Turned around backward?

[Rog]

Jonah Keri yesterday on the MLB Network posited a theory that the Giants went big after a closer, leaving little money for a left fielder, when they might have been better off going for a less known reliever and spending the bigger bucks on someone like Dexter Fowler.  I don't mean to throw cold water on the Mark Melancon excitement, but is Keri on point?

Melancon has been a wonderful closer the past four seasons, posting the lowest ERA of any pitcher throwing 200 innings or more.  1.80 isn't only the freeway to Reno, it is nothing to sneeze at.  But should the Giants have spend 4/$62 for a closer and left scant money for left field?

We know what Bobby Evans's strategy is.  Fill the hole that glared so brightly down the stretch and in the playoffs.  Try the two young guys in left field and fill in at the trade deadline if necessary.  Buy time to trade for J.D. Martinez, perhaps at the trade deadline.

But what about getting Fowler and a lesser reliever?  Put simply, who is the better prospect -- Derek Law with a very successful rookie season or Mac Williamson who has been good but not great for what is essentially a season in AAA?  Law looks a lot better from where I sit.  A 2.13 ERA and just nine walks given up in 55 innings.  A WHIP below 1.00.  Meanwhile, Williamson has hit .222 with a .680 OPS in parts of two major league seasons.

But the need for a closer is much greater than for a left fielder, you say?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  There is no successful left fielder to play for the Giants.  In the bullpen, Law, Will Smith and Hunter Strickland have had success.  What if the Giants HAD added a reliever proven for all but the ninth inning?  To compete with Law, Smith and Strickland?  It seems unlikely one of the four wouldn't have become an acceptable closer.

And how about adding Fowler?  Not a lot of power there, but a true AT&T type of player.  Speed, defense and the ability to get on base.  A moderate amount of power.  A switch hitter.  The ability to move Denard Span to left field, where his declining range and 98-pound weakling arm wouldn't be as exposed.  A true leadoff hitter who both reaches base and has speed.  You know, kind of the Denard Span of three seasons ago.

I mentioned a while ago that the Giants needed a left fielder even more than they needed a closer, and I'm going to go with Fowler and a lesser reliever instead of Melancon and a lesser left fielder like Brandon Moss, whom Keri mentioned.  The Giants have time to address it, and possibly the minors will provide part of the answer, but right now the Giants have no outfielders proven to be both healthy and successful.  None.

Let's suppose Williamson, Parker or a lesser free agent does provide the answer in left field.  The Giants will STILL need a right-handed hitter more proven than Gorkys Hernandez to platoon with Span, whose performance against southpaws hasn't been much better than his arm of late.  Actually, I'm wrong here.  Span's arm might be the weakest tool in the majors leagues, while his hitting against lefties is bad, not historically bad.

Entering the off-season, the Giants had two big needs.  Closer was the one that jumped off the page.  But the prospects to fill that position are far more proven than anyone the Giants have to play left field, aside from Span, who at the moment is the center fielder, one who is truly horrible only against southpaws.  The prospects to fill the closer position have shown much more success at the major league level.

The Giants were in a dilemma entering this off-season.  They needed a closer, a starting left fielder, and a lesser reliever and lesser outfielder.  Tough to fill each of those four holes.  Not at all surprising that they chose closer as the primary need.  They saw it as enough of a need to pay $12 million than any other closer has ever received (temporarily).

But while the need was huge, at least there were decent prospects to fill it.  And one or two more could have seemingly been acquired fairly inexpensively.  Corner outfielders cost a lot.  And Fowler isn't even a corner outfielder.  But he's a proven center fielder who could move Span away from being a defensive weakness.

One can argue either way on this.  But my gut tells me the Giants would be better balanced with a left or center fielder.  And the mistake they made, although understandable given how patient the Cubs had to be to sign him, may have been signing Span a year ago instead of Fowler.

Span and Jeff Samardzija weren't recommended from this corner.  Perhaps the Giants' money could have been allocated better without them.  More and more, the game is becoming about properly allocating salary dollars.  The Giants don't have a lot of top players who haven't yet reached free agency eligibility tenure.  Even though they're one of the biggest spenders, their commitments to their core may make them less flexible than some of the lesser-spending teams.

Melancon, as good as he has been, may not be the best allocation of available bucks.  Maybe if he can be as good the next four seasons as he has been the previous four, but at age 32, that doesn't seem likely.  But it's not likely to be Melancon's performance that will be the primary issue.  That is likely to be pumping up an outfield that right now is below-average given its lack of healthy or experience.

[klaiggeb]

Dexter Fowler is NOT, repeat NOT what the Giants need.

Yes he's a good hitter.

Yes, he's a pretty good defender...

But power?

He's not the guy.

Also, and NO ONE has noticed that, but I've watched Fowler play a LOT... and he takes plays off, gets lazy in the OF, and from my observations, takes bad at bats with him into the OF.

I've watched him "lazy" flyballs all too often.

No thanks.

boly

[Rog]

Also, and NO ONE has noticed that, but I've watched Fowler play a LOT... and he takes plays off, gets lazy in the OF, and from my observations, takes bad at bats with him into the OF.

I've watched him "lazy" flyballs all too often.

No thanks.


Rog -- I guess Dexter would be REALLY good if he didn't have those problems. As it is, he's still pretty good. Not a great player, but a good one, and one who is made for AT&T. He had a .393 OBP last season, and a guy who gets on base that often doesn't have to have much power or run the bases particularly well to help you.

I can't speak to his clubhouse presence, and that seems to be truly important to the Giants. But on the field he's pretty good, and he would allow the Giants to move Denard Span to left field, where he likely would be a good defender. In left, he would be competing with the likes of Adam Duvall to be one of the good fielders at his position. And he could platoon with Mac Williamson instead of Gorkys Hernandez. The Giants would have one good bat and an acceptable platoon bat who could play center field instead of only the platoon bat.

The Giants look to me to be very weak in left field. Mac Williamson and Jarrett Parker are projected 0.6 to 1.0 WAR. Fowler is projected at 2. Denard Span is projected at 1.9 to 2.0 WAR, and I'll bet his defense would pick up close to another win if he played in left field, where he should be pretty good instead of average at best. Fowler is projected at 2.2 to 2.3 WAR, so adding his production to the improved work of Span in left field could well add two or three wins or so to the Giants' total. Even more if Fowler repeated his production of last season.

I guess Melancon could do as well (possibly even better), but I think there is less risk with the one year younger Fowler. Pitching, especialy relief pitching, carries a lot of injury risk, and relievers tend to be more inconsistent. One thing too that augurs for Melancon is that strong relievers who could become good set up men or closers are becoming more and more valued and thus cost more in players or pay.

I guess the bottom line is that I need to explore this further. Fowler could help the Giants improve two positions, but the Giants are now hoping that Melancon can help their entire bullpen improve by taking some of the leverage off them.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3625/turned-backward#ixzz4S7ei8EVv

[Rog]

With Yoenis Cespedes gone, almost all the remaining power hitters left are poor fielders. Likely the best combination would come from Ian Desmond.

So I guess the question I would ask is, which outfielder would we sign or trade for to give the Giants power without hurting their defense? The pickin's is slim.

[garyd4sf]

The Giants blew saves in a league high 32 games. If they had blown only half of those they likely get to a final game vs the Cubs in place of the Dodgers, if not farther. Melancon has blown 10 games in his Career. Yeah, he is good and they had to preempt his purchase with their offer.

I think the Giants may use the newbies Williamson and Parker in Left, but also Belt when Posey plays first. Which brings up another need IMO. Is Brown good enough to relieve Posey at catcher this year?

BTW I'm new here, but a long time fan of the Giants from my time growing up in the Northeast to my present residence in dreaded Dodger territory in Southern California. I visit the Giants yearly in Arizona (Spring training) and at least 3-4 game a year at SF, LA or SD.

[Islandboagie]

Welcome aboard, Gary.

I hope you don't get easily offended.

[Islandboagie]

Btw, you bring up a good question about Brown backing up Posey in 2017. Brown impressed me in 2015, but last season left a lot to be desired.

[garyd4sf]

Dec 7, 2016 10:22:29 GMT -5 Islandboagie said:

Welcome aboard, Gary.

I hope you don't get easily offended.

I'm definitely a poster vet that can bite back. But I prefer to glide over things. Opinion boards are best when there are opposing views.

[Rog]

Let me be the third of all our posters to welcome you aboard, Gary. You seem to know your stuff, and we can definitely use new ideas. If I myself ever offend you, please let me know. That is far from my intent. If you lag, I might push you to be your best, but you don't impress me as someone who lags. Maybe I can safely say that at this point you just impress me.

REALLY glad to have you. You seem like a guy who has a lot to say and backs it up when you do so. You will find that virtually every poster has something to say that we can all learn from. Personally I've learned a TON here in a variety of ways.

I post a LOT, but you'll find that some of the guys who post much less have much to say. There is even a former poster who reads the board but doesn't post, occasionally sending individual e-mails instead. Despite his low volume, we can learn a lot from him.

And from every single poster here. Welcome aboard!

[sfgdood]

It shouldn't take long for Rog to offend you, Gary. He's a stats nerd who believes games should only be played on a spread sheet. He also never tires of telling us how much better the Dodgers, especially Kershaw, are than the Giants. According to Rog, the Giants' 3 championships came only by luck

[Rog]

The Giants blew saves in a league high 32 games. If they had blown only half of those they likely get to a final game vs the Cubs in place of the Dodgers, if not farther.


Rog -- That is a huge number, but the real problem was with the closer. Any pitcher who blows a lead after the fifth or sixth inning is charged with a blown save, and many of the Giants middle releivers and set up men actually pitched pretty well. There are going to be blown saves if an early lead is small, which the Giants' up-and-down hitting often limited it to, and sometimes more than one blown save in the same game.

Santiago Casilla blew nine saves, and of course in the big game four of the Cubs' series, none of the five relievers used in the ninth inning distinguished himself. Because Casilla was so much out of the picture that he wasn't even used among the five relievers and because Sergio Romo had blown a save big-time last time out, Bochy felt he needed to mix and match with his bullpen, and while any one of them should have been able to hold a three-run lead, collectively they not only blew the save but gave up the winning run as well.

The gave up four runs before they got three outs. Even the pitchers who didn't make the postseason roster should have been able to do better than that. I have expressed that Will Smith was the guy Bochy should have used, yet ironically Smith was the pitcher who not only blew the save but got the loss.

Smith gave up a single up the middle to tie the game. The single came on a ball that was hit hard enough to be a hit less than 22% of the time, but it found a hole. Smith perhaps foolishly reached out with his pitching hand, but the ball was just by him. Smith got Jason Heyward to bunt into what should have been an inning-ending double play, but shockingly, Brandon Crawford threw the pivot away allowing Heyward to reach second base, from where he scored on a base hit yielded by Hunter Strickland.

And soon the Giants season was over, arguably because the Giants failed in their attempt to trade for Melancon at the deadline and because Bochy failed to have faith in a reliever who had been almost spotless for over a month and a half.

Now they have Melancon, who as Gary noted, almost never blows a save. If they had acquired him at the deadline, they very likely would have set up a wonderful matchup between Johnny Cueto and Jon Lester in a winner-take- all fifth game. Although Mark and I would have prefered Kenley Jansen because of the age differential, Melancon is a fine solution. When the Giants spent $12 million more (temporarily) than has ever been spent on a closer, they announced that they were focused on what had been their Achilles heel, and they weren't being cheap in doing so.

Unfortunately, they appear to have spent almost all their remaining budget to do so, but there is no questioning they addressed their Achilles heel in a strong way, much as they had done the previous winter in signing the underrated Cueto and the enigmatic Jeff Samardzija for nearly a quarter of a million dollars. This time they spent only a quarter of that on Melancon, whose 1.80 ERA over the past four seasons may be better than anyone not named Mariano Rivera or Craig Kimbrel.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3625/turned-backward?page=1#ixzz4SBBSI8Da

[garyd4sf]

Sounds like fun...

[sfgdood]

I agree with Gary that getting Melancon would have meant a division title and therefore eliminated the SF/Chicago LDS matchup...and the LCS matchup would have been a completely different animal

[Rog]

I agree with Gary that getting Melancon would have meant a division title and therefore eliminated the SF/Chicago LDS matchup.


Rog -- One thing to remember though is that there would have been a high probability that either the Giants would have met the Cubs anyway or not advanced to the LCS. The odds were probaby about 75%. No guarantee that Melancon would have gotten the Giants to the NLCS West title either, although I agree the chances would have been very good.

Again, Bruce Bochy had Will Smith, who quite likely could have handled the closer job. Bruce is probably one of the guys who believe that some guys are closers and some aren't, and he might be right. But think of the many guys who were middle relievers or set up men before the opportunity to close came along, and then they did just fine. Mark Melancon is one of them.

There is a prejudice against lefty closer because they will face so many right-handers, but Smith pitched better last season against righties than lefty hitters. Even right-handed hitters had a hard time laying off his slider down and in, and with the Giants he struck out 12.8 batters per nine innings. Zack Britton was considered the best reliever in baseball last season, even getting a lot of Cy Young votes, and Britton is left-handed. So obviously is Aroldis Chapman.

I have mentioned that over the last 50 days the Giants played, Smith was better than Melancon. Smith got off to a poor start when he first came to the Giants, so it is somewhat understandable that Bruce was a little slow on he uptake. But Hall of Fame managers usually pick up on stuff like that.

Would I rather have had Melancon than Smith as the closer? Of course. And it's even understandable that Bruce first went with Sergio Romo, who had closed well in the past. But once Romo himself began to have serious problems in the closer role, a manager should simply go with the best he's got. Bruce failed to do so until it was too late. And then he took Smith out when he probably shouldn't have.

Hey, it took me two weeks myself to figure out what Bruce should have done. But that was in part because we know Bruce almost always sticks with his usual patterns. I had been prescient enough to point out how well Smith was pitching. I can't imagine Bruce missed that part himself, but it looks to me like he was stuck with the old prejudices.

Clearly he shouldn't have been. Having Melancon would have made it a no-brainer for Bruce to have made the right move in that fateful ninth inning. With Smith, he had to think a little. Sadly, any thinking he did wound up leading him in the wrong direction.

Can we be sure that Smith would have closed out the game? Of course not, although it's safe to say that his odds were quite good. What we can say is that if you're going to lose, you should usually lose with your best. The Giants didn't do that, and it cost them dearly.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3625/turned-backward#ixzz4SC7No58G

[Rog]

It shouldn't take long for Rog to offend you, Gary. He's a stats nerd who believes games should only be played on a spread sheet. He also never tires of telling us how much better the Dodgers, especially Kershaw, are than the Giants. According to Rog, the Giants' 3 championships came only by luck


Rog I have a sneaking feeling, Gary, that you're smart enough to realize what Randy said here isn't true. In fact, none of the statements he made is true.

Just approach the board with an open mind, and you'll do great and, like the rest of us, will learn a lot about the Giants, baseball, sports in general and occasionally even life.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3625/turned-backward?page=1#ixzz4SCXMj046

[Rog]

Is Brown good enough to relieve Posey at catcher this year?


Rog -- The Giants have been impressed with Brown all the way back to when he came up as something of an emergency call up in September of 2015, but I have never been impressed with him. The Giants did give him something of a vote of confidence though when they traded away catcher Andrew Susac in the Will Smith deal. I like Andrew, but it should be noted that he hit just .125 in AAA for the Brewers, although he did hit .235 with a .786 OPS in just 17 at bats after the Brewers called him up in September. After the trade of Jonathan Lucroy, Susac is listed as just the #3 catcher on the Brewers' depth chart.

Andrew gets on base though and hits with some power, plus he was drafted in part for his defensive abilities. I believe I read that the Giants were disappointed in his ability to handle pitchers.

The Giants seem happy with Brown, and the pitchers do seem to like him, but Trevor hasn't been much of a hitter, and his defense has been just so-so. The Giants' top catching prospect, Adam Garcia -- like Susac, a former second-round pick -- played at San Jose last season, batting .257 with a .663 OPS. I'm not sure Buster's successor is on the horizon yet.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3625/turned-backward#ixzz4SHRPsgcK

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Andrew gets on base though and hits with some power, plus he was drafted in part for his defensive abilities. I believe I read that the Giants were disappointed in his ability to handle pitchers.

Boagie- I think they were mainly disappointed in his inability to stay healthy. When you're a backup catcher and you're on the DL for parts of two seasons it's almost like you're not even there.

[rxmeister]

Welcome aboard, Gary! I'm sure you remember Gary from the old AOL boards, and if you do, you'll remember he's a lot smarter than we are! He's also that rare combination of Knicks-Giants fan, so we suffer together while you guys bask in the glory of your Warriors. Getting back to the topic at hand, lesser reliever and Fowler doesn't work for me. Now if they had gone top of the line and signed Cespedes, I would have been content with a lesser closer. I'm happy with Melancon, and like I said before, I can live with Mac/Parker in LF if the organization truly believes in them, and not if they're simply doing it because they have no money. And by the way, if you wonder where we would have gone with Melancon if we had him this year, Joe Madden said that the scariest moment of the post season to him was the thought of facing a Johnny Cueto in a game five.

[klaiggeb]

Welcome aboard/back, Gary!

Though we sometimes can get harsh, this board is NOT like other boards I've seen; with swearing and other crap.

Glad to have you back!

boly

[Rog]

Were you Garydesrochers or something like that, Gary? Great to have you here, back or just plain Gary.

[Rog]

I'm still going to say I'm not happy with the Williamson/Parker experiment. Why?

Well, last year I loved the Cueto signing, having shown here that aside from Clayton Kershaw, Johnny had the best ERA of any starter over the 2010's. I didn't like the Samardzija signing but hoped like the rest of us that Dave Righetti could fix him. And I didn't like the Span signing, but placed my faith in the Giants' judgment.

So I'm simply going to continue with my original opinion of Williamson and Parker, even though the Giants appear to like them. A couple of points there though:

. The Giants may be looking to Williamson and Parker because they believe they need to give the youngsters a chance. They've had success with Panik and Duffy the past couple of years, and certainly giving the youngsters a shot is good for players coming up in the organization, including a few other outfield prospects. But Williamson and Parker are a little old to be true prospects, and if one looks at the respective K/BB/power numbers of Panik and Duffy compared to Williamson and Parker, one can see a clear difference in the two pairs.

. The Giants knew that if they signed Melancon, they likely couldn't fit a left fielder into their budget, so when life gives you lemons, it's time to make lemonade.

For those who think the Giants should just go ahead and spend even more, it might be noted that even the Dodgers are now paying more attention to the luxury threshold.

Finally, if we remember that Spot Trac showed the Giants' payroll at less than $150 mill prior to the Melancon signing, we should also remember that apparently there are benefits that count toward the threshold. Otherwise, even with the expected re-signings of arb-eligible players, the Giants wouldn't be coming close to the $195 mill threshold they apparently have slightly exceeded. They got just above it last season too, even though the pure salaries themselves didn't add up that high.

And REALLY finally, let's remember that we were the happiest when then the Giants DIDN'T increase their salary budget. Despite all the money they spent a winter ago, they entered 2016 with virtually the same salary total as they opened the 2015 season with. Expiring contracts and already built-in raises have a lot to do with how much they are able to offer free agents.

We were the happiest a year ago when they actually increased the budget the LEAST of any season in the past decade or so. In other words, we were happiest last winter when the Giants were actually the "CHEAPEST." We -- and almost all Giants fans -- are clearly out of touch with the parameters the Giants face. As such, we're really not in a great position to question how MUCH they spend in the off-season, but we can certainly be justified in questioning HOW they spend it. Even our ability there is somewhat limited because we don't always know what they have tried to do and the reasons those things might not have worked out.

[sfgdood]

I'm in favor of spending big to get a legit power hitter...whether he plays left or we stick him at first and put the big oaf in LF. That being said I have a huge issue with this age thing...too many stats geeks say someone in their mid to late 20s is "too old" to be a legit major leaguer...it makes no sense. Lots of factors may come into play. The one thing I do like about Williamson AND Parker is that they can hit homers...they just do it in spurts, not consistently. Maybe they will find that consistency with more playing time, maybe they wont. But to just say they are too old to turn into a good player is nonsense.

[sfgdood]

In terms of myself, Boly and others referring to the Giants "going on the cheap," what you folks fail to grasp, or refuse to accept, is that the Giants are a top revenue team. They cannot be judged as small to mid market teams are. When Boly and I say on the cheap we refer to what the Giants have available to spend vs what they choose not to use on payroll. I might actually give them more slack on this issue if other teams weren't passing us by or if the farm system was producing big time legit talent. It is not. As such the Giants need to use their vast resources to bring talent to this team commensurate with the revenue it generates. If they want to use trades to get that done, so be it...otherwise, show me the money!!

[Rog]

It is true that the Giants are both a top revenue team and a top salary team.

[Rog]

too many stats geeks say someone in their mid to late 20s is "too old" to be a legit major leaguer..


Rog -- What both the metricians and the scouts actually say is that older prospects rarely become stars, and the odds that they will become productive starters are less. Neither group says that the late 20's is "too old" to be a legit major leaguer. They simply point to the fact that it is far less likely.

How many players on the Giants were late bloomers? It's not a whole lot higher than the number of them who wear bloomers. Most of the key Giants became major leaguers in their early 20's. That is in keeping with the experience of most other teams.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3625/turned-backward?page=1#ixzz4SMeQT7PL

[klaiggeb]

We've done well, at least LAST year, in signing top arms, and so far this year, so good.

I also liked the signing of Span last year.

Who knew he wasn't 100%.

But I'm with Randy on a LF. We have the money, go GET an impact hitter.

The Dodgers will get ANY impact player they need.

They've proven that.

I LIKE Mac.

I LIKE Parker... but I do NOT want to go INTO the season with our ability to score runs, at least in part, resting on either of them.

I mean, Span and Pence have to been able to stay healthy.

Posey suffered a MAJOR power outtage, and Belt never hit the 20 HRs he should have hit.

If we're waiting for Mac/Parker to pick up the slack... that a HUGE risk the way I see it.

boly

[Rog]

The Dodgers will get ANY impact player they need.

They've proven that.


Rog -- I thought Zack Greinke proved the opposite.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3625/turned-backward#ixzz4SMvxzJLA

[Rog]

I also liked the signing of Span last year.


Rog -- I hope you're right about that. But at his best, he appears to be a platoon player. He's been awful against lefties three out of the past four seasons, and his one "good" season during that time was .269/.694, which isn't very good at all.

Over his career, Denard is .266/.695, or just about the same, so perhaps he will bounce back. But it looks almost like a reverse side Pablo Sandoval situation in terms of a recent and fairly long slide.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3625/turned-backward?page=1#ixzz4SMwVOKsB

[Rog]

If we're waiting for Mac/Parker to pick up the slack... that a HUGE risk the way I see it.


Rog -- I'm right with you on that, Boly. Although it may be to a lesser extent than you and I see, I'm sure the Giants realize the risk as well. If the experiment fails, they'll likely address the situation at or before the trade deadline. They also have a minor league possibility or two that might materialize by that time.

I think the problem is that they're just simply out of budget -- and can't find a taker for Matt Cain's $20 million! With the exception of Madison Bumgarner, re-signing their star pitchers hasn't panned out well.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3625/turned-backward?page=1#ixzz4SMxnXjl8