Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Sep 10, 2007 6:06 PM PDT
66 comments
OK, I've been in a debate with Boof about the Giants and he brought up something I had to see if others agreed with him or not, which was when the Giants should have rebuilt.
His statement, quote, was "Most everyone seems to recognize that the rebuilding of this team is going to take a long time. It's a process that should've started in earnest after the 2002 season."
Do people really believe that?
That would mean that you are rebuilding:
- the season after going to the World Series,
- one season after signing Bonds to a huge contract, and
- after two of the best seasons ever by a ballplayer, Boof either relegates Bonds to a rebuilding program that will most likely last to the end of his contract OR trade Bonds as part of the rebuilding program.
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 |
66 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Long time no see Martin....
I don't see this overpaid morass of suckitude as an inevitable consequence of years of competitive baseball as management seems to.
by kenshin1 on Sep 10, 2007 6:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Long time no see Martin....
The problem is that you cannot really transition to rebuilding when you have Barry Bonds sitting around making $20M, that just doesn't make sense.
I agree that the 2007 Giants is not an inevitable consequence of years of competitive baseball, but I do think that it was just not the Giants year - by the Pythagorean, they should be right around .500 again, instead of so deep down in the cellar.
But that's all just contracts and some are gone this season, and we have the great pitching staff to look forward to.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Sep 14, 2007 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
but we were too blinded with immediate success to accept failure and dismantle our team.
by daddysback on Sep 10, 2007 6:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
please check my math
Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy
by hairball on Sep 11, 2007 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hypothesis:
Durham is a classic example. Others?
Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy
by hairball on Sep 11, 2007 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Cleophus on Sep 11, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by sfmaynard on Sep 11, 2007 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
But, since we are talking about hindsight, the following are the moves the Giants made after the 2002 Season and the moves the Giants should have made:
- Failed to re-sign Kent, Bell, and Martinez and instead signed Durham, Alfonzo, and Perez.
- Traded Ortiz to Atlanta for Moss.
- Traded Hernandez to Expos for Brower.
- Decided to not pursue re-signing Lofton and Sanders and instead signed Grissom, and Cruz.
What the Giants should have done is priortize their dollars wisely. The number one priority should have been to re-sign Kent even if this ment beating Houston's offer accross the board with both more years and more dollars per year. Houston got Jeff for 2 years and $18M we should have been willing to go to 4 years and $40M if that is what it took. Batman (Bonds) needed his Robin (Kent) and this failure by Giants management to recognize this was a huge mistake.
After re-signing Kent then the Giants should have adressed the other two infield spots. I would have then been fine with signing Perez and re-signing Matinez (thus passing on Alfonzo, Durham. and Bell and their bigger dollars). This would then set up a three way battle for the starting 3B position between Perez (moving Aurilia to 3B), Martinez, and Feliz.
Next, I would have held out to move Hernandez and his dollars and I would have never been bluffed into settling for moving Ortiz and his dollars instead. Net we don't get Brower and Moss but we get to keep Ortiz instead.
Finally, we wwould then have the money to re-sign Lofton and Sanders instead of settling for Grissom and Cruz. We would not have to trade for a starting pitcher at the deadline and could instead trade for more offense or bullpen or both.
This offseason was the beginning of the decline (inspite of the 100 wins) but failure to rebuild was not the problem. Failure to correctly prioitize our needs vs the dollars available was the problem.
by giantsrainman on Sep 10, 2007 6:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
I don't think 1) and 4) were that bad. Durham was pretty good 2003-06. Giants medical staff obviously thought Alfonzo still had something left. He's 33 this year - a spring chicken by Giants standards.
2) and 3) were some combination of cheap & stupid. But Livan was not a good pitcher for us. That only really looks bad because he re-invented himself. (Bad coaching?)
by zenbitz on Sep 11, 2007 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Bell also didn't want to be here. He wanted to be with Bowa in Philly, plus they had a shiny new stadium that he was excited about going. Also, paying him 3 years at $5M+ per year, Alfonzo was clearly a better player and only $1M more. Even with how poorly Alfonzo turned out, he was still clearly the better player than Bell turned out.
Martinez, yes, much better than Neifi, not sure why we did that one other than that Neifi was a gold-glover on defense.
Ortiz was only traded because of the money, else the Giants would have been happy to keep him I think. And we still have Merkin. I only wish we got a position prospect instead of Moss.
Livan? Seriously, if there was ever a Giant who wore out his welcome, it was him. He had a world of talent, but he only showed it when he felt like it. Is that someone you want in your clubhouse, particularly to influence your upcoming young starters?
And trading him cleared the way to finally allow Ainsworth to start, plus we had Foppert and Williams waiting in the wings. I only wish we had gotten more for him, particularly since we paid his salary. He wasn't that bad a pitcher.
Lofton/Sanders vs. Grissom/Cruz? At that time, I was sick of Sanders empty stats, he can do stuff but seemingly never when we wanted it. And Grissom did pretty well for us. I still like getting Durham, perhaps, though, it would have been better to retain Kent and move Durham to CF, think how good that offense would have been.
And I never really cared that much for Lofton as a player since then.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Sep 14, 2007 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Evan on Sep 10, 2007 7:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Kent on Sep 10, 2007 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
And I would say that if there was a time where they should have blown the team up and "rebuilt" it was after 2004, not 2002.
by jponry on Sep 11, 2007 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Lets be realistic, the Giants were never going to rebuild the lineup through the farm system (whether by draft or trade). The best they could do was find another super-star or two to cover for those black holes at the bottom of the order.
by Bhaakon on Sep 11, 2007 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
They likely wouldn't have signed Vizquel either, which is the only part of this hypothetical that I don't like so far...
by EliminateMe on Sep 11, 2007 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by oldrips on Sep 12, 2007 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
The AJ trade, in a way was an attempt to get younger at a key position and start building toward the future.
Unfortunately, the collapse of AFW and the unhappy ending to the AJ trade conspired to derail a whole rebuilding plan. Probabably set us back at least 5 years if not 10.
by DrBGiantsfan on Sep 10, 2007 10:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
In the AJ trade, the Giants gave up two prospects and a pre-arbitration reliever for a guy with only two years left before free agency. Swapping long-term investments for a short-term upgrade strikes me as pretty much the opposite of a rebuilding-type deal.
by Bhaakon on Sep 11, 2007 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Bhaakon on Sep 11, 2007 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by NearestNorwich on Sep 11, 2007 4:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
It makes perfect sense to analyze it at a 40-man roster level. Getting younger and more talented in the lineup only qualifies as part of a rebuilding if that player is under the team's control for long time. Rebuilding with guys who won't be around in three-years (or will be earning FA-market value in 3-years) isn't really rebuilding, particularly if you're trading away guys who won't hit free agency for another 4 to 6 seasons.
by Bhaakon on Sep 11, 2007 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
AJ could have been part of a rebuild had Sabes believed in him enough to sign him long term. That is, in fact, the only way that trade makes any sense at all. Obviously, Sabes didn't have that kind of faith in AJ and therefore he should never have made the trade, irrespective of how it ultimately turned out.
by DrBGiantsfan on Sep 11, 2007 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
A team should think twice before signing the former type of player, because there's a good chance that they can get nearly (if not identically) the same production from a minor leaguer already in their system or a one-year veteran flier. The later, however, is an irreplaceable piece that a team has little chance of finding laying around AA or pull of the scrap heap.
Even if the Pierzynksi deal could be cast as a "rebuilding" move (which I think is pretty questionable), it would have to be the stupidest rebuilding trades ever. They moved two high risk/high upside pitching prospects and a low risk/high upside pre-arbitration reliever for one low-risk-medium upside expensive (comparatively) catcher with a shorter contract.
by Bhaakon on Sep 12, 2007 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What makes the Pierzynski deal
by rfloh on Sep 12, 2007 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Roger on Sep 12, 2007 5:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Evan on Sep 11, 2007 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
In fact, the Giants decided to give up first-round picks for a couple of years -- at the very time they should have been ADDING to their young prospects.
I think the poster who said the Giants should have begun retooling after 2002 had the right idea. Now they are forced to rebuild because they are WAY behind the eight ball.
And as another poster mentioned, the Giants DID allow Jeff Kent, Bill Mueller, David Bell, Russ Ortiz, Livan Hernandez, Kenny Lofton, Reggie Sanders and Ramon Martinez to leave after the 2002 season. They replaced them with Ray Durham,Edgardo Alfonzo, Dameon Moss, Jim Brower, Shinjo, Jose Cruz and Neifi Perez. Just how stupid was THAT?
Through the end of the 2002 season, Brian Sabean did little wrong. Since that time, he has done far too little right. He probably wasn't as good as he originally looked -- nor as bad as he has looked the last five seasons.
In the end, it appears he is merely another hack put out by baseball, just another guy who does it the same old way. I would say he does it BETTER than many, but he seems bereft of new ideas.
Remember, we're talking about the guy who belatedly said he was trying to improve the Giants OBP -- and then signed Jose Vizcaino. We're talking about the guy who signed Neifi Perez immediately after Neifi had one of the worst seasons of any starting player in history.
We're talking about the guy who traded Livan Hernandez for Jim Brower -- and picked up almost all of Livan's contract for the year, even though Livan had no guaranteed money beyond that 2003 season.
We're talking about the guy who gave the highest pitcher contract in history to a guy who was clearly declining.
We're talking about the guy who passed on trying to get Vladimir Guerrero because he thought Vladimir's health wasn't good enough.
And I haven't even brought up the name A.J. Pierzynski heretofore.
by sharksrog on Sep 11, 2007 3:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
In retrospect, sure, this was a catastrophic series of moves. But at the time, they looked pretty good, and I thought Sabean had had a pretty good off-season. Replacing Bell and Kent with Durham and Alfonzo looked like a wash, maybe a slight improvement, and made the team younger (and let's not forget that Kent apparently had no interest in coming back). Livan had become a mediocre, worn-out innings eater; I don't think anyone foresaw his resurrection in Montreal. Shinjo and Neifi couldn't hit, but they were great gloves, which is important when you're trying to develop a bunch of young pitchers. Choosing Rueter over Ortiz and Grissom over Lofton bothered me, but those were small-bore decisions.
It could've worked.
by Evan on Sep 11, 2007 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Also, Reggie Sanders's middle name is Laverne.
by Evan on Sep 11, 2007 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Goofus on Sep 11, 2007 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Evan on Sep 11, 2007 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Goofus on Sep 11, 2007 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Why do I remember that? Because I'm still pissed at Lofton's insistence to play the field and not DH, when he should have been batting leadoff and DHing with Shinjo playing CF and batting 8th.
by JRPhillips on Sep 12, 2007 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by giantsrainman on Sep 12, 2007 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
In the end, Shinjo was a terrible fielder but a helluva slick fielder. He had no business whatsoever DHing, and that angered me, and it angered the gods of baseball. Thus the TRUE reason the Giants now suck.
by JRPhillips on Sep 12, 2007 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nitpick Trifecta
Second, JR wrote Shinjo was a "terrible fielder", which obviously should read "embarrassingly awful hitter". Easy typo to make.
Third, I already picked this nit yesterday morning.
I am the king of nitpick! Bow down before me!
by EliminateMe on Sep 12, 2007 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Nitpick Trifecta
by JRPhillips on Sep 12, 2007 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Nitpick Trifecta
by Natto on Sep 12, 2007 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Durham actually turned out pretty good when healthy (and I don't think his health issues could easily have been anticipated), but apparently the Giants were the only team willing to sign Alfonso without a physical. Didn't that strike you as odd at the time?
And how much sense did it make for the Giants to trade away Livan Hernandez for financial reasons -- and then pick up almost all his salary when they traded him?
Now I will admit that while I had nagging questions at the time, I still believed in Brian Sabean, who up until that time had been a magician with his moves. In retrospect, that now appears to have been a mistake on my part.
Brian almost certainly isn't as good as he appeared from 1997 through 2002 -- nor as bad as he has appeared since. I would say he's middle of the pack, or perhaps even slightly above.
But to me that speaks to the poor quality of general managers, not to his own excellence.
IMO Brian dug himself a hole after the 2002 season that he has been trying to dig himself out of ever since. That off-season he gave away his cushion against his only failing at that time -- his failure to build the Giants farm system.
You do realize, don't you, that the Giants are almost certain not to be very good the rest of this decade -- and perhaps even well into the next one?
by sharksrog on Sep 12, 2007 3:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
It strikes me as odd that you believe it was strictly about money.
The team has a budget. They decide where they're going to spend money and where they're going to go cheap. There were holes to fill at second and third, and a profusion of pitchers.
Livan Hernandez was terrible. Russ Ortiz was okay but overrated. Meanwhile, Ainsworth, Williams, Foppert, Nathan, and Correia looked to be ready or nearly so. This is exactly how a smart team stays competitive: trade away mediocre players who are getting expensive and replace them with products from your farm system. (And let's not forget that they got a good prospect back for Ortiz.)
Or they could've kept those two starting pitchers and played, I dunno, Eric Young and Pedro Feliz at second and third. Would that have been better?
This "signing Alfonso without a physical" canard is pure Monday-morning quarterbacking. I don't know if it's even true; but assuming it is, I haven't seen any evidence that Alfonso's subsequent decline was caused by physical problems, nor any evidence that a physical would have caught those problems if they existed. Players who do pass physicals decline and get hurt all the time.
It makes no sense. So maybe you should consider the possibility that that's not why they did it?
I'm no Sabean apologist. I'm ready to trade him in for just about any other GM. But sometimes he makes good moves that don't work out, just as he sometimes makes bad moves that do.
No, the hole was dug after the 2003 season. That was the year of the AJ trade, the Michael Tucker foolishness, the failure to bid on Tejada and Guerrero, and the inability to recognize that the collapse of Ainsworth/Foppert/Williams meant that the team needed to regroup.
Speculative and irrelevant.
by Evan on Sep 12, 2007 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
The mention that the Giants were the only team willing to sign Edgardo Alfonzo without a physical isn't Monday morning quarterbacking. The decision was mentioned and questioned at the time.
As for whether a physical would have caught what were quite possibly back problems, we indeed don't know for sure. But signing a player without a physical when other teams are requiring it seems a bit reckless, doesn't it?
Yes, the trade of Livan Hernandez may indeed have been for other than monetary reasons (although the Giants may also have been concerned that Livan's 2004 option would vest). But given that he became one of the top 10 starters in the league over the next three seasons, it wasn't a great move, now was it?
You say that Brian sometimes makes good moves that don't work out, just as he makes bad moves that do. Isn't that pretty much true of almost everyone who makes moves of any type?
Brian hasn't made nearly enough good moves the past five seasons -- and they haven't worked out very well, either.
You say the hole was dug after the 2003 season, and the AJ Pierzynski trade alone points to the hole being dug deeper. But the hole was first dug when the Giants allowed Jeff Kent, Bill Mueller, Ramon Martinez, Russ Ortiz, Livan Hernandez, Kenny Lofton and Reggie Sanders to leave after the 2002 season.
Would you say that since that time that group has contributed more -- or the replacement group of Ray Durham, Edgardo Alfonzo, Neifi Perez, Damean Moss, Jim Brower, Marquis Grissom and Jose Cruz? And, yes, that was indeed a rhetorical question it was so obvious.
That the Giants aren't going to be a good team for quite a while isn't speculative. It is analytical and almost obvious (barring an incredibly fortuitous string of events. The Giants upper farm system is as bare as the upcoming free agent market. Even worse, the Giants have little to trade.
And it isn't irrelevant, since part of being a general manager is keeping the foundation strong. That is the area in which Brian Sabean has done his worst job. He has indeed been recovering over the past 15 months and may even have done a nice job of doing so. But his first nine seasons were plagued by his inability to sufficientlyimprove the poor farm system he inherited. If you can't do so in nine years, you're probably not very good at doing so - in addition to being unlucky.
And there you have it. :)
by sharksrog on Sep 12, 2007 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
But in the end, Livan really and truly was run out of San Francisco because of one thing in particular: Giving up four early runs in the first couple innings of Game 7. Everyone already hated him, and when that happened, particularly after all his talk about being a postseason pitcher, he ran himself out of town.
by JRPhillips on Sep 12, 2007 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by GameSix on Sep 13, 2007 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
When we get down on a guy, we grossly overblow it. With Livan, the Giants just plain blew it.
by sharksrog on Sep 14, 2007 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding the physical
by rfloh on Sep 12, 2007 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by EliminateMe on Sep 11, 2007 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Let's face it. Barry Bonds has made Brian Sabean a "good" GM. How do you think Billy Beane would have fared had he had his usual amount of money to spend -- AFTER signing Barry Bonds? Beane essentially spotted the best player in the game to Sabean -- and still kept up with Brian.
by sharksrog on Sep 12, 2007 3:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy
by hairball on Sep 11, 2007 8:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
asdfg@#$&^#
Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy
by hairball on Sep 11, 2007 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Goofus on Sep 11, 2007 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Whether or not they should have "blown up the team" between 02-03 is not really relevant. However, the collapse of the last few years was emminently predictable given the penchant for signing old, older, and oldest position players.
Eventually, that is going to come back and bite you in the ass. Unfortunatly, it has come to a head at a time when
a) farm system is bereft of position players
b) other GMs have smartened up and won't ship you a good prospect for a vet. pitcher, and won't let their young hitters go FA.
by zenbitz on Sep 11, 2007 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
And they desperately needed to address the decayed infrastructure that was their minor leagues. Instead, they soon began intentionally giving up draft picks.
We've noticed in sports, haven't we, that when teams do things that just don't seem right -- they usually aren't?
by sharksrog on Sep 12, 2007 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Booyah!
by JRPhillips on Sep 12, 2007 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
the time to begin the rebuild was the middle of 2005 season...it was apparent to me that the run was over at that point and Durham and some others should have been traded then...
by slojoe on Sep 11, 2007 11:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Alou
by DrBGiantsfan on Sep 11, 2007 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Firstly, the injury
Furthermore, if the injury was season ending, then the concern would have been warranted.
However, Vlad came back from the injury and went batshit crazy: 349-420-726 1.146 in August and 346-446-538 .984 in September of that year.
by rfloh on Sep 12, 2007 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
First, I didn't interpret the question as "blowing up the team and starting over." I view rebuilding as purposefully getting younger & more talented. We needed to do that in 2002, and we still do.
The team didn't catch fire in 2002 until we traded for Kenny Lofton in the 2nd half. And we did that because we had no leadoff hitter available in the minors. So, while I agree that Ainsworth, Foppert, & Williams were the expected youth movement for the pitching staff (and their demise set us back somewhat) - our failure to draft future ML hitters made us unable to follow the natural progression of gradually replacing your hitting lineup as the individual hitters get old and lose their skills. There was no Fred Lewis, or even Rajai Davis, to put in CF and have leadoff. We knew we hadn't produced a hitter in a long time, even back in 2002. By then we knew 1998 OF's Tony Torcato, Chris Magruder, and Arturo McDowell weren't working out; we knew Sean McGowan and the entire hitting class of 1999 was a washout; Lance Niekro was in the process of being converted to a 1B (less valuable than having a 3B who could hit) but had never hit more than 5 HR in a season. The list goes on and on. We had nothing. And instead we began the yearly game of Let's Buy Some Free Agents, which, as I see it, is tacit admission that We Can't Draft Worth A Frak.
So now we're about to do what we should have done 5 or 6 years ago. Except now we have to do so while losing lots of games. Look at Atlanta: before they've lost Chipper and Andruw to free agency or old age, they've plugged in Jeff Francouer, Kelly Johnson, Brian McCann, Yunel Escobar (somewhat), and could have kept Saltlamacchia and plugged him in as well - all while competing for the division title. That's how I want us to be.
It's sorta like job hunting. The best time to look for a new job is while you're still employed; the worst time is when you have no job. We should have been looking for jobs after 2002. Right now, the Giants are unemployed and looking for work.
by Lyle on Sep 11, 2007 2:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Older, younger, whatever. Obviously, the reason to get younger is either because the younger players are better, or will be better. Or cheaper at least.
Oh, and you can clear your cookies and vote as often as you like!
by zenbitz on Sep 11, 2007 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Roger on Sep 11, 2007 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
But IMO Brian Sabean should have been fired for allowing the farm system to stay in shambles prior to 2006.
by sharksrog on Sep 12, 2007 3:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
BTW, I can't see Clayton Tanner put in the same category with Lincecum and Villalona. I can't see him profiling much above a back-end starter at the utmost, and I think that's a generous ceiling.
by Roger on Sep 12, 2007 5:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
Yes, the added experience would be good -- but we're talking about only one month. And, yes, I view Dan Ortmeier as a bit of an exception to my "rule" here.
Dan is said to have changed his swing from the left side. That is good, because his old one wasn't good enough. If I were the Giants, I would work hard with Dan to make his new stroke a habit he won't lose muscle memory on. If Dan can hit lefthanded, he can play. If not, he's a fifth outfielder/utlity player.
Rajai Davis is likely a fourth outfielder, who could perhaps form a decent platoon with Freddie Lewis if the latter can play decent center field defense (which he surprisingly seemed to be doing before he was sent down).
Nate Schierholtz seems deserving of a chance to start. It appears he could be a decent RBI man, although his lack of walks would seem to relegate him to about sixth in the order. Without walking more frequently, his OBP isn't likely to be high enough to hit much higher than fifth unless he hits well above .300 (which he won't continue to do).
Nate has cut his strikeout rate nearly in half while advancing from High A to AAA (and briefly in the majors) over the past two seasons. When the Giants sent him down and asked him to hit for power, he went down and hit for power. He has finished each of the past two seasons with a flourish, turning a lackluster 2006 AA season into a fairly good one and this year adding the power the Giants were seeking.
Nate still strikes out too often against southpaws, but he has shown power against them. He's even more a lower-half-of-the-order guy against lefties, since he just doesn't get on base much against them.
Kevin Frandsen is likely a gritty utility infielder, although I have no problem with the Giants seeing how he fares as an everyday player at second base. My hope is that Ray Durham bounces back next season, so the Giants can get something for him at the deadline.
You are absolutely correct that Clayton Tanner isn't anywhere near the same category as Tim Lincecum or Angel Villalona. I added him as an after thought.
I also thought of Emmanuel Burris, the Giants second-round pick last year, but even though he recovered when dropped to Augusta, Emmanuel's stock had to take a serious hit when he was unable to cut it at San Jose this year.
#4 pick Ben Snyder came to mind, as well. He certainly didn't hurt his stock this past season, but as a college draftee who still played at the same level as the 19-year-old Tanner, I think he would rate a clear step below Clayton.
I think the 2007 draft is going to turn out well, although I worry about the arm health of Mad Bum and the thus-far-very-impressive Tim Alderson. I think the Giants should have realized they are going to have a hard time finding major league players worth the money they have to spend and should have gambled on Rick Porcello. Rick commanded $7 million from the Tigers, but he could eventually become a quarter billion dollar pitcher.
If Porcello pans out as well as he projects, the Tigers will have gotten a tremendous bargain prior to his reaching free agency eligibility. IMO it should have been the Giants taking that risk, turning they very good draft into an excellent one.
And, yes, I realize that Alderson may turn out to be as good as or better than Porcello. But Rick appeared to me to be this year's Tim Lincecum -- a pitcher with just fabulous mechanics.
by sharksrog on Sep 12, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by Roger on Sep 12, 2007 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rebuilding the Giants: hindsight
by sharksrog on Sep 14, 2007 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
