This is like a greatest hits version of the ESPN talking heads.

I don’t know why some people think Figgins is going to get a short deal. And at $12M a year, he’s Rowand II; a typically okay player who’s had two great years and is hitting free agency after the second one. I’d like to avoid a second Rowand contract, personally; Figgins isn’t worth what he wants or what he’s going to get.

Podsednik is basically an older version of our glut of young outfielders. If, as you say, we can replace him, why not do it and see if one of our young guys is serviceable? I think Schierholtz can hit .300/.350/.400, just like Podsednik, with better defense and for less money. Bowker can definitely hit that, likely a lot more, with mediocre defense and for less money. Lewis is the same. Why sign an older version of something you’ve already got?

DeRosa is going to get a deal that’s way better than he’s worth. I don’t even want to look at him; he’d force Pablo to first, he’s not that good anymore, he’s getting quite old, he’s too expensive. That’s three more reasons than are necessary to stay away from DeRosa.

Ankiel would be a decent minor-league signing, but he’ll get a better deal than that. Giving a contract and a starting job to a player who hasn’t really proven he’s all that good doesn’t make a lot of sense; the Giants don’t have the money to gamble like that.

Your Beltre argument confuses me. We should take a chance on Ankiel returning to his 2007 production, but we can just ignore Beltre’s 2004 production? Beltre’s been a far more consistent hitter than Ankiel, and his defense alone makes him a decent signing. Like I said, I don’t really want him because he would push Pablo to first and eliminate the Johnson possibility, but he’s a good player and would be an upgrade for this team.

Johnson’s got a career OBP of .401, so last year’s .426 wasn’t a fluke or anything. He’s produced good power numbers in the past, and his injury history would likely limit him to 1-2 years at $6-7 million per. A player who addresses our two largest needs, OBP and power, at an “open” position, on an affordable deal is a good idea. Worst case scenario, we lose $12 million over a couple years and Garko plays first. We’ve had worse scenarios play out.

Bradley is basically Johnson II in the outfield, pretty much the only other open position. Giants fans and the Giants front office probably won’t care about his attitude, and if the players get too upset about it they can go take a money bath to calm down. The media would probably hate him, but they hated Bonds, too, and he worked out pretty well. I don’t know if Bradley is the best idea, but you can’t get rid of a contract like Rowand’s without taking some risk. Worst case scenario, we cut Bradley and play Schierholtz/Bowker for league minimum or close to it and save $15 million. Those two guys can definitely match Rowand’s offensive production and probably improve on his defense.

a unicorn

+1

he may be better than Velez, but better than bad doesn’t mean good.

Well he’s a worse player than Lewis (although he’s obviously not going to be given the chance). It’s not that our internal options are great it’s just that Nady isn’t either. Aside from his one good year he’s averaged 0.8 WAR per year (obviously discounting last year). Bowker, Schierholtz, Velez/Torres are probably not far off that level and don’t cost money to acquire.

Seriously, though. Not only is Nady a one year wonder coming off a serious injury, he’s been a poor defensive outfielder for most of his career. Enough so that Torres’ defense might actually give the scrub platoon a slight edge.

All you have to do is see Rowand swing at a slider to know how much he sucks.

Is that contagious?