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.
255 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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?
There's no more to range
Re: There's no more to range
by someguynamedg on Nov 7, 2007 12:45 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to 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
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 8:09 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 8:20 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 9:33 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 9:41 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
- Even if he wasn't guaranteed a starting job, the money in his contract would be guaranteed.
- 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
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 9:36 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by Nathan on Nov 6, 2007 9:52 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 10:46 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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...
by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
MacDonald's contract
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.
Re: MacDonald's contract
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)
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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...
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Nov 6, 2007 3:26 PM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Especially opposing ones.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
OK...
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?
Re: OK...
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.
Re: OK...
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.
Re: OK...
Re: OK...
Re: OK...
by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 5:43 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by VidaWantsYourCar on Nov 6, 2007 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by victor frankenstein on Nov 8, 2007 12:06 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by Mark carry on on Nov 6, 2007 3:31 PM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
That said, I hope the Giants have a plan for trading Ray Durham.
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 6, 2007 3:34 PM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by kingofthacove on Nov 6, 2007 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
15 tops?
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.
Re: 15 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:
- +11
- -7
- +16
- +10
Where are you getting the 2007 UZR numbers, btw?
You can't just add runs above
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".
Re: You can't just add runs above
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.
Since you're using a BPro stat
"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.
Re: Since you're using a BPro stat
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.
Re: You can't just add runs above
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.
Well, yeah runs are runs
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Scream
by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Feliz is going to get 2/15. I can feel it.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Nov 6, 2007 4:03 PM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
That said, what does it take nowadays for a major league player to NOT get a raise? (That's what she said!)
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by VidaWantsYourCar on Nov 6, 2007 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
the auction
- 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.
Re: the auction
(I will think fondly of you, but not give you credit, when I plagiarize this and tell it to my pals.)
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 6:02 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Something's not right here...
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 6:03 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I'm going to be sick!
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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
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?)
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by ACgiant87 on Nov 6, 2007 4:16 PM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
OK
Would you pay $5M to Vizquel another $5M to Feliz or save up that money and go after ARod?
Re: OK
Re: OK
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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?
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal

Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by UnleashTheGore on Nov 6, 2007 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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...
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
sorry about the politics but the parallel is just too clear to ignore. and it makes my brain sad and my soul mad.
by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 5:52 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
BTW...I agree with you 100%.
by PacBellBoozer on Nov 6, 2007 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
oh well. at least my hatred is bipartisan
by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Nov 6, 2007 6:18 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Ok, so you prefer
All these "small" contracts add up. And the result is that the Giants don't go after the superstars.
Re: Ok, so you prefer
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.
Sure, it doesn't hurt much
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.
Re: Sure, it doesn't hurt much
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.
- 5m for Vizquel is not better than 20m for Bonds.
- 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.
- 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.
I hope this clears things up.
Re: Sure, it doesn't hurt much
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.
$5M for Vizquel
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?
Nowhere near a playoff spot?
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 8:29 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by Mark carry on on Nov 7, 2007 8:35 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 9:54 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Bless you, Brian Sabean.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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?
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 6:42 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Please note that, until he actually signs, Omar Vizquel is still an "available shortstop."
And Vizquel is a weak spot
Re: And Vizquel is a weak spot
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.
by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 1:34 AM PST up reply actions
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?
Re: So you would make
Re: So you would make
His defense makes the pitching look better, increasing their trade value for young hitters (Especially important if Lowry isn't traded this offseason).
by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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).
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
A question
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
That's the spirit!
Great! Now let me tell you what I just read about Feliz...
Re: That's the spirit!
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.
Re: That's the spirit!
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
- 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.
Creativity won't make up for the total and complete lack of major league shortstops being available.
by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 6:57 PM PST up reply actions
Hail Caesar
Re: Hail Caesar
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 ?
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by BruteSentiment on Nov 6, 2007 7:49 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Why do you need an upgrade?
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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
Even if Hall never
Re: Even if Hall never
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.
by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 1:40 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I mean MONEY. Of course. Stupid joke ruined by a type.
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 6:04 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Nov 6, 2007 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 8:11 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by howtheyscored on Nov 6, 2007 9:40 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I also agree that it means, yay, no 3 years of Eckstein!!!
by Mark carry on on Nov 6, 2007 6:28 PM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Who should the team be marketing
by Mark carry on on Nov 6, 2007 6:40 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
pour me another.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by Pete Koel on Nov 7, 2007 5:52 AM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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)
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
- 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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 8:22 AM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I'm ok with Dreamy.
by Mark carry on on Nov 7, 2007 8:23 AM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
-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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
But, Chone Figgins is the shining standard you are holding up?
And I am wondering what decent bat you would plug into shortstop.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Unfortunately the Giants cannot play "any bat" they need an actual player.
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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?
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 12:02 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
I'm going to keep asking you: do you really believe he's the only option to play short stop for the Giants?
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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?
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 7, 2007 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Not just any bat...me!
by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by kingofthacove on Nov 7, 2007 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
See you at the Feliz, Giants close to deal thread.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Figgins is much better than Pierre
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?
Re: Figgins is much better than Pierre
With that being said, I'd be happy with Chone Figgins production out of Rajai Davis, offensively.
I'm not saying he is Ichiro
Re: I'm not saying he is Ichiro
Re: I'm not saying he is Ichiro
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.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by BradIsMyBrother on Nov 7, 2007 9:08 AM PST reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Good players are purely mercenary.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by PacBellBoozer on Nov 7, 2007 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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).
I don't understand why every Giants fan..
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
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by AngelintheInfield on Nov 7, 2007 11:46 AM PST reply actions
Done Deal
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.
See my vest, see my vest...
On the bright side, this actually incentives Bochy and Sabean to bench or DFA him if he just flat sucks.
Re: Done Deal
Hell, they had to offer him some kind of incentive to come back since he won't get to shower with Barry anymore.
Re: Done Deal
Re: Done Deal
Now that is something to get up in arms about.
Re: Done Deal
Re: Done Deal
Re: Done Deal
Re: Done Deal
Re: Done Deal
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).
Re: Done Deal
Re: Done Deal
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.
It's not about ego
Re: Done Deal
by kingofthacove on Nov 7, 2007 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
Waiting is always an option
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
:(
What an awful deal.
by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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. :)
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.
by howtheyscored on Nov 7, 2007 11:10 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
by BruteSentiment on Nov 7, 2007 11:42 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
Re: Sources: Giants, Vizquel close to deal
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.

by 
























