Arb-Status for Potential Free Agents
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 6:01 AM PST
143 comments
I compiled a quick list of the arbitration status -- yesterday being the deadline -- of some players that the Giants could be interested in.
| Name | Position | FA Type | Arbitration |
| Juan Cruz | RHP | A | Yes |
| Orlando Cabrera | SS | A | Yes |
| Orlando Hudson | 2B | A | Yes |
| Pat Burrell | LF | A | No |
| Adam Dunn | LF | A | No |
| Kerry Wood | RHP | A | No |
| Bob Howry | RHP | A | No |
| Edgar Renteria | SS | A | No |
| Joe Beimel | LHP | B | No |
| Brandon Lyon | RHP | B | Yes |
The non-offers to Dunn and Burrell surprised me. The market has been eerily quiet for Adam Dunn to this point. Is he really this undervalued? I'm not as concerned about Burrell since he's likely to cost more than Dunn and play defense just as bad.
I'll pass on Hudson and Cabrera now that they'll cost a 2nd rounder -- even if you value a 2nd rounder less than I do, do you really want to punt it for O-Cab?
Did I miss anyone that you guys think the Giants would be interested in? I mainly looked at relievers and middle infielders.
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.
4 recs |
143 comments
Email
Print
Comments
He didn’t make the list — I forgot him — but the White Sox didn’t offer arb. to Juan Uribe who was a Type B free agent. The Giants were supposedly linked to him a few weeks ago.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 6:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If Pat the Bat would play 1B for us, I would certainly consider him.
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 Dec 2, 2008 6:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Apologies for doubling up & reposting a similar fanpost.
Personally i’d certainly consider Dunn or Burrell for 1B if they can be signed to a reasonable contract, and Dunn does seem to be very undervalued, especially for a 900+ OPS bat.
I’m not sure that giving up a 2nd rounder would stop me from being interested in Cabrera or Hudson, but i think there’s other reasons why i’m not very interested in them (in other words they’ll probably require too much money) It does make Furcal & Renteria more preferable options though.
Having to give up a 2nd round pick to sign Cruz, seems a bit too much, especially given his likely price. I have a feeling that we may well sign Bobby Howry now though.
Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!
by GiantFan on Dec 2, 2008 6:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
No problem, maybe we could combine our posts or something?
I’m not sure that giving up a 2nd rounder would stop me from being interested in Cabrera or Hudson, but i think there’s other reasons why i’m not very interested in them (in other words they’ll probably require too much money) It does make Furcal & Renteria more preferable options though.
I agree. The draft pick is the icing on top. I really don’t care for Cabrera and Hudson depends on what he’s asking for in negotiations.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 6:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, certainly, although i wouldn’t know how best to go about it.
With regards to Dunn, it still seems strange as to why they wouldn’t offer him arbitration. I just can’t see him signing a one year deal, when surely he’s going to get multi-year offers at the same price per year, especially given he turned down there deal. And whilst they may have budgetary concerns, they could surely easily trade Dunn on a one year deal if they couldn’t afford him & he surprisingly accepted.
I think for Dunn, it may of course be a case of the market heating up more when the Teixeira & Manny Ramirez markets are better defined.
Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!
by GiantFan on Dec 2, 2008 6:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think for Dunn, it may of course be a case of the market heating up more when the Teixeira & Manny Ramirez markets are better defined.
I think that’s a great point. Dunn is most likely a few teams 3rd choice behind players like Tex, Manny, and maybe even Burrell.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 6:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
GiantFan's post from the other thread...
Obviously the deadline for offering arbitration passed & i thought i’d do a summary on which decisions will affect the Giants possible moves. Firstly, there obviously wasn’t any Giants offered arbitration as we had no type A or type B free agents so there’s nothing to discuss there. In terms of other teams offering arbitration, then there’s a few of interest.
Type A’s offered arbitration:
* Mark Teixeira: Not surprising, and having to give up a draft pick to get him was never really an issue & so it doesn’t change anything. It’s probably very unlikely he’ll be a Giant anyway.
* CC Sabathia: Again, not a surprising decision, and not really an issue. Obviously it’ll come down to price instead.
* Many Ramirez: A previously made decision that doesn’t make much difference. I’m not sure i see the fit here anyway.
* Orlando Hudson: The loss of a draft pick is an issue, but not one that’d stop you from making a deal. The other reasons (cost & other 2B options) make this move that probably would be better staying away from anyway.
* Orlando Cabrera: Having to give up a draft pick obviously makes him less unattractive than Furcal & Renteria. I’d imagine the other 2 will sign first, with Cabrera as the 3rd choice for some teams.
* Juan Cruz: Having to give up a draft pick & big money to sign him makes me want to steer clear & may make us move towards different relievers.
* Others Not mentioned as much: A.J Burnett, Brian Fuentes, Raul Ibanez, Derek Lowe, Darren Oliver, Oliver Perez, Francisco Rodriguez, Ben Sheets, Jason Varitek.
Type A’s not offered arbitration:
* Edgar Renteria: Already mentioned in the fanpost, but it probably makes Renteria a more attractive option to teams. I can’t really complain if we were to sign him to the previously rumoured contract.
* Adam Dunn: A surprising choice, i’m not sure why Arizona wouldn’t offer him arbitration given his chances of accepting. He seems a very underrated player, although i wonder if he’d be interested in coming to us.
* Pat Burrell: Another slightly surprising move, i wonder how interested we are in him.
* Bobby Howry: Given out interest in bullpen arms & our interest in him specifically, i wonder if we’ll see him signed in the next few days.
* Other Bullpen arms: Trevor Hoffman, Kerry Wood, Doug Brocail, Russ Springer
* Others: Bobby Abreu, Jaime Moyer, Andy Pettite.
I don’t think the decisions will have too much effect on us, but i could see it having an effect on which bullpen arms to go after & obviously the Renteria/Cabrera situation. The Dunn & Burrell seemed the most surprising choices to me, which were the others that were most surprising?
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on Dec 2, 2008 7:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yup
I figure all the arb decisions really did was make it more likely that we sign Howry, and less likely that we sign Brandon Lyon (even if he turns down the arb offer). Otherwise, I expect that Sabean will go after the players he wants, without much regard to the 50th pick in the draft.
by BigO on Dec 2, 2008 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like Dunn turned down a 2-year deal from the D-Backs before the deadline.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8878840/Bad-economy-hurting-even-the-Yankees?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=3498
The D-backs, according to a major-league source, made one last run at Dunn, proposing a two-year deal shortly before the arbitration deadline at midnight ET Monday.
When Dunn did not bite, the D-backs declined to offer him arbitration, fearing he might collect a salary in the $15 million range at a time when the team is facing significant budgetary concerns.
Rosendwarf seems to think that Dunn should get quite a bit of interest on the market now that he won’t cost a team a pick.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 6:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
no
to Burrell and Dunn unless they’re being payed somewhere around 8 million a year. Otherwise, their defense at corner outfield spots negate the value of their offense.
Mischievously implosive purple pitching staff.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Dec 2, 2008 7:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Dunn playing 1B is key, but he actually improved a little last year in the field. He was only -10 runs under average!
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 7:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
still
He only compiled 3.08 wins on offense by WPA/LI. take off .25 for position adjustment and remove 1 win for the defense and he’s +2 wins over replacement. a barely above average player.
I say he won’t be payed what he’s worth and assuming he can just pick up first is a pretty generous assumption for someone so defensively ungifted.
Also, I think that -10 might be a bit of an abberation in the data, much like Chase utley’s ridiculous +42 in the other direction. I think Adam Dunn’s talent level and probable levels on defense as he ages are closer to -20, making him a just below average player.
Mischievously implosive purple pitching staff.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Dec 2, 2008 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I definitely agree. I was mostly being sarcastic in regards to his defense only being -10 runs bad. Because he’s probably much closer to a -15 to -20 defender.
I did some quick WAR’s on him for last year and I think it came out to being worth between $13-15M per season. I will be very interested to see how the economy is going to factor in free agent signings. It looks pretty clear from this outset that it’s going to lower prices.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 8:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For what it’s worth, Beyond the Boxscore valued the free agent hitters & came up with the same thing, that’s he’s worth around $13M. Of course, it ultimately comes down to the quality of his defence at 1B, because that’d make a big difference as to his worth.
As an aside, they value Burrell as worth $11M, Hudson & Furcal at $16M & Renteria at $12M.
Valuing the free agent hitters
Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!
by GiantFan on Dec 2, 2008 8:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pat Burrell: .1 WAR better than Ray Durham.
Obviously, injury risk is not weighted here.
by oldjacket on Dec 2, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ray Durham
2008 Giants best infielder.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 2, 2008 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kevin Frandsen
second best infielder for simply not taking the field
by NeifiChicken on Dec 3, 2008 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
JT Snow
WILL TURN HIS GLOVE INTO GOLD!!!
Sergio Romo will gladly hand you a bench to sit on / GIANTSPACE™ / Adopted brother of the AnVil
by SoFa King Mike on Dec 2, 2008 8:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
/click, clack???
The bases were drunk, and I painted the black with my best yakker. But blue squeezed me, and I went full. I came back with my heater, but the stick flares one the other way and the chalk flies for two bases. Three earnies! Next thing I know, skipper hooks me and I'm sipping suds with the clubby.
by Mike Hawk on Dec 2, 2008 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
/ knick knack paddy whack
Sergio Romo will gladly hand you a bench to sit on / GIANTSPACE™ / Adopted brother of the AnVil
by SoFa King Mike on Dec 2, 2008 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want to be a national league team holding a long contract with either of those guys.
Not everybody can just be stuck at first, and I could see the defense of either one going from bad to unplayable in a hurry.
by oldjacket on Dec 2, 2008 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but if Dunn is super-undervalued he might go for a 3-year deal. I don’t know, really, and I hate rosterbatin’ because it could be anybodies guess as to what he’ll actually sign for.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 8:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Adam Dunn...
has horrible numbers at Mays Field. I doubt he’d sign with the Giants unless they dramatically overpaid. I’d prefer Burrell, and I don’t want him either.
Disfrute Los Gigantes every day at www.leftymalo.com
by leftymalo on Dec 2, 2008 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, in just 100 AB’s. If Dunn is really as undervalued as he might be, then he’ll probably go wherever he’ll get paid. If the Giants offer him $12M per season over three years, he’ll play where the money is.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The money is in Xanthan’s pants.
(Computers have pants).
by oldjacket on Dec 2, 2008 8:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My computer wears a Giants cap.
(no, really!)
by Lars The Wanderer on Dec 2, 2008 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mine wears an ice cream bowl batting helmet at work. It looks appropriate only when looking at McCC.
Sergio Romo will gladly hand you a bench to sit on / GIANTSPACE™ / Adopted brother of the AnVil
by SoFa King Mike on Dec 2, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah..
The ice cream bowl batting helmets. It’s currently on my dashboad.
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 Dec 2, 2008 9:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was afraid you were going to say it’s currently on top of your head.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He is using it as a codpiece.
by Lars The Wanderer on Dec 2, 2008 9:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You assume I’m wearing pants.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 8:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Enticing
I would be quite tempted to sign Adam Dunn if he could be acquired for $36 million over three years. Perhaps the Giants can take advantage of this declining market. They have more money to spend than do most teams.
There are two things that I would think carefully about regarding Adam. The Giants are already much better against right-handers than southpaws, and Adam doesn’t hit southpaws well. Adam may be a player who doesn’t age well, although he’s only 29, so one would think it would be a bit early for a SERIOUS decline.
I’m not too worried about Adam’s hitting at AT&T — unless he let the park psyche him out. From his home run chart last season, it appears most of his home runs would be out of most parks not named Yellowstone.
by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2008 12:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Giants do manage to secure renteria at anywhere neat the deal that was leaked
Then I am very much in favor at making a significant offer to Burrell or Dunn, in that order. I would prefer Burrell because, as a right hander, I don’t think ATT will significantly degrade his power.
I would only want them, however, if they agreed to play 1b.
Renteria @ SS w/ Burrell or Dunn @ 1b suddenly makes this team competitive in the west.
by FairweatherFan on Dec 2, 2008 7:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I can’t see it. The huge number of runs you’re giving back on defense means those guys are only going to give you four or five wins above Vizquel & Ishikawa, at the very most.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1) If you take their raw stats from last year, Vizquel wasn’t much worse than Renteria, true. But I think Edgar’s a good bet to bounce back to at least average with the bat.
2) I don’t think Dunn or Burrell is really Prince Fielder bad at 1B. I mean, even Ryan Howard was + a couple runs there last year.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 2, 2008 8:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy Crap
I’m always amazed when me and zenbitz agree.
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on Dec 2, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1) I think he is too, but he’s 15 runs worse than Vizquel in the field, maybe more. And Omar should bounce back a bit too.
2) There’s no way to know, is there? But it’s telling that both their teams declined to turn them into first basemen, even when those teams needed first basemen, even though they were clearly butchers in the outfield.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1) He was last year, but I think that’s an outlier as well. And Omar is 44! I think he’s retired.
2) It’s obviously worth a shot for short term contract (2-3 years)… as AT WORST they are roughly as good as what we have, and if either plays an adequate 1B then it’s going to help the team more.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 2, 2008 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did Omar retire? I thought he was still hoping to play. I don’t think last year was an outlier, though. I think Omar has always been 10-20 runs a year better than Renteria, and still will be when they’re playing in old-timers’ games twenty years from now.
For a two-year contract, okay, but “AT WORST they are roughly as good as what we have” would have been equally true of Rowand a year ago, and that deal sure looks dumb now.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
bad comparison
Rowand was bad simply because we had 2-3 guys about as good, and no place to play them.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 2, 2008 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember, at this time last year Fred Lewis was 27 and had done nothing other than post a good but fluky small-sample OBP in the majors. He was no better bet than Ishikawa is now.
We also have Josh Phelps on hand.
Burrell: 32 years old, bad fielder, career .257/.367/.485 hitter in an extreme hitter’s park
Phelps: 30 years old, bad fielder, career .273/.343/.472 hitter in neutral parks
How much do you really gain from giving the first guy $10-$15 million a year instead of just playing the second?
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure looking at their career stats is particularly enlightening, especially given Burell’s obvious improvement & Phelps’ sporadic playing time. If for example, we look at their last 4 MLB seasons then they have the following OPS+:
Burell: 128, 122, 127, 125
Phelps: 92, 100, year in minors, 135, 60(in very few at-bats),
So, Burell is a pretty safe bet to outdo his career average & put up an OPS+ of around 120-130. Phelps is very much an unknown quantity, and whilst his career OPS+ is a reasonable 110, he’s only put an OPS+ of that high once(in 157 at bats) in the last 5 seasons.
Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!
by GiantFan on Dec 2, 2008 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Phelps is an unknown quantity at all. His career looks erratic because it’s so full of midseason team changes and trips to the minors, but he basically stays the same: a .260-.280 hitter with 20-25 homer power. 1,394 major league at-bats is a pretty hefty sample.
Burrell is better. But here are Pat’s current top 5 comps on bb-ref (I would use Baseball Prospectus’s, but they seem to have yanked them):
Danny Tartabull
Jesse Barfield
Jeff Burroughs
Dean Palmer
Roger Maris
Check out what those guys did at age 32 and beyond. It’s ugly. The next 5 are better (including Stargell, Frank Howard, Jack Clark), but the point remains — big slow low-average sluggers have no margin for error, and they hit the end of the line in their early thirties more often than not.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sort of an odd list… Burrell’s not a physical match for many of them.
I think Burrell is unfairly being labeled a big risk because he’s lumped in with Dunn as a free agent target. Burrell’s big and slow, but he’s in good shape… he’s been pretty healthy over the course of his career, and extremely consistent over the course of his career, more so than any of the comps above. Even in his nightmare season of ‘03, his core skills remained exactly the same. He’s a steady player.
Burrell’s a far better bet than you’re making him out to be. Yes, he is a risky type of player, but as that type of player goes, he’s a very good bet.
by onlxn on Dec 2, 2008 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He is awesomely consistent, I’ll give you that. Does that make him less likely to collapse? I dunno. We all devise reasons why the players we like are exceptions to the rules — I think Dunn is likely to age better than Burrell, while you seem to think the opposite. I don’t think there’s really much evidence on either side. But actuarially speaking, there’s no doubt that they’re both likely to be worse for the next few years than they have been for the last few, with a good chance of being flat-out bad.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with all of that. But on an actuarial basis, you’d have to label Dunn the higher risk, for the simple reason that 275-pounders have zero history of lasting into their mid-thirties. 240-pounders aren’t the best bets either, but there’s some track record of success for guys that are Burrell’s size. There’s none for guys of Dunn’s size. That’s partially due to the fact that there’ve been so few players of Dunn’s size, of course, but the ones there’ve been are almost invariably washed out by 32.
There are legitimate reasons to prefer Dunn, as you do… his power is more impressive than Burrell’s, and that’s a useful skill to have as you age. But physically speaking, Dunn seems like a significant risk to me. Burrell only seems like a moderate one.
by onlxn on Dec 2, 2008 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lewis’ minor league stats are better than Ishikawa’s – there are too many of the
.232 .316 .403 and the like in Travis’ resume. Alot of repeat years, very mediocre OBPs (I guess you could say the same for Lewis’ power).
Burrell has had 4 straight years with an OPS+ > 122. Phelps has never had 400 ABs in the majors, and never really approached an OPS+ of 122 for anything near a full season (maybe 1 year when we was 25.. that was Pats best year too)
Pat projects (James, Marcel) to have an wOBA of .370-.380. Phelps (Marcel) projects to .346.
I like Phelps… I don’t really see him putting up a .860 OPS, which is on the low end of Burrell.
How much do you gain from keeping $10-15M in the owners pockets?
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 2, 2008 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See above, but also …
How much do you gain from keeping $10-15M in the owners pockets?
Doesn’t the reductio ad absurdum of the Zito deal make the sophistry of this argument clear? Baseball teams have budgets. We may wish they didn’t, but they do. $15 million to Burrell compels them to sign Renteria rather than Furcal, Paul Byrd rather than Derek Lowe. To say nothing of the opportunity cost of abandoning the chance to find out whether Ishikawa can be Carlos Pena, or of trying to dig up another young first baseman. Long-run, it’s clearly a losing strategy.
If they can get Burrell (or Dunn, whatever) for three years at $8 million per year, fine. But they can’t.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with zito is not the money, or the suckyness, but the length of the contract.
I wonder which is less likely? Ishikawa becoming Pena or Burriss becoming Eckstein?
Furcal for 4/50 + draft picks is going to be worse long term than Renteria for 2 years – no matter what you do with 1B.
Burrell at 4/60 is bad, 3/45 is a little silly. 3/36? Meh. 3/30? We are at least in the ball park.
But in the end, you agree that he’s worth it if the price is right. That’s all anyone is saying.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 2, 2008 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. My problem with the likes of Burrell and Dunn is that they embody the half-in, half-out approach the Giants have perfected. If they want to bring in two or three of Sabathia & Teixeira & Lowe & Furcal & Beltre or players of that caliber, I’ll cheer. If they choose to cash in Molina and Winn for prospects and cast their lot entirely with young players, I’ll be content. But the Rowand/Burrell/Renteria approach seems to have no loftier goal than keeping the team somewhere near .500 for a few years, till it’s time to start the process over with a new set of thirtysomethings.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
On some level I agree with you. It certainly doesn’t sound like a particularly satisfying team to root for — if we’re gonna spend, I’d rather we buy studs than middling pieces — and it doesn’t sound like a team with a real plan.
But it very well could be a team with a plan. Say we sign Renteria at the rumored terms of $18M/2. Let’s say, further, that we sign Burrell for $33M/3 — more than possible — and a Bartolo Colon type for a year That’d give us a credible team for the next two years, and do nothing to hurt us down the road. I’m not saying almost nothing… I’m saying literally nothing.
Are we a playoff team with Burrell, Renteria and Byrd? Maybe, maybe not. But we’d absolutely have a shot at it. No team’s looming large in the division, and we’ll have replaced a lot of sub-replacement-level performances with some okay players. We’d have maybe a 15% shot at making the postseason. Doesn’t sound like a lot of us, but to management, even that amount of a chance is worth fighting for… postseason appearances mean big money and improved fan interest.
Would this strategy hurt us down the road? Absolutely not. It’d cost us zero draft picks. It’d only bleed one contract into 2011, and we still have control for Cain and Lincecum that year. Does it block anyone? Nobody that I can think of… I like Ishikawa, but you don’t orient your future around a guy like that. Is it an intractable situation if things head south? Not really… we can still trade Molina and Winn without changing the outlook much. Hell, for all the hand-wringing about Rowand’s contract, the guy is tradeable… Zito’s our only toxic asset.
There is absolutely an argument for a strategy like this. It’s a strategy that presumes our future starts in 2011, but that we can try to win in the meantime by spending some money. It’s a strategy that increases chances at division titles in certain years without hurting chances in others. It’d be an interesting strategy, if that’s what the front office is doing. It may well not be — they may be inking Renteria to a five-year deal as we speak, thus rendering all my rambling moot. But this may be what they’re thinking.
If anything, I’d say the biggest flaw with that strategy would be the idea that we’re looking at all good for 2011. It’s tempting for fans of a bad team to look to future studs, particularly fans of a vet-crazed team like ours, but the future doesn’t automatically bring good things. We don’t have any truly great offensive prospects besides Posey — AnVil’s more “intriguing” than “great” — and I don’t really expect Alderson to be any more than solid. MadBum and Posey are fantastic prospects, but two prospects do not turn around a franchise, and it might be a real mistake for us to just wait till the Noonans of the world get here. They may not be the prospects we’ve been looking for.
But all that aside, I’m very open to the possibility that a bunch of two-year signings of warty free agents is a good idea. It’s extremely dumb to punt on an MLB season if you have a shot at competing. With 75-win talent on hand and some money, we have a shot. And even if it’s not a great shot, we should take it.
by onlxn on Dec 2, 2008 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
“Byrd” should be Colon, and there’s a period missing in there. Look, you know how it is, America.
by onlxn on Dec 2, 2008 9:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
tl;dw
but I absolutely agree – it seems that some people on this site (not necessarily you, Evan) think that by sucking more you get some kind of credit towards rebuilding. All you get is a slightly higher draft pick and lower revenues as the fans stay away.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 3, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm
a) 4 or 5 wins goes a long way in the NL West- especially when you consider that our bullpen could very well be better, not to mention the ever-improving young starters.
b) I think you are underestimating Renteria’s defense.
c) Is Burrell really as bad on D as Dunn? I agree with FF that Burrell is much more desirable.
Personally, I think that the Giants could do Renteria, Burrell, and another bullpen arm, plus whatever youngsters emerge in Spring Training, and have what looks like a very competitive team. As we all know, looks can be deceiving, but I would take that!
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on Dec 2, 2008 8:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a) Add five wins to last year’s total and you get 77. You’re counting on a LOT of improvement from the pitching staff if you’re expecting to contend. Add a Beltre or a Derek Lowe and I’ll start to believe.
b) Fielding Bible said he was -9 last year. Fan Scouting Report had him as the worst everyday shortstop in the majors. Could be just an off year, I guess.
c) Who knows? But yes, I’d rather have Burrell too.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a) a better bullpen probably gives us another couple wins at least. If Matty finally makes the leap, then the rotation adds another couple or more as well. Now we’re near .500, and that’s without adding Randy Johnson, my proposed 1-yr savior. A lot of ifs, sure, but fairly realistic, I think.
b) If you look at his career, it is a bit of an outlier, don’tchathink?
c) Yeay, we agree.
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on Dec 2, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the look of this
C- Molina
1B- Dunn
2B- Frandsen
SS- Renteria
3B- Sandoval
LF- Lewis
CF- Rowand
RF- Winn
Defensively its not very good, but I think it would be good enough to compete…. CONTENDERS!!
Giants! Giants! HELP US GOD!
by j14 on Dec 2, 2008 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s funny when you look at that lineup as the batting order too.
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on Dec 2, 2008 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I was under the impression Bengie didn’t have the speed to stick in the leadoff spot.
Rafael Rodriguez: Your number 8 organizational prospect before stepping a foot on American soil.
by BrianBokake on Dec 2, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bengie has deceptive speed
He’s actually slower than he looks.
I’m reminded of the line in “A League of Their Own,” where the father, describing his not-hot deceased wife to his daughter, said that “she wasn’t comfortable with her beauty.” I imagine Bengie isn’t comfortable with his speed.
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Dec 2, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not Bengie running you are seeing
That’s just the Earth rotating
Sergio Romo will gladly hand you a bench to sit on / GIANTSPACE™ / Adopted brother of the AnVil
by SoFa King Mike on Dec 2, 2008 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bengie doesn’t run. The Earth just orbits around him.
by Natto on Dec 2, 2008 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The gravity Bengie creates actually pulls the base to him
Giants! Giants! HELP US GOD!
by j14 on Dec 2, 2008 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bengie Molina Facts!
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 Dec 2, 2008 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to get all picky Lyle, but I don’t think you’re reminded too well, because that was actually from an episode of “Cheers” (the one where Coach’s daughter nearly marries a jerk), and it was actually the daughter describing her not-hot mother to the father who was blinded by his love for her.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Dec 2, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal
by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 2, 2008 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Defensively its not very good
No, defensively it is ATROCIOUS. That would be easily the worst infield in all of MLB and I think would have to be a contender for one of the worst in history. Sandoval would be the worst 3B in all of MLB, and Renteria and Dunn would both be among the 3-5 worst at their positions.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Dec 2, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you, FluLikeDamus
Can you also tell me what the price of oil will be in 3 months? It would be great to know what the stock market will do, without having to drill a hole in my head- can you help with that?
Seriously, Sandoval is a question mark, Renteria should be judged by his career, which is not awful in terms of D, and Dunn, well, Dunn would suck. That’s why I want Burrell.
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on Dec 2, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hey, if you want to have yourself an optimism party go ahead and get a 6 pack of grape soda and rent Pollyanna, don’t let me be the one to stop you.
Renteria has never been thought of as a great defensive SS (yes, I know he won some Gold Gloves, just as Michael Young did last year and Derek Jeter did three times) and when shortstops get to be 33 they tend not to improve defensively. If you think last year’s downturn at age 32 was a fluke and this year he is likely to see some kind of big improvement at age 33, don’t let some mean asshole like me stop you from thinking that.
As for Sandoval, yes I guess he is a question mark. Can a player deemed to be “adequate” or worse as a minor league 1B become a good major league 3B? I don’t know man, it’s a question mark.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Dec 2, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pat Burrell
Pat Burrell is from San Jose, which might make him more amenable to playing in the Bay Area. He’s also a right-handed hitter, and the Giants would seem to need more of those.
But Pat is three years older than Adam, and has had foot problems (although his feet haven’t failed him enough to cut down dramatically on his games played).
Dunn has also been a little bit better than Burrell and might be more athletic, possibly making him a better first base candidate. On the other hand, Pat played the position early in his career. Both players would make big first baseman, providing bigger targets, and Burrell’s 6-foot-4 is actually exceeded by a couple of inches by Dunn.
If the market declines too drastically, it could limit the Giants’ ability to trade Randy Winn, who I think is scheduled to make $9 million this season. It could work positively or negatively with regard to signing Tim Lincecum to a long-term contract. The uncertainty of the economy might make Tim and his agent more likely to sign for the security. Or they might prefer to wait things out and go for the long-term gusto when the economy turns back up.
by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2008 12:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wow, wtf I can’t believe Dunn and Burrell weren’t offered arb.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Dec 2, 2008 7:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I mean, I liked the Dunn trade for the Dbacks solely because of the draft picks involved. Now it just seems pretty stupid.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Dec 2, 2008 7:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The economy seems to be freaking a lot of teams out. I was really surprised to see the Yankees not offer arbitration to Abreu. And you’re right, a large part of the Dunn trade was getting 2 picks. Weird move, I think.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 7:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah,
I don’t see the downside. Stand firm at 8 mil for next year only and He’ll most likely decline. If not, you have him for 1 at 8 mil per. That’s not too bad of a contract for him.
Mischievously implosive purple pitching staff.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Dec 2, 2008 8:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even weirder is the rumor that the D-Backs offered him 2-years but then turn around and don’t want to go to a 1-year arb deal with him? Very weird.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 8:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless he comes in with a higher number and wins in arb.
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
by Goofus on Dec 2, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn made $13M in 2008. The most DBacks could reduced his 2009 contract would be 20% or to $11.4M.
by wilriv21 on Dec 2, 2008 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and he’d probably get a raise if he went to arbitration. He’d be closer to $14-15M after the salary hearings. This is where the stupid Eric Byrnes contract is really killing them.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Could be
It might be that teams are cutting their budgets and fear that a free agent will indeed take them to arbitration and a likely raise, then hoping that a year from now (or two at the most) salaries are on the rise again, allowing for a more lucrative long-term contract.
I would think that was particularly a risk with Dunn, who turned 29 less than a month ago.
by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2008 12:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the 80% minimum only applies to arbitration-eligibile players who are still under the club’s control. According to Cot’s, “The 80% rule does not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration.”
Scott McClain: Great story, no place on the 2009 Giants.
by EliminateMe on Dec 2, 2008 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That rule does not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration. Now, he probably wouldn’t get $8 mil through arb but at the same time, I find it difficult to believe he won’t be able to get a decent long term deal somewhere.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Dec 2, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think..
That applies to free agents offered arbitration. Only to arbitration eligible young players under team control still.
I could be wrong 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 Dec 2, 2008 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That rule only applies to EARTHQUAKE 109 LOLCAT PHOTO
GROUGTHINK ALERT
by groug on Dec 2, 2008 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Alright I get it you don’t have to tease me anymore… :,-(
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 Dec 3, 2008 7:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was my first thought. It’s not like they didn’t give up anything to get him either. They paid highly for 3 months of Dunn.
I am not a Dunn fan (IMO he’s an especially bad fit for the Giants), but I truly do not understand. I wonder what the difference would have been between what they offered for 2 years versus what he would have gotten in arbitration; 4 Million? For 1 year? I just don’t get it.
Greetings, Marklar! I am Marklar! This is Marklar.
by marklar on Dec 2, 2008 6:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So could Burrell actually play 1b?
I thought he had more experience there, but then noticed that he hasn’t done it since his first year in the majors, although it does look like he played a decent amount of first base prior to the big leagues.
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on Dec 2, 2008 8:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
velez included?
Adopted Giant: Aaron King
Wearing the crown by 2011. Or at least the LOOGY hat
by baetown415 on Dec 2, 2008 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fixed
Most anyone* should be able to play first base**
* Eugenio Velez excluded
- John Bowker excluded
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on Dec 2, 2008 9:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
STUPID AUTO-FORMAT
STUPID POSTER WHO DOESN’T USE PREVIEW
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on Dec 2, 2008 9:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
I liked it. I hope you come up with new punctuation every time you have to exclude someone.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
by groug on Dec 2, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't go that far.
John Bowker played first base. He just really sucked at it.
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 Dec 2, 2008 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How bad was Bowker really?
I remember him looking, well, not stellar, but not completely clueless at first. Was he statistically that awful?
Scott McClain: Great story, no place on the 2009 Giants.
by EliminateMe on Dec 2, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He was pretty bad by PMR, at least.
I thought he looked pretty clueless, too.
by oldjacket on Dec 2, 2008 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really thought he looked completely clueless at times and below par most of the time.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Dec 2, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I used to think that no matter how bad a first baseman might be, he was doing less damage there than he would running around in the outfield. Then I saw Gary Sheffield play first and I changed my mind.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And he played third too..
It can’t be that different.
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 Dec 2, 2008 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he even played SS when he first came up.
Speed, defense... and an almost fanatical devotion to getting picked off.
by SF Pete on Dec 3, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody here remember the Jeff Leonard to 1B experiment? In my memory it only lasted one game, and of the many many many errors he made in that game, two of them were simply failing to be in contact with 1B when receiving the throw from an infielder. It was a spectacularly incompetent performance.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Dec 3, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
DEVILS ADVOCATE
Here’s an idea that I haven’t seen anywhere.
How about the possibility of Milton Bradley for 1B? If Dunn and Burrell are open to consideration from switching from the OF, shouldn’t Bradley at least be considered for the same move?
Pros – He’s from CA so might ‘want to play here’, a switch hitter, gets on base a ton, decent base-runner.
Cons – Potential bad clubhouse guy, leg injuries, maybe not enough power for 1B, was a Dodger
Not saying the Giants should do it, just thought it would be worthy of some consideration….
by aGIANTfan on Dec 2, 2008 9:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting thought. It’s odd that typically players with a certain body type get mentioned as potential 1B conversion projects.
Me, I’ve always been a 1B body-type.
They say some players get out of bed hitting; Pablo Sandoval doesn't wait that long
by bgunn on Dec 2, 2008 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
“potential” bad clubhouse guy? More like utterly guaranteed to be a bad clubhouse guy
that said, I think it’s an interesting idea
by FluLikeSymptoms on Dec 2, 2008 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why try to make him a 1b?
Isn’t Bradley a better OF option than what SF current has? Why move Bradley to 1b when he could be a starting OFer?
by wilriv21 on Dec 2, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You didn't follow his career with the A's, did you
He missed over 50% of the games he could have played in without suffering a single major (i.e. skeletal, ligament damage, concussion) injury.
The guy is a walking hamstring pull.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 2, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he's a walking hamstring pull..
I think it’d be worse on his hamstring. What’s worse, running or having jerky stats to first?
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 Dec 2, 2008 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t you usually like moving guys to completely different positions?
by Natto on Dec 2, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Question
All this talk about the various first base possiblities among free agents has me asking this question: Why aren’t the Giants giving Nate Schierholtz a first-base glove? As things stand right now, there is no place in the outfield for Nate, who probably has the potential to lead the team — as it is now constituted — in OPS.
Ideally the Giants would trade Randy Winn and might be able to get a fair amount for him, given that it would seem he has a chance to become a Type A Free Agent in a year. But while I didn’t think his salary should have posed that much of an obstacle at the trade deadline last year, it just might NOW.
Of course the Giants could also try to move Nate back to the hot corner. But even though we joke that Nate is the “I don’t know” who could play third base, I presume the Giants moved him from the position for a reason. Wasn’t part of the problem wild throws, though? That shouldn’t be a problem if the Giants moved him to first base.
Man, it surely would be GREAT if Nate could indeed play third base again, since it appeared Pablo Sandoval was surprisingly good at first base. And while Pablo doesn’t have as many questions as Nate at the hot corner, he doesn’t have all of them (throwing accuracy and quickness of release) answered, either.
But the Giants don’t really seem to know WHAT to do with Nate. And at this point it doesn’t seem to be their priority to figure it out. Trading Randy Winn would seem to be a win/win/Winn situation, which probably means it’s too good to be true.
by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2008 1:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
none of the Giants OFs
have a good enough bat for 1B, really. Although I guess they could all out hit Ishikawa (well maybe not Roberts).
That’s why we are looking at Dunn/Burrell.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 3, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given yesterday's decisions, the Giants should now
make the play for Renteria at the 2/$18 million package and Burrell for 1B at 2/$22 million level. Burrell won’t be JT Snow at the bag, but they don’t need that for the next two years. This division is up for grabs now.
Dunn will be neutered by Phone Booth Park, and Burrell will hit for a higher average and still hit 25 bombs a year, if not more. Plus, he WANTS to play here.
Give me Burrell at 1B, Renteria at SS, Burriss/Frandsen at 2B, and Pablo at 3B. Hell, take a stab at Beltre for 3B for what it would take (Sanchez plus more) and see how strong the market really is for Molina so we could make the Pablo move now.
And if Sabean was really feeling lucky, he’d see if he could move Rowand for a #5 experienced starter or we’d take a stab at the Big Unit for a year or two.
I just think a lineup with Renteria, Burrell, a full year of Pablo and a healthy Fred Lewis might be competitive even before considering additions like Beltre and the impact of Affeldt and the Big Unit.
Matt Cain's drinking buddy
by Buck Henry on Dec 2, 2008 10:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm on board with all of this.
¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!
by hairball on Dec 2, 2008 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was rosterbating during my Middle East class today and that was more or less the roster I came up with.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Dec 2, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree somewhat.
Do not want Dunn. He’s a bad fit fot the Giants.
I think Rowand is untradeable now. Maybe next year if his numbers improve.
Yes on the Big Unit. I wouldn’t mind Sabean exploring the market for Molina, but I doubt the Giants would be willing to turn over the catching exclusively to Pablo.
The years that Sanchez is under team control make him too much to pay for 1 year of Beltre. I would love some Beltre for the Giants, and wouldn’t mind giving up some talent for him, but Sanchez is too much. And if you are going to trade Sanchez, I think next year will be better as I see his value going up.
Greetings, Marklar! I am Marklar! This is Marklar.
by marklar on Dec 2, 2008 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
Maybe Pat Burrell will find the free agent market tougher than he believes, but he already turned down $21 million over two years from the Phillies, with whom he apparently would have liked to stay if they could have reached an agreement for another year.
If Pat Burrell and Adam Dunn might be available in the salary range of Aaron Rowand and for fewer years to boot (not meant as other than a humorous reference to Aaron’s play in center field last season), why would a team want to trade for Aaron? I guess if they REALLY needed a center fielder, perhaps. But to be honest, Aaron is looking more and more like a left fielder as he ages. I didn’t think he deserved his 2007 Gold Glove, and now I’m even more sure of it.
by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2008 1:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice!
Only part I am iffy on is the Beltre/Sanchez exchange. If it was midseason and things look good … maybe. As long as his arm doesn’t fall off I think Sanchez is going to be real useful. I also don’t think a half to full season will give the team much of a leg up on signing Beltre next winter so Sanchez is just too much for not long enough.
I would lean towards short term signing a #5 even without a veteran outfielder trade or a sucessfull Burrell at 1st contract.
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
by daveinexile on Dec 3, 2008 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
THE BOTTOM LINE
(Until someone else posts under it)
We may as well gamble some $$ on these guys since they:
a) are certainly going to outhit anything we have
b) aren’t going to block anyone
c) don’t cost a draft pick
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 2, 2008 10:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
that's my 3.5 year old son
eating peanuts
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 2, 2008 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ahaha, that’s great.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"no children were starved to stage this photo"
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
by zenbitz on Dec 2, 2008 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll take issue with b. I’d bet that either Bowker or Ishikawa will outplay either Dunn or Burrell over the next 4-5 years.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doubtful, especially in Bowker’s case.
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 Dec 2, 2008 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s possible for Ishikawa but absolutely zero fucking chance for Bowker. He’ll never hit as well as those two and his first base defense is just as terrible.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Dec 2, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I miss the days of Bowkermania.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 2, 2008 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was always a Bowker nonbeliever :(
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
by jponry on Dec 2, 2008 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I basically agree … but I still give Bowker a slim chance, to go along with a moderate chance for Ishikawa, and a pretty good chance that either Burrell or Dunn will go the way of Mo Vaughn or Andruw Jones or Kevin McReynolds within a year or two.
by Evan on Dec 2, 2008 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s absurd. I love Ishi, and have advocated for playing time for him more than most here. Having said that, he’s been wildly erratic in the minors and shows no signs of ever being able to be more than a platoon player. And Bowker will probably never be that.
A three-year deal for Pat Burrell would help us, and a four-year deal probably wouldn’t hurt us. The players you’re comparing Burrell to were fatter and flakier than he is, and none of them walked as much, a critical ability for an aging slugger. Physically and in terms of approach, Jim Thome’s a better comp for Burrell than any of these guys… Thome’s a better player than Burrell, for sure, but a good comp.
Burrell’s fielding makes him something less than a huge asset, but the guy is an asset, and will probably be one for years to come. I don’t have my heart set on the guy, but he’d be a perfectly fine signing.
by onlxn on Dec 2, 2008 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No reason to sign any reliever that will cost the organization a draft pick.
Where is the bat that Sabean was suggesting and this line-up sorely lacks? Tex has no interest in SF and no need for a brooding player like Ramirez. Kick the tires on Burrell even if only as a LF.
by wilriv21 on Dec 2, 2008 10:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Are the Dodgers fucking retarded?
Joe Beimel’s definitely getting a better, longer contract. Why not take a draft pick out of it? Ah well at least its the Bums being retarded and not us.
by boonitez on Dec 2, 2008 10:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A lot of teams seemed to be very afraid of what might happen with free agents in this economy. How much risk do you really think it is worth to get a pick in the 35-40 range? I’m thinking not much at all.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Dec 3, 2008 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but Beimel has been pretty much untouchable for the last 2 years
There is definitely some team out there willing to shell out almost whatever he wants. Tons of teams need relief help. And he wouldn’t get THAT much from arbitration. It wouldn’t cramp the Dodgers financially, although it might mean they have to cut down a little on making youth baseball fields.
by boonitez on Dec 3, 2008 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- How a Chicago guy learned to love Albert Pujols of St. Louis
- Bud's All-Star tie tops our non-steroid controversies of decade
- D12: Revisiting the Twins decision of Mauer over Prior (again)
- After locking up of AL MVP, it's time for Twins to lock up Mauer
- November means R&R for Raiders fan CC Sabathia and others
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.
