|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 11, 2017 11:01:03 GMT -5
Would the Giants trade Madison Bumgarner? Of course not. He's probably the LAST player they would trade. And that's pretty much what Fan Graphs said when they chose him the 32nd- most tradeable player.
So what makes a player highly tradeable? Two words: Controlled value. The Giants have Madison under team control for two more seasons -- at $24 million. Not $24 million per season, which in itself would be a bargain for what might have been considered baseball's most durable pitcher until he took up dirt biking. $24 million for BOTH seasons. Two seasons at $12 million each. That's what makes it so that only 31 other players are considered more tradeable -- primarily top players with even more team control.
Will any other Giant penetrate the top 30? Only #31 through #50 have been announced. The top 30 will be announced over the rest of the week. But only Buster Posey has a chance to penetrate that level. And he likely will do so.
Buster is under team control for a comforting six more seasons after this one. He's two years older than Bumgarner, of course, and plays what is arguably a more physical demanding position. He's approaching his peak, if he hasn't already reached it. He will likely spend something like two-thirds of his remaining contact at a position other than catcher. So he'll likely be in the next 10 ahead of Madison.
What does having a considerable number of the most tradeable players mean? It means a team has a good chance to remain relevant for several more years. The better the player, the longer the team control, the lower the price, the higher the player's tradeable value, the brighter the future. Aaron Judge, for instance, is under Yankees control for another five seasons, two of them pre-arbitration. He'll be ranked near the top. So will Gary Sanchez with four more seasons of Yankees control. Same with the Dodgers' Cody Bellinger, Corey Seager and even the seemingly old veteran Clayton Kershaw.
Bumgarner and Posey indicate the Giants' window may not be closed, but is rapidly closing. It's not even that Bumgarner and Posey don't have multiple excellent seasons left. (And Bumgarner's contract will likely be extended for perhaps another four to six seasons.) It's more that their supporting cast is also aging and that the young understudies don't offer enough promise.
Bumgarner and Posey are eminently tradeable. But they aren't the players who will be traded. It's not that their fans need the Giants to be good the rest of this month to get back in the race. That's is highly unlikely. It's so that the players they are wanting to trade will gain value.
Three weeks from today we'll have a much clearer picture of the Giants' future. It's hard to believe it will have been painted over enough to form the Mona Lisa. But sometimes what is needed to improve the picture is for the paint to dry. The Giants may help themselves most by getting prospects who will develop over the next two or three seasons.
It's just that those prospects aren't likely to be a future Aaron Judge, Gary Sanchez or Cody Bellinger. That type of player is rarely traded. But if the Giants can pick up two or three future supporting cast members, they could provide a more exciting movie fairly soon.
The next three weeks are probably the most important of the season. Even though on the schedule they are virtually meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 11, 2017 11:12:28 GMT -5
Which teams will likely have the most and the top tradeable players? Probably the Yankees, the Cubs and the Astros. Those teams likely have good futures.
So far those teams have one tradeable player each. The Cubs' Addison Russell is ranked #40. The Astros' Alex Bregman stands at #38. The Yankees' Luis Severino is rated #35.
A question for Giants fans: Bumgarner and Posey are almost certainly the two most tradeable Giants. Which players would be #3, #4 and #5?
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Jul 11, 2017 15:47:23 GMT -5
Would the Giants trade Madison Bumgarner? Of course not. He's probably the LAST player they would trade. And that's pretty much what Fan Graphs said when they chose him the 32nd- most tradeable player. So what makes a player highly tradeable? Two words: Controlled value. The Giants have Madison under team control for two more seasons -- at $24 million. Not $24 million per season, which in itself would be a bargain for what might have been considered baseball's most durable pitcher until he took up dirt biking. $24 million for BOTH seasons. Two seasons at $12 million each. That's what makes it so that only 31 other players are considered more tradeable -- primarily top players with even more team control. Will any other Giant penetrate the top 30? Only #31 through #50 have been announced. The top 30 will be announced over the rest of the week. But only Buster Posey has a chance to penetrate that level. And he likely will do so. Buster is under team control for a comforting six more seasons after this one. He's two years older than Bumgarner, of course, and plays what is arguably a more physical demanding position. He's approaching his peak, if he hasn't already reached it. He will likely spend something like two-thirds of his remaining contact at a position other than catcher. So he'll likely be in the next 10 ahead of Madison. What does having a considerable number of the most tradeable players mean? It means a team has a good chance to remain relevant for several more years. The better the player, the longer the team control, the lower the price, the higher the player's tradeable value, the brighter the future. Aaron Judge, for instance, is under Yankees control for another five seasons, two of them pre-arbitration. He'll be ranked near the top. So will Gary Sanchez with four more seasons of Yankees control. Same with the Dodgers' Cody Bellinger, Corey Seager and even the seemingly old veteran Clayton Kershaw. Bumgarner and Posey indicate the Giants' window may not be closed, but is rapidly closing. It's not even that Bumgarner and Posey don't have multiple excellent seasons left. (And Bumgarner's contract will likely be extended for perhaps another four to six seasons.) It's more that their supporting cast is also aging and that the young understudies don't offer enough promise. Bumgarner and Posey are eminently tradeable. But they aren't the players who will be traded. It's not that their fans need the Giants to be good the rest of this month to get back in the race. That's is highly unlikely. It's so that the players they are wanting to trade will gain value. Three weeks from today we'll have a much clearer picture of the Giants' future. It's hard to believe it will have been painted over enough to form the Mona Lisa. But sometimes what is needed to improve the picture is for the paint to dry. The Giants may help themselves most by getting prospects who will develop over the next two or three seasons. It's just that those prospects aren't likely to be a future Aaron Judge, Gary Sanchez or Cody Bellinger. That type of player is rarely traded. But if the Giants can pick up two or three future supporting cast members, they could provide a more exciting movie fairly soon. The next three weeks are probably the most important of the season. Even though on the schedule they are virtually meaningless. dk...I worry about the Giants making trades because I don't see them bettering themselves over the long haul in past deals....you would think someone in the organization would see the potential of the kid they owned who was lacking in infielding skills and struck out too much...so they bundled him up for a rental pitcher who gave them brief help and was gone...the kid was moved to left field...the position the Giants have been crying for help since Bonds retired....Adam Duvall is now hitting .278/.321/.557..with 20 big ones and 61 RBI's.... |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 12, 2017 12:12:24 GMT -5
I think the answer is simple. The Giants need to be more a seller than a buyer the rest of the season and over the winter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 13, 2017 9:33:38 GMT -5
There's a few reasons the Giants might want to trade Bumgarner. But before I continue, let me make it clear that I don't want them to trade Bumgarner.
1. I think it's obvious the Giants were not happy about his dirt biking stunt.
2. There's been a lot of talk about them restructuring and extending his contract.
3. Imagine how much we would get back in return. We could revamp our system with "can't miss" prospects.
4. It would also open up a lot more trade partners than just the rich teams destined for the postseason. A pitcher like Bumgarner would be desired by almost everyone.
Of course, it's not likely to happen, but there sure could be an upside for the Giants if Bumgarner were dealt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 13, 2017 10:42:43 GMT -5
Today Buster Posey was ranked #17 in trade value, 15 spots higher than Bumgarner. At first one wonders how that can be. He is under contract for a little over $21 million per season, whereas Madison is one of baseball's best bargains at $12 million per.
The reason is because Bumgarner is signed for only two more years. Good call, Boagie, in bringing up the possibility of trading Bumgarner. Should the Giants lose him to free agency in two years, they'll rue not trading him now or over the winter.
The dirt bike accident was foolish, careless and unfortunate. On the other hand, Madison signed a contract that was one of the most team-friendly in the majors and has never complained about it. He's only 27 years old and has been a horse. There is little indication he shouldn't be an ace for at least the next five seasons.
So might the Giants trade him? Yes. Will they? Probably not.
Here is a scenario under which they might trade him IMO. A few things would have to fall into place.
First, he would need to come back strongly in order to maintain his trade value.
Second, the Giants would need to concede that rather then re-tool, they need to rebuild -- quickly.
Third, the Giants would need to feel they are going to be unable to extend Madison's contract.
Fourth, they would need to receive a heck of an offer.
The chances of all four of those things happening seem low, which is why the odds of trading Bumgarner seem low. But Boagie brings up a good point. With the likely exception of Posey, he would easily bring the most in return. A strong indication he will remain a Giant for only two years would seem to put into place the very thoughts Boagie brings up here.
Madison has very limited trade protection. He can block trades to eight teams. That would leave 22 as potential trading partners. As Boagie points out, that would leave a very large market. He's young enough that even rebuilding teams would consider him -- if they believe they can hold onto him.
If we believe the Giants' window is pretty much closed for the two remaining years of Madison's contract, trading him could be enticing, if disappointing in the short run.
Excellent discussion point, Boagie. Creative thinking about something many Giants fans would consider shocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jul 14, 2017 7:34:41 GMT -5
Sabean made it clear to Baggs the other day that Bum, Posey and Crawford will not be traded under any circumstances. Pretty sure the fact that Craw is on the list with the other two is the no trade clause though. I think the likely one to go (much to the delight of Boly and Randy) will be Belt. Not that he should be traded and they don't like him, but more because they feel that's the one position they have a viable replacement in Chris Shaw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 14, 2017 9:33:09 GMT -5
I agree that those three are most likely untouchable, but Sabean didn't say that, Mark. And even if he did, how many times has Sabean said one thing then did something different?
I read the article, what he said was Bumgarner, Posey and Crawford were "divine." While that would suggest he's not actively shopping them, he fell short of saying any of them wouldn't be traded under any circumstances.
During our Championship years where we had a solid outfield, infield and pitching, we were in a position to say that certain players were untouchable, but we're not in that position anymore. We have no outfield, and our bullpen is sketchy at best. Sabean and Evans are in a position to plug those holes as best they can, and if trading one of those players makes us better, then I wouldn't be shocked if they jumped on it.
As Rog pointed out, a number of things would have to take place for that to happen, which is why it probably won't happen. But you can't tell me Sabean and Evans wouldn't flinch if the Marlins offered up their outfield for Bumgarner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 14, 2017 13:09:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 14, 2017 13:46:27 GMT -5
Good call on first base, Mark. After a slow start with the River Cats, Shaw is now up to .304/.329/.547/.876. The concern I have though is his 46 strikeouts (in 161 at bats) with only seven walks. Chris did have 18 walks to go along with his 26 strikeouts (in 133 at bats) in Richmond, which was impressive for a power hitter.
If we add the two together, Shaw has 72 strikeouts and 25 walks in 294 at bats. That's a decent strikeout rate for a power hitter, but is light on the walks. At this point I would say Shaw looks like a little below an average first baseman at the plate. From what I have read, he doesn't run or field well. On the positive side, he's still just 23.
Overall, I would rank him a B/B- prospect, which by the way is better than it sounds, as I'll explain. John Sickels of Minor League Ball ranked Shaw the Giants' #9 prospect entering the season, giving him a B- grade. Here is Sickels' grading scale:
Grade A prospects are the elite. In theory, they have a good chance of becoming stars or superstars. Theoretically, most Grade A prospects develop into stars or at least major league regulars, if injuries or other problems don’t intervene. Note that is a major "if" in some cases.
Grade B prospects have a good chance to enjoy successful careers. Some will develop into stars, some will not. Most end up spending several years in the majors, at the very least in a marginal role.
Grade C prospects are the most common type. These are guys who have something positive going for them, but who may have a question mark or three, or who are just too far away from the majors to get an accurate feel for. A few Grade C guys, especially at the lower levels, do develop into stars. Many end up as role players or bench guys. Some don’t make it at all.
So a Grade B prospect is a decent prospect. I see Shaw as a decent prospect but a touch on the light side, as did Sickels, who I think might have raised his own appraisal to B/B- as I did or even to a straight B.
To summarize, I doubt Shaw will be as good as Belt (especially after he has to fight AT&T Park). I see him as a likely third- or fourth-quartile starter at the position, whereas right now I see Brandon as a second-quartile guy.
Belt would likely command a nice return, and Shaw shouldn't be a wipe out. Hence, as Mark stated, trading Belt may very well make sense. Anyone expecting Shaw to fully replace Belt though is likely to be disappointed IMO.
But Belt isn't a true star at this point, and if the Giants are willing to take a high-level prospect in return, they might land a prospect good enough to have star potential. I'd have to look it up, but my guess would be that Belt was about a B+ prospect who hasn't reached his potential. My guess is that Shaw's ceiling is about where Belt is right now. IMO best case for Shaw would be a slightly better hitter than Brandon, but not as good on the bases and not nearly as good in the field.
Trading Belt might be a good idea because of the youth and overall return it might bring, but we shouldn't expect Shaw to be an improvement, and the chances are he wouldn't fully replace Brandon. The one sure advantage would be that the Giants would get younger.
I'm not sure I'm interpreting Cots' Baseball Contracts' notes on Brandon's contract correctly, but the Giants may at this point be able to trade him to any team. Effective November 1st, Brandon will be able to block trades to 10 teams.
If the Giants do trade Brandon, we can only hope our reaction to Shaw isn't pshaw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 14, 2017 13:48:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 14, 2017 13:52:43 GMT -5
|
|
