Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Terry Collins, David Wright, And The Mets/Brewers Kerfuffle

Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7416086

Vizquel, 41, is close to re-signing with the Giants for one year and approximately $5.5 million, according to major-league sources.
While Vizquel wanted a two-year deal, his salary will represent a significant increase from the $4 million he earned last season while batting .246 with four homers and 51 RBIs.

The pitchers will be thrilled.

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.

Comment 255 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Well, offering him a smaller salary would just be highly disrespectful, a la Joe Torre.

Look at it this way: Vizquel and his agent could have said "have fun with David Eckstein."

A million and a half does seem a bit high, but then again, it's just for one year, and you knew we wouldn't lowball him.

Brian Anderson: I can has spot in Fresno 'pen?

by JT Jordan on Nov 6, 2007 3:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
fun with Eckstein?  I dunno, I always thought alex rodriguez played a mean shortstop
you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area

by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 5:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Sure, when he was younger.

Rodriguez hasn't played the position since when, 2004?  It's not often you'll see a 225 lb. SS playing with good range.  IMO, ARod at SS would be taking quite a risk.  I like him more as a 3B now . . .besides, his range at 3B was only average.  How could he magically get better while going to a far more demanding position?

Brian Anderson: I can has spot in Fresno 'pen?

by JT Jordan on Nov 6, 2007 8:42 PM PST up reply actions  

There's no more to range
than just defensive metrics. 3b and SS are different positions. The skillsets required are different. ARod's bad range at 3b could simply be that he has yet to learn, and will never learn, to play 3b well. Not every player can switch positions seamlessly, even to an "easier" position.

by rfloh on Nov 6, 2007 11:30 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: There's no more to range
I love Cal Ripkens quote about moving to 3B after being at SS for so long. It went something like "The last game I played at 3B I took a grounder off the nuts. Then I went something like 15 years playing SS and never was hit there once. Then the first time I played 3B again I got hit in the nuts the first game out." Thats why they call it the hot corner.
"I'd take pleasure in gutting you boy" Oh and ignore the spelling. I do.....

by someguynamedg on Nov 7, 2007 12:45 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
By not insisting on a 2 year deal!!!!!

That just happened to be the price at which Omar dropped his demand for a 2 year contract. Would you have rather resigned Omar for $3M for 2 years? Because if someone else offered him that (entirely reasonable), he would have taken it.

by Nathan on Nov 6, 2007 7:16 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Do you really believe that anybody offered him any contract for any years that would guarantee a starting job? I don't mind Omar getting the money, but I do believe it's a pretty bad contract for the Giants - if AND/OR when it gets finalized. It will be another case of bidding against themselves, as others have said. Omar could have likely been had for half this, and certainly for no more than he made last year.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 8:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
The very article indicates the White Sox were interested...and says they were 'among' the teams interested.

Just as it's too hard to say what possible trade partners are available when you're not inside, it's far too easy to say no one was interested in a certain player, or if someone was, they'd be offering minimum wage.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 8:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I probably should have been more clear. I don't know honestly how much to read into Omar saying he doesn't care as long as he can start, but I wasn't doubting league interest so much as I was doubting two other things 1) league interest in Omar specifically as a starter, and 2) the almost 50% raise that this contract would constitute.

Certainly, I believe more than one team is interested in Omar, and a few have probably opened talks with him, but I doubt he could demand 5.5 mil, even on a one year deal, from anywhere in the league, and I'm skeptical that anybody sees him as an everyday player. Not that it's not possible, but the pricetag does seem remarkably high even considering an optimistic amount of demand.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 9:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I don't mean to discount your point, though. I think you're absolutely right. I only mean to voice my general skepticism.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 9:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Well.....
  1. Even if he wasn't guaranteed a starting job, the money in his contract would be guaranteed.
  2. Vizquel wanted a 2 year deal and someone bidding $3M for 2 years wasn't out of the realm of possibility. Toronto made John MacDonald their starting SS. Tony Pena Jr. is no offensive force for KC. The Nationals are always looking for anything resembling a major league caliber player. Didn't the Cardinals pay Ecsktein loads of cash? Adam Everett is making a good living in Houston. Stephen Drew wasn't exactly mashing the ball this season either. Last I checked Omar was a pretty good defensive SS and is easily capable of landing a 2 year deal with someone else. The Giants didn't want to commit money for 2 years, so they paid a premium for one year.

by Nathan on Nov 6, 2007 8:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
These are all good points, but even considering competition I'm not sure what part of 2006 makes him irreplacable enough to get a 50% raise from a team in a supposed rebuild.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 9:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
The point of my original post was that the $1.5M wasn't a raise. Think of it as an inducement for Vizquel to settle for a 1 year contract. Would rather Vizquel @ $4M for two years or $5.5M for one year?

by Nathan on Nov 6, 2007 9:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I see what you mean, and if we have to sign Vizquel, I'd rather it be the 1 year $5.5 mil than 2 years at 4 per.

But isn't it a pretty thin distinction between "raise" and "inducement?" In both cases he's making significantly more than he did on a contract that was pushed through so hastily the market value that would have justified that contract was never established. The reality of the money itself is the same regardless of how we look at it.

But yes, absolutely. The one year deal is much better than the two year deal. At 5.5 million I think the no year deal rotating door of Velez & Co. would have been even better by a longshot, but as long as we are bringing Vizquel back, and as long as we're not waiting to find out what a fair price on him is, this was the better deal by far.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 10:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Honestly, I think I'd rather do the two years/$8 million. If you've made the decision that he can still play, why not take the discount you get with the two-year contract? Instead, we're going to have to go through all of this again next season, because it's not like we have a solid shortstop prospect in AA waiting to take over in 2009.

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 8:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Wait, what's 50% of 5.5?

2.75? So that means next year he's in line for a 1 year, $8 million contract? Man, I might be changing my mind about this two year thing...

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 6:28 PM PST up reply actions  

MacDonald's contract
is $3.8M /2. Everett, $2.8M / 1. TPJ is being paid minimum wage. That's the difference.

But Vizquel is a big name, so he would get more. Fine. Let him get more for a contender. Let him go to the White Sox. The Giants aren't anywhere close to contending. They don't need to pay retail for a 40 year old, 41 next year, coming off the worst offensive year of his career, who even with his great defense, would be below average: 30 runs below average offensively, 15-20 runs above average defensively. Even with a positional adjustment, he would still be below average.

by rfloh on Nov 6, 2007 11:39 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: MacDonald's contract
Finally some clarity...

This deal just confirms how fucking stupid our management is.  

Funny how Alex Rodriguez is a reach but Vizquel is totally cool at +$5M.  What a bunch of retards we have running our organization.  (graphic needed)

I didn't want Vizquel back...I always thought trade was the only real way to go at SS this offseason...but Vizquel at more than he got paid last year is a travesty, a sham and a mockery.  It is a travishamockery.

If this deal goes through I will probably choke on my own vomit. (graphic not needed)

Brian Wilson for Closer!

by BawLa on Nov 6, 2007 11:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
His singing is incredible.
The Johnnie LeMaster fan club vice-president. E6 Forever!

by Van Smack on Nov 7, 2007 12:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
The is expected but still just flat out stupid.  There is just no way Vizquel at SS is worth $5.5M more the Frandsen at SS.  What a total waste of resources.  

by giantsrainman on Nov 6, 2007 3:22 PM PST reply actions  

frandsen...
is not a ml shortstop
Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Nov 6, 2007 5:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Rainman is on point here.  At least that would involve regular at bats for Frandsen.
Who dat is? That's just Ortmeier's daddy.

by rotorueter on Nov 7, 2007 4:24 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
No, Rainman is wrong. Frandsen should nt be at SS. Frandsen does need regular ABs at 2B in order for the Giants to figure out whether he is going to be a viable ML or not. He shouldnt be playing anywhere else. Period.
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???

by oldrips on Nov 7, 2007 8:20 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Omar should not be starting for our team.  Period.
Who dat is? That's just Ortmeier's daddy.

by rotorueter on Nov 7, 2007 10:36 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
This is crazy, he has the worse offensive season in his career, the year he turns 40, there was no sign of recovery in any of the months he played in 2007, and he gets $1.5M raise to play SS?

I was expecting him to play for $1.5M in 2008, not get a $1.5M raise.  

I would rather play Ivan Ochoa at SS and see how that goes instead of paying Vizquel that much.  If this is true, no wonder the Giants didn't want a second year of that...

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

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Nov 6, 2007 3:26 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
"The pitchers will be thrilled."

Especially opposing ones.

Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Nov 6, 2007 3:27 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I like Omar, but I do not like this move. Simply not worth the money or the at-bats at this point
Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Nov 6, 2007 3:30 PM PST reply actions  

OK...
So who is this hurting?  The offense is going nowhere next year unless they bring in multiple pieces.  This will help the pitchers learn to trust their defense is all I can see it doing.

The only thing this is blocking is the acquisition of A.Rod to play short or a crazy world where Durham still starts at 2B, with Frandsen at SS or Feliz ant SS and Frandsen at 3B.

I would have liked it to be for less or at what he was earning but again, who is this preventing the Giants from signing or playing from the minors?

Lance Niekro AAA Watch: 108 AB .287/.352/.463 6 2B 2 3B 3 HR 11 BB -- 0.2 IP 27.00 ERA 3 H 0 BB 0 K (through 8/19)

by WalrusMan on Nov 6, 2007 3:30 PM PST reply actions  

Re: OK...
It blocks them from making any effort to find a shortstop who might actually grow up to be good.

Apart from the various possibilities on the trade market, I bet there are half a dozen minor-league free-agent shortstops who project to be better than Vizquel next year.

by Evan on Nov 6, 2007 3:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: OK...
Barring signing Alex Rodriguez and bringing Barry Bonds back, I would prefer the Giants get rid of all their players who made over $1 million last season.

But the Giants have no one in the minors who is likely to be ready before 2009 (Manny Burriss)and quite possibly no one before 2010.

If the Giants are going to trade for prospects, I would prefer younger ones in lower classifications but who have more upside to mediocre ones who might be ready in 2008.

And if the Giants do acquire a young player who is nearly ready, they could always move the player between Fresno and SF in order to hone the player's skills for 2009.

I'm not great with the presumed signing, but I like it a lot better than signing Barry Zito last year.  As with a one-year contract for Pedro Feliz (unlikely IMO), I'm not in favor, but not all that opposed, either.

by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2007 6:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: OK...
I'm with the WalrusMan.  I see very little harm in having Omar around for one season.  I don't see any mention of an option year.  Previously, rumors said the contract may be for a year with an option tied to performance, PAs, or something to that extent.  I'm glad to hear there isn't any such option, as it prevents Omar from potentially handcuffing the infield for the future (after next year).

by sfgfan on Nov 6, 2007 3:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: OK...
I'm with you and WalrusMan. It seems a little much, but then his salary the previous 3 years was a little low. The Giants have a number of SS coming through the system. I still think 1B, 3B and the BP are areas of concern.

by Buzzword on Nov 6, 2007 4:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: OK...
I don't care how good his glove is, $4 million for a .570 OPS does not equal underpaid.
you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area

by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 5:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Seems remarkably like the OLD Sabean, doesn't it?
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 6, 2007 3:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
::insert The Who song lyrics here::
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Nov 6, 2007 3:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Complete with blood-curdling "Yeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!"
My son (Kevin Correia) is an honors student at Righetti Prep

by VidaWantsYourCar on Nov 6, 2007 4:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Out of my brain on the 5:15!
Rockies juggernaut rolls o...ver , dead. NL West TempestTeapot CASE IN POINT!

by victor frankenstein on Nov 8, 2007 12:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I wouldn't want him back for $316,000, to be honest.

by kingofthacove on Nov 6, 2007 3:30 PM PST reply actions  

+1
Couldn't agree more!
Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Nov 6, 2007 4:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
the return of Dreamy!!!!!!1

yeah, kinda sucks to have less change on the infield than we had hoped, but he's fun to watch.

meh, I guess.

I'm not pissed, they could still trade for a prospect at that position.

Fairley odd parent to Wendell...

by Mark carry on on Nov 6, 2007 3:31 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Strange as this may seem it is a market value contract.  Free Agents are worth about 2 mil per Win  Above Replacement.  Vizquel was worth 2.7 wins.  

That said, I hope the Giants have a plan for trading Ray Durham.  

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 6, 2007 3:34 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I'm not really pissed about the contract as I am that it leaves one less spot for us to put a young position player we either already have or acquire.

by kingofthacove on Nov 6, 2007 3:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Free agents actually command quite a bit more than two million per win these days. But there's no way Vizquel was worth 2.7 anything. Per BP, he was nine runs below replacement level with the bat last year. How many do you think he makes up with the glove? Fifteen tops, I'd say.

by Evan on Nov 6, 2007 3:39 PM PST up reply actions  

15 tops?
RZR had him at 14 runs above AVERAGE. ZR at 25 above average. UZR at 16 runs above average.

Per BP, they had Vizquel at 24 runs below average, offensively. So, he would come out to about 10 runs below AVERAGE, in total. That's worth about $4M.

The contract was foolish, but it is about market value.

by rfloh on Nov 6, 2007 11:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: 15 tops?
Okay, sixteen tops.

I'm a believer in measuring a player's offense against replacement level and his defense against average level, on the theory that replacement-level hitters tend to be slick fielders.

Viquel's UZR rating vs. average for the last few years:

  1. +11
  2.  -7
  3. +16
  4. +10
Give him a mulligan for 2004 (injury?) and his level is about +13. So, (-9) runs with the bat + 13 runs with the glove = 4 runs above replacement overall = there's no reason to bother with figuring out the "market rate" for this guy, because whether your estimates of his value skew a little high or a little low, he's not going to make any significant difference in whether you win or lose.

Where are you getting the 2007 UZR numbers, btw?

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 6:43 AM PST up reply actions  

You can't just add runs above
average to runs above replacement. The scales aren't the same.

You need to first state clearly WHAT replacement level you're using. Are you setting replacement level at 20 runs below average, like what MGL and Tango do? Or 25 runs? Or 30 runs?

For example, you have him at 9 runs below replacement. If you set replacement at 20 runs below average that is 29 runs below average. If you set replacement level at 25 runs below average, that is 34 runs below average.

If you're going to do a projection of his defense, then you should also do projection of his offense, instead of just using one year's numbers. This is his worse offensive year ever.

The 2007 UZR numbers are from MGL's likst of best and worst fielders that he published on his blog. Just do a search for "best worst UZR".

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2007 7:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You can't just add runs above
Ah, bummer, I thought maybe he'd posted the full 2007 uzrs somewhere.

I use the VORP numbers to set replacement level, because they're the quickest to look up. I assume they use a "number of runs below average" approach as well, but any such system is obviously an approximation. If you want to get an accurate replacement level, I think you need to actually calculate an average production for the bottom-of-the-barrel major-league players at the position, the guys who are going to get released or nontendered or are available in trade more-or-less for free. And then average that with the MLEs of the better AAA players at the position. Which no one who isn't getting paid should spend the time to calculate, of course.

But generally it's only going to make a difference of a few runs either way. My point is that the quick-and-dirty calculation of Vizquel's value makes it clear that it's not worth investing the time in coming up with a more precise calculation, because he's not good enough for it to matter. If you pay free-agent-market-value for one-win players, you're doomed, because you're going to end up with a $100 million payroll and 70 wins. Which, come to think of it, is about what we've got.

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 8:11 AM PST up reply actions  

Since you're using a BPro stat
in VORP, you might as well use Batting Runs Above Average, also a BPro stat. The only notable difference is that it isn't position adjusted, unlike VORP.

"Accuracy" is a problem, but "precision" is also one. Different people have different definitions of replacement level. WARP, for example sets replacement level very low, at about 40 runs below average in totality, which is why Vizquel ends up with 2.7 WARP1, 4.5 WARP2 and WARP3.

Vizquel has value to the right team. If the team is an ~85-90 win team that is contending for the playoffs, a 1 win below average, 10 runs below average player, who is "proven", who has not much of an upside, but whom you can expect to give you 10 runs below average is useful. Contending teams,  especially those with decent payrolls, don't need to be "efficient", they can overpay for consistency, they can overpay to reduce variance, since getting into the playoffs means much more money in return.

The Giants probably aren't that team, unless some miracle happens.

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2007 8:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Since you're using a BPro stat
I think WARP does that "replacement level with both bat and glove" thing that I ramble about below.

True enough about team context; there are teams for which one win is worth fighting for. And if the Yankees or Marlins, for instance, were to install Vizquel at short and move the incumbents to third or center, they might find that their pitching staff shows considerably more than $5.5 million worth of improvement. It's just having him on THIS team that makes me crazy.

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 8:46 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You can't just add runs above
Oh, and "The scales aren't the same." Hmm. Why not? I mean, I know it's not elegant, but you're measuring in runs either way.

For the purpose of choosing players and figuring out how much to pay them, we don't really care how they compare to average--we care how they compare to the free talent whose salary is trivial. So you measure against replacement level. But if you use both replacement-level hitting and replacement-level fielding, you end up with Tony Pena's bat and Derek Jeter's glove, which obviously doesn't help. Using replacement-level hitting and average fielding gets you to a plausible replacement level within a reasonable margin of error.

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 8:36 AM PST up reply actions  

Well, yeah runs are runs
but depending on where you set replacement level, 5 runs above replacement could be either useful, or completely worthless. That's basically my point.

For example, Baseball Prospectus uses replacement level fielding and replacement level hitting for WARP, ie TPJ's bat combined with DJ's glove. Other people, like you, set replacement level at basically replacement level in totality. That's why you need to define clearly what you're setting replacement level at. 2.7 WARP1 is basically not as good as it seems.

Also, you shouldn't just use replacement level hitting plus average fielding. Rather replacement level in totality. For example, guys like Jack Cust, Josh Phelps, Russ Branyan, are all replacement level fielders. The exact opposites of guys like TPJ. If you set replacement at 20 below in totality, a player who is 20 below in defense (Cust etc), but 20 above in offense would be average, and 20 runs above replacement. Similarly, a player who is 20 below in offense (TPJ etc), but 20 above in defense, would also be average and 20 runs above replacement.

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2007 9:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Like others in this thread, I'm just pissed that Sabean is basically conceding the shortstop position (and another offensive black hole in the lineup) before any wheeling and dealing even starts.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Nov 6, 2007 3:44 PM PST reply actions  

Scream
Aargh! I meant to nominate this for image of the year!
The SF Giants: agressively promoting young talent since 2008.

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 4:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
5.5 million for one of the 4 or 5 worst offensive players in major league baseball last season.

Feliz is going to get 2/15.  I can feel it.  

by KCE on Nov 6, 2007 3:53 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Rotoworld likes* it a lot:

Omar Vizquel - SS - Giants

The Giants and Omar Vizquel are close to a one-year deal worth a reported $5.5 million.

Incredible. He's coming off his worst year ever and he's going to get a raise. Vizquel hit a putrid .246/.305/.316 in 2007, and even the Gold Glove voters have noticed that he's slipping on defense. Vizquel made $4 million last season in the final year of his three-year, $12.25 million contract.  Nov. 6 - 6:58 p.m. ET

* hates

by KCE on Nov 6, 2007 4:01 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
well, except that he really isn't slipping on defense but w/e.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Nov 6, 2007 4:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the gold glove voters are a good judge of talent.
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Nov 6, 2007 6:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I'm all right with Omar returning, but at that price? Bleck.
Democracy is lovely but baseball is more mature. BVCE supports Manny Burriss and SF Dugout.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Nov 6, 2007 4:03 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I like Omar, and am happy to have him back for one year if the alternative is having Sabes going out and signing David Eckstein for 7 years. And we all know that was the only alternative this front office was probably considering.

That said, what does it take nowadays for a major league player to NOT get a raise? (That's what she said!)

Lon Simmons' adopted dad.

by Kitspool on Nov 6, 2007 4:05 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I'm okay with Vizquel returning, BUT PLAY SOME FREAKING HARDBALL!!!

The Giants don't need Vizquel. They're not a contender desperate to sign a legitimate SS to avoid playing some organizational nobody. Vizquel represents a luxury, not a necessity. If he doesn't want to take a 3M, 1 year deal, let him see just how much another team is willing to pay for his 2007 performance.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 6, 2007 4:06 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Bidding against himself is one of the few things Sabean does well these days.
Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Nov 6, 2007 4:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I'm going to put a bunch of my crap up for sale on eBay and see if I can get him to bid on it.
Lon Simmons' adopted dad.

by Kitspool on Nov 6, 2007 4:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Just make sure it's old, savvy crap.
My son (Kevin Correia) is an honors student at Righetti Prep

by VidaWantsYourCar on Nov 6, 2007 4:31 PM PST up reply actions  

the auction
Two bits of advice:
  • Make sure the bidding concludes "at the end of the day".
  • Make sure whatever you're selling has tires.  He likes to kick the tires.

by Goofus on Nov 7, 2007 6:46 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: the auction
These three posts are pure genius.  Well done, y'all.
(I will think fondly of you, but not give you credit, when I plagiarize this and tell it to my pals.)

by Cleophus on Nov 7, 2007 11:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Worst case they get stuck playing Figueroa which would most likely be an offensive upgrade anyway.
 

by mxmob33 on Nov 6, 2007 4:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Do not want cat graphic.
Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Nov 6, 2007 4:09 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Love the creativity Brian, can't wait until Feliz gets his multi-year deal.

I'm going to be sick!

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Nov 6, 2007 4:09 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I'd bet good money that tomorrow's Chron headline is:

Vizquel inks one year pact; Feliz close to returning

by KCE on Nov 6, 2007 4:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
As much as I think it sucks that the Giants are potentialy paying 5.5M for Viz, I am happy to have him back. I assumed he would sign at a discount to avoid having to change teams, maybe 2.5-3M.

On the plus side I am taking this as a sign that Sabean is looking to make some significant power upgrades at other locations. (A man can dream, can't he?)

by Scottsdale on Nov 6, 2007 4:13 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Well 1/5.5mil  sounds a lot better than 3/21 mil or so we would give to somebody else sounds good. If the Giants are looking at speed and defense this is a decent pick plus we can always ship him mid-year to a contending team if he regains his average stroke as a hitter and his amazing defensive abilities.
Cain is Able if runs are granted

by ACgiant87 on Nov 6, 2007 4:16 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I think this is a better deal than most seem to think. First, I am guessing that Sabean paid overpaid , so that it would be a one year deal. Also, come trade deadline time, a expiring contract is a lot more attractive than a two year deal for a over the hill player.

Plus, it's only a 1.5 million more, it's not like that's going to prevent us from signing whoever we will sign.

I think the benifits outweigh the cost.

Angel Joseph is just that a guardian angel.

by gianator on Nov 6, 2007 4:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Yep, he paid him extra to drop his demand for a second year. I think this is a sign that the Giants are not going after big name free agents this offseason and are hoping that there are better ones out there next year. I would bet that if Feliz comes back as well, Sabean will also stick to a one year deal.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 6, 2007 6:34 PM PST up reply actions  

OK
So Omar's deal was expiring THIS YEAR? Why didn't Sabean trade him to Detroit for some nice shinies? Because the Giants were contending?

Would you pay $5M to Vizquel another $5M to Feliz or save up that money and go after ARod?

by rfloh on Nov 6, 2007 11:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: OK
That was a rhetorical question, right?  :)

by sharksrog on Nov 7, 2007 11:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: OK
The thing I hate the most about this deal is that it tells me they're not going after ARod. To get involved with ARod they would have to save some money at certain positions. The fact that they would allocate 5.5 million dollars to Omar for 2008 means they are not worried about doing this. If they were going to take a run at ARod they would go with a shortstop making next to nothing and throw that 5 million or so into the ARod fund. Business as usual for Brian Sabean. Bad business. Losing business.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 7, 2007 7:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
If the Giants are going for speed and defense then the are stupid and will continue to go nowhere until they change their philosophy. It has no bearing on the quality of this deal.  
Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 6, 2007 5:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Omar wanted an extension way back in like March I believe.  At the time I thought that it was a no-brainer.  Reigning gold-glover who stays healthy and can consistenly handle the bat?  Sign him up!  As the season wore on and Dreamy's bat stayed cold, I began to appreciate Sabean for holding off.  I remember thinking to myself, "Wow, for once Sabean saw something in a player that indicated he might be slowing down and Sabes had the sense and discipline to refrain from extending his contract."

Alas, Omar put up one of the worst offensive seasons of any player in the league and Brian Sabean seems likely to give him a raise.  I hate this.

Anyone know what Omar's agent was asking for money-wise when there was talk of a contract extension?

Schoop! There it is.

by Woody Wins on Nov 6, 2007 4:29 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
why why why why why why why why why why WHY?

2002? I'm over it. But I'll never be over Rich Aurilia.

by wjackalope on Nov 6, 2007 4:52 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
If they sign A-Rod, this banner really needs to be put up at the ballpark. Just ridiculous.

by UnleashTheGore on Nov 6, 2007 5:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
From a baseball budget perspective, no-brainer analysis is that Sabean overpaid. Again. Sabean's offers are unique in that they are uncontested, and typically the most $$$ by a shockingly wide margain.

If Vizquel averaged $4.1m/per over the life of his contact, sure, for the sake of honor or whatever, re-up at $4.1m for one year, or even $4.2m. But the increase to $5.5m is perplexing... almost a "make good" for slightly underpaying the first two years of the contract. The only way this makes sense is if Vizquel has tacitly agreed to retire at the end of the season, join the Giants coaching staff, and eventually go into the baseball Hall of Fame wearing a Giants uniform. Those are some pretty strong intangibles.

From a performance perspective, having a .250 slap hitter bat 8th in your line-up is not the end of the world. As long as BOTCHEE anchors Omar in that 8th spot in the order- no more hitting 2nd! Defensively, Vizquel is still elite, top 2-3 in the league, if not the gme. Omar is the stabilizing defensive force of the Giants infield, and gives Giants pitchers confidence when he's playing in the field behind them. The dude is a vacuum cleaner at short stop- think Jose Uribe, but way, way better.

I don't know where these naysayers are coming from, in terms of Vizquel "slipping." Over the past 3 seasons, I've watched hundreds of games on TV. Vizquel has clearly been the best defensive short stop in San Francisco Giants history, and I welcome him back to the team! Sabean looks to overpay by $1m-$1.5m, but you could do a lot worse...

Defender of Noah Lowry.

by Kid Fresh on Nov 6, 2007 5:24 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Sabean and Magowan run the Giants like Bush and the Congress run DC - a big fat fucking money train for useless cronies and has-beens who we're told deserve "respect" and "support" in spite of their utter lack of success; in both cases performance and compensation are entirely unrelated.
you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area

by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 5:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
oh yeah and the "market" doesn't mean shit to these people, whether it's a no-bid for Halliburton or a $50 million outbid for Zito.

sorry about the politics but the parallel is just too clear to ignore.  and it makes my brain sad and my soul mad.

you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area

by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 5:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Careful with the politico talk...A few, or one person in particular got pissy with me for making a comment about the concept of "fair and balanced" reference just this last week.

BTW...I agree with you 100%.

Screw the Giants, but not Omar. I'm getting drunk and watching some footy.

by PacBellBoozer on Nov 6, 2007 5:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
actually it was that exact post that made me think it was ok to write this.

oh well.  at least my hatred is bipartisan

you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area

by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 6:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Nice post. I didn't want him back next year under any circumstances, but at least Omar batting eighth right before the pitcher gives you a few good minutes of non-action where you can go make yourself a sandwich. The return of Omar will probably put another 20 pounds on me next year.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 6, 2007 6:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I think it was Baseball Prospectus that had a recent article on "salary budgeting" vs. "win budgeting."  The latter is a very fine concept.  The former appears to be what Brian Sabean continues to follow.

by sharksrog on Nov 7, 2007 11:24 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Well I, for one, don't have a huge problem with this (aside from the raise).  One year contracts aren't going to kill our team.  One year contracts aren't the reason we are in the place we are in right now.  One year contracts don't kill baseball teams.

In fact, this might be a positive sign.  If Vizquel is getting a one year contract then it might show that Sabean is looking more towards 2009 than 2008.  That would be a good thing.  

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 6, 2007 5:25 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Oh, I disagree.

A large part of the reason the Giants are where they are now is their longstanding absence from the international FA market. Every dollar going to signings like this is one dollar less going towards finding the next Vlad.  

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 6, 2007 5:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Well, if the scenario goes: money given to free agents takes away from money given to minor league free agents or international free agents then, sure, let's save that money and employ some other cheaper alternative at short.  

And, there is evidence that that is exactly how the Giants operate.

There is no evidence, however, that the Giants would in fact put money saved off the major league roster into development (minor leagues or international, either one).

The Giants, as an organization, are willing to save money in development but not so much in their major league roster.

And if we are talking about what the Giants should do and not about what they have done, then they should have a developmental budget that is not affected by their major league budget.  Meaning signing Omar Vizguel instead of employing some cheap alternative will not affect their ability to find talent on the international market.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 6, 2007 6:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Ok, so you prefer
Vizquel + Feliz + more crap to ARod? You prefer a bunch of veteran crap to Vlad? To Tejada?

All these "small" contracts add up. And the result is that the Giants don't go after the superstars.

by rfloh on Nov 6, 2007 11:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Ok, so you prefer
Where did I talk about anything other than Omar Vizquel and his one year deal?  

Arod?  Feliz?  Veteran crap? Vlad?  Tejada?  I don't see how you gleaned all of this from anything I said.

A one year deal to one position player means no superstars?

What grand plans did the Vizquel contract kill this off-season?  Arod?  Well, if tying up half of our payroll into two players is your thing, then I'm sorry that Vizquel and Sabean ruined that dream for you.

Now, I'm assuming that you connected my post to the infamous "Angels sign Vlad; Giants sign Tomko" offseason.  Let me just point out the huge leap you took in doing so.  I commented on one 1-year contract.  Sabean justified not signing Vlad by naming, like, seven or eight contracts.  And how many of those were one year contracts?

So let me just return to my outlook on this one single contract.  The Giants are a mess.  They have many holes in the lineup to fill.  Further, they have several players making a good amount of money who are not likely to help the club very much next year.  Seeing as how there are several holes to fill and they have a limited amount of trading chips and the free agent market sucks this off-season, they are not likely to fill all of their holes in the lineup.  Building upon that last point, they are not likely to compete.  2008 is likely a lost season.  Therefore, since it is a lost season and the Giants are not likely to fill all of their holes with good, long-term investments this off-season, one one-year contract to one of the better defensive players at a position that the club has no other realistic options for internally is not going to hurt this team.    

Now this is not to say I am completely okay with this deal.  I agree with two criticisms in this thread.  I think the raise is silly.  And I agree that this happened too soon.  

But, in the end, by itself, it just doesn't hurt the Giants that much.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 7, 2007 1:25 AM PST up reply actions  

Sure, it doesn't hurt much
and $5M for Feliz wouldn't hurt much either. Another $5M for a "proven veteran" reliever won't hurt much either.

The Giants won't contend in 2008. So why do you need Vizquel at $5M? Why not just stick in a random all glove no hit SS from the minors, like what the Royals did with TPJ? Go ask the Mets what they want for Anderson Hernandez, who is a TPJ clone: all glove, no bat. The Giants aren't a contender. Proven production isn't as important to them as it would be to a contender like the Tigers. The Giants can afford some variance in their roster. They can take some risks.

Omar is proven to be about 5-10 runs below average. Will that make the Giants a playoff contender? If not why pay market rate, or above market rate, for it?

Since a one year deal is fine, why not just bring back Barry? Why is $5M for Vizquel better than $20M for Bonds? Because the Giants need to "move on"?

As for ARod, if you're fine with paying retail consistent proven mediocrities like Vizquel, Feliz, Winn, Roberts, Mando, on a non contending team, go ahead and enjoy your 75 win Giants.

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2007 1:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sure, it doesn't hurt much
Again, you are extrapolating a lot that just isn't there.  I thought I made a point to mention that I am okay with this if it's just Omar.  Apparently I wasn't clear enough.  So let me just address the exact points you bring up.

1) I agree that the Giants should have been looking for some young talent or cheaper stopgap at SS.

2)I agree that paying Omar 5.5m is a little steep.

3)I would have been fine with the Giants bringing Barry back.

  1. 5m for Vizquel is not better than 20m for Bonds.
  2. I am not fine with "paying retail" on all of Vizquel, Feliz, Winn, Roberts and Mando.  One, maybe two, is okay.  As long as they are not long-term deals (such as Robert's and Winn's and Armando's were).  I have advocated for the dumping of both Roberts and Winn in other threads.  I do not want Pedro Feliz back. Armando isn't even on the team any more.
  3. All of that being said.  As long as it is just Omar and as long as Sabean is able to dump some contracts (2 or 3 of Durham, Aurilia, Roberts, Molina or Winn) then I'm okay with it.  We can look for shortstop during next season and off-season.
And even if none of this occurs, then the Vizquel one-year contract still does not hurt the team very much.  It's contracts like Zito's and Winn's and Molina's that hurt the team.  It's signing Michael Tucker to lose a first round pick that hurts the team.  It's trading three very promising prospects for a mediocre catcher when you have a decent young one already that hurts the team.  It's then turning around and paying a big, fat contract to a guy to fill a need that could have been filled internally that hurts the team.

I hope this clears things up.  

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 7, 2007 9:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sure, it doesn't hurt much
Rolf has a tendency to grab hold of one piece of a point someone makes, shake it viciously, and tell you you're wrong because you hate Barry, hate ARod, love Satan, and think Hitler should have won the Nobel prize.  Sorry Rolf, it just seems your arguments, pieced from one small point that's been made, is asinine at best.

I agree with Havenot.  With so many holes to fill, this is probably the LEAST damaging signing.  Supposing Sabes manages to go younger at 1st, 3rd, 2nd, and a couple OF spots, wouldn't it be a good idea to bring back Omar?

This isn't even comparable to Bonds, and it's a dumb argument to place it in the same context as a one year deal for Barry.  20mil for Barry means you have 20mil less in payroll flexibility, regardless of whether your payroll is self-imposed or not.  5mil for Vizquel really shouldn't hamper your ability to sign other players, especially knowing the deal is off the books one season from now.  The only way it hampers anything is if it's partnered up with signing six other mediocrities to round out the lineup.

Mind you, I think Sabean really SHOULD do his due diligence and actually spend a little time looking for alternative options at short, instead of panicking this early and signing Omar to a deal.  But the guy is a gold glove, future HOF shortstop, who isn't currently blocking anyone from playing, and whose defense still looks pretty good to me.  It's not the best signing we've made, but it's definitely far from the worst.

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

by JRPhillips on Nov 7, 2007 10:46 AM PST up reply actions  

$5M for Vizquel
would get you about 10 runs below average, 10 runs above replacment. That is worth about $4M a year. $20M for Bonds gets you about 30 runs above average, 50 runs above replacement. That is worth about $20M a year.

Let's say you replace Vizquel with some random AAA glove. How many wins do you lose? 1? 2? So you go from 73 wins to 71 wins? Who cares?

You want refuse to pay the 3 win above average player at market rate, but go out and pay a 1 win below average player above market rate? Especially when you are nowhere close to a playoff spot?

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2007 11:08 AM PST up reply actions  

Nowhere near a playoff spot?
Okay, let get this straight.

Sign Barry, despite the fact that we're nowhere near the playoffs, hampering our ability to sign an impact bat if one comes along, because he's worth more wins to a team that probably won't compete for a playoff spot.

DON'T sign Vizquel, because he's making 1mil more than he should be and is a luxury on a non-contending team.

Part of your argument seems to be centered around Bonds being worth more wins than a replacement.  Could you please remind me how many wins we had the past three years WITH Bonds?  Honestly, I've forgotten our final records, so I'm hoping you can remind me how AWESOME the Giants have been the last three years with Barry.

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

by JRPhillips on Nov 9, 2007 1:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I actually think that one year deals have had a significant impact on getting the Giants where they are now. One-year deals, after all, have been a staple of Sabean's roster management going back to the very beginning (Orel Hershiser).  But in this decade particularly, a huge amount of our incoming players have been brought in on: one year contracts or one year contract with an option, as a trade with one year left on their contract; or not yet FA eligible players who were here one year and then released or not offered a contract.

In just the last 5 or 6 years a list of players who fit under one of those categories would include David Bell, Benito Santiago, Jay Witasick, Reggie Sanders, Jose Cruz, Andres GAllaraga, Jeffrey Hammonds, Ruben Rivera, Brett Tomko, Moises Alou, Jose Vicaino, Jeff Fassero, Steve Finley, Steve Kline, Ryan Klesko, Dustin Mohr, Shinjo, AJ, and I'm sure some others I'm forgetting.  And these aren't just bit players. Alot of these guys were starters and middle of the order bats.  

Add in players like JT, and Dustin Hermanson who were extended by one year more than once, and several two-year deals like Neifi and Grissom.

The result of this has been huge roster turnover on an annual basis (and starting lineup turnover).  With these factors in play: a) you need to replace a significant portion of your lineup; b) you can't do it from your own minor league system; c) the FA market has been drying up as team's move to lock up more of their elite players before they hit the market; d) self-imposed payroll restrictions -- the end result is a gradual talent drain that has left us with, IMO, as little talent top to bottom of any organization in baseball.

So while this one move may seem innocuous, I think it's an extension of a short-term fix ideology that has played an important role in getting us where we are today. I think we need to start building a lineup out of players we can control for a while, get some roster stability going and to a certain extent hope to get lucky with some of them.

Let's not forget that easily Sabean's greatest transaction as a GM (the Jeff Kent trade) is so because we got incredibly and unforseeably lucky with a player who suddenly blossomed into a MVP and near-Hall of famer in our lap.

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

by Roger on Nov 7, 2007 8:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
You know, I've been mulling over a similar thought over the last day, and I'm glad you did all this work because I was still just working it through in my head.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 8:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
hooray for smart people who make teh interwebz easy!
Fairley odd parent to Wendell...

by Mark carry on on Nov 7, 2007 8:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Okay, this makes sense.  And taken in bulk and as part of a trend, in this context, I can see the consternation with the move.  

However, I will still reserve judgment until I see what else Sabean will do this off-season.  I just think the Giants are not going to fill all of their holes this off-season, so filling one with a one year contract is acceptable.  Do I think we could have filled it with a cheaper one year stopgap?  You bet.  But, as long as Sabean works to fill the other holes (3b, 1b, LF and maybe even C) with talent that we can control for several years for pretty cheap, I'm okay with this move.  

If he's still the same old Sabean (and this one move is not enough to prove he is) I will, at that point, join in with you guys on the gnashing of teeth.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 7, 2007 9:46 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
+1 as they say these days.  
Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 9:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Really, 1-year deals should be made as a stopgap in between bringing a guy up from the minors, or planning to pursue a better option a year later.  But filling out your roster with one year deals because you don't have any other options, at any point in time, ANYwhere else, is a very bad way to run a baseball team.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.  The problem the Giants currently face is that, for the most part, they are very one-dimensional at building a team.  It's become based too heavily on signing free agents.  The occasional trades are made, but there's been a tendency to only use younger players to fill out the roster, instead of with a plan to give them any sort of playing time.  And with most of the best players typically being locked up before they hit free agency, and rarely ever a very good, under 30 free agent ever being available, the makeup of this team becomes EXTREMELY limited.

One year deals, if done with the long term in mind, can be a very good thing.  But one year deals as a stopgap to the next one year deal...  That's crazy.

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

by JRPhillips on Nov 7, 2007 10:53 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
That two-year deal for Neifi Perez was certainly born of genius.  Apparently Brian Sabean missed the memo that shows Neifi hitting a career .321 in Coors Field and .246 elsewhere.

by sharksrog on Nov 7, 2007 11:27 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
There are a certain few names I do not ever want to hear again.  Neifi Perez, being one of them.  A couple others: A.J. Pierzynski, Jeffrey Hammonds, Michael Tucker, Edgardo Alfonzo, Ruben Rivera, Alex Sanchez....wait, there's a lot of names I don't ever want to hear again.  

Bless you, Brian Sabean.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 7, 2007 4:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Gee, why pay Omar more?

It might be so that Vizquel takes away his two-year deal requirement, do ya think?

I'd rather pay a 50% premium on Vizquel this year than to put him under contract for two years.

And bottom line: This is the most harmless move the Giants could've made at shortstop.  Eckstein is not an upgrade, and would've required another few years on a deal to sign.  Ditto for non MLB shortstop like Tomohiro Nioka.  Royce Clayton?  Ramon Martinez?  Desi Relaford?  Neifi?  They may have done a one year deal, but they don't have the defense that would help now, and would probably hit as bad as Omar.

Minor League free agents are not the answer either.  Yea, it's a one year deal, but for the average fan (a.k.a. the 2,999,900 fans who aren't smarks on a message board like us), don't give anyone a reason to come to the game.  If nothing else, Omar is likable.  I can't say that about Tomas, Luis, Ivan or the other options.

And the $5M saved...that's not exactly going to make the difference on an A-Rod deal, and there's no one else that's a bank-breaker in this market where the Giants need to shave payroll to pay.

Signing Omar won't make the Giants a winner in 2008.  But there are no shortstops who will.  What Omar does do is not hurt the Giants in 2009...and he does it in a likeable way.  Are there any other options out there who can say that?

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 5:45 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I don't really mind the money. I just feel like this is conceding very early in the offseason that shortstop is going to be an offensive black hole again next season. I feel like we should have at least explored our options (trade-wise... what kind of SS could we possibly get for Noah Lowry, for example?) before locking ourselves into another year of Omar.

Now, I love the guy, and I'm not entirely disappointed he'll be manning shortstop for us again next year, but I just feel like it was a little early to be committing ourselves to Vizquel at shortstop for another year.

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

by jponry on Nov 6, 2007 5:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Thank you.

5.5M for Vizquel isn't that big a deal, for all the reason Brute mentioned... in January. After all avenues of possible improvement have been exhausted.

5.5M for Vizquel in November is Sabean phoning it in.  

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 6, 2007 6:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Name one reasonably available shortstop who is not going to cost an arm and a leg and not be a probable weak spot.
SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 6:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Save Arod, there are none.

Please note that, until he actually signs, Omar Vizquel is still an "available shortstop."

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 6, 2007 11:15 PM PST up reply actions  

And Vizquel is a weak spot
Why are you rushing out to get a player who is a guaranteed weak spot? A player who even with his great defense is below average in totality with his horrible offense?

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2007 12:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: And Vizquel is a weak spot
Probably because if you sit and wait, even that player will be gone, and then it'll be about getting a far weaker player (Triple-A free agent), or getting a mediocre player and being locked in for three years.

I'll take Omar for one year than Eckstein for four, or even three.  Same for almost any other option out there.

And I definitely would prefer Omar to Luis, Ivan, Tomas or the other Triple-A options.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 1:34 AM PST up reply actions  

So you would make
a bad decision (Vizquel) just because you're afraid of making an even worse decision (Eckstein)?

What difference would Omar being better than a random AAA SS make? A couple extra wins? 75 instead of 72 wins?

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2007 1:47 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: So you would make
There wouldn't necessarily be any difference, assuming the money would be invested elsewhere.
Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 7, 2007 9:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: So you would make
What difference would Omar being better than a random AAA SS make? A couple extra wins? 75 instead of 72 wins?

His defense makes the pitching look better, increasing their trade value for young hitters (Especially important if Lowry isn't traded this offseason).

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 10:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I don't necessarily believe this does prevent the Giants from getting another shortstop.  Omar can't be oblivious to the fact that his production is declining, and that in the game of baseball, if you slip too far, you move to the bench.  

Moreover, this strengthens the Giants' bargaining position tradewise in terms of someone ML-ready like Hall ("Well, gee Doug, we don't NEED him, we've got Vizquel.  I guess we'll take him off your hands if you want, but only if you throw in..."), and allows a move for someone like Brignac or Longoria or (don't jinx it don't jinx it) Brandon Wood to pay off later, i.e. if we get a young shortstop, we can keep him in the minors instead of moving him a year closer to arbitration in a season which everyone and their mother knows we're going to tank.

"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 6, 2007 6:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
He made it a point at the trade deadline to tell the team that, if traded, he wanted to be somewhere that he could start rather than a contend (not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but, the way he played, they pretty much were).

I have a strong feeling that he'd only agree to the deal with the understanding that he'd start, period.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 6, 2007 6:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I have a strong feeling that he'd only agree to the deal with the understanding that he'd start, period.

So what?  I'm sure Aurilia signed his contract with the understanding that he'd start, period.  I'm sure Grip came into 2005 knowing he'd start, period.  Guys play their way out of the lineup; as far as I can tell, no player in history has ever had explicit contract leverage in terms of whether or not they start.  There are a million reasons to hate this deal without somehow convincing yourself that Omar cannot be benched or DFA'd.

"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 7, 2007 7:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Aurilia signed with the understanding not that he'd have a starting role, but that he'd be plugged into the lineup on a regular basis at several positions. Which he was, until he got hurt.

The Giants have long taken their time in removing non-performing vets from the lineup. Vizquel will probably have to continue to stink out loud for another three months before he sees the bench (assuming the Giants actually bother to scrounge up someone else to play shortstop in his place).

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 7, 2007 9:44 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Sorry, this strikes me as the "anything has to be better than what we have," mentality.  Of course Omar has to suck for about 3 months before he gets benched or DFA'd--this is sort of standard for most regulars.  Fact of the matter is, "scrounging up someone else," would, beyond a shadow of a doubt, get Sabean just as torched as re-upping with Vizquel, and if the player thus scrounged sucked for three months, he too would get benched.

And Richie was originally signed to be the starting 1B, before Klesko signed.

This across-the-board wrist-slitting snit is based on a masochistic fantasy that a) every other team is just cueing up to trade us their young infield talent, only Sabean spurns them all to keep Vizquel, and b) signing Vizquel inherently means we can't possibly make any other moves that would help the team in any way.

"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 7, 2007 10:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Regarding a) and b)...  Sooo freakin' true, man!

Still, Sabes DID say he'd do due diligence.  I don't think signing Omar NOW is necessarily due diligence, in regard to improving the SS position.

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

by JRPhillips on Nov 7, 2007 11:08 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
No one thinks that other teams are, um, queuing up to trade us their infielders. But there are a bunch of young, ready-now shortstops who might be available in trade: Cabrera, Lillibridge, Hu, Aybar, Lowrie.

And there are other possibilities. Bill Hall is probably available. Bobby Crosby would be a great risk if the A's want to give up on him. Maicer Izturis might come cheap. Tampa Bay has three decent shortstops keeping the spot warm for Brignac. There are slick fielders floating around like Alberto Gonzalez and Anderson Hernandez who might learn how to hit.

But the bottom line is that there's no significant risk to letting Vizquel go. If none of those options work out, if you get stuck and have to patch the position with an ad-hoc platoon of Ivan Ochoa and Kevin Frandsen or something like that, what difference does it make? They'll likely be only a tiny bit worse than Omar, and we're not going to be in contention anyway.
 

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 12:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
If the A's give up on Bobby Crosby, buyer beware!
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 7, 2007 12:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
But there are a bunch of young, ready-now shortstops who might be available in trade: Cabrera, Lillibridge, Hu, Aybar, Lowrie.

And might not.  Again, this is why I'm saying everyone's in fantasy-land, thinking that this shit works like a PlayStation: the assumption is that Sabean could've made deals for these players but chose not to, instead going with Vizquel.  Yet there are good reasons for the Indians, Braves, Dodgers, Angels, and Red Sox to keep those prospects rather than deal them.  I can play the "here's a possible reason why Sabean couldn't get x-and-x player," game, but Brute already did it and did it better.

Teams deal to address a need and make their organization better, not because they don't really need such-and-such player, nor because talentwise the trade seems fair.  In fact, both sides are deliberately attempting to insure that the trade is unfair.

there's no significant risk to letting Vizquel go.

And my point is there's also no significant risk in re-signing him.

"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 7, 2007 12:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Are you really so unclear on the meaning of the word "might"? Is there anyone, on this vast thread, assuming that "Sabean could've made deals for these players but chose not to"? We long, we pine, we hope, we pray, but no one assumes.

It's November 7. The World Series ended a week and a half ago. And yet Sabean is already giving up on his search for a new and better shortstop. He hasn't even kicked the tires, but it's already the end of the day.

You're suggesting that Sabean's going to keep his options open despite signing Vizquel, and that if a shortstop opportunity develops he'll grab it. What exactly in his cv leads you to believe that?  

As the season dragged to a close, I somehow nurtured a vague hope that the inevitability of the rebuilding project ahead might spur Sabean to approach his job a little differently than he has in the past. This news about Vizquel, trivial though it is, is depressing and frustrating because it suggests that I was wrong, and instead we can look forward to a rebuilding fueled by the imagination and resourcefulness and forward-thinking that made Brian Sabean famous.

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 1:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
You're suggesting that Sabean's going to keep his options open despite signing Vizquel, and that if a shortstop opportunity develops he'll grab it. What exactly in his cv leads you to believe that?

Sorry to play this lame rhetorical game, but what in his CV suggests he won't?  The Giants have never been in rebuilding mode so long as he's been at the helm.  He's been ready enough when we were in the chase to dump non-performers for better performers.  Why wouldn't he be willing to do it when we're not in the chase?

This news about Vizquel, trivial though it is, is depressing and frustrating because it suggests that I was wrong, and instead we can look forward to a rebuilding fueled by the imagination and resourcefulness and forward-thinking that made Brian Sabean famous.

Well, I'd make the argument that signings like Santiago, Grissom, Burks, Cruz, Sanders, etc.--older players who far outperformed their salaries, at least in the short term--were the creativity that made him famous; a couple years ago he was judged one of the better evaluators of major league talent in the game by his fellow GMs in some ESPN poll.  I have no idea why it stopped working (though I suspect the crackdown on PEDs and especially amphetamines figures into it), but it did, and failed spectacularly.  (if I wasn't so lazy, I'd go find Grant's PECOTA story which pionted out that the entire batting order except Bonds underperformed their predicted output; even for the stats people who revile Sabes, that indicates a pretty staggering amount of bad luck)

But beyond that, I think I fight the Eeyore response because it seems like everyone else is trying to argue me out of having hope this offseason.  I'm not excited by Vizquel (except inasmuch as he's a fun player to have around), but I'm not resigned to assuming Sabean's either so arrogant or so suicidal career-wise as to make it his only move.

Spring isn't here yet.  I'm waiting until then to pass definitive judgment.

"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 7, 2007 1:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I agree.  People jumped all over Sabean in 2006 when he didn't trade Schmidt at the deadline, as if they knew there were good offers for him...or any offers for him.

For all we know Sabean already has looked at every teams roster for young shortstops and found them either a) wanting or b) unavailable at anything close to a reasonable price.

by Goofus on Nov 7, 2007 2:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I liked the nontrade of Schmidt. That was almost certainly a good move.

Maybe he has done his due diligence with the shortstops, but isn't it awfully early in the winter for that? Given the man's track record, I can't see any reason to assume he's not privileging veteran savvy over unproven potential.

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 2:17 PM PST up reply actions  

A question
How much do you think a random AAA glove would cost?

The Royals acquired Tony Pena Junior in March 2007 for Erik Cordier. Cordier is your typical very young minor league relief pitching prospect. In other words, organisational filler.

by rfloh on Nov 8, 2007 1:46 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Fair enough. I'll probably be warily optimistic again in a couple of days, but for now I'm grumpy.

I suspect that Sabean's early success with players who looked to be on the decline, and his recent failure with the same approach, is just a matter of luck evening out. If my database skills weren't so feeble, I'd try to figure it out -- dig up projections for all the players he signed and compare them in toto with their actual performance. Something like that.

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 2:11 PM PST up reply actions  

That's the spirit!
I'll probably be warily optimistic again in a couple of days

Great!  Now let me tell you what I just read about Feliz...

"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 7, 2007 2:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: That's the spirit!
I don't think any due dilligence on possible SS acquisitions is completed until Arod signs. Not so much because Arod will sign with the Giants,, but because any team that signs him is likely to find itself with a disgruntled veteran and/or blocked prospects on their hands.

I also don't think the marginal benefit of having ourselves locked into to a below-average player is worth the opportunity cost of missing opportunities later in the offseason. If the Giants were contender with a blatant hole at SS, things would be different, but they aren't in that position. They have very little to lose at this point, so there's no reason not to take greater risks.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 7, 2007 6:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: That's the spirit!
I still don't agree with the assumption that signing Vizquel prevents us from doing anything else.
"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 8, 2007 7:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I'd like to believe you in thinking the Giants would be willing to move Omar to the bench if they acquired someone better, but ... well, I'll believe it when I see it. And $5.5 million is still a lot of dough for a bench player.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Nov 6, 2007 6:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Barring a mistake on their part, the Giants won't be paying Omar $5.5 million to sit on the bench.

by sharksrog on Nov 7, 2007 11:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Thats a very reasoned approach, and I agree with you. I just didn't expect him to get a $1.5M raise after his terrible offense last year.

It won't break the Giants, $1.5M is beans in todays baseball, and at least he didn't get a 2-year deal.

But deep down, somewhere inside of me, I'm all "ngggggghhhh" about paying a potential sub .600 OPS player $5.5M.

by xanthan on Nov 6, 2007 5:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
There's no need to be so condescending. The choice wasn't whether to give Omar a two-year contract or overpay him on a one-year contract. The trade market includes alternatives. Depending on how things play out this off season, I could see Lillibridge, Wood, Crosby, Hall, Wilson, Izturis and others being made available.

Bringing Omar back isn't going to hurt the franchise in the long run, but it does suggest a general lack of creativity in filling the team's holes.

by Dan from NM on Nov 6, 2007 6:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I agree with pretty much what everybody is saying here. They can still trade for a young shortstop and that young shortstop can be a utility player for one year or go to Fresno for awhile because Omar will continue to be the starter. He can even tutor the kid, who will eventually move into the spot as the year goes on, much like Frandsen did this past year at second base. Of course I may be making the mistake here of assuming that Brian Sabean has both a plan and a brain.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 6, 2007 6:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Um...
  • Brent Lillibridge - The Braves trade Andrus, and now trade away Renteria.  Yunel Escobar is not going to get handed the reins with no fallback option with a career .778 minor league OPS and little marketable speed.
  • Brandon Wood - Not a long-term shortstop, and if the Angels are serious about being frugal, no, not being traded.
  • Bobby Crosby - What, are you trying to make Ray Durham feel healthy?
  • Bill Hall - Available, yes.  but also expensive in trade and contract, and not a guarantee to bounce back this year.
  • Jack Wilson - If the new Pirate management wants to make an impression, trading away one of their most popular guys is not the way.  The Pirates are more likely to trade Bay.
  • Izturis - Which one?  Cesar won't outhit Omar, and won't outplay.  Macier isn't a huge upgrade either, and would just take up space for a few years.
Anyone younger than these guys,

Creativity won't make up for the total and complete lack of major league shortstops being available.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 6:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I meant to finish "Anyone younger than these guys, and Omar will play mentor to, just like his major alternative in Chicago would have him do."
SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 6:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Hail Caesar
Izturis is a better defender, with more range and a stronger arm. Make Izturis your everyday SS and dollars to doughnuts he outplays the elder Venezuelan.

by wilriv21 on Nov 6, 2007 7:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Hail Caesar
I dont think I can agree with you Wil. Simple comparision, but

Vizquel Career Fielding_.984 F%4.65 RF.862 ZR
Izturis Career Fielding_.979 F%4.35 RF.855 ZR
Vizquel Career Hitting_ .274/.340/.357.697
Izturis Career Hitting_ .259/.295/.334/.629
Vizquel 2007 Salary_$5.1M (including unpaid bonus)
Izturis 2007 Salary_$4.25M

I'm not overly thrilled with the signing, but I'm having trouble with all of the "panic" over this "proposed" signing. The money is a little steep (based on last years numbers in the box). There is not anyone available in the FA market, and there's no one in the system.

If the Giants can shed Durham and/or Winn, trade for a 1B or 3B, and not re-sign Pete,  I don't think I'll lose too much sleep over this.

Does anyone know why Vizquel did not clear waivers last summer ?

My adopted son Matt Downs. He can hit a little.

by nvsfg on Nov 7, 2007 3:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Alright, the Crosby line made me laugh, and I'll admit it's difficult to say (as an outsider) who's available in trade.

by Dan from NM on Nov 6, 2007 7:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Yea, I know it's hard to know who is or isn't available...I just don't see any current major league shortstops who has even a chance of being available and be a true long-term upgrade.  And the ones who'd be about the same as Omar would cost too much in trade...I'd rather pay the $5M.
SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 7:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
even if this is true, can't they at least TRY and find an upgrade?? Do they have to give the 41 year old Omar a big raise and sign him in early November?? Did they push up the season opener to Thanksgiving??
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 6, 2007 9:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
A horse can try lick at a pile of sand all day long, but that won't make there be water in it.

Everyone is talking about this shortstop upgrade like it's sitting in a tree somewhere waiting to be found.  But EVERY realistic (even borderline realistic) option is not only a downgrade, but would be bad enough to be a two to three year handcuffing of the team.

Vizquel is signed for one year.  Everyone here says we shouldn't be playing for 2008, we should be playing for 2009.  This isn't going to affect 2009, except to keep David frickin' Eckstein off the roster for it, which is good by me.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 10:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
What is this "tree" of which you speak ? Where is it located ? Can we fax Sabean a map to said tree ?

Nice post ! and a very good point. There's nothing out there or in the Giants system. $5.5M will is not significant money. If the Giants were to sign Eckstein( or a comparable player ) the contract would cost more, be for at least three years, and would hamstring the team in any effort to rebuild. This contract has no real effect on the future of the team, except to make the pitchers comfortable next year.

My adopted son Matt Downs. He can hit a little.

by nvsfg on Nov 7, 2007 3:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Why do you need an upgrade?
Stick in a TPJ, a Brendan Harris, a Jeff Keppinger, a Anderson Hernandez. Let Feliz go. Use the money on someone worthwhile, like ARod.

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2007 12:17 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Jack Wilson - If the new Pirate management wants to make an impression, trading away one of their most popular guys is not the way.  The Pirates are more likely to trade Bay.

I think you're reaching on this one. Bay has to be as popular as Wilson in Pitt, if not more so, and Wilson was almost a Tiger this August.

by Grant Brisbee on Nov 6, 2007 9:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I think Pittsburghers (sp?) probably hate both equally. When I saw the Giants play in Pittsburgh this year, they booed Bay mercilessly.

by xanthan on Nov 6, 2007 9:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Even if Hall never
bounces back, he is still a much better hitter than Vizquel can dream of being. He has $20M / 3 left on his contract. Per year, that's similar to what Vizquel is getting.

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2007 12:04 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Even if Hall never
And he's a far poorer defender.  The last time he was a shortstop regularly (a season ago), he was in the bottom third of MLB shortstops in fielding percentage and range factor.  And last year, he didn't even play shortstop once.

And he's locked in for 3 more years at a higher price than Omar.

And he'd cost as much as Noah Lowry in trade.

Lowry and Omar are worth more than Bill Hall, IMO.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 1:40 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Why would you rather pay a 50% premium on Omar Vizquel for one year than to sign him for two?  In essence, you would be getting that second season at half price.  If Omar has a poor season, you might be able to unload him by say absorbing half his salary (a net wash).  Worst case, he wouldn't be HORRIBLY expensive in that case if he were limited to a utility role.

And if Omar DOES have a good season this year, perhaps he could be traded for a piece of interest.

When you sign a guy for 50% more than he's worth, you've just lost 50% (the extra 50% you paid to make 100%).  If you sign a guy for two years at regular salary, the WORST you can do is lose 50% (the 200% you've paid him for two years compared to the 150% you would have paid for one season).

I would have been willing to take the added "risk," which on a percentage basis was no more risk than the Giants are already taking.

Even a $4.5 million contract with a $5.0 million option and a $1 million buyout would have been no worse IMO.

by sharksrog on Nov 7, 2007 2:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Even a $4.5 million contract with a $5.0 million option and a $1 million buyout would have been no worse IMO.

This is the kind of deal I am hoping. Though I would prefer Sabean to look first for a longterm SF Giants SS and have Vizquel as a Plan B. At worst the Giants could offer Vizquel arbitration and if he leaves so be it, but to sign him in November and at those monies has me puzzled.

by wilriv21 on Nov 7, 2007 2:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Eh...whatever.  He's my adopted kid for the time being, so I guess I'm OK with it.  At least I don't have to fight to find someone else on the team to only mildly support this next year.
Screw the Giants, but not Omar. I'm getting drunk and watching some footy.

by PacBellBoozer on Nov 6, 2007 5:51 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Well, nice to see that extra Bonds movie going to use somewhere.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 6:03 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Movie? Where did I get movie? Man, watching Hellboy while you post must really screw with your brain.

I mean MONEY. Of course. Stupid joke ruined by a type.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 6:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
even bigger error: you're watching hellboy.
Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Nov 6, 2007 7:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Is it a major character flaw that I'm even looking forward to Hellboy 2.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 8:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
There's going to be a Hellboy 2?  And we are talking about how giving Omar Vizquel 5.5m is a waste of money...
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 6, 2007 9:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
It's already in post-production. Supposedly it's actually going to be a true "Guillermo del Toro" movie, whereas through the first one he had some limited creative control.

Whatever that means... I guess best case it's a good movie, and worst case it's Ang Lee's The Incredible Hulk recolored in red.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 9:40 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I hope this deal comes with a clause that he has to be on Dancing With the Stars next year. Salsa!
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 6:07 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I agree with Brute that this could have a marketing angle too. Omar is well liked in the community and looks good in commercials.

I also agree that it means, yay, no 3 years of Eckstein!!!

Fairley odd parent to Wendell...

by Mark carry on on Nov 6, 2007 6:28 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Who should the team be marketing:

the 40 year old who most likely won't be here past next season and virtually certainly won't be on the next Giant playoff team... or the young pitchers?

Vizquel might have more popularity now, but marketing him to the fans isn't the wisest move in the long run.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 6, 2007 6:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Who should the team be marketing
Dave Fleming.
Fairley odd parent to Wendell...

by Mark carry on on Nov 6, 2007 6:40 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
The one good thing about re-signing Omar will be that he provides a solid defense behind the young pitchers.  Omar really struggled early but bounced back in the second half while cutting down his strikeouts.  Durham did exactly the opposite, really being painful to watch as he struck out like crazy in the second half.

I think Omar could rebound to .260 - .270.  His career BABIP is .299, and his BABIP as a Giant is .295.  Last season his BABIP fell to only .265.  If his BABIP had been .299 last season, his BA would have been .277.

As a Giant, Omar has hit .272 overall.

by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2007 6:35 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
if he bounces back offensively, I'm afraid Sabean will give him yet another contract, and now that he locked himself into giving him a raise for what was a bad offensive season, next year's deal will probably be for around 7 million.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 6, 2007 6:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
There really is little way to know what the future will bring.  Yes, I predicted when they acquired him that the Giants would wind up overpaying for Randy Winn, but that would seem to be more predictable than whether or not to re-sign a then 41-year-old for a $1.5 million raise.

by sharksrog on Nov 7, 2007 11:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
His huge drop in BABIP makes me think his bat has slowed a lot and he's having trouble making solid contact.

by xanthan on Nov 6, 2007 6:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Just from a purely observational stand point, not using stats at all, it seemed that Omar Vizquel was always good for a routine flyball out.  I swear, every time up he hit a medium flyball can of corn.
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 6, 2007 9:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Omar actually struck out just slightly less often this past season than his career average.  I would think that if his bat had slowed appreciably, he would be striking out more often.

In fact, early in the season that was just what I felt was happening.  Omar struck out an unusual 34 times in the first three months of the season, but then fanned only 14 times in the second half.

He actually hit .259 after the All-Star game, whiffing only 11 times in 228 at bats.  After the All-Star game, Omar actually struck out at only half his lifetime rate.

If Omar's bat slowed early in the season, he seemed to correct it after May.

by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2007 11:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
The only comment that made me feel at all good -- if only for a moment -- was the suggestion that this might give Sabean more leverage in getting a good young shortstop in a trade. Overall, I agree that it's not the worst news but too soon and too much.

by NearestNorwich on Nov 6, 2007 7:08 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Man, we have become a brutalized bunch of fans. We're talking here about spending $5.5 million--in a rebuilding year--on a 41-year-old who has no chance of being a good player next season. That's a dubious decision if it's late February and plans A, B, C, D, E, F, and G haven't worked out and you're getting desperate; in early November, it's just pathetic.

And yet the consensus reaction is a philosophical shrug. It's better than the Zito deal. It's better than signing Eckstein. It's better than trading Tim Lincecum for Orlando Cabrera.

And indeed it is. Perhaps that's the best we can hope for from Sabean: First, do no harm.

by Evan on Nov 6, 2007 8:57 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I believe saying that a player who is just one season removed from a good season has no chance to have another good season this coming year is illogical.

The worst sign for Omar was that his already meager power numbers declined a bit -- although after the All-Star game they were pretty much back to normal.

On the other hand, Marquis Grissom's BABIP dropped in his final season, and he never regained a position in the majors.

by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2007 11:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
In the light of day, you're right, of course. Omar has come back from terrible seasons before. And as someone in the same age demographic, I'd be pretty happy to see a 41-year-old come back with a solid season. But man, it's hard to imagine after watching him last year.

by Evan on Nov 7, 2007 6:49 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Well said. When you're the worst offensive team in baseball, how can your first plan of attack be to sign a 41 year old SS with an .621 OPS?

by mxmob33 on Nov 7, 2007 8:13 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
To make your other moves look good by comparison?  :)

by sharksrog on Nov 7, 2007 11:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

pour me another.

The rally pumpkin guy, round and full of seeds; unlike the Giants.

by jtoj on Nov 6, 2007 10:32 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I just think it would have been better to take the $5.1 mil difference betweeen Omar and Ochoa, play Ochoa and spend the money elsewhere, a RP if no 1b or 3b are available.  Even a tandem of Ochoa/Figueroa will provide the same defense that Omar, who's now lost a step, at least going behind 2nd, will provide in '08.  And most likely the same, if not better offense.  

by allfrank on Nov 7, 2007 12:22 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Disgusting.  We don't deserve this.
Who dat is? That's just Ortmeier's daddy.

by rotorueter on Nov 7, 2007 4:57 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
The chances of Vizquel's offense declinely markedly from this year's putrid showing are much, much greater than any "bounce back" at the age of 41.  Consider this supposed contract, Feliz's seemingly inevitable resigning, and one other such stupid deal, and the Giants have committed salary equivalent to that of an actual hypothetical, at least, really good player, with very minimal returns likely in '08. No one should realistically expect Sabean to change his patttern of behavior, though.  

by Pete Koel on Nov 7, 2007 5:52 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
On the whole i'm not too disappointed by this move, but it's hard to be enthused!

On the positive side, it's only a 1 year deal, there was nothing better available in the free agent market & we have no major league prospects at the position. Also, the raise is based on him only being on a 1 year deal & the fact that the market is different to 3 years ago. So we're not hurting ourselves by signing him.

On the negative side, it seems like going for your backup option first. I'd rather they have tried the trade route first (although it doesn't necessarily rule out a trade) before settling for the safe option. There would always have been other options if a trade couldn't be found & Vizquel signed elsewhere (such as Frandsen at SS, Figueroa, or what's left on the free-agent market)

by GiantFan on Nov 7, 2007 6:02 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Overall, I'm not upset about this.  
  • When I start to think that perhaps $5.5 mil is too much, I say to myself, "It's not Brian's money" and feel better.
  • I'm also certain that Omar has assured Sabes that he'll hit better this year.
  • Besides, with a one-year deal, this season will be a contract push, so we know he'll do better than last season because...wait a sec...last season was a contract push too?...never mind.
Actually, I agree with Brute's points.  This is a deal I can live with.  Maybe Omar can teach Velez to play SS.

by Goofus on Nov 7, 2007 6:51 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
It's just not that big of a deal one way or the other.  The other SS options this year are awful.  And Omar is fun to watch.  

This gives the Giants another year to assess whether Manny Burriss belongs in the future plans.  

Next year there will be some real SS on the market like Furcal.  

The key this off season is going to be 1B, 3B and moving Durham so that Frannie can start.  Also getting another star bat could be helpful.  I think it's far too soon to pass judgement on this move until we see what else Sabes does.  Right now I'm glad that he kept it to only a 1 year contract.  

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 8:22 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Yeah, I wasn't looking for the big trade to be for a SS anyhoo. I'm hoping if he trades for a "quality bat", it's at a corner somewhere.

I'm ok with Dreamy.

Fairley odd parent to Wendell...

by Mark carry on on Nov 7, 2007 8:23 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I simply cannot understand people's "meh" reactions on this board.  What the hell have we been talking about for the last ten years on this board?  I can't believe people aren't up in arms about this..

-All of our youngsters suck

Do I think that we have a Chone Figgins in our system?  Probably not.  But I wouldn't mind saving $5.5 (FIVE MILLION?!!?!?) AND finding out in the process.

-But the poor pitchers want good defense behind them!!111!!one!!

Folks, these pitchers are adults.  They understand the business and the game of baseball.  Put yourself in the position of Cain.  Fine, you lose a little defense behind you but hey your team has the potential to score a couple of runs for once.  This team can't score fucking runs.  For shit.  Let's sacrifice some defense and shoot for a decent bat.  Again, you're saving money in the process and at least it shows you're trying.  If nothing sticks, fine, lets try again next year.  But Vizquel is not the answer.

So many "meh" responses from this board...I'm truly, truly shocked.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."!

by GameSix on Nov 7, 2007 8:55 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Well, I am a little shocked that there are so many people up in arms over this, personally.  So, I guess we are mutually befuddled.

But, Chone Figgins is the shining standard you are holding up?  

And I am wondering what decent bat you would plug into shortstop.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 7, 2007 9:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
When we're arguing this again in the "Giants, Feliz close to deal" diary, I really hope everybody starts to detect a pattern.  In fact, why don't we revisit the "Giants, Marquis Grissom close to deal" diary while we're at?  Guess what, there are tons.

Chone Figgins is just what came to mind.  I guess you're right.  Who wants a 29 year old guy coming off career highs in obp and slg?  You know what, let's not explore any options, and "steal" Omar Vizquel for 5.5 million fucking dollars.  How could you not be up in arms over this?!?!?

What bat would I plug in?  Any bat.  Any bat for cheap.  Any bat w/a smidgeon of potential.  At least that shows you're trying.  If we're paying a premium for the Vizquel name factor, fine.  Just tell me in advance that we're fielding a broadway show and not a fucking baseball team.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."!

by GameSix on Nov 7, 2007 11:24 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Could you please name a player other than "any bat?" who is both available, better than Vizquel, and financially reasonable.  

Unfortunately the Giants cannot play "any bat" they need an actual player.  

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 11:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Are you suggesting that Omar Vizquel was the only available option in the entire Milky Way Galaxy to play shortstop for our baseball team?  

Let's go overseas.  

Let's swap an on-the-cusp major league center fielder on our team for an on-the-cusip major league short stop on another team.  They're out there.  I'm not paid to be a baseball scout, but if I was, I would've found a guy that fits this description and put him on the Giants.

Let's plug in Frandsen at short.

According to you, there is not one mouth breather in the world better than Vizquel or available.  Or potentially better.  Or potentially available.  Or potentially "financially reasonable."  Which, by the way, is an ironic point to bring up considering the dollars he signed for and what he'll bring to our club both now and in the future.

I'd rather keep that $6 million and let it accrue interest for a year than have Omar Vizquel on this team.  Five Omar Vizquels or one A-Rod?  You do the math.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."!

by GameSix on Nov 7, 2007 11:53 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
OK so you put in Frandsen at short.  He'll be worth about a win more at short than Omar.  Sounds good.  If Frandsen is going to play SS then who plays 2nd?

If you would like to pick up someone from overseas, say from Japan, could you please identify the actual player?  

Or if you wish Rajai for another major league shortstop or second basemen could you please identify that player?    

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 12:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
We've already got money locked up in Durham to play second.  Play him at second then be done w/him after he walks.  Sound familiar?  That's what we should've done w/Vizquel.  Omar's contract running out at the end of the year should've been a complete blessing, instead we turn around and resign him for an obscene amount of money.

I'm going to keep asking you:  do you really believe he's the only option to play short stop for the Giants?

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."!

by GameSix on Nov 7, 2007 12:16 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
As to your question of course Vizquel's not the only option to play SS -- but right now he's probably the best option.  

An infield of Frandsen & Durham up the middle isn't going to be as good overall as Frandsen & Vizquel (Durham was actually worth less than a replacement lever player last year)  

Also there's a good chance that the Gmen can trade Durham for another team's disappointment (see the thread about Richie Sexson for instance) in which case it's worthwhile to have Vizquel locked up.

The 5 mil for Vizquel won't really matter in terms of constructing the lineup.  The contracts this season are likely to be in the absurd range (eg 10 years 350 million dollars for ARod.)  In this case no Vizquel signing is going to have the slightest impact on signing a major free agent nor will it affect the ability of the Giants to lock up their Arb-eligible players.  

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 12:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
You're missing the point of the 2008 season.  Vizquel is not the "best option" for a team trying to start from scratch and build a team for the future.

Wrap your head around "probably the best option."  You know what?  Let's try a little harder if that's the best endorsment you can muster.

You say that 5.5 million dollars and likely a starting roll on the roster to a severely declining offensive player is not detrimental to lineup construction?  When that offense will likely be league-worst in 2008 without BLB?

Really?

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."!

by GameSix on Nov 7, 2007 12:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Sabes' goal in the 2008 season should be to put as competitive a team on the field as possible, while not doing anything to hinder the development of a world-series contender.  

The Giants currently have only 1 major league ready middle infielder, Kevin Frandsen.  Also there are no other potentially valuable middle infielders that the Giants could trade for without giving up core players like Cain and Timmy.  And the 2007 free agent market for SS is shit.

Therefore the best possible solution to this problem is to take a shortstop and sign him to a 1 year place-holder contract, then see what's available next year.  Now the Giants could sign a minor league free agent for next to nothing.  Or they can resign their popular shortstop to a small contract (which 5m is definitely a small contract for a free agent)  The minor league free agent  is likely to be a replacement level player (worth  0 wins above replacement) while Vizquel will probably be worth about 2-3 wins above replacement.     When you consider that Omar is a draw on a team giving up its biggest superstar, if I'm Sabean, I resign Vizquel for one year.  

There is nothing wrong with place-holder players when building a team for the future when you currently have no other pieces to add.  What would be wrong is if Sabean keeps Vizquel AND Durham -- that would be an example of preventing your team  from being better in the future.      

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 1:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
"Also there are no other potentially valuable middle infielders that the Giants could trade for without giving up core players like Cain and Timmy."

Just because you state it as fact, doesn't make it so.

"wins over replacement"

When your team is staring at a 70-win ceiling, maybe wins over replacement isn't as important as player development.  

"When you consider that Omar is a draw on a team giving up its biggest superstar, if I'm Sabean, I resign Vizquel for one year."

Are you sure you're not Sabean?

"What would be wrong is if Sabean keeps Vizquel AND Durham -- that would be an example of preventing your team  from being better in the future. "

Good lord, isn't that what we're talking about here?  That bringing back Vizquel is an idiotic move?  Unbelievable.  UNBELIEVABLE.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."!

by GameSix on Nov 7, 2007 2:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
If you think there's someone out there that can be had in a trade then say who it is.  Not "A quality bat," not "a major league ready prospect."  But an actual player.  And why his team would trade him?  And who'd we'd have to give up.  I'm sure if you can come up with something brilliant then it'll probably work its way to the front office.      

And the ceiling on this team isn't 70 wins.  I think if they're smart and a bit lucky the Giants could win 90 games next season.  

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 2:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Not just any bat...me!
Is that a grappling hook in your utility belt, or do you just have a major curve in your wang with a sharp point at the end?
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 6:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
You've detected a pattern after one move?  That's impressive.  I assume, what with your Marquis Grissom example, that you are using past off-seasons as well.  Well, I don't think that we necessarily can use past off-seasons.  Sure it's still Sabean, but we've never really seen Sabean rebuild a team.  I'm willing to see if he has a different philosophy when trying to rebuild.  He probably doesn't but I'm willing to wait and see before jumping all over him.

And as for Chone Figgins, hurray for his career high OBP and SLG.  It certainly speaks well of you when your career high slugging is .432.  That's absolutely fantastic!  His OBP is good.  But it's fueled mostly by his batting average.  That's not an ideal lead off guy.  In fact, that's barely ahead of Juan Pierre.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 7, 2007 4:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Do you guys realize Omar Vizquel .246/.305/.316. Do you know how awful this is? Any goddamn back-up utility infielder could give us a .600 OPS. Why are we paying Vizquel $5.5M to do it.?

by kingofthacove on Nov 7, 2007 4:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Because this is the internet and because you can not see me I will just tell you: I am sighing.  Or, rather, I sighed.

To restate my opinion - Vizquel, shouldn't have gotten a raise.  Sabean, should have explored other options first.  The Giants, not hurt very much by this move.  Certain posters on this sight, ignoring what is plainly in front of them simply because everyone is not angry over this.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 7, 2007 5:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
You are certainly entitled to your opinion that we are not hurt much by this move.  Hey, I agree.  Just one move.

See you at the Feliz, Giants close to deal thread.

"They can trade me," Bonds said. "I don't think they will, though. It's not like I want to be traded, man. I'm a Giant. I'm stuck here till the end."!

by GameSix on Nov 8, 2007 7:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Yes, I was aware that I am entitled to my own opinion.  But thank you for reminding me.  And I am glad that you agree with that opinion.

I sincerely hope there is no Giants resign Feliz thread.  I will reevaluate my opinion of the off-season in that thread.  As I would in the Giants sign A-Rod thread.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 8, 2007 12:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Figgins is much better than Pierre
Figgins career OPS+ is 99. Pierre 84.

Last 5 years OPS+ for Figgins beginning 2003: 90, 103, 101, 85, 117.

Pierre: 94, 107, 84, 82, 75.

Figgins except for 2006, is about a league average hitter. Pierre, in the last 3 years has been about 15-25 runs below average offensively.

Also, OBP is OBP is OBP. Ichiro's OBP is fueled by batting average too. Who cares?

by rfloh on Nov 8, 2007 2:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Figgins is much better than Pierre
I would agree that he's better.  But not much better.  Last year was the first he ever hit above .300.  So I'm not sure the Ichiro comparison is valid.   Prior to last year his career high OBP was .352.  That's not great or very good even.  Especially since that is your only contribution to offense and he's not great defensively.

With that being said, I'd be happy with Chone Figgins production out of Rajai Davis, offensively.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 8, 2007 12:23 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm not saying he is Ichiro
I'm saying it doesn't matter how you get your OBP, whether by walking or by smacking a lot of singles. In fact, a BA driven OBP is better than a walks driven OBP, most of the time, assuming of course that it isn't as a result of a fluke BABIP type year.

by rfloh on Nov 8, 2007 12:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: I'm not saying he is Ichiro
I agree, a BA-driven OBP is somewhat more valuable than a walk driven OBP (unless it's an infield-hit driven OBP). A walk driven OBP is usually more stable year-to-year, though, so it kind of balances out.
Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 8, 2007 12:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: I'm not saying he is Ichiro
But my point was that he isn't likely to maintain a .390 OBP because he has only hit over .300 once.  Perhaps he just had a breakout year.  But it's just as likely that he will regress.

The problem with a BA driven OBP is that if you hit, say, .290, you are not going to have a great OBP.  

This includes Ichiro, even as great as he is.  There will come a season where he hits under .300 and he will not be a very valuable ballplayer that season.  

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 9, 2007 7:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I get how loyalty is an admirable trait, but when you're loyal to bad players it's not good for your team.

by BradIsMyBrother on Nov 7, 2007 9:08 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
The only players who care about loyalty are the ones who depend on it for much or all of their paychecks.

Good players are purely mercenary.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 7, 2007 9:53 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Oh really?!?  So a mercenary like Steve Finley (19 seasons with 8 teams) is "good"?  A mercenary like Jose Vizcaino (18 seasons, 8 teams...two stints with us and the evil ones) too?
Screw the Giants, but not Omar. I'm getting drunk and watching some footy.

by PacBellBoozer on Nov 7, 2007 10:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Finley sucked horribly as a Giant, but he had a very good career.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Nov 7, 2007 10:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Sucked horribly?
I disgree.  I think he he did a bang-up job of sucking whilst a Giant.

by Goofus on Nov 7, 2007 11:36 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I didn't say that all mercenaries are good, just that good players are mercenaries. The ones who hit free agency, at least.

The paradox of courting the loyal player is that players who are truly loyal are the ones who never reach free agency (at least, not while they're still worth getting).

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 7, 2007 1:38 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't understand why every Giants fan..
doesn't end sentences with "FIRE SABEAN".

It's like a period. Or "Serenity now!!!". Or both.

Example.

Today I walked down to the supermarket and bought milk FIRE SABEAN

Or I live in London, which means I thank God every day that I haven't suffered through the Niners season FIRE SABEAN

It's great for my chi FIRE SABEAN

by Bitter Fan on Nov 7, 2007 9:52 AM PST reply actions  

Re: I don't understand why every Giants fan..
I think we should have fired Sabean FIRE SABEAN

by ResDog on Nov 7, 2007 10:24 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
How is this getting younger? Technically, this is getting older. Id rather see Frandsen flail at SS and Velez at 2B, to see what they have. And for all those "Frandsen isn't an ML shortstop", well, the Giants don't have many ML caliber players period. Give the kids a chance.
Angel Villalona: A younger, better hitting Pedro Feliz. Rajai Davis: A younger, better everything Dave Roberts.

by AngelintheInfield on Nov 7, 2007 11:46 AM PST reply actions  

Done Deal
The San Francisco Giants and 40-year-old shortstop Omar Vizquel reached agreement Wednesday on a one-year contract worth close to $5.5 million.

Next season will be Vizquel's 20th in the majors and fourth as a Giant. The deal also includes a vesting option of 140 games in 2009 at $5.2 million. Vizuel has played in at least 136 games in 12 of his last 13 seasons.

Vizquel, who made $5.1 million last season, hit .246 last season, his lowest average since 2003.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3099365

by wilriv21 on Nov 7, 2007 3:40 PM PST reply actions  

See my vest, see my vest...
I'd prefer this here "vesting option," would mean after 140 games he gets a really spiffy vest worth 5.2 mil.

On the bright side, this actually incentives Bochy and Sabean to bench or DFA him if he just flat sucks.

"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 7, 2007 4:16 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
So the "raise" from last year was less than half a million and not the 1.5 million we heard earlier.  Does this make people feel better?

Hell, they had to offer him some kind of incentive to come back since he won't get to shower with Barry anymore.

by Goofus on Nov 7, 2007 4:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
This actually makes me feel worse, because the vesting option basically makes this a two year deal.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Nov 7, 2007 4:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
Um, so let me get this straight.  If Vizquel plays 140 games next year then that makes his deal a two year deal?

Now that is something to get up in arms about.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 7, 2007 4:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
Unless I'm reading it wrong, yes. That is how it appears.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Nov 7, 2007 4:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
It's pretty easy to sit a 41 year old for 23 games if you don't want the option to vest.

by Goofus on Nov 7, 2007 5:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
Hopefully this is what will happen.
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 7, 2007 5:30 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
yeah, but if he's healthy, sitting him to keep him from reaching the games played number often begins to look kind of sketchy... and can lead to some bruised egos.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Nov 7, 2007 5:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
If he's played himself to the bench and the giants feel they need to keep him there, his ego will be pretty far down the list of my concerns. (And Omar is probably my favorite Giant.)

by Goofus on Nov 7, 2007 7:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
Who would you bench him in favor of?

Vizquel was truly goadawful at the plate last season, so bad that I'm almost willing to overlook the age factor and predict a bounce-back just based on the plexiglass principle. He still cleared 140 games, though, because there was literally no one else to play shortstop. Until that changes, it may not be possible for Vizquel to play his way out of the lineup (well, unless he hits .125 or something).  

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 7, 2007 7:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
I was simply talking about keeping his option from vesting. If he's not worth keeping him around in 2009.  If it vests at 140 games, you simply make sure anyone besides Omar plays 23 of the team's 162 games, his ego be damned.  In other words, he plays his way out of those 23 games.  It's not that hard.

 

by Goofus on Nov 7, 2007 8:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
It wouldn't have been that hard to keep Livo's option from vesting in 2002, either. It's not like he was helping the team much with that 88 ERA+.

It wouldn't have been that hard for the Dodgers to keep Kent's option from vesting last season either. He only made it by a scant 12 PAs, and you know that they were less than pleased with his clubhouse jackassery.

For whatever reason, honor, loyalty, the union riding their ass, some teams are pretty reluctant to put their thumbs on the scale and fudge vesting options.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Nov 7, 2007 10:50 PM PST up reply actions  

It's not about ego
It's about how other players perceive your actions. It's about how FAs, and your own players who in the future will need to be signed to new contracts view your playing hardball.

by rfloh on Nov 8, 2007 2:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Done Deal
Omar Vizquel has a worse hitter than Ray Durham this year. If Ray Durham repeats his performance from last year, maybe we'll give him a two year raise too.

by kingofthacove on Nov 7, 2007 5:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
One final bit of evidence to do this now:

The White Sox were apparently ready to pounce on Omar once he hit free agency...i.e., the option would NOT have been there in February (or January, or December), as some have insinuated.

Don't think it's coincidence that the news about the ChiSox re-upping Uribe came less than 48 hours of this report coming out.

Obviously, Omar was the first choice for at least one team, so waiting would not have been an option.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 6:09 PM PST reply actions  

Waiting is always an option
If Vizquel was your Plan A then sign him. If he was Plan B then kicking the tires and exploring other options was highly advisable. As I sit here tonight and ponder a possible 2yr/10.7M deal for a 40 yr old SS and there are many questions. Possibly with some passing of time the questions will be answered. Here is reason #1 why minor league development and a strong farm system is sooooooo important as SF has a bare cupboard at AAA, AA and Hi A.

by wilriv21 on Nov 7, 2007 6:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Oh god, I hadn't even thought of the draft pick. I would have MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have had the draft pick.

:(

What an awful deal.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 6:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
You're obviously not very familar with the way these things work.  Comp picks are meant as a consolation prize when a team loses one of its players to a team that outbids them.  Since Sabean outbid himself, the Giants have a comp pick coming.

That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.

by Goofus on Nov 7, 2007 7:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Actually, waiting WOULD have been an option.  In fact, it was an option that almost assuredly would have seen the Giants winding up with a different shortstop.

Whether that would have been a good or a bad thing is open to discussion.

Heck, I'm not much of a Velez fan, but at least he's played shortstop.  I could have lived with his playing short and giving Frandsen a shot at second, while saving the Vizquel money to bid on Alex Rodriguez.

Or -- how about this for a novel idea -- just saving the money for the future if the Giants can't land Alex.

I believe Brian Sabean is caught between a rock and a hard place.  What the Giants really NEED to do is get rid of all the over-21's plus Lowry and see how the young guys they have and can acquire can do.  But then they wouldn't even win 70 games and attendance would likely drop off.

Brian began digging this hole five years ago, and now it has gotten so deep he may take another five years to dig his way out.

Man, I'm surely glad the Giants re-hired him to give him the chance.  :)

by sharksrog on Nov 7, 2007 10:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Aren't Cain, Lincecum, Wilson, and Schierholtz all over 21?

I recognize that I'm taking you too literally, but I figured I'd make the comment in jest before somebody misread and made it in earnest.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 11:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
BIG mistake on my part.  I meant to say the over-30's.  I guess I must have been too focused on the drinking age. :)

by sharksrog on Nov 8, 2007 11:45 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Omar Vizquel: ~controversial~
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Nov 8, 2007 4:20 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
JP,

Very nicely put. I read through through 247 other posts to get the one that made the most sense in the fewest words :-)

Even the thought of spending $300M on ARodriguez did not generate this kind of angst among the McCoven.

My adopted son Matt Downs. He can hit a little.

by nvsfg on Nov 8, 2007 7:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about San Francisco Giants.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Buster Posey, the 4 hole, and the bottom
California-state-flag_small
Melky Cabrera Contract Offer?
Small
Alternate Post Game Thread - Matt Cain's Batting Average
Myspoonistoobig_small
Craig Robinson's The Rotation in D3
Squarelogo_small
minor lines, 5/11/12
Indieangel_small
Baseball Rock Poster Art and music: Free!
Christy_mathewson_baseball_small
Keystone Cops - With Poll
Squarelogo_small
minor lines, 5/10/12
Dsc01731_small
Seeking local advice
Small
Jonny Moseley at Dodger Stadium

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Manager

174246766_ea2fd78204_small Grant Brisbee

Moderators

Sbzito_small Natto

Fawlty_small WalrusMan

Goofus_small Goofus

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

Det_7193_small jponry

Authors

09_small JT Jordan

Small steve S

E6dmccicon_small Every6thDay