Why being cheap could be a good thing

Published by on November 28, 2011 | 31 Responses

The Giants are in the middle of a wild offseason. For the most part, prices are high, and teams are paying top dollar for non-elite talent. We’ve seen Mark Ellis, Jamey Carroll, Bruce Chen, and Rod Barajas all get deals that, at least in my opinion, are a little shocking. At the moment, baseball seems flush with cash and in good health. Combine that with the rising free agent prices and things are looking a tad bit dicey for buyers.

I’m of the opinion that the team is doing well financially and fans like to win, I like to win, and I think winning sells tickets. So spending a little more for talent seems prudent. However, it’s entirely possible that, as Larry Baer has stated, the team will peruse a utility infielder before calling it quits. And no matter how hard Giants’ brass will try and sell you, I don’t think any of us will buy the “getting Buster Posey and Freddy Sanchez back is just like getting two new free agents!*” line of thought. That statement from Larry might be the most damning thing said this offseason. Well, that and the attempted Willie Bloomquist deal. Both are depressing in their unique, terrible, way.

* Seriously. This video has a good chance of making your brain angry. 

But cheaping out is appealing in a I-just-child-proofed-my-chainsaw-collection sort of way. The reason that I won’t be crying in my sleep if the Giants don’t go big in free agent market is simple: Brian Sabean scares me when he’s paying for talent.

The Huff deal, which I originally called “fair”, wasn’t a terrible deal at the time, but looking back, you wonder if the Giants were too tied to the ‘must keep the group together’ mindset after the World Series. Mark DeRosa was injured for the bulk of his time with the team. Maybe not squarely Sabean’s fault, but it’s amazing our medical squad ever cleared the deal. Pre-Huff and DeRosa you get Aaron Rowand and Dave Roberts (and that’s after failing on Juan Pierre, Gary Matthews Jr., and maybe Carlos Lee). Consider this: the Giants will be paying their last big FA signing $12M to not play for the team in 2012. The days of Ray Durham and Ellis Burks (correctly pointed out to me in the comments that Burks originally came to the Giants in a trade. But, he was granted FA and returned on a two year deal) seem further away each passing day.

That’s not to say that Sabean doesn’t have positives; I like his ability to build a bullpen and fix team issues on the fly, as we saw in 2010. But his recent track record in the department of paying for positional talent on the market is a bad one. One can only hope that he can regain his mojo. But, as it stands right now, the Giants are probably a 80-82 win team. If Huff shows something, Belt gets better, and if Posey can play in 120-130 games, the team could eclipse that 80-82 win mark. Oh, and of course, if the pitching stays healthy and dominant.

So, the Giants are close as-is. The team needs a shortstop and more depth in the outfield would be nice, but the Giants are close right now to being a good team. I’d love to see the team get pushed firmly from “chance to be good” to “chance to be really good” but if the price is another Aaron Rowand contract of doom, then no thanks. The Giants ought not spend just to spend and I can tell you that I’ll probably sleep better at night if Brian Sabean can’t wheel it big all over the free agent market.

Article written by

31 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
@mvpbeisblog
@mvpbeisblog

Hey good post, i liked it. I think that we need -again- to acquire power in the lineup and a SS, id like to see our Giants go for an elite starter and -personally- not to re-sign Beltran.

JMAD925
JMAD925

your right, once again they need to acuire a power hitter.............. LIKE EVERYONE HAS BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS!! They have Beltran right there,and they need to pull the trigger. You say they shouldn't sign him, but who is your alternative? Puljos? Fielder? Yhea right. They are gonna be way to pricey. So you have to look at the next tier of players and there you will find Mr. Beltran. He will provide the middle of the order bat they need surrounded by panda and posey. I think he actually is suited to hit in that ballpark. He's got power to LC and RC, and will be rounding bases as the ball is rolling into the gaps and death valley ( the 421 ft. marker in RC ) in the spacious outfield they have there......So once again i ask you....You say u want a power hitter, but not Beltran, who do you suggest they go after?

P-dizzle
P-dizzle

I think the 80-82 win mark is conservative. Assuming Sandoval plays at a high level for 155 games (35 more than he played in) all else the same, the giants win 88 games. All else the same includes vogelsong's production, sanchez getting hurt and missing time, Zero production from SS, C, and CF etc. Even if Posey only plays at 85% of his 2010 production, he is still a HUGE improvement at catcher. Even if Cabrera play closer to his career averages vs his 2011 play, that's another upgrade offensively in CF. If crawford plays all year and hits 220, he will match the offensive output of last year's SS platoon with much better defense and at 1st, Huff and maybe a Belt takeover will give at least the same level of production (low). While 80-82 wins wouldn't shock me, a healthy team that arrives in shape (Panda and company) could easily produce 90+ wins without factoring in a mid - season trade to fill a hole.

Ryan
Ryan

For the Giants, Cheap probably means keeping payroll <130 million. Which is done with additional signing of a middle infielder like Cedeno or Theriot or Jack Wilson and bringing back Cody Ross for a RH OF bat. Being 'cheap' would certainly be better than paying 12-15 for Beltran to play in 80 or so games.

Guest
Guest

Sabes, You listening to this guy? Sounds pretty good to me. Please don't block the young guys (Schierholtz, Belt, or Crawford) with veteran zombies that mgmt feels have to be played because of their salary. But thanks again for that WS that you brought us. Let's work on another.

J-Mad
J-Mad

They already said they are not bringing back ross, and to tell you the truth im not that dissapointed. He's way too inconsistant and streaky for me. I know that streakyness propelled the giants in the post season, but his whole career he's been hot and most of the time cold. Yes he has some pop which the giants need, but use the money you were gonna give him, and put it toward beltran.

Voice of Reason
Voice of Reason

So according to your math the Giants add Posey and Melky to a 86 win team that turns into a 82 win team?

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

Yes. I blame Melky, mostly. But you're also counting on: Sandoval having another amazing season, Vogelsong replicating his 2011, Posey playing at a high level again, the pitching staying healthy, etc. I don't think calling this team an "80-82" win team right now is a slight in any way.

Voice of Reason
Voice of Reason

For a team that played Cody Ross in centerfield for 22 games in center and had Torres (Career .244 and .268 in his "career year" ) and Rowand hit a combined .212 last year you seem to be pretty stedfast on Melky being a downgrade. If Posey hits 270 with 14 HRs and 70 RBIs (the average an waaaayyy conservative estimate in my mind, the other two conservative but reasonable) that is a huge upgrade over the Stew/Eli combo who hit a combine .200 7 HRs and 27 rbis. Pablo? Expect Pablo to do what Pablo does when he isn't 40 pounds overweight. I don't think expecting him to perform well is that bold of a stance. As of today is a career .306 hitter in 1706 ABs...I think that is enough of a sample size to expect him to contribute. Do I think Vogel will repeat 2011? No. But we don't need him to. If he can eat 160-180 innings at a 4.00-4.20 ERA (his xFIP was 3.85 last year) we are way ahead of the game. How you add this up to a net loss with essentially the same team coming back in mind blowing to me. "As it stands right now, the Giants are probably a 80-82 win team"- is a definitive statement. "If Huff shows something, Belt gets better, and if Posey can play in 120-130 games, the team could eclipse that 80-82 win mark."- Is a soft stance based on obvious observation.

Voice of Reason
Voice of Reason

So was this new argument just you conceding those arguements?

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

The Giants scored 570 runs last year. They allowed their opponents to score 578 runs. That's basically a .500 baseball team. Their pythagorean record was 80-82. So, yes, all things being nearly the same, I think the Giants are a 80-82 win team right now.

JMAD925
JMAD925

I agree melky was a bad and useless pick up considering the overcrowding of outfielders we have.

Ryan
Ryan

Quite bearish. I suppose as a fan, if you set the bar low enough, you increase the probability of being pleasantly surprised. It's a good way to set up 2010 redux. Statistically, you're probably not far off (barring upgrades between now & OD). You can take a high payroll juggernaut like the Red Sox or Yankees and call them a 90 win team and that would be about right given the stiff AL East competition and the potential for disastrous outcomes balancing out the 100 win outcomes. However, a betting man would surely take the over on the 82 for the Giants.

rog61
rog61

"There's no good reason to think...that Huff will be better." I agree. There's no good reason to think that. "There's no good reason to think... that Stamos has a good chance of improving." I agree again! There's no good reason to think that. "There's no good reason to think ... that Belt will get better." Eh. There's some reason to think that, and good reason to hope for it. "There's no good reason to think ... that Melky will give us more than Torres/RoRo." Hm. I wasn't going to go that way, but you've convinced me. There's no good reason to think that. "There's no good reason to think... that Nate has a good chance of improvement." You're preaching to the choir, buddy. No good reason to think that at all. Man, now I'm depressed.

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

You: There's no good reason that the best case (or near best case) scenario won't happen! I don't need to run down your list of things, but Posey is coming back from a pretty traumatic injury. No one -- and even Posey has said this -- is going to know how he'll do until he gets in a game scenario. Huff can always get worse. He's aging and he's coming off a miserable season.

tzill
tzill

Exactly. Calling the Giants as constructed (no CarBel, healthy Posey, intermittent Franchez, etc.) a "80-82 win" team is a bit pantshatty, IMO. There is no good reason to think Posey won't be just fine, that Huff will be better (he can't get worse), that Stamos has a good chance of improving, that Panda will be Panda, that Belt will get better, that Melky will give us more than Torres/RoRo, and that Nate has a good chance of improvement too. The bullpen is solid, and any drop off by Song (which isn't necessarily set in stone) could easily be made up for by Bum's improvement. Two negative things have a decent chance of happening: Franchez could miss a lot of time and the #5 starter could suck. However, SabeySabes still has a lot of offseason to address these concerns.

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

And it's like you forgot to read this: "If Huff shows something, Belt gets better, and if Posey can play in 120-130 games, the team could eclipse that 80-82 win mark."

JMAD925
JMAD925

Bottom line is if the Giants sign Beltran they will win the west, and we all saw what they can do when you put that rotation and bullpen in a 5 or 7 game series. If Buster comes back healthy , he will not only repeat what he has done, but most likely build upon it. He's just one of those special players. That should be no news to anyone. Freddy Sanchez is back, he hits for avg. good table setter, and plays the game how it should be played. Pablo will be Pablo. He just had a lot of off the field issues including a divorce and basically got fat and had a bad year in 2010. He hit .345 in 2008 after he got called up. .330 in 09 , and .315 in 11. Putting him at .307 for his career. In my opinon, the only flaw when he is at the plate is his pitch selection and beeing to aggressive ( for lack of a better word ). But he showed big strides in improving that last year. He's only 25 yrs old, and wil be one of the better hitters in the game for a while. Oh, and have a gold glove or 2 before it's all said and done.Belt will improve because theres not much room to get worse, but every article and scouting report has him as the real deal.....and no im not forgetting about huff, but i dont expect him to be much a factor next year. Even though he has followed up each bad season with a good one. But if he repeats his magical and timely hitting of 2010??? Then panda hats, the freak hair wigs, dark black beards, and the smell of "medicinal marijuana" will flood the streets of san francisco as the W.S. Trophy is paraded down market st. for the 2nd time in 3 years..........Humm Baby!!

J-Mad
J-Mad

........And don't sleep on Nate Schierholtz. Plays good defense, one of the better arms in the game, and his bat finally came around. Not to mention he can hit the long ball. Last year he put one in the upper deck in colorado, and it was farther then Bonds'. I'd like to know where that ranked historically in coors field from a distance standpoint.

bradley emden
bradley emden

I think trading Sabes is just as much a crapshot as signing Sabes. We need to pay reasonable dollars for top talent, not top talent dollars for mediocre players. Three years of Beltran at somewhere between 39 and 48 million seams reasonable. Especially if you pay 18 plus million a year for Zito, and 12 million a year for Rowand.

LeviDavis
LeviDavis

Burks was a trade. It's amazing how much better Sabean has done trading for players than signing them.

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

Good catch. Though, I guess Burks was granted FA and came back to the Giants. Totally agree that Tradin' Sabes is much better than Signin' Sabes

HipNip
HipNip

Yeah like trading Nathan, Liriano and Bonser for Pierczynski.

Paapfly
Paapfly

Nathan averaged 93.1 mph in 2003, so unless he was averaging at least 103.1--and I have my doubts--I think you may be a tad off.Also, it's pretty widely known that Tommy John patients tend to get back to where they were around 2 years after the surgery. Nathan wasn't quite there yet and had a pretty dominant relief season in '03.The rest is history. That said, this trade is over with and really not worth talking about anymore. I've put it behind me.Here's my take on what the Twins got:http://www.paapfly.com/2011/03/giants-trade-catfish-hunter-for-aj.html

Marianne Rowand
Marianne Rowand

What you all seem to forget about Nathan that year was he had just had Tommy John Surgery and had lost at least 10mph off his fastball. That was why Sabean traded him. Sure he still had his command but he got hit around and they didnt think he would regain his velocity. That is why he was traded.

Lyle
Lyle

Thanks for citing the references and statistics. This was a horrible trade - Nathan was our insurance for the Closer/bullpen, and it was foolish to trade him away. Coupled with the promising Yorvit Torrealba available for at least stop-gap service at the catcher position, this was an all-around bad idea. None of us could predict just how awesome Nathan would be, but we certainly hoped he'd be a very vital cog in the Giants' bullpen.

rog61
rog61

Many, many, many people were criticizing that trade at the time based on two essential factors. Setting aside the minor leaguers, Nathan was by no means a "struggling starter" at that time. He had been on of the two most important relievers on the 103 win team in the 2003 season. He was fourth on the team in pitcher WAR (behind Schmidt, Jerome Williams, and Worrell), had the best K rate on the team, and was even 2nd on the team in Ws! More importantly, with Worrell approaching FA, Nathan was openly mentioned by the broadcasting team late in that year as the best internal option the team had for a closer going forward. Trading Nathan led directly to missing the playoffs in 2004 and then the Benitez disaster in 2005. The second factor was AJ himself. His value with Minnesota was very highly derived from BA and anybody who watched him play (or who paid attention to GB rates) knew that his BA was to a large extent boosted by the artificial turf in his home park. The notion (oft stated) that that trade was universally hailed at the time it was made is simply wrong. Certainly that trade had many supporters at the time, but it also had many many critics.

LeviDavis
LeviDavis

Seriously, as long as we're up on current events, let's talk about that darn Lou Brock trade, too.

JMAD925
JMAD925

I couldn't agree more.No one was saying it was a horrible deal when it first went down. Nathan was a struggling starter, bonsor a prospect and sabs new what we had waiting in the wings, and liriano had a lot of health issues, and still does to this day.The rowand contract almost made me throw up when i first heard about it, and still feel sick about it to this day. Dave roberts was a bust as well, but the Giants took a chance cause they've needed a leadoff man since kenny lofton was there for a couple months in 02 for the game 6 melt down.

tzill
tzill

I love how people trot out the AJ trade as "evidence" of SabeySabes' lack of trade acumen. At the time, he was trading an inconsistent middle reliever, an oft-injured prospect, and a back of the rotation starter at best for an All-Star catcher. In hindsight, yeah, it looks bad. At the time, it made complete sense. It simply didn't work out. Now, the Rowand contract -- that never made sense on any level.

LeviDavis
LeviDavis

You would think the skills would be transferable in some way.