Sam Dyson/Will Smith

[ewitkows]

According to MTR the Giants need to dump some payroll and Dyson came up as a candidate. He's owned 1.4m for the rest of the season. He'd be another good bullpen arm with closing experience. If we picked up the whole contract I doubt we have to give up much.

[pacopete4]

Will Smith? He’s back having a great year and is on a $2.5M contract which will only go up next year.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Will Smith? He’s back having a great year and is on a $2.5M contract which will only go up next year.

 

Smith was awesome in his time here, and having another power lefty in the pen would be a great fit. His personality would also mesh really well with the current group.

 

I really like this idea.

[reillymcshane]

Will Smith? He’s back having a great year and is on a $2.5M contract which will only go up next year.

We could offer them Phil Bickford for Smith.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Will Smith? He’s back having a great year and is on a $2.5M contract which will only go up next year.

We could offer them Phil Bickford for Smith.

 

Heck I'd even include Jett Bandy! What a deal!

[buckybrewer232]

I do like the idea of adding to the bullpen. Unless an unexpected deal happens for a DeGrom or Thor, the Brewers are not going to have a dominant rotation for the playoffs (assuming/hoping they make it). Maintaining a dominant bullpen will be needed, then. I'm all for adding pieces like Dyson- or Will Smith would be even better.

[SeaBass]

Sam Dyson... pass. He's just a guy. He had a nice 2016 and not much else. Dyson might be a hair better than Jacob Barnes.

 

Will Smith, yeah, all for it. If the price is right.

[StearnsFTW]

Assuming Burnes is in the pen for the rest of the season (and I think he will be), Dyson isn't better than anyone we already have. Pass.

 

Smith? Hell yes. I'd give up some stuff for him, but the Giants won't trade him I wouldn't think.

 

They want to remain competitive while dumping salary. Fine line for them.

 

Edit: Jinx

[KeithStone53151]

Dyson is better than a lot of people think, he has really good stuff and throws very hard. That said, I just don't see the Giants giving up. They are 4 games out of the division and their window with Bumgarner could be closing if they don't resign him. I could see a total teardown at the deadline next season, but not this season.

[StearnsFTW]

For a guy that throws hard his K rate is abysmal for a reliever. He's been OK this year, but he was a complete disaster last year. 2016 he was good, but again, the K rate....yuck. He does get a lot of groundballs with that sinker though, which makes him a good fit for us. I'd still pass though. I'd rather have Houser.

 

Trading Dyson doesn't signal them giving up. It signals them getting rid of an average player (at best) player while saving themselves some precious money.

[KeithStone53151]

For a guy that throws hard his K rate is abysmal for a reliever. He's been OK this year, but he was a complete disaster last year. 2016 he was good, but again, the K rate....yuck. He does get a lot of groundballs with that sinker though, which makes him a good fit for us. I'd still pass though. I'd rather have Houser.

 

Trading Dyson doesn't signal them giving up. It signals them getting rid of an average player (at best) player while saving themselves some precious money.

 

Teams don't give up solid MLB contributors when they are trying to compete, unless they are addressing another weakness on their roster. I don't see them as having any gaping holes that need to be plugged, so that doesn't appear realistic.

[StearnsFTW]

For a guy that throws hard his K rate is abysmal for a reliever. He's been OK this year, but he was a complete disaster last year. 2016 he was good, but again, the K rate....yuck. He does get a lot of groundballs with that sinker though, which makes him a good fit for us. I'd still pass though. I'd rather have Houser.

 

Trading Dyson doesn't signal them giving up. It signals them getting rid of an average player (at best) player while saving themselves some precious money.

 

Teams don't give up solid MLB contributors when they are trying to compete, unless they are addressing another weakness on their roster. I don't see them as having any gaping holes that need to be plugged, so that doesn't appear realistic.

 

Dyson is replacement level and makes $2MM the rest of the season. That's a big deal with their tax situation. There's a reason for them to move him.

[bill hAll Star]

I don't think the Giants needing to shed $ is about "giving up." They are likely going to keep trying, but they are literally a few dollars away from going over the luxury tax threshold. My assumption is that they're trying to give up lesser contributors with moderate/high salaries (just for 2018). Once they do this, they can maybe acquire a different piece to help them compete.

 

I'm sure they'd be happy to dump a player that is making more than they should in 2019, but it's all about staying under the threshold in 2018 so that their penalty resets for next year.

[And That]

I wonder if a deal centered around Smith and Taylor Williams world work for the Giants. They save cash and get a good long-term asset.

[Roderick]

I wonder if a deal centered around Smith and Taylor Williams world work for the Giants. They save cash and get a good long-term asset.

 

I want to be greedy, in that I want to keep the Taylor Wiliams who is helping now.

 

So how about 2 of Barnes($559K) / Houser($Min) /Jennings($750k) and an organization #14-20 for Dyson and Smith? Giants save ~$2.6M 2018 dollars and have cheaper MLB bullpen pieces to fill their pen and add a prospect and we get the best player, Smith. I don't suppose the Giants could still sell it like they were competing if they did it though - so might have to wait till end of July to see if they lose more ground.

 

I figure you get a year and a half for Smith, so it has to cost more than Swarzak last year. So maybe Barnes/Jennings=Dyson and Houser+Stokes=Smith?

[bill hAll Star]

I wonder if a deal centered around Smith and Taylor Williams world work for the Giants. They save cash and get a good long-term asset.

 

I want to be greedy, in that I want to keep the Taylor Wiliams who is helping now.

 

So how about 2 of Barnes($559K) / Houser($Min) /Jennings($750k) and an organization #14-20 for Dyson and Smith? Giants save ~$2.6M 2018 dollars and have cheaper MLB bullpen pieces to fill their pen and add a prospect and we get the best player, Smith. I don't suppose the Giants could still sell it like they were competing if they did it though - so might have to wait till end of July to see if they lose more ground.

 

I figure you get a year and a half for Smith, so it has to cost more than Swarzak last year. So maybe Barnes/Jennings=Dyson and Houser+Stokes=Smith?

 

If we're eating the money, no need to add organizational 14-20. Heck, I'd even say Barnes/Jennings for Dyson/Smith. We're slightly upgrading on both ends and paying $2.5 million to do so. That seems fair. We're doing them the favor. If they don't want it, they can see if someone else wants to do a deal.

[Boomer5]

Will Smith? He’s back having a great year and is on a $2.5M contract which will only go up next year.

We could offer them Phil Bickford for Smith.

 

Heck I'd even include Jett Bandy! What a deal!

 

Only if they throw in Ramon Flores.

[Roderick]

I wonder if a deal centered around Smith and Taylor Williams world work for the Giants. They save cash and get a good long-term asset.

 

I want to be greedy, in that I want to keep the Taylor Wiliams who is helping now.

 

So how about 2 of Barnes($559K) / Houser($Min) /Jennings($750k) and an organization #14-20 for Dyson and Smith? Giants save ~$2.6M 2018 dollars and have cheaper MLB bullpen pieces to fill their pen and add a prospect and we get the best player, Smith. I don't suppose the Giants could still sell it like they were competing if they did it though - so might have to wait till end of July to see if they lose more ground.

 

I figure you get a year and a half for Smith, so it has to cost more than Swarzak last year. So maybe Barnes/Jennings=Dyson and Houser+Stokes=Smith?

 

If we're eating the money, no need to add organizational 14-20. Heck, I'd even say Barnes/Jennings for Dyson/Smith. We're slightly upgrading on both ends and paying $2.5 million to do so. That seems fair. We're doing them the favor. If they don't want it, they can see if someone else wants to do a deal.

 

We had to give up the OF Cordell for Swarzak and Smith is worth much more than him.

[bill hAll Star]

 

I want to be greedy, in that I want to keep the Taylor Wiliams who is helping now.

 

So how about 2 of Barnes($559K) / Houser($Min) /Jennings($750k) and an organization #14-20 for Dyson and Smith? Giants save ~$2.6M 2018 dollars and have cheaper MLB bullpen pieces to fill their pen and add a prospect and we get the best player, Smith. I don't suppose the Giants could still sell it like they were competing if they did it though - so might have to wait till end of July to see if they lose more ground.

 

I figure you get a year and a half for Smith, so it has to cost more than Swarzak last year. So maybe Barnes/Jennings=Dyson and Houser+Stokes=Smith?

 

If we're eating the money, no need to add organizational 14-20. Heck, I'd even say Barnes/Jennings for Dyson/Smith. We're slightly upgrading on both ends and paying $2.5 million to do so. That seems fair. We're doing them the favor. If they don't want it, they can see if someone else wants to do a deal.

 

We had to give up the OF Cordell for Swarzak and Smith is worth much more than him.

 

To a contender, Jennings and Barnes are worth much more than Cordell. Jennings is very good LOOGY. Barnes is an MLB reliever. I know that people like to overreact to a handful of innings for Brewer relievers when they're left in in situations that they shouldn't be because they are on the lower half of the stacked Brewers bullpen, but they have value.

 

Smith is an upgrade over Jennings. Dyson and Barnes could go either way, though I'd lead Dyson...but he's been very shaky in recent years. So we can upgrade and pay the $ to do so.

[Boomer5]

Why would the Giants give up Smith for anything less than a quality prospect?

[bill hAll Star]

Why would the Giants give up Smith for anything less than a quality prospect?

 

Their motivations (right now) are:

 

1. To keep contending this year.

2. To shed some $ so that they can acquire a need but remain under the luxury tax threshold.

 

That said, the one thing you're right about is that they probably aren't giving up Smith. Maybe they'd give away Panik to somebody or attach Hunter Pence to something of relative value, I don't know.

 

If I'm correct in my assumptions, they're going to have to do something that is a bit uncharacteristic. They may have to give away Melancon (and pay 90% of the next 2 years of his deal) or give Pence away (and pay a bunch of this year). You don't normally see established vets that have a connection to the franchise get dealt away a competitive year for nitpicky financial issues often, but it's obviously a business.

[FVBrewerFan]

Why would the Giants give up Smith for anything less than a quality prospect?

 

They wouldn't. But I guess it's how "prospect" is defined. Taylor Williams, for example, isn't technically a prospect but he does have 6 years of control- so basically the same thing. In fact, even better from the Giants point of view since he's more proven than prospects who haven't made it to MLB yet.

[Boomer5]

Why would the Giants give up Smith for anything less than a quality prospect?

 

They wouldn't. But I guess it's how "prospect" is defined. Taylor Williams, for example, isn't technically a prospect but he does have 6 years of control- so basically the same thing. In fact, even better from the Giants point of view since he's more proven than prospects who haven't made it to MLB yet.

 

I’d think Taylor Williams would be a reasonable starting point for us. Smith is a power lefty having a monster year, so I’d think if they made him available they could do pretty well in a trade though.

[Boomer5]

Why would the Giants give up Smith for anything less than a quality prospect?

 

Their motivations (right now) are:

 

1. To keep contending this year.

2. To shed some $ so that they can acquire a need but remain under the luxury tax threshold.

 

That said, the one thing you're right about is that they probably aren't giving up Smith. Maybe they'd give away Panik to somebody or attach Hunter Pence to something of relative value, I don't know.

 

If I'm correct in my assumptions, they're going to have to do something that is a bit uncharacteristic. They may have to give away Melancon (and pay 90% of the next 2 years of his deal) or give Pence away (and pay a bunch of this year). You don't normally see established vets that have a connection to the franchise get dealt away a competitive year for nitpicky financial issues often, but it's obviously a business.

 

The NBA has brought that sort of accounting to the sports page, why not baseball?

 

I can see them dumping salary but Smith is a prime asset at a position always of great need to contending teams. Jennings and Barnes are bullpen fillers so this would be close to a fire sale price which wouldn’t likely happen if Smith was truly on the block.

[LouisEly]

Why would the Giants give up Smith for anything less than a quality prospect?

 

Their motivations (right now) are:

 

1. To keep contending this year.

2. To shed some $ so that they can acquire a need but remain under the luxury tax threshold.

I don't know what his defensive skills are, but what about acquiring Nick Hundley from them to be the backup C? Swap Kratz for Hundley straight up?

 

We'd lose our enforcer though...