I was mulling random thoughts while I was working out, such as: 1) The SF Giants stink; 2) We have a looming numbers crunch between Pittsburgh and Indy; and 3) I would love a true ace to lead our pitching staff. That's when I cooked up this gem: Let's offer Starling Marte, Ivan Nova, and Gerrit Cole for Madison Bumgarner!?!?
Moving Marte would open the door for some combo of Luplow, Meadows, and Frazier. Moving Nova clears the way for Glassnow, Brault, or Kingham. And Cole gets to the west coast to play along side his brother-in-law. We get our Ace.
Bumgarner is under contract for 2018 and 2019 at $12M per--very reasonable. Cole will go to arbitration and will probably be at $7 or 8M for 2018 and 19. Nova will make about $8.5M each the next two years (and would be a load off). Marte will make $7.5 next year and the Giants would have him through 2021!
That is a lot to give up but it creates --everyone now-- financial flexibility for the Pirates.
If that is not enough dreaming, picture the return of a productive Kang, and a late inning bullpen arm. That team would be ready to compete, with a smaller payroll than we have currently.
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
DemDog
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
Good idea guy. If we get Bumgarner and keep Brault on the team we then have two more guys to use as DH in interleague play as well as possible PH when they are not on the mound.
The only change that I would suggest is that Cutch replace Marte. I say this because Marte is to replace Cutch in CF. Meadows with his hamstring problems this year may not be ready to go in early 2018 and may be better at a corner when he does make it to the show. Yes, the deal may upset a lot of fans especially if Bumgarner flames out but then you can say, "Look at all the money we saved with the deal!"
The only change that I would suggest is that Cutch replace Marte. I say this because Marte is to replace Cutch in CF. Meadows with his hamstring problems this year may not be ready to go in early 2018 and may be better at a corner when he does make it to the show. Yes, the deal may upset a lot of fans especially if Bumgarner flames out but then you can say, "Look at all the money we saved with the deal!"
-
rucker59@gmail.com
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
I'd love to get Bumgarner. But that price is too high for two years of control. Marte and Cole are greatly diminished in value, but they are still our most valuable pieces other than Bell. Gotta "do better" with Cole and Marte.
-
Bobster21
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
It wouldn't make sense to make that trade for Bumgarner unless they planned to go all in during his 2 years of control. Would a staff of Bumgarner, Taillon, and 3 from among Glasnow, Brault, Williams, Kuhl and Kingham be enough for a serious WS challenge? Is the bullpen strong enough before Rivero? Either Kang would have to return or a serious bat for 3B would have to be obtained. An OF that depended on Cutch plus the unproven, oft-injured Meadows and the underwhelming and oft-injured Polanco would not come close to a championship caliber OF. Getting Bumgarner seems like a great idea. But not if it was only to upgrade one spot on an otherwise flawed team.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
042924353223347477460 wrote: It wouldn't make sense to make that trade for Bumgarner unless they planned to go all in during his 2 years of control. Would a staff of Bumgarner, Taillon, and 3 from among Glasnow, Brault, Williams, Kuhl and Kingham be enough for a serious WS challenge? Is the bullpen strong enough before Rivero? Either Kang would have to return or a serious bat for 3B would have to be obtained. An OF that depended on Cutch plus the unproven, oft-injured Meadows and the underwhelming and oft-injured Polanco would not come close to a championship caliber OF. Getting Bumgarner seems like a great idea. But not if it was only to upgrade one spot on an otherwise flawed team.
I agree. Getting Bumgarner for that deal opens up more holes. All trades are a risk, but this one is really risky as it relies on a lot of unproven players.
I agree. Getting Bumgarner for that deal opens up more holes. All trades are a risk, but this one is really risky as it relies on a lot of unproven players.
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
163B36272031266665540 wrote: It wouldn't make sense to make that trade for Bumgarner unless they planned to go all in during his 2 years of control. Would a staff of Bumgarner, Taillon, and 3 from among Glasnow, Brault, Williams, Kuhl and Kingham be enough for a serious WS challenge? Is the bullpen strong enough before Rivero? Either Kang would have to return or a serious bat for 3B would have to be obtained. An OF that depended on Cutch plus the unproven, oft-injured Meadows and the underwhelming and oft-injured Polanco would not come close to a championship caliber OF. Getting Bumgarner seems like a great idea. But not if it was only to upgrade one spot on an otherwise flawed team.
What I proposed was the framework of a trade to get an Ace. Bumgarner has the ability to be one of the top dozen pitchers in MLB and one of only a small handful in our price range and possibly available to us. This is the type pitcher you not only win with in the regular season but also darn near a necessity to win titles in the post season.
Also, my proposal didn't say we couldn't get more back in return -- possibly a prospect or a bullpen arm -- I just focused on the principals. And if Cole's salary would increase to $7M in 2018, we would have about $11M to reapply next year...maybe towards a 3B if Kang doesn't return, or other areas we need help with.
As you pointed out previously Bobster, trades are no longer just about talent for talent. You have to consider salaries, salary dumps, years of control, etc. It is like comparing apples, to oranges, to onions.
If we want to win a series we need an Ace. We will have to improve on the other areas of the team and, like every other team each season, rely on existing personnel to step up and perform at higher levels.
We aren't perfect but I see a path. Bumgarner, the $11M, and a the nerve to make a few bold moves might get us there.
What I proposed was the framework of a trade to get an Ace. Bumgarner has the ability to be one of the top dozen pitchers in MLB and one of only a small handful in our price range and possibly available to us. This is the type pitcher you not only win with in the regular season but also darn near a necessity to win titles in the post season.
Also, my proposal didn't say we couldn't get more back in return -- possibly a prospect or a bullpen arm -- I just focused on the principals. And if Cole's salary would increase to $7M in 2018, we would have about $11M to reapply next year...maybe towards a 3B if Kang doesn't return, or other areas we need help with.
As you pointed out previously Bobster, trades are no longer just about talent for talent. You have to consider salaries, salary dumps, years of control, etc. It is like comparing apples, to oranges, to onions.
If we want to win a series we need an Ace. We will have to improve on the other areas of the team and, like every other team each season, rely on existing personnel to step up and perform at higher levels.
We aren't perfect but I see a path. Bumgarner, the $11M, and a the nerve to make a few bold moves might get us there.
-
Bobster21
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
4B4C607761020 wrote: It wouldn't make sense to make that trade for Bumgarner unless they planned to go all in during his 2 years of control. Would a staff of Bumgarner, Taillon, and 3 from among Glasnow, Brault, Williams, Kuhl and Kingham be enough for a serious WS challenge? Is the bullpen strong enough before Rivero? Either Kang would have to return or a serious bat for 3B would have to be obtained. An OF that depended on Cutch plus the unproven, oft-injured Meadows and the underwhelming and oft-injured Polanco would not come close to a championship caliber OF. Getting Bumgarner seems like a great idea. But not if it was only to upgrade one spot on an otherwise flawed team.
What I proposed was the framework of a trade to get an Ace. Bumgarner has the ability to be one of the top dozen pitchers in MLB and one of only a small handful in our price range and possibly available to us. This is the type pitcher you not only win with in the regular season but also darn near a necessity to win titles in the post season.
Also, my proposal didn't say we couldn't get more back in return -- possibly a prospect or a bullpen arm -- I just focused on the principals. And if Cole's salary would increase to $7M in 2018, we would have about $11M to reapply next year...maybe towards a 3B if Kang doesn't return, or other areas we need help with.
As you pointed out previously Bobster, trades are no longer just about talent for talent. You have to consider salaries, salary dumps, years of control, etc. It is like comparing apples, to oranges, to onions.
If we want to win a series we need an Ace. We will have to improve on the other areas of the team and, like every other team each season, rely on existing personnel to step up and perform at higher levels.
We aren't perfect but I see a path. Bumgarner, the $11M, and a the nerve to make a few bold moves might get us there.
Yes, that would be the key.
What I proposed was the framework of a trade to get an Ace. Bumgarner has the ability to be one of the top dozen pitchers in MLB and one of only a small handful in our price range and possibly available to us. This is the type pitcher you not only win with in the regular season but also darn near a necessity to win titles in the post season.
Also, my proposal didn't say we couldn't get more back in return -- possibly a prospect or a bullpen arm -- I just focused on the principals. And if Cole's salary would increase to $7M in 2018, we would have about $11M to reapply next year...maybe towards a 3B if Kang doesn't return, or other areas we need help with.
As you pointed out previously Bobster, trades are no longer just about talent for talent. You have to consider salaries, salary dumps, years of control, etc. It is like comparing apples, to oranges, to onions.
If we want to win a series we need an Ace. We will have to improve on the other areas of the team and, like every other team each season, rely on existing personnel to step up and perform at higher levels.
We aren't perfect but I see a path. Bumgarner, the $11M, and a the nerve to make a few bold moves might get us there.
Yes, that would be the key.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
It's strange. Before this season started I was worried about the depth in the rotation. Now we seem to have depth and a bevvy of 3-5 starters but no standouts. Both things are issues.
-
OrlandoMerced
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
My two initial thoughts were;
1. Why would the Giants trade Bumgarner and,
2. The pirates need to improve the offense, not the SP staff.
I think with the Pirates the last two seasons it's been a similar issue. The things that they wish/hope to happen, have happened, (for 2017 it was bounceback years from McCutchen, Harrison and Cole, and contributions from Taillon and Bell. In 2016 it was that minor league pitchers would be able to come up and supplement the rotation and Taillon and Kuhl both emerged as SP options and that they'd get offensive contributions from part time players (Freese, SeanRod & Joyce). In 2016 they were expecting things from McCutchen and Cole that didn't happen. For 2017, they were expecting Kang, Polanco and Marte to produce.
I just did a side by side comparison between the 2016 and 2017 offense. In 2016 Kang, Freese, Marte & Polanco produced 10.3 WAR in 1978 PA's. In 2017 Marte, Freese, Frazier, Polanco and Jaso have produced 4.2 WAR in 1804 PA's. They weren't expecting all star production from all those guys, but they weren't anticipating garbage production from LF,RF and 3B this season. If those PA's were produced 10 WAR as opposed to 4, they're in the mix.
1. Why would the Giants trade Bumgarner and,
2. The pirates need to improve the offense, not the SP staff.
I think with the Pirates the last two seasons it's been a similar issue. The things that they wish/hope to happen, have happened, (for 2017 it was bounceback years from McCutchen, Harrison and Cole, and contributions from Taillon and Bell. In 2016 it was that minor league pitchers would be able to come up and supplement the rotation and Taillon and Kuhl both emerged as SP options and that they'd get offensive contributions from part time players (Freese, SeanRod & Joyce). In 2016 they were expecting things from McCutchen and Cole that didn't happen. For 2017, they were expecting Kang, Polanco and Marte to produce.
I just did a side by side comparison between the 2016 and 2017 offense. In 2016 Kang, Freese, Marte & Polanco produced 10.3 WAR in 1978 PA's. In 2017 Marte, Freese, Frazier, Polanco and Jaso have produced 4.2 WAR in 1804 PA's. They weren't expecting all star production from all those guys, but they weren't anticipating garbage production from LF,RF and 3B this season. If those PA's were produced 10 WAR as opposed to 4, they're in the mix.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Proposed trade of the (18 year old) century
5D607E737C767D5F7760717776120 wrote: My two initial thoughts were;
1. Why would the Giants trade Bumgarner and,
2. The pirates need to improve the offense, not the SP staff.
I think with the Pirates the last two seasons it's been a similar issue. The things that they wish/hope to happen, have happened, (for 2017 it was bounceback years from McCutchen, Harrison and Cole, and contributions from Taillon and Bell. In 2016 it was that minor league pitchers would be able to come up and supplement the rotation and Taillon and Kuhl both emerged as SP options and that they'd get offensive contributions from part time players (Freese, SeanRod & Joyce). In 2016 they were expecting things from McCutchen and Cole that didn't happen. For 2017, they were expecting Kang, Polanco and Marte to produce.
I just did a side by side comparison between the 2016 and 2017 offense. In 2016 Kang, Freese, Marte & Polanco produced 10.3 WAR in 1978 PA's. In 2017 Marte, Freese, Frazier, Polanco and Jaso have produced 4.2 WAR in 1804 PA's. They weren't expecting all star production from all those guys, but they weren't anticipating garbage production from LF,RF and 3B this season. If those PA's were produced 10 WAR as opposed to 4, they're in the mix.
I agree with you, Orlando. I have been saying the loss of Kang and Marte was a huge blow. Their replacements batted in the low .200's as a whole. Even using WAR in another thread, it was said to be a 7-8 game difference. Just last week, that would put them at the top of the division and first out of the wild card.
1. Why would the Giants trade Bumgarner and,
2. The pirates need to improve the offense, not the SP staff.
I think with the Pirates the last two seasons it's been a similar issue. The things that they wish/hope to happen, have happened, (for 2017 it was bounceback years from McCutchen, Harrison and Cole, and contributions from Taillon and Bell. In 2016 it was that minor league pitchers would be able to come up and supplement the rotation and Taillon and Kuhl both emerged as SP options and that they'd get offensive contributions from part time players (Freese, SeanRod & Joyce). In 2016 they were expecting things from McCutchen and Cole that didn't happen. For 2017, they were expecting Kang, Polanco and Marte to produce.
I just did a side by side comparison between the 2016 and 2017 offense. In 2016 Kang, Freese, Marte & Polanco produced 10.3 WAR in 1978 PA's. In 2017 Marte, Freese, Frazier, Polanco and Jaso have produced 4.2 WAR in 1804 PA's. They weren't expecting all star production from all those guys, but they weren't anticipating garbage production from LF,RF and 3B this season. If those PA's were produced 10 WAR as opposed to 4, they're in the mix.
I agree with you, Orlando. I have been saying the loss of Kang and Marte was a huge blow. Their replacements batted in the low .200's as a whole. Even using WAR in another thread, it was said to be a 7-8 game difference. Just last week, that would put them at the top of the division and first out of the wild card.