You Must Be Kidding...Who is This Genius?

The Giants have an $8-M option on Sanchez for ’10, which will probably be picked up. In fact, it should be. He is a fine defensive infielder who produced an excellent 6.7 UZR and 7.4 UZR/150 at the position in ’09. Even with his clear deficiencies on offense (no power, poor walk rate), he is likely to be worth those dollars because of his fielding. Indeed, despite grading out 2.3 runs below average with the bat overall in ’09, he still put up 2.2 WAR. He is definitely overrated on offense because of his batting crown, but he can pick it and earn live up to his option.

3 months ago God Loves 7 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

At first

It reads like the above paragraph is your words, not the author’s. May want to use quotes next time.

And yes, that is absurd. Freddy’s option will not be picked up, nor it should be. And to write two paragraphs about his option without mentioning that he needs freakin’ knee surgery is insane.

by biggyv on Oct 23, 2009 2:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Considering the other 2B options that are out there, picking up Freddy’s option might not be the worst thing the Giants could do. A lot obviously depends on the status of his knee and they’re in a much better position to judge that than we are.

by maguro on Oct 23, 2009 4:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Picking up the option is questionable and maybe not a terrible move, but the author’s argument that Fred will pay back for his defense is off the wall crazy…

by God Loves on Oct 23, 2009 10:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I would think the Giants would try to negotiate an extension at a lower annual salary. Freddy seemed prepared to sign with the Pirates for less than the amount of his option, just not for two years or for the money they offered. His problems after the trade should make him a bit more amenable to compromise.

by WTM on Oct 23, 2009 11:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

Seems like a 2-year deal would make sense.

I’m guessing that the author didn’t mention the surgery because he didn’t know about it.

by Vlad on Oct 26, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's far from absurd...

I’m not saying picking up the option would be a good move; without doing much analysis I’d say it probably is not. It depends a lot on how you project Freddy, but any reasonable projection would seem to make that option far from absurd. The average WAR is in the ballpark of 2-2.5, incidentally right around where Freddy was last year. Once players are no longer cost-controlled and hit free agency, teams recently have spent about $4.5 million per WAR. If you project Freddy to be in that same neighborhood next year then his option might be right in line with that. If you apply a heavy regression and age/injury factors than it probably tips the scale away from being worth it, but it’s not absurd to consider. Given age, injury, and regression factors my guess is that he might not live up to that, and there are probably better options out there, but GMs make far worse decisions all the time.

by mickeyg13 on Oct 26, 2009 10:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Other stuff this guy has written

seems to be well thought out. Even in this, he makes a reasonable arguement. He’s missing some things (the surgery, probability of decline), but his writing seems to be superior to that of most main stream writers. I read his article analysing the trade that sent Freddy to the Giants, and it seems like he has a very realistic view of Freddy’s abilities. My beef with Sanchez’s extension is this; analysis of defense is useful in that defense is an undervalued asset. Since most of Sanchez’s value comes from his glove, he should be signable at much less than the 4.4 million per WAR.

by uneasy rider on Oct 28, 2009 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs