Tougher than I Thought

[rog]

Looking at Spot Trac's 2018 Giants Adjusted Salary (for Luxury Tax Purposes), I don't think the Giants have as much salary room as we think.

www.spotrac.com/mlb/san-francisco-giants/payroll/


Their estimated arbitrtation awards are around $14 million.

www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/10/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2018.html


And around $13 million in benefits are added to calculate the final number.

www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/11/13/dodgers-mlb-luxury-tax-offenders-2017-top-payrolls/857918001/


Let's hope something is amiss here.  If it's not, the Giants are darn near out of room as they stand.

So what could they do?

.  Trade off a big salary like Jeff Samardzija, obviously, but with the rotation already thin, that doesn't seem at all likely to happen.

.  Trade off one or more of the arbitration players.  Sam Dyson ($4.6 million), Hunter Strickland ($1.7 million) and Cory Gearrin ($1.6 million) would seem the most likely.

.  Make an Evan Longoria-like trade utilizing Hunter Pence in the Denard Span role in order to wring out some more Luxury Tax Threshold room as the Longoria/Span trade did.  This adds future salary liabilities beyond 2018.  Christian Arroyo is no longer available to facilitate such a deal, but prospects such as Tyler Beede, Chris Shaw and Aramis Garcia are.

.  Trade one of the core players in return for a less expensive package.


The Giants have made it clear they aren't yet done.  The moves they have made thus far are clearly only a beginning to what is needed.  Expect one or more of the above strategies to be utilized.  Or perhaps something they've thought of that I haven't.

Anyone else have ideas on how to free up salary?

[rog]

Johnny Cueto's $130 million contract is tied for 41st highest in major league history. Matt Cain's $127.5 million deal is 43rd. Barry Zito's $126 million pact is tied for 44th. At $90 million, Hunter Pence, Jeff Samardzija and Barry Bonds are tied for 72nd.

That's a fair amount of spending from a "cheap" team.

It's tough finding a contract to "trade" Pence's for. Ryan Braun, but he's as old as Pence and is owed $60 million over the next three seasons, including a $4 million buyout for 2021. Maybe if the Brewers threw in enough money. Just doesn't look like a good fit though.

The Giants need to be careful of building up future liabilities. That is a concern from the Longoria deal.

[sfgdood]

so you're saying we can expect the Giants will pocket that 20 million eh? Seems to me I've heard that somewhere

[rog]

so you're saying we can expect the Giants will pocket that 20 million eh? Seems to me I've heard that somewhere


Rog -- Even a sixth grader can tell that what I said was when one actually studies the subject that the Giants don't have anywhere close to $20 million to pocket from the situation. The nasty thing in the Luxury Tax calculation is those nasty benefits.

You did indeed hear somewhere that the Giants would pocket $20 million. You heard it from a very questionable source.

By they way, I'm hoping the $20 million is real. The Giants could use it -- and more. But perhaps you could tell us, Randy, how you calculate any amount close to that is real. It seems to be simple addition.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher#ixzz52P6muM1k

[klaiggeb]

I'm just guessing here, Rog, but I think Randy's saying, and has been saying for years, that if you want to win, spend the damned money to win!

Luxury tax or not.

Stop feeding us rhetoric, back up your words with action.

At least, that's the way I interpret what he's saying.

And since the Giants don't, and haven't done that, he, and I, am frustrated with the plethora of lip service.

[rog]

I understand yours and Randy's frustration, Boly, but even in sports, reality matters. Right now it appears the Giants may have a tougher time getting under the salary cap than the Dodgers. Got that? Than the DODGERS for crying out loud.

We've all lived in an era of expansion. How would we like it if baseball suddenly entered a period of contraction? Most of the cities that have baseball teams would LOVE to see their teams spend as much as the Giants.

But we're sitting here all spoiled by three World Championships in five seasons and wanting the Giants to spend whatever it takes. We don't want the Giants to become champions again the old-fashioned, by earning it. We want them to spend their way to another World Championship and another after that.

The difficulty with being a good team is that eventually the players have to be paid. That makes it really tough to stay on top, particularly when you pay high to keep your team's chemistry in place.

This season the Giants are paying about $160 million to fill just nine of their 25 roster positions. Last season the majority of teams didn't pay $160 million to their entire team. If Madison Bumgarner hadn't signed a team-loving contract, they would be spending even more than that on those nine spots.

Let's suppose the Giants went out and signed Yu Darvish, J.D. Martinez and Lorenzo Cain. Still no guarantee even of the postseason, let alone a World Championship, and the Giants would be paying about another $100 million including the Luxury Tax.

As fans it is easy of us to tell our team to spend, spend, spend. It's not our money. All we care about is WINNING. To be honest with you, I see no reason the Giants couldn't afford to spend that much. It would be a huge change, even for one of the game's big spenders. I believe it would make for the game's highest payroll in history, but I think it could be done.

But what does that do to the game of baseball? Doesn't it hurt the game when teams have virtually no chance to compete?

What the Giants need to do is, sadly, the Dodgers have done. They need to build from within. That's the way to stay under the salary cap. Since Brandon Belt, the Giants have done a poor job of that.

Remember five years or so ago when we were decrying all the huge salaries the Dodgers were paying? Now that's what we're asking the Giants to do. Feels pretty bad when we're on the other side though, doesn't it?

And were we sharp enough to realize it wasn't all the Dodgers' spending that was the primary threat, but their resolve in beginning to build from within so they wouldn't have to over-spend their opponents? Because of players like the last two NL Rookies of the Year, the Dodgers are going to be under the salary cap we're asking the Giants to blow through.

Let's admit it: We're simply spoiled. We weren't wise enough five years ago to sense the real problem the Dodgers were intent on presenting, and even then simply wanted the Giants to spend, spend, spend.

It's better for baseball when teams spend amounts that are closer together. Of course, we're not out for the good of BASEBALL, we're out for the good of the GIANTS.

We're selfish, spoiled and unfair. Rather than asking the Giants to spend their money on more salaries, we should be asking them to spend those dollars on scouting, analytics and player development and health.

I'm not saying it's unnatural for us to want the Giants to outspend other teams. I will say though that it's selfish.

[klaiggeb]

I'm not saying we should out spend anyone, Rog, but the thing I canNOT get past is that we were willing to spend all that money on one (1) (Count 'em) ONE player, and then NOT to be able to spend to get a number of players EQUAL to that money?

That makes ZERO sense.

That tells me that ALL they wanted was to fill seats.

Period.

But the thing is, Giant fans have PROVEN they don't need superstars in the house to FILL the house.

After Bonds left we didn't have any super stars.

And no, Posey isn't a super star.

He's a very, very good player, but Super Stars are guys like Bonds, Griffey, Stanton and so forth.

Posey is 2 or 3 steps down the line.

Bonds et. al. as I mentioned above, BRING IN tons of fans to watch bombs leave the park.

Posey's paltry 15-20 don't do that.


So again I say, you were willing to spend 200+ Million for ONE guy, want not do the same for 2 or 3 guys?

We win, the fans come, just like they always have.

THAT is reality.

boly

[sfgdood]

FYI...as much as you believe their ought to be a salary cap in baseball, there isn't one and the game hasn't been hurt one bit. Teams are free to use whatever advantages they possess, including vast amounts of cash. The Giants' scouting and development departments flat out SUCK...and their ability to sign FA hitters is so pitiful that overpaying looks to be a necessary evil. If you oppose this then you are doing the same as wishing the Giants be bad for many years to come.

[rog]

FYI...as much as you believe their ought to be a salary cap in baseball, there isn't one and the game hasn't been hurt one bit.


Rog -- One of the things that irks me most about you, Randy, is that you keep putting words in my mouth. I've never said I favored a salary cap. There isn't a hard cap, of course, but the Luxury Tax imposes a soft one.

I favor free enterprise, which obviously is hurt by a salary cap, whether soft or hard. I also emphasize with fans in small markets.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher#ixzz52agby1yO

[rog]

I'm not saying we should out spend anyone, Rog, but the thing I canNOT get past is that we were willing to spend all that money on one (1) (Count 'em) ONE player, and then NOT to be able to spend to get a number of players EQUAL to that money?

That makes ZERO sense.


Rog -- Let's look at how Stanton might have made sense, Boly. As you mention, he has star power, which would put people in the seats. He hits a ton of homers, which puts people in the seats. He also would alone be worth perhaps six wins, which would make the Giants more competitive and put people in the seats. So as you say, acquiring him would likely have put people in the seats. That helps to reduce his net cost.

So let's look at it simply from a baseball sense. Would you rather have Stanton in right, Duggar in center and Arroyo at third base -- or Parker in right, Cain in center and Frazier at third base? I myself would go with the former, and the per-season cost of the former may well turn out to be lower than that of the latter. Not to mention that in the former case, the Giants don't lose two draft choices as they would if they signed Cain.

If the Giants had signed Stanton, would they have gone over the salary cap? Probably. That's not to say they would have had to. For sure they would have traded Moore, as they did anyway. They might also have traded Samardzija, although that would have left them needing pitching. Perhaps they could have worked out another deal to fix the pitching. The point is that if they had been able to acquire Stanton, they would still have had options -- including being willing to enter the Luxury Tax because they made a rare deal to acquire a superstar.

How would the Giants look RIGHT NOW if they had done precisely what they have done since -- and acquired Stanton as well. They would face the choice of shedding more salary or being in the Luxury Tax for a fourth straight season, but they would have added a third superstar.

Of the two superstars they already have, it is quite possible Buster Posey is moving on past his prime. It's tough being a catcher. Buster will be entering his age 31 season. Johnny Bench is one of the best power-hitting catchers ever, but beginning with his age 31 season he hit only 79 of his 389 career homers. He caught only 244 more games.

The other, Madison Bumgarner is coming off an injury-riddled, down season. Meanwhile, Stanton came within one home run of The Babe.

How would the Giants look as they are now constituted but with Stanton included:

Duggar CF

Panik 2B

Stanton RF

Posey C

Longoria 3B

Belt 1B

Pence LF

Crawford SS


That could be the long lineup we're looking for. Until he's proven, maybe drop Duggar to #8, lead off with Belt (yes, Boagie, the Giants might have enough power to do in this scenario), and move Pence and Crawford up a spot.

No player is perfect. But how often do the Giants get the chance to acquire a good-fielding right fielder with the potential to hit 60 homers?

I'm still worried about the downside if Stanton couldn't stay healthy or declined more quickly than expected. I hate opt outs. But with Stanton and Longoria, I think the Giants could be called legitimate contenders. I would still be trying to add more, but the potential to score runs would again be in San Francisco.

And the Giants would have the choice of cutting more salary to get below the cap, or of simply taking on some Luxury Tax in order to have arguably one of the top 10 players in the game.

Let me ask Mark -- do you think Stanton will go in the first round (of 10) in our fantasy league? If you don't take him, Mark, I might have to.

I still have reservations about acquiring Stanton, but mostly because of the opt out. Without the opt out, I think it would have been a fine deal. Even with it, the deal might have made sense.

Stanton likely would have opted out after the 2020 season. But what if he had stayed. What would you think of building a team around 31-year-olds Stanton and Bumgarner, 21-year-old Heliot Ramos, and the Giants' #2 draft pick in 2018? Maybe one or two of the young starters is worth a darn, and then there are the cagey veterans Posey, Crawford, Belt, and Panik, plus a lead off man and center fielder in Steven Duggar. And the grizzled Longoria is still around for two more seasons (with an option for a third).

Perhaps the Giants have turned things around in 2018 and are still strong contenders in 2021.

Yes, there would be luxury tax difficulties the Giants would be facing right now. But wouldn't you be happy to see how they worked them out? As it is, I don't think the Giants could sign Bruce and Cain for a combined $25 million per season, and wouldn't we rather have Stanton anyway?

The Giants almost nothing from third base, left field and center field last season. In fact, I think the combined WAR at those two positions was no better than a minus(-3). Meanwhile, Stanton and Longoria combined for 11 WAR. That's a possible swing of 14 wins right there. Duggar should be worth at least one win. That would take the Giants to 79 wins, and it isn't a stretch to think they could pick up another nine or 10 wins from their other positions.

Now we're talking contender.

Remember how we agreed that the Giants needed to do more than just Stanton? They did. They traded for Longoria. And it's almost certain that they're not through yet.

Stanton himself likely gives the Giants as much as any TWO position free agents out there, with the exception of a combination that includes Martinez. As for Martinez, he'll likely cost as much or more per season as the discounted trade cost of Stanton, and while he too is an excellent hitter, his defense and off-field hitting certainly aren't suited to AT&T.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher?page=1#ixzz52aiG8Id8

[rog]

And no, Posey isn't a super star.


Rog -- If we define a superstar as a player who will quite possibly make the Hall of Fame, the Giants likely have two.

As for Buster, Boly, he's more of a subtle superstar. As fine a hitter as he is, he's not one of the best hitters ever, that's for sure, but he's one of the best-hitting catchers ever. And while 2017 was a down year for him defensively, he's raised his defense to an excellent level as well as his offense.

Buster will quite possibly retire as the best catcher in Giants history. At the very least, that suggests superstar for a franchise as storied as the Giants.

[rog]

Super Stars are guys like Bonds, Griffey, Stanton and so forth.


Rog -- Bonds and Griffey are likely two of the top 25 players ever. Posey isn't as good as they were. Stanton has the potential to be greater than Posey, and quite possibly if he stays healthy, he will be. But both players have played about the same number of games, and Posey's WAR total is two games higher. Part of that is definitely because Giancarlo has had a hard time staying healthy, but part of it too is that though Stanton's defense is good, Buster's has been better than good that past few seasons.

I realize you're all over Buster's lack of RBI's, Boly, but Stanton is fewer than 100 RBI's ahead of Buster. Is Buster as good an RBI man as Stanton? Of course not. Is he a better defender? Yes. Does he hit for a much higher average? You bet. Does he play a much more valuable defensive positive? That's a Roger.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher?page=1#ixzz52b8Jy8Wi

[rog]

By the way, Boly, you are right that Stanton would have cost the Giants a net $265 million if he stayed all 10 years, but if the Giants were to pick up two or three good free agents and replace those guys with good free agents over the next 10 seasons, how much do you think they would spend? If we took two players the caliber of Cain and Frazier -- I'd rather have Stanton and Longoria myself -- we're probably talking about $300 million or more over the next decade.

Remember, the Giants were going to pay about $30 million this season to Span and Pence -- for little production. Take $30 million per season for 10 years, add in salary inflation, and we could be talking close to $400 million -- which is a heck of a lot higher than $265 million.

Which free agents would we sign right now at a total of $25 million per season if we were Bobby Evans?

[rog]

So again I say, you were willing to spend 200+ Million for ONE guy, want not do the same for 2 or 3 guys?


Rog -- To simplify the answer, because you might not get 10 seasons from each of the two or three guys?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher?page=1#ixzz52bBSwGrT

[klaiggeb]

I don't agree with your rationale or your logic, Rog.

I'll take 2 or 3 guys, and 3 to 5 years.

During that time period, Heliot and Duggar and maybe another farm kid is ready.


I'm not a big advocate of Cain BECAUSE of the draft pick we'd have to give up.

Those 2 or 3 guys BUY me time to let the 2 kids I mentioned develop AND re build the farm system.

And we wouldn't lose fans in seats BECAUSE in my scenario, we're competing to win, not just fielding a team like we did when Bonds left.

boly

[rog]

I'll take 2 or 3 guys, and 3 to 5 years.


Rog -- I understand your point, Boly. And to some extent I agree with it.

I think it is important though to compare apples to apples, and while I overstated it earlier, the Giants would have paid a net $230 million -- not $265 million, which is what the Yankees took on -- for 10 years of Stanton.

When you talk two or three guys for three to five years and spending $200+ million, the annual cost is much higher. If you're talking about two or three guys for three to five years and spending $100+ million, we would be talking apples to apples.

The deal for Stanton would likely have wound up at 3/$75, since Giancarlo would have very likely opted out after three seasons. Rather than trading for Stanton, which two or three players would you sign who would make a combined $25 million per season?

If you can identify the two or three guys whom the Giants could get for $25 million per season who would make a bigger difference than Stanton alone is likely to make, let's talk turkey.

You're talking conceptually. I'd like to talk specifics. Right now I don't know whether to agree with you or not, because we're not talking specific players and prices.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher#ixzz52bukeftR

[rog]

And we wouldn't lose fans in seats BECAUSE in my scenario, we're competing to win, not just fielding a team like we did when Bonds left.


Rog -- Do you think that if the Giants had traded for Stanton, they wouldn't have been trying to win? Let's just look at the next three seasons. Who are the players you would sign for a combined 3/$75 who would provide a bigger impact than Stanton would provide.

$75 million buys on average about nine wins on the free agent market. Stanton had over 7 WAR last season alone. Over the past three seasons and despite missing a fair amount of time, Stanton has been worth 14 WAR. I'm not saying it's impossible to get players who project to a combined WAR of over 14 over the next three seasons; I'm simply asking you which players those would be.

I'd love it if you could come up with such players. Then I'd love to see the Giants come up with some sort of way to acquire them.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher?page=1#ixzz52bxD035I

[klaiggeb]

Roger, if they hadn't added at least a CF with Stanton, they wouldn't have been able to compete with LA.

period.

Stanton could have easily been pitched around.

Who would protect him in the line up?

We didn't have an Ozuna capable of 30 HRs behind him.


No.

I think it was a ploy to get fans back to the ball park.

Did they want to win?

Yes, of course they did.

But not at any price, and after paying Stanton THAT much money, that's all they would have had for years.

boly

[rog]

Roger, if they hadn't added at least a CF with Stanton, they wouldn't have been able to compete with LA.

period.


Rog -- You're right on the money. Only if the Giants had a very up season and the Dodgers had a very down season would that have happened, even with Stanton. The gap between the Dodgers and Giants is too big to span the gulf. The Giants are trying to compete for a Wild Card position, which under the right circumstances could be reasonable.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher#ixzz52ftMtFjq

[sfgdood]

2, Panik, 3 Buster, 4 Stanton, 5 Crawford

you might not like that Boly but I would have loved it, even without a CF added. You couldn't pitch around both Buster and Stanton because if you do, Craw would drive in at least 120 runs.

[rog]

Stanton could have easily been pitched around.

Who would protect him in the line up?

We didn't have an Ozuna capable of 30 HRs behind him.


Rog -- First of all, the concept of protecting a hitter may be overrated. But let's ignore that and focus on the lineup behind Stanton. Giancarlo batted mostly second in the order. I'm guessing that is a shock to you, since he's certainly not the prototypical #2 hitter.

The guy who protected him directly was Christian Yelich, who like Buster Posey is a good hitter with little power. But he had two disadvantages compared to Buster. First, he was a mediocre hitter against southpaw pitching. All the opponents had to do in a key situation was walk Giancarlo and keep or bring in a lefty to pitch to Yelich. Buster does his best hitting against southpaws, so that strategy wouldn't work nearly as well. Meanwhile Stanton too did by far his better hitting when he faced southpaws. And was walked nearly twice as frequently as when he faced right-handed pitching.

Second, Buster is a better hitter than Yelich. If protection matters, Buster should be better for Stanton than Yelich was. Meanwhile, Yelich had by far his worst month during May, while for Stanton it was his third-best segment. Having poor protection immediately behind him didn't seem to affect Stanton much. Even though Yelich drove home Stanton only eight times.

So how about your point with Ozuna? He batted two spots behind Giancarlo. Surely that offered some protection. And no doubt it did. Still, Ozuna drove home Stanton only 18 times (or just over half as often as he drove home Yelich, who batted immediately ahead of Marcell). Marcel's protection wasn't huge either.

Batting Posey directly behind Stanton and Longoria behind Posey would likely have provided about as much protection as Yelich and Ozuna did.

Here's something to consider. Having a hitter -- even an excellent one such as Stanton -- walk, isn't the worst thing in the world. Only 16 of Stanton's 95 walks came with a runner on first base. It appears that when first base was open, he likely was pitched around a lot. But what did that do to Miami's ability to score runs?

Let's look at the situations of a single runner on second or runners on second and third. One runner or two runners are already in scoring position, so even a single may bring home the runner or runners. Last season Buster got a hit 32% of the time, compared to 28% of the time for Stanton or Yelich. Run expectation with Stanton on first and Posey up isn't all that far off the run expectation with Stanton himself up and one fewer runner on base.

If a team were to walk Stanton immediately ahead of Posey, they might actually hurt themselves more than help. At the very least, the difference isn't so huge that Posey doesn't offer protection.

If Christian Yelich can protect Stanton, Buster Posey certainly can.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher?page=1#ixzz52ftxJUlu

[rog]

You couldn't pitch around both Buster and Stanton because if you do, Craw would drive in at least 120 runs.

Rog -- Highly unlikely. The most runs Brandon has driven in is 84. You think he would increase that total by 44% simply by having Posey and Stanton batting ahead of him? The past three seasons Brandon has driven in 245 runs while having over 400 runners per season on base. Do you honestly think having Buster and Stanton batting ahead of him would have given him 175 more runners on base?

It is easy to make statements like the above and even have them sound credible. But when one takes an actual look at the situation, one sees how unlikely such a statement is to come true.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher?page=1#ixzz52g2pZVxM

[rog]

But not at any price, and after paying Stanton THAT much money, that's all they would have had for years.


Rog -- If the Giants had acquired Stanton, it is highly likely that over the years they would have traded one or more of their core players to help offset salary.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher?page=1#ixzz52g5H3iJq

[rog]

So Boly, who are the two or three players you would sign for $25 million per season over the next three years who are likely to have as much impact as Stanton would have?

If we're going to criticize something, we should have something better in mind, right?

Incidentally, you don't like Brandon Belt. I don't think he can be traded right now, and the Giants probably don't have a player ready to take his place. But maybe part of the Giants' plan to stay under the salary cap even with Stanton would have been to hope Brandon showed he was healthy, that Chris Shaw showed enough to be promoted, and that the Giants could trade away Brandon's salary.

But coming back to the similar amount of money idea, would you rather have Duggar and Stanton or Cain and Bruce (who likely would cost a little more than Duggar and Stanton)?

Stanton's opt out made him a bit of a gamble, but at $23 million per season if he stayed with the Giants for a full decade, I think the gamble would have been worth it. It took me a long time to come to that conclusion, but I believe that is my final answer. (And who says I don't change my mind!)

Over the next 10 years, I'm guessing the cost of a win is about $10 million. Let's make it less and say Stanton would need to be worth 25 wins to justify his contract. Last season alone he was worth over seven wins. He would naturally decline over the decade, but let's say he has three seasons of full productivity, four seasons of half productivity, and three seasons of no productivity.

The past three seasons Stanton has been worth 14 wins. At half productivity, he would be worth 10 wins over the next four seasons. That's 24 wins, and even with no wins at all over the final three seasons of his contract, he would have essentially earned the $230 million net the Giants would have had to pay him.

The projections are conservative -- both in terms of his expected productivity and of the cost of a win over the next decade -- and yet Stanton would have earned his keep in this scenario. The first three seasons would be Stanton's 28, 29 and 30-year-old seasons, when he should still be in his prime. The next four would be his 31, 32, 33 and 34-year-old seasons, when he should still be productive. He likely would have at least a little productivity in his 35, 36 and 37-year-old seasons, but I have very conservatively estimated that he would have no productivity at all those three seasons, that he would play at essentially the level of a Four A player.

The odds that Stanton would have earned his contract are pretty good. The big risk would be that early in his contract he would have a career-ending injury, but the odds of that happening are slim.

[rog]

After Bonds left we didn't have any super stars.


Rog -- Actually, they did. Bonds' final season was 2007, and in both 2008 and 2009 Tim Lincecum won the Cy Young Award. Tim certainly didn't go on to have a superstar career, but over his first four full seasons with the Giants, he was a superstar -- arguably the best pitcher in baseball over that time.

Tim's ERA over those four seasons was 2.81 in an average of 228 innings per season. He averaged 244 strikeouts per season, leading the league three times, and posted a 62-36 record. Six more seasons like those, and he would have been a Hall of Famer. Ten more seasons of good but not great pitching, and he likely would have made the Hall.

Speaking of superstars, I believe Buster Posey's career batting average is higher than all but two of the Hall of Fame catchers who played in the major leagues. That's not to say he's the third-best catcher of all time, but it certainly points toward his being a superstar.

Some believe Madison Bumgarner is a superstar. Both Buster and Madison were in the majors within two years of Barry's retirement.

Regarding Barry's retiring, his 1.045 OPS in his final season of 2007 is far ahead of any Giant since. I'm guessing we could count on two or three hands the number of players whose OPS has exceeded that level in a season since.

Obviously Bonds was enhanced, but just as obviously, he could still hit like a son of a gun when he retired.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher?page=1#ixzz52g9zk49r

[klaiggeb]

Did Lincecum play every day?

No.

Same with Bum.


Bonds did, and THAT'S the difference.


Did Posey fill seats like Bonds did.

Please. Roger, they aren't even in the same conversation.


Posey has his fans to be sure, but SUPERSTARS, like the ones I mentioned, pound the ball out of the park consistently.

THAT is what fans pay to see everyday.


Now every 5th day, when TIMMY TOOK THE MOUND, or When Bum takes the mound, heck yes! They come!

Every 5th day...

Doesn't fit the criterion, and by mentioning him, you're stretching and missing.


boly

[rog]

Did Lincecum play every day?

No.

Same with Bum.


Bonds did, and THAT'S the difference.


Did Posey fill seats like Bonds did.

Please. Roger, they aren't even in the same conversation.


Rog -- Doesn't that depend on the conversation? If we're talking about one of the top 5 or 10 players in history, Bonds belongs and the others clearly don't. But if we're talking playing at a Hall of Fame level, Buster is practically in and Madison's great postseason pitching has him in good position if he continues to pitch well. Lincecum didn't have the staying power, but for four fortunate, formidable seasons -- that's four -- he pitched at a Hall of Fame level.

You are correct that an everyday player can usually contribute more than a pitcher, but that certainly doesn't mean a pitcher can't make a big contribution. Think Lincecum was important in the 2010 postseason? Think Bumgarner was important in 2012 and 2014?

As for whether Buster is a superstar or not, I guess that would depend on one's definition of a superstar. If we're talking top 20 player ever level, he most certainly isn't. But if we're talking Hall of Fame level, he is. Only four major league catchers have hit above .300. Buster is one of the four. That's fairly elite company.

If we look at baseball's all-time top 20, Buster won't be there. If we look at its all-time 100, he might at least be in the conversation.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4226/tougher#ixzz52hOohWXA

[rog]

According to your definition, Boly, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christie Mathweson, Pete Alexander, Lefty Grove, Sandy Koufax, Tom Seaver, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez weren't superstars. Maybe all but the last four could sneak in, since they pitched at least a little more than every fifth day, but there is little question pitchers can be superstars.

Heck, I'd say even Mariano Rivera -- who pitched less than 1300 innings -- was a superstar. In fact, he may have been best at his position (closer) by more than any other player at any other position.

Regarding Buster, the perception is changing, but for a few years he was about as close to being the face of baseball as anyone. Probably only Mike Trout ahead of him.

I haven't researched this at all, but I'm guessing that by the time he retires, Buster will be considered among the top 10 or 20 Giants of all time. He's likely already their best catcher since the beginning of the 20th century.

When he retires, Buster will almost certainly rank higher among catchers than Juan Marichal does among pitchers. Not an entirely fair comparison, by any means, since there are so many more pitchers than catchers. But still worthy of note. Depending on the evaluator, he might rank about as high among catchers as Willie McCovey ranks among first basemen.

Buster is a very good defensive player at a defensive position, and his hitting has been world class for guys who wore the tools of ignorance.

I guess we're simply talking definition here, but I'm surprised Buster wouldn't be considered a superstar. I heard it said not too many years ago that Buster was at that time the best at his position of any player at that time.

I'm not sure how many catchers have led their league in hitting, but it can't be a very high number.
Even Mike Piazza never did it. In 2012 Buster did.

[rog]

Was there a time when Tim Lincecum brought in more fans than any other Giant? They used to call every fifth day "Timmy Day."

You mentioned that pitching every fifth day doesn't fit the criterion for a superstar. If not, you're the only person I've ever heard set that criterion. Clayton Kershaw isn't a superstar?

[Islandboagie]

It seems like you've created your own definition of "superstar", Boly.