The trade....
by Grant Brisbee on Jul 21, 2006 11:35 PM PDT
in News
Email
PrintWhat I like about the deal:
- Lance Niekro was terrible. Absolutely terrible. Shea Hillenbrand is not. Statheads underrate him. Yeah, boo hoo, his on-base percentage is .342. If the slugging percentage is over .450, I'll take three. Not as the centerpiece of an offense, but as a complimentary piece to a lineup. Especially a lineup that was featuring Lance Niekro for three months.
- Hillenbrand's ability to spell Pedro Feliz at third is huge. You can play Hillenbrand at third against tough righties, giving Sweeney the start at first. For the games started by both Hillenbrand and Feliz, Sweeney makes the bench a strength. Other than Vizcaino, there isn't a weak offensive reserve to be found. This is the strongest bench since 2000, which is hard to overstate.
- Hillenbrand has more power than Casey, and doesn't have the extreme platoon splits of Craig Wilson. I still would have preferred Casey, but getting more power on the team is certainly welcome.
- The short-term solution wasn't worth a pre-arbitration arm like Accardo's, especially considering that the Blue Jays were lacking any sort of leverage. The Giants didn't have too many cheap building blocks in place, but Accardo was one of them. For a fella who didn't start focusing on pitching until a couple of years ago, he did seem to have a tremendous aptitude for it. Even as the ERA climbed, he was one of the only relievers I maintained confidence in.
- Just Hillenbrand can play two positions doesn't mean he can field them well. I'm less worried about that, but it still a consideration.
- The dude is kind of a putz.
- I still think Sean Casey could have been had at the deadline for a couple of county fair Def Leppard mirrors, and I really don't see him getting traded anywhere now. That stinks for the Giants, and it really stinks for the Pirates.
I wouldn't have made the deal, but I'm not crawling out of my skin to get away from it. It's hard to imagine ever getting too worked up over losing a young reliever. Francisco Rodriguez in April of 2003, sure. Billy Wagner when he first came up, absolutely. But the upside for a young reliever is usually limited. For every Joe Nathan, there are two Scott Williamsons, four Mike MacDougals, and eight Ryan Wagners. I'd predict Accardo to be closest to Williamson in terms of performance, while not attempting to predict his future health. That's not a loss to be happy with, but the lineup is unquestionably stronger for what should be the last run at the playoffs for a while.
Combined with the mini-surge against a division rival, I'm feeling that "optimism" thing I heard Oprah talk about once. Kinda feels like one of those electric foot massagers from Sharper Image. Yeah, an electric foot massager from Sharper Image...FOR YOUR MIND! At least in the short-term, that is. The long-term prognosis still involves accidentally sitting on a pair of Sharper Image barbeque tongs.
I suppose what really annoys me about the deal is that the Giants had to outbid other teams. C'mon, folks. Did you really need Shea Hillenbrand more than the Giants did? Couldn't you have deferred just this once? If Casey Kotchman and Brad Wilkerson don't suck this year, the Giants get Hillenbrand for Alfredo Simon and don't look back. Dang it. This was a lot to give up for a rental.
108 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Prognosis: Negative
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 21, 2006 11:48 PM PDT reply actions
Re: Prognosis: Negative
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/story/2006/5/24/194731/422
This is a part of what I said about Jeremy Accardo:
That's what I get for joking about it.
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 22, 2006 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Prognosis: Negative
FWIW, I thought it would be Sanchez for Hillenbrand.
Re: Prognosis: Negative
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 22, 2006 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
I have written several times now (surprisingly, even to myself) in support of this deal.
As Grant says, this could be the last go-around for a while.
Let's just hope Sabean gauged Accardo's worth properly. Sure we didn't get Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez, but this trade isn't tremendously one-sided, and if Hillenbrand can pull a Brian Johnson and deliver a big HR (while actually helping us win something in the playoffs) then we win.
I predict Accardo will struggle over the next 18 months while facing the much more offensive AL East. But he could still become something really nasty.
Oh well, what the hey, I'm still halfway trying to convince myself but this makes us better NOW. Wilson could be just as good as Accardo - am I the only one who is reminded of Accardo last year when seeing Wilson? Exchanging depth for something we sorely lacked. Sounds not totally stupid to me.
by losingcalifornia on Jul 21, 2006 11:52 PM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
When I got back to the car after the game, Fleming mentioned that the Giants had acquired Hillenbrand before cutting to a commercial. I turned to my wife and said, "Please not Sanchez or Accardo!" So, needless to say I'm not 100% thrilled with this trade.
But it clearly makes the Giants better now by plugging in Hillenbrand's usual .295/.345/465-ish line at a position where the Giants have hit .255/.313/.401 this year. The lineup should be much better at home and MUCH better against lefties. (Sweeney bashes him some righties on the road... hopefully he'll still get a chance to do that some.) Feliz can finally get a day off now and then.
And there's a decent (30%?) chance that Chulk will outperform Accardo down the stretch and/or in the future. I say this not because I think Chulk has better stuff or anything (although his K rate in AAA and his K/BB rate in the bigs this year are encouraging), but because I think that short relievers are remarkably unpredictable and inconsistent.
If Accardo is the only prospect we lose in this season of buying, I'll take my chances. I'm actually more worried about Sabean saying that he is still on the lookout for bullpen help. I fear some terrifying EME for Mike Stanton deal is in the works...
Re: The trade....
He also pointed out that 5-6 teams were making a run at Hillenbrand so he had to move fast. Toronto hit up each team with what they wanted for Hillenbrand and once Chulk was included, Sabean made the trade.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 22, 2006 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Bravo, Brian
Is this overpaying? Hillenbrand is a major league first baseman. Accardo is still feeling his way around the bullpen.
Sabean has come alive again and showed us a flash of his old spunk. He wanted neither to overpay for a first baseman, nor get stuck with the leftovers as the coach turned into a pumpkin on the last trading day.
There were other teams interested in Hillenbrand, but they probably were holding back their best offers until the clock was ticking toward midnight.
This was a beautifully calculated, preemptive strike by Sabean. He knew because of a personality clash that Toronto had discounted a .300-hitting first baseman. The time to snare him was early, while feelings were still frayed.
Sabean probably asked Toronto, "What will it take to do this deal RIGHT NOW?" That question is usually not asked until D-Day, July 31.
Hillenbrand is just what the Giants need. They may also pick up another reliever, but that is secondary.
Sabean went a long way toward purchasing a Division Title today.
Let's see if the other teams in the West reply.
Re: Bravo, Brian
by David A. Arnott on Jul 22, 2006 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Bravo, Brian
- no they won't
- no they won't
- you can't feel jack
- no it isn't. (and I'm actually right on this one)
by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Jul 22, 2006 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Bravo, Brian
3rd in runs
1st in OBP
...
with all the injuries they've had
in a park that, run-wise, is middle of the road, only slightly in favor of hitters this year
They've got a very good offense. Quibble with "great", sure, but don't deny the results.
by David A. Arnott on Jul 22, 2006 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm With You
by DrBGiantsfan on Jul 22, 2006 6:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: I'm With You
Billingsley walks way too many guys, Aybar can't field, Kemp got sent down, Martin is dinged up and not hitting as well, and... Ethier is a stud.
Plus they traded for Mark Hendrickson. Give me a break.
The Giants are MUCH better than the Dodgers, stats be damned.
by losingcalifornia on Jul 22, 2006 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
accardo had an absolute electric arm, and was obviously coming into his own...possibly could have taken over the closer job next year.
so great we get hillenbrand, and we possibly win the west...and get smoked in the 1st round. yay!
meanwhile jeremy don't call me joe nathan accardo, goes on and saves 50 games for the next 5 years. great job sabean!
and the other thing, if we were really gonna give up on accardo, couldn't we have gotten anyone better than shea fucking hillenbrand? i haven't seen all of his numbers, but has this guy hit more than 20 hrs his entire career? this is the guy we want at 1b? someone that is slightly above average and has already proven to be a clubhouse cancer?
hasn't sabean learned anything from his aj trade?
I feel your pain, but....
I would trade Accardo and MY MAMA to ensure a playoff berth in 2006.
In 2002, the Giants were expected to lose to Atlanta in the first round. It's even harder to make predictions in July about what may happen in October.
Just Get There, Baby.
Re: I feel your pain, but....
2002 we had a guy named jeff kent and a guy named barry bonds, 4 years younger.
the 2006 version of barry bonds can't hit his weight and swing without messing up his knee.
we also have jose vizcanio on the 2006 team.
and another thing...
the jays had no business getting a top level prospect, that has already proven that he can get major league hitters out, for hillenbrand, a guy that they HAD!!! to trade in 10 days or else they had to release him.
the best the giants should have given them was a AAA prospect, not someone up in the majors already.
Re: The trade....
It's not a comparison between Niekro/Hilly.
It's Sweeney/Hilly. In that light, and especially since the Jays were gonna lose him no matter what, I think Accardo, TINSTAAPP/potential and all, was a lot to give up.
by David A. Arnott on Jul 22, 2006 12:27 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
Re: The trade....
The rest of the division
Re: The trade....
Hennessey is more vital to this teams success today and for the next three years than Accardo - who may take three years to blossom into a reliable closer anyways. By then, the Giants can decide if Lincecum is a starter or closer.
by lunaticfringe1 on Jul 22, 2006 12:35 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
He must be gratified at your response.
Re: The trade....
by lunaticfringe1 on Jul 22, 2006 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
Jeremy Accardo may or may not turn out to have an excellent career as a middle reliever/closer; we're all just guessing how he'll end up. But he's young, cheap, and an obvious part of the bridge that we were going to use to walk into the post-Barry/Team On Golden Pond era. Oh, and lots of us loved watching him pitch, even with his recent struggles.
Screw what Shea Hillenbrand's agent said about a number of teams being interested in his client. I suspect those teams were busy trying to decide if it was really worth giving up anything for a guy who, as I and others pointed out on some other diaries, is by most accounts a dickhead. He wore out his welcome in Boston, Arizona and Toronto. He called Theo Epstein a pretty nasty word (well, Ozzie Guillen doesn't think it's nasty, but that's another story). Why do we think it'll turn out any differently here? It might take a month, it might take three months, it might take six months, but people always end up showing their true stripes.
Yes, I'm happy Pedro Feliz will get a bit of a rest now and then. Yes, it'll be nice to have some more offensive pop at first. But Hillenbrand was always going to be a roll of the dice that was not worth risking more than a AAA guy. Who else thinks the Blue Jays are shocked and ecstatic about what they got back in return?
I should be ecstatic we're 1/2 a game out, but I feel like we just screwed the long-term pooch with this deal. Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong.
Re: The trade....
But, that aside, I'll agree that it really helps the lineup and bench. Given what Felipe has been using, this could be the future lineup:
Winn
Vizquel
Alou
Bonds
Durham
Hillenbrand
Feliz
Alfonzo/Greene
That's a much deeper lineup than they had been using, and it leaves Finley and Sweeney both available for fill-in work at 1B and all the OF positions. Still, that bullpen is going to miss one of the precious few true K arms they had.
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 22, 2006 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 22, 2006 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
by Grant Brisbee on Jul 22, 2006 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
Chulk is better than his numbers indicate that he is this year, but he is still only average 4.40 ERA career, he can be and is probably best used as someone who can come-in in the 6th or 7th to get a couple of righties out, noting more than that though.
Bruins17; Accardo might get a handful of saves a year because we've got All-Star B.J. Ryan for 4 more years. Prognosis form a different perspective: Negative for The Giants. Good up and come reliver with a nice cutter for a poor rent a bat, and a mediocre reliver who the Jay were not using. J.P. Strikes again!
As San Fan native and long-time Blue Jays Play-By-Play man Jerry Howarth would say: "Ho, yes sir, there she goes" the giant playoff hope that is.
by jaysfan on Jul 22, 2006 1:06 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Jul 22, 2006 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Munter ready?
lunaticfringe1 wrote in a separate diary that Munter hasn't done too well in AA, and I too remembered reading about some pretty ugly outings. I just took a closer look at what he's done down there - particularly looking at his GO/FO as an indication of whether he's managed to keep the ball down and get that bowling-ball effect back on his sinker. The numbers actually seem very encouraging.
Munter was sent down May 24, and after working with Bob Stanley made his first appearance on June 4. He pitched 9 times in June and has pitched 6 times in July. Here is the breakdown of each appearance:
Date IP H R ER BB SO HR GO FO
04 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
06 1.1 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 3
10 2.0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 2
14 2.0 2 1 1 1 0 0 3 3
17 2.0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0
21 0.2 2 4 3 2 2 0 0 0
25 2.0 4 1 1 0 0 0 3 3
28 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
30 1.0 4 2 2 0 1 0 1 0
03 1.2 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 1
07 1.2 2 0 0 1 1 0 3 1
10 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
14 2.0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0
16 1.0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
19 1.2 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 1
What we can see is that after a bad stretch at the end of June, Munter's numbers in July seem very promising. In 6 games this month he has pitched 9 innings, giving up 5 hits and 2 walks with 5 strikeouts. But much more importantly, in those 9 innings his ground-out to fly-out ratio was 19-3. So it looks like he has that sinker back, and may be ready to return. The one caution light that I see is that hasn't pitched in back-to-back games at all, and usually was given 2-3 days off between appearances.
Any thoughts? Anybody seen him in Norwich or read anything about him recently?
a short, poorly written one-act e-play
chowfun1427: what.
wazzupluver: hillenbrand and chope
chowfun1427: who the fuck is chope?
wazzupluver: some reliever
chowfun1427: fuck, and now we don't get anyone better than him... and shea's not worth accardo. craig wilson might have been. maybe.
wazzupluver: i agree
chowfun1427: well, now we need a relief pitcher.
chowfun1427: accardo's gonna be a closer. what the fuck
wazzupluver: chulk's numbers: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7076
chowfun1427: well, decent last year...
wazzupluver: he started off sloe
wazzupluver: getting better
wazzupluver: hes actually not bad
chowfun1427: hillenbrand is probably the least valuable .300 hitter in baseball
wazzupluver: why
chowfun1427: .340 obp
wazzupluver: hes a solid 300 hitter
chowfun1427: weak D, bad 'tude
wazzupluver: true true
chowfun1427: but mainly the low OBP
wazzupluver: still better than sweeney or niekro
chowfun1427: Durham is batting .270 and he's got a higher obp
wazzupluver: but hillenbrand is gonna be a number 7 batter
wazzupluver: thats a solid batter for number 7
wazzupluver: one of the best 1-7 in the majors
chowfun1427: winn viz bonds alou durham fleas hill fonz?
chowfun1427: it gets a lot better than that
wazzupluver: it gets a lot better in like 2-5
chowfun1427: i see a whole bunch of 270/340/440 hitters
wazzupluver: but for 8 batters
chowfun1427: singles hitters
wazzupluver: thats solid
chowfun1427: solid. it's not good. it's solid.
wazzupluver: we have a lot of extra bases
wazzupluver: we are on fire too
wazzupluver: pitching and hitting is ownign
chowfun1427: yeah, but the fact is Hillenbrand is not an impact player and Accardo was too much to give up
chowfun1427: we'll probably use Worrell as a setup guy now
chowfun1427: ((shudder))
wazzupluver: but i guess its better than hennesseye
chowfun1427: I think I'd rather have given up henn
chowfun1427: unless they're planning to put him in the rotation
wazzupluver: in the future
chowfun1427: no, i mean this year
chowfun1427: he's way better than jamiebutt
wazzupluver: i agree
chowfun1427: so what the fuck
chowfun1427: we traded one of our best pitching prospects for a dfa'd backup first baseman...
chowfun1427: did we at least offer wilson instead?
chowfun1427: or correia?
wazzupluver: iono
chowfun1427: correia's probably our new setup guy
wazzupluver: sanchez prolly
chowfun1427: sanchez is going to the rotation next year
chowfun1427: most likely
wazzupluver: can he pitch in rotation
wazzupluver: that many innings
chowfun1427: sure
chowfun1427: started 25 games last year
chowfun1427: he wasn't this good though, and it was A-ball
chowfun1427: i hope Chulk is good. his ability to replace Accardo will make or break the trade.
wazzupluver: since may
wazzupluver: he has been really sharp
chowfun1427: they sent him to the minors in may and didn't call him up until a month ago
chowfun1427: so he's had a bad month and a good month in the bigs this year.
chowfun1427: wait, no
chowfun1427: may 6, they sent him to AAA with a 7.36 ERA
chowfun1427: called him up june 10
chowfun1427: 5 games, 5 IP, 1 run
chowfun1427: in one week
chowfun1427: then either he goes back to the minors or on the dl, with a 5.95 ERA
wazzupluver: then pitches 4.1 innings, 1 run
chowfun1427: didn't come back until saturday
wazzupluver: so his last 8 appearances
wazzupluver: he has given up 2 runs
wazzupluver: in like 10 inning
chowfun1427: AAA numbers are very good
chowfun1427: 32 IP, 2.25 era, 43K/14BB
wazzupluver: better than cardo
chowfun1427: yeah but AAA
chowfun1427: i mean, the guy looks decent, but he's not a setup man by any stretch, let alone future closer
wazzupluver: accardo hasnt been that sharp this year
wazzupluver: hennessey is definetly better than accardo
chowfun1427: he's been terrific except for a couple games where he was overworked and he got shelled
chowfun1427: accardo's way better
chowfun1427: Accardo's ERA was inflated by overuse, resulting in a few disgustingly bad appearances
wazzupluver: actually accardos era isnt due to overuse
wazzupluver: if you look at his season log
wazzupluver: he gave up 3 runs after having pitched 1 x in the previous week
wazzupluver: 2 runs in 2/3rd after having pitched 2 x in past week
wazzupluver: the list goes on
wazzupluver: its not only overuse
wazzupluver: when he came up to be a closer
wazzupluver: you have to expect to play everyday
chowfun1427: i'm surprised but you're right... not completely, but you're righter than I thought
chowfun1427: thing is, it felt like he was pitching every game for about two weeks and he just hit a wall... but in fact his ERA was increasing more steadily (though slower) before that
chowfun1427: and he only had back-to-back bad games once
chowfun1427: and those were 3 days apart
chowfun1427: but you do understand that felipe horribly mismanages the bullpen, right?
chowfun1427: Accardo's been in 38 games, meaning he's probably warmedup close to 60 times
chowfun1427: ok, a little less but you see what i mean
chowfun1427: his arm is more tired than it looks on paper. so is every bullpen arm we have.
chowfun1427: 50-60 warm up sessions is as good as tacking another 20 or so innings onto the 40 he has
chowfun1427: maybe he blew a fuse and he won't be as good as he was earlier this year for a while, maybe even a couple years.
chowfun1427: in that case, this was the right call
chowfun1427: i don't have the kind of knowledge to make that judgement though
wazzupluver: yea
chowfun1427: but if we're keeping henn he needs to be in the rotation
chowfun1427: enough of this jamey wright bullshit
wazzupluver: haha
wazzupluver: i agree
wazzupluver: wright should be in pen
wazzupluver: that is a good spot for him
wazzupluver: ground ball pitcher
chowfun1427: no it isnt
chowfun1427: it'll piss him off, we might have to hillenbrand him
chowfun1427: i'm worried that hillenbrand threw such a goddamned fit over so little.
chowfun1427: benched 11 games, and had to DH most of the time
chowfun1427: i really hate it when guys have a Bonds mentality and SheAJ talent
chowfun1427: by the way, if he doesn't produce that's his new name. hopefully we won't have to wear it out.
wazzupluver: look we arent gonna get anyone better
wazzupluver: for what we gave up
wazzupluver: we would have to give up a lot more
wazzupluver: cain or someone
chowfun1427: i'm more pissed that we had to give up anyone of significance for a guy who just got DFAd
chowfun1427: it's true that Casey wouldn't be any better, and we'd have had to give up more - not Cain, not even close to Cain, but more - to get Craig Wilson. but losing ANOTHER potential closer hurts.
wazzupluver: longest winning streak of season
chowfun1427: how sad is that shit
wazzupluver: very
wazzupluver: but we are peaking
chowfun1427: shhh.
chowfun1427: peak happens in october.
wazzupluver: yup
wazzupluver: but an early peak
chowfun1427: shhhhhh.
wazzupluver: to get ready for october
chowfun1427: shhhhhhh.
wazzupluver: then a second wind
chowfun1427: don't piss them off.
chowfun1427: shhhhhhhhhhh.
wazzupluver: true true
wazzupluver: no more talk
wazzupluver: about las gigantes
chowfun1427: gigantes are fine. no more talk about actually winning games.
wazzupluver: haha
chowfun1427: always speak as if your team will blow it. worked for the sox... both colors
by nick @ McCovey Chronicles on Jul 22, 2006 1:16 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
by lunaticfringe1 on Jul 22, 2006 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
nobody is gonna read this but...
we havent had solid defense at first base at any point this year, and it hasn't cost us a huge number of games. niekro was awful, sweeney isn't very good, and at the end of the day hillenbrand will outhit them both.
this is our last shot for a while so why not trade a guy who looks to have already peaked (accardo).
his "splitter" can't be thrown for strikes and his slider is a cement mixer. period.
i dont give a damn. at this point, anything the giants do comes as no shock to me.
by fanofvanlandingham on Jul 22, 2006 3:25 AM PDT reply actions
Funny...
- 2.65 ERA (95 K in 81.2 IP)
- 1.68 ERA (91 K in 80.1 IP)
I don't necessarily disagree with you
The real question being debated here is whether Sabean gave up too much to get Hillenbrand. My guess is yes - Accardo's got a very live arm and he's very young. Hillenbrand may very well be a short-term rental player, a la Pierzynski. <----- (Is there a McCovey Chronicles version of Godwin's Law that applies here?)
I'm OK With It
Summary: Good trade in the short term. Not horrible in the long term.
Then again, I liked the AJ trade when it happened, so what do I know?
Re: I'm OK With It
by Flynn Blake on Jul 22, 2006 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: I'm OK With It
Re: The trade....
I think we also gave up too much in this trade. I see Accardo as having lots more movement on his pitches than Felix and having a higher upside. Realizing he was growing and learning while pitching in the bigs, I still enjoyed his performances. Acknowledging that we actually got a silk purse from a sows ear and he has performed well beyond initial expectations, it still rankles that this is what we had to give up to get Shea. Last night on the radio it was mentioned that several current players went to Alou and encouraged him to push for Shea - one would think they know more than we do about his makeup and abilities.
I just hope we aren't lamenting this trade in 2-3 years.
Basically
The trade....
However, if you are in the more optimistic camp, believing that the Giants can win the NL West--which, not to be ridiculous, is what I expect of them--then is this so bad? It almost seems that everyone's gun-shy, with memories of "that trade." We took on pay-roll, got Chulk (who's not THAT bad is he?), and got a decent hitter. Sure, he sucks at defense, but he hits. Sabes seems to be still trying to win this and every year. For all my bitching about him, this is his job after all. I mean maybe Accardo will be really good and he's a lot of years before arbitration, maybe. It's not like Sabes hasn't made prescient filler moves in the past.
Maybe Hillenbrand's an asshole. So what? Like we don't have a few of them. Not to mention, unless he's a complete fool (no evidence of that), he's not going to show up with a new team and something to prove and go off on rants about how much of an idiot Grampa Alou is. Well, maybe he will at some point, but I'd suspect he's happy to be out of Toronto and wanting a change.
Chulk? He's the mystery piece and I always thought that he was a decent pitcher.
So, as I wave back and forth between what my mind wants vs. what my fan's heart wants, I say: Welcome to SF guys! You're about to play in a real stadium with knowledgeable and expecting fans. You should both know that we're nervous about both of you because most of us liked Accardo. So yes, SF nice and a pretty forgiving place, but there ARE expectations. Welcome to the West Coast.
Now go and crush some Dodgers!
by Kent @ McCovey Chronicles on Jul 22, 2006 7:54 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
I does make us stronger this year. It allows Ishikawa (or EME?) to break in at a more natural pace in the future. Getting a RH hitter with some power makes sense for Mays Field. I bow to others analyses of Accardo - I seldom get to see the games - so maybe this isn't a horrible trade. But it is definitely a short-term answer.
by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Jul 22, 2006 8:00 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
Are you sure?
First Rounder Unless......
Same situation as Eyre last year. We ended up with Clayton Tanner or Ben Snyder plus Emmanuel Burriss for Eyre. We'll see how it plays out, but on the surface not a bad trade for us if you are looking at the future.
by DrBGiantsfan on Jul 22, 2006 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
Maybe Sabean feels Sanchez and Wilson have more nerves of steel and he really looks for that "coser mentality" in a short reliever. Tha would explain why he stuck with Walker for so long.
Re: The trade....
Like TK, I was on board with getting Hillebrand, but because I thought he'd come cheaper. If Sabean was going to trade one of my "vitual untouchables" (Cain, Sanchez, Wilson, Accardo and Lowry), I would have liked it to be for someone we controlled next year.
That said, we really don't know if this is a good trade yet until we see what happens.
Giants make the post-season
Re: The trade....
I have never heard of him being a bad seed until this recent spate of chalkboard diaries.
Accardo has a bright future but right now he is giving up more runs than the team average. IE: his ERA is higher than the teams. In others words, he has hurt the team more than he has helped it. That is a general statement that could be easily argued by pointing out his strong WHIP and K/9ip. Still, high ERA = giving up a lot of runs.
We did not get a K machine in return, but we got someone who can help in the pen. We also got a proven hitter who will bolster our offense.
Brian mentioned that the team record is 40-16 when we score more 4 or more runs. Well, don't you think we are more likely to score 4 runs now than before?
This is a time of hope and great optimism. The two young pitchers that we have decided to keep and let pitch have thrown back to back gems that were only disturbed by speed bumps in already decided games in the ninth inning. We are 1/2 a game out of first. With a strong showing from Schmidt tonite, we will be looking down at the rest of the division.
The timing of this move is amazing. Right as the team has started to make real steps forward, our GM throws his hat in the ring to show his support and to add more heat to the fire.
Stop bitching and enjoy!
by positiveuphemism on Jul 22, 2006 9:25 AM PDT reply actions
The General Consensus
Will help us in the short run.
We gave up too much in the long run.
I would agree with that.
by GiantJim on Jul 22, 2006 9:40 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
Sabean is on a sinking ship, litered with holes, still in shell shock from the 2002 loss. He is going to fill this bullet ridden team with a bunch of Shea's as he continues his useless strategy of barely winning the NL West.
Thankfully the West should continue to improve, leaving us behind and forcing a change in strategy.
Oh and Bonds is hurt.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-giants-bonds&prov=ap&type=lgns
Re: The trade....
I wasn't far off.
The Giants have a surplus of good young relievers. They have a sucking chest wound at first base. Trading one reliever to improve at first base is very logical. Especially when this division is just screaming to be had.
Re: The trade....
I think there is a pretty good difference between Accardo and their other young relievers, save Sanchez. 24 years old, 4.0 K/BB, 9.0 K/9 and a consistent splitter away from being a dominant late inning reliever. I would have been fine with this deal if it had been Wilson instead or even Wilson and Taschner.
by GiantJim on Jul 22, 2006 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I like it
Hillenbrand is a notorious first half guy, but I think he'll still be an upgrade over Niekro, especially since he gets to face NL West pitching now instead of AL East.
We're a half game out of first, people! Let's be Giants fans!
by The Balls of Summer on Jul 22, 2006 10:05 AM PDT reply actions
A little more specifically:
Chulk does help the equation, however. I don't think he has anything like the potential of Accardo, and though he has only pitched 26 innings this season, he seems to be a servicable middle reliever, something the Giants don't have a lot of. Still, he will be a drop off from Accardo, even for this season alone.
One thing I am worried about, is that this trade may hasten the return of Timah.
As for Hillenbrand, he helps the Giants most by blocking the path of a possible return of Niekro and by eliminating the ABs by Sweeeney vs. LHP, something he has already done 35 times too often this season.
As I mentioned before, Sweeney actually out-hits Hillenbrand vs. RHP, .365/.506 vs. .320/.460, but a Sweeney/Hillenbrand RHP/LHP platoon sounds like a sweet, if unplausable, combination. That would be .365/.506 vs. RHP and .394/.530 vs. LHP, which would combine for something like .370/.512. This would be pretty amazing compared to the combined .313/.401 previous 1B output (Thanks, Niekroolaid!) that Pants Man had mentioned.
However, it will probably be mostly Hillenbrand at 1B and the overall 1B figures will likely be more like .340/.475, but still that's a major improvement. So, short term improvement for sure, but I agree with those who feel Accardo was too high of a price to pay.
by GiantJim on Jul 22, 2006 10:13 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
This is like the Reds/Nats deal we were all lambasting just a week ago: major league reliever for MLB starter. Yes, control is a bit different, but Sabean noted that he is planning on re-signing Hillenbrand, probably as insurance that Feliz doesn't re-sign, to cover 3B.
And between Wilson and Accardo, I preferred Wilson, he has a pitcher's repertoise whereas Accardo just had a couple of pitchers.
And why all the angst over a reliever who has an ERA near 5 and we're trading for someone who has outpitched him thus far in his career? We built him up in our minds as a potential closer, but, for example, one book I got only saw him as a reliever.
Short on time, but that's basically my thoughts, will expound when time.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 22, 2006 10:31 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
Re: The trade....
Re: The trade....
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 24, 2006 3:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
by David A. Arnott on Jul 22, 2006 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
Actually the quote was that "Sabean hopes to discuss an extension" with Hillenbrand, which is pretty par for the course after you've just traded for a guy. You want to make feel wanted. But I don't neccessarily think he plans on signing him.
I've got to say I REALLY don't see Wilson as being a better prospect than Accardo. They both throw hard, but Wilson has walked 10 batters in 13 innings, Accardo has walked 10 batters in 40 innings, with a better K rate.
by GiantJim on Jul 22, 2006 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
I agree that Sabean often says the de rigeur responses a GM must say. However, he stated his philosophy from last season's trading window that any move he did would be done with the view of the future as well as the present, and he backed what he said by signing Winn to a long term contract, and his tone has not changed since then.
I think it makes sense because he's going to need a 3B for next season and while he's trying to re-sign Feliz, Hillenbrand could be backup for in case they don't sign Feliz, assuming there's not a better 3B on the market (and I don't recall that there is). At worse, then we get both and end up with 1B and 3B filled, instead of a Niekro redux or a trial run with Ishikawa at the bag. And neither Feliz nor Hillenbrand can leverage Sabean, as he could always fall back to the other player if anyone plays hardball. When Rod Beck played hardball, Sabean went out and got Nen.
And as much as people think Sabean hates draft picks, he made a choice to use the money for the MLB payroll those years (else he wouldn't have ever bothered to pay Ishikawa so much nor would he have picked up Lincecum, just have a pre-draft deal to pick up someone cheap) and I think he's sincere in trying to re-sign players and if that don't work out, at least he'll get draft picks, because next year he should have a LOT of money to spend on prospects.
I agree that Accardo has been the better pitcher thus far in the majors, but from what I understand, Wilson has three good to great pitches plus a curve ball that was once rated as a plus that for some reason he hasn't used since his operation (perhaps he's afraid it was that pitch that caused his arm operation, don't know for certain). As much as I like all the starter prospects we currently have, we all know the adage of TINSTAAPP, so I would rather keep Wilson around to see how he develops, first as a starter, then as a reliever if that fails or if the need changes. There was still talk last season of starting him and I think, like most starting prospects who happen to have a couple of good pitches now, the Giants need relievers, not starters, so he and Sanchez get to relieve this season. At worse, he has a quirky personality that I think is suitable for a reliever, or even closer if he really develops, but since he still has the potential to start, I would rather keep him and keep our options open.
Accardo, on the other hand, has the two good pitches and hasn't really had great results with it so far in about one season's worth of results. He has done worse overall this season vs. his results in 2005. And if you break his 2006 season in two, he did worse his last two months vs. his first two months. Which all means to me that, despite his stuff, batters have been able to figure him out over time; did anyone realize that his ERA has been over 7 the past two months? While ERA is not as relevant for relievers due to small sampling and other relievers doing a poor job in relieving after him, 7 is a number that is just too high, no matter how good his peripherals look, particularly since it came when he moved into the setup/closer role the past two months.
Sometimes pitchers have the pitches and just don't figure things out. Like Tomko, for a recent Giants example. He can be dominating when he has everything going right but he just didn't have the right combo to do it consistently a significant percentage of the time. So while Accardo has a lot of potential, Hillenbrand is a proven hitter, plus, more importantly for the Giants offense, he is pretty consistent over time, he hits RHP about as well as he hits LHP, and his home/road numbers are pretty close despite playing at hitter's parks like Fenway and the BOB (now Chase). He is just not great at any one thing, but makes up for that by being good in almost any type of situation, which makes for a more consistent offense, after suffering through Snow and Grissom's poor platoon splits while getting to start most of the time.
And Chulk, while not an exciting reliever like Accardo, has done the job adequately for the past two seasons and after his early season woes in Toronto this season, he has actually pitched well the past two months, when he was allowed to come out of Gibbon's doghouse to actually contribute to the team. I think that his numbers will not, on an overall basis, be that much worse than what Accardo will do for Toronto for the rest of the season. And he's still controllable for the next three seasons if the GIants want to keep him and I think they will, I think he will do fine for us, not great, maybe not even good, but fine, an essential cog that every bullpen needs to eat up innings in a quality sort of way, which is about all that we were expecting to get from Accardo this this.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 24, 2006 4:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
Now, of course, I'm not privy to the behind the scenes discussions, so I don't know if this was just the catcher's calling for different pitches, a suggestion from Righetti, or a even a decision by Accardo himself. I do know that his cutter was his best pitch the first 2 months, that the vast majority of hits he gave up the last two months came on fastballs, and his first HR allowed of the year came on a hanging split to Garciaparra. In fact, in that at-bat, Accardo threw 3 0-2 pitches -- 2 fastballs, and a split, never once showing him the cutter the whole AB.
Who knows, maybe Accardo can only pitch to Matheny (in which case he'll be out of the majors soon), maybe he just happen to coincidently lose effectiveness around the same time Matheny got hurt, or maybe the league really was catching onto him, None of us really know, but I think the question should at least be asked.
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 24, 2006 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
Can't say what it all means. Your analysis of it is sound. I cannot imagine that he stopped using his most effective pitch without Righetti noticing it, but then again, I cannot imagine what happened just a few years ago, forgot the player, but he noticed a great improvement when he got glasses - glasses! - prescribed to him from the Giants; shouldn't that be a natural thing to keep close track of, giving how important sight is to a ballplayer?!? I would assume Accardo would have noticed too, I know I would notice what I'm successful with. And at worse, you would think Matheny would have told Greene what each pitcher's best pitches are.
All I know right now is that Accarod hasn't been effective for two months now, for whatever reason, and that's not a good sign. And from his first outing for Toronto, appears to still be seeking his solution.
And from the way Gibbons bounced Frasor and Chulk up and down this season, when they were pretty effective relievers the previous two seasons (one of my books said Frasor was a closer in waiting), shows that he or Riccardo will have little patience for Accardo's lack of performance going forward, he might see some AAA action again sooner than later if he doesn't solve things soon.
The key thing still is that Hillenbrand is an overall improvement and Chulk is a lateral step - in terms of performance - in the bullpen. Defensive improvement over Sweeney at 1B - BP rated him as +N when playing 1B, so he's slightly better than average, but not like a whole win better, which would be double digits (rated poorly as 3B though, negative). Not as good a hitter, but he is an great improvement over Niekro, in terms of hitting and durability and consistency in hitting. I think Sweeney giving him some rest and taking away tough RHP ABs from him will keep his stats higher than normal in 2nd half.
Plus he sounds like he's willing to sign an extension before going free agent and Sabean sounds like he wants to, so maybe in the, what, 15 days (10 days?) period after the World Series they can hammer something out, he wouldn't be a bad addition at the right price.
Chulk has roughly been the same as Accardo performance-wise only improving as year progresses so I think he will be able to eat innings competantly for the rest of the season given his success past two years. He won't have the same potential, but TINSTAAPP says that potential is often ephemeral and thus getting a solid hitter like Hillenbrand is a great deal for this season if not the future, with Chulk as adequate replacement for Accardo's current production.
I assume this is just the first move, that Sabean will make another move to bolster the bullpen once the deadline looms.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 24, 2006 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 24, 2006 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
Between Wilson and Accardo I preferred Accardo. Throws harder, far less walks so far, (incremently) more big league experience, hasn't been hurt (yet). In a short reliever setup closer guy I'm looking for 1 or 2 dominant pitches. An assortment is for starters (and to be honest I haven't seen this assortment your referrign to. I thought Wilson was pretty much fastball/slider). Which is why I would've moved WIlson before Accardo, but I doubt that was possible or Saybean would've done it.
Conflicted
But I also like Accardo a lot and hate to see him go. I worry that Hillenbrand isn't that much of an upgrade over Sweeney when a RHP is on the mound.
If I were KING of the Giants, I probably wouldn't make this trade, but I'm not completely aghast or anything. The reasoning behind it -- a one-inning reliever for a starting position player -- is solid.
Re: The trade....
He's a young guy with great "stuff" and a wild motion. He's unproven in pressure situations and has mostly failed in those situations this year. He has gotten worse, not better, as the year has progressed.
In short, he's still a prospect and a project.
Comparisons to Nathan are misplaced. Nathan was the Giants' best reliever in 2003 with pinpoint control, great stats and electric stuff. He tailed off a bit in Sept likely because it was his first full year back from injury. And, of course, everyone remembers the unfortunately 1/3 inning blowup in Florida in the playoffs.
Nathan was not a project. He was the real deal and his performance showed it. Will Accardo become another Nathan? Who knows. But he isn't right now. Not even close.
by leewhee on Jul 22, 2006 10:43 AM PDT reply actions
I totally agree
by Nick Schulte on Jul 22, 2006 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: I totally agree
Yeah
I have no problem going for it this year because I think we'll be somewhere between suck and average the next couple of years anyway, and the difference that a middle reliever is going to make won't matter.
by Nick Schulte on Jul 22, 2006 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not surprised by the board reaction
The reaction to this trade really depends upon your opinion of Accardo, IMO.
Again, Hillenbrand is only an improvement vs. LHP. The major improvement at 1B was already made when Niekro was sent down. So, is the improvement at 1B vs. LHP worth the difference between Accardo and Chulk, PLUS $2 million?
by GiantJim on Jul 22, 2006 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: I'm not surprised by the board reaction
This team has enough sulkers. Morris. Moises. Mando. And now this idiot. Consider the coffin nailed shut.
The big winner here is Accardo. He will be playing on a better team for a manager who knows pitching and pitchers.
by E Ticket on Jul 22, 2006 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: I'm not surprised by the board reaction
Re: I totally agree
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 22, 2006 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Name me one decent player
This is the kind of player Al Davis loves. The Raiders are collectors of other teams' garbage cans. And they have the record to prove it.
I dont think Hilldebaby is going to contribute anything but marginally better offensive numbers than what the Giants have had this year at best.
Whinebag little shit got his feelings hurt because nobody from the front office gave him a cookie for adopting a kid? Why the fuck should they asshole? Fuck you, you little weasal for trying to hide behind a little kid as an excuse for your emotional immaturity. Boo-fucking-hoo you spastic little skinhead twat! If you do something noble, you do it because its the right thing to do, not for lip puckers from your bosses. Turd.
I'm not even going to go into the fact that in addition to taking this piece of shit off Toronto's hands, Sansabrain gave the Jay's Accardo as a parting gift for getting the red-eye ream job.
The only up-side of this trade for player fans, is that it enabled Accardo to escape Crazy Phil's plantation, and onto a pretty damn good ballclub. A veritable blessing from Allah (may a thousand virgins come his way) for Jeremy's career...if its in fact not too late already to judge from his forkball that just hangs like a kite.
Corriea, Hennesay, Sanchez, Wilson must be green with envy. Accardo is the big winner here. He will actually be working for a guy who speaks English and knows a hell of a lot about running a pitching staff.
Bunch of jackasses this organization
by E Ticket on Jul 22, 2006 11:29 AM PDT reply actions
Pretty strict guidelines
by Nick Schulte on Jul 22, 2006 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
No, really.
The AJ thing is not even close. It was offseason and Gardy never threw him out of the clubhouse and challenged his bosses the way Gibbons did. And was teamcancer that much of an improvement over Santiago?
by E Ticket on Jul 22, 2006 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Pretty sure
by The Balls of Summer on Jul 22, 2006 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Name me one decent player
Saybean has said we are going for it, we are buyers, the future be damned. And he has stuck to his guns. OK, you're the boss. Hopefully this team has enough juice in it to make it to the playoffs and surprise us now, because we just traded one supposed cog for the future.
Re: Name me one decent player
Re: Name me one decent player
by E Ticket on Jul 22, 2006 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Name me one decent player
I'm sure that Shea has an attitude problem but when it comes to baseball most of the players do.
MLB is not your average employer; when a player or even an assistant scout for the AA team has a kid the team, the announcers, the front office, almost everyone sends out congratulations. I think we've all seen these snippets on the Giants website or hear Kuip and Kruk wishing all the luck to the proud father. I'm sure the parents receive something in the mail if not a phone call from the owners.
If I were Shea and you adopt a kid (a far more difficult endeavor btw) and hear silence from your team I'd be pissed too. To make matters worse on the day he returns he's not in the starting line-up I'm sure he's thinking: Hey, Gibbons, if you told me I wasn't going to start I'd be with my baby girl.
I think the asshole in this scenario is John Gibbons. Can anyone name another manager who challenged a player to a fight in front of the entire clubhouse? Maybe Shea is a cancer on his clubhouse, maybe he'll be a cancer wherever he goes, but maybe he just needs a change.
We won't know until next year if this trade was worth it or not. Accardo may end up being another Foppert, he may by another Nathan. But I'd rather have Shea than Casey and giving up one project albeit with a potentially high ceiling to get a starting 1B and middle reliever is pretty damn good.
Straw
by DrBGiantsfan on Jul 22, 2006 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Straw
I'm just shocked that Gibbons has basically been given a free pass throughout this whole thing.
Re: Name me one decent player
Re: The trade....
The Red Sox traded him for Byung Kim to the DBacks in May 2003. Kim was one of the premier young closers in the game and Boston needed pitching. Seemed a win/win. Hillenbrand played well for the DBacks and Kim pitched well for the Sox.
Then he was traded in Jan 05 from AZ to Toronto for minor league pitcher Adam Peterson. Maybe someone knows the inside story here because it looks like a mismatch. Peterson appears to be out of baseball and had no history of talent at any level.
Hillenbrand has put up consistent numbers everywhere he's been. Maybe he is a cancer since he keeps moving around despite good numbers.
If there was ever a time for him to step it up and show the world he's not what they think, now would be that time.
He's hitting .300 with some power, yet gets no respect. On the Giants, those numbers would make him the best hitter on the team. On the Jays, a .300 avg puts him in a three-way tie for sixth best on Toronto.
So I can understand Hilly's frustration in Toronto. They are simply overloaded with hitting and a guy hitting .300 is just another face in the crowd.
by leewhee on Jul 22, 2006 12:47 PM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
Don't know the details, so I'm just guessing, but for 2005 the D-Backs had Chad Tracy to play 1B and had just signed Troy Glaus to play 3B. I'm guessing that they were planning on non-tendering the arbitration eligible Hillenbrand, (since they didn't have a spot for him to play) leaving them with little trade leverage. So they figured they'd trade Hilly and take a flyer on a young arm rather than non-tendering him and getting nothing in return.
by Fog City Blues on Jul 22, 2006 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
Meanwhile, as others have mentioned, Sweeney has raked RHP to the tune of .315/.380/.527. Hillenbrand has hit, again, in a better hitter's park, .286/.320/.460 against RHP. Hillenbrand also has 15 GIDP ALREADY THIS YEAR. That won't get better on this slow-ass team.
Now, Sweeney simply sucks against LHP. The great thing about Hillenbrand is that he is an absolute lefty-masher.
This would be a positive IF:
Sweeney starts against RHP. Hillenbrand starts against LHP. Hillenbrand could also get additional starts just to give Sweeney or Feliz a rest, while otherwise riding the bench and pinch-hitting.
The problems:
If Hillenbrand is utilized correctly, he throws a big fit and probably gets busted upside the head by Bonds. Even so, our brilliant manager will probably praise Hillenbrand's aggressiveness and start Hillenbrand a lot, even against RHP (LIKE HE DID WITH NIEKRO), which relegates Sweeney to the bench. Now Sweeney is a quality PH, but he is absolutely a better hitter against RHP and should be starting.
Also, Sabean gave up Accardo. Getting a starting position player for a reliever is a great idea. However, Hillenbrand is a marginal starter and Accardo was young, cheap, and under the organization's control.
Remember too that for most of the year, Accardo did not have an ERA near 5. He was our most effective reliever until Felipe pitched him 85734673 games in a row, including in both ends of a doubleheader. I agree that Wilson may have more upside, as he throws equally hard and has more pitches. But right now, Accardo is a lot better. He has 11 BB in 40.1 IP. That isn't bad at all, especially considering that he has 40 SO against those 11 BB in 40.1 IP. Guys who strike out a batter an inning don't grow on trees, especially the Giants tree. Wilson has 11 SO in 13.2 IP. That is close. Wilson also has 10 BB in 13.2 IP. That is go-back-to-the-minors-and-work-on-it bad control.
I can take solace in the following things:
- Jonathan Sanchez is still a Giant
- Hillenbrand may go on a 2005 Randy Winn-like tear
- Hillenbrand may get us good draft pick compensation when his ass gets kicked out of here
- Vinny Chulk (The Vincredible Chulk!) isn't too bad and will probably benefit from the league change
- Sabean still has time to get a backup infielder to replace VizII
- Despite my complaints, Hillenbrand at least means there is a better player than Niekro, Santos, or Ishikawa on the roster
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 22, 2006 2:34 PM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
I was hoping Correia or Hennessey would be the ones traded. I think Hennessey had a lot of value due to his numbers this year, however, I think his ERA is a total mirage. That's the whole problem, really. I think Accardo's ERA was a mirage, too. Judging by their peripherals, their ERAs should've been reversed. Frankly, I'm a little surprised by how many other commenters are being critical of Accardo, citing his high ERA and, more surprisingly, his repertoire. Somebody even said he was "another Felix Rodriguez. Nothing but a fastball." I have to wonder if he ever saw Accardo pitch. I'll agree that after Matheny's injury, the pitch selection leaned ever more heavily on his fastball, but I think that says more about his catchers than it does him. Still, it was his burgeoning splitter which I believe will be his best strikeout pitch when it's all said and done. And Alou prefered a third pitch: "He's got a Mariano Rivera-esque cutter... I think he's going to be a good closer some day."
And as for the ERA, unlike a lot of people it seems, I remember how many of Accardo's runs scored to raise his ERA from the mid 2's to the mid 4's awhile back. I remember him pulled with the bases loaded after allowing three bloops so Felipe could go to Tim Worrell, who allowed a grand slam and Accardo had 3 ER added to his ERA. I remember the debacle vs. the Angels, when with 2 out and one on, Felipe had him intentionally walk a .220 hitting rookie, then brought in Kline, who allowed both runners to score. I remember commiserating with Irwin on the Gameday Thread that day that Felipe was screwing over Accardo. Irwin joked that Felipe was trying to pump up Accardo's ERA so the fans wouldn't be so pissed when he's traded. Nice prediction, Irwin! (Maybe I should blame you!)
He's 24 and I believe he's only going to get better, but I'm not going to pretend like the Giants didn't get something back in this trade which they badly needed -- a major league first-baseman. I don't think Hillenbrand is going to be a savior, but he strengthens the lineup vs. LHP -- something which was a tremendous weakness -- and he strengthens the bench against everybody -- another weakness. The NL West is very much within the Giants grasp, and everybody and their cousin will tell you the playoffs are a crapshoot, so why not go for it? It is the last year of the "Win Now!" campaign, after all. I get that. I won't even disparage Sabean for this move. But I'll miss Accardo, and so will the bullpen.
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 22, 2006 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
If every member of the lineup hit .295/.337/.475, that would be the best offense in the league; good for about 850 runs or so. I know that doesn't take position into account, and the league is crawling with better hitting first basemen, but it isn't anything to sneeze at in a working offense. Some second-half projections:
Winn: .270/.340/.430
Viz: .290/.370/.370
Alou: .290/.370/.490
Bonds: .250/.450/.470
Hillenbrand: .295/.335/.475
Durham: .275/.360/.450
Feliz: .270/.300/.480
Alfonzo: .250/.290/.430
Finley: .250/.330/.430
Sweeney: .260/.350/.420
Linden: .250/.340/.420
Greene: .240/.290/.430
Vizcaino: .230/.260/.310
That's relatively conservative on a few counts, and maybe a little optimistic on others, but that's a good offense. The key, even more than Hillenbrand, was getting Durham productive and Alou back. That's why I'm not a fan of giving up Accardo, especially since the upgrade is pretty minor, but now that it's done the lineup looks a whole lot better.
Re: The trade....
That's true Grant, but it doesn't have to take position into account or consider the quality of first basemen in the league.
In this case, it only has to take what we already have into account. Sweeney is considerably better against RHP.
If you used Sweeney exclusively against RHP, his projection would be a whole lot better.
I would be happy to see Sweeney and Hillenbrand in a pretty strict platoon. That would make for an outstanding offensive first baseman.
I just don't have faith that it will happen. Basically, Hillenbrand should never take plate appearances away from Sweeney against RHP.
If utilized properly, Hillenbrand replaces Niekro. That's a big upgrade. If not, Hillenbrand replaces Sweeney. That is a very slight upgrade, and exclusively because Hillenbrand destroys LHP. Against RHP, it's a downgrade.
And that's the way we have to think about this: if our lineup contains Hillenbrand at 1B against RHP instead of Sweeney, our offense is actually WORSE than it was before the trade. In addition, the bullpen is worse because Chulk replaces Accardo.
Now there's always the possibility that Hillenbrand and Chulk perform way better than expected. But as a GM, would you bet on that? Would you bet that Sabean and Alou will ensure that Hillenbrand and Sweeney will be optimally utilized? I wouldn't count on it.
I want to be dead wrong on this. I want Hillenbrand to turn into the second coming of Jimmie Foxx for the next 2 1/2 months. I want Rags to take one look at Chulk and turn him into Mariano Rivera. I don't think it will happen.
By the way, could Sabean bring in any more guys that are so hard to root for? Finley? Hillenbrand? Why not just bring in Lackey and Spiezio while he's at it. How about Steve Trachsel. La Russa could manage, Jose Oquendo could be bench coach, Canseco could be hitting coach, and Bobby Jones could be pitching coach. Then I could just throw up on myself and become a Tigers fan.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 22, 2006 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
by Josh from Hollywood on Jul 22, 2006 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
by Grant Brisbee on Jul 22, 2006 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
Re: The trade....
Seriously - Asdrubal? Was his parents' other choice "Beelzebubo Cabrera?" "Chupacabra Cabrera?"
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jul 22, 2006 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: The trade....
1) Accardo isn't gonna get many save chances in Toronto -- not with BJ Ryan around for four more years. That means we got a major league regular at the cost of a guy who's going to pitch three innings (and not the three most important, in theory) a week. Vinnie Chulk ain't great, but at this point, he's probably no worse than Accardo.
2) Sabean got, at worst, the righty half of a pretty good 1B platoon. He's not a great player, but if the question is whether the Giants are better after the deal, the answer is yes.
3) I believe the Red Sox traded Hillebrand because Ortiz made him extraneous and they needed pitching. Arizona dumped his salary. No one I've heard of had anything bad to say before this explosion. Also, if he's playing for a contract, that should be some more incentive.
The deal lengthens the lineup without giving up anuthing irreplaceable. If he stinks and you let him go, you still get to keep Chulk. I liked Accardo, too, but he is still at the point where he might be a valuable big-leaguer. Hillebrand can help now. I hope.
by drdon on Jul 23, 2006 4:46 PM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
Now someone pointed out that Hillenbrand is no defensive gold glover there either, but he's been good enough to get played many games there and to start there, so I would have to assume that while it's not the greatest around, he has been good enough to stay a regular, when given the chance.
And to be clear, I like Accardo and think he has a lot of potential. But while he might have gotten his stats padded by poor Worrell outings, Worrell hasn't been around for a while and he still have bad ERA during that time, good peripherals but bad ERA. Sanchez, for example, was able to pitch during the same time period and have a near zero ERA. So maybe there's some bad luck there, but at some point, when do the excuses end?
This move also improves not just 1B but also the bench, Sweeney was suppose to make our bench very strong but he can't do that from 1B.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 24, 2006 4:30 AM PDT reply actions
Re: The trade....
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
