The Giants’ Complicated Future
Trying to project how teams will behave in the coming months involves considering a lot of variables. There are the standings themselves, and yes, many teams are daily visitors to the FanGraphs Playoff Odds pages. There are payroll limitations as defined by the ownership group, though front offices frequently try to make the case for spending more money if they can make the argument that it will lead to more revenue in the form of an extended postseason run. Finally, there is the state of the roster in terms of now versus the future. Who’s good on this team? Who’s good on this team and will be here next year? What about in three years? When thinking about all those things and how teams will comport themselves this summer, no franchise fascinates me more than the Giants.
The Giants have been one of the most pleasant surprises in baseball. Their ZIPS projection entering the season was 75–87, with the potential to get to .500 if everything went well. Their rotation was seen as a strong suit, and their bullpen and offense were viewed as major question marks. Two months into the season, the rotation has been as expected, the bullpen has been more than good enough, and their lineup has put more runs on the board than anticipated with a low-contact group that depends on walks and power. Like with his former team in Oakland, Farhan Zaidi knows how to make a sum greater than the parts when constructing a roster, mixing and matching his lineups well beyond simple platoons to maximize what he has. He’s also also benefitting from seasons from Buster Posey and Brandon Crawford that are in the 90th-plus percentile of expectations.
As we hit late May, the Giants are one of the best teams in baseball, with a run differential that says this might not be a fluke. If you just look at the record and team performance so far, this is a clear go-for-it moment for the club. That’s the good news. The bad news is that they are in the same division as the Dodgers and the Padres, who are unanimously seen as two of the best teams in baseball. San Francisco has stuck with the pair for two months, but asking for four more months of equal performance might be pushing the envelope a bit, and last weekend’s sweep at the hands of Los Angeles confused matters even more.
Despite the strong start, the Giants’ chances of reaching the playoffs have hovered around the 30% range thanks to their powerful west coast brethren. Most of that probability revolves around getting to the coin flip that is the wild-card game; San Francisco’s odds of winning the division are less than 100-1. The decision to go for it feels far less clear in light of that.
If the Giants do decide to make a push, money shouldn’t be a problem: With a total 2021 payroll commitment in the $150 million range, they have room to add salary. But while they owe it to the current group in the clubhouse and the fans to make a playoff run, doing so will certainly negatively impact their ability to make playoff runs in future years.
Whether they are over their skis or this is some strange new reality, the Giants weren’t supposed to be here. In many ways, this was seen as Zaidi’s last year of being stuck with what he inherited when he was named general manager at the end of 2018. The big contracts of Johnny Cueto and Posey were expiring, as well as mid-sized ones for Brandon Belt and Crawford. It was supposed to be the final hurrah for a veteran core that won multiple rings.
The 2022 season, then, was supposed to represent the start of something new for the Giants, and no matter how the club decides to approach the remainder of the year, it still will. Every starting pitcher other than Logan Webb will be a free agent at the end of the year, with Kevin Gausman, Anthony DeSclafani, Alex Wood, and Aaron Sanchez all on one-year deals (and all of whom are potential players to move in July if things sour). Belt is still an above-average run producer, and Crawford is having a career year, but both are approaching their mid-30s and likely will finish their careers elsewhere. Posey’s $22 million option for next year has gone from a no-brainer decision to decline to more up in the air after a tremendous first two months, but either way, the Giants will have a dramatically altered roster next year; any run this year would be a Marlins-style burst.
The Giants will need to build a rotation next year — one nearly from scratch, as it’s hard to see anyone from their farm system ready to step into a regular role. They’ll need half of an infield while also keeping an eye out for third baseman, as Evan Longoria will enter the final year of his contract. They could have the best starting pitcher on the trade market this summer in Gausman, plus comparable interest in DeSclafani and Wood. As rentals, the chances for getting back impact players is slim, but with as many as ten players on the roster who could garner real prospects in return over the next two months, the opportunity to add future depth to a system that needs it is right in front of them.
It would require a difficult conversation with the ownership group, and it’s possible that similar difficult conversations led to some organizational mistakes at the trade deadline two years ago. It would require a calculated yet unwelcome public message to the fan base, and with the diminishing returns we’ve seen over the past few years for rentals, it might not be worth that conversation, or the public relations hit. San Francisco may just ride it out and stick with a decent chance of getting to the playoffs and seeing what happens from there.
If the Giants were in a different division, this would be a no brainer. Some quick and dirty math from Dan Szymborski shows that if something very strange happened in terms of geography to move the Giants to the National League Central, their chances of reaching the post-season would more than double, with an exponential increase in avoiding the wild-card game. But that’s not where they are, and that has to be taken into account before a plan for either strategy is designed and implemented.
I was on the phone this afternoon with a friend who works for a team, and when he asked me what I was working on, I told him that I was writing a Giants buy/sell piece. We moved on to other subjects for a bit, only for him to blurt out suddenly, “I’ve been staring at our internal Giants page for 15 minutes now and I can’t stop thinking about this. What would you do?” I paused for a bit, knowing I was going to disappoint him with my answer. “I don’t know, and that’s why it’s so interesting,” I replied.
In terms of competition, honoring their players, and respecting their fans who ultimately pay the bills, the Giants need to make improvements and see if this team is capable of making a run to (and well into) the postseason. But to set up the unavoidable rebuild beginning in 2022, they need to trade away their impending free agents to give them more chances at finding players who are going to be part of what is hopefully the next multi-year postseason run. As one executive once said to me, “You can rebuild, or you can go for it. When you try to do both, you fail at both.” No team in baseball has potential summer strategies with two greater extremes, and I don’t envy the sleepless nights that will go into San Francisco’s decisions.
Kevin Goldstein is a National Writer at FanGraphs.
luckily there’s still 2 months til the trade deadline…most likely the situation will clarify itself before that
Yeah I don’t really consider this a complicated situation. If they’re still in the second WC slot, ride it out. It’s probably sustainable. If they fall off a bit, sell.
Winning a lot of baseball games and coming up a little short isn’t the disaster it’s often made out to be, especially for a team willing to carry a big payroll in the future. It’s not like contending with LA and SD is going to get any easier; take your shot when you can.
I don’t know about “disaster” but I think it’s rare for a team to have this many players on the last year of their contracts who have trade value. And with the way pitchers are going down – and we’re not even in June – the trade value of these pitchers will increase if they stay healthy.
This is especially true if the Giants have the opportunity to package multiple pieces on expiring contracts for one good prospect. What would the Yankees pay to rent Gausman and Posey? (Yes, I know Posey has 10-and-5 rights.)
(Checks year)
(Sees year is odd)
Well that settles it. “Sell” it is
Really appreciate FanGraphs’ level-headed pieces that recognize the nuances in these type of decisions. My brain says trade and rebuild, but my heart says GO FOR IT!
I look forward to the follow-up piece a month from now 😉
Yes … Kudos to Kevin Goldstein.
Nice work on adding the part of conversing with a team employee. That is exactly the kind of pondering/obsessing we expect (or at least hope) our team’s front office is doing.
The “what strategy should a team implement?” articles are among my very favorite at Fangraphs. Thank you.
Sell high sooner than later. Especially on a hot Crawford or a rejuvenated Gausman who’s looking like last season’s success is sustainable. The Dodgers and Padres are only going to get stronger and there are already contenders looking for help. I get it might not be popular in the short run but trying to make a run with a bunch of guys in their mid-30s isn’t optimal for their long-term vision. If the struggles vs the Pads and Dodgers continue or the Giants fade after the deadline, IMHO they will regret not striking while the iron is hot for some of these guys.
If you’re willing to trade Yaz the Younger I bet the White Sox would be interested. Otherwise, I don’t see it. The teams that want help want help are looking for outfielders, most likely center fielders (White Sox, Mets, potentially Braves).
Wait two months of course but the following surprise teams breaking long playoff droughts and then immediately building on their success and confidence makes me strongly lean toward keeping the band together for one more year. A surprise team happens every year.
2012 A’s
2012 Orioles
2013 Pirates
2014 Royals
2015 Astros
2015 Cubs
2015 Blue Jays
2016 Indians
2017 Twins
2017 D’backs
2017 Rockies
2018 Braves
2018 A’s
2019 Rays
As a Royals fan who thoroughly enjoyed that 2014 postseason run, I agree. Give the fans something to enjoy…complete gut and rebuilds are bonkers frustrating. One thing I admire about Dayton Moore and the Royals is the “next year is our year” get-up-and-go. I know the Royals do not have the resources to roll seven years deep in postseason success. And I do not care. I will forever prefer these versions of the Royals to the warmed over teams of the Aughts, when shoestring budgets combined with forever draft optimism to bring us giant turd burgers of boring veteran journeymen, and when I could get four tickets in the outfield with every large Pizza Hut pizza I ordered.
“When you try to do both, you fail at both” strikes me as a cliche.
If they’re still in it a month from now, yes, you just run with it while not trading any future pieces. Screw the cliches.
“Hold” seems like a viable option. Are they really going to get anything of value for their rental pieces?
I bet Gausman would return a guy in the back end of the top 100. He’s a top 30 SP, it seems, on an expiring contract (so the money downside is minimal). Dude has been legit this year.
People don’t like giving anything up for rentals. Sure, some of the guys traded in those deals go on to be really, really good (Gleyber), but many don’t. The article posted the other day discussed this, albeit more in-depth on how prospects outside the organization’s top 3-5 are usually terrible.
Even if you did return a top 100 prospect, they are thousands of times more likely to end up like J.B. Bukauskas than like Juan Soto (or anything close to him)
If you have a great team but only two grade A starters, Gausman could win you a World Series. What team does that describe?
THIS. Teams have gotten back relatively little for generic in-season trades since like what… 2000?
Just looked at 2017 July trades. Jays got Teoscar Hernandez , Marlins Pablo Lopez, A’s Luzardo and Treinen, Braves Huoscar Ynoa , i think all for rentals. We forget about many of these trades because it sometimes takes years for the acquisitions to reach the majors.
I heartily disagree. Trading now for the future nets you more in return, and trading to improve your team now nets you more value to win games now. Waiting lessens your options both ways.
Perhaps. I don’t think it’s likely they can add enough to get out of a Wild Card game, but the Wild Card game does have some real value. If they’re still in WC position at the deadline, I would personally rather hold and try for it rather than sell rental pieces for 35+ FV prospects.
My thoughts exactly when I read that. The Dodgers and Yankees have perfected “reloading” and never sacrificing a competitive roster for future competitive rosters. The teams that tried to do both and failed are the smaller market teams like the Diamondbacks, who have owners with tight purse strings that wouldn’t shell out the kind of capital needed to give their clubs any sort of margin for error in their “soft rebuilds.” The Giants are the opposite- they have one of the richest ownership groups in the sport with barely any debt to their names even after the pandemic, they completely own their destination stadium, and the value of the franchise will only increase with the vast real estate expansions they’re making around Oracle. They’re currently pouring money into their player dev and R&D departments and they’re about to open up a gigantic new spring training and minor league complex. On top of all of that, the men they tabbed to lead their FO (POBO Farhan Zaidi and GM Scott Harris) both came from big market clubs who were unafriad of spending, despite their analytical methods. All of this seems to suggest to me that the Giants probably don’t ever intend on truly “selling” ever again.
Jays tried to do both after drawing 3 million fans in 2017. It was a failure. Holding onto Donaldson when he had real value was especially disastrous. If what he said is a cliche, it’s because it’s most often correct.
The Jays’ would have been better off extending Donaldson instead of trading him. Not sure the fact that they were worse off trading him after he got hurt instead of before proves much.
It begs the questions of whether only signing Gausman to a 1-year deal was a mistake. All of the projection systems loved him going into this year. so it really was not much of a gamble.
I think once Gausman accepted the QO there was no way to make it a long-term deal, right? I suppose they could have tried to talk him into an extension but that is entirely in Gausman’s hands at that point.
I think that’s right, but they could have offered a two-year, 30 million dollar deal. Would he really have turned that down?
I would not be surprised if the team has trouble hanging with the Padres and Dodgers and makes this decision a lot easier. The problem is, as Kevin says, no one really wants rentals anymore. And that’s on top of the fact that teams are a bit precious with their prospects these days. The previous wisdom on this was to sell sell sell but the value probably isn’t there.
Let’s take a look at the playoff odds. Teams that have a 25% chance or greater of making the playoffs are the Yankees, Rays, Red Sox, Blue Jays, White Sox, Clevelands, Astros, A’s, Mets, Braves, Brewers, Cards, Cubs, Dodgers, Padres, and Giants. You can break them down into buckets:
1) Teams that were expecting to sell and have unexpectedly good chances (Cubs, Red Sox, Giants)
2) Teams where all or most of their young talent are now major league contributors (White Sox, Brewers, Blue Jays, A’s)
3) Teams who, if they trade their prospects, it isn’t going to be for rentals (Rays, Clevelands)
4) Teams who already traded away all the prospects they don’t believe in and have kept the ones they do (Mets, Padres, Dodgers)
That still leaves some teams but you need multiple teams looking for upgrades to make it work well. Otherwise it’s just sending off probable backups who will be Rule 5-eligible next winter. They’re going to need a lot of other teams to not be sellers, I think.
I could see Cleveland going after someone like Brandon Belt if he were to become available (and Cleveand were still in contention). He’d fill a huge hole in the lineup and there’d be no long-term commitment. Of course, it only works if the Giants are willing to pay part of his salary in exchange for a slightly better prospect. Even then, what would that cost? Maybe a 40 grade prospect? Cleveland has at least a dozon of those so it would hardly be much of a loss.
Right, I just don’t see the Giants super-excited to take Jose Fermin in exchange for paying down much of Belt’s salary. That is not really going to convince the decision makers that a teardown is worth it. They very well might take that if they’ve already gotten good deals for some of their other players (the pitchers, most likely) and they decide they want to finish it off, but that itself isn’t going to move the needle.
Honestly, I’m not even sure they can get a 40 grade prospect for Belt. Cleveland gave up Ryder Ryan, a complete nobody, to get Jay Bruce several years ago. Bruce was in the midst of a very good season and was only owed $4 million for the rest of the season (which Cleveland paid). And yet, the Mets couldn’t get anything at all for him.
I’d put Belt’s value as roughly equal to Bruce’s. Except Belt is owed more money which makes him harder to trade. Of course, if the Giants compeltely fall out of contention they may take whatever they can get. But it’s not going to be very much.
Belt will reach 10 and 5 status this season, so any potential trade discussions around him are likely moot. I doubt he’d want to leave San Francisco in the middle of the season, even to ring chase, considering he has two already.
I disagree that teams don’t want rentals. More accurately, they don’t want to pay a high price for a rental.
What’s a “high” price? Let’s say, hypothetically, that the Astros, Yankees, Cardinals, Braves, and Blue Jays are interested in shoring up their rotation for the postseason (or to get some depth to make the postseason). Options include the Giants’ pitchers, Jon Gray, Max Scherzer, Kyle Gibson, Matthew Boyd, Alex Cobb, Dylan Bundy, Michael Pineda, and Andrew Heaney. Maaaaybe Eduardo Rodriguez, Nathan Eovaldi, Wade Miley, Spencer Turnbull, German Marquez, and John Means too.
Given that context, what do you think the Giants could get for their starters? How do the Yankees fans feel about giving up Deivi Garcia in a package for Gausman and Crawford if the Giants pick up the tab? Would Yankees fans think that giving up Oswald Peraza for a pitcher would be worth it, and which one? How do Blue Jays fans feel about giving up Jordan Groshans or Orelvis Martinez? Would the Braves be willing to give up Michael Harris or Jared Shuster? I get the sense that not a lot of teams would be willing to do this. So how far down can we go?
I think this is exactly right. And in light of that, sellers are going to be looking at multi-player packages of young players as their best bet. Say, Kevin Alcantara and Beck Way from the Yankees. Is that worth it for the Giants if they’re in it?
I think the Yu Darvish trade is another bellweather — even in an offseason deal with a non-rental arm, teams weren’t willing to part with top prospects.
Yu Darvish’s deadline deal is probably the best hope the Giants have. Willie Calhoun was considered a pretty good prospect at that point. He was roughly the same level as the guys I listed now. So if you can get Deivi Garcia or Oswald Peraza or Orelvis Martinez for Gausman then I think that’s good. But that was a while ago now, and I’m pretty sure if we got Yankees or Blue Jays fans in here they’d scream.
The Astros don’t need pitching. Greinke, McCullers, Valdez, Urquidy, Javier, Gercia and Odorizzi.
If anything, they should get rid of Greinke and Odorizzi and roll with the 5 guys they have control of until at least 2026. Marquez is the only pitcher you mentioned that is young enough with the upside that those 5 have. I mean Freeland is good, but I doubt it would cost much to get him, at least not enough to have discussions online about it.
If it’s true that selling expiring contracts nets very little why not acquire a bunch of them for very little? “Hold” still seems like the worst of the 3 options
I’m glad you brought that up because that was where I was going to end but then I heard something loud outside so I hit the post button and promptly forgot about it.
I think there’s a chance we’re looking at this all wrong. If you have a bunch of expiring contracts and you’ve caught lightning in a bottle to be a game back at the trade deadline, then the low price for rentals suggest that you should try to load up with them and go for it. I think the Giants should consider taking on salary–as much of it as you can to avoid trading prospects–to beef up the outfield and second base, maybe also picking up some pitching depth. If that means they sit out the 2022 free agent market, then they should sit out the 2022 free agent market.
But in 2 months, a lot can happen and it’s entirely possible they’re going to be way out of it by that point.
The disappointingly low returns for even star level rentals like Machado and Verlander make me think the move should be holding and hoping for the best with the vets and adding complementary pieces at the margins.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but the Verlander return happened (1) a month or two after he emerged from some of the worst pitching of his career, (2) had really good prospects that didn’t pan out, (3) involved a no-trade clause, and (4) wasn’t a rental. Machado is a more relevant data point.
The JD Martinez return from Arizona was pretty brutal as well
I don’t think judging the return Arizona gets in any deal is a good measuring stick.
Feels like the answer will come in time. You wait it out 2 months to see where you’re at, and if you’re out of it a bit you can deal a hot pitcher or two. The expiring deals make it easy (from a SFG perspective) to deal the guys, but also really limits the return. I can’t see them getting back anything amazing for 2 months of Wood or Gausman. They shouldn’t buy, but if they’re still in it, why not just keep the guys and roll the dice and see what happens?
Middle tier farm system, too. Would love to see them keep Belt, Gausman, and Posey while maybe trading Disco and Wood later this summer when they fall out. Wish Ramos was able to stick in CF, as looks like his 2022 debut will add to crowded corners — Yaz, Dickerson, Slater — because the 2022 MLB FA class at CF is miserable. Could see them pushing for one of the SS, though…
The Red Sox find themselves in a similar predicament in the sense that they are exceeding expectations which means fans are going to expect them to be active during the trade deadline. I think that clubs like this should just stand pat and see how far it goes. Don’t compromise your farm system or young contributors for a rental. Plus in the Giants case I think they’ll be a major player in 2022 free agency with all of the money coming off the books.
Fully agree with this. They can ride this out with this group if they’re still playing well and see how it shakes out. If you play well and make the playoffs, great! If they fall short…well lots of payroll gets lopped off and they can let Belt and Crawford walk and go after Seager/Correa and Bryant and reload for 2022 and beyond. They’d probably pick up Buster’s option, and there is still time to figure out what to do with Cueto/Gausman. Given how rentals haven’t gotten much return, I don’t see a big point in peddling them to begin with.
I’d love to trade some prospects for Javier. The Astros seem to think Odorizzi is better than him so maybe Jordan, Lugo and Wong plus 5 million would get it done?
“The bullpen has been more than good enough.”
Having Tyler Rogers die of exhaustion like Phillipides is the new market inefficiency.
The same Tyler Rogers who hasn’t pitched in a week? His exhaustion threshold must be quite low
Fun fact: even having sat as long as he has, he’s still leading the majors in appearances.
I’d only ever seen him referenced by the name Pheidippides. It’s interesting what you learn around this joint.
I have no idea where I learned Phillippides, but that’s what was in my head. I actually double-checked on Wikipedia and they’re both valid, so I figured, why not misspell the name you already know.
It’s important to remember that Aeschylus was at Marathon as well and went on to create the tragedy as a literary form.
Punt this decision until late July. If you’re still where you are you make small additions to improve the club. If it collapses over the next two months then it’s an easy sell.
But two months is 1/3 season. Far too early right now to have to make a decision.
On a somewhat related note: For all of the talk of the massive shortstop class with Corey Seager, Carlos Correa, Trevor Story, and Javier Baez, three of them aren’t having especially good years and Baez is having a good year in the most ridiculous way possible. You really want to spend $200M+ to lock in Carlos Correa? I don’t know about this. Maybe one of them will remind the Giants why they were so highly regarded but I’m not sure any of them are a great use of money.
All of this is to say that if the cost to the Giants this year is taking on a bunch of money as opposed to a trading away prospects, that should not stop them. We’ve already agreed they’re probably not contending in 2022, so signing a free agent now isn’t totally necessary. They probably shouldn’t trade away their prospects but considering how well they’re playing, I’d rather see them shore up the outfield and second base now and take on some money for 2022 than spend gobs of money on a free agent.
(On a side note: You know who is doing better than Corey Seager, Carlos Correa, and Trevor Story right now? Freddy Galvis. You know who is a free agent next offseason? Freddy Galvis. The Galvis-scension is upon us!)
Funnily enough, the Giants current shortstop is also outperforming all of those guys who people have had penciled in to his spot for months. *in Chancellor Palpatine voice*: “How ironic.”
Every Giants re-build article the last 2 years has missed the fact that half the roster has no-trade or 10/5 veto powers. Posey and Crawford have full no-trades, Belt has a partial no-trade (he can veto deals to 10 teams) and Cueto has now been in SF long enough to acquire 10/5 rights. Between that and the limited value of the half-season rentals for everyone else means trying to re-build through trades is just not going to happen.
Better to be buyers and go down in flames if that is the way it plays out. . . . .
Zaidi’s been more of a Friedman guy than Oakland, imo; I wonder if they throw some money around this offseason on a SS (dare they go after Seager or Story?) having decided that since LA/SD aren’t going anywhere, you might as well compete to win
I think this is something that has to be considered. Neither the Dodgers nor the Padres are going anywhere for a long time. If you dump your chances this year, when exactly are you building for? 2026?
dont disagree with the sentiment but we thought that about the cubs not that long ago too.
That’s both a compelling point and counterpoint…both of those rosters are pretty stacked, but teams look perpetually competitive right up until the time they don’t.
Maybe get a couple cheap rentals on expiring contracts and teardown next year and go for one last hurrah?
Bay Area native Marcus Semien is also a free agent after the season ends. seems like a natural for Giants at 2B or SS.
Teams rarely get that much in return for rental players. Plus the article fails to recognize that the Giants, with lots of room in their future payrolls, may be able to sign some of these players to extensions. The Giants do NOT seem like the kind of team that will undergo a rebuild.
Is it possible that the Giants could do a little of both…they have the money to take on a quality player with a significant contract with years left on it to give a tanking team some salary relief. And they could offload expiring contracts for prospect value. Those aren’t mutually incompatible.
Same applies to the Cubs
The big difference for me is that the Cubs have a much easier route to the division title than the Giants. Even the most ardent Cardinals homers would be hesitant to say they are better than the Padres or Dodgers, let alone both of them. I think of the WC birth as being half as valuable as a division title, so the Cubs should probably keep going for it, while the Giants have a tougher decision.
I feel like the decisions are pretty straight forward, if they stay in the race they’ll make some around the edge improvements without jeopardizing the farm. Posey and Crawford were never getting traded anyways, Belt/Longoria’s deal make them borderline untradeable. I suppose Gausman would be a very big trade chip if they became sellers but outside of that (and he’s on a expiring deal) they don’t have much mlb value
My sense is the Giants are coming back to Earth, perhaps not in a spectacular implosion, but slowly over the course of the remaining four months of the season, as older teams tend to do. A few injuries here and there (they have essentially zero depth in the system on the pitching side) a few less mistakes to run into by their ancient, HR seeking lineup, a few more games vs the Dodgers and Padres, and they come out about where they’re supposed to: A few games under 500.
Giants could re-stock their system very quickly by trading their soon to be free agents, and they could probably shed much of Longoria’s remaining salary in the process. I don’t think they would acquire 60 FV prospects… But they could go the route of acquiring a lot of 19 year old 40-45 FV prospects, some of whom would wind up being quite good.
I would trade Posey if the right deal came along. They drafted 2 good catchers so they are prepared for life after Posey.
If they don’t, they will probably regret wasting their opportunity.
Sell! And set up for the long run. The Padres farm system is strong and the Dodgers print $$$. The FA starters can jump start their rebuild by a couple of years if they are still performing (and healthy!) near the deadline. It could be a golden age of CA teams like the 50s were for the NYC teams.