It's the "In or Out" Edition of the Free For All Mailbag
With the trade deadline barely more than 48 hours away, the Giants arrive in familiar “in or out” fashion once again. The roster — which includes far more high-end talent than we’ve seen in many years — says “in” should be the correct answer. The standings might indicate that as well. But, boy, the quality of play sure seems to say “out.” Perhaps we should take some solace in a fellow denizen of the NL West, the Arizona Diamondbacks. No, not the current rendition, which is clearly out, but rather the 2023 version. That club, at almost this exact same time of year, went through a dreadful 7-24 stretch that made them look dead as any door nail by the first week of August. And yet, somehow, after dropping from 15 games above .500 at the end of June, to below .500 on August 11, they managed to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and make an improbable charge to the World Series.
We shall see in the coming hours whether Buster Posey has faith that this group of Giants might be capable of something similar in a surprisingly weak NL landscape that seems to be running low on competitors.
With that, let’s crack open the bag:
Maui Ahuna moving to Eugene has calmed a lot of things in my mind. But I would love to hear your thoughts on where all of these shortstops are going to play. And how might it continue to affect the non-SS infielders? Who might join Ahuna in Eugene, to potentially make room for Jhonny Level and/or Gavin Kilen? Or even Lorenzo Meola?
So, we’re kicking off “Way Too Early” Roster Preview season even earlier than normal this year, I guess. Consider this mailbag to be the way, way, WAY too early edition!
I can’t say that I’ve really thought this through as of yet, but let me do a little back of the napkin work on what next year might look like for some of the top shortstop prospects on the farm:
Richmond: Arteaga/Velasquez?
Eugene: Ahuna/Sio/Martin
San Jose: Level/Kilen/Meola
ACL: Gonzalez/Marquez
DSL: Hernandez/Barreto
That’s basically the group we’re talking about for next year, right? I can see Diego Velasquez earning a promotion to Sacramento next year. But either way, the upper levels aren’t a big part of Chet’s question, I think, because most of the backload is taking place at the lower levels.
I would imagine that the Eugene situation come next April will look very much like what we’ve been seeing in San Jose for the last month or so — and involving basically all the same players. I would guess that the priorities will revolve around Ahuna getting most of the time at shortstop, Jean Carlos Sio at 2b, and Walker Martin at 3b. As has been the case with San Jose ever since Ahuna joined them, that likely leaves Robert Hipwell seeing most of his time at 1b, and Zander Darby rotating through all of the 3b/1b/2b and DH slots.
Down in San Jose, I think we’re going to see a similar sort of mix and match time share, but in this case, the Giants probably will want Jhonny Level and Gavin Kilen to share the SS/2b positions, possibly alternating back and forth at the two positions (personally, I think Level has the better chance of sticking at the Six). Lorenzo Meola, I would think, will be significantly down the priority list from those two, and will play something like the Darby role from this year, mixing into the 3b/SS/2b/DH positions on some sort of irregular rotation. Though you could make the case that he’s the best defensive shortstop of the group (although I haven’t really seen him yet, so I wouldn’t necessarily want to anoint him above Level), I doubt that he would be prioritized in that way above two better all-around prospects. Dario Reynoso could possibly get a bump up to San Jose next year as well (though I wouldn’t think that’s a certainty by any means), and he might work into the lineup the same way we’ve seen Elian Rayo do in the past two years, getting two starts in per series.
Josuar Gonzalez will definitely move up to the ACL next year, but it’s less clear who else might come up with him. Anthony Marquez seems most likely to me, along with Yulian Barreto or Yosneiker Rivas. Whoever else does report to Scottsdale, Gonzalez’s reps at shortstop will be the clear priority, and any other infielders will fill in around him in much the same way that we’ve seen Reynoso, Ramon Peralta, and others mix into the 3b/2b slots around Level. Given that there are more reps to go around in the DSL (with two squads to fill out), it’s possible that decisions on who is going to move up from the DSL will be determined by the best way to get maximum playing time to all of this group, with Gonzalez being prioritized.
I assume that your last question — about who might join Ahuna in Eugene — is regarding what is left of this year. I do think that Level, and possibly Kilen, might see time in San Jose this year. And, at this point, I think that Sio and Darby have both played well enough the be able to handle a call up to Eugene to open up opportunities for them. If that were to happen, I’d guess that Zane Zielinski and Dayson Croes would probably be the playing time losers in Eugene, and Quinn McDaniel would continue to see most of his time in the outfield (where he’s mostly played since Bo Davidson and Scott Bandura were promoted)
I suppose the TL:DR version of that is to go back and look at the way that San Jose has balanced playing time for everybody this year — that really is the blueprint. As is the case every year, of course, there will be players who get pushed to the perimeters of rosters (or even beyond the edges) assuming that everybody is healthy.
It appears that Walker Martin has been quietly improving throughout the year, his OPS has climbed every month. According to milb.com his second half slash line is currently 302/417/448/865 with 24/17 K/BB. It looks like he may be doing a lot of the same things Dakota Jordan has been doing this year. What have you been hearing from scouts on his progress, and where do you think he ends the year in your rankings?
Martin has definitely been making some nice adjustments in his second season, looking far more comfortable at the plate than he did in his brief debut with San Jose last season. It’s probably not too surprising that his progress should be a little slower given his background as a multi-sport player from a state (Colorado) that doesn’t have elite pitching competition. As you note, his OPS has steadily climbed throughout the season (.590 in April to .790 in May to .835 in June/July). Perhaps more impressively, he’s been cutting into his strikeout rate pretty consistently through the year as well: dropping from 33% in April down to just 21% so far this month.
That’s all pretty great work for the 21-year-old — and I think moving over to 3b has been good for him as well. The Jordan comparison is an interesting one, because I was recently talking with a scout who was coming from San Jose, and he really raved about Jordan’s tools and athleticism, but when I brought up Martin, the response was, I would say, much more demure. Martin scored extremely high on tests for athleticism going into his draft, but scouts who have seen him professionally have been much higher on his strength than his lower-half explosiveness (a big part of why he didn’t really fit at shortstop). As I said above, I think getting settled in at 3b will really help him going forward, since a left-handed hitting, power 3b is probably the way he profiles best to move forward. He has a big arm (as you’d expect from a high school quarterback who took his team to multiple state championships), and decent hands and instincts.
The questions for Martin will continue to be whether he can make enough contact for all of his many, genuine abilities to play in games at higher levels. He’s obviously made real strides on that score. His 27% K rate is significantly down from last year’s other-worldly, 41%. That’s both a great step forward and a still-reddish flag number. His swinging strike rate has made some progress as well — improving from 16.9% last year to 14.8% so far this year — but again, that’s still a really high number. For perspective, I tend to break swinging strike rates at around the 10% mark. Guys in single digits (Jean Carlos Sio, Wade Meckler, and Carlos Gutierrez) have above average hit tools. Guys in the mid-teens (Martin, Ahuna, McDaniel, Hunter Bishop, even Bryce Eldridge, although his strike zone comes with unique challenges to cover) have some questions to answer about the hit tool.
Things are definitely trending upwards for Martin. I didn’t have him quite in my Top 30 at the mid-season, but he was right there in amongst a bunch of other, similar type hitters. Come the winter, I’m not sure that I’m going to want to put Jakob Christian, for example (with his truly frightening 18% swinging strike rate) above a player who is younger, left-handed, and capable of playing more important defensive positions. But I have to have a lot more conversations with industry folks before I’m comfortable with saying where he’s going to land. And, of course, we have more season for him to continue to make improvements.
Two mailbags in succession, what a treat! Not deadline related, but something I've been thinking about lately. In recent years, the Giants have had a lot of team success in the lower levels of the Minor Leagues, but struggles at the higher levels. Obviously, team performance is not the point of the farm, but it's generally fairly reflective of the individual performances!
I think some of the gap can be attributed to overly-aggressive promotions, which have had the double whammy of both sapping a lot of the upper-minors talent through too-early MLB promotions, and putting a lot of players in the upper minors before they're ready, where they then struggle. But it would seem like more is going on than just that. Is it a developmental issue? Is it a case of not drafting/signing good enough athletes, but rather players who have the skills to excel at lower levels but stall out at higher levels? A penny (or however much your subscription cost is!) for your thoughts. Here are the 3-year running records for all the levels:
DSL: 179-112
ACL: 138-94
A-: 203-153
A+: 179-178
AA: 173-195
AAA: 197-201
Hi Brady, that is a truly fascinating and important question, I think — and hopefully one that the Giants’ front office ponders on occasion: why isn’t success at lower levels translating to upper levels? I can definitely see how some of the rapid promotions that we saw over the last three years might be impacting that (especially at the Double-A level, where a lot of the best players have flashed through in the blink of an eye), but I also agree with you that that can’t be the whole story.
I wonder if the key to the trends you have put your finger on isn’t to be found in what’s going wrong at the upper levels, but rather on what’s happening in the lower levels to help drive that success. Without draining all my brain power, here’s a couple things that jump out at me:
Age vs level. The Giants historically have tended to have teams that were older than the league average. In fact, there have been times when their low-level teams were piling up championships (in Salem-Keizer or San Jose, for instance), when that was an occasional sore spot with the other teams in the league.
Let’s take a look at the bottom four levels and see if that continues to be the case:
I don’t think this is egregious, but you can see that the Giants are very consistently on the high side of average. Being old for a level is considered an advantage for obvious reasons (more experience and more mature strength being two big ones), so it would stand to reason that being consistently on the older side in low levels would be a systemic advantage carrying over from year to year. Especially with the pitching (where the Giants’ proclivity is even more marked), I think having age and maturity on your side at the lowest levels really gives a competitive advantage.
Now I wouldn’t want to make too much of that. Notably, the ACL Giants team had a dominating pitching staff, and the younger members of that staff did a lot of the heavy lifting (age in the ACL has a lot of noise involved in it, due to teams’ heavy use of the complex for rehab). Still, I do think we can see something structural here that is an advantage at low levels but that doesn’t necessarily translate to higher ones (where players in general skew older and more experienced).Quality of Competition: This is really specific to the two A-ball leagues that the Giants play in. The Cal League and the NWL are the two smallest leagues in minor league baseball (eight teams and six, respectively), and, with all due respect, they probably offer the lowest levels of competition for their respective classes — due both to their size and organizational makeup. When there’s a bad club in one of those leagues, it makes a relatively bigger difference.
And there have been bad teams! The Angels’ A-ball affiliates (Inland Empire in the Cal League, and Tri-City in the NWL) have a tendency to float towards the bottom of the standings. Inland Empire has had some success this decade, but Tri-City is perpetually dreadful. In a six-team league, that’s literally 20% of your schedule. And I don’t want to point an accusative finger at the Angels, alone. The D’backs Cal League (Visalia) and NWL (Hillsboro) affiliates have been really bad the last few years, too — the Rawhide managed to lose 82 out of 120 games one year! Some clubs do the opposite of the Giants, and construct really young Low-A clubs, leaving them a bit more inexperienced and at a competitive disadvantage (the A’s affiliate in Stockton is often a very young one, as is the Pads’ at Lake Elsinore). And, again, in smaller leagues, these things tend to have a greater impact, because each team is a proportionally bigger part of the schedule.
That’s very much not the case for Giants’ prospects who make their way up to the Eastern League, which is a pretty large league that is made up of a lot of the best player development organizations in baseball. In the early part of the decade, Akron was always a really talented team, and, not surprisingly, Cleveland was always competing for the playoffs. In recent years, Erie has dominated the Southwest Division — and, lookee there, Detroit is one of the more exciting young clubs in MLB. The Yankees (Somerset), the Red Sox (Portland), the Mets (Binghamton) — these orgs all have great player development reputations and they annually produce very talented and competitive Double-A squads. If you’re a prospect moving up from the tiny NWL to the high-quality EL, it’s natural to think “we’re not in Kansas anymore.”
I’m sure there are things at work here, as well — and I don’t think anything fully explains why the Giants have so much success at low levels, and so little of it in the higher levels. Sacramento has had just two seasons above .500 since becoming a Giants’ affiliate in 2015 (they are currently two games over .500 at 52-50). In that same time, Richmond has posted a winning record just three times (they are highly unlikely to add to that total this year).
For what it’s worth, there are two other orgs that the Giants’ Cal and NWL affiliates tend to find themselves battling with most seasons: the Mariners (Modesto and Everett) and Rockies (Fresno and Spokane). The Rox tend to follow much the same trend that the Giants do. This decade their winning percentages by level over this same period of time go as follows: A (.577), A+ (.527), AA (.483), AAA (.424). And, of course, if we extend that up to the MLB team, things get even more dire. The Mariners, on the other hand, have been much more successful at translating lower-level success into upper-level success: A (.540), A+ (.506), AA (.541), AAA (.537). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Seattle has been falling on a lot of evaluators’ lists of best player development operations in recent years.
It’s always good to win and to play competitive ball — but that line becomes more meaningful the higher up the ladder players are. Maybe that’s the trend we should keep our eyes on with the Giants’ farm system: more success higher up. We want them to look a lot more like the Mariners, and less like the Rox.
In recent months. with the new stadium taking shape in Richmond, there seems to be more talk about the Nats moving to Richmond as, I think, a AAA team. Where the AA Squirrels would go curiously does not seem to be part of the chatter. Roger, have you heard such talk? Maybe this is outside of your purview but thought i'd toss it out there. p.s. the new park looks like it will be a beauty! thanks. i will hang up and listen.
Errol, you’re picking at the scab of my greatest fear for continuing There R Giants into the future! I’m not entirely sure that this venture will be sustainable without my having relatively easy access to one affiliate. I don’t have the budget (or desire) to be traveling away from my home that often!
This talk has certainly been around plenty — there’s a friendly (and great) correspondent for the Richmond Times-Dispatch who has been bringing the topic up for the entire five years I’ve been driving down to the Diamond. The hunger amongst the community for a team with more local ties is evident, and it would absolutely be more convenient for the Nationals (though with Low-A, High-A, and Double-A teams all within a three-hour drive of Nats Stadium, they’re certainly no hardship case).
That said, the sticky spot in the wicket is exactly what you suggest: what to do with the Giants’ Double-A affiliate if it’s not in Richmond. A straight swap of the Nats’ Triple-A affiliate in Syracuse for Richmond, would stick the Giants’ club even further away from San Francisco, take away a brand spanking new facility that they have worked hard with the community to bring to fruition, to be replaced by one that is almost as old (and decrepit) as The Diamond. And, not for nothing, it would be depreciating the current Rochester ownership group’s asset value by effectively demoting them to Double-A (the last time MLB did that to a Triple-A ownership group, in Fresno, they had to go to court and ended up making a sizeable payout).
I’ve been told (repeatedly) that MLB has told teams that they have right of first refusal with their current affiliates, and the Giants certainly have no intention of leaving an ownership group that they have a great relationship with and a state-of-the-art facility they’ve waited for for years, just to get stuck with somebody else’s cold, skanky leftovers. Remember, they already lost one brand new facility when the California League was converted to Low-A (meaning they had to surrender their Low-A relationship with Augusta, which had opened a new stadium in 2018).
Unless MLB can come up with a solution that would replace a new facility in Richmond with some sort of equitable situation somewhere else, it’s hard to conceive what motivation Rob Manfred would have for gifting it to the Nationals at the cost of a giant “screw you” to the Giants. Now if another option opens up that puts the affiliate closer to California and in a nice facility, that could be a different story. I will say that I have heard repeated rumors that the stadium currently being built for the Dodgers in Ontario could be a Triple-A stadium, in the event of the untimely death of the Cal League (another rumor that floats around the industry a lot). Such a turn of events could make Oklahoma City a possibility? That involves a lot of things happening though — a theoretical chain of events that takes some pretty serious liberties with Occam’s Razor.
In the end, I have trouble believing that anything is likely to occur prior to 2030, when the current PDA licenses between MLB teams and affiliates expires. At that time, I may get nervous. For now, I plan on enjoying the new facility in Richmond in 2026.
Hey Roger,
I have been thinking about what future players in the current Giants’ system could debut on different top 100 prospect lists within the next year. I know that in the industry, age to level seems to really boost players up rankings. And with Posey being so outspoken on letting players develop at each level, my question is if you think that handling will result in players not receiving the same amount of praise than they otherwise would be if they were being promoted more quickly, how do you feel about that? I know it probably will not matter much in the kinds of big leaguers they end up being but for a struggling system for many years seeing more players on those lists would be very exciting. Another question I have is about players like Level, Cayama, Gonzalez, Jordan, and Davidson. What progress other than promotion would we need to see from them in order for them to gain more respect throughout the industry. I know it a long question feel free to answer whichever you want!
That’s an interesting question, Lucio. You’re getting at something really important — age versus level tends to drive a lot of Top 100 rankings (not to mention team models), so moving players slowly will tend to drive down industry perception of players. On the other hand, getting to a level quickly but then struggling there because a player isn’t ready for it can drive perception the other direction as well. We’ve seen that, for instance, with Padres’ catching prospect, Ethan Salas, whom the Padres somewhat inexplicably pushed up to Double-A at the end of his age 17 season. His Top 100 value (and I think industry ratings) was at its highest at that point, but his struggles since then have caused a pretty major drop. Had they simply let him climb level by level, they might well have a more valuable player and trade chip at this point.
Similarly, the Red Sox might have been thinking that they were driving James Tibbs III’s value upwards by promoting him immediately to Double-A Portland (something I know the Giants did not believe he was ready for). If that was their intention with the move, I don’t think it’s been successful, as Tibbs has looked over-matched and talked to me pretty frankly about feeling a little overwhelmed with all the change (in a conversation I hope you’ll be hearing this week).
My guess is that Posey and Randy Winn won’t be concerned about helping to “game” industry ratings this way — even if there are genuine benefits to be gained from it (it’s silly in many respects, but the fact is that Top 100 or Top 50 status really can be meaningful when it comes to selling a deal to a fanbase, and that can play a role in trade talks; owners like fans to respond to these things with excitement).
Ultimately, more than moving quickly, what will help all of these guys gain that level of industry respect is to put up elite — not good, not really good, but elite — performances as they move up the ladder. Josuar Gonzalez already is in Baseball America’s Top 100, though I think next year when he comes to the ACL, he’ll need more than his dazzling tools to stay there — the performance will need to start catching up to the tools, so that he can remain on his upwards trajectory. I think that Jhonny Level will be in Top 100 lists in the not too distant future — and honestly, I don’t think this winter is out of the question, especially if he were to finish this season strong in San Jose. Argenis Cayama is a possibility too, but he’ll need to start coming into his physical projection a little more before he’s a serious candidate.
Bo Davidson and Dakota Jordan really just need to perform — especially at upper levels. Davidson has had an excellent season in the NWL, but the batted ball data could be stronger, as well as just the basic power numbers. You’d like to see maybe 20-25 HR power from them to really make that leap. That’s true, too, of Gavin Kilen, who should be part of this mix. An advanced college player with the ability to hit the ball often and hard can certainly get himself into a Top 100 mix with strong performance. Once players get to the upper levels, value is really all about performance. Until then, tools and projectability play a larger role. That means that Jordan might have been the preference for a lot of scouts this year, when they were both playing in A-ball, but with Davidson in Double-A, he has the ability to take hold of the conversation with his performance. The history of the Yankees’ Spencer Jones is probably instructive here. In his first year, when it was all tools and projection, he popped onto the back half of lists. Last year, when the performance drooped a bit and the strikeouts took off, he fell off Top 100 lists. But this year, as he zooms by the 30-HR threshold while playing at Double- and Triple-A, he’s back on lists and suddenly an untouchable prospect in New York’s system. When you get to the top levels, performance drives perception.
Hi Roger. Are the players and staff at the Alou academy in the DR entirely from Latin America? Do you have any sense of whether US-based coaches spend time there?
Obviously, it’s essential that staff based in the DSL are fully fluent in Spanish — which is the lingua franca of the league. But there are non-natives who coach there. The manager of the Giants Orange this year, for instance, Ian MacDonald, spent the last four years as a coach at Indian Wesleyan University — and nobody would ever mistake him for a Hispanic. I believe one of the Hitting Coaches and a few other staff (physical therapists and others) are basic American white bread. Rob Riggins, who is currently the assistant hitting coach in Sacramento, began his career with a couple of seasons in the DR. As long as someone is fluent in Spanish, they can work down there. In addition, some of the staff who are natives of the Dominican or Venezuela, have full-time residences in the US. Carlos Valderrama, for instance, who is the Giants’ Coordinator of Latin American Development, lives with his family in Texas, though his work assignment has him full-time down at the Felipe Alou Academy.
In addition to the staff permanently based there, various rovers and coordinators will include the DSL facility in their various peregrinations about the system — as well as the top-level staff like Haines and Winn. Basically, everybody tries to get down there at some point in the season (or off season) to check on the talent and evaluate progress.
The baseball life is an itinerant one — and demands a lot of sacrifices when it comes to spending time with family under one’s own roof. Personally, I don’t think I could do it.
As for players, I do believe that some teams will occasionally send young Asian players there (though the Giants have not done that). And, as more European players start come into the game as young amateurs, they might head to the DSL as well. But, for the most part, this league is made up of Hispanic players. Certainly no Americans go down there for league play (though I do remember Brandon Crawford once writing about his experience going to the Dominican for some Instructs action, after injury wiped out most of his debut summer in pro ball).
Not to be too negative about a player who is chasing a dream, but do you have any insight on why the organization has been so incredibly patient with Juan Mercedes this year? I was surprised to see him assigned to Sacramento at the beginning of the year given his rough Cactus League showing and lack of previous Triple-A experience, and it feels like he’s struggled to have any encouraging outings with the River Cats. Maybe I’m missing something under the hood, but I’m surprised he hasn’t at least been sent back to Richmond, especially since guys like John Michael Bertrand and Evan Gates are lingering in Double-A with little to nothing left to prove.
Hi Roger - somewhat related to Patrick's question, what can you say about the development of the starting pitchers at Richmond. I know in your re-rank you have Joe Whitman highest with JMB and Jack Choate making the list. But if there was a shuffle in Sac, are any of the current starters at the point where they can be successful at Sac and which of them (if any) can you see as a starter at the MLB level? Thanks and no problem if this needs to wait for a future bag!
I think the basic idea with Mercedes this year has been to help swallow innings at Sacramento. The team probably had greater hopes than that when they signed him to a free agent deal last winter — he had a pretty good season as a Double-A starter as 24-year-old, and was noticeably strong strike thrower. But, as you note, things have been a struggle pretty much from the start, and he’s been a consistent source of opposition runs lately. The last time he had a scoreless outing was nearly two months ago — back on June 4 — and since then, teams have really pounded on him (10.94 ERA and an opponent OPS of 1.045).
I guess in his defense, however, he has proven that he can go out and swallow some innings regularly at the Triple-A level — which that team really needs right now! In fact, I’d say — no offense meant to anybody who is out there trying to improve themselves — that the lion’s share of pitching assignments in Richmond and Sacramento right now have as much to do with covering innings as with attempting to develop big league talent. And while you can certainly make an argument for switching Bertrand and Mercedes, for instance, I’m not sure that there’s a critical need being fulfilled by that move. It might happen! But I’m not sure there’s any driving need for it to happen. And since Eugene has sent up just about every arm I think they’re likely to this year, someone like Gates really is filling a critical need in Richmond, where he’s been an indispensable arm in helping to get games from the starting pitcher to the 27th out. That is not an unimportant consideration.
Nick, I’d say the rankings answer your question. Whitman is highest ranked because he seems to me to have the highest chance of ultimately making it to MLB as a starter, with Choate a pretty removed second highest chance (I think you’re wrong, Bertrand was not in my most recent rankings). Lonsway has an outside chance to be part of that mix — he’s left-handed and is a pretty decent strike thrower in the Michael Plassmeyer vein. And, now that Nick Zwack is back, he might end up inserting himself into that group. I’d be pretty surprised to see any of the Richmond starters move up before the end of the year, however — and really, I think most of them will be ticketed to return to the level next year. I don’t think we’ve seen anybody dominate the level this year.
Hey Roger -
Over my many years of watching the Giants, I have often heard announcers comment about hitting to the opposite field as something that is desirable, or that shows that a batter is getting locked in. Is this skill something that is taught explicitly and valued in the Giants organization? For example, Jung Hoo Lee looks to my untrained eye like he is flying way open as he hits, and his average has been trending down. Just last night, Matt Chapman hit a homer and Javy Lopez said on the broadcast, "when he has a good swing, he has a lot of power to right field." I would be curious on your take on this. And thanks so much for your immense Giants knowledge -- I look forward every day to what you have to say.
Hi Bob, yes that is something that you’ll hear commentators say frequently — to the point that I sometimes think it falls into “bromide” territory. However, the basic logic, I believe is that when someone is driving the ball the other way, it means they are staying on the pitch longer and making decisions later. Players who open up too early — as I think you quite rightly note about Lee’s form the last couple of months (although he looked a lot better this weekend) — tend to fall into a lot of bad mechanical habits that make it hard for them to adjust to certain pitches, cover the outside of the plate, and generally stay “on time” with their swing. And I think there’s a certain sense that flying open too soon comes from a defensive place in a player’s swing — a need to cheat to get to certain pitches.
Players who are waiting longer and really driving balls to all field generally give the impression that they are seeing the ball better and look more comfortable and confident in the box. I’ve made the same comments recently, for instance, about Sabin Ceballos, who spent the first half battling through dreadful numbers while also being among his league leaders in pull percentage. When I saw him hit some balls solidly up the middle of the field, I thought it was a good sign for him. Indeed, that seems to have been the case, as he’s put up an .864 OPS in July — more than double the .416 OPS he had in June.
Roger, I was quite surprised at the Giants’ third round pick, Trevor Cohen. He wasn’t even ranked!! Was this just a way under slot pick to use what available money they have to sign players in later rounds? Many pundits didn’t understand that pick at all.
Cohen seems to have been the most controversial of their picks in this most recent draft — and I think the fact that neither MLB nor Baseball America had him ranked in their draft prospect lists has driven a lot of the confusion/anger. I talked with Jim Callis about that on his recent appearance on the podcast.
But despite his lack of visibility, I keep hearing pretty interesting things about Cohen. My friend, Brian Recca, who knows the northeast like nobody else, is a huge fan of Cohen’s, and I’ve heard other industry chatter that suggests that other teams were on him right around the same area (indeed, I think the Giants picked somebody else’s pocket where they grabbed him).
Whether Cohen turns out to be a great pick or not, I think we can say with absolute certainty that this was not just some “under slot” strategy. Though the Giants did sign him somewhat below slot value — the $90,000 difference was not driving their pick (first round pick Gavin Kilen saved them more than twice that amount), though they were able to use it later to help bring both of their high school pitcher picks on board.
The Giants drafted Cohen because they were really impressed by the player and the person. Like most of their picks this year, he brings outstanding bat-to-ball skills (his in-zone contact rate this year was 91%) along with outstanding speed, up-the-middle athleticism (the Giants think he can be a center fielder), and great feel for the game. As has been the case with a lot of Giants’ draft picks recently, Scouting Director Michael Holmes mentioned that he was also very impressed with Cohen personally when they got to spend time together at the Draft Combine.
I mentioned this on the podcast, but one industry person I talked to suggested that Cohen could be something like a more athletic and defensively gifted version of Wade Meckler, and the Giants seem to think they might be able to get to a little more power than he showed at Rutgers. Recca recently told me that he noticed a change in Cohen’s stance before the combine, getting a little more upright and less spread out, and that had led to more impact in his swing at the Combine.
We’ll see how all of this plays out — I hope to see Cohen in person sometime next month. But don’t think that the pick was some sort of “strategy” at play. They had conviction on the player and the person — which is where all good picks start.
In today's post, you mentioned that you'd love to "be a fly on the wall" for the FO conversations about Rafi Devers and Eldridge co-existing in the same lineup. What might those conversations sound like today, 7 days before the trade deadline?
Per Baseball America, in the last 11 years, only two top-10 MLB Pipeline prospects have been moved at the deadline (Eloy Jiménez '16 and Addison Russell '14), and only two top-20 have been moved at the deadline in the same period (CJ Abrams '22 and Keibert Ruiz '21).
As you're well aware, Eldridge is #17 on the MLB Pipeline list as of this moment, and the Giants are committed to Devers through 2033. Plenty of MLB scribes have opined that Buster Posey already made the "biggest" trade of the season to acquire Devers. What would you guess the odds are that Buster Posey steals the show once again by moving the #17 prospect in the game?
In her article today, Slusser asked Buster about Eldridge, saying that Boston and other teams this winter were told he was "untouchable," but Posey (playing cards close to vest) wouldn't confirm that status as of today, saying that they "have to listen on everything." I'm having a hard time coming up with a haul that would make me comfortable with such a trade, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
You know, Jazz, the first thing that I think when looking at that list of the most recent Top 10 prospects to be dealt (Jimenez, Russell, Abrams, and Ruiz) is: a lot more teams should probably be willing to move their top prospects. Though those were four very different situations, I would say none of the four teams had any reason to regret moving the young players they did (Abrams is the only one of the group who hasn’t turned out to be a clear disappointment, and even his situation is complicated, since he’s arguably the worst fielding shortstop in MLB, which makes him a tough piece to build around).
Anyway, to your question. I’m reading your subtext here as something along these lines: do the Giants need to make Eldridge an “untouchable” prospect, given the fact that their long-term 1b/DH situation now belongs to Dever for the next decade? Or, should the Giants leverage Eldridge’s current value — which is probably as high right now as any prospect they’ve had in the system over the last decade or more — for some impact talent that can add to this current core while also providing a little more positional flexibility than a Devers/Eldridge tandem is likely to give the roster for the next many years?
I’m sure that that is part of the conversation being had in the executive suites — and I’d say it would represent a lack of diligence on their part it someone wasn’t making that argument. Open-mindedness is an important skill for decision makers of any stripe — a strong mind never closes itself off to possibilities.
That said, the flip side of that argument is that with an aging and expensive core, it’s going to be crucial to add in impact talent that is young and less expensive. Having a player like Eldridge (and others!) who would hopefully be coming into his prime as players like Chapman and Adames are leaving theirs is how you avoid a potentially ugly cliff.
My guess is that second argument wins the day, but it’s critical to have hashed out the pros and cons of both sides, just in case someone comes along offering a truly tempting deal.
Hey Roger, thank you for all you do to keep us up to date on everything minors!! My question is: what are the chances of the Giants packaging Marco Luciano, Luis Matos, Grant McCray, and some of the young pitching to get pieces for the future? Do you think there would be any takers? I’m thinking contact hitters with quick bats. I’d just hate to see them lose them this winter when they could possibly get some return.
Will Luciano or Matos find themselves in the same situation in spring of 2026 that Joey Bart was in last spring?
What kind of value would you say they have for immediate help at the big league level? Would Andrew Heaney and IKF be a fair return for either or are they worth more/less than that?
A couple of years ago at about this time in the baseball calendar, I was sitting with a member of the Giants’ Pro Scouting group, and he was talking about the difficulties of two parties finding a space of agreement in trade talks. From the perspective of a “seller,” you want to make sure that you’re getting a 50 grade, or major league starter back in a deal, and from a “buyer’s” perspective, teams want to avoid the 50, and instead load their package up with role players — the 40s and 45 grades. That gap — between the 45- and 50-grade player — is where trade talks go to die. And it’s hard for teams to bridge that gap with volume — three 40/45 players don’t make up the difference for one 50.
In other words, there’s no real trade alchemy that can convert non-starters into starters simply by adding more of them to the pile. If teams don’t look at Luciano, Matos, or McCray as guys who could start for them (and I would see no reason why they should look at that trio as starters at this point in time), then they aren’t going to return players who they (or the Giants) think might be (at least not intentionally).
In both Luciano’s and Matos’s cases, their value is dinged by the fact that they are out of options — a situation that will follow them to their next organization as well. Which means a team dealing for them has to keep them on their rosters next year or they’ll be the ones stuck with dealing a diminished asset (as in the Bart comparison).
So, Matt, I think the only way you’re turning those players — even packaged — into legitimate big league starting pieces for the future is for another team to make an evaluation error on their own players. If you’re thinking more in terms of bench players or complementary pieces, then that could be a different story. But, in general, value in, value out is a good way to think about potential trades. If you don’t think you’re giving up a future starting piece, then it’s pretty hard to get one in return. Chet is probably thinking more along the right lines, I’d guess.
With the recent prospects that have been let go, it got me thinking: who would be in your all-time starting lineup of former SFG prospects who you enjoyed watching that you wished would have made it to the major league club in San Francisco, but never did (for whatever reason)?
Oh goodness, that’s quite a question, Andy. Ok, I’m just going to throw these guys out there without further commentary — but you can always feel free to ask me about any of them specifically in future mailbags:
1b: Sean McGowan
2b: Marcus Sanders
SS: Jalen Miller
3b: Julian Benavidez (I’m limiting myself to players who never appeared with Giants at all, or else Adam Duvall would be my clear answer here)
OF: Thomas Neal, Gustavo Cabrera, Mike Glendenning, Eddy Martinez-Esteve, Vaun Brown (Roger Kieschnick barely appeared as a Giant, but he belongs fully on this list, too)
SP: Francisco Liriano, Boof Bonser, Rick Huisman, Clayton Blackburn, Jesse English, Seth Corry, Ryan Hannaman, Victor Concepcion, Mike Villano (and, of course, Jesse Foppert and Eric Surkamp on the all-time “what might have been” list of those who just barely appeared)
RP: Phil McCormick (because it would be really funny to have him and Tyler Rogers on the same team again), Melvin Adón
Oh, so many others!
And that’s a good place to close up the bag for this week. We’ll see what happens in the next 48 hours! Look for the results of last night’s ACL Championship Game in the normal Tuesday Post-pourri, coming soon.
Outstanding questions (and answers) this week. Thanks to everyone!
Ooh, Sean McGowan. I saw him in AAA when Fresno came to Memphis, along with Tony Torcato and Calvin Murray. I wasn't overly impressed by Sean - what did you see, Roger?
BTW, Calvin Murray remains the fastest player I've ever seen live in a game. Truly amazing!
Awesome mailbag! Thanks! But Roger, even if one day the Giants move away from Richmond, we need your daily year-round coverage! Not a problem if it becomes mostly remote-based!