Jump to content

Chris Shaw claimed from Giants


weams

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LookinUp said:

If you view Shaw as a known quantity, then it doesn’t make sense. If you view him as a guy with a potential that you want take give a shot to unlock, then it makes perfect sense.

Why? We’ve already got several of him. Even if he’s good, we have no place to play him.. even if we dumped Davis, we’d STILL have no place to play him. And it sure looks like he’s NOT good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are going to DFA Shaw and try to pass him through waivers so he can be our AAA 1B.  We have very little 1B depth in the minors.  OF is a little thin in AAA as well, so if he passes through unclaimed, its a great move by Elias.  Its insurance for Mancini as well. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a guy they may DFA and pass through waivers, if possible. I know very little about him, but perhaps he is a guy who needs an adjustment or two from what video they have watched on him. I will be watching some video tonight at work. 

He is a LH power bat, which we have very few. Why not take a look and see what you have? What did it cost? Eshelman, maybe?

Not one of the other 29 teams claimed Renato Nunez. Not one team thinks he is worth what he will get in arbitration. This is my shocked face.

It's a waiver claim, good grief.  Lots of predictable posts in this thread, ?. Happy Thanksgiving!

  • Upvote 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Philip said:

Why? We’ve already got several of him. Even if he’s good, we have no place to play him.. even if we dumped Davis, we’d STILL have no place to play him. And it sure looks like he’s NOT good.

I don't know exactly why, but it's fair to assume that they think he has more potential than whatever other stuff was available, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LookinUp said:

I don't know exactly why, but it's fair to assume that they think he has more potential than whatever other stuff was available, right? 

Well, yes, it’s obvious that they claimed him because they wanted him. The question is why did they want him, because he’s not obviously better than the alternatives. Maybe they think they can fix him, maybe they’re going to continue to pretend Mountcastle is an outfielder? Maybe they don’t think Mancini can come back as a top baseball player even though he has come back as a convalescent? I don’t know, But, it’s November, what else are we gonna talk about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Philip said:

Why? We’ve already got several of him. Even if he’s good, we have no place to play him.. even if we dumped Davis, we’d STILL have no place to play him. And it sure looks like he’s NOT good.

Hard to agree with any of this.  We aren't loaded with LH power.  We have room for him in AAA.  He has an option and if we need the 40 man spot, we can try to DFA him and pass him thru waivers.  And a .947 OPS looks pretty good to me, even in PCL.  Or are you focusing only on 72 MLB at bats in 2 cups of coffee?  This is a minor transaction that could bear fruit at little to no cost or risk.  Why get distraught over this?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Philip said:

Well, yes, it’s obvious that they claimed him because they wanted him. The question is why did they want him, because he’s not obviously better than the alternatives. Maybe they think they can fix him, maybe they’re going to continue to pretend Mountcastle is an outfielder? Maybe they don’t think Mancini can come back as a top baseball player even though he has come back as a convalescent? I don’t know, But, it’s November, what else are we gonna talk about?

Have you seen him play, or maybe watched video of Shaw? I am about 30 minutes into it, and there is a lot to like and some to not. The major league stats, no. But the 6-04 225-230 pound athletic frame and 70 power that he has shown throughout his minor league time, yes. Looks like the hands work well. His load can be late, sometimes gets the foot down late, and he gets long at times. He sometimes has a leg kick, sometimes not. Maybe get him to simplify the lower half and take some of the hand load out to simplify his timing. He looks like a pull hitter, at least in the Fangraphs spray chart in his MLB time. He moves well for a big guy, but a 40-45 runner. Arm looks like about a 50. I can see why they took him. 

He has an option, whereas Nunez did not. LH power bats are not a common thing. 

If they like him, they may not waive him for a while, despite the nearly 50% k rate in 82 MLB at bats. Someone else will grab him. I just watched him hit a 468 foot home run , albeit in Colorado, but it was a bomb. 

https://www.mlb.com/player/chris-shaw-622046?stats=career-r-hitting-minors&year=2020

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/chris-shaw/17738/stats?position=OF

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oriole said:

Nice! He can battle it out with Mancini, Davis, Mountcastle, Stewart, Santander, Sisco, McKenna, Nevins, Diaz for those corner OF, 1B, and DH opportunities. ?
 

 

Save a few late-season DH plate appearances for Rutschman.

I guess if Shaw puts up some really impressive numbers in Norfolk he'll be insurance in the event of injuries or a useful trade piece. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

Nice pickup .l..Lots of success with the bat in the minors 275/337/816. He was nearly an automatic out in 72 ABs this season.

He has an .861 career OPS in the minors. .279/.340/.520/.861

https://www.mlb.com/player/chris-shaw-622046?stats=career-r-hitting-minors&year=2020

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/chris-shaw/17738/stats?position=OF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Hard to agree with any of this.  We aren't loaded with LH power.  We have room for him in AAA.  He has an option and if we need the 40 man spot, we can try to DFA him and pass him thru waivers.  And a .947 OPS looks pretty good to me, even in PCL.  Or are you focusing only on 72 MLB at bats in 2 cups of coffee?  This is a minor transaction that could bear fruit at little to no cost or risk.  Why get distraught over this?

I’m not upset, I was just wondering why. Someone else made the comment that the Likely intent was to slip him through waivers and have him be first base at Norfolk, which is reasonable. But no, we’ve got a lot of first baseman types already and we don’t need another one, even if he’s left-handed. And yes, in his cup of coffee he was lousy, and it was only a cup of coffee, but remember the jump between triple A And the majors is the biggest jump of them all, and it is to be expected that most players don’t make the jump. So the onus is on him to prove that he can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OrioleDog said:

It's a poor man's Brandon Belt fantasy come to life!

I do confess the tiniest shred of interest in what left-handed sluggers first weeks outside AT&T as their home field look like, but he and Renato trading spots are just another mid-rebuild expression of what the churn of replacement level players looks like in real life.

Well, the Giants do owe us one minor leaguer who’s much better than anyone thought.   

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...