Snuff rosterbation: Cain, Rentarrhea, Posey, Bum for HanRam...Would you?
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 2:57 PM PDT
97 comments
Just wondering. It's a particularly perverted form of rosterbation, of the masochistic variety, but hey, we are Giants fans.
Cain is at his peak value, Rentarrhea, is well…rentarrhea, Posey and Bum could be future all stars (I'd put more eggs in the Posey basket).
HanRam, is a beast at SS. We'd instantly go from the worst SS in the majors to the best. I think this would only make sense if there was a plan to replace Cain and still add a FA bat.
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.
0 recs |
97 comments
| Add comment
Email
Print
Comments
No
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 21, 2009 3:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I will raise your no with a hell no!
Adopted father of Brian Bocock, Brad Boyer, Sharlon Schoop, Shane Jordan and Jeremiah Luster,Trey Webb and David Quinowski.
by RichH on Oct 22, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, lets pay dearly for a SS who will be a 2B soon
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 22, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hanley will be sticking at SS for a long time. His bat is unbelievably valuable there (he’s basically as valuable as Pujols because he’s at SS), and his last two seasons have been basically exactly average defensively for a SS (which is the best group of defensive players in MLB, so that makes him one of the best defensive players in MLB).
by Missing Barry on Oct 22, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll admit it’s likely that I’ve never actually seen him play, but I thought I read last year that Hanley would eventually have to move to 3B at least, if not the OF. I got the impression that he was just short of a butcher at SS. Can anyone confirm/deny?
"The part of the roster where most of the money is spent, though, is on free agents and guys acquired through trade — guys Sabean did play a big role in acquiring. And they are not good. When you get 2/5 of a pitching rotation for free, you would think you could do better with $76 million than to field the league’s worst offense."
-Taliesin September, 2009
by Lyle on Oct 22, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was what people thought a couple years ago. Supposedly he’s improved a decent amount, both from obsevation and statistically. Tango’s fans scouting report and UZR agree with this. He always had the athleticism for SS, he just didn’t put the other skills together until the last year or two.
by Missing Barry on Oct 22, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah
Thanks!!
"The part of the roster where most of the money is spent, though, is on free agents and guys acquired through trade — guys Sabean did play a big role in acquiring. And they are not good. When you get 2/5 of a pitching rotation for free, you would think you could do better with $76 million than to field the league’s worst offense."
-Taliesin September, 2009
by Lyle on Oct 22, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and he got to that point by reducing mistakes and misplays. He’s always been really good with excellent range and skills, but made too many mistakes. He’s cut down on those. Its different than a guy who was bad because he lacked the skills.
by JetSam on Oct 26, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what if we also signed figgins and Johnson
Figgins CF
Johnson 1B
Ramirez SS
Pablo 3B
Molina C
Rowand LF
Nate/Bowker RF
Carroll 2B
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
MOLINA?
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 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the giants have a dude named buster posey
and you want to start bengie freakin molina?
by sfoakbay on Oct 21, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they made the proposed Hanley trade they wouldn’t have a dude named Buster Posey.
Thing A
by sam23 on Oct 21, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
again, getting ramirez isn't realistic
by sfoakbay on Oct 22, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that was the point…
Actually I know it wasn’t the point. If this is just anything beyond pure rosterbation it’s a method of gleaning perceived value a portion of the fan base puts on certain players. Cain is obviously valued highly.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 23, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and he didn’t specify WHICH Molina
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 22, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could go with someone other than Molina.
Certainly. Not married to that part of it.
THis is more just mind bending than fantasizing…obviously.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carroll?
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 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah Carroll.
I think he’d produce similarly to Sanchez, lower BA higher OBP, at half the price (or less).
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lewis Carroll
Team interviews have been seriously lacking in creative words and whimsy, and he would bring that and so much more to the table.
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 21, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CHANGE PLACES IN THE BATTING ORDER!
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 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I portend a surfeit of portmanteaus!
“Molina’s corpudaisical running on the basepaths and Rowand’s myopimpetuous plate appearances detracted from an otherwise frabjous victory.”
by grape on Oct 22, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And as in fresnish thought he stood,
The Bowkerwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffing through the tulgey wood,
And ops’ed very lame!
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 4:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh lord.
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 3:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What if we kept Posey?
Cain, Rentarrhea, Bum for Hanley. My guess is Beinfest would hang up.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cain + Bumgarner + Lower tier prospect + …money?
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That might work...
Put a name on your lower tier prospect…
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that for any of these deals they’d say “take off Renteria and we’ll think about”.
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 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rantmode.exe
Cain is at his peak value
I see this tripe every 3-4 months. And he gets better still and this tripe is bounced back out again. A young healthy arm like Cain’s at his age is the thing HOF carrer made of. Cain is >>> the good. Deal with it.
End Rantmode.exe
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 3:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cain really is at his peak value, though. If by get better, you mean:
Matt Cain:
2006: 190.2 IP, 3.96 FIP, 3.5 WAR
2007: 200 IP, 3.78 FIP, 4.0 WAR
2008: 217.2 IP, 3.91 FIP, 3.7 WAR
2009: 217.2 IP, 3.89 FIP, 3.6 WAR
He’s consistently good, but that looks a lot to me like he’s the exact same pitcher he’s always been. His ERA and W-L record are why he’s at his peak value – stats that fool people into thinking he took a step forward this year. There are still GM’s out there like that, right? (Brian Sabean! Which is actually good for the Giants because it means he won’t sell low on Cain, right?)
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cain is getting more effective ( ~ 15.5 pitches a side now) and still posting good k/9 rate. That means he keeps the middle relievers outs of games (very good) and allows a team to carry a question mark starter on the bottom of the rotation (also good). To replace Cain is a lot more expensive then a lot of people think. I should take the time and find the branch around here were the community tried to make a list of equitant talents then figure in the added bull pen load. This is just a bad, bad idea.
If we had a Gm that knew how to rob, pillage and burn another teams farm of most everything they have of value then I would be more open to idea. But we don’t so this is just a terrible idea.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
I think I undervalue Cain’s presence. One reason the bullpen was so effective for most of the season was that half the time we only needed 1 or 2 bullpen guys to throw in a given game.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cain is getting more effective ( ~ 15.5 pitches a side now) and still posting good k/9 rate.
I’m just not seeing any evidence for that. His K/9 went down this year. He pitched the exact same number of innings this year as last year. Cain is obviously good and not easy to replace, nobody’s saying that, all I’m saying is Cain has given us the exact same production over the last 4 years. I’ll take that production any day, it helps a lot, but nothing about the end results that are in his control have changed at all over that time period.
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fangraphs has Cain throwing:
3306 pitches during 190 innings ( ~17.4 pitches a side)for 2006.
3351 pitches during 200 innings (~16.8 pitches a side) for 2007. 3606 pitches during 217 innings (~16.6 pitches a side) for 2008.
3362 pitches during 217 innings (~15.5 pitches a side) for 2009.
I used the "~" because I rounded down to drop any extra 1/3rds of an inning.
The K/9 is still over 7 so he can get the K and it is not a lack of stuff forcing him to get more efficient which is differnt from the normal life cycle of a run of the mill pitcher.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 21, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reason his effectiveness hasn’t changed despite a drop in K/9 is because he’s also cut down on his walks. I’m still not sure where the end results are any different in any of those years, though? Innings are pretty close to equal, and his end performance has been remarkably close over that span (looking at FIP)…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes the drop in walks helps his effeancy a lot but point is he is doing it with out having too have a melt down season or two to start pichting smarter.
The difference is about 300 less pitches between ’08 & ’09. So he should be able pitch a couple more games (On proper rest. Big Head, settle down there!) if the reason arises with a worry about being at the end of his stamina. That one pitch per side difference is also about enough to reach the 8th instead of the straining for the 7th. Any time a Howry, Medders, Chulk type does not have to come into when your team has less than 10 outs to make up any allowed runs is a very good thing.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 22, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree in principle with the conclusion that a 25 year old is at his peek value. Could be, but almost certainly not. It’s very easy to look at Matty and infer that he’ll get better, not worse, over the course of the next five or six years.
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 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First, every year that goes by is one year closer to his big pay day (and loss of team control). That takes away from his trade value. Second, sure it’s reasonable to assume he’ll keep improving based on his age, but if you look at his numbers, he’s been the exact same pitcher for 4 years now. Where’s the improvement going to come from?
Also, he put up traditional stats this year like W-L and ERA that were the best of his career. His ERA is unsustainably good – he’s unlikely to repeat that performance so if you’re just valuing him based on that, there’s good reason to think this is his peak. His actual performance was exactly in line with past years, though.
by Missing Barry on Oct 22, 2009 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your first point is unassailably valid, and I’ll concede it.
Your second point I’ll take issue with. He’s bee an extraordinarily consistent pitcher for the past four years. That performance came in his age 21 – 25 seasons. Most players hit their prime around 27 – 31 and demonstrate improvement until that stretch. Where will that improvement come from? I don’t really know, but it’s easy to speculate. He’s throwing his change up a lot more and it’s getting a lot better. Maybe that manifests itself in an improved K%. His control is improving. Perhaps that manifests itself in a continually lowering BB% or improved GB%. I don’t know. But to just say “well, he’s done this for the last four years in his low 20’s so we’ll just project that going forward” is overly simplistic.
ERAs and W-L are not useless stats, but have no predictive value for upcoming seasons. That means he could get unlucky as he did in 2007 & 2008 or he could get lucky like he did in 2009 or he could pitch equal to his performance in coming years. I have no idea what kind of ERA he’ll put up next year – I think a large part of it will depend on what kind of defense we put behind him. Likewise, his wins will depend on the type of run support he gets, which will be influenced by the lineup we run out there next year.
One more notion to throw out there. We use FIP and tRA and other defense independent statistics to evaluate pitcher performance and conclude based on the difference between these and ERA how lucky or unlucky a pitchers is. Is it possible that certain pitchers or certain types of pitchers can sustain what we are labeling “luck”? Has that been studied?
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 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prime age, on average, is 25-29, though I don’t know if there’s a difference between pitchers and hitters in relation to that. I could definitely see Cain improving – of course he’s still young and many ptichers do improve substantially at his age, so I don’t see it as unlikely or anything. It just seems to me that he’s plataeu’d pretty hard and the most likely case is he continues at his current trajectory (straight – which, again, is still great since he’s a good pitcher).
Also, you do have points that we have a good defense, so it’s likely that his ERA will be more shiny than just his pitching performance indicates again next year, it just probably won’t be as good as it was this year. I’m not going to even guess about his W-L, it’s such an offense depedent crapshoot there’s no point in trying to forecast it.
I’ve also thought about your last point. There has been a minimal amount of research done on this (at least that I’ve come across) – there definitely needs to be more. There is some limited evidence that certain pitchers do outperform those measures – I know OGC claims that soft throwing, high control lefties like Moyer/Zito types tend to outperform their FIP’s, and knuckleball pitchers tend to have much different results than FIP expects, too. I think the whole “pitchers don’t have control over balls in play” attitude a lot of people that read stat-blogs have is too strong – there’s no real proof (or even theoretical reasoning) why pitchers wouldn’t have control over this (and this is a big assumption included in FIP/tRA). It’s most likely that the control is simply limited and the average pitcher doesn’t deviate enough from it to see any trends in the data (and the amount of control defense has over it is also big and may hide the pitchers influence).
I also suspect Cain may be the type of pitcher that FIP (and possibly tRA) undervalues, though I don’t think we have enough sample size to conclude that with any reasonable amount of confidence. I have a little more confident in tRA because it includes batted ball profiles, but that does bring a whole new bag of problems in itself. Cain does have a career .278 BABIP – I have no idea how much of that is him vs. the defense, but that’s substantially lower than expected and may mean his stuff is just hard to hit. He does have a 12.0% IFFB rate for his career, after all, and that’s 100% Cain. I’d also throw Rivera out as a great candidate for being undervalued by those stats – career .276 BABIP (despite the Yankees being bad defensively for most of his career) and 16.2% IFFB for his career.
Anyways, I really think Pitch F/X data is the next frontier we need to use to learn about this stuff. We’ve barely scratched the surface of what that data can tell us, and in order to prove or disprove many of the assumptions currently used for stats like FIP, we’re really going to need Pitch F/X data. What they use now is just not sufficient proof of anything.
by Missing Barry on Oct 22, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome response.
Thanks.
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 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could at least give us Hanley’s contract info to help out…
Also, the Giants have a financial advantage over the Marlins. Giving them Renteria is essentially a salary dump on our part and means we have to give them more talent. It should work the other way around, we pay money to them (or take salary off their hands, which is the same end result) so we end up with more talent.
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 3:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That is intriguing, though I stand by my “we should pay them to not give them as much talent in the trade” comment…
by Missing Barry on Oct 21, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salary dump, yes and no...
Rentarrhea is only for one year. It’s almost like the expiring NBA contract dynamic.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Expiring contracts in a league without a salary cap or floor really don't matter that way
by dprodigy19 on Oct 21, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes and no.
Salary relief is salary relief. 1 year is less than 5 years. 10 mil is less than 63 million.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All this sprung from the "Giants in on Chapman and Kikuchi" garbage I've read.
Just trying to figure out why Sabean would be wasting resources screwing with those guys.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why would it be a waste?
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 21, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because.
1. Kikuchi is 18. Is he that much better than a 1st rounder to justify taking 4-6 million away from our “bat budget” when he might not see the majors for 3 years or more?
2. Chapman is looking for (or his agent is hoping for) 40-60. That is just nuts when you have the worst offense in baseball.
Both guys are unkowns.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no ones asking for chapman
besides, there is no point in atttempting to outbid the yanks and red sox
by sfoakbay on Oct 21, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t particularly love Chapman, but I like Kikuchi. As for the signing issues, well he’s 18, Japan’s best HS pitcher, and $4-6 million is the cost of a 1st round draft pick without losing a first round draft pick. That’s a great deal, especially considering it’s $1M/year for his six years of service time before FA. The “win now” mode that most people are in because of last season is kind of disgusting; if you mortgage the future you end up with the 2000s Giants: four years of postseason appearances and even more winning records, then at least five years of losing records, complete futility, and overreaction when we get good again. Spend the money on draft picks and international signings; it’ll be some of the best investments you can make (see: Lincecum, Cain, Sandoval, Posey, Bumgarner).
by quincy0191 on Oct 21, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rosterbation: extended.
Figgins 11, 11, 12, 12
Johnson 5, 6
Ramirez 7, 11, 15, 15.5, 16
Pablo .4
Gamer 12, 12, 12
Nate/Bowker .4
Catcher (I had Molina here but I agree bad idea, still rosterbating on this)
Carroll/Uribe/whoever 2, 3
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess the solution would be...
keep posey, offer someone else.
Figgins 11, 11, 12, 12
Johnson 5, 6
Ramirez 7, 11, 15, 15.5, 16
Pablo .4
Gamer 12, 12, 12
Nate/Bowker .4
Posey .4
Carroll/Uribe/whoever 2, 3
by Cody_ransom on Oct 21, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
/sigh
/sigh
/sigh
When does the damn game start?
by esseffgeez on Oct 21, 2009 3:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i’m already sick of rosterbation
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 21, 2009 3:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d rather go for Pujols carlos delgado
GAMERYNESS AND DINGERZZ
by sfoakbay on Oct 21, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have we hit for the cycle ...
Regarding theoretical trades over the past year for Marlins infielders? Jacobs, Uggla, Cantu, and Ramirez.
by StickRat on Oct 21, 2009 5:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You know what, why not just give the Marlins our entire farm system? Trading Cain, Posey, and Bumgarner leaves current and future holes in the rotation and at C; there’s no way we win in that trade. Florida would love for us to be that stupid.
by quincy0191 on Oct 21, 2009 6:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I prefer Long Cut
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Oct 21, 2009 10:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have an even better idea!
No.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 21, 2009 10:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
[banned]
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 12:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather have Cabrera from Detroit.
I’m not sure about his contract or any of that, I just like his play. He had off field issues and would cost slightly less than Ramirez, although I’m not sure how much. The real problem with that is they’ve seen enough of Renteria to be suckered like that…I don’t think either of these trades are worth it in the long and short run.
by MoreroidsforZito on Oct 22, 2009 8:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cabrera has a huge contract, unlike Hanley who has a great contract. There’s also a huge difference between production from SS and 1B…
by Missing Barry on Oct 22, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's the thing, the contract.
You could count on .325/405/550 at SS for the life of that contract (5 more years) and it only totals 65 mil. You’d get Panda production or better at SS for Rowand’s contract. It’s a good value.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 22, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am also at a loss as to why Cabrera>Hanley, from any perspective. Hanley’s a better hitter, fielder, personality, contract…if we could take a $20M/year contract we’d go sign Holliday and not lose half our system.
by quincy0191 on Oct 22, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he is think lower price to acquire?
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 22, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Slightly O.T.
There’s also a huge difference between production from SS and 1B…
Thank you for restating this fact. I sometimes think the newer posters need this tattooed on there forehead back of their hands. We might quibble were some defensive positions fit ( 2nd vs 3rd) in relation to others but seriously SS & CF production in a decent sized ball parks is many, many times harder to come by.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 22, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Revised.
Sanchez, Crawford and Bum for Ramirez and we pay Rentarrhea 10 mil to sweep the dugout floor.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 22, 2009 9:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No way the Marlins take just that package
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 22, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe in two years when Bumgarner’s got a major league season under his belt and Sanchez has figured out his control and become Randy Johnson-lite and Ramirez is two years closer to FA. Of course, by then it’s a dumb idea for us.
by quincy0191 on Oct 22, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t understand why people think they can just pry superstars away from other teams. My dad actually seriously proposed the idea of acquiring Pujols. This year. With the Cardinals in contention, not to mention the whole “he is the franchise” bit.
Look: you’re not going to get Hanley or Pujols or Cabrera or Kemp or Greinke for the same reason no one else is getting Lincecum. Think about the package of players it would take for you to give up Timmeh, from a purely sabremetric standpoint. Now multiply that by two, because if you trade Franchise Superstar X you’ll have a fan riot, so you need to compensate. I don’t think there are many franchises that have the depth to make those kind of acquisitions. We may be one of them, but then we sacrifice far too much in my opinion.
by quincy0191 on Oct 22, 2009 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Hanley is a unique situation b/c the Marlins always trade players
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 22, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Pirates trade more players, contend less (so they’re even more willing to give up pieces), tend to make worse deals, and Tim Alderson for Freddy Sanchez. What do you think Sabean would be convinced to part with for Hanley? He’d probably try to trade draft picks. Besides, Hanley is still quite cheap for the kind of production they’re getting.
by quincy0191 on Oct 22, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just saying that Hanley is, by no means of the imagination, off the trading block. The marlins would probably want a pretty good return for him, he is one of the players i would consider trading Posey for, but is Posey enough? I don’t think so.
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 23, 2009 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No player is really “off the trading block”. There are zero untouchables; you just have to find the right package. But there is a group of players that are essentially untouchable, because you’d have to give up way too much to acquire them.
by quincy0191 on Oct 23, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know how to quote on this board but…
I don’t think you can just pry away superstars. But the Marlins have dealt away their centerpieces in the past and tend to put a premium on major league ready prospects. I don’t think that the Marlins would listen to any deal that didn’t include both Posey and Bum.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 22, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, that's a bad trade proposal ...
Can we throw in Lincecum as well? I mean, it’s freaking Hanley Ramirez. We could also add Sandoval to sweeten the deal.
LinceCain and pray for rain .... or for someone to take Zito off our hands.
by Lincecain on Oct 22, 2009 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No
I most certainly would not. Let’s see what you’ve done. On one side, you have the second-best player in the league. Yeah, Hanley is freaking awesome. I get that. On the other, you have one of the league’s top-ten pitchers, the best catching prospect in the game, and one of the five best pitching prospects in the game. Oh, and Rent-a-wreck. Yeah, he sucks and getting rid of him would be awesome. But how does this trade make the Giants better? Who replaces Cain and Posey? When will the Giants ever develop another home-grown starter on the mound or in the field? This trade would seriously handicap the team for about five years and that’s really not a good idea.
Joe Martinez: You are cool.
When it's all said and done, America will be remembered for three things: The Bill of Rights, jazz, and baseball.
by cornball on Oct 22, 2009 11:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Any trade that doesn’t involve getting prospects back doesn’t really make any sense to me.
But of course, the Giants no longer make any sense to me, so there you go.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Oct 22, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don’t know how many more ways this can be said. A trade that deals multiple Giants for 1 player (no matter how ridiculously good and/or cheap) is backward. That trade doesn’t help us fill the numerous holes in our lineup. We need quality players in quantity. That’s really the bottom line.
by esseffgeez on Oct 22, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO -- and HELL NO!
This one deserves a “no,” a “hell no,” a “what the hell is wrong with you,” and probably a huge middle finger.
I’ll just go with “no and hell no,” because I understand that lust for Hanley Ramirez makes otherwise sane people irrational.
No, really, I have updated my blog this year: http://skaldheim.livejournal.com/tag/baseball
by Skaldheim on Oct 22, 2009 12:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Literally the only way any (sane) person would ever ok this is if it were for Longoria, straight up. See the recent BtB post about “is there any trade that would put the Rays ahead if they traded Longoria?” He’s under team control for something like 7 more years, with the first 5 totaling around $18 million. His surplus value is ridiculous.
by speckops on Oct 22, 2009 10:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And that probably seriously undervalues Posey’s value (as well as potentially Bumgarners). On the other hand, a lot of that value is tied to whether the Giants have the balls to go ahead and guarantee him a long term contract for very cheap, thus locking in what they pay him even though his value remains the same (just unproven). Given that this is the same FO that won’t even play him at all instead of Bengie McHackster, that seems unlikely.
by speckops on Oct 22, 2009 11:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And that probably seriously undervalues Posey’s value (as well as potentially Bumgarners)
I have to strongly disagree here. You’re falling into the whole “fans hugely overvaluing their own prospects” thing every fanbase does. Prospects, even big time ones like Posey, are far from a sure thing, as much as we’d like to think our prospects can’t fail….
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The issue with this trade isn’t about fair trade value. Its more about where is the trade going to put you. If we make this trade we take on money lose prospects and probably wont increase our chance of winning next year. Now, if I was the dodgers and Hanley was offered to me for Billsinly, McDonald, Loney and Dee Gordon I would make that trade
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 23, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buster is hitting...
.231/.259/.269 with 8 K’s in 26 ABs in the AFL. Along with his 17 ABs in Sept, I think we have proof that he sucks.
by capn on Oct 23, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
