"Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

by BawLa on Jul 30, 2007 1:15 AM PDT

July: .294/.344/.645 with 7 HR.

When do we call this kid back up?

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.

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Who do you get rid of? Dave Roberts has hit .366/.429/.427 w/8 SB this July, Winn has hit .338/.418/.463, and Lewis has hit .333/.423/.422.

OTOH, Bonds is only hitting .189 this month, so I guess there's an opening after all.

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

by Bhaakon on Jul 30, 2007 1:21 AM PDT reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Trade Sweeney for a lower level prospect.

I need old crusty vets like I need a nail driven into my brain.

by BawLa on Jul 30, 2007 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

i think sweeney has proven his worth for the rest of this year over the last couple of weeks. more so than any "lower level prospect" could. especially someone who would never contribute to the team.

Paging Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard.

by Cynema the Band on Jul 30, 2007 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

A lower level prospect has a much greater chance of contributing to the Giants past this season than Mark Sweeney does.

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

by jponry on Jul 30, 2007 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Amen. Trade Roberts and/or Winn for prospects, and have the Lewis/Schierholtz/Bonds-Ortmeier outfield.

Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Jul 30, 2007 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

didn't mark sweeney just contribute a few clutch pinch-hits here recently? what good is a lower level prospect if he never makes it to the show?

Paging Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard.

by Cynema the Band on Jul 30, 2007 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

the guy's a million years old and the Giants are way out of the race. Trading Sweeney for prospects is a gamble, but holding on to Sweeney is a sure thing -- you'll get no real return.

Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Jul 30, 2007 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

In three or so years, when the Giants are ready to compete again, Mark Sweeney will likely no longer be a Giant. Chances are, he won't be worth a draft pick either, when he becomes a free agent after the season.

Therefore, it'd be a lot better to get someone for him, even if it's a low level prospect, than to simply let him go for nothing because he got a few clutch hits for a terrible team.

For example, look at what we traded Michael Tucker for a few years ago... a 19 year old in rookie ball with decent control numbers but not much else that anyone knew about him.

Well, suddenly that 19 year old in rookie ball is a 21 year old in AA with pretty good numbers (after pitching very well in low-A) and he looks like he might be a useful player in the near future. (That would be Kelvin Pichardo by the way.)

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

by jponry on Jul 30, 2007 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions

+1

Very well said. This is exactly how we should look at every position player over the age of 30.

by Skaldheim on Jul 30, 2007 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions

Players over 30

Jefferson proposes the Logan's Run Principle(tm)...

Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Jul 31, 2007 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

I'm more optimistic than some (perhaps because I haven't stared as deeply into the abyss) about the length of the Giants turnaround, but even 2009 is very likely past Sweeney's expiration date. He'll be 39 by then.

Sweeney has indeed come up with some very clutch pinch hits lately. He's a great pinch hitter. So he should have some trade value to a playoff-hunting team for whom a couple of clutch pinch hits could make all the difference.

Proud adoptive father of the All-Father and his 2.29 ERA

by EliminateMe on Jul 30, 2007 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

And who are these teams, exactly? And where is the evidence they would give ANYTHING for Sweeney - or anyone?

by allfrank on Jul 30, 2007 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Evidence? There isn't any, unless and until he's actually traded. Which is why I wrote he should have trade value, not that he does.

Timely pinch hitting might, best case, make a difference of a game or two in the standings. That's not gonna make a bit of difference to the Giants, but there are about a dozen teams that have got to be looking at the standings and thinking that a game or two could be the difference between going to the playoffs and October tee times.

Proud adoptive father of the All-Father and his 2.29 ERA

by EliminateMe on Jul 30, 2007 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

the problem with the theory of trading sweeney is, he is the least of our problems. here is a list of more important issues that should be addressed before we trade sweeney:

Pedro Feliz
Closer
Aging infield and outfield
Matt Morris and Barry Zito couldn't get you or I out right now

and don't tell me that trading sweeney for some unknown, lower-tier prospect would solve any one of these issues. sweeney will be gone anyways at the end of the season, so why not trade feliz (that is if there is a team stupid enough to take him, and then actually give up something) for one of the problems listed above. feliz has more trade value than sweeney (i can't believe i just wrote that). he has an expiring contract, at a reasable price for the rest of the year.

or trade morris for a closer-type prospect (you will get more for morris than you will sweeney, again). you can trade roberts for another prospect to give one of the younger kids room to play the rest of the year. that would actually be a productive trade. it is a trade that makes sense, by getting rid of one player you are allowing a younger player to step in and prove what he can do.

let's not make a trade to just make a trade. we all get on sabean for doing things that don't make sense. if he were to trade sweeney before any of the listed above happens, then we would have every right then to blast sabes. but if he were to do the listed above before he addresses sweeney (the fact that sweeney is getting this much run, a guy who doesn't play, except for 2 pinch-hit at-bats a week, is really embarrassing) then at least sabes is doing something to improve the team.

Paging Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard.

by Cynema the Band on Jul 30, 2007 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Trading Sweeney wouldn't be making a trade for the sake of a trade -- it would be trading for a prospect. Yes, it's a gamble, but next year you might have something to show for it. Maybe a position player that addresses your aging IF/OF point above (at some point down the road).

No one's dumb enough to take Feliz. If they are, then deal his ass. That's not mutually exclusive with trading Sweeney.

Move Klesko, Winn, Durham, and Roberts while you're at it.

Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Jul 30, 2007 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

I wouldn't have a problem with the Giants trading Feliz, or Morris, or even Zito if they could. I doubt that anyone here who's calling for rebuilding thinks they should trade Sweeney but keep Feliz.

But the initial question was who do you get rid of to make roster space for Schierholtz, and trading Feliz doesn't do that. Getting rid of Feliz most likely frees up a space for Luis Figueroa or Tomas De La Rosa, and I don't think anyone expects much out of those guys.

Trading Winn or Roberts would also free up a roster spot for Schierholtz, and I'd be fine with that as well.

Proud adoptive father of the All-Father and his 2.29 ERA

by EliminateMe on Jul 30, 2007 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

There are plenty of desperate calls to trade our guys. But no one has answered the question, "who needs 'em?"These guys simply are not needed by other teams, with the possible exception of Sweeney, who makes more sense on our roster than off.

by allfrank on Jul 30, 2007 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

i can agree with your statement. it is true you never know. but the one thing i will disagree is trading him because if we lose him to free agency we won't get anything for him. is that such a bad thing? i mean what would we get for him? it will definitely be a lower tier player. and that kid you mentioned is still in AA ball. he hasn't made it to the majors. even if he was tearing it up in AAA, we have seen that before with this team, where prospects are killing AAA ball then get to the bigs and flame out (cough, todd linden).

i am not opposed to trading sweeney and yes he has got some clutch hits for a shitty team. but if we let him go, so what. so lets make a meaningless trade that will probably do nothing for us in the long run. again, i am not saying keeping him will do anything for us either. its just i don't see this move helping us in the future, immediate of otherwise. a lower-tier prospect will most likely breed a lower-tiered major league player and don't we have enough of those already?

Paging Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard.

by Cynema the Band on Jul 30, 2007 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

I personally would rather get something for a player than nothing, even if it's a fungible arm in low-A or a toolsy OF with no plate discipline in rookie ball. YMMV.

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

by jponry on Jul 30, 2007 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

something > nothing

Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Jul 30, 2007 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

WE are better off with Sweeney. Dump him and you have to replace him on the 25 man. It stifles a young players development to sit on the bench and get 3 or 4 pinch hits a week. Guys like Schierholtz are much better off playing everyday, even if it is in Fresno, because they get the chance to improve. So Sweeney is actually valuabe because he performs a real and valuable role and he takes up a space that is a balck hole for most players, thus keeping a younger player playing every day.

by allfrank on Jul 30, 2007 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

So don't bring up a young player. I'm sure Scott McClain -- who has BTW, 130% more HRs than Nate this year -- would love to see the show, even if it's just for a couple of months.

by Roger on Jul 30, 2007 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Now, that's not a bad suggestion.

by allfrank on Jul 30, 2007 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

If we trade Klesko, then I would say okay. Let him see the majority of the starts for the rest of the season.

I need old crusty vets like I need a nail driven into my brain.

by BawLa on Jul 30, 2007 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

I disagree. We don't need a pinch hitter. We aren't competing for anything. We need our younger players to get playing time, to get at-bats so we can assess their weaknesses and help them improve.

To fill the role of pinch hitting is whichever outfielder did not start that day. So if you start Bonds, Winn and Schierholtz for example, then you have Lewis and Roberts pinch hit. Pretty simple.

If Sweeney is part of the future then keep him, but as other people pointed out, by the time we are in competition again, Sweeney will be past his time.

I need old crusty vets like I need a nail driven into my brain.

by BawLa on Jul 30, 2007 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Why, so Schierholtz can play every third day? He'd be better off in Fresno.

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

by Bhaakon on Jul 30, 2007 2:06 AM PDT reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Agreed. Make moves in the off-season so that Nate gets the RF job next year. Oh, and when he's called up in September, play him at least every other day.

Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Jul 30, 2007 8:13 AM PDT reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

I too want Nate in 08.

Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not facist: THE RETURN OF SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jul 30, 2007 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

If the Giants trade one of their starting outfielders, bring him up! Otherwise, I agree with the others above me who vote to keep him playing every day in Fresno.

by Skaldheim on Jul 30, 2007 9:57 AM PDT reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

I think we should bring him up anyway. Winn, Roberts and Bonds are all very old. And since we are not competing this year, it makes sense to give them more rest and give more playing time to some kids. I think EVERYDAY one of the kids should start.

If we limit Roberts' and Winn's at-bats, and keep them fresh and healthy, then there is a better chance we can raise their trade value, giving us a better chance to make a waiver deal/off-season deal.

I need old crusty vets like I need a nail driven into my brain.

by BawLa on Jul 30, 2007 10:12 AM PDT reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Winn is not "very old", he's 33 and has consistently played 150+ games per season (only 149 last year).

I'd like to see the kids up too, but we've gotta move somebody to make room first. You can't carry 6 outfielders, especially when your starting shortstop is 40 years old and showing signs of wearing down.

Proud adoptive father of the All-Father and his 2.29 ERA

by EliminateMe on Jul 30, 2007 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Randy Winn isn't that old.

Barry Bombs gear | comics | Ray Durham is... yeah.

by Natto on Jul 30, 2007 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Winn also has a full no trade clause

So he is not getting put on waivers, I don't even know how that would work if he got claimed.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Jul 30, 2007 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions

Winn

He's 33, he's not old. And you could just call him Randy.

by mxmob33 on Jul 30, 2007 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Winn

I was going to make this joke, but I couldn't figure out how to word it. :)

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

by jponry on Jul 30, 2007 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: "Nasty" Nate Schierholtz

Winn not being THAT old relative to Bonds and Roberts is a moot point. They are all old, and only Winn isn't VERY old. But the point remains. Winn should still recieve regular rest, and the kids should recieve playing time. Of the three, Winn should get the least time off relative to Bonds and Roberts, but I thought all of this was obvious.

And we won't have 6 outfielders if we find a way to trade Sweeney, who is tradeable in my opinion. Put Sweeney on waivers, start giving Schierholtz some AAA starts at 1B in the meantime. Once Sweeney is dealt, bring up Nate to replace him.

I need old crusty vets like I need a nail driven into my brain.

by BawLa on Jul 30, 2007 11:17 AM PDT reply actions