Giants interested in JBJ

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
We could also accept one of their weird, too-old power semi-prospects to toss on the heap with Bryce Brentz. Mac Williamson, Jarrett Parker, or — the most attractive of the three, because he's not quite as superannuated — Austin Slater.

Would the Giants want to help us clear a spot for a player they are also pursuing (Stanton)?
You have no idea how much OF help they need.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I would doubt Stanton would accept a trade to SF and have no idea how they would come up with something to get him either. But yes, they desperately need him and they ought to pony up whatever they can get if they still feel like they bounce back this year.

I would be surprised if the Marlins go after anything but young pitching.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
You might be right overall, yet somehow with all their HR power, the Yankees scored 1 more run than the Red Sox off Verlander and Keuchel in 7.1 more postseason innings. And I suspect at least part of the reason they were able to get to game 7 of the ALCS was because unlike the Red Sox their pitching staff's postseason ERA was well under 6.
yea, our postseason starters were terrible. This team needs that great 1-2 of Sale and Price to do much of anything in the postseason. Price was a reliever and Sale was not good. The fact we started Doug Fister in an ALDS elimination game speaks volumes about our pitching staff. ERod is like Bucholz 2.0
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
I'm fairly certain that AAV is recalculated after a trade for the years of control the new team has. In this case, that means the AAV is $17.2 million.
I'd be one thing if we were talking about a flyer here, but any way you slice it I personally just can't see DD looking at the roster construction (with or without Stanton/Martinez) and still being interested in spending 4/$70m on a 30yo guy who's never even hit 20HR in a season.

He'd spend big on an additional piece out of FA before he went down that road, which leads to a 2nd tier hit either way.
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
2,391
New Mexico
I'm fairly certain that AAV is recalculated after a trade for the years of control the new team has. In this case, that means the AAV is $17.2 million.
Thats not true. If it were, then Sale's AAV, when recalculated after his trade, would have put the Sox well over the luxury cap this past year. The only time a players AAV is recalculated is after an option is picked up.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
Joe Panik makes the most sense both financially and need wise if they are dead set on either Stanton or Martinez and need to trade Bradley. He’s cheap and can fill in for Pedroia while taking over the Nunez role after Pedey takes over. Belt is nice but he gets real expensive.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Right. Because the Sox just picked up his option and his AAV got recalculated.
And that article has it wrong, anyway. Speier’s about the only media source I’d trust to get something as arcane as CBT/AAV calculations correct, frankly speaking.

Until the 2018 Cy Young award is decided and Sale’s 2019 option is picked up, the final number won’t be known. But it assuredly won’t be $11.5MM. Per Cot’s, at least.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Joe Panik makes the most sense both financially and need wise if they are dead set on either Stanton or Martinez and need to trade Bradley. He’s cheap and can fill in for Pedroia while taking over the Nunez role after Pedey takes over. Belt is nice but he gets real expensive.
Joe Panik is a second baseman and not a utilityman. Unless Pedroia's injury is career-ending, why would we want him?

He's the Giants' starting second baseman under team control through 2020, and they have no one in the minors. Why would they trade him?
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
2,391
New Mexico
And that article has it wrong, anyway. Speier’s about the only media source I’d trust to get something as arcane as CBT/AAV calculations correct, frankly speaking.

Until the 2018 Cy Young award is decided and Sale’s 2019 option is picked up, the final number won’t be known. But it assuredly won’t be $11.5MM. Per Cot’s, at least.
Regardless, the point is that Sale's AAV wasn't recalculated after the trade (and Belt/Stanton's won't be if the Sox trade for either of them this winter) .
 
Last edited:

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,444
Wilmington MA
And that article has it wrong, anyway. Speier’s about the only media source I’d trust to get something as arcane as CBT/AAV calculations correct, frankly speaking.

Until the 2018 Cy Young award is decided and Sale’s 2019 option is picked up, the final number won’t be known. But it assuredly won’t be $11.5MM. Per Cot’s, at least.
That will increase his AAV for 2019, $11.5M looks correct for 2018 because the $1M buyout for 2018 was included in the AAVs for 2013-2017. His AAV for 2019 will carry the full amount added by CYA voting, either $15M or $16M if he wins it.
 
Last edited:

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
Belt will be getting over $17 million a year for his age 30-33 seasons. That isn't a contract we should be giving any value to get. Certainly not Bradley.

If the Giants want to get a good defensive CF, save some money and open up 1B for Shaw, then I'd trade them Rusney Castillo for Belt. But no way should we give up value to take on all of that contract.

We don't need to open up a hole in our lineup just to take on a $17 million a year first baseman in his 30s who has never hit more than 18 HRs.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
That will increase his AAV for 2019, $11.5M looks correct for 2018 because the $1M buyouts for 2018 and 2019 were included in the AAVs for 2013-2017. His AAV for 2019 will carry the full amount added by CYA voting, either $14M or $15M if he wins it.
$45 divided by 6 years =/= $11.5 AAV

13 - $ 0.85
14 - $ 3.5
15 - $ 6.0
16 - $ 9.15
17 - $12.0
18 - $12.5
19 - $ 1.0 (though likely a $15 or $16 option)
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Belt will be getting over $17 million a year for his age 30-33 seasons. That isn't a contract we should be giving any value to get. Certainly not Bradley.

If the Giants want to get a good defensive CF, save some money and open up 1B for Shaw, then I'd trade them Rusney Castillo for Belt. But no way should we give up value to take on all of that contract.

We don't need to open up a hole in our lineup just to take on a $17 million a year first baseman in his 30s who has never hit more than 18 HRs.
Are a guy’s age 30-33 seasons typically a problem?
 

plucy

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2006
426
a rock and a hard place
It's 12.5mm for the option in 18 minus $1mm for the buyout.
Team option years when picked up are not included with any calculation from the guaranteed years on the contract. They are the salary for that year minus buyouts for that year plus applicable bonuses.
Article XXXIII in the CBA covers this (section E, 5). Apologies to the lawyers for my crude citation.
 

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,444
Wilmington MA
$45 divided by 6 years =/= $11.5 AAV

13 - $ 0.85
14 - $ 3.5
15 - $ 6.0
16 - $ 9.15
17 - $12.0
18 - $12.5
19 - $ 1.0 (though likely a $15 or $16 option)
Yea, I messed it up, but the original 5 year $32.5M did include the 2018 $1M buyout, so it wouldn't also be included in the 2018 AAV, but if the 2019 buyout is, the $12.5 would be correct, but it wouldn't be included again in the 2019 AAV.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
It's 12.5mm for the option in 18 minus $1mm for the buyout.
Team option years when picked up are not included with any calculation from the guaranteed years on the contract. They are the salary for that year minus buyouts for that year plus applicable bonuses.
Article XXXIII in the CBA covers this (section E, 5). Apologies to the lawyers for my crude citation.
Thank you for explaining that. I did not know the new CBA had changed those rules, and admit I was wrong because of being ignorant of that.

Sorry to all for the hijack.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Joe Panik makes the most sense both financially and need wise if they are dead set on either Stanton or Martinez and need to trade Bradley. He’s cheap and can fill in for Pedroia while taking over the Nunez role after Pedey takes over. Belt is nice but he gets real expensive.
Panik has never played any position except 2B in the majors. And that means in 4 seasons of NL ball he never got double-switched anywhere else, when you'd think it would happen if he could play elsewhere.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Regardless, the point is that Sale's AAV wasn't recalculated after the trade (and Belt/Stanton's won't be if the Sox trade for either of them this winter) .
I have no idea where I got that idea from. I've been running with it for a while now. Thanks for the correction.
 

Dropo's moose

New Member
Jul 20, 2017
16
Unless Bumgarner is on the block, the best move DD can make when SF calls is "hang up the phone"...

JBJ might benefit from working with the new hitting coach whose philosophy is said to be "driving the ball out of the park". Same with XB who all of a sudden became a slap hitter. Include Betts and all regressed under Davis far as power numbers are concerned from 2016 to 17. Now, we can all say the hitting coach is irrelevant or we can all say "a new hitting Coach is needed".
You have to give these Players another year under this new Coaching regime.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
According to this and several other articles on the topic, yes.
Here's who's actually available to play first base/DH: (age in 2018):

Sam Travis (24)
Hosmer (28)
J.D. Martinez (30)
Morrison (30)
Alonso (31)
Duda (32)
Frazier (32)
Santana (32)
Moreland (32)
Hanley Ramirez (34)
Reynolds (34)
Lind (35)
Napoli (36)
Bautista (37)
Holliday (38)

And in 2019, a 32-year-old Justin Smoak is available.

Besides JDM, I would take Brandon Belt’s age 30-33 seasons over any combination of those guys' next four years.
 
Last edited:

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
And I don't think that would be enough. If they upgrade from JBJ's 17 to, say, 30 from Martinez that brings their total up exactly 1 spot in the team HR rankings, moving past Philly. Let's say Devers adds 15 to his total from 2017, that brings them to a tie with St. Louis at 196 for 18th. That might be enough, but it's still borderline at best.

Chis Shaw may not offer that much more home run production over Belt, but I'd rather take that chance or walk away and look for another trade partner before I swap JBJ for Belt. And bosox raises a good point about payroll. At some point there will be a limit. If they are in on Stanton or Martinez for real, that probably makes a prospect like Shaw a lot more attractive compared to a veteran like Belt.

There's a reason I like Schwarber despite the low BA/high K rate. The team needs a serious power infusion for the next two years. Maybe 15 more from Devers, 15 more from the outfield replacement from JBJ and Hyers having a positive impact on home run production across the line up (even just 3-5 more from each player) gets them where they need to be. I'd rather add a few more at 1st, though, and hedge my bets some.
I think the assumption is that the group of Pedroia, Hanley, X, Betts, Bradley, and Bogaerts improve upon this year's performance at the plate, and DD has said as much. If they split the difference between 2016 and 2017, that's an additional 20 HR - up to 188 (23rd). Adding 15 from Devers would put them at the MLB average. That group matching their 2016 totals puts them in the top 10. Obviously, that's without adding any big bats.
One place that could/should provide another boost is the bench. They got 30 HR from bench players in 2017. For comparison, the league's HR leaders (Astros and Yankees) got 50+. Surprisingly, the Sox only got 15 HR from bench players in 2016.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I think the assumption is that the group of Pedroia, Hanley, X, Betts, Bradley, and Bogaerts improve upon this year's performance at the plate, and DD has said as much. If they split the difference between 2016 and 2017, that's an additional 20 HR - up to 188 (23rd). Adding 15 from Devers would put them at the MLB average. That group matching their 2016 totals puts them in the top 10. Obviously, that's without adding any big bats.
One place that could/should provide another boost is the bench. They got 30 HR from bench players in 2017. For comparison, the league's HR leaders (Astros and Yankees) got 50+. Surprisingly, the Sox only got 15 HR from bench players in 2016.
The drop from 2016 to 2017 for most of the lineup looks to be expected regression. I wouldn't bet on any "positive" regression from 2017 to 2018. This list shows expected home run rate (derived from statcast data).

Mookie - 41.4% (actually dropped from 31 to 24)
Bogaerts - 49.5% (21 to 10)
Pedroia - 33.9% (15 to 7)
Bradley - 56.3% (26 to 17)
Hanley - 54.6% (30 to 23)
Young - 34.8% (9 to 7)

None of those drops are larger than the percentages would indicate. It looks like the team simply enjoyed a bit of home run luck in 2016. So if there's going to be internal improvement, it will have to come from a combination of Hyers's approach and some good luck.

So I'd really prefer to see them sign or trade for a big power bat to upgrade over either JBJ or Benintendi and replace Moreland with a better hitter. So the idea of JBJ for Belt (plus) and trading for Stanton or signing Martinez is appealing. But even JBJ for Belt and signing Duda is probably enough.

Add 3 home runs to the 4 starters above and Benintendi for Hyers getting them on board the launch angle train, give Belt 20, keep Vazquez at 5, give Duda 30 and Devers 25 and we're at 179. If the bench can just repeat the 30 from 2017 that's 209, which is a bit above league average and is probably enough. If the bench is between 2017 and 2017's leader (the Yankees), that's 40 or 219 total.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
Here's who's actually available to play first base/DH: (age in 2018):

Sam Travis (24)
Hosmer (28)
J.D. Martinez (30)
Morrison (30)
Alonso (31)
Duda (32)
Frazier (32)
Santana (32)
Moreland (32)
Hanley Ramirez (34)
Reynolds (34)
Lind (35)
Napoli (36)
Bautista (37)
Holliday (38)

And in 2019, a 32-year-old Justin Smoak is available.

Besides JDM, I would take Brandon Belt’s age 30-33 seasons over any combination of those guys' next four years.
Other than Martinez or Hosmer, why would you want 4 years of any of those guys? We don't need to be looking for a 2021 first baseman now. We need a power bat for 2018, but we don't need to lock ourselves into a big money multi-year contract for anyone who isn't likely to be good enough for the duration of their deal. And we sure don't need to make a trade that opens up a hole in our lineup just to do that.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
So I'd really prefer to see them sign or trade for a big power bat to upgrade over either JBJ or Benintendi and replace Moreland with a better hitter. So the idea of JBJ for Belt (plus) and trading for Stanton or signing Martinez is appealing. But even JBJ for Belt and signing Duda is probably enough.
JBJ for Belt just doesn't seem like good value though. Belt is making $17M a year for the next four through his early 30's. He's had concussion issues leading to prolonged stretches of being off the field and while he's a good hitter he isn't a great hitter. The contract prognosticators were betting Santana would take 4/$60M ($15M per year) with Cleveland. Santana is also an exceptionally good defensive 1B with a low to mid .800's OPS bat. He'll be 32 next year to Belt's 30, but Santana is a consistent >150 games per season guy whereas Belt has accomplished that only once in the last four years and only twice in his entire career.

Belt's acquisition cost should be more in the late first/early second round pick value on the high end (what it would cost to sign Santana or Hosmer with a comp. pick attached). Only way I'd send JBJ for Belt straight up is if SF is effectively picking up Sandoval's contract in the process.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
JBJ for Belt just doesn't seem like good value though. Belt is making $17M a year for the next four through his early 30's. He's had concussion issues leading to prolonged stretches of being off the field and while he's a good hitter he isn't a great hitter. The contract prognosticators were betting Santana would take 4/$60M ($15M per year) with Cleveland. Santana is also an exceptionally good defensive 1B with a low to mid .800's OPS bat. He'll be 32 next year to Belt's 30, but Santana is a consistent >150 games per season guy whereas Belt has accomplished that only once in the last four years and only twice in his entire career.

Belt's acquisition cost should be more in the late first/early second round pick value on the high end (what it would cost to sign Santana or Hosmer with a comp. pick attached). Only way I'd send JBJ for Belt straight up is if SF is effectively picking up Sandoval's contract in the process.
Since 2013 - among players with at least 2000 plate appearances.

wRC+ 132 Matt Carpenter and George Springer
wRC+ 131 Jose Altuve, Brandon Belt, Buster Posey

Just below them are Robinson Cano, Adrian Beltre, and Jose Bautista.

He's not a good hitter, he's a really good hitter. And Santana isn't an exceptionally good 1b by any numbers I have seen, Belt is.

Point taken on concussions, but Belt is the best non free agent option out there that won't cost an arm and a leg to acquire.

I'm not even positive the Giants would do JBJ straight up, given his inconsistency, but if that's the cost, it is fair in my mind.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
And I don't think that would be enough. If they upgrade from JBJ's 17 to, say, 30 from Martinez that brings their total up exactly 1 spot in the team HR rankings, moving past Philly. Let's say Devers adds 15 to his total from 2017, that brings them to a tie with St. Louis at 196 for 18th. That might be enough, but it's still borderline at best.

Chis Shaw may not offer that much more home run production over Belt, but I'd rather take that chance or walk away and look for another trade partner before I swap JBJ for Belt. And bosox raises a good point about payroll. At some point there will be a limit. If they are in on Stanton or Martinez for real, that probably makes a prospect like Shaw a lot more attractive compared to a veteran like Belt.

There's a reason I like Schwarber despite the low BA/high K rate. The team needs a serious power infusion for the next two years. Maybe 15 more from Devers, 15 more from the outfield replacement from JBJ and Hyers having a positive impact on home run production across the line up (even just 3-5 more from each player) gets them where they need to be. I'd rather add a few more at 1st, though, and hedge my bets some.
Unless they're acquiring Stanton, they're not going to make any acquisition that will appreciably move them up in the HR standings by itself.

What MAY move them up is all their regular players hitting more like they're capable of, than what they did in 2017. Here's their home run numbers:

Player - 2016 - 2017
Hanley - 30 - 23 (-7)
Pedroia - 15 - 7 (-8)
Bogaerts - 21 - 10 (-11)
Bradley - 26 - 17 (-9)
Betts - 30 - 24 (-6)

That's a loss of 41 homers just from these five players' drop-offs in HR production. Add in a full year from Devers (say he goes from 10 hr up to 20), they get a 1b who hits similar HR numbers to Moreland, and Benintendi improves, and just from within, they could realistically be looking at an improvement of 35+ homers from last year. That's without really adding anyone. If they improved by 35 homers (because even though I just laid out a possible 50-55 hr improvement, there's little chance all that will break right for them), that would put them at 203, which would rank them 17th in MLB - smack dab in the middle of the pack.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
We don't need to open up a hole in our lineup just to take on a $17 million a year first baseman in his 30s who has never hit more than 18 HRs.
This honestly reads like something from Fire Joe Morgan.

Brandon Belt has played his entire career as a left-handed hitter in the most extreme home run-suppressant ballpark in baseball. He just turned 30. He's younger than anyone conceivably available with the exception of Hosmer, who is essentially a more handsome Sean Casey.

Instead of home runs, I'd rather look at statistics like these. From 2016-17, Belt is:
  • T-15th in MLB in OBP (.378)
  • 6th in BB rate (15.4%)
  • 16th among MLB LHH in balls hit to the opposite field (and hits a higher percentage of fly balls than all those above him)
  • 26th among MLB hitters in wOBA (.365)
  • 4th in MLB in average fly ball distance (2017 only)
  • 6th in MLB in launch angle (2017 only)
  • Without discernible splits, doesn't need to be platooned
  • Arguably the best defensive 1B in baseball, at a time when we're breaking in a shoddily defensive rookie at third
There's evidence he changed his launch angle last year to hit more home runs, but it was overshadowed because the Giants sucked, their park is cruel to him, and he got hurt. But this is what a guy looks like pre-breakout. For perspective, he's been as valuable with the bat from 2016-17 as George Springer. If he's properly healed from a concussion, his age 30-33 seasons at a 4/$69 are an incredibly safe investment. I agree that the cost makes Bradley worth more, but I'd far prefer trading for him giving up a draft pick to sign the age 32-35 seasons of Carlos Santana — who is inferior, less consistent, and a worse fit for our ballpark (he'd hit .230 with that 51% pull rate) — at roughly the same price.
 
Last edited:

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
I think the assumption is that the group of Pedroia, Hanley, X, Betts, Bradley, and Bogaerts improve upon this year's performance at the plate, and DD has said as much.
That is really a poor assumption to make, however. Expecting the average of six players (two of whom are over thirty, declining, and both just had offseason surgery) to end up splitting the difference from two seasons ago doesn't seem like a safe bet. More likely, a few may rebound while a few continue to decline, and ends up being a wash overall.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Carlos Santana — who is inferior, less consistent, and a worse fit for our ballpark (he'd hit .230 with that 51% pull rate) — at roughly the same price.
Wait, whaaaat? I'm on the Belt bandwagon too, and I agree that he's the better player of the two and a better fit for our needs, but Carlos Santana is one of the most consistent players on the planet. He did have one mild off year in 2015, where he had a 107 wRC+ and just 19 HR. Other than that, he's been a freaking Swiss watch.

(BTW, great comp there with Hosmer = Casey. They are really very similar players, except that Casey had better contact numbers and Hosmer has slightly more power.)
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Wait, whaaaat? I'm on the Belt bandwagon too, and I agree that he's the better player of the two and a better fit for our needs, but Carlos Santana is one of the most consistent players on the planet. He did have one mild off year in 2015, where he had a 107 wRC+ and just 19 HR. Other than that, he's been a freaking Swiss watch.
Okay, this is totally fair. Dude is Swiss.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Unless they're acquiring Stanton, they're not going to make any acquisition that will appreciably move them up in the HR standings by itself.

What MAY move them up is all their regular players hitting more like they're capable of, than what they did in 2017. Here's their home run numbers:

Player - 2016 - 2017
Hanley - 30 - 23 (-7)
Pedroia - 15 - 7 (-8)
Bogaerts - 21 - 10 (-11)
Bradley - 26 - 17 (-9)
Betts - 30 - 24 (-6)

That's a loss of 41 homers just from these five players' drop-offs in HR production. Add in a full year from Devers (say he goes from 10 hr up to 20), they get a 1b who hits similar HR numbers to Moreland, and Benintendi improves, and just from within, they could realistically be looking at an improvement of 35+ homers from last year. That's without really adding anyone. If they improved by 35 homers (because even though I just laid out a possible 50-55 hr improvement, there's little chance all that will break right for them), that would put them at 203, which would rank them 17th in MLB - smack dab in the middle of the pack.
Read the first part of this post.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/giants-interested-in-jbj.21541/page-2#post-2541345

I'd bet that 2017 is far far closer to true talent level for all of the guys you listed than 2016 was.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
This honestly reads like something from Fire Joe Morgan.
Brandon Belt has played his entire career as a left-handed hitter in the most extreme home run-suppressant ballpark in baseball. He just turned 30.
Belt's got a higher career OPS at home (.827) than he does on the road (.812). His slugging percentage is almost identical at home (.458) and on the road (.464). He's hardly been hurt by his home park.

He's younger than anyone conceivably available with the exception of Hosmer, who is essentially a more handsome Sean Casey.
His age is relevant because he is signed for 4 more years. There are other options who wouldn't need to be signed for that long and would take far less money, and who wouldn't require us to trade our starting CF to acquire.

Instead of home runs, I'd rather look at statistics like these. From 2016-17, Belt is:
  • T-15th in MLB in OBP (.378)
  • 6th in BB rate (15.4%)
  • 16th among MLB LHH in balls hit to the opposite field (and hits a higher percentage of fly balls than all those above him)
  • 26th among MLB hitters in wOBA (.365)
  • 4th in MLB in average fly ball distance (2017 only)
  • 6th in MLB in launch angle (2017 only)
  • Without discernible splits, doesn't need to be platooned
  • Arguably the best defensive 1B in baseball, at a time when we're breaking in a shoddy defensive 3B with a big bat
He's been a really solid player. But the point is, he is owed $69 million for the next 4 years. He is not a free agent and we would have to trade talent to get him (presumably Bradley, since this is the "Giants Interested in JBJ" thread.)

If we could get him for free, that would be something to consider, but that isn't going to happen. Even if he came for free, his concussion issues would still make it a big risk, and the $17 million he is getting for the next 4 years make it really unlikely that we would be able to sign Martinez or any other bat.

There's evidence he changed his launch angle last year to hit more home runs, but it was overshadowed because the Giants sucked, their park is cruel to him, and he got hurt. But this is what a guy looks like pre-breakout.
If the park was "cruel" to him, he would have much better numbers on the road, but he doesn't. As noted above, he's actually been better at the "cruel" park than on the road.

As for changing his launch angle, his slugging percentage was actually lower last year than the previous 2 years, so any change didn't improve his slugging.

Belt isn't going to break out. He's going into his 30's and coming back from a bad concussion. If he can completely recover, then at some point over the next 4 years he might have a good year beyond his norm, but he is not going to magically go to some new improved level and stay there. He is likely to overall stay who he always has been, and then start to decline.

For perspective, he's been as valuable with the bat from 2016-17 as George Springer. If he's properly healed from a concussion, his age 30-33 seasons at a 4/$69 are an incredibly safe investment.
The bolded parts here do not add up: "If he's properly healed from a concussion, his age 30-33 seasons at a 4/$69 are an incredibly safe investment."

He didn't play after August 4th last year. No one knows if he has properly healed or not. As of September, he was "still dealing with lingering problems with his vestibular system and vision... This was Belt’s fourth documented concussion in the last eight years and third in the last four seasons".

That concussion record, with that 4-year contract for $69 million, makes him someone we should probably stay away from completely.

I agree that the cost makes Bradley worth more,
Then we agree, so let's stop talking about Belt on the "Giants Interested in JBJ" thread. Or at least talk about who else the Giants should be adding to the deal. I don't see anyone they would add who would make it a good deal for us.

but I'd far prefer trading for him giving up a draft pick to sign the age 32-35 seasons of Carlos Santana — who is inferior, less consistent, and a worse fit for our ballpark (he'd hit .230 with that 51% pull rate) — at roughly the same price.
These are NOT the only options.

In my opinion, we should try to sign JD Martinez as Plan A. If that fails, then we should try to find a short term bat or two for cheap, rather than trade any of our few chips to acquire a guy with an expensive multi-year contract, especially one who has serious concussion issues.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Major leaguers and athletes in general get concussions all the time. Humans do, in fact. Belt's concussion history did not stop him from posting near-elite numbers in the past. I'd presume any discussions about a trade would require access to recent MRIs. He was officially cleared by MLB on October 3. Opening Day 2018 will have been 9 months after he sustained it, so he should be fine.

The home/away splits you cite are his career splits. They're relevant, yes. But he clearly made adjustments to his swing last year, and his ISO spiked as a result.

I suppose you can say a Duda/Travis platoon next year is more cost effective and savvy. It'd be nifty if it worked, but it could easily flop, and it burns an extra roster spot we wouldn't need to if we had a first baseman we didn't need to platoon. Furthermore, the spray chart data is crucial. Most of the LHH first basemen available (besides Hosmer) are extreme pull hitters who'd be hurt by Fenway.

I'm not advocating we trade for Belt instead of signing JDM. Belt would ideally replace Hanley and enable us to jettison him before his 2019 option vests. But trading for him also gives us a back-up plan in case we don't land JDM.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
I'm not advocating we trade for Belt instead of signing JDM. Belt would ideally replace Hanley and enable us to jettison him before his 2019 option vests. But trading for him also gives us a back-up plan in case we don't land JDM.
There isn't a realistic option on the table to jettison Hanley without being on the hook for that 2019 option. He either gets hurt and misses enough time where it won't vest, which under a Belt acquisition scenario is going to have to happen while serving as the team's primary DH, or he spends X amount of days being benched on the MLB roster.

That is pretty much it as far as the possibilities you have to work with there go.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
“People get concussions all the time” is a strange argument, considering the difficulty we have seen brick holt have returning from his issues. They can def be career altering and difficult to handle
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
As for changing his launch angle, his slugging percentage was actually lower last year than the previous 2 years, so any change didn't improve his slugging.
This is not quite the right stat, and therefore not quite the right inference. It's true that his slugging percentage was a tiny bit lower--.469 from .475. But his BA was much lower, which means his ISO was higher--.228 to .199--and his home run rate was likewise much higher (if he'd had as many PAs as he did the previous year, he would have set a new career high in HR with 26).

So the change did improve his slugging, if by that you mean his power hitting. It's just that his overall contact results slipped considerably, for reasons that may be partly related to the change in approach, but may also be partly luck (his BABIP on ground balls went down dramatically even though he was hitting them harder). And this slippage cancelled out the improvement in power hitting as far as SLG is concerned.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Would the Giants want to help us clear a spot for a player they are also pursuing (Stanton)?
I think the better analysis question there might be on whether we'd want to help SF clear up payroll flexibility to sign JD Martinez if/when Stanton doesn't want to waive his no-trade for team that won 64 games last year. SF was also dead last in the homeruns on the season, so I can see them being even more skeptical than I already am on the roster construction fit Belt presents for them going forward. Especially at that price tag, which (imo) goes on to negate a lot of the appeal he'd otherwise have as the underrated player many here are arguing him to be.

I'd honestly be fairly surprised if Bradley's name even had to be included in a potential trade we could make for Belt atm. But I'd also be pretty shocked if Belt, for what essentially amounts to the same reason here, ended up being DD's one bat addition solution this winter.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
This whole *Brandon Belt has never hit more than 18 HR* thing seems a little delusional, given the nature of NL West park effects. Belt plays in a home park with park effects for HR of .599, .704, and .615 the last three seasons. And it's tougher on lefties than righties.

His division then has two more coastal parks that suppress HR — SD and LA — and then the two in Mountain Time that aid the long ball — COL and ARI. Belt has hit 98 HR in his career, and just 34 of them have been in SF. (...followed by 10 at Coors, 7 at Chase, and 6 each at Dodger Stadium and Petco.) He hits doubles and triples at a much higher rate at home. Those things are connected.

If he played in a neutral park — say, Cleveland — he'd have several 25ish HR seasons, and we'd be wondering if he was a candidate to break out and hit 35.

I don't think we should trade Bradley, because I'm not sold we can get value back for him that would actually improve the roster. All I'm saying is that Belt is a good player, and his contract is a fantastic value.

Also, Grant Brisbee wrote up the rumor.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Most of the LHH first basemen available (besides Hosmer) are extreme pull hitters who'd be hurt by Fenway.
I was curious about this. It seems like the relevant stat here is, when a player hits the ball, how often is it a hard-hit fly ball the other way?

The answers surprised me a bit.

Percentage of BIP that are FB hit Hard or Medium to the opposite field:
Belt: 4.8%, 7.0%
Hosmer, 4.2%, 7.0%
Duda: 3.5%, 9.7%
MLB average for LHH, 2.9%, 7.5%
LoMo, 2.2%, 4.7%
Santana, 1.1%, 6.5%

Santana would hit a HR over the Monster vs. RHP about once in a blue moon, apparently--this is just not a part of his game, which I didn't realize. LoMo is better, but still below MLB average.

Hosmer comes out well, and in an odd way: he's actually a pretty extreme GB hitter, but a very high percentage of his FB are hit the opposite way, and they're not popups: his hard-hit percentage of 33.9% on oppo fly balls is best in show.

In other news, Belt and Duda look like fabulous Fenway fits.

EDIT: Updated numbers; original ones were filtered for batting as 1B (filtering out PA as DH, PH, or OF). Differences are not large but moved Hosmer ahead of Duda on the Hard% front, and moved MLB average above LoMo.
 
Last edited:

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
There isn't a realistic option on the table to jettison Hanley without being on the hook for that 2019 option. He either gets hurt and misses enough time where it won't vest, which under a Belt acquisition scenario is going to have to happen while serving as the team's primary DH, or he spends X amount of days being benched on the MLB roster.

That is pretty much it as far as the possibilities you have to work with there go.
Or they could release him.