Part two of my half-assed economic musings...
Most of us are dreading the pink slip, but the recession might save Brian Sabean's job. In the past year or so, he's done several things right such as restocking the farm system and rebuilding his brain trust with old-school and new-school guys. But he hasn't gotten his old trade mojo back.
Until the current four-year string of losing seasons we've suffered through, Sabean was known for fleecing the poor, the tired, the unprepared, and the Pirates. Just a sample: Darryl Hamilton and two "prospects" to the Rockies for Ellis Burks; Armando Rios and Ryan Vogelsong to Pittsburgh for Jason Schmidt and John Vander Wal; Allen Watson to the Angels for J.T. Snow; a barrel of flunkies (Where have you gone, Joe Fontenot?) for Robb Nen. (To refresh your memory of how awesome Sabes was until November 14, 2003, click here. The spreadsheet only goes to Aug. 2007 and needs some refreshing of its own.)
His reputation bears the mark of the infamous Nathan-Pierzynski trade, but when you scan the list his trades since then haven't been bad. Randy Winn for Torrealba and Foppert was a nice touch; the long contract extension for Winn arguably less so. Finding takers for Matt Morris, Michael Tucker, Edgardo Alfonzo and Mark Sweeney was miraculous, no matter how marginal the talent in return.
You could look at deals like Matt Morris-for-Rajai Davis two ways. One: All GMs make bad free-agent decisions. At least Sabes was able to salvage something. Two: He never should have signed those turkeys in the first place.
Even if you cut him slack for the last five years, it's obvious he hasn't been the same old sly fox. I could guess at several reasons why. First, teams have wised up to the Giants' pitching prospect "bounty." For years it was the source of their trading strength, but the Nathan trade made Sabes gun-shy about offering the true potential keepers, and made others wary of the Giants' down-list candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if Ryan Vogelsong was the last straw.
Second, the economics of the game shifted. No one wanted overpaid veterans at the mid-year deadline, and thanks to their Buddies-For-Bonds strategy, which more and more seems like it was driven by Peter Magowan, overpaid veterans were mostly what the Giants had to offer. The offshoot of the B-4-B strategy was the neglect of the farm system, leaving the team with little leverage.
Third, the worse the team got, the harder it was to deal from strength. It's always better to negotiate when one of your options is walking away from the table. Which brings us back to the opening question. The Giants as an organization have obvious weaknesses: little offensive punch at the big league level, few viable prospects in the upper minors. But in one significant way the recession has spun the leverage circle in the Giants' favor: they have cash, and a lot of teams don't. Or soon won't.
What's more, the Giants now have the leverage of patience. At least from the signals they're sending, they don't need to make deals. They can walk away from the table, not because they're a juggernaut ready to roll but because they don't have internal pressure to go all-in. On paper, this is not yet a winning team. But it is not a desperate team. The signals may end up misleading, but all their personnel moves this winter -- signing free agents who aren't blocking significant prospects, not surrendering draft picks, keeping contracts reasonably short -- say otherwise.
There also seems to be a better understanding of subtle economic tenets that some might consider sabremetric. In a brief video interview earlier this month, Sabean mentions Manny Ramirez's incremental value. "We're coming off 72 wins, not 90 wins," Sabean says, and he wonders if the incremental improvement Ramirez would bring to the team would be worth the cost. (For a primer on determining a player's incremental value, click here. It's three years old but a good jumping-off point.)
So armed with a rejuvenated farm system, a possible surplus of starting pitching, and sturdier finances than many teams, Sabean seems to have more leverage than anytime in the past five or six years. However, many of his favorite suckers -- the Dave Littlefields, the Bill Bavasis of the GM world -- have been cast aside. Fewer GMs will make ignorant trades these days, but with economic circumstances and penurious owners forcing their hands, it might not matter.
The flip side of this: By talking openly about tasty pickins at the deadline, Brian Sabean has set the expectations. If he can't pull off a big trade this year backed by a new owner willing to loosen the purse strings, he's probably lost his mojo for good.
