McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

An in-depth look at the Trade Deadline (What we've got and who may want it)

I went through the depth charts for the teams in their respective division / wildcard races (with exception of the NL West) in an attempt to figure out which teams have a need for what we could be selling. After deciding that doing a breakdown for 1st base, Lefty Reliever, and SS would be too long, I decided to combine as best I could). This is what I came up with:

*Disclaimer: This is all pure speculation, feel free to tear me a new one.*

Catcher

Like it or not, Bengie is our most marketable and desirable asset this year. Although he's slumped as of late, he's still an above average catcher who could add offense to a team. Here are the teams who could use Molina's services.

1. Florida Marlins - The Marlins have two catchers on the roster, and both are having absolutely abysmal years at the plate. For a team who is so focused on the HR (they lead the league), their catchers have produced relatively no pop, a shown a complete aversion to getting on base, as both are hitting below .235. Although Bengie hasn't hit a ton of homers this year, he has hit for a decent average and some good power numbers. The team depends on its offense, as their starter's ERA is around 5. This seems like a perfect fit, and I'd love to pry AA infield prospect Chris Coghlan from them, as he's currently blocked by Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez. It was pointed out in another thread that the Marlins may be hesitant to take on Bengie's salary, but if they want to make a serious run at the playoffs, Bengie might be an option.

2. LA Angels - Bengie's former team, the Angels, would also seemingly love to have his services. Jeff Mathis is hitting .209 for the year, leaving alot to be desired at the position. Bengie would be a huge upgrade, and as sharksrog pointed out in the "Trade Bengie Now?" thread, Bengie still has alot of friends in the organization. As far as prospects we could ask for in return, give me AAA SS Sean Rodriguez, who's behind both Macier Izturis and Eric Aybar. Thanks to Dan from NM for bringing up the possibility.

3. Yankees - With Jorge Posada down, and with the hole left in the offense due to Matsui's injury, could the Molina’s be reunited in NY? The Yankees could always use the extra offense, and Molina is more dependable at the plate than his younger brother. If he wasn't catching, Molina also provides insurance if the Sexon signing doesn't pan out, as he could fill in as DH. What could we ask for in return? How about Class A+ 2B Damon Sublett or SAL League 3B Bradley Suttle? Both could fit well in the Giant's system. I suggest packaging him with Aurilia as well, as the Yankees could use some insurance at 1B if Sexon doesn't pan out.

Other Options: Phillies, Mets, Red Sox (even though Varitek is struggling, I don't see a scenario where they bring in anyone to replace him, even though Molina would be a better option at the plate)

Outfielder

It's hard to market an outfielder who is somewhat pop-less. However, Randy Winn is a good asset for a team to have, as speedy utility type outfielders who can hit near the top of the order aren’t necessarily easy to come by. Here are the teams where I think Sabean should look to send Mr. Dwight Winn. I see him as a 2004 Dave Roberts type, older outfielder who hits for average with good base running #'s (19 SB, 1 CS).

1. Chicago White Sox - Nick Swisher has been absolutely awful in center for the White Sox, and they gave up a bunch to get him this off-season. He's currently hitting .237 with some pop (14 HR's), but he's also been playing atrocious defense in the outfield (just listen to KNBR's own Bob Fitzgerald). Randy Winn would give them a good defensive replacement for Swisher, and wouldn't cause too hefty of a drop off in production if they decided to start him in an outfield spot. The White Sox could also use his speed, as they rank 25th in the league in SB's. Winn wouldn't command as much as Molina, so how about John Shelby, a Class A+ 2B/OF?

2. Texas Rangers - Who would you rather have? Marlon Byrd or Randy Winn? In my opinion, Winn would be a significant upgrade over Byrd, and if the Rangers decide to go for it, Winn could be a great addition to the team. He leads Byrd in all major batting categories, and could add some more speed to a team who ranks 18th in the MLB in SB's. Possible return? Class A+ 3B Johnny Whittleman. He's fallen out of favor a little in Texas, but he's a good young player (20) who could still turn it around. Packaging Aurilia in the deal could also be a possibility, as 1B is a position of weakness for Texas as well.

(As an aside, I'm hoping we could package Walker in this deal, for obvious reasons)

3. Tampa Bay Rays - This is a little bit of a longshot, but reuniting Winn with his old team may work out for both parties. He wouldn't be getting a starting role, but Winn would be a better 4th OF option than either Johnny Gomes or Gabe Gross. Winn adds speed and defense, and a better on base percentage than Crawford in the two hole. You could also bat Winn 9th, as an additional set up spot for the top of the order. Hinskie is only playing against righty's right now, and Winn could supplant Gross as the starting RF against left handed pitching. I would consider sending Taschner as well in this deal, but I still wouldn't expect to get alot in return. I'd love someone like Reid Brignac... but a more realistic return would be someone like Fernando Perez

Other Options: New York Mets (They seem more interested in a power hitting OF, which Winn just aint), Minnesota Twins.

CONDENSED - Aurilia, Taschner, Vizquel

Aurilla - Yankees, Rangers

Taschner - Yankees, Tigers, Angels, Cardinals

Vizquel - Red Sox (only as a defensive replacement) - Don't expect this one.

 

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.

5 recs  |  Comment 185 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Thanks for all your thoughts. I hope we trade them all.

Proud father of Eric Surcamp! I sure hope we sign him.

by The Thrill on Jul 23, 2008 8:49 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

White Sox?

Apparently the White Sox need starting and relief pitching so bad that they might make Josh Fields available now, and go with Joe Crede next year. Since Fields was thought to be off limits and a major part of their future, the Giants might be able to get a ready-made 3B for 2009 with the right package. The problem is that it would cost them at least Taschner and Winn at a minimum, and at the most Brian Wilson since I don’t see Sabean sending any of the Big Three elsewhere for a major league-ready 3B, but perhaps he would.

Meet my three little friends: Timmy, Dirty, and Cain

by Buck Henry on Jul 23, 2008 9:30 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

if this is true I would be thrilled to send them Brian Wilson plus another minor piece in exchange for Fields. I love Brian Wilson and all but closers are very replaceable. Third baseman with the raw power that Fields has are much harder to find (and don’t we know it).

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 23, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

here is an article that discusses the fact that the White Sox are trying to decide whether or not to trade Fields to go for it now.

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 23, 2008 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I haven’t really been following Fields’ numbers, but Taschner and Winn for him seems like a HUGE steal for us. Thus, probably won’t happen.

Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa

by raisingcain on Jul 23, 2008 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Add Pucetas?

Angel Villalona: Treatin' all pitches like fastballs since '07.

by AngelintheInfield on Jul 23, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

I would throw in Pucetas for Fields, as he is probably on our second tier of starters to be. I like him, but not as much as I would like to have Fields.

Angel Villalona: Treatin' all pitches like fastballs since '07.

by AngelintheInfield on Jul 23, 2008 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I bet Wilson and Taschner could get it done

And I would be willing to do that

¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!

by hairball on Jul 23, 2008 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

there is no way in hell they give Fields away for Winn and Taschner. I don’t even think they would want Winn if we were giving him away. He would not be much of an upgrade (if any) over Swisher and they would be on the hook for his salray next year. It is going to take something good (as in something we don’t really want to part with) like Wilson to get Fields.

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 23, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know how to read, I'm illegitimate!

disregard all that crap I said.

I agree with you I think Wilson and Taschner could get it done and I would be willing to do that.

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 23, 2008 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You both are crazy to think that Winn and Taschner gets the deal done.

Wilson and Taschner are a different story, though.

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

by JRPhillips on Jul 23, 2008 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Instead of that...

what if we sent Wilson and Taschner?

The All-Father is now a Giant!

by EliminateMe on Jul 23, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because

there’s no WAY they take Winn and Taschner for Fields.

But if we offered them Taschner with someone like say… Brian Wilson… I think that could git’er done.

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

by JRPhillips on Jul 23, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Calm down, people

I think we should be considering Wilson and Taschner.

Farewell, Ray. We'll miss your smile and your sugar. Welcome, Steve Hammond "Eggs". Throw strikes.
comics | cartoons | Nattowear

by Natto on Jul 23, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think this website needs to add a feature that allows you to delete your own comment

you should see how much white out I have on my desk. I need a virtual safeguard against idiocy

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 23, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

just email your comment to me first.

I’ve been dying to add “Virtual Safegaurd Against Idiocy” to my resume.

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Jul 23, 2008 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If they made whiteout for idiocy...

...I’d be buying it by the truckload.

The All-Father is now a Giant!

by EliminateMe on Jul 23, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Armando Benitez was our best closer

Cody Ransom plays solid D under pressure.

can i sign up too?

by Giant Voodoo on Jul 23, 2008 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm In...

Where do I get my Josh Fields “Gigantes” Jersey?

by toofruss on Jul 23, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We finally get a good closer and then we trade him away?

This makes None-sense.

And if I were the ChiSox, I would go for that trade too, a good experienced closer plus a good setup guy, who could possibly close, for an unproven 3B who couldn’t beat out Crede, who displays similar qualities to Pedro Feliz.

I agree that Winn and Taschner wouldn’t do it (mainly because they don’t need another OF), though, it would take more of our young pitching and Sabean said that he’s not trading young pitching.

Adoptive parental unit of Kevin "Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.

"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 23, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

here is one quality that is entirely dis-similar to Pedro Feliz

Fields hit 23 HRs last year in 373 MLB at bats at age 24. Pedro Feliz has never hit that many HRs in any of his full MLB seasons. Or to put it another way Fields has averaged a homerun every 16.4 at bats in his brief time in MLB when he was 23 and 24, while Feliz has averaged a homerun every 26.3 at bats.

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 23, 2008 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

blah blah blah

closers are horribly overrated in terms of value. especially ours, who is an all-star and a 4.08 xFIP. He’s not a top closer, despite his gaudy and ridiculous Save numbers.

ChiSox are run by two idiots in Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen. They picked Crede because he had one of the best spring trainings ever and was the incumbent. Josh Fields wasn’t given a chance.

Fields is an excellent young player who is being blocked by a lesser player.

ergo, Wilson + Taschner = good trade. actually a steal. We’d have to throw something in for that deal to work in my opinion.

BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jul 23, 2008 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Would Walker, Taschner and Winn get it done? (I think Winn is indeed an upgrade over Swisher)

Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.

by Goofus on Jul 24, 2008 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

closers are horribly overrated in terms of value.

I think proven closers are over-valued and therefore over-paid. Nonetheless, finding guys with the “closer mentality” and stuff to go with it is hard to find, which makes Wilson more valuble because he’s cheap for years to come. That’s why I want to keep him. Wilson has shown me more at this stage than Accardo or Nathan and I didn’t want to see either of them go.

I’m not confident we have another closer in the making among the young pitchers. (I’m not counting on Hinshaw because Idon’t like lefty closers and have too many concerns regarding Merkin’s health). I hate hate hate the idea of having to go hire a closer when we’re ready to compete again in the next couple of years.

Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.

by Goofus on Jul 24, 2008 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not to mention

I hate to think what the Giants record would be w/o Wilson this year.

Nay-sayers be dammed – Wilson has been lights fuckin out in save situations this year. I don’t even get nervous with him anymore because my confidence is so high.

I’m still developing a justification for why Wilson can be a good closer even w/ borderline peripherals. Getting there.

FWIW, while his ERA is high, his FIP is 3.68 – which is pretty damn solid. The benefit of a high k/9 and low HR/9.

Depending on how you look at them, his peripherals aren’t so bad. I think the most important thing for him moving forward will be limiting his walks.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just looked

And, by WPA Wilson is 9th of all ML releif pitchers with > 30 IP.

by FIP, he is a much worse 62nd.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m still developing a justification for why Wilson can be a good closer even w/ borderline peripherals.

Luck?

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jul 24, 2008 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

Though, as I’ve said before, I still think Wilson has the goods to be a lights out closer, he’s just not there yet (and yes, not pitching like shit in non-save situations is a part of being a lights out closer). If we got a real good offer for him (like a legitimate starting quality position player), I’d trade him without a second thought.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jul 24, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cute.

Luck is certainly part of it, I don’t think his peripherals suggest a 93% save percentage. However, I do think there is a difference between being an effective closer and being an effective reliever (In some ways I think being a closer is easier, just requires a different skill set) and I am experimenting with different methods to illustrate this.

A closer is a unique pitching situation in baseball. That inherently changes the requirements to be effective as such.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess we fundamentally disagree

The goal of a pitcher is always the same, regardless of the situation.

Also, I wasn’t trying to be cute. It’s Occam’s Razor, baby.

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jul 24, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Goal of a pitcher is not always the same.

You would argue that a pitcher w/ 0 outs and bases loaded in a tie game has the same goal as a pitcher w/ a 15 run lead in the bottom of the 7th?

There are distinct differences, and it applies to the closer position as well.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The goal is to record outs.

To retire hitters. To not allow baserunners. There are high- and low-leverage situations, but the ultimate goal is always the same.

We can go back and forth on this, but we obviously have a fundamental disagreement on this point. I’d rather see the best reliever get used in the game’s highest-leverage situations, which are often NOT in the 9th inning. I think saves are a dumb stat, and are generally overvalued. I think Wilson is due for some serious regression, and that we should trade him for something awesome while his value is at its peak (i.e., now).

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jul 24, 2008 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Like I said

I am still developing a sensible argument for this. The goal is record outs, but the way you play probabilities to do so is extremely different. (There are different unacceptable outcomes, and as such the probabilities of each have to be diminished, which results in a different pitching approach.)

The goal of a pitcher in a tie game is to not give up any runs (HR’s, RBI hits) at the expense of base runners (bb’s) while recording outs. The goal of a pitcher with a large lead is to record outs at the expense of urns (HR’s and RBI’s) without giving up baserunners (BB’s).

Completely different approaches. The closers role is similarly different from a 7th inning reliever, for example.

Maybe that is where we are bumping heads. I agree that the best reliever should be used in the highest leverage situation. 7th inning, etc. However, I maintain that it is possible to be an effective closer without necessarily being your team’s best reliever. (which is why I think Wilson is a better closer than he is reliever).

In many situations, the closer has an easier task than the set up or 7th inning man. He is allowed to give up as many as 2 runs in the process of recording 3 outs and still be successful. The 7th inning man giving up 2 runs w/ a 3 run lead would be considered a failure.

There are different skill sets that will lend themselves more or less successfully to different situations, and often the situation of the closer is significantly different than that of the 7th or 8th inning.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

unrelated, but interesting

Righties are hitting .318 against Wilson.

.318!!!

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jul 24, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

SSS!

Career, .242

Also, that .318 is on a .393 BABIP!!! Jesus!

Unlucky much>?

Since we are going there: In Save Situations

2.76 ERA, 2.23 K/BB, WHIP 1.13

That line supports a 93% save percentage.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The guy is so fucking Bi-Polar sv. vs non-sv. it's kind hard to beleive it is all luck

Non Save:
9.82 ERA, 1.5 K/BB, WHIP 2.36

And i Fucked up the WHIP for save situations it’s: 1.23

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was spending all this time on a response using that very information...

Oh well.

But, yeah, it seems to me that the .318 BAA could be the fluke, not the success in save situations.

I always get caught in the middle during arguments about closers. On the one hand, I agree that saves are a bad stat and are over-rated and that the relief ace should be used in the most difficult situations not just in the ninth inning.

On the other hand, I believe that there is a “closer mentality.” Not because there is something special about the ninth inning, but because there is a perception that the ninth is special. Just because we see that the ninth is just another inning does not mean that the relievers themselves see it that way. We all know that the perception exists, why wouldn’t the relievers have this perception? And if most relievers have this perception then some are going to be overwhelmed by the job (Octavio Dotel for example).

I believe there are also those who thrive on the perceived pressure of the closer position. Brian Wilson for one.

So, really, he might be over-valued for his performance thus far by some. But I think he’s being a little under-valued for his value going forward by some as well.

Only 873 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Jul 24, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

It is an interesting debate

I think a lot of STATS guys (and I love me some stats too, btw) tend to forget that sports are played by people, and people react differently under pressure. If you have never played high school or higher sports yourself, you may not understand this – but some guys are absolute choke artists, while others benefit from increased focus.

So the “closer mentality” could have a lot to do with the human element. I don’t even argue so much for the “closer mentality” as I do for the 9th inning being a special circumstance because there is no more baseball following.

Being that it is a special circumstance, it causes you to play the probabilities differently than you would in other situations. As a result, a pitcher may make a good closer because of the way the probabilities shake out – but only a so-so releiver.

Brian Wilson’s peripherals indicate he may be that guy. However, his sv vs non-sv split would indicate that the dude is a fucking head case and has a hard time concentrating in non-sv situations. His sv-situation perpherials certainly support the success he has had so far, and if he had that line across the board we would all be lauding him as the second coming of Dennis Eckersly.

In that case, it is perception creating reality. He thinks the 9th inning is special, and as a result reacts as such.

Who knows… but I predict continued success for our potentially mentally unstable closer.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m an agnostic about the “closer mentality.” But it seems clear that the only way to find out whether a guy has it or not is to thrust him into the role, and once he’s there the only way to assess his performance is through small and idiosyncratic samples, like measuring how Brian Wilson has done in nonsave situations—which is what, ten or twelve innings this year? Ten or twelve innings is nothing. C.C. Sabathia started out this season with twelve innings of 13.50 ERA, even though his peripherals were terrific. (I remember this vividly, as he was supposed to be the ace of my fantasy team). And look at him now.

So how can you trust a measurement that is so susceptible to distortion or random noise? Given some really compelling evidence, I’m going to assume that a good pitcher is a good pitcher is a good pitcher, and not worry overmuch about what role he’s in.

by Evan on Jul 24, 2008 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

GivenAbsent some really compelling evidence

(that’s what I meant to say)

by Evan on Jul 24, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

11 IP

in non save situations.

He’s given up 12 runs in those situations.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s 11 innings, it’s insignificant.

by xanthan on Jul 24, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I see that Jerome Holtzman still has his share of followers

I don’t think anybody is arguing that they want to trade Wilson (like in the same way that people WANT to trade Winn). But a guy who leads the NL in saves and goes to the All Star game while actually being a good but not great pitcher is always going to be over-rated by the “market.” To get something you need (like a power hitting 3B) you have to give up something of value. As much as I would love to trade Roberts and Aurilia for Fields, I would be willing to give up somebody over-valued like Wilson to bring in a young stud like Fields.

by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 24, 2008 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I don’t see it. Crede’s agent is Scott Boras. They’re not going to trade Fields and take the chance that they can’t sign Crede after the season.

Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment

by rxmeister on Jul 23, 2008 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Please trade them all...

I am totally with you and hope Sabean realizes that he no longer has to showcase these players and we need to take what we can get. Molina would be a tough loss, but he probably has the most value. I think I can live with Holm or Alonzo for half the season. Winn definately needs to be moved to make room for Schierholtz. One other player not mentioned is Roberts, who is a complete waste on this roster. Not sure if anyone would want to pay his salary for next year (6.5) if traded.

Here are the salaries for next year:

Winn: 8.25 mil
Roberts: 6.5
Molina: 6

Off the books:
Vizquel: 5.2m club option (guaranteed with 140 games or 525 PA’s) doesnt look like its going to happen! Thank god
Durham: 8.5
Aurilia: 4.5

Well looks like about 18 million is coming off the books, heres hoping we can dump Molina and/or Winn and/or Roberts to some unsuspecting desperate contendor for some midlevel prospects. In the case of Roberts, for a bag of sunflower seeds. Get er done! Thats a possibility of shedding almost 40 million. I am not advocating going out and spending the extra cash on overrated free agents (Zito). We obviously are not going to contending next year. Lets just play the kids, plug some holes and hope our emerging farm system (Villalona, Sandoval, Posey, Noonan, Fairley, Gillespie, Alderson, Madbum, Sosa) pop out some stars!! Wishful thinking

by krazybalr on Jul 23, 2008 9:32 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

If we get 40 m off the books + the 14 M we are under the 90m "cap" now

We might as well USE that money for the next few years until Caincecum’s payday instead of just letting it pile up in ownership’s pockets.

Crede, Dunn, Etc. would all be ways we could use the money to make the team better (and more enjoyable) in the short term w/o hampering the development of the “youth”.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The very first thing money should be spent on is locking up Lincecum and Sanchez long term.

After that, then sure, spend smartly in FA. Crede and Dunn don’t really fall into that category, in my opinion.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 23, 2008 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That is the fallacy, however

I don’t know if Crede and Dunn are for sure the perfect fit – I haven’t done the necessary research.

But it’s not Win now. It’s spend the money you’ve got ‘cause if you don’t it will go away.

Yes, lock up Cain, Lincecum, and Sanchez longterm. That is part of the deal. The argument is until you do that, you might as well spend the “extra” money to get some additional talent – even if it is at an inflated rate.

This year, the Giant’s ownership group is pocketing 14m of the salary as compared to last year. If it were up to me, I would much rather have signed some FA @ 3b or SS to a 1-2 year deal with that money instead.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, the fallacy is that money evaporates.

First of all, it’s silly to say that if we don’t spend money now, we won’t have it later. The opposite is true. If you don’t spend it now, you DO have it later (or some portion of it).

Second, the ownership group is entitled to some sort of return on their investment. It can certainly be argued that they will realize that return when they sell their share of the team, because over the last 20 years, that is how owners have made money—not during their ownership tenure, but when selling the team later. Fine. But it IS their money and they would not be wrong for wanting to “pocket” some of it, even while increasing spending on development, scouting, signing bonuses for top-shelf draftees, and so on.

Third, periodically, the GM has to go to ownership and make a recommendation that they, out of their own money, throw in some more money to sign a huge free agent. We are not in those times right now, but we have been before and will be again. If the owners “pocket” some of the money now, do you think they would be more likely or less likely to kick in extra money down the road when we need a boatload of cash to sign Lincecum & Cain etc? Obviously, more likely. And more able.

Money isn’t perishable. I’m all for spending it wisely, but to say that if we don’t spend it now then we lose it forever defies all sense.

I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."

by Mayor of 311 on Jul 23, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In a business environment, Money DOES evaporate.

The ownership group has stated that they are willing to maintain the approximate 90m payroll of last year. I have seen zero evidence however that the ownership group is willing to carry unused money over.

Since we only used 74m this year, should we expect the ownership to allow Brian to go up to 106m next year? Or if we are at 60m next year, does that mean in 2010 we can spend 136m? I doubt it. I have never seen any evidence of the team practicing this sort of financial forecasting. In my workplace, you are assigned a budget for your project. At the end of the project any money you did not spend is taken back. You do not get to carry that over into the next project. This is a very common method of accounting. It is also why shit built for the government costs so much, but that’s another issue ;)

As a result, money not spent is money lost. From this perspective, unless your objective is to protect the financial well being of the ownership, It is in the team’s best interests to spend as close to 90m as possible. That means that, in any given year – if you can find a player who helps the team (short or long term) that costs money that would otherwise be unused that season – you should acquire him.

The only time spending money for a player hurts is when it puts to close enough to the 90m “cap” that it prevents you from acquiring another player whom you want more. A little foresight is all it takes to prevent this situation.

EX: We are paying Roberts 6.5m to sit the bench this season. Is there another available player that we would rather have for that 6.5m? Obviously no, because we are still UNDER the self imposed 90m “cap”. Roberts salary, regardless of how bad, is not negatively effecting the team because Brian has 16m he elected not to use this season, indicating he did not see any available players he wanted.

I realize that this seems asinine, but it is a fairly common method of accounting – and I would be surprised if the Giants operated any differently.

There is, of course, the exceptions wherein Brian could ask for money over the 90m “cap” for a specific player and argue that 2-3 years prior well below the “cap” justified this – but again I have seen little evidence of this type of approach.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The question is "Is our owners learning?"

I’ve never been convinced that there actually was $90mil there to spend this year. It is possible that the ownership “planned” to spend less this year based upon anticipated ticket sales drop off, in spite of what they said publicly.

Regardless of all of that, does the $74m you are counting here include Bonds money still being paid to him? If so, how much are we paying him, and for how many more years? Do we still owe Steve Kline after this year? Any other dead wood contracts I cannot think of at this point?

It is encouraging that there will be some margin there, and based upon the math in this thread there should be about $32m there. I agree with giving Timmay and Durty some love, but I would also hope we don’t go bonkers on someone just because we can. What is the forcasted FA crop this year in the 5 to 10 mil range? I’ll take one, two if they are real juicy.

by toofruss on Jul 23, 2008 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My #'s come from cot's. I'm not sure what all it includes.

For free agent list, look here. Interesting names include, Crede, Blalok, and Cabrera. (SS and 3b).

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2002/02/2008-09-free-agents.html

I guess my underlying point is, if we can sign someone at a black hole (3b or SS) for next season in the ~ 10m range to a 1-3 year deal, it won’t hurt us at all and can only help.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cabrerra – NO for any more than one year. And I mean it!!
Crede – OK for 3 years
Blalock – Why only 85 games in 07-08? Like that he is only 28, but this worries me.

by toofruss on Jul 23, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don’t forget the Giants are now spending more money on Dominican players and drafting higher, which means they spend more money there too. They also drafted without regard to signability. Alot of that money “saved” on the payroll is going to go there.

Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment

by rxmeister on Jul 23, 2008 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Great point.

Although I think most of us see money spent on prospects and money spent on this year’s team as an apples and oranges situation, the Tucker/draft pick debacle showed the Giants don’t necessarily see it that way.

"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 Jul 23, 2008 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point, but

When you amortize the cost of signing bonuses, it is basically nil.

Posey, for example, IF he goes for ~ 9m works out to around 1.5m per year of control. That’s round off error in the magnitude of ML Salary.

Villalona, Rodriguez, etc are much much less. Current total amortized cost of signing bonuses is probably definately < 10m, probably < 5m.

Not really breaking the bank.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

“When you amortize the cost of signing bonuses, it is basically nil.”

If this is truly the case - or more to the point, if the Giants think this is truly the case - then please explain their rationale behind punting a 1st round pick in order to save money in their budget to strengthen that year’s team.

"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 Jul 24, 2008 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, I cant explain that

But if you figure you get ~ 6 years from a draft pick before you really have to start paying him, and you sign him to a 2m bonus (and then MiL, ML min, and arbitration), then that is piddly shit per year.

So yeah, it doesn’t make a lot of sense that they would opt not to sign someone because of a bonus demand.

Well, it kind of does – but it’s more complicated than that.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't disagree with anything you say...

But I think you’re missing my point. My point is that the Giants - not you, not me, not some economist somewhere, but the Giants - seem to believe that any money you spend on draft picks reduces the amount of money which can be spent on that year’s roster. Therefore, a reduced budget for this year’s club can be logically linked - at least in part - to the increased money being spent to sign players this year.

"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 Jul 24, 2008 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right

And it DOES make sense if you budget 10m to spend on signing bonuses every year, and as a result remove that money from the salary budget.

But I don’t think this is what they are doing, so wtf.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's not a "cap"; it's called a budget

The money doesn’t disappear. It goes back to the capitalist as a return to capital. Econ 101. The owners aren’t bad or unentitled to that money if it’s not needed for baseball reasons. You’re saying to spend it just to spend it, as if it doesn’t belong to anyone and as if nobody else has any legitimate claim to it. That’s silly.

Look at it from the other side of the table for a moment. The owners KNOW what the actual labor expenditures were this year, right? They know it was $74M (using your figure). So next year, the group will set the payroll budget at whatever number they choose. Why wouldn’t they set it at $74M when they know that’s what it was? Why would you think they wouldn’t detect that their GM went out and “blew” $16M just for the sake of spending?

You are conflating accounting with budgeting. The GM/staff will tell the ownership group what they think everything will cost, and explain why. That’s a budget. That’s a forecast. It will make sense or it won’t. It will contain caveats that will explain how things might deviate (bonuses, inflation, etc.). The ownership group will either approve the budget or not. If they have confidence that their money is being spent intelligently and honestly, one would think they would be more likely to vote yes. The GM has to maintain the confidence of his ownership group. He doesn’t do that by Fairweathernomics of just blowing money as if it doesn’t belong to anybody.

I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."

by Mayor of 311 on Jul 23, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You would think that is how it works

But in any “budget” there is the assumption that some money is going to get good value, and some is not.

Matt Cain = Good Value, Dave Roberts = Not.

When setting a budget, one must look at the big picture (# of wins per season) and compare that to the cost (salary). If I am an owner, and I say It is worth it to me to spend 90m to get approx 80 wins (because that is how my revenue projections work out) then that is my budget. I realize that within that budget there are going to be players who are good values, and those who are not. However, as long as the net meets or exceeds my expectation (80 wins) I am happy. Now, if my GM only spends 74 million to get 80 wins, sure – I’m happy about it. But that doesn’t mean that next year my 90m for 80 wins projection is going to be any different.

Yes, fundamentally, spending less money to get the same result (number of wins) is a good thing. However, when forecasting things of this nature one must assume a baseline budget and be prepared to spend it. You assume, in setting that budget, that there is going to be money spent with diminishing returns. Payrolls of this magnitude are just not dynamic enough to compare to your household income nor to apply what would seem to be common sense.

Players with poor performance/dollar represent diminishing returns – but are still part of the whole package, and the ownership group knows that when they present Brian with whatever budget they elect. You very well may have to pay 6.5 million to someone like Dave Roberts to have him sit the bench, just in case.

Of course, extreme underperformance like Barry Zito is another issue.

I’m not doing a very good job of explaining this – but I’m not just talking out of my ass.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe a more clear way of stating it

As an analogy:

Better to complete the job on time on budget than late but under budget.

“We only spent X dollars” isn’t really a good justification for only winning 65 games, much like being under budget isn’t a good justification for finishing the job a week late. If it costs you 50m in salary to win 65 games and an additional 40m in “poor value” players to win the extra 15 to get to 80, and that puts you on “time” and on budget, then that is what you do – even if you feel like you aren’t getting good value for that 40m. Why do you think teams routinely pay seemingly absurd salaries to guys like Estaban Loiza and Sindey Ponson? Because, even tho they are getting poor value for that player, adding that player allows them to meet their goal (wins) and is within the budget.

Because, all said and done, salary is a smallish percentage of a baseball teams revenue, and winning games makes money. Paying a lot to win a few more games is typically worth it.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed, but that's not what you were saying.

You weren’t saying ‘invest intelligently in the opportunities that exist in the current year with the solid expectation that it will lead to more wins.’ You were saying ‘spend now or it’s gone forever.’ Very different points.

I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."

by Mayor of 311 on Jul 23, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The two are directly correlated

The point is that the ownership group gives Sabean a budget of X based on the above principal. If Sabean then turns around and doesn’t sign Crede (example) next year because he does not feel he is getting good value, but ultimately ends up spending less than X, then he has fucked up.

So, assuming he is under his budget of X, he should be looking to sign any player that helps the team, regardless of whether or not they are a good value.

Hence, “overpaying” for a guy like Crede next year doesn’t hurt the team. All it does is prevent a few million from returning to the ownership group’s pockets after the season, which should not be Brian Sabeans objective. (As the ownership group has allocated him Budget X based on their own projections). Any money he doesn’t spend is an unanticipated bonus for the owners, but finding added bonuses for the owners isn’t his job – building winning baseball teams is.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Much better stated.

I get your point much better now. I believe that your assumption is that (nearly) any current spending would make the team better. Even as crappy as we are, I’m not sure that’s true. And I don’t think that spending money that isn’t likely to be anything better than ‘poor value’ makes any sense, either, as money doesn’t spoil (i.e., I would be willing to accept ‘medium value’ on the investment and even a bit of a gamble on a ‘slightly less than medium value’, but don’t see the point on spending on crap just because we can).

I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."

by Mayor of 311 on Jul 23, 2008 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Obviously extremes are not a good idea

Offering Tex 35m for one year is probably not a great idea (altho it actually might not be horrible, lol).

However, paying someone like Crede 13-14m will help the team win more games, and not prevent the acquisition or retention of any other players. It is also presumptively within the budget the ownership group has allocated.

Crede is probably not “worth” 13-14m, but it would still be a good move for us.

Crede is just an example, fwiw.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think I get he angle of your dangle here. Next winter Beltre. If something has not turned up for 3rd by then.

I just see a lot of mediocrity in the Inf. Free Agent pool this winter. I an take a line similar to free agent middle relief. A 1-2 year attempt at Crede or Blalock so they can prove their health I am fine with. Anything longer or bigger – ixnay oughtay.

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

by daveinexile on Jul 27, 2008 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course it is dynamic, and of course the results are uncertain

You’re right about that, of course. But that has no bearing on the point of “spend any remaining money now because it will disappear.” All I’m saying is that isn’t true. It either returns to the capitalist as profit, which is one reason that capitalists are willing to put money out for things that the rest of us (sometimes) enjoy; or it gets plowed back into the company in other ways that are expected to be more fruitful (development, draftee bonuses, etc.); or it gets peed away irresponsibly.

I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."

by Mayor of 311 on Jul 23, 2008 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Okay, you are right

The money doesn’t have 0% value on october 1st. However, it’s value in terms of making the team better is STRONGLY diminished if it is not used to sign players in the season it is allotted.

My point is that, unlike your personal finances which are relatively simple, a large corporation dealing with these amounts of money loses a lot of value on any given sum when it is re-allocated. The inefficiencies, both direct (costs) and indirect (people not wanting to pay back in once they get it out) are huge.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

$10.8 M

$5 per year for 5 years (from his 02-06 contract) & $5.8 this year (from his 07 contract).

Hector Sanchez: really getting tired of playing baseball in foreign countries...

by tedfordfan on Jul 23, 2008 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The $74M number isn't accurate

as it fails to account for a bunch of deferred payments (Bonds, Matheney, Armando, Omar) and salaries of players not currently on the team (Kline, Hennessey).

The Giants have a budget around $90 million, and they are around that in terms of player payroll spending.

Hector Sanchez: really getting tired of playing baseball in foreign countries...

by tedfordfan on Jul 23, 2008 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i dont think the rangers are gonna “go for it” this year, but i was hoping wed have more suitors for winn, but maybe we dont?

proud father of the newly acquired Brandon Crawford..

by Azmanz on Jul 23, 2008 9:33 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

the guy's salary is just too damned high

stolen bases aside, who wants to pay that kind of scratch for a guy that’ll have a 340 OBP and a 400 OPS (or whatever he hits; if it’s significantly better let me know).

Of course, the answer to “who wants to pay that” is obvious—it’s the Giants. They want to pay it.

by joe t on Jul 23, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

$9M isn’t crazy for a center fielder who hits like Randy; it’s very close to the market rate. The problem is that the Giants unilaterally decided that he wasn’t a true center fielder right after they signed Winn to a huge extension.

If the options on the market are Pierre- or Matthews-esque, Winn is a bargain.

by Grant on Jul 23, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I never got this. Randy always looked fine in center to me. Way better than Roberts.

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Jul 23, 2008 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think they went after Roberts not because Winn wasn’t good in CF, but because they were looking for a leadoff hitter/base-stealer. I remember when they signed Roberts, all the team talked about was how he was sparkplug and table-setter.

Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.

by Goofus on Jul 24, 2008 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Roberts wasn’t good in CF either, and hadn’t played there as a regular in years.

by xanthan on Jul 24, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I meant to put "unless he's in CF" but I got called into a meeting

and I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for you damn kids.

by joe t on Jul 23, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s ridiculous that the Giants decided he must never again play center, but even so, there are several big-money teams this year for whom Winn as a corner outfielder would be a huge upgrade over what they’re using now: Mets, Angels, Phillies, Dodgers. If Sabean’s really trying, I’m sure he can place Winn somewhere.

by Evan on Jul 23, 2008 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I still think

the Mets are a good fit for Winn, but I can’t remember where his “no trade” list is. Isn’t he protected from being dealt to a central division team in either league? If so, and if the Giants (rightfully so) don’t want to help a NL West rival this year, then we’re looking at the AL West or the East Coast for a partner, right?

Meet my three little friends: Timmy, Dirty, and Cain

by Buck Henry on Jul 23, 2008 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why not help an NL west team this year?

This is the year to do it…

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Indeed. I’m willing to help the Dodgers by taking Andy LaRoche off their hands in exchange for Randy Winn and Omar Vizquel.

by Evan on Jul 23, 2008 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and take away our only veteran SS?

I think we better throw Hu in there too.

by boonitez on Jul 23, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i’d ask for kershaw too.

BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jul 23, 2008 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m actually kind of serious. Vizquel’s batting average is low at the moment but he’s basically the same player he was last year, which is a big improvement over Angel Berroa. And no matter how much money the Dodgers have thrown at Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones, they desperately need a third outfielder.

Or how about this: Winn, Vizquel, and Taschner for LaRoche, Hu, and Juan Pierre?

by Evan on Jul 24, 2008 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Must contain my Pierre Hate!

Because it’s a legit offer to discuss I think. A couple thoughts ( not emotions- We hates Pierre. Hates. Hates! HATES!! Pierre.) are:

1) do we really want to give Boulder Skull another flawed Veteran O.F.?
2) 3 more years with 28.5 mil. How is this better then Dave Roberts?

If offering cap relief why not just swallow Jones 15 mil fro ‘09 and be done with it? I know Jones has NTC but wouldn’t the Dodgers be motivate to motivate him to waive it?

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

by daveinexile on Jul 24, 2008 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, that would be better for us. Andruw’s considerably more valuable than Pierre (or less unvaluable, I guess).

by Evan on Jul 24, 2008 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s an interesting one, i think that despite my hatred for Pierre & his contract, i’d have to agree to that deal, purely to get the talent. Of course i’d DFA Pierre immediately, whereas Bochy would start him every day, making it more questionable!

Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!

by GiantFan on Jul 24, 2008 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s a pipe dream, because trades like this (teams taking on bad contracts in order to get prospects) just never happen. But it would be a good way of taking advantage of those few GMs who still don’t grasp the value of young talent. Pecota projects LaRoche and Hu to be worth around $10 million a year, each, at free agent prices. Even if one of them completely flops, that would still blow away the $18 million or so it would cost us to take on Pierre.

by Evan on Jul 24, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Now this

Is intelligent thinking in regards to salary.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 24, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He picked 10 teams that he can't be traded to

Rumor has it that it’s pretty much the central divisions (though that’s 11 teams, so at least one central team has to be off the list). But as far as I know it’s never been stated openly.

The All-Father is now a Giant!

by EliminateMe on Jul 23, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’d guess he wouldn’t mind the Cubs

Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.

by Goofus on Jul 24, 2008 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you were the owner of the Dodgers, would you let Ned Colletti trade for Winn for center after he has signed Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones to ridiculous contracts the last two years?? I think he might fire him on the spot when Colletti mentions it to him.

Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment

by rxmeister on Jul 23, 2008 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What cheeses me off the most about this is with all the starts wasted "used" to show case veterans in the last 1+ years you think someone in management would have figured starting Winn in center was good for his market value. Were is my cattle prod? Here Sabean. This will not hurt me a bit.

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

by daveinexile on Jul 24, 2008 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

don't the angels

need an OF, too?

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Jul 23, 2008 10:12 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

send them winn, molina

for just a touch of some prospecty goodness. Would make me happy

Pedro Feliz would look great in Dodger Blue.

by irwin on Jul 23, 2008 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I didn't see them as an option...

As Gary Matthews, Garret Anderson, Torri Hunter, and Vlad are all options for them in the OF. I also don’t see them giving up on Juan Rivera yet.

Angel Villalona: Treatin' all pitches like fastballs since '07.

by AngelintheInfield on Jul 23, 2008 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

mathews is done for year, acl I think

and Guerrero and anderson both need some DH time. plus, anderson has been pretty bad.

Pedro Feliz would look great in Dodger Blue.

by irwin on Jul 23, 2008 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He waas in the lineup on the 21st.

Went 0-3 to bring his average lower to .232. Don’t see them picking up Winn unless they can get rid of Matthews.

Angel Villalona: Treatin' all pitches like fastballs since '07.

by AngelintheInfield on Jul 23, 2008 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

perhaps I am going senile.

Pedro Feliz would look great in Dodger Blue.

by irwin on Jul 23, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

he has a minor tear in his patella

but is apparently trying to play through it. Prior to Tuesday he’d missed the previous 9 games, however and he sat again on Wednesday so it’s certainly a situation that could deteriorate quickly into a long DL stay.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Jul 23, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

does hey-yo Ritch--eeee come off the books this year anyway?

If so, I don’t see much value in trading him, to be honest. We likely aren’t saving that much money, he doesn’t appear to be blocking anyone, and he is a decent guy to have around to pinch hit/spot start. If Frandsen can come back that changes things, I suppose but Frandsen’s got a tough row to hoe because if he doesn’t come back soon he won’t have minor league rehad options. rehabbing at the mlb level is tough to do.

by joe t on Jul 23, 2008 10:13 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

by the way, I am supremely in favor of trading Viz and Winn

I just don’t think either will happen—Viz because he makes Mario Mendoza look like Babe Ruth and Winn because his salary is too high for his production and Brian Sabean wants to make sweet, sweet love to his gamerness by the fire.

by joe t on Jul 23, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That is twice in the same day

That someone has used the previously (to me, anyway) un heard phrase “row to hoe”.

Weird.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

As the probable supplier of the previous instance

I have to pose the question, would you rather row a ho, or hoe a row?

¿Julio is tourist in San Francisco? Harper's Bizarre!

by hairball on Jul 23, 2008 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Guess

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why would you want to get into an argument with a slut?

by kaliber on Jul 23, 2008 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

row rhymes with cow, if it’s a rhubarb or brouhaha

Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.

by S.F. Giangst on Jul 23, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ho’s & blow!

Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.

by Goofus on Jul 24, 2008 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Did the previous time involve a conversation about a brothel on an island?

The All-Father is now a Giant!

by EliminateMe on Jul 23, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't follow about Frandsen

Why wouldn’t he have minor league rehab options?

The All-Father is now a Giant!

by EliminateMe on Jul 23, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, gotcha.

I thought joe t was referring to some arcane eligibility rule that I didn’t know about.

The All-Father is now a Giant!

by EliminateMe on Jul 23, 2008 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hawaiin winter league

BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jul 23, 2008 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd love me

some Sean Rodriguez. SEND BENGIE NOW!

BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jul 23, 2008 10:21 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Tyler Walker, Texas Ranger

I laughed quite a bit over that one.

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

by JRPhillips on Jul 23, 2008 10:41 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Thank you...

Thank you.

Angel Villalona: Treatin' all pitches like fastballs since '07.

by AngelintheInfield on Jul 23, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Laugh at Norris’s super powers at your own risk.

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

by daveinexile on Jul 24, 2008 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

One problem with trading Winn and Molina...

...is that they’re not rent-a-players (like Durham) since they’re both signed through 2009. That makes it hard to see an injury replacement trade, like Molina to the Yankees.

The All-Father is now a Giant!

by EliminateMe on Jul 23, 2008 11:05 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

except they are talking like Posada is done (for good) behind the dish.

Castillo hits doubles.

by kennv on Jul 23, 2008 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And it’s the Yankees, where adding Molina’s 2009 salary is like adding a deck chair to the QE II.

Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.

by Goofus on Jul 24, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sean Rodriguez would be the perfect acquisition for this team. What do his MLEs look like?

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jul 23, 2008 11:14 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I dunno...

If you look at the last 5 games/days in Fresno, he’s 1 for the world….(ok 18, but that’s not that much different). I dont think we have THAT much great pitching in Fresno right now.

and Small sample size schmall sample size…..he’s NOT perfect….hehehehe

Uncle Sabes...How much longer til we get there?

by NorCalGiant on Jul 23, 2008 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

...and

He’s listed at 2b…..??? fielding issues or what?

We dont need another stinking 2b, we’ve already got Nate Shierholtz, I mean the FO has been waiting to convert him there once he gets back from the Olympics.

Uncle Sabes...How much longer til we get there?

by NorCalGiant on Jul 23, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

.247/.350/.511 at Salt Lake, per Baseball Prospectus.

by Dan from NM on Jul 23, 2008 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A little blurb
Joel Sherman says the Mets would be willing to eat some money on a contract to reduce the prospect price for a corner outfielder. He suggests names like Xavier Nady, Raul Ibanez, Randy Winn, and Adam Dunn. The salary-eating strategy would probably only help with Winn.

This is about 2 weeks old, but I hope it has something to it. I would be willing to let them eat salary and give us a lower player, sorta like the Brewers did.

by giants9107 on Jul 23, 2008 1:42 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Thanks, BTW

This is my first rec’d thread. Probably the first that deserved it, but still…

Angel Villalona: Treatin' all pitches like fastballs since '07.

by AngelintheInfield on Jul 23, 2008 1:43 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

it was extremely well written.

you put some good work in.

BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jul 23, 2008 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yup.

(Almost as much effort as I’m putting into this reply.)

Adoptive father of howtheyscored. The beatings will begin momentarily.

by Goofus on Jul 24, 2008 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hank Blalock?
The Twins, Giants and Dodgers have shown some interest in the Rangers’ Hank Blalock.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jon_heyman/07/23/heyman.nady/index.html?eref=writers

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: One of the few reasons to watch this year.

by sfgreg on Jul 23, 2008 2:21 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

very intriguing

I wonder what it would take?

by krazybalr on Jul 23, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He apparently

doesn’t figure into their plans for next year, and they don’t need hitting. So we have the minor league arms to at least see if something would work. But I wouldn’t want to give up something good only to see him walk. Does he get to walk after this season or next season?

Meet my three little friends: Timmy, Dirty, and Cain

by Buck Henry on Jul 23, 2008 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This

Would rather just wait and sign him in the off season, if we so desire.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 23, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Club option for 2009

According to Cot’s, he has a club option for 2009 at $6.2M.

The All-Father is now a Giant!

by EliminateMe on Jul 23, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

NO!

just to reiterate: NO!

BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jul 23, 2008 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Vizquel – Red Sox (only as a defensive replacement) – Don’t expect this one.

I’m always puzzled when I see this rumor. I think its the work of extremely lazy sports commentators who haven’t been paying attention to Vizquel the last couple of seasons.

Castillo hits doubles.

by kennv on Jul 24, 2008 7:54 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

How do you mean? For all of his faults in his old age, Vizquel does still play very good D. His RZR would be, far and away, the best in the NL if he had enough playing time to qualify (.907… the highest by a qualified player is .870). Dial had him at +8 defensive runs saved at the break.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jul 24, 2008 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was looking at Dial’s Offense plus Defense lists. Can we use those to get people to stop saying that Randy Winn is a fourth outfielder?

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Jul 24, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think he was smack dab in the middle for that list wasn’t he? Winn plays really good defense in RF which helps to make up for some of his bat.

by xanthan on Jul 24, 2008 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think it’s also that he’s been one of the top 5 baserunners in baseball this year so far as well.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/stat_of_the_week_dewan_who_are_baseballs_best_baserunners_this_year/

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jul 24, 2008 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Awesome, I hadn’t seen this. I’m surprised at his SB% this year, historically he’s never stolen bags this well.

by xanthan on Jul 24, 2008 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, Winn’s stolen-base track record is a good demonstration that all samples are small samples.

by Evan on Jul 24, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i’m sorry. the (defensive replacement) is a central part of this argument, and Vizquel’s defensive aptitude is not something I will quibble with. it more that anyone would expect the Red Sox to trade for a guy with Zero Offensive production to “solve” the porblems they have SS. I think the national press still thought of Vizquel as a top glove weak bat, when he seems to have no bat thus far this year. This rumor seems to be diminishing as OPS+ approaches zero. In a weird turn, I won’t cry if Vizquel stays on the 25 man roster this whole year and starts a couple times week, even if I have no idea why another team would trade for him.

Castillo hits doubles.

by kennv on Jul 24, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

trading Molina

since the team doesn’t HAVE to trade him this year and the market for starting catchers is rather thin, they should hold out for a bit more in terms of prospects.

Bonds stands alone.

Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal

by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 24, 2008 11:02 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Call me dumb, but would he not be an upgrade for, I know, the D-backs? I hate helping them as much as the next guy, but would they have use for him, and prospects for us? Maybe trade Winn with him?

by giants9107 on Jul 26, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Schierholtz

I like the fact that he’s going to get a chance to play in the Olympics, but is anyone else concerned that this could mean that neither WInn nor Roberts is liable to be dealt?

by BigO on Jul 24, 2008 4:49 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I doubt Winn or Roberts would’ve been dealt anyway, but if they were, the Giants could bring up Travis Ishikawa to man first and move Bowker to RF.

Farewell, Ray. We'll miss your smile and your sugar. Welcome, Steve Hammond "Eggs". Throw strikes.
comics | cartoons | Nattowear

by Natto on Jul 24, 2008 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m starting to think Bowker is not good at 1B

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Jul 24, 2008 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He’s good enough for THIS team. Not future teams, but for now he’s fine.

by giants9107 on Jul 24, 2008 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Heh

Don’t bag on my bold, I just wanted to try it out.

by giants9107 on Jul 24, 2008 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It was a bold move.

"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 Jul 25, 2008 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The bold is fine

It’s your use of all caps that makes me hate you.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jul 25, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So angry…

Farewell, Ray. We'll miss your smile and your sugar. Welcome, Steve Hammond "Eggs". Throw strikes.
comics | cartoons | Nattowear

by Natto on Jul 25, 2008 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just wondering

But Why?

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 25, 2008 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the D

He can’t pick even pretty fair bounces and his reactions to groundballs are “too little too late”.

If he doesn’t improve by the end of the season I’d like to see him back in the OF.

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Jul 25, 2008 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

agreeance

he’s certainly been better than I expected him to be. Give the guy some time to learn the position.

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Jul 25, 2008 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

2 days later

Is my point a little more apparent now?

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Jul 27, 2008 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So, who wants to estimate the odds

that the Giants will move Winn, Aurilia, Vizquel, and Molina? I’ll take a shot first:

Winn: 70%
Aurilia: 60%
Vizquel: 30%
Molina: 30%

Meet my three little friends: Timmy, Dirty, and Cain

by Buck Henry on Jul 25, 2008 2:09 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

wow, I hope you are right about Winn. I take it that you think Sabes is putting up a front, since he’s only been suggesting that Winn is unlikely to go. To be honest, I expect us to part with either Taschner or Walker before any of these guys. Does management from other teams really sit down, and collectively decide: “Ok. Aurilia it is!”
Anyway, in the spirit of the thing:

Walker 50%
Taschner 40%
Winn: 25%
Aurilia: 20%
Roberts: 20%
Molina: 15%
Vizquel: 10%

I also think that most of these guys could clear waivers in August.

by BigO on Jul 25, 2008 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If the Yankees are scouting Winn,

as the New Jersey paper today says they are, I have to believe that other teams (such as the Mets) on the East Coast are also. As you correctly said, Sabean said he wasn’t interested in moving either Winn or Molina, which is exactly what I’d say if I wanted to drive up their value just before the deadline. Winn and Molina are really the only two position players who have immediate value to a contender, and at a decent cost to a big-payroll team.

Meet my three little friends: Timmy, Dirty, and Cain

by Buck Henry on Jul 25, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think you are undervaluing Rich Aurilia

OPS+ of 96 with some pop off the bench is a nice thing to have for the stretch run.

Also as a spot starter @ 1b or 3b.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 25, 2008 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess

I suppose the versatility is pretty good insurance against injuries as well. Isn’t an OPS+ of 96 well below league average at either 1st or 3rd, though? These contenders are supposed to be comprised of players above average.

by BigO on Jul 25, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think anyone is going to trade for Aurilia as a 1b or 3b

But having a guy like Aurilia who can start occasionally for you at 1b or 3b is valuable. Most players need a rest occasionally – better to have Aurilia than some 75 OPS + scrub.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 25, 2008 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not to mention

Aurilia is out performing Konerko, so he could be a significant upgrade for the CWS @ 1b even as an every day starter.

Also out OPS’ing Pedro Feliz ;)

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Jul 25, 2008 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

he ain't goin' there

Well, now that they got Nady, Winn won’t be heading to the Yanks. My deadlinecalculatorisor now has him at 15%

by BigO on Jul 25, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I take a shot at odds.

Taschner 60% – a Lefty doing well that another team should not have to empty the farm for.

Aurillia 55% – the fact he can fill a lot of positions cuts both ways.

Winn. 45% – I have regretfully come to the conclusion the F.O. would rather move a Nate &/or Lewis then move him. I want to be wrong here.

Walker 45% – Mr. Crispy Cream does have some closer experience. Meh.

Omar 20% – I could see him getting swapped in August to fill in for an injury. That is the mostly likely hope.

Molinia 15% – I just don’t see a team with a screaming need that will pony up. And he just too vaulible to the Giants to let got for a ham sandwich.

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

by daveinexile on Jul 26, 2008 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A couple of new developments . .

The Rangers want a lead-off hitter and a reliever. The White Sox want a reliever and a corner outfielder .

Go ahead and flame me, but if you could get Justin Smoak from the Rangers for Taschner and Lewis; and then get Josh Fields from the White Sox for Wilson and Winn, would you do it? Sure, we’d lose Freddie and have to use Roberts the rest of the year in LF and leadoff; and we’d get going now on Bowker/Schierholtz in RF. And yes, we’d have to do closer-by-committee with the kids the rest of the season to see which one has the mental makeup to step forward for next year. But we’d also be getting our 3B for 2009 and beyond now, and getting our 1B for 2010 and beyond within the same one week period, and doing it without touching the Big Three starters. And after Walker’s meltdown yesterday, this team is officially dead for 2008, so they might as well get over the aversion to trading anyone from this team, and that includes Molina (who knows what else we could get in addition to the above for him).

They could use Roberts, Castillo, and Vizquel the rest of the season and then bid them good bye, and perhaps still find a suitor for Aurilia, leaving them with opportunities to see what Denker, Bowker, and Holm/Sandoval can do.

OK, go ahead and flame on.

Meet my three little friends: Timmy, Dirty, and Cain

by Buck Henry on Jul 27, 2008 10:15 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

if you could get Justin Smoak from the Rangers for Taschner and Lewis…would you do it?

The question is would the Rangers do it. And the answer is a big, shiny FUCK NO!

Also, Smoak hasn’t signed yet. And you can’t trade a player until a year after he was drafted.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Jul 27, 2008 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK, thanks for that knowledge on the rules, but

why would the Rangers pass up a chance for a young leadoff hitter and good lefty reliever to keep a 1B when they already have one lined up at that position for next year?

Meet my three little friends: Timmy, Dirty, and Cain

by Buck Henry on Jul 27, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wel, they might have one lined up next year at 1B but this isn’t basketball, you don’t fill immediate needs with pretty okay players by giving up your potential studs…. unless you are sabean or something. They just won’t trade Smoak for those 2, not enough for the Rangers in it. They would most likely demand one of our big 3. I think you mgiht be overvaluing our boys a bit.

by Giant Voodoo on Jul 27, 2008 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Would you trade Buster Posey for a slightly below average LF and a RP?

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Jul 27, 2008 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Future Predictions

Molina – Stays due to not a good enough package.

Taschner – Traded to the Tigers for a B prospect.

Aurilia – Stays.

Wilson – Stays.

Winn – Traded but not to the Mets. Salary relief and shitty C prospect.

by Giant Voodoo on Jul 27, 2008 2:05 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about San Francisco Giants.
Start posting about the Giants »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Timgoodavatar_small
Tim's misdemeanor charges have been dropped
Daisy_small
Human after all (Timmy)
Lincecum_small
Lukewarm Stove: The Beginning
Lincecum_small
McCovey Awards: Outstanding Newcomer
Lincecum_small
McCovey Awards IV

Recent FanPosts

Hatoyama-southpark_small
Which Old, Declining outfielder would you like?
Small
Who Should The Giants Acquire to Play OF In 2010?
Small
Time for a Semi-Rebuild?
Small
A REAL realistic view of Giants 2010
Olds1_small
Who will be behind the dish?
Small
Kevin Kouzmanoff: Cheap Power Upgrade
Lincecum_small
McCovey Awards: Best Non-gameday Image
Small
handful of "puzzle piece" options

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Overlord

174246766_ea2fd78204_small Grant

Minions

Fawlty_small WalrusMan

Dog2_small kenshin1

Lincecum_small Natto

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

Goofus_small Goofus

Det_7193_small jponry

Minor League Guru

Small steve S