Blurst of times...
by Grant on Dec 28, 2006 8:29 PM PST
in News
70 comments
Flying cars.
Female atheist president.
Cold fusion.
Portuguese military base on Jupiter.
"Now taking the mound for the Giants, Barrrrry Zito!"
Still in shock.
Myth: This prevents the Giants from constructing a good team in the future. Crazy talk. The key word is "prevents." If Zito's taking $20M, that still leaves $80M to $100M for the Giants to play with, and that's being conservative with the payroll inflation. Zito might make the task harder, but it shouldn't prevent a team from building a contender. A competent GM should be able to build a team with that money. Whether or not the Giants have a competent GM is another question. It kind of keeps me in business.
Fact: The Giants have a better rotation now than they did yesterday.
Myth: The Giants don't have an offense worth a damn.
Fact: Wait, no, that one's legit. Klesko and Molina would have to combine for 40 homers to bust the average barrier. Still, adding Zito makes 2007 a better team. And I'm getting tired of the "The Giants have no chance!"-weenies. Front runners? Maybe not. Out of contention? Get out of here:
Vizquel - .280/.360/.390
Klesko/Aurilia - .260/.350/.450
Bonds - .270/.440/.590
Durham - .270/.360/.490
Aurilia/Feliz - .260/.320/.450
Molina - .260/.310/.450
Winn - .270/.340/.430
Zito - 225 IP, 115 ERA+
Cain - 200 IP, 115 ERA+
Lowry - 190 IP, 100 ERA+
Morris - 200 IP, 95 ERA+
Lincechezesseyerria - 200 IP, 95 ERA+
Which of those projections are completely ridiculous? That's a team that is far too light on power, but it isn't hopeless, especially in the National League. Throw in some seasons that exceed expectations -- Lincecum going Verlander is the one I keep dreaming of -- and the team would do just fine. The bench should be excellent. Also, bullpens don't exist in this particular fantasy world. Again, this isn't what is going to happen, but it wouldn't be half as surprising as the Tigers' run.
Myth: Zito makes up for missing out on Vlad. Pfffft. Todd Linden deciding he was as good as Vlad would make up for missing out on Vlad. Zito makes up for missing out on Greg Maddux three years ago.
Fact: The Giants didn't do much with Jason Schmidt last year, and Zito is not a sure bet to replace Schmidt's production. I'm optimistic that Lowry will rebound, and I'm hoping Morris can at least keep his ERA under 5.00. Cain should be better for the full year, and it wouldn't be out of the question for just one of the youngsters to solidify the rotation. That's a whole bunch of ifs. This entire team is a bunch of ifs. I'll take it, but let's not get too giddy.
Fact: There is something to be said for the perceived value of Zito and what that does for the business end of the franchise in the short-term. Just listen to KNBR for ten minutes; there are a lot of excited San Francisco fans out there right now.
Fact: Good gravy, there is about zero chance the end of this contract is going to be pretty. Teddy Higuera. Mike Hampton. Jack McDowell. Tom Browning. Denny Neagle. Wilson Alvarez. Perfect comps? Not at all, but there are a lot more of those guys than Tom Glavines. Hoping for Zito to perform to the standards of Chuck Finley, Frank Viola, and Mark Langston seems to be a good compromise between the cynical and optimistic sides of my brain. That would still make the contract a waste of millions by the end.
Seven years? Really? That was absolutely, positively necessary?
Hooray!
Boo!
At least it won't be boring.
0 recs |
70 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Blurst of times...
Barry Zito makes us better and his salary is not going to keep us from competing in the NL West in the future. Let's remember that our "budget" is set by the braintrust and flexible when it's desired to be flexible. Wait...no bitching. Just let the kid in me enjoy the moment. Because today my team has a new workhorse and he chose to come our way. (He's not likely to become Denny Hookers or Mike "I want to send my kids to Denver's good schools" Hampton any more than David Wright's going to become Adrian Beltre...I don't doubt his talent.)
So, while the baseball fan in me may see things differently (e.g. my posts about signing Zito for so long and for so much $), I'm a kid today and I'm happy to see Barry come across the bay. Sabean is planning ahead and he made out with the top Free Agent pitcher of the year.
Good Luck. Now go out and crush the Dodgers!
by Kent on Dec 28, 2006 9:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
by hairball on Dec 28, 2006 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
by rxmeister on Dec 29, 2006 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
What if the Giants won the lottery and were granted an extra $18M to the payroll in every year of this decade. Wouldn't that have made a difference? Might that have brought in Vlad or ARod or a group of valuable parts?
Competent GM or not, chances are good that money would have helped the team somehow. Sabean might not have spent it efficiently, but it could have given us a better bench, moved Edgardo to the bench, or pushed Benitez further back in the bullpen. You can't just give out a contract like this and decide it's okay because you'll probably have enough leftover anyway. What happens if we give out two bad contracts? Or three?
Back to Zito. To be nice, let's ignore the Mike Hampton player comparisions (which I believe I started). Zito is still only a slightly above average pitcher.
Slightly. Above. Average.
Eighteen. Million. Dollars.
...for SEVEN years.
...plus an $18M option.
...plus a no-trade clause.
Slightly. Above. Average.
Given a HUGE benefit of the doubt, let's say Zito maintains his performance through year eight of his contract. Maybe he misses a start here or there, but overall he's the same pitcher in 2014. This contract is still a dud.
Would you have paid Zito $18M for his performance last year? The year before? Zito's had exactly one season that was worth $18M and it was five years ago.
There are only two ways this contract works out in favor of the Giants:
1. Zito improves and then maintains that improvement over the length of it.
2. The precdent of this year's free agent spending spree holds over and/or inflation rises so high that the present value of Zito's contract drops significantly.
by coreyml on Dec 28, 2006 9:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
If he's anything like last year, he's a # 1.5 starter. The average #1 gives you about a 122-124 ERA+ - remember, not every team has a Santana-type ace. And Zito is a bit more valuable because of his high inning count.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Dec 28, 2006 10:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
Keith Law from ESPM referred to him as a #3 starter at best on a contending team. That completely ignores the fact that he was a #1 starter on a contending team LAST YEAR (in the AL too).
by hammystyle on Dec 28, 2006 11:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
There's a reason Law spent four and a half years in the Toronto front office without getting a promotion, and then decided to give up being a baseball exec to write poorly thought out columns for ESPN.com -- the man has little to no ability as a talent evaluator and his career in baseball was likely going nowhere because of it.
by English Professor on Dec 29, 2006 12:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
by rxmeister on Dec 29, 2006 6:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
this town thinks you're a bastard - Elvis Costello
by EliminateMe on Dec 29, 2006 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
Courtesy of a thread at BTF, here are the 10 highest VORPs for pitcher over the past 5 years (not cherry picked for Zito, as his 2000 and 2001 were both very good):
- Santana - 323.6
- Halladay - 281.9
- Oswalt - 278.1
- Martinez - 278.0
- Hudson - 256.7
- Zito - 256.3
- Clemens - 253.5
- Schmidt - 237.6
- Schilling - 235.3
- Zambrano - 225.7
Secondly, Barry Zito after 8 years will be the same age as Jason Schmidt after 3. There really aren't many pitchers with Barry's track record that suffer a career-ending injury in their early 30's.
by achiappanza on Dec 29, 2006 12:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
VORP looks ilke it can be broken down into two parts. First, there's a rate to represent how many more runs a pitcher prevents per inning than a replacement pitcher--I don't know what they refer to it as, but let's call this effectiveness. The bigger this number, the more effective. Second, there's a multiplier--innings pitched. Multiply the two and you get how many more runs the pitcher prevented over a replacement.
Because Zito's IP total is high that means his effectiveness is low relative to other pitchers with a similar VORP. That doesn't sound encouraging.
Give him credit for eating up innings, but it's not the end of the world if a pitcher misses a few starts. Teams have players to spot start and provided the pitcher that steps in is better than replacement level, then this sub will accrue positive VORP. The Giants have Henessey, Correia, and even Jamey Wright in the positive.
Eating innings seems less valuable than being effective.
by coreyml on Dec 29, 2006 2:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
I'd say either one is fairly useless without the other. Someone who eats innings but isn't very effective isn't worth much, and the same can be said about a guy who is very effective, but isn't on the field very often (which is why many people don't like to see starting pitchers get huge salaries or MVP consideration).
You say that losing a pitcher for a few starts isn't the end of the world, but it's pretty damaging. Either a starter must be brought up from the minors (in which case, you have little assurance he'll pitch well), or you take someone out of the bullpen, which has a trickle-down effect on the staff. Emergency starters are usually pulled after 4 or 5 innings, even in a winable game, even if they're pitching well, just because they're gassed. Then the bullpen (which is already short-handed) gets even more taxed and it can have an effect on the staff for two or three games down the line.
You mention that the Giants have replacement starters who are above average, but they are not as good as the guy they are replacing, and their jobs then have to be done by someone else. Therefore, a guy who misses a lot of time necessitates that his team have good depth behind him, which costs $$$ which could be spent elsewhere (which I believe was your argument against signing Zito to begin with). Take Clemens. He only pitched four months last year, so the Astros had to have another dependable starter capable of pitching effectively for two months. That means you have to add that guy's salary to whatever Houston paid him to find the "real" cost of having him as a starter.
Think of it in terms of a hitter. When Ray Durham was putting up good numbers, but only playing 110/120 games, how valuable was he really for the Giants? (Keep in mind that Neifi Perez was playing when Durham couldn't.)
In the end, most replacements are probably going to hover around replacement level, so VORP cannot work unless it values both the amount of time you actually play, and the effectiveness of said play.
by English Professor on Dec 29, 2006 3:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
Precisely. Nobody's saying that it's a good idea to pay big for someone who's likely to miss 10 or more starts. But to give someone an ~$8M bonus for being able to pitch a few more games a year is poor reasoning.
Option 1: Zito for 34 starts.
Option 2: Suppan-ilk for 30 starts and Henessey for 4 starts.
Taken alone, Option 1 is better, but consider that you still have $8M in your pocket. That's nearly enough for a second decent starter. That eats at least another 100 innings and tacks on several more VORP points.
Or allot that cash to 3B and consider who might be possible for $13M a year (the $5M we're paying Feliz plus $8M).
The best rebuttal, I think, is to say that management wouldn't have allowed the payroll increase had it not been for a Name player. And therefore, two Suppans or a $13M 3B weren't options. Fine, no argument here, but we're still allowed to point out poor dollar allocations and poor logic.
by coreyml on Dec 29, 2006 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
But if the alternative to one Zito was two Suppans, then I'm thrilled that we signed Zito, at least in the short term. Here are the pitchers who signed 3+ year deals this winter in the Suppan range:
Vicente Padilla $11.3M
Gil Meche $11.0M
Jeff Suppan $10.5M
Ted Lilly $10.0M
Take one of these guys, and add one of these slightly sub-Suppan guys and you've got something in the ballpark of $18M per year:
Miguel Batista $8.3M
Adam Eaton $8.2M
Jason Marquis $7.0M
I'm not a Hennessey fan, but I'll take Zito and Hennessey over any pairing from these lists.
by Pants Man on Dec 29, 2006 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
I think Zito is a good pitcher, not great, but If he keeps a level head...he'll do just fine.
The money and years are a lot, however this is the market today.
by Buzzword on Dec 29, 2006 4:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
by coreyml on Dec 29, 2006 2:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: The Giants budget
I'm getting the distinct impression that Sabean can't get Magowan to commit to increase payroll by any amount to be spent at his discretion. But what he can do is say "If we want Bonds, it'll cost this much. If we want Zito, it'll cost this much."
Then Magowan signs off on the player and the money, but there was never an option to just get the money and spend it another way.
by achiappanza on Jan 1, 2007 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: The Giants budget
This is clearly the most significant Magowen Giant's acquisiiton since Bonds. The Giants have ridden Bonds for 14 years to general success, and now that era is ending.
The new Magowen design appears to be buiding around starting pitching. Cheap young pitchers - Cain, Lowry, Linceum, Sanchez -maybe Correia - built around an expensive pre-30 veteran - Zito.
Other than 1993, the Bonds-era Giants never really filled in the holes around Bonds adequtely, although they came close during 2000-2002.
The Zito-young-starters-era Giants have their word cut out for them. Right now, they're starting from scratch to build positiion players and relief pitchers around their starting rotation core.
We'll see what happens.
by GiantJim on Jan 1, 2007 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was at the Salt Lake City airport
Then the MLB ticker comes around again, I see "Giants and Barry Zito agree...", and my mouth hangs open dumbfoundedly while I continue to wait for my overpriced food.
Good God, that's a lot of bread. And I'm not talking about the sandwich.
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Dec 28, 2006 9:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: I was at the Salt Lake City airport
this town thinks you're a bastard - Elvis Costello
by EliminateMe on Dec 29, 2006 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I was at the Salt Lake City airport
So, all in all, I'm glad that the Giants signed Burger Zito. Err, Barry Zito.
this town thinks you're a bastard - Elvis Costello
by EliminateMe on Dec 29, 2006 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Dec 28, 2006 9:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 29, 2006 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
The arms in the pen include the young talent of Wilson, Chulk, Sadler, Correia, Hennessey, as well as not quite so valuable Taschner, and the journeyman Steve Kline. Other than the unmentionable work of Benitez, the pen is very talented and getting better. And I expect Armando's departure any day now.
Say, are you guys still counting on Tomko? Makes one a little weak in the knees, doesn't it? As will the health concerns of Penny and Schmidt.
All in all, I'll take the Giants' pitching staff over the Dodgers, not that the Dodgers' isn't good.
See I can be civil to Dodger fans.
by Sayhey on Dec 29, 2006 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
Closer: Benitez... Probably one of the worst in all of MLB.
Setup: Chulk... decent.
Setup: Kline... almost as many BBs as Ks.
Setup: Worrell... terrible last year.
LR: Sadler... unproven beyond AAA.
LR: Wilson... a walk machine.
LR: Taschner... 14.4 hits per 9!
LR: Munter... Love that 2.12 whip last year.
LR: Correia... decent.
LR: Cortes... very low K rate.
SPSTR: Hennessey... low K rate, high walk rate.
Now, every bullpen has it's rotten eggs, but the Giants pen seems to have a full carton of them. There really are no 3 pitchers you can rely on in high leverage situations. Where the Dodgers can throw Saito, Broxton, Kuo and Biemel at you the Giants can only throw rotten eggs.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Dec 30, 2006 12:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
Along these same lines, you might take note that not one of the Dodger relievers you mentioned had any success at all in the major leagues prior to last season, yet you are already predicting they will repeat that success next season. I find that quite odd. Before last year, Broxton had 12 walks in 13 big league innings. Couldn't you have said then that he was "a walk machine", as you've stated about Brian Wilson (whose age and stuff is very similar to Broxton)? Couldn't you have also said that Kuo was "unproven beyond AAA", just as you've said here about Sadler? And how can you refer to Kline as having "almost as many BBs as Ks", while touting Beimel as a strength for the Dodgers, when their BB and K numbers are almost identical (21/30, 26/33), and Kline's career OPS against is almost 100 points lower than Beimel's (.707 to .800)?
The simple truth is the Giants bullpen could be very good or very bad depending on what the young guys do. And anybody who thinks they know how a group of talented but inexperienced young pitchers is going to perform is kidding themselves.
by English Professor on Dec 30, 2006 1:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
When all is said and done I think we have as good of a chance as finding 6-7 solid pitchers as any other team, and as good of a chance as having a complete disaster.
by Pants Man on Dec 30, 2006 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
Here's what our guys did last season (IP, WHIP):
Correia 69.7, 1.23
Kline 51.7, 1.53
Accardo 40.3, 1.21
Benitez 38.3, 1.57
Hennessey 33.0, 1.35
Wright 30.0, 1.48
Wilson 30.0, 1.77
Stanton 23.3, 1.24
Munter 22.7, 2.12
Chulk 22.3, 1.43
Worrell 20.3, 1.72
Sanchez 20.0, 1.55
Taschner 19.3, 1.97
Fassero 10.0, 2.07
Walker 5.3, 2.63
Sadler 4.0, 1.75
Misch 1.0, 2.00
Total 345 IP, 1.50 WHIP
Yuck!
Worse yet, of the pitchers who had WHIPS below 1.50, only Correia figures to be good next season. Accardo and Stanton are gone. Chulk has a career 1.42 WHIP. Kline appears to be losing it the last two seasons. His stuff seemed mediocre.
Can Benitez rebound? Can Wilson, Tascner, Sanchez/Hennessey, and Sadler break out? That seems to be asking a lot. Giants bullpen is in trouble.
by GiantJim on Dec 30, 2006 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
Only if you believe everything stays the same. I see the names of Accardo, Wright, Stanton, Munter, Worrell, and Fassero, who are all not very likely to be on this year's club. I also see Benitez name, and I'm very hopeful he won't be on the club either. So the "yuck" concerning last year's track record really has little to do with this year's club. Now, if you have a crystal ball that can accurately predict how young pitchers who will be on the club will progress, then I'd be interested.
The reality is that most clubs envy the number and quality of the young arms the Giants have, but that, too, doesn't reliably predict the year. If we get rid of the rather large disaster that passes himself off as a closer, I feel very good about the Giants chances with the Pen. I'd have felt better if they had kept Stanton, but, still, these guys look good, and have a reasonable chance to be very good. Finally, I'd like to start the campaign for Correia as the closer, with Wilson and Sadler as competition for the job if he falters.
by Sayhey on Dec 30, 2006 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
Benitez's track record since 2000: 1.01, 1.30, 1.05, 1.37, 0.82, 1.37, 1.57. (Guess which year we signed him after!)
Worrell's track record since 2002, breaking up his schizo 2005: 1.18, 1.30, 1.23, 1.88, 1.23, 1.72.
Taschner had a 1.24 WHIP in 2005, while Cortes had a 1.14 WHIP pitching in Coors Field in 2005. Correia had a 1.58 WHIP in 2005.
I'd like to see a study on how well something like PECOTA predicts team bullpens... I would imagine it doesn't have a very good track record.
That said, the bullpen's main problem last year was walks, and when you're counting on production from a lot of young pitchers and flakes like Benitez and Kline, I would not be surprised if walks were a problem again. I expect Wilson, Sadler, Correia and Sanchez (and maybe a resurgent Taschner or a healthy Benitez) to miss a lot of bats... I'm just praying that they can throw enough strikes to be successful.
by Pants Man on Dec 31, 2006 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
Steve Kline-you point out his k-bb ratio?? Is that the best you can do?? The guy has been a successful lefty specialist for a decade and will probably continue to be one for another five years or so.
Brian Wilson-again, you're worried about walks. He's a kid with lights out closer stuff. His control will be better in his first full major league season, he doesn't have a history as a walk machine.
Billy Sadler- see above. Lights out stuff. Eat your heart out.
Brad Hennessey-again with the k-bb?? Ok, Hennessey will get the Dodgers out with two groundballs and a popout. He will also walk a batter.
Correia and Chulk you concede on. Smart move
Taschner-probably won't be there
Munter, Cortes and Worrell- definitely won't be there. And if Worrell IS there it will only be because his awful year last year was due to injury. You DO know he was hurt almost all of last year, don't you??
Benitez-you're right, he's awful. But he's a head case, and we have a manager who knows how to reach head cases and get the best out of them. If not, they will trade him. There's nothing wrong with the Giants' bullpen outside of closer. It will be one of the better bullpens in the league until the ninth inning. If it solves THAT problem, watch out.
B
by rxmeister on Dec 30, 2006 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
by Sayhey on Dec 30, 2006 8:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Dec 30, 2006 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
The one big advantage the Dodgers have over the Giants is a settled closer in Saito. Not that I'm that impressed with him, but he was a damn sight better than what you started the year with. Will he duplicate last years numbers? I doubt it. You have your own question marks in Tomko, Brazoban, Hendrickson, Kuo, Beimel, etc. None of these guys are sure bets.
With the Giants closer situation, Benitez is, admittedly, a huge problem. The Giants have to get rid of the bum. If we go into the year with him trying to sort out his troubles, I have doubts, as well, as to the quality of the Giants bullpen. We will have to wait and see if the Marlins really want Armando back. We have a little time before pitchers and catchers report, so let's see what happens before making our predictions on what the strength of each pitching staff will be.
by Sayhey on Dec 31, 2006 7:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
by rxmeister on Dec 31, 2006 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Weak SF bullpen
by Sayhey on Dec 31, 2006 7:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
that made me almost crap my pants and cry at the same time. it wouldn't be the first time (that was when I realized THAT I COULD LEARN to lay off the low and outside slider that pedro was swinging at in 2004 and still hasn't hit)
by someguynamedg on Dec 28, 2006 10:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
In fact, in the eleven and under age range, all are invited to send their children for a reasonable fee.
by howtheyscored on Dec 28, 2006 11:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The future
Cain
Zito
Lowry
Lincecum
Nice
by stevieg on Dec 28, 2006 11:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
That said, those of you who are complaining about how much I'll be paid in 2012, how pumped will you be the afternoon of Sunday, April 8, when I shut down the Dodgers, in the bright sunshine, cool breeze comin' off the Bay, in my second start as a Giant?
I'll tell you now: Disneyland won't have shit on Momo's that night. "Happiest Place On Earth", my ass!
(PS: Please no talk of "spillover" and "sloppy seconds". I got enough of that from Blanton the past couple years.)
by Barry Zito on Dec 29, 2006 12:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
While we got you on the line, one quick question
by wilriv21 on Dec 29, 2006 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
..... and a Giant was born
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/484085p-407483c.html
by wilriv21 on Dec 29, 2006 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: ..... and a Giant was born
by rxmeister on Dec 29, 2006 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: ..... and a Giant was born
by E Ticket on Dec 29, 2006 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
by Natto on Dec 29, 2006 1:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 29, 2006 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Blurst of times...
As North Chicago said, we're all on the same page about the years. It's a business and a baseball risk, yup it is. Okay, it's a risk, I/we all know that. But, none of us know what's going to happen. So, looking at Zito's past performances and looking at the free agent #1s over the next couple of years, the Giants have made a good short term deal that's riskier at the end. I still can't throw them (the Front Office) under the bus for this deal. (It's not like Adrian Beltre's stellar season and "presto" lots of money.) To date, Zito's given his team a hell of a lot of good pitching and we've gotten younger and we've shown ourselves to not be a team on the cheap (at least not the ENTIRE roster) and we have an exciting young pitching staff and...well...you get the idea...He CHOSE us!
In today's market, I have to tip my cap to the Front Office for their balls and cross my fingers that it'll work out. Hell, I for one am not wishing that he fails to post here "I told you so." Some of the stuff posted here approaches that. Go Giants. You overpaid and sometimes you have to do that. Go Giants.
(By the way, checking out the Mets blogs has been rather funny. Up until around yesterday they were all about how Zito was a done deal and that he'd come to NYC just 'cause it was NYC and 'cause they were the Mets. [Points that I posted here warning Zito about]. Yesterday, the blogs were filled with "we didn't really want him anyway" crap. The posts there make me realize the overall intelligence of Giants fans...even if many of us are cynical.)
Go Giants.
by Kent on Dec 29, 2006 7:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
Question: I've seen odds and ends about the structure of the contract -- given the back loading and the money we won't be paying the two draft picks we lose, is the net cash outflow for Zito less than Morris this year?
by NearestNorwich on Dec 29, 2006 7:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
So now..
by WalrusMan on Dec 29, 2006 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: So now..
by NearestNorwich on Dec 29, 2006 7:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: So now..
by E Ticket on Dec 29, 2006 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Hitting Pitchers.......
by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 29, 2006 10:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: So now..
by NearestNorwich on Dec 30, 2006 8:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't mind watching Livan hit..
by WalrusMan on Dec 30, 2006 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: So now..
by E Ticket on Dec 30, 2006 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: So now..
by achiappanza on Dec 31, 2006 1:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
The staff will be good, and maybe enough to win the NL Worst. There.
by Stoned Slacker on Dec 29, 2006 8:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Portugeuse military base on Jupiter??
by Lyle on Dec 29, 2006 8:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Zito and Atlee
But I have.
Many times.
Just last season.
Damn.
Spin-off topic: How much would Atlee be worth in today's market? I'm thinking at least $24 / 4.
by sdsukat01 on Dec 29, 2006 9:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
We were so pissed at this time last year when Morris sighned for $9 mil. $9 MIL.!!! In '12 and '13 this contract will be the equivalent of a Jamie Wright contract.
by allfrank on Dec 29, 2006 11:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
As you may know, when they figure mortgage payments, it often doesn't divide evenly, so the very last payment is for a different amount than the usual payment. So there I was, sitting in a title company office, getting ready to sign a paper that says that I will pay X dollars on May 1, 2025, and I just started laughing. It seemed so absurd to agree to do anything in the year 2025. That's not even this millennium! How could I say where I would be or what I would be doing? (Heck, I could be at Fortaleza Júpiter, but I didn't know that then.) It couldn't possibly have any real meaning, so I went ahead and signed happily.
That's pretty much how I feel about the Zito contract. Barry Zito definitely makes the Giants better in 2007, very likely makes them better in 2008/09, may make them better in 10/11. Does he make them better or worse in 2012/13? Don't know! Don't care! Where do I sign?
this town thinks you're a bastard - Elvis Costello
by EliminateMe on Dec 29, 2006 12:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
by irwin on Dec 29, 2006 2:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
Does it provide an excuse like "Look we went out and increased our payroll to get THE most sought after free agent on the market to make our team better."
Just wondering.
I'll be waiting to see what spin good ol Rich Draper can come up with about this whole thing.
by rock n jock on Dec 29, 2006 2:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sabean Moves
I do not think this signing signals a new trend where SF will be always be a player in the top FA market but rather a unique situation where they could shape the team for years to come.
Bring home the pennant fellas.
by wilriv21 on Dec 29, 2006 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
by E Ticket on Dec 30, 2006 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Blurst of times...
In other words by signing Zito to replace Schmidt. Cain does not have to be no.1, Morris no.2, Lowry no.3. Sanchez no. 4 and Hennessay/Corriea no. 5.
Hennesay/Corriea get to stay in middle/long relief /set-up in the pen.
By his signing, that is six players whom the Giants do not have to rely on moving up one notch just to stay even with last year.
What that means is that in addition to whatever Zito adds over and above Schmidt, the improvements of Cain, Lowry, Morris, Sanchez, Corriea etc are just that..improvements. As oppossed to filling in holes created by Schmidt's departure.
And that is another reason why this signing is so huge. That is the "team" reason. Depth. Depth takes pressure off the young guys. Depth enables you to go and get a youngster when he is getting knocked around and replace him with an able arm. The advantages are too numerous to mention. Suffice the cliche. "You can never have too much good pitching." Which is exactly why the 83 win Cardinals were able to beat the Mets and the Tigers last year. No superstars, just depth of good, not great, pitchers.
by E Ticket on Dec 30, 2006 10:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly..
by WalrusMan on Dec 30, 2006 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well
by Dan from NM on Dec 30, 2006 10:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
