How to Retool and Rebuild at the Same Time

[rog]

The Giants need to rebuild, and they'd like to retool.  If they're both smart and careful, there's a way they can do each:

.  First, trade older players to get younger, better talent, even if that talent isn't ready yet.  That helps the rebuilding part.

.  Second, strategically pick up free agents and non-tenders to fill in the holes.  Focus on shorter contracts and younger players.  Some of the players in each category aren't so much bad players as players who were in difficult situations or who are trying to use free agency to increase they salary.  There will be bargains out there if one is shrewd.  The non-tenders in particular can be used to get younger while adding talent.


The bottom line here is to add non-tender and free agent talent that doesn't require the relinquishment of players.  Trade older, more expensive players for younger pieces.  If carefully executed, a team can get better while also getting younger.  By adding players on short-term contracts, the team can add the talent without cripling itself with big and long future obligations.

The key is properly evaluating talent and looking at both playability and price to determine value.  When the value is good, it's time to strike.  If the price or term goes too high, look toward Plan B, C, D and Z.  Conversely, if you can't get value FOR a player in trade, hold onto him, hoping that situations change and the timing will be better later.

It's a chess game, guys.  Chess off the field and well-played baseball on it.

[sfgdood]

That is not chess...it's walking a tight rope. Trying to do both makes it very easy to do each in a mediocre way. There must be a priority on rebuilding.

[rog]

I think we all believe -- contrary to the philosophy of the Giants themselves -- that the Giants needs to rebuild. I also think that if they decide to retool, we would like to see rebuilding be as much of that process as possible. And, yeah, if the Giants decide to retool, we believe they'll be going in the wrong direction and accomplishing a reload while also providing as much rebuilding as possible will indeed mean walking a tightrope.

We've seen Karl Wallenda do it in the huge winds of Candlestick on May, 1977, so it can be done. Wallenda was 72 at the time, and even without the wind it would have been an amazing accomplishment (although one he had done many, many times before in other venues. Among his "tricks" were getting up on one leg and throwing a ball toward the pitcher's mound, and standing on his head.

Wallenda would fall to his death less than a year later, 38 days after the TV movie "The Great Wallendas," starring Lloyd Bridges as Wallenda himself, was aired.

I think the biggest point here is that regardless of whether the Giants rebulid, reload or take some type of a hybrid approach, they'll be walking the tight rope between age, a lack of talent to play, a lack of talent to trade, a poor minor league system, and a salary structure strangled by large, long contracts to aging players.

The risk is far less than it was to Karl Wallenda, but the task will figuratively require some of the same skills.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- I think we all believe -- contrary to the philosophy of the Giants themselves -- that the Giants needs to rebuild.

Boagie- Not necessarily. I think they should continue the path they appear to be on now. Which is not making stupid signings and not trading away youth for past their prime experience, which is what I've been saying all along.

The rebuild should come from the bottom, which is already happening. Last year's draft was very good for the rebuild, and so will this year's.

Randy keeps talking about a rebuild, but the only players he seems eager to get rid of are Belt, Panik and Longoria. I don't disagree with that, but that's not going to create a situation of acquiring rebuilding type prospects. The rebuild would happen if we traded away Crawford, Bumgarner and Posey. What Randy wants to do is dump dead weight contracts, and get younger players who aren't injury prone in return.

I don't necessarily want to dump Belt or Panik because I don't think we'll get enough in return. But if we could get something of value back I'd jump on it.

The two contracts I want gone are Samardjiza's and Melancon's. Actually, I don't even care about the contracts, I just want them gone. But if we can get someone to eat a part of that contract I would do it immediately. But I'd release them if I have to. We are never going to be a good team with those two blowing leads left and right.

[sfgdood]

You haven't really paid close attention Boagie. I have stated several times that nobody on the roster should be untouchable. The 3 you singled out, of course, are the 3 I want gone ASAP. The others I can wait for. My point on this thread is no move should be made in an effort to improve the team in 2019. That shouldn't be the goal.

[rog]

You and I would like a full rebuild, Randy. Boagie is suggesting something that makes sense in its context and is more likely to be the way the Giants actually go.

I think the decision whether to keep or trade players in a retool or hybrid approach should be based primarily on value, but also on replacement opportunities. You would like to simply get rid of Belt and Panik, while Boagie and I think it makes sense for the Giants to keep them to rebuild their value. In addition, the Giants don't have a qualified first baseman or second baseman to take their places.

Boagie feels about Samardzija and Melancon much as you feel about Panik and Belt -- just get rid of them! I believe Samardzija and Melancon too might rebuild their value, and that they have very little trade value now. Give them a chance to rebuild their value and release them only as a last resort. Remember, either of them could become the next Pat Burrell.

In Melancon's case, when the Giants non-tendered Hunter Strickland, the Giants may have signaled their intent to give him a chance to rebuild his trade value. If the Giants were simply going to dump Mark, they might have wanted to keep Hunter around, if only to reduce the supply or relievers available.

My sense is that the Giants may have given Panik and Dyson a take-it-or-leave-it offer, letting them know if the player didn't take the offer, he would be non-tendered. I believe each player signed for less than his arbitration projection.

My trade philosophy remains unchanged: I would trade any player on the roster if I could get enough in return. For players who have a decent chance of rebuilding their value -- which might include Madison Bumgarner or conceivably Buster Posey and Brandon Crawford, both of whom have full no-trade contracts -- I would expect a premium over their present value.

I would trade Evan Longoria rather inexpensively, since I believe his contract is a true anchor. Looking back at last winter, the Andrew McCutchen trade wasn't a bad deal, since the Giants committed to him for only one year and could get at least decent value at the trade deadline. The deal that hurt the Giants was the Longoria trade. They committed to Evan for five or six years at a time when he had been mostly in decline since 2013.

If the Giants trade some of their veterans, they will likely have to either give up players they might otherwise like to keep, or accept some "dead" salary from the team with whom they trade. If the "dead" salary is for a lesser time commitment -- as was the case for instance with Denard Span and Longoria -- that might be doable.

Teams with "dead" salaries have three choices or combinations:

. Eat a lot of the salary so they can get prospects or players approaching fair value.

. Absorb bad contracts from the trading team to equalize out the situation.

. Trade the salary (or as much as can be traded), and expect little in return.


The situation is, as Randy pointed out, a bit of a tighrope walk.

[Islandboagie]

I'm not totally against a full rebuild, but it would upset the casual Giants fans to the point of not watching games or buying merchandise anymore. That's not good for business, which isn't good financially, which will affect the payroll in the future, and in turn will affect our chances of again seeing the same success we saw between 2010 and 2014.

[rog]

I have heard multiple times that the Giants' fans are sophisticated enough to stomach a rebuild and keep coming to the games, but I think you hit the nail on the head in that the CASUAL fan might not attend, and those dollars are important too. In fact, they are the marginal dollars which would be considered first when decisions are made.

I haven't heard one way or the other, but I'm hoping for improvements in scouting, analytics and player development, and I think we'll see them. Those dollars don't count against the salary cap, so they are dollar-for-dollar expenditures, not salary costs that might be taxed.

I appreciated your comments on not rebuilding, Boagie. I feel you have brought up some good points.

One thing I don't think we should count on is having a great draft in 2019. The Giants have the #10 pick, and I'm confident in the new regime, so an excellent draft is possible. But there are so many variables that go into the draft that it's tough to predict a good one until years later.

I'm not sure the Giants can make the enhancements I've recommended in time for it to have a big impact on next year's draft.

One thing I was perhaps a bit disappointed to learn today is that this year's top draft prospect at the moment is a catcher who is considered to be the best catcher available in the draft for years. Naturally that can easily change, and the Giants neither need nor can get high enough in that scenario to draft this guy. But what bothered me is it makes me wonder if Joey Bart is just a little bit less of a prospect than we're giving him credit for. Hopefully they simply mean that this next catcher has off-the-charts ability and that it isn't a reflection on Joey.

That likely is the case. But it did get me to thinking. Even though I was surprised he wasn't promoted again, Joey plateaued at Salem-Keizer after an unbelievable start. His final numbers were very good, but a little disappointing given the start he got off to.

Randy mentioned that he would be disappointed if Joey were promoted only to Augusta as the author of the article I gave projecting the August roster indicated. The author naturally was trying to make the GreenJackets' roster look as exciting as possible.

I was expecting Joey to start the season at San Jose, but the Giants have thus far slow-played him, so he might begin at Augusta and received a mid-season promotion to San Jose. I would think Joey would advance at least as far as AA in 2019, but due to contract issues, he isn't likely to become a "permanent" Giant before late April -- or possibly even a month or two later than that.

Where Joey begins the 2019 season is far less important than where he winds up -- and for how long he plays at AA or above.

One positive that Randy will like is that the Giants are now seemingly a big player on the international market. It's just that most of the international prospects now are much younger, more the age of high school players being drafted in the U.S. That of course means it will take longer for them to make the major leagues and have a chance to make a difference.

I have to say that while I believe in taking the best available prospect in the draft, I hope that player is a position player. Given their park, it seems like the Giants will almost always need bats. Hopefully they'll solve their outfield problem before this year's draftees are likely to make the majors, but the Giants aren't far away from needing new infielders.

[Islandboagie]

Whether they pick pitchers or hitters in the draft, young prospect pitchers can always be traded for hitters, so I think going heavy with pitchers in the draft is a solid strategy.

[rog]

I understand your point Boagie, and to the extent that the Giants are better at developing pitchers than at developing position players I agree with you. But I would like to see the Giants improve their development department to the point where it is as able to develop position players as to develop pitchers. And I think that in recent years the Giants have developed position players (Matt Duffy and Joe Panik) better than in the past.

Trading for hitters isn't a horrible solution, but for a contending team, it often means trading younger prospects for older, more proven players, which works again a team's desire to stay young. And in order to make an effective trade, one has to find a trading partner who appreciates the Giants' players or prospects being dealt.

In addition, it is much more difficult to attract free agent position players than free agent pitchers in order to put icing on the cake.

Again, I'd take the best available prospect. But when in doubt, I'd go with the bat. If the Giants don't develop bats and have a hard time getting them as free agents due to the park, that leaves ONLY trades, and I think it is better to keep as many of the talent channels open as possible.