Power and the Outfield

[Rog]

The need to fix power and the outfield first is so obvious I can't stand it.

.  We talked about how excellent the Giants were when they scored four or more runs.

.  We talked about how far below even the next-lowest team in home runs.

.  We have been talking for a year about the vulnerability of the outfield, and sure enough it came true.

.  I don't think we've talked about it, but as bad as the Giants' starting pitch was, they still led the NL in quality starts, or at least came close to it.


So what does this mean?

For starters, it could mean there is hope for the rotation.  Each of the top four starters has had success at one time or another, and Bumgarner and Cueto have a long history of success.  Stratton and Blach are still big question marks, and Tyler Beede hasn't been tested in the majors and had his development retarded by injury this past season.

But the rotation isn't the Giants' biggest need, so address it only after addressing the bigger needs or if an opportunity arises that is too good to pass up.

The Giants need power, and the two corner outfield positions are usually power positions.  Let's suppose the Giants can handle left field with what they already have (mostly Span, Pence and Parker).  That still leaves two outfield positions.  All defensive positions up the middle are important, so center field is where the Giants should arguably give as much attention to defense as to power, which the position isn't noted for anyway.

But the Giants need a power-hitting right fielder.  Given the dimensions of AT&T Park, he shouldn't be ponderous defensively.  But he needs to be powerful.  And preferably young.  The Giants could afford that to come from an unproven player if necessary -- just so he has the chance to be an above-average power hitter.

The Giants could use a third baseman.  But they do have Arroyo and Sandoval to man the ship.  Worst case, they have Tomlinson and Jones.  A new third baseman would be nice -- especially if he provides power -- but the outfield is clearly the top priority.

The bullpen clearly sagged in 2017, but Melancon and Smith should be back from injury.  Dyson was picked up midseason as a wild card, and he fared decently.  Ty Blach might be able to help the bullpen in anything from a broad to a highly-focused role.  Add if feasible, but the pen isn't a top priority.

The defense declined this season, but in positions 2, 3, 4, and 6 the Giants are strong.  That includes two of the four positions up the middle, where defense is most important.  It also includes first base, where the most non-strikeout chances occur.  Look for defense in center field and with just a little attention to defense and with a natural rebound from some of the Giants' best defenders, the problem shouldn't be a huge issue.

The Giants have said they don't want to get too far away from their pitching and defense DNA.  They must not ignore that the offensive game has changed mightily the past two and a half seasons.  If they don't acquire power, they'll figuratively be playing from behind each game -- without enough assets available to catch up.

The Giants have almost no outfield, which provides a strong opportunity to add power.  Third base is another traditional power spot.

So the formula is power in the outfield.  The pitching and defense may well take care of themselves (at least with a modicum of attention).  But without power and an outfield, it won't matter.

The Giants were a surprisingly good team this season when they scored four runs or more.  Isn't it kind of obvious they should be trying hard to score four or more runs as often as possible?

The Giants a historically bad outfield this year.  Isn't it obvious that should be a key area of focus?

Doesn't it make sense to combine the two big needs and acquire at least one outfielder with power?  Two power-hitting outfielders would obviously be better, and perhaps they can supplement their outfield power with more power at one or both of the infield corners.

It's fine to focus on defense up the middle.  But the corner positions need to provide power.

The four corner positions provided only a combined 58 homers last season.  That's just under 15 homers per spot from positions that traditionally provide most of a team's power.  The Yankees' four corner positions, for example, combined for 118 homers, or just over twice as many as the Giants' corners. 

The Giants' biggest competitors, the Dodgers, hit 120 on their corners.  That's 30 homers per corner.  The Giants' BEST home run hitter had 18.

The Giants need power from any and all positions, but the corners are the traditional spots where it is found most.  MLB has plenty of corner power.  The Giants just need to find some for themselves.  It looks like the Giants are stuck with the same old guys in left field.  Defense as well as, if not more so, than power should be a priority.

So right field is critical, and third base is another solid opportunity for pop.  If the Giants could find a right-handed hitting first baseman with power, they could improve their power at even the position that gave them the most in 2017.  But under our proposal that the Giants fill the needs that need the most improvement, the other corner positions offer the most opportunity.

The Giants' third basemen didn't even reach double digits in homers (9).  Their left fielders barely did (11).  The 15 by the Giants' right fielders wasn't exactly a bonanza either.  Realistically, a team should have a shot at triple digits in home runs from its four corners.  58 doesn't come close to cutting it.

Fill the outfield, and put power on the corners.  Pitching and defense are much lesser needs.  The Giants may be implying otherwise, but they can clearly see this too.  If not, they've got the wrong guys in the wrong spots.

[klaiggeb]

I don't disagree with the "Power in the outfield," idea, Rog, but I simply CANNOT see a big bopper signing with us.

I can't.

He'd lose too many HRs.

I can't see Stanton coming to us, either.

To GET him we'd have to give up way to much IF we even have enough to offer in the first place.

I'd CONSIDER...CON-SID-ER...

Beede, Stratton, Arroyo and someone else... but I'm BETTING it wouldn't be even close to enough.

boly

[sfgdood]

don't disagree with the "Power in the outfield," idea, Rog, but I simply CANNOT see a big bopper signing with us.

I can't.

Dood - There's always a way...it's called, throwing gobs of cash at them.

[klaiggeb]

If we had 'gobs of cash," Randy, I'd agree.

But from what I see, only Cain's 18 million (?)is coming off the books this year.

That plus Sabean and Evans said they're going to up grade through trades, not FA.

Which makes me ask... WHOM are we going to trade?

Please, NOT Joe Panik.

Our infield up the middle with him and Brandon save a ton of runs.

I'm guessing... GUESSING that the more likely answer is Arroyo and/or Stratton, though I'd LOVE to see them deal Moore instead.

boly

[Rog]

I don't disagree with the "Power in the outfield," idea, Rog, but I simply CANNOT see a big bopper signing with us.

I can't.


Rog -- That's why the Giants likely need to trade for one or more.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield#ixzz4usHsPng1

[Rog]

I can't see Stanton coming to us, either.

To GET him we'd have to give up way to much IF we even have enough to offer in the first place.

I'd CONSIDER...CON-SID-ER...

Beede, Stratton, Arroyo and someone else... but I'm BETTING it wouldn't be even close to enough


I think you make good points for both potential participants in that trade:

. The Giants probably don't have enough to offer (unless perhaps they dangle their first two draft choices from 2017, and clearly very young players have more risk and thus less value).

. The Marlins are caught in a situation where they are held hostage by both Stanton's full no-trade clause and by the limited number of teams who can afford him. Their leverage may wind up being very small, possibly even leading to their eating at least a small portion of the contract. In order for Stanton to come to the Giants, he likely needs to like San Francisco a lot and believe the Giants will once again become contenders quickly. The California income tax will work against the California teams. Stanton would be taking a $25-$30 million cut in net pay by coming to California to play.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield?page=1#ixzz4usI92Yxu

[Rog]

As I mentioned in another post, I believe the approximately $300 million left on Stanton's contract coupled with what may be a proneness to injury make him too big a risk to sign.

[Rog]

Dood - There's always a way...it's called, throwing gobs of cash at them.


Rog -- I wish you would THINK rather than keep taking the easy way out. Even the Dodgers don't get all the free agents (Think Greinke for instance.) I too posted that I hoped the Giants increased their budget, but there are limits. Boly makes a great point, which I believe agrees with a philosophy I have long expressed, that the Giants needs to draft and trade for power hitters while acquiring pitchers and non-power infielders/center fielders on the free agent market.

Boagie made such a suggestion when he recommended signing L. Cain, who will likely be expensive but not exceptionally so and who isn't a power hitter, meaning he might be more willing to come and show off his speed in voluminous AT&T Park. He's coming from another big park in Kansas City.

This has probably already been mentioned, but Nick Castellanos might be a trade candidate for third base. He hit 26 homers this past season and is under team control for two or three more seasons. He hit the ball hard over 40% of the time each of the past two seasons, and the Tigers are rebuilding.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield?page=1#ixzz4usK0Ld4w

[Rog]

WHOM are we going to trade?

Please, NOT Joe Panik.


Rog -- Joe would be a possibility if the Giants think Christian Arroyo could take his place. But Arroyo's best position is likely third base, and Panik is under team control for three more seasons. Trading him doesn't seem to make sense (although trading Arroyo for Castellanos might).

It's tough to come up with players, but the two I have tagged are Brandon Belt (if he is healthy enough trade, which I think is now the case) and Jeff Samardzija. Trading them would certainly take away a lot of talent and potential -- but it would also save about $35 million per season. Both players should have good trade value. The Giants don't really have a replacement for Samardija, but the 2018 and especially the 2019 free agent classes are expected to be quite good. They have the potential of Chris Shaw to replace Brandon. Also, Buster played more first base than any other season of his career.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield?page=1#ixzz4usLmwKET

[Rog]

I'd LOVE to see them deal Moore instead.


Rog -- I've mentioned this before, but I would hold on to Matt, hoping that he has a rebound season and can be traded at the trade deadline for a nice return. Right now his trade value is likely minimal. He has only one year left on his contract, although it is at a reasonable price of $9 million.

See why I would hold on to him to hope his value increases exponentially?

As I've mentioned before, a similar scenario might exist with Samardzija. If he has a big season, his value -- which I think is already decent -- would soar. Samardzija may have enough value now to get value back. The numbers guys love him.

But I don't think Moore would have much value at all right now. A pitcher coming off a very bad season with only one season left on his contract? How much would that pitcher be of value to you?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield?page=1#ixzz4ut9tqFFu

[Rog]

Stratton and Arroyo -- especially Arroyo -- have some value because of perceived upside. I think Stratton's value is fairly minimal and would deal him if a nice return could be had. Despite his success this season, Stratton is likely a fourth starter at the very best, and he may be a reliever or Four A player.

Probably of major league caliber, but perhaps only barely.

[klaiggeb]

I would deal Jeffy and Belt in a heartbeat, Roger.

No. I'd deal them faster 'n that to get an outfielder.

I've long said Shaw would not be a fit in our LF, but he would be at 1B.

and though Jeffy has improved, too many gopher balls to make me happy.

boly

[Rog]

I've long said Shaw would not be a fit in our LF, but he would be at 1B.


Rog-- I hope you read above what Brian said. HE didn't directly address that, but what he said certainly indicated it. It makes sense that the Giants tried him in left field only out of desperation. His most missing tool coming out of college was speed.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield#ixzz4uw3s9BYP

[Rog]

though Jeffy has improved, too many gopher balls to make me happy.


Rog -- The stats tell a tale about Jeff that he should learn from.

. As you point out, he gave up a ton of home runs (30). In 2015 he yielded a league-leading 29.

. He threw nearly 67% strikes, which given the number of home runs may have been too many. He may want to work a little bit on being "effectively wild," which I guess would to some degree be a euphemism for pitching inside -- and inside off the plate -- more.

. Batters had an OPS around 1.000 against him both on the first pitch, on the 1-0 count and even on 0-1. That sounds like he's too predictable on his first two pitches, even if the first one is a strike.

. He's doing something differently from the stretch. He was very good with no one on, but lousy with runners on base and in scoring position. He not only gave up many more homers, he also yielded more doubles. Clearly batters were seeing him better from the stretch and/or his ball wasn't moving as well.

. Regarding that last point, one would assume his mechanics are different out of the stretch. The Giants and Jeff should be (and hopefully already are) working on his mechanics in that situation. How can they make his mechanics from the stretch more like his mechanics out of the wind up.

. They should also be looking at how his pitches move with respect to the new launch angles. Perhaps some of the problems they find could be helped by pitch sequencing, especially since homers have long been a problem for Jeff, not just last season.


I think here is an example of how metrics can work in conjunction with mechanics. Metrics have never fixed a mechanical problem, but they help identify where mechanical issues are involved. It's kind of like with over-shifts. The metrics can show where to position the fielders, but the pitcher still has to get them out.

In Jeff's case, the metrics would suggest examining his mechanics out of the stretch to see how they vary from his wind up mechanics. They indicate he should examine what he is throwing on his first two pitches. Are they too predictable? Is he not concentrating enough? Are his mechanics slightly different? Something makes him quite vulnerable if a batter hits one of his first two pitches. He yielded 40% of his homers on first or second pitches even though only about 30% of at bats against him were decided on the first two pitches.

Or maybe Jeff is one of those who say, "I don't care what the numbers say." The guy did go to a prestigious college, which would seem to indicate that even though he had the big advantage of being an athlete in getting in, he has at least a few brains as well.

As you saw earlier, Brian Sabean made the point that players are humans, and they react to metrics differently. He implied that he believes the ones who are willing to learn from metrics do so.

One question that would be more fair during the season than now: Can anyone tell what Jeff is doing differently mechanically with runners on as opposed to his mechanics out of the stretch? The numbers say there must be some kind of difference. Even if it is a concentration problem, wouldn't that show up with slightly different mechanics?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield?page=1#ixzz4uw4jFviX

[klaiggeb]

I love that Jeffy pounds the strike zone, but he DOESN'T pound it wisely, nor smartly.

And THAT is the reason I said I'd want to make him an ECKERSLY (sp?) type reliever.

He has the gas, has the stuff, but over multiple innings simply CAN'T maintain command.

boly

[klaiggeb]

Roger-Can anyone tell what Jeff is doing differently mechanically with runners on as opposed to his mechanics out of the stretch? The numbers say there must be some kind of difference. Even if it is a concentration problem, wouldn't that show up with slightly different mechanics?

***boly says***

You can bet your bippy (and if you remember that phrase, you're at least as old as I am!) That Righetti and company have been asking themselves the same question.

I've watched and I can't see a thing.

But then, I can't watch a LOT of film, like Righetti has, to go frame by frame, or simply slow it down like he could.

My OPINION is that:

1-Like many pitchers, he doesn't LIKE throwing out of the stretch. I, for one, hated it.

2-He can't get the same rhythm/feel out of the stretch that he does out of the wind up. He's so big and has so many moving parts keeping them under control is an issue.

3-Which is why, see # 3 above, that I'd make him a short reliever. He might not like the stretch, but he can be effective in short bursts.

4-Focus IS a problem, IMHO, for him, because he doesn't like that loss of feel/rhythm.

That's the best I can offer, Rog, and most of it is coming from personal experience.

boly

[Rog]

He might not like the stretch, but he can be effective in short bursts.


Rog -- Of course, all he has to do is keep runners off base, and he can throw from the windup as long as he wants!

I think you pointed to the contradictions in using Jeff in relief. It is almost certainly he could be more effective in short bursts -- as is the case with almost every pitcher -- but he hasn't pitched well out of the stretch, and his worst inning has been the first.

But at $18 million per season and two closers and one of the best southpaw relievers in the game, it doesn't seem likely the Giants would put him in that situation.

Part of the reason Jeff was still a good starter despite his league-average ERA is that he led the league in innings pitched.

Because he's aging (but not yet old) and is still owed something like $55 million, I would look to trade him at some point. The only question for me would be whether to trade him now when he led the league in innings pitched and had strong peripherals despite an average-ish ERA, or hope he puts together the type of season he seems to have the potential for and has his trade value soar.

I think I would look to see what's out there, but wouldn't be in a hurry to trade him. The thing of it is though that the Giants have $166 million already committed, the most in the majors, which means by the time they fill out their roster, they would already have exceeded last year's payroll. If they traded Jeff and Belt, they would have about $35 million of wiggle room.

But putting Jeff in relief to me seems to have multiple question marks, including paying a reliever -- and you didn't even specify closer -- $18 million per season. The only way I would consider it would be if Jeff could be used as a super reliever like Mike Marshall was once used.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield#ixzz4uy62N6Sj

[Rog]

Focus IS a problem, IMHO, for him, because he doesn't like that loss of feel/rhythm.


Rog -- I would think facing difficulty would make him focus even HARDER. Have you seen anything mechanically that is different out of the stretch than from the windup?





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield?page=1#ixzz4uy9OIsgH

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- I would think facing difficulty would make him focus even HARDER. Have you seen anything mechanically that is different out of the stretch than from the windup?

***boly says***

as I said before, Rog, I have not seen anything different.

Unless one has started and relieved, it's hard to really understand the DIFFERENCE in the mental approach to pitching as either.

As a starter you focus... of course, but it's not... CAN'T BE as intense as when relieving because NO ONE can be 100% intense at all times during a start.

Out of the pen, you CAN.

Shorter bursts make all the difference for some pitchers, and I'm betting Jeffy is one of those.

[Islandboagie]

Boly- As a starter you focus... of course, but it's not... CAN'T BE as intense as when relieving because NO ONE can be 100% intense at all times during a start.

Boagie- Ryan Vogelsong would disagree.

Let's just face it, Samardjiza lacks the mindset it takes to be a champion. It's not that he's a head case like Jonathan Sanchez, he just doesn't care. Win or lose, Samardjiza is the same guy.

[klaiggeb]

Even Vogey would say that you can't have 100% concentration on every pitch, boagie.

I remember JT Snow saying, surprisingly, that you can't focus 100% every at bat, every game.

No one, he said, can do that.

boly

[Islandboagie]

And that's why JT doesn't have a ring and Vogey has 2.

[Rog]

And that's why JT doesn't have a ring and Vogey has 2.


Rog -- No, it isn't. Neither Barry Bonds nor Jeff Kent has one either, and Gregor Blanco has two. Whom would you rather have?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield#ixzz4v4MThEiP

[Rog]

I don't think Jeff's problem is concentration. If it were, wouldn't he be more likely not to struggle with no one on, when any offensive achievement is less hurtful and thus might require less concentration than when runners are on and hits, walks and homers are more damaging?

As for Jeff's not having the mindset it takes to be a champion, how do we know that? I would the answer is that we don't. We're not trained to make that decision, nor do we have the necessary information.

I suggest trading Jeff because he likely has value, and by trading him, the Giants would save a lot of salary. I'm not trained in psychology, nor have I spent enough time with Jeff to know much about his mental state.

As for Jeff in relief, I don't think there is much question he would pitch better than as a starter. The question is, would he be enough better to compensate for the innings he previously pitched that would now need to be pitched by a marginal starter -- and how well the reliever(s) he's replacing would have pitched.

How would we use Jeff to get maximum value from him as a reliever? How would the rotation and bullpen change as a result?

[Islandboagie]

And that's why JT doesn't have a ring and Vogey has 2.


Rog -- No, it isn't. Neither Barry Bonds nor Jeff Kent has one either, and Gregor Blanco has two. Whom would you rather have?


Boagie- I think that should be reworded to be a viable question related to the actual topic. Like..who's intensity would I rather have? The answer would definitely be Blanco's.

[Rog]

One thing we know pretty much for sure: It's easier to get a good reliever than a good starter. The Giants are paying Jeff more than their closer, even though when they signed Mark Melancon, Mark was considered one of the top three or four close, whereas Samardzija was felt to be merely an above-average closer.

I mentioned Jeff as a possible Mike Marshall type. We don't know how he would adapt to that role, and if did so, he wouldn't get that one-inning edge a closer or set up man usually gets.

My sense is that Jeff wouldn't be that much better than other relievers than he is better than other starters, and if used as a set up man or closer, would pitch perhaps a third as many innings as he pitches as a starter.

When a pitcher's biggest strength is arguably his ability to eat up innings, does it make sense to cut his innings by two-thirds?

[Rog]

He can't get the same rhythm/feel out of the stretch that he does out of the wind up. He's so big and has so many moving parts keeping them under control is an issue.


Rog -- When a pitcher is struggling to repeat his motion and release point, and having trouble doing so because he has so many moving parts, wouldn't it often make sense to reduce the movement by pitching from the stretch instead of the wind up? Tim Lincecum, for instance, sometimes did that when he was struggling with his mechanics.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield?page=1#ixzz4v61ZiBfT

[klaiggeb]

boagie-And that's why JT doesn't have a ring and Vogey has 2.

***boly says***

No, it isn't.

JT doesn't have a ring or 2 for a couple of reasons, and ONE of those reasons is named Dusty Baker... who proved again yesterday that he has NO FREAKING clue how to handle a bullpen.

Or do I need to remind everyone of Baker in the WS vs the Angels?

boly

[donk33]

Oct 8, 2017 12:35:03 GMT -5 Rog said:

though Jeffy has improved, too many gopher balls to make me happy.


Rog -- The stats tell a tale about Jeff that he should learn from.

. As you point out, he gave up a ton of home runs (30). In 2015 he yielded a league-leading 29.

. He threw nearly 67% strikes, which given the number of home runs may have been too many. He may want to work a little bit on being "effectively wild," which I guess would to some degree be a euphemism for pitching inside -- and inside off the plate -- more.

. Batters had an OPS around 1.000 against him both on the first pitch, on the 1-0 count and even on 0-1. That sounds like he's too predictable on his first two pitches, even if the first one is a strike.

. He's doing something differently from the stretch. He was very good with no one on, but lousy with runners on base and in scoring position. He not only gave up many more homers, he also yielded more doubles. Clearly batters were seeing him better from the stretch and/or his ball wasn't moving as well.

. Regarding that last point, one would assume his mechanics are different out of the stretch. The Giants and Jeff should be (and hopefully already are) working on his mechanics in that situation. How can they make his mechanics from the stretch more like his mechanics out of the wind up.

. They should also be looking at how his pitches move with respect to the new launch angles. Perhaps some of the problems they find could be helped by pitch sequencing, especially since homers have long been a problem for Jeff, not just last season.


I think here is an example of how metrics can work in conjunction with mechanics. Metrics have never fixed a mechanical problem, but they help identify where mechanical issues are involved. It's kind of like with over-shifts. The metrics can show where to position the fielders, but the pitcher still has to get them out.

In Jeff's case, the metrics would suggest examining his mechanics out of the stretch to see how they vary from his wind up mechanics. They indicate he should examine what he is throwing on his first two pitches. Are they too predictable? Is he not concentrating enough? Are his mechanics slightly different? Something makes him quite vulnerable if a batter hits one of his first two pitches. He yielded 40% of his homers on first or second pitches even though only about 30% of at bats against him were decided on the first two pitches.

Or maybe Jeff is one of those who say, "I don't care what the numbers say." The guy did go to a prestigious college, which would seem to indicate that even though he had the big advantage of being an athlete in getting in, he has at least a few brains as well.

As you saw earlier, Brian Sabean made the point that players are humans, and they react to metrics differently. He implied that he believes the ones who are willing to learn from metrics do so.

One question that would be more fair during the season than now: Can anyone tell what Jeff is doing differently mechanically with runners on as opposed to his mechanics out of the stretch? The numbers say there must be some kind of difference. Even if it is a concentration problem, wouldn't that show up with slightly different mechanics?

dk...the same stats indicate that MadBum gives up more homers per 9 innings than Jeff..why not trade Bum for a bat? the mechanics for pitching has gone through a dramatic change...a pitcher should pitch the way that is the best from his experience...if pitching from a stretch is thought to be less effective, why don't guys out of the pen use a windup when they are starting an inning? The one thing I can never understand is why a left handed starter uses the stretch when he has a runner on third..or second and third...or bases full....you sure get a better view towards third in the windup position....


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4088/power-outfield?page=1#ixzz4uw4jFviX

[Rog]

Excellent questions, Don.

I think relievers pitch exclusively out of the stretch so they have only the one situation to worry about. Whether that is a good idea or not, I'm not quite sure. It may be that some pitchers would indeed benefit from pitching out of the windup whenever possible.

As for trading Madison, if I were to do so it wouldn't be because he gave up homers even more frequently than Jeff this past season (which hasn't been the case over their respective careers), but because he would bring a lot of value in return. He's under team control though for only two more seasons, and he will almost certainly re-sign with the Giants, so his value is likely higher by keeping him. Madison has limited trade protection as well.

If the Giants considered trading the face of the franchise, Buster Posey has a lot of trade value, and given that he'll be likely be playing more and more at first base in the future, the Giants might benefit from trading him where his value is perceived as a catcher.

But do you trade the player who is likely your best? I think my answer would depend on the effect I felt doing so would have on the team culture. If the effect wouldn't be too detrimental, I would consider it. But Buster also has a full no-trade contract, and more than any other single player, he is the Giants' identity.

To me, it keeps coming back to Belt and Samardzija, both of whom have limited trade protection but can't block all trades. My guess is that Brandon goes and Jeff stays. If I could get decent value, I would trade them both, getting younger but freeing up money for the rich free agent markets of the this off-season and the next.

One financial matter to keep in mind too: The Giants need to free up money to re-sign Bumgarner. They have him controlled for the next two seasons, but his salary will almost certainly more than double after that.

One of the problems with having a fine team is that eventually they each have to get paid in order to keep them together. And even though they're declining assets, they can get considerably more expensive to retain.