The Giants have re-signed Anthony DeSclafani. It's a three-year deal for $36M. Sounds good to me! They are supposed to be close to a deal with Alex Wood, too. MLBTR says they are also interested in Alex Cobb. He's a 34-year old righty who came up with Tampa Bay and most recently pitched in Anaheim. He's thrown 174 games across ten seasons, all as a starter, racking up over 1000 IP with a 3.87 ERA (3.94 FIP).
The Giants also traded Jay Jackson to the Braves for cash or a PTBNL. They had to make room for some Rule V guys. And speaking of clearing space on the 40-man, Alex Dickerson was DFAd.
Buster won Comeback Player of the Year for the NL.
I think the Giants need to go all-in on Seiya Suzuki.
--M.C.
27 comments:
I am delighted that they're bringing back DeSclafani, & I think that Wood & Cobb sound like decent bets, too. If they sign those other two, that obviously leaves 'the big one' (Gausman or someone as good or better).
Regarding Seiya Suzuki, the Giants have never gotten into one of these posting auctions. I'm not sure that they're willing to start now. Most of them have resulted in over-pays, w/ one rather huge exception.
Dickerson may or may not be an ex-Giant, depending upon other Roster machinations. He sure sucked late in the Season this year, & isn't a youngster, either. So, cutting him loose seems appropriate. He'll make someone a fine platoon DH.
The money being talked about for Bryant doesn't seem ultra-crazy, so the Giants may hang around in that competition. They definitely need to re-vamp the OF, though.
I'm reading that Wood was signed for 2 years.
I like that they are being aggressive and getting deals done. I'd love to see Gausman back but he might take a while. I expect he'll get multiple offers.
Suzuki is two years younger than Hideki Matsui when he was posted. And Suzuki has a similar profile in NPB. Even "Matsui-Lite" would be a good ballplayer!
The Giants promoted Taira Uematsu, their long-time bullpen catcher, to a coaching position. He's from Japan. I'm guessing Suzuki will need a translator.
Just sayin' . . .
I was hoping for either another lefty starter to add to the mix, or Gausman and Stroman as opposed to Cobb, but the giants must see something in the 34 year old. It is interesting that the come back player of the year will not be coming back.
I thought that the Giants were involved in the auction for Ohtani, they just did not prevail. Anyway, I agree that they should go for Mr. Suzuki. For one, it would be nice to have one outfielder that they could plug into the line-up every day. Although they have a lot of great stories and they all seem like swell fellows, all their outfielders are used situationally. They've had success with that formula, but it means that they do not have any outfielder that fits the description of an everyday player. Also he would be a great addition. One reason, perhaps a big one, that the Giants (among other teams) are being aggressive is that it is only a few days away from Dec. 1 and the ugly prospect of a lockout rears its head. That means that no transactions will be completed until after there is an agreement, which may be well past the (intended) start of the season. Better to have something done than nothing.
Yup. Get 'em signed now before it all goes to shit!
Well, let's hope that doesn't happen. Most of the time the two sides take it to the brink and then get an agreement. I think that will happen this time, too.
Gausmann is apparently a Blue Jay on a 5 year $110 mil contract.
One wonders how the Giants will round out their rotation. I read about Wood "signing" like, a week ago but since then it still seems to be pending.
Looks like that's confirmed. Ah, well. It would have been nice to have him back but five years is a long time. I wonder if the Giants are reluctant to sign guys to lengthy deals.
I wonder if Johnny Cueto is worth a look. Not at $22 million, but at some figure? I expect any other big name free agents (I can think of Robbie Ray) to sign before Dec. 1, but second tier free agents, of which Cueto is surely one now, may have to wait.
In a world in which a 75-year old Pitcher gets $40M+ per year for 3 years, does it really make any sense to try to keep up? At his age, Gausman at $110M for 5 years is also a massive overpay. Ridiculous.
Apparently, the only alternative to ridiculous overpays is to pay the mid-range dudes, & just scrape the bargain basement. There seems to be no middle ground.
Baseball economics are nuts, as they are in most sports.
Scherzer's 37, Gausman 30 (almost 31). If Scherzer is worth $40 mil+/yr (debatable) then Gausman is probably worth $22/yr. That's in keeping with the context of each other's contracts. Heck, that's what Cueto's option was for a contract signed in 2016. I am guessing that the 5 yrs is what caused the Giants to shy away.
As an aside, though, the absolute value, or average yearly value, means nothing to me. I agree that in context of the average person, $20 or $40 million a year is ridiculous. But the more this happens, the less I can give a rationale to stating that any given figure is too much (or not enough). If $40 mil a year is too much, what is the correct amount? 20 mil? 2 mil? How do you decide? I can't mentally make those calculations.
The MLBPA (and I disagree with you Mark, I would be very, very surprised not to see a lockout) has mentioned that they want to bring up the salaries of younger players. Unimaginative ways to do this include earlier free agency, higher minimum MLB wages and less service time for arbitration. But if that's their goal, it either means less money for top free agents or a bigger piece of the overall pie (which has been getting bigger so the players have actually been losing proportionally). Since it is a given that the owners are going to fight to keep their bigger piece of the pie, it makes even more sense, lockout notwithstanding, that the top free agents want to sign asap.
I don't think earlier free agency and less service time are "unimaginative." That's exactly what needs to happen! In fact they should eliminate the entire apparatus (including the draft) and make all players free agents from the start.
If Gausman is worth 15 WAR over the next five years then the Jays are paying $7-8M per WAR. That's not a bad risk. Toronto is willing to bet that Gausman's peak (next 2-3 years) will more than compensate for any potential decline. They've got a good rotation assembled and a competitive window opening for them so they are willing to be aggressive.
I think the Giants would rather pay a higher annual rate for shorter duration.
And in the context of the Mets, Scherzer's contract is not ridiculous. They have a very wealthy new owner and a loyal fan base in the biggest baseball market in the world. The team has been a joke and the organization has been riddled with scandals. What better way to "make a splash" than to get a great pitcher? What difference does his "cost" make? None! They can afford it. They've also added Starling Marte, Eduardo Escobar, and Mark Canha. They NEED to do what they are doing!! That team needs dramatic steps to get back to where they want to be.
The Giants don't think they have to operate that way. (Thank goodness!) They think they can add talent incrementally and do a better job developing talent internally.
Corey Seager goes to Texas for TEN YEARS and $325M. He turns 28 in April. He's missed a lot of time due to injury but he's a fantastic player. He was an instant star upon reaching the bigs and really ought to have been paid a lot more! The Dodgers got a lot from him for very little money. Baseball economics is backwards.
Wander Franco got $182M for 11 years. Because he's only 21 and has just one season of service time he's nowhere near free agency. Hence the Rays get a "discount" because Franco has no negotiating leverage.
I'd like to see the money in baseball flow downward and outward. More players and more levels (esp. minors) get a piece of the pie.
Making all players free agents - that's imaginative. Tweaking the existing system a little bit - not so much. Nor would starting free agency or arbitration earlier do anything help most young players (except for a few) or eliminate the dis-equity between players, if anyone cares about that. Raising the minimum would at least help all the younger players. Why should Max Scherzer get more than 40 times as much as Gritty? Are his stats 40x as good? Does he put 40 butts in seats for every one that Gritty does? He probably sells more jerseys, but still. How much is a WAR worth from a business perspective, not a relative to other players perspective? Who knows, and since a team's books are pretty much closed, I guess we never will. Really, I would be happier not knowing anything about salaries, or even the names of GM's.
I think we were lucky getting to watch Buster his whole career, and Brandon and Brandon (so far) and Matt Cain, and if you want to add Tim Lincecum (mostly) or Barry (less so, but still mostly), that's fine. And Willie Mays (mostly) if you're old enough. I hope no one was too attached to Gausman - I think the days of being attached to players are over. What is the identity of the Giants? We are rooting for laundry.
We've always rooted for laundry.
Baseball, the way we knew it as kids, was a product of the reserve clause. Teams owned players. What seemed like player "loyalty" to the club was simply a consequence of their contracts.
Player movement is a good thing. It gives teams a chance to attract the talent they need to compete. Fans want their teams to win. Getting stars to come play for your team is exciting.
I have no beef with Gausman. I'm glad we got what we got. His pitching was a big reason the Giants won the NL West.
I'm glad they didn't give him a five-year deal. I think they might be a little gun-shy after the Samardzija and Cueto contracts.
Let's not forget the Zito Contract - 7 years & umpteen millions per year for two memorable Post-Season starts was not a great piece of business.
I think that the benchmark change in the last few weeks was the Wander Franco Contract. Giving a really young guy a big Contract during his prime years, instead of fucking him w/ 'team control', arbitration, & weak attempts to negotiate extensions is the right way to go about things. If that philosophy had prevailed earlier, Bumgarner would be happier, & would still be a Giant. So, I say sign Logan Webb to a reasonably long-term deal right now - don't 'f' w/ him, & short-change him for the next 5 or 6 years.
Both Belt and Crawford were signed to multi-year pacts when still under team control so I think there's some precedent. Teams like to avoid arbitration. It's a shitty process and leaves bad feelings on both sides. It's usually better to "buy out" the arb-years with a longer-term deal and if possible pick up a year or two of free agency.
Bumgarner signed a five-year deal after 2012 that covered 2013-2017 and had two option years. They had plenty of time to get another extension going. I think Bum's motorcycle ride soured things. They weren't as enthusiastic about him after that and his silly secret rodeo stuff was another negative. They did make him an offer--something like 4-years and $72M, but the D-Backs went 5-years, $85M. I can't fault the Giants for being sensible and deciding not to over-commit.
And for some reason no one wants to believe that Bum made up his own mind! It's pretty clear he wanted to leave and go to Arizona.
We do not know why Bumgarner really left. Part of baseball fandom and why fans are interested is not only the team and the uniform, but investing their emotions into at least a few players that they think are good and will be around for a few years. If all players are free agents from the start, one has to think that the rich teams will have an even bigger advantage than they do now. Yes a really good GM can put together a good team on a budget but that is the exception rather than the rule. With free agency from the start one may as well shut down the smaller markets right now. I like having a few players that continue to be the glue to a franchise over a decade or so. They are often already surrounded by rentals. Some baseball purists are against the big trade deadline trades where teams can essentially choose to dump the remainder of the season while other teams who were just mediocre end up in the playoff mix. If your schedule works out that you get to play a lot of the teams that dumped their good players during the last 2 months you end up with a big advantage. At least on paper, while if you end up with a schedule playing the teams that received the good players you end up with a disadvantage. That is part of the system, and we all expect it, but there clearly are fans and baseball insiders who do not like this system. Whatever system we end up with, will be liked by some and disliked by others. The key is, keeping the fan base. When teams win they garner fandom, at least temporarily. Losing teams garner disinterest. The giants who have a solid fan base win or lose, do see a drop off when they are losing. No matter what the outcome of negotiations I hope the season starts on time, and like most off seasons, I am just biding the time.
If you limit the number of players that a team can sign--they already limit the number of roster spots and the number of minor league franchises--then no one team can monopolize all the free agents. That's assuming there is enough talent to go around, and with an international market I think there will be.
The Yankees and Dodgers (and Mets and Red Sox, etc.) can always pay more money and lure players. In ANY system those franchises will have an advantage, just as they do now.
In a no-draft system there is no incentive for tanking as there is no reward for finishing in last place.
I see the positives of a no draft system and an all free agent system. I also see the negatives. I certainly would not want to have to put an investment group together to purchase a team under the proposed system. There are problems with todays system, but it seems as if radical surgery would be done, instead of carefully improving the system. It is not as if we would be going from a band-aid, like Obama care, and replacing it with a cheaper and more effective Medicare for all system. (and none of that Medicare Plus nonsense). How will this effect high school and college programs? How will this alter minor league systems if any?. Many need significant skill honing to get to the level of MLB. The speed and the consistency of the game advances at every level today. How will foreign players be selected? Pure free agency? Etc. Perhaps the Agents will have a bonanza. Do we have a reference where a new all free agent system is fully spelled out?
I'd really like to see all amateur players treated the same way and have the same freedoms to pursue their craft. I think it would be easy to limit the length of an amateur contract (three years? five?) so that teams would not "own" players and would be forced to develop them quickly. Once players had finished their first contract they would be free to re-sign with the organization or seek opportunities elsewhere.
It would be better for the game. There would be more movement of talent so that more teams could compete. The draft is an anachronism. It's a solution to a problem that no longer exists, especially now that the minor leagues are "capped" for each club.
There's no reason that athletes should be subject to a bizarre scheme that arbitrarily assigns their workplaces to them just so fans can feel good about their team. It's dehumanizing and un-American. And the spectacle of the draft on TV (especially the NFL and NBA drafts where "impact" players will help their teams immediately) is particularly revolting. Especially all the family hugging and weeping and "grateful" players who have to peddle their talent in such a demeaning way. It's Miss USA, a slave auction, and a cattle call all in one. I would love to see it all go away.
Interesting. I coached little league, Pony league, Babe Ruth Leagues etc. for many years. Even in those leagues we have tryouts, but then draft the players. No salary involved, but it is still basically a draft. How much money do leagues make from their TV contracts showing the draft. I have never watched it on TV for any sport. But I did go to the original Marlins draft of players from each team. I went live, was there and found it interesting at least. Not sure how folks would pedal their talent in a new system. If we are talking about freedom, what would stop a team from signing a hot talent at age 18 for 10 years. Or would we then have unamerican rules stopping those freedoms for the ownership? Baseball still has monopoly status. Perhaps they can take that away? If this happens what is to stop other leagues from popping up and having a system that goes into the beginnings of chaos. More freedoms for players, more freedoms to start new leagues. Finding use for old stadiums, etc. Need to sit in a room with a baseball think tank to see all the ramifications of a vastly changed system. There may be many positives, but I suspect there will be plenty of negative as well.
I think it all comes back to the monopoly. MLB IS baseball, there are no competitors. Perhaps if there were it would open up new opportunities.
I'm reminded of the old Hollywood studio system, where the actors and actresses were essentially owned by the studios and worked only for that outfit (if they worked at all). Eventually some stars got big enough to give the studio bosses the finger and do their own thing. They chose their own projects and set their own rules. The result was a greater variety of films with more opportunities for film-makers, writers, performers, etc. I don't think anyone would want to go back to 1950s Hollywood. That sort of control, a virtual monopoly on talent, limits creativity. This is America. People should be free, even if it means freedom to fail.
The HOllywood monopoly happened but it was not legislated into being. Baseball has the rare exception clause, even more so than some giant utilities. Perhaps if the baseball exception were to be removed, some of this could happen. Just not sure how having many more leagues etc. would fly with the majority of fandom. There is something to having a controlled MLB configuration. Maybe it would work, or perhaps if things were more open, and other countries had the economic prowess, we might start seeing many of America's (North, South and Central America) players going overseas if the price and or other factors suit them. It may seem sacrilegious but to the younger generation America does not necessarily hold its attraction anymore as the bastion of freedom and opportunity.
Post a Comment