Rumor has it the Giants will sign veteran infielder Tommy La Stella. The word is a three-year deal which is an eternity in Farhan Land. I can see the appeal of La Stella as he is a lefty hitter and can play both second and third. He started out in a utility role and as a pinch-hitter with the Braves and the Cubs (2014-2018) and then moved to the Angels in 2019 and split time with them and the A's last year. His career slash line is .274/.349/.423 (104 OPS+) but has produced over an .800 OPS the last two seasons. His calling card is avoiding the strikeout. I'm sure they love his positional flexibility.
--M.C.
28 comments:
Is he essentially an older but cheaper Joe Panik?
No, he has ML time at 3B and 1B as well as 2B. And has more pop than Panik. He's a lefty Wilmer Flores, perhaps. Or an ML-proven version of Jason Vosler.
I think we will see La Stella at 3B against a lot of RH pitching as his numbers are better than Longoria's. Solano will also get a break against some RH pitchers and La Stella can step in there as well.
Kapler loves to have platoons, almost like in hockey when they bring in a whole new set of guys for the next period. We will see lots of in-game switcheroos just like last season. La Stella has a lot of experience as a role player and pinch-hitter. It's an improvement to the roster. Not a spectacular one, but an improvement nonetheless.
FanGraphs gives its take on La Stella. It's short and worth a read.
I had read that the Giants had discussions with free agent Joc Pederson, but he apparently will be a Cub this year.
MLBTR has linked them to Eddie Rosario as well, he supposedly is going to Cleveland. And did you see Nolan Arenado is going to St Louis? That's a relief! He kills the Giants.
MLBTR also linked the Giants to Jackie Bradley, Jr.
I think they should focus on the pitching from here on out. JBJ might be a nice fit, but another starter would probably be better.
I couldn’t agree more, about the pitching. Getting Bradley would mean getting rid of one of the outfielders, given that if they carry 13 pitchers they have room for 13 position players, 2 of whom are catchers. With La Stella, they have a half-dozen infielders, not including Dubon. That leaves room for 5 OF, three of whom—Yaz, Dickerson, and Dubon—they presumably will keep. So adding JBJ means that Ruf or Slater would go. Ruf last year, in 100 PA, gave us a wRC+ of 140 for a 0.7 fWAR, and Slater in 104 PA, a wRC+ of 151 for 1.2 fWAR. Multiply the WAR by 6 for each, to simulate a full-time player’s seasonal PA for the sake of comparison, and you get terrific production in 2020 from each of those guys. I know that 2020 stats do not entail 2021 continuing production for anyone, Ruf, Slater, or Bradley. But one needs some points of comparison to decide whether losing one of the others to get JBJ is worth it.
An alternative would be to trade Solano—he’s the only IF with trade value, I think—and platoon La Stella and Dubon at 2nd. But that seems dubious to me in terms of getting the best from everyone. All this suggests that FZ et al. should focus on getting another starter for the rotation, such as Paxton, and move with caution as to another LH bat in the OF.
I've wondered about Paxton, too. I think he's a Boras client, and it seems like those guys sign late. The Giants don't have any Boras clients as far as I know.
I'd like to see another arm, esp. a lefty, that will get some starts and eat some innings. I've no doubt there will be a flurry of minor-league deals right before Spring Training, but I'd like to see then add another proven major league pitcher. I still wonder why they cut Tyler Anderson loose, I thought he might be useful.
Cutting Tyler Anderson loose seemed puzzling to me too. We always assume that management knows things that the fans do not, but that is not always true.
Giants sign a minors deal with RHP James Sherfy that includes a spring invite. Spent three seasons in Arizona, 43 G, all in relief, 45-1/3 IP. DBacks cut him loose last year after a drop in performance and injury problems. Has big K numbers. 29 years old, from SoCal, pitched for the Oregon Ducks.
Giants sign another RH reliever, this time Zack Littel. He's 25 and spent the last three seasons in Minnesota, 43 G, 63-2/3 IP. It's a minors deal with an invite to camp.
La Stella gets a back-loaded 3-yr deal at $2M for this year, then $5.25M next year, and finally $11.5M for 2023.
OF Luis Alexander Basabe was DFA'd to make room on the 40-man. I was intrigued by him and was hoping to see more. Maybe he'll come back on a minors deal.
Giants supposedly out on the JBJ sweepstakes. FZ indicated if they were going to pursue a player like that they would likely try via a trade and they'd prefer someone younger and with team control/options remaining. Sounds like the modern way to run a baseball team.
The "middle class" of baseball free agents are watching their values plummet and their opportunities dwindle. It is not a sustainable business model, getting paid for your declining years. If players were free agents up front they could get paid immediately for their worth. They would not have to wait, getting underpaid relative to their performance (and the market), for the team control/arbitration years to expire.
I think the most important change that should be made in the CBA is the time to free agency. Teams need to develop and promote their players. If they can't make it in the organization then they should be set free to pursue other opportunities. It would make a bigger talent pool available and improve competition. With the minors contracting there's no reason hold back youngsters as there's no place to stash them.
Giants have apparently traded Shaun Anderson to the Twins for LaMonte Wade Jr. I don't know anything about him except he is an outfielder and from the remarks, will compete for a fifth spot(?). I am surprised the have up on Anderson, but I guess they thought his potential wasn't enough.
I do not know what the giants brass see in Wade, or why we need another meh, outfielder in place of a pitcher who may have been figuring things out. Unless they know something significant that the fans don't know, I do not see the big upside of this move. My understanding is that the guy has a good eye at the plate, but yet has still never shown much as a hitter. He supposedly can play all 3 outfield positions. Until otherwise convinced, I think Minnesota got the better end of this deal. I hope the giants prove me wrong.
I like Anderson and he's only 25 but they have a surplus of righty relievers. He started 16 G in 2019 but had no starts last year so I think they see him as a bullpen guy going forward. They just signed to RH relievers so I'm not surprised they moved someone.
Wade is 27 and has some ML time but is pre-arb and has an option left. FZ is crazy about BB/K ratio and apparently Wade has shown good skills there. He played college ball at Maryland.
I suspect that's the end for Steven Duggar, or at least Wade will force a decision about him.
Jaylin Davis came from the Twins in a trade, too.
With Moronta coming back it may have been hard to Anderson to crack the Opening Day roster. They still have starter Tyler Beede waiting in the wings and reliever John Brebbia as well, both recovering from surgery.
They added Matt Wisler earlier, too.
Dodgers get Trevor Bauer. 3 yrs, $102M. He gets $40M this year, $45M next year. I think they call that "front-loaded."
Yikes. I did not see that coming. First Mookie, now this. Although I suspect Betts is much more likely to deliver on his deal, that is, he will be a consistent long-term asset. Bauer is a "shoot the moon" move. His contract has opt-outs after year one and two.
I think the Giants want to get to the same place as LA, that is, where they can drop the big bucks on free agents when they really want somebody. But that's not going to happen until the books are clear of the legacy deals and the system gets a further infusion of young/new talent. It's frustrating to watch SD and LA move forward with bold moves but I think the Giants are playing it smart. Improve incrementally and stay flexible and be patient is not very exciting but probably the best path in the short term.
This year's Giants probably won't be flashy but I'll bet they will be fun and interesting. If you like matchups and varied lineups this team is for you. If you like the same eight guys out there everyday you'll probably be happier with 1970s Strat-O-Matic! Seriously, the 2021 Giants won't be boring.
The Giants and LA's collective salaries for 2021 are $95 million apart, not counting the penalty tax for being over the competitive balance limit. That's kind of surreal to think about, that great a difference between teams that are, in theory, competitors. Next year, the Giants will not be paying 5 of their 6 players who get paid in excess of $10,000,000, unless they exercise an option on Posey. Of course, LA loses a couple salaries, too, like Kershaw's and Jansen's. But I think that if Kershaw performs as well as Bauer, he might want a similar salary to stay with the team (I would).
Yes, barring injuries the dodgers look hard to catch. Would help to have some lefty starters when playing the bums. Seems as if the Giants have a predilection for collecting second basemen. But we seem to be signing guys who are no better than what we have, and then trading what we have. Seems as if the entire motives for the moves have to do with getting a little extra-time of team control. I guess if you are pinching pennies it makes sense. But the giants theoretically have one of the richest owners. I guess by saving money on players he has more money to spend on QAnon conspiracy theorist politicians. If these players with a bit more team control are marginally better, it may make some sense. Is there an effect on the clubhouse of making too many moves of minor significance? We can say they are all professionals and that is part of the game, but they are also human beings.
Bauer is talented, and a notorious perfectionist, but his career performance has a lot of variation. Kershaw has strung together a decade of Top 10 seasons. He's the best pitcher of his generation, and certainly the greatest pitcher against the SF Giants EVER. You could make an argument that he's the greatest PLAYER in Dodger history! Bauer has nothing like that track record despite a couple of outstanding seasons. Last year he was overpowering but the abbreviated schedule and the fact that he pitched against a lot of bad teams raises some uncertainty. LA can afford that uncertainty. They just won the World Series and figure to have a real shot again so $100M is a fair gamble for another ring.
If the Giants spent $100M on Bauer they'd expect him to lead the team and compete for the CYA. He won't have to do that in LA. He's just another arm. Walker Buehler has at least as good a chance of being the ace down there as either Kershaw or Bauer.
The absurd price tag would be an issue in a smaller market but in LA Bauer is just another celebrity athlete. Fans there are used to overpaying for their stars! Yankees fans don't give a shit about payroll, they just want their team to win the Series and I think that's also true in LA. A certain amount of glamour and flash is expected, too, in LaLa Land, and throwing money around in big gobs is consistent with that.
So they renewed 7 inning double headers, and starting extra-innings with a runner on second base. Did not like that last year, and like it even less now for a proposed full season. Those double headers did not work out well for the giants.
I like the 7-inning doubleheader rule. Since they can't seem to do anything about pace-of-play I'm not surprised they kept the extra-inning rule, and I can live with that, too. Regular games take too long! The players and the league really need to figure out how to speed up the games. This is from a lifelong baseball fan--the games are too goddamn slow!
A game in which people are paid to perform should be easy to tweak. If you want more hits, more balls in play, fewer strikeouts, more stolen bases, less time between pitches, etc. etc. then create financial incentives for them. Pay the players and the teams for the outcomes you want to see. Maybe instead of W-L record as a tiebreaker how about the team with the most hits? Or fewest strikeouts? Give teams a bonus if the games finish in under three hours.
Once again, I feel compelled to point out that corrupting the basic nature of the game because "games take too long" is a shitty solution to a problem that not everyone even agrees is a problem. MLB doesn't think games are too long, they think the pace of play is too slow. Different. If you want to speed up the pace, GET BATTERS TO STOP FUCKING AROUND BY STEPPING OUT OF THE BATTERS BOX ALL THE DAMN TIME. Barry Bonds used to intimidate pitchers by NOT doing this - he would hang in there, signaling, "I'M READY MOTHERFUCKER, ARE YOU?" Now we have players stepping out to adjust their gloves every damn at bat regardless of whether they swung or watched a low and outside ball. Call a strike on those fuckers. Make them stay in the box unless you have a brush-back or foul ball or past ball or steal. Then you have an excuse to enforce a rule about pitchers taking too long between pitches which they don't do now.
Baseball has never been measured in "time." That is one of the beauties of the sport. It grew out of an era when a baseball game was a pleasant way to spend an afternoon. It measures its passing in outs. (Well, not so much anymore, with 7 inning games.) Why conspire to rob people of a chance to relax and observe? Because we structure our our entire damn society around ADHD youth? Because social media? Because there is such a thing as television? If there is one thing the world, and most especially this country, desperately need is something that allows contemplation, less noise (too late for that too, been to a ball game lately?), talking to your neighbor and less rushing to the next, equally hyper, over-hyped, high-fructose, timed, loud pseudo-event.
That would require giving umpires that authority and that's not going to happen. I've felt for years that would be the best solution, to call a strike on a delaying batter, or call a ball (or balk) on a delaying pitcher. But no one in MLB or MLBPA wants umpires to have that kind of discretionary power.
So, it comes down to a pitch clock or--much better in my mind--incentives to increase pace of play. Pace of play and game length ARE the same issue! If you speed up at-bats, you shorten the game length. Nine inning games used to take 2 to 2-1/2 hours. Now they are 3+ hours and most of that extra time is waiting for a pitch. (Pitchers are just as guilty as batters.) It's not a desirable thing, no matter how much anyone wants to relax in the afternoon. Most games are at night, anyway, players prefer the consistent lighting and owners like the increased attendance.
I don't see this as some kind of sociological referendum. When 9-inning games took two hours no one complained they were going too fast or that they lacked time for contemplation. We've added an extra hour to the games without gaining anything. There is no more action, just more waiting. I think that can be fixed painlessly.
The shortened double-header and the extra-inning rule are COVID responses, obviously. The players and MLB agreed to them readily even when they can't agree on much else.
I'm serious about financial incentives to increase the desired outcomes. Want more stolen bases? Pay the players and teams a bonus for SB attempts. Want more bunts? Same thing.
The players are highly skilled and they will deliver the outcomes the fans want to see. I really thought the shifting would force teams to deploy more off-field and all-field hitters. That hasn't happened. The homer is still king and players will swing for the fences because that's the best outcome as far as wins go.
The pitchers will still go for strikeouts because that's the best outcome for them. The Greg Maddux-type guy who threw 90 pitches for nine innings and got it done in under two hours in not what teams are investing in. They want high heat and spin, spin, spin. It's not an accident that Trevor Bauer is the highest paid pitcher--right behind him is Gerrit Cole, Mr. Four-Seamer. Team defense is not as important if the batters don't put the ball in play.
I am not upset by the pace of the game or by the length of the game. Just watched a 4 hour superbowl game, that was more boring than almost any baseball game I saw last season. There is more time between plays in football than there is between pitches in baseball. Longer games may mean more opportunities for commercials. If industry is not going to pay for baseball spots on TV, then I suspect they will find a way for the fans to pay. I do not see the pace of the game as a problem. The pace of baseball is one of the things I love about the game. The 7 inning games and extra-inning with a guy starting on second, may mean less innings played for players with the same salary, but it is less innings seen by me, while paying the same price for my baseball viewing package. Maybe they should start a new league for the ADHD types and call is speed baseball, kind of like a speed chess league. For those of us who enjoyed Mays running out to center field in the Polo Grounds, the pace of the game is just fine.
The pace of play was faster in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, even into the 90s. Game times were shorter. There were more balls in play and fewer strikeouts. There was less time between pitches. There were fewer pitching changes. And yet the game still had a leisurely pace!
Today's game takes more time and has less action. I don't think our choice is between ADHD and boredom.
The Super Bowl was indeed a mess. But one-sided affairs, unless you are a rabid fan, aren't interesting anyway. I usually don't care who wins any sporting event not involving the Giants, I just want to see a compelling contest. The Chiefs looked like they'd showed up late and forgot their homework.
The Super Bowl of course is not really a game, it's a big TV extravaganza. So it was folly of me to try to watch "the game" as that's not really the point of the event. I mean the NFL can huff-and-puff about anointing a champion and all that but most people could give a shit about the outcome. Well, other than the pools, the point spread, and the prop bets, most watchers are more interested in the commercials and the guacamole.
Post a Comment