Good Report on Frandsen Plus Rumors and Speculations

John Sickels, a minor league expert, wrote in his Minor League Ball blog the following about Kevin Frandsen:

Kevin Frandsen, SS, San Francisco Giants: Looks healthy which is the important thing after missing the season due to a torn achilles. Line drive bat, hits to the opposite field, hustles, won't have much home run power. Played shortstop down here and looked fine, can handle second base no problem defensively.

Still, Sickels thinks Kevin is a 2B in full-time play.

Baggarly's Back

Andy Baggarly had a juicy post on Giants rumors and he's not even at the GM meetings.

• The biggest news, as Andy notes:  Giants have interest in Rafael Furcal.  This makes sense, much like how the acquisiton of Rowand made sense:  add another strong vet to the mix.  In Rowand's case, it allowed Schierholtz to gain another year of experience at AAA, and Lewis backed up Roberts really well, with Schierholtz as the second alternative had the need arise.  In this case, this sets up SS, with Frandsen and Burriss fighting for 2B, and if both do well enough, Frandsen slides to 3B, with Sandoval sticking to 1B.  Also, as Baggarly also notes, he would lead off, allowing us to bat Lewis in the middle (though I was envisioning Burriss in the leadoff spot).  Plus we steal him from the D-gers, though they do have Ivan DeJesus and Chin-Lung Hu in the wings (however, DeJesus looks terrible in AFL according to Sickels and Hu didn't do well in majors last year).
  
  And this works even if injury prone Furcal - he's 31 next year and has had two straight injury reduced years, particularly in 2008 - continues to be injury prone, as that would allow Burriss and/or Frandsen time at SS. However, this only really works if it is a two year deal with an option, because we cannot be saddled with a gimpy shortstop for big bucks for a long time.  Particularly not into our prime period of 2010-2015 when we should have our best prospects productive and under our control.   Perhaps the option can be tied to playing time in 2009-10, like Vizquel's was.   He took a shorter deal with LA for more money so perhaps he might be willing to do that again.
  
  If the Giants are already looking this SS route, if Furcal falls through, perhaps they might go after Adam Everett who plays great defense but might give that back offensively. However, that would be an upgrade on last year because the SS position only hit .228/.295/.281/.576 overall. Everett over the past three seasons had OPS of .642, .599, and .601 (career .653, but much done at Houston's hitter's park. Still, he'll be 32 next year and with declines offensively, could continue to decline. Plus, it appears he was injured twice during the season (and missed a lot of time in 2007 as well), so perhaps he's an injury risk today.
  
• Other names include Pat Burrell and Jimmy Rollins, but most probably not happening.
• Scott Eyre was mentioned, but apparently Eyre loves pitching for the Phillies and his home is close to their spring training complex.  It'll probably come to who offers the bigger bucks again, which is how we lost him to Chicago last time.
• Bengie Molina rumors appear to be just that, nothing substantial.   I would note here that I saw a headline that Pudge and Veritek will be hot commodities because of a short supply in the catcher's market, so the teams that lose out on them might decide to be more substantial with their offer for Molina in the future.
• Lastly, Andy speculates that Aaron Rowand could be in the mix in trade talks.  The market for CF is strong as evidenced by the Brewers picking up Mike Cameron's $10M option, and the Yankees and ChiSox are shopping for CF (Rowand being a former ChiSox, and they pursued him strongly before the Giants got him).  According to scouts that Baggarly spoke with, Rowand's defense has fallen so much that Randy Winn was actually better (and most reports I've heard is that he's poor in CF).    Still, any trade would have to have a substantial return and the Giants would need to get another righty hitter to balance things out, particularly if Schierholtz is the new RF.  Plus, he has limited trade protection.
• Oh, and Baggarly guesses that it's 75-25 that Cain remains a Giant.  I would think it would have to be greater than that, because I don't think any team is going to be willing to shell out that much, I would expect to get much more than what the D-backs got for Haren, and only the Rays, I think, would be in a good enough position to trade off that many young good players for a Cain - yet they don't really need a Cain, they have Kazmir, Shields, Garza, and soon Price.  

Shea Had Something to Say Too

John Shea had a column on the Giants too:

• Asked if Cain is untouchable, Sabean said, "Yes.  Clubs know that.  That hasn't necessarily discouraged clubs from inquiring or making suggestions of offers.  But we don't see anything out there that gives us a net gain by losing him."
• So to get offensive help, he will try other ways, including free agency and trades for pitchers not named Cain, Lincecum, or Wilson.  "We have a list of very definitive untouchables for various reasons.  After that, if someone wants to get creative and we could find a way to do something, even if it takes more than one prospect, we're willing to do it."
• Sabean will be attending the Giants' ownership group meeting in SF tonight.
• Sabean has been told to conduct business as usual, despite the tumbling economy, with the priority of adding a couple of hitters - a corner infielder and middle infielder to complement Sandoval and Burriss in the infield and of rebuilding the bullpen around Wilson.
• Sabean noted, "You never know if someone might be interested.  Having said that, we know what the competition's going to be.  Make no mistake.  It's a short list of quote, premium difference-makers.  Very short."
• Also reports that Furcal's group "indicated the Giants are interested in the shortstop as a leadoff hitter." 
• Basically Burriss will play either 2B or SS and Sandoval wil play either 1B or 3B.  
• Sabean has not met many agents but is expected to.  He was seen speaking to Craig Landis (former Giants prospect, FYI) who represents Bobby Howry (also a former Giants prospect).   Sabean appears confident he can redo his bullpen through free agency.
• He also met with the agent company representing Dunn, Burrell, Hudseon, and CC Sabathia (and here it is affirmed that the Giants are not in the market for front-line starting pitchers).  
• Sabean also noted that Frandsen has a shot at winning 2B starting job.  He's currently playing SS because Burriss's knee is banged up.
• Also, they are still hopeful that Lowry will be in the Opening Day rotation (imagine how good we would have been in 2008 with a healthy Lowry manning a rotation spot instead of Correia/Misch/etc.  That could have been at least a 10 game swing as those pitchers went a combined 3-13 in 29 starts;  Lowry going 8-8 instead would but the Giants at 77-85, only 8 games under .500 vs. 18 games under .500).  
• In addition, Kevin Pucetas could be in competition for the final rotation spot as well, which is surprising but a good surprise.  But still surprising given the word after the season that the team would not rush players as they had in 2008, as Pucetas was only in Advanced A San Jose and, frankly, Tim Alderson outpitched him there.   However, Kevin will be 24 next year and Alderson only 20, so with Bumgarner and Alderson probably only a season or two away from being in the majors, perhaps the Giants felt like they should take a good look at Pucetas now.

Giants Thoughts

I mainly looked here at what the Giants might do commented on that and tried not to put as much of my opinion into what I would do as I am posting tomorrowing a discussion of various free agents and my thoughts on whether we should pursue them or not.  Here, I am mainly an observer who gives opinion on what may or may not be happening.

I guess the main news is that Burriss and Sandoval pretty much owns two spots in the infield but which two depends on who the Giants acquired during the off-season.  And the threshold is high, the Giants are only looking at "premium difference makers".    Plus, as noted before, the Giants are looking to boost the bullpen.  And it appears that the Giants are not pursuing any outfielders, leaving a number of premium difference makers like Manny not part of the mix in the Giants plans. 

Looks like they will pursue Furcal, though how seriously, I don't know, as they shied away from Vlad Guerrero reportedly because of his bad back (though according to a well-respected Bay Area media member, Ted Robinson, a significant factor was because Vlad didn't like Felipe Alou).  He'll be OK with a short contract but not a long one.

And apparently they are eyeing Juan Uribe as a possible replacement for Rich Aurilia, depending on how cheaply they can get him from the ChiSox (which I would put in the category of dumpster-diving; not that there's anything wrong with that).   I am OK with that if he's cheap enough.  It'll be fun for the crowd to yell "Ooo-Ree-Bay" again.  

Pat Burrell, on the other hand, is pretty much dismissed in the above articles, but he used to play 1B like Dunn as well.  However, I doubt that his hometime discount will amount to enough for the Giants to sign him and his defense stinks, and Sabean loves good defensive players.   

Still, you never know what a player might do, because if the Giants are interested in Furcal, they are obviously entertaining thoughts of shelling out another $12-13+ M contract and maybe Burrell doesn't need the biggest contract and accepts one that is good enough, like Carlos Lee did with Houston.  Burrell is a South Bay native and I believe was a Giants fan growing up.  In addition, because his defense leaves a lot to be desired, the Giants might not want to have two subpar defensive player in Burrell and Sandoval at the corner infield spots.  We will see.

I don't think that the Giants will want to pursue Dunn.  I think there is enough interest on the part of other teams to put his price out of range of the Giants.  And he's not going to give any hometown discount to the Giants.

Same thinking on Mark Teixiera.  As much as he fits the Giants ideal 1B - hitter plus great defensively - he is with Boras and he will want one of the largest contracts in history.  I don't think the Giants want to go in that direction.

I am hoping the Giants are limiting contracts to the 2 years plus 3rd year option or at most a 3 years plus 4th year option variety so that the contracts are ending right around when we need to sign Cain and Lincecum to long term deals.  That would make it easier to trade them too.

I'm a bit afraid that the media is mentioning Bumgarner and Alderson in the trade talks and hope that is because Sabean did not explicitly name them and thus the writers are just taking an analytical leap there.  Sabean, as I noted, like to maintain a list put together by our coaches and scouts on, basically, who our keepers are and who we are willing to give up.  I assume both are on the keeper list.

Looks like the #5 spot will be competed for by Lowry, Pucetas, and probably Misch as well, and possibly Correia should he be re-signed (I'm betting that he's going to another team like the Padres instead, though).  

The outfield appear to be set with Lewis, Rowand, and Winn, with the outside possibility that the Giants will float Rowand's name to see what offers he gets.  As I noted before, I hope they keep him, I think he'll be better in 2009 and the team will be sorry to get rid of him if they do.

Given the hot market for catchers in free agency, I think some teams might decide that it would be better to have Bengie Molina than overpay for the two stars on the market, Ivan Rodriguez and Jason Veritek, or, alternatively, he will look better when the two sign with other teams and the remaining bidders are left with no catcher.   However, I think it would take a pretty good offer to get the Giants to trade Molina, so I think he'll be with the team to start the season but could be gone by mid-season when the inevitable injury hits a contending team's catching and they need a catcher and thus might overbid for him.  Plus the Giants by that point should be back far enough that they could give up without shame and start building for the future again at mid-season.  

Lastly, Cain's not going anywhere because it is going to take a huge overbid to get him away from the Giants and that's been true for at least 3 years now, and if a team hasn't been willing to do that before, they are probably not willing to do it today, as he's pitching much as he has, at least at the surface. 

However, as I noted in another post, Cain greatly improved in 2008 because he actually pitched well on the road, whereas previously he only pitched well in SF and poorly on the road.  He should be ready to take off in terms of production as a starting pitcher in 2009, I would bet.

2008 Cy Young Discussion by Media

Chris Haft of sfgiants.com compiled the opinions of a number of media members who opined on who should win the Cy Young Award.  Obviously, I think The Kid, Tim Lincecum, deserves the award for leading in so many categories, but I had to comment on a few of the media statements, that, to me, appear to be biased:

• Paula Boivin, Arizona Republic: "Sue me. Tag me old school. Revoke my membership to the Secret Society of Sabermetricians if you must, but don't tell me Brandon Webb isn't Cy Young worthy.

  "Don't call me Homer unless it's a nod to a certain Greek poet. Watching Webb face the Colorado Rockies on Saturday night made me wonder if this current trend of devaluing a pitcher's win total could erroneously put the ace's chance for the award in jeopardy.

  "... Twenty-two victories is a perfect reason Webb should win his second Cy Young in the past three years. While others will argue for San Francisco's Tim Lincecum's superior ERA ... and strikeout total ..., Webb's ability to gauge his team's temperature and give it exactly what it needs is more important than recording an endless stream of strikeouts.

  "This is not a knock against Lincecum, who's had a phenomenal season for a lousy team. If Webb is No. 1, than Lincecum is 1A. But to say Lincecum is more worthy because he would have won more games if his team had played better is dabbling in hypotheticals."

  She complains about "dabbling in hypotheticals" but her main argument for Webb is based on his "ability to gauge his team's temperature and give it exactly what it needs."   Talk about hypotheticals!  

  Here's a fact:  if Webb's bullpen blew 5 of his wins instead of 1, as SF blew 5 of Lincecum's leads, Webb would have the exact same number of wins as Lincecum.

• Jon Heyman, SI.com: "Since [the Cy Young] award should be more closely tied to overall numbers and less to which teams make it to October, I'll give Santana an ever-so-slight edge over Sabathia, who matched Santana's late-year heroics and led his team into October, too.

  "In this remarkable year of pitching performances in the National League (what's odd is that the NL produced better individual hitting performances than the AL, as well), at least five worthy candidates will likely dot different ballots, including tiny Giants wunderkind Tim Lincecum, 22-game winner Brandon Webb and perfect shutdown closer Brad Lidge. I'd take Santana and Sabathia 1-2, but I couldn't really argue against any of the other picks, either."

  He's a former D-gers writer and he notes "Since [the Cy Young] award should be more closely tied to overall numbers and less to which teams make it to October" but then he IGNORES all of Lincecum's overall numbers and discusses how players did leading up to October.  He also belittles Lincecum by calling him "tiny".  

• Phil Rogers, Chicago Tribune (picked Santana): "Santana didn't dominate the NL the way many predicted, but his 2.17 ERA after the All-Star break was enough to lower his overall ERA to 2.54, the best in the league. His 16 wins included a brilliant performance down the stretch and easily could have been 20 if the Mets had had a better bullpen. There were other strong candidates, including Phillies closer Lidge, but this three-player ballot lists Tim Lincecum second and Brandon Webb third."

  But Lincecum did dominate and had the second best ERA AND two more wins. If HIS bullpen had been better, he would have had 23! wins.   

  And while Lincecum had about equal ERA pre and post ASG (2.57 vs. 2.68) , he actually did much better in the second half by striking out more, as he struck out 135 in 129.2 IP pre-ASG but struck out 130 in only97.1 IP post-ASG, and greatly limited hits, giving up 115 in 129.2 IP pre-ASG but only 67 in 97.1 IP post-ASG, while walking about the same, 3.26 BB/9 pre-ASG vs. 3.42 BB/9 post-ASG.   He even reduced his HR/9, from 0.5 to 0.4. The only stat that really went up was his ERA.
  

• Here are Lincecum's numbers, as other media in the article noted:  

  "Just look at the gap between Lincecum and Santana in strikeouts (265 to 206) and the opponents' batting average (.221 to .232). Lincecum also allowed 12 fewer home runs than the Mets' ace (11 to 23)." - Bob Klapisch, Bergen Record
  

  "He led the Majors in strikeouts, led the NL in winning percentage and his opponents batting average (.221) led the NL and ranked second in the Majors. "  - Scott Miller, CBS Sportsline

  "In nearly every category that indicates dominance from a pitcher, Lincecum leads Webb. Earned-run average. Batting average against. Opponent OPS [on-base plus slugging percentage]. Strikeouts. Home runs allowed ..."  - Jeff Passan, Yahoo

  "Santana led the NL in VORP [value over replacement player] and WPA/LI [win probability added/leverage index] (with Lincecum second), while Lincecum led in WPA (with Johan in second) and FIP [fielding independent pitching]. Even pretending that Sabathia was a National Leaguer the whole year, he still finishes behind both Santana and Lincecum in terms of stats."  - Pizza Cutter, The Hardball Times
  

The media, as I've been documenting over the years, have been biased in one way or another, despite their veneer of objectivity.  One is a Homer (and not of the Iliad type, though perhaps the Idiot type), another who still obviously bleds Dodger Blue and uses logic to reach the wrong conclusion, and the last, well, his gut had made his choice and he was going to justify it (but just ignored the fact that Lincecum was very good both start and finish).  Looking at both Santana's and Lincecum's second half stats, I would bet that Lincecum's FIP for that is lower than Santana, the only area he was much better than Lincecum was ERA and walks.  

I think the numbers speak for themselves, including if you take into account wins but don't see wins as a huge determinant but part of the puzzle, as Lincecum was second in the league in wins while near the top in all other categories as well.  It should Tim Lincecum, Cy Young winner of 2008.

For Comparison: Jarrod Parker vs. Madison Bumgarner

Baseball Prospectus, under Kevin Goldstein's leadership in the area, has started publishing their annual Future Shock Top 11 Prospects list and just published the Arizona D-backs Top 11 list.  I bring this to Giants fans attention because if things hold to form, the Giants will be one of the last teams to get a review plus, they usually only release the top #1 prospect and Villalona could take the Giants top spot, as well as now Posey.

However, while Madison Bumgarner has a good chance of taking that mantle away from Villalona with his great 2008 season, he might not and thus I take this opportunity to compare him with the D-backs #1 prospect, Jarrod Parker.  He is appropriate because he was drafted in the same draft as Bumgarner,  couple of picks ahead, was also from high school, is a lefty, and pitched at the same level, A-level.   I thought a comparison would be apt and would give insight as to how Goldstein might rate Bumgarner when the Giants turn comes along.

Comparision of Top 2007 Picks

Parker was rated a Five-Star prospect, the highest rating a prospect can get.  He, in 24 starts, pitched 117.2 inning, giving up 113 hits and 33 walks, with 117 strikeouts and 8 HR, for a 3.24 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, 9.0 K/9, 2.5 BB/9, 3.5 K/BB, 0.6 HR/9.   He ended with a flourish, striking out 39 over 33 innings with a 1.91 ERA in his last six starts.

Bumgarner is one of three top prospects in the Giants system.  He, in also 24 starts, pitched 141.2 innings (24 more IP) , giving up 111 hits (2 less hits) and 32 walks (1 less walk), with 164 strikeouts (47 more strikeouts) and 3 HR (5 less HR), for a 1.46 ERA, 0.93 WHIP, 10.4 K/9, 2.0 BB/9, 5.1 K/BB, 0.2 HR/9.  He also ended with a flourish, winning seven straight decisions, including victories in his last six starts, plus reeling off 38 consecutive scoreless innings from July 28 to August 27 (six starts) and he ended up winning the pitching triple crown, leading the league in wins, strikeouts, and ERA during the regular season.  He won pitcher of the week award 5 times during the season plus was named SAL Most Outstanding Pitcher as well.

And he continued to do well and won accolades after the season ended.  In the playoffs, he helped Augusta win the Sally Championship by winning his two starts, allowing just one unearned run while striking out 16 over 14 innings, and giving up only 2 walks.  He also won Minor League Baseball's Most Spectacular Pitcher Award for 2008 for recording the lowest ERA in the minors.  And he was named to Baseball America's 2008 High Class A All-Star team.

Given how he gave up less hits and walks while striking out more and giving up less homeruns that Parker did, and pitching 24 more innings, he should rate at least as well as Parker, if not higher.  Thus Bumgarner should be rated a 5-star prospect, easily.   Goldstein notes that Parker's Perfect World Projection is as a Number 2 starter with All-Star possibilities.  That means Bumgarner should be at least a Number 2 with All-Star possibilities as well.  

He Might Not Even Be Our Top Prospect

That's not too bad considering that he might not even be named the Giants top prospect for 2009, as Villalona and Posey will also vie for that position.  A Number 2 starter with All-Star possibilities would be gilding the lily on a MLB team with already two pitchers capable of being aces in Lincecum and Cain plus Sanchez has shown the potential as well, earlier this season, and Zito when he's pitching well is capable of Number 2 performance.  

His pre-free agency years could span the period 2010-2016 or 2011-2017, depending how he progresses and how aggressive the Giants are in promoting him to the big leagues (the Giants thus far have been particularly aggressive in bringing up players once they exhibit enough to warrant promotion to the majors).  

I know many Giants fans would say that Bumgarner succeeding would free the Giants to trade off one of their best starting pitchers to get another offensive player added to the mix, but I would rather add him to the mix and see what our rotation could do with Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Zito, and Bumgarner in 2010-11.  I don't believe that we could get equal or better value by trading off Lincecum, Cain, or Bumgarner.  It would be much better to keep them and dominate other teams with our pitching and defense.  I think our offense can develop to be strong enough to win with them as our pitching staff.

Or, alternatively, I would be OK with Sanchez being traded hopefully after he proves in 2009 that he's capable of being a top line starter for a whole season, and we should be able to pick up a good young hitter for him, after all, the Twins picked up Delmon Young from the Rays for Garza, who I would say was comparable to Sanchez except that he was prepared to start for a whole season whereas Sanchez wasn't.  If Sanchez could do what he did for over half a season for a full season in 2009, he would be a prime pitcher to trade for a good hitter, of which we'll have a much better idea of what we need by the end of the 2009 season, whereas right now we have a whole bunch of question marks and maybes.