Sophie's Choice

Lincecum, as a freak of nature, is far more marketable, and even with Encarnacion, Bruce, Votto, and zombie Mel Ott, this team isn't going to win anything except maybe bingo (zombie Mel Ott loves bingo).  If you want to sell this team, you sell it on the Enchanter.

That's me being a cynical douche.  This is me trying to win ballgames...

You clearly, obviously trade Lincecum.  Cain's built like a workhorse, he's got a classic pitcher's build and a consistent pattern of improvement.  Lincecum is built like your 12 y/o sister.  He's filthy, and there's that tantalizing BA comment of him being a "once-in-a-generation talent," but still--TINSTAAPP.  TINSTAAPP.  TINSTAAPP.  (apply directly to the forehead)

Durham can switch hit, is that close enough?

wha?

My opinion on the question: Keep 'em both. I realize that you'd get more value in return at positions that we need, but it makes me genuinely sad to think of either pitcher on another team. I'd be very, very critical of the guys we got in return (as would most of Giants Nation), and it just wouldn't be as fun to me. Just my honest opinion. That, and I think if we could manage to get to the playoffs with a below average to average offense (assuming that could happen, don't ask me how), we'd be in a fantastic situation because of our pitching staff (Zito, Oakland's "ace" last time they made the playoffs, would be our #3 guy!)

What happens with Eric Bedard in the next couple of months is an interesting test case here. The Orioles would desperately like to keep him and build around him as one of the new premier pitchers in the league. But Bedard has so far rebuffed every extension offer. He see the Orioles past history and disfunctional nature, and quite rightly, I imagine, is thinking why yolk myself to this train wreck when I can go out and get paid fabulously to perhaps play somewhere where games are fun and meaningful. The Orioles have gathered that their only chance of keeping him is to substantially overpay the market -- but in the current climate that's virtually impossible. Who's to say what the market will be in two years at it's current rate of expansion. And of course, they'd be helping to set it by whatever offer they make to Bedard, thus undoing the "overpayment".

So, they figure, if we're forced to trade him then we should trade him this winter when he's two years away from FA rather than wait a year. Teams might be willing to pay substantially more for two years of Bedard then they would for one year.

How does this apply to the Giants? Alot of folks here seem ot think there's virtually no hope of competing in '08 or '09. At that point we're four years into Matt's six year clock, he's never played on a .500 team, he thinks about all the W's the Giants have cost him (and the hit his HOF/Cy Young/All Star chances have taken as a result) and he's eyeing the market and rebuffing Giant's offers. And we find ourselves suddenly half way into a rebuilding effort that's being threatened with the loss of possibly it's key player and have to deal with the looming question of do we have to move him? when do we move him? what can we get for him?

Yuck. But at the same point of time, Timmy's still ours to control for 4 years, during which time (hopefully) we can regain competitiveness thus making it more palatable to him to reup and stay for the long haul.

To sum up, keep the years, hope for the health and productivity.

 If asking me which of the Terrible Two I value more and would  make sure to grab as an earth quake & fire consumes the house?  One of the two reminds me heavily of a young Tommy Terrific. He did not grow up in Washington state. Need I say more?

Do nothing. Result? We suck, but at least we have pitching.

If you wait long enough in this league, there's always a stupid GM willing to make a desperation deal. Unfortunately, his name is too often "Brian Sabean," but still. I have seen nothing worth trading any of our something for.

Joey Votto was also on the team, and he could be the last impact player to develop out of that 2002 draft class.

Edwin Encarnation disappointed those with high expectations, but he's far from buried.

I'd trade Cain because I just like watching Timmeh better.

Luckily, no GM would actually offer that deal so we get to keep them both.  Which makes me happy.

If no Bailey, just the three players, that's still too much of a haul not to risk losing the competitive advantage we had with Cain/Lincecum and hoping that one of our prospects develop as hoped and become another ace.  Our offense should be good sometime in 2008 or 2009 with the three of them in the lineup, plus Roberts and Winn, Molina and Frandsen.

As for who to trade, Cain, as nicely as he has done, struggled with the same no-brainer problem the last two seasons:  use your fastball more and your off-speed less, and you'll be more successful.  That speaks to the bigger problem, he doesn't have sufficient command over his secondary pitches to be successful, he needs his fastball, do or die.  Plus his PQS was low 50's each season.

Lincecum on the other hand, had his bad patch and truly dominated after that.  His PQS was like 67%, only the best are up that high.  So you have to keep him, you shoot for the ceiling plus he has an additional year.  Also, Cain is signed to a contract that is economical whereas Lincecum isn't, so probably the Reds would want him anyway.

Hopefully this decision is moot because nobody is going to offer such a huge bounty for either Cain or Lincecum.  I would rather see what happens with Cain and Lincecum than trade one of them.

If you could pick eight position players from around the league and pay them minimum salary, but you had to give up either Cain or Lincecum, which one would you give up?

"Geez, I'm not sure about that trade. Sure, you'd have A-Rod, David Wright, Joe Mauer, Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Grady Sizemore, Matt Holliday, and Miguel Cabrera, but you'd give up a future ace. The more I think about it, the more I'm against it."

I just talked about Sabean the first time.

I'm a little slow apparently.

Or maybe it's because I really don't see a huge difference between the two and so see no point in trying to choose between the two.  

But if I was forced to choose, then I think would trade away Cain.  I really really really like Lincecum.  I only really really like Cain.

I suppose I could go either way, given that Lincecum has more time until free agency. But for now, I'm going with Cain.

Frankly, though I love Matt, he's the much easier one to live without.

Given the choice, i'd give up Cain, as Lincecum has the higher upside & 2 more years of control.

But, as the different answers have proved, there's not a huge amount between them & i'm glad we've got them both.

Written by the same guy who wrote Bull Durham and Tin Cup, anyway... so at least we might get Kevin Costner as, ummm, Barry Bonds... or something....

    RHP Matt Cain or Tim Lincecum, San Francisco. Giants need a young impact bat and to get that they are going to have to give up one of their     promising young arms. Cain would require a deal of a lifetime. Lincecum is a bit more available, but it's going to take a big-time bat, not a         journeyman.