Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

by BigO on Dec 21, 2007 3:01 PM PST Comment 76 comments

Dunno who the minor-leaguer is to go with Volquez, but looks like we could have had Josh.
Does this mean that an Encarnacion deal is now unlikely?

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=3223

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 76 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Ok, so the minor-leaguer is him:
http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=4724

by BigO on Dec 21, 2007 2:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Hamilton shouldn't affect Encarnacion really. The Reds have a ong-term CF option in Bruce, hence why Hamilton was tradeable. If Encarnacion was ever n fact on the block, I don't think this would affect that

Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Dec 21, 2007 2:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Seems like the Rangers got Hamilton cheap. He's a longshot to play as well as he did last year, but not as much of a longshot as Volquez is to fulfill his potential.

I think the Encarnacion trade is going to hinge on whether the Reds decide he's an irredeemable jerk who can't play defense. Let's hope they do (and, uh, that they're wrong).

by Evan on Dec 21, 2007 3:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

I think it reinforces the idea that they would deal Encarnacion if anything. It shows that they really do want pitching badly enough to toss some position prospects. I think maybe this could make it possible for the Lowry or Sanchez deal to go down. I'm hoping Sabes is trying for this one, but he's too secretive to let people know what's actually going on, so we'll just have to wait and see. Good pickup for the Rangers though.

by boonitez on Dec 21, 2007 3:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Since Encar gets the hype, I wonder why the Reds don't trade him and go with Keppinger - who seems like he could be better. Encar is both a risk and a defensive liability. Man, those MLB 3bs are scarce.

by allfrank on Dec 21, 2007 3:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Somebody else said it better in another diary: Keppinger=Kevin Frandsen.

by rotorueter on Dec 21, 2007 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Do you really think third basemen are scarce? It seems to me that there are more good third basemen in the game, both up-and-coming and established, than there have been in a long time. Maybe ever.

by Evan on Dec 21, 2007 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Yeah, but they still seam scarce, especially as FAs.

I soooo wish we could have had a chance at Ramirez last year.

McCovey Chronicles was better when mine was the lowest IQ on the board.

by Goofus on Dec 21, 2007 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

It just seems that way in San Francisco, where David Bell was the best 3B we've had in 10 years

Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Dec 21, 2007 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Oh, my! It's hard to believe when you first read that, but, sadly, it's true. Ten years!

by RUSirius on Dec 21, 2007 4:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

there arent as many as you think. braun is likely to be moved to the outfield this offseason and cabrera seems destined to eat his way off the hot corner and into a dh role within the next couple years. that leaves wright, a-rod and a long dropoff to the next group of six or seven guys and another long dropoff to a bunch of unprovens and journeymen.

by sam23 on Dec 21, 2007 11:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Wright is a superstar at the age of 24. ARod is one of the very best players ever. Then there's Chipper Jones, who's probably in the all-time top five at the position by now. And Scott Rolen, who's been hurt a lot but was a true superstar when healthy.

Then there's a bunch of very good midcareer players: Glaus, Lowell, Ramirez, Chavez, Beltre, Atkins. And a big group of up-and-comers with star potential: Zimmerman, Encarnacion, Gordon, Longoria, LaRoche, Wood. It's really a pretty great group.

Or, to look at it another way, in 1980, when Schmidt and Brett both won MVPs, the OPS+ of all third basemen was 105. In 2007, it was 106.

by Evan on Dec 22, 2007 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

you mentioned a few great players (wright, arod, zimmerman) a lot of guys who havent proven anything at all(wood, gordon, longoria), some slightly above average journeymen and a whole lot of garbage (glaus, chavez, beltre 3 out of 4 years). i wouldnt call that great. its one of the weakest positions in the mlb today (how many teams are truly happy with their hot corner situation? 10-12 maybe?)

by sam23 on Dec 22, 2007 11:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The league's 3B hit 106 OPS+ this year

I don't know where Evan got that number from, but I'm guessing its higher than the following positions.

C
2B
SS
CF
maybe RF.

Its far from the weakest position in MLB today, its actually one of the strongest.

by awesomer on Dec 23, 2007 12:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The league's 3B hit 106 OPS+ this year

Here. I think you can find anything you want to know on bb-ref if you look hard enough, but lord that site is poorly organized.

Checking back every ten years ...

3b OPS+ in 2007: 106

So maybe I'm wrong. Not sure how you could really quantify this question. I guess this is what win shares were invented for, but everyone says win shares are crap.

by Evan on Dec 23, 2007 6:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The league's 3B hit 106 OPS+ this year

2007 EQAs
P 0.116
C 0.244
2B 0.259
SS 0.255
Oth 0.263
CF 0.263
3B 0.269
LF 0.269
RF 0.272
1B 0.279

Oth includes DHs and PHs so it's a little wacky. EQA of .260 is always defined as league average.

by zenbitz on Dec 23, 2007 8:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The league's 3B hit 106 OPS+ this year

Oh, and lest the pessimism quotient of this diary get too low:

Giants EQA, 2007, .247 - aka worse than a team of shortstops.

Bonds' EQA: .353 (led MLB)

by zenbitz on Dec 23, 2007 8:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One of the weakest?

Have you even looked at 2b, SS and catcher?

Chavez even with his injuries is NOT garbage.

Glaus is not garbage.

Beltre is most definitely NOT garbage, especially not in 3 out of 4 years. He had one bad year in the last 4 years. That is it. If you think that Beltre's 2004 season is the only season that qualifies as "not garbage", you have a gross misunderstanding of 3b, both today and historically.

3b is not LF. 3b IS NOT 1b. 3b IS NOT DH. 3b have historically hit worse than 1b. Defensively, the position is more difficult than 1b. Your expectations of what a 3b does is unrealistic.

Top 10 HOF 3b by OPS+:
Mike Schmidt 147
Harmon Killebrew 143
Eddie Matthews 143
George Brett 135
Frank Baker 135
Wade Boggs 130
Paul Molitor 122
Tony Perez 122
George Davis 121
Jimmy Collins 113

This pales in comparison to 1b or LF or RH. By those standards, Chavez, Glaus and Beltre are most certainly NOT garbage.

AROD is not simply "great". He is one of the best players EVER.

Also, a team full of above average "journeymen" is a playoff contender. Seriously.

How many teams are truly happy with their SS situation? How many teams are truly happy with their 2b situation? Catcher?

by rfloh on Dec 23, 2007 9:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: One of the weakest?

chavez is a glorified pedro with a much larger salary and history of injury

by sam23 on Dec 23, 2007 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously

Chavez career OPS+ is 117. Pedro 81. That is a 36 percent difference in park adjusted OPS.

Chavez even with his injuries is an average hitter. Even with his injuries he is a good defender.

That is not garbage, no matter how hard you squint.

by rfloh on Dec 23, 2007 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Seriously

would you want chavez on the giants?

by sam23 on Dec 23, 2007 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If he can be picked up

just for money, yes.

by rfloh on Dec 23, 2007 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: If he can be picked up

ill pass on a guy who tends to hit around .250 and misses at least half the year. ...call me crazy, but i consider that garbage.

by sam23 on Dec 25, 2007 12:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, because batting average

from a hitter in an extreme pitcher's park is the best value to evaluate a player.

by rfloh on Dec 25, 2007 5:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Yes, because batting average

call me crazy again, but the a's seem to have had one or two (dozen) very good hitters that have done fairly well in that park. chavez isnt one of them. and the fact that he cant stay healthy for 50 straight games makes him garbage in and of itself.

by sam23 on Dec 25, 2007 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So if a good / great

hitter does well in a park, ergo, it is not a pitcher's park?

by rfloh on Dec 25, 2007 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

are you serious?

thats not at all what i said. but you cant blame his struggles on the a's park as many good hitters have overcome it. are you going to blame his injuries on the park dimensions also? if sabes had signed chavez to the same contract beene did you'd be blasting him for it.

by sam23 on Dec 26, 2007 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No I wouldn't

You say here "you cant blame his struggles on the a's park as many good hitters have overcome it".

Sounds to me as if you're saying that just because some good hitters have hit well in a park, therefore the park is not a pitcher's park.

Yes, you CAN accept that his numbers are depressed by playing in Oakland, even if some good hitters have hit well there.

Just because some great pitchers have pitched well in Houston does NOT mean that Houston does not favour hitters.

Just because some good hitters have hit well in Shea Stadium does not mean that it is not a pitcher's park.

And so on.

As for the injuries, this is his 1st year since 2000, aged 22, that he has not reached 500 PAs.

But I guess that is me and my stats versus simple "logic".

by rfloh on Dec 26, 2007 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No I wouldn't

barry only fallen short of 500 plate appearances once in the last 20 years, and we all know he's been a picture of good health for the past 5 hasnt he?

by sam23 on Dec 26, 2007 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, Chipper Jones

is a HOFer to be. Definitely NOT a non "great" player.

ARam is a very good player.

by rfloh on Dec 23, 2007 9:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Also, Chipper Jones

its unfair to compare to c's, ss's, and cf's where a far greater premium is placed on d. i meant its a weak 3b class compared to past seasons.

by sam23 on Dec 23, 2007 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

Which past seasons are this? The past seasons where Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, David Ortiz were playing 3b?

Again, look at the list of top 10 HOF 3b I posted above. Note, those are all HOF players.

Compare those players with the 3b of today.

Again, 3b is NOT 1b. 3b is NOT LF. 3b is NOT DH. 3b is similar to CF.

You don't need to compare 3b with SS or 2b or C. Just look at the players who are playing at those positions.

Jason Kendall got $4.25M from the Brewers. Awful hitter, can't throw anyone out. Name a 3b who is comparable to Kendall who can get $4.5M. No, Pedro Feliz is NOT comparable to Kendall. Feliz is a great defender.

Look at the contracts that Kaz Matsui and Luis Castillo got to play 2b.

by rfloh on Dec 23, 2007 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Really?

jason kendall is known for handling pitching staffs well and being a steadying clubhouse influence; two of the most important jobs of being a catcher. kaz matsui and luis castillo have both been key contributors on world series teams. and youre saying 3b d is as important as cf? please, thats ridiculous. 3b isnt first or dh, but they should still be a middle of the order type hitter. there are some great 3b playing today, but the depth is seriously lacking.

by sam23 on Dec 23, 2007 9:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Again

please compare modern 3b with the list of HOFers I posted above.

Just because you say that the depth is lacking does NOT make it so.

In 1987 AL 3b hit 268-335-438, NL 3b hit 273-342-438. AL CF hit 271-341-423, NL CF hit 282-347-440

In 1997, AL 3b hit 264-326-418. NL 3b hit 275-350-438 . AL CF hit 269-343-418, NL CF hit 273-347-414.

In 2007, AL 3b hit 266-334-427. NL 3b 280-348-456. AL CF hit 272-340-414. NL CF hit 273-336-426.

Yes, it is ridiculous to say that 3b is like CF. Yes, I clearly have no idea what I am talking about.

The fact that you are justifying the Kendall, Matsui, Castillo contracts with off the field justifications shows the serious lack of talent at those positions.

But, you don't like the Kendall comp. Let's look at some other catchers who got new contracts.

Posada: $52.4M / 4, at age 35. Considered a bargain.

Pudge: coming off the worst full season of his career, age 35, $13M.

by rfloh on Dec 23, 2007 10:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Again

catcher salaries proves the worth of 3b how exactly?

by sam23 on Dec 25, 2007 12:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It proves that

there is a serious lack of talent at catcher.

The fact that a 35, going on 36 year old Pudge Rodriguez, coming off the worst year of his career offensively, and also a bad year defensively, he no longer is the thrower he was, can get a $13M contract proves that the position is depleted.

by rfloh on Dec 25, 2007 1:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Again

so you really dont think more of a premium is placed on cf d than 3b d? have you ever PLAYED or WATCHED baseball or do you spend all day in front of your computer studying stats?

by sam23 on Dec 25, 2007 1:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah yes,

the usual nose in spreadsheets argument.

Regardless, CF D may be more difficult than 3b. It doesn't change the fact that 3b hit like CF. And have done so historically, not just in recent times, when they are supposedly garbage.

by rfloh on Dec 25, 2007 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Ah yes,

the changing words around argument. i said more of a premium is placed on cf d. cf's by nature are also going to have more speed which itself improves their chances of getting on base, and also puts them in spots in the lineup where they are protected by the team's best hitters; again affecting their stats. we can analyze this forever with your stats and me countering with simple baseball logic, but anyone with eyes will tell you quality 3b arent exactly growing on trees these days. there are some great ones but they are few and far between. bottom line: the giants havent had one since matt williams and it doesnt look like they will have one again at least until villalona is ready.

by sam23 on Dec 26, 2007 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So, basically

there are not enough quality 3b, because you say so.

MLB scouts, coaches, managers, GMs, yes, people who watch the game, more than you, select 3b who hit like CF, and have done so historically.

As for your CF argument, if 3b are really better hitters, they will be put in positions where they are protected by the 1b / corner OF types. Thus, their stats are boosted too.

Your simple baseball "logic" amounts to you making sweeping assertions which you then cannot back with any evidence.

Bottom line: whether the Giants have had a quality 3b since Matt Williams has nothing to do with the quality of MLB 3b in general.

by rfloh on Dec 26, 2007 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no,

believe it or not i just dont want to spend hours analyzing third base stats and spining them just to "win" the argument with you, so if this is what you need to tear yourself away from your computer and rejoin the rest of society; you win. congratulations. but the giants still dont have any prospect of landing one of these abundant quality 3B this year or next.

by sam23 on Dec 26, 2007 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

So basically, we could have had Hamilton for Sanchez + someone?

Because if that is the case, IMO Hamilton will have a better season than Rowand for a fraction of the price.

by acmastrpiece on Dec 21, 2007 6:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Josh Hamilton is a severe risk because he is a long time drug abuser. The fact that Cincinnati was so willing to get rid of him tells you all you need to know. Did you know that his drug problems are so bad that he is not allowed to go anywhere by himself?? His family also doesn't allow him to carry any money in his pocket because they don't trust him for a second. He's more high maintenance than Bonds is, and the Giants are trying to get rid of problems like that, not take on more, especially ones with a fraction of Bonds' talent. On the field, although he's a pure hitter, he's also a platoon player who hit .222 with just 1 homerun in 2007 against lefthanded pitching. And why would the Giants need another lefthanded hitting young outfielder?? And I don't have to tell you how much playing in Cincinnati helped his numbers, although he should get the same help in Arlington. Comparing him to an all around player like Rowand is pretty silly when you really think about it. One is going to be one of the faces of his franchise, and the other is going to be one where you keep your fingers crossed.

Bring me a cleanup hitter please!!

by rxmeister on Dec 22, 2007 6:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Aaron Rowand, face of Giants Franchise

I think I'm gonna throw up now.

by awesomer on Dec 22, 2007 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Aaron Rowand, face of Giants Franchise

You prefer Barry Zito?? I was going to say at least he replaces the previous "face" which has been pretty much dragged through the mud and legal system lately. Then again, the only difference between a major league player busted for steroids and HGH and a major league player that hasn't been busted for steroids and HGH, is whether the provider has been caught or not.

Bring me a cleanup hitter please!!

by rxmeister on Dec 22, 2007 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Cincinnati was willing to move of him because they can't move Griffey or Dunn.

Can you actually find a credible news story that backs up these assertions about his family, etc...

About the platoon splits...

A lot of young lefthanded hitters enter the league with poor numbers against lefties. Look at the platoon splits for Grady Sizemore, Curtis Granderson and Travis Hafner in their first couple of years.
72 ABs is hardly enough of sample to tell whether Hamilton's 2007 numbers were due to a genuine platoon split anyway.
Big deal about the home/road numbers. 0.862 OPS on the road works for me. The more important thing is that he knows how to take a walk and he plays lights out D. His RZR in CF was much better than Rowand's last year.

And why would the Giants need another lefthanded hitting young outfielder??

Seriously? Who gives a flying fudge whether he bats L, R, S or with the bat between his legs? Given the state of the Giants offense, is this even a remotely relevant concern?

Comparing him to an all around player like Rowand is pretty silly when you really think about it. One is going to be one of the faces of his franchise, and the other is going to be one where you keep your fingers crossed.

Fine. One also gets paid $12M, while the other makes $400,000. I'd say that about covers the spread in terms of risk.

Look. I don't have a problem with Rowand. Good guy. Decent player. More importantly, he didn't cost any prospects to sign. However, having him isn't reason enough to not want Hamilton.

by Nathan on Dec 22, 2007 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The stories are true.

From here

For example, when meal money is distributed, someone else will handle it for Hamilton.

"Katie and I have just one car in spring training," says Hamilton, alluding to the fact he will not venture out on his own.

The concerns about his drug problems are not an exaggeration.

by rfloh on Dec 22, 2007 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Josh Hamilton

OPS+ 131. Home OPS: 989, road OPS: 862.

Aaron Rowand in 2007: OPS+ 123. Home OPS: 862, road OPS 779.

Rowand CLEARLY outhit Hamilton on the road. Yes, no need to tell anyone how playing in Hamilton helped his numbers, or how playing in Philly did not help Rowand's numbers.

by rfloh on Dec 22, 2007 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

never mind

Aaron Rowand home OPS 937, road OPS 843.

by rfloh on Dec 22, 2007 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

That's a good point. If the Home/Road split is a knock against Hamilton, it would be one against Rowand as well.

I still can't but help wondering if the money going to Rowand would have been better spent on someone like Rolen, who is still a premium defender at his position. Sign Andruw for 2 year @ 18M and you have Jones AND Rolen for about $12M more than a Rowand alone. Both Jones and Rolen have had displayed better defense, power and plate discipline over their careers than Rowand.

Add in a trade for Hamilton and the Giants would be looking very respectable now. An OF of Hamilton, Jones and Winn. An infield of Rolen, Vizquel, Frandsen and Schierholz. Molina at catcher. Hell, Molina could have been traded to the Mets for a very fine trade chip given what the Nationals got for Schneider.

by Nathan on Dec 22, 2007 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

Lineup:

Vizquel
Winn
Jones
Hamilton
Rolen
Molina
Schierholtz
Frandsen

by Nathan on Dec 22, 2007 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

why are you assuming that the Giants could have had Andruw Jones?? From what I've read, he turned down a better offer from the Giants to sign with the Dodgers. As for ignoring his left handed splits because of an insufficient number of atbats, don't you think there was a reason he never played against lefties?? You make good points about Hamilton, but I think the main thing here is that Aaron Rowand is an everyday player with a whole career body of work. Josh Hamilton was a rookie platoon player. If he played everyday, we might not even be having this discussion. His results against lefthanded pitching might have dragged down his overrall stats to the point where you couldn't even make a comparison to Rowand. And again you have the drug problem, which probably scared Cincinnati as well. I guess time will tell on this one, and we still have to see what we get for trade chips like Jonathan Sanchez before we decide if we were better off with Hamilton. If we do trade Sanchez for a decent first or third baseman, we will certainly be better off with whomever we acquire plus Aaron Rowand.

Bring me a cleanup hitter please!!

by rxmeister on Dec 22, 2007 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

I don't see why this is an OR discussion. Hamilton is good (and cheap) enough to justify acquiring regardless of whether Rowand's on the team or not.

Do you know which everyday OF put up this line against lefties - .160/.225/.269?

The splits are nearly irrelevant to me. At worst Hamilton has to platoon with a right-handed bat. Big whup! He costs $400K/year and could have been had for one hard-throwing prospect with decent upside. I'm not exactly crying over this.

Knock Hamilton all you want. That's why he's available for so little. If the guy were perfect, the Giants wouldn't have been able to get him. At some point you have roll the dice and hope that your scouting has helped you eliminate some risk and uncertainty. If you're looking for players with perfect histories, zero platoon splits, etc...., you won't be able to acquire a single player through a trade.

by Nathan on Dec 22, 2007 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

Maybe our scouts already did that, maybe they advised Sabean, 'this guy is completely unpredictable.' It is rare for teams to let very young players with very high upside get away. Three (that immediately come to mind) were dumped this winter (L Milledge, E Dukes, and now, Hamilton). I don't think you can just assume Sabean was disinterested. Why isn't it possible that he 'kicked the tires' and did his 'due diligence' - and found these guys had cracked heads or transmissions that wouldn't shift?
I think, this winter, at least, our trading chips are few - and we could well use them in '08. I'm not much in favor of throwing them away on huge gambles.
Finally, you advocate bringing in Hamilton based on roughly a half season of work - albeit a very good half season. But when Sabean signs Winn after an outstanding half season, he gets roasted. To me, particularly given the number of OFs we have, taking such a huge risk - in exchange for one of our few trading chips - is a sign of panic. Finally, it is kind of funny to see a risky Rangers gambit seen as brilliant and forward thinking.

by allfrank on Dec 22, 2007 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

Since he's had such a brilliant record trading for young high-upside talent?

I think, this winter, at least, our trading chips are few - and we could well use them in '08. I'm not much in favor of throwing them away on huge gambles.

The Giants aren't exactly loaded with tons of tradeable talent. If you want a high reward, you're going to have to assume SOME risk. Otherwise, just remain content trading for surefire mediocrities. Yes, there is the chance that the Giants could bomb on all these trades and end with nothing. At this point, I'd take that risk.

Finally, you advocate bringing in Hamilton based on roughly a half season of work - albeit a very good half season. But when Sabean signs Winn after an outstanding half season, he gets roasted. To me, particularly given the number of OFs we have, taking such a huge risk - in exchange for one of our few trading chips - is a sign of panic. Finally, it is kind of funny to see a risky Rangers gambit seen as brilliant and forward thinking.

I guess I see where you're coming from. You don't want to trade for someone unless their numbers can be etched in stone year after year (Pujols, Cabrera, Wright). Well, guess what? The Giants don't have the pieces to acquire those guys. Plus, Sanchez doesn't even half a decent half a season of work in the majors. He hasn't reached a 100 innings in a year since 2005. Honestly, with your strict no-risk approach to trading, what kind of player do you think you can acquire for a Lowry or Sanchez?

Think this was a bad move by the Rangers? They traded away a 23-year old pitcher, who isn't a top prospect and who hasn't put together any success in the majors. They acquired a good defensive outfielder who played at an elite level in the majors for 3/4 of a season. Neither player is a sure thing. The Rangers got the player who has atleast had success in the majors. I'm sorry, how is this bad for them?

by Nathan on Dec 22, 2007 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hamilton will be 27

next year.

Winn was 31 at the time of the contract, 32 the following season. A 5 year age gap.

Also, Winn had one very outstanding month in 2005. Not an outstanding half season. In Sept of 2005, his OPS+ was 251. 251. That is 151 percent better than average. That is Bonds in his crazy prime territory. It was completely and utterly unrealistic to expect Winn to have improved so dramatically.

by rfloh on Dec 23, 2007 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

If we do trade Sanchez for a decent first or third baseman, we will certainly be better off with whomever we acquire plus Aaron Rowand.

You're not exactly dealing with a perfect market. Supply isn't even across positions and there's a decent chance that a decent 1B or 3B wouldn't be available. Jump at what the market has to offer in a particular season. That's why a like the Rowand pick up. Hunter's and Jones' availability drove down his price atleast a little. Which is why you take a flier on Hamilton when he's served up.

Since Hamilton's history bothered you so much, what kind of player (with no character issues) do you think you could acquire for Sanchez?

by Nathan on Dec 22, 2007 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

It doesn't matter who I would want for Sanchez, it matters who I don't want. I don't want a guy whose career could be over in a minute like Josh Hamilton. This guy was a full blown drug abuser. He wasn't a guy who drank too much or smoked too much pot, he was a heroin addict. Jonathan Sanchez is going to be getting people out for at least the next decade, and I'm not going to trade him for a guy who could quite possibly not even make it to next year's Opening Day. This is the kind of risk you DON'T take. You take a risk on him like Cincinnati did, signing him off of the scrap heap. You don't take the chance with a valuable trade chip like Jonathan Sanchez. If you can't get what you want for Jonathan, you keep him. He's better than any lefty the Giants have in the bullpen.

Bring me a cleanup hitter please!!

by rxmeister on Dec 22, 2007 6:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

Funny how Hamilton's career could be over in a minute, but Sanchez is going to be getting people out for a decade. Not sure Cincinnati would have taken Sanchez for Hamilton anyway, but what makes him a valuable trade chip? The guy hasn't pitched 100 innings in two years. He's a risk, like Hamilton, albeit of a different variety.

This isn't an argument in the sense that I'm looking to 'win' anything. Its a perfectly understandable concern that you wouldn't want to acquire a risky prospect like Hamilton. Given where the Giants are, I would rather roll the dice and acquire a formerly troubled, but potential superstar instead of obtaining certain, but mediocre quantities.

by Nathan on Dec 22, 2007 7:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

I don't know why you would use the term "funny", because it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make. We're not talking about equal risks here with Sanchez and Hamilton. We're talking about a good kid in Sanchez and a very troubled person in Hamilton. You're making it sound like it's just as likely for Sanchez' career to end as it is for Hamilton's, and nothing could be further from the truth. Like I said, if you can get him for peanuts you would consider it, but for a pitcher with an arm like Sanchez has, I want a hitter with the same upside.

Bring me a cleanup hitter please!!

by rxmeister on Dec 22, 2007 7:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

kurt ainsworth was a "good kid." todd linden was a "good kid." countless other prospects we've had have been "good kids," but they sure havent helped much

by sam23 on Dec 22, 2007 11:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

We're not talking about equal risks here with Sanchez and Hamilton. We're talking about a good kid in Sanchez and a very troubled person in Hamilton. You're making it sound like it's just as likely for Sanchez' career to end as it is for Hamilton's, and nothing could be further from the truth. Like I said, if you can get him for peanuts you would consider it, but for a pitcher with an arm like Sanchez has, I want a hitter with the same upside.

I don't see how a chronic injury risk like Sanchez is much different from a character risk like Hamilton. Unless you can pull out numbers showing me how injury are better bets to overcome their problems, I remain unconvinced.

Also, you said want a hitter with upside in return for Sanchez. Well, Hamilton has upside. He's just a just risk. If you limit yourself to low-risk candidates in return for an injury-risk candidate like Sanchez (with no ML success), you aren't going to get much more than an average hitter in return.

by Nathan on Dec 23, 2007 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

you get a bunch of ray durhams and rich aurilias.

by sam23 on Dec 25, 2007 12:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A left hander

who struggles against LHPs, is more valuable and useful than a RH who struggles against RHPs. LH platoon players are not the same as RH platoon players, because there are fewer LHPs around.

Curtis Granderson's utility to the Detroit Tigers hasn't been affected much by the fact that he is really bad against LHPs.

by rfloh on Dec 22, 2007 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: A left hander

your point is valid for most teams but not for the Giants. They already have THREE lefthanded hitting outfielders who might not be playing against lefties, (Roberts, Lewis, Nate) and one on the way. (Bowker) Of course you would hope that guys like Nate and Bowker will play against all kinds of pitching, but right now yet another lefty hitting outfielder is not a practical pickup for the Giants. Needless to say that Aaron Rowand is a righty.

Bring me a cleanup hitter please!!

by rxmeister on Dec 23, 2007 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Josh Hamilton

What supports the supposition that the Mets wanted Molina - particularly over Schneider?

by allfrank on Dec 22, 2007 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

Rowand is a slightly above average defender whose road splits are historically bad.

I think that's all i'll say. Because after the season the numbers will speak such volumes that I won't have to back anything up

by acmastrpiece on Dec 22, 2007 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Hamilton Dealt to Rangers

I wonder why the Giants will even show up and play next year with all the dire predictions I read about over here. I bet you thought Aaron Rowand was a good player all the way up until the day that Brian Sabean signed him.

Bring me a cleanup hitter please!!

by rxmeister on Dec 22, 2007 6:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs