JT Brubaker (5.162) \u2014 $2.1MM | ACTUAL: $1.82MMAndrew Knizner (5.090) \u2014 $2MM | ACTUAL: designated for assignmentJoey Lucchesi (5.047) \u2014 $2MM | ACTUAL: designated for assignment<\/p>\n
Of course, both non-tendered players wound up back with the organization at some point in 2026 \u2014 Luccehsi in a Spring Training deal he opted out of when the Giants picked up Ryan Borucki and Knizner in a major league deal back in August to give depth to a depleted catcher corps<\/a>. Supremely low stakes and low performance all around (these three players combined for +0.7 fWAR in 2025 and -0.4 in 2026), but it\u2019s worth pointing out that being a Major League Baseball player isn\u2019t easy. Fewer than 1,000 dudes a year are good enough to play it.<\/p>\n These arbitration eligible players amount to cases for the team to contemplate as they approach the offseason. They can always sign these players to a contract before anything becomes fraught. That\u2019s where the MLB Trade Rumors formula provides insight. This is the general range if not exact dollar amount teams an player alike are starting with; arbitration-based salaries are based on recent MLB history, but also need. Sure, the team might need player X, but not at cost Y. Sometimes, cost Y is a virtual given, but player X might not be quite worth it \u2014 and that\u2019s when you see non-tenders. A non-tender is a team giving up their exclusive \u201crights\u201d to or \u201ccontrol\u201d of a player, but it doesn\u2019t mean team and player can\u2019t negotiate anymore. And, of course, in addition to non-tendering or winding up in an adversarial arbitration hearing, a team and player can simply agree to a contract.<\/p>\n I mention that because the commentariat seems to think that will happen with one of the Giants\u2019 potential arbitration cases. So, let\u2019s get into these cases, ending each one with my own judgment about what the Giants should do. I used to describe these as \u201cpredictions\u201d because I felt a little more confident about what the team\u2019s goals were or what sort of player profiles interest them, but as I mentioned above, I have no idea what\u2019s going on with the team day to day. They do need to improve, though.<\/p>\n MLB Trade Rumors Projection: $6.6 million<\/p>\n Yeah, let\u2019s just get the big fish out of the way. The Giants put in a waiver claim at season\u2019s end after the Pirates tried to save a few bucks<\/a> once it was clear their Wild Card aspirations were toast \u2014 okay, and \u201cthe Pirates decided that 19 innings with 14 walks allowed was enough to cut bait<\/a>\u201d \u2014 and he wound up being the Orange and Black\u2019s best healthy reliever on the final day of the season.<\/p>\n My poor eyes did wind up popping out of my skull a little as I took a look at his end of the season Statcast. First, I\u2019ll backup your skepticism with his Statcast charting from 2023-2026. Clear decline:<\/p>\n On the other hand, take a look at how his pitch arsenal compares to the rest of the sport:<\/p>\n #13 in sinker (98.2 mph) #7 in sinker (2,530 rpm) #40 in sinker (.330), +2 RV When you look at where he lands on these lists, he\u2019s basically a perfectly average or slightly above average pitcher. The pitch characteristics in the broadest possible sense (velocity and spin) still put him among the elite relievers in the sport, but we know from experience and even from this data that he\u2019s not that. But the temptation ought to be there to see if it\u2019s still possible to coach up control to go with the stuff.<\/p>\n And then there\u2019s another stat to throw in here. Run Value is a stat that is a straightforward scoring of a pitch (ball, strike, home run) without the outcome weighing on it (a ball that\u2019s ball four, a strike that\u2019s strike three, a home run that drives in 3 runs). But Statcast has now added Leveraged Run Value<\/a>:<\/p>\n Leveraged run value weights the impact of a play based on the base\/out situation — in a higher-leverage situation, the positive or negative run value resulting from a pitch will be greater. Hitters and pitchers who have better \u201cclutch\u201d performances might have higher total run values using the leveraged version. This leaderboard also includes how much extra run value a player gains or loses from his performance in different leveraged situations.<\/p>\n That\u2019s very valuable for a reliever. Context-neutral, Doval is below average, with his pitching amounting to a -2 in Run Value (2o1st out of 300); and, unsurprisingly, Doval is far from elite even by the Leveraged Run Value measure, but at +2, he\u2019s 89 out of 300 \u2014 above average, suddenly. Not tremendously so, but about as effective as Seranthony Dominguez was this year, and he signed a 2-year $20 million before the start of the season and wound up exactly replacement level (0.0 fWAR). Doval was about the same this year: 0.1 fWAR across 3 teams, his same value in 2024 over a full season for the Giants (he was +0.6 last year for the Giants & Yankees).<\/p>\n Tender or non-tender? TENDER.<\/p>\n At the time of the acquisition, and because of MLB Trade Rumors\u2019 tremendous track record in projecting arbitration salaries, most people (myself included) following the transaction closely \u2014 not just the storyline of his return, but that he was in good health and still throwing 98+ and had another year of team control \u2014 took this part of the MLBTR article as fact when formulating their opinion about what the Giants might do with him now that he was back in the fold:<\/p>\n Doval is making $6.1MM this season and can be retained for next season via arbitration. He won\u2019t be able to get a huge raise based on this year\u2019s 4.30 earned run average, but should be able to get into the $7-8MM range.<\/p>\n Now they\u2019re projecting something distinctly different and in the much more reasonable in terms of the Giants tendering him a contract. Now, the team could still tender him, fail to come to an agreement, file a number with the arbitration panel and lose that case in which they could pay more, but then they could pull a J.D. Davis on him. On the other hand, why not keep him, or come to some sort of deal that\u2019s in the $6.5 million range with some incentives for games finished, provided he can win back the closer job he had in his previous stint? This is about the going rate for a reliever of his type.<\/p>\n MLB Trade Rumors Projection: $800,000<\/p>\n Tender or non-tender? TENDER, but\u2026 the Giants already hold an option for 2027. He was signed before 2026 with full knowledge that he would spend the entire 2026 rehabbing. He hasn\u2019t pitched in MLB since 2022, spent all of 2023 in the minors, but in 2024 & 2025 pitched in Japan where he had ERAs of 3.09 and 1.32 ERA.<\/p>\n According to the big injury update we received last Tuesday<\/a>, is in Arizona throwing two side sessions per week and is expected to transition to live BPs in October. He turns 34 in November.<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure his inclusion on this list is only a technicality. The Giants haven\u2019t officially announced that they\u2019ve exercised his option and, therefore, his MLB service clock (4.114) would trigger a sort for arbitration eligible players without a contract already for 2027. But, it\u2019s more correct to say that the team has 8 arbitration-eligible players\u2026 or fewer, if these next couple of cases don\u2019t actually land on the right side of the cutoff.<\/p>\n MLB Trade Rumors Projection: $800,000<\/p>\n My reservations about Jos\u00e9 Butt\u00f3 stem entirely from his lack of an option. His 3.83 FIP from (2023-2025) is slightly more encouraging, but the 4.43 xFIP isn\u2019t. A blood clot is a scary injury to come back from and there could simply be a numbers game the Giants can\u2019t make work.<\/p>\n From a human being perspective, tendering him a contract allows him to continue his rehab with the team until the lockout hits. On the other hand, it\u2019s hard to know just who the Giants have. He was truly dominant in 2024 and the 2025 results are approaching the polar opposite. 2026 was an injury year. Does the cycle reset and he returns to a sub-.200 batting average against guy?<\/p>\n Tender or non-tender? NON-TENDER.<\/p>\n Sinkers are still the coin of the realm (+331 Run Value, league-wide, compared to -31 for four-seamers), but Butto\u2019s 94-96 version is easily duplicated with players the Giants already have on hand and the roster spot might be more important going to a more experienced or talented veteran or simply paying a little bit less to get more upside. If this year hadn\u2019t been such a catastrophe in the bullpen, then I might\u2019ve said he was an easy tender. Now, I think the team needs to cool it on their practice of holding spots for guys returning from injuries.<\/p>\n Now, last year, I ran into a problem where I didn\u2019t factor in the Super Two cutoff (how early players could be eligible for arbitration), but as I\u2019ll note below, it would seem that this case and the next one do meet the criteria for arbitration in 2027.<\/p>\n MLB Trade Rumors Projection: $800,000<\/p>\n As with Jos\u00e9 Butt\u00f3, Rodr\u00edguez appears to be just past the cutoff point for arbitration eligibility. From this August post on MLB Trade Rumors:<\/p>\n [\u2026] players automatically qualify for arbitration when they have at least three years of service time and don\u2019t already have a guaranteed contract. For players who finish a season between two and three years, the top 22% of players in terms of service time also qualify, as long as they spent at least 86 days of the most recent season on the active roster or injured list. The cutoff will vary slightly from year to year, depending on the details of the players in the 2-3 window. Looking at previous years, the recent cutoffs have been as low as 2.115 and as high as 2.146:<\/p>\n 2025: 2.140 Rodriguez is at 2.148, which would seem to just surpass the cutoff, based on history (Butto is 2.168). It\u2019s immaterial to his case, of course, as the Giants will tender him a contract and sign him to a deal.<\/p>\n Tender or non-tender? TENDER. The only thing that might be interesting to see is if they sign him to a multi-year deal or include some incentives in this next one. On the other hand, he is the closer in waiting who\u2019ll be 27 in 2027. His agent could simply ask for something more in line with those figures. The arbitration panels aren\u2019t a total free-for-all \u2014 he could only be compared to players who\u2019d previously been in his situation: a 27-year old right-handed relievers in his first year of arbitration. They also tend to emphasize counting stats, and with only 4 major league saves under his belt, it\u2019s probably not a compelling case. Still, his talent is sort of undeniable and so the Giants might not actually have as much leverage in this situation. But they have to make sure they don\u2019t accidentally set a new precedent for future arbitration hearings or agents. Maybe they don\u2019t throw $1-$1.5 million his way, but don\u2019t be surprised if they wind up signing him for a number greater than $800,000\u2026 unless MLB Trade Rumors projected the cutoff incorrectly again and this is another Patrick Bailey\/Ryan Walker situation where he (and Butto) aren\u2019t actually arbitration eligible.<\/p>\n Okay\u2026 have I sufficiently C\u2019d my A? Moving on\u2026<\/p>\n MLB Trade Rumors Projection: $2.5 million<\/p>\n Tender or non-tender? TENDER. I didn\u2019t want to waste any time on this one. Obviously, the Giants will hold on to Schmitt. Will they sign him for greater than the projected $2.5 million is the only question. He certainly has a case with being a potential multi-positional player; but, at the same time, this is probably a fair deal for a guy who might struggle to replicate the great season he just had. A .780+ OPS with a ~.300 OBP is tough to sustain over a full season.<\/p>\n MLB Trade Rumors Projection: $1 million<\/p>\n He has put up some traditional backup catcher numbers in the parts of two seasons he\u2019s played for the Giants. A .620 OPS in 168 PA across 62 games is definitionally \u201cbackup\u201d but also \u201cfungible.\u201d<\/p>\n Tender or non-tender? NON-TENDER. There\u2019s not too much separation between a million bucks and the league minimum, but every $10,000 counts and non-tendering doesn\u2019t foreclose the possibility of his return (again), but the Giants have a lot of catching options at this point and if they\u2019re really wanting to spend a little money, there are likely to be better options on the open market.<\/p>\n MLB Trade Rumors Projection: $2.3 million<\/p>\n The Giants signed him in the offseason to a 1-year $2 million contract<\/a>. According to MLB Trade Rumors\u2019 previous projection, that was under the $3.15 million he would\u2019ve made in arbitration, and so you can see why teams make these strategic non-tenders. Foley missed 2025 recovering from surgery and the Tigers decided to reallocate that money for other purposes (losing the AL Central and trading away Tarik Skubal, I guess). The Giants came in and offered him a number below that projection and now he\u2019s projected for a number that\u2019s still less. The Giants could easily re-sign him for another $2.5 million, but let\u2019s consider Foley\u2019s case in full:<\/p>\n A 4.15 ERA in 26 IP with a 4.22 FIP and 1.50 WHIP. Prior to joining the Giants, he had a career 2.3 BB\/9 and 6.8 K\/9. Those were 3.8 and 5.2 with the Giants. Now, it was his first year back from injury, and as Zack Minasian has pointed out, it\u2019s the second year when the real pitcher reasserts himself. Is Foley\u2019s peak that of a late inning reliever who can help out in high leverage?<\/p>\n If they keep Doval, then it\u2019s Doval, Rodriguez, Dylan Smith (?), and Jason Foley as quasi-late inning reliever guys. All of them (Rodriguez included) seem best-suited for the 7th inning at best. As four arms in an 8-arm bullpen, though? That could work. Leaves two spots for a pair of left-handed relievers and two spots for late inning guys (an 8th inning guy and a closer). But does that configuration make sense? No space for a long reliever (unless it\u2019s one of the lefties) or, say, Trent Harris, whose velocity gets more strikeouts and will cost substantially less.<\/p>\n At the same time, didn\u2019t the Giants sign him in order to re-sign him? He suppressed home runs and got a lot of groundballs \u2014 exactly what they were looking for from him.<\/p>\n Tender or non-tender? NON-TENDER. The Giants aren\u2019t going to blow up their payroll to win 10 more games in another meaningless season and so I think trying to save money where they can could simply mean non-tendering one of the relievers in a relief corps that didn\u2019t bring much joy this season. It gives them some flexibility, too. Doval and Rodriguez are power arm additions to the 2027 bullpen and so Foley is at least a different look that could be effective, but the Giants had the fewest strikeouts in MLB in High Leverage situations (6.13 K\/9), the second-most walks (5.12 BB\/9), and the fifth-worst ERA in those situations (11.04)<\/a>.<\/p>\n MLB Trade Rumors Projection: $2 million<\/p>\n Hentges had a very interesting year in that his relative success (0.5 fWAR, 10.1 K\/9, 0 HR allowed, 3.19 ERA \/ 3.24 FIP in 45 G) came from some very limited leverage (1.02 average leverage at start of appearance; 36.2 IP). But he walked 25 batters in those 36.2 innings and he had a severe reverse platoon split:<\/p>\n vs. LHH \u2014 .328\/.434\/.358![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Camilo-Doval-Statcast-lollipops-2023-2026-lower-rez.gif\"\/)
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Camilo-Doval-pitch-arsenal-rankings-end-of-2026.jpg\"\/)
<\/a><\/p>\n
#1 in cutter (98.8 mph)
#33 in slider (89.0 mph)
#2 in changeup (94.5 mph) \u2014 only threw this pitch 25 times<\/p>\n
#29 in cutter (2,561 rpm)
#30 in slider (2,691 rpm)
#103 in changeup (1,807 rpm) \u2014 only threw this pitch 25 times<\/p>\n
#68 in cutter (.358), -4 RV
#28 in slider (.232), -1 RV
XX in changeup (.055) +1 RV \u2014 only threw this pitch 25 times<\/p>\n
2024: 2.132
2023: 2.118
2022: 2.128
2021: 2.116
2020: 2.125
2019: 2.115
2018: 2.134
2017: 2.123
2016: 2.131
2015: 2.130
2014: 2.133
2013: 2.122
2012: 2.140
2011: 2.146<\/p>\n
vs. RHH \u2014 .173\/.311\/.240<\/p>\n