about 3 years ago
jordanovich
16 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I would doubt that anything is close. It’s pretty obvious that the Giants’ want Furcal, and would only sign Renteria if that falls through. Ken Rosenthal said last night that it’s pretty much between the A’s and Giants for Furcal. I don’t like bidding wars with teams like the Yankees and Mets, but I’m pretty sure the Giants’ can beat a team like the A’s for a player like Furcal. The Giants’ have more money, a much better ballpark, and Furcal is a career national leaguer. As for Renteria, it would make sense for the agent to make it sound like something is close, so other teams would get more aggressive. It also doesn’t hurt the Giants’ to give Furcal’s agent a little kick in the pants as well.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
I agree that a bidding war
with the A’s is much better than one with the Yankees, but the issue seems to be more about years than money. Furcal wants 4 years and if someone is willing to do that they will get him.
It’s probably just agent posturing, but MLBTradeRumors quoted Renteria’s agent as saying the talks with the Giants were very active. That struck fear into my heart.
Greetings, Marklar! I am Marklar! This is Marklar.
Nooooooooooo

Rafael Rodriguez: Your number 8 organizational prospect before stepping a foot on American soil.
“When Renteria’s agent opened the envelope, it was empty. The agent turned to an associate and said, ‘Well, well, well. Lookee what we got here. A motherf***in’ Charlie Bronson!’”
I didn’t click on the link, so I’ll just pretend that the story contains something like that.
Renteria would cost the Giants a 2nd round pick while Furcal would cost nothing. That, along with the fact that Furcal is better and younger, would make me hope that they’re not seriously considering Renteria until Furcal signs elsewhere. With that said, I’d rather the Giants traded some minor league reliever for a decrepit Bobby Crosby than signing Renteria.
I think the idea behind Renteria is that teams will go after him, but only after the Tigers decline to offer him arbitration.
My current Interwebs obsession is pretty awesome. Also, my website is called ChatterBalks Dot Com. It's not being updated right now. Hope for more at your own risk.
Oh okay. That makes sense. He’d be better than Burriss next year, at least.
by scotterduder on Nov 22, 2008 6:01 PM PST up reply actions
I doubt the Giants’ will lose Furcal to the A’s over one year. If the A’s blink and give Furcal the fourth year, Sabean will be blinking right behind them.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
But that's the rub.
Do we really want to give Furcal a 4 year contract?
As much as I am warming up to the idea of Furcal as piece in a possibly competitive 2009 or 2010 Giants team, I think I would rather have Burriss than Furcal for 4 years.
Greetings, Marklar! I am Marklar! This is Marklar.
I have never understood the big difference between offering or not offering the extra year. If I were a GM, I would try to sign the player for as few years as possible, (depending on his age) but I wouldn’t lose a player because of one extra year. If Furcal was 35 I wouldn’t want to give him four years, but at 31, it’s an acceptable risk. Both the A’s and Giants’ have both seen his medical reports, and the A’s have now extended him a four year offer, so if I’m Sabean I do the same.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
You might be right.
One extra year for one player is no big deal. It’s just that the one extra year to too many players, Zito and Rowand come to mind, and it starts to add up.
I guess I wouldn’t be upset if they signed him for four years, especially if he is productive. It will look bad though if he is not.
Greetings, Marklar! I am Marklar! This is Marklar.



















