Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Friday, October 30, 2009

Giants - Signed Sanchez

San Francisco Giants - Signed 2B Freddy Sanchez to a 2-year, $12 million contract.

Nothing filthy about this signing.  Sanchez had a $8 million club option for 2009 with a $600K buyout, so the Giants aren’t even really even quite paying him that.  Sanchez is a roughly league-average 2B at this point and while second basemen seem to have an annoying tendency to go splat in their early 30s, a 2-year contract minimizes the risk.  A collapse for Sanchez would probably look like 260/290/360 with above-average defense, which is bad, but not a team killer at the price.  The main problem for the Giants is that projection would have made him one of the team’s most valuable offensive players in 2009.  The starting lineup, from Rowand to Rent-a-rrhea should simply turn over their salaries to Kung-Fu Panda, given that he was the only reason Lincecum and Cain weren’t crying in fetal positions in the dugout after their 7th 1-0 losses.

Perversely, this might have been a better signing for the Giants if they had paid a little more.  After all, someone who wants the Giants to succeed should hardly want there to be spare money to bring back Pop Tarts Molina.

ZiPS Projection - Freddy Sanchez (2B)
————————————————————————————————————————-
          AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA OBP SLG OPS+  DR
————————————————————————————————————————-
2010       506 72 150 32   3   7   60 25 67   2 .296 .331 .413   92   4    
2011       484 67 140 30   3   7   56 23 65   2 .289 .323 .407   89   3
————————————————————————————————————————-
Top Offensive Comps:  Mark Grudzielanek, Manny Trillo, Jerry Adair

ODDIBE

Offense
Top Quintile   14%
2nd Quintile   12%
Mid Quintile   18%
4th Quintile   26%
Low Quintile   30%

OPS+              OBP           3B         Hits
160+        0%    .400+    1%    10+    0%    200+  0%
140+        1%    .375+    8%    5+    15%    150+  56%
130+        4%    .350+    26%
120+        8%    .325+    60%    2B
110+        16%  .300+    87%    45+    9%
100+        32%                30+    61%
90+          58%
80+          80%
60+          93%

BA               SLG           HR         SB
.350+        2%    .550+    1%    50+    0%    70+    0%
.325+        18%  .500+    5%    40+    0%    50+    0%
.300+        48%  .450+    20%    30+    0%    30+    0%
.275+        80%  .400+    66%    20+    1%    10+    0%
.250+        95%  .350+    94%    10+    26%

(Based on Projected PA)

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: October 30, 2009 at 11:57 PM | 23 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: October 31, 2009 at 03:53 PM (#3372340)
If the alternative was Manny Burriss, and with this team that would be the other option, then I'll take it.
   2. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 31, 2009 at 04:32 PM (#3372352)
Decent move for SF. If they can acquire 2 or 3 more average players, they could be dangerous.
   3. Dr Stankus and the Semicolons Posted: November 01, 2009 at 12:27 AM (#3372601)
If they can acquire 2 or 3 more average players, they could be dangerous.


This is true. For all the talk of signing a "big bat", it would help as much to remove the massive holes of suck in the lineup.

I'm very fearful of a Jason Bay or even worse, Jermaine Dye signing, and them thinking they have solved their problems offensively.

From what I've read, the Giants outperformed from expected by about 30 runs, so they are likely already in a hole to repeat their record from last season, even if the pitching repeats at a similar level.

The Giants problems are fixable, I just don't have any faith in the current management accurately identifying solutions.

I'd like to see them actively trying to move Brian Wilson, now that he's moving into arb. They have other options for their pen coming via the system, and a very good closer, perhaps packaged with something else, should provide a way to shore up some more holes. I don't see Sabean recognizing this. He gave Armando Benitez 3yrs/21MM, so I think he believes that this amount is a reasonable amount to pay for a closer. And perhaps it is. I think that Wilson's contract would be fair value, but a trade would make sense from their position of relative strength here and holes elsewhere.
   4. BarrettsHiddenBall Posted: November 01, 2009 at 03:35 AM (#3372822)
I dunno, with Sanchez at 2B the biggest suck-hole is gone; if a Garko/Ishikawa platoon put up OK numbers and Renteria didn't totally suck, adding Bay might make for a decent offense. Lotta ifs.

They could definitely use an upgrade at corner outfielder or 1B, but I'm not sure what they can afford. Between Lincecum, Wilson, JSanchez and Garko's arb, payroll will be in the high $80m's; Sabean said their 2010 limit will be high-80's/low 90's. Even if they give Bumgarner the 5 slot and spend nothing on a backup/placeholder catcher, they probably don't have the cash for Bay without moving a contract. They could dump Garko and use his arb towards Nick Johnson or LaRoche, but I'm not sure they'd be willing to give up on Ishikawa and Garko to make that kind of investment.

I still think a deal based around Rowand for Milton Bradley could work for both sides, if Torres can take CF everyday.
   5. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: November 01, 2009 at 03:44 AM (#3372875)
I still think a deal based around Rowand for Milton Bradley could work for both sides, if Torres can take CF everyday.

Please don't encourage Brian Sabean. This idea has "disaster" written all over it.
   6. Dr Stankus and the Semicolons Posted: November 01, 2009 at 05:01 AM (#3373113)
I think what Bay would bring with the bat, he would take away with the glove.

I trade Rowand for Bradley in a heartbeat, even though Bradley is a major headcase. He's got one less year on his contract, and the total value is $16MM less. And at least, if Bradley is a problem, he costs so much less to cut, giving you options that you will not have with Rowand.
   7. frenchredsox Posted: November 01, 2009 at 10:37 AM (#3373290)
This is a logical move WHEN you consider they traded for him & had to give up their no #3 prospect.The alternatives would have been Burriss (ouch that bat) OR worse,a return to the "old days" by signing a FA (like Hudson) & giving up a 1st in compensation....the choices were limited & they took the best one available.
   8. JMPH Posted: November 01, 2009 at 07:44 PM (#3373423)
Nothing filthy about this signing.

So it's not a dirty Sanchez?
   9. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: November 01, 2009 at 08:40 PM (#3373433)
So it's not a dirty Sanchez?

No that's Jonathan Sanchez.
   10. The Artist Posted: November 01, 2009 at 08:41 PM (#3373434)
I'd trade Rowand for Bradley in a heartbeat as well, but Sabean loves our GRITTY TELEGENIC WHITE GUY.
   11. Retire #21 Posted: November 02, 2009 at 05:06 PM (#3374574)
Being a Pittsburgher and seeing Sanchez play numerous times, I have a lways been a firm believer that he is a bonafide .300 hitter with above-average defense at 2B. The Pirates miss him.

His .340 batting title in 2006 on a pretty sucky Pirates team was impressive. He was hitting well this year before traded.
Freddie's still a very good hitter and will benefit the Giants if he stays healthy in 2010.

He has a great attitude to boot.
   12. Steve Phillips' Hot Cougar (DrStankus) Posted: November 02, 2009 at 05:45 PM (#3374609)
@11 That's fine and dandy, but he's also a bonafide 330 OBA player. Over/under on 25 BBs this year?
   13. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: November 02, 2009 at 07:19 PM (#3374697)
This is a remarkably better result than anything I'd have considered realistic 2 days ago. Szym mentions the 2010 option, which makes the AAV on this extension, which we all knew was coming, pretty amazing IMO.
   14. dtoddwin Posted: November 03, 2009 at 04:23 AM (#3375524)
@13, the option didn't trigger so the Giants had no obligation to pick it up. I think the bigger question is who were they bidding against and going into his age 32 season did they really need to even pay that amount?
   15. Dr Stankus and the Semicolons Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:14 AM (#3377015)
@14. Well, other options would likely have cost a draft pick, so there is that cost to account for. The other options were to sign someone else for what, $4-5 MM and lose a pick or pick up his option. If you think he'll be a viable option in 2010, then it is reasonable to pick him up for one more year at half the option price.

There is a whole psychology aspect of this, since they already gave up a guy who might be equivalent to what they'd give up as a draft pick. I think this deal needs to be separated from the trade.
   16. Tripon Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:16 AM (#3377016)
Well, the Giants could have traded for Iwamura for a relief prospect apprently. The question is, do you like Sanchez more than Iwamura?
   17. Dr Stankus and the Semicolons Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:20 AM (#3377017)
@16 was just reading about that trade. Heck, the RP is 26..hardly a prospect.

I like Iwamura better. Didn't think he'd go so cheap. Jeez.
   18. Tripon Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:26 AM (#3377021)
Yeah, the Giants could have traded Merkin Valdez for Iwamura. :)
   19. Willie Mayspedester Posted: November 04, 2009 at 11:24 PM (#3377934)
Or the Giants could clean up their act trade a dirty sanchez and a merkin for milton bradley and coco crisp.
   20. Tripon Posted: November 04, 2009 at 11:31 PM (#3377943)
Doesn't Coco Crisp has a $9 million option? Are the Royals picking it up?
   21. Darren Posted: November 05, 2009 at 04:44 AM (#3378710)
The option's for $7 mil. or so. No way they pick that up, right?
   22. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: November 05, 2009 at 05:09 AM (#3378831)
@11 That's fine and dandy, but he's also a bonafide 330 OBA player. Over/under on 25 BBs this year?

25.
   23. Ginger Nut Posted: November 05, 2009 at 05:55 AM (#3379052)
It's annoying to compare the Iwamura trade to the Sanchez trade and think about how we could still have Alderson, but they are really different situations. The Giants felt that they needed a 2B at a particular time in order to try to make the playoffs. Sanchez was available for the price they paid at that time. The fact that he then got injured and didn't really help them at all sucks (and maybe they should have expected that given his history), but there's no way to know whether Iwamura was available at that time for the price he turned out to be available after the season. If they had the choice at that moment to trade either Alderson for Sanchez or some 26 year old non-prospect for Iwamura, then obviously the Iwamura deal would have been better, but that option probably didn't exist at the time they made the trade.

Also Iawamura was injured for part of the 2009 season, don't remember if he was back yet by the time the Giants traded for Sanchez.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3839 seconds
66 querie(s) executed