Bum and an extension?

[klaiggeb]

Here's a link to an interesting article.

www.mccoveychronicles.com/2019/8/21/20827152/sf-giants-imagining-madison-bumgarners-next-contract

[sfgdood]

Not likely that Bum will sign yet another team friendly deal. So we will end up with nothing

[sharksrog]

Not likely that Bum will sign yet another team friendly deal. So we will end up with nothing


Rog -- You're simply guessing, Randy. I would have agreed with you more if Madison hadn't spoken out so loudly about not being traded. You could well be right, but if you read what Madison said prior to the deadline, it should give you some doubt.

By the way, it also would have made more sense had you said something like, "Despite his comments prior to the deadline, it seems odd-against the Madison will sign yet another team-friendly deal with the Giants. And if he doesn't -- and if the Giants don't offer him what he perceives as something approaching market value -- they will end up not with nothing, but with only a draft choice -- and possibly not even that if he doesn't sign until after next year's draft."

Madison doesn't seem likely to be worth the money Kershaw signed for, although he certainly has been pitching better of late, and I frankly wasn't sure Clayton himself would be worth his new contract (which he has been thus far, although he still has over 70% left on the deal).

If Madison falls back to what he was early in the season, he might have a hard time getting more than three years. But if he continues for the next 40 days pitching as he has (in what, six more starts?), I see no reason he couldn't command four, five or even six years, depending on the dollars.

In a good situation for him but not for the Giants, possibly a team would give him something like a pro-rated 5/$135 after signing him after next year's draft and not having to give up a draft choice. That way they would wind up paying him something like $125 million for most of five seasons -- and possibly even five postseasons on top of that if he signs with the right team.

As Boly pointed out, the McCovey Chronicles article was a good one, as is usually the case. I certainly didn't agree with all of it, but overall I thought it was well-written and well-thought-out.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5547/bum-extension#ixzz5xNjKSdUB

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- You're simply guessing, Randy. I would have agreed with you more if Madison hadn't spoken out so loudly about not being traded. You could well be right, but if you read what Madison said prior to the deadline, it should give you some doubt.

Boagie- I think we've all kind of expected Madison to get his big pay day when his contract is up, but it seems like he's genuine in not letting money really be a factor in his own personal goals. Does he even have an agent?

[sharksrog]

Madison uses VC Sports Group as his agent. He has actually changed agencies twice, previously employing The Legacy Agency and Excel Sports Management (I believe those are two separate agencies, for a total of three overall.) But to this point security and possibly even a desire to stay with his original team have been primary over reaching maximum dollars. Madison has been paid only $57.5 million over his nine full Giants seasons, which pales in comparison to Tim Lincecum's $99 million in eight years and Matt Cain's $134 million in 11 full campaigns.

Randy posts that it's not likely that Madison will sign yet another team-friendly deal. He could be right, of course, but he gives us no reason for his opinion, which seems in context to have been presented to back up his rant against not trading Madison more so than in any way to advance our knowledge or get us to think in more depth about the subject. History shows that Madison hasn't given an extremely high priority to money YET. For Randy to make such a stark statement that Madison will change his approach, shouldn't he give us some reasons why that would be the case?

This is why I have stated that the game appears to have passed Randy by. His posts are painfully short on facts, analytis and logic, and long on bluster and unsupported opinion. It is my belief that Randy has it in him to be more factual, analytical and logical. I'll bet you he would tell us that when he was the sports editor of the San Jose City College Times, or whatever JC and paper it was, they didn't even print fake news. As a former journalist, he can tell us that newspapers should be based on facts. Editorials, which is essentially what most posts here are, are important sources of opinion, but they should be based on facts and should present the other side of the story, showing why the opinion expressed in the editorial post is more fact-based and logical than the other side of the story.

You can do it, Randy. I'll bet you've done it in the past. As a former journalist, you must see how flawed your posts have been. Just look back to your journalistic days and post with journalistic integrity as one would suspect you once wrote your editorials as sports editor.

[sharksrog]

So, based on what we know right now, how much should the Giants be willing to pay to re-sign Madison? Clayton Kershaw signed a sweetheart contract with the Dodgers for 3/$93 with bonuses based on number of starts and Cy Young voting. The McCovey Chronicles author suggested the Giants should be willing to go in that neighborhood for Madison.

As a side note, Madison is coming from having earned $57 million in his nine full seasons with the Giants. Kershaw had earned over $105 million in his previous three seasons alone when he signed his pact. Kershaw was 30 years old, had a 2.36 career ERA, and was coming off a season with a 2.73 ERA. Madison is 30 years old, has a 3.09 career ERA, and has posted a 3.72 ERA so far this season.

[Islandboagie]

It would be nice if you kept your posts focused on the topic, not on how much you despise Randy. This is why your routine here on the board rubs people the wrong way, Rog. Your posts frequently criticize others on a personal level. This is a Giants forum, not a complaint department. We get it, you don't like Randy. Many people have not liked you, but nobody I know of regularly posted about all the reasons they don't like you. They mainly chose to ignore you, or agree to disagree, because that's what adults do. You should try it sometime.

[sharksrog]

I don't despite Randy, Boagie. I simply see a waste of what I think must be a fine mind.

Randy has told us how he was the sports editor of his college paper. He has said that he probably knows more about journalism than any of us here. Whereas as a board we have historically had a hard time differentiating between reporting and editorials, while our posts here include some reporting, they're basically editorials. We're mostly here to present our opinions, although some posters such as Mordy also do a nice job of reporting on things like the Giants minor leagues.

I have been frustrated by Randy's hit and run approach to posting (hitting us with a brief opinion, but not bothering to back it up with any substance), and it suddenly dawned on me that he more than most should know from his editorials as sports editor the importance of backing up the opinions one expresses. The idea is to factually and logically present a case for one's argument, at the same time providing reasons why the opposing point of view is lacking. I was trying to show Randy that he has the training to be an EXCELLENT poster here. As a former sports editor, he should be better trained than most of the rest of us.

[sharksrog]

But back to extending Madison: What are our thoughts? One of the best things Farhan has done in his tenure is free up some money for the future.

What would we think of dealing Longoria and signing Anthony Rendon or Josh Donaldson? How about Gerrit Cole or Zack Wheeler instead of Madison? (As a side note, Cole missed a start, but then came back yesterday to give up just two hits and one walk in seven shutout innings, striking out a dozen. Cole has struck out 13.1 batters per nine innings this season, which would rank fourth to only Randy Johnson, Chris Sale and Pedro Martinez.)

The free agent market is going to get tougher in future seasons. More and more, teams are wrapping up their top young players, as the Giants did with Madison Bumgarner and which we have been discussing here for over a decade. That means fewer top free agents available in the future for teams to add that "final piece." Which means the law of supply and demand could make those top free agents even more expensive. As an example, Bryce Harper probably isn't one of the top 20 players in the game, yet last winter he signed for $330 million.

Two winters ago we said that while in our hearts we kept hoping each day that the news would come out that Giancarlo Stanton had been traded to the Giants, our heads said he was too injury prone for his $325 million contract. This season Giancarlo has played only nine games and hit just one home run. A similar health risk, Harper has stayed healthy this season, but he's also hit just .254 (a figure he has now failed to exceed in three of his past four seasons), and been worth just 2.7 Wins Above Replacement. At an extrapolated three and a half wins, Harper will have justified his contract this season, but what about the next dozen years, many if not most of which will likely be declining seasons as he approaches the age of 38 at the end of his contract? And remember, we estimated it would have taken far in excess of $350 million (maybe $390 mill?) for the Giants to sign him, given factors such as taxes and the Giants' very tough park for left-handed hitters.

It is far too early to know how signing Bryce would have worked out for the Giants, but let's take a look based solely on this season. As it stands, there are 35 players in MLB who have as many homers as Bryce this season. (As pointed out above, Bryce frequently doesn't hit for average, so it is his ability to draw walks and hit home runs that make him valuable. He's also not a great fielder or base runner.) Should there be 35 players with as many homers as the top-paid player in the game? But what about if he had been playing for the Giants? Bryce has 11 homers on the road, the same as Mike Yastrzemski has in 82 fewer at bats. What if Bryce were playing in San Francisco and had only the same 6 homers at home as Mike has? He would have 17 homers on the season, and there would be 111 other players with as many homers as Bryce.

I think the decisions to go after Stanton and Harper were ownership decisions. I think they were poor decisions that the Giants fortunately didn't wind up stuck with.

Because they are so frequently injured, signing pitchers to big contracts is PARTICULARLY risky. But keep in mind that Cole is the brother-in-law of Brandon Crawford, so he has indirect ties to the Giants, who are the team that Brandon (and likely Cole's wife) rooted for growing up. And remember that the Giants' park, so devastating to lefty power hitters not named Bonds, is favorable for pitchers, making it easier for the Giants to attract pitchers, such as they did with Cueto, Samardzija and Melancon.

Rendon and Donaldson are power hitters, but they are right-handed hitters who would likely be affected by the park less than Harper would have been. Both third sackers have had some injury issues, as has been the case with Stanton and Harper. Cole has been relatively healthy, although he missed a third of the season in 2016, and as mentioned above, he JUST missed a start in the past week.

The good news is it appears the Giants have good leadership for today's game in the front office. Farhan has fared well thus far, in part because he has reinforced the Giants' scouting at both the professional and amateur levels.

So the question here is, what would we do if we were Farhan -- beginning with the question of how much to offer Madison?