Post by rog on Apr 3, 2018 14:27:52 GMT -5
The Giants are once again up against the salary cap, turning every salary dollar that can be saved into critical money. So, a question of salary strategy:
Should the Giants have taken a recommended strategy of acquiring a lesser-known reliever -- perhaps multiple relievers -- and given him the chance to close, hoping that great success as a set up man or even in a less-leveraged situation would translate into at least an adequate closer? That's essentially what they're doing right now with Hunter Strickland, and while it is far too early to draw conclusions, the early returns are positive. And while Hunter was successful in a set up role, there are other pitchers out there who have been more successful.
This is hindsight, of course, but if the Giants had taken that approach, in theory they would have had $10 or $15 million with which to sign some of the bargains this winter. Would that have been a viable strategy, or are closers closers by their nature, not because they are made into closers or simply given the opportunity?
Should the Giants have taken a recommended strategy of acquiring a lesser-known reliever -- perhaps multiple relievers -- and given him the chance to close, hoping that great success as a set up man or even in a less-leveraged situation would translate into at least an adequate closer? That's essentially what they're doing right now with Hunter Strickland, and while it is far too early to draw conclusions, the early returns are positive. And while Hunter was successful in a set up role, there are other pitchers out there who have been more successful.
This is hindsight, of course, but if the Giants had taken that approach, in theory they would have had $10 or $15 million with which to sign some of the bargains this winter. Would that have been a viable strategy, or are closers closers by their nature, not because they are made into closers or simply given the opportunity?
