Post by Rog on Dec 20, 2016 8:16:54 GMT -5
In building the case for Ian Desmond, let's look at four players: Desmond himself, of course, plus Jeff Samardzija, Mark Melancon and Tyler Beede, and look at a handful of others.
Boly made the case AGAINST Desmond when he showed that just two years ago Desmond hit just .233. Point taken. But he was still considered to be a two-win player. Let's look at the case FOR Desmond and then look at him in the context of the other players mentioned.
A key point for the Giants: People keep talking about Desmond's leadership and clubhouse presence. Maybe he's Hunter Pence if Hunter leaves in two years. Maybe he's that presence when Hunter is injured and can't play.
Point two: Desmond can play all over the diamond. The Rockies are planning to play him at first base, for crying out loud, which seems a waste, but indicates they believe he can playl almost anywhere. Maybe Desmond's best value is as a Ben Zobrist type, a guy who can fill almost any hole that develops. Right now that hole is in left field. Desmond played well enough in center field last year that he might move Denard Span to left field, where Denard's noodle arm and declining range might not be exposed as much -- and which might allow Denard to platoon with the developing Mac Williams.
Point three: Yes, Desmond hit only .233 two years ago, but even then he was considered a two-win (average starter) player. If the risk is that Desmond can fill holes as they develop all over the diamond and still be an average starter or close to it at WORST, that's not a huge risk. Winning it all is about players having career years or getting hot at the right time. If Desmond hits only .233, maybe the Giants don't win. If he hits to his career .267 average with a .743 OPS, perhaps they do. If he has a GOOD year, the chances go up further.
Point four: Desmond is just 30 years old. He would be the same age at the end of his contract as Hunter Pence will be at the end of his. While Pence had been even more durable at Desmond's age, Pence is now an injury risk. Desmond's high level of durability makes him far less so at this point in his career. Desmond might be at least Hunter lite at less of a cost.
Point five: The Giants have ways they could have afforded Desmond. To see how, let's look at those other players mentioned along with Ian.
Jeff Samardzija -- Does Jeff at 5/$90 make as much sense than Ian at 5/$70? If we use WAR, Jeff has been on average a little under a two-win player. Ian has been a three-win player. That extra win could make the difference between an NL West title and missing out on the Wild Card. Could the Giants have traded Jeff, gotten a decent return for him, and banked on Tyler Beede? Could they perhaps have gotten a near-major-league-ready pitching prospect to double up with Beede (and others) to improve their chances? Remember, a team needs only four starters in the postseason and can sometimes get by with only three. Jeff is in a strong four starters, but he might not be even the third best.
Mark Melancon -- The Giants' biggest need this off-season was a closer. But how about Brad Ziegler, who has been nearly as effective as Mark, has a motion that is seemingly ageless (think Javier Lopez) and was available for just 2/$16. If Melancon does just OK or less with the Giants, they'll be stuck with him for four years. If he pitches well, he'll likely opt out after two, either being lost or costing more (and possibly getting an extra year of commitment). Ziegler's time table would fit with the development of potential closers such as Derek Law and Hunter Strickland, keeping in mind that Will Smith might already be ready to close.
Having extra money available at the end of the 2018 season might also be helpful in landing a huge fish in a free agent class that could be the best ever. Pence's and Span's money could also be available at that time.
My favorite idea here would be trading Samardzija. I'm not sold. There is a big difference in having a third starter in Moore to whom the commitment going forward is just $26 million compared to $72 million still owed to Jeff. What could the Giants have gotten (or still get) for Samardzija? Well, if he's truly worth $72 million, they could get a decent return. If he's not worth it, the return would be small -- but freeing up that much money would in itself have a lot of value.
The risk in trading Jeff? One of the top four-man rotations becomes a fine three with risks at four and five. That's one of the reasons I would try to get a guy in return who is either a top, young pitching prospect or a guy who is good and close to being major-league ready. Meanwhile, Beede is the consensus #2 prospect for the Giants, and Call to the Bullpen rates their starting pitching prospects (including Blach) as four of their top 10 prospects.
Trading Samardzija would have the potential of turning a top five rotation into little more than an average one. But when a team deals, it wants to deal from strength, and deal where prospects are coming now or soon. If Jeff isn't worth $72 million, the money could be better spent elsewhere. And he could bring a decent return, since he DOES flash potential.
I'm not absolutely sold on this idea myself. But Desmond may be a better player than Samardzija and come at less cost. I think the Giants could have turned Samardzija and maybe a prospect or two into something nice -- perhaps a younger starting pitcher with similar potential to Jeff at far less cost.
As more and more teams approach the luxury tax threshold (The Giants were just one of five teams to enter it last season), money matters more and more. Cueto was an excellent risk. Samardzija makes 70% as much per season as Cueto and isn't nearly the same pitcher. Span was a halfway decent risk, but he wasn't the best center fielder available in his price range -- Dexter Fowler was. He's making more than three-quarters as much per season as the more valuable, versatile, less-platoon-prone, noted clubhouse presence Desmond (although with a lesser commitment time-wise).
It will be great if Samardzija and Span earn their keep. Both could. But 5/$90 is a really big contract to give to a guy with a career ERA over four. And while Span's contract is for far less, three out of the last four seasons he's been a platoon player who simply couldn't hit southpaw pitching. That included his first season with the Giants, and he doesn't project all that well against southpaws this season. As a left fielder, though, he would make an intriguing strong side of a platoon with Mac Williamson.
I like what Bobby Evans has done overall. I think though that he could have gone in a better direction with some of his free agent pickups. He's gambled nearly a third of a billion in free agency the past two winters. He's gotten a top starter and a top reliever in the process. But he's spent roughly an eighth of a billion on a risky pitcher and a platoon center fielder.
His top signings I like. His secondary signings seem to me to have too much risk for what they likely bring. Ian Desmond brings risk too, as do almost all free agents. But in today's market, he's a pretty good buy at 5/$70 -- even with the loss of a draft pick. He's the new breed of versatile player, a guy who can be a solid starter and yet fill holes as they develop. He's still relatively young and has consistently been a 20/20 guy. He has a GREAT reputation as a clubhouse leader, perhaps an even better reputation than Hunter Pence had when the Giants acquired him.
Leadership, versatility, 20/20 consistency, solid performance in four of the past five seasons, reasonable contract. Those are five reasonably compelling reasons in the case for Ian Desmond.
Boly made the case AGAINST Desmond when he showed that just two years ago Desmond hit just .233. Point taken. But he was still considered to be a two-win player. Let's look at the case FOR Desmond and then look at him in the context of the other players mentioned.
A key point for the Giants: People keep talking about Desmond's leadership and clubhouse presence. Maybe he's Hunter Pence if Hunter leaves in two years. Maybe he's that presence when Hunter is injured and can't play.
Point two: Desmond can play all over the diamond. The Rockies are planning to play him at first base, for crying out loud, which seems a waste, but indicates they believe he can playl almost anywhere. Maybe Desmond's best value is as a Ben Zobrist type, a guy who can fill almost any hole that develops. Right now that hole is in left field. Desmond played well enough in center field last year that he might move Denard Span to left field, where Denard's noodle arm and declining range might not be exposed as much -- and which might allow Denard to platoon with the developing Mac Williams.
Point three: Yes, Desmond hit only .233 two years ago, but even then he was considered a two-win (average starter) player. If the risk is that Desmond can fill holes as they develop all over the diamond and still be an average starter or close to it at WORST, that's not a huge risk. Winning it all is about players having career years or getting hot at the right time. If Desmond hits only .233, maybe the Giants don't win. If he hits to his career .267 average with a .743 OPS, perhaps they do. If he has a GOOD year, the chances go up further.
Point four: Desmond is just 30 years old. He would be the same age at the end of his contract as Hunter Pence will be at the end of his. While Pence had been even more durable at Desmond's age, Pence is now an injury risk. Desmond's high level of durability makes him far less so at this point in his career. Desmond might be at least Hunter lite at less of a cost.
Point five: The Giants have ways they could have afforded Desmond. To see how, let's look at those other players mentioned along with Ian.
Jeff Samardzija -- Does Jeff at 5/$90 make as much sense than Ian at 5/$70? If we use WAR, Jeff has been on average a little under a two-win player. Ian has been a three-win player. That extra win could make the difference between an NL West title and missing out on the Wild Card. Could the Giants have traded Jeff, gotten a decent return for him, and banked on Tyler Beede? Could they perhaps have gotten a near-major-league-ready pitching prospect to double up with Beede (and others) to improve their chances? Remember, a team needs only four starters in the postseason and can sometimes get by with only three. Jeff is in a strong four starters, but he might not be even the third best.
Mark Melancon -- The Giants' biggest need this off-season was a closer. But how about Brad Ziegler, who has been nearly as effective as Mark, has a motion that is seemingly ageless (think Javier Lopez) and was available for just 2/$16. If Melancon does just OK or less with the Giants, they'll be stuck with him for four years. If he pitches well, he'll likely opt out after two, either being lost or costing more (and possibly getting an extra year of commitment). Ziegler's time table would fit with the development of potential closers such as Derek Law and Hunter Strickland, keeping in mind that Will Smith might already be ready to close.
Having extra money available at the end of the 2018 season might also be helpful in landing a huge fish in a free agent class that could be the best ever. Pence's and Span's money could also be available at that time.
My favorite idea here would be trading Samardzija. I'm not sold. There is a big difference in having a third starter in Moore to whom the commitment going forward is just $26 million compared to $72 million still owed to Jeff. What could the Giants have gotten (or still get) for Samardzija? Well, if he's truly worth $72 million, they could get a decent return. If he's not worth it, the return would be small -- but freeing up that much money would in itself have a lot of value.
The risk in trading Jeff? One of the top four-man rotations becomes a fine three with risks at four and five. That's one of the reasons I would try to get a guy in return who is either a top, young pitching prospect or a guy who is good and close to being major-league ready. Meanwhile, Beede is the consensus #2 prospect for the Giants, and Call to the Bullpen rates their starting pitching prospects (including Blach) as four of their top 10 prospects.
Trading Samardzija would have the potential of turning a top five rotation into little more than an average one. But when a team deals, it wants to deal from strength, and deal where prospects are coming now or soon. If Jeff isn't worth $72 million, the money could be better spent elsewhere. And he could bring a decent return, since he DOES flash potential.
I'm not absolutely sold on this idea myself. But Desmond may be a better player than Samardzija and come at less cost. I think the Giants could have turned Samardzija and maybe a prospect or two into something nice -- perhaps a younger starting pitcher with similar potential to Jeff at far less cost.
As more and more teams approach the luxury tax threshold (The Giants were just one of five teams to enter it last season), money matters more and more. Cueto was an excellent risk. Samardzija makes 70% as much per season as Cueto and isn't nearly the same pitcher. Span was a halfway decent risk, but he wasn't the best center fielder available in his price range -- Dexter Fowler was. He's making more than three-quarters as much per season as the more valuable, versatile, less-platoon-prone, noted clubhouse presence Desmond (although with a lesser commitment time-wise).
It will be great if Samardzija and Span earn their keep. Both could. But 5/$90 is a really big contract to give to a guy with a career ERA over four. And while Span's contract is for far less, three out of the last four seasons he's been a platoon player who simply couldn't hit southpaw pitching. That included his first season with the Giants, and he doesn't project all that well against southpaws this season. As a left fielder, though, he would make an intriguing strong side of a platoon with Mac Williamson.
I like what Bobby Evans has done overall. I think though that he could have gone in a better direction with some of his free agent pickups. He's gambled nearly a third of a billion in free agency the past two winters. He's gotten a top starter and a top reliever in the process. But he's spent roughly an eighth of a billion on a risky pitcher and a platoon center fielder.
His top signings I like. His secondary signings seem to me to have too much risk for what they likely bring. Ian Desmond brings risk too, as do almost all free agents. But in today's market, he's a pretty good buy at 5/$70 -- even with the loss of a draft pick. He's the new breed of versatile player, a guy who can be a solid starter and yet fill holes as they develop. He's still relatively young and has consistently been a 20/20 guy. He has a GREAT reputation as a clubhouse leader, perhaps an even better reputation than Hunter Pence had when the Giants acquired him.
Leadership, versatility, 20/20 consistency, solid performance in four of the past five seasons, reasonable contract. Those are five reasonably compelling reasons in the case for Ian Desmond.