If we are going to indeed trade away Smith, who is our projected closer for this season, why would we trade him for a player that is at the age to help us compete now? If we're giving up our closer, it would seem we're giving up on competing and looking more towards rebuilding. If we are looking more towards rebuilding, wouldn't someone that isn't turning 29 this season make more sense? If I were the GM and my goal was to rebuild, I'd want to get players that are close to Joey Bart's age.
Rog -- As you can probably tell from my laments about not using him to close out Game 4 of the 2016 NLDS, I really like Will. But he is an example of how difficult it is to be a GM today.
Back when we were kids, most of what a GM had to do was try to acquire at least equal talent that would better balance out the team. For instance, in the old days with a team like the Giants, a GM wouldn't necessarily have to get better talent if he could simply trade a pitcher of equal talent for an outfielder. If the talent were equal, what the Giants would give up in replacing the pitcher would be less than the easy gain they would make by acquiring an outfielder who was clearly better than the most replacement-level guys they have right now.
But in today's game, how long a team can control a player is key, as is its team salary relative to the salary cap.
For instance, there are two reasons we think of Madison Bumgarner as being worth far more than he is.
First, we think of him as he was in his peak, not as the lesser pitcher he has become over the past two or three years. It hasn't shown up in his ERA yet, but unless he makes corrections, his ERA could shoot up a run or more this season.
Why do I say that? Well, he isn't throwing the ball as hard, and he isn't putting as much spin on the ball. That results in more time for the batter to react to straighter pitches. That's a recipe for success -- but for the batter, not for Madison. In 2015, one out of every eight pitches Madison threw resulted in a swing and a miss. Last season only one out of 11 did. Only a little over one out of four balls hit were hit hard. Last season that was two out of five.
Batters making contact harder and more often isn't a recipe for success. Madison has adjusted, as Boly has suggested he should. Only one out of every three pitches he threws last season was a fastball, down from one out of every two in 2015. But he still got hit harder, and his walk rate nearly doubled since 2015.
On MLB Network's top 10 starters right now show last week, Madison not only didn't make the top 10 starters, he wasn't even among the six pitchers mentioned as "just missed." The MLB Network doesn't consider Madison to be among the game's top 16 starters right now, even though just a year ago they had him ranked #6, and on last week's show they chose him as the #3 starter over the past 10 years.
So Madison isn't worth as much because he isn't nearly as good a pitcher.
But he also isn't worth nearly as much because he's now under team control for only one more season, whereas after 2015 the Giants controlled him for four more years. Three years ago it wasn't hard to envision Madison as a four-win or five-win pitcher over each of those four seasons -- or a total of 16 to 20 wins. Now he's more likely to be a two or three-win pitcher in his one remaining season. Two or three remaining wins isn't worth quite the same as 16 to 20 wins, is it?
Three years ago Madison could have been expected to bring back perhaps half a dozen times as much in return as he could be expected to yield now.
The way baseball has handled free agency means that good young players are horribly underpaid, while good older players who have reached free agency are badly overpaid. The players that teams naturally value most are good young players who aren't making much money but are under team control for a long time.
For instance, think NL Rookie of the Year Ronald Acuna is worth quite a it in trade? The Braves have him under control at salaries between figurative peanuts to below-market rates for six years. Acuna is a clearly better player than Bumgarner now, he's is only 21 years old and likely still improving, and he can be controlled for six times as long as Madison while receiving less pay. Why would a team give up anything close for Madision to what they'd be willing to give up for Acuna?
One advantage the Giants have when it comes to trading Madison is that he's a proven performer in an area -- starting pitching -- where teams almost never have enough. Teams may be willing to overpay for such a commodity, since that could put them ove the top -- in the playoffs or, since he's been such a super postseason performer -- that much closer to a championship. And at $12 million on a sweetheart contract, he won't break the bank.
So Madison has value, just not nearly as much as one would think. Not only do teams have to worry about whether his decline will escalate, they are guaranteed his services for only one more season. And then even if they do re-sign him, he'll likely cost a fortune relative to his reasonably expected contribution.
Being a GM is much harder than it used to be. Making it even tougher to be a good GM, the other GM's are light years ahead of where they were as we entered the New Millenium. There just aren't many foolish GM's out there to take advantage of anymore.
I don't know if Farhan will become a good GM or not. I do know that he is highly regarded, appears to be a genius, and appears to be a guy who can communicate well with fellow GM's. The bottom line is, I'll take him.
That said, he hasn't proven much yet either. But the guy's been on board three months. How much had WE contributed after three months on the job? Give the guy a shot, and let's see what he can do. If he doesn't do a very good job, we almost certainly won't have him to kick around five years from now.
Read more:
sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5063/clue?page=1#ixzz5eql6v33J
