From Passan: ""The last time the highest-paid free agent remained with his current team was Yoenis Cespedes with the Mets in 2016. And before that, it was Matt Holliday in 2009."

How much higher will someone go? I'm a little surprised at this and I'll be shocked if it gets to $350 mil.

His parents are siblings? That dude just looks wrong.

I'm incredibly depressed that the Giants are bidding on Judge. I think signing him will tie up resources they don't have for a decade, and I doubt he'll stay healthy and/or perform for more than half that time. This is one time I want the Yankees to win.

I doubt that the Giants will top the Yankees offer, and all the talk about how much payroll ‘flexibility’ the Giants have is just another way of saying that they don’t have that many good players. That probably isn’t all that appealing to Judge, nor is the Giants ballpark, which isn’t that HR friendly. Enough money might alleviate such concerns, but I don’t see the Giants making an offer the Yankees wouldn’t match.

MLB Trade Rumors projects that Judge will get $332M/8 years, with all 4 of their analysts predicting he’ll stay with the Yankees. We’ll probably know by the end of the Winter Meetings.

You're depressed that your team might get the guy who just hit 62 home runs? I get that he won't be good the second half of the contract, but, man, you've got to really love your roster flexibility to turn down a guy who posted 10 WAR last year.

His parents are siblings? That dude just looks wrong.

Who? Judge? Passan? Darren*?


*'tis a joke, you were just unfortunate enough to be the post right before this

Jeff Passan (subscription required)

When Passan comes home at night and his wife wants to talk to him, does he hold up a sign that says "Subscription required"?

I agree that Judge is likely to be a pretty negative value later in the deal, but he would still be an awesome get IMO. I will be quite surprised if he does not stay with the Yankees.

I think signing him will tie up resources they don't have for a decade

We are talking about the Giants here, right? They are a huge market team in an incredibly wealthy region of the country with an incredibly gorgeous stadium. Which resources don't they have? Signing a free agent just requires money and, even relative to most other teams, they have plenty of that.

I'm incredibly depressed that the Giants are bidding on Judge

More generally, what is the point of being a fan of a particular team if even the mere thought of them trying to get an incredibly talented, productive player depresses you? What could they possibly do that would excite you?

More generally, what is the point of being a fan of a particular team if even the mere thought of them trying to get an incredibly talented, productive player depresses you? What could they possibly do that would excite you?

As an Angels fan, let me tell you the story of Albert Pujols and the Very Large, Very Long, Very Expensive Contract. It does not have a happy ending, although I've heard the revised edition has an additional chapter on the end.

(Yes, I know Pujols was in decline while Judge is not, but I think the point stands.)

No. 11 states the problem. The HR Judge hit last year have exactly zero value to the Giants. He is 30 years old and his injury history is ... not good. The Giants aren't particularly close to winning their division and aren't likely to be during Judge's remaining good years.

The Giants aren't particularly close to winning their division and aren't likely to be during Judge's remaining good years.

This is a wild overstatement, and if true would actually lead to the conclusion that they need him, instead of the opposite

He is 30 years old and his injury history is ... not good.

He's played in all but 17 of NY's games the last two seasons and he's still missed 20% of his team's games over his career. There are always guys who age anomalously well, but I'd never be comfortable giving a massive (length and dollars) contract to a guy at this stage in hopes he's one of the exceptions.

He's played in all but 17 of NY's games the last two seasons and he's still missed 20% of his team's games over his career. There are always guys who age anomalously well, but I'd never be comfortable giving a massive (length and dollars) contract to a guy at this stage in hopes he's one of the exceptions.

In fairness to Judge, his newfound health coincides with a change in his training regimen and yoga: https://www.mlb.com/news/aaron-judge-giancarlo-stanton-change-offseason-workouts. Also, Dave Winfield aged pretty well.

That aside, I'm not especially sunny on Judge's likely production in his 30s, but I do think he's pretty likely to be a superstar for the next few years because of how sustainable his underlying improvements seem. The downside is that the back half of any 8+ year deal might suck.

I'm not sure that the Giants are in the right spot on the win curve to make this kind of win-now investment, but I'd be pretty psyched as a Giant fan anyway.

How many free agents whom the Yankees wanted to keep would up walking away? Robinson Cano is the only one who comes to mind.

Judge has more value in NY than he would anywhere else, it's his native organization, he's extremely popular, he hasn't had any public conflicts with teammates or management that I'm aware of, and the Yankees can absorb an albatross contract (should it turn out that way) better than any franchise.

He's staying in NY.

@13: They finished 30 games out of first this year. Judge's remaining productive years are likely to be no more than 5 and could be fewer due to injury. That's a huge gap.

How many free agents whom the Yankees wanted to keep would up walking away?

On the other hand, very few players who reach FA end up resigning with their existing team.

They finished 30 games out of first this year.

The Giants were also just 6 games behind the Phillies for the last NL Wild Card.

The Giants were also just 6 games behind the Phillies for the last NL Wild Card.

This is also true. With the ultra-bloated playoffs, only the Pirates-level teams have nothing to gain by signing past-30 veterans.

The NL was kinda weird last year -- the Giants were the only team between 74 and 86 wins (while 3 teams topped 100) and it might have been an even wider range but the Cubs and DBacks finished strong while the Brewers kinda limped home. And of course the 89-win Phils made the WS. In short, the only 2 NL teams with incentive to improve substantially are the Giants and Brewers. Over the next couple of years, they really don't have to worry much about some promising young team overtaking them.

For non-Yankees teams, I'd be not so concerned about Judge's durability. He's an athletic guy, his production rate is very high, you can start by keeping him in RF then you can move him to DH to reduce the injury risk. The Yanks' "problem" is they are already doing that with Stanton (not so successfully) ... speaking of which ...

https://www.mlb.com/news/aaron-judge-giancarlo-stanton-change-offseason-workouts.

Given the title of that link, I'm not sure that's quite the comfort it was meant to be.

Never base a contract on a career year. Judge is not a 22yr old with strong potential room to get better.

I'm incredibly depressed that the Giants are bidding on Judge.

More generally, what is the point of being a fan of a particular team if even the mere thought of them trying to get an incredibly talented, productive player depresses you?

Maybe some are more interested in their favorite team’s financial balance sheet than the standings?

Judge is already in elite company - AL HR record, 2 50+ HR seasons, MLB record age-30 OPS+ season. Not that likely to fall apart early, IMHO. There’s risk in large contracts, at any age, but the potential reward of Judge’s age 31-38 seasons is also large.

The Giants might also be factoring in that they won't have competition across the lake for much longer - Odds have to be high that the A's move to Vegas or somewhere else soon. Getting Judge would increase their profile even more in the local market and help pull some Oakland businesses over for advertising, season tickets, etc. and increase the odds of drawing what is left of the A's fanbase over.

For hope you just need to look at Paul Molitor - at 30 he had a total of 2 season with over 140 games played, the same number of seasons with sub 80 games. Then from 31 to 41 he cracked 150 games 6 times and led in games played in '94 (115). I'd put that as best case. Far more likely is he breaks down a few times and shows hope but is closer to McGwire who cracked 140 just 3 times after age 30 (all thanks to PED's). The trick for Molitor was moving to DH, and more at 3B instead of 2B (notorious for shortening careers).

They finished 30 games out of first this year. Judge's remaining productive years are likely to be no more than 5 and could be fewer due to injury.

I dont get it. There probably a handful of players you could say are likely to be productive for more than 5 years. 5 years is a long time in baseball and any team, let alone SFG can put together a winner in 5 years.

Never base a contract on a career year. Judge is not a 22yr old with strong potential room to get better.

He doesn't need to get better. He doesn't need to repeat 2022. The man has 8.2 WAR/162 (or 8/650 if you prefer). In 2018 he had fewer than 500 PA -- and 6 WAR. In 2019 he had fewer than 450 PA -- and 5.5 WAR. I wouldn't bet on Julio Rodriguez having more WAR than Judge over the next 8 years.

By the way, the rare 22-yo who is as good as Judge has pretty much zero potential to get better. The rare 22-yo who might become as good as Judge is, obviously, a worse bet than Judge to be as good as Judge.

@24 is a reasonable way to look at it.

As for Judge's estimated (by me) 5 year window: sure, any non-contending team *might* put together a contender in 5 years, but most don't. The Pirates are the obvious example, but there are many others.

How many free agents whom the Yankees wanted to keep would up walking away?


On the other hand, very few players who reach FA end up resigning with their existing team.

The Yankees rarely have players less-old enough to reach the end of their contract and still be considered a top free agent. Top free agents tend to leave their teams....to go to rich teams like the Yankees.

The Yankees rarely have players less-old enough to reach the end of their contract and still be considered a top free agent.

Cano and Pettitte both reached FA as Yankees while still in strong earnings position.

Most players who reach FA don't resign with their former club and guys playing in the Bronx have not been an exception. Judge very well could be, but if the Giants make a better offer, I assume he'll be gone.

In short, the only 2 NL teams with incentive to improve substantially are the Giants and Brewers. Over the next couple of years, they really don't have to worry much about some promising young team overtaking them.

I flat out don't agree with this conclusion. And not just in the general "every bad team should have incentive to improve substantially", even though I do believe that.

Of course, the devil is in the details in how you try to improve and that's where this Judge discussion sits.

sure, any non-contending team *might* put together a contender in 5 years, but most don't. The Pirates are the obvious example, but there are many others.

But it all hinges on what is classified as a "non-contending team." Are the White Sox, Red Sox, and Giants not likely to put together a contender within FIVE years, just because they were 81-81, 78-84, and 81-81 last year? Two of those teams were surprise contenders just one year ago.

You're implying that the Giants should punt the next half-decade to the Dodgers and Padres and start focusing on 2028 and beyond. That's insane.

That's not what I'm implying at all. My view is that the Giants should spend lots of money but not put all of it into the Aaron Judge basket. They could use help in lots of places, most notably shortstop. Buy one of the many available shortstops instead of getting into a bidding war with the ####### Yankees over a 30 year old with a history of injuries.

. . . if the Giants make a better offer, I assume he'll be gone.

That’s theoretically true, but I can’t see any realistic offer that the Yankees wouldn’t match or exceed. Does anyone think another team will offer Judge $500M/10 years, just to spite the Yankees?

That’s theoretically true, but I can’t see any realistic offer that the Yankees wouldn’t match or exceed.

I don't know why you would assume that, but we'll see.

That's not what I'm implying at all. My view is that the Giants should spend lots of money but not put all of it into the Aaron Judge basket. They could use help in lots of places, most notably shortstop. Buy one of the many available shortstops instead of getting into a bidding war with the ####### Yankees over a 30 year old with a history of injuries.

OK that makes sense. I guess there's a chance they could be trying to do both. That would certainly get the attention of the teams in the south of the state.

#30: Fair enough. I was talking about improvement in the immediate (next season or two) sense. The NL is in a weird state, presumably just temporary, where there's a very clear gap between good and bad teams with very little in between. That is I think last year's NL standings are an accurate reflection of the state of the league. I think the Cubs and DBacks were "lucky" to win 74 games -- they looked like legit _bad_ teams to me that won 74 only because there were, incredibly, 5 teams who were that much worse than they were. It can be a fun waste of time for the rest of this thread -- if you took the best of the 7 worst NL teams, can you build a team as good as the Dodgers? I assume (hope!) the answer is yes but it might be close.

But I agree that bad teams shouldn't think in that way. There's no reason the Cubs shouldn't bring in (say) Correa not just for the short-term improvement but so they will have him around in 3-4 years when maybe they will be good again. And I can't rule out that they will be a "true' 81-win team next year which, with a little luck, wins 86 and makes the playoffs then gets hot. (Maybe especially since the 2023 Reds, Nats and maybe Pirates will have even less talent than the 2022 teams.)

You're implying that the Giants should punt the next half-decade to the Dodgers and Padres and start focusing on 2028 and beyond. That's insane.

the most succinct summary of many of these comments. I was trying to say something like that.

As for Judge's estimated (by me) 5 year window: sure, any non-contending team *might* put together a contender in 5 years, but most don't.

"Most dont" Because of the law of averages, you have 30 teams contending for what 12 playoff spots? SO SURE: less than half the teams wont make the playoffs, that doesnt mean a determined team willing to spend has no hope of making the playoffs in 5 years.

And what do we mean by "contend"? Is it to make a wild card slot? Perhaps that is too liberal. What if we say win 85 games? How many teams in the next 5 years will win 85 games at least once? 20? 15? 18? 22?

in the past 5 seasons 22 separate franchises have won 86+ games. I skipped the 2020 season cause why not. NL had 12 AL had 10. (COL and AZ probably being the most unlikely of those 22)

5 years may as well be an eternity as far as building a baseball team. WHile some of us like to think there is continuity in long stretches of time, e.g. the Dodgers in the 50s and 60s say or PIT in the 70s. I think the underlying fact is that players simply turn over so quickly that half your team will be gone in 4 years and so whatever you think was a plan was more like the Dodgers had more money than anyone in the 60s or the Pirates had better development system in the 70s.

I submit No team has a 5 year plan in place, thats insane. They might have contracts that last longer than that but in terms of what stage of rebuild, re-load, win now, etc. there is no way to plan that 5 years into the future. I would say 3 years is about the maximum time for a team wide plan.

but maybe that's not the best way to look at the issue. Perhaps a better way would be to state the issue as:

Realistically how many wins can a team hope to improve over a 5 year period?

But then the real answer is How much money do you want to spend?

Lets take the worse case scenario. The PIT. They won 62 games last year.Could they buy enuf talent in say 5 years to improve 25 games? that's 5 games per year. That's almost too easy.

WHat did I say was a realistic time frame? 3 years? OK can the PIT buy 25 wins in 3 years. They are what about $100M short of what is a reasonable payroll? 8 win/year on the free market should cost you $72M per year. BUt then the PIT have to spend $140M the second year to get 16 more wins. Hmmm is there not enuf money there for the PIT to get to 87 wins in 2025...?

Well wait a second, when you purchase super stars you arent really paying $9/WAR right? Usually you pay $30M/yr for a guy who puts up 5-6 WAR in the next few seasons and then gets back loaded at the end of the contract when he's not so productive. So if the PIT were willingly to stretch out their contracts for 6 or 7 years, then perhaps they can pay $5/WAR

So if by 2025 the PIT increased their payroll by $125 its possible to buy 25 WAR.

But then are there really 25 WAR just sitting out there ready to be purchased? How many super star free agents are there this year? 20? perhaps 80-100WAR among them. ANd if the PIT really did go on a buying tear that would almost certanly drive up the cost of WAR.

Then again, what about all the free agents the PIT just let walk or get very little return for. E.g. Morton Taillon Bell Polanco etc. Presumably they would start hanging onto those guys so they wouldnt really need to buy 25 WAR on the free agent market presumably they could have had at least 10+ by simply extending their guys in the last year or so before they became free agents.

THen again, buying WAR rarely equates to a linear dollar:WAR relationship there are all sorts of ups and downs in player performance. that's obvious.

THen again, PIT attendance should start to improve once: Judge, Correa, Bell, Verlander and Morton lead the resurgent Bucs. So they can use that to sustain the surge.

I dunno. Its difficult equation to work out with a lot of moving parts.

#39: The answer is that no team has a realistic shot at buying a championship. Even the Dodgers end up getting lots of cheap production out of pre-arb and arb players. Betts, Freeman, 2 Turners, Taylor was about 20 WAR for $110 M. Add Kershaw, Price, Heaney, Hudson, Treinen and Kimbrel and that's about 7 WAR for $72 M ... oh, add Anderson to make it a more respectable 11 WAR for $80 M. That doesn't even include Bauer.

That's 31 WAR for almost $200 M -- and 31 WAR only gets you to about 78-79 wins. The Dodgers got something like 18 WAR for $16 M out of Urias, Buehler, Gonsolin (not sure what he cost) and a bunch of no-name relievers. They got about 13 WAR for $35 M out of Muncy, Bellinger (half that money), Smith, Lux and Trayce Thompson of all people.

So the Dodgers with nothing but their FAs and replacement-level players would win about 78 games on a $220 M payroll. The Dodgers with none of their FAs would win about 78 games on a $71 M payroll.

The Pirates #1 problem is that they are only getting about 15 WAR out of that first $71 M of payroll. Give or take, it is indeed only the Dodgers, Yanks, Cubs, Red Sox, Angels, Mets and maybe Giants who can afford to buy the 15-20 wins on the FA (or extended star player) market to push them up to near-guaranteed playoff status but that's still only if they've got that near-500 base out of the cheap payroll. A team like the Pirates probalby still needs to do even better with their young players such that maybe they could get towards 85-86 wins ... then they can go out on the market and buy the next 10-15 wins possibly, as you say, reducing the short-term payroll hit in exchange for an expensive decline.

The Pirates are super-cheap ... and not good at developing players. They're going nowhere until they fix the second bit. It's not like they're losing star players to FA or even trading off super big names. Cole was a pretty big name but, spider tack or not, he wasn't that good with the Pirates -- 11 WAR, 5 WAA in 800 innings is good of course but it's not prime Verlander or anything. He had 12 WAR in half the innings in Houston.

#39: The answer is that no team has a realistic shot at buying a championship.

I didnt say that, you're changing the question again. I said: can you spend money to be a contender?

Obviously, obtaining more WAR costs money. Also obviously, most of the teams that have won 86+ games in the last 5 years have high payrolls, other than TBR. So obviously you have to spend money to improve your team.

Perhaps I dont understand what you mean when you say "no team has a realistic shot at buying a championship." Realistic meaning what: an 80% chance of winning the world series? SO SURE you cant do that, its a competitive league and you cant guarantee winning the world series by spending lot of money. Is that what you mean?

Isnt it obvious getting more wins means paying more money?

That's why I premised the question as getting to a competitive level. Isnt that a better framework for this issue?

I dunno. Your turn.

The Pirates #1 problem is that they are only getting about 15 WAR out of that first $71 M of payroll.

again this is not really the issue. The PIT are at 62 wins agreed? Can the PIT buy 25 wins over the next three years by increasing payroll $125M by the third year? that's my question. Assume their player development stinks. Assume their analytics dept is run by Sam Bankman Fried. Assume no one comes to home games. Assume owner is an A hole. Basically they are at the bottom. Can they buy 25 more wins? why or why not?

Give or take, it is indeed only the Dodgers, Yanks, Cubs, Red Sox, Angels, Mets and maybe Giants who can afford to buy the 15-20 wins on the FA (or extended star player) market to push them up to near-guaranteed playoff status but that's still only if they've got that near-500 base out of the cheap payroll.

Youve changed the question in several ways, I didnt say near guaranteed, I said 86 wins. Youre talking a "near 500 base" so I guess what 80 wins? ANd then buying 15 wins to get to 95 wins? That's a different question.

And you're talking about doing this in one season or three? The premise is the Pirates have 3 years to fullfill our experiment.

Also my premise is that the Pirates decide to spend money. SO SURE its never going to happen but its a hypothetical: Can a woeful team spend a ton and make a run at the playoffs? So I dont know why you say "...only the Dogers Yanks Cubs, etc " can afford to buy wins. It's a hypothetical, just do the hypothetical.

The answer is that no team has a realistic shot at buying a championship.

OK how about an UNrealistic shot? How many teams are in the playoffs? 12? Can a team buy an 8% shot at winning a championship?

Is that better?

On the other hand, very few players who reach FA end up resigning with their existing team.

I saw it in a tweet so it must be true:

the last two most expensive free agents of an offseason to re-sign with their team were Cespedes in 2016 and Holliday in 2009.

from 1972-1976 the Phillies improved 41 games.

the 77 Brewers improved 26 games in 78,

As 1986-88: 28 games.

Twins 1986-88 20 games.

1984 Reds improved 19 games in 85

Give or take, it is indeed only the Dodgers, Yanks, Cubs, Red Sox, Angels, Mets and maybe Giants who can afford to buy the 15-20 wins on the FA (or extended star player) market to push them up to near-guaranteed playoff status but that's still only if they've got that near-500 base out of the cheap payroll.

The Blue Jays absolutely can afford to buy 15-20 wins on the FA market.

They've paid for Springer, Ryu, Berrios, and Gausman over the past 3 seasons. Throwing more money as they are already a contending team is definitely something they can do (and have the corporate deep pockets and reason [owning the team and broadcast network AND separate playoff broadcast rights] to do so).

I cringe when the discussion veers towards using a year's win total as a baseline to add or subtract from based on talent acquired or lost. The Giants didn't add 25 wins of talent in the 2020-2021 offseason and didn't lose 25 wins of talent in the 2021-2022 offseason.

I cringe when the discussion veers towards using a year's win total as a baseline to add or subtract from based on talent acquired or lost. The Giants didn't add 25 wins of talent in the 2020-2021 offseason and didn't lose 25 wins of talent in the 2021-2022 offseason.

Agree 100%. You have to look at something like Fangraphs Depth Charts where they project WAR for the team's roster.

Right now they have the Pirates at 35 WAR, so ~75 wins.

As I tried to make clear above, my issue is not with the Giants spending money; I very much want them to do that. What I object to is spending money on Judge. I think he's overpriced coming off a career year, and they will have to outbid the Yankees, which they have no real ability to do. The money spent on Judge will limit what they can do to improve the team elsewhere.

I cringe when the discussion veers towards using a year's win total as a baseline to add or subtract from based on talent acquired or lost.

Its a fair point, no doubt. For instance the Reds team and I think the TWins I cited above was bouncing around from decent to good for a number of years. It could just be some sort of normal bounce PLUS one or two additions.

THe Phillies and As and maybe the Brewers were definitely bottom feeders. ANd they improved substantially. Part of Walts issue up there was his insistence that you must first get to mid pack (good player development, a good core roster, etc) before you can get to "contend" or "guaranteed WS win" or whatever standard he set. And these were examples of bad teams making huge improvements in 3 years or less.

SO SURE a yearly win total is not very good at reflecting a teams true talent level. Do you have a substitute? Can you use your measure of Team Talent and show that no one can improve 25 games in 3 years?

As I tried to make clear above, my issue is not with the Giants spending money; I very much want them to do that. What I object to is spending money on Judge

well this is how you started it:

The Giants aren't particularly close to winning their division and aren't likely to be during Judge's remaining good years.

If we assume Judge has 5 good years left, you seem to be saying the Giants aren't likely to contend for division title in the next five years. Yes or no? I mean you keep backing away from this in your last couple of posts insisting you want the GIants to spend but not acknowledging what you just said about their window of oppurtunity.

If you dont think the SFG can contend in the next 5 years, then why do you want them to spend money in the first place? They should be investing in scounting the Dominican republic for 15 year olds, or signing 20 year olds to 10 year deals if that's your thinking.

And why wouldn't Judge be a better use of money than say 3 cheaper FA? You can pay Judge what 35M/year for say 7-8 WAR, or you can get 3 FA to give you that and pay them what 70M year? I can make an argument that a superstar free agent is probably a more efficient use of money than several Good FA.

I get that JUdge is huge and you always worry whether a guy like that is going to go the Prince Fielder route and be gone overnight. yeah I see that.

Yeah there might be roster construction or financial reasons why the Giants (or the majority of teams) shouldn't sign Judge for the monster deal which he will get, but there are not any "success cycle" or "windows" or "next good team" reasons.

(I'm not quoting anyone specifically there.)

@51: Yes, I did start it that way. I tried to clarify in later comments, but perhaps not successfully.

The point I was trying to make was that if they sign Judge they probably won't be able to do much else. I think the team needs more than just him to contend, and by the time they re-tool with more limited finances, Judge will be cooked or injured.

There was some luck involved, but the Giants won 107 games in 2021 with a very similar roster to the one they had last year. This isn't some hopeless small market club. Put Judge on the squad last year instead of what they actually had in the OF/DH rotation (Gonzalez, Ruf, LaStella, Wade combined for -1 WAR in 1100 PA), the Giants would have cleared 90 wins easily.

I think it's also worth noting how little money the Giants have on the books in the coming years - the only contracts past 2023 they have are Anthony DeSclafani and Wilmer Flores, and the only valuable player hitting arb anytime soon is Logan Webb. I think they could pretty easily sign Judge+a shortstop+a third tier FA without really mortgaging the future. The Giants might have the most financial flexibility of any team in baseball when you account for their market size.

I don't think you're right about the contracts. I think Crawford (0.1 WAR) is signed through 2024.

@54: 2021 was an incredible fluke. If you look at their record from 2017 on (they actually collapsed in the second half of 2016), that season stands out like Brady Anderson's HR total in 1996.

Here's their record starting in the second half of 2016: .417, .395, .451, .475, .483, .660, .500.

The point I was trying to make was that if they sign Judge they probably won't be able to do much else.

That probably wouldn’t appeal to Judge either, since he’s made numerous statements about wanting to win a championship. I suppose enough money could make anyone put aside such qualms, but I remain skeptical that the Giants could outbid the Yankees & pay a non-contender premium.

Crawford signed a 2-year deal after 2021 - it's over after 2023. But even if it went on through 2026, the Giants have incredible financial flexibility - they have less money on the books for 2024 than the Marlins. If they signed Judge to a $40 million a year deal, they would still be in the bottom half of committed money for 2024.

I think there are plenty of reasons to be cautious with Judge, but thriftiness isn't one for the Giants at least.

If you are going to include 2016 in a discussion about 2021 (and the future), it's extremely bizarre to not list it as .537

Part of Walts issue up there was his insistence that you must first get to mid pack (good player development, a good core roster, etc) before you can get to "contend" or "guaranteed WS win" or whatever standard he set.

I think he's correct on that, to an extent.

So, yeah, let's take the Pirates. If they sign Judge, Correa/Bogaerts, and others, they will vastly improve. Will they contend in 2023? Maybe. Will they contend in 2025 if they add to that? Probably. Is there enough talent available to them that they can do all those changes in one year instead of three? I suppose it's possible.

But then we have to face the cold reality of "available to them". Just setting aside the specifics of Aaron Judge, a nebulously-defined MVP-caliber outfielder/slugger free agent is not going to sign with the Pirates this offseason early enough to get lesser free agents to embrace the notion that the Pirates are serious about contending. Without that, then every free agent they approach will be skeptical that they're serious. For a lesser free agent they will need extra motivation to sign with the Pirates than they would with the top teams, or even with clearly-on-the-upswing teams like the Orioles. The Pirates don't have to beat the market by $1; they need to beat the market by $50-80 million (or let's say $10 million AAV). If they do that enough times early this offseason, then they might be able to make a more convincing argument to a nebulously-defined MVP-caliber outfielder/slugger free agent that they're serious about contending. However, if they outspend the market by $10 million AAV on the mid-tier FA contracts to get to that point, what's left of their budget to sign him?

Unfortunately that likely means they need to build more slowly, sign guys who they can sign, retain the good players they develop, and build year over year to the point where they have a credible team. Free agents will still want market salary, but the premium they demand over the runner-up would be lower, and that money can be invested in talent better.

My point, just to loop back to it, is that there are plenty of good players available, but because of the team's current condition and need for efficient spending most of those players aren't meaningfully available to them.

The Giants won 81 games last year. Judge would get them to the 87-88 range. That's all they need to have a shot at the championship.

This isn't the NBA. Lower seeds can and do win postseason series.

But the Giants' offer would have to be massive to get Judge to give up a very comfortable situation in NY.

It will be entertaining if Judge signs with the Giants just because Opening Day next year has SF playing in the Bronx.

the Giants' offer would have to be massive to get Judge to give up a very comfortable situation in NY.

I believe the claims that the rather mellow Judge was highly offended by the Stadium fans' treatment of both Gallo and Hicks - and being booed himself at home during the sweep by the Astros.

not sure "very comfortable" is how he feels.

That said, in the end he'll take the highest offer.

I believe the claims that the rather mellow Judge was highly offended by the Stadium fans' treatment of both Gallo and Hicks - and being booed himself at home during the sweep by the Astros.

What ‘claims’? There was but a smattering of boos when Judge struck out at big moments in the ALCS, audible only because most of the crowd fell silent, as one would expect. Haven’t seen any evidence that Judge was ‘highly offended’ - he merely said he needed to play better - or that the experience has affected his relationship with the Yankees.

there were multiple reports of Judge's unhappiness with Yankees fans this season.

I called them "claims" because they are unproven. I believe the claims (based on how it strikes me as matching up with his overall personality), you don't. that's okay.

@60: I expressly said that I was including only the second half of 2016. Giants fans know the team fell apart in the second half after posting the best record in baseball in the first half. The .395 in 2017 pretty much confirms that.

@59: I thought Crawford was signed for 3 years. My bad.

@62: Sure, if you think the Giants can get the players necessary to repeat at .500 (before Judge). Can they do that if they sign Judge? Maybe; Jaack thinks they have more payroll available than I did. And assuming Judge is healthy and gives them 7 WAR or so.