Figgins: Is his signing the key to this offsesason?
Figgins opens many doors for adding different players because of his position flexibility.
A plan of signing both Figgins and Dye opens up the possibility of a follow up trade involving Bradley or Uggla, or neither.
Option #1: What about no additional trade and leaving Sandoval at 3B, Garko at 1B? Figgins and Dye together would cost less than Holliday and address two areas of need.
Lineup: 2B-Figgins, SS-Renteria, 3B-Sandoval, LF-Dye, 1B-Garko, CF-Rowand, C-Posey, RF-Schierholtz
Rotation: Lincecum, Zito, Cain, Sanchez, Matinez/Pucetas
Estimated Total Salaries:99M
or
Option#2: Trade JSanchez for Uggla and let Figgins play RF.
A line up with Figgins at top and Sandoval Uggla, Dye and Garko batting 3,4,5,6 would be much improved from a year ago.
Lineup: RF-Figgins, SS-Renteria, 3B-Sandoval, 2b-Uggla, LF Dye 1B-Garko, CF-Rowand, C-Posey
Rotation: Lincecum, Zito, Cain, FA(6Mill), Martinez/Pucetas
Estimated Total Salaries: 111M
or
Option #3: Trade Rowand for Bradley trade let Figgins patrol CF.
Dye, Figgins and Bradley would be quite an improvement over Velez, Rowand and Winn in the outfield.
Lineup: CF-Figgins, RF-Bradley, 3B-Sandoval, LF- Dye, 1B-Garko, 2B-Uribe, SS- Renteria, C-Posey
Rotation: Lincecum, Zito, Cain, Sanchez, Martinez/Pucetas
Estimated Total Salaries: 99.5M
or
Option #4: go all out and completely change the offense from a year ago with:
Sign Figgins and Dye, trade for Uggla and trade for Bradley .
CF-Figgins, RF-Bradley, 3B-Sandoval, 2B-Uggla, LF-Dye, 1B-Garko, SS-Renteria, C-Posey.
Rotation: Lincecum, Zito, Cain, FA(6Mill), Martinez/Pucetas
Estimated Total Salaries: 108.5M
I would choose to go with option 3 because it drastically changes to lineup for the better and keeps the rotation in line to continue being a strong aspect of this team. Plus Rowand is outttta here! (In my best Kuiper impression)
My Salaries were from Cots and the players I had to guess on are as follows:
Lincecum-10M, Figgins-8.5M, Dye-9M, Uggla-9M, Wilson 4M, Garko-3M, JSanchez-2.5M, Uribe-4M FA SP-6M and all young guys not arbitration eligible at .5M.
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.
1 recs |
429 comments
Comments
I’m a Figgins booster, in part because he can play anywhere. That’s a valuable skill for a team that needs help everywhere.
But it cannot be said often enough: Jermaine Dye is terrible. Not terrible in the sense that he’s not worth the money — terrible in the sense that he would make the team worse than it is now.
by Evan on Oct 19, 2009 12:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
IAWTC.
BTW, this is why I am fairly confident that Jermaine Dye will be the Giants’ key FA signing of the offseason. Other than Molina, of course.
by taliesin on Oct 19, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would actually put money down on Dye being a Giant. Like $10. It’s so happening.
by Grant on Oct 19, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t see it. Sabes likes his players with (a) defense, (b) batting average, © gritty gamy grizzled vettitude. Dye only brings one of the three.
by Evan on Oct 19, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like how “gritty gamy grizzled vettitude” got copyrighted there. A rare victory for auto-format!
by taliesin on Oct 19, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Live and Let Dye
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 19, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Live and Get Dye
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 19, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only if
this ever changing world in which we live in
makes you give up and cry
by KrazyKrabMeat on Oct 19, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you were young
and your heart was an open base
Ya know...ignorance really IS bliss.
Well - I do , anyway.
by victor frankenstein on Oct 20, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you got a job to do
You got to do it…unless you get injured?
"Vhet ere-a zee oodds Booster Pusey ifer pleys fur zee Geeunts?"
"He-a vun’t pley unteel he-a gets sume-a mejur leegooe-a ixpereeence-a."
by El Person on Oct 22, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So then terrible in both senses.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 19, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Jermaine Dye might have been a great addition 3-4 years ago. But that ship has sailed, and I really can’t believe there are so many who haven’t realized that.
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Oct 19, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will not take anyone serious who even suggests acquiring a 35+ year old player.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 19, 2009 12:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But wait.....
…….Randy Winn wants to come back to the Giants.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/10/randy-winn-wants-to-stay-with-giants.html
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 19, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I hope he does
As Special Assistant for Outfield Instruction.
by taliesin on Oct 19, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where is the option to get Figgins, and forget about Dye?
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Oct 19, 2009 12:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I reread the post thinking I may have missed it, but there is definitely way too much Dye goin’ on here.
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Oct 19, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was to Dye For!
/ ducks!
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh geez
Just Dye, man.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | New Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
by Natto on Oct 20, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Figgins without Dye is an option too. That would save quite a bit of money as well.
by krukkuipandclint on Oct 19, 2009 12:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Figgins with Nick Johnson instead of Dye gets my vote.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, you have my attention now.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I view Dye as a 1 year stopgap player until a player like Carl Crawford is available. Dye will not be the savior of this team, but his power bat would be more useful than Velez’s in LF.
by krukkuipandclint on Oct 19, 2009 12:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It pains me to say this, but even Eugenio Velez is better at baseball than Jermaine Dye. Dye’s defense really is that bad, and his bat is kind of a marginal upgrade, even over Velez. Compared to Fred Lewis, Dye’s bat is no better, and his defense is much, much worse. Plus, he’s likely to be expensive.
by taliesin on Oct 19, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
…and a Velez/Torres platoon is even better.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 19, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
translation:
DYE NEEDS TO STAY IN THE AMERICAN LEAGUE
by sfoakbay on Oct 19, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does any current major league team actually field an infield that is as awful defensively as Sandoval-Renteria-Uggla-Garko? Combined with Bradley and Dye in the OF corners you would have an epically bad defense.
by taliesin on Oct 19, 2009 12:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Does any current major league team actually field an infield that is as awful defensively as Sandoval-Renteria-Uggla-Garko?
no, that would be the worst in MLB by a good stretch
by FluLikeSymptoms on Oct 19, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offhand I would say the Royals & the Fish are close competitors for that "distinction".
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Marlins infield is about the same defensively as that one and the Royals has been much worse.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But, in that situation, the Marlins would not have the “benefit” of Uggla’s D.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Oct 20, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very true.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wrote this over at some blog for nerds, but I’ll put it here too:
Am I the only one who wants no part of Figgins?
Wrong side of 30? Check.
Coming off a career year? Check.
Substandard free agency class? Check.
Sabean has a track record of overpaying FAs? Check.
All the ingredients are here for a massive overpay.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
by marcello on Oct 19, 2009 12:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Figgins probably walks too much for Sabean’s taste, though.
Brian Sabean wants to kick tires. I want to kick Brian Sabean.
Adopted Giant: FREDEMPTION Lewis
by jcb9 on Oct 19, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It depends on the price. What do people think Figgins would cost? If the $8.5M figure in the OP is accurate, I’m ambivalent, depending on the number of years. 4/40 is deep into DNW territory, but 3/20 would be a major bargain, in my view, even if his production declines significantly.
by taliesin on Oct 19, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All of those are excellent reasons why we should stay far away from Figgins. Bay and Holliday are the only decent hitters this offseason, both are left fielders (though Bay may have to be a DH soon), which makes Figgins the prime INF target. I hope that other teams in need of a decent bat will outbid us, because I don’t see the Giants getting Figgins for a reasonable deal. If we did, that would be great, but we’re talking about Brian Sabean here.
by quincy0191 on Oct 19, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but Chone and his sweet sweet obp would look so hot in this lineup
Congrats to my soul mate and birth brother Zach Wheeler on being drafted into greatness. Should I just buy my Wheeler jersey now, or wait till my next birthday?
by TexasRanger on Oct 20, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want him either. And he’s awful when it matters most.
by Hobbes2d on Oct 23, 2009 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And he’s awful when it matters most.
That sounds like Brian Sabean’s line of thinking (that’s not a good thing)…
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a good thing would be signing Chone Figgins. A glorified utility man. He’s coming off a career year in walks. Nearly 40 more than his previous season high. Not to mention over the past 4 years he has a Reggie Sanders like ability to have a total off-year coming off a really good year. He’s going to be 32 next year. His stolen base success rate has fallen off over the past few years, and if you even make the playoffs with him on your team, he doesn’t perform. Players like him do not age well, and in 07 and 08 he didn’t play more than 116 games.
DO NOT WANT.
by Hobbes2d on Oct 23, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some good points, some not so good points. Utility man usually means bench player. Figgins is currently much better than that. I have no idea what happened to him in 2006, but in 5 of the last 6 years (2006 being the exception) he’s been a decently above average starter. Playing multiple positions is good. Utility man is bad, because it implies bench player, which Figgins is not.
if you even make the playoffs with him on your team, he doesn’t perform
This is the exact thing I was responding to before. Terrible point. Brian Sabean line of thinking. Completely ignores all knowledge of small sample sizes. The important thing to remember is this isn’t predictive – you should expect him to perform the same way in the playoffs in the future, on average, as he does in the regular season (slightly worse because of better competition, but you get the point).
Not sure why you don’t think players like him age well – speedy guys do actually tend to age better than most players.
The good points:
He’s going to be 32 next year.
in 07 and 08 he didn’t play more than 116 games.
DO NOT WANT.
Figgins is going to get too much money for too long. That’s what really matters, and why it’s a bad idea.
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Utility guy can mean that someone plays multiple positions.
Pedro Feliz was a utility man here. He played 3b, 1b and OF.
Mark DeRosa is a utility man.
So is Chone Figgins. A bench player is a bench player.
Just like a platoon player is a platoon player.
And no speed guys really don’t age well usually. Legs are the first thing to go for players. Just look at Edgar Renteria. He used to be a pretty athletic guy, now he moves like he’s stuck in quick sand.
Rickey Henderson is the only guy in recent memory that I can remember who still moved really well consistently as he aged. But he’s a freak of nature.
by Hobbes2d on Oct 24, 2009 1:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Power+Speed guys generally age pretty well.
Just speed though, the main problem is that one hamstring injury can destroy all of your value.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 24, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My personal opinion is the word “utility guy” is usually used for non-regulars. Feliz was a utility player…until he was a starter, than we left him at one position. You know? Obviously you’re right that utility in a general sense means they can play more than one position (which is a valuable quality), all I’m saying is a “utility player” that starts for us will probably be locked down in one place for the most part….
And yes, speed guys do age well (on average). There are studies out there that find that speed is generally a trait that leads to better aging – the theory is that speed guys are athletic and athleticism ages well. It’s not that they stay fast, of course they see a decline in their skills (and speed/athleticism) just like everyone else as they age, the decline just seems to happen less rapidly for guys who are more athletic. And of course the better you were to begin with, the farther your skills can decline while you’re still a productive player…
by Missing Barry on Oct 25, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jermaine Dye isn’t a good player anymore. Hell, two of the last three seasons he’s barely even been a good hitter.
Brian Sabean wants to kick tires. I want to kick Brian Sabean.
Adopted Giant: FREDEMPTION Lewis
by jcb9 on Oct 19, 2009 12:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I just don't get the fixation on Bradley...
Granted he would be an upgrade over Rowand, but that is if he doesn’t flip out and miss a good part of the season injured or suspended or pouting. Maybe most other teams could make up for his loss but on the Giants he, along with Pablo, would be the heart of the order. Do we really want to take on that kind of risk.
by baseballjunkie on Oct 19, 2009 12:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know. I might take half of season of Bradley compared to an entire season of Rowand.
by AndYourBirdCanSing on Oct 19, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. He’d lead the league in not being Rowand.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 19, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t get the fixation on Bradley…
Pretty easy. On the one hand, you have a team with a .309 OBP. Milton Bradley has a career .371 OBP. Even this year when he wasn’t even supposed to be good he put up a .378 OBP. Also, I like board games.
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, yes, and yes
rowand for bradley straight up, please. not happening obviously, but…
by sfoakbay on Oct 19, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why? You Don't Get Better But You Do Risk A Clubhouse Cancer.
Both of these players have produced 22 WAR from 2002 thur 2009 and Rowand had the better year last year providng 1.9 WAR while Bradley only provided 1.1 WAR.
You all are way too in love with the idea of anybody but Rowand.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t necessarily get better, but that’s not the point. The idea behind the proposed Bradley-Rowand swap it saves us a lot of money. Bradley has two years and 21 mil left on his contract. Rowand has three years and 36 mil. Getting rid of Rowand opens up more payroll space for us, which would make it possible to do something like sign Matt Holliday. It’s more Rowand’s massive contract that we all hate, not so much Rowand. And weighing a player’s WAR from 2002 into their current value makes absolutely no sense at all. What a player did seven years ago is completely irrelevant.
The very bad man traded my son...So now I'd like you all to meet my new son, Ryan "Aaron" Garko...Dammit it's just not the same!
by boonitez on Oct 19, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Money Saved Is Almost All In 2012 Which Helps Add Absolutely Nothing Now.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Contracts are able to be back-loaded. See Zito, Barry.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know eventually it will be 2012, right? Long term planning IS a good thing…
I also think the chance Bradley returns to form and is an above average player is much, much higher than Rowand, so there’s some upside there (which has some value itself) even if you think, on average, Bradley will perform slightly worse than Rowand.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know eventually it will be 2012, right?
Sure but that will be the last baseball season ever, so who cares? Haven’t you heard?

Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 20, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2012: Mayans vs Aztecs World Series!
You can't solve your problems with the same level of thinking that created the problems - Albert Einstein to Brian Sabean
by bgunn on Oct 20, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's still money saved
and you might be right about us being in love with anybody but rowand, and he is been an average player, i guess, but it’s all about the money. who knows, maybe bradley will start thriving in a change of scenery. plus, he can also take a walk, the reason he will never be in the orange and black
by sfoakbay on Oct 20, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s more Rowand’s massive contract that we all hate, not so much Rowand.
Heh. Not since I barked at him at Chase for watching the Jumbo and not the game and he managed to surreptitiously flip me off.
Ya know...ignorance really IS bliss.
Well - I do , anyway.
by victor frankenstein on Oct 20, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta agree here. While hate is a strong word, I do dislike Rowand. I hate watching him flail at sliders a foot off the plate. I hate watching him not hit the cutoff. Rowand is the opposite of “fundamental”, and I hate that the Giants advertise him as someone that plays the game the right when, when the opposite is true. Therefore, I dislike Rowand as a player, I dislike his contract, and I dislike the fact that he’s on our team.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry but it’s hard for me to see the Giants payroll going up to the $100-110m range. I’d love to be wrong, but I think it will probably be closer to $90m.
by esseffgeez on Oct 19, 2009 1:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd prefer Holliday ...
I’d pass on Dye – the time to have gotten him was when he left the A’s and instead Sabean got Moises Alou. Dye has local ties so I thought it made sense. Of course, I thought Ted Lilley made sense but we got Zito. Then again, I thought Web Van would be a good stock to buy. I’d also pass on Figgins and don’t think he can be had for $8.5M. Not sure why Dye gets more – I don’t think that will happen.
I think if the Giants get Holliday and utilize platoon splits as much as possible, they can improve within their budget. Of course, getting Holliday likely means saying no to Molina coming back and also no to F. Sanchez. Posey is obviously the easy choice at catcher, and most teams would choose not to bring Molina back, but the Giants seem to love this guy. Second base is tougher, but I just don’t think Sanchez is worth his option of even something a little less since it likely would mean two years. Velez is an option, but his defense is pretty bad. Still, he’s cheap and we’d need to also bring back Uribe as a platoon split for second and a back-up for other spots. So my 1-8 line-up is as follows: Velez/Uribe – 2B, Posey – C, Sandoval – 3B, Holliday – LF, Garko/Ishikawa – 1B, Schierholtz – RF, Rowand – CF, Renteria – SS.
Of course, Uribe isn’t a lead-off guy, and neither is Velez based on his OBP. But Sanchez isn’t either, and he’s so much more expensive. They would pitch around Holliday though, but maybe you could flip-flop him with Sandoval, who might be harder to pitch around.
by ErodCal on Oct 19, 2009 1:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Velez cannot play 2B. He’s awful there. As an emergency stopgap after a double-switch, OK, but he shouldn’t be the opening day starter there under any circumstances. Plenty of good FA options are on the market at 2B, many of whom would be cheaper than Sanchez: Iwamura, Lopez, Kennedy, etc. It doesn’t need to be a choice between Sanchez and the internal options.
by taliesin on Oct 19, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Velez cannot play2B.baseball.
FTFY
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Oct 19, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This 109 times.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fixation on Bradley ...
This is based on getting out of the Rowand contract for 2/3 the cost. But if Rowand can play decent center for 2 more years, he might be the better choice. It pains me to say that.
Also, not sure what happens to Lewis. A new GM/Manager team might have kept him and upgraded elsewhere, but he’s on the outs with Sabean/Bochy. He just doesn’t drive in enough runs for them. What a joke. These guys probably still use baseball cards from the 70s to evaluate players.
by ErodCal on Oct 19, 2009 1:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t quite understand why we are so eagered to get rid of the Rowand contract. I’m not saying that it isn’t terrible, but I don’t see any player within the system that can immediately take over so wouldn’t a plea to move Rowand also equal a plea for Velez in CF?
You want to see a walk? Then go watch the mailman.
by SeeingStars on Oct 19, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see an argument that some form of Velez/Torres can give us equal production to Rowand. Rowand is already 32, so he’s likely to get worse every year. Even if Velez/Torres are less good than Rowand, the money we save getting out of his contract can be used to improve us somewhere else (or, knowing Brian Sabean, wasted on a crappy marginal player)…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
curious
Obviously Bradley would probably become the best non-Panda hitter on our roster, but does anyone like him enough to attempt to acquire him without the benefit of getting out of the long term money owed to Rowand? Would a Renteria for Bradley deal appeal to anyone? Maybe its just that I have this crazy hope that Sabean might then go after Hardy to fill the vacated SS position and sign Nick Johnson to a reasonable contract. I need to get the unrealistic hopes of a Sandoval/Bradley/Johnson/Hardy middle of the order out of my head. I mean, 4 guys likely to post an OPS over .800 is asking far too much.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody…..and I mean NOBODY….is going to have Renteria on their team under any circumstances………unlesss, of course, you are Brian Sabean.
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 19, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bet Dave Littlefield would!
I miss Littlefield… I assume he’s now the GM of his kitchen, so maybe Sabean can trade Renteria for that month-old hot pocket from his freezer.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 19, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
even if it means getting rid of Bradley without having to take on ANY money past this coming season? I know he’s awful, but its not like the Cubs would play him regularly. Do you think they could give Bradley away without eating about 9 million? I’m not convinced they can and thats essentially what they would be doing while adding some depth (not good depth, but still depth) at middle infield where they seem to be a bit shallow.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where's Jason Bay?
I’d take Bay at LF over any of the aforementioned options.
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx
by RDreamer on Oct 19, 2009 1:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just curious but did you enjoy Fred Lewis defensive styling’s?
Because if you did you are going to LOVE Bay’s! Add to that Sandoval’s lack of range, Renteria’s glove work on the left side and we have just created a seconds triples ally! Isn’t that just special?
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 7:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Fred’s defense is underrated.
Brian says a lot of things. Brian only does one thing, though. Get low OBP hacking suckholes who’s best years are in the past. - Missing Barry
by jhiat00 on Oct 21, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but ...
As underrated defensive prowess goes, his is overrated.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 21, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a single mention of Fred Lewis. Fred Lewis is better than Jermaine Dye. Fred Lewis is better than Nate Schierholtz. Fred Lewis is probably better than Milton Bradley. Fred Lewis is better than Aaron Rowand. All of your options involved some combination of those players playing COF with no mention of Fred Lewis. I vote no. Also, overpaying mediocre veterans (Dye + Figgins combo, for instance) rather than spending the money on one good, youngish but legit player (think Holliday) is exactly what failed us in the past. No thanks.
Figgins would upgrade the Giants. Is he the answer? I’ll wait until the market is establishing what he’s worth before determining that. He’s a good signing for the right amount of money. I think he’ll cost more than that, but I don’t know at the moment. Jermaine Dye, simply put, should not be signed.
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 1:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I believe the consensus is that Fred Lewis won’t be a Giant next year.
You want to see a walk? Then go watch the mailman.
by SeeingStars on Oct 19, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
me too
Not a single mention of Fred Lewis Barry Bonds. Fred Lewis Barry Bonds is better than Jermaine Dye. Fred LewisBarry Bonds is better than Nate Schierholtz. Fred Lewis Barry Bonds is probably better than Milton Bradley. Fred Lewis Barry Bonds is better than Aaron Rowand.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fred Lewis is not better than Milton Bradley. Chone Figgins is not a mediocre veteran. For that matter, neither is Jermaine Dye, but in the bad way. Also, tossing out huge contracts to big name free agents has failed us more recently than signing a bunch of mediocre veterans. Barry Zito? Aaron Rowand? Not to say Holliday is at all similar to them, but it’s always risky to invest that much of the team’s payroll in one player. The upside to signing mediocre veterans is that they can’t hamstring the team’s payroll as easily.
The very bad man traded my son...So now I'd like you all to meet my new son, Ryan "Aaron" Garko...Dammit it's just not the same!
by boonitez on Oct 19, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fred Lewis is not better than Milton Bradley.
Now, I did say probably, as it all depends on how what you think of Bradley this past season. Fred Lewis is better than that Milton Bradley. Milton Bradley of 2008 was definitely better than Fred Lewis. Bradley is going to be 32…so, it really just depends on what you think Bradley has going forward.
Chone Figgins is not a mediocre veteran.
Chone Figgins was very good this year. He was pretty good (but not nearly as good as this year) the previous two seasons before that. He’s also 32, and slated to get a decent amount of years on his contract. Aaron Rowand was not a mediocre veteran the year before we signed him either, that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a good chance Figgins, like Rowand, WILL be a mediocre veteran for the majority of his contract.
For that matter, neither is Jermaine Dye, but in the bad way.
Not sure what this means, but I’m going to assume you agree with me that Jermaine Dye wishes he was mediocre at this point in his career…
Barry Zito? Aaron Rowand?
Well, Zito was certainly a big name. We also offered him $30M more than the next highest rumored offer, so….yeah, more evidence Sabean lacks the basic skills required to do his job competently. Even if Magowan was behind the Zito signing, he wouldn’t force Sabean to outbid everyone else by $30M, would he? That part of things has to rest squarely on Sabean. Rowand, as I pointed out earlier, was not really a big name, and was actually more like Figgins when he hit the market…
Not to say Holliday is at all similar to them, but it’s always risky to invest that much of the team’s payroll in one player. The upside to signing mediocre veterans is that they can’t hamstring the team’s payroll as easily.
And it’s true, even if the player is as good as advertised all it takes is an injury and you lose a ton. The real problem is that our payroll doesn’t reflect our market size – the Giants should be able to take these kinds of risks. Holliday might be too expensive to be worth it, I can concede that, but at some point if you want to win you have to spend money on actual talent. As for the upside of mediocre veterans, sure spreading risk, conceptually, is good, but we both know we could get similar production out of younger, close to replacement level players for almost free. There’s no need to overpay veterans who barely provide any marginal value over younger, cheaper players.
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Challange!
Also, tossing out huge contracts to big name free agents has failed us more recently than signing a bunch of mediocre veterans.
Rowand was paid $12MM to produce 1.9 WAR or about $8.4MM in value. – $3.6MM
Zito was paid $ 18.5MM to produce 2.2WAR or about $10MM in value. – $8.5MM
So those two Big Name contracts were over paid ~$ 12MM for ’09.
Roberts was paid $6.5MM for 0 WAR. $6.5MM over pay.
Renteria was paid $9MM for .3WAR so a $8.7MM over pay.
Those two mediocre veteran contracts were a combined overpay ~ $15.2MM for ’09.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tito, get me a tissue. Jermaine, stop teasing.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 20, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about Bowker?
Did his 65 prove to everyone he can’t hit/play LF?
by jnormous on Oct 19, 2009 1:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It wasn’t the 67 AB’s as much as the 423 total PA’s he’s racked up in his MLB career to the tune of .244/.291/.402 that make me skeptical. I suspect Bowker might be on the wrong end of the probability distribution when it comes to MLE’s translating to MLB performance…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Figgens is a great 3b
yet, none of your options have him playing 3b. I definitely want Figgens at third. Am I the only one here who believes that Pablo shouldn’t be playing 3b?
by Fresburg on Oct 19, 2009 2:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He should not be….but neither should any other current Giant, so someone has to go out there.
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 19, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why shouldn’t Pablo be playing 3B? I don’t think it’s optimal, necessarily, but I don’t mind it and don’t see anywhere else that’s better for our current situation. On a Posey-less team I’d have Pablo behind the plate. If he isn’t behind the plate…why is he a better fit somewhere else?
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s obviously what I figured, I’m more wondering…why?
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he wasn’t very good at third; catcher is locked up; 1st is the only other available option.
Obviously, if there are still no better internal options, he can manage at 3rd. There are clearly worse defenders in the league playing the position. But long term, he’d need to shed a bunch of lbs to get to the balls in the hole.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that he wasn’t very good at 3B. I think he was more than passable, and actually pretty close to average overall. Considering how easy filling 1B is relative to 3B, that makes him more valuable to our team at 3B.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
In spite of Sabean’s difficulty in doing so, finding a good hitter to play 1B is much easier than finding one who can play third.
by taliesin on Oct 20, 2009 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I keep hearing that, yet we have no solution at 1B and none on the way.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Garko may not be that good overall, but he still is signficantly better than average with the bat…
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that’s the thing — even with no good solution at first, Garkawa is still better with the bat than the proposed solutions (Figgins, Beltre) at 3B that would shift Sandoval to first. The defense would be better, sure, but the OP’s point was that adding one of those guys at third would not upgrade the offense. And even though it would be an upgrade, given the improved defense, the improvement would be on the order of 1, maybe 1.5 wins. It seems like a marginal upgrade at a pretty high price.
by taliesin on Oct 20, 2009 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
green that man
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!
by natteringnabob on Oct 20, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
seconded
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, I thought you support UZR?
I don’t disagree that he has more value at 3B, I just don’t think he’s very good at it.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
UZR to me indicates he’s slightly below league average, emphasis on slightly. I regress it to the mean (0) a bit in my head due to his SSS, just to be clear. -3-4 UZR/150 is pretty close to average.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pablo should be good at 3B for the next few years, as long as he doesn't gain weight
good meaning acceptable. obviously, loosing weight would help though. i would put figgins at 2nd and not resign mole
by sfoakbay on Oct 19, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel the same way about not re-signing Sanchez, but it’s pretty unrealistic to believe they wont re-sign him. Unless Jponry is a liar.
Figgens at 3B (or probably even Sanchez) would do a better job at filling the hole vacated by Renteria.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but, renteria isn't going anyway
FUCKING UP THE GIANTS INFIELD DOWN THE STRETCH, NERDS!
by sfoakbay on Oct 20, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moving Sandoval to 1B and signing Figgins is not an upgrade offensively over going with Garko at 1B. Do you really want to pay $10M a year for a player who isn’t going to upgrade us at all offensively?
And why shouldn’t Sandoval be playing 3B? He’s been perfectly reasonable there and is young enough to stay there for a few more years. He’s also more valuable to the team as a 3B than 1B.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 7:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He had a -7 UZR at 3B and if you watched him this year, he really wasn’t very good to the eye either. You’re right, he could improve, especially if he loses weight, but it’s probably more hopeful than realistic.
Believing that Figgens wouldn’t upgrade this lineup is silly. Even if you go with his 2008 numbers and throw out his 2009 “career” numbers, he had 34 stolen bases and a .367 OBP. Those are clear upgrades for this team. Plus you fail to consider his above average defense.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well Fangraphs has his UZR as -4.5 but that’s not a huge difference. A UZR of -4.5 is below average but it’s perfectly reasonable and not one that suggests he should be moved. I did a calculation in another thread and it concluded that Sandoval would have to be the best 1B in the league (defensively) for it to make sense to move him to 1B.
And it isn’t silly to suggest that Figgins wouldn’t upgrade the lineup (if played at 3B) as he’s not a better hitter than Garko (as evidenced by his career numbers below) Given his age i wouldn’t want to bet on him improving on his career numbers. The stolen bases and OBP may be an improvement but wOBA which takes into account all offensive factors (SB, OBP, SLG, etc) and overall he’s not an upgrade offensively.
He would be a defensive upgrade and I’ve never discounted that but if he’s playing at 3B he’s not an offensive upgrade and it depends on whether you want to pay big money to a player who isn’t going to improve the offense.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-7? I’m seeing a career -3.7 UZR/150 at 3B for Sandoval on Fangraphs…
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t know where I got the -7 from, but fangraphs shows a -5.7 this year, which puts him near the bottom of the league. Combining that with Renteria at short makes the left side of the infield a huge liability.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It puts him below average but 5 runs isn’t really very much at all and is nowhere near liability status (which I’d say starts at around 15 runs below average).
Also, It’s worth looking at who makes up the other 3B in the leader boards as it’s full of some very good defenders at the moment and so comparatively he comes off worse than he might.
Also, Renteria is pretty much league average so he doesn’t really affect things in any way.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-5.7 is not good, but it’s half a win. That’s a long way from a “huge liability,” especially when he’s like 40 runs above average with the bat.
by taliesin on Oct 20, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(Plus his career numbers have him at -3.7 UZR/150)
Career numbers (in Sandoval’s case) > one season’s numbers
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so 12 games from 2008 were worth 2 points in his career average? Those must’ve been 12 amazing defensive games for him.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I suppose so. I also noted earlier how I think it’s appropriate to regress to the mean somewhat with such a small sample to begin with.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, they were. 1.8 UZR in 85 innings —> 44.5 UZR/150!! He was like freakin’ Brooks Robinson over there!
Ah, the wonders of small sample size and defensive statistics.
by taliesin on Oct 20, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’re obviously not indicative of his true ability but they’re as valid as any other 12 game sample (from this year) and so need to be included. That’s why you obviously need as large a sample size as possible.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, the arbitrary nature of breaking off any set of 12 games doesn’t make that set any less valid than other sets. What it really comes down to is ignoring any arbitrary seperations of what’s he’s done, and just realizing that 1113 innings is a better judge of talent than 1028 innings…
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where is Freddy Sanchez?
its been made pretty clear he will be brought back next year
putting Figgins at 3rd, Dye in RF and Sandoval at 1st could work though
by 49erEmpire on Oct 19, 2009 3:31 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Can Sanchez play 3rd?
If so trading for Uggla and having him play 2nd would be awesome.
Grab Some Pine Meat!
by Gobroks on Oct 19, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe he played some 3rd base with Pittsburgh but I don’t know if he has a strong enough arm
by 49erEmpire on Oct 19, 2009 3:44 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I like this option, but then it leaves issues at the leadoff position. Unlike the FO, I don’t believe a year of Velez and Torres at the leadoff spot is a good thing.
Figgens shores up the leadoff spot and is flexibile defensively.
by Fresburg on Oct 19, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah both Torres and Velez should be bench players
but a 2-3-4 of Sanchez, Panda and Uggla would be nice.
Grab Some Pine Meat!
by Gobroks on Oct 19, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO
idk what to do with the lead off spot but hopefully Rowand is gone.
Grab Some Pine Meat!
by Gobroks on Oct 19, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only For An Upgrade At Same Cost Or An Equal At Lower Cost.
Dumping an average MLB starting position player would be just flat ass stupid.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t same MEAN equal?
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 19, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only For An Upgrade At Same Cost Or An Equal At Lower Cost.
Same cost is the same as Equal cost. So you could have said, "Only for an upgrade of equal or lower cost.
Just busting your chops.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 19, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your Are Misunderstanding Me.
Equal in the second clause refers to the quality of the player just as upgrade does in the first clause. The contrast in the two clauses with regards to cost is same vs lower.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn’t be that difficult to find a player with a horrible throwing arm that flails away at ever low and away in the dirt and that cannot bunt.
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 19, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But It Would Be Difficult To Find Such A Player That Still Produces 1.9 WAR.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andres Torres doesn’t think it’s that hard…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do You Really Think It Is Reasonable To Expect a Repeat Performance?
And even if he could repeat against lefties do you really think he would not drop considerablely if he had to play fulltime against righties too? I will be shocked if a single projection system projects Andres Torres to out perform Aaron Rowand in 2010 and if you are doing so you are being very foolish.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha, possibly the first thing we agree on. No, I do not think Torres is for real. He’s really throwing me off, there are some indications that this may be somewhat for real, but there’s also plenty of evidence to the contrary. There’s no way I think he’s that good, but I’m honestly unsure of what to make of him – he might still be fairly decent (just less good), but he also might just be terrible….
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think Rowand’s going to be an average starter next year? That’s awfully optimistic…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am Pretty Sure The Projection Systems Are Going To End Up Agreeing With Me On This.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was a tick below average last year. He’s one year older. What about that adds up to average?
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He Was Exactly Average For His Playing Time.
Not a tick below. It was his playing time (not his performance level) that was a tick below average.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, “exactly average” assumes that your benchmarks and all your stats are correct, but we’ll overlook that for now. I guess I did not factor in the fact that he only got 546 PA’s. I dunno if you can expect him to get more than that, though. He’s old. He’s also likely to be worse last year than this year.
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FrankenStudios Announcement Of Dubious Importance!
In conjunction with GRM Consulting, we have determined that in this photo the distance between the end of Aaron Rowand’s bat and the baseball he’s paid to hit will now be classified as “A Tick Below Average”.
Thank you for paying attention to this announcement.
Ya know...ignorance really IS bliss.
Well - I do , anyway.
by victor frankenstein on Oct 20, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why won’t the Giants pay me $12M? I can’t hit that pitch either.
by quincy0191 on Oct 20, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
awesome
Brian says a lot of things. Brian only does one thing, though. Get low OBP hacking suckholes who’s best years are in the past. - Missing Barry
by jhiat00 on Oct 21, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and Rowand at 1?
Absolutely not. Why would you want to hit someone with a terrible OBP at 1?
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that was meant to be in jest. Although Rowand did post a .341 OBP batting leadoff.
The problem is that the FO believes that Velez/Torres can handle the leadoff spot, while Velez was not nearly as good as they try to make him out to have been, and Torres is unreliable—as you previous stated.
This is another reason why I want Figgens, he shores up the leadoff spot. There’s no one else in the current lineup who showed last year that they can leadoff effectively.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I don’t want Velez there, either. Torres…well I just don’t know. If we’re getting the production out of him that we got this year, I’d be fine with him at leadoff (though if we were getting that much production he should be hitting in the middle of our lineup). Like I said, I’m not sure he can do that. I’m still in denial about Sabean’s hatred of Fred Lewis, I’m all about Lewis at leadoff.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lewis hasn’t shown to be anything special from the leadoff either.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he does have a career .355 OBP, which exactly equals what the average leadoff hitter hit in 2009. Ha, actually as I’m looking up these stats it’s a pretty big coincidence…Lewis OBP and SLG for his career are exactly equal to the average leadoff hitter this past season (and thus his OPS is equal, as well) in the AL. He’s a slightly better hitter overall than the average leadoff hitter was in 2009 for the whole league.
Basically, .277/.355/.420 career hitter – that looks like a good leadoff candidate to me.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year he struggled from leadoff. But you’re right, his career stats would make him an ideal candidate for leading off.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s just not a lot of good reasons to think splits from different lineup positions are a better predictor of what he’ll do in the future than career stats (or some other moving weighted average of full season stats), you know?
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
then what do you attribute his poor ’09 performance from the leadoff spot to?
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing. There’s absolutely no need to explain it. It just happened. It’s called “sample error”. It’s the same concept as flipping a coin and getting heads four times in a row (or some other similar streak). I don’t know why people feel the need to come up with reasons why for everything…often times, things happen simply by chance.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
/lightbulb
"I don’t know why people feel the need to come up with reasons 'why' for everything..." - Missing Barry
by victor frankenstein on Oct 20, 2009 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a theory...
but Aaron Rowand’s production out of the leadoff spot has everything to do with him seeing the ball better early in the year. He shows many of the signs of having eye problems.
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or pitchers throwing “get it in” pitches so his Hack-o- holic ways punished him less than they normally should.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there is a specific window where he doesn’t have problems with pitch recognition … like the last week of April, to the first week of June. Be it fatigue, or lower light, something derails him come June. When he goes hack-o-holic, it’s because he can’t identify pitches. Just seems like a vision thing. Same thing happened to Marvin Benard, and he never recovered. Same thing happened to Rich Aurilia, and he did recover. So if it is the case, it’s a medical issue that hopefully can be resolved. Fixing vision problems in baseball, especially for a hitter, is a tricky science.
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It could be as you say. It could be he tries to make too much happen. I am never sure with Rowand if it is head or health. If he was on another team I would look at him as a decent "change of scenery" bet though.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Rowand was on another team
I would call that a decent change of scenery.
"I don’t know why people feel the need to come up with reasons 'why' for everything..." - Missing Barry
by victor frankenstein on Oct 20, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I might even consider it pornographic. But I digress.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know about that. He is very streaky. When he’s hot, he’s hot. When he’s not, he’s not. Mechanics, thinking too much about mechanics, ok, I’ll buy that.
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Oct 20, 2009 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only problem with signing figgins
Is that it would essentially force Garko out. Garko is a good 1B, and I would hate to see him pushed out.
Ideally, we could get Figgins to play SS, but we all know that ain’t happening.
Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
by GiantPain on Oct 19, 2009 3:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, Figgins can play OF, so he doesn’t necessarily force Garko out. However, (1) the team shouldn’t make major personnel decisions based on relatively marginal players like Garko, and (2) I fully expect Garko to be non-tendered anyway (which, I freely admit, is dumb).
by taliesin on Oct 19, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If figgy is in the OF
I’d be down. I just think Garko could easily have an 800+ OPS season like he did a couple years back, and i’d hate to see figgins squeeze him out.
Figs in OF though, that’d be awesome.
Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
by GiantPain on Oct 19, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Figgins can play OF anywhere
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Oct 19, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If my hunch is correct, Garko is going to be catching quite a bit next year.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I sure hope not.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | New Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
by Natto on Oct 19, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garko is good catcher. He didn’t win the Johnny Bench Award for nothing.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never knew he won that
I wonder if he has the stuff to catch in the majors. Obviously with VMart in cleveland he wouldn’t have gotten much of a chance…
Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
by GiantPain on Oct 19, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what level of the minors did the Indians move him to 1st?
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 19, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no way that Garko is catching next year. Posey has more experience than Garko….they should just give him the job.
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 19, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We shall see. The Giants were somewhat confident with keeping him in reserve this year while Bengie Molina was hurt.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having Pablo around didn’t hurt, either…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I went and looked it up. He was mostly a first baseman in AAA. Perhaps the Nate Schierholtz rule applies.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 19, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was never a question as to his tools as a catcher. The Indians had two young catchers already, and Garko was showing signs of being a .300 hitter with power. Victor Martinez and Josh Bard establishing themselves as big-league catchers, and there was an opportunity to preserve Garko’s offensive upside by converting him to first base. Assuming we have relatively seen Garko’s ceiling as a hitter (.260-.280, 15-20 HRs) it would make sense for him to try to reestablish himself as a catcher. With his production, it is unlikely to find every-day work as a first baseman.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like this idea. There’s zero chance the Giants will implement it, but it’s a good idea.
by Evan on Oct 20, 2009 4:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are there any places online we can read discussions about Garko’s past as a C?
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I’d second Missing Barry. I’d like to know more about Garko’s past as a catcher. You may have come up with a brilliantly unconventional idea.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 20, 2009 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know counterfactuals and what ifs are pretty much worthless
But we’d probably still have Barnes around if Phelps was healthy the whole year, wouldn’t we?
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 20, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if Phelps was healthy? Well that’s a pretty easy one to answer. Look at what he did for Pittsburg in 2007. I see no reason he wouldn’t have given us a full season of .351/.463/.649, and we’d be marching through the playoffs right now. The day Josh Phelps can’t sustain a .440 BABIP is a day I don’t want to see. I wouldn’t even know what to make of the world anymore.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just going based on his preseason projections that had him pegged for around a .350 wOBA, give or take 5 points. I’m not saying that he would’ve absolutely hit that well, but it would’ve been a nice option to have.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 20, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My comment really wasn’t meant to be a response to you, more my own fantasy what if to give me a temporary escape from reality. It was a better place…
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean like Edgar Renteria hitting up to his highest projection, Randy Winn being an average hitter in the 2nd half and Fred Lewis playing the whole season? Le sigh…
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 20, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
B-R has Garko down for catching 59 games (as opposed to 64 games at first) in 2005 for AAA Buffalo. Considering it is AAA and he only spent one more season in minors I might be inclined to say the Nate at Third base rules doesn’t apply. Of course I will no claims that it ends well but I am intrigued by this idea.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
/Nods
But it shows he did play the position at a fairly high level. I am not saying Garko becomes the starting catcher but I would like the idea of him catching regularly and see where it leads. If Garko turns into a legit 3rd string catcher that would not a bad thing for this club.
They other caveat is I am irrationally hopeful between switching leagues and some time off he trends back towards his career averages with the bat.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They other caveat is I am irrationally hopeful between switching leagues and some time off he trends back towards his career averages with the bat.
I don’t think that’s irrational at all. Garko is different from other Giants players of the past. Namely, he’s still in his prime. I know it’s been so long since we had a palyer like that we’ve forgotten that these players tend to improve or maintain their peak level of play (rather than decline like old veterans)…but that’s what tends to happen with them! I fully expect a .340-.350 wOBA from Garko next year (assuming he plays full time).
His plate discipline numbers have actually improved over the course of the last couple years, so that’s a good sign. Unfortunately, his BABIP has dropped (possibly because of IFFB?). Not sure what to make of that. Overal, I think it’s more likely Garko hits .350+ wOBA than another season of .330…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for that. The major reason I said that though was to politely state how I viewed Garko and to acknowledge a prejudice that could lead me to inaccuracies. Emotionally Garko is also becoming the new Vinnie Chulk for me. I want something from this last midseason trading to not be complete dreck and he looks to be the only chance of that.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about Marlon Byrd? I think he’d be a good pick up. He’s not Jermaine Dye and he probably wouldn’t be that expensive. By WAR, he’s actually been a pretty solid player the last few years. He’s a decent .800-ish OPS hitter and he’s been an above average fielder by UZR every year before this year (he was slightly below average at -1.6). He also can play CF, so he should provide decent range at a corner OF position.
I also really like the idea of signing Figgins, at the right price at least. His speed and ability to walk would give us an excellent leadoff man. His versatility and excellent defense make him even more valuable. If we could pony up the money for both Byrd and Figgins, we’d be filling two major holes in the lineup with at least average production, which could go a long way for our offense.
The very bad man traded my son...So now I'd like you all to meet my new son, Ryan "Aaron" Garko...Dammit it's just not the same!
by boonitez on Oct 19, 2009 4:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No to Marlon Byrd. His success over the past couple years has been greatly enhanced by playing in Arlington, on offense and defense. It’s about the same deal with how Aaron Rowand’s power numbers translated from Phili to SF. Put him in a pitcher’s park, and he will struggle to reach double figures in HRs. On defense he lacks range. He would get eaten alive in SF, unless he was relagated to LF.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As has been repeated around here several times since the end of the year, the Rangers field graded out neutrally this year….almost identical to ATT.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is the number of catchable balls hit over the center fielder’s head. Playing CF at AT&T demands a lot of going back on the ball. One of the things for which Rowand is most underrated is his first step going front-to-back. This is probably the worst part of Byrd’s defensive game.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Texas has been neutral the last 3 years? Wtf? There’s no way I would have guessed that, but that’s what B-R is telling me…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Greatly enhanced would be a bit of an exaggeration. I’m not a huge believer in the idea that players that play in hitters parks are only as good at their road stats and that they would automatically suck in pitchers parks. Also, how would playing in Arlington enhance his defense? And on what basis are you saying he lacks range? UZR has him as an above average corner OF and an about-average CF. He’s also played a lot of games in CF over his career, so that’s coming from a decent sample size. An average CF playing in a corner OF position would probably have pretty decent range. And Aaron Rowand isn’t struggling because of AT&T. He’s struggling because he sucks and he can’t recognize breaking balls. His career year just happened to be in Philadelphia.
The very bad man traded my son...So now I'd like you all to meet my new son, Ryan "Aaron" Garko...Dammit it's just not the same!
by boonitez on Oct 19, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t care what his numbers say. Byrd didn’t play much corner OF this season because of the Jeff Hamilton injury, and he was adequate at best in CF. He makes up for a lot of range issues with his speed, but in SF you need both. Playing in Arlington differs because balls over OFs heads tend to carry, making for far less opportunities to track down deep fly balls.
I find it convenient for you that you use UZR to support a defensive argument, but ignore HR numbers in an offensive argument … opting instead for saying you’re “not a huge believer in the idea …” etc. Rowand hit 17 of his 27 HRs at home during his “career year” that just happened to be in Phili. Byrd his 14 of his 20 HRs at home this year.
Rowand is a better overall player than Byrd, hands down.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
C’mon now. We’re all watching the Dodgers game. Cut me some slack.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair ’nuf. But seriously, you use home/road HR numbers but ignore the fact that Arlington grades out as pretty much neutral….. just like ATT.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grades, ratings … these are measures. Not stats. Arlington plays far different from AT&T. I’ve watched a fair amount of Rangers games over the past couple years. I trust my observations over a modification grade.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grades, ratings … these are measures. Not stats.
How do you think they get those “measures”?
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, UZR ratings are formulated by breaking down plays made per opportunities on a quadrant-by-quadrant basis. It correlates a defenders value in comparison to what other defenders have done. That’s why it doesn’t qualify as a statistic.
Park raings are simply pooled by a league average. It gauges how teams perform at a given venue, but doesn’t define how a park plays in-and-of itself. That’s just a contributing factor.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s why it doesn’t qualify as a statistic.
Not sure why that doesn’t qualify it as a statistic?
Park raings are simply pooled by a league average. It gauges how teams perform at a given venue, but doesn’t define how a park plays in-and-of itself. That’s just a contributing factor.
True, park ratings are done by league averages. Individuals who are very different from league averages can be significantly affected to a different degree than the park factor would indicate. You’re completely right. I just think the burden falls on you to give a substantial amount of evidence that an individual (Byrd in this case) has qualities that are significantly different than league average, since most individuals will be closer to the league average as opposed to farther away from it…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s home-run factor is still as high as ever, and just last year, it was the most hitter friendly park in the big leagues.
Really, it only graded out as a pitcher’s park in 2007, so I would say that one of the three-year average is a fluke.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 19, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What data are you looking at, because at B-R they have it at either 100 or 101 in both PPF and BPF (not exactly sure what the difference, or the point of having two measures, is) each of the last 3 years. It was 101 4 years ago. B-R doesn’t have it as much of a hitters park since 2005…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally I’m more inclined to go with B-R’s, though I don’t know specifics about either of them so I’m not going to claim I’m right, necessarily…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rowand is a better overall player than Byrd, hands down.
If by that you mean…Byrd is a superior hitter and at least as good defensively, and possibly better? Snark aside, I’m not sure where your argument is. Even after park adjustments Byrd outhit Rowand the last two seasons by a sizable margin. Defensively UZR likes Byrd better. I don’t buy your reasoning why that won’t translate to AT&T, first of all UZR includes park adjustments of some sort (though I don’t know the methodology behind this), and second your argument sounds like you came to a conclusion first and tried to deduce the reasoning 2nd – I could just as easily say fly balls that would drop carry out to the outfielder so they have to go forward to get it, or line drive singles carry farther and could be doubles in the gap if they aren’t cut off in Arlington.
There are certainly arguments to be made that park factors don’t adequately cover every individual’s offensive translation to another park – but I’m not seeing that here. If Byrd can play CF at an average rate (which he can based on a big sample at CF), that makes him a well above average corner OF, which would be nice at RF at AT&T, and possibly even decent in CF with his bat.
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I formed my argument — like most of my arguments — from watching players actually play. I’m not saying numbers aren’t useful or accurate in their own right, but I’m certainly not going to deduce reasons from a sabermetric viewpoint then come to a conclusion from there. You are questioning my process, so I’m just explaining. Saying “I could just as easily say …” goes without saying. A person can just as easily say anything. But, line-drive singles don’t carry. High fly balls do.
If Byrd could hit 20-30 HRs in SF, I think his defense would be adequate in RF. He is an average defender, plain and simple. He has decent speed and a pretty good arm, but his range is below average. If that tool set came with a proven bat, that would be one thing. But it doesn’t. He isn’t a straightaway power hitter. Most of his homerun power is gap-to-gap, which is why he can be a 20 HR guy in Texas. I just don’t see that translating to SF.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know much about Byrd, personally. He was a better hitter last year when he only hit 10 HR’s. Component park factors, I believe, indicate Arlington helps HR’s while AT&T suppresses them, so if his offensive value was tied into HR’s, I think that would be a compelling argument. It doesn’t appear to me it is, though? He strikes out below league average, and walks about league average (above last year, below this year, I split the difference). He doesn’t have a ridiculous HR/FB rate for his career, and he’s still provided good value in the past. I’m just not sure that even if he lost the HR’s, which I see a good case for, it would diminish the value of his bat all that much.
As for defensively, the only thing I know about him is UZR thinks he has decent range. It also pegs him at pretty much exactly average overall over a pretty big sample at CF, and his LF and RF UZR/150 is in line with what I’d expect an average CF to do. There doesn’t seem to be anything to me that indicates his defense might not be as good as UZR suggests? I think you may overestimate the defensive ability of most corner OF’ers – they are nowhere near someone who’s average at CF defensively…which is what UZR indicates. You may have legit points – I’m open to that possibility – I’m just not seeing anything that would suggest his value won’t translate to AT&T….
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
translating to AT&T
It’s one of the most difficult CFs in baseball. Not only is it spacious, but its personality changes a lot … often on a day-to-day basis. There are certain innate qualities that all center fielders of the AT&T era have in common. Two of the key qualities as it pertains to this discussion are range and reading. (By reading, I mean being able to read the hitter and react off the crack of the bat.)
Aaron Rowand is a former Gold Glove winner, and at times even he has his hands full with CF at AT&T.
UZR isn’t an exact science. It’s a fairly new statistic for one, and while it’s become a reliable gauge as to what plays fielders make, it doesn’t account for why plays are made. And when it comes to surplanting a player from one location to another, the two of which differing to such a great degree, it strikes me as an unreliable means to determine how a player will perform. Extreme example, but take a look at Manny Ramirez’s performance as a LF in the AL East as opposed to that in the NL West. Something of a difference, No?
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Manny
Um, not that it necessarily pertains directly to your central point, but UZR says Manny was a terrible left fielder for the Red Sox and also a terrible left fielder for the Dodgers, so I’m not sure what this example is supposed to illustrate. He was actually quite a bit worse the last two years with the Red Sox, when the conventional wisdom was that he wasn’t trying, but for most of his career (or rather, that portion of his career for which UZR is available) he’s been a -15 run outfielder.
by taliesin on Oct 20, 2009 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t like the Manny comparison because I don’t think UZR knows how to handle the Green Monster properly. I also have questions with UZR and how it handles RF in AT&T. There are definitely areas of concern in it – I’m not advocating it as a be all, end all source of information. I’m just wondering why you think Byrd in particular won’t be able to play AT&T if he can play elsewhere? I guess I’m just not seeing what makes Byrd the exception that may not translate as well.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not a huge believer in the idea that players that play in hitters parks are only as good at their road stats and that they would automatically suck in pitchers parks.
That’s what park factors are for. Players hit worse on the road just in general than they do at home – so their road stats alone are not a good indication of their true ability. Players from Coors, for instance, tend to dramatically outperform their road stats once they leave Coors. I suspect this is because of the difference in how pitches move in Coors and elsewhere – once they get used to playing most games outside of that environment they pick up the additional break on the ball better.
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Really Doubt The Giants Are Going To Go After Dye.
Reading the tea leafs it is pretty clear to me that Sabean wants the new guys he adds this offseason to add a different perosnality (not free swinging) then the guys that are leaving added.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 4:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How can you state that you know what Sabean is going to do when Sabean doesn’t know what he is going to do and/or what he is doing?
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 19, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Is Brian Sabean That has Made The Statements About Wanting To Add Players With A Different Offensive Personality.
These are the tea leafs that I am reading. In Brian’s statements it was pretty clear that the opposite of free swinging personality is what he wants to add.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The group all realizes where the team ranked in walks and on-base percentage and Neukom said the team will look to improve those marks. The sabermetric set might find Sabean’s response a tad dismissive, though:
"What we learned this year is the most important thing is the final score, winning the game, and Bruce and his staff established that mindset," Sabean said. "I can’t think of a series we were intimidated. … It was a learning-curve year and we know what our failings are, what we need to improve. We’re going to try to create a product on the field that’s about winning the game. No matter the artistic value, if some of our statistics aren’t too flattering, you still have to finish things off. We did that 88 times and that’s something to be proud of."
That sounds a lot to me like someone who thinks the OBP crowd can suck his nuts. Do you have a link to what you were reading that makes you think differently? I’d love good news here!
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 19, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Out Of Context
You need to view this in the cotext of the following:
The team is going to have to take on a little different personality. As Boch pointed out to me at the end of the year, which makes sense, a lot of times when you have players like Pablo and Bengie who are free swingers, sometimes, especially with a younger team, or a team challenged to score a lot of runs, they’ll take on that personality. In a selfish way you’d like to find somebody who’s different from them who can calm things down or act in the middle of the order in a different way.
Both can and are true. You need to both improve in what you are weak in and find a way to win inspite of your weaknesses.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So basically Brian Sabean thinks players will change their approach simply by introducing a teammate with a different skill set. Because that really worked well when Bonds was around…inspiring all his teammates to be patient, take walks, and wait for their pitch to drive…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To An Extent Yes, But Not Totally Or Even Primarily.
We are not talking about all or nothing. We are talking most about replacing a sub .300 OBP in the middle of the order with someone close to a .400 OBP but we are also talking about this new leader having some positive influence on the rest of the team.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you actually reading what you’re writing here and believing that it’s actually going to happen? At best, it’s ludicrous. At worst, it’s delusional.
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 19, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why? Bobby Abreu Is Credited By Scioscia With Doing This For The Angels.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2008 Angels: 481 walks
2009 Angels: 547 walks
2009 Abreu: 94 walks
It was basically all Abreu.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Oct 20, 2009 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s perspective though. If Sabean believes Abreu changed the Angels then he could be a target for the Giants this offseason.
Also:
Player,2008 OBP,2009 OBP,2008 P/PA,2009 P/PA
Chone Figgins,0.367,0.395,4.07,4.22
Howie Kendrick,0.333,0.334,3.45,3.82
Bobby Abreu,0.371,0.390,4.29,4.21
Vladimir Guerrero,0.365,0.334,3.37,3.24
Torii Hunter,0.344,0.366,3.54,3.80
Kendry Morales,0.273,0.355,3.47,4.01
Juan Rivera,0.282,0.332,3.39,3.63
Mike Napoli,0.374,0.350,4.14,4.16
Erick Aybar,0.314,0.353,3.26,3.48
"It's too late now."
by ResDog on Oct 20, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see that there is a slight uptick in pitches/plate appearance for most of those hitters, but there is also this:
2008 Angels Batting Average: .268
2009 Angels Batting Average: .285
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Oct 20, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Do Think That Figgins Will Be One Of Sabean's Targets.
As will his team mate Bobby Abreu. Vlad however (like Dye) with his free swinging personality will not.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 4:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dye had a BB% of 11 last season, I’m not sure that’s “free swinging”.
by xanthan on Oct 20, 2009 5:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Rowand for Bradley Trade Would Not Suprise Me.
That said, I think it would be a mistake as the Giants neither have DH PAs to help keep Milton healthy nor a Frank Thomas to help keep Bradley’s volitile personality in check.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A Sanchez For Uggla Trade Would Also Not Suprise Me.
But it would disapoint me as I believe we do not have the starting pitching depth to make suck a trade and would only be hurting ourselves financially by trading Sanchez’s three arbitration years for some veteran starting pitchers’ free agent contract and Uggla’s final two years of arbitration.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 4:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
plus, uggla really isn't that much better than f. sanchez
by sfoakbay on Oct 19, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If The Trade Happened The Giants Would Most Likely Be Looking For Uggla And Sandoval To Man 1B and 3B.
Freddy Sanchez would still be the plan for 2B with Renteria still the plan for SS.
That said, I would really prefer to just keep Jonathan Sanchez and forgo trading for Uggla.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you go after Uggla, there is no need to waste $8M on FSanchez.
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 22, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Money Won't Be Wasted
Freddy Sanchez is a 3 WAR player and much butter then any of our inhouse options. Playing Sandoval and Uggla at the corners with Sanchez and Renteria in the middle gives us a much better infield (both offensively and defensively) then any simularly priced infield (money spend on a conner infielder instead) that puts Uggla’s defense at 2B.
by giantsrainman on Oct 22, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by 3 WAR player you mean he wasn’t a 3 WAR player last year, he wasn’t a 3 WAR player this year, and he’s at the age where he’s likely to get worse every year, then sure…
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t forget that he has knee problems in a position where your legs are very important.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
by Cookyman on Oct 23, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to win enough to be a threat in the post season Uggla is not playing second for you and the leauge knows this. that said I’ll take him at first base but he really is not a secondbaseman.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 23, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that’s a little harsh, in 4 years Uggla has compiled 14.6 WAR (3.65 WAR per season), making him an above average starter…
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That makes his bat above an average starter at 2nd base.
I think you know I like Uggla. I have like Uggla for the Giants for a couple years now. But expecting him to play 2nd base (without some extreme elite glove men around him) on a team truly competing for the ring is a lot like expecting good things from B. Molinia hitting #4. The guy is just miscast there.
The Fish keep doing it hoping some in the league will pull a Sabean/Bavasi/Littlefield/Moore and completely over pay for him in a post season push. But then 4 out of 5 years the Fish as all about turning players over for more and younger talent so I get that. So does most of the rest of the league.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 24, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well the whole point in using WAR is to show that his D, while definitely not good, still doesn’t hurt nearly as much as his bat helps…
by Missing Barry on Oct 25, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am also a bit guilty of Old Fan Disease.
I believe up the middle D is just not something an upper tier team can get away with shorting too much. If you’re say in the bottom 2/3rd I think a team could profit and still short change the MI ( 2nd base in this case) but I think a team get penalized harder for that choice the higher up they are. WAR does not show that (nor should it or it becomes less usefull over all). So I could be falling a bit farther into confirmation basis than I recognize.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 26, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Giants are actually the opposite end of the spectrum. Our pitching staff struck out more players than any other team in baseball. We were also a little bit on the flyball side of the pack compared to groundballs. I think these two points make our infield D relatively less important than it is for most other teams, and I think the fact that we were one of the best defensive teams in the league last year confirms that – our infeld D just wasn’t that great but our great outfield D is what made us good, since outfield D is relatively more important than infield D to our staff.
by Missing Barry on Oct 27, 2009 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Going off what you’re saying a three things jump to my mind.
1) Are we really in the top third of teams? And if so it can’t be by much. I know us here want the team to be but honestly I would say we are still in the bottom 2/3 of the league.
2) The other is I know the Giants are a Fly Ball staff but I have to wonder if that is exaggerated because our top 3 starters know their odds are better with the OF fielding a ball? It would help if the tools were in play to ask pitchers to go after groundballs when we play games in Houston, Philly, Coors etc. This kind of feeds back into #1 because if we view ourselves as a top 1/3 team then the team needs, even more so, to be ready to play 3-4 games in those kind of conditions.
3) Lastly to improve the 2010 squad the options are rather limited. Runs prevented from the Infield would be one way to offset some "the luck" the team benefitted from in 2009. Medium and longer term it would be easier to construct a roster as well. There would be more ready players with better matching skill sets available to choose from.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 27, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, a guy like Holliday will ruin your budget ...
if he is a bust. But so will a bunch of Aaron Rowands and Edgar Renterias. The problem with Brian Sabean is he doesn’t seem to realize that he should have been able to fill at least a few line-up spots with minimum salary position players. You would have hoped guys like Lewis, Bowker, Schieholtz, Velez, Frandsen, etc. would make it unnecessary to go out and sign mediocre veterans. Instead, the Giants just weren’t convinced, so they paid for Aaron Rowand and then Edgar Renteria, and now likely Freddy Sanchez. These guys are at a level where you should be able to produce a few and maybe use one or two to fill out your team. But the Giants need to fill out their whole line-up with these guys and with their budget and Barry Zito’s contract, it can’t work. Of course Sabean is to blame, but the Giants just signed him to a new deal.
I still feel like you have to use some of the home grown guys – at least one or two, and then go after a big improvement like Holliday. And at some point you may need to say that a budget of $90 million with Barry Zito’s contract is not possible, unless you don’t care about winning.
by ErodCal on Oct 19, 2009 4:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
B.J. Upton
along with a solid corner-infield FA … Chone Figgins or Adam Laroche.
I think the most poignant argument regarding the 2010 opening day lineup is: The shortstop job should be Juan Uribe’s to lose.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 5:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think the Rays are going to trade Upton. They would be selling quite low.
The very bad man traded my son...So now I'd like you all to meet my new son, Ryan "Aaron" Garko...Dammit it's just not the same!
by boonitez on Oct 19, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you read a trade rumor out of Florida lately?
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish Sabean would kick the tires on Upton and JJ Hardy. Good buy low candidates at premium positions (which happen to be positions of need for us), where we don’t have any depth at in the minors…
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
but I dont think Tampa is really prepared to “sell low” on Upton. I’d be surprised if they’d take significantly less in a trade for him this offseason than they wouldve last offseason. There’s much more pressure on the Brewers to deal Hardy. It makes me a little bit sick to think that Sabean likely wont be kicking the tires on Hardy, the exact type of guy he should be kicking tires on, because of Renteria.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they’ll sell lower on Upton. I do agree that price is still high, though. Barnes + Alderson for Upton.
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The didn' t Sell Low On Young So Why do You Think They Now Will On Upton?
This strikes me as being purely wishful thinking.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And As Far As Barnes + Alderson Bitchful As Well As Wishful.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few reasons. First, simply put, BJ Upton’s value has fallen off from where it was in the past. 2 years ago, he was posting an .894 OPS at age 22/23, while playing a slightly above average CF (he spent some time at 2B first which depressed his final numbers). Pretty much the only players that do that are future superstars. His wOBA was .387. The next year he improved his walk rate and k-rate, was a very good defensive CF’er, and just lost some of his power (which was reasoned to be because of a wrist injury – yet he was still a 4.9 WAR player at age 23/24 despite playing while supposedly hurt). Again, that’s what superstars do.
This year was a different story. BJ Upton was a legitimately bad hitter. His walk rate fell off the map. His strikeout rate ticked up. His power was still missing. He became an all glove CF (still valuable) who’s bat is disappointing. That’s not what superstars do. Simply put, BJ Upton in the last couple years has gone from a superstar to a cheap (for everyone but the Rays), decent, young player…but nowhere near superstar. The Rays cannot trade him for as much as they could in the past. Not even close. He was as close to a sure thing superstar as there is. Not anymore.
If they try to hold on to him – that’s also risky. If he doesn’t return to previous form, it will be pretty certain that he’s not a reclamation project superstar waiting to happen, which will decrease his value even more. It also means he’s one year closer to FA (further decreasing his value).
The Rays have other kids in the pipeline, they very well may decide to cut costs and move Upton to build for the future, thinking they’ll never get more for him in the future than they will now.
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Am Not Saying They Won't Trade Him
But Young was coming off a down year when he was traded and the Rays disn’t sell low. I very much doubt that the Rays will sell low now either. The Rays will be looking for a simular return to what they got for Young if the trade Upton. This is a price I would not be willing to pay as for the Giants to pay this price Bumgarner or Posey would have to be included.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do agree that the price will still be high. Definitely not arguing we’d get him for a small price. Just a lesser price than in the past. It’s reasonable to assume we don’t want to pay the price for him – neither of us know what that price is, of course, I just think it would be wise for our GM to “kick some tires” on this, see what it’ll take. It’s at least worth looking into.
by Missing Barry on Oct 19, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
can't disagree with that
like I said below, if he can be had for a package centered around someone more like Noonan (and less like Posey, MadBum or Neal) I’m all for it….. especially if we really can swap Rowand for Bradley.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Lessor Package Like This Ain't Happening.
No way I believe the Rays sell BJ this low.
by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea I dont believe it either, but like M.B. said, its at least worth it to kick that tire.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 20, 2009 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, they’’ll still want a king’s ransom for Upton, but he’s worth it. The Giants would have to part with a premium prospect and then some. Thomas Neal or Nick Noonan, plus a package of solid players. Fred Lewis and Waldis Juaquin are both good big-league-ready chips. And don’t underestimate the value of Brock Bond and Eddy Martinez-Esteve.
by StickRat on Oct 19, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Noonan was the best player we gave up for Upton I’d be more than ok with that trade.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 19, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nick Noonan is a Top 5 organizational prospect, and that is in a system with Top 20 overall prospects in Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner. In three years he is going to be regarded as one of the best offensive middle-infield prospects in the game. There is a good reason he’s pretty much on the Giants untouchable list.
I think the Giants are in a unique position to deal with Tampa Bay, because the Rays are not going to be in the market for an big-league ready starting pitchers. The Giants may have to give up a lower level prospect like Clayton Tanner or Eric Surkamp, but I think the Rays are more prone to interests in acquiring two or three good everyday players. It’s going to have to be a talent-packed package, but the Giants have the kind of depth to fulfill a four- or five-player exchange for a potential star like Upton.
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Because last time I checked, the Rays didn’t have any potential power-hitting prospects on the horizon. Outside of Tim Beckham and Desmond Jennings, they don’t have any surefire positional talent in their farm system. And they didn’t sign their top two 2009 draft picks in Levon Washington and Kenny Diekroeger. So, what part of my talk is it exactly you find “silly”?
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Over Rating Of Many Giants Prospects
The Giants prospects you discuss have no chance of returning BJ Upton in any combination or form.
by giantsrainman on Oct 20, 2009 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that was the something of the initial reaction when the A’s traded Rickey Henderson. But the key players the Yankees gave up in that deal were Jay Howell and Tim Birtsas. Thomas Neal and Nick Noonan are AT LEAST on par with those two guys so far as potential go.
I don’t feel I’m overrating anyone. I’m not even rating anyone, except for Noonan. He was the 32nd overall pick in the ‘07 draft though, so I think it’s a far cry to be charging me with overrating the guy.
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look At What The Rays Got From The Twins For Young
What the Yankees gave to the A’s way back when for Rickey Henderson is just not relevent. Today’s Ray’s are way smarter then yesterday’s A’s.
by giantsrainman on Oct 20, 2009 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What was so great about what the Rays received for Delmon Young? They got a No. 2 starter and defensive wonderkind of a shortstop that had underperformed to that point, along with minor-league closer from A-ball. Young is going to be an exceptional ballplayer … possibly better than Upton.
I don’t know that the A’s weren’t smart. They went to three World Series in a row just four years later. They just had a glaring need for pitching depth at the time. Much like the Rays have a need for hitting depth now.
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young Better Then Upton? May I Have Some Of Whatever You Are Smoking?
by giantsrainman on Oct 20, 2009 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make it sound like I’m comparing Star Wars to Howard the Duck!!
Young has been the better hitter thus far in his career. If he ever figures out the strikezone he is going to take off. Upton obviously has more potential because of speed and defense, and he has the potential to be a great hitter. But this isn’t Justin Upton we’re talking about, this is B.J. Yeah, he has all the makings of a great ballplayer. But so far Young has been the better hitter, and is a full year younger than Upton. Young is just 24, and despite having more liberal strikezone judgement than Bengie Molina he is still a career .290 hitter. So YEAH … if Young takes off, it is possible he will be the better player.
Now, are you actually going to contribute some baseball knowledge here, or you just gonna keep winging the insults from the peanut gallery. Cuz if that’s the case, I’m though with you.
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 2:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, I think you need to go back and look at the stats. First with regards to BJ-Delmon…
BJ Upton
2007 – .387 wOBA
2008 – .354 wOBA
2009 – .310 wOBA
Career MLB line – .340 wOBA
Delmon Young
2007 – .315 wOBA
2008 – .324 wOBA
2009 – .312 wOBA
Career MLB line – .319 wOBA
I included only seasons they had over 200 PA’s (which happened to be 2007-2009 for both). Upton may be trending the wrong way hard, but over their respective careers, Delmon isn’t even close to being in Upton’s class as a hitter. Not at their peak, and not over their MLB careers to date. Calling Delmon a better hitter is flat out wrong.
As for Noonan, I think you’re significantly overvaluing him. He was a “Top 5 organizational prospect” before the season because of his tools (which got him drafted as high as it did). His production to the point did not match up with his tools, and that was a concern, but in only his 1st season of pro ball it’s understandable that it wasn’t a huge concern (especially since he did well in rookie ball). His first year he posted a .279/.315/.415 line.
He just followed that up with a .259/.330/.397 line. A lot of the Noonan prospect shine is wearing off. He’s definitely not regarded as highly as he was before he hit like crap (again).
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Batting average. Young – career .290 hitter. Upton – career .266 hitter. So explain to me how calling Delmon Young a better hitter is flat out wrong?
Upton has performed better overall offensively. Young is better when he swings the bat. It isn’t as detailed or difficult as your explanation is making it seem.
As for Noonan, I think most people who saw the way the ball jumped off his bat this season would disagree that he hit like crap. Who cares about shine? Shine is shine. Talent is talent. When it comes to the third youngest position player in the Cali League, who has both gap power and straightaway power, and is gonna improve exponentially when he figures out left-handed pitching … I’ll take talent.
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Batting average just isn’t a very important stat when it comes to how someone contributes offensively, frankly. The things like plate discipline that Upton has that Young does not, that make Upton a better hitter, aren’t things that many MLB players improve substantially throughout their careers.
If you want to look at BA anyways, why not look at BABIP? They both happen to have the exact same BABIP – .345, so when they swing the bat and make contact…looks like they get on exactly the same to me. Upton just doesn’t swing the bat and miss at crap out of the zone. That’s a very good indicator he’s a better hitter. Upton has a higher contact%. Upton has a much lower swing%, because he actually has patience, a very important skill. Did I mention Upton hits for more power?
As for Noonan, age is a big factor. That is true. As for shine, I was merely using that as a proxy for his current trade value. With the production not there, his trade value has taken a hit. Most prospects don’t work out. Pinning your hopes on a guy who isn’t productive simply “figuring it out” at some point is risky, and teams know this, which is why they won’t value Noonan as highly as if he was productive. I’ve also read people like Keith Law who don’t even think the talent is really there with Noonan…
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if Tampa wants Bumgarner or Posey they can’t have ‘em. What else can really be said? They have a glaring organizational need. If they think the Giants have the right cats for the stew, they’ll cook up a deal. They may very well have no interest in Noonan. If they are doing their scouting, then they should. I respect Keith Law, but if he doesn’t think the talent is there then I think he is wrong, and I know a lot of people would agree with me there.
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All Delmon can do is hit for a high but empty batting average. He hasn’t displayed really anything so far in the way of secondary offensive skills. A .290 BA isn’t that useful if it comes along with a .322 OBP and a .416 SLG from a poor defensive corner outfielder. He was worth -1.3 WAR this year. Negative!
He’s still young, but you’d like him to show flashes of being able to hit for power or get on base.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 20, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Batting average is the most important stat in baseball. How is it people can examine every periferal stat in the game yet not understand this? Cracks me up. I’m not saying there isn’t more to it. There certainly is. But c’mon, give credit where credit is due. And Young has shown flashes of power. It’s there. As previously stated, if he refines his strikezone judgement, he will take off.
And to the above comment by MB that players don’t improve plate discipline, that isn’t true. Gorman Thomas, Matt Williams, and Carl Crawford … just to name a few.
by StickRat on Oct 20, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is it the most important stat in baseball? I think it can be very important and isn’t irrelevant, but if it’s all you have, that’s not very good. I’m sorry but I have to disagree – I don’t see batting average as being very important in comparison to most other hitting rate stats.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 20, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for explaining your position!
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 20, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
by GiantPain on Oct 20, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t been following this conversation but you’re really exuding the virtues of batting average and Delmon Young? Wow!
Batting average isn’t irrelevant but it’s a pretty worthless stat when there’s far more relevant and valuable measures of offensive ability.
And Delmon Young has been an awful baseball player up to this point and hasn’t shown flashes of anything worthwhile. Perhaps he still has some potential but he’s shown absolutely nothing so far.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Batting average is the most important stat in baseball.
No, no it is not. Batting average is a pretty terrible stat, actually. It’s incredibly bad compared to other stats at relating what a player does and what it contributes to his team scoring runs. OBP is much better than batting average. OPS is better than that. wOBA is better than OPS.
As I stated, maybe Young has shown “flashes of power”, but in 3 years, Upton has shown a lot more power than Young. You realize Upton hit 24 HR’s when he was 22 years old, right? At the MLB level. Young has never hit more than 13 HR’s in a season. Looks like Upton’s “flashes of power” are a lot stronger than Young’s to me.
Again, when they both swing the bat, Upton’s results are better. Upton swings and misses less often. When they make contact, the results are the same. Upton just doesn’t swing the bat as often (because he is a better hitter). That results in a lot more walks, which make Upton a much, much, much better offensive player than Young (in addition to the fact that Upton gets better results when he does swing).
And to the above comment by MB that players don’t improve plate discipline
I did not say players do not improve plate discipline. My point is that a signficant improvement in plate discipline is the exception rather than the rule. It is a skill that is rarely improved upon a lot at the MLB level. Your best bet is to assume a player won’t improve that skill very much.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, when someone is resistant to coaching and isn’t actively trying to be more selective, I don’t think that anyone should really expect improved plate discipline.
Also…
Here’s the ESPN link for team runs scored
Here’s the link for team batting average
Here’s the link for team OPS
Notice how in the team OPS link, the lowest teams are mostly clustered at the bottom, similar to team runs scored. With batting average, things are all over the place.
Batting average is useful but you can do so much better than just that.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 20, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love an argument where giantsrainman comes off as the reasonable one w/r/t the Giants.
Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar
by JakeS on Oct 20, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 20, 2009 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
are you being sarcastic about the Delmon Young trade? I can’t imagine the Twins NOT wanting a do-over on that one.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 20, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO THANK YOU
Brian Sabean strongly encourages you to disregard the drudgery of your employment responsibilities and join him in the consumption of spirituous libations.
by satyricrash on Oct 19, 2009 10:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I noticed an error with the lineups projected in the original post
They all include Renteria at SS. Surely this must be an error? Nobody would actually want to play Renteria considering how horrible of a player he is now. Well, except, he is quite veteranish, and real gritty, and he just “knows how to play the game.”
by Pearlsofwisdom on Oct 20, 2009 12:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
When he’s healthy he’s a HoF caliber player. That was what was wrong with him, he obviously wasn’t healthy this year.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hope
So was he also not healthy in 2008, when he had a .308 wOBA? I want to be wrong, but I think Renteria’s just done.
by taliesin on Oct 20, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well a .308 wOBA and around league average defense from SS aren’t good but is certainly useful (around 1.5 WAR). It’s difficult to tell how much the injury affected him last year, I hope he can rebound some but I’m not sure whether he will or not.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Renteria is done. He’s terrible. That injury excuse is the type of thing Sabean actually convinces himself of – oh when Renteria was healthy in the 2nd half of 2008 he was great! Oh Renteria will be great next year when he’s just healthy. Same with Rowand! Same with Sanchez!
Sabean’s thought process involves coming to a conclusion first (based on nothing): that Renteria will help the team, and then figuring out how to explain away all evidence to the contrary. That’s what this whole “Renteria was hurt” BS is. I’m sick of being fed that kind of crap.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A little late to the boards, here's my offseason wishlist:
Just getting into the spirit of the season. Here’s my offseason wishlist.
1. We need to lose Molina, Winn, Sanchez, and Penny. Molina has been a good player during his years in SF, but his time is up. Resigning players on sentiment and on past accomplishments is exactly what got us into this salary cap issue in the first place. Similarly, resigning Freddie Sanchez does nothing but extend the mistake of trading for him in the first place. Tim Alderson is gone, and resigning an overpriced, injury risk second baseman will not change that. I loved Penny’s fire, but I see no need to spend 4-5mm on a #5 starter when we have infinitely more pressing needs on the offensive side of the ball. Let some combination of Noah Lowry, Joe Martinez, Madison Bumgarner, and Ryan Sadowski compete for the #5 slot. I’m sure one of them can put up semi respectable numbers. Oh yea and Randy Winn…don’t even get me started. Ditch this noodle wielder.
2. Resign Juan Uribe to play SS and sit Edgar Renteria. I know it’s a bit of a stretch with Bochy and Sabean at the helm, but there’s no doubt that Uribe put up better offensive numbers. Again, it’s pretty terrible to pay 9mm for a backup infielder…but the money has been spent either way…why not put the best field on the team?
3. Sign Chone Figgins and Yorvit Torrelba. Figgins is everything the giants are not, and everything they desperately need. Speed, OBP, defense, and positional flexibility make him a fair purchase at even 8-10mm (as long as the contract can be kept at 3 years or shorter). Torrelba will serve as a respectable backup/platoon player and tutor for Posey, and should take a lot of the pressure off of the rookie.
4. Trade prospects for Dan Uggla. He’s been a model of offensive consistency in a comprably pitcher friendly ballpark, and his power and OBP should be enough to push our offense into the realm of respectability.
Here’s the opening 2010 lineup as I see it:
Chone Figgins RF
Buster Posey C
Pablo Sandoval 3B
Dan Uggla 2B
Juan Uribe SS
Travis Ishikawa/Ryan Garko 1B
John Bowker/Eugenio Velez/Nate Schierholtz/Freddie Lewis LF
Aaron Rowand CF
Bench:
Yorvit Torrelba
Edger Renteria
John Bowker/Eugenio Velez/Nate Schierholtz/Freddie Lewis
Andres Torres/Kevin Fransden/Emmanual Burriss
I think that Ishikawa will continue to improve into a gold glove calibur, 20 hr 80 rbi kind of player, and Garko has to be better than he was last year, right? And if he can somehow manage to return to his 2007 form, we’ll have an offense that might not make every team’s #4 starter feel like Tom Seaver.
I also feel like Aaron Rowand might have a bit of a bad rap. I’m sure I’ll get hazed for this one, but I think 15 HRs and 70 rbis a year for a guy who plays strong defense at a high profile defensive position is still respectable. Is he worth his contract? Absolutely not, but it’s not fair to judge a player based on Sabean’s contractual mistakes or the offense’s ineptness. If he was getting paid 5mm a year and batting out of the number 7 slot for a high powered offense (like Chicago or Philadelphia previously) would anyone really complain about his performance? I think the offensive additions of the offseason wil ltake some pressure off of Rowand and allow him to do what he does best, be a strong complementary player.
And lastly, I like the idea of going into training camp with LF totally wide open and let the players compete for the slot. Make Bowker prove he can hit like he hit in minor league ball. Make Velez prove he can play ball like he did in August. Make Schierholtz prove he’s worth more than his defense. Make Lewis prove that he’s his 2008 self, not his 2009. Same thing with the bench. Can Burriss play like 2008? Can Fransden live up to his potential? Can Torres hit enough to keep him on the field? These “young guys” are getting older, and they need to decide once and for all whether they’re big league players or not.
I see this offense being a huge imrpovement over last year, and should fit comfortably within our salary cap. I’d love to see Jason Bay or Matt Holiday in the orange and black as much as any of you, but I think anyone looking at the financials know that that’s just not realistic. We missed the playoffs by 4 games this year, and I don’t think that anyone can argue that replacing Renteria and Winn with Uggla and Figgins (that’s an improvement of 83 hits, 29 home runs, 45 rbis, 107 walks, and 21 stolen bases) wouldn’t be enough to push us over the edge.
Anyway, those are my rants. I’m sure you guys will tear me a part for them. Looking forward to it.
by AndrewWK on Oct 20, 2009 12:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like your albums.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 20, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Noah Lowry, Joe Martinez, Madison Bumgarner, and Ryan Sadowski compete for the #5 slot.
Now that’s a terrifying thought. I dunno how much Penny is going to command and whether he’s worth resigning, but we need to do something to not have those guys as the competition. After all that happened with Lowry, I imagine he has to be done with the Giants even if he is healthy again. Bumgarner just isn’t ready to be a big league starter yet, he needs at least another year in the farm. Sadowski and Martinez…ugh.
2. Resign Juan Uribe to play SS and sit Edgar Renteria.
This would make our team better. I like when people understand the concept of “sunk cost”.
Figgins upgrades our team, 3 years/$8M per would definitely be worth it, even 3 years at $10M per I would probably pull the trigger. Not sure the market will be that low.
Uggla….you know, Uggla might not be as bad a fielder as I initially thought now that I’m looking back at his Fangraphs stats. Would Uggla improve our offense? Absolutely. There’s something to be said about the fact that our pitchers give up a lot of flyballs and rack up a ton of strikeouts – infield D is relatively less important to us than pretty much any other team in baseball, so depending on the price, I could probably jump back aboard the “trade for Uggla” bandwagon…
At 1B if anyone is going to give us the offensive production you mentioned, it’ll be Garko not Ishikawa. Garko over his career has been an above average hitter, and most of that was in the AL where they supposedly have higher quality pitching. What we saw this year was a fluke – he’s better than that. (He gives some value back defensively, though – whereas Ishikawa’s glove is pretty good)
The problem with Rowand is those stats you’re using don’t really give us a good indication of how good a hitter someone is. Rowand is a below average hitter. .325 wOBA last year, .323 this year. .319 OBP this year. Does he provide some value? Yeah, you’re right, if he was being paid more like $5M he would be a nice player to have. We could do worse, we could do better.
Finally…LF. People don’t seem to realize Velez wasn’t even very good when he was “hot”. He hit .273/.307/.405 in August. That’s not very good. Giving Schierholtz a chance to compete doesn’t bother me, though I don’t think he’s good enough to earn it. Same with Bowker, if nothing else his AAA performance earned him a shot to compete. The thing is, even despite seeming like he wasn’t that good in 2009…Fred Lewis was still head and shoulders better than all those other players. Fred Lewis should start at a corner OF position next year.
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uggla
Compare, based on 2009 stats, Uggla to Sanchez. From fangraphs, I get Uggla +14 RAA with the bat, -7 with the glove; 7 total. Sanchez is -3 runs with the bat, +7 with the glove, 4 total. Three runs difference. I think just paying Sanchez the $6M or whatever is a far superior option to trading J Sanchez for Uggla. If the Marlins will take some second-tier prospect like Noonan as the centerpiece of a trade, sure. Otherwise, no thanks. Especially since Freddy Sanchez is by no means the best available FA option for 2B.
by taliesin on Oct 20, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or anyone else in the glut of FA second basemen…
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 20, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are good points. A couple of factors in Uggla’s favor: Age. Health (big factor why Uggla was .7 WAR better than Sanchez this year when all said and done). Also, Uggla is due! 4.1 WAR. 2.7 WAR. 4.9 WAR. 2.9 WAR. Clearly he’ll be a 4+ WAR guy this year! (That’s not a real argument) Last actual argument – infield D is less important for relative to offensive output.
So…that equalizes things a bit, you still do have a point, though….
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that’s why I’m not very interested in going after Uggla this year. He’s a good player who I’ve been interested in previously but there are too many other decent 2B available of similar ability for similar price (i’d imagine) that don’t require us to give up Sanchez.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we got your wish list Uggla moves to 1st. ( People if he was a legit denfender at 2nd base the Fish would have gottne there asking price and traded him long ago.) Let Figgens man 2nd or go get one of the man vertan 2nd basemen thta will be availible for under $4.5MM.
And Welcome to the Gaints Fans ( our managers are sadistic freaks) Support Group!
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 20, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I vote for the option that has Howry, Johnson, Winn and Molina all signed to contracts before December 7 so we get 5 compensatory draft picks. After that, I’d be OK with whatever happens.
Still the loving, adoptive father of Hector Sanchez. And who doesn't love switch-hitting catchers with power and patience?
by tedfordfan on Oct 20, 2009 7:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We’d have to offer arbitration to all of them…..
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 20, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pre-Dec. 7 it’s automatic.
Still the loving, adoptive father of Hector Sanchez. And who doesn't love switch-hitting catchers with power and patience?
by tedfordfan on Oct 20, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately, the only person who does that is Brian Sabean (see M. Tucker).
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 20, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No with regard to Howry, Johnson and Winn. They’re all Type-B free agents, which means the signing team doesn’t have to give up anything if they sign them. The team they leave just get a supplementary round draft pick (usually between # 31 and #50 or so).
Molina is a different story. Hopefully, as the only catcher with any sort of offensive reputation on the free agent market, he’ll get picked up quickly by an panicky GM, perhaps one whose name rhymes with Komar Good-bye-yah.
Still the loving, adoptive father of Hector Sanchez. And who doesn't love switch-hitting catchers with power and patience?
by tedfordfan on Oct 21, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d offer arb to Howry, and maybe Johnson. Howry was decent this year, he just got victimized by the walk-off, and I wouldn’t be unhappy if he returned at a lower salary. Johnson is iffy, because he might actually accept, but worst case scenario we add a bullpen arm and Runzler spends another year in the minors. Meh.
by quincy0191 on Oct 21, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not Johnson, because I believe you have to give them at least 80% of their previous salary, and that’s too much for Johnson. You’re right about Howry, though, while he was awful this year most of the aspects he was awful at are things that don’t tend to be in a pitchers control (and are just random variation)…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know why people are missing my point (and the joke).
If a player is signed BEFORE the deadline to offer arbitration, there is no question as to whether or not you need to offer. It’s an automatic draft pick.
The joke is that there’s no way in hell that would ever happen, because even though they’re qualified free agents, they’re not actually that good.
So, ha ha. I hope they all sign contracts with other ML teams before the arbitration deadline. Ha ha.
Still the loving, adoptive father of Hector Sanchez. And who doesn't love switch-hitting catchers with power and patience?
by tedfordfan on Oct 22, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never mind.
Fred Lewis is the problem.
Still the loving, adoptive father of Hector Sanchez. And who doesn't love switch-hitting catchers with power and patience?
by tedfordfan on Oct 22, 2009 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure that 80% rule only applies to guys who are under team control, not free agents. Ah, here, from a not-that-reliable source:
(3) The club’s salary offer to a player under its control may not be less than 80% of the player’s total compensation from the prior year, and may not be less than 70% of his compensation from 2 years earlier. These rules, however, do not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration.
by taliesin on Oct 22, 2009 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, good call. I didn’t read the last line of that.
by Missing Barry on Oct 22, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For what it’s worth it’s still a useful rule of thumb as the vast majority of cases will still meet that criteria.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 22, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offering arbitration to Johnson wouldn’t make sense as he’ll either retire (in which case you don’t get a pick) or he’ll accept the offer (as he wouldn’t get that much normally and he’ll be playing where he wants to)
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 22, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Starting pitchers are ALWAYS in high demand. Johnson’s bad ERA last year, his age, and his injury do not bode well for him, but on the other hand, he’s Randy Johnson. Tons of teams need pitching, and there aren’t quality SPs out there in the FA market this year; most of them are mediocre/reclamation projects/injury risks. Worst case scenario, we offer Johnson arb, he accepts, and we pay him some crazy low amount and either start him or stick him in the pen. He still has value at either position, and if he has a decent year he’ll probably be worth the money.
I don’t think it’s a lock, but I wouldn’t rule it out. Past Lackey and maybe Wolf the FA SPs are just not great, and trading for established pitching is expensive and difficult.
by quincy0191 on Oct 27, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we bring in Dye, Uggla and Bradley....
I may have to strap bombs to my chest.
Plotting the ultimate demise of Gore51 (never met him, I dunno he could be swell) so as to adopt Kyle Nicholson.
"I don’t know much about sabre-stats but there’s nothing better than white tea and poptarts first thing in the morning" - tk
by Whiteteaandpoptarts on Oct 20, 2009 7:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Don’t want Dye for the reasons listed above. At this stage he’s most likely worse than the options we already have (Lewis, Bowker, Schierholtz, etc).
Not really interested in Figgins either as the perception of his ability seems much higher than his actual ability and so i don’t think he’ll be worth his contract. It also depends on what position you’re playing him. If it’s 3B then he’s no better offensively than Garko and so you’re spending a lot of money without any offensive upgrade. if it’s 2B then i think he’ll be paid more than he’s worth relative to the other 2B on the market. For example he’s been almost exactly the same quality player as Sanchez and yet he’s going to get a contract that’s so much bigger.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 7:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t understand the Garko/Figgens comparison. They’re completely different offensive players.
For example, career stolen bases: Figgens 280, Garko 0.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 7:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Figgins/Garko comparison happens because if you bring in Figgins to play 3B and move Pablo to first, you’ve replaced Garko in the lineup with Figgins. So in terms of how much additional offense you’re getting, the answer is Figgins minus Garko, which is pretty small, unless Figgins can repeat his 2009 (or Garko repeats his).
by taliesin on Oct 20, 2009 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As mentioned it’s because if Figgins is brought in play 3B he’ll be replacing Garko in the team. You’re right that they’re different type of offensive players but if we look at the total package they bring offensively they’re pretty similar (wOBA of .347 for Garko and wOBA of .339 for Figgins). And that’s what we need better quality offensive players, not any particular type of offensive player.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you just went over my head (and probably Sabean’s too) with wOBA. But your point is moot anyways because Garko doesn’t play as it is.
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wells his point isn’t moot. You have to assume who is going to play next season if the roster stays as is (minus FA leavings). As the roster is now, Garko would be the primary 1B.
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 20, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure Ishikawa would be the primary 1B
by Fresburg on Oct 20, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This gives a brief introduction of wOBA. It’s basically a way of determining a players total offensive ability by taking all the factors (BB, singles, HR, SB, etc) into consideration. I’m sure someone else could give a better explanation that i could but it’s basically a better version than OPS.
If we were to use OPS instead than Garko has a career OPS of .792 and Figgins has a career OPS of .752 so Garko is the better hitter. OPS generally undervalues Figgins though as it undervalues OBP and doesn’t include SB (which are both strengths of Figgins) which is why wOBA is fairer for this comparison.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 20, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a question. Who are we trading away for all these players? We really only have enough prospects/players/money for one of Uggla or Bradley.
Also can Chone really play CF? Seems kind of whimsical to expect him to play CF. Checking fangraphs he hasn’t played CF since 2006 and (sss) he seems to be pretty crappy in CF while Aaron Rowand is perfectly average on D.
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 20, 2009 7:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well isn’t the idea of trading for Bradley that we don’t give up prospects – we give up Rowand?
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats why I included money. I don’t think we could afford both money and prospects to be wasted
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 20, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I think the sticking point in Rowand/Bradley is that we’re saving money?
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would the cubs do that?
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 20, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because they’re idiots, money is no object to them, and they need to get rid of Bradley, and for all my Rowand-criticizing he still has value. Did I mention the Cubs don’t really have a CF?
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t forget they are changing owners, so they may not be idiots anymore
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 20, 2009 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure why Marlins will trade Uggla
Are they doing another fire sale? No. Why would they trade an all-star power hitter in a premium position (2B) for a guy who’s never had a winning season and lacked consistency? The Giants also don’t have much highly regarded prospects left not named Madison and Buster to trade away as well.
Myth busted.
Win the inning.
by Scooter Ellis on Oct 20, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They do have a guy who's ready to step in for Uggla
Who, if he’s not as good as Uggla yet, is still probably good enough to merit the difference between Uggla’s arb salary and his, plus whatever the Fish could get in a trade.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 20, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he’s arbitration eligible and likely to become more expensive, and the Marlins are a low market team with very little money. There has also been a lot of rumors going around that he doesn’t get along well with Hanley Ramirez, and if they have to choose which one to keep, who would you guess they would pick? They also have Chris Coghlan, NL ROY candidate. He was a 2B in the minors, but moved to LF to accommodate Uggla. In short, it makes their bigger superstar player happy, they save a lot of money, and they have a suitable replacement.
Myth unbusted?
The very bad man traded my son...So now I'd like you all to meet my new son, Ryan "Aaron" Garko...Dammit it's just not the same!
by boonitez on Oct 20, 2009 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus with the Phillies good, the Mets talented (but injured/underachieving, but that doesn’t have a whole ot of meaning for the future)….now probably isn’t the Marlins time to contend. They weren’t as good as their record this year (+6 run differential on the year)…so moving someone like Uggla for pieces to contend in the future might make sense, too. Don’t they have a ballpark coming at some point in the future, too?
by Missing Barry on Oct 20, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would only take Dye on a super cheap deal as a bench bat/platoon vs. lefties. His time in the OF would have to be incredibly limited though.
Only problem with that is when Bochy sees someone on the roster capable of hitting 25 HR’s, he’ll have him in the lineup every day. I’d take all the Giants OF’s over Dye next year. Except maybe Velez because it’s going to be painful to see him leading off everyday.
I wouldn’t oppose adding Figgins as a 3B. Ishikawa might have some improvement left in him, but I think he and Garko are both ~ 1 WAR players going forward. Figgins has been consistently worth 2.5-3, or more, he’s been very good defensively as a 3B, and Sandoval could probably improve on his career -3.7 UZR/150 at 3B by moving over to first.
The infield defense starts looking pretty bad if you take Ishikawa out for Garko and don’t improve somewhere else. Renteria is old and could get worse. Sanchez is going to be a 32-year old second baseman coming off of knee surgery plus shoulder and back problems. Figgins doesn’t work as the only improvement to this team though. And he doesn’t work my with signing Nick Johnson wish, since the Giants won’t let Sandoval catch.
Brian Sabean figures that if he buys enough bottles, one of them is bound to have lightning in it.
by jasomack on Oct 20, 2009 11:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Figgins doesn’t work as the only improvement to this team though. And he doesn’t work my with signing Nick Johnson wish, since the Giants won’t let Sandoval catch.
Sure he does. You sign Figgins and tentatively plan on having him start at a corner OF spot, but rotate him through just about every position. WHEN Nick Johnson and/or Sanchez get hurt Figgins fills in at 2nd and 3rd (With Sandoval moving over to 1st). You’re basically signing him to be a better Juan Uribe who can also play the outfield.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 20, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I don’t know enough about his OF defense or whether or not he would want to sign for that kind of role, or to start at a corner. His CF UZR numbers are slightly below average over a decent sample size, so maybe I’m underestimating him completely. But his bat plays better at 3B and he’s shown he’s above average there with the glove.
I like the idea of not needing Uribe back though. I’m terrified at the thought of Uribe getting the 3B job next year.
Brian Sabean figures that if he buys enough bottles, one of them is bound to have lightning in it.
by jasomack on Oct 20, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
DNW want dye at all
becuase BORKY will play him everyday no matter what
by sfoakbay on Oct 20, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The cure
Figgins might be a target because he’s so versatile, but i think i’d rather keep a decent portion of my money open for the next FA class (Sorry, No Holliday or Bay or Dye here)
Get some guys that could be bargains, or at least won’t require the same amount of years as the others.
Nick Johnson (Keep Sandoval at 3B, Garko in when he breaks)
Adrian Beltre (Sandoval at first, aids LOLeria in left side defense)
Uggla would be awesome for the right price, but as muc has the Fish are motivated, the lack of young power bats in this market makes me think he will be no bargain despite his impending arb case.
I like our outfield for next year but I guess LF could use something. Just find a stopgap that wont be embarassing, I hear this guy Fred Lewis might be worth a shot.
Get a rental catcher who is not a hackjob on offense like Whiteside. I like Kendall, Ausmus, or Bard. We need a vet catcher for 1 year, 1. This gives Posey some time to go to AAA if he needs it and if he doesnt, hey, ride the pine vet catcher.
by Giant Voodoo on Oct 20, 2009 11:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would very much like an incentive-laden Beltre signing.
The very bad man traded my son...So now I'd like you all to meet my new son, Ryan "Aaron" Garko...Dammit it's just not the same!
by boonitez on Oct 20, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man, what we could do with $111 mill…
by atxgiantsfan on Oct 20, 2009 4:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So, this post exploded and I've been avoiding it.
Can somebody please summarize jponry’s opinion for me so I can parrot it?
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 20, 2009 8:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
delmon young sucks
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 20, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed!
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 20, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had the radio on when Bruce Jenkins was on KNBR with Fitzgerald and Brooks’ show. Both Jenkins and Fitz like Dye with Fitzgerald saying the Giants should sign him (he said a base salary of $3 million per year).
"All I know is right now, you comeback and do you dwell on that? I think you're man enough to take it, you're man enough to chew on it, to spit it out and you learn from it. ... I think winners let it go. I think losers dwell on it and talk about it all week and that screws you up for the next opportunity going forward." - Mike Singletary after the 49ers loss to the Vikings
by SFGuy on Oct 21, 2009 12:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fitz likes anyone who was a white sock.
And Jenkins likes bad ideas.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Oct 21, 2009 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jenkins said he liked Dye over Nate and Winn.
"All I know is right now, you comeback and do you dwell on that? I think you're man enough to take it, you're man enough to chew on it, to spit it out and you learn from it. ... I think winners let it go. I think losers dwell on it and talk about it all week and that screws you up for the next opportunity going forward." - Mike Singletary after the 49ers loss to the Vikings
by SFGuy on Oct 21, 2009 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but this was the guy in favor of blowing out Tim’s arm ’08 just to chase a Cy Young. He think just because a couple guys made it though Guadalcanal from start to finish the whole trip is a picnic. Just because you find one Tim in the last 3-4 year you will find another in the next 3-4 years.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ironically it’s much worse for the Giants that Tim won that Cy Young. That’s a huge factor in his favor in arbitration. Awards is one of the factors they can use in their arguments…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On one level the team marketed the heck out of that run. And it did make the team have some legitimacy outside the hard core fans. If the Giants are able to the sign a bigger talent in the next few years Tim’s presence will have a lot to do with that as well.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well then I know the opposite of what opinion I’m taking.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All you people are ignoring the real threat: Johnny Damon, Giants left fielder, 3 yrs/36 mil.
(FWIW, I thought the contract he signed with NY was a stretch, and was wrong.)
by David Arnott on Oct 21, 2009 5:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The sad thing is Johnny Damon actually makes some sense for the Giants…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don’t think I’d hate that. Do people think he’s as bad in the outfield as UZR says? He still looks pretty quick to me.
by Evan on Oct 21, 2009 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NOODLE ARM!
But in LF not such a bad thing. The only things I have against Damon are:
T-shirts i saw in New England like this:

key:wwjd-what would johnny damon do
and this uniform

I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 21, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know it came from Red Sox fans, but I did like the shirt that said:
Looks like Jesus
Acts like Judas
Throws like Mary
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
by groug on Oct 21, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lady on right scares me
AHHHHH GO AWAY
/clicks subject line
//doesn’t have adblock
by sfoakbay on Oct 21, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, of his -11.2 UZR this year, -4.2 of that came from his arm, which I think everyone would agree with. He was better in the field last year, so he’s probably not quite as bad (though at his age it’s certainly possible).
My concern is I think RF is a big deal at AT&T. Damon absolutely cannot play RF for us. That means…Lewis in RF? I dunno how I feel about him out there – for all his speed and athleticism, insticts seem to go a long way in RF at AT&T, and we all know about Lewis’ insticts…
(For the record say hey nation, I’ve heard Damon is a pretty big scumbag as a person, so I think there’s more reasons to dislike him than just the ones you gave)
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I’m sure he his, he is Jobas teammate after all!
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 21, 2009 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s kinda sweet that you’re still drawing up plans that involve Fred Lewis in a starting role. I keep forgetting he’s on the team.
If the big off-season addition is a left fielder, I imagine we’ll see either Schierholtz or Velez in right, platooning with Torres.
by Evan on Oct 21, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said, I’m in denial about Lewis, and I intend to include him in our plans until he’s officially traded away (and then I’ll still probably include him in our plans just to be an ass and make the point that Sabean is a terrible GM)…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I enjoy watching Johnny Damon throw baseballs.
by xanthan on Oct 21, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
/ cue bad 70’s Porn music
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don’t think I’d hate that.
There’s enough there to easily talk yourself into it, and to my mind, it’s all about the bat after next season. Next year, I expect he’d be just fine and well worth that money, but I don’t think he should stay in the outfield after that; he’ll either have to DH or play 1B, and I’d be frightened of a swift decline at the plate at a low-end defensive position.
by David Arnott on Oct 21, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I taking crazy pills? Does it really make sense to sign a 36 year old Scott Boras outfielder? Do we really think his performance is going to be worth what he’s going to get paid? Is he likely to take a one-year deal with a club option for a second year? How on earth does this guy make even the vaguest sense for a team that needs to find themselves some position players that could be effective for the next five years or so?
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 21, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well it all depends on the contract, of course. 2 years $16-20M wouldn’t be too bad, I don’t think. Not saying it’s the best option out there, but if the options are Damon on 2 years $18M and doing nothing with that money, I’d take Damon.
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really believe that trading for any major leaguer over the age of 30 is a step backwards for the development of this club. They’ve got to be creative and find some way to bring in younger guys that can be a part of this team for a longer period of time.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 21, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well we wouldn’t be trading for him – we’d be pursuing him as a free agent. I agree we should be looking to add pieces that fit long term, and like I said, I don’t know that Damon is the best option, but unless you think we currently have two younger corner outfielders that fit into our long term plans that are MLB ready…we have a spot to fill. Damon fills that spot.
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I don’t know why I said “trading for any major leaguer.” I mean acquiring any major leaguer over the age of 30 is a step backwards.
The Giants really need to look to get younger, not older. And my concern with acquiring a Johnny Damon is that there’s a good chance he’ll get a 2-3 year deal for too much money, and be almost guaranteed a starting job for the duration of his contract. His wheels are probably already starting to go, he’s not truly a 20 homer guy, so there’s likely to be a decline in power numbers, and at 36 years old, his overall game is due for a decline. I’d fully expect that by year two of whatever deal he signs, he’s going to be viewed as not being worth the money. And yet he’ll block any young prospects we have coming up, and block the Giants from trading for a younger outfielder who could be a difference maker for this team for a few years.
But Brian Sabean is still going to be the GM for two more years, so to be perfectly honest… It really doesn’t matter anyway, it’s not like he’s going to acquire a younger player who could be a difference maker anyway.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 21, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The relevant point:
But Brian Sabean is still going to be the GM for two more years
And Bochy will be manager for the next two years, so yeah, I see your point with Damon. Obviously I expect a decline in his production over the two year contract I’d advocate, but the dude still had a .365 OBP last season and .376 wOBA. There’s a lot of room for decilne there while still being a useful player, so basically I think he’ll be worth the $16-20M of value in those two years. And I do agree with you about younger players, and prospects, I just see us as being in a situation where we don’t have any prospects that look MLB ready in the next two years, which I think makes Damon a better fit than other potential fills. Damon will get a shorter contract than a younger comparable player, so we get him off the payroll/team faster (and when a prospect is hopefully ready to take over).
As for Damon playing over other players and preventing a trade…well, unfortunately you’re right, but if we were a well run ballclub, just the fact that we’re paying Damon wouldn’t get in the way of that (especially since we wouldn’t be paying him much and his contract wouldn’t be long). By year 2 I think we could trade for a better, younger player and play Damon as a utility OF of some sort and he’d still give us as much total value over those two years as we paid him, so it doesn’t really bother me.
The problem, like you said, ultimately comes down to not being a well run ballclub…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
/ groans.
This I can see happening much more readily than Bay or Abreu.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My initial thought was that i wouldn’t want Damon at any price but looking closer he’s actually been a pretty good player the last couple of years (wOBA of .373 and .376) I wouldn’t want him on that contract but he wouldn’t be a bad pickup on the right deal (but I’d imagine he’ll be paid more than he’s worth).
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 21, 2009 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scott Boras is already talking about him like he’s a future HOF.
“Not that I’ve been thinking about this, but players who can get on the field every day and score 100 runs, how many guys do that?” Boras said. “Johnny just plays, and he’s got the body type that allows him to do that. If stem-cell research were around, you’d want to tap into that gene pool. He’s (35), but has a 30-year-old’s body. He plays much younger.”
The “plays much younger” reminds me way too much of Steve Finley.
by xanthan on Oct 21, 2009 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I’ve been thinking about this,
Really? are you sure?
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 21, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, that reads like a paragraph made out of crap.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scott Boras says a lot of things, and honestly I find most of it pretty amusing. I just can’t figure out why anyone actually listens…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, but let it be noted that Steve Finley age 36-39 was a fine player.
by Evan on Oct 21, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just have a negative reaction to when people say those sort of things. I know when he (Finley) was on the Giants, Kruk would not shut up about how YOUNG Finely looked.
Plays like a 29-year-old!!
/hits .246/.320/.394
by xanthan on Oct 21, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and my thing is that even if a 36 year old really is playing like he’s 30 in the assumed sense of that statement (that he’s playing great), it doesn’t mean that when he’s 37 he’ll be playing like a 31 year old, or that when he’s 38 he’ll play like a 32 year old. Saying that an old player plays like a young player – even when true in a limited sense – is trying to get somebody to assume a linear progression that doesn’t exist. When that guy turns 37 he’ll probably play like a 36 year old. And by the time he’s 38? Man… why did you ever sign that three year contract with that guy….?
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All those triples!
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
by groug on Oct 21, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
scary
Finley’s 2006 wOBA: .314 with average-ish CF defense
2009 Giants with worse wOBA:
Ishikawa .313
Velez .309
Molina .308
Winn .302
Schierholtz .301
Renteria .283
Burriss .258
Two regulars were better offensively. Not counting Uribe for the purposes of this study.
Brian Sabean figures that if he buys enough bottles, one of them is bound to have lightning in it.
by jasomack on Oct 21, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
/megafacepalm
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
by groug on Oct 21, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what you’re saying is that we need eight or more Steve Finleys?
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am pretty sure has files and files of these saved on a flash drive set up like Mad Libs and all he has to do is insert the names and ages of a certain player then print.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The comments Boras makes are always quite amusing due to the amount of hyperbole he uses, although that’s obviously his job. I doubt I’ll want Damon on the contract he’ll get and i agree with the “play much younger” comment in that i pretty much ignore statements like that.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 21, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"you’d want to tap into that gene pool"
Sounds a little dirty.
"It's too late now."
by ResDog on Oct 21, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to dive into that gene pool naked and swim around in it for a while.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
woa woa woa, that is definitely not G rated buddy
by PiKAgiant on Oct 21, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I just won’t send you a copy of the video.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OLD PEOPLE POST!!!!!!
Anyone think we can convince George Brett to come back? Maybe slide him over to second?
"Snow woulda had it!!!"
Has decided to put all his "In this thing" energy to being in the Shark Tank and the Big House.
by beat_la_25 on Oct 21, 2009 7:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh by the way, Lincecum has been named NL sporting news pitcher of the year
by PiKAgiant on Oct 21, 2009 8:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
my suggestions for hitting coach
1. randy winn (at least he wouldnt actually be batting, eh?)
2. matt williams (because he learned to lay off the down and out slider and it made him into an allstar)
3. ukla the mok
Les Plack = more chicks
Dingerz.exe League Champs 2009- The Rile Rods...managed by yours truly.
by Headhunter Rollins on Oct 21, 2009 10:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, I’d love to experiment with no hitting coach, because I don’t think they do a whole lot. Really shake the system up…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how about no manager? sandoval, sanchez and posey start every day, and the rest of the players are chosen randomly by lottery. order is generated in order of OBP.
Brian Sabean figures that if he buys enough bottles, one of them is bound to have lightning in it.
by jasomack on Oct 21, 2009 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can we start Lewis everyday, too? Then I’d be ok with that…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just in case, I'm ready with...
Why, why did you sign Jernmain Dye?
You saw an old guy and could not let him pass by.
He played for the A’s, that’s a local tie,
Signing this will be the day that I die,
This will be the day that I die
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 21, 2009 12:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
2010 opening-day roster
Alright, here is my projected roster. Not that anyone cares about these things except the person posting them. But I assure you it’s all very plausible and all very, very smart.
Lineup:
LF – Eugenio Velez
2B – Freddy Sanchez
3B – Pablo Sandoval
1B – Adam Laroche
RF – Milton Bradley
CF – B.J. Upton
SS – Juan Uribe
C – Eli Whiteside
P – Tim Lincecum
Bench:
IF – Ryan Rohlinger
IF – Emmanuel Burriss
OF – Nate Schierholtz
OF – Andres Torres
C/1B – Ryan Garko
Rotation:
Tim Lincecum
Barry Zito
Matt Cain
Jonathan Sanchez
Jose Contreras
Bullpen:
Brian Wilson
Jeremy Affeldt
Sergio Romo
Mark Lowe
Dan Runzler
Brandon Medders
Joe Martinez
DL: Edgar Renteria
AAA depth: Buster Posey (probably about a month before he gets called up for good) and John Bowker.
by StickRat on Oct 22, 2009 12:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
HAHALOLOZERZ!!!1 EVIN SOM LEDTLE SPREDSHEATS BABBY GOTA NO THEIRS NO CLOB GONA TEAK ROWINSWHAT WE GOTA DO IZ GIT SOM FIELDER IN LINE UPZ EVIN IF CANE GOTA GO GIT IT DONE GIANTZ BRAS LOOLLLERZ1!!!111
Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
31 May 2007, 21:38 EST - the last time Matteh's career W-L wasn't below .500
We are at war with Los Angeles. We have always been at war with Los Angeles.
Lowering the Quality of Internet Discourse Since 1985™
by S.F. Giangst on Oct 22, 2009 4:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this what you think they will do? The best you can hope for out of what they might do? or something different? I ask not to be smart arse (in this case) but because we are long time Giants fans and we know we have a 2 Headed Drooling Idiot Management Team and we have had to learn to rosterbate with that in mind.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 22, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea what they will do. It’s just a projection in the spirit of the post title. I guess it’s a round-about way of saying: Signing Figgins is not the key to this offseason.
First off, I think it’s premature to be talking about signing Figgins. The Angels season is not over yet, and we don’t know if he is even going to declare free agency. It seems likely, but right now he is the Angels third baseman. During the regular season, I made a pitch for signing Figgins in the offseason if he becomes available. But it’s bad juju to just out-and-out promote the signing of someone playing in the postseason, just because Giants fans are thinking ahead to next season. That’s not to say it’s a tacky topic. It’s fair game. But at the same time, it’s premature, and a bit disrespectful of the Angels. I mean, if Houston fans were sitting around during the 2002 NLCS talking about how they should sign Jeff Kent in the offseason, I’d have been a bit offended. Plus, I think it’s unrealistic to be plugging Figgins in at CF or at 2B. It isn’t like he is a rookie. He is a free agent with bargaining power who is probably going to use that to dictate where he wants to play defensively. Maybe he is open to defensive flexibility, but my take is he wants to play third base.
So far as the best I hope for, I just hope they continue going in the direction they are going. I want to see the Giants compete as much as anyone, but I also want to see them do it right. Everyone is down on Brian Sabean, but c’mon … the Giants are slowing and surely building a longterm contender. When I was typing up this roster projection, I was kinda glowing when I was four pitchers deep into the rotation without having to think about it. That’s freaking awesome. Has there ever been a Top 4 as talented as this in Giants history? Honestly.
by StickRat on Oct 23, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am down on Sabean because he is 0-3 in executing his own strategy. Trade young arms to fills roster holes. At this point my only hope he does a limited amount of damage before he gets retired upstairs or he gets blind squirrel finds an acorn lucky. So that is where I am coming from on him.
I really think Fred Sanchez exact perfect storm of wrong type of player for the current Giants. He swings at more pitches than he takes and it is not like he hits the ball harder than singles & double nor does he hit constantly. We can’t count on him to stay on the field and so the removes 100’s of innings his glove work might help the team and he will be playing for a manger that has shown no ability to pace his older players so they are effective in August and September. And on top of it is looks like SAbean is determined to pay way over market for this. Signed for something then $3MM base with a boat load of bonus money? I like the play a lot better. Paying him more than ~$4MM base is a mistake. I would rather they spend that money on different injury risk. Say a Nick Johnson or Beltre type instead.
If I thought Sabean would not turn around and sign Damon for 4 years to play CF (or some other similar nonsense) I would be more than fine with swapping Rowand to Bradley. Meet Milton at the airport with a first base glove and on OF glove and tell him you want him on the field as much as possible and we think First base is way to do that. Run with Torres, Velez and try a bit of Nate in Cf . Fit in Bradley were it would seem smartest given his current attention level.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 23, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well Dave, with all due respect, that’s something of an over-simplification/characature of the popular opinion of Brian Sabean. I understand that people don’t appreciate the job he’s done, but people should at least admit the versatility he has utilized in his tenure with the Giants. When you look at the range of roster types he’s built, it’s clear he has an expert ability to match player acquisitions with a deliberate team composition. The 2004-07 seasons were frustrating for fans, but what people have to realize is that the Giants were invested in the legacy of Barry Bonds as opposed to the conpetitiveness of the team. In baseball, sometimes you have to embrace individual achievement over the ability to contend. Was it the right decision? Well, it was a committed decision. And a team is going to invest in an individual drive at baseball history, Why not in something as epic as Bonds’ homerun record? It would have been nice to invest in both Bonds and a contender, but that simply wasn’t feasible. And the quick turn-around we’ve seen in reinventing the organization through the farm system should prove that Sabean’s faculties are as sharp as ever.
As far as Freddy Sanchez goes, his recovery is going to dictate his future with the team. I think you are undervaluing him as an overall player. In the short time he was with the Giants, we saw how good he is on the defensive side of the ball, which is really the primary job of a second baseman. So far as his bat is concerned, he was fighting an uphill battle after joining the Giants. Between the change of scenery, playing for a contender for the first time, and not getting consitent at bats, Sanchez didn’t really have a chance to settle in and show how much of a force he can be at the plate. True, he is not a power hitter. But if you’re trying to equate salary dollars with power production, you’re going to end up lacking in a lot of fundemental areas.
And second base defense is more crucial than first- and third-base defense combined. So I’ll pass on Nick Johnson. Likewise, I’m quite happy with Pablo Sandoval at third, so I’ll pass on Beltre too. If Sanchez is going to be a longterm injury risk, then the Giants will probably just cut ties with him all together this offseason. I don’t think that is the case though. I will say, however, that investing in a second baseman that can only play 120-140 games next year might not be the worst thing in the world, considering the versatility of Eugenio Velez.
by StickRat on Oct 23, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am all for giving a guy enough rope to either undo the knot or completely hang himself. The Sanchez trade he hung himself. It was the 3rd in a series of "pennant race moves" he has done in the last 2 times the team was considered in The Race ( by their own definition). He was following his "new" Strategy to swap young non critical arms to fill large holes on the 25 man roster. It is a Strategy that does work and has work in different eras and different teams but Sabean just can’t figure out how to make it work. That is the kind of versatility I can do without from an umpteen year veteran of his job.
The F. Sanchez trade was the final turns on the Hangman’s Knott he tied with his own hands. First off the evidence was there ahead of time that his health was questionable. Second off The Pirates were not going to use the option and had said as much. So Sabean is trading for 3 months. Not 3 Months and a year – just 3 months. It is a total rental move. Then he gets a guy that can’t help the team down the stretch and pays beyond top prices for him. And by buying his services at that price he assures Renteria has to play large amounts of time down the stretch. This was a move with some many dumb choices in it I would be in favor of genetically testing Sabean to see if he is the son of Spec Richardson.
*
On up the middle defense I agree. But if the guy can’t get on the field he doesn’t defend so well from the bench or the trainer’s table. Add to that we can get comparible defense for less money and maybe be able to improve 2 spots defensively instead of one spot that is a better choice still. No?
*
As for the Johnson that is a fair enough comment. I tend to think if the first baseman has decent (or better hands) along with his knees and backs not being shot it is one of the 2-3 spots the Giants can risk a strong bat/ weak glove guy and it might not totally bite us in the junk. I would not be against a Beltre signing because his glove is still elite (help Renteria a bit) and his home park is brutal in RHB so he might bounce back. I would not be too angry at them trying Glaus at first base either on a low base high incentive contract.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 24, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am sorry, but I can not continue a conversation with someone who suggests the Giants should sign Troy Glaus. Take care.
by StickRat on Oct 24, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not even going to ask who the Gate kepper is.
And DON’T TELL ME!!!
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 22, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
VVVRRRRROOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!
your witness.
"Snow woulda had it!!!"
Has decided to put all his "In this thing" energy to being in the Shark Tank and the Big House.
by beat_la_25 on Oct 23, 2009 9:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 

















