Alex PavlovicVerified account@AlexPavlovic
Giants signed Jeff Samardzija to a five-year deal, pending a physical.
Giants signed Jeff Samardzija to a five-year deal, pending a physical.
Yeah, that's pretty crazy. Especially since there's no long history of excellence to point to.He was terrible last year but still gets $90M. Probably best he goes back to the NL.
another way to look at this deal is that the Porcello contract set the market for SharkWow, this makes Porcello's extension look better. Porcello has 4 years, $82 million left, and at least he won't be 27 till later this month. Samardzija turns 31 next month and has 5 years, $90 million coming to him.
Porcello is 85-78, 4.39 with a 4.04 FIP and 96 ERA+ in his career. Samardzija is 47-61, 4.09, with a 3.84 FIP and a 96 ERA+.
Shark's ERA last year was actually even a little worse than Porcello's too.
I think this "setting the market" reasoning is overblown. If the Giants had an option they perceived to be a better value, are they going to pass because of Porcello's contract? I think both contracts reflect the limited supply of even decent pitching on the open market, and the new wave of TV deals moving more clubs into the FA marketplace.another way to look at this deal is that the Porcello contract set the market for Shark
He wasn't just terrible last year. He sucked in an unholy bad way down the stretch that is understated by his 5-9 record and 6.29 era in the second half. And hiis K/9 rate slipped, a lot.He was terrible last year but still gets $90M. Probably best he goes back to the NL.
Maybe I end up being wrong, but I'm not really sold that those two contracts in particular make for that great of a standard reflection of where the current market stands. Especially in the event there ends up being numerous other alternative options out there that go on to offer better/safer overall value. I mean it's not like the Shark signing here boils down to a simple of matter of "expect to pay $18m/per on 5.00 era pitchers now", or ultimately justifies some "they did it so it must be ok for us to do it too" logic for that matter .I think both contracts reflect the limited supply of even decent pitching on the open market, and the new wave of TV deals moving more clubs into the FA marketplace.
I guess we'll know more when Mike Leake signs.Maybe I end up being wrong, but I'm not really sold that those two contracts in particular make for that great of a standard reflection of where the current market stands. Especially in the event there ends up being numerous other alternative options out there that go on to offer better/safer overall value. I mean it's not like the Shark signing here boils down to a simple of matter of "expect to pay $18m/per on 5.00 era pitchers now", or ultimately justifies some "they did it so it must be ok for us to do it too" logic for that matter .
From an overall standpoint, imo both are better examples of how desperate GMs sometimes make some fairly risky and overly-cute reaches when their more ideal Plan A falls though.
*fapfapfapfap* Keep going, Rough! Almost there! *fapfapfap*The Giants have gotten so fucking lucky in the last 5 years with trade deadline pickups playing like hall of famers for 3 months and washed up bums like Barry Zito coming through with big playoff games against NL teams too stupid to not swing at everything. I sincerely wish for this expenditure to blow up in their faces. They deserve it.