McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB Hot Stove: blogging the rumors, trades, signings Bar-right-arrows

spread the word

Giants Positional Depth Chart

Xanthan_tiny by xanthan on

Position 1 2 3 4 5
C Molina Sandoval Holm Posey Witter
1B Ishikawa Sandoval Phelps
 Bowker Villalona
2B Frandsen Burriss Velez Downs Noonan
SS Burriss Ochoa Bocock Crawford Adrianza
3B Sandoval Rohlinger Gillaspie … …
LF Lewis Roberts Bowker Horwitz Ortmeier
CF Rowand Winn Lewis Timpner Richardson
RF Winn Schierholtz Bowker Copeland …
SP1 Lincecum Misch Hammond Martinez Pucetas
SP2 Cain Misch Hammond Martinez Pucetas
SP3 Zito Misch Hammond Martinez
 Pucetas
SP4 Sanchez Misch Hammond Martinez
 Pucetas
SP5 Lowry Misch Hammond Martinez Pucetas
LHP Taschner Espineli … … …
LHP Hinshaw Threets … … …
LHP Affeldt … … … ...
RHP Romo Cowart ... ... ...
RHP Wilson Hedrick … … …
RHP Sadler Matos … … …
RHP Yabu Miller … … ...
RHP Valdez Pichardo … … …

I've been working on a Giants depth chart by position recently for my site and I wanted to run what I had across you guys to get some comments. Players are ranked by position. Hence, a player with a #1 is atop the depth chart for his position, a player with a #5 is much further away from being called on to play that position. This isn't a chart based on talent -- Hammond rates higher than Bumgarner -- but closeness to filling a spot.

Did I miss anyone? I'm not concerned with relievers overly because they are so hard to predict by nature. Players that are bolded are on the 40-man.

Thanks for the help, some of the rankings gave me a hard time. I originally had Posey at #4 but moved him up to #3.

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.

3 recs | Comment 131 comments | Digg!

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

One more thing: English and Threets are minor league FA’s, but I included them anyways. If they leave the team, I’ll make the required edits.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 8:31 AM PST   0 recs

I agree with the comments that Adrianza should be #5 on the SS list. Additionally, if we are counting minor league free agents, shouldn’t Scott McClain be on the 3B depth chart?

Todd Jennings: If he's on the DL, he can't suck as much, right?

by Speedforthewin on Nov 16, 2008 8:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Also, i’ve noticed there are typos for Martinez on the SP3 and SP4 lines. Very minor stuff. It looks Great!

Todd Jennings: If he's on the DL, he can't suck as much, right?

by Speedforthewin on Nov 16, 2008 8:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Thanks, just fixed those.

What’s everyone’s opinion on Adrianza? I can’t see including him on the depth chart because he’s never been out of Rookie ball — despite the quick trip to AAA — and I haven’t heard anything on him besides a couple of BA blurbs. He might have some upside but he could be the furthest away of all of our SS prospects.

I’d rather include Sharlon Schoop before him and I’m not going to be doing that.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 17, 2008 5:26 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

My main argument would be that my gut feeling is that he will assert himself as a SS prospect over the next year. However, this list is very fluid and if Adrianza produces, he can always be added later. Besides, if a SS were to be signed as a FA, Adrianza would be bumped off anyway.

Todd Jennings: If he's on the DL, he can't suck as much, right?

by Speedforthewin on Nov 17, 2008 6:44 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Scouts are crazy about him. I think he’s going to appear on some top ten Giants prospects lists this winter.

The fact that they called him up to AAA when Fresno needed a spare glove suggests to me that he should indeed be on the major-league depth chart.

by Evan on Nov 17, 2008 6:45 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I agree with Evan. Sure, if we sign a FA then you can bump him off, but either Adrianza or Schoop deserves to be among the top five.

Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time? Whatever's happened, it's like I've landed on a different planet. Now, maybe if I can work out the reason, I can get home.

by Lyle on Nov 17, 2008 7:49 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Scouts are crazy about him. I think he’s going to appear on some top ten Giants prospects lists this winter.

If he doesn’t appear on our community top ten list, it just doesn’t matter.

Yes we did!

by Goofus on Nov 17, 2008 8:31 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

True.

(Although he’ll be on the board for #9 and #10.)

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 17, 2008 8:40 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I can’t see him getting in the top ten over Crawford, Pucetas, Ishikawa, Kieschnick. Maybe he’d slide in above Fairley

Todd Jennings: If he's on the DL, he can't suck as much, right?

by Speedforthewin on Nov 17, 2008 9:02 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I can’t see him being under Pucetas or Ishikawa, and it’s easy to imagine him being above Crawford as well.

To me the depth chart question is different from sheer prospect status, as Xanthan says, it’s an issue of who would be the next in line to be called up. But I agree with Evan that the organization calling on him to fill in at AAA does suggest that he’s on that list above SS who are above him in the chain of command.

Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!

by Roger on Nov 17, 2008 10:04 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

But I agree with Evan that the organization calling on him to fill in at AAA does suggest that he’s on that list above SS who are above him in the chain of command.

Does it though? How much does 6 AB’s in AAA tell you? And this is the same organization that threw Bocock into the fire. Does that make Bocock a better prospect at shortstop?

Ehire Adrianza is interesting, but he’s yet to play a full season outside of rookieball. I think Schoop has to go before him at #5.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 17, 2008 10:24 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Out on a limb

I’ll go on the record to say Brian Bocock will never hit. Not today. Not tomorrow. Never. He should take this winter to learn pitching mechanics.

by wilriv21 on Nov 17, 2008 10:30 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Also, the reason he went to AAA is partially because he was close in proximity to the team. From the BA chat:

The reason he played in AAA was because the Fresno team was short an infielder (I think it was when Ivan Ochoa got called up); since they were already in Arizona, they brought in Adrianza to fill the void until a more experienced infielder could get there.

He’s a very smooth fielder but the depth chart isn’t about prospect status but rather who’s “next in line”.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 17, 2008 10:30 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

How did you go from
How much does 6 AB’s in AAA tell you? And this is the same organization that threw Bocock into the fire. Does that make Bocock a better prospect at shortstop?

To

He’s a very smooth fielder but the depth chart isn’t about prospect status but rather who’s "next in line".

In just six minuets? :)

If this is about talent, then his call up isn’t important. But if it’s about who’s "next in line" then it is important, and the Bocock call up only hurts your argument.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Nov 17, 2008 10:46 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

My point is that I’m not dogging Adrianza because I do like certain things about him. But I can’t see him being #5th in line and for those that are weighting his 6 AB’s in AAA so much, Bocock was a counter example.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 17, 2008 10:58 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

The 6 ab’s don’t matter; it’s the fact that they called him up to AAA at all.

By calling up Bocock, the Giants showed that (a) they prize defense over offense in a shortstop, and (b) in an emergency, they don’t care at all about the organizational ladder.

Adrianza-to-Fresno is the same move, just a level lower. Geographical proximity may have been the key factor, but even so, most organizations wouldn’t have done that.

by Evan on Nov 17, 2008 11:10 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Alright, you Adrianza supporters have won me over….for now.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 17, 2008 11:21 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Actually..

Bocock to SF = skipping 2 levels (AA/AAA)
Adrianza to Fresno = skipping 4 levels (A-/A/A+/AA)

Even if you want to say that’s all A ball, players at least make 2 stops in those 3 levels usually. So he skipped at least an extra year than Bocock did. Note too though, Adranza did also play a game for A-, probably in the same fashion that the team was short IF. I’m not sure though.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 17, 2008 11:39 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Adrianza to Fresno has nothing to do with his skill-set (which scouts do speak highly of) and everything to do with the fact that they could put him in a cab to get him to Tucson. The only reason he was there was because he was the best SS option in Rookie ball at the time.

by MILB Watcher on Nov 17, 2008 2:00 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

good list

looks like you took time to do a good job but, the pitchers kinda baffle me. Even though Joey Martinez is very close to the majors wouldn’t he be around say numero five because even if lincecum went down Cain would fill the spot and so on.

by caincecum on Nov 16, 2008 8:31 AM PST   0 recs

Yeah, I’m not trying to say that Martinez is a “#1 Stater” in terms of stuff or talent, but that he and Hammond are the next closest guys we have for starting pitching. Of course if Lincecum went down and they called up Martinez, he would probably start in the back of the rotation while they moved Cain up.

Anyone have any ideas how I could do this better? Maybe move Martinez down the SP3-5 spots?

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 8:39 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I moved him down to clarify any confusion.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 8:42 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Awesome job, this is very cool. For the starters, what if you listed the first four after Lincecum, then the next four after Cain, etc., in the order they would likely be called upon?

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Nov 16, 2008 9:05 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Seconded.

The Denker bus is now bound for San Diego. Those who were passengers on it are now angrily stranded at a gas station in Modesto, CA. Not much about baseball here .

by oldjacket on Nov 16, 2008 9:11 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Good idea, thanks Marcello. I’ll make the changes.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 9:18 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Also, wouldn’t it be the same 4 pitchers for each starter?

Hammond, Martinez, Pucetas, Tanner/Alderson/etc.. would probably be the order, correct? That probably bumps off players like Bumgarner, Sosa, and Barnes.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 9:20 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Well, you could just put them under Cain, but I see what you’re saying. It will still be potentially confusing. Maybe you could make some extra rows at the bottom, just generic SP?

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Nov 16, 2008 9:24 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I'd say..

Since your first 5 starters in the majors are listed vertically, list them as they’d get called up vertically as well.

I dunno, a depth chart is hard to do sometimes for these types of things. For positional it’s easier, but especially for pitchers it’s tough.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 16, 2008 9:25 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I think that’s how it ought to be — the same 4 starters for each pitcher. If an opening develops in the starting rotation, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Lincecum or Zito that needs to be replaced; they’re still going to select the callup from the same small group.

I’d slot Lowry as lolsp5 and Misch as the top replacement.

by Evan on Nov 16, 2008 10:18 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I like lolsp haha.

OK, the grouping of four…what’s the concensus on that?

Hammond, Martinez would be the top two…who would be the others?

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 10:19 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Well, Misch would be #1. After that, I’d probably say Hammond, Pereira, Martinez. This being the Giants, though, you never know; they might well jump Pucetas ahead of all those guys.

by Evan on Nov 16, 2008 10:22 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, trying to predict what the Giants will and won’t do is hard.

For our grouping of replacement starters I went: Misch,Hammond, Martinez and Pucetas.

I really don’t like Pereira but the Giants could call him up, I dunno. I stuck Pucetas in the end as a wild card.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 10:29 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Xantahan why not just make a row that is labeled "Starting Pitchers 6-8" or some such?

Then list the candidates from left to right as nearest to MLB ready for the arms with projected ceilings for 3-5? Then use the depth on the 1 &2 slots to show guys in the system that have to evident potential to be special?

 I guess the depth on the 3 slot cold be for guys that look like that are near to ready and will probably be really solid but not likely to be rotation leaders on a good team.. Though in this age of diminished pitching depth not sure how useful that last idea is.

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!

by daveinexile on Nov 17, 2008 8:58 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Even though Sabean is undecided about Sandoval at 1B or 3B, I still think he gets the second most starts at C in ’09.

by Lars The Wanderer on Nov 16, 2008 8:37 AM PST   0 recs

I hope so, Molina is really very old for a catcher and is past the age when they usually collapse. He might do well from getting more time of this year.

Though, when we signed Molina I had thought he’d be toast by year 2 and he proved me quite wrong.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 8:40 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, I think you have to list Sandoval at all three positions.

by Evan on Nov 16, 2008 8:44 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I think you should allow multiple positions. Winn and Lewis are our backup CFs, really.

The Denker bus is now bound for San Diego. Those who were passengers on it are now angrily stranded at a gas station in Modesto, CA. Not much about baseball here .

by oldjacket on Nov 16, 2008 8:54 AM PST   0 recs

OK, I just updated the chart allowing for multiple positions. Sandoval is now the #2 at C and 1B. Winn moves to #2 for CF and Lewis moves to #3 for CF.

Jackson Williams got bumped off the chart as did Mike McBryde for CF.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 9:31 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Minor League Player I’m most hoping for a breakout year from: Matt Downs

The Denker bus is now bound for San Diego. Those who were passengers on it are now angrily stranded at a gas station in Modesto, CA. Not much about baseball here .

by oldjacket on Nov 16, 2008 9:39 AM PST   0 recs

NVSFG and I whole-heartedly agree!

Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time? Whatever's happened, it's like I've landed on a different planet. Now, maybe if I can work out the reason, I can get home.

by Lyle on Nov 16, 2008 2:10 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Xanthan, great job.

Several things:

1. Given his draft commitment and college rep, doesn’t Crawford merit being the #3 SS?
2. I’d actually put Lowry in the #5 starter slot for now, with Joe Martinez and Pucetas right behind him there if Noah doesn’t make it back from injury, given the comments by Sabean about letting several minor league arms make a claim for that slot in ST.

Matt Cain's drinking buddy

by Buck Henry on Nov 16, 2008 9:42 AM PST   0 recs

1. Isn’t Crawford way too far from the majors to be #3? I think I could bump of Culberson (who’s had a tough go since he joined the Giants) and stick Crawford at #5? Any thoughts?

2. Yeah, I stuck Misch in the #5 because he made the most starts in ‘08 of players left on the Giants 40-man. I’m really leery of Lowry, maybe I should see if I can fit him in on the depth chart somewhere. I’m still trying to decide how to work in the starting pitching.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 9:45 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Given their draft commitment to him and his college polishing,

I think Crawford is a lot closer to the big team than Culberson, but I’ll defer to those of you who have watched Culberson. My understanding is that Crawford will start at High-A and could be at AA by the end of this year. Some of you may have more current information.

Matt Cain's drinking buddy

by Buck Henry on Nov 16, 2008 9:49 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I’m not sure where the Giants are looking to start Crawford but he’s probably better than Culberson right now just because Culberson has been so terrible, so I think I’ll bump him off and add Crawford at #5.

Crawford has some things to overcome, he was hurt and his college record never really matched up with his tools. I think #5 is a good place to stick him, but as always, I’m open for debate.

Also, I just added Lowry behind Misch for the SP5. A lot of this is speculation and if Lowry shows up to camp and is throwing well, he can always move up.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 10:02 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Shortstop

Xanthan, how about throwing a bone to Ehire Adrianza or Sharlon Schoop for your #5 SS?

Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time? Whatever's happened, it's like I've landed on a different planet. Now, maybe if I can work out the reason, I can get home.

by Lyle on Nov 16, 2008 2:11 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

why

have a blank for 3rd string SS? Then followed by Bocock. I mean, if Ochoa and Burriss go down, then we have Bocock (until someone else is signed).

Also, I think you should just rank the SPs 1-15 or whatever.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Nov 16, 2008 10:02 AM PST   0 recs

have a blank for 3rd string SS? Then followed by Bocock. I mean, if Ochoa and Burriss go down, then we have Bocock (until someone else is signed).

My thinking was that the Giants really don’t have anyone behind Ochoa in their system to play short. I guess they could call up Bocock again but I would think they’d be more likely to go out and pick up some replacement level guy. Should I move Bocock up? Or does the blank work?

Doing a SP1-15 might work, it would be easier to rank them at least.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 10:06 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I saw the Bocock placement as a joke more than anything. If Burriss went down for a month and Ochoa suffered a season ending injury, bocock would start for a month. That is why he would be 3 on the depth chart

Todd Jennings: If he's on the DL, he can't suck as much, right?

by Speedforthewin on Nov 16, 2008 10:14 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

OK, moved Bocock and Crawford up.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 10:17 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

And a lot of this explains why Edgar Renteria's agent

thinks his client and the Giants match up really well (ugh!). Apparently the Giants are willing to go at least as high as 3/$33 million for Furcal and almost that much (3/$30 million) for Orlando Hudson on a separate track, and when richer teams blow past those numbers and the Giants fall by the wayside, Renteria’s agent will be waiting for us to pay too much for his client.

Thoughts?

(Sorry xanthan, I don’t mean to hijack your thread, but: 1) I’m starved for new FA news, and 2) it directly relates to this SS discussion)

Matt Cain's drinking buddy

by Buck Henry on Nov 16, 2008 10:19 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I liked the gap idea between Ochoa and Bocock. It tells it like it is since the purpose of this table is to lay out MLB ready talent in the organization at say mid March 2009.

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!

by daveinexile on Nov 17, 2008 9:02 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

The SP thing really isn’t making any sense to me. Martinez will definitely get a call up if Zito gets hurt, but Hammond, Maday, and English will be ahead of him if Sanchez gets hurt? Why is Alderson a #1 and Bumgarner a #2? I don’t understand what all of this means.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Nov 16, 2008 10:27 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Just changed it, the first version didn’t make as much sense as I would have liked.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 10:30 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Cool

I didn’t mean to pile on, BTW, I didn’t see the discussion you had about it over there ^^^.

zenbitz’s idea still makes more sense to me, since there’s no “SP2 role” – there are 5 SP roles. But it doesn’t make a big differnce anyway.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Nov 16, 2008 10:47 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Bowker probably belongs as a 3rd-stringer at both corner OF spots, and Frandsen might see time at 3rd

"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."

by i did my job on Nov 16, 2008 11:24 AM PST   0 recs

I was going to make the same point about Bowker

I think we would see him in one of those corner OF spots before Copeland or Horwitz

by FluLikeSymptoms on Nov 16, 2008 12:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Good call, I’m make the change.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 12:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Are Not Ortmeier, Horwitz, and Timpner Minor League Free Agents Too?

Were they not removed from the 40 man roster just like Threets? Further, why do you think English is a minor league free agent? He was never on the 40 man roster that I know of. Seems to me he is just rule 5 eligabe if not added to the 40 man roster by the deadline.

With regards to starting pitching depth all the talk I am hearing seems to indicate that he Giants see Pucetus as next in line among the starters not yet on the 40 man roster? So, why do you then put both Hammond and Martinez ahead of him?

Lastly, why haven’t you included one of the relievers that is currently on the 40 man roster? What is your reason for excluding Kelvin Pichardo?

by giantsrainman on Nov 16, 2008 11:51 AM PST   0 recs

I’m pretty sure that the Giants still have control of Ort, Horwitz, and Timpner.

BA has this list of minor league FA’s in the Giants System. Threets and English were included.

San Francisco Giants (25)
RHP: Nate Bump (AA), Jesse Foppert (AAA), Kevin Gryboski (AAA), Julio Mateo (AAA), Anthony Moreno (Hi A), Scott Munter (AAA), Roberto Novoa (AAA), Matt Palmer (AAA), Ronnie Ray (AA), Victor Santos (AAA), Josh Sharpless (AA)
LHP: Jesse English (Hi A), Jesus Reina (SS), Erick Threets (AAA), Jason Waddell (AA)
C: Eliezer Alfonzo (AAA), Dayton Buller (Lo A), Eli Whiteside (AAA)
1B: Brett Harper (AAA)
2B: Derin McMains (SS)
3B: Julio Cordido (AA), Justin Leone (AAA), Olmo Rosario (AA)
SS: Jake Wald (AAA)
OF: Carlos Sosa (AA)

I had Pichardo on but I moved him behind Valdez, for some reason the edit didn’t take on my post above. I’ll re-edit it.

I can’t see the Giants calling up Pucetas before Misch, Hammond, or Martinez if a starter goes down.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 12:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Isn’t he considered a 6-year minor league FA? I’m always fuzzy on transaction details. Someone could probably correct me but English started with the Giants in 2002, he’s been in our system for 6 years at the end of ’08.

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Nov 16, 2008 12:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You Are Correct Here

But what I understand to be required is that the Giants add Jesse English to the 40 man roster to keep him from becoming minor league free agent eligable. Seems to me they still have time to do this unless I am missing something here.

by giantsrainman on Nov 16, 2008 12:46 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

6 year minor leaguers are free agents regardless of whether or not they’re on the 40 man roster. Regarding your former question, the Rule 5 Draft is for players who’ve played 3 minor league seasons and aren’t on the 40 man roster, unless they were signed before their 19th birthday, in which case the the team gets an extra year.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Nov 16, 2008 12:54 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I Am Not Getting This

It soulds like you are say