Off Season Grade

[dredinis21]

There is a personal prestige that goes with playing CF that I suspect Pagan will not give up quietly. Not saying that is a certainty, but I believe it is worth noting.

I agree it should and will likely turn out that way (Span is CF, Pagan in LF), but while Pagan is healthy, he will fight for CF.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind starting Pagan in CF at the beginning of the season while Span proves that his hip is healthy...but once it is shown that Span can run, Pagan NEEDS to be a LF or allow Blanco to. He's in the last year of his deal, if he starts to make the season about him and starts pouting, my hope is that Giants management either slaps some sense into him and/or creatively gets rid of him without actually getting rid of him.

 

[Stokes1931]

Wow, even I didn't give them that bad of a grade. Thanks for taking (some) of the pressure off of me.

Yeah, but you were tempted to do so, weren't you?

 

[tzill]

Frankly, I wouldn't mind starting Pagan in CF at the beginning of the season while Span proves that his hip is healthy...but once it is shown that Span can run, Pagan NEEDS to be a LF or allow Blanco to. He's in the last year of his deal, if he starts to make the season about him and starts pouting, my hope is that Giants management either slaps some sense into him and/or creatively gets rid of him without actually getting rid of him.

According to reports, Bochy has already talked to him about moving to LF. I don't foresee a problem.

 

[LHG]

Yeah, but you were tempted to do so, weren't you?

The important thing to remember is that I didn't (at least not in writing).

 

[Hangman]

I am sorry that you guys are so delusional about what you think the Giants upgraded. We got 2 pitchers who were not our first choice and most likely not our second choice. One is at the age when pitchers start declining rapidly. The other is a small pitcher who can wear down really fast. Both were over paid and for too many years.

We traded for Leake and got nothing for him. It is the same situation when we traded Wheeler. Nothing but a rental and not making the playoffs makes that trade worse. The only reason that trade was good last year was that Leake would be a good player to keep on the team. His contract was more reasonable than both of the pitchers we did get and he is younger too.

We did not pick up a LF bat. We replace one injury prone over the hill CF for another and are moving one to LF. Neither of them have any power. They are redundant. We should have gotten a LF that can hit for power. I hope we trade Pagan for a real LF by mid season.

We resigned Crawford to a huge deal blocking our best prospect. Someone by all reports compares to Jeter and Posey. We are going to squander him in the minors for a long time. All because Crawford had his best offensive season that just happened to be a contract year. We over paid and gave him way too many years. I hope we trade him in the near future if he is still hitting which is something I am very leery about happening.

I am hopeful that the Giants scored and all my fears are unfounded, but right now there are way too many questions about every move they made for me to give them a passing grade.

 

[SFGRTB]

Neither pitcher is small, so I'm not sure who you're referring to. Cueto is 5'11" 220 lbs, rock solid. Samardjzia is 6'6" 225. Shark turned 31 three days ago, but unlike most 31 year old pitchers, he has significantly less mileage in his arm. He signed for about market value, and you could argue if he pitches like 2014 we got him for a bargain. The Giants' top target was Greinke. Yeah, they missed out there. Most of the beat writers were saying Samardjzia was connected to the Giants from the very beginning. He was a target all along, they just wanted to settle with Greinke first.

Leake and Beltran were pretty much the same story. How could the Giants EVER recover from that?

What's the big deal about power? The Giants needed a CFer the most. LF just came up the most because there weren't a lot of CFers on the market. Pagan proved last year that he's not a CF anymore (the worst defensive CFer in baseball, the 3rd worst overall fielder in MLB behind Hanley Ramirez). Span has been above average when he's played. He's a true CFer. There's the injury risk, no doubt. Before last season, he was consistently a full-time player.

Brandon Crawford was not in a "contract year". He still had 2 years of arbitration eligibility. Arroyo, our top prospect, is very likely going to be moved off of shortstop anyway and it has little to do with Crawford. What does "someone by all reports" even mean? Comparisons are thrown out way too loosely. Are you seriously expecting this kid to be a first-ballot HOFer? He's a prospect. We have a Gold Glove, Silver Slugger, All-Star, top 5 in baseball SS, and you're worried about him blocking a prospect? I call it a good problem to have.

It is TOTALLY fine to have different opinions. Things would get awfully boring around here if we all agreed on everything. You just seem to take the negative side with every decision they make, it comes off as troll-like.

 

[tzill]

I am sorry that you guys are so delusional about what you think the Giants upgraded. We got 2 pitchers who were not our first choice and most likely not our second choice. One is at the age when pitchers start declining rapidly. The other is a small pitcher who can wear down really fast. Both were over paid and for too many years.

We traded for Leake and got nothing for him. It is the same situation when we traded Wheeler. Nothing but a rental and not making the playoffs makes that trade worse. The only reason that trade was good last year was that Leake would be a good player to keep on the team. His contract was more reasonable than both of the pitchers we did get and he is younger too.

We did not pick up a LF bat. We replace one injury prone over the hill CF for another and are moving one to LF. Neither of them have any power. They are redundant. We should have gotten a LF that can hit for power. I hope we trade Pagan for a real LF by mid season.

We resigned Crawford to a huge deal blocking our best prospect. Someone by all reports compares to Jeter and Posey. We are going to squander him in the minors for a long time. All because Crawford had his best offensive season that just happened to be a contract year. We over paid and gave him way too many years. I hope we trade him in the near future if he is still hitting which is something I am very leery about happening.

I am hopeful that the Giants scored and all my fears are unfounded, but right now there are way too many questions about every move they made for me to give them a passing grade.

Ok, this is the early leader in 2016 for Poopy Post of the Year. A number of observations:

1. JC and Shark "not our first, or second" choices. Who cares? Every year, free agency is a fluid process. 29 teams didn't get Greinke, does that make all of them "delusional" about their offseason? We got a stud pitcher in JC at a very fair price. We gave him $130MM for 6 years. That means we'll need about 17 WAR or so over the course of the contract (probably a bit less due to inflation). JC has put up between 4 and 6.5 WAR/year over the last few years when healthy. He's healthy. He's 29 and right in the middle of his prime. He'll be in his prime for the next 3 seasons. It's not unreasonable to expect him to accumulate enough WAR to justify his contract by the end of the 2018 season. That would leave 2019-2021 as "gravy" seasons. This is not an unreasonably optimistic projection. He could easily put up 20 WAR in the next three years and be a CY candidate and ASG participant.

Shark is getting $90MM/5 years. That means he needs to accumulate 12 WAR over 5 years (actually a bit less given inflation). That means he essentially needs to be an average starter over the course of his contract. He's 31 so he would normally have one prime year left. However, and this is a big however, he hasn't even thrown 1000 innings in his career. It's not unreasonable to expect him to have another year of prime, given the relative under usage he's had to this point in his career. For point of reference, Matt Cain has thrown twice as many innings as Shark and they're the same age. By all accounts, Shark's stuff and velocity is just fine. He's moving from a hitters league and a poor defense to a pitcher's park and an excellent defense. Not unreasonable to expect 3-4 WAR over the next 3 years. That would leave the last two years of his contract as "gravy" or performance in excess of his contract value.

2. Small pitcher who can wear down really fast -- this is pure conjecture. Further, as long as the wearing down isn't rapid, JC can and should provide plenty of value. All pitchers can wear down, all contracts carry risk. The risk/reward proposition we've taken with JC is a pretty good bet.

3. We got nothing for Leake -- patently incorrect. First, the price paid (Duvall and Mella) wasn't that high. Duvall likely never does much in the majors and Mella wasn't a top ten prospect within the org when traded. Second, we got a quarter year of 0.6 WAR...which projects out to over 2 WAR for the season. In other words, a #3 starter. Our rotation was a shambles before he came over and he helped solidify it. In short, it was a low cost, smart move designed to give us a shot at making the playoffs. That it didn't work out doesn't make it a bad trade nor does it make what we received "nothing." You are correct to compare it to Wheeler, but also to Pence, another "rental." You are doing outcome based analysis, which you can't do to evaluate the decision at the time. At the time, both the Beltran and Leake trades made a tremendous amount of sense. Had we known that we wouldn't make the playoffs then of course we don't make the trade and we keep Wheeler, Duvall and Mella. But this is the thing about trades: you don't know for sure -- you make your best guess. Your conclusion that "the only good thing" about the Leake trade was the opportunity to keep him is incorrect. He provided #3 performance for 1/4 of the season. We also got the opportunity to see him up close and personal and determine if we even WANTED to keep him. There's value in that too. Highly trained baseball people who have been responsible for three championships in the last five years decided that JC and Shark were better bets than a younger Mike Leake. Leake seems to be a steady #3 pitcher and that's likely his ceiling. JC is a #1/#2 guy and Shark has the stuff to be better than Leake. Simply put: both are solid bets to exceed Leake's performance. You can see it differently, but I'll go with Sabean, Evans, and Barr over you.

4. Span is "over the hill." The metrics just don't bear that out. He was hurt last year, true. He's 31. Again, using WAR analysis, he got $31/3 years. He'll need to put up about 4 WAR to justify that contract. He looks to be a 2.5 - 4.0 WAR guy when healthy. He could easily earn his three year salary in 2016, leaving two years of gravy. He's got at least one year of prime left before you'd expect him to start declining. Span is not redundant -- he's a significant defensive upgrade over Oxy, who will be much easier to hide in LF. You seem to
be agitating for Cespedes (maybe you're not, but you only state a vague "we need a power hitter in LF"). We just don't have the budget to add such a bat. We are close to the luxury tax, which the ownership is unlikely to exceed. The priority was pitching, and after JC and Shark there was no budget for Upton or Cespedes. Thus, we got Span at a good low risk price. That's just smart business.

5. Crawford's contract -- We paid $75/6 years. He's 28, so we can reasonably expect 4 years of prime. He's a 4-5 WAR guy at this point; he'll need about 10 total WAR to justify the contract. This contract is a bargain as he's likely to justify it by the end of 2018. Quite likely. You'd forego this for a guy who has done ZERO in the show? Arroyo is not even close to Posey as a prospect, so let's dismiss that as hyperbole. Arroyo is a nice prospect -- not our top propstect (Beede) -- but a solid chance to be a ML contributor. Crawford is an All Star who just put up 21 HR and played elite defense. Those guys are the guys you pay. Maybe Arroyo becomes as good as Crawford already is now, but that isn't the way to bet. Simply put, this is your worst argument of a weak collection.

In conclusion, you really struggled with this post. It's fairly awful. I get you're an emotional fan. Heck, my in game posts have been as bad. But this is the off season, a time to reflect with less passion about realistic chances. Realistically, we did a very good job of filling in the holes on our roster. We stayed within budget and didn't trade away prospects (like your next Jeter!).

Overall: B+/A- off season by Giants

Overall: D+ post by you. 3.5 poopies.

I'm hoping you're just getting into posting shape as we approach Spring Training.

 

[LHG]

Ok, this is the early leader in 2016 for Poopy Post of the Year. A number of observations:

1. JC and Shark "not our first, or second" choices. Who cares? Every year, free agency is a fluid process. 29 teams didn't get Greinke, does that make all of them "delusional" about their offseason? We got a stud pitcher in JC at a very fair price. We gave him $130MM for 6 years. That means we'll need about 17 WAR or so over the course of the contract (probably a bit less due to inflation). JC has put up between 4 and 6.5 WAR/year over the last few years when healthy. He's healthy. He's 29 and right in the middle of his prime. He'll be in his prime for the next 3 seasons. It's not unreasonable to expect him to accumulate enough WAR to justify his contract by the end of the 2018 season. That would leave 2019-2021 as "gravy" seasons. This is not an unreasonably optimistic projection. He could easily put up 20 WAR in the next three years and be a CY candidate and ASG participant.

Shark is getting $90MM/5 years. That means he needs to accumulate 12 WAR over 5 years (actually a bit less given inflation). That means he essentially needs to be an average starter over the course of his contract. He's 31 so he would normally have one prime year left. However, and this is a big however, he hasn't even thrown 1000 innings in his career. It's not unreasonable to expect him to have another year of prime, given the relative under usage he's had to this point in his career. For point of reference, Matt Cain has thrown twice as many innings as Shark and they're the same age. By all accounts, Shark's stuff and velocity is just fine. He's moving from a hitters league and a poor defense to a pitcher's park and an excellent defense. Not unreasonable to expect 3-4 WAR over the next 3 years. That would leave the last two years of his contract as "gravy" or performance in excess of his contract value.

2. Small pitcher who can wear down really fast -- this is pure conjecture. Further, as long as the wearing down isn't rapid, JC can and should provide plenty of value. All pitchers can wear down, all contracts carry risk. The risk/reward proposition we've taken with JC is a pretty good bet.

3. We got nothing for Leake -- patently incorrect. First, the price paid (Duvall and Mella) wasn't that high. Duvall likely never does much in the majors and Mella wasn't a top ten prospect within the org when traded. Second, we got a quarter year of 0.6 WAR...which projects out to over 2 WAR for the season. In other words, a #3 starter. Our rotation was a shambles before he came over and he helped solidify it. In short, it was a low cost, smart move designed to give us a shot at making the playoffs. That it didn't work out doesn't make it a bad trade nor does it make what we received "nothing." You are correct to compare it to Wheeler, but also to Pence, another "rental." You are doing outcome based analysis, which you can't do to evaluate the decision at the time. At the time, both the Beltran and Leake trades made a tremendous amount of sense. Had we known that we wouldn't make the playoffs then of course we don't make the trade and we keep Wheeler, Duvall and Mella. But this is the thing about trades: you don't know for sure -- you make your best guess. Your conclusion that "the only good thing" about the Leake trade was the opportunity to keep him is incorrect. He provided #3 performance for 1/4 of the season. We also got the opportunity to see him up close and personal and determine if we even WANTED to keep him. There's value in that too. Highly trained baseball people who have been responsible for three championships in the last five years decided that JC and Shark were better bets than a younger Mike Leake. Leake seems to be a steady #3 pitcher and that's likely his ceiling. JC is a #1/#2 guy and Shark has the stuff to be better than Leake. Simply put: both are solid bets to exceed Leake's performance. You can see it differently, but I'll go with Sabean, Evans, and Barr over you.

4. Span is "over the hill." The metrics just don't bear that out. He was hurt last year, true. He's 31. Again, using WAR analysis, he got $31/3 years. He'll need to put up about 4 WAR to justify that contract. He looks to be a 2.5 - 4.0 WAR guy when healthy. He could easily earn his three year salary in 2016, leaving two years of gravy. He's got at least one year of prime left before you'd expect him to start declining. Span is not redundant -- he's a significant defensive upgrade over Oxy, who will be much easier to hide in LF. You seem to
be agitating for Cespedes (maybe you're not, but you only state a vague "we need a power hitter in LF"). We just don't have the budget to add such a bat. We are close to the luxury tax, which the ownership is unlikely to exceed. The priority was pitching, and after JC and Shark there was no budget for Upton or Cespedes. Thus, we got Span at a good low risk price. That's just smart business.

5. Crawford's contract -- We paid $75/6 years. He's 28, so we can reasonably expect 4 years of prime. He's a 4-5 WAR guy at this point; he'll need about 10 total WAR to justify the contract. This contract is a bargain as he's likely to justify it by the end of 2018. Quite likely. You'd forego this for a guy who has done ZERO in the show? Arroyo is not even close to Posey as a prospect, so let's dismiss that as hyperbole. Arroyo is a nice prospect -- not our top propstect (Beede) -- but a solid chance to be a ML contributor. Crawford is an All Star who just put up 21 HR and played elite defense. Those guys are the guys you pay. Maybe Arroyo becomes as good as Crawford already is now, but that isn't the way to bet. Simply put, this is your worst argument of a weak collection.

In conclusion, you really struggled with this post. It's fairly awful. I get you're an emotional fan. Heck, my in game posts have been as bad. But this is the off season, a time to reflect with less passion about realistic chances. Realistically, we did a very good job of filling in the holes on our roster. We stayed within budget and didn't trade away prospects (like your next Jeter!).

Overall: B+/A- off season by Giants

Overall: D+ post by you. 3.5 poopies.

I'm hoping you're just getting into posting shape as we approach Spring Training.

tzill, I'm surprised you didn't give the team an A+ just because they didn't trade Susac away.