Why we didn't sign Vlad..

by stevieg on Jul 10, 2007 4:25 PM PDT Comment 18 comments

I was at the HR Derby and I was talking to a photographer for the Giants. I mentioned something about how we should have signed Vlad when we had the chance (as he was hitting balls over the bleachers). She said that Vlad wanted no part of playing in San Francisco. The big reason was he didn't like Felipe. Apparently they didn't like each other and were at odds in his last few years in Montreal.
I don't know if this made me feel any better. Now I'm just more pissed at Felipe than anything.

Does anybody have anything to add to that story? It seemed pretty interesting to me.

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 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Why we didn't sign Vlad..

I've heard that before. However, the team made no effort to go after Vlad, so how would they know that to be true.

And who wouldn't fire Flippy in 2 seconds to sign Vlad?

The Fringe was right.

by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 10, 2007 4:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why we didn't sign Vlad..

I remember an article where they interviewed Vlad, and he said he never had much interest, if any, to coming here.

I wish I had the link, but it was like over a year ago.

Brian Anderson: generic name, unique talent.

by Anticon23 on Jul 10, 2007 4:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why we didn't sign Vlad..

Already a lively discussion going on here: http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/story/2007/7/9/231919/6281

Bold Prediction: Klesko will finish the 2007 season with at least 20 HRs. (OPS+ is 129 as of 7/1/07)

by Goofus on Jul 10, 2007 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why we didn't sign Vlad..

If that's true, the Giants should have pursued Tejada. For some reason, I don't think he had any issues with playing in the Bay Area.

He doesn't want to play here is a legit reason to not sign a guy, we'd rather spend the money on an assortment of should-be bench players, not so much.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Jul 10, 2007 7:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Or...

Derrek Lee. He was a free agent then and his contract looks like a pretty good deal right about now.

"Why you gotta be cardin' my hos?" - Charlie Hayes

by stevieg on Jul 10, 2007 8:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Or...

I don't think he was ever a Free Agent. The Cubs traded for him and then he signed an extension with them at some point, but I don't remember him ever being a FA.

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

by jponry on Jul 10, 2007 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Or...

You appear to be right. It appears he was traded just before the '04 season, which would have been his 6th (in ML service terms). According to Cot's contracts, he signed a 1-year deal in 1/04, probably to avoid arbitration, and then signed an extension the next month for three years. Just before '06, he signed a 5-year extension.

The short of it: Lee was never on the free agent market. Though it seems he was acquired for Hee Seop Choi. That sounds like a one-sided deal if I ever did see one. Of course it came at the heart of a Marlins' infamous firesale, no?

by sfgfan on Jul 10, 2007 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Or...

Choi was pretty good for the Marlins. Then they got PAUL LO DUCA AND HIS CLUTCH SKILLZ for him.

(by the way, is there any doubt now that the Dodgers dominated that trade? GG, Plaschke.)

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

by jponry on Jul 10, 2007 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why we didn't sign Vlad..

Good god !! How long and how many shit rumors are we going to spread through this site.

I heard Vlad didn't sign with us, because....

Who the F cares?!? The only person that can answer that question is Sabean. Now getting him to answer it honestly, that's a whole 'nother story.

Omar Vizquel to Big Sam, "Barton, Viduka, Rozenhal, Geremi, Deco even?...way to go Gaffer, keep up the great work!"

by PacBellBoozer on Jul 10, 2007 8:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why we didn't sign Vlad..

I doubt Sabean could answer that question.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Jul 10, 2007 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Why we didn't sign Vlad..

To anyone who says that Guerrero had back problems, that didn't stop them from signing Alfonzo.

Sabean Trek: The Search for 100 Losses

by ToddLindenHasAPosse on Jul 10, 2007 9:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Less of a gamble

Alfonzo was a couple of seasons removed from back injury and had proven himself on the field for a couple of seasons prior to signing with SF. His 4yr/26M deal also was a less of a gamble than the 5yr/75M deal requested by a recently injured Guerrero.

by wilriv21 on Jul 10, 2007 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Less of a gamble

Guerrero played pretty well after the injury, and , other than missing time, it didn't seem to effect him. Per plate appearance, he 2003 was one of Vlad's better seasons. Alfonzo, OTOH, never recovered his power stroke.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Jul 10, 2007 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Guerrero has played very well

Yes, Guerrero played well and has continued to play well. However, I do not fault SF for not signing a player who had a few months earlier missed about 1/4 of a season because of a serious back injury. The length of the contract was for 5 seasons and the monies were for a large amount. Hindsight says: Guerrero at 5yrs/75M is a bargain but back in winter of 2003 it would have been too risky.

Meanwhile, Alfonzo had some back issues a couple of seasons prior and looked to be doing just fine after playing a couple of seasons after the back issues. Think Fonzi's power outage is more related to PED's, though I have no proof.

by wilriv21 on Jul 10, 2007 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Guerrero has played very well

"The length of the contract was for 5 seasons and the monies were for a large amount. Hindsight says: Guerrero at 5yrs/75M is a bargain but back in winter of 2003 it would have been too risky."

Guerro got less than Thome or Beltran in 2002 and 2004, and similar to Tejada (who suffered from a mystrious decline in 2003). His contract was a bargain at the time, though it certainly looks better in retrospect. However, remember that the 2000 and 2001 seasons were home to contracts nearly as outlandish as last offseason's (Arod, Giambi, Ramirez, Hampton). While the FA market had taken a step back, team revenues had not. It was only a matter of time before those highs were back, and anyone smart enough to GM a baseball team should have realized that and taken advantage of the unique opportunity.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Jul 10, 2007 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs