McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB postseason scores, schedules and blog coverage Bar-right-arrows

Kawakami Strikes Back

Jt_snow___little_darren_tiny by Cookyman on

From his blog:

"I assume it's happening all over the Giants' blog world, not just at the fine fan site the McCovey Chronicles, though that is a particularly point-by-point blasting of me and my argument that the Giants should trade Tim Lincecum for Alex Rios."  

Then he explains why he still thinks it's a good deal, and says things like "so it's sort of ridiculous to say, Rios = Winn, no?", even though no one ever said that. At least he's not being a jerk about it.

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 91 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
Mark Feinsand of the NY Daily News reported today that Sabean wants to make the Rios-Lincecum deal right now, but has thus far been talked out of it by all the other Giants' baseball people. We can only hope he pulls off something like the Matsui deal before he gets frustrated. I guess Kawakami will give Sabean a pat on the back if the Rios deal is finalized, and then quickly run away when Tim wins his first Cy Young for the Blue Jays.
"I'm very high on Correia and think he can be the best number five in the league next year."- Goofus 12/6/07

by rxmeister on Dec 7, 2007 7:30 AM PST   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
+1 all the other Giants people.  Maybe when we dump Sabean, we can keep a few of them.
Who dat is? That's just Ortmeier's daddy.

by rotorueter on Dec 7, 2007 7:43 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
LISTEN TO THEM, BRIAN!

LISTEN TO THEM! AND POSSIBLY READ GRANT'S POST ON THE SUBJECT.

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

by jponry on Dec 7, 2007 7:54 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
Suddenly I'm picturing everyone in the Giants front office taking turns whacking Sabean on the nose with a rolled up newspaper going, "No Brian. No."
Democracy is lovely but baseball is more mature. BVCE supports Manny Burriss and SF Dugout.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Dec 7, 2007 10:15 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I got a similar image, except it wasn't his nose, and it wasn't a newspaper.
All your signature are belong to us.

by EliminateMe on Dec 7, 2007 10:21 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I always wanted a Sabean bobble head  doll. Think the dug out store will have them on sale before Christmas?

by daveinexile on Dec 7, 2007 3:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I think Tim and Grant very ably demonstrate why this is not an easy decision for Brian Sabean.  The futures of Lincecum and Rios are by no means guaranteed, good or bad.  A reasonable person could construct a plausible scenario where Lincecum breaks down and Rios heats up, and vice versa.  The "what ifs" can drive a guy crazy, and Sabean sure seems to be doing his very best Hamlet this week.

by Skaldheim on Dec 7, 2007 7:57 AM PST   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
That being said, DON'T DO IT BRIAN!!!!!

by Skaldheim on Dec 7, 2007 7:57 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
you make good points though. As great as I think Lincecum is going to be, Rios is already there, and alot of fans are going to think this deal makes sense in June when Lincecum is struggling with his control and Rios is hitting .300 with double figure homeruns. I would hate for him to make this deal, but in non-emotional moments I realize that Rios is a sure thing and Tim can go wrong in many different ways. I don't worry about losing Rios in the future as a free agent because the Giants can financially compete with anyone to keep one of their own. Still, a team based on pitching in a pitching ballpark would ultimately be making a mistake by doing this deal, but it's not the catastrophe that we fans pretend it to be.
"I'm very high on Correia and think he can be the best number five in the league next year."- Goofus 12/6/07

by rxmeister on Dec 7, 2007 8:12 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
Rios is not already there.  24 HR from a corner OF spot is not great, it is merely good.  So is 85 RBI (though that's related to lineup position and hitters around you, it is still an indication of how much your team thinks of your ability to drive in runners by where they hit you).

You write that Tim might do this, might do that.  Show me some logic why that might be true.  Golden eggs might come out of my ass when I go to sleep and I'll be rich, but that's not going to make it true.

At least go through some data, like Lincecum's monthly stats.  His monthly BB/9 were 3.0, 6.3, 3.0, 3.6, 5.6 (only 3 starts though), where 3.0 and under is ideal.  So except for his bad month when it was 6.3 and late in the season, when one could attribute it to dead arm since he was throwing more innings than he has ever done, his control was fine for most of the season, with a slight flare up to 3.6 also near the end.

More importantly, his K/BB ratio was good mostly as well:  3.0, 1.6, 3.5, 2.5, 1.3, where 2.0 is good for starters, 2.4+ is great.  Same pattern for the most part.

Another factor is K/9 and he was superb there:  8.9, 10.2, 10.3, 8.8, 7.3, where anything over 7.0 is good, and anything over 8.5 is pretty great.  He was 7th in the majors in K/9 for all starters with at least 24 starts.

And this in his first season.

Rios is no sure thing.  Only two seasons before, his OPS was .703, and the season before that he hit only 1 HR.  He appears to have figured things out - it took him three seasons to figure things out - but he is no guaranteed hitter.  

Bill James prediction for him in 2008 has him hitting 18 HR (not the 30 that Tim Kawakami "quotes" in the newspaper; nice to make up a stat to support your own position!) and netting 75 RBIs, plus 14 SB.  So a respected analyst thinks that Rios cannot even hit a 20-20 season.  That's not great, that's good at best.

It is a catastrophe if the trade is made, a pitcher like Lincecum should be netting us a much better hitter, to end up with Rios would be reducing the overall talent not increasing it.  The Giants are not in a position to just be giving up talent, they must come out ahead in any trade if they are to get out of this hole and get back to winning.  Trading your best trading chip for an OK hitter is a catastrophe if he isn't the last piece necessary to winning it all.

"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley "I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Dec 7, 2007 10:00 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Question
what did James project for Rios in 2007?

by wilriv21 on Dec 7, 2007 10:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I'm not for making the Lincecum trade, I'm just understanding the other side of the argument. I would be very upset if this trade was made. You're saying that Rios is NOT there, would seem to strengthen the other side of the argument, because there's no reason to think he's not going to get even better. You're making it sound like he's an ordinary player, yet he's still pretty young and he's already a two time all star. If he doesn't get any better he'll still wind up being a five time all star and that's a pretty damn good career, isn't it?? As for Bill James predictions, why not just let him make all his predictions and then not play the season?? It's just a logical assumption that a young player like Rios is going to get better as he hits his prime years. Again, get this straight. I do NOT make this trade. The Giants have many holes in their lineup, and plugging one of them while they open an even greater hole in their rotation solves nothing. I might consider trading Lincecum for three good young players who plug up first base, third base and maybe one outfield spot for the next decade, but no way I trade him for just one player, even a good one like Alex Rios. Alex Rios is an all star, but he will never be a Hall of Famer. Tim Lincecum might not ever hit his potential, but he might also one day become a Hall of Fame talent. You don't gamble and trade a kid with this potential. I have already predicted that Sabean will ultimately be fired for this move if he makes it.
"I'm very high on Correia and think he can be the best number five in the league next year."- Goofus 12/6/07

by rxmeister on Dec 8, 2007 6:17 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Question
Does the person that washes the eggs get to keep a cut?
"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister (who wants to be sure that no one interpets this statement as an endorsement of Clinton) 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 8, 2007 12:18 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

This comparison has come up
But, how is Alex Rios better than Nick Swisher?

Unless Rios can play CF well, they are essentially the same. Swisher is probably a slightly better hitter, Rios has a better arm.

Would you trade Lincecum for Nick Swisher?

Of course, if Rios can play CF well, that's an entirely different matter.

by rfloh on Dec 8, 2007 12:40 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I have loved Alex Rios for about five years, but this decision is a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, that may make the Giants' brass uniquely qualified to make it in the wrong direction.

Why would anyone trade his "Franchise?"

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 12:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I think the ultimate fact is this:

Rios is a Free Agent after 2009 season.  

Lincecum will be a free agent after 2012 season.  

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Dec 7, 2007 8:17 AM PST   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I think that fact truly has more merit than stats in regards to this trade.  We'd be trading a very promising youngster for another.  It makes more sense to just hold onto the one you know you'll have control of for longer.

by ololo3 on Dec 7, 2007 8:49 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
Unless a team like the Yankees, Mets or Red Sox decide they have to have Alex Rios, the Giants would have no trouble re-signing him though. I don't really think this is a consideration here. I still wouldn't make the trade, but not for this reason.
"I'm very high on Correia and think he can be the best number five in the league next year."- Goofus 12/6/07

by rxmeister on Dec 7, 2007 9:16 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
Again, Tim will not be a free agent until after the 2013 season not the 2012 season.  Tim is 6 years not 5 years away from free agency.  Tim did not start the 2007 season on the 25 man roster and was not added to the 25 man roster until May.  It is impossible for Tim to accumulate 6 seasons of sevice time by the end of the 2012 season.  Tim can though become a super two after the 2009 season and thus get 4 years instead of the normal 3 years of arbitration.  By the way both Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera also followed this same path and both were super 2s and inspite of almost 5 years of service to date are still 2 years away (not 1 year away) from free agency.

Why do I have to keep correcting everybody on  this?  Is this really that hard to understand?  

by giantsrainman on Dec 7, 2007 11:49 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
it's good that you occasionally take time out from your busy schedule of concocting fake trades and criticizing duplicate diaries to remind us of how many years Lincecum has left to become a free agent. Thank you.
"I'm very high on Correia and think he can be the best number five in the league next year."- Goofus 12/6/07

by rxmeister on Dec 7, 2007 2:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I think the ultimate fact is that Tim Lincecum has the potential to become a Hall of Famer, while Alex Rios does not.

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 12:02 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. How can you say he doesn't have the potential to become a hall of famer.  Rios has power, speed, and defense.  Not to mention the fact that he is a good hitter,and may be on the verge of becoming great. I wouldn't do the trade, but don't act like he's some average player.

by SabeanSupporter on Dec 7, 2007 7:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
Welcome back buddy!

We missed you.

Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Dec 7, 2007 9:28 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Tell me how he is better
than Nick Swisher. Please do.

I'm assuming that Rios cannot play CF well.

by rfloh on Dec 8, 2007 12:42 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Tell me how he is better
For starters, he has 61  career stolen bases to Swishers 4.  Rios has played about 90 more games than Swisher and has 27 less strikeouts.  Rios also has 154 more total bases than Swisher.

by SabeanSupporter on Dec 8, 2007 12:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

And Swisher
has 260 walks to Rios' 149 walks.

Rios BB / K: 149 / 377, 0.39 walks for every K.

Swisher BB / K : 260 / 404. 0. 64 walks for every K.

Swisher's plate discipline is MUCH better than Rios.

Swisher has a 361 OBP to Rios' 338 OBP, despite playing in a pitcher's park compared to Rios playing in a hitter's park.

Swisher, career OPS: 825. Rios: 791.

Swisher 1273 outs in 1924 PAs, he makes outs in 66 percent of his PAs.

Rios, 1517 outs in 2188 PAs, he makes outs in 69 percent of his PAs.

by rfloh on Dec 8, 2007 2:03 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: And Swisher
How do you figure Rios plays in a hitters park?  And if you look at last 2 years,  Rios' numbers are increasing while Swisher is decreasing.  So stat head, do the numbers on the last 2 years, and then come back to me.

by SabeanSupporter on Dec 8, 2007 2:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: And Swisher
Swisher OPS+ last two years: 125, 127. Rios: 120, 122.

And stat head? You're both using stats to prove your points. Why is using OBP and BB/K more "statheadish" then using total bases and SB?

You deserve to be struck out when your first name's a verb

by Cookyman on Dec 8, 2007 3:46 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Dusty says
walks clog the bases. OBP and BBs / K are worthless.

by rfloh on Dec 8, 2007 10:54 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, if you only
look at HRs.

I guess walks don't matter at all. Walks clog the bases.

Not making outs doesn't matter. Productive outs win games.

by rfloh on Dec 8, 2007 10:55 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: And Swisher
What about ASG home run derby stats?

by zenbitz on Dec 8, 2007 10:35 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
What it comes down to for me is that next July 1, I don't think this trade is going to look real good.  Nobody has strong enough persuasive powers to convince me that Timmy isn't going to come out of the gate dealing.  By the break he's going to be a promising 2nd year pitcher with a sub 3 era rather than a promising rookie with a 4 era. The second of those is probably a fair trade for Rios, but the first is worth a lot more.

The second toxic reaction I'm having to this is what it does to the hard core fan base- in essence, it is a Run TMC moment. Does anyone remember when the Warriors traded Mithc Richmond for Owens? On paper it wasn't a bad trade, maybe even a good one, but run TMC was what was left of the warriors soul, and by trading Mitch Nellie gutted the morale of the fan base. We are rebuilding for the future this year, and Timmy enbodies all the promise of the rebuild for the hard core fans- Trading him for Rios may not be bad on paper, but it's going to destroy the morale of guys like me.

by prospecthound on Dec 7, 2007 8:24 AM PST   0 recs

Warriors tangent
Every case is different.  When they traded Richmond for Wright this past off-season, many Warriors fans thought the team had once again traded away their soul and compared it to Richmon/Owens.  So far the team seems to be doing ok without Jason.  We'll see how Wright turns out.
"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister (who wants to be sure that no one interpets this statement as an endorsement of Clinton) 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 7, 2007 8:50 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Warriors tangent
It was obvious that shooting guard was the position at which the Warriors had the most depth, while power forward was arguably their worst position.

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 12:03 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Warriors tangent
I guess you've come to terms with it already since it was Jason Richardson that got traded. ;)
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Dec 7, 2007 3:51 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Warriors tangent
Awww crap.
"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister (who wants to be sure that no one interpets this statement as an endorsement of Clinton) 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 7, 2007 4:13 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Warrior History Revisited
The year they traded Mitch, they were still a very exciting, 50-win team with championship aspirations for the following year. What really killed the Warriors post-Richmond was the Owens-for-Seikaly trade, that put Webber and Sprewell in a funk and led to the thirteen year drought.
Didn't you used to be Barry Zito?

by VidaWantsYourCar on Dec 7, 2007 8:58 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I understand the merits of both sides actually. But I wonder, ok if you ARE willing to trade Timmy then why not put him out there and do a full on whats the absolute best offer I can get? And as far as Matsui? Great hitter. Would love him on my team. But if it costs us Lowry or Sanchez my question is why? Why do we need an old outfielder? Why not do the Sanchez for Gomez trade with the Mets then? Why waste a valuable chip on an old outfielder. Especially when we have outfielders. All this chatter is making me queesy.

by S49erfan on Dec 7, 2007 8:37 AM PST   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I agree with you, kind of. I'll be honest- I would love to have Alex Rios on the Giants. He would be a fun, young player who could turn into a star. Operative word being "could". Currently, he's not much better than Randy Winn, Kawakami's analysis be damned.

However, he's clearly not a good fit for the Giants, who need to find out which among Schierholtz/Davis/Lewis/Ortmeier/Velez could be a keeper, and already have 2 veterans in Winn and Roberts blocking them. The absolute last thing this team needs is an outfielder. With such a situation in place, a smart GM would recognize that the only time you go for an outfielder is when it's a total steal of TOP-OF-THE-LINE talent. Jones might have actually been worth it, at the deal he got. I'm not sure. Matsui? Rios? Hell, even Fukudome? I honestly believe that Schierholtz and/or Lewis could match these guys, if given a shot. We simply don't know. Matsui might be on the falloff part of his career, and he'd be moving to a difficult park. Rios is a big question mark, seeing as I think few of us would have predicted his up-and-up trajectory. Will he move beyond Randy Winn territory? Who knows. And Fukudome is also a big ?, although he would be a nice PR addition. But if we're talking PR, I think sticking with our homefries is a surefire solution.

I think if we trade for or buy any bats (and there aren't many left, so read into this what you will), they must satisfy at least one of the following:

  • Be young and controllable for a long time
  • Be a pure power hitter with OBP, thus semi-replacing teh Lord
  • Play a position of dire need (3B, 1B)
I don't think any of the guys mentioned match any of those criteria. Rios is perhaps the closest, but he's not controllable for that long, and he fails the other two criteria. If the tables were turned and we were looking for a pitcher, I could say that we would need one that:
  • Is young and controllable for a long time
  • Is a power pitcher with favorable K:BB ratio
  • Is a proven starter at upper levels
Lincecum satisfies ALL of those criteria, so how would a Lincecum:Rios trade be remotely even? It would entirely be a desperation move.

As a business owner, I always see signs of Sabean lacking business acumen. He says things in the press that convey desperation. He says things like "...but we're smart enough to know such-and-such" and "I am not an idiot". He uses a bunch of stock bullshit phrases that you are all familiar with. It seems to me that he is very, very insecure. That is exactly the kind of guy we don't want running the team right now.

I'm scared. I think we will not have half of Caincecum entering 2008. I really hope I'm wrong.

***

Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy

by hairball on Dec 7, 2007 9:01 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I don't think you can do Sanchez for Gomez at this point. He's one of the best trade chips the Mets have, and they're still living under the delusion that they can get either Santana, Bedard or Haren for him. Unless one of those teams decide they will do a deal with the Mets and they prefer Sanchez to Gomez, you can't make this deal right now. Considering how poor the Mets' prospects are rated right now, I don't think they have the chips whether they have either one.
"I'm very high on Correia and think he can be the best number five in the league next year."- Goofus 12/6/07

by rxmeister on Dec 7, 2007 9:19 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
God Kawakami is a idiot. He thinks Lincecum is going to be a closer. That is one of his resoning points. The guys has been a dominant starter all through, H.S., College and the minors and picthed 146 innings his rookie year in what? 4 and a half months. HE HAS NEVER HAD ARM TROUBLES YOU DIPSHIT. GO ON YOUR LITTLE TRIP AND WRITE ABOUT THAT CRAPPY TEAM IN OAKLAND< YOU DON"T KNOW SHIT ABOUT BASEBALL!!!!

Please Brian , Please don't listen to this moron and don't make this deal.

Your 2010 NL rookie of the year,... Andy D'alessio

by ramirez415 on Dec 7, 2007 8:41 AM PST   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I know, right? I love how people just keep saying "Closer Closer Closer" or "Injury Prone Injury Prone Injury Prone" when there's really no reason anyone should think that of Tim Lincecum any more than they would think that of another pitcher. He's shown absolutely no reason to think that he can't succeed as a starting pitcher (and be very, very good as a starting pitcher).
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 7, 2007 9:01 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
Not to mention, Tim was able to do BOTH at the SAME TIME at one point.  Not that I think Tim could (or should) do it in the majors, but his arm has withstood a lot of try and testing.

by sfgfan on Dec 7, 2007 9:29 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
In fairness, he admitted it was purely a subjective opinion.
"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister (who wants to be sure that no one interpets this statement as an endorsement of Clinton) 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 7, 2007 9:15 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I agree with your post.  To say Lincecum is destined to be a closer is a poor argument used to devalue Timmy so a swap for Rios appears more enticing.

That being said, I think Kawakami was respectful in his rebuttal to McCC.  I would suggest we not respond by attacking the guy.  He took the time out of his day to acknowledge a Giants blog.  He could have easily ignored Grant's post and went about his day knowing full-well that he has 50 readers to every one of ours.  I respect the fact that he stood up for himself (however wrong he may be) and don't feel like we should be name-calling.

Maybe I'm off-base, that's just my opinion.

Here's to Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, Hu, and Kershaw not panning out.

by Woody Wins on Dec 7, 2007 9:51 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Some in SF organization think the same
The Giants themselves have had debates whether to turn him into a reliever.
Industry reaction was one-sided against the proposal, leading to speculation that the Giants consider Lincecum a health risk because of his slight build and high-effort delivery. "You don't give up a pitcher like Lincecum for a player like Rios," said an official of a club who looked at trading for Rios last year. "He's a nice player, but he's not a game changer. To consider a deal like that tells me they question whether Lincecum can hold up."

 Giants Manager Bruce Bochy said the team nearly made Lincecum into a reliever in March, and they still engage in the occasional debate to turn him into a late-inning presence.

http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_7646237?nclick_check=1

by wilriv21 on Dec 7, 2007 2:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Some in SF organization think the same
Context.  In March, the team had a 5-man rotation pretty much set.  I thought at the time they were just trying to find a place for him on the 25-man roster.

As for continued (albeit occasional) debate about being a late-inning presence, this is the first I've heard of it.  Has it been mentioned often before?  I know I heard someone suggest before that he could pitch in the 'pen during between starts, but I thought once he hit the rotation he was staying.

by sfgfan on Dec 7, 2007 3:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Some in SF organization think the same
There seems little question Tim could be a dominant closer, suffering only from occasional times when he wouldn't have his control and might add fuel to the fire.

It likely is that the Giants considered making him a reliever during spring training in order to keep him up from the beginning of the season.  I felt he was ready to start right off the bat (
Wow!  How about THOSE puns?  :), but the Giants seemed to lean toward Russ Ortiz, who might have been a phenomenal comeback story had he been able to remain healthy.

I could be wrong, but I think the top starters get more leverage from their performances than the top closers.  Unfortunately, the way closers are used today, they are often brought into pretty routine situations. If a team has a two run or more lead in the ninth inning, it should win a very high percentage of the time with even an average major league pitcher in the game.

Closers would be more valuable if they were used for longer periods in generally closer games.  With closers going only one inning or less in almost all cases, they often have to be used for a rather meaningless inning just to keep from getting rusty.  Pitching them longer in high-leverage situations would not only add to their leverage in the specfic situation, but also decrease the chance they would need to be used in a non-save inning.

If Tim were used somewhat like Mike Marshall used to be used, he might have even more value than as a starter.  Barring that, I think his value is best realized with him starting.

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 3:10 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I'll stand by what I said before: I'd do this deal in a heartbeat if Rios played 3B.
"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister (who wants to be sure that no one interpets this statement as an endorsement of Clinton) 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 7, 2007 8:59 AM PST   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
Nate the Great was a third baseman in the past, wasn't he?  Do you (or anyone else) know why he doesn't seem to be an option there now?
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 7, 2007 9:19 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
If by Nate the Great you mean Nate Schierholtz, I've read countless times that his defensive skills were very inadequate at third.  That's why he was moved to the outfield in the first place.

by sfgfan on Dec 7, 2007 9:31 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I remember hearing the same thing, but I'm still curious.  Could he have matured enough to play third now?  With him having previous experience, would it make more sense to put someone of his athleticism there, since the Giants seem pretty gung-ho to NOT fill their 3b vacancy?

These are the thoughts that run through my head as I don't work at the moment...

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 7, 2007 9:47 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
The gung-ho-ness probably has something to do with whether Feliz accepts arb or not.  I believe his deadline is today.
"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister (who wants to be sure that no one interpets this statement as an endorsement of Clinton) 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 7, 2007 10:43 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
Pleasedeclinepleasedeclinepleasedeclinepleasedeclinepleasedeclinepleasedeclinepleasedeclinepleasedec line...

They should still be looking at options already.  This is slowly killing me.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 7, 2007 10:48 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
I will make a counter offer.  If Tim Lincecum were a third baseman, I would make the deal.  Tim can't hit.  Since he's a once-a-generation pitching prospect instead, I wouldn't even consider it.

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 12:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I have to admit.
I pretty much stopped reading when he compared Scheirholtz to Linden & Torcato.
And Boom Goes the Dynamite

by Andy from DC on Dec 7, 2007 9:23 AM PST   0 recs

Re: I have to admit.
Yea, and was anyone ever that high on Travis Ishikawa?  I think I was...for like 2/3 of an inning.  Poor example if you ask me.
Here's to Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, Hu, and Kershaw not panning out.

by Woody Wins on Dec 7, 2007 9:53 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Roughly comparable to Torcato..
Maybe if you're only looking at advancement through the minors.  Nate has had better numbers at almost every stop though.
Coming to you from The Land of Many Beers.

by WalrusMan on Dec 7, 2007 10:00 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Kawakami Strikes Back
The fact that so many people seem to like the trade might prevent me from gouging out both of my eyes if the trade goes through... I'll only gouge out one.
Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?

by shikantaza on Dec 7, 2007 9:28 AM PST   0 recs

The arguement for trading Lincecum
isn't nearly as compelling as the argument for keeping him...

yeah we need a bat, hell we need 6 or 7 bats. Might there be bats available at the trade deadline? Might some of our pitchers enhance their value during the season? Might a contender feel like it's world series or bust, and trade some prospects for pitching depth for the stretch run?

and yes we have depth in the rotation but unfortunately, Zito, Sanchez and Correia have all been maddeningly inconsistent, and the young guys on the farm are not gauranteed to pan out either. Might Zito go 11-13 again? Might Lowry have already hit his peak? MIght Sanchez never put it all together on the mound? Might Correia go back to serving up late inning bombs? so with Lincecum gone, other than Cain where's our standout rotation?

WIth Cain and Lincecum at the top of the rotation all the other guys fall into place.

and I guess injuries don't happen to young position players, whether they be serious injuries or just those nagging ones that make it tough to be effective in the batter's box day in and day out they must not happen.

trading a guy with monster talent who has never shown to be an injury risk on the basis that "he MIGHT get injured, cause his pitching motion scares me, so let's get the best player offered for him" is truly flawed logic. Sanchez has proven to be the bigger injury risk in his career thus far, but no one's using that as rationale to trade the guy.

by brian on Dec 7, 2007 9:30 AM PST   0 recs

Re: The arguement for trading Lincecum
Rios being "the best player offered" is not accurate. I think nearly everyone here would rate Cabrera and Young higher.
***

Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy

by hairball on Dec 7, 2007 9:35 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: The arguement for trading Lincecum
oh I would certainly agree, if we were going to trade Linc, I would've much rather we did it for Delmon Young. the "best player offered" is just what I've been reading in a lot of these columns about this proposed trade, it's not my opinion.

by brian on Dec 7, 2007 9:51 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: The arguement for trading Lincecum
Alex Rios is more of a sure thing than Delmon Young though. Delmon has the bigger upside, but Rios has already had a couple of all star seasons. Delmon might be a Barry Bonds in the making, and I mean personality wise, not ability wise.
"I'm very high on Correia and think he can be the best number five in the league next year."- Goofus 12/6/07

by rxmeister on Dec 7, 2007 10:18 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

+17
I really don't see Timmah blowing his value in the first half of the season, so if you're hell-bent on trading for hitting, wait till other teams are desperate for what we have, and not vice versa.

Thats called strategy, Brian. Look into it.

And Boom Goes the Dynamite

by Andy from DC on Dec 7, 2007 9:35 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Damn right!
The problem with this trade idea is that the Jays should want pitching more than we want to give up Lincecum.  That's why I don't get why this offer is even being considered.  If we're so desparate for hitting, then giving up Lincecum for one hitter makes no sense, especially since he's young and controllable for years!  Sabean really needs to begin every trade conversation with, "If you want Cain or Lincecum, it's going to have to hurt you to get him."  I'm not saying it should be an overly lopsided trade, but to panic into trading for JUST Rios is crazy.  Again, if they want him, it should hurt a little to get him.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 7, 2007 9:44 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Damn right
exactly why are the Jay's so willing to give up on a young OF coming of an all star appearance for a pitcher with so much injury risk?

Probably because Rios ceiling isn't that much higher, and Tim is an obvious stud.

People have to remember as well that Rios hit in a much better line up with the Jays than he would with the Giants. He's not going to be seeing the same pitches he did with the Jays if we made this deal

by brian on Dec 7, 2007 9:56 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Damn right!
Beane asked for 6 prospects for Haren...that's almost an entire effin team!  And Sabean wants one guy?  ONE?  At least gimme two A/B prospects with my major-league-ready outfielder!
Here's to Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, Hu, and Kershaw not panning out.

by Woody Wins on Dec 7, 2007 9:56 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

when you say Brian...
is that me or Sabean your reffering to?

by brian on Dec 7, 2007 9:52 AM PST