Post by Rog on Dec 5, 2015 7:54:50 GMT -5
Fan Graphs recently put out their top five undervalued free agents. I found #5 and #1 on their list to be intriguing.
#5 is Wei-Yin Chen, who is projected at 2.9 wins in 2016. #1 is Jason Heyward, who is projected at 4.7 wins. Based on these projections, the Giants might pick up 7 or 8 wins in 2016 by signing that pair.
Chen is projected by Fan Graphs at 4/$64. Let's suppose the rising market has moved him to 4/$72. That's not a bargain price, but it's not bad if Chen doesn't decline much in the next four seasons. If he can add nine wins over the four years, he would be worth the pact. Chen is a master at changing speeds.
Heyward is projected at 9/$195. I think that might rise to something like 10/$230. That contract would take something like 28 wins to justify it. Heyward was worth six last season and is just entering his prime. I would be pretty much all in on this one. Heyward could be among the best all-around players over the next decade.
I have been high on Hisashi Iwakuma. He is projected at 3.3 wins in 2016 and a 3/$42 contract. That would be a deal even at 3/$48.
So here is the point. Zack Greinke is signing for 6/$206. He's projected at 4.2 wins in 2016. These projections are objective and have a calculated basis. They might wind up not being even close. But based on these projections, the Giants can do a lot better than Greinke.
I like the idea of Jason Heyward as the Giants' top signing, the one who is given the high-priced, long-term contract. His contract will likely wind up being the longest this winter. Iwakuma or Chen might make a nice complement.
I don't think the Giants have enough to sign Heyward and BOTH Chen and Iwakuma, but how about taking a chance on Cliff Lee as the second pitching addition? I'm really, really guessing, but I wouldn't think Lee would attract more than say 1/$12 or 2/$20. I haven't researched Lee, but he's certainly done it before. Might be kind of a Tim Hudson signing, and Hudson was pretty decent when healthy.
Lee is another example, by the way, of a long-term contract that didn't work out as well as expected, although it was very good early on.
I realize it is easy to get down, down, down when the Giants' top target is missed out on. But all wasn't lost when they missed out on Pablo Sandoval. There are options out there, some of which will likely aggregate to pay off better than Zack Greinke.
I doubt the Giants will go the way of Jason Heyward, but I think it would be great if they did so. They should still have enough money left to pick up one good pitcher and perhaps two.
It is quite possible that from this point on, Heyward would be a Giant for as long as anyone on the roster. I don't know if he can play center field or not, but some think he can. How about trying him out for a year there, with Pagan and Blanco in left. Let's suppose then that Mac Williamson/Jarrett Parker/Kelby Tomlinson work out in left field in 2017.
How do you like the idea of an outfield of -- from right to left -- Pence, Heyward and Williamson/Parker/Tomlinson? Combined with Buster Posey and the Giants' infield, that looks like a position lineup that could last a long time, doesn't it?
It should still leave the Giants with money to address the pitching for 2016. And in 2017 they might be able to draw on this year's pitching addition or two, Madison Bumgarner, Matt Cain, Heston/Blackburn, a possible return of Jake Peavy and a young starter or two such as Beede and Bickford.
The Giants' bullpen is aging, but it also has a handful of good-looking prospects, a couple of whom are already in San Francisco.
Put all those things together, and the Giants might have a solid, young team. Things wouldn't work out quite that way, of course, but a young core of Posey, Bumgarner, Heyward, Panik, Belt and Crawford would be quite nice, especially if the bullpen matures and Beede/Bickford can establish itself. The guys I mentioned as the young core vary in age between 20 (Bickford) and 28 (Posey and Crawford). Having stars like Bumgarner, Heyward and Panik at ages 26, 26 and 25 wouldn't be bad, either.
Heyward might solidify the everyday core for years and years. That core could remain strong into the '20's, and make them, once again, roaring.
Greinke is gone. Price wasn't right for the Giants. (At least he didn't seem to think so.) Zimmermann is a Giant zero.
But all is not lost. Some consider Heyward to be the best free agent of all. He would solidify the Giants' 2nd-biggest weakness. (Some might say that with left field open and center field in the hands of a Pagan more than an Angel, it is the biggest.) The Giants would still have money to improve their rotation.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Giants will go this direction. I'm beginning to think I may be disappointed. But there are avenues available, and the Giants have surprised us before. With three World Championships in six years, it's kind of hard to argue that they don't know what they're doing. With those results and the 4th-biggest 2015 payroll, it's hard to argue that they're cheap.
Let's just give them a chance, and hope that even if we're disappointed, they know more than we do. The trend could change, of course, but so far they have. Even if they wanted to re-sign Pablo Sandoval.
In fact, their biggest weakness hasn't been so much not landing the big fish only to find the hook was better baited on the other side of the boat, but rather in overpaying some of the players who had been instrumental in their success. If the Giants have erred, it may have been mostly on the side of loyalty and chemistry.
Remember, all men are created equal -- but some become Giants. And the resultant group has been better than equal. Quite a bit better in three out of six years. The Giants spend a lot of money, and for the most part, they have spent it well.
Incidentally, this could change quickly, but does the Dodgers' rotation look any better than the Giants'? Does the Dodgers' bullpen look as good as the Giants? Do the eight players they put on the field look better than the Giants' octet?
All subject to change, but right now it's hard to pick the Dodgers' team over the Giants'. On the other hand, the Diamondbacks seem to quickly be making up ground. Yet the team some worried about last season was the Padres, who were also trending upward, but no longer are.
I'm not thrilled right now. (Which Giants fan is?) But I wasn't all that thrilled before 2010 either, and that has turned out pretty well the past six years.
#5 is Wei-Yin Chen, who is projected at 2.9 wins in 2016. #1 is Jason Heyward, who is projected at 4.7 wins. Based on these projections, the Giants might pick up 7 or 8 wins in 2016 by signing that pair.
Chen is projected by Fan Graphs at 4/$64. Let's suppose the rising market has moved him to 4/$72. That's not a bargain price, but it's not bad if Chen doesn't decline much in the next four seasons. If he can add nine wins over the four years, he would be worth the pact. Chen is a master at changing speeds.
Heyward is projected at 9/$195. I think that might rise to something like 10/$230. That contract would take something like 28 wins to justify it. Heyward was worth six last season and is just entering his prime. I would be pretty much all in on this one. Heyward could be among the best all-around players over the next decade.
I have been high on Hisashi Iwakuma. He is projected at 3.3 wins in 2016 and a 3/$42 contract. That would be a deal even at 3/$48.
So here is the point. Zack Greinke is signing for 6/$206. He's projected at 4.2 wins in 2016. These projections are objective and have a calculated basis. They might wind up not being even close. But based on these projections, the Giants can do a lot better than Greinke.
I like the idea of Jason Heyward as the Giants' top signing, the one who is given the high-priced, long-term contract. His contract will likely wind up being the longest this winter. Iwakuma or Chen might make a nice complement.
I don't think the Giants have enough to sign Heyward and BOTH Chen and Iwakuma, but how about taking a chance on Cliff Lee as the second pitching addition? I'm really, really guessing, but I wouldn't think Lee would attract more than say 1/$12 or 2/$20. I haven't researched Lee, but he's certainly done it before. Might be kind of a Tim Hudson signing, and Hudson was pretty decent when healthy.
Lee is another example, by the way, of a long-term contract that didn't work out as well as expected, although it was very good early on.
I realize it is easy to get down, down, down when the Giants' top target is missed out on. But all wasn't lost when they missed out on Pablo Sandoval. There are options out there, some of which will likely aggregate to pay off better than Zack Greinke.
I doubt the Giants will go the way of Jason Heyward, but I think it would be great if they did so. They should still have enough money left to pick up one good pitcher and perhaps two.
It is quite possible that from this point on, Heyward would be a Giant for as long as anyone on the roster. I don't know if he can play center field or not, but some think he can. How about trying him out for a year there, with Pagan and Blanco in left. Let's suppose then that Mac Williamson/Jarrett Parker/Kelby Tomlinson work out in left field in 2017.
How do you like the idea of an outfield of -- from right to left -- Pence, Heyward and Williamson/Parker/Tomlinson? Combined with Buster Posey and the Giants' infield, that looks like a position lineup that could last a long time, doesn't it?
It should still leave the Giants with money to address the pitching for 2016. And in 2017 they might be able to draw on this year's pitching addition or two, Madison Bumgarner, Matt Cain, Heston/Blackburn, a possible return of Jake Peavy and a young starter or two such as Beede and Bickford.
The Giants' bullpen is aging, but it also has a handful of good-looking prospects, a couple of whom are already in San Francisco.
Put all those things together, and the Giants might have a solid, young team. Things wouldn't work out quite that way, of course, but a young core of Posey, Bumgarner, Heyward, Panik, Belt and Crawford would be quite nice, especially if the bullpen matures and Beede/Bickford can establish itself. The guys I mentioned as the young core vary in age between 20 (Bickford) and 28 (Posey and Crawford). Having stars like Bumgarner, Heyward and Panik at ages 26, 26 and 25 wouldn't be bad, either.
Heyward might solidify the everyday core for years and years. That core could remain strong into the '20's, and make them, once again, roaring.
Greinke is gone. Price wasn't right for the Giants. (At least he didn't seem to think so.) Zimmermann is a Giant zero.
But all is not lost. Some consider Heyward to be the best free agent of all. He would solidify the Giants' 2nd-biggest weakness. (Some might say that with left field open and center field in the hands of a Pagan more than an Angel, it is the biggest.) The Giants would still have money to improve their rotation.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Giants will go this direction. I'm beginning to think I may be disappointed. But there are avenues available, and the Giants have surprised us before. With three World Championships in six years, it's kind of hard to argue that they don't know what they're doing. With those results and the 4th-biggest 2015 payroll, it's hard to argue that they're cheap.
Let's just give them a chance, and hope that even if we're disappointed, they know more than we do. The trend could change, of course, but so far they have. Even if they wanted to re-sign Pablo Sandoval.
In fact, their biggest weakness hasn't been so much not landing the big fish only to find the hook was better baited on the other side of the boat, but rather in overpaying some of the players who had been instrumental in their success. If the Giants have erred, it may have been mostly on the side of loyalty and chemistry.
Remember, all men are created equal -- but some become Giants. And the resultant group has been better than equal. Quite a bit better in three out of six years. The Giants spend a lot of money, and for the most part, they have spent it well.
Incidentally, this could change quickly, but does the Dodgers' rotation look any better than the Giants'? Does the Dodgers' bullpen look as good as the Giants? Do the eight players they put on the field look better than the Giants' octet?
All subject to change, but right now it's hard to pick the Dodgers' team over the Giants'. On the other hand, the Diamondbacks seem to quickly be making up ground. Yet the team some worried about last season was the Padres, who were also trending upward, but no longer are.
I'm not thrilled right now. (Which Giants fan is?) But I wasn't all that thrilled before 2010 either, and that has turned out pretty well the past six years.
