Wiggling by The Bay: Johnny Cueto signs with the Giants for $130 million


San Francisco is spending big on free agent pitching, agreeing to a six-year, $130 million contract with right-hander Johnny Cueto two weeks after signing right-hander Jeff Samardzija to a five-year, $90 million deal. Cueto’s pact includes an opt-out clause after two years, potentially allowing him to hit the open market again following the 2017 season.

Cueto and Samardzija join a rotation that already boasted Madison Bumgarner in the ace role and with Chris Heston, Jake Peavy, and a rehabbing Matt Cain also in the mix the Giants are making a big bet on high-end starting pitching getting them back to the World Series.

Cueto’s injury history and underwhelming performance following a July trade from the Reds to the Royals are why some teams apparently viewed him as a risky signing, but he’s topped 200 innings in three of the past four seasons–including a league-leading 244 innings in 2014–and when healthy few pitchers are better than the wiggling righty.

In fact, combined during the past five seasons (2011-2015) only Dodgers ace Clayton Kershaw has a lower ERA than Cueto among all pitchers with at least 500 innings. Here’s the top 10:

2.11 – Clayton Kershaw
2.71 – Johnny Cueto
2.82 – Zack Greinke
2.89 – Cliff Lee
2.94 – Chris Sale
2.99 – Adam Wainwright
3.02 – David Price
3.03 – Felix Hernandez
3.05 – Madison Bumgarner
3.11 – Stephen Strasburg

There’s certainly room to haggle over where exactly Cueto ranks among the game’s elite starting pitchers and where he’ll rank during the life of his six-year contract, but there’s no real argument against him being a top-10 starter from 2011-2015. Zack Greinke, who ranked third on the above list, just signed a six-year, $206.5 million deal with the Diamondbacks. David Price, who ranked seventh on the above list, just signed a seven-year, $217 million deal with the Red Sox. Within that context, six years and $130 million for Cueto seems perfectly reasonable and maybe even a bargain.

Handing out huge contracts to veteran starters hasn’t always worked out well for the Giants, as the Barry Zito contract and Matt Cain’s current deal have shown recently, but San Francisco now has a pair of aces–a 26-year-old lefty in Bumgarner and a 30-year-old righty in Cueto–along with strong options in the 3-5 spots.

Consider the Concrete Donut

Getty Images

Ben Schulman wrote a long, interesting article about stadium architecture over at The Hardball Times today. He asks us to consider the old concrete donut stadiums — multipurpose parks like Three Rivers and The Vet — and to think about what we have gained by their near-extinction. And what we’ve lost.

The article starts out with what I feared would be too much misplaced nostalgia for the Brutalist, functional places that no longer exist outside of Oakland, with the now de rigueur references to astroturf and weird 1970s baseball. It backs away from that early on, though, and presents what I feel is a thoughtful look at the various approaches to building a ballpark. Stadium geeks and architecture geeks will find much to love here.

From a personal perspective, I have a love/hate relationship with newer parks. I spent a good deal of time going to places like Riverfront Stadium when I was a kid and do not miss them at all. But I also think there have been a lot of missteps in the last 25 years or so too.

Most new parks are pleasant and comfortable places to take in a ballgame, but so many of them are totally unimaginative and uninspiring from an architectural point of view. I am not fan of nostalgia, and so many of them — particularly the ones built in the 90s — were fueled by a great deal of misguided retro-ism that looks backwards. I suspect this is the case because either (a) no one had the guts or vision to look forward; and/or (b) they felt they could make easier bucks by catering to people who think everything went to hell once Eisenhower left office than by doing something bold. To be fair, there are examples of newer parks that eschew the faux old-timey vibe to greater degrees — Target Field in Minneapolis and Marlins Park in Miami come to mind — and I tend to prefer those to more backward-looking places. Again, architecturally speaking.

I think the sweet spot — and the linked article touches on this a bit — are ballparks which think bigger than the bland and dreary functionalism of the 1960s and 70s but which eschew derivative, traditionalist approaches. Parks which were built with then-modern sensibilities and saw their vision through without compromise. Dodger Stadium is a fine, modernist example of this. So too is Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City, about which I wrote a few years ago. They had a great opportunity to do this in Chicago in the late 80s but muffed it. I think Marlins Park could fall into that category if (a) there is ever anything approaching memorable baseball there; and (b) if they stop being afraid of its bold aspects and stop trying to turn it into a vanilla monument to its vanilla owner. The common denominator, I suppose, is that these parks weren’t and aren’t trying to cater to the childhoods of local fans.

Anyway, good read on a slow news day.