Kawakami, part II
Apologies if somebody already posted this:
http://www.mercurynews.com/giantsheadlines/ci_7658658?nclick_check=1
Small excerpt:
" OK, it's still a gut-wrenching decision. No surprise, my earlier blog post supporting Lincecum-for-Rios has been roasted on at least one very good Giants fan Web site. That's fair, and some of the rips are excellent points."
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 |
32
comments
Comments
Re: Kawakami, part II
Sorry. :(
by jponry on Dec 10, 2007 12:45 PM PST 0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on
Dec 10, 2007 12:50 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by jponry on
Dec 10, 2007 12:58 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by Cookyman on
Dec 10, 2007 1:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by nostocksjustbonds on
Dec 10, 2007 1:11 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
The Tim situation is different. Lincecum is a budding superstar and Rios is good, but not great and a 4 years older than Linc. Rios will not likely be a superstar, or at least the likelihood of that is far less than that of Linc becoming a superstar. And Rios has had injury problems as well.
Once again, Kawakami completely ignores the main issue. Most Giants fans don't want Lincecum to be traded period, but a large handful would accept a trade if it netted the Giants a core nucleus of talented position players, as in, more than just one guy, in return. No one thinks that Rios would be a horrible addition to the Giants. He's a nice player, but Lincecum is a tremendous asset and is worth a shitload more than just Rios.
Kawakami wants Sabean to be daring. That's a horrible reason to make any baseball transaction. But one can be daring without being stupid and trading Lincecum for Rios only would be downright stupid and Sabean should be fired for even thinking it.
by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 10, 2007 1:04 PM PST 0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
by sharksrog on
Dec 10, 2007 1:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
The last of whom signed with the A's.
Hope that answers your question.
by multiphasic on
Dec 10, 2007 1:40 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
by jponry on
Dec 10, 2007 1:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
by nick on
Dec 10, 2007 2:00 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
At which point I'd love, love, LOVE to see the "Well, I knew it all along," posts like this one.
The buzz around AFW was deafening, and their upsides were considered to be far higher than Lowry's.
by multiphasic on
Dec 10, 2007 2:51 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
Tim and Matt have come up and excelled, with good peripherals, and have thrown just as hard as advertised.
Of course they could both bust, but I think they've already proven to be better prospects/major leaguers than AFW did.
by jponry on
Dec 10, 2007 2:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
I'm just saying that no one knew they would suck/break down until they did. Right up until that point they were, in our minds, future superstars, and a 1/2/3 power combo. The fan perception was the same.
I'm arguing against the hyperbole, not the quality. TINSTAAPP in the name of love, before you break my heart.
by multiphasic on
Dec 11, 2007 7:12 AM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
Lincecum is a whole lot different than Ainsworth, Foppert, Williams. He was the 10th pick overall, could have been 1st, won major college awards, and dominated in AAA.
Ainsworth had a history of injuries coming up so he was nowhere close. I can buy Foppert since BA rated highly, but that doesn't mean he was better, each year has different levels of competitiveness, though I don't recall who was considered up there with him that season. Still, he didn't dominate like Lincecum did nor was highly heralded coming out of college, nor was a Top 10 pick. Williams's sails had fallen limp by the time he got to AAA, his peripherals were horrible and his first season with us notwithstanding, he has shown nothing much.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on
Dec 10, 2007 3:13 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
by nostocksjustbonds on
Dec 10, 2007 2:10 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
It goes to show. "When has there ever been..." is a little, shall we say... preemptively spazzy. He'll be an amazing pitcher up until the point that he's not anymore, that I can guarantee.
by multiphasic on
Dec 10, 2007 2:44 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami is an idiot, part II
by allfrank on
Dec 10, 2007 4:13 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 10, 2007 1:10 PM PST 0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
I won't hold my breath that he'll prove himself NOT a fucktard... But I hope he does...
by JRPhillips on
Dec 10, 2007 2:21 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
And by all accounts he just disdains Giants fans and the feeling is mutual.
by nostocksjustbonds on
Dec 10, 2007 2:41 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by nostocksjustbonds on
Dec 10, 2007 2:43 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
But until I see him actually trade Lincecum for Rios, I'll remain skeptical that he actually intends to do this. Course, everytime word comes up that it's imminent, I'm going to die a little more inside... But I'm starting to blame the lunatic fringe who ran Benitez out of town for that.
by JRPhillips on
Dec 10, 2007 3:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by allfrank on
Dec 10, 2007 4:18 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
So, I'm willing to give credit where it is due, but if the team had made just as much effort to draft and develop young position players then things would be so messed up at the moment. A bit more balance would be nice.
by nostocksjustbonds on
Dec 10, 2007 4:41 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by nostocksjustbonds on
Dec 10, 2007 4:44 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by allfrank on
Dec 10, 2007 4:15 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by howtheyscored on Dec 10, 2007 3:35 PM PST 0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by sfgfan on
Dec 10, 2007 3:52 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 10, 2007 3:53 PM PST 0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by allfrank on Dec 10, 2007 4:21 PM PST 0 recs
Re: Kawakami, part II
by nostocksjustbonds on
Dec 10, 2007 4:34 PM PST
up
0 recs


















