I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still news. . .

If the Sabes could find a way to....

.... unload Zito's contract, I wouldn't be totally opposed to signing A-Rod.

by Nathan on Oct 28, 2007 7:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

OH!!! Selig is going to be PISSED that this came out before the end of the series!!

PISSED!!

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Oct 28, 2007 7:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

FUCK IT, GO FOR IT

To sign A-Rod, the Giants would (realistically speaking) need to raise their payroll by about 15-20M per year. I haven't checked the #'s but that'd put them in the $110 to $120M per year.

On the other hand, Sabean could sign like 13 mediocre players for the same amount of money.

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 28, 2007 8:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

Yeah! We'd go from a team with one legit power hitter to a team ...with one legit power hitter. Wait, how does this improve us?

Adopted Giant: Randy Winn. Can't wait for Zito to start Opening Day '08 so I can get a leg up on my drinking.

by Punch Rockgroin on Oct 28, 2007 8:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

because we'd go from a team that had an aging legit power hitter but will be without said power hitter next year and definitely without him in following years to a team that had a superstar power hitter in his prime.

that's how it improves us

Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Oct 28, 2007 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

It's still 1 power hitter. Really, if it improves us, it would be only marginally. And it restricts our payroll even more. Let's not be the Mets of earlier this decade. If we suck, I say we save money while doing it.

Adopted Giant: Randy Winn. Can't wait for Zito to start Opening Day '08 so I can get a leg up on my drinking.

by Punch Rockgroin on Oct 29, 2007 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

Rosenthal reported during that series that the Yankees offered an extension that would take ARod to 8/240, but that he thinks he can get more than that.

Whoever signs him is going to hav to pay over $30 mil a year unless Boras and Arod have over-estimated his value.

With the Yankees swearing their out with ARod opting out, how many teams are in a position to pony that up? Buck mentioned Boston and The Cubs.

Vote for Grant

by Goofus on Oct 28, 2007 8:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There is only one worthy Rod

Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Oct 28, 2007 8:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: There is only one worthy Rod

that's what she said

by wilriv21 on Oct 28, 2007 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There is only one worthy Rod

You are awesome...

btw.

Brian Wilson for Closer!

by BawLa on Oct 28, 2007 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ARod is one greedy man

We don't need both the highest paid pitcher and position player in the game. Feliz could give you a fraction of the production at a fraction of the cost.

by wilriv21 on Oct 28, 2007 9:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: ARod is one greedy man

Kind of depends on the relative fractions, don't it?

by zenbitz on Oct 29, 2007 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

I'm surprised the Yankees didn't set it done with that Texas subsidy. Hell, I'm just glad they're losing him.

by achiappanza on Oct 28, 2007 10:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hmm

Yeah, Texas has to be tickled that it played out this way.

by xanthan on Oct 28, 2007 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

Sign him, dammit!

Not a chance, this management is too cheap. Want to bet he ends up in Boston?

by Sayhey on Oct 28, 2007 10:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

crap that lineup would be scary...

Ellsbury (CF)
Pedroia (2B)
A-Rod (3B)
Ortiz (DH)
Manny (LF)
Drew (RF)
Euclis (1B)
Varitek (C)
Lugo/somebody new (SS)

I mean that's a solid 1-8... any one of the top seven guys would probably bat third for the giants next year given the current state of the roster.

Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...

by Smoke on the Water on Oct 29, 2007 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

Didn't A-Rod play SHORTSTOP for a kabillion years before switching to third base to placate Derek Jeter and the Yankees? What's to prevent him from returning to his rightful position, the Red Sox re-signing Lowell, and kicking Lugo to the curb / eating his salary / trading him while eating most of his salary? I don't put it beyond them; however, their fans would likely disagree. I would think it's gotten to the point where signing A-Rod would be like the Dodgers signing Bonds.

Nevertheless, this looks much scarier:

Ellsbury (CF)
Pedroia (2B)
A-Rod (SS)
Ortiz (DH)
Manny (LF)
Lowell (3B)
Drew (RF)
Youkilis (1B)
Varitek (C)

I'll take the freight train, Bengie Molina.

by Brother Bummer on Oct 29, 2007 1:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

His defense

A-Rod can't really play D anymore. Most fielding metrics have him at around an average 3B. I suppose he could do it if he really wanted to but he'd have to lose weight.

by Bitter Fan on Oct 29, 2007 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: His defense

And I would think that playing short at this point provides the greatest chance is shortening his career. Then again, I might be talking out of my ass about that one.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: His defense

you're absolutely right....on both counts.

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 29, 2007 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: His defense

Yeah, thanks for the info. Makes a lot of sense.

I'll take the freight train, Bengie Molina.

by Brother Bummer on Oct 29, 2007 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: His defense

Certainly explains your bad breath.

Vote for Grant

by Goofus on Oct 29, 2007 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: His defense

And I thought it was just cause I don't brush.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: His defense

I don't brush my ass either. Go figure.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Oct 29, 2007 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

Ladies and gentlemen, the Boston "We're not the Yankees, really" Red Sox and their ridiculously bloated payroll! [fanfare]

Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss: Not fascist: SF Dugout. Not boring nor fascist: CLE winning the World Series.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Oct 29, 2007 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

The Not-The-Evil-Empire Red Sox.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Oct 29, 2007 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know

I don't know why Giants FANS are so worried about the payroll. Let Magowan, Baer, and Sabean worry about that. All we need to worry about is wins and jerseys.

If Brad Hennesy had Steve Kline's attitude you'd get Rob Nen... without the triple digit heat.

by milesntrane on Oct 29, 2007 1:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know

It has something to do with knowing that the team doesn't play in a payroll vacuum. If they DID, then we could all dream about a lineup with all the best talent in the world. And we could dream the Giants would give each and every one of us a pony. And a car. Heck, I live in the Bay Area, so why not a HOUSE???

Instead, most people here seem to be realists that understand that if the team were to overpay for someone like ARod or AJones or THunt, or even ManRam (sorry, just wanted to throw in the nickname), we'd have a helluva time resigning our own talented players (both of them) when they're eligible for free agency, and we'd have a tough time making a bid on more talented guys (in the case of Jones and Hunter, at least) next year.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously, teams don't exist in a payroll vacuum

but, the question is whether a team is spending as much as it can spend or simply deciding that a better business model would be to just collect money sharing checks.

This is the Giants opening day payroll over the last 5 years:

* 2007: $ 90,219,056
* 2006: $ 90,056,419
* 2005: $ 90,199,500
* 2004: $ 82,019,166
* 2003: $ 82,852,167

Average payroll in MLB in 2007 was about $83.25M. Average payroll for ALs teams in 2007 was about $92.8M. Average payroll for NL teams in 2007 was about 73.7M.

In 2003, average payroll in MLB was about $70.8M. Average payroll on NL teams was $72.9M in 2003. In 2003, AL teams spent an average of $68.7M.

So, while the Giants have outpaced the spending of NL teams, they are starting to lag behind the AL teams in spending.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's more...

Be sure to include in your numbers the approximately $20 mil the Giants are spending yearly on the ballpark. It might not technically be payroll, but 20mil is nothing to sneeze at.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

Aren't the Giants pretty much maxed-out? I mean the park only holds 42,000 and they dont have a mega-TV deal like the Sox and Yanks do. I dont think management is lining their pockets exactly.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 29, 2007 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

They seem to be doing pretty well in attendance at that small park. This last year they were 7th in MLB in home attendance and 5th in road attendance. Now, it's true they just kicked their biggest drawing card to the curb, but they did draw a hellva lot of fans to see a last place team play. The years previous have been even better, iirc. And while they don't have the same money from TV revenue, it's not chicken feed either. Also, even as a one shot thing, they didn't do to badly financially in hosting the All-Star Game this year.

More importantly, if the Giants want to be competitive they have to have the players. Barring a sudden blossoming of non-pitching talent out of their minor league affiliates, they had better hope they can get some players in trade or off the free agent market. Both ways mean paying the going rate for talent. Perhaps the Giants can't match the Yankees or the Red Sox dollar for dollar, but they had better be prepared to chase the Dodgers in payroll or it's going to be a long time in the cellar.

by Sayhey on Oct 29, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

The baseball industry as a whole has in the last two years signed two separate $700 million dollar satellite/cable TV deals, a $650 million satellite radio deal, and launched an incredibly profitable online TV site that is bringing in quite literally billions in revenue per year. (While they were at it they picked up another quick half a billion by selling the Nats). So, no, they're by no means maxed out. The industry is awash in new cash.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Oct 29, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

So how much of that new cash do the Giants see? Ray Ratto (it's completely up to you how much you trust his information) said that the Giants really don't have anywhere else to find new revenue. Either he's wrong or all these million bajillion dollars dont go to teams like the Giants.

Even if Giants management has done an awful job fielding a winning team the last few years, I still truly believe people like Magowan and Baer want to win. I do feel like that is their goal. If they have all this extra cash, why are they holding back? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Magowan and the rest of the owners are looking at the bottomline first and winning second.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 29, 2007 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

They get just slightly less than 1/30th of it. For some reason that surpasses understanding the media is very resistant to recognizing the new economic reality and insists on using phrases like small and/or medium market teams that have frankly lost any relevant meaning in the age of new technology (as the size of one's local TV market has little to no causitive affect on your ability to bring in revenues).

Predominantly I guess this is because sports journalists seem to be as a rule pretty lazy. You may recall how ubiquitously they picked up and repeated Huizenga's claim that he was losing $40 some million in 1997 -- a claim that was on the face of it pretty dubious and which was subsequently demonstrated to be pretty much a bald-faced lie (not by sports journalists, though, by business journalists). Adjusting to new realities seems to be beyond the capacity of the Ray Ratto's of the world, so why not just write the same old things over and over.

I will note that Brian Sabean, on I believe the last of his shows with Razor and Mr. T when directly asked whether the Giants could afford Arod said "yes if they decided they wanted to go after him they could find ways to accomodate the required payroll adjustment". Which seemed like Brian's typically circuitous way of admitting there's plenty of cash in the company safe.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Oct 30, 2007 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

The Sox and Yankees don't have mega TV deals. They own their own network. That is something the Giants might want to consider as well.

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

Because the Giants own their own stadium, they do not have to share certain revenues with the city, they get a tax break from a depreciating park.. I am not sure it is as simple as a $20 mil expense.

by BleacherEd on Oct 29, 2007 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

Okay, 10mil? 15mil? 30mil? I don't know, I'm ballparking it here (pardon the pun). I think the point still stands. They are also leasing the land that the ballpark is on. So how much does THAT cost?

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

The most resent CBA also allows the Giants to deduct any interest payments towards capital improvements (ie the interest in the stadium debt) from thier revenue sharing obligations. This for expample is why both the Yankees and the Mets are following the Giants example with private financing of thier new stadiums.

Bottom line is that the stadium debt is just a management excuse for limiting the salary budget that has no real effect on the money available for players salaries.

by giantsrainman on Oct 29, 2007 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

Pretend I'm dumb and don't know what that means. Could you please explain then how much the Giants would ACTUALLY be paying in stadium debt? If we're looking at say 10mil, that's still 90mil for payroll, 10mil for stadium. 100mil overall.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: There's more...

I beleive the answer is zero. Other stadium income not needed to be shared with a landlord balances the principle and deductions from Revenue sharing balances the interest. The net effect is that the Giants really are not the ones paying the staium debt. These other incomes and reduced revenue sharing are the ones paying the stadium debt.

by giantsrainman on Oct 29, 2007 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know

I don't see how you can question fans who are notorius for extremely detailed roster speculation for taking the payroll into account.

If anything, they're all nerds for knowing the minor league systems of other teams pretty much for no other reason than to fill out their speculative rosters with those players. At that point, payroll speculation is like bckground nerd noise.

NERDS!!!

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

NERDS!

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 29, 2007 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: NERDS!

I always thought that Michael Anthony (ex-Van Halen) looked a lot like Ogre.

***

Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy

by hairball on Oct 29, 2007 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

exactly. If this team is going to develop the kids from now on, they definitely could afford to sign ARod and still have Barry Zito. It ain't my money. Do you want to see him sign with the Dodgers?? Do you want to sell tickets in the post-Bonds era?? The same people who wanted Bonds back because you don't fire your best player, doesn't think you become a better team when you add the best player in baseball?? Can we have someone in the lineup capable of doing better than a sac fly or RBI groundout when guys like Rajai, Roberts and Velez are stealing bases all over the place?? How about we sign ARod, and offer Barry Bonds a one year 5 million contract with a 15 million dollar bonus if we win the World Series?? Can we get someone on this team who can hit a 3 run homerun when Matt Cain or Tim Lincecum are pitching their hearts out?? BRING ME AROD!!

Joe Simpson:"I was told by a player that the hardest throwers he saw all year were Ubaldo Jimenez and RANDY MESSENGER"

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 5:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

by the way, did you see the way ARod blew off Hank Aaron last night, not showing up to receive the Aaron award?? I wonder how Aaron felt. Probably like the way Bonds felt when Aaron blew HIM off by not being there for the record breaking homerun. Maybe ARod should have appeared on the big video screen giving Aaron a fake tribute.

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 6:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

OH SNAP!

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 29, 2007 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hate A-Rod

A-Rod is a freaking douche. I hope no team buckles to this $30M+/yr insanity.

The guy was making $25 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! How is that not enough?

Also, he's not a very good sportsman... knocking balls out of people's hands, interfering with fielders by calling pop flys.

by Gorgoroth on Oct 29, 2007 6:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod

Hey, don't knock douche. Ever date a girl with vaginosis??

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod

Plus we all know deuche is better than turd sandwich.

Giant Expectations

by UnleashTheGore on Oct 29, 2007 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod

a giant* deuche

by Azmanz on Oct 29, 2007 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod

and how many people in here hated Bonds pre-1993? If A-Rod is on our team, killing the ball and leading us to wins, you'd change your tune.

and I still don't understand the problem with his calling a pop up on the bases. I thought it was pretty clever and it worked.

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 29, 2007 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod

Isn't it interference and not legal, like a defensive lineman calling the hike in football?

Or does baseball not have that rule?

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod

I suppose you could compare A-Rod's douche-iness (is that a word?)to Bonds', and they're both fantastic players, and A-Rod is of course much younger. So I can see why A-Rod would seem like the more attractive option.

That said: A-Rod is about to play for the fourth different team in his career. As mentioned above, he chose to opt out of a $25 MILLION/year contract, so how much more will he be asking for? Lastly, assuming we sign him, from all accounts, his ego would be just as big a distraction in the Giants clubhouse as Bonds would be. And supposedly, the Giants needed to move on from Bonds exactly for that reason -- to avoid larger-than-life clubhouse personalities with massive egos.

Oh, and exactly how many championships has A-Rod won? None. Is that his fault? No. Would paying him $30+ million/year make it difficult to sign and develop other players who could help win a championship? I think so.

Lon Simmons' adopted dad.

by Kitspool on Oct 29, 2007 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

"Boras hasn't said how much he believes Rodriguez is worth on the open market, but he suggested in interviews that Rodriguez could be worth $500 million to the Yankees over the next 10 years. It's clear he's shooting for a deal well in excess of $300 million, perhaps even as much as $400 million."

uh, I'll pass, thank you.

Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?

by shikantaza on Oct 29, 2007 6:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

What he wants and what he gets are two different things. I really don't understand the too much money argument when you're not personally the one paying the contract. The pitching staff the next few years will be Zito and kids making minimum salary, and the offense could be ARod and kids making minimum salary. I could understand if the Giants say they can't afford ARod, but who are WE to say they can't?? Unless you're the Giants' accountant and tell me they can't, I'm going to assume that they can. I don't know the finances of it all, but if ARod made 25 million per year, and the Yankees actually offered him a raise, I would assume that he brings in more than that in revenue.

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 6:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

When I'm purchasing my season tickets, I feel like I am paying his salary. If getting ARod means the prices would double over the next two years, I'd hope they can find another way to build a team.

Vote for Grant

by Goofus on Oct 29, 2007 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

I can understand your point, but do you really think ticket prices would double?? Look at the money that is gone from last year's payroll. Bonds, Benitez, Vizquel, Feliz. That's ARod's salary right there. Durham goes next year, and Roberts and Winn the year after that. All can be replaced by young players making next to nothing. And to be honest with you, although I know you may feel differently, I would rather pay 50 bucks to see a good team than 25 bucks to see a bad one.

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

The flaw in this philosophy, as I see it, is kind of twofold:

We haven't seen any legitimate talent come from our minor leagues in some time. While I'm excited for the post-Bonds era, I'm also very apprehensive about how it's going to play out. But we'd actually need to get real talent in to surround A-Rod, kind of like what we haven't done with Bonds since 2002. If we can't surround him with talent, we're not really going to be a better team. We'll kind of be the same team.
In a few years, suppose we have genuine talent coming up from our minors, and we want to re-sign them but can't because of two ridiculously huge contracts. Then we just start looking like a bizarre variation on the Oakland A's, who can develop solid talent, but can't keep them once they become eligible for free agency.

I agree I don't want to see ARod go to the Dodgers, especially not if he re-breaks the all-time homer record. But I'd definitely be concerned about how our team is assembled for the next ten years, surrounding A-Rod.

The other point I fail to see anyone mention here is that A-Rod has been attrociously bad in the playoffs. Over the course of enough postseason PAs during your career, your numbers should even out to approximate your career numbers, but his numbers have been really bad. So if we have him lead us to a playoff appearance, does anyone see it turning out where A-Rod leads the way like Bonds did in the '02 Series? Any thoughts on this?

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

Are you saying it's totally impossible?? We have the pitching, isn't it possible that guys like Roberts and Rajai get on base, players like Molina and Winn have the same year they had in 2007, and a couple of the kids like Nate, Ort or Fred Lewis have decent or better than expected years?? Ray Durham could bounce back, or Kevin Frandsen could continue to improve. Put ARod in the middle of all that and there's a chance you could be contenders. I know it's just a chance, but DON'T put ARod in the middle of all that and you will definitely NOT contend. Do you want to have some hope or no hope for next year??

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

I don't think ARod and not contend are mutually exclusive things. Same with Not ARod and contend are not mutually exclusive. It's not all so black and white.

It's certainly possible that they all could bounce back or rise to the occasion, but what you're proposing still has one legitimate slugger in the middle of the lineup. That idea doesn't concern you? ARod's protection would be Durham, Winn, or Molina? That sounds suspiciously like what we've been doing the past few years, and it hasn't exactly worked out great for us.

That's a pretty big reason why I'm not a fan of putting all your eggs in one basket, which is exactly how it's been for years now. I certainly like your thinking, Rx, but we'd be relying on a lot of things going right, which is how we ended up in 2007 too.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

I know my argument is kind of simplistic, but sometimes the answer is the obvious one. The solution to only having one legitimate power threat in your lineup is not to go out the next year and have none, it's to replace the power you've lost and then some. Replacing Barry with ARod is a start. I'm sorry, Barry fans, but right now ARod is simply a better player than Barry Bonds. Barring an unforseen injury, he's going to be out there for 4-5 atbats in at least 155 games. Yes, it's going to be a problem having guys like Molina and Durham hitting behind him, but how about all those day games after night games last year, when Molina and Durham were actually counted on to be our power source?? Barry hurt us by sitting out, by his diminished speed, and his diminished defense. ARod helps us in every way. And like I said, you get lucky with a couple of kids, and get bounceback years from a couple of veterans, and who knows what might happen. The key word is like I said, hope. ARod gives us a little, and a little is better than none at all. Didn't sixty percent of the fans on this board pick us to win the NL West last year?? And I was one of them!! How wrong were we?? It's not that we don't know sports, it's that we're hopeful and optimistic. If you had a poll right now, I bet nobody picks us to win next year. There's basically no hope right now. ARod might increase that number to 20-30%. Why can't we have a cause of optimism??

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

I'm a huge Bonds fan. No getting around it. But I'm a bigger Giants fan, and kind of realistic about things. Absolutely, ARod's a better player than Bonds now, but at the end of his 8-10 year deal, will ARod really be worth 30mil a year? Remember, Bonds' career after 38 is the exception, not the rule. I can't say ARod WON'T put up Bondsian numbers late in his 30s/early 40s, but it's not that LIKELY either. The ARod dilemma isn't do you add him or not, it's do you pay him for 8 years at a salary that's ridiculously too high or not, at a time when most player's numbers go into a steady decline.

I'd be intrigued by ARod as a Giant, but I don't hold a lot of faith that he's going to be the answer to the Giants being respectable again, at least not in the long term. If you want a short term fix, look elsewhere. Me personally, I don't relish the idea of paying 30 million to a 38-40 year old. That's the definition of un-moveable contract.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

When you sign a superstar,

or any player for that matter, to a big contract, you expect him NOT to be worth what you're paying him at the end of the big contract. You DON'T expect him to worth what you're paying at the end of the contract.

So why sign him to that contract then? Firstly, it's a matter of runs and wins. If the player can give you enough runs and wins to get you into the playoffs yearly for the majority of the contract, you get to increase revenues tremendously.

Furthermore, and this is why it is generally considered better to overpay for superstars like Bonds, Arod, Beltran, Tejada, instead of players like Zito or Carlos Lee, there is the matter of scarcity. Guys like ARod or Bonds don't grow on trees. Regardless of how much money you have to spend, you usually can't find guys like that.

Additionally, a declining superstar is generally still a pretty good player. He might be no longer worth what he is getting, but he's still most likely above average at least. A declining average player, often ends up as barely above replacement level, ie worthless.

Also, superstars unlike league average players, are much more easily marketable.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you're saying

ignore the future for the benefit of today? I feel like I've seen this strategy played out... But where? I think I've seen it happen, though in a much luckier way...

Now I'm not Nostradamus, but I think I can tell you how this all plays out if we sign Alex Rodriguez:

With two players taking up approximately $50mil of a 90mil payroll, we must now pay less for other positions. Not a bad thing if we can develop talent through our minor leagues, but our minors haven't exactly been producing major league caliber talent, so we're in a sticky situation. But more than that, we have the best player in baseball, right around the peak of his career, and dammit... We need to win now! This is our best chance to make the World Series. So screw Fred/Rajai/Nate/Ort/any trades for up and coming talent, because they don't know how to win at the major league level yet, and we must capitalize on having ARod. Instead, our infield consists of Rich/Ray/Omar/ARod, and our outfield is Randy/Dave Roberts/free agent 3rd tier talent who has veteran savvy. Sound about like the status quo?

I'm hopeful that I'm wrong, I'd really like to be wrong. In fact, I demand to be wrong! But 30mil a year??? Seriously, I can't shake the notion that it's crazy talk, and I just can't jump onboard with the idea of paying one guy a third of your payroll this late in his career. Now if it was a 5 year deal even, I'd probably be onboard. But 8 years and a third of your payroll just strikes me as absolute crazy. Not for a player in his 30s, and not when the contract will expire when he's 40.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am NOT saying that

I am saying that the increased revenues that you earn in the next few years will cover the overpaying of the player in the last year or so. Many teams do this. They sign what appears to be an "inefficient" contract. The last year is usually considered a "dump" year.

Would you have preferred that Sabean signed Vlad / Tejada instead of all that crap he signed? His mistake wasn't trying to win now. His mistake wasn't trying to build around Bonds. His mistake was passing on superstars for mediocre crap, who ended barely above replacement level once they started declining. His mistake was passing on guys like Vlad, Tejada, ARod.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I am NOT saying that

Vlad was in his 20s when he signed his deal, and that was for what, 5 years? I'm down with that contract, because he's in his mid-30s at the latest when his deal expires. That's a VERY good deal! The Vlad-ARod comparison is kind of like apples to oranges, because ARod's about to hit his mid 30s already. Vlad's currently 31.

With ARod, how many years can we expect him to perform at superstar levels before his numbers start declining? What age do we typically see a decline? 35? 36? Do we expect him to not suffer a decline of any major note until he's maybe 38 to 40? Because if you're going to tie up a third of the payroll in one guy, you need to make sure that he's going to be a major cog in your machine for more than half of that deal. Wouldn't you? Like I said, though, if he were to sign a deal for five years, I'd be on that like white on rice. If we can expect him to continue putting up monster numbers until at LEAST 38, let's make a deal! But I guess for me, I'm not going to be swayed unless we expect him to be a killer for four years and at least remain a veritable stud for the next three. Can we really expect that?

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ARod is 31

Not exactly mid 30s.

In 2006, ARod was worth about 30 runs above average offensively, 3 wins. Assuming that ARod's defense is about average, that is 3 wins in totality. Using Tango's salary chart, that is worth about $20M a year in the current market. So if he peforms like in 2006 for the next 10 years, he would be worth about $200M, at current market rates, without taking into account inflation.

In 2007, Arod was worth abouvt 70 runs above average offensively, 7 wins. Again assuming average defense, that is 7 wins in totality. In the current market, $36M per yeaer. If he manages to sustain that for 10 years, at current market rates, without inflation, $360M.

I am NOT saying that I expect ARod to perform at either of these levels. Just estimating his market worth based on his career year in 2007, and one of his worst years, in 2006.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ARod is 32

ARod is 32 currently, turns 33 in July. Born in 1975. I was born in June '76, and am 31, ergo ARod is 32 (Plus, ESPN.com shows his age on the site as 32. I didn't even need to take off my shoes to do the math, I just saw it on the page). I'd say 33 is entering mid 30s. Again, when would we expect a decline in performance?

But your last line is the tell. You're not expecting ARod to perform at that level, that's just what he's worth as of today. If he plays at the same level until age 40, as one amazing player once did, then you've got a steal of a deal. But again, Bonds was the exception to the rule. So the question remains, how long would one expect his value to hold out before a serious decline happens? I'd imagine longer than most because he is a superduperstar, but I think we're all being blinded by how Barry's career ended. So the question remains what kind of numbers would we expect ARod to have over what would essentially be the end of his career?

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My last line is NOT the tell

I'm not a GM. I don't have access to ARod's training and medical records. I can't talk to ARod to see whether he is the kind of player who takes care of himself, like Bonds, or he is the kind of player who relies on talent, and doesn't like working out, like Griffey Junior. I can't ask coaches, managers, about ARod's work ethic.

What I'm saying is that in one of his worst years, in 2006, ARod was worth $20M a year. In 2007, one of his best seasons, he was worth $36M a year.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: My last line is NOT the tell

I'm just going to speculate here, because I too don't have access to scouting reports, the braintrust in the Yankee front office, or training records. So I'm going to speculate here that by the time ARod is 38, he'll probably be playing worse baseball than his worst season, 2006. I'd think that we're looking at three years of decreased performance where he's not earning his keep and Giants fans start bitching about how he needs to be moved or traded. Again, merely speculation.

Remember, Bonds' late career performance is the exception, not the rule.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 30, 2007 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: My last line is NOT the tell

Players with the careers (to date) of A-rod are the exceptions, not the rules. Maybe he won't "Bonds out" at age 37, but he might "Aaron up" and level off until age 40.

Or he might "Babe it out" and be gone at... uh never mind. The Babe at age 39: .288/.448/.537.

by zenbitz on Oct 30, 2007 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: My last line is NOT the tell

I just wanted to see how skinny this reply could get :-)

Will it actually disappear ?

My adopted son Matt Downs. My boy used to be a pitcher. Who knew he could hit and play defense ?

by nvsfg on Oct 30, 2007 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: My last line is NOT the tell

We can only hope, nvsfg. We can only hope.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 30, 2007 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: When you sign a superstar,

One other thing... A younger player, entering his prime years, you CAN expect them to play up to the value of their contract, I'd think. But to sign anyone, let alone a superstar, to an 8-10 year deal at that kind of ridiculous money when that player is already in his mid-30s strikes me as a step in the wrong direction. A short term fix can be found elsewhere, but I don't think you should sacrifice the future just because he's CURRENTLY the best player in the game.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, and how many young players

that can play up to the value of their contracts hit FA?

Any FA you sign is likely to be around 28-30 at the least. Assuming that he is a star, he is going to command more than a 2-3 year deal. You are going to end up paying for part of the player's decline phase regardless. This doesn't apply to stars too. It applies to league average players even. Even league average players can command deals that extend into the years when you expect to decline: Jeff Suppan, Eric Byrnes, Jermaine Dye.

You're better off (over)paying for the star, instead of mediocrities like Roberts, Winn, Aurilia et al.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

The goal is not to get "picked to win," the goal is to win. Replacing Bonds & Feliz with ARod & Freddie Lewis or whoever gives us an extra two, possibly three games in the standings. It's a drop in the suckitude bucket. In the long run, optimism that gets dashed isn't going to help at all.

by Evan on Oct 29, 2007 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

Well, it would be great to find that guy who will make up 20 games in the standings.

Or find 10 free guys who all make up 2 games, but I don't otherwise see how they are going to get better...

If Zito prevents us from signing A-rod, it will be the worst contract in history followed by the worst non-contract in history.

by zenbitz on Oct 29, 2007 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

I think whatever deal ARod ultimately signs is going to be a bad one (for the team) on its own merits. But yeah, the Zito contract doesn't have anything to do with any prospective ARod contract, and I'm not sure why people seem incapable of thinking about them separately.

by Evan on Oct 29, 2007 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello AROD, bye bye future.

I'm going to make a guess. The fans that insist on signing AROD to a 250-300 million dollar contract are the same ones that will scream the loudest when the Giants can't resign Timmy and Cain or offer arbitration to Angel. Or sign international players. Or draft easily signable players in the draft.

If Arod gets this kind of contract 1/4 to 1/3 of all Giants payroll for the next TEN YEARS would be paid to a player in the waning years of his career.

And since the Giants will continue to suck with or without AROD, they'll have to pay his enormous salary from a declining revenue base. Why? Because some people have no interest in facing the reality of building a winning baseball team.

This is such a monumentally bad idea that it boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent baseball fans could push for it. SIGNING AROD FOR CURRENT MARKET VALUE IS SUICIDE!

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Oct 29, 2007 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hello AROD, bye bye future.

I agree with this argument, but I still want him in Orange and Black. I don't know why. Maybe because I'm a fan of baseball, and not a manager. I just want to see the best players on my team. I realize that A-Rod is a cancer to any team's payroll, including the Yankees. Basically, he's so money-hungry and selfish that he'll never win a championship. A franchise can't put a team around this guy because they couldn't afford it. Still... it's be nice to see him hit that huge mitt one day.

If Brad Hennesy had Steve Kline's attitude you'd get Rob Nen... without the triple digit heat.

by milesntrane on Oct 29, 2007 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hello AROD, bye bye future.

yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. And by the time Cain and Tim hit their free agent years, the Zito contract will be pretty much gone. Not only that, but who knows what the Giants' total payroll will be like in eight years. I seriously doubt it will still be 90 million or so the way baseball salaries are escalating. Still, although I understand the argument for not signing him, you really can't assume that Tim, Matt or anyone in the farm system is ever going to be worth letting ARod go elsewhere.

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hello AROD, bye bye future.

Cain can become free agent after 2011 season.
Lincecum can become free agent after 2012 season.
Zito is a SF Giant until at minimum 2013 and possibly 2014 if he exercises his player option.

by wilriv21 on Oct 29, 2007 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

The last time we had two legitimate power hitters , we...we...we went to the World Series.

Whoo , no more of THAT shit.

Rockies juggernaut rolls on , leaving in its wake dead snakes and cigars...and runs into The Green Monster.

by victor frankenstein on Oct 29, 2007 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

Vic Frank! My Hero!

Er... or is that my anti-hero?

Whatever it is, he's me that!

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

The Giants' best hitting in recent years came in 2000, when they had a fearsome trio of Bonds, Kent and Burks accompanied by a decent JT Snow. They managed 925 runs that season -- or about 250 more than in 2007.

by sharksrog on Oct 29, 2007 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

Oh come on, don't be so hard on 2007. That's only 30%.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

Yes, it's POSSIBLE. But it's like "Dare to dream" , "Rudi" possible. Not like, hey, it's possible the Niners might win another game this year, possible.

I want Arod. All you records are belong to us!

by zenbitz on Oct 29, 2007 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

Actually about your numbers evening out over the course of enough post-season PAs, that's not true.

In theory, both pitchers and hitters should collectively suffer statistically bcause the playoffs basically concentrate talent. Pitchers rarely face a lame duck lineup in the playoffs, whereas in the regular season they probably face at least a third of their games against lame ducks, and batters will never face a bad pitcher in the playoffs, whereas in the regular season close to half their games will be against back of the rotation level talent.

And it is possible for good pitchers and good hitters to both has statistical declines and to not have it somehow even out. The easy way for me to say it is if a pitcher had a .218 BAA in the regular season and a hitter hit .310 in the regular season, the pitcher facing this quality throughout the playoffs could hold it to .250 or so and neither one of the two are statistically benefitting.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Arod in the postseason has hit

279-361-483, OPS 844.

Captain Clutch: 309-377-469, OPS 846.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Arod in the postseason has hit

Wow, I stand corrected! Also a tip of the hat to howtheyscored.

I'd actually heard that Cap'n Clutch had been batting about .270 or so as of a couple years ago. I know I'm not remembering accurately, though.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

If the Giants lose 100 games next year (which is a genuine possibility) because they can't score more than 600 runs, ticket prices could drop and they wouldn't get over 25,000 a game.

by Bitter Fan on Oct 29, 2007 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

of course. The Yankees have the highest ticket prices in baseball and they had 4.2 million fans attend games this year. You have to spend money to make money.

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod

You really need to read a little baseball economics before you make statements like this. A good place to start would be the Economist, which has penned several articles explaining the attendence dynamic of the smaller stadium. The Giants could suck like an Oreck 8 pound upright and they would still sell 2.5 million tickets.

non illigitimi carborundum, excessum Sabeanus.

by Moderation on Oct 29, 2007 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, only crazy rich people can afford Yankees

season tickets?

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod.

It'd be one thing if A-Rod was young or even in his prime. But the guy will be 33 next season and an 8 year contract would end when he was 40. Most likely we're looking at his last monster season and he returns to form next year at and be worth about 8 wins over a replacement.

And unless he has some kind of rare Bonds-esque burst his production will tail off until he's worth what Pedro Feliz is by the end of his contract. And for this we will have to sign him to a contract equal to the cost of building a new stadium!

Now it's not my money. But it is my team. A bad contract could cripple the team for the next ten years. I really don't want to wait another ten years before the Giants are back in the playoffs. Signing Arod to a 300 mil + contract will likely make that happen.

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Oct 29, 2007 8:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

CNBC

Currently at work, look up to see CNBC talking about the suitors for A-Rod as they see it. In this particular order:

Red Sox
Giants
Dodgers
Angels
Cubs

I want the Giants to sign A-Rod. That will put pressure on this team to win. It would force their hand to spend the sacajaweas

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."!

by GameSix on Oct 29, 2007 9:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: CNBC

here in New York, the talk show "experts" are saying the Giants and Dodgers. I think the only way ARod signs with the Giants is if he's looking to escape the glare of the big market, or if the Giants are the highest bidders and he only cares about the money. He certainly hated all the attention here in New York. All the other teams expected to pursue him are big market teams with high expectations. He would get booed in places like Chicago, Boston and LA if he doesn't do well, or if the team doesn't win, and in SF he will always be treated like a king. The media probably wouldn't turn on him because he never has a bad word to say about anybody, even if he comes across as a phony.

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

Would Bonds be more or less inclined to sign a really cheap deal with the Giants if they signed A-Rod? On the one hand, he would finally have another big bat next to him in the lineup, and on the other, he would not like to take a paycut and be outshined by A-Rod.

by wade blasingame on Oct 29, 2007 11:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .

Oh, sorry. Posted mine before I read yours. At least great minds think alike.

If Brad Hennesy had Steve Kline's attitude you'd get Rob Nen... without the triple digit heat.

by milesntrane on Oct 29, 2007 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pipe Dreams

Here's an A-Rod thought... If the Giants miraculously sign A-Rod, will Bonds sign with the Giants for next-to-nothing just to play with his buddy and play one or two more years on his favorite team?

If Brad Hennesy had Steve Kline's attitude you'd get Rob Nen... without the triple digit heat.

by milesntrane on Oct 29, 2007 1:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pipe Dreams

In order for the Giants to have much of any serious chance of contending, they would need to both sign Alex AND re-sign Barry (and hope that both have healthy and good years, more of a concern with Barry, obviously, than with Alex).

If the Giants sign only Alex, why wouldn't teams just pitch around him as they did with Barry? Bengie Molina has been a very good clutch hitter over his career (at least with RISP), but would he actually frighten anyone into pitching to Barry?

Maybe Ray Durham can have another career power year as he did in 2006, but do you really want to pin your Giants hopes on that (and a handful of other good things that would need to accompany it)?

Alex Rodriguez could probably make sense, since without someone like him, the Giants have almost no chance to contend and will likely lose a lot of fans. Alex could draw. But why would he want to come to SF unless they get some bats (such as Barry's) to protect him? And why would Giants' fans actually want to come out to watch Alex play if the Giants don't win many games?

If the Giants were to sign Alex, they would likely build the same home run record drama all over again. But by the time Alex approaches the home run record, I pray the Giants will actually be good again anyway.

by sharksrog on Oct 29, 2007 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

Whoa. . . . I didn't think about that, imagine Barry protecting A-Rod, I get just giddy thinking about it, I mean, I'm on the fence about the whole a-rod thing, without protection in the line-up, it would be Barry 2.0, i.e., a four finger salute all the bleeping time, but imagine Barry protecting A-rod? This would be phenomenal, no? Say A-rod for 30, Barry for 7, I would not leave my seat, or even if it were a-rod protecting barry, can you imagine how many pitches Barry would see to hit? Or what kind of RBI totals A-rod would have with a guy with that OBP ahead of him? I know this is all crazy talk, but in my little fantasy world, I like. . .

Now excuse me while I go run with the ponies. . .

For WilltheThrill, this is Jon Miller saying goodnight. . . .

by WilltheThrill on Oct 29, 2007 3:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Forget ARod signing with SF

If you listen to agent Boras there is no way ARod signs with SF. Boras says ARod will sign with a winning team. And this stuff about "it is not my money" is absurd. There is no Willem Dafoe printing money in a warehouse. But there is a Barry Zito. And there is a budget.

The Detroit Tigers struck fast today as they want to regain the AL pennant. Time for Sabean to return to work.

by wilriv21 on Oct 29, 2007 4:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Forget ARod signing with SF

Let me get this straight. You're actually believing something that Scott Boras is saying?? Did you believe him yesterday when he said that ARod is leaving the Yankees because he doesn't know the future direction of the franchise because of the free agency of Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada?? Does he not know the Yankees are planning on fielding a contending team?? Do you really expect him to say his client is going to the highest bidder?? Scott Boras clients ALWAYS go to the highest bidder unless the client specifically tells him he wants to go elsewhere. If the Giants are the highest bidder ARod will sign with them, and Scott Boras will come up with twenty bogus reasons why the Giants are a contender.

BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ARod will sign for the money

But it will be to play SS for the Chicago Cubs and not 3B for the SF Giants.

by wilriv21 on Oct 29, 2007 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What SF should do

Is keep tabs of teams negogiating with ARod and see if they can take advantage of the situation. Let's say Dodgers sign ARod then Sabean should deal for LaRoche. If Cubbies sign ARod for 3b then maybe ARam waives NTC to SF? Or if Cubbies want him at SS then maybe Cedeno can play for SF? If Angels back up the truck for ARod then BWood could be a Giant?

by wilriv21 on Oct 29, 2007 8:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: What SF should do

Wil,

If the Dodgers sign Torre and Mattingly, as is rumored, does an ARod contract look like a more significant possibility ?

ARamirez has $76M left (Cot's) but could void the contract after the 2010 season and become an FA, taking $31M off the contract. Would you take that chance ?

LaRoche in a heartbeat. Cedeno, would fill a serious need for the Giants. A little light on the bat, but I'd still be interested. Brandon Wood, Oh Yeah.

My adopted son Matt Downs. My boy used to be a pitcher. Who knew he could hit and play defense ?

by nvsfg on Oct 30, 2007 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: What SF should do

ARod to Dodgers? If they ante up, Yes. If ARam was to waive his NTC then he would probably want an extension as part of any trade. I'm sure there are other teams willing to negotiate with ARod so similar deals might be available and Sabean should be prepared to act.

by wilriv21 on Oct 30, 2007 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: What SF should do

From what I have heard, Mattingly was in LA yesterday. Torre and Mattingly to the Dodgers seems to be a done deal.

by sharksrog on Oct 30, 2007 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: What SF should do

Can Mattingly still play first? I think we should get in on the bidding.

by zenbitz on Oct 30, 2007 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: A-rod opting out

I think A-rod would make a great fit here. His 40+ homers a year and 100+ RBI's couldve won us a lot of the games we lost last year because we had ass hats like durham and feliz trying to support the team (or sink it, I'm not sure anymore) But if he came here it would immediately put us back in contention. His presence in the lineup would make it mediocre at the very least, which would be fine because of our great pitching staff. We could easily afford him because of all the money we're saving from shedding Bonds and Morris, who together costed 34 million per year. But just think how awesome it would be to have had the past 2 alltime home run leaders in Giants uniforms... I say we get him

by boonitez on Oct 29, 2007 8:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: A-rod opting out

Contention? C'mon folks. I know it's exciting getting a big name player, but it still leaves us with exactly 1 power hitter on the team. Hell, it really gives one good hitter period. We've had that the past two seasons it got us nowhere. Any other upgrades will come at the cost of good young pitching and leave us overpaying for even more mediocre players to compensate. Don't even get me started on the horrors of Sabean shopping for bats on the free agent market. Disaster waiting to happen.

Adopted Giant: Randy Winn. Can't wait for Zito to start Opening Day '08 so I can get a leg up on my drinking.

by Punch Rockgroin on Oct 29, 2007 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: A-rod opting out

He may just be one but he is a start. Since it would take an 8+ year contract to sign him we will have plenty of time to develope the others needed.

by giantsrainman on Oct 29, 2007 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

You never know about the draw of San Francisco. We all know that A-Rod has a penchant for manly looking women... maybe that extends to feminine looking men. God knows there are plenty of both in San Francisco (kidding...).

On a more serious topic, to those people seeking to sign Bonds to a "small" contract if A-Rod is signed, isn't there a rule that limits the hometown discount a player can give. I was under the impression that a player in an expiring contract could not resign any contract that has more than ~10% discount from the previous contract value. In other words, it's my understanding that Bonds under the collective bargaining agreement, could be signed by the Giants for no less than ~14M dollars (assuming 15.8M dollar contract for 2007).

by ih8dodgers on Oct 29, 2007 10:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n

The limit on how small a contract the Giants could sign a returning free agent like Barry for in 2008 is the major league minimum of $400k.

The limit you are thinking about is the limit an arbitration can approve (no more then 20% decrease in salary) if the Giants were to offer Barry arbitration (ain't happening) and he were to accept.

by giantsrainman on Oct 29, 2007 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs