The Giants spent a combined $13MM on right-hander Kevin Gausman and southpaw Drew Smyly in free agency last winter, and those short-term, buy-low deals worked out well for a club that narrowly missed a playoff berth. Now, the Giants are hoping to retain the pair, according to president of baseball operations Farhan Zaidi (via Alex Pavlovic of NBC Sports Bay Area).
“It’s obviously their prerogative to play out the market, but we certainly have interest in bringing both of those guys back,”said Zaidi, who added that the Giants are “going to be shopping for some starting pitching this offseason.”
The Giants’ rotation was a middle-of-the-pack unit in 2020, but Gausman and Smyly were bright spots. Gausman, a former Oriole, Brave and Red whom the Giants signed for $9MM, gave the club 59 2/3 innings of 3.62 ERA/3.09 FIP pitching with 11.92 K/9 against 2.41 BB/9. Pound for pound, the hard-throwing Gausman was among the most effective starters in the NL, so his next deal should be far more lucrative than the one he signed last winter. For what it’s worth, Gausman said last week he’s interested in staying with the Giants, who could tender him a qualifying offer before he returns to free agency.
Smyly only tossed 26 1/3 innings as a Giant after inking a $4MM contract, but the results were highly encouraging. He concluded with a 3.42 ERA/2.01 FIP, 14.35 K/9 and 3.08 BB/9. All of those numbers represented major rebounds for a hurler whom injuries have ravaged in recent years – including during a 2020 in which he missed over a month with a left index finger strain. Smyly also recorded a career-best 93.8 mph as a Giant, and that’s another reason he should draw a good amount of interest if he gets to free agency.
As of now, the Giants’ rotation is facing a slew of questions as the team heads into the offseason, which is why Zaidi will work to address it. Along with Gausman and Smyly, Jeff Samardzija and Trevor Cahill are on track to reach the open market. Those four amassed 25 starts for the Giants in 2020, and nobody remaining (Johnny Cueto, Logan Webb and Tyler Anderson) recorded particularly strong numbers.
I doubt the feeling is mutual if they get offers anywhere else. It’s kind of the reason they signed in SF in the first place. Nobody else really wanted them and they knew that if they performed well they would either get traded to a contender or parley their season here into a big contract next year. Since the Giants have started to exclusively shop at the dollar store for players the last few years, my guess is they won’t be back.
Gausman has already said he wants to re-sign, several times. That’s right. You are a Russian troll. You don’t get much Giants news in Siberia.
Yes and the Giants said they would never rebuild remember that? It may be a difficult concept for you to digest but people don’t always do what they say. If the Giants pony up and pay him enough he will stay but if you think that is going to happen, it is you who hasn’t been paying attention.
Teams are always rebuilding. It is not an either or thing. I don’t understand what point you are trying to make? Of course they will sign somewhere else if a huge paycheck comes up. But, both of them like it here. That goes a long way.
Yes and how has never rebuilding been working out for them the last 3.5 years?
pato349:
A classic rebuild, is selling off all, or most of your veteran players, for pennies on the dollar. The goal in a classic rebuild is to stockpile the farm with high draft choices for a few years, much like the Cubs and Astros did. What the Giants are doing now is nowhere close to that model.
The Giants are trying to stay competitive while improving their club. That is also what every team is trying to do that is not rebuilding per se.
What the Giants are doing is more like non-rebuilding teams, than rebuilding teams They just have farther to go. You keep insisting that they are rebuilding, but saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.
5 prospects have entered mlb top 100. They have more on the way. The farm system ranking has gone from #28 to #12.
Mediocrity is not success. Same results as last year missing the playoffs and a top ten pick. They are in baseball purgatory and the only hope is that Farhan identifies enough talent late in drafts and the system is able to develop them. So far his talent evaluating skills in the draft and otherwise have been underwhelming. Going out on a limb and going to say the Giants miss the playoffs next year and a top 10 pick yet again and there will still be people on here defending Farhan.
pato349:
You’re arguing about the future. I’ll go out on a limb and predict that you have no idea what is going to happen in the future.
I will note that over the past two years, arguments that the Giants would lose 100 games in 2019, and not win 20 games in 2020. were fairly far off.
But when it comes to whose philosophy I would trust more, yours or Zaidi’s, I will go with the professional with a successful career under his belt. (that’s Zaidi if what I’m saying is unclear to you).
Braces accepted losing 90-100 games while they developed their current successful team. As did the Astros. And the cubs. And the twins. And the White Sox. And the padres. And the jays.
As tad states , the giants, under Zaidi, are doing it while STILL being competitive. They weren’t mediocre. They were a huge improvement, especially offensively.
So what would you want. Losing 100 games while developing a contender OR just missing the playoffs while developing a contender.
Pato has no clue what was accomplished by the giants this year. But no matter what I, or tad or howie say, he’ll CONTINUE to wash rinse repeat his words.
Please ignore him.
Wait are you saying that immediately after the 2014 WS win the giants should have sold everybody off? You do understand that the system was a wasteland and they were competitive through 2016 when they made the playoffs right?
They are rebuilding in the dodgers mold, wheeling and dealing to build depth and retain value, taking flyers on guys with upside, trading cash for players and prospects, essentially using the cash advantage they have to build the system.
Huh, I had no idea the #14 pick is in the top 10… Manfred has lost his mind with these rule changes
Underwhelming!?!?
Yeah, every executive saw Yaz as a near MVP level player and Solano as a yearly batting title threat…
Jesus dude, what more could you ask for with what he started with?!
What Bobby Evans left Z was a shitshow, but he had them one game from the playoffs after only two seasons!
Agreed wolf
@Howie415 if that’s the case then they definitely should have traded him. That way they would have Gausman and a prospect. Would you rather have Gausman and a prospect or just Gausman?
Why would a team trade for Gausman knowing they would lose him in a month?
@Howie415 for the same reason that the Giants would refuse to trade him knowing that they would lose him in a month.
Gausman could get a qualifying offer.
Gausman accepts the QO in less than a second if it is made.
And?
And if they really want to bring him back on a one-year deal they could get him or someone comparable for cheaper.
I think you’re right, but I expect the Giants to offer a two (with an option) or even a 3-year deal that makes Gausman less costly than the one year QO. If he doesn’t take a 2-3 year offer from the Giants, let him go and take the draft pick. He’s not worth more than 3 years given his previously poor record—probably not even worth what the one year QO will cost (something in excess of $18M—yikes!).
@Pete’sView in order for them to “just take the draft pick” he has to actually decline the QO.
Yeah, you read a lot of articles. Both pitchers will be thrilled to return as Giants and are asking to.
I think we dismiss what players say to easily. These guys don’t have to say they want to pitch for this team or that. They could do what others have done and give no indication either way.
Gausman saw his value returned to him pitching with the Giants. I could see how that would be a lot of reason for Gausman wanting to stay.
@SalaryCapMyth Would still be the case if they traded him at the deadline
That almost never works out, but I don’t necessarily disagree with you either. My response was only in regard to taking Gausman at his word.
@SalaryCapMyth How does it “almost never work out?” I’ll bet you can’t name even one player who was traded at the deadline during his contract year, didn’t sign with his original team and we can confidently say that he would have signed with their original team if they hadn’t traded him, all other things equal.
Maybe I misunderstood you because you are arguing the line I would. That it rarely works out that someone is traded at the deadline and resigns with their previous team. Do you agree with that or not so much?
@SalaryCapMyth your statement is not relevant because it implies that the player didn’t sign BECAUSE they were traded. As in, all other things equal, they would have signed if they hadn’t been traded. You are arguing that correlation = causation. In reality, the player’s original team usually isn’t really interested in bringing him back or someone else offers him more $.
Now if you can name even ONE player who was traded during his contract year, didn’t go back to his original team and that we can confidently say that he would have signed with his original team if they hadn’t traded him, then you might have a case. Otherwise, it is safe to say that trading players doesn’t hurt your chances of signing them.
Through deductive reasoning, I can come to the conclusion that players traded at their walk year does NOT commonly resign with their previous team because there are few examples of this happening despite how abundantly walk year players are traded, otherwise know as one year rentals. In this case a lack of evidence is not evidence.
Further, my statement does NOT imply that the player DIDN’T resign for that reason. The motivations of the subjective player is left to interpretation.
@SalaryCapMyth again, you are arguing that correlation = causation. Most of the time, those players traded during their walk years’ original teams either aren’t interested in bringing the player back or they get outbid by someone else. I’ll bet that if all players who were traded during their contract years’ original teams offered them the most $ in free agency, then we would be able to say that most players who are traded during their contract years do sign with their original teams.
Now if you are trying to say that most players who are traded during contract years and then their original team offers them the most $ don’t sign with their original teams, and you had even one source to back that up, then we might be in business.
@SalaryCapMyth yeah, that’s what I thought.
MikeEmbletonSmellsBad:
Jon Lester. The Red Sox traded him to the A’s in his final contract season. They had every intent in signing him again in the off-season. Lester made a point of saying that he wasn’t going to take the biggest dollar contract, but would sign where he was going to feel the most comfortable. So he signed with Cubs.
No player is going to say he didn’t sign, or want to sign, with the team that traded him. But it’s pretty clear, reading between the lines, that Boston had a much better chance of signing him to an extension if they hadn’t traded him.
@tad2b13 dude, the Cubs gave Lester $155m! The Red Sox only offered him $135m. He would have signed with the Cubs anyway.
MikeEmbletonSmellsBad
Dude. Really? How dense can you be? Your argument holds no water. You’ve conveniently ignored Lester’s statement that the money was not going to be the determining factor. The Giants offered the same dollars that the Cubs did, but Lester narrowed it down to the Cubs and Red Sox. If it was about the money the two finalist would have been the Giants and the Cubs.
He said it was about comfort. He would have been much more comfortable signing an extension with Boston, his home for 8 seasons, and the only team he ever knew until traded. His “comfort” with the Cubs was Theo.
Keep telling yourself it was only about the money. The more insightful will recognize the true situation.
Answer this question if money wasn’t the determining factor for Lester as you said, how come he signed with the team that offered the most $ (or at least tied)?
And no, trading him did not magically lower his comfort level with Boston. I’m sure after 8 years there, he was familiar enough with the city and organization and knew what the front office thought of him.
That is a stupid question in context of the three offers made to Lester. Of the three, it’s well documented that the Giants offer was the biggest. It’s totally nonsensical to assert it was all about money when the first team he eliminated was the one that made the biggest offer.
How simplistic do you see things that of the two finalists, the one he chose had the higher dollars, when he could have had more? You can’t have it both ways. If it was about the money, as you assert, he would have signed with SF.
He said it was about comfort, and his process supports that. Making Boston one of the finalists says he would have been comfortable signing with Boston.
It’s pretty obvious what the tipping point was. It says much about you in your refusal to see the obvious.
Also this from the Chronical:
“Lester’s deliberations are described in great detail by author Jeff Passan in his groundbreaking new book, “The Arm,” which confirms contemporary reports that the Giants offered the left-hander the biggest contract before he signed a six-year, $155 million deal with the Cubs.
“The Giants were more money, but for me they could have offered me $300 million,” Lester said. “It wasn’t about money. It was about what we felt would be the right fit for us.””
Yeah, it is obvious what the tipping point was between Chicago and Boston. That tipping point was $20m. To say anything else is just ludicrous. You even admit that he clearly would have been comfortable signing with Boston even after they traded him.
And as for the Giants, this is my first time hearing that they were seriously in the bidding. It never specifies exactly what their offer was so we don’t know if he left any money at all on the table by signing with the Cubs over them and if so, how much. But since they aren’t the ones that traded him it’s mostly immaterial to my argument.
He can say he wouldn’t have signed with the Giants for $300m all he wants. If that kind of money had been offered, I bet he’d be a San Francisco Giant today.
Also, you might wanna watch it with the ad hominems buddy.
What makes Passan’s book “groundbreaking”? Does it weight a ton?
Passan writes with an agenda. Can’t trust people like that in-general.
MikeEmbletonSmellsBad:
You have one point to support your supposition, the bigger offer between the RS and Cubs, which falls apart in context with the Giant’s offer. But, despite the evidence, you will continue to argue against the obvious. Good job.
wild bill tetley:
So when you don’t like the facts you attack the one that delivers it.
I guess you must be right though since the blowup with Lester, the Cubs, Red Sox, and Giants all disputing what Passan put in the book, Oh…wait…
@tad2b13 No it doesn’t. I wasn’t talking about the Giants. They weren’t the ones that traded him so you can’t say he refused to sign with them because they traded him. The debate is about the Red Sox and Cubs. You can speculate all you want but unless you have concrete evidence that Lester would have stayed in Boston if they hadn’t traded him, you give us nothing of value.
Tad…..what facts? Because some journalist writes it down does not mean we have to believe it. Skepticism is common. Please don’t assume what is fact.
MikeEmbletonSmellsBad:
You were ignoring the Giants because their offer shoots holes in your argument. If you will read my posts a little better you’d see that I said Lester did not sign with SF because he had more comfort with the other two. The fact that the Giants did not trade him is irrelevant. More relevant is that the Cubs did not trade Lester either, but the RS did.
It isn’t only about the RS and Cubs. You would like it to be because then your assertion makes more sense if you strip away all the context.
But what doesn’t make sense was Lester saying the Giants could have offered $300M and he still would’ve chosen the Cubs. It makes no sense that a $300M offer couldn’t entice him, but that $20M did.
The facts are that Lester turned down the biggest offer, and said he wouldn’t sign had it been a lot bigger. That Lester said it was about comfort, not money. The fact that he was comfortable in Boston, and the only thing that factored in for comfort with the Cubs was the presence of Theo Epstein. Those facts.
MikeEmbletonSmellsBad:
It’s obvious when people are wrong, because the first thing they attack is the information available. I know information can be skewed, but a professional journalist who puts words in quotes and attributes them to an individual that is false, is not going to have any kind of career after that.
@tad2b13 I ignored the Giants because my original question was “Name one player who was traded during a contract year and didn’t sign with his original team and we can confidently say that he would have signed with his original team had he not been traded.” The Giants aren’t the team that traded him, so it isn’t relevant here.
The fact of the matter is that Lester signed with a team that offered more money than the Red Sox. And that, by your own admittance, Lester said he was still open to signing with Boston even after they traded him. So if you are using Lester as your argument, you are unironically trying to tell me that he would have left $20m on the table to sign with the Red Sox if they hadn’t traded him, all other things equal. That is not self-evident.
And Lester can say after the fact that he would have declined $300m from San Francisco all he wants. HAD the offer actually been made, I bet he’s singing a different tune.
MikeEmbletonSmellsBad:”
“HAD the offer actually been made, I bet he’s singing a different tune.”
Please. You’re using an irrelevant hypothetical to divert from the crux of the issue, which is; had Lester not been traded, would he still be with the RS? No one can know for sure where Lester would be had he not been traded, but based on his comments, I’d bet heavily that he would still be in Boston.
I say that because of this interview with him from 2014 a year before his free-agency:
“On the first full day of Boston Red Sox spring training, ace Jon Lester reiterated that he would take a hometown discount to stay in Boston rather than test the market after this season, when he becomes eligible for free agency.
“You guys have probably figured me out by now, I would hope. I usually don’t say things I don’t mean. So I mean it: I want to stay here,” Lester said, repeating a stance he took last month. “This is all I’ve known. I don’t like change. I don’t like going into new places that I have to learn.”
Funny that he was so adverse to a new team, and yet he chose a new team over a return to Boston, a place he was clearly comfortable with
The offer from SF is relevant as it shows that money was not the driving factor. Your saying SF didn’t trade him so that’s irrelevant, is pretzel logic to, once again, divert from the germane factors.
Remember that those $20M was for over 6 years, about $3.3M per. Not a huge amount in the context of MLB salaries.
.But, if you can read Lester’s comments from 2014, and 2015 and, and in light of the 3 offers, and what actually happened, and still insist on your overly simplistic explanation, then you’re only about winning an argument, and not recognizing reality.
” Uh no, the Cubs offered more money”. Not the most insightful explanation in view of the complexities of life and human nature.
“No one can know for sure where Lester would be had he not been traded, but based on his comments, I’d bet heavily that he would still be in Boston.”
So you admit that you don’t know. Your opinion is just that. I was asking for concrete evidence.
“Funny that he was so adverse to a new team, and yet he chose a new team over a return to Boston, a place he was clearly comfortable with”
And there is no evidence that trading him was the reason for that.
In fact, looking more into it, it appears that the Red Sox severely lowballed him in extension talks early in the 2014 season and he was genuinely offended by their offer. Many Sox fans believe that THAT was the tipping point that caused him to leave Boston. But it could have been any number of things. Could have been that. Could have been that the Cubs had Jed and Theo running the show. Could have been that he was only open to a select few teams that he was comfortable signing with (Red Sox and Cubs obviously being among those, Giants obviously not) and then among those teams, he just went with the highest bidder. Your theory that he didn’t sign with the Red Sox because he wanted to punish them for trading him is only one possible explanation. And not a very good one considering he was offered more money elsewhere.
Bottom line, unless Lester actually told you that he would have signed with Boston if they hadn’t traded him, all other things equal, you have no case.
MikeEmbletonSmellsBad
Your lowball theory holds no water when Lester said he would give them a hometown discount.
But, wow. I mean really, just wow. I state the obvious that no one, including me, knows for sure where Lester would be had he not been traded, and you somehow, inconceivably think that’s a point in your favor. Well here’s a clue, neither do you, which makes that aspect neutral. The fact that no one here can know should not be news. to you. I assumed you understood that from the beginning, as well you should have.
It’s completely clear to me that you completely lack objectivity, so I am out. Your lack of objectivity is demonstrated by your belief, that when I say I can’t know for sure where Lester would be, you in a fit of self-delusion think that helps your assertion. It doesn’t.
It’s obvious to me that Lester could tell you to your face that he did not sign with Boston because of the trade, and you would tell him he was wrong.
I don’t mind exchanging opposing views with someone that based his position on a logical base. That is not you. So as I said, I am out. You are welcome to your simplistic, nonsensical belief. I will also avoid future discussions with you. Had you presented one scintilla of evidence, beyond the Cubs bigger offer, I could maybe see your point. But despite my larger body of evidence your close-minded responses have ended this for me.. Go contradict someone else, because that’s all you have.
“Your lowball theory holds no water when Lester said he would give them a hometown discount.”
He said that before they lowballed him. Hometown discount does not mean pennies on the dollar, which is what they offered him early on in the 2014 season.
“But, wow. I mean really, just wow. I state the obvious that no one, including me, knows for sure where Lester would be had he not been traded, and you somehow, inconceivably think that’s a point in your favor. Well here’s a clue, neither do you, which makes that aspect neutral.”
Sorry bud but the burden of proof is on you, not me. You assert that Lester would have signed if Boston hadn’t traded him, you provide the proof.
“Your lack of objectivity is demonstrated by your belief, that when I say I can’t know for sure where Lester would be, you in a fit of self-delusion think that helps your assertion. It doesn’t.”
My original point was that you guys can’t name so much as one player that we can confidently say that he would have signed with his original team if he hadn’t been traded, all other things equal. And you admit that you don’t know that Lester would have stayed in Boston had he not been traded. So yeah, it is absolutely a point in my favor.
“It’s obvious to me that Lester could tell you to your face that he did not sign with Boston because of the trade, and you would tell him he was wrong.”
Well you are as wrong about that as you were about your assertion that Lester absolutely would have signed with Boston had they not traded him, a decision that I have since gotten you to backpedal on.
“I don’t mind exchanging opposing views with someone that based his position on a logical base. That is not you. So as I said, I am out.”
Another lie from you. You and mrnatedumbdumb would clearly rather just throw out ad hominems and snark at people who disagree with you rather than valid arguments. I thought that my argument is very logical and I still believe that. There is no evidence that players punish teams for trading them. Lester is not evidence. It’s a theory, but it’s no more plausible than saying he signed with the Cubs because they offered more $.
“You are welcome to your simplistic, nonsensical belief. I will also avoid future discussions with you.”
Not sure what is so nonsensical about the idea that he signed with the team that offered more $. Most players do that.
“Had you presented one scintilla of evidence, beyond the Cubs bigger offer, I could maybe see your point.”
I did. I pointed out that he was supposedly offended by the Red Sox’s earlier attempts to lowball him and that his old pals Jed and Theo were now in Chicago. And you deliberately ignored that.
“But despite my larger body of evidence your close-minded responses have ended this for me.”
Right, we’ll see how long that lasts.
youre crazy. gausman wants to re-sign, as he has said several times, and the Giants, as stated in THIS ARTICLE, are hoping to retain gausman. gausman had a heck of a year this year, so the Giants like him and Gausman wouldn’t want to leave where he was successful and a standout with a guaranteed spot
@twardog like I said, if Gausman wants to re-sign so much, they definitely should have traded him. Would you rather have Gausman and a prospect or just Gausman?
they were in the thick of the postseason so they kept their best starter
Seriously, what’s this guy even talking about?!
Shoulda traded ’em
Why?
Cuz they are FA’s
Giants missed the playoffs by one game (or by two runs. Or by a couple bad strike calls depending on how you look at it). They are intent on winning. Why would they trade their best pitcher while trying to make it to the playoffs?
They were intent on winning followed by a spectacular loss to the Dodgers in round 1.
Ok there.
Mid-pack, mediocre Giants teams refusing to see the bigger picture which is 2021 and beyond. Not competing, not building up to the best of their ability. You get the best return possible on Gausman to build toward the bigger picture which many Giant fans refuse to see. The 2020 Giants were a nothing ballclub aided by playoff expansion and they STILL missed out.
“Mid-pack, mediocre Giants teams refusing to see the bigger picture”
You mean the same Giants who signed their best 2 starting pitchers on dirt-cheap, one year deals to see if they’d bounce back?
You mean the same Giants who realized they can find insane value with guys like Yaz and Solano on league minimum salaries?
Yep. That Zaidi guy is *totally* not seeing the bigger picture here. He should have thrown tons of money at Cole Hamels and traded for Giancarlo Stanton. What good is he if he’s not burning piles of money?
@mrnatewalker They were one game below .500 and tied for the eighth-best record out of 15 teams in the National League. That is the very definition of “mid-pack” and “mediocre.”
If Zaidi was seeing the bigger picture he would have traded Gausman and Smyly at the deadline to the highest bidder, knowing that they are not the type of players that are going to be priced out of his range in FA.
For someone who acts so arrogant, you sure do know so little. Welcome to the internet.
Smyly was on the IL during the deadline. With only one month remaining in the season, no team was going to give the Giants anything for Smyly. In fact, I’m sure they probably would get someone better as a DFA pickup than anything in return.
And with the expanded playoffs, they weren’t trading Gausman. The Giants pitching was not great, and somehow, they were still in the playoff hunt. Trading Gausman would have been monumentally dumb, especially considering no one was giving up a premium for him.
I’d imagine if the Giants were offered something they liked, they would have traded players.
Zaidi seeing the big picture knows that he can get insane value on players like Gausman, who had a higher WAR, K/9, better ERA, FIP (and xFIP) than a guy like Gerrit Cole, who was paid 36x higher than Gausman.
Why would a risk-adverse guy like Zaidi give up that kind of value for anything short of a legitimate haul?
If you’re trying to paint Zaidi as some sort of a failure because he didn’t trade off two really good reclamation projects for pennies on the dollar, then it’s clear you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and should just stop.
The Giants are a significantly better team because of Zaidi’s leadership.
Thank you Nate!
Shut that kid up!
“For someone who acts so arrogant, you sure do know so little. Welcome to the internet.”
Well if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black.
“Why would a risk-adverse guy like Zaidi give up that kind of value for anything short of a legitimate haul?”
Because he knows he’s about to lose them for absolutely nothing.
“The Giants are a significantly better team because of Zaidi’s leadership.”
This is the second year in a row he has failed to trade off pending FA’s and then the Giants have missed the playoffs. Not sure how that makes them better.
“kid”
Um, excuse me?
So you concur, you know so little about what you’re talking about? Good to know.
And no, he’s not about to lose Gausman for absolutely nothing. He’s going to lose out on the value Gausman brings to his team; the ability to have an exclusive extension/negotiating window; and the good graces of not trading a guy who has explicitly said he wanted to stay in San Francisco. Those things matter, and are probably far more valuable than some 35 FV prospect they’d get in return for him.
And when he brings back Gausman on another comically cheap deal, it’ll make Zaidi look great again.
And you don’t think the Giants are better? Did you honestly have them winning 29 games this year? 77 last year? They’ve “over-performed” expectations each year Zaidi has been around, by a fairly large amount.
As far as previous years are concerned, it’s yet again clear you have no idea what you’re talking about. They got Dubon for a rental in Pomeranz. They got Joey Wentz for Melancon’s albatross. They got a big haul for Sam Dyson.
But because they didn’t sell low on Bumgarner and Will Smith, Zaidi failed? He likely got better players in the draft than he would have in a trade for those guys. And based on what he got for lesser players, he didn’t need to trade Bumgarner or Smith.
Seriously, you’re woefully incompetent at this. Log off and call it a day kiddo.
Zaidi is as good as his record I guess. Since the Giants are competitive and all.
Not sure where you got the idea that I said the Giants needed to burn money. If anything they are burning money with the high-priced talent they already have. I guess you wanted to overlook that point too.
“He’s going to lose out on the value Gausman brings to his team..”
Well now he’s about to lose that anyway.
“… the ability to have an exclusive extension/negotiating window…”
For any player in baseball, the prospect he would bring/cost in a trade are worth more than having an exclusive negotiating window on him. If Gausman wouldn’t bring the Giants anything of value in trade, then having an exclusive negotiating window on him also has no value.
“… and the good graces of not trading a guy who has explicitly said he wanted to stay in San Francisco.”
So they lose his good graces by trading him to a team that has a better chance of making the playoffs and allowing him to finish out his season pitching for a contender and eliminating the qualifying offer from the equation? (although I doubt he gets a QO anyway) Not likely lmfao. And like I said, if he has explicitly said that he wants to stay in SF, then they definitely should have traded him. They could have had Gausman and a prospect. But now they only get Gausman. Which one sounds better to you?
Those things matter, and are probably far more valuable than some 35 FV prospect they’d get in return for him.”
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooope!
“And you don’t think the Giants are better? Did you honestly have them winning 29 games this year? 77 last year? They’ve “over-performed” expectations each year Zaidi has been around, by a fairly large amount.”
So below .500 for both years. Not good at all. And they would be looking better for the future if he had traded Bumgarner, Smith, Smyly and Gausman.
“As far as previous years are concerned, it’s yet again clear you have no idea what you’re talking about. They got Dubon for a rental in Pomeranz. They got Joey Wentz for Melancon’s albatross. They got a big haul for Sam Dyson.”
And you clearly have no idea what you are talking about considering you don’t realize that Joey Wentz was traded to the Tigers rather than the Giants.
“But because they didn’t sell low on Bumgarner and Will Smith, Zaidi failed? He likely got better players in the draft than he would have in a trade for those guys.”
Each of them would have easily gotten a top 100 prospect in trade. You think a 2nd/3rd round sandwich pick is more value than that? Good thing you’re not a GM LOL!
“Seriously, you’re woefully incompetent at this. Log off and call it a day kiddo.”
Are you talking to yourself now?
Prove that the Giants could have gotten a top 100 pick for Smith and Bumgarner? What were the offers on the table?
Look at what comparable players got
Okay, so tell us, who would Farhan Zaidi gotten in return for Gausman, Smyly, and Bumgarner.
You say Bumgarner and Smith would have gotten a top 100 pick in return… who was offering? What offers did Zaidi turn down that made him so unbelievably stupid for turning them down?
I’m guessing Zaidi’s reasons for turning them down come from him knowing what he’s doing and you blowing smoke out of your rear end.
It’s really not difficult to figure out that Zaidi didn’t like the offers he was getting and felt he could get more in the draft. In fact, it’s been pretty well written about that this is probably the case. So it’s not difficult… well, for most of us at least. It seems awfully difficult for you to comprehend.
As far as the Melancon deal. You’re correct, it was Tristan Beck. My apologies for making a mistake. If i make 8-10 more, I’ll finally catch up to you. Keep track.
And last, I’m impressed by your use of “ad hominem”. I really am, those are big words for you. While you’re trying to talk fallacies, check out “argument from fallacy”. One’s use of an ad hominem doesn’t negate their argument, kiddo. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand these things.
Perhaps you should apply to be the Giants GM/President. Maybe send these comments to Larry Baer. I’m sure he’ll see your superior baseball and business sense and give you a call with an interview time. Go for it. Tell me how the phone call goes.
Like I said. Look at what comparable players to Bumgarner and Smith have gotten in trades. Always better than a 2nd/3rd round sandwich pick. On Gausman it doesn’t matter what he would have gotten because it is virtually guaranteed to have been better than what he will now get: nothing
“As far as the Melancon deal. You’re correct, it was Tristan Beck. My apologies for making a mistake. If i make 8-10 more, I’ll finally catch up to you. Keep track.”
Lol and now you are claiming that that was the only mistake you have made on here. We both know that’s a lie but I don’t think you wanna go there…
“One’s use of an ad hominem doesn’t negate their argument, kiddo.”
It does when you use them in place of an actual well-thought out argument as you have. You are hiding behind it because you know you don’t actually have anything relevant and compelling to say. And I’m pretty sure I’m at least twice as old as you, “kiddo.”
“Look at what comparable players got”
You should run for political office with a dodge like that. Here, I did the work for you:
Comparable players traded at the 2019 Deadline:
Andrew Cashner (similar ERA, a rental): Elio Prado and Noelberth Romero
Homer Bailey (a better ERA, also rental): SS Kevin Merrell
Jordan Lyles (better ERA, younger, and a rental): Cody Ponce
Jason Vargas (similar ERA, rental): Austin Bossart
Tanner Roark (less ERA, rental): Jameson Hannah
There wasn’t a single rental SP who brought back a Top 100 prospect last season. Not one. In fact, most of those prospects are total lottery tickets. You can see why Zaidi would prefer to just draft someone, since he knows that good players fall in the draft all the time.
Please, for your own sake, quit making stuff up. It’s not a good look.
None of those pitchers had Bumgarner’s track record (especially in the postseason). And what about Will Smith? Elite LHRP’s are in high demand at the deadline, even as rentals.
And the prospects received in those trades are all at least as good as a 2nd/3rd round sandwich pick.
And then when it comes to Gausman, the player this article is actually about, SF won’t even get the sandwich pick.
LOL. Nice moving of the goal posts. It went from “a top 100 prospect” to “all of those are at least as good as a 2nd/3rd Round sandwich pick”.
Even if that’s the case (I don’t believe it’s true), you couldn’t prove Bumgarner would return a Top 100 pick, despite your arrogance in insisting he would. Literally all of the evidence from “comparable picks” suggests the opposite.
I’d doubt the Giants, who were playing really well in late July, wanted to give up one of the faces of their franchise for someone maybe a little bit better than Jameson Hannah. I’d imagine ownership insisted that the trade had to be a legitimate haul. It wasn’t.
And as far as Bumgarner’s “postseason track record” was concerned. He hadn’t pitched in the WS in 5 seasons, or a postseason game in 3. He had 2 significant injuries in between as well. I strongly doubt any GM in baseball was concerned about Bumgarner’s success from 3-5 seasons prior in trade talks. He wasn’t (and still isn’t) the same pitcher he used to be.
Smith was a missed opportunity, but when you trade Melancon, Pomeranz, and Dyson, you need someone to remain in your bullpen, especially with how they were playing in mid-to-late July.
Believe it or not, there’s layers of context when it comes to these trades (or lack thereof). Just because you’re inept at understanding context doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.
If I’m not mistaken, I think your 8th grade math teacher is calling. She’d hate to see you have to repeat a ninth time. Get back to class.
And no, the Giants won’t get a sandwich pick. But since you insist on looking at the comps, let’s do it:
Robbie Ray (who has a better “track record” than Gausman): Travis Bergen
Ross Stripling (a controllable SP): Kendall Williams, PTBN
Tommy Milone: 2 PTBN
Taijuan Walker: PTBN
Mike Minor: Dustin Harris, Marcus Smith
Until we know the PTBN, we can’t know for sure what Gausman might have netted. But it probably wouldn’t have been a great return, and during an expanded playoffs and the Giants trying to get in (they nearly did), why would you trade one of the only SPs having a good season?
Trades aren’t made in a bubble. The context of the expanded playoffs and the lack of options because of the pandemic stunted nearly every teams’ options when it came to trading players. The Giants had no reason to trade Gausman if they felt they could make the playoffs (and thus, he’d be needed). They also shouldn’t just be expected to give up because some kid on the internet doesn’t think they are any good.
Zaidi not trading Gausman makes a lot of sense for those that have two brain cells to rub together. I’m not surprised it has you confused.
The Giants drafted Nick Swiney and Jimm Glowenke with their comp picks. Pretty sure I’d rather have Jameson Hannah than either.
Bumgarner’s injuries were both freak injuries rather than chronic recurring ones. I can assure you not a single GM was worried about that. Him being “one of the faces of their franchise” isn’t a reason to not trade him when they were about to lose him anyway. Nor is the fact that they were allegedly playing well (they weren’t). They had already decided to sell when they traded Pomeranz, Melancon and Dyson. If they actually thought they could make the playoffs, why did they do that? You also act like no GM has ever paid a premium for a guy’s reputation and track record. Just because it’s not a smart thing to do doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
On Smith, how exactly did they need someone to remain in their bullpen? What would have happened if they didn’t? They’d miss the playoffs? Oh wait… And the Giants clearly didn’t intend to make the playoffs considering they already started to sell anyway.
“Just because you’re inept at understanding context doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.”
“If I’m not mistaken, I think your 8th grade math teacher is calling. She’d hate to see you have to repeat a ninth time. Get back to class.”
More ad hominems. How exactly does that contribute to the discussion?
Grow up.
Even just a PTBNL would have been better than the nothing the Giants ended up getting for Gausman. They would trade him because the alternative is to lose him for nothing.
Also, you just might have the worst attitude I’ve ever seen on this site. It is possible to disagree with people without insulting them. You’ll learn that when you get older.
You don’t know the first thing about Nick Swiney or Jimmy Glowenke. Drop the arrogance. You probably never heard of Jameson Hannah until I mentioned him.
The point is, and I can’t believe you actually need this explained to you: guys like Zaidi tend to prefer to take their chances on the draft than being forced to take one or two specific players. Their options are so much greater and there’s more players to choose from in the draft. And a greater chance that someone really good can fall to that spot.
In Zaidi’s eyes, he got Nick Swiney for Madison Bumgarner. If you think that’s a bad deal, then I guess that’s your opinion. I would trust Zaidi’s 1000x before I trust yours.
“They had already decided to sell when they traded Pomeranz, Melancon and Dyson. If they actually thought they could make the playoffs, why did they do that?”
Good lord. You know, it’s rather tiring when you have to explain basic principles to someone who thinks they know it all.
They sold on Pomeranz because turning a struggling LHP starter into a controllable Top 100 prospect is a trade you never turn down. That move looks like it certainly favors the Giants.
They sold on Melancon because the Braves were willing to take on the entirety of his contract. Getting that money off the books favors the Giants.
They sold on Dyson because they got three guys with upside that Zaidi liked. Based on Dyson’s injury, that move exclusively favored the Giants.
Long story short, they made deals because they were clearly favorable to Zaidi’s game plan, both in the short term and the long term. If you’re paying attention (it’s clear that you’re not), you’ll see a pattern with what Farhan Zaidi is doing. Every move he has made (or hasn’t) falls directly in line with that plan… he’s not even being discreet about it.
The Smith trade, as I’ve stated, was a missed opportunity in my opinion. But if you asked Zaidi, he would probably tell you that he wasn’t getting offers that he liked for Will Smith, so he didn’t move him. I don’t know what those offers were, but I’d trust him than I would you.
Yes, they missed the playoffs. Congrats, you can criticize something in hindsight. You’ve still refused to share what offers Zaidi got for Will Smith. It’s almost like you know absolutely nothing about this and you’re making it up as you go.
And for every “missed” trade that Zaidi has, in my view, he makes up for it by the moves he has made: getting a top-10 offensive player in Yastrzemski for pretty much nothing. Getting a .300 hitter in Solano for nothing. Getting a 1st round draft pick (Will Wilson) simply by eating Zack Cozart’s salary. Getting anyone to take on Melancon’s salary AND getting a player in return for it. Getting a top 100 prospect out of a starter with a 5.68 ERA.
When you’ve pulled off what Zaidi has in just two years, I think he’s allowed to “miss” a few opportunities.
You ask, “How exactly does that contribute to the discussion?” I ask you, what have you actually contributed? You’ve made silly comments about a topic you’re clearly uneducated about. You’ve made nonsensical points that were easily disproven, and you’ve shown that you don’t actually know anything about how Farhan Zaidi operates.
Grown ups bow out when it’s evident they are wrong. Yet, here you are. I’m not interested in treating you as equal in this discussion when you need basic principles to be explained just so you can keep up.
Move along. Perhaps Legos are more your speed?
Oh noz guys, Farhan Zaidi didn’t trade Kevin Gausman for a 35 FV prospect who probably wouldn’t amount to anything in the majors…. how could anyone even think to hire this bum?
You’re acting like the Giants passed up a Gausman-Trout deal or something. Most likely, Gausman would be traded for a name that wouldn’t be recognized by his own teammates. It’s a really decent chance that this player would be inconsequential in the long run. Heck, almost every team in baseball, even rebuilding ones, don’t always trade every expiring contract.
And for what it’s worth, in August, the value of the Giants making the playoffs was significantly greater than the value of any player they’d get in a trade.
These aren’t difficult concepts. And at this point, I think you’re arguing simply to be contrarian. Give it up.
“You don’t know the first thing about Nick Swiney or Jimmy Glowenke. Drop the arrogance.”
I will when you do, “kiddo.”
“You probably never heard of Jameson Hannah until I mentioned him.”
Actually I did. I debated last year with some Reds fan who was mad that that was all they got for Roark. I said that they had to trade Roark and that they essentially traded Tanner Rainey for Jameson Hannah, which is probably an upgrade.
“They sold on Pomeranz because turning a struggling LHP starter into a controllable Top 100 prospect is a trade you never turn down. That move looks like it certainly favors the Giants.”
“They sold on Melancon because the Braves were willing to take on the entirety of his contract. Getting that money off the books favors the Giants.
They sold on Dyson because they got three guys with upside that Zaidi liked. Based on Dyson’s injury, that move exclusively favored the Giants.”
Obviously all 3 trades favor the Giants long-term. Pom and Dyson were rentals, Melancon wasn’t worth his contract. But if they were serious about contending, they wouldn’t have traded 3 guys who were contributing in the first place, regardless of what was offered/how much $ they were owed.
“Long story short, they made deals because they were clearly favorable to Zaidi’s game plan, both in the short term and the long term.”
I’ll give you long-term but not short-term. Those trades made the Giants worse for 2019 and them stumbling down the stretch proves that to those of us who are paying attention (see: not you)
“The Smith trade, as I’ve stated, was a missed opportunity in my opinion. But if you asked Zaidi, he would probably tell you that he wasn’t getting offers that he liked for Will Smith, so he didn’t move him. I don’t know what those offers were, but I’d trust him than I would you.”
You really think no one is trading something better than Jimm Glowenke for an elite LHRP?
“I ask you, what have you actually contributed? You’ve made silly comments about a topic you’re clearly uneducated about. You’ve made nonsensical points that were easily disproven, and you’ve shown that you don’t actually know anything about how Farhan Zaidi operates.”
Bruh, are you self-contemplating yourself now? You have done ALL THAT and you top it off by hurling insults in one of the most childish displays I have ever seen on this website.
“Grown ups bow out when it’s evident they are wrong.”
Correct. And that explains why you are still here.
“Perhaps Legos are more your speed?”
Just couldn’t resist the urge to squeeze one more insult in there eh?
“Oh noz guys, Farhan Zaidi didn’t trade Kevin Gausman for a 35 FV prospect who probably wouldn’t amount to anything in the majors.”
The 35 FV prospect might not amount to anything but we know that one month of Gausman won’t amount to anything for the Giants. They didn’t make the playoffs and it won’t help them sign him.
Lol first ad hominems, now straw manning. What’s next? The Gausman return doesn’t have to be Mike Trout to provide greater than 0 WAR in 2021 and beyond for SF (which is what they will get by not trading Gausman).
“Most likely, Gausman would be traded for a name that wouldn’t be recognized by his own teammates.”
That’s fine. Better than the no-name they get by not trading him.
“It’s a really decent chance that this player would be inconsequential in the long run.”
And a 100% chance they get no future value by keeping Gausman.
“And for what it’s worth, in August, the value of the Giants making the playoffs was significantly greater than the value of any player they’d get in a trade.”
They are literally below .500 and the only reason they even came close to the playoffs is the expanded format.
“These aren’t difficult concepts. And at this point, I think you’re arguing simply to be contrarian. Give it up.”
It’s game over when the other player bows out, ya schmuck
Man, you know what ad hominems AND straw mans??? I’m really impressed by you. If only you knew half as much about baseball, as you did logical fallacies… you’d still not know much. What else is new?
I’ll also give you this, you’re clearly triggered by Farhan Zaidi not trading Kevin Gausman. Were you hoping he’d come to your city? Maybe they’ll drop some cold hard cash in his lap and you can enjoy his pitching next season.
And if you hate the Giants, then you can celebrate. The Giants didn’t get a 35 FV prospect for their pitcher! If that doesn’t teach Farhan Zaidi a massive lesson, I’m not sure anything will!
When are your MLB GM classes taking place? Do I have to wear a mask? Can you send me the Zoom link? I’ll make sure I email Farhan the link. I think he has a lot to learn from you.
Anyway, send me the link to your class. Until then, I’ll leave you to digging up all my old comments on this site. I’ve been here a while now, so you’ll need some time. I’ll let you get to that.
Anyhoo, toodles.
Realistically, the player the Giants got for not trading Smith/Bumgarner is Kyle Harrison – who is a 55FV pitching prospect that had an outside chance of going in the first round. So not a total scrub in terms of value. Who knows if either player would have been worth that much value during the 2019 trade deadline. Guess we’ll see!
@mrnatewalker Leave the snark to people who are good at it buddy
Ohhhhhhhhkay. It’s time an adult steps into the convo.
Nate, I’ll start with you: chill bro. You can say things without delving into personal slights and low blows.
MikeEmbleton: You’re wrong. Oh so wrong. You got triggered by someone who is trying to get under your skin, and it looks like it worked.
Without adding more to the discussion that hasn’t been said, Nate is right about a couple things:
1. Teams don’t trade off good players on expired contracts all the time, including rebuilding teams. Not every rebuilding (or in Giants case, retooling) team needs to sell off every valuable asset.
2. Gausman was the only bright spot in that pitching staff. It makes no sense for Zaidi to trade him away in a year with expanded playoffs.
3. GMs are value-driven. You don’t trade a Lamborghini for a Geo Metro simply because the Lamborghini will be broken down next month. It’s a competitive game, and that competition extends well beyond the ball field. Farhan Zaidi isn’t handing over a solid pitcher simply because he may or may not lose him to free agency.
4. The draft pick compensation is absolutely the better option over trading Bumgarner for peanuts. Here’s an analogy: if someone said, “you can have 2 DVDs that cost $5 each, or you can have. a $10 Walmart gift card”, you pick the gift card every time. A trade is limited, the draft gives more options. If Zaidi felt he could get similar value in the draft, why would he limit himself to a trade?
It doesn’t seem you’re too keen on accepting these realities, but these are the realities of the situation. I’ll say it nicely to you, but you could serve well to listen to others. Nate, despite his boisterousness, is correct.
@SFGiants402
I am an adult, thank you very much. And I am not “triggered.” I am simply explaining to this nate kid why he is wrong. Now as for your points 1-4…
1. How does not trading expiring contracts when you are rebuilding work out? It almost always blows up in the teams face. And Gausman wasn’t a lifetime Giant and face of the franchise like, say, Jose Abreu was with the ChiSox.
2. Would only matter if they were contending. They literally finished below .500 and the only reason they even came within pissing distance of the playoffs was the ridiculous expanded format.
3. Absolutely you take what you can get for the Lambo if you 100% know it’s going to break down in the next month. And even if Farhan is able to keep Gausman, that won’t be enough on its own to justify the trade. We need to have some kind of tangible evidence that he wouldn’t have signed if he had been traded, all other things equal.
4. Depends on what was offered, yes. But I have a hard time believing that teams wouldn’t have offered anything decent for Madison Bumgarner at that point.
1. Ask the Diamondbacks if they are pleased with the Robbie Ray trade. Sure, they “got something” for Ray, but Bergen is not going to do anything for Arizona. At the least, Ray was a starting pitcher for the Diamondbacks. The obvious difference there was that San Francisco was contending at trade deadline, Arizona was not. Which leads to the next point…
2. They were contending. They took the playoff race to the last day. You’re saying this now, knowing the end result. Zaidi saw a team that could contend for a playoff spot in the expanded playoffs. He simply wasn’t going to throw that chance away because Gausman was a free agent this winter.
3. No, you don’t trade a Lamborghini for a Geo Metro. If you do, you should not be allowed to make moves like that. Bad teams hold onto good players all the time. You don’t just take bad value for the sake of making a trade. There’s a reason you’re not a GM, and I hope you’re not a stockbroker.
If your stocks hit zero, you don’t just swap them out for bad, but not-at-zero stocks. Sometimes, you cut your losses and move on, or figure it out.
4. It’s also possible that ownership wasn’t comfortable trading away a fan favorite. There may have been fan pressure to keep Bumgarner. It’s also possible the Giants didn’t like the offers they received for Bumgarner.
Can you just admit you have zero idea what the Giants were offered for any of the players they didn’t trade? None of us do. If they had a deal they liked, they would have pulled off a trade. They clearly didn’t.
Your act is tiring, Mike. Again, you could serve well to listen to others. You come across as equally boisterous and it’s exhausting to discuss anything with you.
1. Assuming Hazen took the best offer available (which I see no reason why he wouldn’t) of course they are pleased with the trade. And if they really miss Ray so much, who says they can’t re-sign him in the offseason?
2. If you think a team that lost more games than they won in the regular season is going to go far in the postseason (against only good teams) then that’s your argument. We will agree to disagree.
3. Saying “bad teams hold onto good players all the time” isn’t a valid argument. It has to actually work out in their favor. If it doesn’t, then that is a point in my favor, not against it. You absolutely take bad value just for the sake of making a trade because bad value > no value. Remember that Corey Kluber was basically seen as an org filler 10 years ago when my team traded him.
4. As the top decision maker for a MLB team, having to make objective, unsentimental decisions that might not be popular with the casual fan comes with the territory. Andrew Friedman did it when he traded Matt Kemp. Derek Jeter did it when he traded Giancarlo Stanton. Mike Hazen did it when he traded Paul Goldschmidt. Chaim Bloom did it when he traded Mookie Betts. And look at how good those trades look for their respective teams. Good GM’s put zero stock in “fan pressure” or whatever.
I don’t need to know what was offered to know that something is better than nothing. And nothing is what they will now get for Kevin Gausman.
Two things, just to end this nightmare:
1. You listed exclusively great trades for the teams trading their “fan favorite”. Every one of those deals greatly benefitted the team. And they all included players that had tremendous value.
The Red Sox weren’t going to trade Mookie Betts for Travis Bergen. They weren’t going to dump a really good player for a really bad one, just because the really bad one is “better than nothing” (this also isn’t the case, but I’m not exhausting my time explaining economic principles to you).
Bumgarner wasn’t going to bring the Giants anything close to what Goldschmidt or Betts brought in. He wasn’t even going to bring in what the Marlins got for a player with $300+M on his contract. Thus, Giants leadership felt it was better to keep their fan favorite rather than dump him for a “jock strap” (to use your silly phrase). Fan consideration also matters when you’re talking value… but I wouldn’t expect a Padres fan to understand that.
2. As it’s been stated, making the playoffs was also valuable. It’s why a value-minded guy like Theo Epstein was comfortable trading Gleyber Torres for 3 months of Aroldis Chapman: the chance at the World Series was of higher value than Torres.
Wining and making it to the postseason holds tremendous value. Let’s go to some math:
We need to put a value on a postseason berth. Let’s just say it’s $10M. And if losing Gausman means no playoffs, then it gives Gausman a value, at the very least, of $10M.
Let’s say, however, that Zaidi trades Gausman. For a player valued at $3M over the next five years.
He just lost $7M in potential value. That’s -7M (negative)… that is actually worse than getting nothing. when he walks in FA.
If Zaidi was offered someone worth $10M (the equivalent of a 30th overall pick), he would have pulled the trigger.
For what it’s worth, I don’t know what value Zaidi put on making the playoffs. It could be $5M, it could be $20M. Whatever it is, the return still needs to exceed that. I’m guessing it didn’t.
1. Well, Mookie Betts would have been a surefire QO candidate had he not been traded. So any return had to at least be better than the QO comp pick. But as long as it was, trading Betts would have benefitted Boston. Bumgarner, similarly, was a surefire QO candidate. So the used jock strap wouldn’t have been worth it for him. But on a player that won’t receive a QO like Gausman, yes it will. And good GM’s don’t put any stock in what casual fans think of a player when deciding whether or not to trade him.
2. The 2020 Giants are not the 2016 Cubs. You have to estimate a percentage chance of the Giants making the postseason and then multiply your $10m figure by that percent for your example to be accurate.
You’re missing the point (what else is new?):
You can value the playoff spot at whatever you think it’s worth. I don’t know what Zaidi and the Giants would put for that value. It could be more, it could be less.
But whatever it is, the value Zaidi would want in a trade would need to exceed that (or at the absolute least, meet it). It’s most likely that he wasn’t getting offers that did just that.
For Gausman, yeah, Zaidi didn’t trade him, because it didn’t fall in line with what the Giants were trying to accomplish. It’s really okay Mike, we all have things we are far too stupid to understand. We can just chalk this up as being one of them for you.
I can understand where you’re coming from knowing you’re a Padres fan point of view. Your team is so used to losing over your lifetime that you’ve watched them throw in the towel time and time again. You think that the moment things look bleak for you, you cut your losses and try to salvage whatever you can.
Sadly, that’s not how baseball works, and it’s not even how your own putrid, pathetic team operates. For all of A.J. Preller’s shortcomings, even he understands value. Every move he makes exists to maximize value that falls in line with their organizational goals and direction.
The same is true of Farhan Zaidi. The moves he makes are done to fall in line with the Giants’ goals. Unless you’re in their board room, just admit you don’t know what those are and quit being obtuse. Zaidi’s moves are falling in line with the goals of his team.
That you disagree, or more realistically, that you don’t understand these things doesn’t change those realities. Thus, it’s probably best to just admit that your criticism of Zaidi, beyond you being an obnoxious Padres troll, lacks any sort of actual understanding of why he made the decisions he made.
You seriously are a child, Mike. And you came here thinking you could get away with your childish behavior and your attempts to make everyone look bad, and it blew up in your face. It’s okay, your face probably needed the make over and now we all know that you’re not to be taken seriously on this website. Congrats Mike, and thank you.
Now, off you go.
“Sadly, that’s not how baseball works, and it’s not even how your own putrid, pathetic team operates.”
Dang. Got a little resentment towards my team don’t you little fella? You upset about us ending your playoff hopes last sunday? I say turnabout is fair play for what happened in 2010.
“For all of A.J. Preller’s shortcomings, even he understands value. Every move he makes exists to maximize value that falls in line with their organizational goals and direction.”
Oh really? Did he maximize value when he traded anything at all (let alone Yasmani Grandal) for Matt Kemp’s decaying carcass? Did he maximize value when he refused to trade Jhoulys Chacin and Craig Stammen at the 2017 trade deadline even though they were both free agents and the team was clearly out of the race? Did he maximize value during the 2017 offseason when he traded an actual prospect for 1 year of Freddy Galvis when the team was clearly not going to contend in 2018?
“The same is true of Farhan Zaidi. The moves he makes are done to fall in line with the Giants’ goals. Unless you’re in their board room, just admit you don’t know what those are and quit being obtuse. Zaidi’s moves are falling in line with the goals of his team.”
If the goals of his team are to tread water, never making the playoffs but not drafting in the top 10 either, then sure. My team was there for most of the 2000s and I can’t see why anyone would want to be there but go right ahead. The Giants being stuck in baseball purgatory is definitely a plus for us.
“You seriously are a child, Mike. And you came here thinking you could get away with your childish behavior and your attempts to make everyone look bad, and it blew up in your face. It’s okay, your face probably needed the make over and now we all know that you’re not to be taken seriously on this website. Congrats Mike, and thank you.”
I’m at least 3 decades older than you, if not a lot MORE! The only people this thread blew up in the faces of are you and mrnatedumbdumb.
“Now, off you go.”
Hey I’m just warming up.
“Hey I’m just warming up.”
Something you’ve been saying to your wife (or boyfriend, or child-bride, I’m not here to judge) for about 15 years now, I presume?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you don’t even bother addressing any of the actual issues I presented. You just make a dumb joke about one thing I said.
It’s pretty clear that multiple parties have addressed things you’ve written, that you still don’t understand anything, and now it’s simply time to mock you.
But because I am actually beginning to feel bad about mocking you, lest you be emotionally unstable or someone on the spectrum, I don’t want to continue in bullying behavior.
So because I’ve said all that I can say to explain this to you, and because you’re still not comprehending it—at this point, you’re intentionally not understanding it—I’m going to sign off and find a better use of my time.
You are literally a waste of time. That’s how I, and most likely many on this site feel. At least we all know where you stand.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA if I’m such a waste of time how come you keep replying? And if I were emotionally unstable or on the spectrum how come I was able to retire at a young age with plenty of $?
Little help here Giants fans, please. For some strange reason I’m trying to remember a reliever possibly 80’s or 90’s. Announcers used to make fun of him the way he wore his jersey….skin tight. Big dude. Was it Minton or something like that? I saw him pitch at Candlestick on my tour through the MLB ball parks.
It just came to me. Rod Beck.
RIP Rod
LethimTroll
Which Giants Fan took your wife or husband lol
Probably hates seeing Giants fans in New York still. And also one took his partner.
Good season for Giants. Not expected to do anything. Thanks to Rob Manfred, Jints we’re in it until a wayward pitch was called strike three, ending their too small season. The analytic Giants were entertaining to watch. Up and down (almost) the lineup, hitters were dangerous. Posey was definitely missed.
There were actually 4 pitches, all shown to be outside the strike zone, and all in critical ABs. One came with runners at 1st and 3rd, and only one out. Rob Drake completely took the bat out the Giant’s hitters hands.
That said, I’m not blaming Drake, he’s either a terrible umpire, or simply had a terrible day calling pitches. The Giants had their chances, and it shouldn’t have come down to some egregious calls. Those happen to every team. The Giants were a decent club that needed better relief pitching. Not getting that cost them the postseason, and had they made it, would have undoubtedly meant an early exit.
The calls in that last game were atrocious, but they had plenty of chances over the last week to get into the playoffs and didn’t capitalize.
Drake was downright awful, but it’s not on him. That’s just the human element of the game. There were like 7 games this season the Giants lost that would have been W’s with even an average back end of the bullpen. The A’s series at Oracle Park comes to mind. At least 2 against the Rockies. I’m sure I’m forgetting some but you get the point. Plenty of chances to make the postseason, but shot themselves in the foot. Really enjoyed watching the offense, Gausman and especially Smyly this season. Would love to see those two back.
dandan:
Agreed. Drake was not only downright awful, he was downright awful at several crucial points of the game.
I still enjoyed the season, despite the frustrating losses that you mention. The Giants were in it up to the last day. And even if they had gone to the postseason, I have no doubt the bullpen wasn’t going to get them very far, like the NLDS.
Agree that it was their fault ultimately, but that was such a frickin 2020 way to end the season I couldn’t believe it
I’ve never seen such bad calls, where are the robot umps!!!
The 2021 season will be the one for the Giants.
The team slipped the Commissioner some bread and
The Giants will play ZERO games against the Padres in 2021 !!
And Giant fans claim the Giants are “competitive”. Wake up.
Not contending. Not competing when you’re in the bottom 5 or 6 in the NL. Call it a dragging rebuild, sure. Keep talking about the 5 prospects inside of the Top 100. Be fortunate two of the five make an impact. Be happy if Posey returns and produces in his mid-30’s next year.
But stop telling people your team competes. You are closer to 5th than you are 1st.
LOL. They were a game away from making the roster where a bunch of league-minimum salaried 30+ year olds led the team.
This Giants team wasn’t supposed to be good according to anyone, but they actually were.
Now, imagine you get a full season, and Farhan supplements that with some free agents (considering the money he’s saving with Yaz and Solano and his young guys).
It takes a special kind of child to look at a team’s success and say it wasn’t success, Congrats kid.
Mr Nate – Giants were under .500. I did not know a team on-pace for 77 wins is considered good. Not sure where the success comes in but I’m sure people who don’t know baseball can see it. Do you enjoy bedtime stories too?
Wild Bill, I wouldn’t talk about bedtime stories when it’s evident you don’t know how to read.
Zaidi turned a guy like Mike Yastrzemski, who the Orioles—THE ORIOLES—wouldn’t even give a look at into a top 10 offensive player.
For two seasons, Donovan Solano, another castaway player, has had back-to-back .300 seasons. He didn’t even play an MLB game in 2017 or ’18.
He brought in Gausman and Smyly on dirt-cheap salaries and watched them turn into studs on the mound.
If. the Giants can do that and finish near .500 (in a season they weren’t supposed to be good), imagine what Zaidi’ll do with a full season. They have every ability to be a competitive team.
And “good” is contextual, Billy Boy. What were the Giants supposed to be? By every pundit, they were awful. Yet, they took playoff contention to the last day of the season, with a rag tag lineup of scrubs and castoffs.
I’m not sure how anyone can look at that and think this is some bottom-dweller team. Are they the Dodgers? Of course not. But there’s a lot of similarities between the Dodgers now and how the Giants are re-tooling.
Better start paying attention.
“not contending”
what world do you live in? this is a team that got KERSHAW(during the season, not postseason) out of a start early. they raked off him that game. they were in it up to the last day. they tied for the last postseason spot. they had a dangerous lineup. i would love to hear an answer to this comment
Sure…I’ll answer it: 29-31 and only competitive for a playoff spot because of the ridiculous expansion.
And the mid-90’s to 2000’s Texas Rangers always had a dangerous lineup, but few people outside of the Metroplex remember them because they lost a ton of games by scores like 10-8 and 7-6 because their pitching staff couldn’t get anyone out.
‘Dangerous lineup’ doesn’t mean a damn thing if the pitching can’t even keep you in half of your games.
But you said it, they were by definition “competitive” by being near .500 and also by being in the playoff chase…these are facts
A below .500 team isn’t competitive. And if Manfred wants to do what’s right the playoff field will go back to 10 after this year.
Not contending is correct ttard.
They pushed Kershaw out of 1 game early. Wow. Hand them a participation trophy. How about a load of who cares?
You do not want to hear the answer to your comment because you cannot comprehend the fact that the Giants are nothing more than mediocre who played nice baseball for a couple months. Gee, didn’t they do that last season? What happened? Did they fall off? Yes they did!
Even facing a weakened AL West could not propel them above .500.
they went from the bottom to the middle – I don’t know what world you are living in but the giants system is ranked 13 and being 1 game out of the WC puts them right in the middle of the pack as far as play goes – they are also over 500 in their last 162 – so considering the upward trajectory from literally one of the worst records and near the bottom in worst systems – whatever world you live in is not reality
Their 3 best starters from 2020 are free agents this offseason…
Middle would have the Giants in the postseason. They were not middle. Still not seeing the upward trajectory since they were kinda contending for a WC last season.
I guess I live in reality. You should join. It’s not a bad place to be.
If you’re not seeing the upward trajectory, it’s probably because you’re too busy getting your rocks off to your own nonsense instead of just, I don’t know, looking at some numbers:
At the risk of wasting my time on a fool like you, here’s some upward trajectory:
In 2019, the Giants had 2 hitters with wRC+ of 120 or higher. In 2020, They had 5. As a team, they took significant steps forward offensively. Mind you, this is with a new coaching staff, very little turnover on the offensive roster, and no Buster Posey.
The Giants aren’t a team without their issues. Their pitching staff needs a lot of work. I’m not as convinced Zaidi can just piece together a bullpen for 162 games like he did this year. He needs to bring some guys in.
But the offensive numbers leave a lot to be excited about if you’re a Giants fan. And the fact that they exceeded almost every expectation for this shortened season should suggest there’s an upward trajectory.
The offense would be even better if Zaidi had traded Bum, Smith and Gausman for some controllable position players with upside. And by your own admittance, there is no pitching.
Good lord. Who would have been brought in for the 2020 season that would have contributed offensively, or as a pitcher?
Please, name some actual players.
And please cite when the offers were made… time and date.
I meant for the long-term Einstein. You are talking about upward trajectory, that doesn’t end at 2020 and if it does then your Giants are screwed.
Upward trajectory is measured by wins and losses. Nobody cares about the stats you brought to the table.
Now, I see you’re trying to be cute with some dig over rocks. That’s nice. Knowing about sports, competition and winning I would say you missed all of that. Otherwise why would you bother with lightweight opinions? You’re getting destroyed by MikeE, by the way. Since you don’t know what winning looks like I figure I should point out the obvious.
Keep up the excitement. Sounds like it’s the only excitement you get.
Wild Bill Tetley,
Why do you say wins are the only way to measure upward trajectory? Statistically, any improvement is upward. Take a graph on any stat, if it gets better, that’s upward trajectory. If you want to limit it to team wins, then sure.
But the Giants have improved remarkably over several factors, and they look like a significantly better team than when Bobby Evans was in the front office.
But it seems like you’re more wanting to stoke flames of dissension than it is to carry on a conversation. That’s par for the course in this article.
Gausman and Smyly are FA’s. Who else?
Anderson has a year of arbitration (unless they don’t tender him a contract).
Cueto has a year remaining.
Webb was a rookie.
So unless you think Samardzija is one of their top 3 starters, they have 2.
And I’m not sure that’s some indictment. It works in their favor to get those contracts off the books (although Gausman and Smyly will almost certainly be back).
“Gausman and Smyly are FA’s. Who else?”
Trevor Cahill. Anything else you care to be wrong about today?
“… although Gausman and Smyly will almost certainly be back”
You said the same thing about Bumgarner last year and it wasn’t any more true then. You don’t know that Gausman and Smyly will be back. And even if they are you don’t know that they wouldn’t have signed with SF if they hadn’t been traded.
had* been traded
When you’re old enough, you should really run for office, since making stuff up really seems to be your specialty.
I never said the same thing about Bumgarner last year. I don’t know where you’d begin to think that. In fact, I’ve held that the Giants would be best to move on from him when his contract is up, unless it was great value to San Francisco.
(Value is when the Giants benefit from the contract. Just thought you might need that explained.)
And of course I don’t know what Gausman and Smyly will do for sure. Based on the comments they’ve made for a while now, it seems that Gausman, especially, really liked his time in San Francisco and how they handled playing in the pandemic. Unless he’s offered a much better deal somewhere else (which is a possibility), I’d predict it’s very likely he returns to the Giants in 2021.
As for Cahill being a top three starter, no. He had a 0.2 WAR as a starter. In fact, here’s how much the Giants valued him as a starter: for the last two weeks of the season, they pulled him from the rotation and made him a reliever… in the middle of the playoff chase. You don’t take your 3rd best starter and turn him into a reliever in a playoff chase.
Cahill had the third best ERA for any Giants pitcher appearing as the SP, but that’s like saying your car is the best because its tires shine real pretty.
The funny thing is, all of this information is readily available, and yet you still insist on making it up as you go.
“I never said the same thing about Bumgarner last year.”
Yes you did!
“I’m not fully convinced that Bumgarner’s no-trade clause is to make money, and slightly convinced he might actually block a trade. He wants to be a Giant.”
“Or they extend him, and for the next few years run a rotation of Bumgarner, Boyd, Cueto, and Samardzija. They don’t HAVE to trade Bumgarner.”
Those were your words…
“And of course I don’t know what Gausman and Smyly will do for sure. Based on the comments they’ve made for a while now, it seems that Gausman, especially, really liked his time in San Francisco and how they handled playing in the pandemic. Unless he’s offered a much better deal somewhere else (which is a possibility), I’d predict it’s very likely he returns to the Giants in 2021.”
Like I said, if he really liked it in SF so much, then they definitely should have traded him. They would have had no problem bringing him back as a FA, traded or otherwise.
“As for Cahill being a top three starter, no. He had a 0.2 WAR as a starter. In fact, here’s how much the Giants valued him as a starter: for the last two weeks of the season, they pulled him from the rotation and made him a reliever… in the middle of the playoff chase. You don’t take your 3rd best starter and turn him into a reliever in a playoff chase.
Cahill had the third best ERA for any Giants pitcher appearing as the SP.”
You just contradicted yourself. He was in the top 3 in ERA among Giants pitchers who made at least one start in 2020. Right now, the Giants don’t have a single starter signed for 2021 who had an ERA below 4.00. Not looking good.
And you can rest assured, you will be hearing from me if the Giants don’t sign Gausman and Smyly. Or if they do sign them but some other team didn’t verifiably offer them more $ than the Giants.
LOL. I’m flattered I’m so much in your head that you’re digging up comments from well over a year ago.
For what it’s worth, you realize “He wants to be a Giant” and “He’s absolutely, 100% going to re-sign with San Francisco” aren’t the same thing, right? Based on Bumgarner’s own words, he wanted to be a Giant. And the Giants made a legitimate offer to him, and Arizona gave him more money. It’s not like he left money on the table to leave San Francisco.
But you can chalk up a wrong prediction against my record. To be fair, I’m not going to bother wasting time looking up yours. I have neither the interest, nor the slightest care for you to give you that sort of benefit. I’m both flattered and a little creeped out that you find me this important to hold me to every word I’ve ever said.
I’ll applaud you for punching up.
As for Cahill, he’s not a top 3 starter. He had a top 3 ERA as a starter… that’s not a top 3 starter. But seeing that you need basic baseball principles explained to you, I’m not surprised you think ERA is what we rank pitchers by. I’m sure you also still watch your movies on VHS?
Anyhoo… gloat away. Should I send rent money? It’s clear that I’m taking up a lot of space in that brain of yours. And it also seems I’m getting in the way of the precious, valuable, yet limited space it needs for your reasoning skills to function.
But I’ll send the check in the mail. The memo line will read, “Find a new hobby.” Be on the lookout.
It took all of two seconds to find that. And as expected, you accuse me of finding you important because I expose your blatant lies and dubious calls. That’s the second time I’ve forced you to admit you were wrong in just a few hours and I could do a lot more if I wanted.
“But I’ll send the check in the mail. The memo line will read, ‘Find a new hobby.’ Be on the lookout.”
You are doing the exact same thing I’m doing (arguing on an Internet message board in the middle of the day) but sure.
Once again, you better not go into hiding this offseason if Smyly and Gausman don’t take verifiably discounts to stay in SF.
No, I say that because literally zero people care that much about anyone on this site that they are looking for comments over a year old.
And if Gausman and Smyly don’t sign with the Giants, you should probably check in on me. Because I’ll be living in abject fear over the thought of some guy digging up my old comments on a baseball site waiting to expose me!!!
If anyone see smoke signals coming out of central Missouri, please send help.
Also, Bumgarner literally said that the Diamondbacks were not the highest bidder. He indeed did leave money on the table to sign there. Although I do not remember if the Giants offered him more.
Gausman and Smyly signing with SF won’t be enough on its own. We have to have some kind of tangible evidence that they wouldn’t have signed if they had been traded.
And if you are going to lay it all so vehemently on the line and be an a-hole to people who disagree with you, you can bet your as that you will hear about it when your ill-conceived predictions blow up in your face.
Other Giants predictions… please hold me to these:
-Trade Jarlin Garcia and Tyler Wade for Mike Trout.
-Will Clark only hits .155
-Tim Lincecum comes out of retirement as a 2B and wins the Triple Crown.
-Lou Seal is forced to start one game on the mound.
I fully expect you to hold me accountable for each of these predictions.
Oh so you are a troll? Ok. Carry on then.
I’m giving you ammunition to store away for next season. I’ll be honest, I feel pretty good about these predictions. Save it away and bring them back in November 2021.
lol
No, Bumgarner didn’t say that. Andrew Baggarly wrote that it was “very possible”, but never confirmed such was the case.
The Giants reportedly offered a four-year deal, and it seems that it was for a higher AAV. So in a sense, Bumgarner might leave more money on the table in the annual value, but overall, the Diamondbacks gave him more money.
It could also be that other teams offered him more overall money, but every indication that’s been reported suggests it wasn’t the Giants.
Your write-up tells us the Giants are still not competitive and we’ll wait until 2022 before they make a serious move for the top. Good stuff.
Loved that time in 2019 when that HORRIFIC Giants team got hot in mid-July, actually thought they could contend, didn’t sell anyone off at the deadline, then went back to being crappy and had nothing to show for it.
And now their fans are celebrating a 29-31 finish, talking about how great the offense is, and that they weren’t mediocre. This is freaking priceless!!
At the same time, I believe Zaidi does have a plan…He absolutely knows what he’s doing…But the Giants are not going to contend while building the infrastructure for a consistent winner like the Dodgers did because ownership isn’t willing to burn through cash the way the Dodgers did from 2012 – 2016.
This year for the Giants, among other teams (Marlins, Reds, etc.), was an aberration. A full 162 game schedule would have exercised the Giants’ paper-thin depth, and they would have finished a hell of a lot lower than 2 games under .500.
A lot of people are trying hard to diminish the season that the Giants had. Sure, they were mid-pack, but that was far better than the predictions of an historically bad season. Plus their record was identical to two other teams that went to the postseason, the Brewers and the Astros. They also finished better than a number of teams with high hopes: the Phillies, Mets, Nats, and D’backs. In fact they were supposed to finish behind both the D’backs and the Rockies.
They got closer this season than last, and were closer last season than the year before. They’re making progress, and the biggest advances are in the farm system. I enjoyed the season despite too many frustrating losses that can, and I expect will, be fixed with better relief. I’ll take it
Exactly. For all the hoopla over not trading Bumgarner, Smith, or even Gausman (that one confuses me. No one wanted Gausman), people forget that Zaidi added significant talent without giving up anything of note
Jordan Humprheys, Luis Basabe, Willi Wilson were all added to their Top 30 and were acquired for DFA’d players or cash. Tristan Beck, Dubon, Yaz, Jarlin Garcia, among others were had by the Giants for nothing, or were surprising grabs by Zaidi.
But everyone seems intent on criticizing Zaidi because he didn’t take a lesser return for other players. Good GMs don’t just give up good players for lesser returns just to move them.
Nobody wanted a pitcher with a 3.62 ERA in a year with expanded playoffs?
Aside from a few teams, it was pretty clear no one wanted to make major trades this year. The COVID-19 protocols, the limited player pools, etc., made it difficult for teams to make trades.
Personally, I don’t see the love for Gausman. I think he’s alright, but I’d guess Zaidi wanted a lot for him, and teams weren’t giving that for 1-month of Gausman.
I could be wrong, but that’s my running theory.
Once again you miss what’s important. It isn’t that no one “wanted a pitcher with a 3.62 ERA”. It’s what they were willing to give up to get one. And. once again, I trust Zaidi, over the yahoos posting here, to make the right decision.
There’s certainly something to be said about Farhan Zaidi being the President of the Giants, and not anyone on this site.
Perhaps a good reminder.
@tad2b13 if someone was willing to give up a used jockstrap they should have taken it. Gausman is a FREE AGENT.
And that is a clear indication as to your knowledge of baseball, that you would have traded Gausman for a used jockstrap. Thank goodness you don’t work in the Giant’s FO.
@tad2b13 it provides just as much value to their hopes of contending in 2021 and beyond as Gausman the rental does
Mike, you don’t trade something of value for something without value, less value, or negative value simply because you’re potentially losing the item of value.
You don’t trade 5 dollars for 1 dollar, even if you’re about to lose the 5. It’s better to take the risk of losing all your money than taking the bad trade. That’s basic economics.
You are wildly naive about this, and your boisterousness and arrogance have prevented you from hearing what others have to say. So we’ll end it with this, you are wrong. You are arguing about things you don’t understand. You don’t understand basic economic principles, and you really should give it a rest.
Please don’t bother responding unless you’re willing to contribute to the conversation like an adult.
@SFGiants402 if you know you are 100% about to lose the item of value, that is absolutely what you do.
And before you tell me about how the Indians can still sign Gausman, that would still be the case even if they did trade him. And until you address that fact, nothing else you say matters.
No. No you don’t.
Future value is not greater than present value. It may be equal, but it’s not greater. (I’d argue it’s not equal, but that’s an advanced economics argument, and you’re only swimming in the shallow end).
I’ll rehash the math I present above:
If Zaidi values a playoff berth at $10M, and also feels they can’t get one without Gausman, then Gausman is worth a minimum of $10M. This means he’ll need at least $10M in order to feel comfortable trading Gausman.
If he trades Gausman for a player worth $3M of future value, then it’s a $7M loss for the Giants.
Now, let’s consider the fact that the Giants didn’t make the playoffs. It’s STILL not a great tradeoff, even if the value dropped to $0.
Without trading Gausman, the value is $0 at worst, $10M at best.
With trading Gausman, the value is $=7 (negative) at worst, $3M at best.
Neither of the values in the “trade him” column are better. You don’t just trade something of value for “something”, unless the “something” is of equal or greater value.
Your juvenile dismissal of anyone that disagrees with you is a bit odd when you don’t even understand what you’re arguing. To use your own quote: GROW UP.
Well we already established that I didn’t think the Giants would make the playoffs (and certainly wouldn’t last long if they did). So if you want to believe that a team that was below .500 during the regular season can go all the way, then that is your opinion.
Like I said, the value figures you came up with have to be multiplied by their likelihood of making the postseason for your example to work. If you give the Giants, say, a 10% chance of making the postseason, then they get $1m of value by not trading him and $1.7m by trading him.
And I just find it hilarious how losers on this site always try to defend bad teams not trading away pending free agents by saying “It’s ok, they can extend/re-sign him!” And then when you point out that they can still do that even if they do trade the player, they go into hiding.
“Well we already established that I didn’t think the Giants would make the playoffs”
Well, we’ve already established you don’t know anything about simple economics. It’s fairly clear that Zaidi felt they could. Thus, his moves, or his non-moves make sense in light of that. I’m not sure why you feel your opinion changes the context of what the Giants President of Baseball Ops did.
“And I just find it hilarious how losers on this site always try to defend bad teams”
For someone who got so triggered by ad hominem attacks, here you are, making them. It’s truly fascinating. Your entire response shows that you can’t actually respond with a substantive argument, so you resorted to calling me a “loser”. You’ve signaled that you have lost this debate, so maybe now’s a good time to move on to another debate you’ll likely lose.
At this point, it’s obvious that you’re not able to come up with an actual argument that reveals you understand how teams derive value, how teams make trades, or how any of this works. And it’s obvious that you’re not going to let this go… so you’re welcome to your own opinion.
But please recognize, your opinion is far inferior to those that have basic understandings of what’s going on, but it’s an opinion nonetheless, and in your economic system, “something is better than nothing.” So, at least you have “something”. Hope it works out for you.
“Well, we’ve already established you don’t know anything about simple economics. It’s fairly clear that Zaidi felt they could.”
We haven’t established that, like, at all. And we have established that Zaidi was wrong in this instance. And even then, the Giants were below .500 and the only reason the playoffs were even a thought was because of this ridiculous extended format.
“For someone who got so triggered by ad hominem attacks, here you are, making them. It’s truly fascinating. Your entire response shows that you can’t actually respond with a substantive argument, so you resorted to calling me a ‘loser.”'”
I actually wasn’t referring to you when I said that. But now you are doing the same thing the aforementioned losers like to do (refusing to address the fact that the Giants could have still signed Gausman if they had traded him).
“You’ve signaled that you have lost this debate, so maybe now’s a good time to move on to another debate you’ll likely lose.”
Who are you trying to convince?
“At this point, it’s obvious that you’re not able to come up with an actual argument that reveals you understand how teams derive value, how teams make trades, or how any of this works. And it’s obvious that you’re not going to let this go… so you’re welcome to your own opinion.”
Actually I have. I provided several examples of teams making smart, win-later moves that paid dividends regardless of what the casual fans wanted them to do. If every GM thought like you, the Dodgers wouldn’t have traded trash ass Matt Kemp and his underwater contract for Yasmani Grandal, the Yankees would have done the same with Giancarlo Stanton and the Diamondbacks and Red Sox would have lost Goldschmidt and Betts for nothing but a draft pick.
“But please recognize, your opinion is far inferior to those that have basic understandings of what’s going on…”
File that one under: not you
Mike,
Since you’re unable to comprehend these things, I figured I’d come to your aid with some topics that may be more in your wheelhouse:
-Making toast
-My Little Pony
-Which direction the water in your toilet goes
-Breathing out your nostrils
-Using the inside of your arm to make fart noises
-Bagging groceries
At this point, I think you’re better off sticking to these things. Please, do kindly leave.
Yep, there it is. I got you to show your true colors. Without even trying.
And yes, you see now, on October 2nd, that the Giants didn’t make the playoffs. Congratulations, you are able to see what everyone else in the world, including Farhan Zaidi sees. You’re a wizard, Mikey, a real wizard!
That doesn’t change the fact that on August 31st, Farhan Zaidi felt his team could make the playoffs… a feeling that was shot down 28 days later, on the last day of baseball. Thus, his moves made a heck of a lot of sense in that context.
That Zaidi’s prediction was wrong doesn’t change the fact that he made the decisions he made in light of those predictions. He cannot go back and change them now. So yeah, he missed out on trading Kevin Gausman for that future hall of famer to be named later. I’m sure it’s keeping him up at night.
But this is tiring, you’re annoying, and everyone in the room is dumber because of your presence in it.
Lol you can’t beat my actual argument so you bust out a straw-man. The hypothetical player that they could have gotten for Gausman doesn’t have to be a Hall of Famer to provide more future value to the Giants than Gausman. You still refuse to address the fact that the Giants could have signed Gausman even if they had traded him.
Of course they can. I’m unaware of a rule that states they can’t. And based on what this article says (along with guys like Baggarly and Schulman), it’s likely they can and will re-sign him.
That fact doesn’t negate basic economic principles. But hey, while you’re explaining things you don’t understand, please, give me 4 paragraphs on the doctrine of predestination as presented by the Reformed Church in Amercia.
And they could have signed him even if they had traded him. If the Yankees can do it with Aroldis Chapman the Giants should have no problem doing the same with Kevin Gausman.
Right.
That still doesn’t negate economic principles.
As I’ve said, it’s clear you’re far too stupid to continue having this discussion, so I’ll leave you to it.
Bye Mike.
You have already said that multiple times yet you still keep commenting. You have a habit of going back on what you said. But oh well.
Stay the course, I would sign them….