Dodgers pony up...

[garyd4sf]

They signed RP Jansen for 5 years and Turner for 4 years. That helps them in the short term but not 3-4 years down the road IMO.

[Rog]

My first choice of closers was Jansen, and I believe I placed Turner right behind Cespedes for the Giants. If they signed Turner, I was placing hope in Eduardo Nunez's being able to learn the outfield to the point where he could move Denard Span to left. Turner is a good fielder at third, so if Nunez could play center field well (he has the speed and arm for it), the Giants' defense might have actually improved.

A week ago I felt the Giants were a better team than the Dodgers. Today I'm not sure that is the case. I was hoping the Dodgers' money problems would slow them down with their and other free agents. But they re-signed each of their three most important ones.

Jansen is said to have taken a little less money than the Nationals were offering. He even cited it regarding his decision. Turner, Jansen and Hill may have been among the top 10 free agents (as likely was Mark Melancon). Entering free agency, MLB Trade Rumors had them #4, #5 and #14, respectively. Trade Rumors had Mark Melancon marked #11.

It may have been the hometown discount, but the three Dodgers signed for less than Trade Rumors predicted, while Mark signed for an extra $10 million over his projection. Had the Giants signed Jansen, they would have lost their top draft pick in addition to almost certainly having to pay over $80 million for five seasons.

[Rog]

Part of the reason the Giants were expected to pursue Mark Melancon so hard was that he was considered to be the cheapest of the three big closers. In total dollar terms, he was -- by a lot. Melancon's 4/$62 contract was briefly a record, but it soon paled in comparison to Aroldis Chapman's 5/$86 and Kenley Jansen's 5/$80.

On an annual basis, there isn't nearly as much between them. Melancon's is still cheapest annually, but only by a little. He will average $15.5 million per season, just behind Jansen's $16 million per, and a little further behind Chapman's $17.2 million. Not all that much difference.

How do these contracts look on a risk-weighted basis? Melancon's may have the least risk. For one thing, he can opt out after two seasons. If he It is for only four years instead of five. Yet with Melancon's being 32 years old when next season starts compared to Jansen's and Chapman's 29, the risk may not be that much less. Melancon will be 35 when his contact ends, while Chapman will be 33 and Jansen will just have turned 34. Melancon has less length risk but more age risk. Chapman's domestic violence history may portend added risk on his part. One could almost argue that Jansen has the least risk.

While Chapman got the most money, Jansen may have "cost" the most. In addition to the $80 million they will spend, the Dodgers lost out on a first round draft choice when they signed Jansen. Their total "cost" may have been the least.

No question Melancon's (total) cost was easily the least, but his risk wasn't that much less. For one thing, he can opt out after two seasons. If pitches OK to poorly, the Giants will likely be stuck with him. If he is lights out as he has been the past four seasons, he might opt out, especially if the Giants have struggled at all.

The Giants may have signed him in great part because he brings less baggage. They don't lose the first-round pick they would have lost had they signed Jansen, and they don't get the domestic violence history they would have picked up with Chapman.

All things considered, Melancon appears to have the least risk. But not by nearly as much as his having one fewer year on his contract would suggest.

The Giants spent a TON of money for a closer when they might have signed Justin Turner or Dexter Fowler for little more money. But closer was clearly their biggest hole last season, and now they have filled it. The significant hole that is left though may indeed BE left. The rotation looks excellent; the bullpen now looks solid and fairly deep; the everyday lineup looks long -- except for left field (and possibly center).

The Dodgers too have holes, although they will likely still acquire a second baseman, and they seem to have better options for left field than the Giants. The health of Hunter Pence and Denard Span make for outfield concerns, while the Dodgers seem to have more outfield depth.

Clearly the Giants have the edge behind the plate and on the infield, and despite the Dodgers' signing of Jansen, the Giants' bullpen appears to be deeper. The Dodgers' rotation doesn't have the solidity of the Giants', yet Dodgers actually have eight potential starters on the mound. Six are proven, and two are top prospects. Health has been an issue on the mound.

Yesterday I said that I now thought the Dodgers were a better team than the Giants. I'm not so sure that is true. Upon further review, it looks pretty darn close, and the Giants may hold the edge. If the Dodgers sign a good second baseman, the tables could turn a bit.

Neither the Giants nor the Dodgers look as strong as the Cubs or Red Sox. But they're also in a different division from the Cubs and a different LEAGUE from the Red Sox. The Giants and Dodgers both have a nice shot at the playoffs, and we know what that can mean, especially on the part of the Giants.

Left field and possibly outfield health appear to be the issues for the Giants, but they have shown a willingness to and talent for deal with developing problems at the trade deadline. If they can get a solid starting pitcher, an All-Star third baseman and one of the top left-handed relievers in 2016, they should be able to deal with any outfield difficulties in 2017. Further injuries could complicate the situation, but it was actually the Dodgers who had huge health issues this past season.

One way to look at it is that the healthier team will win the division. The other team has a decent shot at one of the two wild card spots. And just as the Giants have won three World Championships this decade, they are also undefeated in wild card games. If they had placed Melancon in their bullpen or better used Smith while in it, they might have set a record among ALL sports for most consecutive elimination games won.

Instead they were eliminated. But this winter they responded to their biggest weakness, and they took considerable risk to do so. The good news is that with the risk comes a strong possibility for significant reward. A top closer should put them closer to the ultimate goal.

[Rog]

Gary makes a good point about the Dodgers' free agent signings not helping them three or four years down the road. The 29-year-old Jansen should still be going strong (Think Mark Melancon's present age), but the 32-year-old Turner should be showing his age.

What makes the Dodgers the most feared isn't their spending; it's the excellent young talent they are developing. Entering last season, they had the #1 (Corey Seager), #4 (Julio Urias) and #24 (Jose De Leon) prospects according to mlb.com.

With Seager (NL Rookie of the Year)and Urias (3.39 ERA in 15 starts) no longer eligible, their prospects aren't nearly as strong. But they have three in the top 50 and six in the top 100. The Giants have none in the top 50 and two in the top 100. Christian Arroyo is rated #79, while Tyler Beede barely make the top 100 at #98.

In the Giants' favor is that they have developed many contributors from guys who weren't top prospects. Still, the guys who hold the team together are #5 overall draft pick Buster Posey and #10 Madison Bumgarner. Like Seager and Urias, those guys were both top 10 prospects. Joe Panik (first round), and the two Brandons, drafted in the 4th (Crawford) and 5th (Belt) rounds, are also key contributors. Conor Gillaspie was also a first-round pick of the Giants.

Through development or trades, it is the guys like Arroyo and Beede who will help form the Giants' future. For the Giants, the future is NOW. But we don't want to see it disappear down the road, either.

Believe it or not, Posey and Crawford will be 30 years old when the 2017 season opens. Belt will turn 29 in the season's first month. Bumgarner won't turn 28 until there are just two months remaining in the campaign.

Hunter Pence will turn 34, and Johnny Cueto will be 30. Jeff Samardzija will be 32, as will Mark Melancon. Denard Span will be 33, and Eduardo Nunez will turn 30.

The Giants aren't an old team, but they are moving in that direction. By early next season, Bumgarner, Belt and Moore (28) will be the only proven rotation members, starters, or closer below age 30. If we look at arguably the Giants' top dozen players (just under half the roster), only those three will be under 30. NONE will be younger than 28 by season's end.

Back in my and Boly's day, the baby boomers said, "Don't trust anyone over 30." Now it's more like, don't build your team around guys who are 30 or over.

The window is closing. Amazingly, this will be Buster Posey's ninth season and Madison Bumgarner's eighth. It's up to the young guys (and the older guys who hopefully don't age too soon) to keep it from slamming.

Spending isn't likely to help much in that regard. Development will. Aside from winning another World Series, having some top prospects a year from now would be one of the best things that could happen.

[rxmeister]

Give the Dodgers credit for being willing to pay huge luxury taxes, something we've already seen the Giants are loathe to do. Jansen was my closer of choice as well, but I think keeping the pick is important. Chapman and Jansen are more dominating type closers, but Melancon has been every bit as good as them, and when he closes we'll be comparing him not to Jansen or Chapman, but to the tire fire we had last year, and I'm happy with the huge upgrade we'll now have in the ninth.

[Islandboagie]

The difference is the Giants are adding, the Dodgers are just keeping what they already had.

I still want to see them bring back Romo, I think he would be good as a situational guy.

[garyd4sf]

Jansen over his career has 168 saves and 25 blown saves (12%) and Melancon has 168 saves and 23 blown saves (11%) but in last 4 years Melancon has 10 BSv over the last 4 years. Jansen had 6 blown saves in 2015, Melancon had 4.

Melancon was considered a good pick for the Giants since he is a ground ball pitcher, and with a strong infield gets more DPs.

The Giants are looking at OF Mark Reynolds who had a decent year at 14 hr-53 rbi in 393 ABs but strikes out a lot. His prior years are worse and I think this would be a below average pickup for them.

[klaiggeb]

I wouldn't mind bringing Romo back, either.

Reynolds?

No thanks.

Love the power... but too many Whiffs to make me comfortable.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Matt Reynolds or Mark Reynolds? I wouldn't want either one.

I'd like to see Blanco return over acquiring either of them.

[Rog]

Melancon was considered a good pick for the Giants since he is a ground ball pitcher, and with a strong infield gets more DPs.


Rog -- An excellent observation, Gary. We think in terms of fly ball pitchers benefiting from spacious AT&T, but the Giants' infield is where their defensive prowess lies, so they are a dream for ground ball pitchers as well. And that is certainly what Melancon is.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3636/dodgers-pony#ixzz4Skbvp52C

[Rog]

Sergio Romo has an excellent 2.58 career ERA (2.64 in 2016), and his 0.96 career WHIP is elite. Over the past seven seasons, Sergio's WHIP has been as low as 0.71 and has never risen above an excellent 1.08 (2013 and last season). I suspect someone will overlook his recent struggles against lefties and give him a decent contract.

MLB Trade Rumors rated Sergio the #34 free agent and predicted a 2/$14 contract for him. I think that's too steep for what he is today. I'm happy with Smith, Law, Strickland, Osich, Okert, Kontos and Gearrin backing up closer Mark Melancon.

Blanco would be just the fit if it were three years ago and he hit right-handed. He -- or Romo -- could still return to the Giants, but each would need to fall between the cracks to lower their salaries.

Reynolds had a very nice season in 2017. He cut down on both his swings and misses and his strikeouts. He swung at fewer balls outside the strike zone. Don't know if that came because he faced pitches that moved less in Colorado. He appears to have hit in good luck, meaning we shouldn't expect anything approaching his .282 batting average, which was 48 points above his career mark.

Mark also played first base almost exclusively in 2016, so the Giants are either considering playing Brandon Belt in left field more often, or they're just looking at Reynolds as a power-hitting right-handed pinch hitter. IMO he'd have to come pretty cheaply to make sense. I'm with Boly and Gary on Reynolds.