Tim Lincecum

[Warning Track Power]

Any interest?

 

I have gone back and forth in my own mind about whether or not I would want the Brewers to pursue him if the Giants were to put him on the trade market after the World Series. On one hand you have a $22 million obligation for 2013 to a guy with a 5+ ERA in 2012. On the other hand, you have a guy who is only going to be 29 next June who has 2 Cy Youngs under his belt already. Pairing a Tim Lincecum with a Yovani Gallardo would definitely be worthwhile experiment in 2013 if I am Doug Melvin but what would the cost of doing so be? I would imagine it would start with whatever 2 pitchers the Giants deemed to be the cream of the Brewers crop (Peralta & Jungmann) along with a top 2 Brewer hitter (Morris). Then would come the task of re-signing Lincecum once 2013 is over, which certainly could be prohibitive if he returns to his pre-2012 form. It appears this would be a pipe dream unless Melvin truly wanted to gamble his GM life away and trade those prospects for Lincecum and give him a 6 year $120 million extension prior to 2013.

 

Honestly, I think this is the type of move we are going to see this offseason. Not necessarily Lincecum but a trade of some young talent (Peralta or Rogers) + a hitting prospect for a #2 to pair with Gallardo at the top of the rotation and fill the #3-5 with Fiers, Estrada & whoever doesn't get traded of Peralta/Rogers. Who that #2 is I am not sure but I am expecting this for this offseason.

[TURBO]

Dude scares me... I'd rather keep Peralta to be honest. At the cost it will take to get Lincecum, why waste 20 million plus a long term contract, when we have seen what Peralta can bring to the table.

 

In my opinion, I'd rather not trade Peralta for a guy who fell off the cliff.

[markedman5]

No interest in a 1 year 22 million dollar pitcher who had a horrible year.

 

1 year expensive solutions aren't the answer for us especially when the guy now has some major question marks.

[TheCrew07]

On the other hand, you have a guy who is only going to be 29 next June

 

I'm not sure I understand why posters continually keep using the words "only" and "young" for players in their late 20s. Sure they are younger than I am, I'm 37, but in sports terms they aren't young and spry, their peak years have likely passed them by. Statistically speaking many of the age 29 players are already past their prime, why would we want to pay them for what they've done in the past? They will likely have productive years in the future, but to expect Lincecum to pitch like he did when he was 26 is setting the bar awfully high. Everyone's body will break down over time, and pitchers are especially risky, I see no good reason to move for Lincecum. People will like him because he's name and proven player, and he may bounce back next season, but is that worth whatever prospects it would take to get him and $22 mil for the season? That's an incredibly expensive bet for a single season, I wouldn't even do any deal for him for 2 years, and he's old enough I wouldn't want to commit to him for 3 given his size and performance this season.

 

There are a handful of pitchers who were better on the backside of their careers, but is any player truly worth taking that risk on? The idea shouldn't be to target Name players all the time like this is a video game, for one they cost too much to acquire and secondly they are incredibly expensive to keep around. I have a hard time getting my mind around why Name players on the downside of their careers are continually suggested as trade targets on this forum, the idea should be to acquire name players before they are "proven" when you can extract the best value from their careers.

 

I'm really struggling with why so many posters are willing to always be on the wrong side of the talent cycle. We should be buying young and selling old... like what Toronto did when they sold Marcum for Lawrie, not continually buying old and selling young. When you buy young players you continually cycle talent back into the organization and keep the train moving forward. However, when you continually buy old players you're constantly giving away depth for short duration solutions and eventually the talent pool dries up.

 

People may not like it but there will come a time when trading Gallardo is a good idea and possibly even when trading Braun would be a good idea. Braun has had nagging injuries all through his 20s, what happens in his mid 30s when he's making all that money... is he suddenly going to find better health then or is he going to play less games than he is now? What's most realistic? Over the length of his contract it doesn't take but 1 significant injury mixed in with all his little nagging injuries and he could miss a total of a season worth of games if not more. 3 months here, a bunch of 15 day DL stints scattered throughout the remainder and it's pretty easy to lose an entire season's worth of production from him, and he's not getting any cheaper as time goes on. It won't be obvious, but I'd be willing to bet there will be a significant amount of dead money in Braun's contract extension.

 

Just say no to any trades for random Name players or signing said random Name players to FA contracts into their mid 30s. Especially stay away from 2nd and 3rd tier FA pitching into their mid 30s, very few of those contracts ever end well.

 

Sports is a young man's game, peak years happen when the mental side catches up to the physical ability side, and unfortunately most players peak in their mid to late 20s. After that then the ship has sailed... just stay away. No to Peavy, Lincecum, Hamilton, and whomever else will be suggested in the coming months and years. No. No. No... to infinity. Paying market value (which is set artificially high by the large markets) for wins is a terrible practice for a team of limited means, we will never be able to complete with the large market teams dollar for dollar in MLB's current financial system so we need to focus on getting the best value for the dollar that we can.

[trwi7]

Peralta, Jungmann and Morris for Lincecum one year away from free agency, costing over $20 million and having an awful year? Hell no.

[monty57]

If the Giants wanted to free up the money and would give him to us if we simply pay the $22MM for one-year, I'd probably get behind it since we'd only be on the hook for one year. I may even throw in the perceived value of the 2nd round pick we may get at the end of the season if we offered him the qualifying offer. Any more than that, no thanks.

 

If a team is going to buy his name, and offer the Giants some young talent for him, I hope that team is not the Brewers. The Brewers would do a lot more damage to their future by giving up young pitching talent than they would receive in value even if Lincecum bounced back and had a good season next year.

[TooLiveBrew]

Even if the Brewers didn't have to give up any talent to get Lincecum, $22M is a massive number for one season. To put that number into context, the dollar value FanGraphs assigned Yovani Gallardo's 2012 campaign is $12M. Even in his 2010-'11 seasons (3.47 ERA, 2.74 ERA), Lincecum wasn't valued at even $20M. To justify paying that entire salary, he'd have to produce as one of the top 5 or 10 pitchers in the entire league.

 

I actually assume he's been pitching hurt this season. All the Giants have done since drafting him is use & abuse his arm. He jumped from a collegiate-high 125.1 IP as a senior to 209 IP in his very first pro season. Since then & prior to 2012, his lowest innings total for a season was 212.1 IP. In '11 & '12, he also started throwing his slider (notoriously tough on a pitcher's arm) twice as often as he had previously. And of course his FB velocity was way down in '12. Seems to me like the Giants just pitched this kid's arm off, or tried to.

 

Lincecum's FanGraphs page

[Dollarbill13]

He's not a bad reclamation project (xFIP was only 3.82 this year) but he's probably done being an ace unless he can regain some of the velocity that he's lost. I'd probably take him on a 1 year deal for half of that $22M but I wouldn't want to give up good prospects to get him, though.

[HiAndTight]

Peralta, Jungmann and Morris for Lincecum one year away from free agency, costing over $20 million and having an awful year? Hell no.

 

 

Yeah, I didn't get that part of it either. If Jake Peavy's likely to have his 22 million dollar option turned down coming off a fantastic year in which he threw 217 innings, I'm not sure why Lincecum would be worth 22 million, AND three of our more valuable prospects, two of whom are pitchers, one of whom has an upside of a #1 or 2 himself.

 

If the Giants wanted to dump him, and they'd be willing to take 10 million, I'd be alright with this type of one year fix. With him taken out of their rotation, I have absolutely no feel right now for what they value him at, or what they're going to do with him. I'm just saying that for a guy his size, with his decreased velocity and coming off a year in which he was the worst starting pitcher of all who qualified(using ERA at least) with a 5.17 ERA in a HUGE hitters park, he's got negative value to me, regardless what's in his trophy case.

 

 

 

Now.....to play devils advocate, these ARE the type of pitchers I like to see the Brewers go after. Him, Josh Beckett, Jake Peavy, Sheets, I wanted them to try and get Smoltz towards the end.

 

But only if you're risk is moderate enough that the downside isn't crippling your team financially and your farm system. Lincecum DID have a 3.68 xFIP, he will likely still be a very good pitcher. But what you're proposing we give us ASIDE from 6 years and 120 million dollars is something you ONLY give up if you're getting a top 10 pitcher in the game, and you're on the cusp of winning it. I wouldn't give up that package for Roy Halladay and I think he's still one of the top 2-3 pitchers in the game.

[HiAndTight]

He's not a bad reclamation project (xFIP was only 3.82 this year) but he's probably done being an ace unless he can regain some of the velocity that he's lost. I'd probably take him on a 1 year deal for half of that $22M but I wouldn't want to give up good prospects to get him, though.

 

 

Should have just read your post and said, "uh-huh."

 

I think he can still be OUR ace with his velocity(which is better close to Gallardo's). It's his change that seemed to kill him this year...and his slider isn't what it used to be, and as has been mentioned, he's thrown that twice as much the last two seasons.

[HiAndTight]

Paying market value (which is set artificially high by the large markets)

 

Just taking a portion out of Crew07's, setting aside the trading of Braun conversation for a second, large market teams don't set the market artificially high. They simply set the market. There is nothing "artificial," about it. The only way I could see how you could set the market "artificially high," is if teams like the Royals, Pirates, Twins, D-backs, Rays, etc..etc....started spending significantly more than they previously had because they'll all have a large influx of revenue in the next couple years. But teams doing what they've been doing since free agency doesn't make the market artificial, it makes it simply the market.

 

Though Randy Leivine commented rather in depth on this issue and has done so several times where he talks about how the face of free agency is changing with the impending luxury tax, and the Yankee's(again, just an example as the most notworthy team) being ordered to cut their payroll to get under 189 by the time the luxury tax kicks in, impacting premier talent like Cano, and potentially putting Granderson on the market as well as almost certainly putting Swisher on the market(as they've already come out and essentially said he won't be back due to payroll concerns).

 

 

I agree with a great deal of what you're saying Crew07, but you just simply take it too far. You can't trade every player once they hit the ages you're suggesting, 29, 30 and "recycle," them for younger talent. The Brewers tried doing that for years. You need to have a balance that you just seem unwilling to come to.

 

There are dozens of superstar players who succeed well into their 30's. You certainly shouldn't sign a guy like Lincecum to a 20+ million dollar a year deal through age 36/37, but there's a happy medium. Teams DO need veterans, and you do have to pay for proven talent at times. Preferably your own proven talent. But this talk about totally recycling players, bringing up Braun's injuries. Braun's off to a HOF start and has played in;

151

158

157

150

154 games the last 5 years(after he played 131 games for the Brewers his rookie season).

 

There are special and unique players that you DO hold onto. And I don't think there will be dead money in his current contract. It goes through his age 36 season, and with all the money pouring into MLB and the money that will be pouring into MLB over the next couple years, I suspect he'll still be a bargain, even if he does miss more games than he has previously.

 

Lawrie for Marcum makes your point perfectly. Talking now about trading Braun, as I said, IMO, takes it way too far(by now, I mean, even bringing it up suggesting we should do so in the next 2-3 years or whenever your window is).

[StearnsFTW]

I wouldn't take him for free.

[Warning Track Power]

Peralta, Jungmann and Morris for Lincecum one year away from free agency, costing over $20 million and having an awful year? Hell no.

 

Yeah I may have overshot what the Giants would be asking for but I think it would be something close to this given the likely interest level from many teams in Lincecum and his ability to turn it around after one bad season. I was by no means advocating us doing that trade, only stating that I believe this is what the Giants would/will likely ask for.

[Invader3K]

I think it's too risky and would cost way too much. We finally have some good young SP depth again, and I wouldn't want to give up any of it right now for one expensive year of a very questionable pitcher.

[joepepsi]

If they stumble mid season they can dump him off and save $10 million, but otherwise his salary is already a budgeted cost. It's likely he'll bounce back to at least league average.

 

If they trade him this winter, it will be for a salary dump to sign some big name like Greinke. In that case it won't take a top prospect; they will already be asking a team to absorb $20 million. They will be in no position to demand much of anything in return, maybe a reliever or a couple low minors prospects. If they want something better in return they'll have to eat salary or take on some other team's bad contract in exchange. Either way will defeat the purpose of trading him.

[B2k1121]

I wouldn't take him for free.

Really?

[StearnsFTW]

Maybe a little confusing.

 

What I meant was that if the giants said you can have him, you just have to pay the $22MM next year, I'd say no thanks. Immediately.

[TURBO]

Maybe a little confusing.

 

What I meant was that if the giants said you can have him, you just have to pay the $22MM next year, I'd say no thanks. Immediately.

 

I agree...

 

If they ate half of his salary, I'd consider it...

[Kelbysdaddy]

if the giants paid half his salary and didnt ask for much in return there would be 25 other teams willing to take the chance. he had a down year, a terrible year even, but he is not far removed from being the most dominating pitcher in the nl for FOUR YEARS.

[monty57]

if the giants paid half his salary and didnt ask for much in return there would be 25 other teams willing to take the chance. he had a down year, a terrible year even, but he is not far removed from being the most dominating pitcher in the nl for FOUR YEARS.

 

If the Giants decide to trade him, they will have to determine what will get them the "least bad" return. If they can't find anyone willing to take on the whole salary, even if they don't ask for anything in return, then they will have to see how much salary they will have to "eat."

 

If eating half the salary would get 26 teams into the bidding, then they may eat a good portion the salary in order to get a good player in return. Really, the baseline is how much would you pay Lincecum if he was a free agent right now. I'd bet a lot of GM's would gladly pay him a one-year, $11MM deal, so I think you're right that it's too much to believe that we could get the Giants to pay half the salary and accept nothing in return. More likely, there would be some trade-off of how much salary they'd eat vs how good a player we'd have to give up.

 

I think getting a vet on a one-year deal is what the Brewers need, as they just need a short-term bridge to get to the point that they have a full stable of MLB ready guys from the farm, but they're probably not going to pay $22MM for one year of Lincecum. If they could get the Giants to eat some of that salary, and in return they give up a moderately talented AA guy, I could get behind the deal. He potentially could pitch to his Cy Young form, which could either push the Brewers to the playoffs, or allow them to trade him for a "Greinke-style" return at the deadline. If he falters, they're out money, but haven't given up a major prospect in trade.

 

The question is whether or not they could fit $15-18MM into their 2013 budget, which Attanasio recently said is going down from the 2012 levels. Secondarily, could they fit him into the budget and still rebuild the bullpen, which is the #1 priority this offseason.

[StearnsFTW]

I agree. If they ate half his salary, I'd take him. Anything more than that, and I'd pass. I also wouldn't give up any decent player for him. It'd be strictly a salary dump for SF, and I agree that they could probably do better.

[Sixtofan]

I don't think the Giants will "salary dump" Lincecum at this point. He is extremely popular in San Fran (he received a standing ovation when he ran down to the bullpen in the playoffs). They will wait and see if can find the magic again next year before doing anything,