More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
Despite reports to the contrary, I don't think this potential trade is dead yet. Sabean's comments to the press reeked of gamesmanship and had some barbs seemingly directed right to the Marlins' front office.
But the question remains: if Lincecum+ is the price, is it worth it?
This article makes a good case that it is:
http://www.bleacherreport.com/articles/4153
Thoughts?
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
0 recs |
52 comments
Comments
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by Gabafnerhagen on
Dec 1, 2007 6:41 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Things to consider.....
- The Giants are guaranteed to have Miguel Cabrera for 2 years. During those two years, the Giants can't be seriously expected to contend (especially after losing Lincecum).
- If the Giants re-sign Cabrera, he will cost at least $20M per year (what Ramirez commanded six years ago). More likely, the price tag will be $25M. Zito and Cabrera will hog $45M, or 40%-50% of the Giants' payroll capacity.
- There are soooooooooo many holes in the Giants lineup that it would be cheaper to get same production by improving the production at 8 positions by small increments.
- After trading Lincecum plus prospects, will there be anything left in the system? If the answer is no, then there are no more trading chips to improve the ML ball club and there are no good prospects ready to have an impact. So basically, its going to be M-Cab and a bunch of clowns.
The Dodgers, Mets and Arizona systems are blessed with multiple high ceiling position talent. Surely Lincecum could fetch 2 bule chippers and a project, thus spreading the risk around.
by Nathan on
Dec 1, 2007 6:51 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by rod beck on
Dec 1, 2007 7:04 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by Nathan on
Dec 1, 2007 7:18 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by Roger on
Dec 1, 2007 8:27 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
If Sabes is hell bent on moving Lincecum, try and get....
1) From Arizona -
- OF, Carlos Gonzalez
- OF, Carlos Quentin (assuming that shoulder is ok)
- 1B, Conor Jackson
- SS, Brandon Wood
- 2B, Howie Kendrick
- 3B LaRoche
- RF Kemp
- CF Pierre (salary relief for the Dodgers)
by Nathan on
Dec 2, 2007 12:49 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by Nathan on
Dec 2, 2007 1:00 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by Cookyman on
Dec 2, 2007 6:05 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by rod beck on
Dec 2, 2007 9:07 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
The Giants will never make a trade that big with the Dodgers.
by jponry on
Dec 2, 2007 9:20 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by Roger on
Dec 2, 2007 9:23 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
$3 Billion from MLB.tv? Dude? Major League Baseball as a collective unit grossed $6.075 Billion in 2007.
By all estimates, Giants are operating at their peak, at least in terms of gate receipts.
by Nathan on
Dec 2, 2007 2:08 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by sharksrog on
Dec 2, 2007 2:11 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by Cookyman on
Dec 2, 2007 2:32 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by Nathan on
Dec 2, 2007 3:10 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by allfrank on
Dec 1, 2007 7:20 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by coreyml on
Dec 1, 2007 9:24 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
- Without making moves the Giants will not contend. SF talent at ML level and upper level of MiLB is not good enough.
- Top performers should be paid top monies. Not many complained when Bonds was paid $19M last season. You get in trouble when you pay the bums money (see The Albatross).
- Yes there are many holes to fill so you use your resources (players, monies, transactions, scouting etc) to have a plan to assist to form a competitive team. You trade from strength to accomplish this task.
- Lincecum plus who? Most of the real talent is in the low minors and years away from contributing if they are going to contribute at all. He is not trading away all the talent.
by wilriv21 on
Dec 1, 2007 10:08 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
I think we can all agree that the Giants are in need of rebuilding. Here's a list of teams that successfully rebuilt their franchises with potential maintain an extended streak of success:
- Oakland (they simultaneously rebuild and contend)
- Cleveland
- Minnesota (2001-2006 contender losing steam)
- Milwaukee
- Colorado
- Braves (kind of like Oakland, rebuild on the run)
by Nathan on
Dec 1, 2007 10:58 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by wilriv21 on
Dec 1, 2007 11:06 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
- Both teams have a payroll capacity atleast 50% more than the Giants'.
- They are trading from positions of surplus, i.e they can give up prospects and still have a contender show up for spring training. The Giants aren't trading from anywhere close to a position of surplus.
by Nathan on
Dec 1, 2007 11:13 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by wilriv21 on
Dec 1, 2007 11:17 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
This could be argued ad nauseum. If you think trading a potential staff ace and a couple of top prospects for M-Cab is the Giants best move, fine. I haven't seen an example of single franchise in a situation similar to Giants manage to improve via such a trade.
by Nathan on
Dec 1, 2007 11:24 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
With the cupboard bare and no prospects Sabean should look to trades and other transactions to procure talent. Waiting for the current crop will likely prove futile.
by wilriv21 on
Dec 1, 2007 11:42 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
by Nathan on
Dec 2, 2007 12:02 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Things to consider.....
I see that Rick Porcello, the guy I wanted the Giants to draft, was ranked #14, while as you mentioned, none of the Giants prospects made the top 50 list.
I also see that the Dodgers have the #4 prospect (Clayton Kershaw, drafted three slots ahead of Tim Lincecum in the 2006 draft) and the #36 prospect (Scott Elbert) as potential future additions to their rotation. They were unable to sign Luke Hochevar, who is rated #40.
Hopefully the Giants will have three to five players on next year's list.
by sharksrog on
Dec 2, 2007 2:18 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by rxmeister on
Dec 1, 2007 7:32 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Not over until the Fat Lady sings
Sabean is not saying Lincecum is untouchable. What he did say recently is that he isn't willing to meet the outrageous demands of the Marlins and does not think anyone can at this moment. He sounds as he is ready and willing to enter negotiations once again with Florida once they stop asking for Willie, Mickey and the Duke.
by wilriv21 on
Dec 1, 2007 7:46 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
snap
by nick on
Dec 1, 2007 7:47 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by wcovington on
Dec 1, 2007 8:03 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by howtheyscored on
Dec 2, 2007 10:08 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by rxmeister on
Dec 1, 2007 8:36 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by The Gene Hackman on
Dec 2, 2007 8:19 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by howtheyscored on
Dec 2, 2007 10:09 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by NeifiChicken on
Dec 1, 2007 8:52 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by Sayhey on
Dec 1, 2007 8:54 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Braves built them on pitching and hitting
by awesomer on
Dec 2, 2007 2:49 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
You can say "Well, then we'd add Andruw Jones too!" but then we'd probably be paying 3 players $20 mil a year, which I really don't see happening (unless we traded for and then didn't extend Cabrera, which would be absolutely no).
I think this sort of deal would make sense if we still had Bonds or a Bonds-like bat already in the lineup. You're getting a clear upgrade over where you were last year by adding Cabrera. But in this case? No. I just don't like the idea at all.
by jponry on
Dec 1, 2007 9:03 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
I've heard better debate cases on a children's playground.
by BruteSentiment on
Dec 1, 2007 9:43 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
hokay, tim lincecum does not have future burnout written all over him. kerry wood had/has HORRID mechanics. They were just yucky. Tim's are immaculate, he's just small!
there have been hundreds of short pitchers who have succeeded. get over it goddamnit!
this is some idiot's input on an overhyped overplayed not-happening trade scenario that has been covered quite in-depth here the past couple of months.
If you want us to read your writing, take the Brute, Baron, Lefty or Xanathan route: Put it in your sig, make intellegent arguements, write well and we will respect you. Don't pull this trollish rubbish.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on
Dec 2, 2007 3:13 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on
Dec 2, 2007 3:14 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
I would be willing to trade Timmy if it netted at least 2 top 50 prospects plus another in the 50-100 range. We need the 3 for one trades bringing the 3 to us rather than the other way around.
by DrBGiantsfan on
Dec 2, 2007 7:50 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
If Tim were eligible for the prospect list, he would almost certainly rank in the top five and would possibly be #1. Now, I would be EXTREMELY interested in a trade headed up by Clayton Kershaw (ranked #4), but certainly NOT one headed up by Scott Elbert (ranked #36).
And I would still trade Matt Cain before I would trade Tim -- making an exception if the Giants were able to get, say, twice as much for Tim as for Matt. Matt is more proven, has a great build and is younger and more experienced. Tim induces far more swing-throughs, should have a better improvement curve than Matt and has improved his control far more than Matt (who admittedly began with the better control and still rates higher IMO).
In another 15 years or so we'll have a pretty good handle on whether Tim or Matt was the pitcher to trade if the Giants indeed DO trade one or the other. But if my life depended on it, I would bet on Tim.
by sharksrog on
Dec 2, 2007 2:26 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by sharksrog on
Dec 2, 2007 2:27 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
Trading for Cabrera makes perfect sense for a team in the Angels position, but makes little sense for a team in ours.
by GiantFan on
Dec 3, 2007 6:19 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
Since I live outside the U.S. I saw your submission in the wee hours of the morning before anyone else responded. With no intention of being a smart__s, my first reaction was to yawn, my second was to wonder what you were trying to write after the subject has not only been scrutinized rather thoroughly, but most of us are rather protective of the kid and the team he sweats for. We only have gotten to see him for a moment.
I don't fault you for wanting to discuss the subject further, however you could have approached it from a perspective that would have been a little more thought provoking, rather than the condescending and devious manner with directions to the article. We can't dictate what Sabean says to the media when they want to know how negotiations are going with the Marlins. I suspect his comments were more out of frustrations rather than to give a swift backhand to their management.
Then I let the regulars, who can be rather adroit, have their say and I came to the conclusion that it's possible your intention was mean spirited, that your ulterior motive was to take a slap at the team while they are struggling to right themselves. I hope I'm wrong and if I am, my apologies.
by Buzzword on
Dec 2, 2007 11:15 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
I live in San Francisco. My office window overlooks AT&T, and has a "Thanks Barry" sign hanging in it. I bleed orange and black. So no, I didn't want to take a slap at the team.
And I apologize for the misleading diary title hinting at "More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk" in which I discussed a potential Lincecum-for-Cabrera deal and linked to an article in which someone else discussed the same potential deal.
Did I bring any new information to light, save for my opinion and one other guy's opinion? No, unfortunately I do not have a direct line into Brian Sabean's brain. But for what it's worth, this thread did seem to inspire a decent amount of discussion, so I'd disagree with those who've said I'm digging up a story that's "dead".
This website is a vehicle for speculation, opinion, and analysis, no different from what was offered in this thread. If I violated some sacred rule by encouraging speculation while offering no new information, I apologize. I hope, though, that some people found this thread and the link interesting or at least thought provoking.
Bleacherman
by bleacherman on
Dec 2, 2007 2:13 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
It is hard to ignore the sad state this team is/was in with a 90m+ payroll. No team with this kind of payroll, should be going through a true re-building phase if the GM had any kind of foresight at all. Ideally, it would make all the sense in the world for Sabean to deal our best young pitching for top position prospects. Honestly, when has he ever done it or shown any ability to evaluate unproven talent in other organizations' farm systems? There was nothing stopping him from pulling off some small trades all along the way to balance out our farm system with some position prospects. Then we have the marketability of this team in light of the ever increasing ticket prices and marketing approach of names first, winning second.
Looking at my perceived reality of the whole situation vs. the ideal I know should happen, Sabean has painted himself into a corner and a top young slugger like Cabrera is what this club needs more than any other club chasing him. Brian wants to have his cake and eat it too...ignoring his past failures and thinking he doesn't have to pay the piper. Who knows? Maybe he'll surprise us all by pulling off some miraculous deals and we'll suddenly have a young, exciting and winning team that can draw the crowds. Here's to hoping...
by DaStick on
Dec 2, 2007 3:35 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
Then the Giants would be competitive.
by sharksrog on
Dec 2, 2007 10:59 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by S49erfan on
Dec 3, 2007 6:43 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
by howtheyscored on
Dec 3, 2007 12:39 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs

















