discount would be normal because the extension would remove uncertainty at Cain’s end in case he has a career ending injury — but I wouldn’t expect this discount to be particularly significant). And if Cain is a businessman, as most ballplayers have learned to be, he will be seeking to maximize the value of his extension — and the mere inconvenience of moving wife & kids to another city or state will not outweigh dollars per year & number of years. If I was his agent, I’d be leaning on him to reject any offer that isn’t silly money (and does anyone expect the Giants to offer silly money), and soldier through his final season, log 200+ innings again, and hit the FA market & rake in a massive payday. That’s the smarter move business-wise — or it is in my humble opinion. And if Cain does what I would do (or what I would advise), the Giants need to un-ass him no later than the 2nd month of the 2012 season — or whenever they’ve found a trading partner with an offer that is unlikely to be bettered by another teaam.
4) Lincecum is another puzzler, but unless I’m misreading his few statements on the subject (& those of his agent), I fear Lincecum has already decided to reject any contract offer beyond 1-2 years (i.e., his remaining time under team control). My sense is that Lincecum’s default position is reject any offer going beyond his team-controlled time, and I don’t think he wants to agree to anything selling back any of his FA years. Of course, Lincecum’s a businessman too, and he has an agent just as Cain does. So money can change his default position, and if enough is offered (& an acceptable number of years), then Lincecum might very well change his mind. The problem as I see it is that the dollar amount per year, and the number of years that will need to be offered to change Lincecum’s mind probably exceed the Giants’ squeal threshold. Apparently the Giants made an informal offer of 4 years, & TL’s agent countered with 8 yrs. Ordinarily, one might fairly assume that a compromise of 6 yrs would get a deal done. I’m not so sure it will. And equally important, I’m not sure the Giants SHOULD make an offer of 6yrs (but I will say the Giants absolutely should not offer more than 6yrs). There’s just too much risk in a 6yr-deal. Too many things can happen to a SP over that period of time (whether injury, or simple decline in skills). And for the Giants to take on the risk of another massive contract for such a long term is something they should think about deeply before committing to it. We’re seeing right now what dead-weight large-dollar contracts do to the Giants’ ability to field a competitive team. And the risk of an ill-advised long-term contract dragging the Giants into an extended period of payroll inflexibility should be a genuine concern to ownership and the FO (and fans for that matter). Do I want to see Timmy resign for another 4yrs (give or take a year)? Absolutely! But I seriously doubt he’ll sign for that term, and I’m skeptical he’d even sign for 6 years (though at the right amount, my guess is he would). Alas, the amount per year needed to win his signature on the 6-yr contract is probably more than the Giants will be willing to pay. Timmy’s going to earn $20M (perhaps $0.5M less, and maybe as much as $1.5M more). And that’s the starting point for his cost in any longer term deal. The actual dollar figure per year that they Giants will need to put up to get a ~6-yr deal signed is probably somewhere in the range of $22-$23M/year (or at least that’s my best guess based on Timmy’s established ability, and contracts of pitchers with similar track records). I’m not sure the Giants will put up that kind of cash. I’m not sure the Giants SHOULD put up that kind of cash. And even if they ultimately do put up that kind of cash, I’m not entirely convinced Timmy won’t just say “Meh, thanks for the offer, but I’m curious to see what the FA market will pay me, so no thanks.”
5) To summarize then, I’m skeptical that the Giants will be able to sign either, and maybe both, Cain & Lincecum. And if either can be signed, I fear the cost of doing so will represent enormous risk to the team for many years to come. Ultimately, I wouldn’t be surprised to see both of them walk if they’re offered anything short of silly money (and to be clear, neither should be offered silly, bank-breaking money). And when/if it becomes clear that either pitcher cannot be resigned within the Giants’ financial constraints (and within the bounds of common sense) — then the Giants will need to put the relevant pitcher on the auction block, and move him before his trade value evaporates. As a general proposition, that would mean trading the pitcher as early as possible (after realizing an extension won’t happen) so that maximum value can be extracted in terms of prospects from the trading partner.
In conclusion, I still love the Giants, and I’m really fond of and hope we can keep Timmy & Matt. But the Giants are bigger than any two pitchers, no matter how good either may be (or how popular). So any extension or trade needs to take into consideration the genuine best interests of the team & the organization, I hope most of what I’ve written proves to be wrong. But as of today, I’m highly skeptical that the Giants will be able to keep either (maybe both) Cain & Lincecum. And assuming they can keep one or both, depending on the cost, it may not make sense for the team to do so.
Giants
I agree. I doubt the giants are about to get both signed long term. Right now Lincecum does have great trade value. Cain has some but maybe not as much as Lincecum but I am sure we can get at least two top position players for either and maybe a young pitcher back. The other problem with the Giants is that the big hitters just seem to shy away, giving AT&T park. Would Fielder even want to sign with the Giants ? maybe if the money is right, but there again is another reason to maybe try and get the most out of Cain and Lincecum. The last problem with all this is this added wild card. It seems it might only take about 80 to 85 wins to get that spot. so a even below .500 record might still be in the race, then the Giants are going to think they are sitll in it with a sub par record and a crappy lineup, hold onto cain and let him walk and get nothing for him.
It just would sure be nice to get a lineup that can score some runs. I can’t remember the last time I saw the Gaints score 6 runs at a home game. I think I have to go back to when that Bonds guy was still there…….
by Giants-Just-Win on Dec 26, 2011 7:03 PM PST up reply actions
When was the last tim the Giants scored six runs at home?
I’m with you brother on all of the above.
As for the last time the Giants scored 6 runs in a home game, I have a vague recollection that they did so once or twice around August or September (seems like Kruk & Kuip had been talking about the extended drought of below 5 or 6 runs at home, so when it happened, they made a point of mentioning it) — or at least, that’s what my very feeble memory tells me. The last time that I’m CERTAIN the Giants scored 6 runs or better at home was Game 1 of the World Series (particularly as I was at the game, which also happened to the very first WS game I’d attended in my life – - and being 43 years old, that’s the sort of memory I hope to never lose). Anyway, I’m pretty sure they did it once or twice last season, though I’d have to look it up to be sure.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. It’s comforting to know that I’m not the only person who worries about the things we’ve been discussing.
Best,
Spence
Six runs in a home game . . .
Out of curiosity, I checked to see whether, or how many times, the Giants scored 6 runs or more at AT&T Park in 2011. Here’s the results:
April 24: 6 runs (loss to Braves, 6-9)
May 25: 6 runs (loss to Marlins, 6-7)
July 6: 6 runs (win vs Padres, 6-5)
August 3: 8 runs (win vs D-Backs, 8-1)
August 9: 6 runs (win vs Pirates, 6-0)
September 2: 6 runs (win vs D-Backs, 6-2)
September 11: 8 runs (win vs Dodger, 8-1)
September 12: 8 runs (win vs Padres 8-3)
September 27: 7 runs (win vs Rockies, 7-0)
OBP because OBP.
Also 105 wRC+ and 2 WAR is less than what Belt could do at 1B, with better defence. So why trade for a player to further add to the 1B/not-really-an-OF Huff/Belt megamix?
Sundrendy!
Here's why
I was not advocating replacing Belt at 1B. Though I neglected to say so, I’m in favor of making Belt the starting 1B, and putting Trumbo in RF or LF (whichever OF position he’s most suited for). Until Huff forces his way back into the starting lineup by putting up reliable numbers, my position on Huff is that he should be a pinch-hitting lefty, albeit an expensive one (if he could realistically be traded, I’d be down with that). Bill James is projecting an impressive line for Belt in 2012, and if Belt lives up to that, he deserves the job. Trumbo is likewise projected to put up solid numbers (and he’s already shown he can do so). So I’d push aside Schierholtz (late inning defense?) and take a bit of a defensive hit by playing an OF consisting of Trumbo, Melky & Pagan — and thus put a more powerful offense on the field. Whether my hypothetical team would give up more runs (due to diminished defense) than they would make back by offensive production — I just don’t know. But my principle point was simply this: with a limited budget and a woeful offense, and otherwise outstanding pitching — what the Giants needed most was NOT two lefty specialists in the bullpen, but rather a bat that would bring in runs. Perhaps my suggestion isn’t the best way to go. But I stand by the principle underlying it, and believe the Giants would have done better had they spent $5M more on offense rather than on another lefty specialist.
LOLHUFF
As if he’s not going to start…
I'm just a simple Giants fan trying to make my way in the universe.
by Tim Lincecum's Bong on Dec 24, 2011 5:36 PM PST up reply actions
No, Trumbo is projected to put up a wOBA of like .340, after putting up .327 this year. Guess who put up .327 or better this year with much better defense, Nate Schierholtz and Melky Cabrera. He’s no better than anything we have in house.
What the Giants need most is not two lefty specialists, but it’s also not trading sideways for people who won’t make us significantly better.
Sundrendy!
Why Trumbo?
We’re already loaded at 1B/barely OF, why would we add another who isn’t even as good as Brandon Belt? If we’re going to improve the offense, it should come in the OF or at SS.
I'm just a simple Giants fan trying to make my way in the universe.
by Tim Lincecum's Bong on Dec 24, 2011 5:33 PM PST reply actions
I actually agree with you
But I don’t see the Giants making a move for a SS because they seem to view Crawford’s defense as making up for his lack of offense. And while Trumbo isn’t a natural OF, he should be able to play a competent corner OF spot, and his numbers would be a huge improvement over Schierholtz. Another significant reason I suggested Trumbo is that he should be realistically obtainable for something close to the trade I suggested (whereas many of our other wish-list OFs might not be obtainable at all, or at the very least, not for a price the team would pay). If I’m right, the Giants would not have to grow their payroll beyond the team’s stated ceiling of $130M, and they might even save a buck or two (which is an important factor since they appear to be unwilling to bend on payroll). AND the team should be able to strike a deal like this, which would address one of their most glaring weaknesses (run scoring) — all without exceeding the team’s payroll ceiling. The bottom line is that Trumbo should be available, and he’s one of the few players that I think the Giants might realistically be able to acquire who would add significantly to the run-scoring value of the lineup.
If the Giants were willing to go at SS’s, then I’d be interested in Aybar, and to a lesser degree Izturis (among others). But the problem is, I just don’t see the Giants going after a SS under any circumstances. And it’s also worth noting that the Angels are far less likely to part with Aybar — or certainly not at a price the Giants could afford (and Izturis isn’t a significant enough upgrade to justify what he’d probably cost the Giants). Trumbo should actually be available if we offer a package that fills a real need for the Angels, and the Giants should be able to acquire him without giving away the kitchen sink (which I fear would be the case for Aybar).
Schierholtz vs. Trumbo (Bill James's Projections for 2012)
Below are Bill James’s 2012 projections for Nate Schierholtz and Mark Trumbo (drawn from frangraphs.com):
Nate Schierholtz:
122 G; 312 PA; 7 HR; 38 R; 35 RBI; 6 SB; Triple-slash: .279/.327/.439 (.766 OPS); with 5.8 BB%; 15.1 K%.
Mark Trumbo:
138 G; 567 PA; 28 HR; 69 R; 94 RBI; 8 SB; Triple-slash: .269/.313/.493 (.806 OPS); with 5.6 BB%; 19.8 K%.
Not sure if you were agreeing with me or making some other point. But by and large, I’d say these figures support my position.
Basically, the only differences are HRs, RBIs, SLG, and K%
K% works in Schierholtz’s favor. R becomes about equal if you account for PAs. RBIs are the least important stat in the game. HRs are important, but we’re also taking a huge downgrade in the field. And we’re doing this at the cost of a good reliever or more? Pass.
I'm just a simple Giants fan trying to make my way in the universe.
by Tim Lincecum's Bong on Dec 24, 2011 7:37 PM PST up reply actions
My point is that I don’t see much reason to believe that Trumbo can be a huge improvement over Schierholtz (except maybe in staying healthy). Trumbo’s line above is better, but not dramatically so; meanwhile, over in ZiPSland, Nate’s is better. And Schierholtz is almost certainly a much better outfielder.
This
For the record, ZiPS projections:
Nate
.267/.316/.420, 333 AB, 48 R, 8 HR, 21 BB, 99 OPS with fantastic fielding
Trumbo
.253/.295/.437, 590 AB, 71 R, 25 HR, 34 BB, 98 OPS with decent to bad fielding
I left out RBIs because they mean nothing. Admittedly, these were done before the Pujols signing, so Trumbo’s probably improved, but then again, we don’t have Albert Pujols.
I'm just a simple Giants fan trying to make my way in the universe.
by Tim Lincecum's Bong on Dec 24, 2011 7:47 PM PST up reply actions
You've convinced me (for the most part)
Both you and Evan make good points, and upon further inspection, Trumbo doesn’t project to be sufficiently more productive offensively than Schierholtz (if we assume Schierholtz remains healthy, and I see no reason to assume he won’t be healthy). So whether we’re looking at ZiPS or at Bill James, there isn’t enough there to justify a move for Trumbo over Schierholtz. So I feel obliged to concede the point, and move on . . . in a minute.
But — and I know this counts for nothing (and rightly so — but my general sense of Trumbo is that he has the potential to develop into a premier offensive player, whereas Schierholtz, in my humble opinion, appears unlikely to break out and become a significant offensive player. A few non-statistical differences are worth noting (for the record). First, Trumbo is 25 years old, compared to Shierholtz’s 27. Trumbo’s first major league experience was the 8 games he played at the end of the 2010 season. Schierholtz on the other hand, played ML 39 games in 2007, 19 in 2008, and between 116, 137 & 115 in 2009, 2010 & 2011 respectively. As such, it can be argued that Schierholtz has had ample opportunity to adjust to ML pitching and to reach something approaching his peak talent level. However, the same might not — arguably — be said of Trumbo given his 8 games in 2010, and his first full season in 2011. On the experience & development curve, Trumbo should still be rising, and for a variety of reasons, I suspect that he’ll prove to be the more valuable ML player long-term. That said, I don’t have a good basis to assume that Trumbo will break out in 2012, and the projections don’t show him moving so far beyond Schierholtz as to justify a move to get him, at least not based solely on projections (which is what I’ve based most of my reasoning on). I do think two are factors make Trumbo appealing over Schierholtz (but neither necessarily relates to a better 2012 season for the Giants). These are: 1) Trumbo is a right-handed batter with power, whereas Nate is a lefty who’s shown some pop (though seem streaky). And 2) based on Trumbo’s career trajectory, he would be under team control through 2016 (at a reasonable price, though escalating through his arbitration years). Nate on the other hand is under team control through 2014, and all things being equal, Nate will likely be more expensive from now through 2014 than Trumbo will be during over this same time period. If Trumbo breaks out in the way I think he will (granted this is my gut talking), he will prove to be a bargain for whatever team owns him
But setting aside the above, I cannot and will not quibble with obvious point that Schierholtz is — by far — the superior defender. I’d be an idiot if I did not wholeheartedly agree with this point (and though others may differ, I don’t reckon myself a complete idiot). So I’m obliged to bow to the superior arguments of my fellow fans, to the effect that there is no statistical basis to justify pushing Schierholtz aside in favor of Trumbo. I still believe Trumbo will break out, and will become a significant offensive threat (and I fear that Schierholtz has peaked). But I cannot back this up with anything solid, so I’m obliged to abandon my position on this.
Now that we’ve eliminated Trumbo as a possible option for improving the Giants offense for 2012 — I’d still be interested to hear peoples thoughts on how the Giants can add some desperately needed offensive numbers to the lineup – while doing so within the existing constraints of a $130M salary ceiling, and without giving up the farm in terms of prospects (for example, Gary Brown needs to be entirely off-limits for trade purposes). Who can the Giants give up (from the ML roster or the minors) in exchange for a meaningful offensive upgrade, and without hurting the team so much as to offset the value of the offensive upgrade? There has to be some combination of talent that the Giants can trade to a team in need in exchange for a player(s) that fills an immediate need of the Giants. Ideas?
They probably need to free up some payroll somehow.
Flipping Affeldt a non-prospect minor-league player and supplanting him with Runzler would be good.
However, he’s so overpaid other front offices might not necessarily even make that trade.
I'm not going to weigh in on this topic
But Bill James basically pulls those projections out of his ass. I’d be extremely reluctant to use them as evidence of anything.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
You're definitely right about one thing.
Signing Affeldt and/or Lopez was a bad move. I’m inclined to think that signing either was a bad idea, but that’s really irrelevant.
Re:Trumbo, people have already said pretty much what I’m going to say. He doesn’t walk, and he doesn’t play great defense at a corner outfield position, so I don’t really see the argument to displace either Belt or Huff (if Huff actually gets in shape). He’s better than Pill, but that’s not really saying much, and Trumbo over Pill doesn’t merit the package that it will likely take to get him.
My adopted Giant, the young Reinier Roibal
FOOD 4 THOUGHT
Brian Sabean strongly encourages you to disregard the drudgery of your employment responsibilities and join him in the consumption of spirituous libations.
Yeah, this isn’t a Modest Proposal at all. In fact, it seems to be written entirely without satire.
Ron Washington really Britta'd that Series.
Please follow my Twitter
by Murray, Present on Dec 27, 2011 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
How is Belt not mentioned in the body of this fanpost?
Seems like it would have saved a lot of time:
Should the Giants trade for Trumbo?
No, they have Belt, who is better.
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, future CF for the World Champion San Francisco Giants.
"And besides, if I wanted to participate in a mindless patriotic ritual where my voice isn’t really heard, I would vote." - Chris Marcil
You're right and I apologize for not discussing Belt in my original post
I should have explained my thoughts regarding Belt in my original post, but when I thought about adding my thoughts on Belt, I realized that my piece was already far too long and rambling, so I neglected to do so. However, when someone raised a question about Belt in response to my fanpost, I did write a few paragraphs explaining how I believe Belt should be used. That said, you’re right. I should have taken more time & laid out my entire thought process in one (preferably concise) piece. Please forgive me as I’m new to this board, and new to the process of trying to lay out my thoughts cogently & concisely. I’ll try to do better next time. For what it’s worth, if you read the evolution of my responses to other writers, you’ll see that I was persuaded to reverse my position on the trade I originally proposed. I believe that says something about the value of exchanging ideas here. I’m not one of those people who feels he’s always right, and when I see superior logic — or when someone points out flaws in my logic that I hadn’t originally considered — I’m capable of admitting that I’m wrong, and backing down. I suspect the same cannot be said of every fan who posts here, so I hope I get a little credit for being open-minded enough to listen to other arguments, and when they prove superior to my own, being able & willing to back off of my original assertions.
Cheers & Happy Holidays to you and everyone else here.
Spence
I've been persuaded that Trumbo isn't the right guy -- BUT . . .
But can we at least talk about other possible trades:
a) that will shore up the Giants’ offense;
b) that might help the team more than the loss of the traded player will hurt the team;
c) that Giants’ ownership & FO can live with (both in terms of the payroll ceiling, and not gutting our minor league system of its best prospects); and
d) that might actually be feasible?
I suspect that most of us will agree that the Giants’ offense needs another bat (ideally at SS, or at a corner OF position). It seems to me that there’s far too much brain power here on this board (and one would hope in the Giants FO) — that between us, we should be able to come up with a few possible solutions that will address the Giants weaknesses, and without hurting the team more than helping it. So my idea about going after Trumbo isn’t the right approach. Agreed. Is there some other trade combination that you’d suggest?
Thanks,
Spence
Well, the Giants seem to have a huge aversion to shopping Brian Wilson, but he really provides the most trade value for the least loss at this point. There’s probably a team that would be willing to overlook his elbow problems for his “closer pedigree” which could definitely lead to a decent return.
My adopted Giant, the young Reinier Roibal
This
I’d be perfectly fine with trading Wilson, especially if we get a good return, and plugging Romo into the closer spot and bringing up Hembree to set him up. Or, better yet, pulling a La Russa and just going without a ‘closer’, putting in relief where it provides the most value.
I'm just a simple Giants fan trying to make my way in the universe.
by Tim Lincecum's Bong on Dec 25, 2011 5:41 PM PST up reply actions
Wilson's trade value is highly questionable at this stage.
Under the present circumstances, there’s simply no way that Wilson represents the Giants most valuable asset for purposes of a trade. Wilson has not yet shown that he’s fully recovered from the injury that nagged him for most of the 2011 season. And since he’s already had Tommy John surgery, there’s a great big red flag hanging over him — and it will remain there until Wilson shows he can pitch pain-free & effectively against ML hitters over some period of time (whatever period the doctors require in order to conclude he’s fully healthy). The fact that Wilson has already had Tommy John surgery significantly impacts his trade value — especially since Wilson hasn’t yet shown that he’s healthy — because pitchers who undergo second TJ surgeries have far lower effective recovery rates than pitchers undergoing their first TJ surgery.
Forgive me for shooting down your idea so quickly, but I find it highly unlikely that any rational GM would trade positive value in the form of any meaningful ML player or prospect — in exchange for assuming responsibility for paying $8.5M in 2012 to an injured closer (particularly one who hasn’t yet shown that he’s recovered, and who has already undergone TJ surgery). Surely there are a few teams that can afford to take this risk. But if they’re being rational, the only risk they’d willingly take (and I doubt they’d do even this) would be to take on Wilson’s salary free and clear (after all, that’s a fairly substantial risk all by itself). To compound the cost and risk of such a trade by including any meaningful player (ML or prospect) as part of the trade would be crazy. In my opinion.
He's not the most valuable
But I’m sure that some GM would be entranced by his ‘closer pedigree’ as well as his marketability, and give up someone good for him. That is why it’s a good idea to trade him – someone would be stupid and take the risk.
I'm just a simple Giants fan trying to make my way in the universe.
by Tim Lincecum's Bong on Dec 25, 2011 5:47 PM PST up reply actions
Okay then . . .
Let’s say you’re the GM of a ML team that has money to spend, and is looking for a closer. Do you trade any non-scrub player on your roster or in your farm system AND assume liability for paying an $8.5M contract in order to acquire Wilson? Or do you take your $8.5M & your available player/prospect and look elsewhere for your closer? Even if money grows on trees for your team (I’m looking at you NY Yankees), it’s still money. So in order for the Wilson deal to make sense to you, wouldn’t you need to view the potential value of the deal as being worth both the $8.5M and the player/prospect you’re losing? And wouldn’t you also have to conclude that the same amount of money + value of player would not be sufficient to buy a closer of at least equal potential quality on the FA market (or via trade)? Assuming your team is that rich, logic suggest that you wouldn’t be limited to merely one year & $8.5M. Presumably, you could offer $8.5M per year for several years if you wished. Under these assumptions, you would presumably be able to offer a competitive proposal to your choice of FA closers (or closer-capable pitchers). So assuming you’re rich enough to sling $8.5M at Wilson, risk be damned (and this narrows the list of teams you might be GM of considerably) — why would you opt to use your $8.5M on Wilson, rather than going after someone like Ryan Madson? I understand Wilson is a proven commodity, but Madson has a strong record too. The difference between the two is that you don’t know if Wilson’s elbow is going to fall off, whereas Madson appears to carry no similar (obvious) risk. Granted, you’d need to offer about 4 years & $40M to get Madson, but if you’re a rich team, you can afford this. And you could spend that money with far greater confidence that you’re getting what you’re paying for. Or if Madson doesn’t float your boat, you could take your money & prospects and make a run at Tyler Clippard, Jonny Venters, or a number of other outstanding future closers. The cost in prospects for any of these would be admittedly dear, but you’d be acquiring players who’ve shown that they have the stuff needed to close — and importantly, you wouldn’t be acquiring a pitcher whose elbow is held on by with duct tape & bubble gum (metaphorically speaking).
I’m just saying — I don’t think it’s as cut & dry as you make it sound. I have real trouble imagining a team taking on the risk & cost of a closer who might not pitch a single inning in 2012. That’s an expensive bet, and if it turns out Wilson’s elbow needs another surgery, you’d be $8.5M poorer — AND you’d still be in need of a closer. [Wilson can probably be traded at a discount, but until he shows that he’s fully recovered & effective again as a closer, I just don’t see a team throwing $8.5M plus prospect(s) at the Giants to land Wilson.] I’m open to being persuaded otherwise (as demonstrated by my abandonment of my Trumbo idea), so if you disagree with my view, I’d be interested to know where you perceive my logic to be flawed.
BTW, for what it’s worth, I absolutely agree that if Wilson can be traded for actual value (key word being “if”), the Giants would be wise to jump at the chance. I can’t shake the fear that Wilson is just one slider away from a career-ending elbow injury.
Thanks,
Spence
No one is saying Wilson's trade value is super-high
And it certainly is nowhere near where it was a year ago. But let’s look at the Giants’ tradeable assets:
First, not Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Posey, Belt, or Pablo. Trade any of those guys (possibly excepting Belt) and we’re looking at a rebuild, not an addition. Belt is included because he’s ML ready and could provide the middle-of-the-order bat we’re looking for, so it’s kind of stupid to trade six cheap years of him for not six cheap years of someone else when there’s only slightly less risk. There are very few players that the Giants should consider trading Belt for, all of them shortstops and none of them available.
Zito and Huff are out because no one wants to pay them.
Every other ML position player is not valuable enough to warrant a decent return. Schierholtz, Sanchez, Crawford, Stewart/Whiteside, Burriss, Pagan, Cabrera, etc. will not bring the bat we need.
Most of the bullpen is cheap and effective, but people don’t pay big for non-closers. Someone might take Affeldt/Lopez/Romo/Casilla as the second piece of a deal, but none of them are going to headline one.
That leaves prospects. I don’t think Surkamp has significant trade value, and even if he did, I like him as Zito insurance if not the 5th starter outright. Brown definitely has trade value, and as a 22-year-old in the CAL may not be a terrible trade piece if he brings back an Alexei Ramirez or Elvis Andrus.
Excluding Wilson, the best I can see is a package headlined by Brown, but we’ll need to throw in a couple more players to get someone of real value.
The attractiveness in trading Wilson is that a lot of powerhouses (Rangers, Rays, Angels, Phillies, Cardinals) need relievers/closers, and Wilson can boast that. We have the bullpen depth to trade him, can use the financial flexibility, and shouldn’t be convinced that he will continue to be an elite RP. It wouldn’t be easy to find a trade partner, because we’d be looking to give up a short-term asset for a short-term asset and that’s not typically what you see because teams don’t usually have a massive surplus at one position (and no one seems to have what we need), but Wilson remains our big chip.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
I agree except for one thing
if they cannot get Cain re-signed during spring training, I think that they should look to move him. I would absolutely hate it, but from what I understand the deadline deals for pending FA’s won’t be as lucrative as in the past as I believe the club has to have controlled the player for the whole year (or something like that) to get the draft pick comp if he goes somewhere else.
Of course, they may just gamble and hope that they can make a run with him and take the free agent draft pick comp should he leave via free agency, but they should at least explore the idea of a trade if they can get a decent bat in return.
I happen to think that the offense isn’t that bad if they play Huff in LF and keep Nate as the late inning defensive replacement/spot starter. Of course, that hinges on Posey coming back without missing a beat, Sanchez playing well and rebounding from injury, Belt starting at 1b, and Pablo having a decent year. Lots of it’s there, I know.
The team is crippled from signing guys like Rowand and Zito and is going to need to do a good job of developing players from within and keeping their headline stars like Cain and Lincecum.
Good overview of Giants' tradable assets (or lack thereof)
@quincy0191:
Your run-down of the Giants’ tradable assets is pretty solid, and I find little to disagree with in your reasoning or conclusions. In case my earlier comments weren’t clear on this point — I fully agree that the following players should be off-limits (until & unless the Giants decide to clean house & rebuild, which I don’t advocate at all): Lincecum*, Cain*, Bumgarner, Posey, Pablo & Belt. The last 4 names on this list should be all-but untouchable for trade purposes because they are all under club control (at reasonable price) for several years each, and because (with the exception of Belt), they have proven ML ability. Although Belt has yet to prove himself at the ML level in the same way as MadBum, Pablo & Posey — I believe that he will do so, and probably soon (if given consistent playing time & at-bats, there’s no reason to think Belt won’t adjust to ML pitching, and he’s already a defensive asset at 1B). With regard to Lincecum & Cain, I put asterisks next to their names because I believe neither should be viewed as a trade option at this stage. However, when & if becomes clear that either pitcher will not agree to a contract that extends team control to cover at least two years into their free agency — in other words, if it becomes clear that either pitcher is determined to test free agency — then the Giants would need to start thinking about how to trade the relevant pitcher for maximum value. However, that time hasn’t yet arrived, so I will continue to view Cain & Lincecum as off-limits for trade purposes. [I do fear that this calculus will change between now & opening day, but for now, I remain hopeful that both can be extended.]
I agree that Zito & Huff are untradeable because of their inflated contracts & lack of production (or if they can be traded, the Giants would eat the lion’s share of their salary, so the likelihood of trading either is roughly nil).
I also concur that the Giants’ remaining position players (i.e., Schierholtz, Sanchez, Pagan, Melky, Burriss, Crawford & Stewart/Whiteside) represent minimal trade value (or even negative trade value) due to a combination of factors (e.g., cost of contracts (esp. Sanchez at $6M & to a lesser extent, Pagan & Melky whose 2012 salaries should be approaching market value), injury history (again Sanchez & to a lesser degree, Schierholtz) & underproduction (which basically covers everyone else, excepting Melky). One or more of these factors combine for each player to insure that the Giants would be lucky to break even on a trade involving any of these guys. So we can rule these guys out as possible trade bait.
As for the Giants’ bullpen, I likewise agree that they are by & large cheap and effective (the three exceptions being Wilson ($8.5M), Affeldt ($5M), and Lopez ($4.25M x 2yrs)). Of the remaining relievers (Romo, Casilla, Mota & Runzler) — each likely represents some positive value as a trade chip — but I would be highly reluctant to part with the reliever who represents the most valuable trade-bait (that would be Romo, IMO) because he’s: a) still cheap, and b) because he’s more valuable to the Giants in the bullpen than whoever the Giants might acquire for him. The remaining three (Casilla, Mota & Runzler) just aren’t valuable enough to be tradeable for a bat that would likely be of much help to the Giants. So yet again, we remove another group of guys from the trade conversation.
You may have noticed that I didn’t include Affeldt & Lopez in the above paragraph. The reason for that is largely answered in my original fanpost, in which I floated the idea of trading one or the other. I understand your point that their salaries might not make them particularly attractive to most ML teams. And while I’ve abandoned my initial suggestion that the Giants make a run at Trumbo — I have not changed my opinion that the Giants did themselves no favors by allocating $5M & $4.25M to these pitchers — particularly in view of the Giants’ inflexible payroll ceiling of $130M. Do I want both relievers in the Giants bullpen? Hell yes — but only if the Giants could retain them without having to cease further efforts to acquire another bat. I stand by my view that another bat (carefully chosen) would benefit the team overall more than having two excellent lefty relievers. And returning to your point, while I cannot disagree entirely with your assertion that teams won’t give up much for either pitcher, in part because of their salaries — I do still think one of these guys should be moved, if possible — and I’m inclined to think that a creative deal should be doable if the Giants can find a trading partner that has money, needs a solid lefty reliever, and that has an excess of talent at a position the Giants need (SS and/or OF). Of the two, I think Lopez would be the most valuable to another team because: a) he’s under contract for 2 more years (albeit at a hefty $4.25M per); and b) because Lopez is wickedly effective against LH hitters. Whether another hypothetical team would trade a player that would add value to the Giants for Lopez remains to be seen (and it could very well be that I’m wrong and that there are no teams that would trade a hitter to fill a Giants’ need). At the end of the day, this debate is largely academic because the Giants show no signs of being willing to part with either lefty (a position I view as misguided, but misguided or not, it is what it is).
As for Surkamp, again I agree. He looks to be a 5th starter at the ML level (we hope), but I see no reason to expect more upside from him than this. His control at the minor league level is encouraging. But unless he grows up to be Greg Maddux, then the rest of his stuff just doesn’t add up to better than a 5th starter. I also concur that the Giants need to hang onto Surkamp as “Zito insurance”. Indeed, I fully expect to see the Giants break camp with Surkamp as the 5th starter and Zito in the bullpen (his contract is too rich to release him outright — at least at this point — but give it another year or 18 months, and I wouldn’t be shocked to see that happen).
After ruling out most of the above players, we’re left talking about the trade value of Giants’ prospects. In my view, Gary Brown is the only prospect with significant trade value (and Hembree is a distant second to Brown, and would likely fetch a decent return — though with Wilson’s uncertain elbow issues, I’d be extremely reluctant to move Hembree). While Brown would likely fetch the most value in a trade, it seems doubtful that he could be traded for a player like Andrus who would fill an immediate need, at reasonable cost, and still be under team control for several years. Andrus is a largely proven value at the ML level, and given that he’s still cheap & under team control for several more years, it’s hard to imagine the Rangers moving him for a player like Brown, who admittedly has HUGE upside, but who hasn’t yet proven himself at the ML level. My original instinct was to argue that Brown should be deemed utterly off-limits for trade purposes. But honestly, if he could in fact be traded for Andrus (or his equal), then that would probably be one of the very few circumstances where trading Brown would make sense. Ultimately, I don’t think we’ll ever have to agonize over this possibility because I sincerely doubt that Brown could be traded for Andrus (or a player of similar value). But yeah, much as I’d hate to see the Giants move Brown — a trade for a player like Andrus would probably be a fair deal for the Giants — and it would definitely fill an immediate need.
Man, it is depressing to write this. After combing through the Giants roster & farm system for players who could realistically be traded for actual value — the results are disheartening. We ain’t got much to part with — and most of the guys we could part with probably would not get us a player in return that would make the Giants an overall better team than they were before the trade. Argh!
Thanks for your solid analysis. It’s a sobering exercise to consider the Giants’ trade options in this sort of detail. But I’m not interested in waving pom-poms here, and blindly supporting the team I love (that’s better left for another time & place). Instead, my goal was to — with your help and the help of others — attempt to reason through the various trade possibilities in light of the chips the Giants have to work with, and to weigh the likely value of players that might be acquirable. Your response was really helpful.
Thanks,
Spence
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on McCovey Chronicles
Related FanShots on McCovey Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
