2016 Rosterbation

[MarcoPolo]

Cot's list $153.3 without Cueto, Belt, or Contos.

 

[LHG]

Cot's list $153.3 without Cueto, Belt, or Contos.

Marco, Cueto is on that list.

 

[calsnowskier]

Marco, Cueto is on that list.

I think he linked a direct link to the page, so he likely was not included when he posted.

 

[LHG]

I think he linked a direct link to the page, so he likely was not included when he posted.

Except the grand total with Cueto matches the amount that Marco mentioned. However, I haven't independently calculated their numbers so I don't know if Cueto's contract is listed but not calculated into the team's 2016 payroll.

 

[Mays-Fan]

Reconciling Marco's Excel sheet and BBRef:

2015 San Francisco Giants Current and Future Payrolls | Baseball-Reference.com

BBRef: 152.9
Less: 7.2 Kontos/Belt
Less: 7.93 other players (min salaries)
Less: 0.7 Aoki Buyout
Less: 0.35 Carbonell
Add: 15.833 Cueto
Total: 152.533 vs 153.344 that Marco has

Difference = less than a million, probably bonus treatments.

So, starting with BBRef because it has essentially the same numbers as Marco's plus more line items:

BBRef: 152.9
Cueto: 15.8
Benefits: 4.0 (I got that from MCC - "a few million")
Subtot: 172.7
Lux max: 189.0

Theoretical budget left: 189.0 - 172.7 = 16.3

Theoretically, we could get a premium OF if the contract was structured in our favor, or we were willing to go a few million over the lux tax.

Does that make sense?

 

[calsnowskier]

Reconciling Marco's Excel sheet and BBRef:

2015 San Francisco Giants Current and Future Payrolls | Baseball-Reference.com

BBRef: 152.9
Less: 7.2 Kontos/Belt
Less: 7.93 other players (min salaries)
Less: 0.7 Aoki Buyout
Less: 0.35 Carbonell
Add: 15.833 Cueto
Total: 152.533 vs 153.344 that Marco has

Difference = less than a million, probably bonus treatments.

So, starting with BBRef because it has essentially the same numbers as Marco's plus more line items:

BBRef: 152.9
Cueto: 15.8
Benefits: 4.0 (I got that from MCC - "a few million")
Subtot: 172.7
Lux max: 189.0

Theoretical budget left: 189.0 - 172.7 = 16.3

Theoretically, we could get a premium OF if the contract was structured in our favor, or we were willing to go a few million over the lux tax.

Does that make sense?

GREAT breakdown.

For discussion purposes, let's assume your bottom line of 172.7 is accurate and we have 16.3 avail before hitting the tax.

I think I would prefer to keep that cushion in the bank to acquire a need at the deadline than to fill a semi-need right now.

 

[tzill]

I think what happened was this:

I took Cot's 153 and added 23 for Cueto to get 176, without realizing that Cots already lists Cueto in the total at 15.8. So in effect, I double counted him.

The 153.34 in Marco's post includes Cueto, but NOT Belt or Kontos.

Revised numbers:

13 players at 153.34
Belt est 6.2
Kontos est 1.0
SUBTOTAL 160.54

9 players @ $507,500 4.57

GRAND TOTAL: $165.11

which leaves plenty of cash for an OF, I suppose.

 

[calsnowskier]

Regardless where we sit, I would rather get a 3.5 CF and let Blanco/Pagan/Mac/Parker battle for PT in Left.

 

[Mays-Fan]

Regardless where we sit, I would rather get a 3.5 CF and let Blanco/Pagan/Mac/Parker battle for PT in Left.

All else being equal, I would rather have less quantity and more quality. I would vote for getting a premium OF, even if it meant going a few million over (the FO went over last year after all). But there are other factors as well. And it would leave us with no powder at the July 31 deadline to replace an injury, or possibly get a closer. But you are only paying less than half a salary at that point, too.

 

[calsnowskier]

All else being equal, I would rather have less quantity and more quality. I would vote for getting a premium OF, even if it meant going a few million over (the FO went over last year after all). But there are other factors as well. And it would leave us with no powder at the July 31 deadline to replace an injury, or possibly get a closer. But you are only paying less than half a salary at that point, too.

I am not convinced that we NEED a LFer, though. That is why I prefer keeping the flexibility to fill the hole created by injury instead. Maybe that spot is a LFer. Who knows.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco, Cueto is on that list.

Yeah, I didn't look at it before posting. The last time I *did* look at it (a day earlier) Cueto wasn't listed. I *assumed* and made an ass of me, or something like that.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am not convinced that we NEED a LFer, though. That is why I prefer keeping the flexibility to fill the hole created by injury instead. Maybe that spot is a LFer. Who knows.

I wish to remain flexible for late-season trades.

If you look at Cot's Giants' salary page ( San Francisco Giants | Cot's Baseball Contracts ) you will see that the Giants almost always end up with a higher salary at the end of the year than at the start - sometime much, much higher { like the past 2 years - although no number is there yet for 2015 end, the Giants paid a tad over $1M of luxury tax, meaning that they ended the year OVER $194M (20% tax on $5M, 189+5=194) }. So they added $20M in 2015 and $16M in 2014.

 

[calsnowskier]

Would we prefer the Giants add Leake or Gordon?

Leake would give us a 1-4 that rivals the Mets. It also keeps Leake away from the dogs. However, it does begin to cause problems with roster management. A trade would almost certainly be required, but that would mean Cain or Peavy would need to be traded, and I dont think either have positive value on the trade market.

Gordon would solve the LF question and give us a 1-8 that rivals the DBacks. This would not cause any major problems with roster management except that it completely blocks Mac and Parker. Trading one of them at the deadline may makeup for any $$ issues as they could hold value.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Giants sign Kyle Blanks to minor league deal (about a month ago).

Giants nearing minor league deal with Kyle Blanks, man-mountain

Giants Agree To Minors Pact With Kyle Blanks

Kyle Blanks Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com

 

[msgkings322]

Anyone here like the idea of getting Denard Span? Probably cheaper than Gordon, plays CF quite well, etc...

 

[calsnowskier]

Anyone here like the idea of getting Denard Span? Probably cheaper than Gordon, plays CF quite well, etc...

I fully endorse the idea. He is the 3.5-type that I have been calling for.

 

[SFGRTB]

Would we prefer the Giants add Leake or Gordon?

Leake would give us a 1-4 that rivals the Mets. It also keeps Leake away from the dogs. However, it does begin to cause problems with roster management. A trade would almost certainly be required, but that would mean Cain or Peavy would need to be traded, and I dont think either have positive value on the trade market.

Gordon would solve the LF question and give us a 1-8 that rivals the DBacks. This would not cause any major problems with roster management except that it completely blocks Mac and Parker. Trading one of them at the deadline may makeup for any $$ issues as they could hold value.

I'm in the sit on what we have/sign cheap option to save flexibility boat. If I had to choose, I'd fix LF. Not sold on Gordon though, I think he's prime for overpay. He's going to be 32 Opening Day. Game deteriorated last year.

 

[Mays-Fan]

Would we prefer the Giants add Leake or Gordon?

Leake would give us a 1-4 that rivals the Mets. It also keeps Leake away from the dogs. However, it does begin to cause problems with roster management. A trade would almost certainly be required, but that would mean Cain or Peavy would need to be traded, and I dont think either have positive value on the trade market.

Gordon would solve the LF question and give us a 1-8 that rivals the DBacks. This would not cause any major problems with roster management except that it completely blocks Mac and Parker. Trading one of them at the deadline may makeup for any $$ issues as they could hold value.

I respectfully disagree, esp the "completely" part. If we got Gordon (or another OF), we would still need a rookie as the #5 OF - as in Pence/Pagan/Gordon/Blanco/rookie. And when Pagan goes down, we'll likely need them both.

 

[calsnowskier]

I respectfully disagree, esp the "completely" part. If we got Gordon (or another OF), we would still need a rookie as the #5 OF - as in Pence/Pagan/Gordon/Blanco/rookie. And when Pagan goes down, we'll likely need them both.

Not at all.

If we signed Gordon, and Pagan went down, neither Mac nor Parker would play CF. That would go to Blanco.

Mac and Parker: Blocked.

 

[Mays-Fan]

Not at all.

If we signed Gordon, and Pagan went down, neither Mac nor Parker would play CF. That would go to Blanco.

Mac and Parker: Blocked.

There are plenty of opportunities for a rookie #5 on a team with Pagan. Would they start? Of course not. They've hardly played and haven't earned it. Injuries, resting a veteran, pinch hits, late inning play would be way more than they've experienced. Blocked? Not at all.

Plus, Pagan is gone next year, and Blanco will be a FA. Blanco will want to get paid (maybe 3/20 if he has a decent season?), and I'm not sure we will be the highest bidder.