[lex24]

Farhan is going to make a deal. Harrison, Luciano maybe Pomares untouchable. If they go south plenty of guys on the roster to help a contender in July. Win win possibilities.

Wouldn't it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects? with the addition of two wild cards this year the ratio of buyers to sellers is going to make a meaningful acquisition that much more costly as well.

Yes and no (unequivocal, right?)

Let’s look at, arguably, the Top 5 RH hitters who were signed as free agents prior to this season.

Bryant (age 30) - 7 years/$182million 

2022 stats:  .848 OPS, 136 OPS+ 

Suzuki ( age 27) - 5 years/$99.625 million

2022 stats:  1.478 OPS, 322 OPS+

Story (age 29) - 6 years/$140 million

2022 stats:  .644 OPS, 85 OPS+

Castellanos (age 30) - 5 years /$ 100 million

2022 stats:  .829 OPS, 139 OPS+

Marte (age 33) - 4 years/78 million

2022 stats:  .691 OPS, 104 OPS+ 

Obviously, these stats are subject to significant changes as the season unfolds.  However, for the sake of this discussion, do you have any regrets regarding the Giants failure to sign any of these guys?  

Personally, I wish SF had signed Suzuki.  I wrote in a post during the lockout that my top two choices were Rodon and Suzuki.  I guess half a loaf is better than none…. 

As time moves along, I still believe SF will be judged to have been wise to avoid committing major resources to the other guys mentioned above.  This takes us to your question. If a free agent meets a number of criteria: proven ability, good clubhouse fit, plays a needed position, reasonable salary/term (within the current context), I say, sign him up!  

For example, I would take a long look at Trea Turner in the upcoming off season.  If he could (and be willing to) play 3B, he would be a great addition to the Giants roster (best wishes and goodbye, Evan Longoria).

In other words, I think a very selective approach to free agency is desirable over trading young assets to acquire talent.  

On the other hand, I like the idea of trading for a rental mid-season.  You know what your needs are, you know what are getting and you can “test drive” the player to see how he would fit into the team culture.  If everything lines up, you can offer him a big contract after the season.  

In other words, it is always wise to look under the hood before making a big investment.   Therefore, trading for players mid-season is desirable over signing free agents.

If you forced me to come down on one side or the other, I would probably choose trading for rentals over signing free agents.  However, there are absolutely exceptions to the rule.

A few rebuttals, for fun:

1. It doesn't come down to one side or the other for a wealthy team like the Giants. Smart, well funded teams need to be active in both markets. Signing free agent position players doesn't preclude being opportunistic at the trade deadline, or vice versa. My response to Phogge was making the point that picking up a rental in late summer is not a substitute for signing free agents in the off season.

2. The Giants don't need to wait until the trade deadline to determine their needs. The Giants are weak at second and third base and have older platers vulnerable to injury at multiple positions. As you implied, right handed hitting was and is a known need.

3. You listed the "arguably, top 5 RH hitters who were signed as free agents prior to this season" but neglected to include the top 1 RH hitter who was signed as a free agent this off season.

4. Of course any team would like to add Trea Turner, who is one of the best players in the game. The Dodgers letting Seager leave indicates that they are committed to Turner and Lux as their future middle infielders and that Turner is unlikely to reach the open market. But let's suppose that he does. He will be 29 years and nine months old at the start of next season. He has a career 122 OPS+. He's primarily been a shortstop but also has played second base and center field. He hasn't played third base (the position that you mentioned) but could probably handle it.

Carlos Correa was 27 years and six months old at the start of this season. He has a career 127 OPS+ and is a superior defender to Turner. He's primarily been a shortstop but has the profile of an excellent third baseman. Yet the Giants did not meaningfully pursue him.

If Turner rejects an extension from LA and hits the open market it will be because he has lined up a massive Seeger-like contract somewhere. Given the Giants reluctance to engage with Correa (over two years younger at a comparable point, better hitter and fielder) I don't see any indication at all that SF would consider offering $300 mm+ to Turner, which is what would be required, so it's a moot point. The Giants aren't going to win (or better said, participate in) any bidding wars, and elite players (meaning players that meet your listed criteria, above) all trigger bidding wars, or they don't sign.

5. Should Giants fans have regrets over not signing any of the five RH hitters that you listed, or the sixth one that I added? absolutely. Not because they are certain to live up to their contracts, but because the Giants can afford to miss. If they sign someone for $20-$25 million a year it has no operational impact whatsoever even if that player becomes a dud. It's a highly unlikely scenario but if Story or Castellanos has to be released the dead money is nothing in the overall scheme of things, only less profit for ownership. And Suzuki signed for $17 mm/year; it's absurd that the Giants weren't more aggressive in attempting to sign him. Coming over from Japan there's a wide range of possible outcomes. But he's 27 years old with enormous upside, and the Giants are wealthy enough to absorb any and all downside.

6. I see no (or very marginal) value in kicking the tires. Teams have loads of intel on veterans who have been in the majors for six or more seasons, including references from current players and coaches who were in the same organization previously. General managers reach out to all their contacts throughout the majors, there are no surprises in terms of who you are getting when you sign Bryce Harper or Freddie Freeman or whoever.

Nice discussion.  To me, the answer is simple: BOTH. Free agents only cost money. Giants have gobs of money.  They just won’t spend it.  They do a great job shopping at Grocery Outlet. Once in a while, shop at Lunardis. 

You need to be more, not less careful with deadline deals if you are getting a rental.  Wheeler for Beltran classic Giant negative example. Justifiable trade.  But gave up a future star for a couple months of Beltran.

Deadline deals are important if you are a contender.  But they are a little bit of a crapshoot. Remember 2012?  Dodgers get Gonzalez, Beckett, Carl Crawford and Nick Pinto for a bunch of prospects.  Everyone said it was over. Yet none had the impact of an under the radar deadline deal the Giants made for Marco Scutaro.

[lex24]

Farhan is going to make a deal. Harrison, Luciano maybe Pomares untouchable. If they go south plenty of guys on the roster to help a contender in July. Win win possibilities.

Wouldn't it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects? with the addition of two wild cards this year the ratio of buyers to sellers is going to make a meaningful acquisition that much more costly as well.

Yes and no (unequivocal, right?)

Let’s look at, arguably, the Top 5 RH hitters who were signed as free agents prior to this season.

Bryant (age 30) - 7 years/$182million 

2022 stats:  .848 OPS, 136 OPS+ 

Suzuki ( age 27) - 5 years/$99.625 million

2022 stats:  1.478 OPS, 322 OPS+

Story (age 29) - 6 years/$140 million

2022 stats:  .644 OPS, 85 OPS+

Castellanos (age 30) - 5 years /$ 100 million

2022 stats:  .829 OPS, 139 OPS+

Marte (age 33) - 4 years/78 million

2022 stats:  .691 OPS, 104 OPS+ 

Obviously, these stats are subject to significant changes as the season unfolds.  However, for the sake of this discussion, do you have any regrets regarding the Giants failure to sign any of these guys?  

Personally, I wish SF had signed Suzuki.  I wrote in a post during the lockout that my top two choices were Rodon and Suzuki.  I guess half a loaf is better than none…. 

As time moves along, I still believe SF will be judged to have been wise to avoid committing major resources to the other guys mentioned above.  This takes us to your question. If a free agent meets a number of criteria: proven ability, good clubhouse fit, plays a needed position, reasonable salary/term (within the current context), I say, sign him up!  

For example, I would take a long look at Trea Turner in the upcoming off season.  If he could (and be willing to) play 3B, he would be a great addition to the Giants roster (best wishes and goodbye, Evan Longoria).

In other words, I think a very selective approach to free agency is desirable over trading young assets to acquire talent.  

On the other hand, I like the idea of trading for a rental mid-season.  You know what your needs are, you know what are getting and you can “test drive” the player to see how he would fit into the team culture.  If everything lines up, you can offer him a big contract after the season.  

In other words, it is always wise to look under the hood before making a big investment.   Therefore, trading for players mid-season is desirable over signing free agents.

If you forced me to come down on one side or the other, I would probably choose trading for rentals over signing free agents.  However, there are absolutely exceptions to the rule.

A few rebuttals, for fun:

1. It doesn't come down to one side or the other for a wealthy team like the Giants. Smart, well funded teams need to be active in both markets. Signing free agent position players doesn't preclude being opportunistic at the trade deadline, or vice versa. My response to Phogge was making the point that picking up a rental in late summer is not a substitute for signing free agents in the off season.

2. The Giants don't need to wait until the trade deadline to determine their needs. The Giants are weak at second and third base and have older platers vulnerable to injury at multiple positions. As you implied, right handed hitting was and is a known need.

3. You listed the "arguably, top 5 RH hitters who were signed as free agents prior to this season" but neglected to include the top 1 RH hitter who was signed as a free agent this off season.

4. Of course any team would like to add Trea Turner, who is one of the best players in the game. The Dodgers letting Seager leave indicates that they are committed to Turner and Lux as their future middle infielders and that Turner is unlikely to reach the open market. But let's suppose that he does. He will be 29 years and nine months old at the start of next season. He has a career 122 OPS+. He's primarily been a shortstop but also has played second base and center field. He hasn't played third base (the position that you mentioned) but could probably handle it.

Carlos Correa was 27 years and six months old at the start of this season. He has a career 127 OPS+ and is a superior defender to Turner. He's primarily been a shortstop but has the profile of an excellent third baseman. Yet the Giants did not meaningfully pursue him.

If Turner rejects an extension from LA and hits the open market it will be because he has lined up a massive Seeger-like contract somewhere. Given the Giants reluctance to engage with Correa (over two years younger at a comparable point, better hitter and fielder) I don't see any indication at all that SF would consider offering $300 mm+ to Turner, which is what would be required, so it's a moot point. The Giants aren't going to win (or better said, participate in) any bidding wars, and elite players (meaning players that meet your listed criteria, above) all trigger bidding wars, or they don't sign.

5. Should Giants fans have regrets over not signing any of the five RH hitters that you listed, or the sixth one that I added? absolutely. Not because they are certain to live up to their contracts, but because the Giants can afford to miss. If they sign someone for $20-$25 million a year it has no operational impact whatsoever even if that player becomes a dud. It's a highly unlikely scenario but if Story or Castellanos has to be released the dead money is nothing in the overall scheme of things, only less profit for ownership. And Suzuki signed for $17 mm/year; it's absurd that the Giants weren't more aggressive in attempting to sign him. Coming over from Japan there's a wide range of possible outcomes. But he's 27 years old with enormous upside, and the Giants are wealthy enough to absorb any and all downside.

6. I see no (or very marginal) value in kicking the tires. Teams have loads of intel on veterans who have been in the majors for six or more seasons, including references from current players and coaches who were in the same organization previously. General managers reach out to all their contacts throughout the majors, there are no surprises in terms of who you are getting when you sign Bryce Harper or Freddie Freeman or whoever.

Nice discussion.  To me, the answer is simple: BOTH. Free agents only cost money. Giants have gobs of money.  They just won’t spend it.  They do a great job shopping at Grocery Outlet. Once in a while, shop at Lunardis. 

You need to be more, not less careful with deadline deals if you are getting a rental.  Wheeler for Beltran classic Giant negative example. Justifiable trade.  But gave up a future star for a couple months of Beltran.

Deadline deals are important if you are a contender.  But they are a little bit of a crapshoot. Remember 2012?  Dodgers get Gonzalez, Beckett, Carl Crawford and Nick Pinto for a bunch of prospects.  Everyone said it was over. Yet none had the impact of an under the radar deadline deal the Giants made for Marco Scutaro.

[BostonCard]

Remember this one?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullp...oltz_Trade

BC

[BostonCard]

Remember this one?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullp...oltz_Trade

BC

[DC 86]

Nice discussion.  To me, the answer is simple: BOTH. Free agents only cost money. Giants have gobs of money.  They just won’t spend it.  They do a great job shopping at Grocery Outlet. Once in a while, shop at Lunardis. 

Right, I added all the other stuff but that was my overriding point (see #1), that the two are not mutually exclusive. Ideally an organization develops its team through the amateur draft and international signings. Then it supplements through free agency, and if there are still holes on the roster it fills them through trades, including deadline rentals. But there isn't abundant inventory at the deadline and the price is prospects, so it's an additional important piece of the puzzle but certainly not a substitute for being active in free agency.

[DC 86]

Nice discussion.  To me, the answer is simple: BOTH. Free agents only cost money. Giants have gobs of money.  They just won’t spend it.  They do a great job shopping at Grocery Outlet. Once in a while, shop at Lunardis. 

Right, I added all the other stuff but that was my overriding point (see #1), that the two are not mutually exclusive. Ideally an organization develops its team through the amateur draft and international signings. Then it supplements through free agency, and if there are still holes on the roster it fills them through trades, including deadline rentals. But there isn't abundant inventory at the deadline and the price is prospects, so it's an additional important piece of the puzzle but certainly not a substitute for being active in free agency.

[Giants]

DC, Thanks for the detailed response….

I ran with an either/or summary of thoughts because of your question.  To wit, “Wouldn’t it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects?”  

I read the question as though you were looking for an either/or answer….

No big deal.  Heck, I am glad my comments yielded your rejoinder.  It provides an opportunity to explore the issue further.

1.  We absolutely agree it is not necessary to choose only one approach.  I believe in pouring resources into scouting and signing international talent along with identifying and selecting domestic talent through the draft.  That should always be the #1 source of talent. Free agency along with mid-season trades to fill key gaps on the roster should be utilized judiciously.  As noted, I am not a big fan of spending millions on long term deals.  Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule.  For example, SF went all in on Bryce Harper and came up short.  No one could accuse SF of low-balling Harper.  He just went with an offer that worked better for him.  

2.  We agree on the issue of older guys being more vulnerable to injuries.  It is will interesting to see how Zaidi addresses this concern as the season unfolds.  

3.  I didn’t include Correa because, in effect, he signed a one year deal with Minnesota.  The Giants may get a second bite of that apple after the ‘22 season.  

4.  See #3.  in addition, I couldn’t resist tossing Turner’s name in the hat because of the “Addition By Subtraction” factor.  What would be more fun than poking the Dodgers in the eye by signing one of their key players? 

5. We agree re: Suzuki.  However, we have no idea of whether he would have spurned Chicago for a few million more.  Regardless, I wish he was wearing Orange and Black this season.  One other thought, I try to approach my fandom as though I was an investor and fan.  As an investor, I want a solid ROI every year.  As a fan, I want a winning program.  Otherwise, you are living in an unrealistic world.  I think Zaidi does an excellent job of balancing the two requirements.  

6.  We can disagree.  I think it is quite helpful to management to see how players react to playing within the structure that has been established by Zaidi.  

What has gone unsaid is Zaidi’s commitment to giving the young talent rising through the minors an opportunity to play.  As we know, the Giants are loaded at the High A/AA level of the minors.  (Hypothetically) Rather than playing a $25 million guy who is hitting .220 in his fourth year of a long term deal, let’s give Luis Matos who is tearing up the minors a shot.  And no, releasing the highly-paid vet is not a prudent financial decision.

In summary, we agree more than we disagree. I guess the big difference is (speaking as Charles Johnson) that I never take my eye off the bottom line while demanding excellence from my subordinates.

[Giants]

DC, Thanks for the detailed response….

I ran with an either/or summary of thoughts because of your question.  To wit, “Wouldn’t it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects?”  

I read the question as though you were looking for an either/or answer….

No big deal.  Heck, I am glad my comments yielded your rejoinder.  It provides an opportunity to explore the issue further.

1.  We absolutely agree it is not necessary to choose only one approach.  I believe in pouring resources into scouting and signing international talent along with identifying and selecting domestic talent through the draft.  That should always be the #1 source of talent. Free agency along with mid-season trades to fill key gaps on the roster should be utilized judiciously.  As noted, I am not a big fan of spending millions on long term deals.  Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule.  For example, SF went all in on Bryce Harper and came up short.  No one could accuse SF of low-balling Harper.  He just went with an offer that worked better for him.  

2.  We agree on the issue of older guys being more vulnerable to injuries.  It is will interesting to see how Zaidi addresses this concern as the season unfolds.  

3.  I didn’t include Correa because, in effect, he signed a one year deal with Minnesota.  The Giants may get a second bite of that apple after the ‘22 season.  

4.  See #3.  in addition, I couldn’t resist tossing Turner’s name in the hat because of the “Addition By Subtraction” factor.  What would be more fun than poking the Dodgers in the eye by signing one of their key players? 

5. We agree re: Suzuki.  However, we have no idea of whether he would have spurned Chicago for a few million more.  Regardless, I wish he was wearing Orange and Black this season.  One other thought, I try to approach my fandom as though I was an investor and fan.  As an investor, I want a solid ROI every year.  As a fan, I want a winning program.  Otherwise, you are living in an unrealistic world.  I think Zaidi does an excellent job of balancing the two requirements.  

6.  We can disagree.  I think it is quite helpful to management to see how players react to playing within the structure that has been established by Zaidi.  

What has gone unsaid is Zaidi’s commitment to giving the young talent rising through the minors an opportunity to play.  As we know, the Giants are loaded at the High A/AA level of the minors.  (Hypothetically) Rather than playing a $25 million guy who is hitting .220 in his fourth year of a long term deal, let’s give Luis Matos who is tearing up the minors a shot.  And no, releasing the highly-paid vet is not a prudent financial decision.

In summary, we agree more than we disagree. I guess the big difference is (speaking as Charles Johnson) that I never take my eye off the bottom line while demanding excellence from my subordinates.

[Phogge]

I like Bill Walsh’s philosophy. Sign Turner to play SS and send Crawford off with a big thank you.

[Phogge]

I like Bill Walsh’s philosophy. Sign Turner to play SS and send Crawford off with a big thank you.

[DC 86]

DC, Thanks for the detailed response….

I ran with an either/or summary of thoughts because of your question.  To wit, “Wouldn’t it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects?”  

I read the question as though you were looking for an either/or answer….

No big deal.  Heck, I am glad my comments yielded your rejoinder.  It provides an opportunity to explore the issue further.

1.  We absolutely agree it is not necessary to choose only one approach.  I believe in pouring resources into scouting and signing international talent along with identifying and selecting domestic talent through the draft.  That should always be the #1 source of talent. Free agency along with mid-season trades to fill key gaps on the roster should be utilized judiciously.  As noted, I am not a big fan of spending millions on long term deals.  Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule.  For example, SF went all in on Bryce Harper and came up short.  No one could accuse SF of low-balling Harper.  He just went with an offer that worked better for him.  

2.  We agree on the issue of older guys being more vulnerable to injuries.  It is will interesting to see how Zaidi addresses this concern as the season unfolds.  

3.  I didn’t include Correa because, in effect, he signed a one year deal with Minnesota.  The Giants may get a second bite of that apple after the ‘22 season.  

4.  See #3.  in addition, I couldn’t resist tossing Turner’s name in the hat because of the “Addition By Subtraction” factor.  What would be more fun than poking the Dodgers in the eye by signing one of their key players? 

5. We agree re: Suzuki.  However, we have no idea of whether he would have spurned Chicago for a few million more.  Regardless, I wish he was wearing Orange and Black this season.  One other thought, I try to approach my fandom as though I was an investor and fan.  As an investor, I want a solid ROI every year.  As a fan, I want a winning program.  Otherwise, you are living in an unrealistic world.  I think Zaidi does an excellent job of balancing the two requirements.  

6.  We can disagree.  I think it is quite helpful to management to see how players react to playing within the structure that has been established by Zaidi.  

What has gone unsaid is Zaidi’s commitment to giving the young talent rising through the minors an opportunity to play.  As we know, the Giants are loaded at the High A/AA level of the minors.  (Hypothetically) Rather than playing a $25 million guy who is hitting .220 in his fourth year of a long term deal, let’s give Luis Matos who is tearing up the minors a shot.  And no, releasing the highly-paid vet is not a prudent financial decision.

In summary, we agree more than we disagree.  I guess the big difference is (speaking as Charles Johnson) that I never take my eye off the bottom line while demanding excellence from my subordinates.

Thanks, Giants. We do agree more than disagree. You're right that I did frame the question as signing free agents vs acquiring rentals via trade, and while realistically they are both parts of the equation I view rentals as filling the gaps that home grown players and free agents failed to address, so they are less desirable to me, albeit necessary.

Correa did sign a one year deal, but why weren't the Giants involved? this was actually an ideal situation for SF. The lockout left little time to develop his market, Texas had signed Seager, Detroit (his expected landing spot) signed Baez which severely limited his leverage, so SF could have pounced with a long term offer but didn't. Seems like a lost opportunity. I understand that SF's philosophy is to avoid jumping in early into bidding war, but this was a spot to opportunistically come in late when there apparently weren't other bidders at the desired total contract range.

I understand the investment aspect which is important for long term sustainability, but at the moment the Giants strike me as akin to a company with enormous amounts of unused capital, waiting for the perfect opportunity, unwilling to reduce ROI even if it enhances overall profit.

As to the development of minor leaguers, the Giants excel at strategically deploying their roster to maximum effect, and the addition of the DH gives the team even more flexibility. I doubt that a promising rookie will ever be blocked; either a declining veteran will be used in a more limited role or (in the worst case scenario) traded with SF continuing to pay a portion of his salary, which the Giants can easily afford. In any case, this year's free agents (except for Seager) signed for 3-6 years, so it's not a Pujols or Cabrera situation. And while the Giants do have a number of promising minor leaguers, the likelihood of any of them becoming elite players is still low.

[DC 86]

DC, Thanks for the detailed response….

I ran with an either/or summary of thoughts because of your question.  To wit, “Wouldn’t it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects?”  

I read the question as though you were looking for an either/or answer….

No big deal.  Heck, I am glad my comments yielded your rejoinder.  It provides an opportunity to explore the issue further.

1.  We absolutely agree it is not necessary to choose only one approach.  I believe in pouring resources into scouting and signing international talent along with identifying and selecting domestic talent through the draft.  That should always be the #1 source of talent. Free agency along with mid-season trades to fill key gaps on the roster should be utilized judiciously.  As noted, I am not a big fan of spending millions on long term deals.  Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule.  For example, SF went all in on Bryce Harper and came up short.  No one could accuse SF of low-balling Harper.  He just went with an offer that worked better for him.  

2.  We agree on the issue of older guys being more vulnerable to injuries.  It is will interesting to see how Zaidi addresses this concern as the season unfolds.  

3.  I didn’t include Correa because, in effect, he signed a one year deal with Minnesota.  The Giants may get a second bite of that apple after the ‘22 season.  

4.  See #3.  in addition, I couldn’t resist tossing Turner’s name in the hat because of the “Addition By Subtraction” factor.  What would be more fun than poking the Dodgers in the eye by signing one of their key players? 

5. We agree re: Suzuki.  However, we have no idea of whether he would have spurned Chicago for a few million more.  Regardless, I wish he was wearing Orange and Black this season.  One other thought, I try to approach my fandom as though I was an investor and fan.  As an investor, I want a solid ROI every year.  As a fan, I want a winning program.  Otherwise, you are living in an unrealistic world.  I think Zaidi does an excellent job of balancing the two requirements.  

6.  We can disagree.  I think it is quite helpful to management to see how players react to playing within the structure that has been established by Zaidi.  

What has gone unsaid is Zaidi’s commitment to giving the young talent rising through the minors an opportunity to play.  As we know, the Giants are loaded at the High A/AA level of the minors.  (Hypothetically) Rather than playing a $25 million guy who is hitting .220 in his fourth year of a long term deal, let’s give Luis Matos who is tearing up the minors a shot.  And no, releasing the highly-paid vet is not a prudent financial decision.

In summary, we agree more than we disagree.  I guess the big difference is (speaking as Charles Johnson) that I never take my eye off the bottom line while demanding excellence from my subordinates.

Thanks, Giants. We do agree more than disagree. You're right that I did frame the question as signing free agents vs acquiring rentals via trade, and while realistically they are both parts of the equation I view rentals as filling the gaps that home grown players and free agents failed to address, so they are less desirable to me, albeit necessary.

Correa did sign a one year deal, but why weren't the Giants involved? this was actually an ideal situation for SF. The lockout left little time to develop his market, Texas had signed Seager, Detroit (his expected landing spot) signed Baez which severely limited his leverage, so SF could have pounced with a long term offer but didn't. Seems like a lost opportunity. I understand that SF's philosophy is to avoid jumping in early into bidding war, but this was a spot to opportunistically come in late when there apparently weren't other bidders at the desired total contract range.

I understand the investment aspect which is important for long term sustainability, but at the moment the Giants strike me as akin to a company with enormous amounts of unused capital, waiting for the perfect opportunity, unwilling to reduce ROI even if it enhances overall profit.

As to the development of minor leaguers, the Giants excel at strategically deploying their roster to maximum effect, and the addition of the DH gives the team even more flexibility. I doubt that a promising rookie will ever be blocked; either a declining veteran will be used in a more limited role or (in the worst case scenario) traded with SF continuing to pay a portion of his salary, which the Giants can easily afford. In any case, this year's free agents (except for Seager) signed for 3-6 years, so it's not a Pujols or Cabrera situation. And while the Giants do have a number of promising minor leaguers, the likelihood of any of them becoming elite players is still low.

[BobK]

Last night 4 SJ Giant pitchers pitched a one hitter with 20 !! Strikeouts

[BobK]

Last night 4 SJ Giant pitchers pitched a one hitter with 20 !! Strikeouts

[lex24]

DC, Thanks for the detailed response….

I ran with an either/or summary of thoughts because of your question.  To wit, “Wouldn’t it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects?”  

I read the question as though you were looking for an either/or answer….

No big deal.  Heck, I am glad my comments yielded your rejoinder.  It provides an opportunity to explore the issue further.

1.  We absolutely agree it is not necessary to choose only one approach.  I believe in pouring resources into scouting and signing international talent along with identifying and selecting domestic talent through the draft.  That should always be the #1 source of talent. Free agency along with mid-season trades to fill key gaps on the roster should be utilized judiciously.  As noted, I am not a big fan of spending millions on long term deals.  Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule.  For example, SF went all in on Bryce Harper and came up short.  No one could accuse SF of low-balling Harper.  He just went with an offer that worked better for him.  

2.  We agree on the issue of older guys being more vulnerable to injuries.  It is will interesting to see how Zaidi addresses this concern as the season unfolds.  

3.  I didn’t include Correa because, in effect, he signed a one year deal with Minnesota.  The Giants may get a second bite of that apple after the ‘22 season.  

4.  See #3.  in addition, I couldn’t resist tossing Turner’s name in the hat because of the “Addition By Subtraction” factor.  What would be more fun than poking the Dodgers in the eye by signing one of their key players? 

5. We agree re: Suzuki.  However, we have no idea of whether he would have spurned Chicago for a few million more.  Regardless, I wish he was wearing Orange and Black this season.  One other thought, I try to approach my fandom as though I was an investor and fan.  As an investor, I want a solid ROI every year.  As a fan, I want a winning program.  Otherwise, you are living in an unrealistic world.  I think Zaidi does an excellent job of balancing the two requirements.  

6.  We can disagree.  I think it is quite helpful to management to see how players react to playing within the structure that has been established by Zaidi.  

What has gone unsaid is Zaidi’s commitment to giving the young talent rising through the minors an opportunity to play.  As we know, the Giants are loaded at the High A/AA level of the minors.  (Hypothetically) Rather than playing a $25 million guy who is hitting .220 in his fourth year of a long term deal, let’s give Luis Matos who is tearing up the minors a shot.  And no, releasing the highly-paid vet is not a prudent financial decision.

In summary, we agree more than we disagree.  I guess the big difference is (speaking as Charles Johnson) that I never take my eye off the bottom line while demanding excellence from my subordinates.

It’s not Charles at the helm.  It’s his son, Greg.  And it’s to be seen if he’s willing to do anything fiscally other than pretend this is a mid-market, mid-level franchise.

Where I disagree with you most is the “fear of the back end” issue.  The prospects will get their shot, particularly given todays focus on playing multi-position.  There is no way that signing a Suzuki or one of the other bats would impede the progress of Luciano, Ramos, Matos, etc.  And if you question that, just look 400 miles south….

[lex24]

DC, Thanks for the detailed response….

I ran with an either/or summary of thoughts because of your question.  To wit, “Wouldn’t it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects?”  

I read the question as though you were looking for an either/or answer….

No big deal.  Heck, I am glad my comments yielded your rejoinder.  It provides an opportunity to explore the issue further.

1.  We absolutely agree it is not necessary to choose only one approach.  I believe in pouring resources into scouting and signing international talent along with identifying and selecting domestic talent through the draft.  That should always be the #1 source of talent. Free agency along with mid-season trades to fill key gaps on the roster should be utilized judiciously.  As noted, I am not a big fan of spending millions on long term deals.  Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule.  For example, SF went all in on Bryce Harper and came up short.  No one could accuse SF of low-balling Harper.  He just went with an offer that worked better for him.  

2.  We agree on the issue of older guys being more vulnerable to injuries.  It is will interesting to see how Zaidi addresses this concern as the season unfolds.  

3.  I didn’t include Correa because, in effect, he signed a one year deal with Minnesota.  The Giants may get a second bite of that apple after the ‘22 season.  

4.  See #3.  in addition, I couldn’t resist tossing Turner’s name in the hat because of the “Addition By Subtraction” factor.  What would be more fun than poking the Dodgers in the eye by signing one of their key players? 

5. We agree re: Suzuki.  However, we have no idea of whether he would have spurned Chicago for a few million more.  Regardless, I wish he was wearing Orange and Black this season.  One other thought, I try to approach my fandom as though I was an investor and fan.  As an investor, I want a solid ROI every year.  As a fan, I want a winning program.  Otherwise, you are living in an unrealistic world.  I think Zaidi does an excellent job of balancing the two requirements.  

6.  We can disagree.  I think it is quite helpful to management to see how players react to playing within the structure that has been established by Zaidi.  

What has gone unsaid is Zaidi’s commitment to giving the young talent rising through the minors an opportunity to play.  As we know, the Giants are loaded at the High A/AA level of the minors.  (Hypothetically) Rather than playing a $25 million guy who is hitting .220 in his fourth year of a long term deal, let’s give Luis Matos who is tearing up the minors a shot.  And no, releasing the highly-paid vet is not a prudent financial decision.

In summary, we agree more than we disagree.  I guess the big difference is (speaking as Charles Johnson) that I never take my eye off the bottom line while demanding excellence from my subordinates.

It’s not Charles at the helm.  It’s his son, Greg.  And it’s to be seen if he’s willing to do anything fiscally other than pretend this is a mid-market, mid-level franchise.

Where I disagree with you most is the “fear of the back end” issue.  The prospects will get their shot, particularly given todays focus on playing multi-position.  There is no way that signing a Suzuki or one of the other bats would impede the progress of Luciano, Ramos, Matos, etc.  And if you question that, just look 400 miles south….

[cardcrimson]

Last night 4 SJ Giant pitchers pitched a one hitter with 20 !! Strikeouts

Was that a quadruple header?

[cardcrimson]

Last night 4 SJ Giant pitchers pitched a one hitter with 20 !! Strikeouts

Was that a quadruple header?

[Phogge]

Only if you are lucky.

[Phogge]

Only if you are lucky.

[old spanish trail]

I posted my disagreement re the DeScalfani signing and I continue to stand by it.

[old spanish trail]

I posted my disagreement re the DeScalfani signing and I continue to stand by it.

[OutsiderFan]

I posted my disagreement re the DeScalfani signing and I continue to stand by it.

No Giants starting pitcher went more the 5 IP and Mets got at least 6 IP out of all from starters in series, even in the 5-2 loss Mets took, they got 6 IP out of Bassit. No wonder The Giants went 1-3 and Mets went 3-1.

Meanwhile, Kevin Gausman: 8 IP, 7H, 0 BB, 8Ks in win at Boston, lowering his ERA to 2.41.

[OutsiderFan]

I posted my disagreement re the DeScalfani signing and I continue to stand by it.

No Giants starting pitcher went more the 5 IP and Mets got at least 6 IP out of all from starters in series, even in the 5-2 loss Mets took, they got 6 IP out of Bassit. No wonder The Giants went 1-3 and Mets went 3-1.

Meanwhile, Kevin Gausman: 8 IP, 7H, 0 BB, 8Ks in win at Boston, lowering his ERA to 2.41.

[DC 86]

I posted my disagreement re the DeScalfani signing and I continue to stand by it.

No Giants starting pitcher went more the 5 IP and Mets got at least 6 IP out of all from starters in series, even in the 5-2 loss Mets took, they got 6 IP out of Bassit. No wonder The Giants went 1-3 and Mets went 3-1.

Meanwhile, Kevin Gausman: 8 IP, 7H, 0 BB, 8Ks in win at Boston, lowering his ERA to 2.41.

There is a metric (Stuff+) which measures velocity as well as horizontal and vertical movement for each pitch type; it stabilizes much more quickly than traditional statistics since it's not results-based, so it has some merit even in small samples. Prior to this start, DeSclafani had the second biggest decline in the majors (from slightly above average last year to well below average this year), so it's not just luck, there is a physical and/or mechanical issue which is affecting his performance.

I wouldn't draw conclusions regarding the other starters after only an abbreviated spring training and few starts, but the SF coaching army does need to look into what has happened to DeSclafani thus far this season.

[DC 86]

I posted my disagreement re the DeScalfani signing and I continue to stand by it.

No Giants starting pitcher went more the 5 IP and Mets got at least 6 IP out of all from starters in series, even in the 5-2 loss Mets took, they got 6 IP out of Bassit. No wonder The Giants went 1-3 and Mets went 3-1.

Meanwhile, Kevin Gausman: 8 IP, 7H, 0 BB, 8Ks in win at Boston, lowering his ERA to 2.41.

There is a metric (Stuff+) which measures velocity as well as horizontal and vertical movement for each pitch type; it stabilizes much more quickly than traditional statistics since it's not results-based, so it has some merit even in small samples. Prior to this start, DeSclafani had the second biggest decline in the majors (from slightly above average last year to well below average this year), so it's not just luck, there is a physical and/or mechanical issue which is affecting his performance.

I wouldn't draw conclusions regarding the other starters after only an abbreviated spring training and few starts, but the SF coaching army does need to look into what has happened to DeSclafani thus far this season.

[lex24]

I posted my disagreement re the DeScalfani signing and I continue to stand by it.

No Giants starting pitcher went more the 5 IP and Mets got at least 6 IP out of all from starters in series, even in the 5-2 loss Mets took, they got 6 IP out of Bassit. No wonder The Giants went 1-3 and Mets went 3-1.

Meanwhile, Kevin Gausman: 8 IP, 7H, 0 BB, 8Ks in win at Boston, lowering his ERA to 2.41.

There is a metric (Stuff+) which measures velocity as well as horizontal and vertical movement for each pitch type; it stabilizes much more quickly than traditional statistics since it's not results-based, so it has some merit even in small samples. Prior to this start, DeSclafani had the second biggest decline in the majors (from slightly above average last year to well below average this year), so it's not just luck, there is a physical and/or mechanical issue which is affecting his performance.

I wouldn't draw conclusions regarding the other starters after only an abbreviated spring training and few starts, but the SF coaching army does need to look into what has happened to DeSclafani thus far this season.

Metrics aside, the eye test shows he lacks command within the zone.  He threw a lot of center cut pitches today.  And he ain’t Rodon.  He has to be hitting his spots to be effective.

Mets are a damn good team.  If De Grom comes back strong, they’re going to be a force.  Lineup is very balanced.  Power, speed and good contact. Lindor looks like the guy they paid $300,000,000 for.  Escobar is just a darn good player. Cohen’s spending spree may pay dividends.

Giants 4-3 on a BRUTAL road trip. And I heard yesterday that in the one game at Milwaukee, it looks like they’ll get Burnes.  Should be Rodons day, that’s a heck of a matchup.  

Then they fly home, get no day off and play 2 against an A’s team that is always motivated vs the Giants.  And will be excited to play before a crowd that is slightly better than the 1,000 or so that are going to the games in Oakland.

  If they go 7-6 on this 13 game stretch, that will be, imo, a good showing.

[lex24]

I posted my disagreement re the DeScalfani signing and I continue to stand by it.

No Giants starting pitcher went more the 5 IP and Mets got at least 6 IP out of all from starters in series, even in the 5-2 loss Mets took, they got 6 IP out of Bassit. No wonder The Giants went 1-3 and Mets went 3-1.

Meanwhile, Kevin Gausman: 8 IP, 7H, 0 BB, 8Ks in win at Boston, lowering his ERA to 2.41.

There is a metric (Stuff+) which measures velocity as well as horizontal and vertical movement for each pitch type; it stabilizes much more quickly than traditional statistics since it's not results-based, so it has some merit even in small samples. Prior to this start, DeSclafani had the second biggest decline in the majors (from slightly above average last year to well below average this year), so it's not just luck, there is a physical and/or mechanical issue which is affecting his performance.

I wouldn't draw conclusions regarding the other starters after only an abbreviated spring training and few starts, but the SF coaching army does need to look into what has happened to DeSclafani thus far this season.

Metrics aside, the eye test shows he lacks command within the zone.  He threw a lot of center cut pitches today.  And he ain’t Rodon.  He has to be hitting his spots to be effective.

Mets are a damn good team.  If De Grom comes back strong, they’re going to be a force.  Lineup is very balanced.  Power, speed and good contact. Lindor looks like the guy they paid $300,000,000 for.  Escobar is just a darn good player. Cohen’s spending spree may pay dividends.

Giants 4-3 on a BRUTAL road trip. And I heard yesterday that in the one game at Milwaukee, it looks like they’ll get Burnes.  Should be Rodons day, that’s a heck of a matchup.  

Then they fly home, get no day off and play 2 against an A’s team that is always motivated vs the Giants.  And will be excited to play before a crowd that is slightly better than the 1,000 or so that are going to the games in Oakland.

  If they go 7-6 on this 13 game stretch, that will be, imo, a good showing.

[lex24]

Speaking of the Giants…. Interesting article primarily on Belt in The Athletic.  Since the beginning of 2000 he has the highest slugging pct. in baseball.  .600

I found the comments interesting as well. Which I’ll get to.

As for Belt, during the “Belt Wars” the only number I cared about was his slugging percentage.  It dropped precipitously in ‘18 and ‘19.  He attributed his success from ‘20 to both his trusting his process more and the staff supporting it completely. (I’m sure that was important-but it doesn’t explain  a near .200 point jump in his slugging)  And in so doing, perhaps took a backhanded swipe at Bochy and Co.

Which leads to the comments, many of which suggested how this was further proof of how “overrated” Bochy is.  I bristle when I read those comments.  The analytics Uber Alles crew has been saying that for sometime.  Never liked how he set lineup, favored veterans etc.  

I will agree with those that say Bochy, Sabean et.al were slow to adjust to the changing landscape.  But that doesn’t diminish the enormous success.  All I know is that in my lifelong love affair with the Giants he’s the only manager to bring home a crown. And he did it three times.  Personally, I thought he was a master with the pitching staff.  Not as strong on the offensive end.  But he never had a great offensive hand to play with. And from all I’ve read, the players loved playing for him.  Those that fail to appreciate what he achieved tick me off a bit. You don’t get “lucky” 3 times….. Unless your John Derek….

One of the many things I like about Zaidi is, while analytics are very important, he also gives props to the scouts.  Another interesting Athletic article was about how when he came to SF he kept a good chunk of the scouting staff cause they had done an excellent job and had a good process to boot. (Contrast that to Billy Beane who allowed the ridiculous Moneyball Movie to trash a good baseball man (Art Howe) and pretend that the A’s famous win streak was all about Mark Hattiesburg, Chad Bradford and walks.  Barely a mention of Tejada, Chavez, Dye, Hudson, Mulder and Zito.  But hey, he’s Brad Pitt. Right?). 

Zaidi did a tremendous job of shifting the culture, while still honoring the prior Admin.  Not an easy task.

Rant over…..

[lex24]

Speaking of the Giants…. Interesting article primarily on Belt in The Athletic.  Since the beginning of 2000 he has the highest slugging pct. in baseball.  .600

I found the comments interesting as well. Which I’ll get to.

As for Belt, during the “Belt Wars” the only number I cared about was his slugging percentage.  It dropped precipitously in ‘18 and ‘19.  He attributed his success from ‘20 to both his trusting his process more and the staff supporting it completely. (I’m sure that was important-but it doesn’t explain  a near .200 point jump in his slugging)  And in so doing, perhaps took a backhanded swipe at Bochy and Co.

Which leads to the comments, many of which suggested how this was further proof of how “overrated” Bochy is.  I bristle when I read those comments.  The analytics Uber Alles crew has been saying that for sometime.  Never liked how he set lineup, favored veterans etc.  

I will agree with those that say Bochy, Sabean et.al were slow to adjust to the changing landscape.  But that doesn’t diminish the enormous success.  All I know is that in my lifelong love affair with the Giants he’s the only manager to bring home a crown. And he did it three times.  Personally, I thought he was a master with the pitching staff.  Not as strong on the offensive end.  But he never had a great offensive hand to play with. And from all I’ve read, the players loved playing for him.  Those that fail to appreciate what he achieved tick me off a bit. You don’t get “lucky” 3 times….. Unless your John Derek….

One of the many things I like about Zaidi is, while analytics are very important, he also gives props to the scouts.  Another interesting Athletic article was about how when he came to SF he kept a good chunk of the scouting staff cause they had done an excellent job and had a good process to boot. (Contrast that to Billy Beane who allowed the ridiculous Moneyball Movie to trash a good baseball man (Art Howe) and pretend that the A’s famous win streak was all about Mark Hattiesburg, Chad Bradford and walks.  Barely a mention of Tejada, Chavez, Dye, Hudson, Mulder and Zito.  But hey, he’s Brad Pitt. Right?). 

Zaidi did a tremendous job of shifting the culture, while still honoring the prior Admin.  Not an easy task.

Rant over…..

[Goose]

Zaidi did a tremendous job of shifting the culture, while still honoring the prior Admin.  Not an easy task.

Indeed it isn't easy, and he did exactly that. Undoubtedly he "read the room" and figured out the right balance that would give him the best of both worlds.

[Goose]

Zaidi did a tremendous job of shifting the culture, while still honoring the prior Admin.  Not an easy task.

Indeed it isn't easy, and he did exactly that. Undoubtedly he "read the room" and figured out the right balance that would give him the best of both worlds.

[Phogge]

Jaylin Davis designated for assignment as Giants add a pitcher to their 40 man.

[Phogge]

Jaylin Davis designated for assignment as Giants add a pitcher to their 40 man.

[lex24]

[quote="Phogge" pid='351627' dateline='1650589220']
Jaylin Davis designated for assignment as Giants add a pitcher to their 40 man.
[/quot

Got a minor league pitcher from Cubs (Cory Abbot) and added him to 40. Sent him to Sac.

[lex24]

[quote="Phogge" pid='351627' dateline='1650589220']
Jaylin Davis designated for assignment as Giants add a pitcher to their 40 man.
[/quot

Got a minor league pitcher from Cubs (Cory Abbot) and added him to 40. Sent him to Sac.

[BostonCard]

Bochy also had success in San Diego, which is arguably even more impressive (at least under the fiscal situation there at the time) than what he accomplished with the Giants.

BC

[BostonCard]

Bochy also had success in San Diego, which is arguably even more impressive (at least under the fiscal situation there at the time) than what he accomplished with the Giants.

BC

[lex24]

Nice debut with Giant by Junis.  He will take DeSclafanis spot for awhile.  Let’s hope Cobb is back soon as they suggest he will be.  Tough to be down 2.

Another showing the other team up kerfuffle. Teams will retaliate. No matter how glib Kapler is.

[lex24]

Nice debut with Giant by Junis.  He will take DeSclafanis spot for awhile.  Let’s hope Cobb is back soon as they suggest he will be.  Tough to be down 2.

Another showing the other team up kerfuffle. Teams will retaliate. No matter how glib Kapler is.