|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 29, 2015 15:29:45 GMT -5
The market for the top free agents starters is beginning to set itself. Jordan Zimmermann has reportedly signed with the Tigers for 5/$110. That projects to about 13 wins at today's prices, or say 2 1/2 wins per season. That seems reasonable, although Zimmermann had an off-season in 2015. Usually that's the best time to sign a guy though, so on balance, I would say this is a fair deal.
Dave Cameron recommended teams look at the less expensive Wei-Yin Chen, who might turn out to be a little better risk. Tim Dierkes of MLB Trade Rumors ranked Zimmermann as the 7th-best free agent and projected him at 6/$126. The Tigers got a better deal than that. Dierkes ranked Chen #13 (right behind Mike Leake) at 5/$80. I think I would have paid the extra money for Zimmermann myself. Close call though. I like Chen too.
I read that Johnny Cueto's agent couldn't be too happy with this deal, since Cueto has been ranked with Zimmermann, while Zack Greinke has been ranked with David Price at a higher plateau. That Zimmermann got only five years might indicate the same length for Cueto, and I believe the Giants went that far out with Matt Cain. Cueto also has the advantage over Zimmermann of not requiring the loss of a draft pick.
I would look strongly at Cueto and Price, neither of whom require the loss of a draft pick. I don't think that is primary on the Giants' mind, but I think it is a consideration behind ability, cost, length of contract, and quite possibly, chemistry.
Zimmermann has been a very good pitcher, but somehow I feel his best is behind him. I don't feel that way about Cueto or Price or even Greinke. I think the Zimmermann deal is a fair one (based on the expensive market), but not a great one.
A bad thing may be that the Giants, Dodgers, Red Sox and Cubs -- at the very least -- may be bidding for the top three pitchers. A good thing from our perspective is that the market is beginning to set itself, and the Giants could be a lot closer to making their first move than they were yesterday.
By my calculation, Cueto, Leake and Parra might be doable. Regarding hitters though, it appears the Giants might be better off getting another righty hitter. Even Matt Duffy hit better last season against right-handers than southpaws.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 29, 2015 15:43:27 GMT -5
If the Giants wind up signing one of the remaining three top pitchers, they will be risking a lot of money (especially with Price or Greinke), so it will be quite important that their risk level is much lower on their #2 free agent starter. Jeff Samardzija, for instance, wouldn't seem to fit that role. Someone like Leake or Chen might, or perhaps another pitcher with a lesser contract.
If the price were right, I still like the idea of that Kemp/Ross trade idea. I would like that in combination with a signing of one of the top three free agent pitchers. Two risks mean I wouldn't give up too much though. If he continues to pitch well, Ross will command a ton of money as a free agent two years from now. Even with the Dodgers paying $3.5 million of Kemp's contract, the Giants would still be on the hook for 4/$73 with Kemp, which is itself a risk.
For those who liked James Shields a year ago, the Giants could likely get a package of Shields, Ross and Kemp without giving up a lot. The Padres would like to get rid of the salaries of Shields and Kemp, and might be willing to part with Ross to do so. I believe Shields is still owed something like 3/$60. Any interest there?
The Braves are getting younger and less expensive. A trade for a pitcher might be available there too. Mostly though, teams WANT pitching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 29, 2015 20:50:39 GMT -5
Unfortunately for the Giants Greinke, Price and maybe Cueto won't have a market value. It'll be more like an auction, and the bidding war will be between the Giants, Dodgers, Cubs and maybe a few teams under the radar. Unlike you, Rog, I don't think the Redsox will be a big player this off season, although I could be wrong.
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member 
Posts: 50
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 29, 2015 21:25:12 GMT -5
Roger, why in the world would you want Kemp on the team?
Where would he play?
Since I live a couple of hours north of SD, we get a LOT of Padre news... and some of that news was centered around how much range Kemp's bad hip does not allow him to have.
But besides that, one of the reasons the Dodgers moved him, I believe, is that he is NOT a guy you really want in the club house.
They got what they deserve because from what I hear and read, Puig is even worse.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 30, 2015 11:25:01 GMT -5
I just read that the Padres are asking for a fortune in exchange for Ross, so imagine what they'd ask to move him within the division. I would stay away from Preller, I don't like the way he operates. He spend badly on the team last offseason, and now he looks for bigger suckers than him to make the same mistakes he made. He should have divested his bad moves at the deadline on July 31, but his asking prices were supposedly ridiculous. I also read that Cueto turned down 6/120 from the DBacks, so I'm thinking he has a higher offer on the table. Hopefully it's not our table, because I prefer Price or Greinke. Not happy to see Zimmerman go to Detroit, because that's one less ace off the market and he's going to a team that was not believed to be in on top starters. Now there's one less pitcher to divvy up among the big spenders. Interestingly, Henry Schulman is saying the Giants are being very passive towards Mike Leake, and he expects him to sign elsewhere. He's got a clear path to Arizona now, with Cueto turning them down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 30, 2015 14:33:29 GMT -5
Boly- Roger, why in the world would you want Kemp on the team?
Where would he play?
Since I live a couple of hours north of SD, we get a LOT of Padre news... and some of that news was centered around how much range Kemp's bad hip does not allow him to have.
But besides that, one of the reasons the Dodgers moved him, I believe, is that he is NOT a guy you really want in the club house.
They got what they deserve because from what I hear and read, Puig is even worse.
Boagie- I'm not sure about the condition of his hip, but he seemed to cover the corner outfield spots perfectly fine. As for his clubhouse presence, it seems the Dodgers chemistry has only gotten worse since Kemp left. Kemp tried to keep a leash on Puig, but failed. Kemp isn't a leader, but I believe he'd fall in line with a team like the Giants, because he knows how to play the game on and off the field. An added bonus with Kemp would be his interest in sticking it to the Dodgers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 30, 2015 15:55:30 GMT -5
Boly- Roger, why in the world would you want Kemp on the team? Where would he play? Rog -- As mentioned earlier, the idea was that the Padres might not find many teams that could afford to take on Kemp's contract. That could put the Giants in position to land a very good pitcher in Ross along with him. As for Kemp, he would play left field of course. He's been an above-average hitter since his rookie season and drove in 100 runs last season. I think I mentioned that I wouldn't want him if his chemistry would affect the clubhouse, but while he's not worth what he's being paid, he's still a good hitter. The Dodgers are paying $3.5 million of his salary through his contract's end four seasons out. I don't expect the Giants to go this direction, but I think they have the money this winter to trade for Ross and Kemp, plus sign Cueto. Whether they have enough to trade for Ross and enough in the budget to pay him after he reaches free agency after two seasons is the biggest question. But put Cueto and Ross in the rotation and Kemp in left field, and the Giants would likely be right up there with just about any team. There are a lot of questions involved here, and I would be almost shocked if it happened, but such maneuvering this winter would likely make even Randy happy, and that's a tough thing to do. In fact, even that likely wouldn't make him happy, as he'd probably question the clubhouse impact of Cueto and Kemp. But I think most of us here would see adding those three players as a coup. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3141/market-set#ixzz3t0fZvyTH |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 30, 2015 16:07:42 GMT -5
I don't know what to make of the Giants' passivity toward Leake. A year ago I think they were pretty passive toward Peavy and Romo, but still wound up signing them. I don't think Leake is the Giants' priority, and while I think they'd love to have him, they may feel safe in that there are other 2nd-tier or mid-tier pitchers who could take his role.
Just as the Giants focused on Sandoval, Lester and then Shields, I think their priorities are on big fish right now.
As for Cueto's not accepting the Diamondbacks' offer, I'm not sure he has an offer on the table, but suspect he is confident he will get close to the 6/$140-$160 he is said to be seeking. If Cueto is healthy, I'd rather have him than Lester, and Jon got 6/$155. Remember, James Shields didn't have a better offer when he rejected the Giants' deal, and in the end, it cost him a little.
One thing we likely now know is that it will take six years to land Cueto. Price is said to be seeking seven, and he'll very likely get them. Greinke is said to be looking for six, and I'm 90% half sure he has at least a 50/50 shot at it.
Just for fun, which of these contracts would you choose if you were the Giants?
Price -- 7/$210
Greinke -- 6/$175
Cueto -- 6/$150
Personally, I would probably take them in just that order and would almost certainly take Price first. I like Cueto a lot too, but $150 million would be a lot to pay.
That said, I would choose ANY of those contracts over Lester's 6/$155.
By the way, here's what I think the Giants will do if they are able to sign one of the big boys. I think they'll then go with a 2nd- or mid-tier guy with a contract of no more than three years. I think they'll then prioritize an outfielder via either trade or free agency. I think they'd also like to squeeze in a reliever, although that might wind up as a bargain basement guy.
They signed 2nd baseman/left fielder Grant Green to a minor league contract. Green is a former first round pick who hasn't really panned out. Nice pickup for depth though.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 1, 2015 10:46:07 GMT -5
I'd prefer Greinke to Price, but only by a very small fraction. That incredible ERA last year combined with the fact that he and Bumgarner are the best two hitting pitchers in baseball gives him the slight edge to me. Cueto is a distant third, but a necessary sign if we miss out on the other two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 1, 2015 16:02:42 GMT -5
Very good point about Greinke's hitting. I had forgotten about that. He's also a wonderful fielder.
As for Cueto, he dropped off to 3.44 last season, but he was 2.31, 2.78, 2.82 and 2.25 the four years before that. Injury limited him to just 60 innings in 2013.
But if Cueto stays healthy, like Price and Greinke, he can be a very dominant pitcher. Let's not forget too that he had pitched in hitter-friendly Cincinnati. His ERA+ the past five seasons has been 171, 148, 135, 163 and 117. 100 is average, and even 117 is 17% better than average. ERA+ is meant to equalize parks to provide a fair comparison.
Price has gone 108, 150, 115, 115 and 161. Greinke's numbers are 103, 115, 135, 129 and 225. Price and Greinke were clearly better last season, but in reality, over the past five seasons, Cueto has been the most consistent and right up there with Greinke as the best.
Because of Cueto's "down" season in 2015 and the possibility of his arm problems and low innings in 2013, I wouldn't pay as much per season as David or Zack. I wouldn't go as long as with David. But on the right contract, Johnny could be a relative steal.
It appears Cueto isn't as undervalued as early salary estimates made him seem, but he still might be a relative bargain. I think it comes down to health and chemistry.
I think the Giants may actually be in bigger with Greinke and Price than they are with Cueto. I'm REALLY ready for those guys to quickly follow Jordan Zimmermann in signing a contract. I would be willing to wait longer though if it meant the Giants would get his signature.
Surprising, isn't it, that he has been more consistent than either Greinke or Price over the past five seasons. Cueto is six months younger than Price and 2+ years younger than Greinke. He has almost the identical number of major league innings on his arm as Price, and over 600 fewer than Zack.
Baseball-Reference projects Price at 3.09 in 2016; Greinke at 2.54; and Cueto at 3.17. Big advantage to Zack, although his numbers might be expected to fall off more quickly than the younger Price and Cueto.
I think the question with Greinke is whether he's the stud of last season or the excellent pitcher of the past five seasons. The past five seasons might be said to go to Cueto, but last season Price and especially Greinke were much better than he.
Price has a mph increase in speed last season to recommend him. Greinke is coming off a gem of a season and is expected to age quite well. Cueto's fastball speeds up as the game goes along, which is a nice sign of arm strength. Price and Greinke have both pitched the more consistent number of innings than Cueto, while Price and Cueto have a higher peak in innings than Zack.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 1, 2015 17:39:06 GMT -5
Unlike you, Rog, I don't think the Redsox will be a big player this off season, although I could be wr
Boagie- Guess I was wrong, Price just signed with Boston for 7 years $217 mil.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 1, 2015 20:29:24 GMT -5
My top two choices are gone and the Giants didn't even make any attempt. Sad
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 2, 2015 0:16:40 GMT -5
I don't think the Giants really had much interest in Zimmermann or Price. I think they are and have always been focused on Greinke, and maybe Cueto as a plan B. If they aren't able to land either of them and the Dodgers are, I'll join you in the distain for the way the Giants attack or don't attack the free agent market.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 2, 2015 1:29:45 GMT -5
It seems like the Giants have put all their eggs in the Greinke basket. If they fail to land him, it will be a long frustrating 2016 season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 2, 2015 4:22:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 2, 2015 4:24:12 GMT -5
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member
Posts: 50
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 2, 2015 11:05:53 GMT -5
I am of the opinion that they never, EVER really pursued Price.
I'm with Boagie; I think it was, and IS, Greinke or bust.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 2, 2015 13:30:43 GMT -5
I am of the opinion that they never, EVER really pursued Price. I'm with Boagie; I think it was, and IS, Greinke or bust. Rog -- It's really tough to tell. Unlike last winter, the Giants are playing their cards very close to the vest. About the only specific thing I saw was that they were essentially doing their due diligence on David. They have often been linked to Greinke, and some now think the bidding is between the Giants and Dodgers. Larry Baer said that the instances of success with a free agent pitcher over five years was almost a "null set." Obviously the Giants are going to have to go five years or longer to land one of the top four starters. In theory at least, they could have signed Jordan Zimmermann for five seasons. Price took seven, and both Greinke and Cueto will likely take six. Perhaps the Giants were willing to go one year beyond five, but not two beyond. Perhaps, in fact, they were only willing to go beyond five for Greinke. Perhaps they're not willing to go beyond five for anyone, although that I doubt. Perhaps the Giants were unwilling to give Price a three-year opt out. I can't imagine they like the idea of giving up a draft choice to sign Greinke, but they may be writing that off as simply the cost of doing business. Both the Dodgers and especially the Giants could be viewing the signing of Greinke as having double value -- helping their team while hurting the other. That could drive Greinke's price higher than it should be. It might even develop into a situation where each side tries to bid the other up -- and finally be able to put in the NEXT TO LAST BID, rather than the last. If I were the Giants, I would be bidding on BOTH Greinke and Cueto. If the Dodgers -- or any other team -- put up a bid I was hesitant to exceed, I would try to land Cueto at a price I was OK with. And then if that failed, I would make one last bid for Greinke. One thing Larry Baer said that could be promising for Giants fans. He said the market might drive the budget, which is good, since the market seems to be landing not unexpectedly at or near the top of expected ranges -- or even above the expected. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3141/market-set#ixzz3tBe7rHVR |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 3, 2015 15:04:37 GMT -5
If Rog is correct and the Giants were set on not going over 5 years for anyone except Greinke, then they are not being very realistic...and it also proves that Boly and I are right about them going cheap. When evaluating a team's cheapness, it isn't just the per year figure you look at...it's the number of years. If this theme repeats itself, we'll become the Oakland A's and Rog will be thrilled at that because it will mean more stats geeks and less real baseball people in charge and, as a consequence, less winning.
Yea, nerds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 4, 2015 2:09:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 4, 2015 2:22:28 GMT -5
it also proves that Boly and I are right about them going cheap. Rog -- No, it doesn't. Where do you GET these ideas? The Giants outspent 26 of the 29 other major league teams last season -- the only exceptions being noted "overspenders" LA, New York and Boston -- and they're cheap? Where is the logic? We know the Diamondbacks made a 6/$120 offer to Johnny Cueto, which he rejected, right? Well, the Diamondbacks' CEO said that it was hard for the Diamondbacks to go even six years. And he said that on the heels of signing a $1.5 BILLION TV contract. Have the Giants signed even a $1 billion TV contract lately? Here is what the CEO said. It's “difficult for a team like ours to even go six years,” adding that even five-year commitments are a challenge for the D-backs ..." Is it fair to say that you didn't major in economics? The Giants spent the 4th-most money in the majors last season -- despite having a handful of teams with bigger TV contracts -- and they're cheap? Have you lost your mind? Oh, but clearly the Giants need to do things differently, right? They've won only three World Championships in the past six seasons, when the very least we would have settled for is seven. The Giants have spoiled us, but those of us with sense still treasure reality. You have gone off the deep end. Perhaps you should root for one of the 29 other major league teams who have arguably been less successful than the Giants in the '10's. See how the other teams live. Perhaps they you'll appreciate what we've had and what we've got. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but you have no common sense at all. Frankly, your attitude deserves a losing team. Your attitude is lost, so why not your team? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3141/market-set?page=1&scrollTo=31746#ixzz3tKkktpoh |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 4, 2015 2:29:07 GMT -5
When evaluating a team's cheapness, it isn't just the per year figure you look at...it's the number of years. Rog -- That's flat-out stupid. Is the team that spends $150 million per season through contracts of varying lengths cheaper than the team that spends the same amount through long contracts? Obviously the answer is no. Both teams spent the same amount. Where do you GET these ideas? How about this one? Would you prefer the Giants spend $150 million per season with long contracts to their spending $175 million per season with shorter contracts? I don't think so. And if the contracts aren't long enough for you, how about these: Matt Cain at six years with an option for a 7th year? This has turned out to be a bad contract thus far. Hunter Pence for five years? So far, so good -- although surprisingly, Hunter missed most of last season to injury. Buster Posey for nine years, with an option for a 10th? Madison Bumgarner for five years, with options for two more? Bite your tongue, young man. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3141/market-set?page=1#ixzz3tKneNEzE |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 4, 2015 2:29:58 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 4, 2015 12:41:57 GMT -5
When evaluating a team's cheapness, it isn't just the per year figure you look at...it's the number of years.
Rog -- That's flat-out stupid.
Dood - You might want to attempt a deeper understanding of something before dismissing it as "stupid" right away. If a team offers one less year to a top FA pitcher, they are, by doing so, offering less money. In this specific situation, the Giants know that wont get Greinke to move north and that the second rate alternatives are even less expensive. Leaving that one extra year out of their offer allows them to go on the cheap, just as you're hoping they do, so the Dodgers with Kershaw and Greinke can keep winning division titles. Good for you, bad for the Giants.
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member
Posts: 50
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 4, 2015 16:06:50 GMT -5
Rog Where do you GET these ideas? The Giants outspent 26 of the 29 other major league teams last season -- the only exceptions being noted "overspenders" LA, New York and Boston -- and they're cheap?
***boly says****
Rog, you're misunderstanding what Randy is saying, and means, and what I'm saying and meaning.
No question the Giants have a large payroll. Perhaps in the top 25%
What he is saying, and I AM saying is that they are going on the cheap in the FA market, especially where pitching is concerned.
They never EVER, IMHO, were in the race for Price.
Mark posted that they've filled the truck with money and backed it up to Greinke's door step, and he might be right.
Me? I'm not so sure.
As I posted in another thread how COME we can't get top arms to sign with us?
Great ballpark in which to pitch.
GREAT fans
Arguably THE best manager in baseball, AND we've won 3 of the last 6 world series titles
And NO ONE signs with us?
There HAS TO BE A REASON.
Has to be!
Since no one HAS, I ask, why? And the reasons I keep coming up with, the only ones that make any logical sense to me are:
1-We ARE going on the cheap, offering far less than what they're asking (And don't give me Lester's case. That was a specific set of circumstances)
2-We never EVER planned to go SEIOUSLY after top arm in the first place. It was all just rhetoric.
Ya'all may disagree, but THAT seems to me, what has and is continuing happen.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 4, 2015 16:46:05 GMT -5
Boly- 1-We ARE going on the cheap, offering far less than what they're asking (And don't give me Lester's case. That was a specific set of circumstances)
Boagie- I won't give you the Lester case, because there's far more to reference to, but I will say that it was reported that the Giants were in fact the highest bidders, but let's forget that.
We were right there with Boston on Sandoval. Shields signed for LESS than the Giants offered him and now we're tangled up in a bidding war that has reportedly reached a higher number than the Greinke people were asking for to begin with...and you think the Giants are going cheap?
There could very well be a problem with their negotiating tactics, but its not how much money's on the table. The Giants seem to have a very good idea of the market value on players, and are willing to spend it and then some.
I wish it were as simple as money, but it clearly isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 5, 2015 0:23:40 GMT -5
The Giants have given two long contracts to starting pitchers and they've been burned twice. Zito and Cain. This has scared them and it's obvious that this is why they wouldn't give Greinke a sixth year. The reason you can't knock them though is that the Dodgers, the freest spending team in the history of baseball didn't go to a sixth year either. I would have gone six, but it ain't my money. I don't care about the year 2021 in 2015 and I wonder why the Giants do, but as I said, not my money!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 5, 2015 5:01:37 GMT -5
Leaving that one extra year out of their offer allows them to go on the cheap, just as you're hoping they do, so the Dodgers with Kershaw and Greinke can keep winning division titles. Rog -- You don't know what you're talking about. You know little enough about baseball itself (or at least act as if that is the case), let alone what someone else wants. What I suspect you want is to complain. Let's just put you in charge of it, since it seems to come naturally. You take care of the complaining, which will make Boly's life a lot easier! And let the rest of us deal with reality. I think that's a win/win. And Boly gets saved from an ulcer! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3141/market-set#ixzz3tRHJB74g |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 5, 2015 5:06:31 GMT -5
Since no one HAS, I ask, why? And the reasons I keep coming up with, the only ones that make any logical sense to me are: 1-We ARE going on the cheap, offering far less than what they're asking (And don't give me Lester's case. That was a specific set of circumstances) 2-We never EVER planned to go SEIOUSLY after top arm in the first place. It was all just rhetoric. Rog -- I'm sorry, Boly, but you're wrong on this one. You know I love you, but I don't think it's right that you take liberty with the facts. The Giants didn't lose any of their top three targets last winter -- Sandoval, Lester and Shields -- because of money. They were willing to offer each of the three at LEAST as much money as the players took to play. To accuse them of offering far less than the players want is false. To say their talk of landing a top starter is clearly rhetoric is, well, rhetoric of its own. You don't think the Giants were seriously in on Lester, Shields and Greinke? What do you base that on? It clearly doesn't jibe with the facts we know. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3141/market-set?page=1#ixzz3tRIOkZJK |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 5, 2015 5:09:59 GMT -5
|
|
