Pitcher vs Hitter

timmy is here to stay

deal with it

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

Oh boy… talk about a ballsy first fanpost!

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

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

Sorry

(Flamesuit on)

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

by Gamer101 on Jun 10, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, you’re alright by me. I might not agree about the trade, but I am glad you used paragraphs.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 10, 2008 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not to mention correct use of capitalization

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jun 10, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What, liKe tHis?

by sfgfan on Jun 10, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Punctuation.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 10, 2008 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?

by shikantaza on Jun 10, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m taking the bar at the end of july and seriously, they care more about your damn headings and paragraph spacing than the substance of your answer. Hell, we were reading a model answer the other day, it had the law misquoted to no end, malpractice suit waiting to happen, but it sure was pretty looking. . .

Model Answer. . .

So, the lesson I learned? With a grader that has 3-4 minutes to read an essay, headings, pretty paragraphs, and good looking punctuation. . . .instant credibility. . .certified. . .

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

by WilltheThrill on Jun 10, 2008 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

A cluttered presentation is generally a great indication of a cluttered mind.

People who cannot formulate a complete sentence often struggle formulating complete thoughts. The way a person writes is very often a great window into their intellect and thought process whereas substance is relavent only in terms of specific knowledge.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 10, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s all about issue spotting though. Headings are supposed to contain the issue. IRL you could always look up the exact wording of the law, but if you can’t spot the issue to begin with then you’re screwed.

Speed, defense... and an almost fanatical devotion to getting picked off.

by SF Pete on Jun 10, 2008 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s how I got through school, too.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 10, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your flamesuit is no match for my butt plug/enema/electrical discipline equipment. Now get on over here so we can hook you up!

Photobucket

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

by PacBellBoozer on Jun 10, 2008 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would trade the Enchanter for Volquez and Bruce. But I wouldn’t be happy about it.

Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?

by scotterduder on Jun 10, 2008 2:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

is Volquez for real, tho?

I almost mentioned this last nite, but something tells me he is going to flame out. His numbers to this point in time do not indicate that this year is anything other than a statistical abberation.

Timmy really has on equal in the game right now in terms of fair value in a trade. He would have to bring back two high end players. Bruce level and a ace level pitcher. Timmy is beyond an Ace, btw.

by positiveuphemism on Jun 10, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not necessarily gonna flame out

but he’s sporting an artifically low BABIP, IIRC. I still think he’s bona fide, but some regression is sure to follow.

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jun 10, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I don't think he's going to maintain a sub-2,00 ERA

But he’s definitely a legit pitching prospect. Ace-level, maybe. I guess I was trying to think of a semi-ridiculous trade that shows just how much I would hate to see Timmy go. I knew I should have thrown Votto in there.

Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?

by scotterduder on Jun 10, 2008 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One, I swear the title of this post was “Pitcher vs. Hitler.”

Two, you keep Tim because he’s beyond simply a good young stud pitcher. He’s a pitcher, with every outing, I feel will do something amazing. You can get all the pawns and knights and those little castle pieces you want in exchange, but I feel in what’s still functional deep in my black cynical heart, that Tim Lincecum is really special. Once-in-a-lifetime talent, in the making.

...you want to get rid of that? Just saying.

"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 Jun 10, 2008 2:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

if timmy is the pitcher in question,

then pitcher > hitler

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jun 10, 2008 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Timmy's the Queen!

Enough of this “Enchanter” or “Franchise” crap. He’s the Queen to me henceforth.

Only 909 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Jun 10, 2008 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

may I add..

Killer Queen?

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 10, 2008 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dynamite with a laser beam

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jun 10, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

guaranteed to blow yer mind

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jun 10, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ANYTIME!!

(or, hermmm, every fifth day, one of the two …)

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

killer tofu?

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

by Gamer101 on Jun 10, 2008 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

awesome doug reference

kudos

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 10, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay I agree,

First off, I do not WANT to trade Timmy, but he helps you every 5th day where a big bat would help you everyday. I’m just saying if you get 2 A and 3 B prospects, would you really not do it?

And one quote I heard the other day from Beane, “It’s not a good trade unless both sides are hurting.”

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

by Gamer101 on Jun 10, 2008 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, let’s discuss what the A and B prospects could be. Isn’t Angel Villalona considered one of the few A prospects the Giants have, by those pundits who study all of baseball? And still, while we love him and I love him and the world loves him, he’s still mostly potential and hype.

Would the team get something like that in return? Tim is not yet Sandy Koufax either, and he might never get there, similarly flaming out as Anvil could in this incredibly bleak scenario.

I dunno. It would really really really really depend on what the pieces in question were. Gun to my head I’d say no to this trade, in part because holy crap there’s a gun to my head and who can think clearly in that situation, and in part because it’s making a blind decision.

"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 Jun 10, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Further, does any one team have that much talent that they could or would part with it just to get one guy? In this trade scenario I want to see the likes of Matt LaPorta et al, someone who’s clearly on the way to being ML ready. What team has two A type prospects of that nature, plus a few others who are just a smidge less talented than that, still being pretty darn good?

"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 Jun 10, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tim = ~~Future~~ Present ACE

For a nominal low cost.

Sabean has yet to prove to me that he can evaluate and trade talent.

Lincecum for Rios proposal comes to mind immediately. Accardo & cash for Chulk & Hillenbrand was the last stumbling block.

Adopted father of the AnVil / GIANTSPACE™ returns!

by SoFa King Mike on Jun 10, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is also a huge part of it. I was gonna say that trading one phenominal talent for five or so lesser talents is a Sabean-esque move. Basically, Vlad Guerrero redux? Will I get stoned for bringing that up? Stoned as in rocks thrown at me, like they used to punish prostitutes.

"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 Jun 10, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's why I can't trust Sabean in trading talent like Timmy

His timing is horrible as well. He keeps peaking old talent around way too long the expiration date to get real trade value.

Just like Schmidty for Jonathan Papelbon & Hanley Ramirez as I mentioned below.

Adopted father of the AnVil / GIANTSPACE™ returns!

by SoFa King Mike on Jun 10, 2008 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Woman, where are your accusers?

Then go, and bring up Guerrero no more.

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on Jun 11, 2008 5:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

um...

+1 (about the hitter = hitler thing). Also in Grant’s post today. What is this font, “Faschiso38”??

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Jun 10, 2008 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And....

Back to the original question…..if you’re starting from scratch, who would you want.

Tim Lincecum or A-rod/Bonds/Braun/Whoever else is a cornerstone offensive player

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

by Gamer101 on Jun 10, 2008 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Pitching, pitching and more pitching

Give me an Ace.

by wilriv21 on Jun 10, 2008 3:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You have one of those already...he cost you only $125 Million. That's a good deal, right?!?

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

by PacBellBoozer on Jun 10, 2008 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

$133M including 2014 buyout

Something tells me the club will be exercising that buyout rather than pay him $18M to “pitch”.

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

I would trade Timmy

for Bonds circa 2001.

One thing we need to keep in mind about Timmy is that we should get him under contract for a while. We’ve got him for four more years after this one, I believe. I think we should extend that to 10-15 more years.

Yeah, crazy, I know. He’s a pitcher but do you REALLY want to risk him signing elsewhere?

by positiveuphemism on Jun 10, 2008 3:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

I’d trade him right now for Pujols or similar talent. But a merely good hitter doesn’t seem like fair compensation. Yes, pitchers almost always decline, but there just aren’t very many who’ve accomplished what The Kid has so far. I’d keep him, barring an exchange for a yes-he-is-all-that hitter.

by wcw on Jun 10, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

You wouldn’t trade him straight up for Pujols? GG 1B who is a monstrous hitter?

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

by Gamer101 on Jun 10, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No way on earth!

Personally, I’d never ever ever ever look to make a straight up one-for-one trade with a talent like Lincecum. All you’re doing is weakening one part of your game to strengthen another. In the end, something like that is a wash, unless one guy quickly flames out.

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

by JRPhillips on Jun 10, 2008 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

what?

My point is right there in black and white. All you have to do is spell out the letters one at a time.

by wcw on Jun 10, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I totally misread your comment...

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

by Gamer101 on Jun 10, 2008 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd do it for Hanley & Uggla (pobably just hanly, too, but that'd hurt)

Or for Longoria + Kazmir (or whoever TB’s younger guy is, i’m drawing a blank)

Tentatively adopting Dan Ortmeier. And Boom Goes the Dynamite.

by Andy from DC on Jun 10, 2008 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Schmidt for Pabelbon & Ramirez

That kills me that Sabean did not pull the trigger at that time

Adopted father of the AnVil / GIANTSPACE™ returns!

by SoFa King Mike on Jun 10, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was that seriously being offered? I simply don’t recall hearing about it, which is why I ask.

"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 Jun 10, 2008 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Red Sox made inquiries about Jason Schmidt in 2005 when Schilling went down.

I remember that pretty clearly.

It was mentioned here, but didn’t go into details.

Adopted father of the AnVil / GIANTSPACE™ returns!

by SoFa King Mike on Jun 10, 2008 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct answer is...

Wait 4 years. Lincecum wins 3 CYs, Giants 2 WS. Then trade him for passle of prospects, repeat.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Jun 10, 2008 3:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Alex Rios

Stop for a second and imagine that the Timmy for Rios deal had actually gone down this last offseason. Look at Timmy’s stats, look at Rios’ stats.

Come join the Timmy is here to stay band wagon…

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

I got a length of rope we can attack to the axle and his ankle if he does not climb on board.

Just trying to help.

" Their still Shitty" - Major Leagues the movie.
I am a Giants fan. Thus I enjoy my pain. Currently enjoying it more then usual.

by daveinexile on Jun 11, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Position players are more important than pitchers. That’s sort of uncontroversial at this point. The general rule of thumb for assigning value for the outcome of baseball games is:

Offense 50%
Pitching 35%
Defense 15%

So to quantify it, position players are worth twice as much to a game as pitchers are. Granted, that’s a bit misleading, considering that there are 8 position players to every pitcher, but when you factor in the elevated injury risk to pitchers, the fact that they don’t play every day and seldom affect each at bat in the games they do, it all works out.

Lincecum is like, my favorite pitcher ever, but I would trade him for Jay Bruce or Albert Pujols in a second. You should, too.

by Steve on Jun 10, 2008 4:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This theory is plenty controversial.

Where are you getting all of this from?

by rotorueter on Jun 10, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, just think about it like this:

A team is either in the field, or at the plate. That’s obviously a 50/50 split in responsibility, right? We know the only way an offense produces runs is by generating it themselves, so they’re solely responsible for the entire 50 percent at the plate.

The thing that most people overlook is that defense matters. We have plenty of evidence that defense can severely affect run prevention (look at the White Sox in 2005 or the Angels in 2002), to say nothing of metrics like BABIP and FIP that sugges pitching results are often dependent on defense. You can quibble with the exact ratio (I’m quoting from the ratios used by Dave Cameron at USSM), but to suggest that the pitcher is more responsible for the outcome of any game than the aggregation of position players is incorrect.

by Steve on Jun 10, 2008 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except

A team with great pitching can win a lot of games with a piss-poor offense. A team with a great offense and piss poor pitching often loses a lot of games regardless of how many runs they score.

I think the delta in skill between position players is less than it is between pitchers. Put a crappy releif pitcher on the mound and you can make anyone look like Albert Pujols. (And the stats back that up).

But to a great pitcher, he has just about the same chance of getting Brian Bocock or Albert out. (Stats back that up, too).

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jun 10, 2008 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are making conflicting statements. Certainly a team’s entire lineup has more effect on the outcome of a game than the single starting pitcher, but that’s different than saying that one hitter (Jay Bruce) has more effect on the outcome than the starting pitcher (Tim Lincecum).

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

It still seems controversial

The 50/50 split to me seems misleading because you’re not looking at individual players. Position players as a group are more important than pitchers as a group, but good starting pitchers a much larger portion of their group. So far this season, Tim Lincecum has been involved in 345 plate appearances. On the batting side, Randy Winn leads the team with 259 plate appearances. I think it’s generally true that good starting pitchers are involved in a lot more at bats than a position player.

Of course, on the fielding side, position players are also involved in a certain number of those at bats, which varies based on position. But I still think you’re underestimating the importance of starting pitching.

by neurofarm on Jun 10, 2008 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

I forgot to include that in the National League, pitchers do a bit of hitting, which can be added to the total above. So Lincecum has actually been involved in 379 plate appearances, almost half again as much as any position player.

by neurofarm on Jun 10, 2008 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and Winn..

..has 132 putouts. 132 + 259 > 345. And that’s the point: no matter how you slice it, even a great starting pitcher in a five-man rotation is responsible for maybe 7/9th of 1/5th of the team’s pitching. And pitching isn’t 100% of run prevention: someone has to catch a few balls now and then. A great position player, by contract, contributes way more than 1/9th of the team’s scoring and sometimes even more than 1/9th of the team’s defense.

Winn isn’t a great player, but someone like A-Rod, especially when he was playing a fine shortstop, easily contributed more to his team’s success than the most dominant starter in the league.

by wcw on Jun 10, 2008 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to the sfgiants website, Winn has 141 putouts + 259 at plate appearances, which means involvement in 393 plate appearances. Lincecum has 7 putouts + 27 hitting plate appearances + 345 pitching plate appearances = 379 plate appearances. So Winn does have slightly more involvement, but the numbers are roughly similar. Cain’s numbers are much higher than Lincecum’s right now, since he has an extra start, but I don’t feel like doing any more adding.

My point is that according to those numbers, contributions of starting pitching and position players are roughly equivalent. I think there are good arguments as to why position players are worth more overall, but I’m not sure I agree with them, and I certainly don’t think it’s fair to say that “it isn’t controversial”.

by neurofarm on Jun 10, 2008 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thing though, and Moneyball touches on this a little, is that all putouts are not created equally. Your average beer league outfielder can catch the majority of the flyouts that Randy Winn handles. Every out that a pitcher makes, however, is major league caliber.

by rotorueter on Jun 10, 2008 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To put it another way: stick Lincecum out in left field and he can probably make 9 out of every 10 plays. Put Randy Winn on the mound, and well, you know what would probably happen.

by rotorueter on Jun 10, 2008 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually, we do

..he’d get some outs. Winn’s no Barry Bonds out there. He’s an RF with a decent arm, who could probably hit the catchers glove with some adequate velocity more often than not. When position players like that pitch, they don’t usually do as poorly as, say, I would. They do about as poorly as a pitcher with a little hitting talent at the plate: not great, not terribly.

Remember, your league average on balls in play isn’t 1.000.

by wcw on Jun 11, 2008 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The thing that gets over looked in the pitcher v. position player debate

A pitcher is responsible for every single hitter vs. pitcher outcome for each half inning that he pitches. On the other hand, an individual hitter is responsible for exactly 1 out of every 9 hitter vs. pitcher outcomes for each offensive half inning.

Of course, there is still defense to be added into the equation. But that doesn’t change the fact that a pitcher is responsible for much more of the game than an individual hitter.

Besides that, the problem with your argument is that the comparison should not be made between the pitcher and the offense. The offense is eight guys. The pitcher is one guy. We are trying to figure out the relative value of a position player (singular) against a pitcher. Not between the entire offense and the pitcher.

Only 909 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Jun 10, 2008 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And another thing

It’s true that a pitcher is dependent upon his defense to a certain extent (that extent being dependent upon his K rate). However, an individual offensive player is dependent upon his team mates. For instance, we all agree that a high OBP is valuable. But why is it valuable? Because if he is on base then his team mates can then drive him in. The only way that an individual offensive player can create his own offense is through a home run. And even then, a three run home run is more valuable than a solo home run. If you want to point to the fact that a pitcher is dependent in part on his team mates then you must acknowledge that individual offensive players also depend in part on their team mates.

Only 909 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Jun 10, 2008 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those percentages are useful for team-building purposes, but they don’t do much in assessing the value of any individual player because they don’t give you any sense of the range of performance available at any given position. You need to turn to replacement level for that.

The best starting pitchers in the game save about 60 runs a season as compared to the scrubs who round out a rotation. Maybe 70 in a great year. But there are at least a dozen position players every season who surpass that.

In counterpoint, pitchers seem to be substantially overvalued on the free-agent market, So it’s probably more efficient to grow your own starting pitchers and go shopping for position players than the other way around. There’s also some evidence that elite starting pitchers become substantially more valuable in the postseason, though I’m not sure how to factor that in.

As far as trading Lincecum - he’s ours. We’re emotionally attached to him. That has some value. You’d need a clear win to think about trading him. Jay Bruce is an awesome prospect, but projecting him as a six-win-per-season player (which I think Timmy is) is a bit optimistic. Pujols is probably an eight or nine- win player, which no pitcher can match, but given age/injury/salary concerns, I’d rather hold on to the guy I’ve got.

by Evan on Jun 11, 2008 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand your argument and you make some good points

But if Timmy goes, I go. Seriously, unless they got some sort of uber-fantastic package back for him where they overpaid by about 2 players, Tim must stay. As illogical as it may seem, he is the thread by which I hang on to this team during these crappy times.

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 10, 2008 4:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Personally, I’d rather start with a truly studly young hitter. i.e. a Pujols-esque player. You name me someone like that who we could get for lincecum and i’ll make the trade right now. problem is, no gm would do the deal.

Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...

by Smoke on the Water on Jun 10, 2008 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t trade Tim just because, like a ton of people here, have grown attached to him and couldn’t rationally examine a trade involving him. He’s a once in a lifetime talent and no matter how this ride plays out, I want to make sure I’m riding shotgun for the entire thing.

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

Hey now

I already called shotty as we were walking to the car. No cutsies.

Proud pappa of....STEVE HOLM!!

by UnleashTheGore on Jun 10, 2008 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but the car wasn’t in sight.

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

I would trade Tim for the cure for cancer, three Holy Grails, and a clone of Tim Lincecum.

This has been The Sharksrog Answer with your host groug! Brought to you by The Committee To Stop People From Thinking Nate Schierholtz Can Play Third Base in association with Stupid Jokes Inc.

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

by groug on Jun 10, 2008 5:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

!!!

and we could then trade the cure for cancer for Albert Pujols!

by boonitez on Jun 10, 2008 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, instead of Timmah, how about Sanchez

no on trading Tim
no on trading Cain (if anything I think his value is a bit depressed right now due to his recent record)

how about Sanchez? he’s definitely improving, and while it would be a blow to our pitching staff, we do have prospects on the way. Sanchez might entice another team into giving us some bonafide prospects, maybe?

by Hac Man on Jun 10, 2008 5:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sanchez isn't quite as amazing as Timmy though

While he is a great prospect and could be excellent, he didn’t break into the majors in his first full professional year and dominate. He also has a lot of issues to work out with his control, hile he is getting a lot better with it. Timmy is once-in-a-decade talent, whereas Sanchez is damn good, but not incredible. He definitely couldn’t draw anywhere close to the same amount of return as Timmy. I don’t think we’d get any bonafide prospects with him.

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

All Pitching

Timmy is one to stay, we are a pitchers park so we need to keep our dominant pitchers AND BUILD AROUND PITCHING cause when we have a guy with a 2 ERA then we don’t need as much offense as lets say the Phillies, Reds, Colorado, etc do. We definitely do need more hitting, holy crap we do.

Sanchez is someone you trade because he won’t become Tim but he will be damn good. Tim is someone you build you build your team around in a pitchers park. But Timmy for Bruce is a definite yes please.

"But if he's swinging at real flies, well, in that case there are two definite solutions: 1) Fresno 2) Ritalin." - howtheyscored

by CPGiant756 on Jun 10, 2008 5:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That's interesting

Not saying I agree, but if you assume that AT&T is a pitcher’s park, wouldn’t you then conclude that it’s more important to acquire and keep great hitters? I would think a pitcher’s park would natually help all pitchers.

As a counter example, if I were the Philadelphia Phillies, I would stress acquiring great pitchers because my team plays over half their games in a hitter’s park. Or take Colorado’s stadium (at least up until recently); most guys can hit there, so the team should focus on pitchers.

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on Jun 11, 2008 5:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beyond the talent stuff, if I’m the Giants, I keep him strictly from a business standpoint. He’s created a buzz among fans that seemed darn near impossible in a post-Bonds era. And not just among hardcore fans. There’s definitely a buzz in the yard when he’s pitching.

Listen to the way Kruk & Kuip were gushing about how they look forward to his starts, or how Murph & Mac do songs about him.

Dude is helping sell tickets and keeping fans interested while the team works to improve. The fans have a fever and the only prescription is more Timmy. Jay Bruce would be a placebo.

2008 Giants: Scrappy! Scrappy! Joy! Joy!

by Goofus on Jun 12, 2008 8:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This

"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 Jun 12, 2008 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs