Freddie Sanchez signs for two more years
JW
the Giants. It's worth $12.0 million. Is this a good contract for
the Giants? That remains to be seen.
Zee
As long as he stays relatively healthy, it should be a decent contract. He's a
potential all-star and certainly better than other players on our team making
more money (ahem). He doesn't help us with our power problem though. If spending
$6 mil on him prevents us from getting a real middle-of-the-lineup guy, then I'm
not really happy about the signing.
Awesome Lincecum
> JW wrote:
>
>> Henry writes that Sanchez has signed a two-year contract to stay
>> with the Giants. It's worth $12.0 million. Is this a good
>> contract for the Giants? That remains to be seen.
>
> As long as he stays relatively healthy, it should be a decent
> contract.
Just decent? That was *way* better than what I thought it'd be. I
can't believe they got him for that price. This day and age you don't
get much for that price. You get the likes of Pedro Feliz or Dave
Roberts. The Giants usually get screwed on these kind of contracts.
I was expecting $8-9M/yr minimum, even considering his injuries.
Yeah, that Feliz... might get back to back rings...
Zee
> Zee <no_...@nowhere.net> wrote in news:4AEBF013...@nowhere.net:
>
>> JW wrote:
>>
>>> Henry writes that Sanchez has signed a two-year contract to stay
>>> with the Giants. It's worth $12.0 million. Is this a good
>>> contract for the Giants? That remains to be seen.
>> As long as he stays relatively healthy, it should be a decent
>> contract.
>
> Just decent?
Well, the fact that he's 32 gives me a little pause. I don't necessarily expect
him to be quite as good as he's been. But if I'm wrong and he is, then
absolutely he's a good deal at $6 mil.
Greg Lentz
It's better than the Renteria contract anyway or paying him $8 million
next year. Reasonable gamble, not great. Better than hoping Uribe is
going to hit again next year or hoping Burriss will hit enough for 2B IMO,
but if Sanchez has health issues again, it could be money wasted.
Sabean felt that the free agent market wasn't going to be good this year,
so if we're going to upgrade the outfield and 1B, it's going to be through
trade.
--
Greg Lentz
Awesome Lincecum
news:12570258...@sj-nntpcache-2.cisco.com:
It's good that you're thinking in the Giants' point of view, but in
real life, $6M generally don't get you a Freddy Sanchez. Juan
Pierre and Scott Rowand make $12M/yr. Phillies signed Pedro Feliz
for $6M/yr. A 35 yr old Dave Roberts got $6M/yr. Randy Winn got
$9M/yr. Matt Morris got $9M/yr. I think Renteria got $9M/yr. And
do we dare mention Zito? (I don't follow other teams much but I'm
sure you guys can name a bunch more of these overpaid mediocre
players.)
Age usually don't affect singles hitters as much as sluggers. 32 is
nothing for today's good players. I don't think Sanchez's
performance will drop off due to his age, but I think it'll drop off
due to the home ballpark, and perhaps his knees. I'm guessing his
knees are the main reason for the big drop in price tag, but we all
know the Giants' history of paying even mediocre players way more
than that. The recession might have something to do with it too,
but I'm pleasantly surprised that the Giants didn't get screwed with
a big contract this time. I suspect Sanchez has a shitty agent
also. :-)
And I haven't heard about the incentives. I think generally players
with health issues are signed with a lower contract with lot of
incentives.
Awesome Lincecum
news:p6ope5h6la29gg68v...@4ax.com:
Funny how we used to rip JT Snow's lack of power, but as it turns
out he could be our best 1B in the last 14-15 years.
And counting...
Zee
>> Well, the fact that he's 32 gives me a little pause. I don't
>> necessarily expect him to be quite as good as he's been. But if
>> I'm wrong and he is, then absolutely he's a good deal at $6 mil.
>
> It's good that you're thinking in the Giants' point of view, but in
> real life, $6M generally don't get you a Freddy Sanchez.
Maybe not on average, but there are still plenty of all-stars (and potential
all-stars) making around $6M. Given his current health status, it seems like a
reasonable contract for the risk.
> Juan Pierre and Scott Rowand make $12M/yr. Phillies signed Pedro Feliz
> for $6M/yr. A 35 yr old Dave Roberts got $6M/yr. Randy Winn got
> $9M/yr. Matt Morris got $9M/yr. I think Renteria got $9M/yr. And
> do we dare mention Zito? (I don't follow other teams much but I'm
> sure you guys can name a bunch more of these overpaid mediocre
> players.)
Sure, but you are giving examples of bad contracts. Those are not the benchmark
we should use to measure the Sanchez contract -- I would certainly hope it's
better than all of those.
> Age usually don't affect singles hitters as much as sluggers. 32 is
> nothing for today's good players. I don't think Sanchez's
> performance will drop off due to his age, but I think it'll drop off
> due to the home ballpark, and perhaps his knees.
I believe Greg was the one awhile back who referenced solid evidence that
players tend to decline starting in their early 30's -- even the good ones. Of
course there are exceptions (especially in the steroid era), but in general the
body stops cooperating. Having health issues in your 30's is not the exception.
I'm also not sure how much his production will drop due to the ballpark, given
that he's a gap hitter. In fact his extra-base hits (especially triples) may
actually increase.
Again, don't get me wrong -- in a vacuum I think it's a good deal. But we still
need someone in the middle of the lineup, and I'm concerned this signing makes
that less likely to happen.
Greg Lentz
>> Age usually don't affect singles hitters as much as sluggers. 32 is
>> nothing for today's good players. I don't think Sanchez's
>> performance will drop off due to his age, but I think it'll drop off
>> due to the home ballpark, and perhaps his knees.
>
>I believe Greg was the one awhile back who referenced solid evidence that
>players tend to decline starting in their early 30's -- even the good ones.
Definitely not me. It'll be even more true now that steroid use is less
prevalent though.
--
Greg Lentz
NFN Smith
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
>>> Well, the fact that he's 32 gives me a little pause. I don't
>>> necessarily expect him to be quite as good as he's been. But if
>>> I'm wrong and he is, then absolutely he's a good deal at $6 mil.
>> It's good that you're thinking in the Giants' point of view, but in
>> real life, $6M generally don't get you a Freddy Sanchez.
>
> Maybe not on average, but there are still plenty of all-stars (and potential
> all-stars) making around $6M. Given his current health status, it seems like a
> reasonable contract for the risk.
>
A lot of it comes down to how likely he is to be injury-prone. On this,
Ray Durham was a real problem -- he was good when he was in the lineup,
but missed far too much playing time with injuries. And he got paid a
lot more. Thus, in this context, $6MM seems to be not an unreasonable
contract.
>
>> Age usually don't affect singles hitters as much as sluggers. 32 is
>> nothing for today's good players. I don't think Sanchez's
>> performance will drop off due to his age, but I think it'll drop off
>> due to the home ballpark, and perhaps his knees.
>
> I believe Greg was the one awhile back who referenced solid evidence that
> players tend to decline starting in their early 30's -- even the good ones. Of
> course there are exceptions (especially in the steroid era), but in general the
> body stops cooperating. Having health issues in your 30's is not the exception.
I've noted it too, although different players at different rates. A lot
is a matter of physiology. From there, depending on the player, the
rate of decline can be slowed with training/fitness, diet, and
unfortunately, Performance-Enhancing Drugs. Some players are done at
32, others can find ways of being productive into their late-30's.
Power declines faster than contact-hitting, but that declines, too.
Witness the older player who can't get around on the fastball like he
used to.
With Sanchez, the question is whether he continues to have problems with
his knees.
If you want to go way back, think Rennie Stennett (ouch!) Stennett had
been good before he came here, but the Giants gambled (and lost badly)
that he could overcome injuries. He couldn't, and turned out to be a
huge waste, not only of the money that could have been better spent
elsewhere, but that he was a huge hole in the lineup.
>
> I'm also not sure how much his production will drop due to the ballpark, given
> that he's a gap hitter. In fact his extra-base hits (especially triples) may
> actually increase.
>
> Again, don't get me wrong -- in a vacuum I think it's a good deal. But we still
> need someone in the middle of the lineup, and I'm concerned this signing makes
> that less likely to happen.
Right. We have plenty of complementary players, but no core players for
them to complement.
Smith
NFN Smith
>>
>> Sabean felt that the free agent market wasn't going to be good
>> this year, so if we're going to upgrade the outfield and 1B, it's
>> going to be through trade.
Yep.
>
> Funny how we used to rip JT Snow's lack of power, but as it turns
> out he could be our best 1B in the last 14-15 years.
And using the same Bengie Molina (at least with similar production
numbers) as our cleanup hitter that the Angels had batting 8th in 2002.
Smith
Awesome Lincecum
news:12571011...@sj-nntpcache-3.cisco.com:
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
>>> Well, the fact that he's 32 gives me a little pause. I don't
>>> necessarily expect him to be quite as good as he's been. But if
>>> I'm wrong and he is, then absolutely he's a good deal at $6 mil.
>>
>> It's good that you're thinking in the Giants' point of view, but
>> in real life, $6M generally don't get you a Freddy Sanchez.
>
> Maybe not on average, but there are still plenty of all-stars (and
> potential all-stars) making around $6M.
Which of those are available for the Giants to sign? :-)
>> Juan Pierre and Scott Rowand make $12M/yr. Phillies signed Pedro
>> Feliz for $6M/yr. A 35 yr old Dave Roberts got $6M/yr. Randy
>> Winn got $9M/yr. Matt Morris got $9M/yr. I think Renteria got
>> $9M/yr. And do we dare mention Zito? (I don't follow other teams
>> much but I'm sure you guys can name a bunch more of these
>> overpaid mediocre players.)
>
> Sure, but you are giving examples of bad contracts. Those are not
> the benchmark we should use to measure the Sanchez contract -- I
> would certainly hope it's better than all of those.
You must not have been a Giants fan for very long. ;-) </sarcasm>
Why don't I name all the Giants bad contracts in recent years and
you name all the good contracts, and see who wins. :-)
>> Age usually don't affect singles hitters as much as sluggers. 32
>> is nothing for today's good players. I don't think Sanchez's
>> performance will drop off due to his age, but I think it'll drop
>> off due to the home ballpark, and perhaps his knees.
>
> I believe Greg was the one awhile back who referenced solid
> evidence that players tend to decline starting in their early 30's
> -- even the good ones. Of course there are exceptions (especially
> in the steroid era), but in general the body stops cooperating.
> Having health issues in your 30's is not the exception.
Sure, I'm sure that's true in general. People have spent a lot of
time to come up with those stats. But I think those stats include
too many players, probably over half of them are gone by their early
30s. I think if you only include the very good players who usually
have much longer careers, the numbers would be slightly different.
Of course, as I said earlier, I'm also differentiating decline due
to age versus due to injury, whereas the general stats for decline
includes injury. That's a huge factor.
And I'm not talking about peaks either. Sure, most players peaked
in their late 20s, then decline, but not *linearly*, especially with
today's players in better condition. If we exclude injury, I'd say
players don't decline that much from age 31 to 32, which was your
worries about Sanchez. Remember, Sanchez has already peaked a
couple of years ago, so by some definition, he's already declined.
But I think after the first decline, guys will stay at around the
same level for a few years before the next decline, perhaps around
33/34. I don't have any stats to support this; it's what I seem to
see.
But I realize it's difficult to really separate decline due to aging
versus decline due to injury, since as they age, there tend to be
more injuries. I imagine it's not an easy concept to discuss.
IOW, if there's a study of only players who played into at least
their late 30s, and without any significant injuries, I'd love to
see what the peaks and decline numbers would be for those players.
But my other qualifier is to count only very good players, which
could be an argument in itself. How good is considered very good?
:-) I'm not sure I can define it either.
How much did Bonds decline from 31 to 32? Mays? ARod? Ted
Williams? Gwynn? Rose?
What kind of effect does today's conditioning have versus the older
generation players? You can't tell me there's zero effect, can you?
So how much is the effect? Does it push back decline by any? 1
year? 2 years?
> I'm also not sure how much his production will drop due to the
> ballpark, given that he's a gap hitter. In fact his extra-base
> hits (especially triples) may actually increase.
The increase in triples is a *much* smaller factor than a lot of
people think. How many extra triples do you think Sanchez will get
at Pacbell? How many extra triples did the other Giants gain as a
Giants versus with other teams? You can look them up, but my guess
is the numbers are very insignificant. The number of outs they make
at Pacbell far outweigh the extra triples (this year's team not
withstanding; it was an anomaly).
> Again, don't get me wrong -- in a vacuum I think it's a good deal.
It probably is, but actually I'm not really arguing that this is a
good deal. What I was really saying is that I'm so shocked that
this wasn't a $9M or greater contract, given the Giants' other
recent contracts. We're so used to seeing the Giants get screwed.
Well, you know what will happen now! Sanchez will be
injured/decline so much that the Giants will get screwed anyway. :-)
> But we still need someone in the middle of the lineup, and I'm
> concerned this signing makes that less likely to happen.
This contract is so small that I don't think it'll have an effect.
The bigger problem is who's available for the Giants to sign.
Awesome Lincecum
news:tJHHm.89$sY5...@newsfe17.iad:
> Zee wrote:
>> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, the fact that he's 32 gives me a little pause. I don't
>>>> necessarily expect him to be quite as good as he's been. But if
>>>> I'm wrong and he is, then absolutely he's a good deal at $6
>>>> mil.
>>> It's good that you're thinking in the Giants' point of view, but
>>> in real life, $6M generally don't get you a Freddy Sanchez.
>>
>> Maybe not on average, but there are still plenty of all-stars
>> (and potential all-stars) making around $6M. Given his current
>> health status, it seems like a reasonable contract for the risk.
>>
>
> A lot of it comes down to how likely he is to be injury-prone. On
> this, Ray Durham was a real problem -- he was good when he was in
> the lineup, but missed far too much playing time with injuries.
> And he got paid a lot more. Thus, in this context, $6MM seems to
> be not an unreasonable contract.
Ah, just looked up Durham. The Giants picked him up at age 31, and
his peak was at age 32-34, with his age 34 year being his career
year. Will Sanchez have the same luck? :-) Probably not, but they
got the injury part down. Durham->Burriss->Sanchez. :-)
Zee
>>>> Well, the fact that he's 32 gives me a little pause. I don't
>>>> necessarily expect him to be quite as good as he's been. But if
>>>> I'm wrong and he is, then absolutely he's a good deal at $6 mil.
>>> It's good that you're thinking in the Giants' point of view, but
>>> in real life, $6M generally don't get you a Freddy Sanchez.
>> Maybe not on average, but there are still plenty of all-stars (and
>> potential all-stars) making around $6M.
>
> Which of those are available for the Giants to sign? :-)
None, but that wasn't my point. :-) I was just responding to your comment
that, "in real life, $6M generally don't get you a Freddy Sanchez." In several
cases it does -- we just don't have the foresight to sign those guys when they
are still young and their stock is rising. Instead we wait until they're 32 and
already made a couple all-star teams, then overpay for a declining skill set.
Sanchez is an exception in that I don't think we overpaid.
>> Sure, but you are giving examples of bad contracts. Those are not
>> the benchmark we should use to measure the Sanchez contract -- I
>> would certainly hope it's better than all of those.
>
> You must not have been a Giants fan for very long. ;-) </sarcasm>
> Why don't I name all the Giants bad contracts in recent years and
> you name all the good contracts, and see who wins. :-)
Just because the Giants have had shitty contracts doesn't mean we should now
look at an average or slightly above-average contract as a thing of beauty.
We've let our standards slip too low because we just expect shitty contracts
from the Giants now.
>>> Age usually don't affect singles hitters as much as sluggers. 32
>>> is nothing for today's good players. I don't think Sanchez's
>>> performance will drop off due to his age, but I think it'll drop
>>> off due to the home ballpark, and perhaps his knees.
>> I believe Greg was the one awhile back who referenced solid
>> evidence that players tend to decline starting in their early 30's
>> -- even the good ones. Of course there are exceptions (especially
>> in the steroid era), but in general the body stops cooperating.
>> Having health issues in your 30's is not the exception.
>
> Sure, I'm sure that's true in general. People have spent a lot of
> time to come up with those stats. But I think those stats include
> too many players, probably over half of them are gone by their early
> 30s. I think if you only include the very good players who usually
> have much longer careers, the numbers would be slightly different.
You may be right. I think there's a tendency for the older players who are still
producing to stick on our heads because we see them on the field, and we forget
about the good players who are no longer in the league or have fallen off
drastically.
> Of course, as I said earlier, I'm also differentiating decline due
> to age versus due to injury, whereas the general stats for decline
> includes injury. That's a huge factor.
> And I'm not talking about peaks either. Sure, most players peaked
> in their late 20s, then decline, but not *linearly*, especially with
> today's players in better condition. If we exclude injury, I'd say
> players don't decline that much from age 31 to 32, which was your
> worries about Sanchez. Remember, Sanchez has already peaked a
> couple of years ago, so by some definition, he's already declined.
> But I think after the first decline, guys will stay at around the
> same level for a few years before the next decline, perhaps around
> 33/34. I don't have any stats to support this; it's what I seem to
> see.
I think we've been jaded a bit by steroids, which have a huge impact on the
ability for older players to recover and bounce back quickly. It would be
interesting to compare the number of all-stars in their 30s during this era
compared to the 70s, for example. But as you mentioned conditioning has also
improved, so it's impossible to tease these factors out really.
> But I realize it's difficult to really separate decline due to aging
> versus decline due to injury, since as they age, there tend to be
> more injuries. I imagine it's not an easy concept to discuss.
Agreed. If Sanchez remains "healthy" going forward but his numbers decline, it's
impossible to tell how much is due strictly to age and how much is due to the
knee "acting up" or other physical ailments that are minor enough not to be
called "injury" but are still a side-effect of age.
>> But we still need someone in the middle of the lineup, and I'm
>> concerned this signing makes that less likely to happen.
>
> This contract is so small that I don't think it'll have an effect.
> The bigger problem is who's available for the Giants to sign.
It will have to be through trade most likely, but that will still have an effect
on our payroll and the Sanchez signing may make it less likely for a trade to occur.
Awesome Lincecum
news:12573573...@sj-nntpcache-3.cisco.com:
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
>>>>> Well, the fact that he's 32 gives me a little pause. I don't
>>>>> necessarily expect him to be quite as good as he's been. But
>>>>> if I'm wrong and he is, then absolutely he's a good deal at $6
>>>>> mil.
>>>> It's good that you're thinking in the Giants' point of view,
>>>> but in real life, $6M generally don't get you a Freddy Sanchez.
>>> Maybe not on average, but there are still plenty of all-stars
>>> (and potential all-stars) making around $6M.
>>
>> Which of those are available for the Giants to sign? :-)
>
> None, but that wasn't my point. :-) I was just responding to
> your comment that, "in real life, $6M generally don't get you a
> Freddy Sanchez." In several cases it does --
"In several cases it does" doesn't contradict my statement of "$6M
generally don't get you a Freddy Sanchez." The keyword here is
*generally*. :-)
> we just don't have
> the foresight to sign those guys when they are still young and
> their stock is rising.
Ah I see, it seems like you didn't understand my point. I'm not
talking about someone who's still young and their stock is rising.
I'm talking about someone like a Freddy Sanchez, or someone who
might've made a couple of all-star teams, won a batting title or
two, and is probably in his early 30s, when they've done something
noticeable, which make teams throw big amount of money at them, even
though they might have already peaked. *Generally* you don't get a
guy like that for $6M these days. And he's not old enough for teams
to lose interests in him. So I think the main reason is his knees.
> Instead we wait until they're 32 and
> already made a couple all-star teams, then overpay for a declining
> skill set.
Exactly. That's what I was talking about. And generally this is
how this league works: they usually pay big money for what players
have done, not for what they might become.
> Sanchez is an exception in that I don't think we
> overpaid.
This was exactly my point. I'm so surprised that Sanchez was an
exception, especially given the Giants' recent history. Last time I
checked, the GM hasn't changed. :-)