Giants interested in JBJ

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Ramirez would also have to pass a physical after the 2018 season in order for his option to vest. I'm not sure he would have passed this season, since I don't know enough about what that entails. It seems like surgery was an optional thing.

The good news is that if he is healthy perhaps he won't be terrible, and if he isn't healthy, blows again, and tries to play hurt, then he may not pass it anyhow.

I can't find anything either away about having an option vest automatically if a player is released.
If he were released I would think he would file a grievance anyhow and that would get messy.
 
Last edited:

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
I can't find anything either away about having an option vest automatically if a player is released.
If he were released I would think he would file a grievance anyhow and that would get messy.
I've spent the last hour trying to google double check what I went off of a couple months back after asking that question here myself, and can't seem to find it again as well. The new CBA , as far as I can understand it at least, isn't any help either.

I did find 2 instances where Nick Swisher and Michael Bourne were released with vesting options for 2017 though, and can't find those initial deal salaries clocking in on any 2017 payrolls (although they did go on to sign contracts elsewhere, fwtw). So there is that pointing in the other direction.
 
Last edited:

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
In that Globe piece from a few weeks ago, Speier writes:

Yet releasing Ramirez might permit the Sox to add a player who would be a more reliable roster fit in 2018 while ensuring that they wouldn’t be on the hook for his $22 million vesting option in 2019.

Would the Red Sox rather pay Ramirez $44 million over the next two years or would they rather spend, say, the same sum to release Ramirez and sign a player like Carlos Santana or Jay Bruce to something in the neighborhood of a two-year, $22 million deal?
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Speier's question is a good one but his examples are not. Those 2 players aren't going to be available for such low deals. The alternative would more likely be Alonso or maybe Duda. For effectively 2/$44M? Blech.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
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.
So if 2016 is more representative of these guys' HR potential, and if they can't really improve their HR production apart from someone like Stanton, then....either they go get Stanton, or they're just gonna have to live with not being a big time HR hitting team. Which would you prefer?
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
So if 2016 is more representative of these guys' HR potential, and if they can't really improve their HR production apart from someone like Stanton, then....either they go get Stanton, or they're just gonna have to live with not being a big time HR hitting team. Which would you prefer?
You are grossly mischaracterizing my position, and it's 2017 that I think is more representative, not 2016. There is room for improvement with approach (Hyers), but not a lot. Maybe 5 on the extreme end for some players, more likely fewer than that. Some players (like Vazquez) probably won't benefit from increasing loft in their swings.

That said, if you read the entire post I linked, I laid out a possible route to an acceptable number of home runs in 2018. There are other avenues, as well. I'm not going to waste time repeating it, though.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
You are grossly mischaracterizing my position, and it's 2017 that I think is more representative, not 2016. There is room for improvement with approach (Hyers), but not a lot. Maybe 5 on the extreme end for some players, more likely fewer than that. Some players (like Vazquez) probably won't benefit from increasing loft in their swings.

That said, if you read the entire post I linked, I laid out a possible route to an acceptable number of home runs in 2018. There are other avenues, as well. I'm not going to waste time repeating it, though.
Yeah that was a typo on my part (re: 2016 vs 2017). My apologies for not double checking before I posted.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
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.
1. You're comparing a 1B's wRC+ against a 2B, a C, a RF, and someone who has played 2B, 3B, and 1B.

2. Your timeframe of 2013 forward includes a poor 2013 for Altuve and doesn't give fair representation to the 151 and 160 wRC+ seasons he's put up the last two years.

3. That timeframe also just cuts off Buster Posey's 164 wRC+ season in 2012.

4. Bautista is in clear decline. His wRC+ numbers for those years were 135, 160, 148, 122, 80. I don't think anyone is suggesting paying Jose Bautista $17M per over 4 years.

5. Adrian Beltre is 38, has been an elite defensive 3B, and up until last year was a consistent 140+ per game season guy. Again though, I don't think anyone is suggesting we would want Beltre for 4 years/$17M per.

6. Robinson Cano is 35, got his monster contract just after 2013, following a string of wRC+ values as follows: 143, 134, 149, 143. He put up a 137 in his first year with Seattle, then fell off a cliff. His contract is firmly in "albatross" territory despite being a 3+ WAR player.

I'm not saying Belt isn't a worthwhile acquisition. I'd love to see the Red Sox acquire him. But when you factor in age and contract I don't see how Belt is a "value" over market rate, in an off-season with a wide range of 1Bs available to pick from. Bradley is still under team control and two years younger. His defensive value provides a floor similar to Belt's while his potential offensive upside had him above the best Belt has ever done by a half-win in WAR just last season.

If the Giants want to move Belt I'm all for the Sox having interest, but JBJ for Belt straight up is the Sox giving up value.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,722
Personally I'd really like to keep JBJ until the new coaching staff has had a shot at him.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
1. You're comparing a 1B's wRC+ against a 2B, a C, a RF, and someone who has played 2B, 3B, and 1B.

I'm not saying Belt isn't a worthwhile acquisition. I'd love to see the Red Sox acquire him. But when you factor in age and contract I don't see how Belt is a "value" over market rate, in an off-season with a wide range of 1Bs available to pick from. Bradley is still under team control and two years younger. His defensive value provides a floor similar to Belt's while his potential offensive upside had him above the best Belt has ever done by a half-win in WAR just last season.

If the Giants want to move Belt I'm all for the Sox having interest, but JBJ for Belt straight up is the Sox giving up value.
Ok , some good counterpoints- but I'm also comparing Belt from how you characterized him as a good, but not great hitter when in fact he was 21st over that span and is still in his prime. It's not like he's going to collapse at the age of 33. Their best window is going to be the next year or two when he'll be 30 and 31 and they have nothing on the immediate horizon in the next few years either.

And JBJ isn't free. He's likely to be about 7 million this year and substantially more the year after if he performs at roughly Belt's level (which is what Steamer thinks. I think that's a point in your favor since I would have thought Belt was considered a win or two better). If money happens to be thrown into the deal, then there is that as a possibility as well.

The free agent 1b crop is terrible and it's doubtful to me that there is significant value to be had there. Steamer and depth charts is calling BS on 4 out of the 5 notable free agents.

Projected WAR for free agent 1b.

Duda (32) - 1.3
Alonso (31) - 1.2
Morrison (30) - 1
Hosmer (28) - 2.6
Santana (32) - 3.1
And Belt (2.9).

There is no chance Hosmer signs for close to the 4 years 64 mill that Belt will make, and Santana has the draft pick compensation issue. The other guys are older and/or unproven.

Yes, it is possible they are giving up value if Bradley is moved, but I'm not seeing too many alternatives to upgrade where they need to upgrade the most. Abreu could be had for much less, but that's probably going to make them dip them into their farm system and it only helps them for a year.
 
Last edited:

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
1. You're comparing a 1B's wRC+ against a 2B, a C, a RF, and someone who has played 2B, 3B, and 1B.

I'm not saying Belt isn't a worthwhile acquisition. I'd love to see the Red Sox acquire him. But when you factor in age and contract I don't see how Belt is a "value" over market rate, in an off-season with a wide range of 1Bs available to pick from. Bradley is still under team control and two years younger. His defensive value provides a floor similar to Belt's while his potential offensive upside had him above the best Belt has ever done by a half-win in WAR just last season.

If the Giants want to move Belt I'm all for the Sox having interest, but JBJ for Belt straight up is the Sox giving up value.
Belt has a .363 wOBA since 2015, which is 25th in MLB. He's younger than 15 of the 24 guys higher than him on that list. He's an elite defender, and there's statistical evidence he could be even better, particularly for us.

If the Giants are worried about payroll in their pursuit of Stanton, we should absolutely help them with that.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I'm not saying Belt isn't a worthwhile acquisition. I'd love to see the Red Sox acquire him. But when you factor in age and contract I don't see how Belt is a "value" over market rate, in an off-season with a wide range of 1Bs available to pick from. Bradley is still under team control and two years younger. His defensive value provides a floor similar to Belt's while his potential offensive upside had him above the best Belt has ever done by a half-win in WAR just last season.
upload_2017-11-14_14-45-57.png
From that list, the only player I'd want over bringing Moreland back is Duda. I don't want any part of giving up significant draft capital to grab QO guys like Santana or Hosmer (give me Santana of the two if Dombrowski doesn't care about hurting the 2018 draft).

Yeah, they just cost money, but if Duda isn't willing to sign in Boston and that draft capital is a legitimate roadblock for the team, Belt, even at his salary and giving up JBJ is preferable. I'd want more back from the Giants, but Alonso, Carter and Morrison (the best three after Hosmer, Santana and Duda IMO) would be a terrible use of free agent dollars.
 

RIrooter09

Alvin
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
7,254
View attachment 18553
From that list, the only player I'd want over bringing Moreland back is Duda. I don't want any part of giving up significant draft capital to grab QO guys like Santana or Hosmer (give me Santana of the two if Dombrowski doesn't care about hurting the 2018 draft).

Yeah, they just cost money, but if Duda isn't willing to sign in Boston and that draft capital is a legitimate roadblock for the team, Belt, even at his salary and giving up JBJ is preferable. I'd want more back from the Giants, but Alonso, Carter and Morrison (the best three after Hosmer, Santana and Duda IMO) would be a terrible use of free agent dollars.
Any reason you prefer Duda to Morrison? Morrison's numbers were better across the board last season.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Any reason you prefer Duda to Morrison? Morrison's numbers were better across the board last season.
I think Duda's numbers are far more sustainable. Look at them over the last three years. Morrison has a .004 advantage in batting average. After that it's Duda ahead in OBP, SLG, wOBA, wRC+, HR and BB%. He strikes out about 4.5% more often over that span, but he also has a little more defensive value (less defensive suck?).
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
If the Giants are worried about payroll in their pursuit of Stanton, we should absolutely help them with that.
Who are the Giants even going to trade for Stanton though? I can't see a guy coming out of rookie ball being the headliner coming back in that kind of sell off deal.

If anything they'd be freeing up money to sign Martinez, and then maybe back filling Belt with a much cheaper FA flyer like Duda. Or basically what a lot of people here wanted to see us do going in to the off season.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,481
Rogers Park
1. You're comparing a 1B's wRC+ against a 2B, a C, a RF, and someone who has played 2B, 3B, and 1B.

2. Your timeframe of 2013 forward includes a poor 2013 for Altuve and doesn't give fair representation to the 151 and 160 wRC+ seasons he's put up the last two years.

3. That timeframe also just cuts off Buster Posey's 164 wRC+ season in 2012.

4. Bautista is in clear decline. His wRC+ numbers for those years were 135, 160, 148, 122, 80. I don't think anyone is suggesting paying Jose Bautista $17M per over 4 years.

5. Adrian Beltre is 38, has been an elite defensive 3B, and up until last year was a consistent 140+ per game season guy. Again though, I don't think anyone is suggesting we would want Beltre for 4 years/$17M per.

6. Robinson Cano is 35, got his monster contract just after 2013, following a string of wRC+ values as follows: 143, 134, 149, 143. He put up a 137 in his first year with Seattle, then fell off a cliff. His contract is firmly in "albatross" territory despite being a 3+ WAR player.

I'm not saying Belt isn't a worthwhile acquisition. I'd love to see the Red Sox acquire him. But when you factor in age and contract I don't see how Belt is a "value" over market rate, in an off-season with a wide range of 1Bs available to pick from. Bradley is still under team control and two years younger. His defensive value provides a floor similar to Belt's while his potential offensive upside had him above the best Belt has ever done by a half-win in WAR just last season.

If the Giants want to move Belt I'm all for the Sox having interest, but JBJ for Belt straight up is the Sox giving up value.

This is right. Belt is good, and he’s on a fair contract. But he’s not so much wildly better than, say, Morrison or Duda, to be worth our homegrown plus-glove CF who has been worth 10 fWAR in his last three seasons and has three more years of arb left.

Belt has also been worth 10 fWAR in his last three seasons, but he’s paid more, and the FA market offers better BATNA to us than to SF.

If we deal Bradley, which I doubt we will, Belt is *part* of a return.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I was curious about the last time the Giants were able to attract a big bat via free agency since the park opened 20 years ago.

The answer is basically Jeff Kent and Moises Alou (for two years). They have also traded for Burks and Pence but those were playoff caliber teams where there was the draw of winning. I guess you could also say Bonds, but he was a Giant in '93 when it was Candlestick and was the franchise by the time '97 rolled around.

It's a big problem for them, and I can see them having a ton of trouble attracting JD Martinez when he can have his pick of contenders in hitters parks (and woe be to them to put him in that outfield). Stanton may very well feel the same way. I mean he would really, really have to love that city.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
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.
Is the bolded true? I'm not very well-versed in Statcast data and this is my first read of that article, but he states that the AvgExHR% of all the players he included was 59.1%. Obviously, all 6 of our guys listed were below that, but I'm not sure how to use those numbers to try to predict a drop in HRs from year to year. It surely isn't a direct translation of expected HR total from 2016 to 2017. Otherwise, we would have been expecting 2017 MLB HR totals to be 60% of 2016's. My understanding is that the AvgExHR% is for those balls that have already been hit by the player, as compared to similar balls across MLB. It tells us how many HRs a player "should" have at a given point. In order to project it out, you'd have to assume the player (and MLB) continue to hit balls the same way. This is possibly useful in the short term or maybe within a single season (i.e. his Max Kepler example), but there are way too many variables across multiple seasons (I think) - changes in health, mechanics, ballpark, slumps, pitchers' approach - that would affect that batted ball data. It may tell us whether/how much a player has been lucky in his HRs, but I think it would have to be compared to the 2017 data in order to see if/how much the change in HR total is due to that luck. For example, if Mookie's AvgExHR% in 2017 was 75% while hitting far fewer HRs in roughly the same PA, what would that tell us? The 2016 data tells us he probably shouldn't have hit 31 HR, but it doesn't tell us he should hit more or less in 2017. That will be based off how he hit the ball in 2017. Maybe the AvgExHR% is pretty stable year to year, but I doubt it.

Just as an exercise for curiosity...The top ten players on that list -- % change in HR total from 2016 to 2017 -- % change in PA from 2016 to 2017 (to give an idea of how that HR total would be expected to change based solely on playing time):
Park ------ +16.7% -- +86.5% (all in AAA)
O'Brien -- +200% -- +468.7% (AA/AAA)
Souza ---- +76.5% -- +31.8%
Cruz ------ -9.3% ---- -3.3%
Davis ----- -31.6% -- -19.8%
Cabrera -- -57.9% -- -22.1%
McCann -- +8.3% --- +6.7%
Garcia ---- +50.0% -- +23.8%
Flowers --- +50.0% -- +13.8%
Carter ----- -58.5% --- -43.8%

So, 3 guys who hit significantly more HRs than I'd expect given the change in playing time, 5 who hit significantly fewer, and 2 who were about in line.

The bottom 10 (not including Pedroia and Young):
Hardy ------- -44.4% -- -31.7%
Escobar ---- +40.0% -- -31.4%
Ellsbury ---- -22.2% -- -33.4%
Cabrera ---- +21.4% -- +3.1%
Hill ----------- -80.0% -- -73.7% (AA/AAA/MLB)
Giavotella -- -16.7% -- +6.0% (AAA)
Gregorius -- +30.0% -- -1.3%
Brown ------- -80.0% -- +15.2%
Kepler ------- +11.8% -- +27.1%
Barnhart ------ 0.0% -- +0.7%

4 guys who hit more, 4 who hit fewer, and 2 in line.

And our guys:
Betts ------- -22.6% -- -2.5%
Bogaerts -- -52.4% -- -11.7%
Pedroia ---- -53.3% -- -33.7%
Bradley ---- -34.6% -- -14.9%
Ramirez --- -23.3% -- -10.8%
Young ------ -22.2% -- -21.6%

5 guys who hit fewer, and 1 who was in line (and from whom we also aren't hoping for improvement next year).

I realize this is back of the napkin and SSS, but if there's useful predictive data there, I'm not seeing it. But, if there is, 1) I think it would lend to the argument that we could expect our guys to bounce back in 2018, wouldn't it? and 2) fuck the yankees.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
It's a big problem for them, and I can see them having a ton of trouble attracting JD Martinez when he can have his pick of contenders in hitters parks (and woe be to them to put him in that outfield). Stanton may very well feel the same way. I mean he would really, really have to love that city.
JD Martinez and Team Boras aren't going in to this worried about park factors. It's going to boil down to who's willing to offer more total money then the next guy, and JD's potential market in particular is all but primed for that typically less then desirable landing spot to swoop in with the "that's what it takes to get him to come here" winning bid. SF is looking like an excellent fit to be that team atm/imo.

Point being a lot of this Belt talk seems centered around the idea that we'd end up replacing Bradley with Martinez, when in reality a trade there more likely ups the chance we'd be looking for a different Bradley replacement.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
Signing JD Martinez and jarrod dyson or Lorenzo Cain iscprob a better move for the giants than trading belt for JBJ. How expensive will either of dyson or Cain be?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Who are the Giants even going to trade for Stanton though? I can't see a guy coming out of rookie ball being the headliner coming back in that kind of sell off deal.

If anything they'd be freeing up money to sign Martinez, and then maybe back filling Belt with a much cheaper FA flyer like Duda. Or basically what a lot of people here wanted to see us do going in to the off season.
The Giants have and seem to like their 1B prospect Chris Shaw.

Signing JD Martinez and jarrod dyson or Lorenzo Cain iscprob a better move for the giants than trading belt for JBJ. How expensive will either of dyson or Cain be?
Cain would cost a draft pick. He seems like a great fit there, but since they have a bottom-five system in baseball, they might be disinclined.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
The Giants have and seem to like their 1B prospect Chris Shaw.
I thought you guys had him coming back as part of the potential balance in the Bradley trade.

Either way though I still see us left looking for another OF replacement for Bradley if that's the trade in question. But again, my own guess there is that Belt could more or less be had for the cost of his contract alone, which I have my doubts he'd even get outside paper theory and from an actual GM on the open market atm. Which isn't to say Belt isn't a good player, but he just suffers from being a somewhat bad positional sell for a team looking to splurge on a position usually reserved for your team power imo.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,481
Rogers Park
I thought you guys had him coming back as part of the potential balance in the Bradley trade.

Either way though I still see us left looking for another OF replacement for Bradley if that's the trade in question. But again, my own guess there is that Belt could more or less be had for the cost of his contract alone, which I have my doubts he'd even get outside paper theory and from an actual GM on the open market atm. Which isn't to say Belt isn't a good player, but he just suffers from being a somewhat bad positional sell for a team looking to splurge on a position usually reserved for your team power imo.
A) Presumably they're not trading Belt *and* Shaw.

B) I don't think we're getting Belt for the cost of his contract; if we can, we should. There's probably 8 WAR worth of surplus value in that contract.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
B) I don't think we're getting Belt for the cost of his contract; if we can, we should. There's probably 8 WAR worth of surplus value in that contract.
In paper theory that might hold up, and could indeed present a great sleeper type value deal at that, but the surrounding reality there is painting a different expected market picture imo.

The league average OPS line at 1B this season was .815. There might be some sucker out there willing to pay Hosmer big $$$ based entirely around the notion that 2017 is a new baseline, but keep in mind that's not really helping a guy like Belt here. Who beyond any "squint harder there and you'll see he's actually better" appeal is still a 30yo 1B, who's never hit over 18 HR in a season, and coming off a year he hit .241. This isn't 10 years ago where every gets paid in FA. Minus the bigger name, health track record, and visible 30 HR upside in a game where power value is trending up...he's going to be viewed as a poor man's Carlos Santana at best.

So yeah, in a reality where the market on a guy like Lucas Duda is being projected at 1/$6 and a bunch of lesser but still somewhat productive options behind him are probably going to be hard pressed to even find 2018 chairs, color me skeptical that any GM is lining up atm to sign on for 4 years of Brandon Belt at $16m/per. Heck, I'm guessing Joe Kelly alone could get that deal done before we'd even have to discuss Bradley.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
The league average OPS line at 1B this season was .815. There might be some sucker out there willing to pay Hosmer big $$$ based entirely around the notion that 2017 is a new baseline, but keep in mind that's not really helping a guy like Belt here. Who beyond any "squint harder there and you'll see he's actually better" appeal is still a 30yo 1B, who's never hit over 18 HR in a season, and coming off a year he hit .241. This isn't 10 years ago where every gets paid in FA. Minus the bigger name, health track record, and visible 30 HR upside in a game where power value is trending up...he's going to be viewed as a poor man's Carlos Santana at best.
I really don’t know how much more info you need.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/platform/amp/2017/7/9/15941416/brandon-belt-giants-trade-rumors-power-on-base-expected-woba-underrated

Excerpted: “FanGraphs' park-adjusted wRC+ suggests that Belt has been 28 percent better than league average offensively in his career, spanning more than 3,000 plate appearances. To put that into context, his 128 wRC+ is just shy of Anthony Rizzo’s career mark of 132.”
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
I really don’t know how much more info you need.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/platform/amp/2017/7/9/15941416/brandon-belt-giants-trade-rumors-power-on-base-expected-woba-underrated

Excerpted: “FanGraphs' park-adjusted wRC+ suggests that Belt has been 28 percent better than league average offensively in his career, spanning more than 3,000 plate appearances. To put that into context, his 128 wRC+ is just shy of Anthony Rizzo’s career mark of 132.”
I don't need more info to convince me that he's an appealing option from a strictly saber-savvy POV, or that he's probably the most realistic trade target for us that I've seen mentioned here all winter.

Again, I just don't see that all translating over to there being many GMs willing to pull the trigger on that flyer at 4/$64m. If/when he gets traded this winter, which is a probable route SF explores in the event they spend a lot of money in FA (with LT issues of their own), it'll be for a light return mostly centered around dumping salary. Or as that articles suggests, somebody is going to end up "stealing Brandon Belt".
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
In paper theory that might hold up, and could indeed present a great sleeper type value deal at that, but the surrounding reality there is painting a different expected market picture imo.

The league average OPS line at 1B this season was .815. There might be some sucker out there willing to pay Hosmer big $$$ based entirely around the notion that 2017 is a new baseline, but keep in mind that's not really helping a guy like Belt here. Who beyond any "squint harder there and you'll see he's actually better" appeal is still a 30yo 1B, who's never hit over 18 HR in a season, and coming off a year he hit .241. This isn't 10 years ago where every gets paid in FA. Minus the bigger name, health track record, and visible 30 HR upside in a game where power value is trending up...he's going to be viewed as a poor man's Carlos Santana at best.
If he were a free agent this winter, do you think he would make more or less than Santana?
GM's possess extraordinary squinting skills and are no longer complete morons.
 
Last edited:

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
The league average OPS line at 1B this season was .815.
Not sure if this is a typo, or what, but bb-ref has first base OPS for the NL this year as .861 and .805 for the AL. Belt's OPS at .823 was a bit below average for the NL; however, his interleague OPS, .821, was better than the AL's overall mark for first basemen.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Not sure if this is a typo, or what, but bb-ref has first base OPS for the NL this year as .861 and .805 for the AL. Belt's OPS at .823 was a bit below average for the NL; however, his interleague OPS, .821, was better than the AL's overall mark for first basemen.
That .861 is correct but it doesn't take park factors into consideration. Still, 1b was a stacked position in the NL with very little dead weight.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Not sure if this is a typo, or what, but bb-ref has first base OPS for the NL this year as .861 and .805 for the AL. Belt's OPS at .823 was a bit below average for the NL; however, his interleague OPS, .821, was better than the AL's overall mark for first basemen.
I actually just went to FG and auto sorted both league totals to just show the combined #. If I got it wrong there I stand corrected.

If he were a free agent this winter, do you think he would make more or less than Santana?
GM's possess extraordinary squinting skills and are no longer complete morons.
With that no longer being complete morons has also come a much more conservative approach to spending on mid tier type guys. Especially first baseman of late not offering a currently visible amount of next tier upside for the buying team to get stupid over. They actually probably have it the roughest of everybody for that matter.

Belt gets less then Santana, no question. For the reasons I already listed above (and to note why I personally haven't even tried speculating Santana into any ideal scenarios. He's not worth paying the more premium price he'll get over an option like Duda imo). My money wouldn't be on Belt getting 4 years in this winter's market either.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
Ok , some good counterpoints- but I'm also comparing Belt from how you characterized him as a good, but not great hitter when in fact he was 21st over that span and is still in his prime. It's not like he's going to collapse at the age of 33. Their best window is going to be the next year or two when he'll be 30 and 31 and they have nothing on the immediate horizon in the next few years either.
And he was 8th among 1Bs, so on the upper end of middle of the pack by position. 9th if you go by OPS, a non-park corrected metric, which given Belt's home/road splits we shouldn't be quick to assume we see a bump when leaving SF.

And JBJ isn't free. He's likely to be about 7 million this year and substantially more the year after if he performs at roughly Belt's level (which is what Steamer thinks. I think that's a point in your favor since I would have thought Belt was considered a win or two better). If money happens to be thrown into the deal, then there is that as a possibility as well.
JBJ has three years of control left, 2018, 2019, and 2020. He is basically a dead lock to earn less than half of what Belt will get in that time with each year effectively an "opt in" for the team if he should suddenly fall off a cliff, for a player who is younger, less health concerns, and playing a premium defensive position.

The free agent 1b crop is terrible and it's doubtful to me that there is significant value to be had there. Steamer and depth charts is calling BS on 4 out of the 5 notable free agents.

Projected WAR for free agent 1b.

Duda (32) - 1.3
Alonso (31) - 1.2
Morrison (30) - 1
Hosmer (28) - 2.6
Santana (32) - 3.1
And Belt (2.9).
So what is the real value here? If Belt is a 2.9 WAR guy and we assume $8M per WAR he'd be worth $23.2M while being paid $17.2M, so $5M in gained value. If Duda was to take a Moreland-esque deal he'd bring similar value on much less risk. Just bringing Moreland back at the same $5M one year deal would project to give $2-$3M in added value, again with far less risk. I'll believe that Duda/Moreland/Alonso break the bank when I see it. Last off-season a comparable guy to them in Steve Pierce got 2 years, $6.25M per. Morrison himself only got $2.5M and one season of hitting well isn't going to quadruple his salary.

I don't love any of the low cost options, but low cost is likely what they'll be when it all shakes out, and that mitigates risk, which has value in itself.

There is no chance Hosmer signs for close to the 4 years 64 mill that Belt will make, and Santana has the draft pick compensation issue. The other guys are older and/or unproven.
They're all in their early 30's and will likely get 1 or 2 year deals. Being older and less proven easier to deal with than locked in for 4 years, I would argue. Also, what's worth more, JBJ or a late first round pick? Because that's the real argument you're making here with regards to Belt v. Santana, even assuming they would need to give Santana 4/$68.8, equal to what Belt is owed the rest of the way. Anything less than that only tilts the argument in Santana's favor.

As for Hosmer, I don't think he's a viable option unless the market completely falls out from under him, but at that point Santana and the filler guys will all likely be even cheaper.

Yes, it is possible they are giving up value if Bradley is moved, but I'm not seeing too many alternatives to upgrade where they need to upgrade the most.
All the alternatives listed above, plus the one you add below. I would also argue that 1B is hardly the place where they most need an upgrade. They need a premium bat. That can come at DH, 1B, or corner OF. Belt isn't a premium bat. He's good/really good but not in the Stanton/JDM league. Belt is healthy Hanley Ramirez offensively, and we might get healthy Hanley next year for what we're already paying. Trading a good/really good CF to get a good/really good 1B only works if you know you have the premium bat to put into LF. It also only really works if you're getting fair falue, otherwise you can play Hanley at 1B and put the premium bat at DH.

Abreu could be had for much less, but that's probably going to make them dip them into their farm system and it only helps them for a year.
Two years, as I believe he is under arb. for the 2018 and 2019 seasons. You could probably buy him out for less than or equal to 4/$68.8M though, since he opted out of 3/$34M last winter. And to reframe a question I asked previously, who should have more value, Michael Chavis or Jackie Bradley Jr.?

Look, it basically boils down to this: If JBJ and Brandon Belt were under the same financial terms it's probably a pretty good 1:1 fit. Instead Belt has far less team flexibility and far more money owed. That on top of the facts that he's older and has missed substantially more time due to injuries. It's a good fit if the Giants are interested in opening a path for Shaw, but definitely not as a 1:1 swap. Trading a four year old Honda that's still under warranty for an 8 year old Mercedes that isn't and has been in the shop a good bit the last few years doesn't necessarily mean you're getting value if what you need is a daily driver, regardless of what the blue book value might be.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
With that no longer being complete morons has also come a much more conservative approach to spending on mid tier type guys. Especially first baseman of late not offering a currently visible amount of next tier upside for the buying team to get stupid over. They actually probably have it the roughest of everybody for that matter.

Belt gets less then Santana, no question. For the reasons I already listed above (and to note why I personally haven't even tried speculating Santana into any ideal scenarios. He's not worth paying the more premium price he'll get over an option like Duda imo). My money wouldn't be on Belt getting 4 years in this winter's market either.
How many mid-tier 1st baseman have hit the free agent market lately prior to this year? Wil Myers got 6/83 and his arbitration years were bought out. He isn't as good as Belt either.

Recent examples of mid-tier bats
Alex Gordon 4 /72.
Daniel Murphy 3/39.
Zobrist - 4/56.
Dexter Fowler - 5/85
Ian Desmond - 5/70
Trumbo 3/37
Reddick 4/52

Gordon and Desmond look bad so far as does Trumbo. Murphy has been a steal.
The others are a mixed bag. Basically mid tier guys have gotten paid between 13-17 million.

We need to get used to the idea that an AAV of 17 million for a mid tier player is very reasonable and that Belt easily earns that contract. Going nuts on someone like him would be something like 25 per and no one is going to do that.

We are not going to agree on Belt's worth in comparison to Santana. I don't think there is a question of who the better player is, before factoring in the two year age difference. They are both rock solid, consistent hitters with Belt having the better glove. The only thing "lite" in your characterization of him in comparison to Santana is home runs.

You don't even need to dig into sabremetrics. Belt has the better career triple slash line and virtual tie in ISO before ballpark is even factored in.

Even your reasoning of Belt having the off year because he hit .241 doesn't take into account that he still out OPS'ed Santana - which again, not factoring in two extremely different ballparks.
 
Last edited:

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
We are not going to agree on Belt's worth in comparison to Santana.
Agreed, but that also basically amounts to the same issue we have on disagreeing over what JD Martinez is going to get paid as a FA this winter.

You asked me who was getting handed more $$$ by a GM on an open market atm. Not who's "worth" what in terms of crunching the advanced metric #'s and attempting to translate that into what his market price "should" be. From the saber savvy POV JD Martinez "should" only be getting $120m, but that wouldn't happen either.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
As far as your supporting mid tier examples go Myers was a dumb extension made by one of the worst GMs in the league (although I guess in his partial defense Myers was only 25 at the time, so he wasn't the first GM lately to overvalue the age aspect in these matters), and not a single one of the other 4 signed their contract as 1B. Mauer was hardly what I'd consider mid-tier at that time either.

I'm also fine paying mid-tier players $17m/per. I'm generally just less fine with paying that for first baseman nowadays, and especially if they are already 30yo+ and we are going beyond a 3 year commitment on them.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Agreed, but that also basically amounts to the same issue we have on disagreeing over what JD Martinez is going to get paid as a FA this winter.

You asked me who was getting handed more $$$ by a GM on an open market atm. Not who's "worth" what in terms of crunching the advanced metric #'s and attempting to translate that into what his market price "should" be. From the saber savvy POV JD Martinez "should" only be getting $120m, but that wouldn't happen either.
Martinez has no one in his class - so that is more discussion oriented on how much the market is going to be set along with years. I don't think we disagree too much on AAV. I would guess 28ish, a bit lower than you.

My point is that you don't have to dig too deep to determine who the better player is between Belt and Santana. If some GM for some ridiculous reason cares about unadjusted basic rate stats without parks or age, then Belt wins that battle too. Your reasons for unquestionably preferring Santana don't make any sense to me.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I'm also fine paying mid-tier players $17m/per. I'm generally just less fine with paying that for first baseman nowadays, and especially if they are already 30yo+ and we are going beyond a 3 year commitment on them.
Can you explain why? To me it doesn’t make any sense to be less willing to pay “mid-tier” first basemen than mid-tier anyone else, assuming you’re comparing apples to apples when assigning tiers. Having a good 1B helps you win just as much as having a good “skill position” guy. It’s just that the difference in defensive skills required raises the offensive bar for what “good” means at 1B. But once you’ve factored that raised bar into your evaluations, there’s no reason to depreciate the importance of 1Bs any further; that’s like double-counting.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
I actually just went to FG and auto sorted both league totals to just show the combined #. If I got it wrong there I stand corrected.
I was just curious why we were getting different numbers...and we're still getting different ones (at least bb-ref and FG are) as bb-ref shows a combined OPS mark for 1B at .833 while you got .815 from FG. But whichever is correct, you probably need to discount an NL first baseman's numbers if he goes to the AL.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Can you explain why? To me it doesn’t make any sense to be less willing to pay “mid-tier” first basemen than mid-tier anyone else, assuming you’re comparing apples to apples when assigning tiers. Having a good 1B helps you win just as much as having a good “skill position” guy. It’s just that the difference in defensive skills required raises the offensive bar for what “good” means at 1B. But once you’ve factored that raised bar into your evaluations, there’s no reason to depreciate the importance of 1Bs any further; that’s like double-counting.
Well for starters and while speaking specifically about the Sox, we have the current state of our roster construction and how any contract you put there factors into to future payrolls + LT concerns. I also stated "generally" there because every player is obviously different, and while wanting to acknowledge that in the end it does boil down to evaluating an individual fit.

But yeah, for the most part and as long as the current market trend surrounding middling 1B holds, I'd personally prefer we do our value type shopping there over other positional areas. Given that appears to be the most likely place you are going find it in FA nowadays. Not to mention that in this particular case in question it leaves us with a much greater room for error. We could miss on Duda and essentially rebound from that in fairly short order. Missing on Belt with 4 years of commitment attached to it plays out to be a much different scenario.
 

Hawk68

New Member
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
I was just curious why we were getting different numbers...and we're still getting different ones (at least bb-ref and FG are) as bb-ref shows a combined OPS mark for 1B at .833 while you got .815 from FG. But whichever is correct, you probably need to discount an NL first baseman's numbers if he goes to the AL.
I believe we get a better league to league OPS adjustment by comparing all positions by league, less P and DH for obvious reasons. I tried to calculate such comparison on BR - but that seems available only to those with paid subscription.

R,
Hawk
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
My point is that you don't have to dig too deep to determine who the better player is between Belt and Santana. If some GM for some ridiculous reason cares about unadjusted basic rate stats without parks or age, then Belt wins that battle too. Your reasons for unquestionably preferring Santana don't make any sense to me.
Again and just to note, I don't "prefer" Santana. I just believes he gets more money on an open market this winter then Belt would.

My actual preference there is neither. Well, at least depending on where Santana's market actually ends up falling in at. It's not like he's immune to seeing a potential market crunch either imo
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
I believe we get a better league to league OPS adjustment by comparing all positions by league, less P and DH for obvious reasons. I tried to calculate such comparison on BR - but that seems available only to those with paid subscription.

R,
Hawk
AL had a non-pitcher OPS of .754
NL had a non-pitcher OPS of .771

This is according to Fangraphs, which has a handy non-pitcher sort category. AL DH's actually had a .753 OPS, so no big distortion by factoring them in. I think the last time I saw something about this recent trend, fangraphs, or whoever it was, pointed to a few remarkably bad pitching staffs in the NL causing this. But that may be wrong, or have changed since what I read.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
My point is that you don't have to dig too deep to determine who the better player is between Belt and Santana. If some GM for some ridiculous reason cares about unadjusted basic rate stats without parks or age, then Belt wins that battle too. Your reasons for unquestionably preferring Santana don't make any sense to me.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the park factor stuff with Belt doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, SF is a pitchers' park, so you'd expect players to hit worse there on average and improve on their batting line if they went to another team. But that doesn't seem like it would be true in every single case, especially if a player actually hits better there than on the road (such as Brandon Belt). Why would we expect anything better from him at Fenway?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Maybe I'm missing something, but the park factor stuff with Belt doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, SF is a pitchers' park, so you'd expect players to hit worse there on average and improve on their batting line if they went to another team. But that doesn't seem like it would be true in every single case, especially if a player actually hits better there than on the road (such as Brandon Belt). Why would we expect anything better from him at Fenway?
Don't pretty much all hitters hit better at home than on the road regardless of park factors?
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
Don't pretty much all hitters hit better at home than on the road regardless of park factors?
Yes. Over the past few years, MLB players' OPS is between .025 and .035 higher at home than on the road. Belt's career OPS is .015 better at home. I guess we'd expect him to add .010 to .020 at a neutral home park, but that doesn't seem like much. Does a pitching friendly home park depress road stats, too?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Yes. Over the past few years, MLB players' OPS is between .025 and .035 higher at home than on the road. Belt's career OPS is .015 better at home. I guess we'd expect him to add .010 to .020 at a neutral home park, but that doesn't seem like much. Does a pitching friendly home park depress road stats, too?
I recall something a few years back that suggested that was the case for the Rockies. That's the opposite, though.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Maybe I'm missing something, but the park factor stuff with Belt doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, SF is a pitchers' park, so you'd expect players to hit worse there on average and improve on their batting line if they went to another team. But that doesn't seem like it would be true in every single case, especially if a player actually hits better there than on the road (such as Brandon Belt). Why would we expect anything better from him at Fenway?
I’m not sure if this answers your question, but it may boil down to organizational hitting philosophies. The Giants as a team don’t hit the ball in the air very much. There doesn’t seem to be incentive in that park.

Belt, however, is an outlier. That may be a reason he could be available — he steadfastly does not hit like a Giant.

Belt (career 2011-2017):
24.7% LD
33.3% GB
42.0% FB

Giants team (2011-2017, including Belt):
20.6% LD
46.0% GB
33.4% FB

Especially when factoring that Belt’s numbers are baked into the team stats, the difference is staggering. I have no idea if Giants hitters are coached to keep the ball out of the air of that huge park, but Belt really looks like an odd duck. Considering he had the highest flyball rate of his career in 2017 and the fifth highest average flyball distance in baseball (ahead of Judge, Freeman, and JDM), he clearly isn’t listening.
 
Last edited:

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Maybe I'm missing something, but the park factor stuff with Belt doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, SF is a pitchers' park, so you'd expect players to hit worse there on average and improve on their batting line if they went to another team. But that doesn't seem like it would be true in every single case, especially if a player actually hits better there than on the road (such as Brandon Belt). Why would we expect anything better from him at Fenway?
I'm not exploring that possibility - just that if a GM were for some dumb reason looking at unadjusted stats and used them when evaluating how much to pay one guy over another then Belt is favorable to Santana. Of course they won't because that isn't how they evaluate players.

You'd have to read the whole discussion for the context, and I'm begging you not to.