Shortstop candidates for the Halos

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

I can read Blarg.  It doesn’t mean I have to buy into the author’s overall narrative.

Are you capable of having your own view on something or do you just find an article and insist that’s the truth because it’s an article?

It's fact based rather than opinion only. Sure, he sees trends that are supported by stats but that is what you are supposed to be looking at and not, well, he had a great year. This is what I've been harping on throughout this conversation, and others, the article just supports my position. I found it after you challenged my stance. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

It's fact based rather than opinion only. Sure, he sees trends that are supported by stats but that is what you are supposed to be looking at and not, well, he had a great year. This is what I've been harping on throughout this conversation, and others, the article just supports my position. I found it after you challenged my stance. 

You again reference my stance as sign him because “he had a great year” when I explicitly took care to not say that.

Blarg, you are losing it.  Can you read?

[Erstad Grit]

2 hours ago, Warfarin said:

I think that is basically the crux of the differing viewpoints.  There are people who, understandably, feel the team should spend whatever it takes to field a competitive team.  They likely want Swanson, another SP, a significant reliever, and (probably?) OF depth.

In a vacuum, without a budget, all of that sounds great.  But the reality of life is everyone has a budget, even Cohen.  This team, under Moreno, has never vastly exceeded its previous budgets, which makes it difficult to envision that transpiring now.  So I think a number of fans here recognize this and try to map out what they feel is a more realistic series of events.  I think the ones you have outlined, given our (likely) financial limitations, makes the most sense - spread the money around and fix areas that are significantly cheaper to fix than what it would take to sign Swanson (or the now signed other top 3 star SSs).

Looking at it another way, they could have opted to go into the offseason and pooled all of their available resources into signing, say, Correa, OR they could have instead done what they have done - sign Anderson, acquire Renfroe, acquire Urshela, sign Estevez.  Likely the latter has a better overall impact on helping this team win more games than the former route.

Yeah.....I almost left this community when Pujols signed here. I remember threads discussing if Pujols would go in the HOF as an Angel or Cardinal and if he'd be a better angel than Salmon. All before one at bat. I didn't drink the kool-aide and for just expressing a dislike of the deal was when the "not your money" narrative began. 

Bad contracts limit future moves. I'm open to hearing why Swanson would not be a bad long term deal. 

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

a harbinger of bad things to come. 

his prime which he might have 1-2 more years of 

Yes, the team had a terrible offense last year.  But they should potentially make a bad contract decision to overcome that?  

for one more season

http://blogs.fangraphs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/agecurve_wrc.png

that would be awesome for 2023.  Until he starts hitting .195 with 200 ks.  The risk of that is real.  Let's see how accepting we'll become if that happens.  And again, I agree that some risk is ok when you really need help at a particular spot.  But not for 6 years at 25m per.  

he's potentially a trade of a headache for diabetes.  The problem could get a lot worse very quickly.  

I agree but there are other guys that could do that with much less risk.  

he better be damn close for 6/150.  

I don't disagree with this.  It's for how long he checks those boxes that's my concern.  If future money isn't an issue then I'd be down.  

depends on how restrictive the contract becomes along with Rendon, Trout and hopefully Ohtani.  I go back and forth whether to just say F it and go all in.  I hope the new owner is willing to fund that because I don't want to trade guys away either.  The big problem is if he's not and a crappy swanson contract restricts what we can do.  Then we're back to where we are now 

every player has warts.  putting yourself in an untenable position to not be able to treat those warts and move on is way too familiar.  

I don't dislike Swanson at all.  I think he's a nice player and could continue to be for a couple years at least if not more.  I don't like what how much it's gonna cost to deal with those warts and praying it doesn't get worse.

If potentially eating 50-75 mil of the last 3 years if something that's not a big deal then sure.  Go get him.  I just have a hard time imagining that will be the case.  

I actually appreciate your post here.  But I have never said give the guy a debilitating contract.  He is a bonafide starting SS, which the team needs.  He’s not getting Correa or Turner money.

Almost every deal over 5 years will have some scar tissue at the end.

Par for the course and hardly a shocker to the people offering the contracts.

[Docwaukee]

10 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I actually appreciate your post here.  But I have never said give the guy a debilitating contract.  He is a bonafide starting SS, which the team needs.  He’s not getting Correa or Turner money.

Almost every deal over 5 years will have some scar tissue at the end.

Par for the course and hardly a shocker to the people offering the contracts.

I find Swanson interesting to talk about because of how much he's gonna get paid because of how much WAR he produces and his age.  He hits the ball hard when he makes contact but contact is generally a problem for him.   Another fun tidbit is that he is the 3rd most shifted RHed hitter in baseball over the last three years and while he was very good vs. the shift this year, he's characteristically been worse when shifted during that time.  

BTW, Renfroe was the 10th most shifted RHer.  

[AngelStew43]

17 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

What about signing Justin Turner to play 3B, move Rendon to 2B where he's played a bunch of games in his career and has a higher fielding pct. than at 3B, then go with Rengifo/Fletcher at SS, or sign Andrus and trade Rengifo + for a starting pitcher from the Marlins? 

Not bad.  I’d still like to see us make a run at   Thairo Estrada, since the Giants are now locked in to Correa for 13 years!

[Warfarin]

5 hours ago, Erstad Grit said:

Yeah.....I almost left this community when Pujols signed here. I remember threads discussing if Pujols would go in the HOF as an Angel or Cardinal and if he'd be a better angel than Salmon. All before one at bat. I didn't drink the kool-aide and for just expressing a dislike of the deal was when the "not your money" narrative began. 

Bad contracts limit future moves. I'm open to hearing why Swanson would not be a bad long term deal. 

Agreed.  I think that is the general viewpoint of the fans who did not want to see the team pursue any of the 4 star SSs.  We have seen this issue of bad contracts debilitate our ability to compete year in and year out for many years now.

We are now forced to allocate 45 million of payroll to 3B because we don't know if Rendon will hold up health wise.  And even if he does, we're not even sure if he will produce star results if healthy.  We signed him to a 7 year deal, saw one (abbreviated) season in which he produced great results, and now 2 poor/unhealthy seasons in a row.  His contract is absolutely negatively impacting us.

[Stradling]

6 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

I actually appreciate your post here.  But I have never said give the guy a debilitating contract.  He is a bonafide starting SS, which the team needs.  He’s not getting Correa or Turner money.

Almost every deal over 5 years will have some scar tissue at the end.

Par for the course and hardly a shocker to the people offering the contracts.

You may not have said give him a debilitating contract but the team signing him is giving him 8-10 years and $20+ million a season. That will be debilitating. If you perform like Trea Turner then maybe it’s worth it, but he doesn’t.  It will also put them above the tax until Rendon’s contract is off the books, assuming we re-sign Ohtani or we continue to dip into free agency in future years. 

[Fake Chow]

6 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

I find Swanson interesting to talk about because of how much he's gonna get paid because of how much WAR he produces and his age.  He hits the ball hard when he makes contact but contact is generally a problem for him.   Another fun tidbit is that he is the 3rd most shifted RHed hitter in baseball over the last three years and while he was very good vs. the shift this year, he's characteristically been worse when shifted during that time.  

BTW, Renfroe was the 10th most shifted RHer.  

I'm on the fence regarding Swanson but I think with MLB banning the shift we should only see his number improve or am I interpreting that wrong?  I'm more of a lurker and lean on yall for analysts. HA!  The strikeouts are concerning.

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

You may not have said give him a debilitating contract but the team signing him is giving him 8-10 years and $20+ million a season. That will be debilitating. If you perform like Trea Turner then maybe it’s worth it, but he doesn’t.  It will also put them above the tax until Rendon’s contract is off the books, assuming we re-sign Ohtani or we continue to dip into free agency in future years. 

I guess we will see what he gets.  I think you expect him to sign for more than I expect him to sign for.

Yes there is a price at which I pass (on every player).

But it isn’t my money either.

 

[Angels 1961]

All the talk of Swanson is a waste he is not signing with Angels, Minasian is looking for SS upgrade via trade. SP will be bottom end of what's left. One BP and that will be it. No BIG SPLASH. So next off-season Angels will have many holes to fill when Ohtani test FA. 

[Erstad Grit]

56 minutes ago, Fake Chow said:

I'm on the fence regarding Swanson but I think with MLB banning the shift we should only see his number improve or am I interpreting that wrong?  I'm more of a lurker and lean on yall for analysts. HA!  The strikeouts are concerning.

Not sure how the banned shift will help his strike outs. 

I actually like him. It just appears his contact might be so overly inflated the money might be better spend elsewhere.  He would clearly make this team a better in the short term

[Angelsfan1984]

51 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I guess we will see what he gets.  I think you expect him to sign for more than I expect him to sign for.

Yes there is a price at which I pass (on every player).

But it isn’t my money either.

 

technically it is partially your money if you've supported the team in any way.

[Dtwncbad]

13 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

Not sure how the banned shift will help his strike outs. 

I actually like him. It just appears his contact might be so overly inflated the money might be better spend elsewhere.  He would clearly make this team a better in the short term

The contract really is the big question.  Many sources that predict contracts have talked about like 6/140.  And now with what Turner and Correa got some are saying he will get $200 million.

It’s kind of fascinating really.

What we don’t quite know is if contract inflation is linear across all levels of talent.

The biggest stars are getting more and more.  We have heard so much about the “Big 4” but let’s be honest. . . It was really the big three and Swanson on a tier below those three.

Will scarcity (the other three are signed) create some irrational bidding on Swanson or will he legitimately get a contract that is somewhat closer to many of the early prediction?

Some of a players worth is their actual performance and some is just their raw star power.

I don’t view Swanson as nearly carrying the same star power as the other three big free agent SS.

So this is why I think it’s fascinating.

Will the raw dollars given to the other three pull the price up on Swanson to a point where the team is “overpaying” when you consider he isn’t the same player as the other three and he isn’t the same level of star power?

I know what his agent’s position is.

Or will the big brains in front offices value Swanson in a way where the contract he lands represents an amount that looks like a decent deal?

Everybody has their own opinion on what a good deal is.

And we are all affected by our concern about how much spending on players is still available to Minasian.

If we really knew how much they had to spend it would be a lot easier to decide what to do.

And lastly, there is a difference between if a player is “worth that amount” in this market and whether or not you want your team to spend its last chunk of valuable money on that particular player.

I again hope the team’s budget has fewer limitations than many of us assume, considering the window to win now angle, and an optimistic assumption that the next owner will be more comfortable spending at a higher level.

It’s interesting to watch.

 

[Chuck]

I’m starting to really hope a trade to acquire Brandon Crawford happens. 

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

technically it is partially your money if you've supported the team in any way.

I don’t fully disagree.  But it isn’t quite as direct as many think.

The price of Budweiser and Coke and other mainstream products are what they are.  Just note that these huge companies spend billions of dollars on advertising that flow into mlb revenues through all kinds of channels.

Yes ticket prices and cost to buy your tv package that includes Angel games are costs you pay directly to watch the team.

I go to fewer games than ever.  3 a year maybe when I used to go to more like 30.

So I pay call it $100 a month on tv to see games?

And what is my cost if I exclude the Angels games?  Good luck finding a tv package you really like for a significantly lower price than $100.

So yea it is my money going to the players, but I think a huge portion of that is simply revenue from huge companies being spent on advertising making its way into mlb revenues, and I do not believe the cost of a twelve pack of Budweiser is going to cost me less if these player make less money.

So what is it really costing me??

[Angels 1961]

7 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

I’m starting to really hope a trade to acquire Brandon Crawford happens. 

He has no trade contract plus SF moving him to 3B

[Dtwncbad]

7 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

I’m starting to really hope a trade to acquire Brandon Crawford happens. 

Yuck.  He is 35 with his best days behind him.  Not sure what I expect from him.  Seems like he could easily be a bad player next year.

What’s the over/under on what you think his OPS will be?  .635?

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

I guess we will see what he gets.  I think you expect him to sign for more than I expect him to sign for.

Yes there is a price at which I pass (on every player).

But it isn’t my money either.

 

I think he is getting $21-23 million for 6-10 years.  

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Angels 1961 said:

All the talk of Swanson is a waste he is not signing with Angels, Minasian is looking for SS upgrade via trade. SP will be bottom end of what's left. One BP and that will be it. No BIG SPLASH. So next off-season Angels will have many holes to fill when Ohtani test FA. 

If it is waste of time, then feel free to no longer comment on it.  TIA.

[T.G.]

17 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Yuck.  He is 35 with his best days behind him.  Not sure what I expect from him.  Seems like he could easily be a bad player next year.

What’s the over/under on what you think his OPS will be?  .635?

He'll be 36 in January... AND he is trending in the wrong direction AND being paid $15 million.

[Stradling]

43 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

technically it is partially your money if you've supported the team in any way.

No

[Dtwncbad]

12 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I think he is getting $21-23 million for 6-10 years.  

6-10 is a pretty wide range and literally the difference in my opinion between “do it” and “pass”

[Dtwncbad]

14 minutes ago, T.G. said:

He'll be 36 in January... AND he is trending in the wrong direction AND being paid $15 million.

And you know somebody can say “have the Giants eat some of that contract.”

And we are back to having a crappy player trying to save money.

Ugh.

[Warfarin]

All this talk of Crawford being a "crappy" player is interesting.

In a down year, he posted a 2.0 fWAR, thanks in part due to excellent defense.  Rengifo, who everyone seems to be rather bullish on, posted a 1.6 fWAR in more games.  

In terms of projections, Crawford is projected to post a better year, considerably, than Rengifo and Fletcher.  Of course, it is only a projection.  We will see how they ultimately fare.

At 35, is he due to decline?  Maybe, or maybe he simply posts a similar year as last year.  Or maybe he does slightly better, as the Giants' park is a pretty rough offensive park for hitters.  If we acquire him and pay him ~10mil, for 1 year, to do that, is that an awful investment?  I don't really think so, as it displaces Velazquez and helps provide considerable depth, even if for just 1 year.