Imagining Bumgarner as a Free Agent

[rog]

Here is more chatting at MLB Trade Rumors:


Q:  If Bumgarner was a FA, what expected contract does he command?


A at 3:40:  3/60 with opt-out after year 1?


A at 3:41:  We predicted 4/82 for Keuchel. I think MadBum would prioritize the chance to return to the market after what he'd expect to be a bounceback year.  It's a tough one to predict, for sure. I'd just guess he'd basically be looking for a one-year deal, but would have enough leverage to secure a sort of fallback guarantee. Think the first Cespedes FA deal with the Mets.


How much would we pay for Madison if he were a free agent this winter?  This gives us some insight into his trade value, especially if he were willing to take a one year contract only, feeling he could rebuild his value with a bounce back season.

Let's say for instance that we'd be willing to pay him $22 million for 2019.  His actual contract is for $12 million.  That means we'd be willing to trade him for $10 million of value.  That might be a player making a million in 2019 who we feel is worth $11 million before becoming a free agent a year from now, or perhaps a major league ready player we think would be worth a total of $10 million over the six years we could control him.  Or maybe a higher-risk lower minor league player with a ceiling that could be worth more than the $10 million if he makes it big.

This is a simplified version of how the GM of another team might look at how much he would be willing to give up for Madison right now in trade with the Giants.  When one looks at a potential trade this way, one can see how much less Madison is worth in trade now compared to two years ago when the team acquiring him would be receiving three years or Madison's services rather than just one, and back when future performance expectations were higher than they are now.

I estimated the Giants could have received four times as much back then, and that may have been a little light.

[rog]

Q: How much will it cost to sign Kikuchi?

A: Seems to be a robust and broad market. But no indication that teams see him as an impact starter. I still like our original prediction of a longer/lighter deal, though I may be creeping up a bit on expectations. Maybe 6/54 or something?



I myself would sign Kikuchi for 6/$54 million in a heartbeat, although I freely admit I don't know that much about him and haven't analyzed him in the least. I like though that he's just 27 and has had significant success. That's why I would be willing to give him such a long contract. For his part, he'd be a free agent again at age 33, where if he proves he can pitch well in the U.S., he would still be in line for a very nice contract.

The Giants would still need outfielders, but I would be happy if they were able to sign Kikuchi and Anibal Sanchez for a start. Kikuchi could help now and for the future, and Sanchez might have a very good year while costing little and perhaps even being available on a one-year pact. (I would definitely go two if necessary.)

I'm struggling with free agent outfielders. I'm still lukewarm on Avisail Garcia. The outfielders would mostly have to come from trades. But whom to trade? As Boly mentioned, one of the lefty relievers would have value, especially Smith. Madison has value, and perhaps Kikuchi and Sanchez would make trading him more palatable.

If the Giants packaged Madison and Smith, maybe they could get back a really strong outfield prospect or two. I would hate to give up Smith, but I have a lot more confidence in the bullpen right now than in the thin and shallow outfield.

[klaiggeb]

If I'm running the circus, I spend my money on ONE bat for the outfield.

The other acquisitions I make come through trades of either the guys in the pen, or other small pieces we have.

I contend we MUST have a RF who can hit for power AND play defense at least as good as Pence did in his prime.

Was Brantley that guy?

I would argue he was NOT.

First, he's a left fielder, 2nd, he's not really a power guy.

Would he have fit?

Maybe.

According to Strat, he's an average, at best, LF.

But I'm guessing he plays left because he lacks the arm to play RF.

[rog]

I wasn't a fan of signing Michael for two primary reasons:

. While power isn't the only part of his game, and his power is good but not great, it would be downgraded at AT&T.

. He's had big-time problems staying healthy.


Filling the outfield is a difficult task, since the Giants may need as many as three of them, and very likely at least two. Drew Ferguson might make a decent platoon partner for Steven Duggar (who hit southpaws pretty well in his time with the Giants, but hasn't hit them well over his minor league career -- and who, frankly, just may not hit well and have to rely on his glove and base running). I still get excited over how well Mac Williamson played prior to his beaning. I'm more excited by him than any of the other outfielders on the roster, since he could possibly be a difference maker.

Would you find a way to sign Bryce Harper? That would take up pretty much the remaining salary budget, and still leave the Giants as many as two outfielders short. Dale Murphy believes in signing him!

I think the Giants will need to trade for at least one outfielder. I would trade Madison for one or two, although it is also possible waiting to see how Madison and the Giants perform prior to the trade deadline might be prudent. It would take just one team to be desperate to have Madison at the deadline to increase what the Giants can get for him. If we look at how trades are now analyzed, we see why his value may not be nearly as high as we would expect.

[rog]

I'm disappointed the Giants missed out on Anibal Sanchez, who is signing for 2/$19 with the Nationals. I'm expecting a good season from Sanchez, although at 35, he would be a play to win more now without making a long-term commitment. He signed with the Nationals for two years with a one-year option. A third of his salary is deferred.

[Islandboagie]

You have stated numerous times that you think the Giants should rebuild, if that's the case, why would you want to spend 18 million over two seasons on a 35 year old pitcher?

I think it's a bad idea whether we try to rebuild or compete. He's not what we need. If we want to compete we need a frontline starter in his prime to pitch out of the #2 spot. If we rebuild, signing a 35 year old pitcher is a waste.

I think the best option for us now is to make moves for inexpensive younger players who haven't blossomed that teams have given up on and just see what happens. That's kind of what Zaidi has done so far. I haven't agreed with all the selections, but I agree with the strategy.

Getting Sanchez would show a lack of having any strategy to succeed now or in the future.

[rog]

You have stated numerous times that you think the Giants should rebuild, if that's the case, why would you want to spend 18 million over two seasons on a 35 year old pitcher?

I think it's a bad idea whether we try to rebuild or compete. He's not what we need. If we want to compete we need a frontline starter in his prime to pitch out of the #2 spot. If we rebuild, signing a 35 year old pitcher is a waste.


Rog -- In a full rebuild, I wouldn't sign any free agents at all, or at least limit them to short-term contracts. In a hybrid rebuild, I think Santana would be fine because of the short term of his pact -- and the fact that last season he may have rebuilt his career.

You're thinking of a #2 starter in his prime, but where would that come from? Dallas Keuchel is a little past his prime, and he's expected to get something like 4/$80. If the Giants were going to trade for a #2 with say three years on his contract, the Giants would likely have to give up something like Joey Bart and a kicker. They could trade less for a lame duck #2, but that may be what they already have in Madison Bumgarner.

The Giants are in a world of hurt. They might get lucky, pick up a couple of outfielders and have most of their players have near-career years. But most all of us would rebuild, and most of the rest of the world -- but perhaps not ownership -- seems to agree with us.

In a hybrid situation, I recommended Sanchez because last season he pitched BETTER than a #2. Regression should be expected (especially at his age), but the regression would likely wind up between a #2 and a #4. At 2/$19, having him successfully fill a #2 role would be a huge bargain.

And bargains are what the Giants need. I'm not saying go on the cheap. If Bryce Harper is going to be a seven win player over the next decade, pay him his $400 million and be done with it. That still leaves an outfield spot o.r two open, but the Giants could surely come up with SOMETHING. And Harper might indeed be a seven win player. Or he might be less. He's young and extremely talented, but he's been injury-prone and inconsistent. Particularly in the second half of his contract, that could become a large problem.

But in a hybrid situation, get bang for the buck. And I think Santana has a good chance of providing that. He changed his repertoire, perhaps concidentally or ironically in conjunction with what a guy at Fan Graphs had suggested. With Bumgarner, Sanchez, Rodriguez, Suarez and Samardzija, the Giants might have had a rotation.

Perhaps the Giants are saving their money for Kikuchi. At 27, he fits into a hybrid approach, and at something like the suggested 6/$54, I'd be all over him.

I'd love to see the Giants get a #2, but the irony is that they may already have him in Bumgarner, and they might have gotten him in Sanchez. I believe Kikuchi is viewed as a #3, but he might have upside. He's in the early part of his prime.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4979/imagining-bumgarner-free-agent#ixzz5aM6Tqb5I

[rog]

It long has been and continues to be about getting value for the salary buck. With the Giants not all that far off the salary cap, I'd be putting money into scouting, analytics and development, which strongly appears to be the direction they're taking.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- In a hybrid situation, I recommended Sanchez because last season he pitched BETTER than a #2.

Boagie- 7-6 with innings pitched south of the 150 mark isn't better than what I would expect from a good #2.

I expect 15+ wins with 200+ innings. We dont have the luxury of hoping for late inning heroics or calling on a shut down bullpen, and a strong #2 shouldn't rely on that either. Sanchez's nerdy sabermetric stats might look good on paper, but it doesn't necessarily win on the field. As a #4 or #5, sure.

[rog]

7-6 with innings pitched south of the 150 mark isn't better than what I would expect from a good #2.

I expect 15+ wins with 200+ innings.


Rog -- You might expect that from a #2 pitcher, but you aren't likely to get it. Only eight pitchers this past season won 15 or more games in 200 or more innings. Among the hundreds who didn't reach that level were the two Cy Young Award winners.

Almost all the pitcher who meet your criteria are not just #1's, but aces.

I'm not saying that Santana WILL pitch at a #2 level in 2019, but he was pretty darn good last season. He missed a quarter of the season and still got in an acceptable 137 innings. Had Anibal been healthy all season, he likely would have wound up with about the same number of innings as the AL Cy Young Award winner.

In addition to your criteria being inordinately high in combination, I think you also forgot about ERA. I know you didn't like Jeff Samardzija's performance in 2017, but had he received Kirk Rueter-like support that season, he likely would have reached your definition of a #2.

I thought Jeff's 2017 performance was rather encouraging for the future, but I didn't think he pitched at the level of a #2 starter. While there is some luck involved in ERA, I don't think it should be left out of the criteria for a #2 starter.

I'm guessing here, but I'm guessing the average #2 starter pitched about 160 innings, won a dozen games and posted a 3.90 ERA. Just for fun, let's look at Sanchez's team, the Braves. I would say that either Julio Tehran or Sean Newcombe were the Braves' #2. Tehran went 9-9 with a 3.94 ERA in 176 innings. Newcombe went 12-9 with a 3.90 ERA in 164 frames.

One could make a decent argument that had Sanchez stayed healthy enough to pitch all season, he would have been their #2. His ERA was 2.83, and he would have gone about 10-8 in a little over 180 innings.

I'm disappointed the Giants were unable to sign Sanchez, although I think my #1 choice (and I just don't have enough info to be sure) is Kikuchi. Avisail Garcia is probably my #1 outfield choice, but I'm quite lukewarm on him. He could be pretty good -- or he could be a clear disappointment. And that's assuming he stays healthy.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4979/imagining-bumgarner-free-agent#ixzz5aNlkef4I

[Islandboagie]

Ok, I may have set my expectations a little too high in today's game, or have I?

Let's look at the 2012 Giants staff. Both Cain and Bumgarner were at or above 15w-200inn. Zito was 15-184.1, and Vogey was 14-189.2. They might be a tick below, but they're all in the same area as what I expect. But that's why the Giants were good, their entire rotation was durable and could convert starts to wins.

7-6 with 130 some odd innings doesn't do it for me, and we shouldn't allow it to be the desired result. That's only expecting mediocre results at best.

I refuse to believe that 6 years later those same type of expectations we had in 2012 for a pitching staff is unrealistic. We need to fight this revolution of half-assery. We shouldn't accept a hitter who hits for power but strikes out 200 times. We shouldn't accept a hitter who can run well but cant get on base. And we shouldn't accept a pitcher who has an ERA under 3 but cant pitch at least 150 innings. The good teams aren't accepting it, the bad teams are. The biggest change the Giants need to make in 2019 is going back to demanding perfection and hard work from their players. That was the message during our championship years, it needs to be the message now.

I also demand more critical thinking from you, Rog. Rather than 100 reasons why you think someone is wrong, why dont you use your sabermetric nerdiness and cherry pick stats to encourage points of view made by others. This could be a good excersize for you. Do a complete 180 and see if you can allow your stat skewing to be in their favor.

[rog]

Let's look at the 2012 Giants staff. Both Cain and Bumgarner were at or above 15w-200inn. Zito was 15-184.1, and Vogey was 14-189.2. They might be a tick below, but they're all in the same area as what I expect. But that's why the Giants were good, their entire rotation was durable and could convert starts to wins.


Rog -- The 2012 Giants rotation was quite good and even deeper. Zito was aided by his 4.76 runs of support, but it was arguably his best season as a Giant, and it helped overcome the implosion of Tim Lincecum -- who pitched the innings, but didn't pitch them at all well. As a result, the 2012 Giants team was likely the strongest of the three World Championship teams. They swept a Tigers team that also had fine depth, including Max Scherzer and Anibal Sanchez.

I'm just guessing here, but I think the average number of innings pitched by starting pitchers is probably down about 15% since 2012.

Those performances were still highly impressive. One could argue that the Giants weren't too far off having THREE #1 starters -- and that was after effectively losing their ace.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4979/imagining-bumgarner-free-agent#ixzz5aX4IArYR

[rog]

I hope you realize, Boagie, that I believe it would be a sacrilege to use the numbers improperly. That would be even worse than not using them at all.

Anytime you want to challenge the stats I use, please do so. I learn even more when someone challenges me than when they don't.

[rog]

My 15% estimated innings decrease from starting pitchers was probably too high. That would be nearly a reduction from six inning to five, and I don't think the reduction has been that much. Probably about half what I estimated.

Remember though that there were only eight pitchers in 2018 that met your qualifications for a #2 starter.