Something to consider...

[klaiggeb]

I was channel flipping on the way home this afternoon and when I heard ".... from MLB," I stopped on the Sports station from San Diego.

This is where I first heard we'd made an offer for Stanton, but more importantly, they pointed out a selling point in coming to SF I hadn't even considered:

By coming to SF, Stanton plays:
10 games/year in Colorado.
10 games/year in Arizona.

That's 20 games in 2 very, homer friendly parks.

LA "claims" they have no interest, so IF Stanton really wants to be on the West Coast, we're it.

The Bonds connection as someone pointed out, is also a nod in our favor, as is a history of being a winning franchise, having a great fan base, potentially outstanding starting pitching, a Great Manager, historically a great defense, and a front office that has shown it will do what it needs to, to win... so maybe we have a shot.

Maybe.

I'm IN, IF...IF... we also agree to put the pieces needed around him, like a CF, and a RF, and add that shut down LHP we need.

I'd be willing to roll the dice with the rookie Duggar if we have to, in CF, or perhaps we could come up with someone like Bader from St. Louis.

I'm also willing to roll the dice with Arroyo and/or Jones at 3B or even Sandoval IF he proves in St he can still hit.

Bottom line, we cannot fill ALL of our holes if we sign Stanton.

We can't.

We'd need players to:

1-return to their norm

2-step up and PROVE they're ready to play at this level (Arroyo and Jones)

3-Go back to the solid defense and starting pitching that won us 3 titles.

We'll see

boly

[Rog]

You and I seem to agree that the Giants need to make more than simply a Stanton move, as exciting as adding a 59-homer guy who plays a decent outfield would be. (I'll get into the 2017 Fielding Bible awards in a future post, but it is intriguing to know that Stanton was ranked the #5 right fielder. Oh, and he can hit. The biggest question is, can he stay healthy?

We agree that the Giants need solid pitching, and their defense just seemed to collapse in 2017. Two of their best in Buster Posey and Joe Panik fell off in pitch framing and just catching the ball, respectively.

We agree that Duggar has a chance to become the Giants' center fielder, although he may need say another half season to a full season of seasoning. (He played in only 44 games in 2017, costing him half a season of development. He's already come a long way in his 232-game minor league career (about a season and a half of full-time play based on a major league schedule).

Arroyo has a chance to play at third base, but I don't think he would be more than a second-division starter. He makes fine contact, but he doesn't walk, and for a corner infielder, he has little power. I think Jones is no more than a backup. Pablo may hit a little, but since leaving the Giants in 2015, he's been a horrible fielder.

Bader may be defined more by the first three letters of his surname than by any type of All-Star season. If he has an average outfield career, I think he will have pretty much maximized his potential. IMO he has a greater chance of being a backup than of becoming an average outfielder, for reasons I gave in another post. One of those reasons is that he simply doesn't have a great scouting report.

The Giants should benefit in 2018 from better health and a regression to the mean by some of the players who slumped in 2017.

But the Giants lost 98 games. They likely need to improve by nearly 25 games to make the playoffs. They're in a division where winning may be tough.

The Giants can't even sign STANTON if they don't raise their payroll. They need to increase it almost without conscience -- plus make some savvy trades.

They seem to be looking at a Span/Pence platoon in left. Slater or Parker would have a shot. Obviously they need both a center fielder and a right fielder. Stanton would fill half that need in spectacular fashion.

Third base is also a big question mark. I don't really think the Giants right now have what they need to fill the position in 2018.

They're looking to upgrade their bullpen, and the only truly useful addition I see right now would be D.J. Snelten -- and he's no world beater. On the other side of the ledger, Hunter Strickland sadly is one of their better trading tools.

Stanton would be an outstanding start to filling the Giants' many needs, but they would still have miles and miles before they sleep. They need a fistful of dollars and an armload of moxy.

[Rog]

By coming to SF, Stanton plays:
10 games/year in Colorado.
10 games/year in Arizona.

That's 20 games in 2 very, homer friendly parks.


Rog -- Good point. But the offset is that he would play somewhere around 100 in AT&T, Petco and Dodger stadium, stadia with heavy air.

I think if the Dodgers truly want him, they'll get him. But they'll have a hard time signing him and reaching their stated goal of cutting payroll.

Which brings to mind a couple of points:

The Giants' front office has frequently been accused here of lying. I think there are two mitigating factors:

First, situations and opportunities change like wildfire. Second, the object is to say as much as possible while saying as little as possible.

Second, it has also been pointed out that the writers are usually wrong with their off-season predictions. That is correct. It's almost impossible to be right more often than a small percentage of the time, since even the teams themselves have to change directions many times during a single off-season.

The Giants have been considered to be trying hard to stay below the luxury tax threshold, which they've already hit three years in a row. But they're also creating smoke with regard to several outfielders, led by Giancarlo Stanton.

The Dodgers have said they want to cut payroll, but not they too are said to be in the Stanton sweepstakes.

Factors likely change faster than we can comprehend,and regardless of their original plans, teams must remain agile.

Regarding the Giants, will we be happy if they maintain their original stance that last season was an aberration, that if players bounce back, they can compete? Even they likely aren't sure what they will do. It's also not true that just because they decide to go in a certain direction, all the teams and players involved will cooperate.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4ylRoq2kw

[klaiggeb]

Let's not forget what Mark called the Miami circus-like ballpark; a dead zone, worse than our park.

SD moved in their fences and a lot more HRs were hit.

Bellinger hit 39 as a rookie playing most of his games in LA.


No.

Too many advantages for Stanton to come to us or LA, HR wise.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Sorry, Boly, I can't agree. AT&T is one of, if not the hardest park to hit homeruns in. He will not choose to come here with the park factor being a major consideration. The only reason the Giants have a chance is because when Stanton hits them they go a long way and often would leave any stadium. But Stanton will still lose some homeruns in right center, but not as many as the average power hitter would lose.

[klaiggeb]

***boly says***

I understand, boagie, but I repeat, here's what Mark said: Let's not forget what Mark called the Miami circus-like ballpark; a dead zone, worse than our park.


Now where he got his info, I don't know, but Miami is a BIG park.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Miami is a big park, I can agree with that. I just don't agree that he'd come to S.F. because of the home park, or parks that are in our division. Every other division would give him a group of better hitters parks.

[Rog]

If park makes the difference in Giancarlo's decision, he'll be playing at AT&T, wearing gray.

If the Dodgers want in on Stanton, I don't see how they can be beaten. They have the prospects to satisfy the Marlins, and Giancarlo grew up a Dodgers fan.

If we truly want Stanton for the Giants, let's hope the Giants are the only West Coast team in the hunt.

Someone wrote today that the Dodgers or Giants made the most sense. That sounds good -- if the Dodgers don't enter the equation.

The one thing the Giants have to offer Miami might be that they are willing to take on the most contract of any of the competitors. They certainly don't have the most to offer -- unless they can somehow work in their #2 draft pick as a player to be named, and I suspect that goes against the rules. If the Giants are the only team in the equation, Stanton -- who has final say -- might pick them.

The Giants are said to be working the hardest for a Stanton deal. If they are the only California team, they've certainly got a shot. Otherwise, they're said to have an interest in J.D. Martinez. The biggest problem there is that J.D. has a poor glove, while Stanton is well above average in the field.

The advantage to J.D. of course is that the Giants wouldn't have to give up any players (although a draft choice may be involved -- I haven't looked at the new rules).

[klaiggeb]

Boagie, I'm not arguing that AT&T is an easy park to hit HRs...Remember, I'm just reporting what I heard on XTRA.

But Bonds hit a ton here, in 3 seasons, Kent had 33,22 & 37

In his one season at AT&T, in 458 at bats, Ellis Burks hit 24.

It's reported LA isn't in the hunt, thus my statement... IF Stanton wants to play on the west coast, we're, it seems, it.

Then again, since LA has reported they aren't interested... that's, of course, where he'll wind up.

boly

[klaiggeb]

I guess if we can pay nuts-o dollars to Stanton, I'm guessing we could afford JD Martinez.

The problem with THAT is, there's no SF connection;

Like Bonds.

Like wanting to play on the West Coast.

I don't see JD as a real likely candidate to come here.

I think he'll end up back in Arizona, which means we'd BETTER sign Stanton just to keep pace with those bombers.

boly

[Rog]

Some great points, Boly. Why don't we take a look at some of them:

Regarding homers, AT&T is a bad park for right-handed power hitters; it's a horror show for lefties. Stanton would be hurt by the park, but not as much as if he hit left-handed. One positive to Giancarlo is that some of the homers he hits would go out of any park short of Yosemite.

Let's hope the Dodgers aren't in the hunt. If they are, they're almost certain to land the fox. After all, some call them the Dogs.

When compared to Martinez, Giancarlo has the following advantages:

. He's two (prime) years younger.

. He's a much better defender with above-average speed.

. If the Giants sign him, they won't lose a 2nd-round and 5th-round choice as they would with Martinez.

And the following disadvantages:

. Longer, more expensive contract.

. Opt out option after three years.

. The Giants will need to give up players to acquire him in trade.

One could certainly make an argument for Martinez, but it appears Stanton is clearly Plan A.

[klaiggeb]

Strat-O-Matic has long had my respect for the way they rate defenders...

I've gone back 3 years to see how they rated both JD and Stanton.

In Strat... a "1" defender is outstanding. Willie Mays. Ken Griffey Jr. quality.

A "2" defender is very, very good. Blanco comes to mind, as well as Mantle.

A "3" defender is average. Pagan at his best

A "4" is below average, and a "5" is Michael Morse, Pat Burrell-Like.


JD was ranked as a "4" in 2 of the last 3 years

Stanton was twice ranked as a "2" and last year, a "3".

Strat is very, very accurate in their ratings, and if THEY see JD as a 4... that concerns me in our park.


But the problem still remains regardless of whom we may get. How do we afford to pay OTHER, supporting pieces, and STILL keep the ones we've got?

Crawford, Bum, for example.

I don't think the next 5 years bodes well for us.

Not at all.

boly

[Rog]

I guess if we can pay nuts-o dollars to Stanton, I'm guessing we could afford JD Martinez.


Rog -- Of course. Martinez will make a ton of money, but not as much as Stanton, who I believe has the highest contract in major league history.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider#ixzz4z3sT5XLx

[Rog]

Strat is very, very accurate in their ratings, and if THEY see JD as a 4... that concerns me in our park.


Rog -- J.D. is quite possibly a five. The past two seasons combined he has been worth a NEGATIVE 27 Defensive Runs Saved (DRS), and his Ultimate Zone Rating has been -25. His DRS in those two seasons is worse than Burrell's career numbers, and his Ultimate Zone Rating the past two seasons is nearly twice as bad as Burrell's over his career. Similarly, J.D.'s metrics the past two seasons have been about half as bad as Morse's outfield figures over his entire career.

Last season Martinez was fourth-worst among major league right fielders in DRS, and the previous season he was dead last.

Based on what I've read I feel confident that Stanton is clearly above average defensively, while J.D. is close to as bad as it gets.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z3szIpA6

[Rog]

I don't think the next 5 years bodes well for us.

Not at all.


Rog -- Can you take us through your evaluation process that a season and a half ago had you believing the Giants were the best SF Giants team in history? Where last winter you felt that the Giants' outfield didn't have a big problem? To now where you think the next five seasons are looking very bad?

I'm curious about the process that led you to such a change in your opinion.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z3wHeFkj

[Rog]

But the problem still remains regardless of whom we may get. How do we afford to pay OTHER, supporting pieces, and STILL keep the ones we've got?


Rog -- The Giants likely need some combination of spending a lot more and/or making some brilliant moves this winter.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z3xGbAUP

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- Can you take us through your evaluation process that a season and a half ago had you believing the Giants were the best SF Giants team in history? Where last winter you felt that the Giants' outfield didn't have a big problem? To now where you think the next five seasons are looking very bad?

I'm curious about the process that led you to such a change in your opinion.

***boly says***

I certainly can, Rog, and here it is in NO particular order.

1-The sudden growth of the Arizona starting staff, as well as their bullpen.
2-Cody Bellinger, Cory Seager, Julio Urias, what's his name "Taylor," and Justin Turner
3-The abrupt decline of Pence
4-The continued downward spiral of Posey and his INABILITY to drive in runs.
5-Span got old over night and can no longer cover the ground I believe he could when we got him.
6-The REGRESSION of Moore and Cueto. I'm STILL not sold on Cueto's problems ONLY beind due to injury
7-Strickland still NOT having made the jump I expected in his efficiencey.
8-No LHP of quality in the Pen
9-Belt's decline last yeard PRIOR to his injury, not to mention he's NEVER come close to his potential
10-Panik's continued struggles since he was beaned
11-Bum is NOT the pitcher he was prior to 2016. He wasn't that good BEFORE the injury. Or need I point out his 2 HR game where he couldn't hold the lead.
I just don't see the same guy
12-Samardzjia has NOT made the development under Righetti I expected
13-No Third baseman
14-NO LF, CF or RF of any worth
15-Arizona, Colorado and LA have gotten significantly better... and we have not.
16-We sign Stanton and we trade the farm to get him meaning NO ONE in the pipeline that can compete with Arizona, Colorado much less LA
17-Smith AIN'T that good, and coming off of his surgery, it'll likely be 2019 before he returns to form of any kind.

There are more, but I'll stop at 17.

I don't know what you see, but I don't like what I see.

boly

[Rog]

1-The sudden growth of the Arizona starting staff, as well as their bullpen.
2-Cody Bellinger, Cory Seager, Julio Urias, what's his name "Taylor," and Justin Turner


Rog -- Those things had only a slight impact on how the GIANTS performed. By the way, the Dodgers won 104 games last season despite the fact that Urias missed almost the entire season.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider#ixzz4z5tL0Jds

[Rog]

3-The continued downward spiral of Posey and his INABILITY to drive in runs.


Rog -- Offensively Buster may have been the only Giants starter who had a BETTER season in 2017 than 2016. He improved his batting average by 32 points, his on-base percentage by 38 points, his slugging percentage by 28 points, and his OPS by 65 points.

Regarding RBI's, Buster wasn't GREAT with runners on, but his 80 RBI's fell to 67 in good part due to having 21 fewer runners on first base and 26 fewer on second.

With runners on base, Buster hit and slugged .311/.453 in 2016 and .309/.427 in 2017. With RISP he hit and slugged .287/448 in 2016 and .306/.447. That's pretty close.

It strongly appears that Buster's added RBI's in 2016 stemmed more from opportunity than performance. Yet that's not what your eyes told you.

I'm not picking on you. What we see and what we can remember are far from perfect. It's not surprising Buster had more opportunity for RBI's in 2016. The Giants as a team scored 76 fewer runs in 2017 and had 166 fewer base runners. Did your eyes tell you that, and if so, why didn't you factor it into your statement about Buster?

Our eyes and brains can't assimilate that much information with precision, and even if it could, our brains can't remember it. That's why relying on our eyes and memory can be inaccurate.

They say to err is to be human. We should also remember that to be a human is to be human.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z5uSXsrB

[Rog]

Span got old over night and can no longer cover the ground I believe he could when we got him.


Rog -- As Boagie will tell you, Denard wasn't a very good fielder in 2016 either. Given that he was a year older, was his continued decline surprising?

As an aside, he couldn't hit southpaws either season. He hasn't been able to do that for even longer than he hasn't been a good fielder.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z62UBhgL

[Rog]

Strickland still NOT having made the jump I expected in his efficiencey.


Rog -- But that didn't HURT the Giants; it simply left them much the same.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z63gO3XY

[Rog]

No LHP of quality in the Pen


Rog -- Back when you felt they were the best SF Giants team every, they didn't have a quality southpaw in the pen either. Lopez's best days were already behind him.

And we know going into last season that Smith was out.

[Rog]

-Belt's decline last yeard PRIOR to his injury, not to mention he's NEVER come close to his potential


Rog -- How can you say that Brandon declined prior to his injury when what you wanted him to do was hit 20 homers, and he was on pace for 27? Brandon's fielding last season was the best of his career, and he was on pace for the highest (slightly) WAR of his career.

As for his not coming close to reaching his potential, that doesn't affect now much more than a season and a half ago. In this context, it's not really all that relevant, is it?

Two years ago didn't we have more or less the same concerns about Brandon's not reaching his potential as we have now?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z64NeKB6

[Islandboagie]

Span's decline certainly wasn't overnight. Boly's realization that Span sucks may have been overnight.

Span, in my opinion, is the worst defensive centerfielder I've ever seen, that's including Marvin Benard. He's got the arm of a first baseman, and the hands of a DH hitter.

He can hit a little bit, but he can't get on base with any consistency and his base running is almost comical. I don't think there has ever been a major leaguer where I fully believe I would be an upgrade, until I saw Retard Span over these last two seasons.

[Rog]

Panik's continued struggles since he was beaned


Rog -- When Joe was beaned and not long after you felt the Giants were the best SF Giants team in history, he was hitting .256/.321/.407/.728. Last season he bounced back to .288/.347/.421/.768. He was struggling more offensively when the Giants were "historically good" than he did last season. You are right that his defense last season was worse though.

[Rog]

Bum is NOT the pitcher he was prior to 2016. He wasn't that good BEFORE the injury. Or need I point out his 2 HR game where he couldn't hold the lead.
I just don't see the same guy


Rog -- If your eyes are as good as you believe, shouldn't you have been able to see that coming back when you thought the 2016 Giants were so great?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z67L1XoO

[Rog]

Samardzjia has NOT made the development under Righetti I expected


Rog -- Jeff actually had a better ERA in the second half of 2016 than in the first half when you were so sold on the Giants. And some will say that while his ERA certainly didn't show it, Jeff was better last season than in 2016, that he DID improve.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z67wGNod

[Rog]

No Third baseman


Rog -- The Giants didn't have a third baseman in the first half of the 2016 season either. That's why they traded for Eduardo Nunez.

[Rog]

NO LF, CF or RF of any worth


Rog -- When the Giants opened the 2017 season, might you not have been able to see their extreme vulnerability in the outfield?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z68xsBdD

[Rog]

Arizona, Colorado and LA have gotten significantly better... and we have not.


Rog -- To some extent at least, didn't we see two years ago that much of that was coming? The improvement of those three competitors hurt the Giants' win total last season, but even if those teams hadn't improved, the Giants would still have been a poor team. Wouldn't they?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4152/consider?page=1#ixzz4z69HZMQU