Huh. That’s the only possible way to respond. Beckham wouldn’t be eligible for a postseason roster, so huh.
Huh.
Beckham isn’t very good, for one. His .655 OPS (76 OPS+) is bad even by Giants bench standards, and he’s not anything more than an average fielder, at best. There’s a reason why no one tried to recreate the 2013 White Sox piece by piece before this.
As generic depth for six games? Okay, fine. Maybe there’s something we don’t know about Gillaspie, Tomlinson, or Adrianza, if not all three. But if you’re going to go to the trouble to make a 40-man roster move, why not give the gig to someone already in the system? Grant Green, for example.
Dunno. The trade itself isn’t going to hurt, as it’s likely just for cash, but the Giants either have to designate someone for assignment or place someone on the 60-day DL to make room on the roster. If it’s the former, that seems absurd, regardless of the career prospects of the player exposed to waivers. That risk, any risk at all, can’t be worth six games.
If it’s the latter, well, huh.
Huh.
There’s a chance that the Giants make the postseason on the last day of the season, and that Beckham is the one who hits a grand slam to get them there, so don’t equate "ineligible for the postseason roster" with "exempt from even-year shenanigans." There’s a chance we’ll say more than "huh" before the end of the season.
Until then, well ...
Huh.
In case you're wondering, the Giants used 8 subs in last night's 12-3 vic -- none of them named Gordon Beckham.
In case you're wondering, the Giants used 8 subs in last night's 12-3 vic -- none of them named Gordon Beckham.