Streakin'

by Grant on Jun 10, 2008 1:19 PM PDT Comment 97 comments

The Giants are only five games out of first! Some suggested moves to ponder:

Fred Lewis, Nate Schierholtz, and Brian Wilson for Todd Jones and Carlos Guillen.

Angel Villalona for Adrian Beltre

Pat Misch and Jack Taschner for…

Alright, so no one is advocating drastic moves like that…yet. If the Giants roll into the trading deadline only five games back, though, terror will rule the land. The team is still six games under .500, and they’re as close to the worst team in the league (the Nationals) as they are to a playoff spot. But if they’re five games back, there’s a chance that the "You’re Gonna Like These Kids (When They Fill In for Injured Veterans!)"-feel of the current team will be replaced with a go-round of "The Veteran-Stopgap Strategy Worked So Well in 2005, 2006, and 2007, We Thought That We’d Try It Again Without Our Best Hitter."

It’s still early. And, heck, if the Giants go into the trading deadline within a couple of games for a playoff spot, there’s no harm in being open-minded. But I’m a-feared. I’m a-feared that the Giants will give us another 2006. On July 22, 2006, the Giants were just above .500, but they had just vaulted into first place. Exciting times, to be sure. Then they lost their next eight games. But, technically, they were in the race. They weren’t exactly good enough to justify trading for reinforcements, but the Giants didn’t want to trade away the players with a lot of trade value, like Jason Schmidt. They stood pat. Then the bad team did bad team things, and they didn’t make the playoffs. Nothing was accomplished, and no progress was made toward building a good Giants team.

But I understood the logic behind keeping that team intact. Kind of. The hard part is making the playoffs, but funny things can happen once a team is in. If a team gets to have that park full o’ bunting, their season is an unabashed success.

Long post short: I don’t want the trade-deadline decision to have any ambiguity behind it. I want the Giants to win 18 out of their next 20. I want the rest of the NL West to go on a 15-game losing streak. I want the rest of the NL West to go on a 15-game winning streak as the Giants putter around .500. I’m thrilled that the Giants aren’t the once-in-a-generation bad that I thought they’d be, but sometimes not-so-bad gets in the way of an honest rebuilding.

Give us a sign, o baseball deities! One that isn't riddled with injuries and losing, if you please. I’m pulling for that 18 out of 20 scenario, myself. But for the moment, the Giants are a job applicant with a box of mints to hide the alcohol breath, and a sports coat that hides the blood stains on the shirt underneath. They shouldn’t call us. We’ll call them.

Comment starter: How many games back at the deadline do the Giants have to be for the front office to consider trading Randy Winn, Ray Durham, and Bengie Molina? You don't have to agree with the answer. Put me down for a six. Four or five games back equals standing pat, and three or closer equals buy, buy, buy!

0 recs | Comment 97 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ten

Assuming the rest of the division stays mediocre, no way to the veterans get traded while we’re within single digits of the leader.

I don’t think we’ll be that far back, but I think that’s what it would take.

If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?

by groug on Jun 10, 2008 1:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

win today!

win at all costs!!

pyrrhic victory ftl!!!

villalona and sanchez for cantu!!!!

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jun 10, 2008 1:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

sell, sell, sell

.500-and-below teams sell, period.

by wcw on Jun 10, 2008 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to go ahead and second this motion.

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 10, 2008 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the team gets to .500, I’ll start considering the possibilty that they might be contenders. Till then, forget it.

Winn needs to go as soon as possible. Durham should be traded if anyone will take him, but (a) I like the guy, and (b) we don’t have any other second basemen worth playing. Molina helps keep the team respectable for the next year and a half, so I’d hold out for a legit prospect in return.

My usual comment on the Schmidt trade that didn’t happen: In effect, we ended up trading him for Tim Alderson. I doubt we would have gotten a prospect that good at the 2006 trading deadline.

by Evan on Jun 10, 2008 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My usual comment on the Schmidt trade that didn’t happen: In effect, we ended up trading him for Tim Alderson.

This gives me warm fuzzies inside!

(or maybe that’s the jalepeno burger I had for lunch…)

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 10, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In effect, we ended up trading him for Tim Alderson. I doubt we would have gotten a prospect that good at the 2006 trading deadline.

Really? Because Jason Schmidt, while he had had a sub-par (for him) 2005, was still one of the better pitchers in baseball. I think the Giants could have gotten multiple prospects, with at least one of them being as good as Alderson. But I must admit that I am not very good and judging value regarding the trade market (as most of us are, if we are to face reality).

Only 909 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Jun 10, 2008 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't there a rumor

I don’t remember if this was boston or florida, but I think it was florida were willing to trade Hanley straight up for Schmidt?

I certainly would have made that trade, but then again, its that whole forward thinking thing. What? Huh, for. . . ward?

Part of me likes being a contender, or at least the mindset of being one. I look at the A’s a lot when thinking about this problem, and to be honest, its easy to be pragmatic and say look across the bay!!! Look!! Shiny!! Winners!!! Contenders!!! But I don’t want to be the A’s. Learning a new roster every friggin year? I get emotionally attached to these guys. I mean, I know this hasn’t happened for a couple of years, but I couldn’t wait until next year when the Holographic Grand Slam cards came out at Denny’s. How crappy would it have been to get say, a Nick Swisher A’s Grand Slam card? If you’re a die hard A’s fan, it makes you weep uncontrollably in the fetal position.
I’m all about sacrificing one year, say this one for the future, but screw the continual “rebuilding” every year if we’re not in contention. Stock the farm, then let them develop, go through growing pains, but stop taking my kids away from me. . . and yes, I have an attachment to some vets as well. Remember the Winn at bat when he’s on the ground, then jacks one? Bengie’s walk offs? I know these are memories for us all, emotional arguments, not pragmatic ones, yes I know if it makes us better in the long term, etc. . .but screw reason. I love this team, win, lose, or draw.

For WilltheThrill, this is Jon Miller saying goodnight. . . .

by WilltheThrill on Jun 10, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

florida were

I’m an idiot.

Florida was. . .

For WilltheThrill, this is Jon Miller saying goodnight. . . .

by WilltheThrill on Jun 10, 2008 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

there was also a trade

with white sox for brandon mccarthy and brian anderson, which would have been a terrible trade

proud father of the newly acquired Brandon Crawford..

by Azmanz on Jun 10, 2008 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We also got Jackson Williams, but he was just kind of a throw in.

by zeisenbe on Jun 11, 2008 2:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right. It worked out to one top-100 prospect and one random flyer that hasn’t panned out—a pretty standard package.

Let’s not forget that the Giants went on a losing streak in late July that year, and it was widely reported a couple of days before the deadline that Sabean had changed his mind and the vets were now on the block after all. Perhaps with more time he could have worked something out, but perhaps the deal just wasn’t there. It was rumored around New York that the Mets could have had either Schmidt or Zito if they’d been willing to part with Milledge, but they chose not to.

by Evan on Jun 11, 2008 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was rumored around New York that the Mets could have had either Schmidt or Zito if they’d been willing to part with Milledge, but they chose not to.

Which is even stranger that they parted with him for a Mike Matheny-esque catcher in Schnieder.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Jun 11, 2008 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

no?

Wickman for Rodriguez fetched a decent hitting prospect, and Wickman was hardly Schmidt. When you trade for the prospect instead of drafting him, you not only have some professional data and scouting, hence should have more certainty, but you also save the bonus cost, so deadline deals for a similar talent are preferable to the draft, all else equal.

I have no idea if someone worthwhile was available for Schmidt, but I have to assume a better trade than letting him walk and taking the pick could have been swung.

by wcw on Jun 10, 2008 1:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I posted yesterday on ELM that I was starting to get that petrifying image of Brian Sabean stroking his goatee thoughtfully as he looks at the standings. “Hmm, I like the cut of that Dmitri Young’s jib. I wonder how much pitching it would take to get him.” Even more frightening may be our upcoming schedule. In June we play COL, OAK, DET, KC, CLE, OAK. Not exactly a murderer’s row. With how weak the division is suddenly looking we could quite easily pull two or three games closer by the All-Star break. With Arizona slumping, the NL looks very weak from the top down with the exception of the Cubs (although Philly is playing some really good ball lately).

With that said, I think we have as good of a chance at the playoffs without Durham, Winn (and possibly Molina) as we do with them. As nice as it is that we’re not going to set the all-time record for losses and likely won’t even be the worst team in baseball, lordy lordy this is not a playoff team. Things are shaping up relatively nicely for the future and I can’t imagine that even Sabean would be dumb enough to get suckered in again.

by saveuszito on Jun 10, 2008 1:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

With that said, I think we have as good of a chance at the playoffs without Durham, Winn (and possibly Molina) as we do with them.

Agreed. Because of Nate in Fresno, Sabean needs to focus on dealing Winn before all else. I agree with Evan that (barring the return of the Casey Kotchman rumour) we stick with Molina.

by BigO on Jun 10, 2008 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree with your agreed. While Winn-to-Schierholtz might not be that big a drop, the team cannot expect the offense to keep producing like it has been without Molina and Durham since there are no Cs or 2Bs even close to their kind of production.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see you

with the Molina comment, but I really don’t think we can expect Durham to keep up this pace. As a result, I think some combo of Denker/Velez/Burriss in the last couple of months would approximate Durham’s production.

by BigO on Jun 10, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not so fast there, pardner

Durham’s current OPS+ is 115. If you average his OPS+ from 2002 through 2006 (five years), you get…wait for it…115!

The more Durham keeps a hittin’, the more it looks like 2007 was just a bad dream/outlier. He’s said there was no injury, so I think he must have just psyched himself out of his ability to hit. Whatever the case, he’s certainly returning to form.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What Goofus Said.

Ignore my post below.

by giantsrainman on Jun 10, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope you guys are right. Maybe it is because last year is so deeply ingrained in my soul, but I still have trouble thinking that dealing Ray for a prospect would constitute waving the white flag on the season.

Let’s face it, though: regardless of the 2008 standings, if a bona fide contender wants to give you a good prospect for Ray, you gotta make that deal.

by BigO on Jun 10, 2008 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

But it has to be a good middle infiield prospect not just any prospect.

by giantsrainman on Jun 10, 2008 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I think I’d take just about any prospect.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Jun 10, 2008 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you forgot a year in there

Hmm what happened in 2007, and the guys getting older you can’t expect him to keep up his production in comparison to his earlier years.

by zeisenbe on Jun 11, 2008 2:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ummm…read my post again, but more carefully. The whole point was that it looks like 2007 was a fluke since he’s back to producing like he had been before 2007.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 11, 2008 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, skimmed it the first time.

by zeisenbe on Jun 11, 2008 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ray May Be having His Last Big Year

But I don’t buy that it is all going to fall apart sooner or later this year. You can’t just look Durham’s 2007. You have to remember 2006 and the rest of Ray’s career in projecting what Ray will do the rest of this year.

by giantsrainman on Jun 10, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ray will keep up this pace. It’s a contract year. In his last one, he went crazy, hence fooled Sabean into his current contract. In fact when Sabean calls these GM’s up, this should be one of his selling points. RAY IS IN A CONTRACT YEAR!!!!

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

by WilliamVanLandingham on Jun 10, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait… how many games back to be sellers. Ok. I wrote an opposite response before figuring it out.

I think 5 games is probably the magic number. I’d like to make a personal addendum that the only time you can be buyers is if the difference is 5 games AND you have a winning record at the time. But regardless of my personal addendums, I think 5 games should reasonably and realistically be the absolute limit for the magic number.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 10, 2008 1:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How many games back do we have to be before we sign Peter Sellers?

Everybody Loves Durham
comics | cartoons | Nattowear

by Natto on Jun 10, 2008 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mr. Bean @ 1st

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jun 10, 2008 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only time you can be buyers is if the difference is 5 games AND you have a winning record at the time.

And hence, this forever shall be known as the “Dumb Dumb Addendum”. So it is said, so it shall be.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I mean EXACTLY 5 games. If you’re half a game back, screw it man. You need to sell!

We’ll call that the Secondary Super Smarty Addendum.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 10, 2008 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excuse my idiocy here, I’m a “modern” Giants fan, but has Sabean ever been one to sell, sell, sell at the deadline?

All I have is a bunch of bad visions in my head when his name and the trade deadline are ever mentioned together.

Adoptive papa to Omar...so basically I'm screwed.

by PacBellBoozer on Jun 10, 2008 1:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Last year?

Moved Morris, Morris’s money and Sweeney for Raj and Denker.

Tentatively adopting Dan Ortmeier. And Boom Goes the Dynamite.

by Andy from DC on Jun 10, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess Mando was kind of a “sell” as well, although the circumstances were different.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mando was more of a sofa on the corneri with a big sign on it saying “Take it”

by Hac Man on Jun 10, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Except no one would take it so we had to put millions of dollars in the sofa and then deliver it ourselves.

Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?

by scotterduder on Jun 10, 2008 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since when is one idiot fooling another considering trading up? We all know none of it would of never happened if idiot #2 didn’t call us up on the deadline and beg for our furry chewbacca tablescraps.

Adoptive papa to Omar...so basically I'm screwed.

by PacBellBoozer on Jun 10, 2008 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Answering such a question is incredibly difficult

Because for all of Brian Sabean’s tenure, the Giants have never been sellers. I know how I would answer such a question (must be within five games and above .500 at the deadline to not be sellers). But it’s difficult to answer the question of what will the Giants’ front office do. We know that they were buyers when logic dictated them to be sellers two seasons ago. And last year they were the smallest of all sellers as they got rid of one of their five or six undesirables. I don’t know that Mr. Sabean has it in him. At least, not when it isn’t so obvious that a dead man could make the deals.

Only 909 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Jun 10, 2008 1:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Last year, trading Matt Morris was a “sell”.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, hence this:

And last year they were the smallest of all sellers as they got rid of one (that’s Morris) of their five or six undesirables.

I admit it’s not very clear.

Only 909 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Jun 10, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, reading it again, I see it it now. My bad.

I’d also add that Kent was probably a “sell” even though it wasn’t a deadline deal.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It shouldn't matter

Randy, Ray and Molina should be dealt without regard to standings.

by Lars The Wanderer on Jun 10, 2008 1:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Why Molina?

Who is going to catch next year and continue to lead the maturation of our young pitching?

by giantsrainman on Jun 10, 2008 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just continuing to breath on planet Earth

tends to contribute the most to maturation.

If we can get usefuil players for Bengie, then you have to move him. I think he is the player the Giants would get the most return on.

by Lars The Wanderer on Jun 10, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How Many Players Do You Think We Are Away Form Contending?

To me the answer is just four. We have a contending pitching staff this year and beyond. We have a contending outfield this year and beyond. With Bengie we have a contending catcher this year and next. Where we fall short is in the infield where only Durham is a contending player this year and we have none to project for 2009. Why can’t we fill these infield holes thru free agency and trades, keep Molina, and start contending next year?

by giantsrainman on Jun 10, 2008 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To Me It Is Not Just Games Out Of First In The NL West

It is also where we are in relation to .500. To buy we need to be above .500 and less then 5 games out. If we are .500 or under or 5 or more games out we need to sell. The worst possible decision whould be to stand pat as we did in 2006 so my above criteria eliminates this possibility..

The other question that needs to be answered is when does this decision need to be made. To me this year the All-Star Break comes late enough that this is when this decision needs to be made. We need to use the rest of July after the All-Star Break to execute whichever path we are on.

by giantsrainman on Jun 10, 2008 1:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I think .500 is the key number right here. As long as they’re at that level, the team is within striking distance of the division, or at least the wild card. The Giants may be 5 games back, but they still have the 4th worst record in the NL. I doubt that the Giants will reach .500 this year, but stranger things have happened.

Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?

by scotterduder on Jun 10, 2008 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only way we get into the playoffs is by winning the NL West, theres is NO WAY we even come close to the wildcard. I think the Giants should sell now. I don’t have a good feeling about Durham and Winn keeping this hitting up. I have stats to back it up….but it’s just a feeling I have

Bill Mueller? I expect at least A-Rod type numbers from my son, Conor Gillaspie

by Gamer101 on Jun 10, 2008 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really think

the buyer/seller split is a bit of a red herring this year. I mean, only a Molina deal would send the signal that the Giants are “giving up” for this year, and even then it would depend on the deal (if we got Mathis and Kotchman for him, it wouldn’t be giving up. Trading Rowand would be the same, I suppose, but I’m not even sure that’s legal, let alone within the realm of possibility.

I suppose dealing some of the young studs – Cain, Lince, Sanch, Wilson – could also be construed as “giving up”, but that’s only if you get can’t miss minor leaguers for them; that could happen with Wilson or Sanchez, I suppose, but it’s pretty unlikely for any of them.

So: to me, we are either “buyers” at the deadline, or we’re padding the system by offloading a couple of vets. At this point, I’m definitely for the latter.

by BigO on Jun 10, 2008 2:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Trading Zito would be a signal that they’re giving up…on Zito.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One more thought

I haven’t seen this mentioned, but I’ve heard Sabean say in the past that the market at the deadline is dtermined by the ratio of buyers vs. sellers. The wildcard has skwed in the market because more teams see themselves as “in it”, so recently there haven’t been many sellers. Unless there are a bunch of sellers at the deadline this year and players are going cheap, I hope the Giants have the good sense not trade away pieces of their future.

I’m totally ok with deals that help the team now and in the future. For example, if they could trade Winn for the 3B equivilent (ability, age, contract) of Winn, that would be very cool.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 2:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

by giantsrainman on Jun 10, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would Adrian Beltre be a good 3B equivilent for Winn? I know Beltre is awesome on defense, but offensively they’re somewhat similar players. I don’t think the Mariners would trade him for only Winn, but he’d be nice to have.

Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?

by scotterduder on Jun 10, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not familiar with his contract, but Beltre would upgrade the team immensely. Would the Mariners have interest in a Winn homecoming? I’d be hesitant to sweeten the deal with too much of a prized prospect.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about Jesse Foppert?

Everybody Loves Durham
comics | cartoons | Nattowear

by Natto on Jun 10, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about Jesse Jane?

THAT sells.

Aaron "Swag" Rowand

by victor frankenstein on Jun 10, 2008 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How would a .226 BA be an upgrade over “Rally Killer”? Seems like it would be worse to me… Sure, he hits more HRs, but is it worth it?
Beltre
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6039
Castillo
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7302

by giants9107 on Jun 10, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beltre plays top-notch defense. And he’s still an above average hitter by OPS+, currently 101.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Jun 10, 2008 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

also

look at his home/road splits which are nasty.. SEA kills righties, hes a good hitter on the road

proud father of the newly acquired Brandon Crawford..

by Azmanz on Jun 10, 2008 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re joking, right?

Call me crazy, but if two guys are about the same age and one has a lifetime OPS+ of 78 and the other has a lifetime OPS+ of 106 and better defense, I’d call the second guy an upgrade.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beltre >>>>>> Castillo

Everybody Loves Durham
comics | cartoons | Nattowear

by Natto on Jun 11, 2008 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beltre’s contract is up in 2009 and he’s got a limited no-trade clause that allows him to block trades to 8 teams, one of which is SD.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/seattle-mariners.html

He would be an awesome addition to the team, depending on the cost. He’s become a very underrated player.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jun 10, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly...I think its possible they could contend....

while still trading away Winn and Durham. With Winn, we can replace him with Schierholtz. And Durham can be replaced with a platoon of Velez and Denker. It’s not like either Winn or Durham is hitting with much power this year, so we wouldn’t really be losing anything in that department. I’m sure Denker and Schierholtz could hit a few HR’s anyway. Even Velez has decent pop for his stick frame.

And we will be getting some bullpen powers arms we can bring up like Valdez off the DL, and there’s other guys in the upper minors we could bring up like Matos. Correia also will soon come back off the DL I would imagine.

Hopefully Winn could net us a 3B or 1B to bring in. I doubt anyone significant. It really sucks the DBacks are in our division, otherwise Chad Tracy in exchange for Winn would be a perfect fit. It would give us a lefty stick who can play 3B, 1B and OF and who has some pop, and the DBacks get a good all-around player for their OF, something they need with Byrnes out and Upton and Young struggling lately. But obviously that never happens since both would be competing against one another.

So we’d have to look outside the NL West. Like Matt Holliday might become available, but I doubt they’d want to trade him within the division either, as the Giants could afford to extend him.

So guys like Bill Hall, Adam LaRoche, Xavier Nady, etc seem like pretty realistic trade fodder. The only problem of course being Winn has a no-trade or partial no-trade clause correct? So we’ll probably have to deal him to a contender.

by Hobbes2d on Jun 10, 2008 2:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Winn Not hitting for power?

5 HR, 20 2b – .464 slug %.

That is about as much power as he has ever had…

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 10, 2008 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Answer: 8 games back

Anything less than that, Sabean will consider the Giants in the hunt, whether they are or not. I bet he’s looking at their .500 road record right now thinking, “That’s a good sign for a playoff series where our opponent has home field advantage.”

I think we should be sellers (or at least willing to sell, with the right deal) regardless. But it seems like the 13-game stretch before the ASG will determine this team’s fate. Four at home against the Cubs (best record in the NL). Three at home against the Dodgers (currently ahead of us and seriously underachieving by most standards). Then 6-game road trip in NYC against the Mets and Chicago against the Cubs.

Eagerly awaiting Crazy Crab Bobblehead Night on 7/18.

by Kitspool on Jun 10, 2008 2:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

At the trade deadling there are roughtly 60 games left in the season

A little less, most likely.

I would say the number is 6. Making up 6 games in th standings in only 60 games is not easy. For instance:

If the team ahead plays .500: 30-30, then the Giants would have to play 36-24: .600, to tie.

Of course teams can play below .500 and teams can play over .600 but the basic point is they would have to play so amazingly well while the team(s) ahead were so much worse that it is really not worth the gamble.

6 is the magic number. 6 means sellers. Six sells!

by positiveuphemism on Jun 10, 2008 3:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Our best hitter?

Last I saw all our best hitters were best hitting still.

Oh , you mean that guy. Hey , he’s cleared his calendar through next March , and no player trades need take place.

Besides , we could use four outfielders.
Because you know he can’t run worth a damn…

Aaron "Swag" Rowand

by victor frankenstein on Jun 10, 2008 3:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't matter

Work it both ways. We could be buyers (for the future) and sellers at the same time. Sell (Durham, Walker, Omar & Chulk) w/o effecting our chance to contend, i.e. we could bridge these players/positions with internal talent, and could look to the future with what we could get for them.

by @ the river on Jun 10, 2008 3:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Has the timetable moved forward?

A lot of people have been saying that the Giants need to make deals with the next good team in mind. Many have said in 3 years. I’m of the thought that right now, we have a good bit of talent on this team. Bowker’s looked good, Fred’s looked good, Molina and Rowand, even Durham have looked good. There’s been some pretty solid pitching from a few guys… My personal opinion is I’d rather see us not try to push for the playoffs this year, but look to make deals that could have a positive effect on next year’s squad. So is it possible that we don’t have to look to 2010 or 2011, but to 2009?

The only thing I know for certain is I don’t want to see Sabean swing any deal that nets us another 30+ year old hitter.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Jun 10, 2008 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

2009

Has been in my mind all along.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 10, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the next good Giants team could be as soon as 2009, but the current Giants team could contend in the division this year.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 10, 2008 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

best case scenario

Giants are 10 games back at the dead line, in 3rd. Sabean trades Molina/Aurillia/Durham/Winn.

New Giants go on tear, play .900 ball for the rest of the season., AZ/LA tank, Giants win division, pennant, WS.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Jun 10, 2008 3:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I would be okay with this scenario

Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?

by scotterduder on Jun 10, 2008 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This

Tentatively adopting Dan Ortmeier. And Boom Goes the Dynamite.

by Andy from DC on Jun 10, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bartender!

I want what he’s having.

All-Father Watch: 1.19 ERA, 6 saves, 0.92 WHIP, 30 Ks in 30 1/3 IP

by EliminateMe on Jun 10, 2008 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This reminds me of the Mariners situation

They completely overachieved last year and traded their farm for Bedard and are now the worst team in the majors.

by giants92388 on Jun 10, 2008 3:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Luckily we don't have Bill Bavasi

And also luckily the Giants don’t really need to worry about pitching. This off-season should be fun. The Giants have a legit opportunity to acquire a player or two who can have an immediate impact towards making this team a legit contender much sooner than anyone expected. While at the same time, it would be improving the team’s depth etc.

I would imagine with our pitching depth we have the opportunity to pick up a pretty decent package of young players.

by Hobbes2d on Jun 10, 2008 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I always thought that 2009 was a possible target for contention

With the Giants’ pitching situation, all it was going to take was a decent improvement from the offense. The Giants had many possibilities for league average or slightly better for cheap from their system. They could supplement that from a couple free agents/trades and voila, instant contender.

And now, more than a third through the season, we see that Bowker and Lewis and Schierholtz all have the ability to provide decent production for cheap. Infield has always been the problem. That’s the target. IF Sabean can find two or three upgrades for the infield then we are on our way.

With all that said, we should not be buyers this year. This year is not the target. It wouldn’t be much more of a miracle if we made it into the playoffs without Durham and/or Winn and/or Molina and/or a couple bullpen arms. Any of those guys are emminently replaceable (aside from Molina).

Only 909 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Jun 10, 2008 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We should not be buyers

Unless those that we are buying are players that help us in the future.

If they also happen to help us now, then awesome.

Bill Hall anyone? He is 28 years old and almost garaunteed to be better than Castillo.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 10, 2008 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bill Hall

I wouldn’t say he is guaranteed to be better than Castillo, so far this year he has a worse OBP and SLG, fewer walks, and more Ks (but he does have 4 more HRs) and pretty similar defense. And if you think this is an outlier, last year he hit .254/.315/.425 in a full season which is pretty damn similar to Castillo’s line of .259/.312/.436 this year. One thing he is guaranteed is $6.8 million next year and $8.4 million in 2010, so he is guaranteed to be more expensive and screw up the payroll for 3 years.

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jun 10, 2008 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Within Striking Distance

Not as concerned with .500 mark as most of MCC but rather number of games back/in front and overall well being of the Giants and their divisional rivals. If SF is closing the gap but a key injury or two to a star player then Sabean can call off the dogs, however if healthy why not go for it?

Sabean could attempt to pull off a trade for now and for the future in the same way he traded top prospects Grilli and Bump for a young talented Livan Hernandez. Yes I remember all the howling about how could Sabean trade TWO top prospects. The organization made a call on both Grilli and Bump. And they got it right. Looking at the SF Top 40 by Steve S there can be many players who have some current value who may never pan out. Sabean needs to determine which players those are and consider trading them. Even some from the group of Lewis, Burriss, Denker etc

by wilriv21 on Jun 10, 2008 5:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

dude, stop already

And I could get a pony. Have you looked at Sabean’s track record since 2002? His only “win” trade may be Randy Winn – think about that for a second. I don’t want him trading away prospects for more “proven veterans.”

Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.

by Aadik on Jun 10, 2008 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shazammm

AZ down 5-1 bottom o’ four at Shea..

by bisquik on Jun 10, 2008 5:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My eyes are bleeding

at those trade proposals. What’s even worse is that I know that at least 1 of them will happen.

by bondslegend on Jun 10, 2008 5:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I swear

The more I read from fans (Wilriv’s, GiantRainman’s, etc etc) who think one hot streak and we’re in, the more I’m convinced Sabean has a band of fellow pipe-smokers who can’t recognize reality. This team needs to rebuild, and recognize that its shot will come in 2010-2011, rather than continually do this myopic run to 70-75 games. That means understanding that Bengie hitting .330 this year is a minor miracle, and he will not be a part of the next Giants winning team – same with other, similar assets. Sabean out to be considering which players will contribute in 2010 and 2011, and work from that premise, as opposed to the ass-backwards way he has done his job so far.

Every year we see one of these hot streaks, and every year the same excuses get trotted out that with one break, we could be in it. I'd rather take 2-3 year of losing 95, than losing 85 all the time.

Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.

by Aadik on Jun 10, 2008 8:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What horse is going to ride into town?

What is this magical year 2010 or even 2011 that everyone keeps talking about? Who is going to ride into The City and save the day? Do you guarantee this? There have been far too many broken down ponies and dust storms along the way to think the Augusta GreenJackets are going to invade the SF line-up. Just take a look back at about any organization Top 10 list and you will see plenty of attrition along the way. And do you think divisional rivals are just standing idly by while the SF Giants rebuild? They also are restocking the farm, making trades and signing FAs.

by wilriv21 on Jun 10, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why count out 2009?

I think we’ll be sellers this year, and I’m glad about that. It absolutely needs to happen. If we can trade Durham and Winn for anything of value, we should, and if we could get something nice for Bengie, we should do that too.

Having said that, fans who want us to punt on next season as well as this one are overcompensating for Sabean’s myopia. It’s totally possible that we could have a good team next year… it’s totally possible that we could have a bad team in 2010-11. If we’re completely predicating our future success on guys like AnVil and Bumgarner, we’re in a lot of trouble… good prospects wash out all the time.

Rebuilding doesn’t have to take three or four seasons just for the hell of it. The A’s only tend to punt for one season before looking to contend again… hell, the Braves rebuilt while contending for years. The time is now for Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez and others—it’d be foolhardy for us to give up on 2009. We have talent, and we have plenty of money… I’m not advocating that we go nuts for crappy vets again, but we have the type of roster that can improve quickly with a few well-chosen upgrades (SS, 1B, 3B).

Planning for 2011 in 2008 is the kind of thing the Pirates did for years. It’s not truly rebuilding… it’s just collecting revenue-sharing checks and hoping that some of your prospects would become Hall of Famers out of nowhere. I want the Giants to be smarter than that. We should be reloading for the future, but we don’t have to postpone the future arbitrarily.

by onlxn on Jun 11, 2008 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

1++

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 11, 2008 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very nice post.

Regarding 2008, the cry for us to be sellers seam irrational:
- None of the guys people want to trade are likely to bring in top-flight prospects
- None of the have salaries that are killing the team
- None of the guys discussed have long-term deals that are going to saddle the team for years to come
- With the exception of Winn, they aren’t blocking guys who should be big-league starters right now.

With the current crop of young players/prospects, the future is looking brighter. As the vets’ salaries drop off the books in the next two years, the team will have payroll flexibility to fill holes by taking on salaries through trades and FA. I don’t want to mortgage the future by trading prospects, but I prefer our current 5-7% chance of making the post-season to virtually no chance at all and have no problem with guys like Durham, Aurilia, Vizquel and Molina sticking around and seeing where the chips fall.

IGMAIAWTC

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 11, 2008 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll plus-one that myself. In general, trying to project a team more than a year in advance is a mug’s game. There have been a lot of encouraging developments with the young players this season, and with another break or two, we might be able to reasonably think about approaching the 2009 season as potential contenders.

by Evan on Jun 11, 2008 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll pretend like I respect your opinion and ask what you think about selling, buying or standing pat this year.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 11, 2008 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll pretend like I’m not hurt that you didn’t pore over my earlier post in this thread as if it were holy writ. I agree that we’re not likely to get anything special by trading our vets. But I’d still be thinking sell, because contention is just too far-fetched.

by Evan on Jun 11, 2008 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll pretend I’m sorry I hurt you and aplogize.

2008 Giants: A steaming pile of scrap!

by Goofus on Jun 11, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This thread

This thread was meant as a joke, right?

by sharksrog on Jun 11, 2008 5:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rally Killer

If one trade sent away Durham but (it or another trade) netted a 3B, Castillo could move over to 2B and super-sub. Its not just a denker-burriss-velez-qustion.

Castillo hits doubles.

by kennv on Jun 12, 2008 4:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs