Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Network Bar & Login
Section Navigation
Main Blog Content
Secondary Sidebar: Links to Recent Stories, FanPosts and FanShots
Masthead

Around SBN: Notre Dame's Turnaround: How Have The Irish Done It?

Chit Storm

by Grant Brisbee on Aug 3, 2007 12:39 AM PDT in News

From a source close to the politburo:

Sabean also offered more details on the Giants' reconstruction plan. For the first time, he acknowledged he might have to trade some of the young pitching the organization holds dear to acquire talented young position players who can complement the team's aging veterans as the Giants transit to a new era.

The assumed meaning: Young pitching = Entire staff × [(Lowry + Sanchez)² - (Cain + Lincecum)]. Lowry and Sanchez are the only ones with obvious trade value who could conceivably be traded; therefore, if the Giants want to make a substantial roster upgrade, it has to be one or both in trade. Makes sense. But is there a chance that some trade value extends to the less-than-deified young arms in the bullpen?

*Pauses for dramatic effect*

Obviously, this idea was concocted after the fireman-fu of Hennessey's eighth inning and before the near-meltdown in the ninth. But while the trade deadline wasn't notable for much, it did seem like there was a craze for relievers. Octavio Dotel, Scott Linebrink, and Eric Gagne all brought back young players of varying interest. Comparing Hennessey to that troika is silly at this point -- those relievers all have a long record of past success. Not every team is looking for "proven and expensive", though. Teams like the Devil Rays and Reds want to rebuild their bullpens on a budget. Other teams like the Brewers, Tigers, and Indians could use bullpen help, but they don't exactly matchup with the long-term deals required by Justin Speier-types in the offseason.

Randy Messenger is a year from arbitration. Vinnie Chulk, Brad Hennessey, and Kevin Correia are entering their first years of arbitration. None of these pitchers will be prohibitively expensive, and I'd trade them all if it meant something from the Devil Rays' secret stash. There is a risk that the drop-off from those four to a Brian Wilson/Dan Giese/Scott Atchison/Kelvin Pichardo/Billy Sadler/whatever-powered bullpen would be substantial. Everything the Giants do to get the franchise back on track is going to be a risk.

Is it crazy to think that a sub-3.00 Messenger or Hennessey would be overvalued? Or is the first assumption -- if Lowry and Sanchez stay, it's helloooo David Eckstein -- more realistic?

Tweet Comment 151 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

When a Smear is only a Smudge

Apparently Grant is accusing Henry Schulman of being a communist.

Pretty much a compliment in these parts.

by Moggeee on Aug 3, 2007 1:03 AM PDT reply actions

no, no..

..a Kremlinologist.

Me, I think there must be something wrong with Sabean if San Diego could get what it did for Linebrink, and Sabean wasn't able to move any of the fungible arms in his 'pen. Then again, the guy who runs the Padres appears not to be an idiot.

I did like the Morris trade, insofar as he dumped a $10m-a-year, league-average starter, but even that isn't egregiously mispriced these days.

This winter, I'd be shopping Lowry (expecting a lot in return, all hitting) and the entire bullpen (Proven Veterans all). I'd probably hang onto Sanchez unless his trade value is a lot higher than I expect. He'll probably always walk too many and never be too useful, but if he figures out location he could be an average-or-better lefty starter, and that's worth a lot.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: no, no..

Moving Morris without eating any of his contract and getting in return a guy who might be a decent 4th OF was a fershlugginer miracle.

Jesse Foppert: Welcome home, my son. And meet your adopted brother, Kelvin Pichardo. He's from the Dominican Republic.

by leftymalo on Aug 3, 2007 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: no, no..

Astute assessment

by allfrank on Aug 3, 2007 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: no, no..

Whenever I feel myself getting ready to give Sabean props on this move, I have to remind myself that he signed Morris to that craptastic, near-anchorish contract.

It's like giving him credit for clearing up the syphillis he received from the local cathouse.

by otis29 on Aug 3, 2007 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: no, no..

Perhaps someone has already said this, but does anyone else wish they would have moved Zito instead of Morris? I wonder, if the Pirates were willing to take Morris, would they have been willing to take Zito instead? That would have been sweet. Unlikely, but oh so sweet.

by marcello on Aug 3, 2007 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: no, no..

Not even Littlefield is that stupid.

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

by delorean on Aug 3, 2007 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: no, no..

I didn't really think so either, but it is fun to dream...

by marcello on Aug 3, 2007 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: no, no..

No chance that they could have moved Zito. That contract is a cement shoe.

by ololo3 on Aug 3, 2007 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions

"Fershlugginer"

I have that in my vocabulario as well , wheredja get it?

Barry Zito: Not an embarrassment of riches , but a rich embarrassment.

by victor frankenstein on Aug 3, 2007 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: no, no..

"fungible" - the word of the week at McCovey Chronicles.

by otis29 on Aug 3, 2007 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions

sub-.300 Messenger

I think it's entirely possible that Randy Messenger might be overvalued by some GM. But whether or not said GM oversees a vast empire of hitting prospects might be a problem.

I agree with you, Grant. Tampa Bay desperately needs to realize that our spiffy late-model pitchers are exactly what they need to complete their playoff-bound team.

Step right up, Andy Friedman. See for yourself the wondrous new Messenger-o-matic! He slices, he dices the opposition, and never needs sharpening. Plus, if you act now, we'll throw in a complimentary Chulkinator. Now how much would you pay? Carl Crawford? But wait, there's more. Yes sir, what you need is a brand new, genuwine Starting Pitcher, complete with a shiny WonLoss Record and an easily expandable WHIP. SO, you get the Messenger-o-matic, the Chulkinator, AND the Starting Pitcher....all for the low, low price of Evan Longoria (plus Reid Brignac for shipping and handling). Don't wait, ACT NOW!!

Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 3, 2007 6:50 AM PDT reply actions

Re: sub-.300 Messenger

Lyle Pompel

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

by Goofus on Aug 3, 2007 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: sub-.300 Messenger

That's it, Goofus! We need Ron Popeil to be our GM! He could sell everybody that needs to be traded.

Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 3, 2007 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

I saw a bumper sticker on a car in front of me yesterday and I couldn't help think of Sabes and our Giants. It read, "I'm a beautician, not a magician."

by born2run on Aug 3, 2007 7:46 AM PDT reply actions

41.500000%

win probability for the Giants down at San Diego tonight.
vr, Xei

People often make fun of or bash the things in life they don't understand.

by Xeifrank on Aug 3, 2007 8:10 AM PDT reply actions

please die in a fire

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

by delorean on Aug 3, 2007 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Eat shit.

by satyricrash on Aug 3, 2007 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

What did your win probability say about your Bums taking a beating in this three game series? You do know that if not for one hung breaking ball, we would of gotten the sweep for the series.

P.S. F'ing die, you bastard.

Omar says, "Dammit gaffer! Bring in a few defenders, a mid-fielder or two, and nice pull w/Alan Smith."

by PacBellBoozer on Aug 3, 2007 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Like anybody gives a chit.

"Last night I neglected to mention something that bears repeating." Ron Fairly

by getnby on Aug 3, 2007 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

I need to see this calculated out another 15 decimal places or so before I'll buy it.

by dmunk on Aug 3, 2007 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Is peavy pitching tonight?

by zenbitz on Aug 3, 2007 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

The vegas line on this game is +115/-125.

Meaning the Giants are paying 1.15:1

Your odds suggest 3:2, or 1.5:1.

If you really believed your simulator, you should put everything you own on SD. A $0.35 margin is absolutely freakin' HUGE.

Other interesting bets... Royals/Yankees is +260/-300 WTF! That's seems off the scale. Take the Royals

by zenbitz on Aug 3, 2007 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Yes, I post the simulator results based on 2000 simulated games with what I feel will be the starting lineup and the starting pitcher for the day. I also post a link to the Vegas odds. Keep in mind that the way Vegas posts their odds is in attempt to balance half the betting pool on one side and half the betting pool on the other side. Vegas is anywhere from -123 to -130 on this game. Will be interesting to see what happens as the simulator and Vegas seem to be differing on the Braves/Rockies and Padres/Giants games the most. The simulator has both the Braves and Padres as favorites, but has the Braves as less faves and the Padres as a greater fave. vr, Xei

People often make fun of or bash the things in life they don't understand.

by Xeifrank on Aug 3, 2007 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

What's your simulator's real-time (not backtested) track record vs the oddsmakers?

If you're not beating the bookies, then you really ought to stop posting.

If you are, you should be betting.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Fair enough. I will start to keep track of which method performs better, Vegas-Caesers or my simulator. I will only run backtested sims on games where a significant player gets bumped from the lineup or a starting pitching change is made before the game. I only have limited time to run these sims, and I usually run them the night before. Thanks for your thoughtful post.
vr, Xei

People often make fun of or bash the things in life they don't understand.

by Xeifrank on Aug 3, 2007 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Er.. why would you run backtests at all?

Thanks, though. I am curious to see.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Well, because I do this with limited time. I could rerun the simulation before the game took place, but I am not at home and able to do this until later in the evening. By then the game is in progress or already over. In games that i rerun, I will make sure I used the game-time Vegas odds, as to make sure we are both giving win probabilities with the same public information.
vr, Xei

People often make fun of or bash the things in life they don't understand.

by Xeifrank on Aug 3, 2007 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

I know that. Do you understand the point I am making?

by zenbitz on Aug 3, 2007 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Yes, I understand it. You think the Vegas odds and the simulator results are too far off. I tried to explain another factor in why this may be the case in some games. Many bettors are emotional bettors, and Vegas is just trying to halve the money on both sides of the bet, that's how they make their $$$. By the way the -300 on the Yankees is saying they are just under a 75% favorite.
vr, Xei

People often make fun of or bash the things in life they don't understand.

by Xeifrank on Aug 3, 2007 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

72.46378%???

Maybe someone who bets on baseball allot will correct me, but isn't 3:1 unheard of?

And no, you didn't understand me.

Try to follow, slowly:

Vegas balances the line so that betting is equal
Your simulator indicates vegas line out of touch with reality
...
Profit!

Unless you don't believe your simulator enough...

Not that Vegas lines are typically quite accurate. (Although I think the -300 NYY is way off... off enough that I will try to place a bet in the next hour? Not quite)

by zenbitz on Aug 3, 2007 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Ok, I get it. I am not a big gambler, but yeah if after comparing data I see some market ineficiencies, then perhaps. $$$ Or i can open up my I own offshore 1-900 number. vr, Xei

People often make fun of or bash the things in life they don't understand.

by Xeifrank on Aug 3, 2007 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

This xei walks into a bar. Nobody cares

Barry Zito -- Catch Me if You Can.

by E Ticket on Aug 3, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

Xeifrank walks into a bar. He says "72.46378% get-laid probability for me tonight." Twenty people beat him senseless.

Bruce Bochy gets his big head from me.

by Stuttering John Tamargo on Aug 3, 2007 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

i love a story with a happy ending

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

by delorean on Aug 3, 2007 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: 41.500000%

"No , we are not related."

Barry Zito: Not an embarrassment of riches , but a rich embarrassment.

by victor frankenstein on Aug 3, 2007 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

I think Sabean is more of "hiya,how you doin'" than "hellooooo" kinda guy.

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

by Goofus on Aug 3, 2007 8:29 AM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

excuse, but wasn't a huge part of the strategy for this organization to draft young pitching and trade some of it for position players? Now Sabean is admitting that he may in fact be forced to follow his own admitted strategy?

I've complained about Sabean and management not competently executing that strategy before, but now I'm just flabbergasted that they are admitting that they haven't even been trying to follow it.

The Fringe was right.

by nostocksjustbonds on Aug 3, 2007 10:28 AM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Do the names Nathan, Liriano, Bonser and Accardo ring a bell?? I think Sabean has accumulated alot of great young pitching, but now is almost afraid to deal it because of his previous mistakes. I share his hesitance though. If you are going to trade a young stud pitcher, you have to receive a young stud hitter in his place. If teams aren't offering guys like Balentien, Jones, Milledge, etc for your young pitchers, you are right to hold on to them, even if it means watching the big team struggle to score runs.

Randy Messenger says,"Boch, why you pointing at me?? Put in Hennessey!!"

by rxmeister on Aug 3, 2007 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions

No trady Lowry

I know I'm in the minority here, and all y'all will jump on me for saying so, but... Lowry is under contract for another three-ish years. And he's got 12 wins for a terrible team. Yes, I get his WHIP isn't great and he walks too many batters, and I get he's probably overvalued. But you don't ever trade a proven pitching commodity for a chance some minor leaguer will step up big for you from some other team, especially when you don't have a definitive starter to step in as a replacement. Because everyone calling for Lowry to get traded will be calling for the head of the minor leaguer and remembering the good ol' days of Noah Lowry, and will be pissed off because Sanchez starts pitching too many innings and gets injured and the team didn't have the foresight to stop that or Misch isn't nearly as effective, yadda yadda yadda I think you get me point.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a jerk (and I do sound like a jerk to ME), but I just don't believe it would - at all - be a good idea to trade Noah.

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 10:34 AM PDT reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

I don't think people want to trade Lowry because we don't like him. He does provide good value as a number 3/4 starter, though not because he has 12 wins (by all accounts, Matt Cain has pitched better and has 12 losses). The issue is that he has real value in the trade market and this team needs some offense at just about every position. We could trade him for value and not lose too much pitching. Pat Misch or Sanchez probably top out as a 3/4 starters in the majors so losing Lowry probably isn't that much of a loss.

The Fringe was right.

by nostocksjustbonds on Aug 3, 2007 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Agreed, to a point. I think Lowry is a 3/4 starter for us, but projects as a 2/3 starter to a lot of teams and therefore might be a good guy to trade because his value to others is higher than it is to us. However, I agree with JR's point (and you didn't sound like a jerk, JR, even though you probably are a jerk :-P ) that if we're going to give him up, it needs to be for a valuble bat and not a prospect who projects well. I want someone else's hitting equivelent of Matt Cain; favorable contract with proven mlb ability. Someone has to give up someone they don't want to give up or else I'm hanging on to Lowry.

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

by Goofus on Aug 3, 2007 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Spot on, Goofus. Spot on!

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

I resent JR's taking over my spot as resident jerk. Hell, man, Ierned that appellation.
I am in the 'highly reluctant' camp, when it comes to trading Lowry, but Goofus makes the nail-hit-on-head arguement that, basically, everyone has a price or a return that makes it impossible to turn down a deal (See Morris, M). And Goofus' (jeez, I hope none of my co-workers ascertain that I am positively referencing someone named 'Goofus') point that a young, established budding star could well be that irresistable return is sound. That is because we are closer to being able to replace Lowry (Misch, Sanchez, Blackely, Palmer [or is it Kinney? I forget which is 30 and which is 28], even Ortiz until someone else develops) than we are to replacing ____ (insert any of 100 names of our 1b, 2b, 3b, SSs).

by allfrank on Aug 3, 2007 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

You had me at Misch and Sanchez and lost me with the last three names you tossed up there. I don't think Blackley, Palmer and/or Kinney can come up here and be half the pitcher that Noah Lowry is. Let's not go overboard on the depth of our minor league pitching, particularly at the Fresno level. I would only trade Lowry for a young major league hitter who has already shown potential, or a super can't miss prospect.

Randy Messenger says,"Boch, why you pointing at me?? Put in Hennessey!!"

by rxmeister on Aug 3, 2007 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

I read JR post as opposing the trade of Lowry for anything, and it seems that his follow up post supports that interpretation.

I do agree, however, that Lowry's may be a 2/3 for another team while only a 3/4 for the Giants. That only increases his trade value. If we can get something good for him, we should.

All of this trade speculation, however, depends on what we are gonna get in return.

Would we not trade him for Adam Jones, a guy with limited MLB experience? We'd be crazy not to.

Should we trade him for a 4th OF? No.

The Fringe was right.

by nostocksjustbonds on Aug 3, 2007 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Let me clear it up... I'm about 90% dead set against trading Lowry. However... If you can get in return a Grady Sizemore or someone who has proven to be capable of playing at a big league level AND is still controllable for a reasonable number of years (not one more year), I'd be willing to make that trade.

BUT...

Right now, Lowry is probably our best pitcher, but certainly no worse than our third best pitcher. Let's stop the 3/4 shenanigans, he's definitely 3 material, at least for the duration of his contract, and considering Zito definitely isn't our third best starter. His peripherals might not look great, but he's 26 and he's only going to get better over the next few years.

AND...

Can someone tell me the last time we traded for a real, authentic impact bat? I mean, one that actually hit well for us, not the team we got him from? The last example I can come up with is Ellis Burks. Randy Winn doesn't count. Thus, with that track record, I'd say keep Lowry, because we're probably not going to see hide nor hair of a Grady Sizemore or Carl Crawford type player.

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

To get a guy like Sizemore you have to start at Matt Cain, not Lowry.

by Sandor Clegane on Aug 3, 2007 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

But has he pitched that much better? Cain is definitely an ace in the making, and I think a lot of teams could do worse than having Lowry as their number 2 guy even (not saying he SHOULD be, just saying he COULD be, for teams that don't have two top tier pitchers). But Lowry's WHIP is only .05 higher than Cain's, he has a lower ERA, BAA and walks aren't too far apart (again in Cain's favor), and Cain's struck out 21 more batters so far. Cain's got the higher ceiling, but Lowry is by far a more solid number three starter than most teams have. Personally, if I'm the GM, I wouldn't trade Lowry in hopes that someone like Sanchez or Misch could step in and replace him. While it's possible they might, I wouldn't risk it. Too many rooks don't make that immediate impact that would really make up for losing a starter as good as Lowry. I'd keep Lincecum, Cain, and Lowry come hell or high water. Promote Misch into Morris's spot in the rotation and see how good he can be. If he looks like he could actually replace Lowry, then that would make Lowry expendable this offseason. But in the meantime, I wouldn't move him for most any player. After all, guys like Foppert and Jerome Williams projected to 1-2 guys, and Ainsworth projected to be a 3-4 guy. Those projections haven't been that accurate so far. I like Lowry's actual value far more than I like Sanchez's projected value.

I liked your point, by the way, about how Sabes admitted he wasn't following his own philosophy. Weird, huh?

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

The thing for me is that it seems like the org has been selling very low on all of their pitchers in the last few years. Guys like Foppert, Ainsworth, Liriano, Bonser, Williams were all traded when they were basically at the nadir of their value. Now, of course, if they'd been traded when they were actually worth something, Sabes would have been crucified. But I guess the thing is that Lowry seems like a pretty obvious sell-high candidate. I'm sorry, but there's no way he can continue to be this good with that WHIP, those K/BB numbers and that kind of stuff.

IMO, it'd be a better idea to trade him now (or over the offseason) for a nice package of one or two young, possible impact hitters (if possible, of course) than to wait for his peripherals to catch up to him and end up trading him for the next LaTroy Hawkins.

It's not a popular idea, obviously, but I feel like Sabean needs to make an unpopular move like that for the sake of the team. And as I think Cain and Lincecum have infinitely more upside than Lowry, I'd much rather trade Lowry.

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

>> Guys like Foppert, Ainsworth, Liriano, Bonser, Williams were all traded when they were basically at the nadir of their value.

Well there's them, but isn't there also a pretty long list of guys they gave up that didn't amount to anything? Trades for Nen and Livan spring to mind.

by achiappanza on Aug 3, 2007 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

I guess I'm just thinking recently here. I don't know how highly the guys they traded for Nen/Livan were regarded at the time.

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

I don't know about Nen, but I think it was Grilli and Bump for Livan... both first-rounders who hadn't had a chance to fail at the major league level yet.

More recently, Jeremy Accardo was traded for two players while he was still clearly feeling his oats with the Giants.

None of these guys could have been considered at the nadir of their value.

by achiappanza on Aug 5, 2007 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

The problem I see with that line of thought is that Lowry's already started a good career. His rookie year was solid, he started out horribly in his second year, but bounced back to post solid numbers for another bad team. Last year his numbers were down, and this year his numbers are looking much better again. He's still young and he's still getting better. If he can cut his walks down even 10%, you'll be whistling a different tune.

I'm totally with Goofus, trade him for another team's hitting version of Matt Cain, but don't trade him and hope for the best.

But the one thing you DEFINITELY need to keep in mind is, our trade history the past few years isn't good. If we traded him now, you think we'd be getting the next Mark Texeira, or the next AJ Pierzynski?

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

the thing is, and I've said this before, I just can't bring myself to ignore how bad every one of his numbers other than ERA has been the last two years. I can't see him continuing to be a 3.32 ERA pitcher (or even an average one, to be honest) when I look at everything about him other than his ERA.

I like Noah a lot, but in my opinion, I just think the team could possibly be better served for the future by trading him.

Now, if other teams notice what I do when they look at Noah and we can't get anything but like... Brendan Harris and Rocco Baldelli for him, I'll be happy to keep Noah around. That said, Lowry should not be, by any means, untouchable and Sabean should really be looking at what he can get for him. And if he can get a couple of hitters to fill some holes back, he should make the deal.

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Agreed with all except Ainsworth. He was as valuable as he was ever going to be -- when the Giants traded him he was in the rotation, had an ERA of 3.82 with a good K/BB, and he still had the Big Three shine on him. Looking back on it, I'm not sure why Sabean thought Ponson was worth Ainsworth, unless he expected Ainsworth to get injured.

by Grant Brisbee on Aug 3, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

hadn't he just had a really crazy injury a month or so before the trade deadline?

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

That sounds right. He definitely wasn't pitching when the trade went down. Anybody remember what happened?

The other thing is that Foppert and Williams weren't at the nadir of their value, because they continued to decline after that. Sure, Sabean would have gotten more back if he'd traded them a year earlier, but he deserves some credit for recognizing that he needed to get some value while he could, because they weren't coming back from their declines.

When you look at the big picture, it starts to look like the rule of thumb should be, Always trade your young pitchers. Even given the Nathan et al. debacle, I'm pretty sure Sabean has come out ahead on all the arms he traded away.

by Evan on Aug 3, 2007 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Yeah he had a fracture in his scapula, which stands out to me because it's really difficult to break your shoulderblade. I believe it was a stress fracture sort of injury. There was a minor hullabaloo after the trade re: the injury and questions if the Giants knew he was hurt all along.

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

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 3, 2007 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

maybe it was Ainsworth's friendship with Tommy Lasorda??

Randy Messenger says,"Boch, why you pointing at me?? Put in Hennessey!!"

by rxmeister on Aug 3, 2007 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Jpon, Not trying to start an argument, just looking for info. Why is it that "there's no way he can continue to be this good with that WHIP, those K/BB numbers"? I understand the general proposition, you don't need to repeat that. I am wondering what the Sabermetrics (I assume that's where the 'rule' comes from) say about exceptions to the rule. And also, as someone else posted (JR, I think), what consideration are you giving that Lowry will be something like the Smoltz' and Maddux's and really refine his control as he enters his 30s and substantially lower his WHIP and BB rates? Isn't he a guy we might want to hang on to as he won't be a Morris into his 30s, but actually could become much better?
Jesus, if that were to happen, wouldn't Sabean be really crucified?

by allfrank on Aug 3, 2007 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

at the moment, I don't see any reason for me to believe that Lowry is any sort of an exception to the rule, other than choosing to believe so because he plays for my favorite team.

I mean... I don't really see any indication that Lowry is suddenly going to improve his walk rate to a more acceptable level. If he did, obviously I would be much less willing to trade him. But his walk rate has worsened every year he's been in the majors. If you see some reason that he would improve his, feel free to point it out, but I don't see one. His stuff has gotten much worse than it was in his initial call-up and I look for some semblance of control in every one of his starts but I just can't see it.

The chance that Noah Lowry becomes Maddux or Smoltz (two probable first-ballot HoFers, one of whom is probably a top 5 all time pitcher!) is so minuscule that I don't see it to be even worth considering, sorry to say. I mean... why do you think Lowry could be anything like Maddux or Smoltz? Neither Maddux nor Smoltz ever reached the point where they were walking nearly 4.7 batters per nine innings.

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Yeah, heres the thing. How do you explain his era and how its been getting lower and how the whip has stayed the same? Since you've only been watching baseball for 5 freakin years you really shouldn't try to predict how lowry and his control will keep declining, stating that you don't see any indication of this happening. You have been watching baseball for 5 freakin years!!!

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 4, 2007 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions

So how many years can we put you down

for being clueless? 26 sounds about right?

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 4, 2007 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: So how many years can we put you down

Hey, the 2 things ive said would happen or need to happen this year have:

Resign Sabean
Trade Morris

Your statements are about what YOU think the team should do. My statements are what the team actually does.
Either I know more than you think or you think you know more than you do.

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 5, 2007 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Or you are Brian Sabean

and you're helping running this team into the ground. Have fun being the GM of a cellar dwelling team for the next two years of your services.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 5, 2007 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Or you are Brian Sabean

Chief, you're exactly right, trading away morris' contract and recieving a young player in return is a move that obviously hurts the team. Thorwing out comments like Lowry has been a lucky pitcher for the last 3 years really makes you seem smart.

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 5, 2007 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions

I love how now 26 yrs old is young

only because its relative to the rest of the geriatric starting lineup.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 5, 2007 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Also I didn't say Lowry was lucky for 3 years

I said we'd be trading the 3 years we have left of Lowry "who has been running lucky" for 6 years of a new left side of the infield. Which is better for the future? I'm taking the 12 player years over 3 most of the time.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 5, 2007 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

God, why are you such a jerkoff?

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

by jponry on Aug 4, 2007 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Because when you say that you don't see lowry improving but instead think he'll decline is wrong. The reasons for you'r opinion don't back up the most vital picting stat, earned runs. Obviously lowry's whip and k/bb rate don't effect his era or innings pitched.

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 5, 2007 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Look, dude, this seems to be hard for you to understand, but I DON'T DISLIKE LOWRY. In fact, he's one of my favorite players on the team.

However, I don't think he's as good as he's pitching right now and therefore could be overvalued on the trade market. We're going to need to get some hitting into the system quickly if we want to compete anytime soon and I think Lowry presents the best opportunity to do so (as opposed to Cain or Lincecum, who I don't think we could afford to give up, or Sanchez, who I don't think would fetch a large enough return.)

I don't want to just trade Lowry for the sake of trading him. If Sabean can't get a couple of possible impact hitters back for him, I'd be happy to keep Lowry around. But if he can get a return like that, I think it would be in the team's best interest to trade him.

That's it.

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

by jponry on Aug 5, 2007 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

And seriously, please stop replying to my posts with the "five years" thing. I can't help when I happened to become interested in baseball. I feel like I've done a more than substantial job of not just following baseball, but practically living it the past five years. If you disagree with me, say so, but constantly bringing up the fact that I've been a fan for five years is unnecessary and irrelevant.

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

by jponry on Aug 5, 2007 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

Obviously, Im not disagreeing there. But their is a difference between trading lowry for a AAA prospect and for a proven MLB player. You trade lowry for the carl crawford, bj upton, alex rios types.

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 5, 2007 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions

The point is you can't trade Lowry for these guys

They are too good already. You need to trade Lowry for the guys you think that will become these guys. Like Andy LaRoche, Evan Longoria or Joey Votto.

Before they hit the majors I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have traded Lowry for Hunter Pence, Ryan Braun, or Billy Butler, though many others here would. You certainly couldn't do it now.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 5, 2007 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

I'd actually almost prefer to trade him for the AAA/just reached the majors types because we'd be able to control those guys for a longer period of time.

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

by jponry on Aug 6, 2007 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: No trady Lowry

But he is very similar, almost identical to tom glavine. Their about the same size, both lefty, pitch the same style, primarily off the plate, mixing in different speeds with the fastball(that tops out at about 87-88), have a great change up, and can strike out the best hitters in baseball.
Glavine 162 game avg. Lowry 162 game avg
era: 3.49 3.9
whip: 1.306 1.353
k/bb: 131/74 141/80

I know Lowry hasn't been pitching nearly as long, but i think he is a little more valuable than his whip may indicate. Not to mention he is only 26 and has a lot to learn and can easily make some adjustments to lower his whip

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 5, 2007 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions

All hands on deck

Believe Sabean is saying that any and all (excluding Ace Lincecum) are available at the right price. This would include starters Cain and Lowry, the bullpen and the young arms like Sosa, Pichardo, Tanner etc in minors.

The FA market is both sparse and expensive. It can tie up your budget for years (see Zito and Roberts). Sabean knows he has some trading chips - inexpensive talented pitching and some minor league prospects he can deal. He is attempting to set up some salary space so if the right deal comes along he would be willing and able to take on a large controllable salary.

My hope is that Sabean can do this a second time - lift the Giants from despair like he did back in the winter of 1996 after two dismal seasons. That winter he traded a fan favorite and the rest is history. It may take trading another fan favorite named Matt to do it again this winter.

by wilriv21 on Aug 3, 2007 10:46 AM PDT reply actions

Re: All hands on deck

So what do you ask for Cain? I'd take Upton or Braun, but I bet nothing along those lines is available. I definitely do not trade for a might-be-an-MLB-regular bat, though.

He walks too many, and the Giants are doing their best to pitch his arm off, and his K% is down a little off last year, but he's not even 23 untilk October. Unless you think he's injured (and with young pitchers that is always a risk), I don't move him unless I get a great, great offer.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Dangle, dangle and then dangle some more

What do you ask for Cain?

You ask for the world. If/when that does not materialize only accept an offer that improves your team and improves the team for a long time. Maybe you package Cain + player(s) and can receive a generous package in return that includes another pitcher. If no pitcher is received in this trade then Sabean will need to replace in another transaction. If no offer is acceptable then no need to make this trade and move on to other deals that can improve our Giants.

by wilriv21 on Aug 3, 2007 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

AS much as we hate it, the truth is Sabean has managed to trade a decent bull pen guy and two good prospects for an all star MLB player. That is what he gets crucified for currently. So, the talk about trading arms for bats, isn't it a little disingenuous? Won't McC Chron's be storming the Bastille at ATT if Lowry is traded?

by allfrank on Aug 3, 2007 11:21 AM PDT reply actions

He totally screwed it up though

Yes, at the time the trade seemed OK. But he totally blew it afterwards. This is what everyone gets on his case for, straight up cutting Pierzynski one year later. Not resigning him while he's still cheap, not trading him to another team, not taking him through arbitration, just straight up cutting him. It was incredibly stupid and basically said we traded away 3 pitching studs for 1 year of a catcher.

This is at least how I think other people are really frustrated about it, or at least how I view it.

No one would be bashing down Phone Park if Lowry was traded for Grady Sizemore or Hanley Ramirez. But he's not going to be. Real baseball followers would be absolutely thrilled if Lowry was moved for Andy LaRoche and Chin-Lung Hu. 3 years of a pitcher running super hot in the luck department for 6 years of a left side of the infield would be an awesome trade. But most of us here just don't see Sabean capable of doing something like that.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 3, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: He totally screwed it up though

This is one of those "what did he know and when did he know it?" scenarios. I agree it was kind of dumb to trade 3 very promising pitchers and then go to arb over, what a million dollars? But I wonder if the mgmt fuck up was as important to 'shitski's' self immolation as his own ascerbic personality? He strikes me as a guy who might not fil well in a whole bunch of clubhouses. I can imagine him coming into a clubhouse of guys who've been around and are established, that they would see him for a lazy, self absorbed putz. In other words, even if management had handled things perfectly wasn't 'shitski's arrogance and laziness going to bring him down anyway? Wasn't it his abysmal year here + being cut that shined the light of reality on him and made him be better and play better in Chi?

by allfrank on Aug 3, 2007 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions

He didn't play better though

He in fact had a lower OPS the following year with Chicago.

I personally think the clubhouse thing is really overrated, I mean (at least according to the media) we have one of the worst clubhouse guys of all time on our team. I don't think people have much of a problem with him as long as he plays ball. That is the most important thing.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 3, 2007 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: He totally screwed it up though

The problem was that he didn't do his homework on Pierzynski. He looked at the numbers and he figured the only reason the Twins were looking to dump him was because of Joe Mauer. Well, AJ was an ass and hated by everyone, and I can't see how Sabean ignored that when he made the trade. And that was the same reason he cut him loose. The guy was so hated by his teammates he had to get him out of there.

Randy Messenger says,"Boch, why you pointing at me?? Put in Hennessey!!"

by rxmeister on Aug 3, 2007 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: He totally screwed it up though

I've made this argument before with lots of facts and figures, but Sabean did what he had to do with AJ. No one wanted him at that salary, especially the Giants, where he'd made enemies of pretty much everyone he came into contact with. And while winning a ring has rehabilitated his rep somewhat, in fact he's been a pretty bad player with the White Sox. Cutting him was absolutely the right thing to do

by Evan on Aug 3, 2007 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: He totally screwed it up though

Period.

by Evan on Aug 3, 2007 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: He totally screwed it up though

Sorry Chief, but you don't get "super lucky" for 3 straight years; its called being good.

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 5, 2007 1:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

This tiny little insignificant corner of it will. I get really nervous every time someone brings up the prospect of trading Lowry. REALLY nervous.

"Last night I neglected to mention something that bears repeating." Ron Fairly

by getnby on Aug 3, 2007 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

If he trades Lowry for the second coming of AJ, then I will personally track him down and boil his bunny rabbit. But if Sabes makes a smart trade for a guy who's not having a ridiculously aberrant all-star-caliber year, then I'm for it.

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

by delorean on Aug 3, 2007 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

But, can we really know at the time of the trade?

by allfrank on Aug 3, 2007 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

no, we can't know it with absolute certainty. but Sabes has a track record of signing guys after they've had a huge, breakout year, like Fonzie and AJ, and you can throw Zito in there too if you want to stretch the definition. The problem is that these guys have already peaked. He's paying a really high premium for goods that will only decline and regress back toward the mean. Ergo we should look at a guy's numbers across his whole career and not just be dazzled by a single breakout season.

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

by delorean on Aug 3, 2007 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

That wasn't Alfonzo's breakout year. That's exactly the kind of signing Sabean should make, too. A late-20s All-Star for a four-year deal at a position of need is a good signing. Just because it turned out to be an awful move doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.

by Grant Brisbee on Aug 3, 2007 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Grant, you're right. '02 was like a "bounceback" year for Fonzie after his career year (2000) and his off year (2001). And yeah, he likely was the best player available at the position who was within the Giants' budget. But dammit, he still sucked.

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

by delorean on Aug 3, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Edgardo Alfonzo was pretty much considered the heart and soul of the Mets. The team, fans and media absolutely loved him. For the Mets to actually offer him a free agent deal that was for LESS money than he was making should have sent out warning flares to the Giants. The Mets are a large market big money team. There was something definitely wrong there, and Sabean was remiss in not finding out what it was. That being said, Alfonzo was a better player for the Giants than most Giant fans give him credit for. He always hit well with runners in scoring position, he was a patient hitter, and rarely struck out. He just didn't provide the power that the Giants expected.

Randy Messenger says,"Boch, why you pointing at me?? Put in Hennessey!!"

by rxmeister on Aug 3, 2007 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

As I remember it, all my Mets-fan friends were incredulous that the Giants gave him such a big contract. I thought it was a great move, but they all believed that his back was hurting him, he'd lost all his power, he'd gotten old in a hurry. It kills me that they turned out to be right.

by Evan on Aug 3, 2007 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions

06 wasn't Zito's breakout year either

or 05, 04, 03...

I'm convinced when Sabean goes out to see guys he either

A. Looks at their career numbers by year, reads until he sees an outstanding year, and then stops and signs him, without noticing said year is 5+ years ago

or

B. He looks at his career totals over averages and not total numbers, so he doesn't realize how old a player is when he signs him.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 3, 2007 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Yeah - Fonzie made sense, but I guess the Mets knew his back was gone. Otherwise, our most successful signing was Ray Durham, who has been a good, above-average 2b for some time.

Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.

by Aadik on Aug 3, 2007 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

I don't retroactively chide him for the Pierzynski trade. I understood the idea at the time, and I kind of liked the deal.

I trade Nathan every time in that situation. A reliever with a history of shoulder problems that came out of absolutely nowhere? I don't care how nasty his stuff is, I assume he's Rudy Seanez in the best-case scenario, and deal him at peak value.

Sure, it cost the Giants a playoff berth this time, but hindsight....

So, yeah. That's kind of the trade I'd like him to do, except I'd like to not get an actual good player, and not a crotch-kicking malcontent with a turf-boosted batting average, and I'd like to not give up one of the five-best relievers in baseball along with the most exciting arm of the past decade. Somehow, I don't think that perfect storm of poor luck will happen ever again to any team.

by Grant Brisbee on Aug 3, 2007 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions

Nathan, sure..

..even Bonser I see, though I'd have tried floating one of the Giants many, interesting, non-first-round arms. But Liriano as a throw-in absolutely riled me the minute it happened.

If you want to trade a fragile, high-upside lefty, you do it after he puts together a lights-out year in double-A and his value is high, not when he has been on the DL for most of the preceding 18 months.

Trading Liriano is something I would have done, too, given the injury history, but not as a throwin.

Ugh.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Nathan, sure..

Bonser's strikeout rate had dropped dramatically, and I seem to remember his fastball was sitting high-80s/low-90s -- a far cry from the mid-90s that made him a good prospect in the first place. I don't have a problem with him being in the trade.

But, yeah, there really isn't any way to sugarcoat Liriano. If you thought the arm was electric when healthy, you don't have to just give him away. It might be a moot point, though, if he really can't stay healthy.

by Grant Brisbee on Aug 3, 2007 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Nathan, sure..

Didn't Ryan Hannaman have an electric arm too? Not sure on the spelling of his name, but that was the guy thrown into the Ponson trade that everyone was up in arms about, but never surfaced in the majors...

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Nathan, sure..

I was much more upset about Hannaman than Liriano when these trades were made. Shows you what I know.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Aug 3, 2007 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Nathan, sure..

That one wasn't close for me. I thought Hannaman was interesting, but his first year in full-season ball he was 21 in the SAL, though he did put up a nice line. Liriano's SAL line was slightly better, and at age 18.

However, he kept getting put on the shelf. I worried about his durability and would have been ready to trade him for value after any one such stellar, minor-league year.

Just not as a throwin off the DL.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

There's an odd notion floating about that Brian Sabean should never trade Noah Lowry because he's valuable, a notion that assumes one of two things:

Trading is a waste of time because Sabean will screw it up.
Sabean should be able to restock the offense just fine by trading non-valuable players, which in turn assumes that most GMs are as dumb as Dave Littlefield.

But they're not. Most GMs require real value to give up real value, with both sides acknowledging the risk of the unknown. (That risk could be the fragile left elbow of Francisco Liriano as well as the sudden pouty mediocrity of AJ Pierzynski, who before joining the Giants was one of the best offensive catchers in baseball).

The point is: you have to trade something to get something. John Schuerholz is generally considered the best GM in baseball, and he just gave up four top prospects for a year and two months worth of Mark Teixeira.

For those who can't bear the idea of trading Lowry, how do you propose rebuilding the offense? Sorry, trading exclusively with Dave Littlefield is not an option. The draft? I'll check back with you in five years. Free agency? At today's prices, mediocrity starts at $10 M a year.

If you want the Giants to be respectable at the start of the new decade, trading Lowry, and perhaps other young pitchers, is a necessity.

Jesse Foppert: Welcome home, my son. And meet your adopted brother, Kelvin Pichardo. He's from the Dominican Republic.

by leftymalo on Aug 3, 2007 11:31 AM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Exactly. Great post.

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

I agree, but if the Braves catch the Mets and win the World Series, it will be well worth it. I don't mind if Sabean gives up some talented kids to get some veterans that put you over the top. If he had done it THIS year, I would have been furious.

Randy Messenger says,"Boch, why you pointing at me?? Put in Hennessey!!"

by rxmeister on Aug 3, 2007 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Absolutely, trade value to get value. But what's more valuable than pitching? I get it, we need bats and we need young bats desparately.

But when Sabes signed his two year extension, they started talking about playing the young guys to give them an extended look. Where are they? Where's Nate? Why isn't Lewis getting regular play time? Every time I turn on the game, Winn and Roberts are starting with Bonds, or Frandsen is in the outfield. Lewis's play time is reduced to pinch run duties and defensive replacement. That's not an extended look!

Look Lowry should fetch a handsome price, because I guarantee you most teams would be very happy to have him. Maybe with a different pitching coach, those walks start disappearing. But the only place we're getting an extended look at young players is on the mound, not in the field. So we trade him for another team's minor league 3rd baseman, and where do you think that new guy is going to be? Surprise! Fresno, because Feliz is swinging a pretty hot bat and we might want to give him a multi-year deal, since he'll be cheap enough!

Sorry, I'm actually losing my point now and getting grumpy doing so. In the end, IF we got back a valuable young player who's pretty much major league ready (I mean, REALLY ready, not COULD BE ready) and could actually have a positive influence on our games once in a while, then trade Noah. But if we get back a Rajai Davis and another Randy Messenger, let's keep him.

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Well, there's a pretty huge difference between a Grady Sizemore-type player (who you mentioned above) and a Rajai Davis-type player.

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Let's just say the player we get in return should be a helluva lot closer to a Sizemore than a Rajai. Deal?

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

To my mind, three more relatively-cheap years of Lowry is worth someone very interesting. An Adam Jones, say, plus a fungible reliever. A Sizemore who has broken out in MLB can't be had, I predict. A near-star who's only just exiting triple-A can.

Also, given the contracts lefties get (cough, Buehrle, who's not much better than Lowry), I think you ask for a Jones-a-like and a couple of high-risk, some-upside throwins. You never know if someone at the other end doesn't covet some cheap, lefty starting pitching beyond reason.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

The McCovey Chronicles is the only baseball blog on earth (or nywhere else) where the word "fungible" will be both invoked AND understood.

"I'd rather be in a prison cell with Mike Tyson, and let him beat my butt all day long, than go through that again." - John Kruk, on the last place '92 season.

by getnby on Aug 3, 2007 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

There's another side to the coin, though... If you trade away one of our best starting pitchers, who is a known commodity and can pitch at the major league level, and get back one hitter, then our pitching staff is handicapped. Now we're looking at a rotation of Lincecum and Cain, and we're now looking at three backend starters, instead of just two (Zito's a backender).

So we've added one bat at the expense of Lowry. Is it worth it? Sanchez didn't impress me as a starter last year, and Misch probably isn't quite comparable to Lowry. Are we now waiting for Henry Sosa, or are we trading him for something else? Or is Bum Gardener and Whats-his-name our next big prospects?

I'm a firm believer that if you're going to sacrifice something to get something valuable in return, you'd better have a backup plan to replace what you're giving up. Otherwise you've still got another hole to fill. Personally, I'm not ready to take the chance that Misch might be good enough to replace most of Lowry's production.

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

we've added one bat at the expense of Lowry. Is it worth it?

Adam Jones isn't "one bat", he's 22, he's going to hit and he plays center field. No, he's not Upton, but he's the next best thing to the (unavailable for a Lowry) Sizemore. Filling an up-the-middle position with an inexpensive player who can hit is golden.

Moreover, much as I appreciate Lowry's competitiveness, he has struck out fewer than one in seven this year and last. That's not a peg on which I want to hang a rotation. Zito's a sunk cost, alas, so he stays. Linececum and Cain should be good, barring injury (I worry about young Matt). Misch is probably an adequate #5, and Sanchez is either a #2, a decent lefty reliever, or a flameout. Plugging Matt Kinney in as swingman would probably be enough.

This team isn't going to compete in 2008, remember. You need to think two years ahead.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Considering Lowry isn't a flameout and Sanchez still has the possibility of being one... Um, I think I'd hold onto Lowry, at least through the season.

Without doing a very in-depth look at Adam Jones's minor league numbers, I see he's only played in the majors last season. In 74 at-bats, he struck out 22 times and walked twice, while posting a batting average of .216 and an OBP of .237. Those are some positively Linden-esque numbers!

You might remember Todd Linden, he looked like he had the potential to put up solid numbers at the big league level. Instead he struck out way too often and couldn't hit a lick. But he was outstanding in AAA and probably would have been a star in AAAA!

Sorry to ooze sarcasm there, sometimes I can't help it. Anyway, are you sure Jones is really going to be a bigger star than Linden, or is there still a good chance we'd be barking up the wrong tree? Because if Jones isn't a real upgrade for us, I wouldn't trade him for Jones.

"The Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. 'I need to see this play like I need a hole in my head'."

by JRPhillips on Aug 3, 2007 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Uh, Adam Jones was 20 years old last season.

Not to mention that 74 AB is an extremely small sample size and he wasn't exactly given consistent playing time for most of it.

Adam Jones is an extremely talented baseball player with plus defense at any outfield position. This season in AAA, at the age of 21 (young for the league), he's hit .314/.382/.586 with 25 HR in 420 AB.

He's light years ahead of any hitting prospect the Giants have had in the last... 20 years probably.

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Basically, what he said. This is clearly a breakout year for him, but he's twenty-two in triple A. That's a good sign. Linden looked good in double-A at 22, and at the time he was hopeful. Then did precisely nothing in the PCL for two and a half years, until an age-25 breakout campaign. Those lost years were a poor sign. Jones is not Upton, but you can't get Upton. Jones, maybe you could get for Lowry.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Take a look at A-Rod's numbers in the big leagues at 20. Woeful. Clearly, this limited amount of AB's is not useful in evaluating a player's future.

by otis29 on Aug 3, 2007 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Well, A-Rod's numbers at 20 were actually amazing. However, in limited ABs at 18 and 19, he was pretty horrible.

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

I think this might be splitting hairs, but the 1995 season was the season A-Rod turned 20:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3115

At that point, his numbers were not very good.

A more accurate comparison would have been with A-Rod's next season, since Adam turns 21 this year. A-Rod's season was pretty solid. However, the # of at-bats and their age similarities is what I was getting at.

Hell, that's what I get for jumping in the stats pool. More chlorine please!

by otis29 on Aug 3, 2007 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

No prob, I was just going by what Baseball-Reference called his age 18, 19 and 20 seasons.

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

by jponry on Aug 3, 2007 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Lowry should only be traded if the giants ROOK some body. Why trade him for equal value? It's not like we have that much young pitching.

It might be reasonable to punt 2008-09 and try to get a boat load of prospects for him who will be ready in 2010-2011 or so. Ditto Cain, even, although my thought are like "entire Dodgers farm system"

by zenbitz on Aug 3, 2007 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Even though Lowry's whip isn't good he finds ways to get hitters out when he needs to. He reminds me of reuter in that way, but he also has the ability to K batters and make them look rediculous. Earlier this year when we were playing the cards he struck out albert pujols and made him look as if her were feliz. It was amazing. Lowry is still young and I think he will eventually get his whip down. I agree that we should only trade him for a player who is mlb proven

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 3, 2007 11:39 AM PDT reply actions

Cutting AJ...

He seemingly killed any options for dealing AJ once he signed Matheny to be the starter. Talk about killing any leverage you had...

by Mark carry on on Aug 3, 2007 11:42 AM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Perhaps if Lowry was to be traded how about including one of the old guys with him?

by Buzzword on Aug 3, 2007 11:52 AM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

I'm on my way to get a Valium.

"Last night I neglected to mention something that bears repeating." Ron Fairly

by getnby on Aug 3, 2007 12:04 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Yes, if anyone is interested in a Hennessey, Messenger, or Chulk, I'm listening. Could an Atchison or some other minor league free agent step in and do what they're doing? Probably.

Oh, and "chit storm", Grant? Really?

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Aug 3, 2007 1:35 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

What? Trade "chits" is slang for trade "pieces", and I thought...

Oh. I get it now.

by Grant Brisbee on Aug 3, 2007 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions

The only way out

Crash the team plane and collect the insurance.

Barry Zito -- Catch Me if You Can.

by E Ticket on Aug 3, 2007 1:43 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

I get that Noah should probably be traded now, the problem is that I don't think that you can get what you think he's worth. Brian's not the only one who worships at the alter of the "Proven Veteran". Pretty much all GM's do. Look at Detroit, they still haven't given the closer's job to Zumaya. If they won't do that, do you think they are going to give up a top prospect and then stick Noah in the middle of a playoff race? Hell no.
If Noah keeps it up, his value will probably skyrocket next year or the year after that. That's when you should trade him. In the meantime, if Brian insists on ignoring the development of position players, the Giants should work on possible replacements for him. It's called foresight. For a guy who's had his job for as long as he has, you'd think Brian would show some.

by smedley on Aug 3, 2007 2:00 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Lowry's a winter trade. A cheap lefty with some success would never, ever make it through waivers.

Zito now, he clears every team.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Barry Zito on a fine start last night. The guy takes a lot of flack around here and its totally understandable why but even his biggest haters have to admit that when he's on those curves are a beautiful thing to watch. We paid way too much money for the sickest remote control you can buy. Turns out it breaks down a lot. You can't shake that feeling of getting ripped off. But when its working you should at least enjoy yourself! Or something like that.

Also, that "ESPN wising up to Joe Morgan" article in the newsfeed is great. Its about time someone from the major media called out Joe Morgan for being, well, Joe Morgan.

by Dutchfury on Aug 3, 2007 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Remote control car is what I meant. Best analogy I could come up with hungover at work on a friday.

by Dutchfury on Aug 3, 2007 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions

article

Also proving that Jon Miller is the King of Everything.

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

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 3, 2007 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions

As much as I like Jon Miller

I find him pompous at times.

by wilriv21 on Aug 3, 2007 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: As much as I like Jon Miller

Ya' want pompous, I'll give you Vin from El Lay.

"I'd rather be in a prison cell with Mike Tyson, and let him beat my butt all day long, than go through that again." - John Kruk, on the last place '92 season.

by getnby on Aug 3, 2007 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Vinnie is a good ol' boy from Brooklyn

Vinnie was as good as it gets. He is much older now and his game has slipped.

by wilriv21 on Aug 3, 2007 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Vinnie is a good ol' boy from Brooklyn

Operative word being "was".

"I'd rather be in a prison cell with Mike Tyson, and let him beat my butt all day long, than go through that again." - John Kruk, on the last place '92 season.

by getnby on Aug 3, 2007 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

As mentioned above, Lowry is doing a fair impression of Kurt Reuter, and Kurt pitched very well for the Giants for a number of years - we were happy to have him, even though his "numbers" did not match his success. Perhaps Lowry is just one of those pitchers that the "numbers" followers will have to accept as better than their numbers. Lowry seems to get those double plays when he needs to - it isn't magic folks. I would like to see him in the Reuter role for many years to follow, especially since I don't see any shining stars in Fresno waiting to take his place.

by APGiantsFan on Aug 3, 2007 3:34 PM PDT reply actions

This doesn't make sense

If Lowry could get the double play when he needs to, why doesn't he just do it every single time there is a man on first. It would cut down on his pitch count incredibly, he could walk the first guy on 4 pitches, then since he "gets the double play when he needs to" he just does it on the next pitch by throwing his special double play pitch right over the plate so the batter grounds out. Rinse and repeat next batter and bam, he'd have a 90 pitch SHO master pitcher.

Yes I poured on the sarcasm heavily with that post, but now do you see why he's been very lucky, which to most stats people magic / luck. Magic = Ervin Johnson.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 3, 2007 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: This doesn't make sense

Magic
----- = Ervin Johnson?
Luck * Magic

1/Luck = Ervin Johnson?????

<grin>

I think you meant /= or !=

by zenbitz on Aug 3, 2007 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions

I hate this coding stuff

I guess I need to do = / = in order for it to work

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 3, 2007 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: This doesn't make sense

Explain how he leads the NL in double plays induced - perhaps a dubious distinction, but a distinction none the less.

by APGiantsFan on Aug 4, 2007 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions

He's a pretty high groundball pitcher?

With a supreme defensive SS and a good 2B at turning the DP?

Nowhere did I say that Lowry couldn't get a lot of GIDP, I just said its a stupid notion that he can "get it when he needs to". If he could, then he would just get it every time there's a man on first base.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 4, 2007 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: He's a pretty high groundball pitcher?

I have three theories regarding Lowry's success despite his high walk-rate and they might not be mutually exclusive. Maybe I'm jyust making excuses for a guy I like, but I'll throw them out there for debate. All come down to trying answer the following question: Why is not as big a deal when Lowry walks a guy as it would be for most pitchers?

Theory #1:
There may be an actual intangibles at work here. As has been said before, Lowry seems to be a "bulldog" on the mound. Call him the anti-Tomko or whatever, but he seems like a guy who actually does get tougher when the going gets tough.

Maybe he does a better job of focusing in stress situations...or maybe he's just better at not letting stress situations get to him. Whatever the case, it doesn't seem that unreasonable to imagine a guy being (or staying) sharp when it really matters. Have there been studies on "pitcher clutchiness"?

Theory #2:
Lowry's delivery, while athletic, is pretty straightfoward and not explosive. It seems that he doesn't lose much when going from the windup to the stretch. Glavine and Reuter are to other examples of guys who's deliveries never seemed to change that much when they'd go to the stretch. This would help explain why one of these guys walking a guy would be less of a big deal than to a pitcher with a big windup. (We've all noticed how Lincecum seems to run into most of his issues when he has to go to the stretch.)

Theory #3
Lowry, like Reuter and Maddux, have deliveries that put them in an excellent position to field their position. Because of this, they're more likely to start a DP on anything within their reach as opposed to a guy that goes tumbling off the mound with every pitch. This, coupled with Lowry's superior athleticsm, might not make a difference every time a guy is on base, but over the course of a season, it certainly could lop a few basis points off his ERA. I also think hiiters are less likely to try to bunt for a hit against a guy ready to field his position, so he takes away an offensive option.

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

by Goofus on Aug 5, 2007 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: He's a pretty high groundball pitcher?

Excellent post

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 5, 2007 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

the way i see it is that we have 4 pitchers locked up for some time (like it or not for Zito). most teams would love to have that. two 23 year olds who are on pace to be in the HOF and two leftys who have done well (say what you want, but they're both young and have had good seasons). i say we trade our pitching prospects e.g. sanchez, misch, etc. for either a sleuth of hitting prospects or one adam jones-type player. we don't need starting pitching for a while. i personally think relief pitching is very overrated and not that hard to find. with those four in the rotation and finally some good hitting prospects, we will be legit in two or three years.

sure, god gave us light, but he also gave us armando benitez

by sabean is a dodger fan on Aug 3, 2007 4:30 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Chit Storm

Uh.

Matt Cain is on place to be in the Hall of Fame?

Um.

Wow.

Steve Kline: He's pretty okay!

by groug on Aug 3, 2007 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Can I do this one?

sample size

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

by delorean on Aug 3, 2007 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions

This isn't even right in this case

Matt Cain's career 18-25, 3.87 ERA 1.28 WHIP numbers are no where near HoF.

Lincecum on the other hand is god so unless you're atheist his place in the hall is locked up.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Aug 3, 2007 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: This isn't even right in this case

Yeah, but I am an atheist.

At least until he brings down that walk rate.

by wcw on Aug 3, 2007 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Sp-giants21_ph_t_0501991449_part6_small

The McCovey Chronicles Fantasy League, For Money.

by GiantPain 3 days ago

39 comments | 3 recs

Calvin_and_hobbes_small

2012 Adoption Draft: Who's In?

by free f.p. #14 5 days ago

312 comments | 6 recs

Calvin_and_hobbes_small

2012 Adoption Draft: Rules Discussion

by free f.p. #14 7 days ago

148 comments | 4 recs

Honus_wagner4_small

Hector & Gregor's Excellent Adventure (In the VWL)

by Fla-Giant 8 days ago

30 comments | 3 recs

Calvin_and_hobbes_small

Community Prospect List: The Results

by free f.p. #14 13 days ago

72 comments | 20 recs

Recent FanPosts

2012 MLB Draft Snapshot – College Left Handed Pitchers

by shankbone 2 days ago

18 comments

Cormac McCarthy novel The Road

by foothillsfan 3 days ago

13 comments

2012 MLB Draft Snapshot – HS Left handed pitchers

by shankbone 4 days ago

16 comments | 1 recs

Angel Villalona reported to have a work visa

by Gianni 5 days ago

5 comments

2012 MLB Draft Snapshot – The Catchers

by shankbone 6 days ago

25 comments

Hidey-fern_small

Hiking on the 18th?

by Merope 6 days ago

4 comments | 1 recs

2012 MLB Draft Snapshot - The Shortstops

by shankbone 7 days ago

18 comments | 1 recs

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts

Copyright © 2012 Vox Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

Newsletter Signup About Us Frequently Asked Questions Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guiding Principles Advertise With Us Contact Us

Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.

OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters • Odds Shark