Bring me the head (and other assorted body parts) of Jose Vizcaino
by Grant Brisbee on Apr 21, 2008 3:02 PM PDT
Email
PrintThe most common rebuttal to the position that Brian Bocock shouldn't be in the majors is this:
The Giants are supposed to be rebuilding, so what harm is there in seeing what the kid can do?
A major league team shouldn't just be afraid of putting a young player on the major league roster because their performance might hurt the efforts of the team to win. There are development issues as well. Even polished first-round picks from Miami or Stanford will need time to adjust to professional baseball. They'll see pitches that are located better and thrown harder, and they'll have to adjust with a wood bat. No one disagrees with this so far.
But what happens if a player isn't given time to adjust? Some people are of the mind that either a player is going to eventually adjust, or he isn't. If you throw a player into a position in which they'll likely fail, they'll take their lumps, but they'll come out the other side stronger for the experience.
I can't imagine that the above opinion can be applied universally. I'm always wary about venturing into this kind of discussion. I played baseball for over a decade, but I was only able to drive myself to a couple of those games, so take everything from this point on with a grain of salt. But while some players can stink for their first few years -- Omar Vizquel is one example -- and come out of the stink just fine, some players will respond negatively to what is surely the first set of baseball-related struggles they've ever known. The response doesn't have to manifest itself in self-doubt or depression; it can manifest itself in a changed approach or altered swing that has more to do with preventing short-term embarrassment than it does with long-term development.
I can almost see the argument that Bocock isn't going to be negatively affected by struggling in the majors. He isn't expected to hit right now, so the pressure's off, and he can work with what are ostensibly the best professional hitting coaches the organization can offer. I disagree strongly, but I can see the argument.
But Manny Burriss? Really? It wasn't enough to have one shortstop who struggled mightily in A-ball rushed straight to the majors, but we needed a backup shortstop who had the same A-ball struggles? It makes perfect sense. That way, one can develop by missing everything that's thrown at him, and the other one can develop by sitting on the bench. Ingenious!
I still have hopes for both Bocock and Burriss -- just because they struggled in A-ball doesn't mean they won't be fantastic shortstops. Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but the current setup isn't likely to help the development of either one. There's a good chance that rushing them will actually hurt their development.
Rebuilding is more than looking at the ages of the players in the starting lineup. You can't just field a lineup made from the first nine position players drafted in June, sit back, and say "we're rebuilding! Yayyyy!" It would be a failure on multiple levels to have Jose Vizcaino, Neifi Perez, or Royce Clayton starting for a team in the middle of a rebuilding process, but it's a much, much bigger failure to have no other options to start at short than two kids who struggled against the California League. Their service-time clocks have started long before they needed to, and they've been put into a position of almost-guaranteed short-term failure.
Yeah, I know. But this is the most baffling pair of roster decisions since...well...ever. The front office didn't want to trade for a young shortstop with some upper-level success, like Ronny Cedeno, Ben Zobrist, or Brent Lillibridge. Fine. Maybe the price was too high. The front office doesn't trust Ivan Ochoa to help in any capacity. Okay. Be that way. That leaves only one reasonable option: Find Jose Vizcaino, sign him, and get the two young shortstops back to a level that will help their development.
104 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree, how about this guy?? He is not Vizcaino but the same logic would apply.
Juan Castro-SS-Reds
Reds designated infielder Juan Castro for assignment.
The only surprise is that this happened before Alex Gonzalez returned. It’s example No. 3,129 of why it’s a bad idea to give bench players multiyear contracts. The Reds got a .162 average over the course of 99 at-bats after signing Castro to a two-year, $2 million extension just before the end of the 2006 season. His departure means the Reds will be without a legitimate backup shortstop for now. Jerry Hairston Jr. seems likely to get the few innings there that don’t go to Jeff Keppinger.
Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: One of the few reasons to watch this year.
Move Castillo to short, Velez to third.
Done.
Derin McMains had five fingers, but he only used three.
I’d love to see this.
Hell, I’d be happy if they just put Castillo at short and Richie at 3rd. But no, screw with our youth. Thanks bri bri.
Tentatively adopting Dan Ortmeier. And Boom Goes the Dynamite.
by Andy from DC on Apr 21, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
It should not have been either Brian Bocock or Manny Burris. Instead the organization pulls the infamous double whammy to provide the Giants faithful with the Brian Bocock AND Manny Burriss show.
Juan Castro can pick-it with the best of them, however, it is too late the roster damage has already been done.
When does John Bowker hit again?
Where is he now?
When trying to locate Vizcaino’s current whereabouts, you need to go online and do a goggle search.
I’m here all week.
2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!
Is a goggle search
Kind of like a “gaggle search”? Is this some sort of superior duck-run search engine that will soon be selling for $500/share?
Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!
by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
The thing that is the most galling about all of this
to me, anyway, is that there is no SS option anywhere in this organization between the aged (yet still awesome!) Omar and the super-duper green Burriss and Bocock twins. That’s simply inexcusable farm system management.
Ridonkulous.
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
What else is Ivan Ochoa if not an SS option? He’s not the future, so presumably he’s a part of this organization specifically as an In Case of Emergency Break Glass player. Sure, he’s the worst case scenario for the team after Vizquel went on the shelf, Frandsen couldn’t hack it at short, Frandsen went on the shelf, and Rich Aurilia no longer had the arm or the bat to play the position.
Am less concerned about Bocock or Burriss starting their service time than the fact this whole debacle - as you say, inexcusable farm system management - gets lost in a haze of, Hey, We’re Playing Kids! Isn’t That What You Fans Want?
Eagerly awaiting Crazy Crab Bobblehead Night on 7/18.
begs the question
does anyone know why Ochoa wasn’t called up in lieu of Burrcock?
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
Sabean thought it was Alex Ochoa playing in Fresno, and for once he assumed we had enough outfielders.
Eagerly awaiting Crazy Crab Bobblehead Night on 7/18.
I’m pretty sure Sabean NEVER thinks we have enough outfielders.
Proud supporter of the Fightin' Hydrants.
by Little Napoleon on Apr 21, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Sabes thought it was Lorena Ochoa.
Ryan Paul: Two four-letter words are better than one.
by The Enchanter on Apr 21, 2008 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions
It just seems so silly to start these players’ service time clocks and options and whatnot so early, especially when they’re not major league ready.
I still can’t believe Sabean was planning on going into the season with no one but Kevin Frandsen as a backup SS for a 40+ year old though.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
It began before that
The problem began when Sabean had a very early signing of the aging Omar Vizquel rather than shop around for a new SS.
While Understanding The Conventional Wisdom
from which you speak I must disagree. It is not like these two are just past high school. They are both turn 23 this year. Starting their option clock this year just doesn’t have the impact you fear. If they are not good enough to truely be major leaguers before their option clock expires (2011 at the earliest) do you really think they ever will? Likewise I do not see how getting a part of this year in the majors will have any negative impact of the development of either. It shows them both how far they have to go and they will still have 3 years to get there.
This Just Ain’t The Big Deal You All Are Making Of It!
not having a viable MLB shortstop on a MLB team
is, in fact, a big deal.
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
Not to cheapen the %age system, but...
One million percent agree, dog!
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler
If they are not good enough to truly be major leaguers before their option clock expires (2011 at the earliest) do you really think they ever will?
But what’s the upside to starting the clock right now?
by Grant Brisbee on Apr 21, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah...
not even going to follow that link…
Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!
by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Jesus F@#$%ing Christ.
I realize now that I am TRULY locked in a downward spiral.
Aaron "Swag" Rowand
by victor frankenstein on Apr 22, 2008 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I disagree
I rarely disagree with Grant but, in this case, I don’t have a problem with Bocock playing every day. Bringing up Burriss is a mistake… that I agree with. But Bocock hasn’t shown signs of frustation. In fact, I think he’s looked better at the plate in recent games. Look at some of the names being thrown around as options. I mean, Vizcaino? Most of the guys that we could bring in at this point are not a sure bet to hit much higher than .225. Plus, none of them are as good as Bocock is defensively.
This season that’s all I want from my shortstop. Great defense, some walks in front of the pitcher, the occasional bunt and some lucky slap singles here and there. Is it a joke that Bocock is all we had in the tank in an emergency? Absolutely. But, all things considered, he’s giving us about what we would have received from Vizquel and about what we could expect from any of those other names when you factor in defense.
A Title Reference..
To our own John “The Baptist” Bowker?
::golf clap::
Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!
by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
By the way...
fantastic choice for a nickname. Rolls off the tongue.
Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!
by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
he's got to hit one in the Cove
before he earns the nickname
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
Baptising Baseballs in the Cove...
In the name of the GodFather (Willie), The Son (Barry) and the Gause Ghost?
I prefer the nickname "Long" John Bowker
in reference to his homeruns. I don’t know what she’ll say.
Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal
by nostocksjustbonds on Apr 21, 2008 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
"Sloop John B"?
Sorry, I was listening to Pet Sounds this weekend and that song made me think of Bowker.
Eagerly awaiting Crazy Crab Bobblehead Night on 7/18.
"This is the worst trip I've ever been on"?
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
Amen, Brother.
Check out Burriss’ top 10 comparable players by PECOTA.
1 Wylie Campbell
2 Shawn Livsey
3 Freddie Bynum
4 Chone Figgins
5 Juan Francia
6 Willie Bloomquist
7 Cleatus Davidson
8 Justin Baughman
9 Alfredo Amezaga
10 Chris Burke
Not much success outside of Figgins.
I have the feeling that after all the years of gripping about a veteran-centric team, Sabean is promoting everyone and anyone from A-ball that he can find.
“You like young guys, huh?”
http://www.baycityball.com
Willie Bloomquist is off the charts wrt grit though!
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
I also disagree with Grant
Bocock is 22, not 17. Is bringing him up this year the best option in a perfect world? No. Was it the best option in the realistic world? Maybe – No one else in the farm looked worth shit and the price of other options may have been too high. I think Bococks development won’t be stunted at all really. Of course, that’s just my opinion and only time will tell (maybe).
I think Burris is a mistake, just because Both Aurilla and Castillo could spell Bocock @ SS. This is why I beleive that Burris’ call-up is a predecessor to something else (Like a Ray Durham trade or a Aurilia DFA).
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
Both Aurilla and Castillo could spell Bocock @ SS
Maybe they could, but they don’t. Castillo has logged one inning at short and Aurilia hasn’t played there at all. It’s clear that Bochy is unwilling to sacrifice Bocock’s defense no matter how much it costs him on offense.
Apparantly not...
But that doesn’t really make sense. When we have an unfavorable pitching matchup, Bochy should just throw the “shit” team out there to give bocock etc a rest.
Like, any time Zito Pitches.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Apr 21, 2008 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I just love your optimism
if we all think durham trade or aurilia dfa, it might happen!
I truly hope so
by SFGAmsterdam on Apr 21, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I also disagree. honestly, how much more production
could we expect from Vizcaino or any of the other shortstops out there. It’s a perennially weak hitting position. I wasn’t expecting much more from Bocock, but i get the impression that he’s not a totally failure at this point – and from what i read it seems he’s eager to learn. I can’t really see a scenario where i’d want to see Vizcaino – except on the other team.
People keep saying this. Bocock really has been that bad offensively, with the exception of his walks. I mean, yes, shortstops aren’t good hitters… but Bocock has a 37 OPS+. That’s like, pitcher territory.
He’s not killing the team but I think to even say he’s holding his own offensively is to severely overstate it.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
it's actually .499, but i see your point
by sweetjuxtapose on Apr 21, 2008 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
OPS+ is different from straight-up OPS… it’s adjusted for era/park/etc. 100 is average.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
how do you "adjust" for those things?
by sweetjuxtapose on Apr 21, 2008 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml
Scroll down to the “Adjusted OPS+” header on here!
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
And another is converted...
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
Yeah. If he keeps hitting at this level all year (and honestly I think his numbers are more likely to go down than to go up), he would be something like 42 runs below average at his position. That’s epic.
Really, if he’s the starting shortstop for the entire year, he could bust the Mendoza line. There’s a difference between struggling in the majors and going where few players have gone before.
by Grant Brisbee on Apr 21, 2008 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I think...
There may be a chance we see Bocock driving along Donner Pass by the end of the year.
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
I’m not even looking for more production. You could get the same production, though, without messing with development and service clocks. I’ll concede the shortstop position to be awful offensively, but do the Giants have to make a bad situation worse by rushing two shortstops who aren’t even close to being ready?
by Grant Brisbee on Apr 21, 2008 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
it just doesn't seem egregious to me, Grant
but hey, maybe three years from now we’ll be slitting our wrists when they’re arbitration eligible. I just think it’s too early in the season to declare ‘cock to be anything, really. Burriss? I have no idea why he’s here.
by sweetjuxtapose on Apr 21, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I support this
Who am I, and what the hell does my opinion matter? Nobody important and it doesn’t. But to me, this is about the most logical stance a person could take on this issue. The notion that we couldn’t do better than this is ridiculous. There had to be a way even a AAAA shortstop was available somewhere that could have allowed Bocock and/or Burriss to not be rushed to the majors from A ball, and wouldn’t have cost us much of anything to get.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler
I just don't get this "rushing" thing.
Other teams in MLB bring up players @ the ages of 22-23 fairly routinely. Yes, it does start his service clock “early” (if we go w/ another SS next season and put him back down) and Yes, he can’t spend as much time focusing on his bat playing on a team where wins supposedly matter.
However, He also has access to better facilities and better coaches (supposedly) and is facing real pitching. If Bocock does improve, we won’t have to play the “well he hit .276 in fresno last month, how will that translate to the bigs?” Whatever he hits is whatever he hits. I’m not a hitting coach, and I don’t know if he is more likely to get worse than better – however, I don’t think that has jack crap to do with if he is @ this level, or in the minors. Normally, I would be worried because his bat would be hurting the team. However, while his OPS+ is a mere 37, that’s a whole 23 points higher than your every day first baseman, Rich Aurilia. I don’t really give a shit what he does offensively as long as it seems he improves.
Only time will tell of course – but I would like to see examples of players “rushed to the Majors” who ended up suffering long term @ the plate. I just don’t buy it.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Apr 21, 2008 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions
IANAG
(I am not a Grant) but my objection to the A-ball callups is this: We shouldn’t have to be calling up kids from A ball. The farm system, either by draft or other acquisition, should funnel talent up to the big club. There should be SS talent at every level. Apparently there isn’t ANY at AA or AAA, because if there were, well, those guys would be playing in SF.
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
I understand that point
But right now there isn’t anything we are going to do about it.
Actually, there isn’t ever a time you or I is going to be able to do anything about it, but that is besides the point.
Yes, the farm apparantly dropped the ball on having ML-debut ready SS. However, that’s been true for nearly every position so that’s not exactly surprising. Frankly, I would rather watch Bocock this season than an AAAA player.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Apr 21, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Rushing isn’t just about age. It’s a point that’s been hammered into the ground this year, but they’re being rushed because neither of them have even shown that they are capable of playing at A-Ball yet, let alone the majors.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
Sure, but what's does "yet" have to do with it?
So what – they suck offensively. Either he learns or he doesnt. This offseason, we will have a known commodity SS. If a trade or FA gives us a better option SS, then go for it.
Until then, stick w/ Bocock. I still fail to see how being on the ML Club significantly retards his development.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Apr 21, 2008 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions
GOD DAMN WHITEOUT
WTF. Basically, I said you were wrong and I am right.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Apr 21, 2008 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, to be honest, I don’t think there’s a whole lot of development to retard (I’d be surprised if he ever turns into anything more than a… Jose Vizcaino utility type.)
I just think it’s an utter joke that this team is starting someone at shortstop who sucks as much as Bocock does and is as far away from being a major league player as he is.
The Giants are going to suck anyway, yes, but Christ, the dude has a .499 OPS. He is at replacement-replacement level.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
Only time will tell of course – but I would like to see examples of players "rushed to the Majors" who ended up suffering long term @ the plate. I just don’t buy it.
It’s hard to find a great comparison, as players who struggled as badly as Bocock in high-A generally aren’t the ones who are rushed. When a 22- or 23-year-old is “rushed”, they’re either a) killing the minors or b) a highly touted prospect, even though they might not be hitting exceptionally well (Hanley Ramirez). I could link to a few players who were called up too early - Chad Hermansen comes to mind - but I have no idea if that’s why certain players actually fail.
It isn’t just me that came up with this idea, though. I don’t want to point to conventional baseball wisdom and claim it’s a valid argument, as conventional baseball wisdom can be way, way off. But I think there is a good reason as to why only a handful of players in recent history have gone straight from college to the pros, and only part of that reason has to do with the team’s current ability to win.
by Grant Brisbee on Apr 21, 2008 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I know that it is "conventional" wisdom
And I also know that it is nearly impossible to prove – how you can you prove someones failure was due to being rushed? (or vice versa)
I guess I just feel that Bocock was never really highly touted and if he never learns to hit over .220, who cares. We aren’t losing anything and maybe it actually works out. I just don’t know if I can stomach watching another veteran scrap heap player all season.
“Rushed” Bocock has more upside than waiver-wire pickup. Right now I am all about watching Upside and hoping. Nothing to lose here…
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Apr 21, 2008 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions
"Rushed" Bocock has more upside than waiver-wire pickup.
i am in agreeance. i just wish that weren;t the best option.
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
We all wish we had a better option
But we don’t.
“Rushed” Bocock also has more upside then AAAA PTBA. We needed a shortstop, and I think that the FO did the right thing in pulling up the shortstop w/ the most upside in the organization (while not “sacraficing” a top prospect to do so IE SS was likely a position that would have to be outsourced next season anyways).
If Bocock succeeds, it will be a pleasant surprise. If he is AAAA bound, oh well – we didn’t waste money on a veteran or a waiver-wire replacement and will be in a position to trade/spend for a SS next season.
We will also have a slick defensive SS in the farm w/ a lot of ML experience in case of need. You can accept a lack of offense if your starting SS goes down – what you can’t live with is a huge hole in the infield – that will crush a team that is trying to contend in 2009.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Apr 21, 2008 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Wily Mo Pena
Is a great example of a player rushed to majors who could’ve used time at AAA, and never really recovered. There are quite a few.
by notsellingjeans on Apr 21, 2008 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah , God.
“It’s a perennially weak hitting position.”
It truly never ends.
Aaron "Swag" Rowand
by victor frankenstein on Apr 22, 2008 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
i don't even know what that means
but i do derive morose delectation at Morris’s suckitude
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
On one level, it doesn’t matter how badly the Giants bungle the shortstop position in 2008. Bocock is probably a game or two worse than Vizcaino/Neifi/etc. over the course of a season, but we’re not in contention, so who cares? And as everyone keeps saying, these aren’t the kind of high-ceiling prospects whose development you treat with kid gloves.
But the Bocock/Burriss business is destructive because it shows so explicitly that the organization has no idea at all how young players develop, how to appraise talent, how baseball teams win games. (Either that or they just don’t care; I’m not sure which is worse.) If you’re a coach, a scout, an aspiring exec, are you going to want to sign on with this franchise? If you’re a minor-league free agent looking for a AAA team where you might get a shot, are you going to pick the org that promotes Bocock over Ivan Ochoa? If you’re a major-league free agent trying to decide on a team, are you going to pick the one that send an A-baller to the plate game after game? If you’re the agent for a top draft choice, are you going to encourage him to sign with the laughingstock of the major leagues, or hold out till next year instead?
if i'm a minor leaguer and i can pick my system
does picking the giants mean i’ll be rushed into the bigs and a 370k contract? then yeah, I want to play for the Giants!
by sweetjuxtapose on Apr 21, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I am actually contemplating showing up in San Jose next week...
I can probably play something…
I think there are some very legitimate reasons to question if this team’s front office knows how to handle a farm system and develop players. This teams entire success of the last 15 years has been based around one player and free agent signings to surround him.
It’s a big direction shift, and I don’t know if management is capable. (it also takes more than one year)
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Apr 21, 2008 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Also
The Giants have been drafting mainly pitchers for the last years, and if we look at that part, it seems like we did a decent job. The fact that we can watch a flock of young pitching should create at least a bit of leniency regarding the lack of top prospect shortstops from lower A level up to the AAA level. Just beating the dead horse and saying that the FO is doing so bad because look they don’t have any good shortstop prospects is really easy.
Bocock has been doing great, and personally I can just cheer for the guy. Sure, he can’t hit if his life depended on it, but he has looked slick in the field. I don’t really understand the Burriss move, but I’m just hoping Fairweatherfan is right and it’s an omen that Ray or Richie are on their way out.
What I don’t understand is the cry for vizcaino. First everyone bitches about being a geriatric team, now people want vizcaino, the 40-year old shortstop, so that we can watch another 40+ SS without the Omar glove. Instead I’d prefer to watch the Bocock do his stuff.
by SFGAmsterdam on Apr 21, 2008 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions
So, here's a question that will get me in trouble...
Has the pitching been all that great? I mean – really? We’ve got a bunch of “potentials,” sure – but Cain and Lincecum are the only two that have actually amounted to anything real – and the long term jury is still out on them.
I mean, really – Major League Pitching is pretty good. I know we all love our minor leaguers, but there are 30 other teams out there that do just about as well.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Apr 21, 2008 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions
The cry for Vizcaino is facetious.
Right , Chief?
Chief?
Aaron "Swag" Rowand
by victor frankenstein on Apr 22, 2008 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
this will all be rendered irrelevant when we draft tim beckham and call him up to the bigs a week later (he signs immediately of course). then bocock and burriss can go back to levels where they’re more comfortable and can develop at the right pace.
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Apr 21, 2008 6:17 PM PDT reply actions
It all comes back to poor planning, as usual.
This offseason, the Giants should’ve taken Diory Hernandez in the Rule 5 draft.
This was the perfect year to utilize the Rule 5 draft and “reach” on a few very young position players who weren’t ready to post passable big league numbers, but will eventually have big-league careers.
If the offensive approach was going to be “let’s throw a bunch of guys against the wall and see who sticks” – which is essentially what the Bocock and Burriss and a few of the OF/1b decisions have amounted to, why not add a few guys from other organizations for $50K apiece, instead of rushing your own farm and unnecessarily stretching it?
The Rule 5 draft was the perfect opportunity to add a young middle infielder (I study the Rule 5 draft and Hernandez would’ve been choice, but the principle is more important than the individual himself), as well as a future catching prospect (similar to what the Nats did with Jesus Flores last year).
Instead, they re-upped Vizquel, and continue to hold on to Aurilia, neither of whom have any chance of being a member of the next contending Giants team.
Those are two 40-man roster slots (and projected active roster slots) that should’ve gone to position-player Rule 5 draft picks. That would aided organizational depth, given a few upside plays for the future…and would still be employing the same “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” strategy they ended up using anway.
The rebuttal would be, “Hindsight is 20/20; they didn’t know Vizquel would get hurt.” Hindsight wasn’t really necessary to make the proper decision, though. Knowing where this season was headed, taking a Rule 5 shortstop over Vizquel would’ve been the better (and much cheaper) move all along…because that 23-year-old Rule 5 pick would have 6-7 years of upside and might’ve contributed to an eventual Giants contender.
by notsellingjeans on Apr 21, 2008 6:55 PM PDT reply actions
I fail to see how a H.O.F. 40 + year old short stop and a fading scrapper ( Aurilia) would PREVENT a front office from a rule 5 move with Hernandez.
Or Signing an Everrett type off the waviers. In fact I would think the fading scrapper, the 40+ H.O.Fer & 2 guys you ( the front office) are not impressed with at second base would MANDATE such a move. If nothing else you dump one of Aurelia , Durham or back SS stop gap guy at the end of spring training or move one over to third for a bit.
That being said I suppose I am grateful we have not seen Sanchez & Nate swapped for Lugo yet or some other typical Sabean nonsense. Half a loaf & all that.
" Their still Shitty" - Major Leagues the movie.
I am a Giants fan. Thus I enjoy my pain. Currently enjoying it more then usual.
by daveinexile on Apr 22, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
is it me
or are Burriss and Bocock light years apart in terms of their hitting abilities?
I seem to remember Burriss putting up some mean numbers in this year’s AFL. Furthermore, as Brute mentioned recently, this site seems to be fixated on his High-A performance last year. I dont get it.
he went .324/.374/.381 last year in Augusta and 365/.450/.423 in the AFL. Its not like he was completely over matched this year in Fresno. Am I missing something? Yes he struggled in San Jose, but is that how we should grade him?
You would rather see Ochoa? Or some rule 5 draftee? Really? I don’t get it.
Someone get Damon Minor's agent on the phone stat!
by fanofvanlandingham on Apr 21, 2008 7:25 PM PDT reply actions
You're right, we shouldn't grade him on his San Jose struggles
We should grade him on 611 minor league at-bats, his entire pro career.
In which he’s posted…a .311 on-base percentage and a .645 OPS. He has been a poor minor league hitter by any measure.
To cherry-pick a few positive stretches in a small sample size such as the AFL is just as misleading as judging him solely on his San Jose numbers.
But his entire minor league career represents a full season of at-bats. And it isn’t pretty.
The reason I would’ve rather seen Diory Hernandez than him should be obvious: He’s already posted very good AA numbers, while Bocock has posted poor high-A numbers.
by notsellingjeans on Apr 21, 2008 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions
good point
i wasn’t cherry picking anymore than someone who said Burris “struggled mightily in A-ball”. He didn’t.
With that said, I wasn’t referring to Bocock but to Burriss. I would have rather seen Burriss up this whole time instead of Bocock. Im just crazy i guess.
that same Diory Hernandez put up a whopping .238/.293/.336 in his SECOND go round at high A.
not exactly lighting the house on fire.
Someone get Damon Minor's agent on the phone stat!
by fanofvanlandingham on Apr 21, 2008 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Burris’s line over his minor league career: .288/.352/.340
That’s a .692 OPS, spread over about 750 ABs.
If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?
I can get you a toe, Dude
If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?
Awesome!
But can it be a chick toe?
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Apr 22, 2008 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
With green nail polish?
"I was tied to a chair and he had a baseball bat. Pissing him off was the smart thing to do."
by DbacksSkins on Apr 22, 2008 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
