McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

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  |  Comment 52 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
Anything that could possibly get me to root for the Marlins should not be done.
Aurilia sounds like a planet out of StarFox.

by Gabafnerhagen on Dec 1, 2007 6:41 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Things to consider.....
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
Seriously, if Sabes is hell bent on trading Lincecum+, do what smarter organizations do. Haul in prospects at multiple positions. That way you aren't banking on the success of a single player after mortgaging your franchise's future.

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.....
While I don't disagree with you, isn't your point #3 what Sabean has been doing all these years that we have been killing him for.  He went out instead of signing Vlad and signed 10 crappy free agents for the same cost as Vlad.  Now, I know trading Timmy Franchise is not the same as dolling out some cash, but the premise behind signing one guy who is an all-star super stud, or signing five mid-to-low tier free agents is.  I would love to have Cabrera, and if it costs Lincecum, while I probably wouldn't care too much for it at first, I think Cabrera would make me happy for a long time.
Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young and 11 Tim Lincecums.

by rod beck on Dec 1, 2007 7:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
I didn't mean free agents necessarily. I think Lincecum could fetch two Top 50 prospects and maybe a couple of projects like Carlos Quentin. Hell Matt Garza brought in Delmon Young! Plus, you get to keep the prospects that would have been included in the M-Cab trade. If good free agents come along, great. Otherwise there is a wealth of depth in the system.

by Nathan on Dec 1, 2007 7:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
I agree with all your points except #2. Given the dramatic increase in industry revenues from internet, cable, and satellite, I'm guessing the payroll has the capacity to rise to $150mil over the life of a Cabrera contract if the owners so desired.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Dec 1, 2007 8:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Looks like they can get to $120M ($99M salary + $20M income in 2007) without going to far in the red.

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
2) From Angels (not sure how realistic this one is)
  • SS, Brandon Wood
  • 2B, Howie Kendrick
3) From Dodgers (I'm convinced the Dodgers would find Lincecum or Cain more attractive than Santana because they are cost-controlled)
  • 3B LaRoche
  • RF Kemp
  • CF Pierre (salary relief for the Dodgers)
p.s: Might need to send Randy Winn to the Dodgers

by Nathan on Dec 2, 2007 12:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
I think the Arizona trade is realistic and a good fit. The Giants probably demand a little more since Arizona won't miss the OFs with Young, Upton and Byrnes manning the Arizona OF. Callaspo and Hudson can't both play 2B for Arizona either. Make this trade work and get Scott Rolen. Things wouldn't look half bad. The downside is that Arizona got a heck of a lot better since the 3 of the pieces in that trade are surplus talent, not players on their roster.

by Nathan on Dec 2, 2007 1:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
I won't be able to stand watching Lincecum in Dodger blue. And I really really really really don't want Pierre. The Arizona trade looks the best.
You deserve to be struck out when your first name's a verb

by Cookyman on Dec 2, 2007 6:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Why would you trade Lincecum to a division rival, that is getting better, and just needs pitching to push them over the top, all for fringe talent in Quentin, Jackson and the outfielder they don't like in Gonzalez?  These guys are all overvalued, they have done nothing in the big leagues and I would be pissed if they traded Lincecum for that, and you would too in the long run when Lincecum beats us five times a year, trust me.
Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young and 11 Tim Lincecums.

by rod beck on Dec 2, 2007 9:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
I wouldn't do that Arizona trade ever in a million years.

The Giants will never make a trade that big with the Dodgers.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 2, 2007 9:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Right, I'm assuming that revenues from MLBtv.com will continue to grow (it's only what 3 years old and already contributing about 3 bil a year)  and that a Cabrera extension contract would be for say 7 years. During the life of that contract I think we could move up to the 150 mil area with increase revenue growth in the industry.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Dec 2, 2007 9:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Right, I'm assuming that revenues from MLBtv.com will continue to grow (it's only what 3 years old and already contributing about 3 bil a year)

$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.....
Yeah, the Giants really need Juan Pierre.  :)

by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2007 2:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Think about it this way: Low OBP = More outs = Less PAs = Faster losses = Less drinking = Functioning liver. Juan Pierre might save your life.
You deserve to be struck out when your first name's a verb

by Cookyman on Dec 2, 2007 2:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Buying prospects isn't that uncommon. If taking on Pierre's heinous contract is what gets the Dodgers to include LaRoche AND Kemp in a trade, it could be worth. Pierre spot the batboy/batgirl when needed.

by Nathan on Dec 2, 2007 3:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Congrats Nathan, a much better reasoned argument than the simplistic, ignore the facts chowder provided in the article.

by allfrank on Dec 1, 2007 7:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
This is one of the better posts regarding this topic. Nice work.

by coreyml on Dec 1, 2007 9:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
  1. Without making moves the Giants will not contend. SF talent at ML level and upper level of MiLB is not good enough.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
Bottom line is that SF does not produce quality position players and must either sign or trade for them since there are none in their MiLB system in the foreseeable future. I would have no problem if the trade worked as well for the Giants and Marlins as it did for the Red Sox and Marlins Josh   Beckett + /Hanley Ramirez + trade.

by wilriv21 on Dec 1, 2007 10:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
The double whammy is hard to justify for the Giants - (a) giving up cost-controlled premium talent and (b) paying M-Cab's salary.

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:

  1. Oakland (they simultaneously rebuild and contend)
  2. Cleveland
  3. Minnesota (2001-2006 contender losing steam)
  4. Milwaukee
  5. Colorado
  6. Braves (kind of like Oakland, rebuild on the run)
Can you think ONE EXAMPLE where these teams gave up 2-3 cost-controlled high ceiling prospects to acquire an all-start type talent who cost more than $10M per year. Mind you, Miggy will cost twice as much. One example.  

by Nathan on Dec 1, 2007 10:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Aren't the Yankees and Red Sox both trying to acquire Santana? I am more concerned with the production of Cabrera than the salary because I think he has earned his millions.

by wilriv21 on Dec 1, 2007 11:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
You're not saying that Giants are a situation similar to the Red Sox and Yankees, are you?
  1. Both teams have a payroll capacity atleast 50% more than the Giants'.
  2. 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.....
Giants are in a similar position to the Pirates and are looking up to the Royals. The organizational surplus is pitching so most clubs dealing with SF will want some pitching.

by wilriv21 on Dec 1, 2007 11:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Right. They have a surplus in only ONE FACET. The Red Sox and Yankees have surplus and no pressing needs in other facets. The Giants need to augment a lot of other positions, not just 3B.

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.....
The Giants need to augment their 3/4/5 hitters in the batting order regardless of position. The only organizational bats that are close to being ready might be John Bowker and Nate Schierholtz. Are these high ceiling prospects? As much talk as there is for Big V I did not find his name on Top 50 Prospects List and he is at least 3 seasons away from contributing in any capacity at the ML level if he ever does.

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.....
I agree. Trade for multiple high ceiling Top 50 prospects instead of shipping away talent for just ONE ESTABLISHED #4 hitter.

by Nathan on Dec 2, 2007 12:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Things to consider.....
Thanks for linking www.milb.com's top 50 prospect list.  I hadn't seen it.

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
Hey, Bleacherman. I see what you did here and I don't like it. You made it look like you had new information about the Lincecum-Cabrera deal still being alive and you suckered us into going to your website to read your article. You then had nothing new and referenced some article from a week ago. Lincecum for Cabrera is dead and we've already talked it to death anyway. If you want us to go to your website and read your article, why don't you just ask instead of being a phony??
SIGN ANDRUW JONES!!

by rxmeister on Dec 1, 2007 7:32 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Not over until the Fat Lady sings
Lincecum for Cabrera is dead and we've already talked it to death anyway

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
you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area

by nick on Dec 1, 2007 7:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
I guess the Hot Stove pressure is starting to get under everyone's skin. Breath. . .
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 1, 2007 8:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
Good thing I only saw the title of the Diary, groaned, and then skimmed the comments to make sure we still thought it was BS, then.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 2, 2007 10:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
My point was that there was nothing new here, yet the guy called this thread "More" Lincecum for Cabrera talk, and then said "despite reports to the contrary, I don't think this deal is dead yet." When you go to the story it's the same old stuff from last week. When you went to read the story, didn't you think he had new information?? If you don't think that's being deceptive, by all means enjoy reading the same old stories over and over again. By the way, did you know that Sabean is looking for speed and defense this offseason?? Let me know if you want the link.
SIGN ANDRUW JONES!!

by rxmeister on Dec 1, 2007 8:36 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
what was your point again?
"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Dec 2, 2007 8:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
Anybody else notice how these two comments appear to have been reversed...?
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 2, 2007 10:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
This seems just like another article that's been rehashed. I don't see anything new hear and I don't see it happening.
Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Dec 1, 2007 8:52 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
The answer is no, just no. Timmy stays here with Cain. Trade whoever else you want Brian, but not these two. The Braves built their perennial pennant contending teams on pitching, pitching, and more pitching. That is exactly what the Giants should try to do, and Lincecum and Cain have the talent to take them to the same heights. Do I want Cabrera? Sure, but not at that price.

by Sayhey on Dec 1, 2007 8:54 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Braves built them on pitching and hitting
so did the Indians of the 90s, so have the Red Sox recently, so have everyone pretty much ever. You pretty much don't win without both.  

by awesomer on Dec 2, 2007 2:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
I still don't understand how essentially replacing Bonds in the lineup with Cabrera (and thus, probably improving it slightly over where it was last year) and downgrading from Lincecum to Misch/whoever in the rotation makes any sense at all.

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.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 1, 2007 9:03 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
An article that sums things up as "What the hell..." is making a good case?

I've heard better debate cases on a children's playground.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Dec 1, 2007 9:43 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
OH MY GEE

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.

Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Dec 2, 2007 3:13 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
i really need to learn to use the preview button.  that's arguments
Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Dec 2, 2007 3:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
I agree with the folks who say this is old news and is unlikely to happen.

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
I like your thinking generally here, Dr., but I think it would depend on who the prospects were (and how highly they were rated).

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
Bet on Tim as the one to KEEP, I should clarify.  :)

by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2007 2:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
I agree, when i see these endless Cabrera rumours, i find myself thinking that if we were trading Tim, it'd be better to get one of the packages offered for Cabrera rather than Cabrera itself.

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
Dear Bleacherman,

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
Honestly, I find it funny that the intention was read at "taking a slap at the team", as that was far from it.

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
I don't even know where to start on this topic....

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
What the Giants truly need is to acquire both Alex Rodriguez and Miguel Cabrera -- and probably one other good hitter, although the hitter wouldn't have to be THAT good -- without giving up anything.

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
What i find funny is we are talking about a young pitcher who has thrown a handful of games. And he is now untouchable. For Cabrera????? I would totally do it. Besides which look at the A's, you think they are bummin? They are gonna lose Haren now. But is that so bad? They seem to plug the next guy in. I mean, with the way we draft pitchers, couldnt we land Cabrera and just plug in the next guy??? Cain is your ACE. Zito Cain and pray for Rain!!! I hope we deal Tim for Cabrera. Then sign Andruw Jones. Let kids fill in the rest. And see who the next "stud" we slot in there. I mean, we drafted a couple of top notch pitchers this last year... My 2ยข.

by S49erfan on Dec 3, 2007 6:43 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: More Lincecum-for-Cabrera talk
Oh... don't get me started on the affect of beaneball and roster overturn on a fanbase.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 3, 2007 12:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about San Francisco Giants.
Start posting about the Giants »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Affeldt_small
McCovey Chronicles Christmas Cards
Dnw_small
MCC Recipe Swap & Food Talk Jamboree
Small
What I Would Do With the Roster

Recent FanPosts

Candlestick_small
What This Giants Fan is Thankful For
Ralphie_small
Rank Your Giants Prospects
Img_3997_small
Brett Pill tearing up Venezuela...Bowker apparently scared of the country and going home
Small
Lincecum's Ks - A Very Basic Question on Judgement of Pitching Savvy
Small
Could the Giants get any Compensation Picks?
Shadow_grad_small
We're interested in Uggla...
Lucy-liu_small
Giants add four to 40-man roster
Timmy_avatar_small
Expansion Teams / Relocation Discussion
Howtheyscoredcat_small
Lincecum Arbitration Results Prediction Thread!

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Overlord

174246766_ea2fd78204_small Grant

Minions

Fawlty_small WalrusMan

Dog2_small kenshin1

Lincecum_small Natto

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

Goofus_small Goofus

Det_7193_small jponry

Minor League Guru

Small steve S