Middle relievers give Giants room to deal
by wilriv21 on May 30, 2008 4:13 AM PDT
Email
PrintThe Giants are actively shopping several players according to sources. The Giants have informed other clubs that relievers Tyler Walker, Jack Taschner and Vinnie Chulk are available in fair-value deals. The club also is soliciting offers for Erick Threets and Brad Hennessey, who is starting for Triple-A Fresno. Closer Brian Wilson is not among the players the Giants are keen on moving.
The sudden motivation to deal relief pitching is twofold: several contenders are in bullpen crisis mode, and the Giants believe they have several younger relievers who are emerging or on the cusp of doing so. Left-hander Alex Hinshaw and right-hander Billy Sadler have impressed since joining the club and right-hander Merkin Valdez is viewed as a prime setup man once he returns from the disabled list. Sergio Romo, Kelvin Pichardo and Osiris Matos are all pitching well for Double-A Connecticut, with Matos posting a 1.37 ERA in 18 games.
Let the bidding begin.
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.
158 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Personally I wouldn’t hold Wilson back. I love the kid, I love the way he overcame some adversity, I love his blog and his travels to India—but I do believe he’s one of the bigger chips we have right now that could net us something good and still be replaceable.
For instance, Milwaukee should be a contender and one of the reasons their season has been so disappointing is Melvin’s disastrous bullpen management in the offseason. The Gagne gambit was terrible decision-making. A steep price comes from making disastrous decisions with playoff-contending rosters. I say that price should be—Matt LaPorta!
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
I was discussing the Brewers with a friend (who is a Brewers fan, go fig) and he blithely mentioned that the team is discussing trading Mat Gamel, their AA 3B who has a monster bat but terrible glove. He complains to me almost daily about how they need pitching. Dare to dream?
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on May 30, 2008 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Where would we put Gamel? The kid makes Ryan Braun look like Scott Rolen at the hot corner. Gamel seems more like a future DH to me more than anything else. I do love his bat, though.
Proud adoptive parent of Tim Alderson.
Since there’s absolutely nothing at third base I’d just as soon take on the risk. Get the guy with some infield instructors and fix it. He’s certainly worth the hitting.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on May 30, 2008 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Even throw him across the diamond at first base. It’s not like Aurilia and Ort are the second coming of Willie Mac.
Gamel now
Smoak in two years
Anvil in three or more
I like it. Too many good hitting 1B is a nice problem to have.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on May 30, 2008 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
If we could get LaPorta...
I’d be all over that trade. However, I would think LaPorta is pretty close to untouchable. Maybe a less-heralded, somewhat overlooked prospect like 3B Mat Gamel? He’s tearing it up in AA but remains in the shadow of LaPorta.
But unless the Giants can receive high ceiling talent in return I suggest they just keep Wilson. Jon Miller described his slider as almost Nen-like last night. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a closer who could even be mentioned in the same breath as Nen.
Oh, I see the Baron just beat me to the Gamel idea… well, I second the motion!
Yeah, I was thinking of Gamel as well. They’re both bats that will play at the major league level and at some point they’re going to run out of positions for all these good bat/no glove prospects. Perhaps a big giant bullpen dump and something really useful (a Bengie, a Correia) gets us both.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
Every single person who thinks trading Wilson for a prospect is a good idea
Let me just say one name.
Joe Nathan.
I’m keeping track, and IF (I hope not) Wilson gets traded, I don’t want to EVER here a single one of you complain about the AJ trade again.
I’m happy the Giants are looking to move the older more established Releivers. Part of me thinks Walker could end up closing for the Brewers.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
I’m happy the Giants are looking to move the older more established Releivers. Part of me thinks Walker could end up closing for the Brewers.
My god. Could you imagine the size of Thighler if he has to spend half his time eating in Milwaukee?!
"Bring me the head of FP Santangelo!"
by SM on May 30, 2008 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
maybe they can just keep trading Walker over and over
he flops and then comes back to SF and gets it together, then trade him again…
Here’s something that is very very important to remember – the worth of a trade is the value you get in exchange for the value you give up. I wanted to keep Joe Nathan, but that doesn’t mean there’s no scenario in which trading him would have been a good idea, and indeed, if AJ had stayed here for several years and added some All Star games to his SF resume the trade would have to be viewed a different light than it is today (still too much given on our side IMO but still). Trades are value exchanges. We’ve got some good bullpen arms, we lack some good bats, there’s a potential value exchange in that equation.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on May 30, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Remember when the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth for cash? That was stupid. So if someone offers us 5 million dollars for Aurilia we should totally reject it.
I like Wilson. If we don’t get a good offer for him I’ll be happy to keep him. But if we can get a real good hitting prospect for him, then we should do it because:
A) We are good in producing relievers, which makes Wilson more expandable.
B) We are bad in producing hitters, which would make said hitting prospect more valuable.
C) A good hitter is worth more than a good Closer.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
Well said
Just to further drive home the analogy:
This one time, I invested in a stock and it lost money. I’m never investing in stocks again.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
I was just trying to say that each trade should be judged separately. I didn’t mean to piss you off, and if I did then I apologize.
But read the 3 points I made. Is there something there that you don’t agree with?
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
LaPorta
23 years old and hitting .279 in double A, and we should trade a kid that leads the league in saves, and a kid that might be the best closer in the history of the franchise. You’re right, Sabean should be all over that trade. He should be all over it and beating it to death. Do NOT trade a player that is already showing dominance at the big league level for some kid who isn’t even dominating AA ball.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
+100
Do NOT trade a player that is already showing dominance at the big league level for some kid who isn’t even dominating AA ball.
Some people just don’t seem to get this. Of course, Brian Wilson is aweful if I remember correctly.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Especially since these are the same people
Who lambaste Sabean for trading Joe Nathan, a guy who had a line much worse than Wilson’s in his second full ML season (albiet a very good line the season, his 3rd, before he was traded, no saves) for an established ML catcher who had just posted a .312/.360/.464 line In his age 26 season.
On the surface, the Nathan trade looks to be a pretty good deal because you are getting a known quantity – a catcher batting over 300 – for a pretty good reliever and some filler pitching prospects. To think of trading Wilson for anything less is asinine, and frankly with as much as people bitch about the Nathan/AJ trade it blows my mind that people would contemplate trading Wilson for anything less than a young all star at this point.
And yes, I realize that Liriano and Bonser were involved in that trade as well, but neither of them has really amounted to much of anything. Just filler to get a AS quality catcher for a young and pretty good looking reliever. I’m pretty sure Sabean knew at the time that neither of them had a very high chance of greatness.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Joe Nathan again. Look, it was a terrible trade even at the time, because AJ isn’t very good and Nathan was quite a bit better than Wilson is now. But people need to understand that the way Nathan took off from there was extremely unusual. Of the zillions of youngish strikeout pitchers with command issues, very few of them increase their strikeout rate by 20 or 30 percent and quit walking people and get more and more ground balls and stop giving up home runs.
This franchise generates a lot of promising young relievers. We can’t hold on to every one of them just because we don’t know which one might become the next Joe Nathan.
I completely agree with you
I just am pointing out the Irony in that the most hated trade in the history of giants baseball is exactly the same sort of trade people are proposing here.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Apparently you aren't.
Apparently you aren’t agreein with him. LaPorta is young as he’s only one year removed from the draft. He’s got room to grow and was projected to have a VERY good bat.
Pierzynski was a player who hit for average (if that) and was a jerk (everyone knew this before he even got here). Basically, he wasn’t that good and didn’t have the ceiling that LaPorta currently has. That’s a BIG difference.
AJ
was also a player who had demonstrated a 115 OPS+ the previous season and had essentially improved every year since coming into the Majors.
He was 26 years old and not even into his prime yet still performing at an all star level for his position. Not sure how that is a bad player to pick up for a young middle reliever with one good season and one bad one under his belt. Yeah – his attitude sucked and something else was apparantly going on there ‘cause his performance went to shit after that year with SF (juice?) but he was hardly “not that good”. Would I trade Merkin Valdez (equiv to Nathan in some ways) for a .312/.360/.464 26 year old ML all-star catcher? You bet your ass I would.
LaPorta is a high-ceiling AA player who has a very high chance of turning out to be nothing like so many others. I’m not sure why so many people treat prospects as if they are a garaunteed lock to make an impact at the Major league level. How many highly-touted prospects have turned out to be at best the next Pedro Feliz, and at worst the next Damon Minor?
And that’s not what I was talking about when I said I agreed, anyway. what I agree with is:
people need to understand that the way Nathan took off from there was extremely unusual. Of the zillions of youngish strikeout pitchers with command issues, very few of them increase their strikeout rate by 20 or 30 percent and quit walking people and get more and more ground balls and stop giving up home runs.
Many treat the AJ trade as if it was a forgone conclusion that Nathan was going to take the path he did, but that is just not the case. It is infact highly surprising that he turned out to be as good as he did (likewise, surprising AJ turned out to be as bad as he did).
I also agree with:
This franchise generates a lot of promising young relievers. We can’t hold on to every one of them just because we don’t know which one might become the next Joe Nathan.
However, I think the bar is sufficiently higher for Wilson not because I am worried he will be the next Joe Nathan, but I think because he fills a spot this team is in need of and trading things you need for other things you need just moves a hole from one place to another, which is not a great way to move forward. Trading things you have an excess of for things you need is. We do not have an excess of closers. If at some point in the future we do, then let’s talk.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I think you’re missing some very essential points here. The most crucial of which is the degree to which people overrate the “save” statistic and “closer mentality.” In the Nathan case (even if they hadn’t added the other pitchers) they couldn’t possibly take advantage of that fact because Joe hadn’t been used as a closer and hadn’t piled up saves before the trade. That’s the primary reason I believe they could get a return on Wilson that would make trading him worthwhile. He’s got oodles and oodles of saves.
So: trading Wilson would be taking advantage of people’s overrating the save stat; trading Nathan was making the mistake of overrating the save stat on our part and not seeing that Nathan’s ‘03 peripherals were the raw materials of an effective closer.
Secondly, and this is a personal gripe of mine—there’s really no such thing as a “sort of trade.” There are specific deals involving specific players that work out in specific ways. Discussing trades in generalities as types is fairly worthless in my opinion. I say and I repeat, the devil’s in the details.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
Based on the fact that if you had two pitchers with the exact same peripherals, but one had 30 saves and one had 0, they would have wildly different values in the market.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
1. Every year, relief pitchers who weren’t closers become closers and do just fine, or better than fine. Joe Nathan is a perfect example of this. So what separates a good seventh-inning pitcher from a good ninth-inning pitcher?
2. It’s pretty clear that stopping the other team is more important to victory when it’s, say, tied in the seventh than when you have a two- or three-run lead in the ninth. So the middle relievers are often pitching in more important game situations than the closers.
yeah, agree with the 2nd point but
not so much on the first…seems like you can get some guy like Hennessey to roll along for a while in the closer role, but eventually it catches up with them….
The first point is true, but...
...so is the corollary: every year, other relief pitchers who weren’t closers become closers and get blown up. See: Herges, Matt.
All-Father Watch: 1.37 ERA, 5 saves, 0.99 WHIP, 24 Ks in 26 1/3 IP
And every year
Pitchers who are excellent releif pitchers become closers and tank, only to become releif pitchers again and regain their success.
If baseball players were robots or otherwise computer controller (as many sabermetrics types tend to think) then you would be correct.
The problem is, they are people – and different people respond different in different situations.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course
You just have to look at a guy’s Situation Dependent Response Factor to be able to tell that!
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 30, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Really? It’s common for good pitchers to get promoted to closer, tank, get demoted to the earlier innings, and go back to being good again?
I’ll give you LaTroy Hawkins. Who else ya got?
Manny Corpas off the top of my head
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Since Corpas got taken out of the closer role on April 24, he’s had a 5.87 ERA, with 10w/9k. Batters have hit .344/.431/.525 against him. That’s actually a lot worse than when he was closing, though the ERA is a little better.
He was lights-out as a closer for half a season last year, so this looks like a case of good-pitcher-with-something-wrong-with-him rather than good-pitcher-who-can’t-handle-the-pressure-of-closing.
You make some really good points
Roger. My biggest problem with Sabean in regards to the Nathan trade was not the trade itself but, as you point out, the Giants being blind on Nathan’s potential as a closer. Not that I saw it at the time either, but in retrospect it made all the sense in the world. As a converted shortstop he was an ideal candidate for injury as a starter. He throws hard, mid 90’s, and doesn’t possess a large repetoire of pitches. Seeing that his time as a Giant was mostly as a starter, with some time in the bullpen in middle relief, and was never used as a closer, seems ridiculously short-sighted on the part of the Giant’s coaching staff and FO.
This is my roundabout way of saying, as other have as well, that trading Wison is not analogous to the Nathan trade.
This is wrong in so many ways. First, using batting average as a measuring stick = fail. LaPorta is one of the best hitters in his league by OPS. Scouts love his bat. He’s got legitimate star potential as a hitter.
Second, Brian Wilson isn’t showing dominance at all. His strikeout rate is good, but there are literally dozens of relief pitchers with better ones. He can’t command or control his pitches at all. In real terms, his performance this year hasn’t been significantly better than that of Taschner or Walker or Merkin.
Finally, no matter how much stock you put in the whole “closer” silliness, there’s no way a good pitcher throwing 65 innings a year is anywhere near as valuable as a good everyday position player.
isnt Wilson showing the potential to put it all together though
not perfect but 16/18 in SVO, and seems to have the stuff….i could see him being dominant
by next year…
I tend to agree
But even if Wilson finishes this season with 40 saves, a 4.6 ERA and a 1.5 WHIP some people will still say he isn’t very good.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah but - i would think good chance the ERA and WHIP
would fall into line a little more next year….he’s had a few bad outings that distorted those
figures somewhat…..
last year he couldnt even make the club out of ST….hes improved quite a bit already in one year’s time and seems like theres still more ceiling yet to be realized
Maybe, I was just saying that if he did still have a 4.60 ERA (which is actually a horrible stat, especially for relief pitchers) and 1.50 WHIP, he wouldn’t be very good.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
Dude, no clue. I can’t find any info on him anywhere. Maybe some of the posters around here who are in much better touch with our minors could let me know (Baron, Brute, steve, anyone?). It seems that he hasn’t pitched since the middle of last year, which would make me think serious injury. Maybe he decided to retire, but considering his success in the low minors and age, I would have to assume that didn’t happen.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
i heard that Bobby Evans guy
mention injury – i think it was TJ surgery, not positive though – and said they hoped he would be ready for fall league…..
hes still young – would be 22 this year, shouldve been AA by now
as you are the neglectful father, i was hoping that might know more….
Sorry
I know nothing more. “Neglectful” really is the key word.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
How can you see that as a bad thing? Not that I like using ERA for relievers, but still. If a pitcher has a bad ERA, bad peripherals and a lot of saves, he is not a good pitcher.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
But he is getting the job done.
It’s like the kid in college who doesn’t come to class, doesn’t do his homework but Aces the final.
Yeah, all the peripherials suggest that he is going to do poorly, but at the end of the day he keeps getting it done.
There are plenty of people in the world like that, and until they stop getting it done – you need to roll with it.
I’m just saying that some point, results are what ultimately count – not how you got them. If Wilson has a > 85% sv percentage this year, then I would say he was a good closer – regardless of ERA or WHIP.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not quite on the Wilson bandwagon
but if you look at his gamelog, 6 of his 12 earned runs came in non save situations….and by non save situations I mean games where the giants are getting blown out..
In save situations his ERA 3.06 – not dominating but not bad either.
I would agree that if he finishes the year with an 85%+ save percentage, he has a good closer – this year.
The point of peripheral stats, as I understand it, is that they have more predictive value for what happens next year. So a guy who saves 85% of his opportunities with a 1.00 WHIP is more likely to repeat that than a guy who gets saves at an 85% rate but gives up tons of baserunners.
Two different questions: “Has he been an effective closer?” vs. “Will he continue to be an effective closer?”
All-Father Watch: 1.37 ERA, 5 saves, 0.99 WHIP, 24 Ks in 26 1/3 IP
and not just this year vs. next
his peripherals suggest that he won’t maintain his current level of effectiveness. it’s like the kid who doesn’t come to class but aces the midterm, but nobody tells him that the final will be on the material in Chapter 31, but the syllabus says he only needs to read through chapter 30, but he doesn’t know that, because he doesn’t come to class, so Wilson has a shitty second half of the season.
The moral: stay in school!
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
I understand all of that
And I buy into it too. If I didn’t think that Wilson had the capability to get his WHIP down I would be less optomistic. A WHIP of 1.5 is not going to cut it over the long term not matter how you stack it.
But I also think that a high strikeout pitcher is capable of being effective with a higher WHIP than a low strike out pitcher just because he doesn’t need the ball to be in play to get outs. Wilson has a k/9 of over 1 – so he’s going to get at least one of his outs nearly every outing as a K. That essentially means he has to only get 2 outs per inning vs a guy with, say, a 4.5/9 K ratio having to get 2.5. HUGE difference. I truely beleive that this allows him (and other high strikeout pitchers) to strand more baserunners IE “get away with” a higher WHIP.
If Wilson is ever in a strike out situation, he can pitch precisely for that – and often get it. That gives him the ability to get out of a lot more “situations” than a low strikeout pitcher who has to rely on the ball being in play to get an out – a situation which is not good w/ a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs for example.
Additionally, I guess fundamentally I think that there is an element to being a “closer” that is not just raw statistics. I think that being a player who is focused under pressure (anyone who has played sports at any level knows pressure affects performance) as well as intelligent about the game is crucial. Realizing that pitching with a 3 run lead is different than a 1 run lead, etc. You don’t get the benifit of coming out and having a rough inning then settling down for the next 5 and still having a good outing. You’ve gotta come out and nail it down, right away – otherwise, you blow it.
A player strong in these intagibles may, in my opinion, be able to perform at a higher level than his peripherials suggest. Just as a pitcher like Maddux can think his way around a lack of stuff, I think a pitcher (maybe wilson) who understands the situation can think his way around a lack of low WHIP. Not throwing batter #1 anything to hit ‘cause you are really confident you can strike out batter #2 isn’t a bad thing.
Do I think Wilson will be an elite closer with a WHIP of 1.5? No. I think he’s gonna have to get that down into the 1.1-1.2 range – but I also think that will be the path he has to take to elite closer status as he grows at the ML level. I also think that, with his high K/9 potential he will probably be able to be effective with a WHIP .1 or .2 higher than a low k/9 closer.
I just think he has a lot of potential, and right now he’s stil better than anyone his team has had closing for them since Robb Nen. If we do trade him, it better be for something really really solid, not just some wish-upon-a-star prospect.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions
some good points there, and you may be on to something about the high strikeout thing. it sounds good, anwyay. :)
but as Evan pointed out above, sometimes the highest leverage situation is in the 7th. or the 6th. or the 8th. If you’re right about the “closer mentality,” i’d say it’s not so much a closer mentality as it is a “high-leverage situation mentality.” so it doesn’t matter in what inning the guy gets it done, it’s the situation.
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
there’s no way a good pitcher throwing 65 innings a year is anywhere near as valuable as a good everyday position player.
That is entirely dependent on how much better then both are than average.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions
okay
an elite closer isn’t as valuable as a good everyday closer.
Mariano, at his best, put up Win Shares (per THT) of 16-20. Bobby Abreu, at his best, put up Win Shares between 25-35.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on May 31, 2008 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Insane. LaPorta is hitting .285/.392/.575 in AA the year after he was drafted. He’s got great power and discipline and his K’s aren’t a problem. If we were able to trade Wilson for LaPorta, EVERYONE who knew anything would scratch their heads and wonder what the fuck Milwaukee was doing. Everyone expects LaPorta to be a middle of the order impact bat in the majors. Here’s a fun stat too, in a study of the draft from 1984 to 1999, college first baseman (which is what LaPorta was) are the most valuable group of draft picks by an enormous margin. College first basemen selected in the first round have gone on to have Hall of Fame-caliber careers approximately one-third of the time. Link
As for Wilson, dominance? Not exactly. Might be the best closer in the history of the franchise? Not even fucking close. Don’t confuse opportunity for dominance. The number of saves he has has nothing to do with his ability as a pitcher. Right now he’s a guy who can strike guys out, but walks too many and has pretty shoddy control. He might ratchet up his control, but he’s already 26 so his peak is probably approaching fast. In other words, he’s just like a bunch of other marginally good relievers.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
Schmidt for Howard
Remember a couple three years back when the Giants were considering dealing Jason Schmidt to Phili for a 1B prospect named Ryan Howard, but his strikeout numbers were so astronomical people were convinced he was going to be a bust.
Two points: 1) I’m still glad Sabean didn’t make that deal. In retrospect, that would have been a steal for us. However, at the time the entire team was riding on two players’ shoulders, and one of them was Schmidt. He was the most electric Giants pitcher of the era … probably the most dominant in SF history with the exception of No. 27. At the time, it was just a deal you don’t make. 2) And more to the point, there are only two players in the organization the Brewers would consider in exchange for LaPorta. Wilson isn’t one of them. Wilson has a fine career ahead of him, but he is at least a year away from being able to close for a contender. Even if he was the next Bobby Jenks though, why would you trade someone of that promise? The entire point of rebuilding is to build on players like Wilson.
Also
I remember we had the opportunity to deal Schmidt for Hanley Ramirez and Jonathan Papelbon.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but I just can’t get over how much better we’d be if we had completed that deal.
Proud adoptive parent of Tim Alderson.
I’ll just never believe in building around a closer, and certainly not one of Wilson’s caliber. Very simply, he walks way too many batters and has very little control. Even if he takes a big step forward in control, which is highly unlikely, he’s still just a guy who will throw 70 innings a year. That is only special when the guy happens to be of the Papelbon, Rivera, Nathan, Rodriguez variety. Wilson is not, and never will be.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
Jonathan Papelbon is a weeeeeeeeenie!
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 30, 2008 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Nathan and Wilson
The only realy difference this year in the two lines is Nathan has walked 5, Wilson 12. (in fairly similar innings pitched)
Both have almost idential k/9 and 19 vs 23 hits. Also 14 and 16 saves respectively
So is that difference in bb/9 enough to determine Nathan an elite closer and Wilson garbage? 1.10 vs 1.56 WHIP. I should also Mention that Wilson’s WHIP in a similar # of appearances last year was .97, so it might stand to reason that his statistic this year is being slightly inflated by a few bad innings.
Could also mean he was pitching over his head last year.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Those are actually significant differences over roughly 20 innings. 11 extra baserunners for Wilson. Yeah.
But that’s the key to this whole debate. The sample size for Wilson is miserably small. We still essentially have no freaking idea what we have with Wilson, and we probably won’t with any real conviction for at least a year.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 30, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
True
And that’s what time will tell: will Wilson continue to allow too many baserunners, who will eventually score in save situations, blowing his 85% in save situations, or will the bad outings eventually be lost in a sea of good outings, making the 85% save rate make sense?
Also, we have to remember that not all saves are created equal. Guys can rack up two and three-run lead saves even with a run allowed. At the time, it doesn’t look good, but the save stat and save % allows us to say “he did his job” when he really didn’t do very well.
Think about it: if Wilson allows a run but still gets the save, we aren’t too upset about it, because the team still wins. If Tyler Walker allows a run with the game tied in the 7th, people are incensed.
I am not trying to suggest that Tyler Walker is better than Brian Wilson, but because of closer usage, Wilson almost always comes into a game with the lead, and often a 2 or 3 run rather than a single run lead, and almost always starts the inning on the mound rather than coming in with inherited runners. Sure, closers who don’t get the save are exasperating and the target of more hate than the middle reliever who isn’t very good, but closers often have plenty of room to “get the job done” because we define that job as getting the save rather than allowing no runs.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on May 30, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions
There is a key difference there
You pitch differently with a 3 run lead than you do with a 1 run lead or a tie game.
With a 3 run lead, you come in and throw strikes and hope the batters get themselves out or strike out. If you give up a knock it’s no big deal. You trade runs for outs becase the ultimate objective is to get those three outs without giving up more than 2 runs. Minimize the chance of free baserunners (walks) while increasing the chance of a HR or other big hit (which you can survive). That is also the difference between closing and releif pitching. You don’t want to trade runs for outs in the 7th with a 3 run lead – but in the 9th it’s perfectly ok.
With a 1 run lead, you have to pitch in such a way that you arent giving the opposition anything they may hit hard. Need to pitch to the corners trying to steal strikes, getting guys to swing at bad pitches, etc. You minimize the chance of the HR or other big hit, but you increase the chance of the walk.
So really a pitcher coming into a 3 run lead save and giving up a HR or a double is just as effective as a pitcher coming into a 1 run save and walking or two guys. Both failed on a batter or two, but because they were pitching appropriately for the game situation, that failure did not cost them the save – They hedged their bet so that if they did fail once or twice, it wasn’t all over. Since baseball is a game of failure, being able to fail in such a way that not all is lost is a key to success.
What you don’t want to happen is a guy to come in with a 3 run lead and start trying to steal strikes or with a 1 run lead start throwing 93 mph heat strait down the pipe. Both of these scenarios predispose imminent failure to result in the worst scenario for the situation. Free baserunners in the 3 run situation and pitches to hit hard in the 1 run situation.
So it really depends on how they do it. If Walker allows a run in the 7th in a tie game by walking a guy on close pitches and then getting beat on a good pitch – well shit, what can ya do ? If he comes in and throws strikes right over the plate and gets pounded – then yeah, be pissed. More likely, he struggles with control and throws pitches that aren’t close. That’s another problem.
If Wilson comes in w/ a 3 run lead in the 9th and gives up a HR or a hard hit ball to someone, big deal. If however he starts walking guys and running counts full (which he has a propensity to do) then that suggests a problem.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
so you're saying
that if Wilson does what he always does that indicates a problem with Brian Wilson?
Doesn’t this contradict your stated value of Brian Wilson?
He has problems and has so far not found a fix for them. Matt LaPorta is a dominant, powerful and highly regarded prospect that is at a position of need for the Giants, whereas we develop relievers like they’re corn.
Also, closers are overrated.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on May 31, 2008 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow, who’s saying Wilson’s garbage. It’s the fact that he has value that makes him a good potential trade chip. I think if you need to make a killing every time you make a deal you’re not going to make very many good deals. Make deals that works well for both sides and you’re going to lay the groundwork for more good deals in the future. That’s John Schuerholz lifelong philosophy and it seems a good one to me.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
Plenty of people
or just the same person over and over, have said that Wilson is “aweful” and “not very good” because of his WHIP and ERA.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions
no no no no no no no no no
no no no NO NO!
Nobody said that. Seriously. I just read every single comment in this thread just to make sure. The two closest things to that were you saying “Of course, Brian Wilson is aweful if I remember correctly”, and marcello saying that Wilson will never be elite.
Unless you’re talking about the whole “But even if Wilson finishes this season with 40 saves, a 4.6 ERA and a 1.5 WHIP some people will still say he isn’t very good” thingy, in which case I think you misunderstood. We were saying that peripherals and ERA are better indicators of a pitchers’ ability than saves. We were talking about a hypothetical pitcher that consistently has bad stats but a lot of saves. Not Wilson.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
Alas!
There is another thread…
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 31, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
ERA:
not a good indicator of a pitcher’s abilitity.
especially a relief pitcher.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on May 31, 2008 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I've never agreed with this particular sabermetric viewpoint.
Though, I can sort of buy it for relievers.
Only 916 games until the end of Zito's contract
After the statistical joke that was Armando Benitez as a Giant with a sub 2.5 ERA… I can completely buy it for relievers. As long as we’re talking about just one ot two seasons. Anytime you start to rack up hundreds of innings worth of numbers, they start to actually mean something. Some stats just need fewer innings than others to be meaningul.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 1, 2008 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m not saying that was Benitez’s ERA as a Giant. There was a point when he was visibly pitching like crap and blowing saves and had the sparkly ERA.
Over time, that evened out.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 1, 2008 1:28 AM PDT up reply actions
the problem with ERA, even for starting pitchers is how relief pitchers, the arbitrary and useless rules that define an Error, and just plain dumb luck (ala Noah Lowry) can affect that number. Some derivation of DIPS is usually a better indicator of actual performance.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 1, 2008 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, of course there are problems with ERA
No stat is perfect. But it’s still a decent indicator of performance because if a pitcher performs badly in regards to the components of DIPS, then that pitcher almost always performs badly in regards to ERA. Hits and walks and homeruns and how many strikeouts a pitcher has and slugging percentge allowed and linedrive percentage (am I missing something else?) directly affects how many earned runs a pitcher gives up.
All that you mention (though I think you go way overboard on errors) is true. But it doesn’t affect ERA enough to make it useless.
Only 916 games until the end of Zito's contract
two words:
Noah Lowry.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 2, 2008 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Wilson is not, and never will be.
What is this based on? Wilson’s primary problem is his control. Can you not think of any pitchers that have improved their control?
Also of note is that one of your examples, Nathan, would have had similar arguments made against him, based primarily on his injury history and the fact that he only had one “flukish” season under his belt.
Only 918 games until the end of Zito's contract
Lol
It is Ironic that Nathan’s 2000 season netted a 5+ ERA and a WHIP of 1.6 in 90 something innings pitched, yet he turned out to be an “Elite” Closer.
However, Brian Wilson’s 4.84 ERA and 1.56 WHIP so far this very young season apparantly 100% precludes him from ever being one.
Both in their second season at the ML level. Wilson is still arguably in his first.
Nathan pitched over 250 ML innings before he turned into an “Elite” closer with Minnasota at the age of 29.
Wilson has pitched about 75 ML innings thusfar in his young career at age 26, and has actually shown much more dominance at this stage than Nathan had ( Nathan had less than a 4.5 k/9 his first 80 ML innings, Wilson is pretty close to 9).
I don’t have time to compare to the other “Elite” Closers listed, but I frankly think Wilson has as good a shot at becoming a dominant closer as anyone I have seen in a while.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
What's the irony here
Nathan’s 2000 season was 1) spent as a starter; and 2) injury marred from one end to the other. He was twice on the DL that year with shoulder inflamation and finally shut down and underwent shoulder surgery. Are you saying it’s ironic that any pitcher who ever had shoulder problems later became an All Star? Because there’s no meaningful use of stats from a season when a pitcher is constantly performing through an injury.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
Roger touched on this below. Basically, Nathan had control issues as a starter, but once he was made a reliever, and healthy again, his control issues went away.
Of course Wilson could improve his control, but, really, it’s unlikely. Realize, that in AAA he walked about 5 men per nine innings. Further, his control is obviously poor, and he’s already 26 (not old, but not young).
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
The Nathan Comparison
It wasn’t to draw a perfect parallel between the two. There were those who have made the argument that trusting Nathan with the closer role would not be smart. You noticed I included the reasons, and neither of them had to do with his control. The point of the comparison was that similar things were said of Nathan (that he would most likely not be a great closer, not that he had control issues).
As for Wilson’s control problems, perhaps it’s unlikely that he improves his control. But you already mentioned a reason why I am encouraged about his chances. Simply put, he already has improved his control. In the minors (particularly 2007), Brian Wilson’s control was horrible. Atrocious. Disastrous. He has improved upon that already, while in the majors. In 2006 and 2007 his BB/9 in the minors was about 5.4 in 62 innings. In the majors the last two years his BB/9 was 3.65 in 47 innings. He’s improved while keeping his strikeouts and better than 1 an inning. I do not see why he can’t continue to improve.
Only 917 games until the end of Zito's contract
Why would the Brew Crew trade LaPorta for Wilson?
Fans that are suggesting this are delusional. Its like in highschool when you got a thing for the hottest girl in school but we all know its a one sided love affair. Wilson is okay, a league average closer at best with crappy supporting numbers. 22.1 IP and 23 hits? not good. 12 BB in 22.1 IP? not great. His K’s are good so thats a plus and hes relatively young at 26 so there is room for improvement. His whip of 1.57 smells of middle reliever more than a closer. If anything hes cheap for a couple more years so that is attractive.
For LaPorta whos a top 20 prospect you’d probably have to give them Wilson & Pablo Sandoval. Yes people can argue all day long about how a prospect is still a prospect until proven otherwise. I would rather keep the prospect that can become a star over the proven mediocrity of a pitcher such as Wilson. Matt Gamel I’m sure could be moved for the right price…and no Brian Wilson is not the right price. As an A’s fan I would trade Street for LaPorta straight up and I think we might be getting over on them just a little…...I know what your thinking, no just no Brian Wilson is not even in the same league as Street.
by AthleticsReign on May 30, 2008 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Explain to me
How a guy with 80 innings pitched in the Major leagues is a proven anything? I can give you about 5 million examples of pitchers who were MUCH worse than Wilson in their first 200 innings and later turned to be all star caliber pitchers.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly he hasn't proven anything....
except that hes a mediocre closer, hence proven mediocrity. Yes he can improve but is it likely? Probably not. Very few players fly under the radar and continue to have sucsessful(All star calibur) major league careers. Wilson can be what he is which is a league average closer and thats good, take him for what he is, nothing wrong with that. There are very few Joe Nathan’s out there that come out of the blue and dominate.
You could probably give me examples though I doubt you could give me 10 examples of pitchers that are non-prospects that came into the league and ended up dominating.
by AthleticsReign on May 30, 2008 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe it’s because it’s 2:35 in the morning, but you’re making an extremely small amount of sense to me.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 31, 2008 2:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Hmm. Eight hours later and it still doesn't make much sense.
I don’t think the time of day has any thing to do with it howie.
Only 918 games until the end of Zito's contract
No, don’t you see, it makes perfect sense: He hasn’t pitched long enough to prove anything, which in turn demonstrates that he is a proven commodity.
I have seen this light!
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 31, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
I think, basically, people are misunderstanding the point. I’m really happy Brian Wilson is our closer, instead of paying someone like Benitez a shit-ton of money, but I’m also realistic about his ceiling/potential. It’s completely possible to be happy with him while realizing that he isn’t, and won’t be, an elite reliever.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
wow, you said “fuck” several times to make your point, you have to be right. Who cares that he was a first round pick?? Lord knows those guys are NEVER busts or never turn out to be overrated. LaPorta was a college player and not a high school kid so his numbers at AA are simply not impressive. As for Wilson and his number of saves being overrated and based on his many opportunities, that would only hold if he had blown a high number of saves. He has just blown two, and one of those blown saves was a game he gave up 1 run and the Giants won anyway. He HAS been dominant and even if you think he hasn’t, you can’t deny he has dominant stuff and can become dominant. Do not trade someone who has shown this ability at the major league level for someone who hasn’t at the AA level. Don’t be overly fooled by the fact that LaPorta was a number one pick. Look at performance on the field, not reputation.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
I'm a big fan of Wilson
And I wouldn’t trade LaPorta for him if I was the Brewers. LaPorta’s hardly been unimpressive. In fact, his performance in AA has been better than Wilson’s performance in the majors so far.
Only 918 games until the end of Zito's contract
Yeah, I like to swear.
Anyways, Wilson has the most important ability, which is the ability to strike people out. However, he also has serious control issues. You’re defense of him, which is mostly founded around the fact that he has a lot of saves, is exactly why he should be traded. His perceived value greatly exceeds his actual value.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
“Don’t be overly fooled by the fact that LaPorta was a number one pick. Look at performance on the field, not reputation.”
Okay—.400 OBP, .600 SLG at AA, and a 1.020 career OPS thus far in the minors, with 25 HR in 299 AB’s. So tell me, just what part of that on-field performance am I not supposed to like?
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on May 31, 2008 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
You can say a lot of things if you want about LaPorta if you want, RxMeister, but you can’t say he’s never hit. His bat has always been a plus, plus tool for him and he could hit in the majors right now, most likely.
To say that his numbers aren’t impressive is just sticking your head in the sand. Batting average means squat and criticizing him because he’s only hitting .279 makes you look bad.
If he was in the Giants farm system, he’d most likely be our #1 or #2 prospect and maybe even already playing first. His bat is MLB ready now and I’ve never read anything to suggest otherwise.
Something just occured to me while washing my hands
This could both be good, and bad. The good is that Sabean trades relievers for prospects or even young ML players who can help us over the next 4 years.
The Bad is that he thinks we have a shot at contending this year, and trades relievers for some sort of veteran 1b or 3b that helps us this year but not into the future.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
Not likely to happen...
...since the teams that need bullpen help badly enough to trade for it are playoff contenders, and they’ll be keeping any veterans who can help the team this year.
All-Father Watch: 1.37 ERA, 5 saves, 0.99 WHIP, 24 Ks in 26 1/3 IP
Unless they have a better young player at that position
I can think of a few teams in that scenario.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions
i wouldnt mind Walker, Chulk, and Threets going
quantity if not quality…...maybe could get one decent position prospect in return….
and the other team has to figure that at least one of the three pitchers should help them…
what was a little surprising to me was Baggerly actually
aware of the good relief prospects at AA – must be a decent writer
Baggerly
is the local correspondent for Baseball America, and has a very good grasp of the Giants’ minor league happenings.
well that would explain things
thanks tyrannoman
Walker, Chulk, and Threets are 3 guys that cause me worry when they enter a close game. Walker was a nice surprise last night, seemed to have some command.
if Sabe “actively shops” them around the league, he will get counter proposals involving Henry Sosa, Sanchez, Lincecum, and all.
Now that the team is ahead of the Madres and the Rockies, Sabes can think we are “contending” and just need another gamer or 2.
adopter/sponsor of "Go, Antoan" Richardson
I have no problem with trading anyone out of the Giant bullpen except the young guys, like Wilson and Hinshaw. Tyler isn’t going to get you much, especially with the way he’s pitched this year of late. You need another ten good outings out of him at least, and I’m not sure he’s capable. Yesterday was great, as you said. The way he pitched to those last two hitters, which was made even better by Mike Krukow correcting predicting every pitch with it’s proper location. It was almost as if Walker was listening to Krukow as he said it.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
Wilson Maybe
At this point, given how quickly a pitcher can go down with an injury, I would move any of the relievers for a good bat or even prospect bat in return, with the exception of Hinshaw and even Sadler. A good bullpen can be built around those two and Merkin Valdez.
Ideally I would send the likes of Chulk, Walker, Threets, and Hennessey away first to get AA corner infield help from contenders, and hold onto someone like Wilson or even Taschner until we got a solid hiting prospect like LaPorta in return. I have the same fears as everyone else about moving Wilson, but if the Giants can get back a Top-10 corner infield or even outfield bat from a recent draft, they have to consider it.
you're going to move Wilson before Hinshaw or Sadler?
i would like to see a 2009+ bullpen of Wilson, Hinshaw, Sadler, Taschner, and Valdez….
and the AA relievers like Romo, Pichardo, Matos etc. to fill in the other few spots….have the relief corps all set for 5-6 years…
lockdown 7th-8th-9th like 2002
Why was Geno not mentioned?
He’s doing mildly okay in Fresno, and he has the ability to swing, to start and relieve.
SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!
by BruteSentiment on May 30, 2008 11:43 AM PDT reply actions
On the outbound train
Going in the other direction I was surprised not to see the name of 39yr old Yabu added to the list of Walker, Taschner and Chulk.
thats right, Yabu might have some short-term value
to a contender…
Do the Yankees have any 3B or SS prospects?
Considering A-rods on a 10 year contract and Jeter doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere, do they have any blocked prospects at those positions? Joba is moving to the rotation so they’re going to need some relievers for sure…I think they’d be a good match.
And at AAA
The Yankees’ Triple-A shortstop is a 29-year-old named Nick Green, .223/.284/.341. (The backup is Alberto Gonzalez. Wondered whatever happened to him.)
The starting SS is … wait for it … Cody Ransom.
Twenty-seven years of waiting has come to an end.
didn't wait long enough
Cody is actually the starting 3B. But you get the idea.
Twenty-seven years of waiting has come to an end.
BZZZ - Not a Gamer
Sorry, this team’s chemistry would be torpedoed if we added a guy who went on the DL with ‘pink eye’.
by GiantsFanInExile on May 30, 2008 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Bradley Suttle
is a decent Yankees prospect. Third baseman in the Sally League. Has good upside. Like a younger version of Betemit. I still like Ryan Roehlinger at 3B. However, there are a couple guys within the division that I like. Jamie D’Antona at Tucson still intrigues me, and might be available for the right package deal; like Aurilia and a reliever. And I still like Jeff Baker, although the Rockies aren’t going to be buyers at the deadline, so that’s probably a silly notion.
LaPorta Value
= more along the line of Matt Cain than Brian Wilson.
I’d be interested in seeing a Cain and Wilson trade for LaPorta & Gamel
IF
Gamel had the ability to stay at 3B.
That’d be 12 total years of a #3 & 4 hitter for 3 years of stud starting pitching and 5 years of an OK closer.
(There would probably be some add-ons to this deal to make it totally equitable – a bit lopsided in Giants favour IMO).
The trade would enable the Brewers to compete immediately without hurting themselves for this year, and would put the Giants in a good position to compete in 09 and beyond. Cain’s replacement would be the new and improved Sanchez! Giants have plenty of options to replace the old Sanchez in the minors – Snyder could work – and there’s also the possibility of returning Merkin to the rotation long-term
In the draft, there’d be no need to take a 1B so the Giants could take Matusz if still available (they do much better at developing pitchers!) or maybe an up the middle bat like Posey or Gordon Beckham (not actually a big fan of either – would definitely prefer Matusz in the scenario presented).
I think I must over-value proven major leauge ability, because I think LaPorta and Gamel isn’t enough for Cain and Wilson.
2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!
Or maybe you overvalue superwonderfulness and face merkins.
All-Father Watch: 1.37 ERA, 5 saves, 0.99 WHIP, 24 Ks in 26 1/3 IP
by EliminateMe on May 30, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe I overvalue blue chip hitting prospects…..?
But the opportunity to potentially have 2 corner IF under team control for a combined 12 years, entering the bigs in their age 24 season sure would be appealing, right?
It's appealling
But so is winning the lotto. It doesn’t mean that selling your house to play is a wise financial plan.
Ya dig?
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s a straw man – of course that would be true, but Gamel and LaPorta are big-time hitting prospects in AA, not high-school players yet to be drafted.
Still, Gamel is tough. His glove is awful, and that necessarily limits his trade value. LaPorta could at least play the OF.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on May 30, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
They are Big-Time Hitting prospects
What is the % of say top 10 BA prospects who actually turn into career impact ML players.
I’m not being a smartass, I actually want to know.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess I must over value ML talent also
Considering starting pitching is the most expensive FA commodity in the game, and if Matt Cain were to become a FA he would probably end up in the 12-15m a season catagory, I find it hard to think that he is only worth one highly toughted DOUBLE A player.
I feel like everyone else on this site thinks that every high-upside minor leaguer is a garaunteed future ML All – Star.
I just went back and counted, and between 2000 and 2005 (6 years) 30 players were drafted in the top 5 (duh). Only 14 of those players ever even made a meaningful appearance in the ML. Only 4 or 5 have become what most would consider “star” players.
Just because something is highly touted and all the rave does not assure in any way that they will perform at the ML level. In fact, the odds are that they will not.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
So
Cain to the Mets, Jose Reyes to you…who do you give to San Francisco?
/snark
Only 918 games until the end of Zito's contract
You indirectly make a point that underlies my motive in trying to turn Wilson into a bat. You say only 14 of 30 Top 5 picks between 2000-2005 have become major leaguers thus far. But separate out pitchers and hitters. Verlander and Prior are the two big hits for pitchers and then there’s a bunch of flameouts. But here’s every position player drafted in the top 5 in that period:
Adrian Gonzalez
Luis Montanez
Mark Texeira
Joe Mauer
BJ Upton
Chris Lubanski
Rickie Weeks
Delmon Young
Matt Bush
Ryan Braun
Ryan Zimmerman
Jeff Clement
Alex Gordon
Justin Upton
If you toss out the ridiculous penny pinching Matt Bush pick (roundly ridiculed at the time) only Montanez is a flop. the rest of the list is mostly made up of people who are already all stars and award winners or people in the majors who certainly appear on the cusp of it. The worst on the list is Lubanski who is still vaguely holding onto prospect status and Jeff Clement who is about to be a major leaguer if they can figure out the position issue.
Moral: much higher success rate with hitters.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
I will agree with you there
I didn’t take the time to break it down pitchers/hitters – and that’s an interesting data point.
It would be interesting to note how many of those players were drafted out of college Vs. Highschool.
But, I’m not exaclty sure why that supports turning Wilson into a bat. High-draft hitters are a much better chance of making to the ML than pitchers, yes. What’s that have to with Wilson?
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Something that I like about this news
Sabean is looking to deal Chulk, Walker, Taschner, Threets and Hennessey (Yabu too I hope). Not only is he not looking to deal Wilson, Hinshaw, Sadler and the promising relievers in the minors, but they are specifically the reason he is looking to deal the first group. I like that line of thinking out of the sane mainstream.
Only 918 games until the end of Zito's contract
Yes, it suggests
That his underlying train of thought is primarily inline with what is generally agreed upon here as “the right track”.
He said some things on KNBR the other day that made me think that as well.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 30, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd trade Walker right now
All Brian Sabean has to do is use this line of reasoning with a GM: “Think about what a steal you’re getting. THE GUY HAS MORE WINS THAN MATT CAIN! Shiny, shiny! All I’m asking for him is your can’t-miss Triple-A prospect….Hello? Are you still there?”
Eagerly awaiting Crazy Crab Bobblehead Night on 7/18.
Tyler Walker is indeed shiny
With how much he sweats, the lights make him very shiny.
Only 918 games until the end of Zito's contract
i dont think we will get much for those guys
cinci traded jim brower for cash.. wed be lucky to get a bad prospect for our guys
Jim Brower
He hasn’t pitched in the majors this year. Threets and Hennessey are good comparisons. But not Chulk, Walker or Taschner.
Only 918 games until the end of Zito's contract
Is Sabean the last one to get the memo
I think everyone in the league begining March 31st knew that everyone on the Giants roster besides Cain and Lincecum was available to be moved. This isn’t exactly breaking news to the rest of the league. Seems to be more of a “look I’m trying to be a productive GM” type move. Then when he falls on his face because he already knows he can’t unload any of that garbage disguised as the current relief corps he can say “Well I gave it my best shot wasn’t like I didn’t try”
The funniest part of his announcement was the end where he said hes looking for “Fair value deals” LOL
At the risk of agreeing with the enemy...
Yeah, Brian, you goofdog.
Like I’m sure every third trade you’re looking to be the recipient of an unfair deal.
Those words were just throw away words. They are hardly the important part of his comments.
Only 918 games until the end of Zito's contract
His Verbage is Garbage, I gather
So it turns out Brian Sabean doesn’t only throw away money…
There was a memo…? Awww crap, I guess this means I was actually the last one to get it…
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 31, 2008 2:42 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s simply a numbers game with the Giants. They have so many quality young arms that the older guys are simply being pushed out. Sabean now is looking to see if he can get anything for the older ones. If he can’t he might not have any choice but to start looking at dealing the young guys. Either that or just DFA guys like Walker, Taschner, Chulk and Yabu. I can understand some of the posters here with their desires to trade players like Wilson for a young supposedly “sure thing” but I just cringe at the thought of a rebuilding team trading a young player that should be one of the cornerstones for the future. There has to be another way. And the risk here is too great. If the player that comes back doesn’t become a star, it’s a deal that haunts you for the next decade. And the posters here are great, but not always right. Of course it’s too early to tell for sure, but Sabean was killed last year around here for passing up Beau Mills to draft Madison Bumgarner. How’s that one looking right now??
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
Well I sort of feel bad for starting this mess now
but I’ll make one final comment, rx. My problem with your statement is that I disagree with your fundamental assumption - the Giants are NOT a young rebuilding team. They’re just not. They have consistently from the beginning of the year fielded one of the oldest lineups in the league. And the reason for that is at base, the same problem many of us critics have been harping on for years - the critical lack of attention to the farm system for far too long has left us without a core group of young players that might be major league worthy now or in the near future. Without that, how do you rebuild? You have to find those players in other people’s systems with trades. And while yes, the idea of trading vets for them is a good one, it may not be enough and some times, you have to turn around your young talent as well. The only guideline should be, at the end of the deal have we improved our overall talent.
And just as an aside, I killed (and continue to kill) Sabean for last year’s draft, despite the fact that Bumgarner is having a great start to his professional career because I believe that those 6 picks had to be used ot lift the level of our offensive talents in the minors. I never was a Mills fan (and used to fight with Doc B about it) but I still think that Heyward was the way to go, and if you had to have a pitcher, Porcello was going to be around for awhile.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
Trade from strength
Porcello’s bonus demand was too costly for about 28 teams. Hindsight says yes Heyward would have been an excellent choice too. The most important factor of trading some veterans this season and next season is not to open up spots for younger players but to free up their monies so they can be used elsewhere. Redirect those monies elsewhere such as player development and scouting, drafting a player who falls due to bonus demands, signing young talented Caribbean and Asian players, finding a new AA home etc. SF can deal from their pitching strength to obtain some quality young players. These are reasonable options and very obtainable goals.
Putting money into development and scouting and Carribean and Asian players is indeed a good idea - but it’s not an idea that we can expect to have major league consequences within the next 5 years. And dealing from their pitching strength is exactly the idea that you seemed to have been taking issue with. Also, Heyward isn’t a good idea in hindsight - he was the #1 hitter left on most people’s draft boards at that point in the round. In retrospect Burgess would have been a good idea for one of our supplemental picks, but there were at least ? regarding him.
As for Porcello, there’s a great quip on MLBtraderumors: Milwaukee Brewers officials complain that they couldn’t afford to draft Porcello and give him what they wanted - and yet they’re paying Jeff Suppan $42 million, (and a putrid Eric Gagne $10mil) - go figure.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
Five years should bear fruit for scouting/development. Pitching, pitching and more pitching. Always pitching. I did not want to trade pitching because I wanted SF to compete in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Apparently the organizational plan looks futher down the road. If that is the case then trading from surplus of pitching to fill shortage of talented infielders is a way to improve the team for the long haul.
Our relievers should be add ons..
to potential Bengie Molina, Ray Durham and Randy Winn deals
Go Durham, Roberts, Aurilia, Vizquel, Winn, Lowry! The better you do, the quicker we can trade you!
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.
