ZiPS Projections 2014

[calsnowskier]

You're always so confident...
You really can't see that?
You make a decent case but this one is as up in the air as it gets. I can see them signing him soon, signing him later, or not signing him at all and doing a QO. And his people have their agenda too, why would they sign so early?

Furthermore, I don't think you are being realistic about how much catching Posey can do, Panda might have to go for that reason too.

The Posey issue is a HUGE reason why signing Panda is a question mark, at almost any price. There is almost zero chance that Panda, Posey and Belt will ALL be with the team come 2016. A least one of them will have to move on.

Posey ain't going anywhere. He is the face of the franchise. He is getting paid by the truckload.

Belt can go, but he is cheapish, and he projects to improve year-by-year, and works on his game.

Panda is a stud at a relatively weak (league-wide) position, but his dedication is in serious question, and as been mentioned, will cost an arm and a leg.

The logical progression is to let Panda walk with a QO, move Posey to 3B, and have Susac or (and?) Sanchez take over dish-duty.

 

[tzill]

You're always so confident...
You really can't see that?
You make a decent case but this one is as up in the air as it gets. I can see them signing him soon, signing him later, or not signing him at all and doing a QO. And his people have their agenda too, why would they sign so early?

Furthermore, I don't think you are being realistic about how much catching Posey can do, Panda might have to go for that reason too.

You make a couple of good points here. Panda's agent may be hell bent on testing the FA market, and there is the QO compensation.

However, I don't think moving Posey to 3B is something they're really thinking much about. He's got a solid 5 years behind the dish before they have to think about moving him. With inter league, he'll get 6 or so starts a year as DH, and Belt will need 10 games off a year. Add that to 130 games behind the dish and I think he'll be fine there. Remember, he delivers exceptional value (off the charts really) as a C. As a 3B, he'd be very good and perhaps an All-Star. As a catcher, he's a MVP candidate.

I've certainly been wrong before, but I think re-signing Panda this Spring is a no-brainer.

 

[tzill]

The Posey issue is a HUGE reason why signing Panda is a question mark, at almost any price. There is almost zero chance that Panda, Posey and Belt will ALL be with the team come 2016. A least one of them will have to move on.

Posey ain't going anywhere. He is the face of the franchise. He is getting paid by the truckload.

Belt can go, but he is cheapish, and he projects to improve year-by-year, and works on his game.

Panda is a stud at a relatively weak (league-wide) position, but his dedication is in serious question, and as been mentioned, will cost an arm and a leg.

The logical progression is to let Panda walk with a QO, move Posey to 3B, and have Susac or (and?) Sanchez take over dish-duty.

I'd put money that you're wrong. As I said before, Posey can catch 130 games, 10 at 1B, 6 as DH. That's 146 starts and should keep his legs relatively fresh. 6-8 WAR catchers are incredibly rare. 5 WAR 3b, while excellent, are not nearly as hard to find. And we have one already.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Yeah, ESPN follows the "Timmy will be awful because of his 2012 and first half of 2013 and we will ignore the pitcher he was in the second half of 2013" mantra.

Again, if we get that Timmy then I agree.

I think we'll get Timmy 3.0 -- 200 IP 3.75 ERA 115 ERA+ 2.5 WAR.

Two problems I see with this. One is that Lincecum's ERA and OPS against after the All-Star break last year were actually both worse than before it. The other is that even if he puts up a 3.75 ERA that's unlikely to be anywhere close to a 115 ERA+, as the park adjusted league averages with AT&T as home park have been 3.32, 3.52 and 3.48 over the past three seasons. Using the average of those as a baseline gives an ERA+ of only 92 with a 3.75 ERA. A 115 ERA+ would require an ERA under 3.

 

[calsnowskier]

Two problems I see with this. One is that Lincecum's ERA and OPS against after the All-Star break last year were actually both worse than before it. The other is that even if he puts up a 3.75 ERA that's unlikely to be anywhere close to a 115 ERA+, as the park adjusted league averages with AT&T as home park have been 3.32, 3.52 and 3.48 over the past three seasons. Using the average of those as a baseline gives an ERA+ of only 92 with a 3.75 ERA. A 115 ERA+ would require an ERA under 3.

I like the numbers! Well, not the numbers, but the manner in which you provide them...

Does ERA+ take into account Home ERA vs Road ERA? Or does it take player A's entire ERA, than apply a multiplier based on his home team? My understanding is that it takes a players performance in each park, and applies the multiplier to each game, but I am no expert...

 

[calsnowskier]

It is also difficult to strictly look at numbers with Timmeh. He has been so dominant at every stage of his career (both amateur and pro) that he had a very hard time adjusting to his loss of flexibility. He still has decent control and he can still get the FB up to 92/93. The prob is that he used to be able hit 97 with a wicked change that got everyone out of their shoes.

The second half of '13 was his finally accepting that he had to change his game (thanks Le Grope), and he should only improve further as he continues to accept that he MUST become Timmeh 3.0.

I believe that anyone who questions if he will be able to accomplish this has a very valid concern. Most of us here also believe that he is grossly over-paid. But any player could turn on the suck at any time, and the money is not ours, so who cares?

 

[SF11704]

Back to Panda ... IMHO I don't think Panda signs for 3/60. As stated above his agent won't let him. I also think that SF doesn't offer a 6/120 either. Just too much of a gamble ...... but .... I think the real winner is actually Panda. If he puts together a monster 2014 season he'll be able to write his own ticket. I could see 6/140 being a realistic figure moving forward. If he onkly has a so-so year I still see an AL team coming to the plate at a 6/120. Either way I think Panda comes ourt of this pretty good. I also feel that 2014 will be his last year with us. Just don'
t see us throwing a 5/6 year deal to the table and if he has a gereat year I think he's priced himself out of our budget. .

 

[Mays-Fan]

That's the prob with Panda, though. He has not SHOWN the ability to maintain his weight over any extended period. He has one good off-season, entering his walk year, and you see that as a sign he has turned the corner and he should be fine or the next 5 years? I think signing him to anything longer than 3 years this spring will not only ruin his 214 season, but potentially ruin his career (not for him, obviously, as he will have hit the lottery).

I am nt really thrilled with the idea of a 3-year deal with him right now, but like Pence, maybe you have o over-pay in order to stay ahead of the market and because replacing him is more difficult than keeping him.

Would the CBA allow for a conditioning/weight clause in a contract? That is, if the target playing weight was, say 240, have some sort of bonus/penalty scale (!) in the contract?

Or would it be more fair/legal to have something more geared toward actual baseball stats - PA's, OPS, etc.? Let him weigh 280 if he wants, but if he doesn't produce, he won't get paid much.

 

[calsnowskier]

My understanding is that performance clauses are not allowed in contracts. You can put playing time benchmarks in ("Play in 130 game and X happens", for example). However, saying "Hit 30 HRs and Y happens" is not allowed.

I am not sure about this, though.

 

[tzill]

Two problems I see with this. One is that Lincecum's ERA and OPS against after the All-Star break last year were actually both worse than before it. The other is that even if he puts up a 3.75 ERA that's unlikely to be anywhere close to a 115 ERA+, as the park adjusted league averages with AT&T as home park have been 3.32, 3.52 and 3.48 over the past three seasons. Using the average of those as a baseline gives an ERA+ of only 92 with a 3.75 ERA. A 115 ERA+ would require an ERA under 3.

Thanks for the comment, a couple of points:

1. I should have said his last 2/3 of the season instead of second half; he was actually much better after June 1 than before; his ERA over the last 2/3 was about 1.25 better than before. Thanks for the correction.
2. As for his ERA+, you'd be right if he were to pitch all his games at AT&T, but as we know he'll have half of them (roughly) on the road where the baseline adjusted averages will be higher.
3. His ERA (unadjusted) fell from over 5 the first 1/3 last year to under 4 the last 2/3. It isn't unreasonable to think that he's figured out how to pitch with less velocity and that he'll continue to progress. He actually pitched a bit more at home in the first 1/3 last year and a bit more on the road over the last 2/3 which makes his start that much more appalling and his final 2/3 that much more hopeful.

We can disagree about my guess as to a 115 ERA+, and I probably should have guessed closer to 3.50 for his unadjusted ERA, but I don't think I'm way out there.

Nonetheless, thanks for the corrections and the discussion.

 

[msgkings322]

My understanding is that performance clauses are not allowed in contracts. You can put playing time benchmarks in ("Play in 130 game and X happens", for example). However, saying "Hit 30 HRs and Y happens" is not allowed.

I am not sure about this, though.

You are correct....if this was allowed every contract would be that way, pay for production. Which is maybe rational but gives players no security at all.

 

[tzill]

Back to Panda ... IMHO I don't think Panda signs for 3/60. As stated above his agent won't let him. I also think that SF doesn't offer a 6/120 either. Just too much of a gamble ...... but .... I think the real winner is actually Panda. If he puts together a monster 2014 season he'll be able to write his own ticket. I could see 6/140 being a realistic figure moving forward. If he onkly has a so-so year I still see an AL team coming to the plate at a 6/120. Either way I think Panda comes ourt of this pretty good. I also feel that 2014 will be his last year with us. Just don'
t see us throwing a 5/6 year deal to the table and if he has a gereat year I think he's priced himself out of our budget. .

You may be right, but while I agree with most of your numbers above I think that 5/80 in ST might just get him to stay.

 

[tzill]

My understanding is that performance clauses are not allowed in contracts. You can put playing time benchmarks in ("Play in 130 game and X happens", for example). However, saying "Hit 30 HRs and Y happens" is not allowed.

I am not sure about this, though.

I think you're essentially right. You can have award bonuses, and playing time bonuses, but not performance milestones. Otherwise, most contracts would have them.

 

[calsnowskier]

I think you're essentially right. You can have award bonuses, and playing time bonuses, but not performance milestones. Otherwise, most contracts would have them.

Actually, Award bonuses I am positive are out-lawed. This happened a couple years back because of some kind of perceived shenanigans in some of the voting (if memory serves). Contracts that had them were grand-fathered, but no new contracts are allowed to have this language.

For clarity, I am referring to bonuses for winning the CY or MVP or other such awards.

 

[tzill]

Actually, Award bonuses I am positive are out-lawed. This happened a couple years back because of some kind of perceived shenanigans in some of the voting (if memory serves). Contracts that had them were grand-fathered, but no new contracts are allowed to have this language.

For clarity, I am referring to bonuses for winning the CY or MVP or other such awards.

Really?? I didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[tzill]

Actually, Award bonuses I am positive are out-lawed. This happened a couple years back because of some kind of perceived shenanigans in some of the voting (if memory serves). Contracts that had them were grand-fathered, but no new contracts are allowed to have this language.

For clarity, I am referring to bonuses for winning the CY or MVP or other such awards.

This is what I found on mlb.com:

The Pujols, Zimmerman and A-Rod contracts will all be grandfathered in and will not be affected by the change in the rules. Remaining unaffected in the future for all players will be bonuses based on such things as All-Star appearances and annual awards both for the regular season and postseason, Manfred said.

source: MLB, union agree to restrict contract clauses | MLB.com: News

 

[Heathbar012]

You may be right, but while I agree with most of your numbers above I think that 5/80 in ST might just get him to stay.

I'd take that, but if he gains 15 lbs. from his current weight, ship him to Boston!

 

[tzill]

I'd take that, but if he gains 15 lbs. from his current weight, ship him to Boston!

Baggerly today:

This will be the most important spring of Pablo Sandoval’s career, and not just because he wants to show everyone his svelte physique along with his commitment to improved fitness. The Giants plan to engage Sandoval in talks about a contract extension, which will have major ramifications on the franchise.