With whom will he sign?

[rog]

J.T. Realmuto seems to be the hottest trade candidate on the market these days.  Many teams have been associated with him, perhaps none more than the aggressive Cincinnati Reds.

Do we think he will be traded this offseason, and if so, to whom?

One other question:  If we were going to trade one Giant and one Giant only this offseason, based on expected return and ability to be replaced which player would we pick?  What would we expect in return?

[sfgdood]

if we only trade one, this offseason and/or the team strategy will be a failure

[klaiggeb]

Brandon Belt or Evan Longoria

[rog]

if we only trade one, this offseason and/or the team strategy will be a failure


Rog -- I repeat: If we were going to trade one Giant and one Giant only this offseason, based on expected return and ability to be replaced which player would we pick? What would we expect in return?

In response to your non-answer, Randy, let me expand the question to agree more with your criterion: Which players would you trade right now? Which players would you trade by the trade deadline? Which players would you hope would rebound so you could trade them for more by a year from now?

And what would you expect in return?

[rog]

Brandon Belt or Evan Longoria


Rog -- The problem with each would be that their value is down, making it difficult to get much in return. I would hold off on Belt, but if I could simply get away from Longoria's salary and were emphasizing rebuilding, I'd trade him in a minute for a player to be named or $1 cash.

Belt should be able to rebuild value, while that could be tough for Evan. If the Giants can't get away from Evan now, I'd be hoping he got off to a strong start this season and would continue looking night and day for chances to shed him.

By the way, Evan's not a disaster by any means. A team could win it all with him at third base. He doesn't help much anymore, but he doesn't hurt you. It's just that he is highly likely to become increasingly dead wood over the next four or five years the Giants have to pay him.

[klaiggeb]

You asked the question, Roger, I answered.

Why do you feel the need to rip apart my answer?

[rog]

I wasn't ripping your answer, Boly. I was merely expanding on it with my own thoughts.

I think Brandon is worth holding onto because I believe he will rebound and rebuild his value. And the first base market is a buyers' market now. I believe you have stated that you agree with me here, although Randy thinks the Giants should simply dump both Brandon and Joe Panik, whereas you and I believe they have a good chance to rebuild their value.

I see Evan differently than either Brandon or Joe, since he has a longer contract and seems to me to be less likely to bounce back to rebuild his value. If Evan DOES bounce back and improve his value, I would jettison him before he could reveal more of his true self at this point of his career.

Through 2013, Evan played at close to a Hall of Fame level. Since then he's been little more than an average ballplayer.

[klaiggeb]

Sorry, Roger, you were.

Your thoughts on the ability to move Belt or Longoria are well, WELL documented on this board.

They didn't need to be said again, especially considering your question.

That question implied that responses were going to go in another direction.

Intended or not, your post made it sound like an "I told you so," moment.

[rog]

Sorry if it came across that way. You and I agree here; Randy sees it differently. Boagie just wants Jeff Samardzija gone!

[klaiggeb]

Put me in the "Send Jeffy ANYWHERE but here," boat, too.

[rog]

Really? If Jeff can get healthy again, there seems little reason he shouldn't be as good as in 2016 and 2017, and if he had stayed healthy last season, his peripherals of 2017 indicated he might have taken a big step forward.

But we don't know how healthy either Jeff or Johnny Cueto will be again.

[klaiggeb]

Um, roger, I don't think that he was 'that' good when he was healthy.

I don't know what pitcher you were watching, but it wasn't the Jeffy the rest of us were watching.

[Islandboagie]

I would like to think our rotation would aspire to be better than leading the league in losses. You and I agree, Boly, but it seems like everyone else forgets what it took to win those 3 championships.

[klaiggeb]

We do agree, boagie, and you're right; they HAVE forgotten!

[rog]

Um, roger, I don't think that he was 'that' good when he was healthy.

I don't know what pitcher you were watching, but it wasn't the Jeffy the rest of us were watching.


Rog -- I was watching the Jeff Samardzija who in 2016 and 2017 posted a combined league average ERA with a far better than average WHIP. The one who in 2017 led the NL in innings pitched and lowest walk rate. The one who outranked all NL pitchers except Clayton Kershaw in strikeout to walk ratio. And, yes, the one who ranked 16th-highest in home runs allowed, only partially because he led the NLin innings pitched.

What I saw was what most believe was an average NL starter over those two seasons and whom some thought might have a very nice 2018 season, based on his ultra-low walk rate and low WHIP in 2017. That of course fell apart when Jeff was injured pretty much all of last season and probably shouldn't have pitched at all.

In 2017, Jeff's 4.42 ERA was just above the league average of 4.34, but he might not have had the best of luck. His Fielding Indepent ERA's ranged from 3.60 to 3.63, which is the most consistent I can ever remember seeing between the three different estimates. In other words, it is highly likely that he pitched better in 2017 than his ERA indicated, which would have made him a BETTER than average pitcher that year, just as he was in 2016.

From 2012 through 2017 Jeff was a 13-win pitcher. That's not Madison Bumgarner, who was a 23-win pitcher over those half dozen years. It's not Johnny Cueto, who was a 26-win pitcher. What it was is a nice middle-of-the-rotation pitcher, a solid third starter. What it was was the equal of Rick Porcello, who was also worth 13 wins, five of them during his 2016 Cy Young season. Rick had by far the most spectacular season than Jeff, but over those half dozen years, Jeff was far more consistent.

Going into last season I might have rather had Jeff than Porcello. Probably not, but it would have been relatively close. Jeff's ERA the two previous seasons wasn't night and day higher than Rick's, and he was coming off a much better 2017 season. Unlike Jeff, Porcello was healthy last season, posted a 4.28 ERA, and because he got Red Sox run support, went 17-7.

Porcello has been a better pitcher than Jeff over their respective careers. But not by as much as one would expect from a former Cy Young Award winner.

When Porcello won the Cy, he was half a run better than Jeff. But Rick won the Cy Young while Jeff barely exceeded .500 primarily because Rick got two more full runs' better support than Jeff.

I believe when I watched Jeff, I saw him as he was -- a decent starter. You guys saw what you wanted to see. Because of his injury, in 2018 you guys got what you thought you saw in Jeff's first two seasons but didn't.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5050/sign#ixzz5ecuIS2oA

[rog]

I would like to think our rotation would aspire to be better than leading the league in losses. You and I agree, Boly, but it seems like everyone else forgets what it took to win those 3 championships.


Rog -- They forgot that the Giants were a good team that got hot at the right time? I think all the Giants rotation might have forgotten is that they aren't nearly as good as those three Giants rotations. Even Madison Bumgarner isn't as good anymore.

If we look at Madison from 2013 through 2016 -- including, obviously, the 2014 postseason -- he was extremely good. With all the postseason success he's had, I thought that would include the 2012 postseason as well, but he really wasn't very good that postseason. But the chinks in Madison's armor began to show in 2016, and coupled with two injuries, his past two seasons have arguably have been as lucky as they have been good.

Madison outpitched Jeff in 2016/2017, but the primary criticism of Jeff was his 9-15 won/loss record in 2017. The Giants simply couldn't hit that season, and Madison himself went only 4-9.

If you guys aren't seeing more or less a league average pitcher when Jeff has been healthy with the Giants, you're not seeing clearly.

I try to see Jeff as no better -- but also no worse -- than he is. I think you guys are a little biased against him.

I'm not talking about the 2018 Jeff Samardzija. That guy was horrible.

But the 2016/2017 guy was a league average pitcher who with better luck might have been more.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5050/sign?page=1#ixzz5ed6M3Qa2

[Islandboagie]

League average doesn't win Championships.

And Madison was bad in his starts against Cincinnati and St. Louis (as were a few of the Giants pitchers) but he pitched a gem against Detroit in the World Series. Do you remember why they wanted to start Bumgarner against Detroit and what happened after the St. Louis game to make them confident in his next start?

[rog]

League average doesn't win Championships.


Rog -- It can if league average has a good season and gets hot at the right time.

It can if everyone is league average and a couple of really good players are added to the mix.

As the Giants showed three times in five seasons, a team doesn't necessarily have to be great. Their formla was to have a good team, make the playoffs, and get hot at the right moment.

Brian Sabean's recipe was basically to make the playoffs. After that he believed it was a crap shoot.

Think about that for a moment. The Giants weren't trying to have the best team in baseball. They were simply trying to have a team good enough to make the playoffs. And three times in five seasons it worked spectacularly.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Brian Sabean's recipe was basically to make the playoffs. After that he believed it was a crap shoot.

Boagie- I doubt he still believes that. Some learned from those 3 championships, some did not.

[rog]

Jeff Samardzija of 2016 and 2017 was worth five wins combined.

Let's take a team of eight position players, five starters, and then say we need a couple of wins from the bench and five wins from the bullpen.

The eight positions and five starters equals 13 spots. Thirteen spots times Jeff's average 2.5 wins over those two seasons equals 32 wins. Add in the two wins from the bench and five wins from the bullpen, and that's 39 wins. A replacement team is expected to win 48 games. That 48 plus the 39 wins added by the 25-man roster is 87 wins. Eighty-seven wins may or may not make the playoffs, but it's competitive for a spot.

Last season the Rockies won the last playoff spot with 91 wins. They actually would have made it with 83 as it turned out. Eighty-seven wins is halfway between 91 and 83.

Put 13 Jeff Samardzija's in the "starting" spots on your team, plus add a good (not great) bench and bullpen, and you've got a contender. If they have down years, they won't make it. If they have really good years, they might even win their division.

Ideally an organization can put together a 50-win team. That translates to 98 wins in a season, which gives the team a good chance of making the playoffs even in a down season. The Giants have essentially been putting together 30- or 35-win teams, which means they might be competitive if the majority of things go right.

Last season things clearly didn't go so well. As things stand right now, a TON of things would need to go right this season in order for the Giants to make the playoffs. But this "winter acquisition" season isn't over yet.

I think the primary reason things have developed so slowly throughout the major leagues this offseason is that players -- especially Harper and Machado -- are having a hard time getting what they thought they would be able to command. Teams are getting smarter and realizing the huge amount of risk involved in these huge contracts, most of which haven't worked out well in the past, leading teams to ask "What has changed to make them likely to work out well now?"

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Put 13 Jeff Samardzija's in the "starting" spots on your team, plus add a good (not great) bench and bullpen, and you've got a contender.

Boagie- a contender for the worst team in baseball.

This argument is lame, Rog, and it makes no sense. First off Jeff Samardjiza would have an awful WAR as a position player. Secondly, an entire rotation than has more losses than wins would not be a contender, they would suck.

[rog]

Rog- Put 13 Jeff Samardzija's in the "starting" spots on your team, plus add a good (not great) bench and bullpen, and you've got a contender.

Boagie- a contender for the worst team in baseball.

This argument is lame, Rog, and it makes no sense. First off Jeff Samardjiza would have an awful WAR as a position player. Secondly, an entire rotation than has more losses than wins would not be a contender, they would suck.


Rog -- I understand what you're saying, Boagie, so let me help you understand the concepts I was speaking of.

When I said put 13 Samardzija's on your team, I meant 13 players who averaged 2 1/2 WAR as Jeff did over those two seasons. I meant to make that more clear when I took his 2.5 wins times the 13 spots and said that equaled 32 wins. You didn't truly think I meant to have 12 Jeff clones to fill the other 12 spots, did you?

Now, if those 13 players played at that level and the bench and bullpen were good (not great), the Giants WOULD have a fine chance at being a contender. That was the point of the discussion and calculations.

And if they had a good team at those other spots too, they would have scored more runs, and the Giants' pitchers likely would have cobbled together winning records.

See how it works now? Put players in your 13 "starting" positions that perform as well as Jeff did in 2016 and 2017 combined, add in a decent bench and a nice bullpen, and you've got a team with a nice shot at about 87 wins. That team won't be anywhere close to the worst team in baseball. In fact, their pitchers would very likely win more than they lost, which would equate rather closely to the team's won-loss record.

A team CAN be competitive with 13 players who perform like Samardzija, if they also have a decent bench and bullpen. In other words, Jeff isn't the problem. The problem was mostly the outfield and the fact that the Giants had no depth to take over when injuries hit, as they almost always do.

Today I saw an interview with Joe Maddon from earlier this winter. He said that of course the Cubs had a disappointing 2018. He essentially said they could blame that on injuries, but that there are always going to be injuries.

One strength we almost certainly will see from Farhan and which he as spoken to as being important is in improving the 40-man roster. We think in terms of a team having a 25-player depth, but in reality, teams usually use even MORE than 40 players during the course of a season, so the 40-man roster comes closer to representing a team's true depth.

We've seen more roster moves at the margins this winter than usual. The reason is that Farhan is trying to improve the roster, from #1 to #40. The only way he can improve #1 is if Buster Posey comes back healthy next season, something over which he has little control. But he has great control over the bottom of the roster, and that is what he has addressed most since taking over.

I suspect we'll see more moves over the next three weeks, and then we'll have a better idea how things are coming together for the 2019 season and beyond. We may also have a better idea of whether the Giants are likely to be buyers or sellers at the trade deadline. If they're sellers, that's when the rebuilding will escalate, as should be the case in early June with the MLB entry draft.

I realize nearly everyone is impatient (including me). Farhan himself realizes almost everyone is impatient, and has even spoken to that thought. But we should be happy Farhan is sticking with his plan, when it would be much easier for him to score points by making what might turn out to be imprudent moves.

I don't know how this offseason will turn out. You don't know know how it will turn out. Heck, even Farhan doesn't know how it will turn out, although he has a better idea than we, since he knows the plans all the way from A-1 through Z-10 (hyperbole).

Remember, Farhan has five years to prove himself, or he will be ignominiously kicked to the curb. Five years is a good time frame for a new GM entering a bad situation. It gives him time enough not to have to make imprudent decisions, but given that it took Houston seven years to rebuild, it doesn't allow him to lollygag either.

Farhan knew when he took the job that we would judge him prematurely. What he cares most about is our FINAL judgment. Right now for us, it's simply premature speculation -- and men and women both know that isn't good.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5050/sign#ixzz5edt4KhOg

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- I understand what you're saying, Boagie, so let me help you understand the concepts I was speaking of.

Boagie- I understood the concept, but your concept is one dimensional. Putting together a team ONLY using WAR doesn't necessarily make a team better. Having literally 13 Jeff Samardjizas on the team wouldn't make it better. Having 5 Jeff Samardjizas and 8 bad defenders with the same WAR as Samardjiza also wouldn't necessarily make it better either. You're the one who's shown us here why this concept is flawed by using Samardjiza as the example. If your starting rotation has a combined ERA of 4.42...that's NOT good. That will not allow you to be competitive.

[sfgdood]

Put 13 Jeff Samardzija's in the "starting" spots on your team, plus add a good (not great) bench and bullpen, and you've got a contender.

Dood - and this is the guy who believes he knows more about baseball than the rest of us? Wow!

[klaiggeb]

Roger, I've told you many times that you ARE my friend.

But that said, and with all due respect, your argument for Jeffy has convinced me that you will take the opposing view just to argue it, more often than not.

That's what I see.

As boagie said, "Your argument is lame, and makes not sense."

IMHO, you are defending a mediocre, at best, pitcher, simply to argue a point that can't be defended.

[rog]

I came across this initriguing article, written right before the 2014 World Series:


www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/10/how-the-giants-hacked-master-baseballs-postseason/381707/

[sfgdood]

another stats geek saying the Giants were lucky to win any world series

[Islandboagie]

I'm not sure what the intriguing part of this article is...

Bochy knows how to manage a bullpen? We knew this back when he put together the Padres bullpen prior to joining the Giants.

As for Sheehan saying you dont need depth to win in the post-season..that's true I guess, but that wasn't the situation for the Giants. In 2010 Bumgarner was the depth that came in after the season started. Posey wasn't the opening day catcher. Ross, Burrell, Uribe, Torres...all depth.

In 2012, having Lincecum as the extra starter on the roster helped significantly in the post season. As did having Petit as the long man 2 years later.

Sheehan makes broad generic statements about baseball which would be considered obvious by most, but when you get a little deeper into these statements made by people who clearly don't know much about the game, the truth fades. It's more one dimensional observations that do very little to enlighten me.

In other words, Sheehan should stick to the numbers, not pretend he understands what happens on the field.

[rog]

This is one of the things I found intriguing in the article:


"But in the postseason, playing against the best teams in the game, the Giants have won 30 of 41 games—good for a robust .732 percentage.

This discrepancy isn’t supposed to happen. Baseball conventional wisdom says that while the regular season’s 162 games are sufficient in determining the sport’s best teams, the playoffs are a crapshoot: a comparatively short tournament where anything can—and does—happen. The Giants, for instance, have benefited from wild pitches, throwing errors, and managerial blunders committed by their opponents. The team’s postseason success is so unlikely that Brian Sabean, the Giants’ general manager, affectionately referred to his players as 'cockroaches' after Thursday night’s pennant-clinching win over the Cardinals."


The Giants, of course, went on to win four of their next seven contests to win their third World Championship, riding the momentum of fabulous Game 7 relief pitching by Madison Bumgarner and the less touted effort of Jeremy Affeldt.

Brian was the one who said the postseason is a "craphoot." We here have long spoken that depth is far less important in the postseason, and teams have recently used their bullpens like there was no tomorrow, which of course at some point there isn't.

Teams CAN build for the postseason, but few have the luxury of doing so, since building a fine postseason team means virtually nothing if the team doesn't play well enough in the regular season to get into the "comparatively short tournament." Certainly the Giants didn't have that luxury in their three World Championship seasons. Combined, they played only .564 ball those three regular seasons, yet they played .708 ball against playoff competition.

How did they do so? The article mentions that "the Giants, for instance, have benefited from wild pitches, throwing errors, and managerial blunders committed by their opponents." It mentions Bruce Bochy's understanding of having the right matchup in high-leverage situations, how "he has the right guy out there at that time.”

All of that is true. I may be ironic then that when the Giants lost Game 4 of their best-of-five NLDS series with Cubs in 2016 to break their every-other-year streak, Bruce didn't open the ninth inning of a three-run game with is best reliever. The article praised Bochy's use of Jeremy Affeldt to relieve closer Santiago Casilla, even though that went against orthodoxy.

And one couldn't really fault Bruce for falling pray to "The Book" in the ninth inning in 2016. He opened with Derek Law, not closer Sergio Romo, since Romo has blown the save the day before (although the Giants went on to win), while Law had pitched quite well.

But as we've discussed before here, when given the choice between:

1} Your normal closer, who had thrown 35 pitches the previous day, pitched poorly and blown the save.

2) The guy who pitched well the previous day, throwing 32 pitches.

3) Your hottest pitcher, the one who had been virtually unhittable over the past 50 days, had pitched well the day before, and had thrown only 9 pitches.


Bruce chose Door #2. I believe Bruce's plan was to alternate pitchers as the situation dictated, and if Law could get the three outs, wonderful. The close should have been an easy one, and Bruce had Lopez, Romo, Smith and Hunter Strickland available to take over for Law if necessary.

In truth, that wasn't a bad plan. It might have left both Romo and Smith fresh for Game 5. But managing with proper urgency, Bochy should at least have brought in Smith after Kris Bryant reached base against Law to open the inning. Instead, Bruce used both Lopez and Romo before he brought in Smith.

Boagie makes the point that Smith didn't get his man when he was brought in. In fact, Will was about the opposite of Giants southpaw reliever Don Liddle in Game 1 of the 1954 World Series. Liddle is the pitcher who faced just one batter, resulting in Willie Mays' name-engendering catch of Vic Wertz fly ball to deep, deep center field. Liddle was immediately replaced by right-hander Marv Grissom, but didn't leave the mound before handing the ball to Grissom, dryly saying "Well, I got my man. Now you get yours."

Smith was the opposite. He got a medium-hit ground ball that unfortunately found a hole, bouncing up the middle for the hit that tied the game. Unlike the Wertz ball, it wasn't hit hard or far, but it bounced through. Then he made a fine play on a bunt to try to start an inning-ending double play, but wound up being the game loser when Brandon Crawford threw the relay away, allowing Jason Heyward to go to second base.

Bochy then made another move that didn't work out, bringing in right-hander Hunter Strickland to face Javier Baez, who singled to drive home Heyward with what proved to be the winning run. Prior to allowing the somewhat seeing-eye single to Contreras when facing his first batter, Smith had allowed just one hit to a right-handed batter in 47 days. In fact, prior to Contreras' bouncer, he had allowed only two hits total in the previous 47 days.

Did I mention that Smith had been almost unhittable?

Bochy wasn't overly limited by convention in that ninth inning, bringing in the lefty Smith to replace the righty Romo to pitch to the right-handed hitting Contreras.

Bruce certainly went against the convention of automatically bringing his closer to open the ninth inning, going instead with Law to face the right-handed hitting Bryant. Law had struck out Bryant swinging the day before, so not a bad idea.

But once Kris singled, wasn't it time to bring in Smith? Three of the next four hitters were left-handed or switch hitters. Smith had given up two hits in 47 days. Did Bruce not want to bring in if not his best pitcher, certainly his hottest?

Just for fun, let's see how Smith has fared against Anthony Rizzo, Ben Zobrist, Contreras and Heyward during his career. Those were the first six hitters in the inning.

Bryant -- 0 for 5 with 1 walk

Rizzo -- 4 for 13 with 3 walks

Zobrist -- 3 for 6 with a walk

Contreras -- 1 for 2

Heyward -- 3 for 12 with 2 walks

Baez -- 0 for 6 with 1 walk


Thats a combined 11 for 44 with 7 walks. Smith did a decent job of limiting the hits, but he walked too many. But overall he was rather dominant, as exhibited by his one homer allowed and especially his 22 strikeouts in those 44 at bats. Smith has struck out half the batters with at bats against him among that group.

Batter by batter it's a little more understandable. Law had struck out Bryant the day before. Among the half dozen hitters, Rizzo is the one who has hit Smith the best, including the one homer Smith has allowed (although it couldn't possibly have been even the tying run in that ninth inning). Zobrist has also hit Smith well.

But the end, Bruce didn't go with the hottest pitcher in the majors until three other Giants relievers had put the three tying runners on base. When one looks at the big picture of that game, did it make sense to have waited so long to bring in the hottest pitcher in baseball in such a critical event?

One could argue that Bruce was hoping to have Smith rested for Game 5 in case that one went down to the wire, but wasn't that a bit like Mike Matheny's not using Trevor Rosenthal against the Giants in the previous seres because The Book says you don't use your closer in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth?

As is usually the case when questioning a manager's strategy, arguments can be made in many directions, and no solution is truly perfect. But what is surprising to me is that aside from right here on this board, I don't recall anyone questioning why Smith wasn't brought in earlier in the inning.

And even here, the idea of bringing in baseball's hottest pitcher earlier is questioned. Boagie pointed out that Smith didn't even, in the words of Don Liddle, "get (his) man." But Bochy saw that at bat a little differently.

"Got the ground ball," Bochy said. "Just got a bad break there."

The Giants had put together a lot of even-year magic, but the breaks finally ran out.

[Islandboagie]

I've always maintained that Bochy's strategy in the post-season is to not show his cards too early. He tries to keep his best relievers off the field early on so the hitters dont get a good look at them and can have a good idea how to approach the at-bat against them later in the series. I think that was the strategy when he opened the 9th with Law. I dont know if that's a fact, but that's always been my opinion. It wasn't about resting someone, it was about hiding the best weapons.