Offseason grading thread

[Jimcanuck]

So subjective. Some will think he is. I bet the Angels think he’s a top 50 MLB prospect

 

I'm sure Marsh will inhabit the back end of some 100's in the next few months.

[BTS]

Marsh is not a top prospect. He is not on BA Top 100 or Sickels Top 100 released last week. He's still very much high risk, but a guy that reasonably projects as an average OF with speed.

 

Angels probably don't do it, but after getting Rendon and with the bullpen their main weakness, they might be motivated.

 

Do you have Sickels' list?

[Orgfiller]

Do you have Sickels' list?

 

https://www.bluejaysmessageboard.com/threads/5548-Official-MiLB-Prospects-Thread?p=1411923&viewfull=1#post1411923

[Jimcanuck]

Do you have Sickels' list?

 

Posted in MiLB/Prospects thread, 1 page back.

[Key22]

What is the point of trading an elite closer for "an average outfielder". Sure in terms of WAR it might make sense but elite closer = hard to get. Average OF. Sign a free agent ... they're a dime a dozen.

[Jimcanuck]

What is the point of trading an elite closer for "an average outfielder". Sure in terms of WAR it might make sense but elite closer = hard to get. Average OF. Sign a free agent ... they're a dime a dozen.

 

What does a free agent cost vs. a prospect / player under control?

 

Relievers are volatile, performance wise and there is 1 year left on Giles contract.

[saskjayfan]

What does a free agent cost vs. a prospect / player under control?

 

Relievers are volatile, performance wise and there is 1 year left on Giles contract.

 

prospects are volatile too. If Giles has no appetite for an extension, trading him makes sense though.

[Laika]

prospects are volatile too. If Giles has no appetite for an extension, trading him makes sense though.

 

You would assume that the relief pitcher who had recurrent elbow issues last year + has had a rocky career and has already fallen out of favor with a team would have a pretty big appetite for an extension.

[bendera3]

If he would want to stay here I don't see a problem with seeing what terms he's thinking. As said before he has had elbow issues and was punted out of Houston so he might be more willing to sign than we think. Adding an extra year or two to his contract probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Laika]

It's the same thing as Stroman though. Just trade him for some assets and then sign a good reliever next offseason. I hear Ken Giles is set to be a free agent in 2021, he's good, we should trade Giles and then sign that Ken Giles guy.

 

Why do people love extensions so much?

[saskjayfan]

You would assume that the relief pitcher who had recurrent elbow issues last year + has had a rocky career and has already fallen out of favor with a team would have a pretty big appetite for an extension.

 

Ken Giles had 1 DL stint last year and he almost missed the minimum pitching 13 days after he was put on the DL. Not every pitcher who has elbow discomfort needs Tommy John. Tanaka's was suppose to have Tommy John every year for the last 5 years. He came back after this elbow discomfort and pitched very well in August and September. Despite the elbow discomfort he still pitched 53 innings.

 

Gile's rocky career is one where in his worst season he posted a 3.08 FIP in 6 seasons and his career FIP is 2.37 over 6 seasons.

[Laika]

Ken Giles had 1 DL stint last year and he almost missed the minimum pitching 13 days after he was put on the DL. Not every pitcher who has elbow discomfort needs Tommy John. Tanaka's was suppose to have Tommy John every year for the last 5 years. He came back after this elbow discomfort and pitched very well in August and September. Despite the elbow discomfort he still pitched 53 innings.

 

Gile's rocky career is one where in his worst season he posted a 3.08 FIP in 6 seasons and his career FIP is 2.37 over 6 seasons.

 

Sorry but what the f*** is your point?

 

That Ken Giles is so healthy and consistent that he won't be interested in an extension? That seems stupid.

[saskjayfan]

Sorry but what the f*** is your point?

 

That Ken Giles is so healthy and consistent that he won't be interested in an extension? That seems stupid.

 

The point is you painted him as a mediocre injury riddled pitcher who would jump at the chance to sign a 3 and 24 extension. I think he might consider a 3 and 33 or 36 mil extension, but I don’t even know if he even wants to stay with the organization. If he pitches well with relative health he will get more than will smith got. Maybe he wants to bet on himself.

 

Sorry, I thought it was an innocuous comment. I didn’t mean to anger you to the point of swearing.

[Laika]

The point is you painted him as a mediocre injury riddled pitcher who would jump at the chance to sign a 3 and 24 extension.

 

Nope.

[max silver]

I think the key point on whether to extend Giles or not depends on the state of his elbow. Supposedly the elbow problems stemmed from a fall he sustained on the field in Chicago earlier in the season. Subsequent imaging tests only showed inflammation and no structural damage. It appears Giles has turned a corner with the prior behavioural issues, and he has typically been an elite reliever throughout his career. He has stated publically he has loved his time with the organization and is willing to stay long term. If the two sides can line up on a reasonable extension to keep him around longer term then why not get it done? The team is transitioning to contention in the near future, nothing wrong with having an elite closer on the roster.

[Laika]

I think the key point on whether to extend Giles or not depends on the state of his elbow. Supposedly the elbow problems stemmed from a fall he sustained on the field in Chicago earlier in the season. Subsequent imaging tests only showed inflammation and no structural damage. It appears Giles has turned a corner with the prior behavioural issues, and he has typically been an elite reliever throughout his career. He has stated publically he has loved his time with the organization and is willing to stay long term. If the two sides can line up on a reasonable extension to keep him around longer term then why not get it done? The team is transitioning to contention in the near future, nothing wrong with having an elite closer on the roster.

 

Today's elite closers often are not tomorrow's elite closers.

[BTS]

It doesn't make any sense for the team to pursue a market value extension with Giles. If Giles is dominant again this season, and if the team isn't in contention, then he should absolutely be traded. It's just going to be a FA contract anyway, which will make him an asset without value at the time of signing. Take the trade return, and the 40-50M or whatever and see what comes up in the offseason.

 

If December rolls around and the team determines that the best use for that 40-50M is for an elite reliver, then offer the money to... Ken Giles. Or Dellin Betances. Or Kirby Yates. Or Sean Doolittle. Or Blake Treinen if he rebounds.

 

We just saw this situation handled beautifully with Stroman. Instead of an extended Stroman, we have Ryu + SWR + Kay.

[The Cats Ass]

It doesn't make any sense for the team to pursue a market value extension with Giles. If Giles is dominant again this season, and if the team isn't in contention, then he should absolutely be traded. It's just going to be a FA contract anyway, which will make him an asset without value at the time of signing. Take the trade return, and the 40-50M or whatever and see what comes up in the offseason.

 

If December rolls around and the team determines that the best use for that 40-50M is for an elite reliver, then offer the money to... Ken Giles. Or Dellin Betances. Or Kirby Yates. Or Sean Doolittle. Or Blake Treinen if he rebounds.

 

We just saw this situation handled beautifully with Stroman. Instead of an extended Stroman, we have Ryu + SWR + Kay.

 

Seems like there's so many people that don't get this logic.

[saskjayfan]

It doesn't make any sense for the team to pursue a market value extension with Giles. If Giles is dominant again this season, and if the team isn't in contention, then he should absolutely be traded. It's just going to be a FA contract anyway, which will make him an asset without value at the time of signing. Take the trade return, and the 40-50M or whatever and see what comes up in the offseason.

 

If December rolls around and the team determines that the best use for that 40-50M is for an elite reliver, then offer the money to... Ken Giles. Or Dellin Betances. Or Kirby Yates. Or Sean Doolittle. Or Blake Treinen if he rebounds.

 

We just saw this situation handled beautifully with Stroman. Instead of an extended Stroman, we have Ryu + SWR + Kay.

 

What if you could get 3 and 33 right now, which carries risk on both sides, but would be much less than signing an elite reliever on the open market next year? We are also a lot closer to contention than we were last year and the return probably isn't going to be that great.

[Deadpool]

What if you could get 3 and 33 right now, which carries risk on both sides, but would be much less than signing an elite reliever on the open market next year? We are also a lot closer to contention than we were last year and the return probably isn't going to be that great.

 

The return is key. If it's s***, hold on to him (though there'll probably be some team willing to overpay at the deadline, so you might move him then...) No sense moving him if the best you'll get is a C- prospect.

[BTS]

What if you could get 3 and 33 right now, which carries risk on both sides, but would be much less than signing an elite reliever on the open market next year? We are also a lot closer to contention than we were last year and the return probably isn't going to be that great.

 

Will Smith is an elite reliever that just got 3/39. I wouldn’t commit to Giles a year before I had to and forego a possible trade return to lock him up for 3/33.

[max silver]

It doesn't make any sense for the team to pursue a market value extension with Giles. If Giles is dominant again this season, and if the team isn't in contention, then he should absolutely be traded. It's just going to be a FA contract anyway, which will make him an asset without value at the time of signing. Take the trade return, and the 40-50M or whatever and see what comes up in the offseason.

 

If December rolls around and the team determines that the best use for that 40-50M is for an elite reliver, then offer the money to... Ken Giles. Or Dellin Betances. Or Kirby Yates. Or Sean Doolittle. Or Blake Treinen if he rebounds.

 

We just saw this situation handled beautifully with Stroman. Instead of an extended Stroman, we have Ryu + SWR + Kay.

 

I don't get this whole asset with no value term that gets lumped on every player that signs a contract extension. For elite players that simply isn't true. If their health and/or performance craters then sure they have no trade value, but elite players in their prime for teams actually trying to win have plenty of value. If you sign Giles for a reasonable somewhat team friendly extension (which may be possible due to his stated desire to stay in Toronto) and the team ends up being terrible in the first half, then there is no reason you can't move him to a different team at the trade deadline, he will still have plenty of trade value. Sure if his arm falls off then you have a dead asset, there is always this risk in any kind of long term contract with a reliever.

 

This isn't the same situation as it was with Stroman at this point. Stroman had far more trade value as a starter with 1.5 years of control than Giles does as a reliever with only 1 year of control going forward. Stroman returned 2 top 100'ish prospects, with so little control remaining with Giles by the trade deadline you might struggle to get back even 1 top 100 player. You almost certainly wouldn't want to offer a qualifying offer to Giles in case he decided to take it. If you could have moved Giles at the trade deadline for a good return then that would have been the prime opportunity to do so. I do wonder what the Yankees offer looked like at the time, given that Giles was having issues pitching on back to back days.

 

The team has potentially added upwards of 10+ wins in free agency to a team that was close to .500 since Bichette was called up. This isn't the same team that was trending towards the franchise's worst ever record in the first half, it is now a team that showed enough forward momentum that the front office felt the time was right to start improving the 25 man roster, and not simply collecting assets. At some point keeping your best players to provide present value makes more sense than worrying about future value. If the return for Giles isn't a clear win vs. the value he provides on the field for the Jays, then I would argue it is better to hang onto him.

[BTS]

I don't get this whole asset with no value term that gets lumped on every player that signs a contract extension. For elite players that simply isn't true. If their health and/or performance craters then sure they have no trade value, but elite players in their prime for teams actually trying to win have plenty of value. If you sign Giles for a reasonable somewhat team friendly extension (which may be possible due to his stated desire to stay in Toronto) and the team ends up being terrible in the first half, then there is no reason you can't move him to a different team at the trade deadline, he will still have plenty of trade value. Sure if his arm falls off then you have a dead asset, there is always this risk in any kind of long term contract with a reliever.

 

This isn't the same situation as it was with Stroman at this point. Stroman had far more trade value as a starter with 1.5 years of control than Giles does as a reliever with only 1 year of control going forward. Stroman returned 2 top 100'ish prospects, with so little control remaining with Giles by the trade deadline you might struggle to get back even 1 top 100 player. You almost certainly wouldn't want to offer a qualifying offer to Giles in case he decided to take it. If you could have moved Giles at the trade deadline for a good return then that would have been the prime opportunity to do so. I do wonder what the Yankees offer looked like at the time, given that Giles was having issues pitching on back to back days.

 

The team has potentially added upwards of 10+ wins in free agency to a team that was close to .500 since Bichette was called up. This isn't the same team that was trending towards the franchise's worst ever record in the first half, it is now a team that showed enough forward momentum that the front office felt the time was right to start improving the 25 man roster, and not simply collecting assets. At some point keeping your best players to provide present value makes more sense than worrying about future value. If the return for Giles isn't a clear win vs. the value he provides on the field for the Jays, then I would argue it is better to hang onto him.

 

It's not the extension that makes him a valueless asset. Luis Robert is obviously still immensely valuable. It's the extension at free agent prices. Sure, if Giles signs here for less than his market value he becomes an asset. I'm not sure why we'd expect someone a year from FA to sign for tangibly less than he'd expect to receive in free agency 10 months from now though.

 

I just don't understand what people think there is to gain by giving a rich contract to a reliever a full season before you have to.

[max silver]

It's not the extension that makes him a valueless asset. Luis Robert is obviously still immensely valuable. It's the extension at free agent prices. Sure, if Giles signs here for less than his market value he becomes an asset. I'm not sure why we'd expect someone a year from FA to sign for tangibly less than he'd expect to receive in free agency 10 months from now though.

 

I just don't understand what people think there is to gain by giving a rich contract to a reliever a full season before you have to.

 

I agree that offering up Giles up a full value free agent contract isn't necessary at this point, you can simply resign him at season's end if you feel that he is a good addition going forward. I just can't help but wonder if the Jays have an opportunity to lock up a valuable asset at a little below market value at this point. They get first crack at doing so, once he hits free agency that opportunity is gone for good.

[BTS]

I agree that offering up Giles up a full value free agent contract isn't necessary at this point, you can simply resign him at season's end if you feel that he is a good addition going forward. I just can't help but wonder if the Jays have an opportunity to lock up a valuable asset at a little below market value at this point. They get first crack at doing so, once he hits free agency that opportunity is gone for good.

 

I guess I just have a hard time seeing Giles sign for markedly below his perceived FA value. The way I see it is this: the Jays decide they have $30-40M to spend on an elite reliever. They have three possible ways to spend it:

 

a) spend it now on Giles on a FA value contract

spend it now on Giles at a rate less than the value of a FA contract (Giles accepts less money than he'd expect to earn in the offseason)

c) wait until the offseason to make that choice

 

I don't see a realistic situation in which c) isn't the ideal avenue. Clearly a) is a poor choice: you're nuking his trade value, and opening yourself up to long-term risk by extending him a year before you have to make that commitment. would require a pretty team-friendly deal. The team might think Giles is going to get a Will Smith contract in the offseason if he's healthy (3/39). At what point does it even make sense to make the long-term commitment now, rather than wait and see what happens in the offseason? If the team has 40M earmarked for a late inning reliever, they'd certainly be able to land an elite arm in the offseason: Giles, Betances, Hendriks and Yates will be out there, and probably an arm or two that come out of nowhere this season.

 

At what point does it make sense to tie that money up now rather than pay Giles his arb salary, and delay the investment until you have the maximum amount of information on the health and projection of these relievers going forward? I feel like that point is a number that probably won't interest Giles. If you can get him for 3/27 or something then sure, make it happen.

[max silver]

I guess I just have a hard time seeing Giles sign for markedly below his perceived FA value. The way I see it is this: the Jays decide they have $30-40M to spend on an elite reliever. They have three possible ways to spend it:

 

a) spend it now on Giles on a FA value contract

spend it now on Giles at a rate less than the value of a FA contract (Giles accepts less money than he'd expect to earn in the offseason)

c) wait until the offseason to make that choice

 

I don't see a realistic situation in which c) isn't the ideal avenue. Clearly a) is a poor choice: you're nuking his trade value, and opening yourself up to long-term risk by extending him a year before you have to make that commitment. would require a pretty team-friendly deal. The team might think Giles is going to get a Will Smith contract in the offseason if he's healthy (3/39). At what point does it even make sense to make the long-term commitment now, rather than wait and see what happens in the offseason? If the team has 40M earmarked for a late inning reliever, they'd certainly be able to land an elite arm in the offseason: Giles, Betances, Hendriks and Yates will be out there, and probably an arm or two that come out of nowhere this season.

 

At what point does it make sense to tie that money up now rather than pay Giles his arb salary, and delay the investment until you have the maximum amount of information on the health and projection of these relievers going forward? I feel like that point is a number that probably won't interest Giles. If you can get him for 3/27 or something then sure, make it happen.

 

A pre-free agency extension would certainly entail a certain amount of risk for both sides to make it happen, and you very well may be correct in asserting that it simply doesn't make sense for either side at this point. The club carries the risk of Giles being hurt going forward and not providing the necessary value for the deal to work out, and Giles is potentially leaving money on the table by taking less money before free agency. But for Giles he gains long term security, and loses the risk of having to take a 1 year pillow contract in free agency.

 

Given the front office has shown very little inclination to even offer extensions to their star players up to this point the whole argument is likely moot anyway. Both Stroman and Donaldson are on record stating that they were never offered any type of extension. It simply boggles the mind that of all the players on the roster, Randal Grichuk is the guy they decided to lock up long term. A 1-2 win player with several years of control remaining doesn't scream extension priority in any way.l

[Jimcanuck]

A pre-free agency extension would certainly entail a certain amount of risk for both sides to make it happen, and you very well may be correct in asserting that it simply doesn't make sense for either side at this point. The club carries the risk of Giles being hurt going forward and not providing the necessary value for the deal to work out, and Giles is potentially leaving money on the table by taking less money before free agency. But for Giles he gains long term security, and loses the risk of having to take a 1 year pillow contract in free agency.

 

Given the front office has shown very little inclination to even offer extensions to their star players up to this point the whole argument is likely moot anyway. Both Stroman and Donaldson are on record stating that they were never offered any type of extension. It simply boggles the mind that of all the players on the roster, Randal Grichuk is the guy they decided to lock up long term. A 1-2 win player with several years of control remaining doesn't scream extension priority in any way.l

 

I expect Grichuk was extended on the basis of unrealized upside, whereas JD, StroShow, and 100 Mile had reached their ceiling. Well, StroShow might yet find a higher gear.

 

Extending Giles would probably reduce his trade value in the eyes of some potential trading partners, particularly those already max'ed out budget wise (Cubs come to mind).

[DigitalRock]

It doesn't make any sense for the team to pursue a market value extension with Giles. If Giles is dominant again this season, and if the team isn't in contention, then he should absolutely be traded. It's just going to be a FA contract anyway, which will make him an asset without value at the time of signing. Take the trade return, and the 40-50M or whatever and see what comes up in the offseason.

 

If December rolls around and the team determines that the best use for that 40-50M is for an elite reliver, then offer the money to... Ken Giles. Or Dellin Betances. Or Kirby Yates. Or Sean Doolittle. Or Blake Treinen if he rebounds.

 

We just saw this situation handled beautifully with Stroman. Instead of an extended Stroman, we have Ryu + SWR + Kay.

 

Damn good post...I'm on the BTS fanclub train.

[Ryu In My House]

Damn good post...I'm on the BTS fanclub train.

 

Yeah, I like it. I don't think he will be traded in the off-season. And really, for me anyway, we got him for f***ing Osuna, who's a girl beater. We did okay. That was an okay trade considering the toxic nuances. And, on a personal note, I dig Giles. He seems like a guy who will take a bullet for a win.

[wilko]

Yeah, I like it. I don't think he will be traded in the off-season. And really, for me anyway, we got him for f***ing Osuna, who's a girl beater. We did okay. That was an okay trade considering the toxic nuances. And, on a personal note, I dig Giles. He seems like a guy who will take a bullet for a win.

 

He's also a guy who will punch himself in the face.