McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: The Boxing Bulletin for Boxing Fans!

Apologies for the length....

Tim Kawakami has an article up for the Mercury News, and I don't agree with a lick of it. I've always thought it was unfair to dissect a column point by point -- it's unfair at best, arrogant at worst -- but I couldn't help myself. No disrespect toward Mr. Kawakami, but this helps me elaborate on some of my points:

Rios a pure power hitter from the right-hand side who can bat fourth and play left field-gee, that happens to be one of the Giants' massive voids.
Pure power hitter is a huge stretch. Rios had 24 homers last season, and he had 17 the season before that. Ryan Howard is a pure power hitter. Rios is a hitter with some power. He's still young, but he'll be 27 next season. You can't just assume that he's going to improve drastically, as he's at an age where some hitters plateau.
The Giants have some young pitching to spare, and the days of holding onto Tim Lincecum, or, if it gets to that, Matt Cain, just to say WE'RE HOLDING ONTO OUR YOUNG PITCHING... well, that's over for the Giants.
It isn't just to say "we're holding onto our young pitching." It's more about recognizing that 23-year-olds who average a strikeout per inning don't come around too often. He was blowing away MLB hitters 70 innings after he was in the Pac-10, and he's under the Giants' control for the next five seasons. This isn't your mother's Jerome Williams. More importantly, there is no way to build even an average offense by trading Lincecum. It just isn't something that can happen this offseason.
Three consecutive losing seasons, leading to 71-91 in 2007, sort of tells you that. They have to rebuild their line-up, and it has to start now.
Absolutely. Completely agreed.
Lincecum is an incredible talent, but that delivery has "future shoulder surgery" written all over it.
I always hate this point. Why does the delivery suggest future problems? Most of the power in Lincecum's delivery comes from the legs. Different does not equal dangerous. Pitching is hazardous to the human arm. No one knows a whole bunch after that.
Rios had an .852 OPS in 2007, which would've led the non-Bonds Giants line-up.

(Randy Winn was the highest regular in that category, at .798. Dan Ortmeier, in limited at-bats, finished at .814. Everybody else was pretty pathetic.)

Rios had 43 doubles, which would've led the Giants. (Winn had 42.)

Rios was better than Randy Winn. I'll concede that. But "Hey, lets get someone better than Randy Winn!" isn't a good argument. Rios would be the best hitter on the 2008 Giants. I'll concede that as well. But we're still talking about a modest improvement on Randy Winn's performance from last year. We all watched Winn. No one was screaming about a contract extension at the end of the season, as it wasn't the kind of offensive performance that a team would think about building around. If you're trading Lincecum for Rios, you're banking on a huge improvement from Rios.
Maybe Toronto is a fairly friendly hitters park, but Rios had more HRS (24-16), more doubles, 52-point better batting average, 29 more runs, higher slugging percentage and more hits than Vernon Wells.
Wells had a horrible season last year. Offensively, it would make more sense to compare Wells's 2007 with Ryan Klesko's 2007. There are better ways to prove Rios's worth than by stacking him up against a teammate who had a terrible season.
The Giants weren't just a lousy hitting team last year. They were PUTRID.

-They were second-to-last in runs scored (683), behind only Washington.

-Even with Bonds' little final push, the Giants hit the second-fewest HRs (131).

-The Giants' slugging percentage of .387 was last in baseball, which is what happens when you keep playing Vizquel, Aurilia, Roberts and Durham.

Oh man, Durham. Durham and Aurilia probably were the worst two regulars in baseball last year, on the same friggin' team.

Agreed on all points. Even worse, the best player from that putrid offense isn't coming back. I still don't see how Alex Rios solves anything. He's a nice player, but he doesn't come close to fixing an offense by himself.
The best teams are the ones who score a lot and get enough pitching to win.

The leading run-scoring teams in 2007:

-Yankees 968.
-Phillies 892.
-Tigers 887.
-Red Sox 867.
-Rockies 867.
-Angels 822.
-Rangers 816.
-Indians 811.

Now, I know the Diamondbacks did a lot of things-getting to the playoffs, winning a round-with a lousy offense (712 runs, 26th in baseball).

But Arizona also hit 171 HRs... 40 more than the weakling Giants.

(Giants - Bonds) + Rios = Less home runs than the 2007 Giants. I still don't see how Rios fixes this awful offense by himself.
And did you see all those Dominant Great Young Arms Colorado used to get to the World Series? Err, wait, they don't have many young arms. They just got bye with a bunch of guys who happened to get hot.
Jeff Francis was a huge part of that run, and the Rockies don't make the playoffs if Ubaldo Jimenez and Franklin Morales aren't on the team.
You can manufacture pitching staffs. Dan Haren was acquired in a trade and might be again. Chris Carpenter was signed by St. Louis as a free agent. Jon Garland just got traded.
What a weird argument. The Cardinals are still kicking themselves for giving Haren away, yet somehow his name is used as supporting evidence for trading a young pitcher away. Carpenter is one of the flukiest comeback stories of the decade, and Garland is a Ziploc bag full of average. It would make more sense to write "David Ortiz was picked up after he was non-tendered, Manny Ramirez was a free agent, and Mike Lowell and Jason Varitek came over in trades," as all of those players are on the same team.
But it's much, much harder to grab young power hitters. The kind of hitters the Rockies, Diamondbacks and Dodgers have right now.
First off, only someone stuck watching the Giants would think there's something magical about developing hitters like Alex Rios. I feel your pain, Tim. And, second, this argument invalidates the point of the entire article. Those teams drafted and developed those hitters. It took time and patience. This article could have been written in Colorado a few years ago, except it would have advocated a young-hitting-for-pitching trade. And it would have been a disaster.

The Giants' offense is a mess. Rios doesn't fix that. With Cain and Lincecum, the Giants have four or five years to build an offense. The Giants would have three years to build an offense around Rios -- a modest upgrade on last year's Randy Winn, remember -- though 2008 is most likely lost.

I just don't get what this trade would accomplish.

0 recs  |  Comment 203 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Apologies for the length....
You know, I don't think I've ever agreed with anything Kawakami has written.

He's usually good for a "you are an idiot."  Except for when he's good for "you are a moron."

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

by thehavenot on Dec 5, 2007 10:02 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I completely agree. This guy is the worst writer in the bay area. He never has anything good to say, he is always trying to slam people(Bonds, Nelson, Nolan, etc) in every column, then he comes up with stupid opionions to validate his horrendous trade scenarios. How is this guy a sports writer?
Your 2010 NL rookie of the year,... Andy D'alessio

by ramirez415 on Dec 6, 2007 8:27 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Well, he has all the credentials, qualifications, and degrees needed to be a sports writer. So do my six-year-old kids, but that's beside the point.

In this case, though, it's not really fair to bash Kawakami. Mark Purdy obviously got first shot at this one, and wrote the "don't trace Lincecum" column, so Kawakami was obliged to write the opposing viewpoint. I'm pretty sure there's some unwritten rule of sports writing that says two columnists for the same paper can't ever agree.

All your signature are belong to us.

by EliminateMe on Dec 6, 2007 10:22 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
i completely agree he slams alot of big people in the bay area for reasons that are not even true, his next article is going to be trying to convince us that billy beane doesnt know good young talent and he will probably think of a bunch of crap the he thinks supports this theory and try to get all of us to go along

by jeffc on Dec 10, 2007 2:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Most of the Bay Area's beat writers are pretty darn bad.  Nancy Gay, Kawakami, and a whole boatload of others.  This isn't only because I generally disagree with a lot of their points, they just don't seem to make sound arguments for their points.  I've mentioned this somewhere before, and it feels a lot of the time the writers are writing to fan a fire, more than writing what they believe.  It's terrible.

by sfgfan on Dec 6, 2007 10:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
The ancient  definition  for the term " Sophist" comes  to mind for most of the Bay Area beat writers. It's a reason why more sports writers are ignored to a greater and greater degree while board & blog's flourish. In the later the read ship not only can  but does call " Bull Shit! " when an emotional argument is misrepresented as a fact.

I love the false statement  that pitching staffs can be manufactured. So can runs be manufactured.  Ask the `07 DBacks. Besides a manufactured staffs been the Giants way since the 60's tell very recently. That has worked real well now hasn`t  it Tim?

by daveinexile on Dec 6, 2007 10:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Ann Killion is another, I don't believe their is a writer in the Bay Area that I like. And the radio personalties are even worse. Maybe its because the have all pissed me off with their Bonds bashing.
Your 2010 NL rookie of the year,... Andy D'alessio

by ramirez415 on Dec 6, 2007 11:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I'm fine with most of the KNBR guys.  And there are even a couple I really like.  (Fitz and Brooks)
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Dec 6, 2007 11:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I like them too.  However, they were really dumb yesterday in suggesting that Rios was a complete stud and worthy of Lincecum.    They really showed their lack of baseball knowledge with their segment yesterday.

by Sigualicious on Dec 6, 2007 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I couldn't agree more...
I've never been big on Tim's writing...(especially since he'll still put out a story every so often about how the Warrior's were so close to getting Garnett when he has nothing else to write) and his reasonings for obtaining Rios are downright fool hardy. Your counter points were clear and concise and 100% percent on the money.

I wish Sabean would just say what we all want to hear.."no I am not as stupid as you all think, I will not mortgage the future and trade a future cy young candidate for a 27 yr old corner with moderate power, bring me a real offer or lose my number!" but he probably won't and the torment will continue

by brian on Dec 5, 2007 10:05 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
What scares me is how this rumor continues to stay alive.  The whole idea should have been shot done the first time anyone mentioned it.  Alex Rios is not a Barry Bonds.  Heck, he isn't even a Vernon Wells!  

If Sabean makes such a stupid trade I will be done with this team until he is fired and Peter McGowan is no longer the owner.  

by Bib12 on Dec 5, 2007 10:06 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I just gotta jump in here. It's not that I disagree with any of you about a Rios-for-Tim even up deal. I'm totally against it. And I agree that most of the KNBR mouths (and Bay Area scribes) haven't done their homework. BUT . . . Rios is a very good -- and consistently getting better -- 5-tool guy. I'd love to have him in right or center (NOT left as Tim K. suggests), so let's stop bashing Rios. And remember, it appears Sabes is offering Lowry for Matsui, and I don't like THAT deal either (even though I have great respect for Matsui).
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 6, 2007 9:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
You can just as easily say that the best teams are the ones who pitch a lot and get enough hitting to win.
Bochy: grounded until he stops hitting and running with slow runners and crappy hitters

by Stuttering John Tamargo on Dec 5, 2007 10:07 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Another POV
Amen. Here's a different point of view, albeit one which leads to the same conclusion.

What you need to win is dominance at some facet of the game, or some dominant players. It's possible to put together a team which is above average in all facets, or to be above average at all positions, but it's damn hard. Rios is a good player, the sort of second-tier All-Star who helps good teams win. I do think some people on this board are a little too hard on him.
But.
Tim and Matt have the potential to be great. If you were betting on who would win the most Cy Youngs from 2010-2015, who would you pick?  I'd pick Santana first, then probably Linecum. Of course, Timmy's arm might fall off, but when you're in dire organizational straits like the Giants are, those are the risks you take. It's not just about winning this, or even winning in a couple of years. It's about taking appropriate measures to your circumstances. Perversely, it's the tough situation we find oursevles in that should let us take certain risks. Did I want Dukes on our team? Not particularly, but that's the sort of risk we should be taking. It's easy to make fun of those moves when they don't work, but how do you think the Warriors got Davis for nothing and Jackson for very little?

We're in risk mode--the riskiest thing we can do is hold on to our potential flame-out, potential Cy Young award winning pitching. So that's what we should do.

I got one word for you: "youneverknow"

by senorvegas on Dec 5, 2007 10:10 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Another POV
Yes!
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 6, 2007 9:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I never thought I'd be praying for a lack of action.

I truthfully would be happier with marching Dan Ortmeier and co out on the field in 08 than trading Lincecum for Rios.

If we're going to trade Lincecum, which we shouldn't, it should be overwhelming. This is disgusting

Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Dec 5, 2007 10:14 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Absolutely.  And that's even before the article pointed out that Rios' OPS this year was only 40 points better than Ort's.

by achiappanza on Dec 6, 2007 12:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I hate the "he'd be the best hitter on the team" argument, just the insinuation that any hitter better than Randy Winn is worth giving up Lincecum or Cain is enough to make my head spin.

by Mr Scruff on Dec 5, 2007 10:19 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
And he forgot to mention the fact that Lincecum, at 23, has a pretty good chance to be the best pitcher on our team next. Being better then Zito/Cain/Lowery is way more impressive then being better then Molina/Winn/Roberts.
You deserve to be struck out when your first name's a verb

by Cookyman on Dec 6, 2007 7:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Yeah, if I were making odds on who would be the best starter on the Giants next season, I think it'd have to be about 55% Cain, 35% Lincecum, 10% Lowry, 8% Zito, 2% Correia/Sanchez/whoever.

Let's hang onto the good ones unless we get absolutely blown away.  Like Jay Bruce AND Joey Votto blown away, or Rios AND Snider blown away.

Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...

by Smoke on the Water on Dec 6, 2007 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My favorite part...
A comment I could NOT agree more with is when Mr. Brisbee says, "Different does not equal dangerous." regarding Mr. Lincecum's delivery.

Grant is absolutely right.  He kicks Kawakami and every other mediocre baseball fans ass with this point.  There is nothing in Tim's delivery that says anything about shoulder strain.  If anything, Timmy may have elbow problems because of his whip-like motion... not his shoulder.  Shoulder problems come from too much arm in their delivery, and bad release points.  Scott Munter's arm-action says shoulder surgery all over it.  Not Tiny's.  I hate that people think Tim is prone to injury just because he's small and throws gas.  He's limber and powerful.  Look at Pedro.  He's small and threw 95+ heat for a couple years.  Now, he has elbow problems because his tendons are being strecthed to the point of ripping.

Tiny im has the kind of delivery that every under-sized kid in high school should have.  Maximum amount of torque with the minimum amount of pressure on joints.

Kawakami, go back to being a nine year old kid and learn how to play the game before you comment on the physical aspect of it.

Brian Sabean is akin to a treatable form of cancer... just get rid of it before it kills you

by milesntrane on Dec 5, 2007 10:22 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: My favorite part...
People seem to forget what everyone was saying about Mark Prior back in the day. He supposedly had perfect mechanics, even getting his delivery evaluated by an orthopedist. Everyone raved about how smooth and easy his pitching motion was. Well, that didn't work out. People are afraid of what they don't understand or don't see too often. Unconventional deliveries scare people because they don't have examples on which to base their evaluations.

by Nathan on Dec 6, 2007 9:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: My favorite part...
Yup, and that is the exact reason Lincecum fell to us in the draft.
Adoptive father of David Quinowski: Fuck it, dude, let's go bowling

by marcello on Dec 6, 2007 11:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

nothing like a good ol fashioned Fisking!
a few more points.
  • if Tim's mechanics were so worrisome, the Giants never should have drafted him 10th. They've obviously decided the mechanics are fine and shouldn't worry about it.
  • This trade screams "SEE, WE'RE DOING SOMETHING!" But they're not really doing very much. Signing Zito last year was for PR purpose - "See, we're doing something!" But the deal actually hurts the franchise financially. Trading Linc for Rios would have the same effect. It might look good in the newspaper to the average fan who doesn't pay attention (or gets all their Giants info by listening to the morons at KNBR), but it will hurt the franchise.
  • Rebuilding is a multi-year process. One trade isn't going to make this team a contender. It will take multiple transactions, including drafts, to rebuild this team. Having a young pitching staff coming into its prime in 2010 while the offense gets explosive is going to be amazing. But we ain't there yet.
  • in other words, 2008 is a lost cause. Let's hope for no major injuries and some experience gained for the young players. IF they see a real concerted effort to rebuild, they won't get discouraged by the losses.
  • Rios as a #4 hitter is a total joke. He's a 5 hitter at best. You don't trade a #1 pitcher for a #5 hitter.
  • Lincecum's upside is way more than Rios's. That alone should settle this thing.
  • Pedro Martinez for Delino Deshields. I guess the Dodgers needed a 2nd baseman.
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 5, 2007 10:22 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: nothing like a good ol fashioned Fisking!
Pedro Martinez for Delino Deshields. I guess the Dodgers needed a 2nd baseman.

That trade made more sense than this would make, and I'm not even kidding. Deshields was 24 and already established. Martinez was great, but the Dodgers already had four starters with an ERA+ over 100, two of whom were under 25. The Dodgers had young offensive talent all over the diamond...except second base.

by Grant on Dec 5, 2007 10:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: nothing like a good ol fashioned Fisking!
Yeah, basically. This is Sabean proving that even if something is idiot-proof, he's capable of being a better idiot.
Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.

by Aadik on Dec 5, 2007 10:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: nothing like a good ol fashioned Fisking!
Dodgers made that deal because their scouts told their GM that Martinez might not be able to carry the workload of a starting pitcher throughout the season. The GM took their advice and then made the trade.

Apparently SF has had some of the same internal discussions:

Industry reaction was one-sided against the proposal, leading to speculation that the Giants consider Lincecum a health risk because of his slight build and high-effort delivery. "You don't give up a pitcher like Lincecum for a player like Rios," said an official of a club who looked at trading for Rios last year. "He's a nice player, but he's not a game changer. To consider a deal like that tells me they question whether Lincecum can hold up."

 Giants Manager Bruce Bochy said the team nearly made Lincecum into a reliever in March, and they still engage in the occasional debate to turn him into a late-inning presence.

http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_7646237?nclick_check=1

by wilriv21 on Dec 5, 2007 10:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: nothing like a good ol fashioned Fisking!
What was in that little box almost made me vommit.
Brian Sabean is akin to a treatable form of cancer... just get rid of it before it kills you

by milesntrane on Dec 5, 2007 10:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: nothing like a good ol fashioned Fisking!
And the Dodgers were right!  Pedro eventually blew out his arm.  True it was after 11 seasons and multiple Cy Young awards, but still...
"natto is just weird and gross in smell, texture, and taste" - BVCE

by SF Pete on Dec 6, 2007 9:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: nothing like a good ol fashioned Fisking!
I loved this article.  I can only hope Sabean reads the first part of it and Bochy changes his mind about what he's quoted as saying in the second.

by Sigualicious on Dec 6, 2007 12:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I think everyone agrees that, unless nearly all of the young guys hit as well as they did in very limited action next year and someother guys (potentially new guys) hit well, we are likely to be around 500 not not near 90 wins.
  Therefore, it seems to me it would make more sense to make trades NEXT year.  I would think virtually all of our pitching will have more value next year.
  Lastly, the reports say the brain trust is debating - ie some several very experienced execs are pushing this idea.  How can that be?  That is scary.  

by allfrank on Dec 5, 2007 10:37 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
what I would give for a .500 Giants next year.

by Adam on Dec 5, 2007 11:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I prefer the Giants NOT be a .500 team next season.  If they somehow are, it probably indicates they went after older players instead of the younger ones they need to build with.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 12:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
How do you suppose they GET young players?
Can't trade for 'em - no vets anyone wants (Marlin model)

Can't sign 'em - they're not free agents

Can't draft 'em - they won't be ready for 5 years.

They Giants receive very little benefits for sucking until the "5 year plan" (rebuild farm system) is finished.  All they get is a higher draft spot.

Ironically, BS has created a self perpetuating veteran FA monster.

Or he can cut payroll, suck even more, and still not get any where, because the primary problem is  lack of talent.

The only other solution is to find new "talent pools" to exploit:  China? Russia? India? Mars?  Females?

Here is your 2 year/$36 million analogy.  The Giants system is like Iraq, ca. 2007.  Staying is bad.  Leaving is bad.  Phased withdrawl is bad.  Abrupt withdrawl is bad.

And in both cases, an idiot put us in this position.

by zenbitz on Dec 6, 2007 3:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
its a pipe dream to think that the Giants will even sniff .500 next year. Their pitching probably will prevent them from losing 100 games, but they definitely will be in the 90+ loss range. What I don't get is that under no scenario of transactions are the Giants a viable/contending/competitive team next season and any significant moves should be with the future past 2008 in mind. Why can't these "Execs" understand that?

I'm speculating, but I believe they underestimate the tolerance the fan base will have for a significant rebuilding. I know the team has had 3 straight losing seasons, but those seasons were portrayed as an effort to remain in the hunt, which was all bullshit and the Brass knew it (but was afraid to admit it publicly.) I'm guess they still don't want to admit that because it would essentially be admitting guilt in letting things deteriorate to this level. That's why Sabean should have been fired instead of extended.

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 5, 2007 11:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
My vision for next year is starting all the young players that we have that are on the level of may-or-may-not pan out for the year to see how they perform (I hope Durham doesn't get a whiff of fresh air from the bench, nor does Roberts). That way, I can get excited about a team that's losing, instead of bored to death by a team that's losing. Furthermore, next off-season, we will know exactly where we need to pick up players, instead of wondering whether we should trade for a LF because we MIGHT have someone there, or not wanting to trade for a 2B because Fransden MIGHT be a good Major Leaguer..

by lmaozedong on Dec 6, 2007 7:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
well, canada has public health care, less crime and violence. i guess i could buy some good winter clothes and move to toronto. ill go to every 5th game and scream my brains out for the enchanter. now how am i going to convince my significant other...

by projectmayhem713 on Dec 5, 2007 11:00 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I could not agree more about Rios not making much difference in our lineup.  Here's my point, if we really want to rebuild our offense, why don't we wait a year and let Lincecum put up fantastic numbers for one season and then trade him?  Santana and Bedard are getting crazy offers of multiple can't-miss prospects.  We should be able to get more than one player.  I don't want to trade Lincecum or Cain, but I recognize drastic measures need to be taken to turn this team around.  But one player is not a drastic measure.

by San Francisco Seth on Dec 5, 2007 11:15 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
120% in agreement Grant.
Sabean stop giving away our first round draft picks!!

by z4 landshark on Dec 5, 2007 11:26 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
i mean we CONTROL Lincecum for 5 more years at the very least!!!
Sabean stop giving away our first round draft picks!!

by z4 landshark on Dec 5, 2007 11:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
The rainman could convince you that it is six (because Tim didn't start last season in SF).  He'd start arbitration right on time, but he won't hit free agency on time.

by sfgfan on Dec 6, 2007 10:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
In the next six years Tim could be the best pitcher in the game.  Is that a sure thing?  No.  But the chances of Alex Rios becoming the best hitter in the game are almost nill.

That Brian Sabean is even giving this possible trade consideration seems horrible to me.  All the publicity it has gotten leads me to believe there may be a high probability of the Giants eventually trading Tim for Rios and another piece.

Can you say Orlando Cepeda?  Gaylord Perry?  George Foster?

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 12:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
its far far far from a guarantee that lincecum will put up huge numbers this year.  in fact id put it around 50-50 that he has an era under 4.50 or 10 wins.  sure if he turns into oswalt we'll regret this deal, but wake up...rios is a very good young player.  dont underestimate his speed and d.  he made the all-star team for a reason.  its not the best possible trade, but nobody is goind to give us a proven super superstar for lincecum

by sam23 on Dec 5, 2007 11:30 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Tim Lincecum pitches better than you can breathe.
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Dec 5, 2007 11:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Wins and All-Star appearances to judge how good a player is?  Hell yeah, sign me up for some more lazy analysis that has little value.

You wake up.  Lincecum is one of the most promising young pitchers in the game.  Rios is a solid corner outfielder who has barely broke .500 slugging once in his career.  Not a good trade.  What is harder to find?  An ace or a solid corner outfielder?

Adoptive father of David Quinowski: Fuck it, dude, let's go bowling

by marcello on Dec 6, 2007 11:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Yes, I know.  Lincecum is a solid pitcher, potential ace.  Rios is a solid outfielder, potential nothing more.
Adoptive father of David Quinowski: Fuck it, dude, let's go bowling

by marcello on Dec 6, 2007 12:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
If you really feel it is only 50/50 that Tim Lincecum's ERA in 2008 will be below 4.50, how much would you like to bet on it?  I'm pretty much unlimited on the amount I can afford to win.  :)

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 12:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Does this jerk-off actually get paid?  

Sheesh.

Brian Wilson for Closer!

by BawLa on Dec 6, 2007 12:05 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
You should seriously e-mail this entry to him, word for word. It's 100% spot on and you didn't resort to snark or anything.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 6, 2007 12:12 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Of course, I agree as well
Agree agree agree agree with everybody... Rios is a great piece, not a game-changer. But I think the biggest consideration is the number of years he's under the Giants' control. It will likely take at least three years for the Giants to build a contender, and we want the important pieces of our team to still be under contract.

I would trade Lincecum for Jay Bruce. Straight up, in a heartbeat, hell, I'd throw in a grade B prospect. Because Bruce is a spectacular talent whose ML service time clock hasn't started. Rios is absolutely the wrong guy.

Proud member of the Adopt-a-Giant^H^H^H^H^HMarlin^H^H^H^H^H^HAthletic program (Todd Linden)

by antinous on Dec 6, 2007 12:51 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

When you have only one chip
Grant, I often think "man, that's exactly right" when reading your posts, and this is another one of those times.

A few years ago I heard a radio interview with Ned Colletti on how the Giants approach the offseason. He said that since they pretty much assume that they don't have the money to make dramatic improvements, they look for ways to improve the team incrementally across the board - a slightly better rotation than before, a slightly better infield, etc etc. This kind of fine-tuning approach may work when you have a strong team with a deep farm system, but its a mindset that has really crippled the Giants for some time now. And when you couple this with the team's propensity to lock in on who they want and lose sight of the cost, you end up bringing in mediocre-to-ok players at prohibitive expense.

Many of Sabean's moves in recent years seem to have been of this he's-better-than-what-we-have ilk, at totally disproportionate cost. Sometimes the cost has been in exhorbitant contracts (signing free agents or re-signing our own players at way more than anyone expects, in terms of salary and/or years). Sometimes the cost has been in terms of draft picks lost. Sometimes its been in terms of players given up in trades. Sometimes its been in terms of blocking the development of potentially promising prospects. And sometimes the cost has been in terms of losing possible chips for a really major move.

Lincecum is a unique talent, and the buzz surrounding him throughout baseball is huge. Same for Cain, of course. Teams would kill for a young duo like that in their rotation. You don't trade one of them unless its to get a difference-making hitter (as in Cabrera, Pujols) or, maybe - maybe - if it can bring back a number of good players that together make your team way better. If Toronto were to offer Rios, Accardo, a good major-league 3rd-baseman (they don't have one to offer) and a solid AA/AAA catching or 1st-base prospect, for instance - that might be worth it, provided the Giants made supplementary moves bringing in another 3-4-5 hitter. But Lincecum for Rios straight up? Hell no.

Personally, I don't believe (or want to believe) that trading Lincecum is the only way to significantly improve the team. But if the Giants do, they have to aim much, much higher - and be patient. Otherwise they blow the one opportunity they think they have.

by FavoriteSpring on Dec 6, 2007 12:58 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
jay bruce would be great but it will never happen.  

by sam23 on Dec 6, 2007 1:38 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
"You can manufacture pitching staffs. Dan Haren was acquired in a trade and might be again. Chris Carpenter was signed by St. Louis as a free agent. Jon Garland just got traded."

Just reread this and now have a renewed, and even greater feeling of huh? He is really reaching for arguments here, to the extent where Im beginning to wonder if hes on the Toronto payroll. My favourite part is where he suggests the possibility of trading for pitching, citing Garland and Haren, my thoughts on this;
Oh yeah? With what exactly? Have you seen what Garland cost/what the As are asking? Maybe give up some hitting? After giving up Lincecum for the sole purpose of improving that area? Or perhaps more young pitching? Whats the point in that? Why not just keep what we have in the 1st place?
Even without stating the obvious that hitting is available through trade and free agency too, its a pointless and nonsensical argument.

by Mr Scruff on Dec 6, 2007 1:53 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
i forgot where i saw it, but there is a great vid analyzing tim's mechanics...and kawakami has his head placed firmly up his ass

tim barely uses his arm...its like a slingshot

his dad has taught him how to use his entire body with each pitch...its why he doesnt ice down his arm after games, and can go and play long toss the day after a pitched game

could lincecum end up with arm probs??? sure...it happens to the best...but not because of his mechanics

as for rios being a pure power hitter....doesnt the belle spell death for most right handed power hitters?? i dont care what he did in the hr derby...thats bp

and the fact remains....cain and lincecum generated and will continue to generate more excitement than 20 rios'

i fuckin hate sports reporters

by bacci40 on Dec 6, 2007 2:21 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....

My sentiments exactly.

Timmy's stride is about as wide as Randy Johnson. I can see where all his "power" comes from. Notice how he eyes the pitcher the whole time and hides the ball behind his back pocket. The rest of the motion is very fluid.

I'd rather watch this guy pitch every five days than see a guy like Rios, that mind you, is slightly better than Randy Winn, hit everyday.

My $.02

Getting Nuschler Faced in the Phone Booth.

by SoFa King Mike on Dec 6, 2007 8:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Alex Rios is more than slightly better than Randy Winn -- but he's not worth anything close to Tim.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 1:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Okay, marginally better than Randy Winn.

Still not the impact player that can flip a franchise around.

by SoFa King Mike on Dec 6, 2007 1:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I dont know if this has been widely seen already, and I have no idea of the credibilty of the site but its a interesting read so I thought I'd share. Its a list of the top 100 players under the age of 25, and its compiled of major and minor league as well as college players. Its dated 8/31/07.

http://www.projectprospect.com/top-100-under-25-83107/

Players of note

  1. Lincecum (3rd pitcher on the list behind Hamels at 5, and Felix Hernandez at 9)
  2. Jay Bruce
  3. Cain (9th pitcher, just behind Verlander and Kazmir!)
  4. Pedro Alvarez
  5. Justin Smoak
  6. Travis Snider (only TOR on list)
  7. Matt Garza (D Young is at 18 as a trade comparison, but obviously its just a list and 1 sites opinion so you cant read TOO much into it)
  8. Villalona (youngest on the list)
  9. Carlos Gomez (reckon theyd still take Sanchez for him?)
Honerable mention: Joey Votto

wow, just had a look at that sites march rankings and they had Lind at 71, Encarnaccion at 77 and Marte at 93

by Mr Scruff on Dec 6, 2007 2:31 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I don't like Kawakami but that's an issue for another time. With regards to his arguments, you've done a great job of answering all his dubious reasoning & so there's no point in repeating it. Another issue i can't help but come back to is the one of service time.

Lets say both players becomes great players & the trade evens out ability wise. And lets be optimistic & say that the Giants can do a good job of rebuilding & be competitive in 2 years. The Giants would then have 1 year of Rios in which to compete. Of course you could extend him, but there's no guarantees & if he becomes the player he would need to be, to make the trade worthwhile he'd become very expensive & divert funds from elsewhere. With Lincecum, you'd have 4 years to compete still before he even reached free agency.

A move like this just stinks of impatience & that's one of the reasons we're in the bad situations we are currently.

by GiantFan on Dec 6, 2007 4:25 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Okay, let me just float this:

Lincecum (or Cain) for Rios, Lind and Glaus (after a physical).

Never mind that it won't happen.  Is that enough for you guys?

Rios isn't a game changer, but he's not bad.  I don't think anyone disagrees there.  He's he'll be around for a solid while.

Glaus, if healthy, is 31 and is a consistent 30+ home run guy.  If healthy.  And he could be had on the cheap.

Lind got a bad rap.  Most feel he profiles best at first anyway, where he played in college.  But I think the Schierholtz comparison is unfair, and the Bowker one I saw in the other thread is awful.  He's moved through the minor with authority.  He's hit at .300 or above at avery level until this past season.  At  the age of 22, he had a 26 HR season, including two in the majors.  Hell, he's even had a respectable walk-rate for his career.  I'm a Nate brown-noser, I'll admit, but Lind is by far the better hitter.

After Lind was sent down mid-season while struggling, he came back in September and hit .273/.298/.473 in 55 at bats.  Not a perfect line, but a good finish to a bad year.

A Linc for these three guys gives the Giants a star now and a legitimate long-term prospect at a position of need.  More-so, it gives the current team a set of 3-4 hitters which won't look so bad ahead of Molina batting fifth, and a young sixth hitter with potential and a lot of probable good years ahead of him.

I would love to see the Giants continue to pursue Lind.  Lowry/Sanchez and a low level pitching prospect?  Yes.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Dec 6, 2007 4:40 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I'd certainly be more palatable & at least worth consideration, whether i'd go for it i'm not sure. If we were giving up Lincecum/Cain i'd rather one of their pitchers instead (although it wouldn't happen)

Irrespective of a potential Lincecum/Rios deal, Lind is certainly someone i'd like to see them pursue & i'd make a Lowry/Sanchez deal if we could.

by GiantFan on Dec 6, 2007 6:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Me three.  Didn't know much about Lind, but the minor league numbers look pretty good to me.  this is exactly the kind of guy we should be taking a chance on.  
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...

by Smoke on the Water on Dec 6, 2007 12:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
And at some point early in the offseason, Lind was supposedly available for a fairly modest price. I think it was Keith Law that wrote the Jays weren't that big on him.

by mxmob33 on Dec 6, 2007 7:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Would you trade Lincecum for Travis Snider, Brett Cecil (as PTBNL) and Lind?

by wilriv21 on Dec 6, 2007 12:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
You're a loathsome, offensive Brute, yet I can't look away.

And yeah, I'd probably do this deal if Glaus' health checks out.

"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 6, 2007 1:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Sabean has said he's not interested in Glaus, but I don't get why. He represents a major offensive upgrade at 3B, which is the one position where it the most sense to go for a veteran (since we have nobody, even an Ortmeier level candidate, for him to block).

You'd have to do this trade if it were offered.

All your signature are belong to us.

by EliminateMe on Dec 6, 2007 1:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Grant, I couldn't agree with you more.  I was absolutely livid yesterday when I read that article, particularly after reading the part where he'd even trade Cain, if that's what it took to get Rios.  

As for prefacing his point about Rios over Vernon Wells with "Maybe Toronto is a fairly friendly hitters park,"...Well, Tim, I've been to that ugly stadium, and it's far more hitter friendly than AT & T.   Just because the kid looked good smacking cookies into the seats at the All Star Game doesn't guarantee an offensive upside against real pitching in a non-climate controlled structure.

I'm with jponry, send it to Tim.

by Widget on Dec 6, 2007 5:36 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Grant,
I know how you feel...except I'm usually apologizing for the girth.
"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 6, 2007 6:52 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

ugh
It's all over the headlines locally, too.  So, since Sabean famously doesn't let the press in on what he's doing, I see two explanations, neither very exciting:
 - he's trying to prep local sentiment to accept a trade for someone else, or for a larger package including Rios and some spare parts
 - he's signalling non-Jays GMs to make better offers than Rios for Lincecum

A trade for Rios (who's a good player, just not a star) plus spare parts is useless.  The team is nothing but spare parts.  It needs stars.

A signal setting Rios as baseline is an invitation to other good-player-plus-junk offers.  It's a mistake.  If you're going to play the press, you lie to a few people and say you mooted a Bruce and Hamilton for Lincecum deal with the Reds, but they balked when you asked for Cueto as well.

Now that's setting the bar high.

Sigh.  I wish Sabean weren't such an idiot about things like this.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 8:43 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
F U SABEAN !!!! for still considering this deal
Your 2010 NL rookie of the year,... Andy D'alessio

by ramirez415 on Dec 6, 2007 8:57 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Is there any chance that Sabean is smart enough to pretend to leave this offer on the table in order to force teams who are interested in Lowry that if they don't act now, he could trade Lincecum/Cain and therefore not want to trade Lowry?  
My fantasy team could beat up your fantasy team.

by Coach Kline on Dec 6, 2007 9:08 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I think it sets the bare minimum value for Lincecum, so when he talks to other teams about Lowry/Sanchez they aren't trying to push the talks toward Lincecum.

by hammystyle on Dec 6, 2007 9:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This trade would be the end for me
Now is not the time to trade Lincecum.

The Giants are paying the price for years of neglect of their farm system.  Rios, as Grant points out, can't fix that.

Lincecum and Cain are the crown jewels.  They can stay, and be cheap, through 2011.  A rotation of Cain, Lincecum, Zito, and two pitchers from among the available choices, is something to build around.

Rios is not cheap.  He'll be $6MM this year and $10MM next.  They can have Lincecum and, god forbid, Pedro Feliz for the same price.

The time to think about trading Cain and Lincecum is when Baumgardner is ready to make a contribution, and when the lineup is built to contend.

If I were Sabean I'd listen to all offers for Tim.  If somebody is willing to unload the kiddie corps to get him, consider it.  But don't take a player who you may not control for the long term. It's crazy.

If he does this it will be the last straw. I will not attend a game this year.

Just one time before I die

by Katman on Dec 6, 2007 9:40 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I'm hoping Sabean and Co. are purposefully trying to scare the bejeebus out of the Giants' faithful with all this trading Lincecain garbage, so that when April rolls around and we have essentially the same lineup as '07 without Bonds, we will just be relieved and thankful instead of disgusted.
Thank God that's over.

by southcitysteve on Dec 6, 2007 9:53 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I would think that, but there are too many fans who are calling KNBR and saying "All-Star Hitter!!!! Do it SAbez!"

by Grant on Dec 6, 2007 10:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
It's been a different theme on KNBR this morning.

Thank you Ted Robinson for some sanity.

I love Ralph, but it was bugging the hell out of me that he was defending a Rios trade yesterday.

Getting Nuschler Faced in Phone Booth Park.

by SoFa King Mike on Dec 6, 2007 10:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
What did Ted say?!  I actually called in and was on hold because I wanted to hear Ted's opinion, but got to the BART parking lot and hung up.

(I think Ted might be the most under-rated sportcaster of them all...I love him.)

I heard Ralph defending the proposed trade, but in a wishy-washy way.  He kept hedging because he said Lincecum's upside is so much higher.  I think he finally was going along with the trade because of TINSTAAPP.

"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 6, 2007 10:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Ted basically said that trading Lincecum would hurt the Giants in the future and 2008 is a wash.

My favorite quote of the morning:

"(Rios) is not the impact player that is going to to turn around this franchise."

Getting Nuschler Faced in Phone Booth Park.

by SoFa King Mike on Dec 6, 2007 10:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
thanks
"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 6, 2007 11:27 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Ted Robinson is freaking awesome.  Hearing him call the Big Game over the weekend was like getting reacquainted with an old buddy.
Bochy: grounded until he stops hitting and running with slow runners and crappy hitters

by Stuttering John Tamargo on Dec 6, 2007 12:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I learned that it is apparently beyond debate that The Play had a forward lateral in it.

I did not know that before.

Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Dec 6, 2007 1:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I was pretty sure that was the case.  Also, one of the player's knee was quite possibly down before he lateraled the ball.

But, wow, what poetry, complete with the trombone player.  Even if Cal hadn't scored on the kick return, the game wouldn't end on a defensive penalty, which the band's being on the field was.  Cal would have had one more play to score if necessary.

The saddest thing is that one of the players directly involved in the play, Mariet Ford, is in prison for burning his house with his family in it.  Outstanding feature story on Ford in the CC Times written by Raiders' beat writer Steve Corkran about three years ago.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 1:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Did anyone see this yet?
Elliott also said the Reds are interested in Alex Rios.  If the Giants are pondering sending Tim Lincecum to the Jays for him, I imagine the Reds would have to counter with Homer Bailey.  Bailey, however, is less proven than Lincecum.

by UnleashTheGore on Dec 6, 2007 9:56 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
The only thing that calms me is the idea that Sabean is using his 'interest' in Rios to get someone else to give up too much for him.

I think he's too stupid for that, personally.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 10:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
 This whole thing smells more and more like the Jays are trying to force the issue.  Maybe con their fan base into thinking they are not standing still.

   Yes the Red's have big burning desire for yet another outfielder  and Homer Bailey is useless baggage for Reds. NOT!

 I wish some Giants PR mouth piece would say, " We don't want to give up Kline for  just Wells. But the ball is the Blue Jays court and  we will make that sacrifice  because of our teams needs."

by daveinexile on Dec 6, 2007 1:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
At this point I don't think Homer is as good a prospect as Tim.  I didn't think he was last winter either, but I couldn't find a lot of agreement at that time.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 1:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I completely agree on the Tim > Homer at this stage. And probably for future stages as well.

   Links I followed were putting Homer in the supposed Red's offer.   But Homer appears to be the best the Reds farm has going and they really need starting pitching.  They play in a division ripe for the taking and if they stumble on 3-4 fairly reliable starters the Red's have to be thinking post season with that offense and home yard. It makes no sense for the Red stand point.

by daveinexile on Dec 6, 2007 2:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I hope Lincecum doesn't get traded because otherwise I won't be able to draw that picture I have planned.
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Dec 6, 2007 10:39 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I was wondering if you could refer me to scouting opinions on Lincecum as a talent. I haven't seen an objective viewpoint on him from a scouting perspective. I would appreciate any recommendations you can make.
I love watching him pitch too, but I am wondering if giants fans aren't a little over zealous regarding his overall talent. I am not suggesting Sabean should take the trade as we currently understand it. I was just looking for an objective viewpoint. Thanks

by ektrod on Dec 6, 2007 10:50 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
If you haven't seen any scouting reports, you can't use Google.  Lincecum was a potential #1 pick in his draft, and an object of fascination since.

His stats are pretty easy to find, too:
http://firstinning.com/players/Tim-Lincecum-a/
Those K%s are elite.  The BB%s are too high, but not dangerously.

Rios is barely (if at all) in the same class right now, and has probably peaked.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 11:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Why do you say Rios has peaked? Bonds did not peak until his late 30's. Thought a player's prime was from around 25 - 32 years of age.

by wilriv21 on Dec 6, 2007 11:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
It depends on what you mean by peaking.  Bonds 93 year and the years that followed soon after that were probably the greatest all around years any player could every have (stolen bases and D included)  after that Bonds got better at hitting but everything else declined dramatically.  I don't expect Rios to become that much ebtter of a htiter.

by Sigualicious on Dec 6, 2007 12:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Back in 93 Bonds would seem to have fit into that 25 - 32 year old window that Rios has just entered.

by wilriv21 on Dec 6, 2007 1:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Yes, and you said Bonds peaked in his late 30s.  What's your point exactly?

by Sigualicious on Dec 6, 2007 2:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
that most players prime is from 25 - 32 and that Rios is just entering his prime.

by wilriv21 on Dec 6, 2007 2:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Don't leave out the 'probably' qualifier.

My conclusion is pretty simple.  Here are the guy's full stats: http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/R/Alexis-Rios.shtml

age    level    OPS
18    Rk    646
19    A-    659
20    A    650
21    A+    752
22    AA    923
23    MLB    721
24    MLB    703
25    MLB    865
26    MLB    852

So, he has a nice little breakout year at 22, makes the majors, and hoists his game up to a mid-800s OPS, with by all accounts great defense and speed.  That's a valuable players, and worth trading for -- but that's probably it.

Superstar hitters -- Bonds, say, -- look like this at those ages and levels:
Age    Level    OPS
20    A+    930
21    AAA    962
21    MLB    746
22    MLB    821
23    MLB    859
24    MLB    777
25    MLB    971
26    MLB    924

There's a bat that -- in a much lower-production offensive era -- simply laid waste to the minor leagues, adjusted to the majors by age 22, was hitting better than Rios is at age 26 in a high-offense era at age 23, and was one of the best hitters in baseball by age 25.

I'd trade Lincecum for Bonds at age 26 in a heartbeat.

Rios is no Bonds.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 2:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
You can't really compare anyone to Bonds.
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Dec 6, 2007 9:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Thanks but I was not looking for stats. I was looking for an analysis of his "potential."  I keep hearing he is a potential cy young award winner.  But I haven't heard anyone outside of a giants fan say it. None of the so-called experts have said it on ESPN. Has anyone with real credibility said this about Lincecum?

by ektrod on Dec 6, 2007 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
He has not.  Recall, he can't use Google, so he hasn't seen all the drooling fanboys who wanted their team (KC, Seattle, etc etc -- there were nine picks ahead of the Giants that year).

He apparently can't read, either, or he'd have seen the pre-draft rankings that consistently pegged TL as a top-pick talent.

I think his problem is that he reads MCC and expects to hear non-Giants fans pipe up.

Dude, it's a fan site.  Use Google to read non-fan sites.  It's easy and fun.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 2:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Others may not agree, but if you sift through all my posts on Tim here and elsewhere, I think you could find a pretty objective scouting report on him.  It is my belief that I saw more of Tim's minor league career than anyone aside from Tim himself.

Although I am extremely positive on Tim, I realize his faults and question marks too.

Regarding Tim's mechanics, I think the primary thing one needs to know is that Will Carroll, who has written the fine book "Saving the Pitcher," wouldn't trade Tim for any other pitcher in the game.

Pedro Gomez, who has posted here, thinks Tim's mechanics are outstanding.

I believe that with Tim it's mostly a matter of control.  Tim has greatly improved that control, beginning with the summer of 2005 in the Cape Cod League, a summer league for the top college players.  If he can continue to improve his control at anywhere near the same rate he's improved it the past two and a half years, he will almost certainly be outstanding.

Another fun thing to remember -- his first summer in the Giants organization Tim didn't throw a change up, but still was considered a top prospect due to his plus-plus fastball and curve.  By the end of 2007, his newly-added change up was arguably Tim's best pitch.  With that pitch, he had the highest swing-through rate of any of his three pitches.  His swing-through rate was right up there with Cole Hamels, who is considered by some to have the best change up in the game.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 1:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I think you mean Carlos "ChadBradfordWannabe" Gomez, not Pedro "My career is Barry Bonds" Gomez!
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 6, 2007 1:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I did mean Carlos, not the ESPN Pedro.  Thanks for the editing.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 4:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
caller in knbr just said "it cant be any worse than '07"  ummm....yes it can. and it will. where do you see runs coming from?  is ray durham suddenly goind to become a legit middle of the order hitter now that he doesnt have barry behind him?  you should get more than just rios for lincecum, but lets not shut the door on the idea of trading one of the young pitchers just yet.  tad iguchi 3b?  seriously?

by sam23 on Dec 6, 2007 10:59 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Iguchi instead of Feliz at 3B for three years is worlds better than Lincecum for Rios for any period of time.

by sfgfan on Dec 6, 2007 11:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Organizational meetings
After the season ended SF had their annual organizational meetings. At these meetings a plan was developed how SF would proceed with building their team going forward. Something about pitching and defense, speed and getting younger. Stick to that plan. No need for 30 somethings and 3 yr deals. No need for aging vets as everyday players. Stick to the plan.

by wilriv21 on Dec 6, 2007 11:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Stick To The Plan
Wil,
As opposed to writing out long dissertations to demonstrate my point each time subjects like this are brought up, I like your permission to use the phrase "Let's Just Stick To The Plan". You didn't copyright that yet did you ? Just checking :-)

Sometimes simple is better. Unless some team comes at the Giants with a totally lopsided "3 for 1" proven IF hitting machines , I'll just keep Lincecum and Cain thank you.

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

by nvsfg on Dec 6, 2007 7:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
There is really no way to build a good offense for 2007. The best hope for next year is to hope that young guys like Schierholtz are average, that Lowry/Sanchez are traded for young guys who are average now (with the potential for improvement later), and that the starting first baseman isn't Aurilia or Ortmeier. You hope the offense can get as close to average as possible. Then you have Cain, Lincecum, a (hopefully) improved Zito, and friends helping you win with that average offense.

There isn't a single player who will improve this offense. Lincecum should not be traded for a single player.

by Grant on Dec 6, 2007 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
This is not strictly true.

Rios replacing Lewis/Davis/Roberts in the lineup (assuming Rios or Winn plays CF) will result in a better offense for 08.  However, this is offset by the immediate downgrade of SP from Linc -> Hennesorria or whomever.

This deal is probably break even for 08, and merely horrible for 09-12.

Rios WILL help the offense, but losing Lincecum hurts the pitching.  Just because the pitching is the stronger of the two doesn't make this a good deal - just means we will lose more 4-3 games and fewer 3-2 games.

by zenbitz on Dec 6, 2007 11:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Whoops. I meant "who will improve this offense to a respectable level." Obviously, Rios improves the offense.

by Grant on Dec 6, 2007 11:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
And I think that's what the Giants are looking for.  Just one bat will at the least avoid us from being HISTORICALLY bad on offense.  Even if it's Andruw at 3 years, Hideki or Tejada for 2 years.  Anything that can avoid a huge franchise hit while we heal our wounds.

by ResDog on Dec 6, 2007 12:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Contrary to what you may believe, Rios is far from someone who will help the team avoid being "historically" bad.  Having him in the mix is definitely a better option than starting three of Roberts/Winn/Schierholtz/Davis in the outfield, though.

by sfgfan on Dec 6, 2007 12:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I'm definitely not in favor of this deal or of trading Lincecum for anybody.  I'm just guessing that the Giants brass thinks we need one big bat because we are miles away from being 15th(?) in the league in scoring again.  Currently built, we could achieve a deadball era offense.

by ResDog on Dec 6, 2007 2:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Adding Alex Rios would improve the Giants' offense over its horrid state of today -- but it is unlikely to improve it over last season.  Adding Alex Rios is unlikely to help the Giants' offense more than losing Barry Bonds hurts it.

Just keep thinking of Orlando Cepeda, Gaylord Perry and George Foster when you consider making this trade.  Lincecum could turn out to be the best of the four.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 1:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Rule 5
Jose Capellan... looks good, had some injury problems, but before was very promising. Dan Kolb was traded for him, which has to mean something. Here's what I don't get...he's a pitcher. Do we really need more pitching. Maybe Sabes was so focused on this draft that he will now be able to actually do something.
lincecum, cain, lowry, sanchez for jeff kent

by lincysgiants on Dec 6, 2007 11:33 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Rule 5
wrong Jose Capellan.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 6, 2007 11:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Always, always, always need pitching
and then when you have enough you get some more because you never have enough pitching.

by wilriv21 on Dec 6, 2007 11:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Always, always, always need pitching
I believe in drafting the best prospect available.  Capellan looks like he's very worthy of being stashed as the Giants' #12 pitcher next season in the hope that he can become a valued reliever or starter by the time the Giants are good again.  Jose is only 21 and has posted 71/11 and 48/9 K/BB ratios the past two seasons.  He also throws a fair amount of ground balls.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 1:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Always, always, always need pitching
You're right, and we lost Blackley... Maybe Capellan can allow us to get rid of Taschner/Kline... and we lost Blackley, but who really cares. I just thought it would be a chance to get a corner infielder, instead of Jonathan Sanchez light. Uggla was rule 5 guy, and I'd take him in our lineup in a heartbeat.
lincecum, cain, lowry, sanchez for jeff kent

by lincysgiants on Dec 6, 2007 2:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Always, always, always need pitching
Dan can hit, but he appears to be an awful fielder.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 4:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Always, always, always need pitching
Kind of like Ray Durham, but better and younger, and oh yeah Uggla can still hit.
lincecum, cain, lowry, sanchez for jeff kent

by lincysgiants on Dec 6, 2007 7:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Always, always, always need pitching
Very nice K/BB -- but in low A.  He has to stay on the major-league roster, doesn't he?

High risk pick, but given how bad the team will be, absolutely worth a flyer.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Always, always, always need pitching
Yeah, I think they hope he can be a middle reliever.
lincecum, cain, lowry, sanchez for jeff kent

by lincysgiants on Dec 6, 2007 3:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Kawakami doesn't even mention the service time issue, as if it isn't important. I'm guessing it's because he simply doesn't understand it, which is more reason to ignore him.
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 6, 2007 11:45 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
seriously, there's no need to apologize for the length. I suspect you were born with it.
Fairley odd parent to Wendell...

by Mark carry on on Dec 6, 2007 11:46 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
This off-season feels like riding shotgun, over Hwy  17, with your drunk uncle at the wheel.

by tobias on Dec 6, 2007 12:35 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Feliz likely to accept arbitration if he doesn't get any multi-year deals, which he shouldn't. ugh.
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 6, 2007 1:14 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Feliz for 1yr is better than Iguchi for 3 yrs

by wilriv21 on Dec 6, 2007 1:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
yeah. I could live with Feliz for one more year, though next year's FA 3b list isn't too great, as it includes most of this year's trade bait: Glaus, Blalock, Crede (though maybe Chipper Jones, whose contract includes an option.)
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 6, 2007 6:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Dealing Lincecum for anything less than a true #3 or #4 impact position player lacks sense and reeks of panic.  Rios is more suited as a leadoff hitter than an RBI guy.  Nice player, but not nearly enough for a cornerstone starting pitcher. I'd rather see the Giants keep their top pitching talent and give the young positional players already in the system a chance to produce.  

I still plan on supporting the team by purchasing my season tickets regardless of the '08 W-L record - recovering from the Bonds era will take a while.  

by bigcountry on Dec 6, 2007 1:17 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
While he has been improving in most regards since he came into the league, Alex Rios doesn't really get on base often enough to be a truly good leadoff man.  On a truly good-hitting team, he would probably bat sixth, possibly fifth.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 1:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Am I the only one here that likes Rios' swing and thinks that as his frame fills out a little more, he'll be a legit power threat?

(I'm talking "power threat" of 30-40 HRs since we're in the post-PED era now.)

"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 6, 2007 1:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Rios
I'm sure I am the most ardent supporter of Alexis Rios here and would find 40 HRs to be career year.

by wilriv21 on Dec 6, 2007 1:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I'm with you guys.  I love Rios, but not for Timmy.
"natto is just weird and gross in smell, texture, and taste" - BVCE

by SF Pete on Dec 6, 2007 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Alex's homers have improved from 10 to 17 to 24.  At that pace he'll be hitting over 100 in just 11 more seasons.  :)

I agree that Alex should continue to hit with more and more power.  But he doesn't take enough walks.  Still, I'd LOVE to have him --have wanted him for five years or so.

But not at the cost of a potential Hall of Famer.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 5:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I just don't get what this trade would accomplish

Instead of 20 games out of first place, the Giants end the season 35 games out? Just my guess.

by Sayhey on Dec 6, 2007 1:41 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Are you KIDDING me?  You mean to tell me the best the Giants can do for one of the most prized pitching prospects in all of Baseball is a slightly above average, slightly not young OUTFIELDER!?!?  No way this deal goes down.

by ololo3 on Dec 6, 2007 2:00 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Goddamn Tom Tolbert.

An Angels fan shouldn't have the right be on a 50,000 watt soap box arguing to trade super super sectacular Giants pitchers for semi-semi-semi spectacular BJ outfielders.

by SoFa King Mike on Dec 6, 2007 3:14 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Now there's a rumor the the Giants walked away from Lincecum for Delmon Young, meaning they likely aren't interested in Rios all that much.
Hitler was a Dodgers fan.

by The Nick on Dec 6, 2007 3:20 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
..or meaning Sabean is even stupider than we think, for dismissing Young (if Garza could fetch him, perhaps Sanchez might have) and pursuing Rios.

That level of stupidity from him is, alas, all too believable.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 3:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I would much much MUCH rather have Delmon Young than Alex Rios. His power isn't there yet, but he's a future stud for sure. I can't imagine Lowry wouldn't have gotten Young. I also can't see how we couldn't get Lastings Milledge for Bengie/Outfielder. It pisses me off because both Milledge and Young are both 22, and that would have definitely been a move toward rebuilding. Now Lincecain will be broken up for a 27 yr. old B grade outfielder.
lincecum, cain, lowry, sanchez for jeff kent

by lincysgiants on Dec 6, 2007 3:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I can't imagine Lowry wouldn't have gotten Young
Your imagination sucks, more than Lowry probably. Garza >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lowry.

by awesomer on Dec 6, 2007 3:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

PS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

by awesomer on Dec 6, 2007 3:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: PS
Yeah, but Garza ~ Sanchez.

        Garza        Sanchez   
age    level    K/PA    BB/PA    K/PA    BB/PA
23    AAA    24%    8%    29%    13%
    MLB    18%    9%    18%    12%
24    AAA            32%    10%
    MLB            26%    12%

Sanchez walks a few more, but Ks quite a few more.  It's not as if Garza is a strikethrowing sinkerballer, either.  He's very promising, no doubt -- but so is Sanchez, and Sanchez is a lefty.

If Sabean wasn't even trying to move Sanchez for the package Garza fetched, then he's as big an idiot as I suspect.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 4:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: PS
Oops.  Well, read through the ick: Garza at 23 is throwing 18%/9% K/BB per plate appearance.  Sanchez last year was 18%/12% -- and he's backed it up with a spike to 26%/12% this year.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 4:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There's this other point
Garza did all his MLB work as a starter, Sanchez as a reliever.

by awesomer on Dec 6, 2007 4:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: There's this other point
I'm not saying Sabian could have gotten it done, or even that the Rays would be wrong to prefer Garza to Sanchez, but that the two are comparable talents.  Both walk too many, if Sanchez more.  Both throw hard, Garza very slightly harder, Sanchez more unusually as a lefty.

Garza's main selling points are starting, draft position, one more pitch and having a sponsoring team in the Twins who knows how to promote a trade (just watch what they get for Santana, and don't forget Pierzynski).  Sanchez's main selling point is that he punches out major league hitters.

Both strike guys out.  Sanchez lots more.

If I had to bet, I'd say Sanchez blows up, and that Garza ends up having a nice little career as a slight disappointment (a #4, not a #2).  Still, a real GM would be out there promoting his trade chits, not muttering darkly in local media about trading his potential Cy candidate for a very nice little player.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 6:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: There's this other point
I don't think you can honestly say that Garza is such a phenominal talent that the Giants couldn't have put together a comparable package. Lowry and Sanchez definitely would have gotten Delmon Young. How about this...

Sanchez + Lowry = D. Young
Molina + Wynn = L. Milledge

A week ago that would have sounded ridiculous to me, but I think those aren't that far fetched today.

lincecum, cain, lowry, sanchez for jeff kent

by lincysgiants on Dec 6, 2007 7:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: There's this other point
Sanchez + Lowry = cup of coffee at Starbuck's

C'mon DYoung is a highly regarded kid with who is free for the next 5 yrs. What would you demand in trade for Big V? And he isn't even in the Top 60 prospects of players.

by wilriv21 on Dec 6, 2007 8:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: There's this other point
I would rather have Lowry and Sanchez than Garza. That's the bottom line, and since the Rays and Mets both traded high end prospects both of which the Giants probably could have put a package together for.
lincecum, cain, lowry, sanchez for jeff kent

by lincysgiants on Dec 6, 2007 10:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
A few people recently mentioned having dreams about the Giants...  Well, I've had mine.

I had a weird dream last night that we DID trade Lincecum for Rios.  I was numbed by the news, and when I woke up, I still felt numbed.  It took a while to shake that horrible feeling.

But to make matters worse, and to show I've been spending WAY too much time on this site, I also dreamt I was golfing with a few other McCovey posters.  That was extra weird, since I don't know any of you personally.

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

by JRPhillips on Dec 6, 2007 4:19 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I'll be offended if I was in your dream, because I don't golf.
Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Dec 6, 2007 10:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
screw it, im holding my breath till villalona is at 3rd and justin smoak (not even drafted yet) is at 1b.  we do have the 5th pick right?  smoak should be there, i hope. go nate, raj, fred, angel, justin, timmy, matty, noah and the rest of the 2011 giants!

by sam23 on Dec 6, 2007 4:36 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I think Mike Nolan traded our 1st round draft pick to the Red Sox.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 6, 2007 4:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Another disheartening Sabean quote...
From the Giants homepage and not a direct quote as I can't copy/paste from a cellphone:

"We're bot looking for prospects who are a year or two away.  We want someone who can step in and contribute next year."

There goes the full commitment to rebuilding...

Hitler was a Dodgers fan.

by The Nick on Dec 6, 2007 4:41 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Another disheartening Sabean quote...
That should be "not" instead of "bot."  Proof reading FTL...
Hitler was a Dodgers fan.

by The Nick on Dec 6, 2007 4:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Another disheartening Sabean quote...

There's nothing to commit to.
  • We gain nothing by cutting payroll (modulo the 5-10M you could sink into scouting)
  • We have no position players worth squat (nod to Frandsen and Nate, who might be OK) that would be blocked by FA aquisitions.
We have no trade bait that is not guys we actually want to keep.

- In case you hadn't noticed, it's not like people are giving away great young hitters free with their breakfast cereal.

by zenbitz on Dec 6, 2007 6:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Don't know if this was posted yet, but here is Chris Russo's take on the potential Rios/Lincecum trade.

http://media.knbr.com/knbr/1206russo.mp3

It's worth a listen.

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Dec 6, 2007 4:52 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I think Sabean is holding out to watch Lowry's value rise as other teams get desperate for pitchers. The Lowry-Matsui rumor might be evidence of this.

This would be the type of trade we all want for keeping Cain-Lincecum while adding offense.

If Lowry becomes the bait, who would you rather have for two years, Matsui or Rios?

by sb on Dec 6, 2007 7:48 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
i think the guy who wrote this was an idiot and i think they guy who anlazyed this was to. first off i know were all giants fans here and were use to 1 offensive player to carry the whole team but when will u guys relize that this offense isnt gonna get any better if u continue signing 1 year guys that r past there hay days, no rois wont change the offense much by himself but when u think about it few people could. this offense needs to start rebuilding sometime and this would be the perfect time to start. in my opinion if lincicum doesnt go back to being a closer like he was in college hes tradeable. we need a young solid 5 tool position player way more then we need a guy to fill out the 3rd spot in the rotition. sure lincicum could become a cy young starter but where r we gonna get this offense from? wit this trade it could easily put the giants offense back on the rite trck, u sign rois then u trade lowry 4 hideki matsui. then trade dave roberts a prospect and maybe durham 4 scott rolen.then get bradon inge from the tigers and
 just like that u got 1.winn,2.inge,3. rois,4.matsui,5.rolen,6.molina,7.frandson,8.visquel, and youll still have zito and cain sitting on the top of the rotation. pretty good offense if i do say so myself and its not that crazy. all the guys ive mentioned have been talking to the giants and in best case senerio that would be the offense. the only way ill except them not trading lincicum is if they get smart and see the sucess that k rod and paplon have had as young closer and make him the most dominant closer in giants history

by gornyson on Dec 6, 2007 7:51 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
404 Error.  Grammar not found.

Seriously, you may make a very valid point (or points), but I don't have the patience to sift through what you just wrote.

Hitler was a Dodgers fan.

by The Nick on Dec 6, 2007 8:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I skimmed through it myself.  I'm not sure that the best use of Tim is as a closer, particularly since the Giants may not have all that many games to close next year.

Also, Tim could close on the day he normally throws between starts -- particularly if he would have five days' rest between starts instead of the normal four.  He pitched relief in between starts in college.

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 11:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

I feel the quote is appropriate.  Points if you can tell me what movie it is from without pasting the quote into a google search.

by Sigualicious on Dec 7, 2007 10:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Billy Madison.

And perfect usage of this quote.

Thank God that's over.

by southcitysteve on Dec 7, 2007 10:33 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Did this idiot called Grant an idiot?
"Hillary has that nomination sewn up." - rxmeister (who wants to be sure that no one interpets this statement as an endorsement of Clinton) 11/9/07

by Goofus on Dec 7, 2007 3:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I really like the typo "anlazyed". Like, when you want to analyze something, but you really can't be bothered, you can say you anlazyed it.
All your signature are belong to us.

by EliminateMe on Dec 7, 2007 11:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Lincecum was never a full-time closer. He may have come in a pinch when there weren't many relievers left or the game was already won, but I am 99.9% sure he was never a clser.

But basically you propose:

Lowry for Mastui
Lincecum for Rios
Durham for Rolen
Roberts for PTBNL
??? for Inge

Durham will not get us Rolen. Durham was one of the worst if not worst full-time position player in 2007. He has a good chance to bounce back, but we can't expect much more than a player like Durham, one who also had a bad year in 2007 and a big contract. Next, how do we get Inge? Other teams are also interested and willing to make serious offers. If we trade Sanchez for Inge we are left with a rotation of Cain-Zito-Correia-???-???. That Rotation is horrible, horrible, horrible. Plus Inge is pretty much equal to, if not worse than Pedro Feliz. Plus, Rios is a 5 spot hitter. Thats it. Thinking he'll morph into a clean-up hitter is only wishful thinking. On top of that we only have him for 3 years. Lincecum on the other hand, we have for 6 and is an ace already, and has the chance to be legendary.

Finally,

Winn
Ing
Rios
Matsui
Rolen
Molina
Frandsen
Vizquel

with a rotation of Cain-Zito-Correia and three spots to fill will not contend. Period.

Ugh why did I bother with all of that.

Still tears up listening to 'Smoke on the Water'

by NinthWithoutNen on Dec 7, 2007 5:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
okay ill some it up 4 ya. basicly i fell if u dont turn lincicum into a closer this year be4 he hurts his arm and becomes a mark prior. if u wanna keep him as the 3rd spot pitcher id much rather take a solid 5 tool player 4 lincicum. he can pausable set of a huge domino effect of trades that i mentioned at my last comment

by gornyson on Dec 6, 2007 8:14 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I don't understand why you just assume that Lincecum is going to get hurt.  There's a risk with any starting pitcher that they will injure their arm.  Lincecum is no different.  He has no history of arm injury and if you read any of the above posts or anything in depth about his pitching motion, there isn't any more stress on his arm than any other pitcher out there.  

Don't just assume that because his delivery is unorthodox that he is going to be injury prone.  He's not a converted position player.  He's been groomed as a pitcher for a while.

Hitler was a Dodgers fan.

by The Nick on Dec 6, 2007 8:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Last winter or spring I was trying to convince John Sickels that Tim should be his #1 pitching prospect.  John moved Tim up to #3, but left him behind Phil Hughes and Homer Bailey.

I mentioned to John that I would put Tim at #1, in part because I believed he was less likely to be injured.  I also mentioned that I would place only Felix Hernandez with Tim -- liking Felix's even younger age but liking Tim's chances of not being injured.

Perhaps it was merely coincidence, but Hughes, Bailed and Hernandez each missed time last season, while Tim was once again healthy.

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 11:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Another thing I just noticed about your post is that you're stuck in the same rut that Sabean has been in for a while.  Trying to build a competitive team for the coming season instead of tossing away a season or two and being ready for a 5 year spread of competitiveness.   With your proposed plan, this would again be sacrificing the future for the now which is why we are in this position to begin with.
in my opinion if lincicum doesnt go back to being a closer like he was in college hes tradeable. we need a young solid 5 tool position player way more then we need a guy to fill out the 3rd spot in the rotition. sure lincicum could become a cy young starter but where r we gonna get this offense from? wit this trade it could easily put the giants offense back on the rite trck, u sign rois then u trade lowry 4 hideki matsui. then trade dave roberts a prospect and maybe durham 4 scott rolen.then get bradon inge from the tigers and
 just like that u got 1.winn,2.inge,3. rois,4.matsui,5.rolen,6.molina,7.frandson,8.visquel,
  • The Lincecum injury thing has already been addressed.
  • Rios isn't young enough to where his upward trend will make him a significant difference maker.
  • Lowry for Matsui straight up gets the Giants 2 years and $12mil debt.  Not to mention the hit on the pitching staff.
  • Roberts and Durham have almost no trade value.  And this prospect you speak of?  Prospect?  Who?  Where?
  • Trade who for Inge?  You're making this team pretty thin again.  Not to mention after 2-3 years, we'd be in the same hole.
  • Then the rotation becomes Cain, Zito, ???, ???, ???.  Likely those "???"s are going to be worse than the Sanchennessorreia trio.  So we've got an upcoming ace, a $20mil Kirk Rueter, and a bunch of hacks.  All with a lineup that will probably be equal to or a smidgin better than our '07 lineup.  
Thanks, but no thanks.

Get the net, brosef.  This team is going to suck in 2008.  Suck in 2009.  And maybe be presentable in 2010 no matter how you slice it.

Hitler was a Dodgers fan.

by The Nick on Dec 6, 2007 8:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....

How.
Does.
Tossing.
A.
Season.
Or.
Two.
Away.
Help.
Us.
In.
Five.
Years
?
?
?

by zenbitz on Dec 7, 2007 9:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
If you know that you won't compete in those seasons anyway, then you put all of your efforts and resources into seasons beyond those.  

Signing big time free agents for seasons you will suck at anyway means losing draft picks.  Trading Sanchez for Matsui means losing a potentially productive pitcher for someone who won't ever help the Giants go to the playoffs.  

That said, I don't have any real big aversion to trying to be at least competitive (mildly so) over the next couple years.  Just at as little expense to the future as possible.

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

by thehavenot on Dec 7, 2007 9:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Tossing a season doesn't help us in 5 years.  However, what does help us in 5 years is not trading away talent for talent that will not be with us in 5 years.

Trading any of our young players for players who are not guaranteed to be here in 5 years when our emerging prospects are MLB ready is a waste of time, money, and talent.

by Sigualicious on Dec 7, 2007 10:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
How does trading away young talent (that might be here in 5 years) for players that A) won't make the Giants better now and B) won't be around when the team is competitive again, help the team AT ALL?
Hitler was a Dodgers fan.

by The Nick on Dec 7, 2007 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
If the Giants trade veterans for prospects and put the money they would spend on middle-of-the-road free agents into scouting and development, they increase their chances of being good in five years.

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 11:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Great idea Rog!

Now, who will you give me for...

Roberts?
Durham?
Winn?
Molina?
Zito?

Yeah, I thought so.

Also, just to address some of the other points.  The chance of the Giants making the playoffs next year is not ZERO, it's just not very high.

I am really of 2 minds about this.  For one, I like to see the Giants try to win games.  I definitly don't want them to mortgage the future (if that is even still possible).   BUT I shudder to think what Sabean will actually do.

Also, do you really lose draft picks for signing random FAs?  I thought that was only if you sign them before the Arb deadline?  I know you get picks if you offer Arb, and are declined by player... but those are sandwich picks.

Did the dodgers give up a pick to sign Jones?

by zenbitz on Dec 7, 2007 1:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Anyone else notice that Kawakami made reference to Grant's post in his follow up column for tomorrow (12/7)?

http://www.mercurynews.com/sportsheadlines/ci_7654986

QUOTE:
 "OK, it's still a gut-wrenching decision. No surprise, my earlier blog post supporting Lincecum-for-Rios has been roasted on at least one very good Giants fan Web site. That's fair, and some of the rips are excellent points."

You know, he almost convinces you with the whole, "it's time for the Giants to try something different" schtick.  Then you remember that NOT developing their own talent from within and trading away what good pitching they can develop has been EXACTLY what the Giants have been doing for the last 10 years or so.  Granted, Rios is better than any of the other guys the Giants have received for the likes of Nathan and Accardo, but it's still the same damn strategy.  Maybe it would be more of a different path for the team to not look for the quick fix for once.

Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...

by Smoke on the Water on Dec 6, 2007 9:06 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I think everyone understands that Lincecum and Rios are both special players.  Some, like myself, believe that Lincecum is more valuable due to his electric stuff, the nature of demand for pitching, and the number of years he's under control.  There's also little question that the Giants need to deal some pitching to bring in talented young position players.  

While I think the OF would be my 3rd prefered spot to land a young bat, I would have made the deal for D. Young (if it truly was on the table) due to the number years he can be kept and his similarly high ceiling.  

Now if we were to find Rios' equivelant at 3B or 1B, I could see Sabean being more willing and less hesitiant in dealing Lincecum.   I think all of our hopes (and Sabean's) are that we can deal pitching other than Lincecum and Cain to pull in a couple of said players.  

My main concern is that Sabean isn't assertive enough in proposing trades or making first contact.  I think the only reason Rios is the best offer thus far, is that Riccardi is initiating this proposal...and his aggressiveness and work may net him higher value in the end.

by DaStick on Dec 6, 2007 11:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Exactly!  

A corner outfielder is NOT the talent that we're looking for.  If Rios was a third baseman, catcher, or first baseman...I think it's possibly worth it.

However, a corner outfielder is in my opinion, akin to a shooting guard in the NBA.  You can find one anywhere and they aren't as valuable as other positions.

by Sigualicious on Dec 7, 2007 10:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Rios is NOT a special player -- or at least he hasn't been so far.  A very good player, worthy of being an All-Star, yes.  But not special.

Tim Lincecum is special.  How many other players have been nicknamed "The Franchise" by their teammates?

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 11:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
first off i didnt get the rolon thing from then air, the cards want a lead off hitter and would be very interested in roberts and rolen and larusia hate each other and it probly wouldnt take more then roberts and a decent prospect which the giants r full of, if saben had some guts he probly would shoot 4 it but he doesnt so wat i say really doesnt matter. trust me i want tim to stay as much as the next guy but if we dont use this guy wisely there will be conciquence. move him to the closer role let less wear and tear go on him. this is still relity and theres not a chance in hell a 5-11 kid wit small shoulders can possible be a dominate starter into his 30's if u expect him to be a 200 inning plus guy 4 the rest of his years hell be retiring at in his early 30's and that includes his tommy john years

by gornyson on Dec 6, 2007 9:30 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Step one: Use the [Reply to this] link. It makes discussions flow much better.

Step two: Please consider using paragraphs and proper grammar, not because I'm being a Grammar nazi, but because your posts are very difficult to read.

Step three: Do you have any sort of proof at all that Lincecum is definitely going to break down? In addition, if you think he's going to break down in his thirties... well, we only control him until he's ~29 anyway. (And I don't agree that he's definitely, 100% going to break down anyway.)

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

by jponry on Dec 7, 2007 2:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Step 2a: PROOFREAD.  And check the spelling of names.  Seriously, you have the entire web page above your initial post to double check spelling.  I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm saying this because if you want to be taken seriously, it helps to appear at least somewhat intelligent and thoughtful.

Additional point I'd like to make is, even if Tim's arm were to fall off in his 30s, that would still give the Giants the next seven or eight years of stellar pitching (assuming his career continues to trend upward).  What would make more sense than making him a closer or trading him now because we're afraid of his career ending when he's 30, would be to hold onto him and rebuild the offense for the next few years.

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

by JRPhillips on Dec 7, 2007 11:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

so far..
..the only argument I have read in favor of a trade is a commenter's I've-got-a-secret posts over on ELM.

Now, I am by nature suspicious of I've-got-a-secret posts.  One of my best early investment decisions was selling a stock I was long based in part on a bunch of positive IGAS posts on internet boards in the mid-'90s (it's underperformed the market since, fwiw).  Still, not all such posts are wrong.

I still don't see it, but I'm open to argument by someone who, say, lays out the purported story.

Being young and stupid in the offseason doesn't cut it for me.

by wcw on Dec 6, 2007 9:39 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: so far..
I like this line:
If he listens to his dad more than Righetti, hell, that's probably a bonus.

Classic!

Hitler was a Dodgers fan.

by The Nick on Dec 6, 2007 9:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: so far..
I have plenty of respect for Dave Righetti.  Dave has had a very difficult family situation for years and has continued to function well.

But what Tim Lincecum is, he and his father created.  When I saw Tim pitch in San Jose, he was blowing hitters away with just his fastball and curve.  When I saw him pitch for the first time last year, he struck out three batters with his curve, two with his fastball -- and three with his new change up.

Dave Righetti didn't teach Tim that change (which is actually an abbreviated split).  Tim's dad did.  Dave Righetti didn't teach Tim his powerful pushoff motion.  Tim's dad did.

One thing the Giants have done right with Tim is that they haven't tried to change him.  No doubt there are fine points they are teaching him, but they were smart enough to leave his unusual but highly efficient pitching delivery alone.

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 11:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
I have to say, the worst possible thing that the Giants can do is get rud of our starting pitching. You cannot find players like lincicum and cain and same with lowery. We could have one of the best rotations in the mlb next year, and especially with years to come. I think our biggest problem is not hitting. Its age and bullpen. We need to get younger plain and simple. As for our bullpen, it is getting their but last year, we blew atleast 20-25 games. For hitting, lets see if we can built it around speed. We can be like the 03 marlins with better pitching.

by montasmob69 on Dec 6, 2007 11:09 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
ok so when the deal broke i was all for getting rios, an established 5-tool position player. (something we arent likely to produce on our own and will pay dearly for in free agency)  however some of the arguments here have swayed me.  not the least of them the guy above aruging FOR the rios trade and then land rolen and inge and matsui with another 2/5 of the starting staff and mystery products.  cant really take the side of a guy who wants to use the same patchwork with other team's veteran garbage strategy we've been using the past 5 seasons.  lets lay off sabean till we see what he actually does though.  he's gotten fleeced and fleeced other teams about the same number of times.  clearly the giants will build around speed, defense and pitching.  both rios and lincecum fit this.  lincecum has greater potential and can be controlled for longer, but rios is a proven commodity and fills an area of more need.  at this point i dont really care either way ill be happy to see rios in right/center field or lincecum pitching every 5th day.  just please please please dont go get a hideki matsui.  inge OR rolen wouldnt be as bad since you arent blocking any prospects at 3rd and theyd just be holding down the fort til villalona is ready.  but what does matsui do for us?  the outfield is the one place where there are young guys and some proven hitters, so we dont need to add an injury prone 30 something to the mix. lowry's stuff isnt all that impressive but i think his value to the giants is worth far more than what he's likely to fetch in a trade. (kirk reuter-esque)  unfortunately that leaves sanchez as the lone trading piece (assuming the big 2 are untouchable)  sabean will have a tough sell trying to flip sanchez for a young 3b/1b. washington's glutton of of's/1b would be my target.  wily mo pena/nick johnson/austin kearns.  none are the most exciting "prospect" but hey they could all play 1b and probably be the most dangerous hitter in the giants lineup next year.  wouldnt any of 'em be as good (and younger) than sexon? to be extremely optimistic, id look and sending a package of lowry/hennessey+sanchez+bengie+durham/aurilia (eat their contracts too) to washington for zimmerman+johnson/pena/kearns, but thats a pipe dream.  the offense is going to be terrible next year, the giants need to listen to all offers, they cant afford to declare guys untouchable, but they cant afford to make a mistake either

by sam23 on Dec 7, 2007 1:43 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
and did those of you who want delmon young so bad forget what a cancer he is?  we dont HAVE to have a big hitting of with an attitude problem.  stop being SOOO obsessed with how long we can control guys, its important but not the be all end all stat.

by sam23 on Dec 7, 2007 1:45 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
food for thought: would you give lincecum+bengie+hennessey for zimmerman+wily mo?

by sam23 on Dec 7, 2007 1:50 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
<i>would you give lincecum+bengie+hennessey for zimmerman+wily mo</i>

With the caveat that this is obviously the mooted trade of a Giants fanboy, of course.  You'd be trading Lincecum and two spare parts for a young, cheap potential star at third and a perfectly adequate outfielder.  Lincecum for Zimmerman straight up I'd do (and is not available), and B.Mo.+fungible pitcher for WMP is a small loss, but a very small one that doesn't outweight Zimmerman.

by wcw on Dec 7, 2007 8:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
Wily Mo has some major power (I've seen him hit a ball to a freeway across Fenway; it was an impressive shot) but he hacks at slop just as bad as Petey Feliz.

I also give two thumbs down to his defense as well. He's built like he belongs at 1st base.

Wily Mo was traded for Bronson Arroyo when he went to the Sox intially, I don't know how that can be equated with a trade that includes Timmy.

by SoFa King Mike on Dec 7, 2007 12:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
If you really look at it,Alex Rios is Pedro Feliz with a better Average. LOL Hit 4 more homers than Feliz, but did it in 86 more AB's 24 homers in 643 ABS pretty impressive lol. I personally like Matt Holiday. Too bad he isn't Available lol. All this talk because the teame decided to go Bonds-Less. If they would have thought about this sooner we wouldn't be in such a power outage team. Like Bonds or not it's hard to ignore at 43 Years old Barry did put some good numbers in only 340 AB's

by Jmerced on Dec 7, 2007 11:33 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
loved barry to death, but at 15 mil and no d in left, and almost no speed (at least not much hustle) on the base paths he might not have been worth it.  had to say goodbye sometime.  he was easily the best player of the past 30 years though and top 5 all-time.

by sam23 on Dec 8, 2007 12:19 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
how about we trade lincicum to the reds, that would be great

by gornyson on Dec 8, 2007 2:26 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Apologies for the length....
A Jays fan checking in here (http://drunkjaysfans.blogspot.com), and first off, I'll tell you that I wouldn't make this deal if I was Sabean, but not because Rios isn't fantastic.

Jays fans in general are split about 50-50 on it. Rios is a huge price to pay for unproven pitching, they figure. They're kind of right, but I'm with most of you guys that arms like this don't come along very often.

Anyway, I saw a lot of talk about his stats here, and I'd like to put your minds a little at ease if I can. Rios's power numbers keep going up, and if you see him, even though he's 27, he's still looks a bit like the skinny kid who first showed up here who was supposed to be all speed and hitting for average.

He'll keep getting stronger and his power numbers will absolutely keep going up. I know the rule is that guys are starting to plateau by this age, but he's still only listed as 195lbs at 6'5. If I were you I'd be confident that he'll keep bulking up. The comparison we've always kind of heard here is with Magglio Ordonez (that was before Mags went nuts at the plate this year, though). Alex still has a ways to go, power-wise, but is far better in the field.

And don't forget, his RBI numbers are low because he spent a lot of time hitting leadoff or second.

Also, the Jays just don't run, so his SB numbers don't reflect his true speed. He's got excellent range in the field, a great arm, and against NL pitching, he should be at least a 30-30 guy for a long time.

Maybe that's still not enough for Lincecum, but Rios is definitely more valuable than some of the raw numbers might indicate. Far better than just a  "modest upgrade on Randy Winn."

by DrunkJaysFan on Dec 9, 2007 11:03 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Thanks
Been following Alex career and have thought of him as Beltran Lite - which is a compliment.  Rios Has all the tools in the world and he finally is beginning to put up some power numbers we all knew that were there. Sabean envisions Rios as a CF for the Giants. While Sabean is still anguishing over to make this deal or not if Riccardi added a Brett Cecil or Adam Lind to the deal Sabean may just have to say "yes".

by wilriv21 on Dec 9, 2007 12:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about San Francisco Giants.
Start posting about the Giants »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Dnw_small
MCC Recipe Swap & Food Talk Jamboree
Small
What I Would Do With the Roster

Recent FanPosts

Small
Could the Giants get any Compensation Picks?
Shadow_grad_small
We're interested in Uggla...
Lucy-liu_small
Giants add four to 40-man roster
Timmy_avatar_small
Expansion Teams / Relocation Discussion
Howtheyscoredcat_small
Lincecum Arbitration Results Prediction Thread!
Panda_bubble_small
First Baseman of the future
Timmy_avatar_small
Downloadable Game Broadcasts?
29x2_small
All-time favorite SF Giants: closer
Small
Would you trade Jeremy Affeldt?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Overlord

174246766_ea2fd78204_small Grant

Minions

Fawlty_small WalrusMan

Dog2_small kenshin1

Lincecum_small Natto

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

Goofus_small Goofus

Det_7193_small jponry

Minor League Guru

Small steve S