McCovey Chronicles - Extending Brandon BeltWe want to continue to create opportunities for payroll flexibility.https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/50879/mcc-fav.png2016-04-11T12:22:16-07:00http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/rss/stream/51445852016-04-11T12:22:16-07:002016-04-11T12:22:16-07:00How Brandon Belt's comparable players aged
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/r784Arofe0w8-rKIq3vypbfowUc=/33x0:2617x1723/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49288655/usa-today-8736440.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Dennis Wierzbicki-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Brandon Belt signed a six-year extension. Here's how similar players would have looked on the same contract.</p> <p>Brandon Belt has a long-term contract with the Giants. It still feels funny to type. That means the only young player under 30 on the team who won't be around until at least 2020 is ... Cory Gearrin? Let's start the talks up, Bobby. Lock up everyone.</p>
<p>Belt responded to his new extension by almost hitting a dinger off Clayton Kershaw, then pummelling a ball to dead-center to help spur the Giants' unlikely comeback on Sunday. He's also walked six times already this season, when he didn't have his sixth walk of the 2014 season until his 108th plate appearance and 25th game. If this is the Belt we're going to get this season, this contract will be a steal.</p>
<p>However, what if Belt doesn't improve at all? What if the only thing he does differently is stay healthy? It's time to find some comparable players in baseball history and see how they aged. We can adjust our expectations upward or downward based on how Belt finishes the season, but this will give us an idea.</p>
<p>(An aside: Two of the best possible comps for Belt statistically are Leon Durham and <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/2012/5/2/2994198/every-game-i-used-drugs-the-story-of-willie-mays-aikens">Willie Mays Aikens</a>, both of whom had their careers cut short because of substance abuse. That just breaks my heart, and I'm not sure what to do with that information other than share it here.)</p>
<p>Some housekeeping, first. The similarity scores at Baseball-Reference don't help us much with Belt because they're based on raw numbers, which don't account for a) AT&T Park, b) the lower offensive levels that Belt has dealt with for much of his career, and c) the stupid injuries that follow him around like a dark cloud. So I'll look for players who were all of the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>A left-handed hitting first baseman</li>
<li>who had a little power, but not a ton</li>
<li>who took a fair amount of walks</li>
<li>who wasn't a total slug on the bases</li>
</ol>
<p>Belt's career adjusted OPS is 126. Let's see who ticked off those boxes up there and had an OPS+ close to that.</p>
<h4>Hal Morris</h4>
<p>You were looking for an exciting name among the comparable players? Willie Stargell, maybe? No, sorry. For as much as I love Brandon Belt, he's definitely more Hal Morris than Willie Stargell.</p>
<p>That's not a bad thing, though. Morris was more of a late-bloomer than Belt, not getting his first full-time gig until he was 25, but he had a similar combination of gap power and athleticism. Through his age-27 season, he had a 122 OPS+ for his career, even if that was more average-dependent and less saturated with dingers.</p>
<p>Here's how he looked at the same ages covered by the Belt extension:</p>
<ul>
<li>Age 28, 112 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 29, 128 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 30, 106 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 31, 124 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 32, 77 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 33, 90 OPS+</li>
</ul>
<p>Three perfectly fine seasons, with a cliff at the end. I'm not going to say that would be a great scenario, but it could be worse. If the Giants get a solid four seasons out of the six-year contract, they'll have done well, as far as long-term deals go.</p>
<p>(We're not going to worry about WAR, in case you were wondering, because not all of these players have the same defensive profile or injury histories. Just focus on the rate stats.)</p>
<h4>Wally Joyner</h4>
<p>Joyner was a more-hyped prospect, even with Belt getting plenty of hype on his own, and he had far lower strikeout numbers than Belt ever had. The rest of the numbers look eerily similar, though, right down to that little wisp of unexpected speed. His career OPS+ was 122 through his age-27 season, which was quite similar to Belt.</p>
<p>Here's how he looked at the same ages covered by the Belt extension:</p>
<ul>
<li>Age 28, 111 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 29, 134 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 30, 101 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 31, 120 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 32, 113 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 33, 118 OPS+</li>
</ul>
<p>Then he stuck around for three more fine seasons, just for good measure. This is kind of what I'm predicting for Belt, with an excellent season coming right before a standard Belt Wars season, but generally pretty steady. The Giants would be just fine with a Wally Joyner career path.</p>
<h4>Lyle Overbay</h4>
<p>Overbay was also a late-bloomer, but that's more because the Diamondbacks had no place to put him. They were already stumped with where to put Erubiel Durazo, so they let Overbay languish in the minors for a while.</p>
<p>When he was in the lineup, though, he hit, with a 122 OPS in his age-27 season, his first full season as a starter. Here are his numbers at the same ages Belt will be under the extension:</p>
<ul>
<li>Age 28, 113 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 29, 125 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 30, 85 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 31, 109 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 32, 119 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 33, 105 OPS+</li>
</ul>
<p>He was worth at least a win in all of those seasons, topping out at 3.2 WAR. That seems disappointing, but that's almost exactly the kind of performance the Giants would be paying Belt for. He's not getting All-Star money, not quite. An Overbay career path would suit them better than you might think.</p>
<h4>Dan Driessen</h4>
<p>The former Giant had a good defensive reputation, sound wheels, and a 18-homer bat, and he also toed that line between .250 and .300, just like Belt. He got his start much younger than the other players on this list, and his OPS+ through age 27 was 112, so while he's not the best possible comp, he's still a pretty danged good one.</p>
<p>The Belt contract for him would have been fine:</p>
<ul>
<li>Age 28, 121 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 29, 107 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 30, 119 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 31, 122 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 32, 126 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 33, 90 OPS+</li>
</ul>
<p>That last one was with the 1985 Giants, of course, because that's how that team rolled. But for five years out of six, Driessen was an asset at the plate. His WAR were ugly because of low defensive marks, but would <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/driesda01.shtml">this Baseball-Reference sponsor</a> lie?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Dan Driessen was one of the best defensive first basemen in MLB history. Dan Driessen's career fielding percentage at first base (.995) is better than that of ANY first baseman in the National Hall of Fame!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No way. Fielding percentage don't lie.</p>
<h4>Cecil Cooper</h4>
<p>Cooper was more of a hacker when he was younger than Belt, but he's included because the adjusted OPS marks were similar through his age-27 season, and because he got really, really good and I wanted to cherry-pick.</p>
<ul>
<li>Age 28, 133 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 29, 133 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 30, 155 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 31, 151 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 32, 142 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 33, 138 OPS+</li>
</ul>
<p>Wheeeeee! That would be a barrel of slumpy-shouldered monkeys, and we would love every second. This isn't a perfect comp, but it's better than you might think, and they both look pretty badass with beards.</p>
<h4>Jason Giambi</h4>
<p>Giambi's OPS+ through age 27 was 128, just two points higher than Belt's. Then his career absolutely took off for no apparent reason. This is probably going to happen with Belt, imo.</p>
<h4>Rafael Palmeiro</h4>
<p>Palmeiro's OPS+ through age 27 was 130, just four points higher than Belt's. Then his career absolutely took off for no apparent reason. This is probably going to happen with Belt, imo.</p>
<h4>Kent Hrbek</h4>
<p>Wait, wait, wait, back to those last two. I mean, I'm in no position to suggest ... it's just that ... I mean if he were just a little curious, I wouldn't ... I ... no, never mind, forget I said anything, this has gone off the rails, I can't apologize enough, move on.</p>
<h4>Kent Hrbek</h4>
<p>Hrbek had more power, but he also played in the Homerdome. If you use my favorite toy at Baseball-Reference, he looks extraordinarily Belt-y.</p>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/mw6Sems9dbLqPFDEZuly_TfuzPU=/400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6320501/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-11%20at%2012.08.45%20PM.png">
</figure>
<p>Here he is during the theoretical Belt-extension years:</p>
<ul>
<li>Age 28, 150 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 29, 139 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 30, 131 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 31, 125 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 32, 113 OPS+</li>
<li>Age 33, 120 OPS+</li>
</ul>
<p>Quite nice, with a calm, steady decline. Of course the Giants would be thrilled with this.</p>
<p>There were bummer comparisons, but there weren't a lot that made you think of Belt immediately. Nick Johnson came up, but his health problems weren't related to random hit-by-pitches. Justin Morneau also came up ... and, okay, that one makes you think of Belt, so we'll just move on. You can <a href="http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/Mp9lB">dig through my original search</a>, if you want. It's a fun bunch of names.</p>
<p>For the most part, though, it's a lot easier to find success stories with Belt's profile than it is to find cautionary tales. Belt doesn't have to be an MVP to make this contract look smart. He doesn't even have to be an All-Star. If he's the same ol' Belt, everything would be just fine.</p>
<p>If he wanted to mimic the Cecil Cooper path, though, I'd be okay with that. Cross your fingers, everyone.</p>
https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2016/4/11/11409558/brandon-belt-sf-giants-extension-contractGrant Brisbee2016-04-10T10:20:03-07:002016-04-10T10:20:03-07:00Brandon Belt's six-year contract is a sweet deal
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/5aUeE-4Oxcd91Hh9TmTV87iZ_ZQ=/0x0:3506x2337/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49278765/usa-today-8765876.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Kyle Terada-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Giants will have their first baseman for five years after this season, and they didn't have to pay a premium for the privilege. </p> <p>Two weeks ago, I was talking with Alex Pavlovic about the possibility of a Brandon Belt extension. I didn't think it would happen. He didn't think it would happen. We agreed the timing was right for the Giants, but it wasn't necessarily right for Belt, which gave the Giants more leverage. He then walked away to do some "reporting" on the possibility of a Belt extension. I went back and had more free nachos. No regrets.</p>
<p>The Giants and Belt did reach an extension, and it looks like the Giants used that leverage. He'll get five years after the 2016 season, and if you include the 2016 season, it's a six year, $79 million contract, with <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnSheaHey/status/718891905732358144">the salaries breaking down like this</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>2016, $6.2 million</li>
<li>2017, $8.8 million</li>
<li>2018, $16 million</li>
<li>2019, $16 million</li>
<li>2020, $16 million </li>
<li>2021, $16 million</li>
</ul>
<p>Belt had one more season of arbitration left, in which he would have been paid something close to that 2017 salary.. That means this extension is something like a four-year deal, $64million contract.</p>
<p>Try finding an above-average 29-year-old first baseman on the free agent market for four years and $64 million.</p>
<p>It's a sweet deal in today's money, and inflation might make it look even better. That's before you consider that we've grown attached to this goofball, just as we've grown attached to the idea of one day rolling our eyes when a crusty Dodgers fan mumbles something about Garvey/Lopes/Russell/Cey. We can't do it yet. But this extension gives us a fighting chance.</p>
<p>This isn't to suggest that Belt's new deal is without risk. His contract next year wasn't guaranteed; now it is. The contract takes him through his age-33 season; we've all seen hitters disintegrate long before that. There's a not-insignificant chance that in 2021, the Giants will be paying Belt, Brandon Crawford, and Buster Posey a combined $60 million, while not being wild about starting <em>any</em> of them.</p>
<p>When the subject of Belt's extension came up in March, though, this was the biggest reason I <a href="http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2016/3/22/11287820/sf-giants-brandon-belt-extension">didn't think something would get done</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Rule #1: It would make you uncomfortable</strong></p>
<p>... if there's an extension, it will make you do a double-take. There might be nine figures. And it will go until Belt is old enough to decline, possibly deep into those years. There's no reason for him not to expect that kind of deal, and there are at least a couple reasons why the Giants would entertain the idea.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The argument that Belt deserved a Freddie Freeman-type contract was missing a few key pieces of evidence. Mainly, sustained health and $100-million production, both of which could come for Belt this year. Absent the evidence this season would provide, either Belt would have to settle for the contract he could get without that evidence, or the Giants would have to close their eyes and pretend the evidence exists.</p>
<p>Belt decided he wanted to stay more than he wanted to gamble for the extra $30 million or so, because that gamble might have ended with the Giants backing away. That's great news for us. Great news for the Giants. And, you know, great news for Belt who will have approximately $79 million more dollars than most of us will ever have.</p>
<p>I'm still a little stunned that the contract is just for four years after his scheduled free agency, considering his age. Apparently, he just wanted a teensy bit more in total salary to needle the other Brandon. I can get behind that.</p>
<p>Congratulations to Belt for using his talents and skills to be a millionaire several times over. Congratulations to the Giants for keeping their homegrown infield together for at least the next six years. And congratulations to us for getting to watch our favorite players for a long, long time.</p>
<p>Condolences to the other faction in the Belt Wars. Keep distributing this handbills and holding secret meetings. By the end of this contract, your numbers might swell. For the bulk of it, though, I would expect your numbers to dwindle, and the Giants to keep winning with Belt's help.</p>
https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2016/4/10/11398398/brandon-belt-contract-extension-sf-giantsGrant Brisbee2016-04-08T22:29:24-07:002016-04-08T22:29:24-07:00Brandon Belt reportedly gets long-term deal
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/RBzC-eDBFAVxycUMVucvAIG8w54=/0x104:1532x1125/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49271999/usa-today-9228721.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Benny Sieu-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Giants will have their infield together for a long, long time. </p> <p>Minutes after the Giants won one of the best regular season baseball games AT&T Park -- nay, San Francisco -- has ever seen, Alex Pavlovic broke the news that <a href="http://www.csnbayarea.com/giants/breaking-giants-belt-reach-long-term-deal">the Giants have reached a long-term deal with first baseman Brandon Belt</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>First baseman Brandon Belt agreed to terms on a five-year extension Friday, per multiple sources. The deal also reworks Belt’s current one-year deal, locking him up for six total seasons. Financial details were not immediately available, but per sources, Belt’s deal is similar to but bigger than Brandon Crawford’s six-year $75 million deal.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There were reports that Brandon Belt's agent was driving a really, really hard bargain, but Dave Roberts replaced him with a different agent at the last second.</p>
<p>It didn't look like a deal would get done between the Giants and Belt for several reasons, all of which I <a href="http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2014/2/4/5380544/brandon-belt-contract-extension-giants">foolishly preserved for history here</a>, but apparently the desire to stick around and be a part of the young infield core was stronger than what was under the box.</p>
<p>More on this story to come. For now, let's bask in the joy of a walk-off win against the Dodgers and the news that Brandon Belt is going to be around for a rather long time.</p>
https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2016/4/8/11396734/sf-giants-brandon-belt-contractGrant Brisbee2016-03-22T16:07:56-07:002016-03-22T16:07:56-07:00What a Brandon Belt extension might look like
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/5sMMye9C_uPNMcfyCpNJnV9V0iM=/0x0:2176x1451/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49144437/usa-today-9201270.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Matt Kartozian-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What would a Brandon Belt contract extension look like? Probably a lot of words with a place for him to sign at the bottom. </p> <p>The spring scuttlebutt from Andrew Baggarly is that <a href="http://blogs.mercurynews.com/giants/2016/03/20/beyond-academic-many-varied-opinions-value-brandon-belt-giants-set-open-contract-talks/">Brandon Belt and the Giants are talking about a contract extension</a>. The Giants have Belt for two more seasons, but there's at least a decent shot that he'll be good-to-excellent for at least four more seasons. The organization doesn't like to see those homegrown players have those good-to-excellent seasons in different uniforms, which is why they were chasing Pablo Sandoval until the very end.</p>
<p>Whew, is it hot in here? Just thinking about the Giants <em>not</em> missing out on Sandoval and, phew, it seems hot in here.</p>
<p>Regardless, that's the idea with Belt. He's homegrown, he helps the team win, and the non-weirdo fans seem to like him. The trick now is to find a middle ground on the price. First, let's check some comments under that Baggarly arti ...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>331 comments</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Oh, no.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Another big one is never has hit 20HR / 70 RBIs and btw has never won a GG. Some of the Belt Fanboys / apologists on this blog have dreamt that he has so much they see it as concrete truth when in fact has been all a mirage.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Good points! Except for the all of it. We have to take his numbers out of 2015 AT&T Park and put them in a different context. Here's what his numbers would look like in a neutral park under <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/beltbr01-bat.shtml">2000 offensive levels</a>, using my favorite Baseball-Reference toy:</p>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DL98XGlikUwoRb3M0h1WB64z_Wc=/400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6231705/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%203.27.30%20PM.png">
</figure>
<p>The reason I keep using those adjusted numbers is because most of us didn't start watching baseball three years ago, when offense went down. So it's useful to project what Belt might have been in another era, in another park. He would have been what the Giants thought J.T. Snow was, just much better. That player up there would have tickled our synapses and made us giddy. There wouldn't have been so many dumb arguments. It's why we tire of the dumb arguments today.</p>
<p>Belt's a valuable player. Here's FanGraphs suggesting that <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-first-base/">the Giants are better off at first base than 23 other teams</a>. Belt is a huge part of that, and he'll be just 28 this season. Of course you try to lock that kind of player up.</p>
<p>I'll stand by my position that a Belt extension is <a href="http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2016/2/4/10918552/sf-giants-brandon-belt-extension/in/5144585">not especially likely</a>, just because injuries have robbed us all a chance to evaluate a full Belt season, and he'd like to have one of those before signing his one big contract. But it's still worth exploring what would make an extension work. It looks like there are two rules of a theoretical long-term contract with Brandon Belt and the Giants.</p>
<h4>Rule #1: It would make you uncomfortable</h4>
<p>Remember Brandon Crawford's extension? It was about half of what he would get on the open market, at least, and we're used to seeing Ian Kennedy and Mike Leake get that kind of money. In that context, it was hard to worry. And, trust me, I'm good at worrying.</p>
<p>Belt's contract wouldn't be like that. He's more than a year younger than the other Brandon, for one, so he'll want a longer contract. When it comes to snap-judging a contract as a fan, it's a lot easier to hear "six years, $75 million" than "seven years, $more millions," even though buying out four years of a 29-year-old's future free agency carries similar risks to buying out five years of 28-year-old's future free agency.</p>
<p>So if there's an extension, it will make you do a double-take. There might be nine figures. And it will go until Belt is old enough to decline, possibly deep into those years. There's no reason for him not to expect that kind of deal, and there are at least a couple reasons why the Giants would entertain the idea. Every free agent contract has some dud seasons built in at the end. I love Buster Posey as much as the next person the court has told not to express love for Buster Posey, but there's still a strong likelihood that he won't be worth $21.4 million as a 34-year-old catcher. Johnny Bench wasn't, after all. The Giants aren't expecting it. It was just the price of business.</p>
<p>Seven years, then. Oh, goodness, it would be worth it just to see the Belt-doubters take to the streets and flip some cars.</p>
<h4>Rule #2: It would make Belt a little uncomfortable</h4>
<p>Technically, it would make him extremely comfortable. It would make his kids extremely comfortable, and it would probably make his great-grandchildren extremely comfortable. But we're talking in the sense of Belt looking at the headlines when a big free agent signs in December, 2017 and thinking, "Oh, man, I totally could have been paid more than that doofus." He would have to risk that.</p>
<p>And considering that he's getting paid $6.2 million this year, and something like $9 or $10 million next year? The Giants have the leverage. Anything could happen to Belt over the next two years, and he knows it. That includes anything from becoming an All-Star or MVP candidate to getting five at-bats because of unexpected injuries. But anything could happen to the Giants, too, and that includes developing the first base equivalent of Matt Duffy or finding the next Aubrey Huff in the wild. They'll be eager, but not <em>that </em>eager, thank you. Their current competition is themselves.</p>
<p>The reason we weren't so flabbergasted by Crawford's extension is because they included those arb-eligible years in the total. He was guaranteed to be underpaid because the system is rigged, man, and the final contract total reflected that. Belt's contract would be the same way.</p>
<p>So slap the two rules together, and what do you get? Something like Crawford's deal, with a year thrown on top because Belt is younger, and a dollar amount that's a little more than expected. I'll guess seven years, $100 million, which would be about $16 million per year after this season's $6.2 million. The length would make us uncomfortable (not wild about the idea of being tethered financially to a 34-year-old Belt, even as a rabid, emotional fan), and there would be the sticker shock of the $100 million total, but the annual dollars would be reasonable.</p>
<p>The increased chatter is making me think the idea is possible, at least. Don't worry about where to put Posey in a few years. You know, there was one game in college when he played all n</p>
https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2016/3/22/11287820/sf-giants-brandon-belt-extensionGrant Brisbee2016-02-04T12:47:42-08:002016-02-04T12:47:42-08:00Giants, Brandon Belt probably not a long-term fit
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/q57snMZanL-EoK4M0pBAvuNLZIk=/0x0:4104x2736/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48733499/usa-today-8803191.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Lance Iversen-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Giants enjoy locking their homegrown players up to long-term deals, but the looming arbitration case reminds us that Brandon Belt might not get that kind of extension.</p> <p>The Giants just might end up going to arbitration with Brandon Belt. It's early February, and the two sides started as far apart as they have with any Giants player <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ys-maurybrownlincecumarb021010">since Tim Lincecum in 2010</a>. The last time the Giants went to arbitration was with A.J. Pierzynski back in 2004, incredibly, and their argument of "just look at the guy, c'mon" was somehow unsuccessful. The organization has a distaste for the entire arbitration process, and they do a great job avoiding it. The longer we go without Belt news, though, the easier it is to imagine an arbitration hearing with him. </p>
<p>It's also possible the Giants will strike a two-year deal with him to avoid this mess next year, just like they did with Gregor Blanco a year ago. Giving Belt guaranteed millions before his free agent payday would seem to benefit everyone involved, and it would balance out the risk and reward for the next two seasons. </p>
<p>But we've been <a href="http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2014/2/4/5380544/brandon-belt-contract-extension-giants">tracking the idea of a Brandon Belt extension</a> for a couple years now, mostly because that's what you do with your favorite homegrown young players, and it's starting to become clear that he's more Pablo Sandoval than Madison Bumgarner when it comes to a long-term deal. The Giants missed their window early, and it's going to almost certainly lead to Belt leaving in two years. </p>
<p>Last year, we took a look at<a href="http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2015/2/2/7966201/brandon-belt-giants-extension-contract"> the problem with extending Brandon Belt</a>. There were three possible outcomes for his 2015 season, and they all made an extension trickier. </p>
<ol>
<li>He was awful</li>
<li>He had a Brandon Belt kind of season</li>
<li>He enjoyed a breakout, All-Star year</li>
</ol>
<p>The first one wouldn't have made the Giants eager for an extension, not unless they were trying to bargain shop. The second one wouldn't have made them eager for an extension, because there isn't as much upside in a market-price 32-year-old Belt as you might think. Or perhaps there's <em>exactly</em> as much upside in an expensive 32-year-old Belt as you think. And the third one would have made the Giants spend star money on a player who still had two years left to prove he wasn't a star. </p>
<p>He ending up doing the second one in 2015. He had a Brandon Belt kind of season, filled with ups and downs and getting hit with baseballs by jerks, just like we're used to. He's now a year older and a little more expensive. An extension for him would take him through his age-30 (fine), age-31 (probably fine), age-32 (uh), and age-33 (hold on). That would be a six-year extension if he signed it today, just like Brandon Crawford's. </p>
<p>The reason you take that risk with Crawford without blinking is because he's a Gold Glove shortstop who can hit a little. Those are marvelous, curious mythological creatures that you keep in a glass jar for as long as possible. </p>
<p>Belt is a first baseman who gets on base and hits for some power -- both better than his raw numbers suggest, after adjusting for his home park -- and plays solid defense. Those are great to have. But they're not so rare that it's worth risking an annual $20 million sandbag in the player's mid-30s. It's not out of the question, but it takes a little more consideration, especially if he's looking for more than what Crawford got (because of <a href="http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2014/2/5/5380566/braves-freddie-freeman-giants-brandon-belt/in/5144585">that jerk Freddie Freeman</a>.) With the free agent market what it is, I wouldn't blame him for gambling on getting much more than Crawford. </p>
<p>This isn't to say that I don't <em>want</em> Belt back. On the contrary, if he could find a middle ground with the Giants, that would mean it's on a reasonable deal, almost by definition. The band would be together for the rest of the decade, and the Giants would have their own Yeager-Cey-Russell-Lopes-Garvey to remember, albeit one that will have a chance to win more than one lousy ring together. </p>
<p>But if you look at the pattern of Giants extensions, Belt doesn't quite fit. Posey was an MVP and catching deity, so of course they pounced. Bumgarner was a young, burgeoning star who had already experienced the horror of losing his fastball, so he was more amenable to a super-early extension. Crawford is a) a rare player who b) still might have had his best season, so both sides were right to meet in the middle. Belt isn't any of those. </p>
<p>His situation might be close to that of Hunter Pence, really. Looking back, though, it sure seems like Pence left a healthy sum on the table by avoiding the free agent market. Belt might not want to do that, and I can't blame him. Add it all up, and you have a situation that probably isn't going to result in a long-term deal. </p>
<p>The good news is that he's still around for two years, at least, and those should be productive, helpful years. I'm looking forward to Brandon Belt, continuing San Francisco Giant, and so should you. </p>
<p>Now please give me a cookie for not mentioning Buster Posey moving to first <em>once</em> in this entire 850-word article.</p>
https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2016/2/4/10918552/sf-giants-brandon-belt-extensionGrant Brisbee2015-02-02T14:24:51-08:002015-02-02T14:24:51-08:00The problem with extending Brandon Belt
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/HB4PoRkgeXGXGaHrXttfuDKybjQ=/67x0:2370x1535/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/45611248/usa-today-8171889.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Christopher Hanewinckel-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I, too, want our gangly, lovable first baseman around for the next decade. But this is a weird contract to predict.</p> <p>One of my favorite pastimes is to check out Facebook after young players sign one-year deals to avoid arbitration. Remember when Tim Lincecum was going year-to-year in arbitration? Good times.</p>
<p> <figure class="e-image">
<img alt="dummy pfft" data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/2E0rSWMXSSD0r9QjTzox7lAMvtg=/400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3367976/Screen_Shot_2015-02-02_at_12.30.21_PM.0.png">
</figure>
</p>
<p>Good times.</p>
<p>So, yes, Brandon Belt is on a one-year deal. No, that doesn't mean this is his last year with the Giants. He's under team control through 2017, when he'll turn 29. Because the Giants sure love continuity, there's a good chance the two sides will talk about an extension before he gets close to free agency.</p>
<p>Except I have some devil's advocating to do. I love Brandon Belt. You love Brandon Belt. Remember when people used to prefer Brett Pill or (other random first baseman)? The CGI used in the Belt Wars already seems dated, and the whole era seems confusing. That's <i>after</i> his worst season since his rookie year, so you know he's entrenched. I'm looking forward to him getting even better over the next three years.</p>
<p>It's hard to see how an extension with Belt works, though, at least right now. Let me explain using some possible scenarios for the next three seasons.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Scenario #1: Belt struggles over the next year or two</h4>
<p>In this scenario, the 2014 numbers didn't have anything to do with his wrist or his inability to get consistent at-bats before getting hurt again. That's just who Belt is, for whatever reason. There's a hole in his swing, or something, which I'm sure we would never hear about. The Giants love their own players, and they might keep trying this alternate-world Belt, even as his salary keeps going up in arbitration, but there wouldn't be a rush to extend him, for obvious reasons.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Scenario #2: Belt is okay over the next year or two</h4>
<p>I like okay! It's better than bad. By definition. Okay is better than bad, literally by definition. Hi, I'm a professional writer.</p>
<p>In this scenario, Belt posts acceptable on-base percentages, hits between 10 and 20 dingers, and helps the Giants win more than lose. There are worse fates. But if that's the real Belt -- think J.T. Snow in his typical season -- that's also a poor candidate for an extension. This would be the kind of player who makes sense when there aren't better internal options, but not someone you want to keep around until he's 31, 32, or 33.</p>
<p>Not marriage material, in other words. They should literally play the field and look for better first basemen in this scenario. Literally play the field. Hi, I'm a</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Scenario #3: Belt ascends and becomes a All-Star</h4>
<p>Here be millions and millions of dollars. Remember, before last season, <a target="new" href="http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2014/2/5/5380566/braves-freddie-freeman-giants-brandon-belt">Freddie Freeman was a good comp for Belt</a>, as both of them were young and coming off great seasons (Belt's OPS+ was 139, Freeman's was 147). Freeman got eight years and $135 million, and then he had another great year. Belt had a Schleprock year, at least until the postseason.</p>
<p>If Belt were to bounce back and have a year similar to 2013, or even better, he'd want more than just a big salary to give up his free agency. He'd want a long contract. He'd want five, six, maybe seven years. He wouldn't get the Votto, but he could still angle for that Freeman.</p>
<p>Belt at 30? Probably pretty good. 31? Okay, maybe still pretty good. 32? 33? 34? At star money? Man, I'd like to see what kind of seasons Belt would need to have for that to happen.</p>
<p>No, really. I'd like to see those seasons. And maybe once we're living through them, the idea of a long-term deal for Belt wouldn't be so absurd. For now, though, it's hard to see how Belt and the Giants are a perfect fit for an extension. If he's bad, the Giants won't have any interest. If he's okay, the Giants should be keeping an eye on a younger upgrade in three years. If he's the Brandon Belt we know he can be, that would mean paying a first baseman a lot of clams as he goes through his early 30s, which will eternally seem like a bad idea.</p>
<p>The good news? Three more years of Belt. We'll worry about the distant future when it gets here, but don't expect an extension in the near future, even if Belt has a bounceback season.</p>
https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2015/2/2/7966201/brandon-belt-giants-extension-contractGrant Brisbee2015-02-02T08:37:25-08:002015-02-02T08:37:25-08:00Belt, Giants agree on one-year, $3.6 million deal
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/LlWwyqPq-fEEkj8F1eRVq9_1s7A=/0x83:2558x1788/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/45608352/usa-today-8125952.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>H. Darr Beiser-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The highest-paid Brandon on the team now has bragging rights.</p> <p>Brandon Belt, magnet for unfortunate injuries and hitter of extra-inning dingers, has agreed to a one-year deal, avoiding arbitration. The gangly first baseman will make $3.6 million last year -- <a href="http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/02/players-avoiding-arbitration-monday-4.html" target="new">lower than the midpoint</a> of the salaries the two sides exchanged, but slightly higher than the MLB Trade Rumors projection of $3.4 million.</p>
<p>This leaves Casey McGehee as the only arbitration-eligible player who still hasn't signed, and he might be the first Giant to go to arbitration with the team since A.J. Pierzynski. The situation is similar: recently acquired player, unfamiliar with the team, asks for way more than expected. Why, I'm prepared to blame him for not getting Yoan Moncada already.</p>
<p>Belt isn't a free agent until after the 2017 season, so it's not time to freak about him not having an extension yet. It's probably time to mutter things under your breath though, especially if he's the only guy hitting dingers on the 2015 Giants. Later today, I'll look at what a Belt extension might look like.</p>
<p>My first guess is pretty much a regular Belt, but with extra holes punched toward the end.</p>
<p>Sorry.</p>
<p>Hit dingers, Brandon Belt. Congratulations on the millions. Let us all celebrate with a video.</p>
<p><iframe src="http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=36751551&topic_id=6479266&width=600&height=336&property=mlb" width="600" height="336" frameborder="0">Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe></p>
<p>That must have felt like a punch right in the tanneroark.</p>
https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2015/2/2/7963491/brandon-belt-giants-agree-on-one-year-3-6-million-dealGrant Brisbee2014-02-21T13:36:11-08:002014-02-21T13:36:11-08:00Should the Giants give Belt the Freddie?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3wm1tEz0Y4ceAjOvuheKvUoQKMk=/0x710:2700x2510/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/28987321/153590760.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Thearon W. Henderson</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The answer isn't as obvious as it used to be. </p> <p>There isn't exactly <i>news</i> about Brandon Belt and a possible contract extension, but we do <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20140220&content_id=68045648&notebook_id=68046788&vkey=notebook_sf&c_id=sf">have a quote</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I think anybody would be open to a long-term extension, especially with this organization," he said. "It's a first-class organization."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That's not saying much. But it's better than something like this:</p>
<blockquote>"If they present a long-term contract to me, I will eat it. Literally eat the paper, bite by bite, staring them down the entire time. I mean, Brett Pill? What in the hell was that about? I can't wait to get out of here."</blockquote>
<p>So we'll take these small victories. A first-class organization! Did you hear that, Maude? He called it first class! Any news regarding a possible Belt extension is good news.</p>
<p>Except, I've been doing some thinking. Wait, wait, hear me out. Brandon Belt is a prince, a gosh darn prince, and I want him on the Giants for a long, long time. This is a familiar pattern. Get used to a player like Matt Cain, Buster Posey, or Hunter Pence, and wait for the extension. When the extension comes, rejoice. Simple.</p>
<p>That Freddie Freeman contract is sticking with me, though. It's possible that in six years, $20 million is the going rate for a league-average first baseman, so getting a quasi-star at those prices will be an undeniably good thing. But right now, it's star money, and the Braves can't afford to pay star money to non-stars. They're gambling. It's a sound, sensible gamble, but it's still an expensive gamble.</p>
<p>Belt and his agent might have been looking at the Allen Craig extension as a possible starting point. No more. They're thinking big. So here are the choices:</p>
<p>a. Lock Belt up for six, seven, or eight years, guaranteeing him substantial money in exchange for a couple of free-agent years, or …</p>
<p>b. Sign Belt to a four-year, non-guaranteed contract below market value, and negotiate with him on a longer deal as he gets closer to free agency.</p>
<p>The former sounds kind of scary, to be honest. What if he really is just Lyle Overbay? The Giants can afford an okay player making star money -- like <a target="New" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUKln0aoB-A">this guy</a> -- a little easier than the Braves can, but the deal will still contribute to sad, lackluster offseasons with a maxed-out budget.</p>
<p>
<link href="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3608425/mustreads.css" rel="stylesheet"></p>
<p>The latter is what the Giants already have Belt for. That doesn't sound scary. It's flexible, and four years is still a decently long deal. There isn't a lot of risk at all. And if Belt goes full Votto over the next couple of years, there's still time to extend him at star money. It'll cost the Giants more, of course, but they'll still have the option to keep him.</p>
<p>I've made this argument twice before, with two different players. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2010/1/19/1259329/tim-lincecums-future-contract">Here's the first one</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If Lincecum and his agent successfully navigate the young pitcher gauntlet all the way to free agency, more power to them. They'll have made it past the final round without any lifelines left, even when the last two questions were about opera and taxonomy. Then the Giants will have to decide if a 30-year-old pitcher is a good enough risk to lock up with a franchise contract. That's so far into the future, it's not even worth contemplating. So, so much can happen.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That was regarding Tim Lincecum. Nailed it. Look at the awesome blogger with his awesome opinions. Gonna do a little end-zone dance, don't mind me ...</p>
<p>Except<a target="_blank" href="http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2013/1/7/3846590/is-it-time-to-extend-buster-posey"> here's the other one</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So unless Posey will sign a mid-range deal -- think Carlos Gonzalez and his seven year, $80.5 million deal -- which he won't, I don't see the urgency for right now right now right now right now. There's time. Time to gather information, and time to experience seasons where everything doesn't end with a major award and a championship. Because, call me a cynic, but that isn't going to happen every year.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That was regarding Buster Posey. Technically, that deal gets an incomplete, because we don't know what Posey's post-FA years look like yet. But the deal came before the bubble became a super-bubble, and the cost of extending Posey would be much, much higher today. Assuming Posey continues to be the superhero he obviously is for, say, five more years, at least, the Giants did well.</p>
<p>Belt isn't Lincecum, nor is he Posey. He's his own cat. I'd write that he plays a position where it's easy to find talent, except the Giants haven't been so hot at that since Will Clark left. He's important, but there's time. He'll never be as important or expensive as Buster Posey, and it's worth waiting a year to see if he should be as expensive as Freddy Freeman. I was aboard the Beltstension train last month, but we're kind of hanging out at the station, getting It's Its right now. I'm cool with that.</p>
https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2014/2/21/5434456/brandon-belt-extension-contract-giantsGrant Brisbee