McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Backing the Pack for NC State Fans!

Streakin'

174246766_ea2fd78204_tiny by Grant on in News Comment 164 comments

It's only about 100 days until the Winter Meetings, and here we are without a rebuilding plan. What else is there to talk about? An actual winning streak? Bah. Just because they're going to come around with the frequency of a comet for the next few years, doesn't mean winning streaks are automatically newsworthy.

There will be time for about 400 variations on this theme in the offseason, but here's a first crack at a Rebuilding Manifesto:

  1. Other than Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum, anyone can be traded. But in an offseason where Livan Hernandez and a broken Bartolo Colon might be the best free agent starters, the Giants had better get some insane value for Noah Lowry. No matter how wary Lowry's declining K/BB might make you, he's still likely to be one of baseball's better bets for cost certainty for the next couple of seasons, and giving him away for a single position-player prospect would be a mistake, with only a few exceptions.
  2. The Giants have a glut of interesting young outfielders. Fred Lewis, Nate Schierholtz, and Rajai Davis should all get significant playing time. Dan Ortmeier, Clay Timpner, John Bowker, Brian Horwitz, and Eugenio Velez aren't a horrible batch of fall back plans. Out of those eight players, the Giants wouldn't be nuts to expect two capable players who could be part of a rebuilding team.
  3. This means the biggest expenditure for the offseason shouldn't be a free agent, it should be to make Dave Roberts and Randy Winn go away. Maybe a mostly-free Roberts or Winn could bring back a young player to throw on the pile, but that would be only a side benefit.
  4. The free agent market of 2007/2008 is an inbox filled with offers of hidden Nigerian fortune. Stay away. The only players worth any kind of pursuit are outfielders, and they all come with red flags, so refer back to points #2 and 3. This includes guys with needed power, like Andruw Jones and Kosuke Fukudome. Mike Lowell on a two-year deal -- maybe a three-year deal -- is the only plausible upgrade worth pursuing.
  5. Not only will Barry Bonds be the best available hitter, his two-days-on, two-days-off schedule would be perfect for a rebuilding team looking to break in a gaggle of young outfielders while trying to score runs for a young pitching staff. Plus, he's my roster blankie. I'm just not ready to give up my blankie.
  6. The presence of Kevin Franchise should not prevent the Giants from acquiring another young second baseman if the opportunity were to arise. If Howie Kendrick is part of a Lowry deal...sorry, Kev. If Howie Long is part of a minor deal, he might also sneak ahead of Frandsen on the depth chart.
  7. The Giants aren't going to get Alex Rodriguez. Even if they could, it would be insane for a franchise to commit $50M to Barry Zito and Alex Rodriguez for several seasons.
  8. The preferred order of how infield spots should be filled, if possible: a. Blocked prospects via trade (Asdrubal Cabrera, Steven Pearce), b. Out-of-favor prospects (Andy Marte, Dallas McPherson) c. Unwanted players with unwanted contracts via trade (Pat Burrell, Richie Sexson), d. Busted players young enough to hope for 80% of their past production (Brad Wilkerson, Nick Johnson).
This is just a start. Add or take away points as you see fit. And if you read #1 and immediately thought, "Well, what if the Mets want to give up Jose Reyes or David Wright for Cain? Huh? There is NO SUCH THING AS UNTRADEABLE!", you're a literalist ninny.

0 recs | Comment 164 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Streakin'
  1. hell yes
  2. yep
  3. preach on, brother
  4. lol
  5. think he'll take a significant pay cut? me neither. :(
  6. no comment
  7. amen
  8. shrug
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Aug 20, 2007 2:30 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Whether or not he takes a pay cut isn't really relevant in that the team shouldn't really pursue any free agents.  Re-signing bonds for a year won't hurt them in the short or long term, as they shouldn't be spending that money elsewhere anyhow.

Suppose they sign Bonds, there should be enough headroom for eating salary of incoming trade players.  With Morris' money already freed, it'd probably cover most (if not any) of those expenses for a year or two.  This is not including the possible departures of Vizquel, Feliz, Klesko, and Winn/Roberts (if they're traded).  Doesn't Mattheny finally come off the books too?

by sfgfan on Aug 20, 2007 2:51 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

huh?
of course it's relevant. if Bonds agrees to play for less money then Sabean has more budget to offer other players. He's due to make about $16M this year, and if he agreed to take $9 or $10M (which he won't do, ever) to play half the time, that would mean Sabes would have another $6 or $7M to spread around. That's a significant amount of bread any way you look at it.
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Aug 20, 2007 3:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: huh?
Spread around to whom?  As I mentioned, the team should be going into this offseason with the pretense that most of the "top-tier" free agents aren't worth the money they'll command, so they should just leave those offers off the table.  Okay, so say they need to sign a couple of fillers, but the fillers would primarily be replacing guys who are leaving this year, who should be releasing more money than the "filler" should be commanding.

by sfgfan on Aug 20, 2007 3:13 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: huh?
I guess I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the Giants spend less than $90.5M on payroll next year?

I'm not saying NOT to sign Barry if he insists on $15M next year -- far from it. But you can't argue that an extra $6M in freed-up payroll money isn't a good thing.

Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Aug 20, 2007 3:16 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: huh?
Oh, it can be a good thing.  That assumes that ownership won't just pocket that extra money, though.  Suppose they do get Bonds to give in and sign for only $10M, it's not like they should take that six (to ten) million and spend it on some long-term deal reminiscent of another Dave Roberts (or Bengie Molina, even if he has been fairly solid).  They should "save" it and hopefully put it toward the eventual signings of the players that put them over the top (or extending the current players they have that figure into future plans, like Tim Lincecum).

All I'm saying is that re-signing (or even overpaying) for Bonds next year shouldn't hurt the team in the short or long-term.  This is because (in my opinion), the team shouldn't be looking for quick fixes and really shouldn't be signing 30-somethings to long-term deals.

I'm not suggesting they spend less on payroll next year than they have this year just for the sake of spending less payroll.  I'm saying their overall payroll figure should be smaller if they go on with a plan that includes increased playtime for guys like Davis, Ortmeier, Lewis and Frandsen.  If they stick with that kind of a plan, the payroll will shrink as a side-effect of it.

by sfgfan on Aug 20, 2007 3:25 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

gotcha
i think i'm pickin up what you're puttin' down now. youth movement = cheap, so payroll should come in under the $90.5M they spent this year. and i'm certainly not suggesting they go out and find ways to spend another $6M just to do it.

They should give it to me.

Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Aug 20, 2007 3:28 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: gotcha
I'm not so sure the Giants have as much money as people think freed up after this season. There's more than a few players getting significant raises. Barry Zito and Randy Winn go up around 4 million dollars each, Bengie Molina goes up 2 million dollars, Aurilia and Durham 1 million each, Roberts 1.5 million, and I'm sure there are others. The Giants payroll will pretty much be where it is now, WITHOUT significant upgrades, unless they can find takers for a couple of these stiffs.
Randy Messenger says,"We're in Florida this weekend?? Maybe I should have just punched Scott Olsen again!"

by rxmeister on Aug 20, 2007 4:14 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: gotcha
If they can move Winn they should have almost 50 now that morris is gone

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 21, 2007 10:34 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: huh?
The comment "Spread around to whom?" is not only gramatically correct, it is one of the best four-word partial posts I have seen anywhere on the recent fates of the Giants.

by sharksrog on Aug 21, 2007 7:51 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: huh?
"if he agreed to take $9 or $10M (which he won't do, ever) to play half the time, that would mean Sabes would have another $6 or $7M to spread around. That's a significant amount of bread any way you look at it."

Actually, the Giants already owe BLB about $8M in 2008.

He's got $5.8M coming from 2007 salary and about $2M in bonus for PA's etc.

So his salary would be 2008 $? + $8M

I need a Sig ? Damn It !

by nvsfg on Aug 20, 2007 4:58 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just on comment on blocked prospects
With Josh Barfield struggling more mightily than even Durham this year, OPS+ of 60, AsCab may no longer be blocked.

Also, Nick Johnson while a great player when healthy, is NOT healthy. He is having complications with the leg he broke last season.

by rfloh on Aug 20, 2007 2:37 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Just on comment on blocked prospects
Yeah word just came this weekend that Nick Johnson's rehab hit a setback and he's undergone another surgery on the leg and is now officially out for the season.

by Roger on Aug 20, 2007 2:55 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. Despite the 30-odd diaries insisting we should sign A-Rod or Fukodome or Tori Hunter, it seems to escape attention just how bad the Giants offense is - and how there is no quick fix. Bonds on a one year deal, with CF and RF split amongsty a Lewis/Davis/Nate/ (with Ortemier as a 5th OF) combo is the way to go.

- Lowry - I agree, but if the Royals offer Mark Teahan and an arm for Lowry, that's exactly the kind of deal we ought to look at - getting a comparable low cost-player in return. Trading Lowry for 3 prospects does nothing now, but I do worry that Lowry will pitch the same, and end up with a 4.75 ERA next year.

Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.

by Aadik on Aug 20, 2007 2:38 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
"Just  how bad the Giants offense is -- and how there is no quick fix."  Here is another guy who gets it.  Well done!

by sharksrog on Aug 21, 2007 7:53 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Interesting... Fooch at NinersNation made a similar e-mail joke no more than a week ago...

I wish I had a "hack" image for Grant, tehhackmaster.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 20, 2007 2:45 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I type my jokes with one flap down.

Goofus to make "typing with one hand"-joke in 3...2...

by Grant on Aug 20, 2007 2:49 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

1!
So this one-handed typist walks into a bar...ah screw it.
Bold Prediction: Klesko will finish the 2007 season with at least 20 HRs. (OPS+ is 129 as of 7/1/07)

by Goofus on Aug 20, 2007 4:13 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Fyi,
I'd deal Cain for Jose Reyes, but not for David Wright. ;) I imagine Mets fans might feel differently, but Wright is going to be a 1b in a few years.
Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.

by Aadik on Aug 20, 2007 2:50 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
First base, you say...?
Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 20, 2007 2:53 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I thought Wright had improved his D immensely this season. His UZR and RZR are both pretty good this year.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 20, 2007 2:55 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I'll check again (and may well be wrong), but my impression was that the trend says otherwise (dial's and Dewan's numbers previously). He is doing great in the UZR's, and I may be off base on that. That being said, I think I'd still rather have Cain. ;)
Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.

by Aadik on Aug 21, 2007 10:16 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
6' 215 isn't automatically 1B material, and I've heard good things about his glove this season.  

by fwoty oz on Aug 20, 2007 2:56 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Isn't Wright generally regarded as a very athletic third baseman?

by sfgfan on Aug 20, 2007 2:58 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Living in NY, I see David Wright play third on a daily basis, and I see no reason whatsoever to think he is going to have to become a first baseman. His defense is fine over there.
Randy Messenger says,"We're in Florida this weekend?? Maybe I should have just punched Scott Olsen again!"

by rxmeister on Aug 20, 2007 4:16 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Everything I have seen and heard on the subject would back you up here, Mark.

by sharksrog on Aug 21, 2007 7:55 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Agreed.  The guy who is a definite future first baseman Miguel Cabrera.  The guy is almost up to 260.

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 21, 2007 10:39 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
1. Yeah, while we'll all have a soft spot in our hearts for Cain, I don't think he's off limits. I'm not one of the "Well, what if the Mets want to give up Jose Reyes or David Wright for Cain? Huh? There is NO SUCH THING AS UNTRADEABLE!" people, I think that trade offers should be considered for him. Sabean's apparent strategy of "draft young pitchers, trade said young pitchers for hitters" won't work unless we give up a stud pitcher a couple times in order to get some hitters here. I think that Lincecum would be off-limits, as I personally think his all-around stuff is better than Cain's, but I think that we could get a bundle in return for Cain, and Sabean should entertain it.

2-3. Next year's OF should be: Lewis, Schierholtz, Davis, and Ortmeier. We all know we're going next year, and I'm in agreement that the kids are alright.

  1. Dead-on. Why are we all so quick to rid the Giants of Bonds? He's still the best hitter alive and is entertaining as hell to watch. I realize that I didn't include him in the list of OFs above, but I think Grant's idea is perfect of giving him even more time off to implement the kids. Of course, this is all assuming he signs for a 1-year deal at or around $10 million, which is quite unlikely.
  2. Grant gets it. Why doesn't everyone else? A-Rod is an impossibility on this team. We'd have no money left to give to anyone.
Giant Expectations

by UnleashTheGore on Aug 20, 2007 2:59 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
As per number 7.  Because it's fun to dream.  And your realitizationizing smashes those dreams.
"The fact the Giants have 11 free agents concerns Barry." Jeff Borris, last off-season

by thehavenot on Aug 20, 2007 3:06 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
definitely with you on the "why not trade cain too" thing.  The question is, after this season, will any other GM be as excited by his 'upside' as folks here seem to be.

I wonder if the time to trade cain was after last season, but we missed the timing as usual.  

"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Aug 20, 2007 3:27 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
What, because of the record? I'm pretty sure GMs would be jumping all over themselves to acquire a 22 y/o with great stuff and a sub-4 ERA in probably about 200ish innings.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 20, 2007 3:30 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
His command isn't great.  His record isn't great.  His Ks are declining.  He isn't, you know, winning.  Right now.

I'm not saying Matt doesn't have upside, and doesn't have the chance to be a great pitcher.  

But until we see the return of some actual dominance on his part I wouldn't brand him untouchable.  Not like timmy.

Luck is the residue of design and all that, and Matty's designs this year aren't...er... all that.

"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Aug 20, 2007 3:57 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
No, I wouldn't label him untouchable either (though I'd rather they not trade him.)

I'm just saying... you seemed to imply in your first post that you didn't think GMs would be interested in acquiring him anymore. And IMO, they definitely would, and would give up a lot for him.

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

by jponry on Aug 20, 2007 4:02 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I know I'm really late to this party, but I had to chime in...

So the proposition here is to trade Cain and go into next year with a rotation of Lincecum, Lowry, Zito, Sanchez, and Misch?  Or are we proposing the idea of overpaying another FA pitcher?  Wow, so we not only have no hitting, but we're going to cripple our pitching staff, AND go heavily lefty!  Meanwhile, at least we now have one new bat to shore up our horrid starting lineup.  That's like putting chocolate sauce on a pile of poop.  Sure, it's still shit, but you didn't have the chocolate sauce before!

Final comment: In four August starts, Cain has already struck out more batters (28) than any other month this season, and he's only issued five walks during that span.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Norm MacDonald

by JRPhillips on Aug 21, 2007 2:07 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Thank you very much for saying what all these guys should be told.  Their out of their freaking minds to think Cain inst as valuable or has as much upside as he once did.  Its absolutely ludicrous. And to automatically write him off as not being as good as Lincecum because he doesn't throw as hard is just as ridiculous.  

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 21, 2007 3:18 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
The Giants problem in the short run seems to be talent far more than money IMO.  True, I certainly didn't favor the contracts to Barry Zito, Randy Winn and Dave Roberts, which add up to more than $30 million per season, but at least some of those contracts are or will be tradable.

And, yes, the Giants will be hard-pressed to pay enough veterans enough money to solve their offensive problems.

But the real problem is that there is little available, regardless of cost.  The Giants could sign Alex Rodriguez, Torii Hunter and Andruw Jones, and unless that trio and others improved, they would scarcely improve their team OPS (and hence run scoring) unless they also re-sign Barry Bonds.  And we're probably talking $70-$80 million per season for just that trio and Barry.

The biggest reason not to sign Alex Rodriguez would be that he will very likely be an old player before the Giants are once again able to contend.

The Giants needed their hitters not to have below-average seasons, but to have near-career years if they were truly going to contend.  That would have made them a good team instead of an average one.  With many of their hitters having subpar seasons, the Giants have fallen from average to poor.

These days teams either have to be among the very top spenders (see the Yankees and Red Sox) or they need to be able to build at least an inexpensive foundation of young players brought up from within.  Heck, the Dodgers are a team that has fallen as far as fourth this season (I'll bet THEY were glad for the Giants when they fell that far, since falling into the cellar would have been even more embarrassing.) -- and they're a team that not only has spent a high amount of money (although not come close to reaching the Yankees/Red Sox level)AND have an abundance of find young young players.

Follow Tim Lincecum, Angel Villalona and the six players the Giants drafted among the first 51 overall picks this season.  The future of the Giants began with the 2006 entry draft.  Prior to that, they had almost none -- even if they didnt realize it yet.

by sharksrog on Aug 21, 2007 8:06 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I feel like there is only one market that is being remotely underlooked: crappy AL pitchers.

Trade Lowry for hitting, and then acquire several young, but heretofore unsuccessful, pitchers from the AL, and hope a few of them turn into decent starters or relievers (Arroyo, Lilly, Lohse, etc).

Jeremy Affelt, Casey Fossum, Jeff Weaver, Odalis Perez, Bruce Chen are all 30 years old or younger and could likely be had relatively cheaply.

Who dat is? That's just Ortmeier's daddy.

by rotorueter on Aug 20, 2007 3:03 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Is Bruce Chen really under 30 still?  Goodness.
"The fact the Giants have 11 free agents concerns Barry." Jeff Borris, last off-season

by thehavenot on Aug 20, 2007 3:07 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Isn't Affeldt on the Rockies now?
Steve Kline: He's pretty okay!

by groug on Aug 20, 2007 3:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Yep!  And he's a reliever.
Brian Anderson: converting saves and dominating as best he can.

by Anticon23 on Aug 20, 2007 3:26 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Perez: Already sucked with both the Dodgers and the Braves.

Weaver: Already sucked with both the Dodgers and the Cards.

Chen: Already sucked with the Braves, Phillies, Mets, Reds, Expos, and Astros.

Fossum: Sucked with the D-Bags.

Affeldt: 6.20 ERA as a starter for the Rocks last year.

I'd rather start Misch over any of them.  At least he still has the chance to surprise, the others you pretty much overpay.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Norm MacDonald

by JRPhillips on Aug 21, 2007 2:19 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agreed
I think the OF should look like: Bonds, Nate, Freedy, Rajai, and Ort.

Ort should also get a significant amount of time at first, depending on if we keep Klesko or not. If not, platoon him with Richie perhaps? (i'm not sure here).

If we can't get rid of Durham, maybe let Frandsen try for starting SS? Or just give him the lion's share of 2b...bottom line, pick one of the 2 positions and stick with it.

The above point should show that I clearly have no Idea what to do about the infield. I do think Franny should get regular time at one position, if for no other reason than he's cheap and might improve.

Does that mean we have to resign Pedro or omar to 1 year contracts? I just don't know.

But I am solid on my ideas for outfield and 1b. I havea good feeling about Ort at 1b.

If anyone wants to respond to each of these that knows something about whats available in trades/FA, please do.

And Boom Goes the Dynamite

by Andy from DC on Aug 20, 2007 3:08 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Agreed
Andy, although I share your unfounded good feelings about Ortmeier at 1B, I also have haunting auditory hallucinations of Freddy Fender.
Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle on Aug 20, 2007 3:13 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I know who Freddy fender is...
THEREFORE DO NOT SECOND GUESS THE ORT AT 1B!!!!

please? :(

And Boom Goes the Dynamite

by Andy from DC on Aug 20, 2007 3:17 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Agreed
A team with Kevin Frandsen at shortstop and Dan Ortmeier at first base on an everyday basis is a team likely to score few runs -- and hence, not win a lot of games.

by sharksrog on Aug 21, 2007 8:08 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
In particular, back to the subject of blocked players: was anyone else impressed by SS Yunel Escobar when we played the Braves? I'm too lazy to look up his minor league numbers, but he looked good against us. Assuming Renteria comes back healthy, perhaps Atlanta will think it has an abudance of middle infielders and listen to offers of starting pitching. Granted, he's not the slugging 1B we all know we need, but acquiring him would settle SS for several years and allow us to save Vizquel's salary to spend elsewhere, without putting Frandsen or Aurilia at SS next year.

It isn't the first move I'd make, and I'm not sure I'd trade Lowry straight up for him, so I'm not sure who I'd give up (Misch & Sadler?  Sanchez & Chulk?). But it might be a step in the right direction.

And does anybody think we might be able to unload both Roberts and Winn this winter? I really want to believe we could. Somebody help me believe.

Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle on Aug 20, 2007 3:11 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I thought Escobar looked good.
Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not facist: THE RETURN OF SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 20, 2007 3:13 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

:-O
Yes, but how do you think he played :P

by Jakespaar on Aug 20, 2007 3:31 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I was asking for that
Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not facist: THE RETURN OF SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 20, 2007 4:18 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: I was asking for that
Sure...Blame the victim.
Barry Zito -- Catch Me if You Can.

by E Ticket on Aug 20, 2007 7:39 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: :-O
Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle on Aug 21, 2007 7:12 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I'd like to unload both, but I don't see it happening.  I'd like to have Roberts playing LF next season, he was at a +16 there according to John Dewan's defensive metrics.  But Roberts and Davis are somewhat redundant.  I just don't know how this is going to work out.
Brian Anderson: converting saves and dominating as best he can.

by Anticon23 on Aug 20, 2007 3:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Redundancy: good for NASA, bad for baseball teams.
Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle on Aug 20, 2007 3:46 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
i think atlanta would prefer to keep escobar and move rentaria...there were rumors around the deadline about rentaria going to the white sox...i would love to have escobar on the giants...i went to all three games in atlanta last week, and was very impressed with his play...but that leads to how about rentaria in sf next year?

by travis j bagdad on Aug 20, 2007 4:35 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Renteria
Renteria contract from mlb4u.com:

 9M in 2008- + the deal includes an 11M Team Option for 2009 or a 3M buyout - + he receives a 1M bonus if traded- + BOS is responsible for the entire 3M buyout if 2009

So one year 9M or two years 20M. He just turned 32 on August 7 and still is playing well. Could be an option worth looking into since SF needs a SS for 2008 and beyond.

by wilriv21 on Aug 20, 2007 4:46 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Renteria
After the past few years of Omar, wouldn't having Renteria at short make most of us pull our hair out quite often?

by sfgfan on Aug 20, 2007 4:52 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Renteria
Is his defense THAT bad?  I recall the 30-error season in Boston, but aside from that I thought he was adequate there.
Brian Anderson: converting saves and dominating as best he can.

by Anticon23 on Aug 20, 2007 5:10 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I would be very surprised if the Giants DIDN'T try to unload both Dave Roberts and Randy Winn this winter.

The Giants could actually man two of their three outfield positions with decent platoons of Rajai Davis/Freddie Lewis and Nate Schierholtz/Dan Ortmeier.  Throw in Barry Bonds, and you've got a decent yet fairly young outfield.  Throw in a younger outfielder taken back in trade for a chip such as Noah Lowry, and you've got a young outfield that could turn out to be at least average.

by sharksrog on Aug 21, 2007 8:11 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Are we rebuilding or not?
Grant's outline looks good to me.  To me, the Giants must actually commit to rebuilding if they are going to do it right.  This would mean more seasons like this one in the next year or two or three.  I hope Giants management understands this and is able to cope with it.  

The only real point I would add to Grant's plan is that if a full budget won't make a good team, then go under budget for a couple of years if we are going to suck anyway.  Say if the Giants can save 20 million a year for two years, that's an extra forty million to spend on contracts or development.  Now that wouldn't mean that the Giants would have 130 million to spend in 2010 because that extra money would have to be stretched out over the life of whatever contracts they sign.

Then again, I can't help but look at the Tigers.....Brandon Inge and Curtis Granderson were the only position players who were home grown on the 2006 world series team.....

"The fact the Giants have 11 free agents concerns Barry." Jeff Borris, last off-season

by thehavenot on Aug 20, 2007 3:13 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I'm a little surprised that everyone wants Bonds to come back. As much as I love the guy, I'm ready for him to move on. This team needs a fresh start, and he deserves a chance to play in a pennant race again.

by Evan on Aug 20, 2007 3:17 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
yeah, I agree. I think people are thinking with their hearts here. Nobody thinks this team will contend next year, so why bring back a 44 year old player?? It's time to cut the ties, tell him thanks for the memories, and let the young players mature without the Bonds circus to distract them.
Randy Messenger says,"We're in Florida this weekend?? Maybe I should have just punched Scott Olsen again!"

by rxmeister on Aug 20, 2007 4:19 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I also agree with this.  While I LOVE the Giants, I also love Barry.  Let's face it, the Giants will not contend next year, and Barry deserves a chance at a championship.  I can't agree that he us still one if the best jitters un the game, imagine how much better he would be if he didnt have to run around in the outfield.  He could easily hit 40 homers next year for the Angels/Yankees

by 27freethrows on Aug 20, 2007 6:44 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I can't DISAGREE that he is one of the best HITTERS

Stupid keyboard.

by 27freethrows on Aug 20, 2007 6:46 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
What if Bonds doesn't want to win a championship for another team, and his only chance to get the one he wants is to sign back and hope a crappy team catches lightning in a bottle?

We're not doing him a favor by letting him try to get a championship for another team if he WANTS to play here.

And if he wants to play here, there is no reasonable business reason not to resign him. There is none. Not a single one. Especially if we can unload Roberts and Winn.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 20, 2007 7:30 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
He did say that he wants to win a Championship before he retires.  Yes, he's getting old, but I'm pretty sure that senility hasn't yet begun to creep in.  I'm quite sure that he realizes that winning a Championship means playing on another team.

It's been fun.  We all appreciate everything that he's brought to this team and to SFO.  However, we need to part ways if he wants to get a ring before he retires.  I was sad when Willie got traded away (he was & still is my all time favorite Giant).  Likewise, it will be sad to see Barry go. However, I believe it would be best for both parties.  At his age, perhaps a DH role would be best - hopefully any team other than the Yankees (my least favorite AL team).

by Jakespaar on Aug 21, 2007 11:05 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Agree 1000%. 44+Youth=Irrational Number. It's time to retire the number, have some fireworks, and issue the DVD highlights. It's time to let go of the blankie.

by reeky on Aug 21, 2007 8:59 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My proposal, go ahead and rip off my head . . .
I'd like to acquire Jeff Clement.  If Joe Blanton could fetch Clayton Kershaw and Andy LaRoche (or whatever the rumored players mentioned), Lowry should be able to fetch a king's ransom.

Sabean's worked out a few deals with Bill Bavasi before.  Seattle's looking to unload Richie Sexson's contract, and we all know that his  .209 average is an aberration.  We have extra money from the Matt Morris deal, and we need someone with Sexson's power (plus he's in the last year of his contract).  Seattle takes a good portion of his remaining $14 million ($6 million, perhaps), and we have a power hitter in our lineup.  If the team sinks, we can deal him at the deadline for a few prospects if he's produced like he's capable of.  Jeff Clement is blocked by Kenji Johjima, and I'd like to think he'd be a nice fit here.  Also throw in a young power arm (Mark Lowe, closer kind of pitcher blocked by J.J. Putz), and I'd make the deal.  Hell, I'd throw Kevin Correia in there to help even it out.

Clement's arrival lets us send off Molina and cash to a team like the Mets and get a few prospects in return (Mike Carp, who has had an off year, perhaps Philip Humber as well, who has also had an off year).  Everyone knows Minaya covets Molina, and I honestly think we could get something good in return for him given how weak the catching market is.  Add in the fact that Molina has playoff experience, is on pace for about 93 RBI, and he's Latin, Minaya has to like him a lot.

Thank God I'm not a GM, I'd probably kill the franchise with those two moves alone.

Brian Anderson: converting saves and dominating as best he can.

by Anticon23 on Aug 20, 2007 3:26 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: My proposal, go ahead and rip off my head . .
yeah, the Mets seem to be desperate for a catcher for next year. We should definitely try to pass Bengie off on them.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 20, 2007 3:28 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: My proposal, go ahead and rip off my head . .
I would also love to see Bengie traded to the mets but I just can't see Sabean doing it even if he had the chance.  Since the team is being built around its young pitching he will want the veteran Molina around to work with them.
Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Aug 20, 2007 3:41 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: My proposal, go ahead and rip off my head . .
I have heard rumors the Mets will be going after Ronny Paulino in the offseason. If they can't work out something with the Pirates, perhaps they will call for Bengie. Bengie might be the only veteran position player worth keeping though. He's younger than the others, and should keep performing for the duration of his contract.
Randy Messenger says,"We're in Florida this weekend?? Maybe I should have just punched Scott Olsen again!"

by rxmeister on Aug 20, 2007 4:21 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: My proposal, go ahead and rip off my head . .
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong Wrong, Wrong, Wrong Wrong Wrong.  You're wrong.  (thats the wedding bells by the way).  Bengie is in no way guaranteed to sustain his performance.  He plays the most physically demanding position and is quite out of shape.  The most logical choice for repeating is Randy Winn, because more or less, throughout his career, he's been randy winn.  His offense is pretty much replaceable (.715 OPS) and it has been declining over the past three years.
this is a split signature of solidarity for Palestine and the current Giants "team".

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Aug 20, 2007 10:45 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: My proposal, go ahead and rip off my head . .
Lowry is a significantly worse bet to pitch well going forward than Noah Lowry is and all but the most old-fashioned GMs are aware of that. There simply aren't pitchers who can maintain success with Lowry's K/BB rate.
Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Aug 21, 2007 9:52 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
How about Lowry and one of Lewis/Nate/Ort for Ryan Garko and Asdrubal Cabrera?  I am sure the Indians would never do that but you never know how desperate some teams can get for pitching.

They could then move Victor Martinez to first and let Kelly Shoppach catch.

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Aug 20, 2007 3:30 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I get the feeling that Lowry alone could grab Garko and Cabrera.  And I'm basing all this on the Blanton proposal, so your idea could be completely reasonable IMO.
Brian Anderson: converting saves and dominating as best he can.

by Anticon23 on Aug 20, 2007 3:33 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
But dude, the Blanton deal didn't happen. Also, Lowry isn't as good as Blanton. Also, Shapiro is about a billion times smarter than Colletti.

by Evan on Aug 20, 2007 3:40 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Statistically speaking, I believe you have underestimated Shapiro by a factor of 10.
Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle on Aug 20, 2007 3:48 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
The Blanton deal didnt happen becuase  Beane wanted too much.  And really, Blanton is not better than Lowry

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 21, 2007 10:52 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I dunno about that. Blanton plays in a tougher league than Lowry and has superior numbers in every category except for ERA (including almost 40 more IP in just 3 more starts.)
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 21, 2007 11:17 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
First off Barry Zito was supposedly in far superior league last year and he absolutely sucks.  2nd, era is the most important pitching stat. 3rd, Lowry's career numbers are better as well.  Why do you think  Beane was trying to move Blanton so frantically this summer, because hes pitching out of his mind.

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 21, 2007 3:22 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
  1. No untouchables. Sabean should field offers on ALL players and have free rein to improve this team. If he doesn't like the deal say "NO". Sabean has said he is open to trading some pitching this winter. SF needs to find out who will be the starting IFs in 2008 so can see trading pitching for some IF help.
  2. Quantity vs Quality:  It is interesting how many of us proclaim SF has no prospect position players of any talent then wants them to play in the MLs. While the remainder of the 2007 season should be auditions for 2008, any prospect who will star should be a surprise to all.
  3. Eating Salary: Sabean will attempt to trade either this winter. Prior to the 2008 season, Winn may choose 10 teams to which he can veto a trade to in 2008 and 2009. Winn is due 16.25M thru 2009. Roberts is due 13M thru 2009. Good luck Brian Houdini. Possibly trading monies for monies may work.
  4. FA: Would like Sabean to kick tires on Rowand and Hunter. Both are excellent CF with some power. Maybe use the Colletti strategy of signing shorter term/mo money deal. Luis Castillo might warrant a look-see as does Cesar Izturis, David Eckstein and Juan Uribe.
  5. Bonds: Giants are better when Bonds is in line-up. Are Giants better if Bonds is on the team? Interesting question, very debatable and maybe best served for another diary.
  6. 2b for 2008: Giants need to determine if Frandsen is a ML ready 2b. I believe he is, he believes he is now must demonstrate to Sabean he is. If Frandsen is not the answer then Sabean has more work to do.
  7. Crazy Money: NO
  8. Procuring talent: Good scouting, development, solid trading and salary dumps. SF has some good young, inexpensive pitching talent to dangle along with some lower level prospects. Get to work Brian Houdini.
 

by wilriv21 on Aug 20, 2007 3:32 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
good points all, but I want to mention that you said Sabean is willing to trade young pitching. I have heard him say that too, but I have also heard him say that if he is unable to get the hitters he wants, he will try to make the pitching staff even stronger. That would seem to indicate that he isn't willing to trade young pitching. Who knows with that guy?? You get conflicting statements every day.
Randy Messenger says,"We're in Florida this weekend?? Maybe I should have just punched Scott Olsen again!"

by rxmeister on Aug 20, 2007 4:24 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If you're going to take a look see
at crap like Cesar Izturis or Juan Uribe, you might as well save your time and bring Vizquel back.

Izturis' OPS+ this year to date is 59; Uribe 68, Vizuel 59. Defensively, Vizquel is supposed to be, even at his age, still better than them.

by rfloh on Aug 20, 2007 11:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Atlanta has a couple intriguing propsects that are being blocked, and they have a need for starting pitching.

Lowry

for

Lillibridge (SS) and Canizares (1B)

Texiera and Johnson are blocking Canizares.  Renteria and Escobar are blocking Lillibrdige.

This year's stats -
Lillibridge @ AAA: .305/.356/.455 in 266 AB
Canizares @ AAA: .362/.414/.526 in 116 AB

We might be able to get better for Lowry, we might not.  

I need old crusty vets like I need a nail driven into my brain.

by BawLa on Aug 20, 2007 3:41 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think they could do better
I'm about as anti-Lowry as you can get on this site and even I think this is a pretty low offer. He's signed to a cheap contract the next few years and he has deceiving numbers (and to the poster above, Lowry can only wish of being Blanton (the pitcher at least)), and will probably trick some dupe GM like Bavasi or Coletti into doing something stupid like trade LaRoche + Elbert or Balentien + Clement for him. To those waiting for Lowry proposals like LaRoche, Meloan and Kershaw, it ain't happening.

by awesomer on Aug 20, 2007 3:55 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I'm skeptical about dealing Lowry for prospects. I would rather get a young impact player with similar service time. Alex Rios isn't realistic, but a player like that is what I'd be looking for in a Lowry deal. Lowry is still walking too many hitters, but he's on pace for 17 wins and as a young lefty with a low era and a lot of w's, he has a lot of value.

http://giantsbaseballblog.blogspot.com/

http://giantsbaseballblog.blogspot.com/

by trecole696 on Aug 20, 2007 4:00 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Agree with 1 thru 4 and 6, but (suprise!), I have some issues with 5, 7, and 8.

On 5 I need to see Barry return to playing for the team more (and thus himself less) like he use too.  Helping the Giants win and a young team develop into players that play the game the right way has to be more important to Barry then 3000 hits, a .300 career average, the career runs scored record, and 800 Homeruns.  Not that I would at all mind these happening, but they just can't be either Barry's or the Giants' focus.

On 8 I would rather pass on trading for any older higher dollar bats (like Sexton or Burrell) even if much of their salary is paid.  Let us just do this right and get young cheap bats to develope and play.

On 7 we just flat out disagree.  I see no problem with having $50M/yr commited to A-Rod and Zito as long as we have no other long term eight digit commitments beyond 2008.

Getting back to 2 for a minute, this is our strongest point of agreement.  I too have come to  the conclusion that we must trade both Roberts and Winn even if we have to eat some dollars.  I actually think we can do this without eating any dollars (especially with Winn) but I would eat dollars if we must.  We indeed need to have all of the playing time in CF and RF freed up for these 8 youngsters you listed to fight over and not block them by keeping Roberts or Winn.  This is where we actually have some major league ready prospects now and therefore this is where we most clearly need to dump the vets.

Finally, what should we do about the infield?  Yes, we should trade Lowry for a long term starter solution in the infield and another decent prospect or two.  We will have Durham, Aurilia, and Frandsen returning so that is four.
My view is that I am fine with re-signing Feliz to be the 5th.  I have already said that I like the idea of chasing A-Rod.  But, we can't plan on this and if we don't get A-Rod I am fine with re-signing Klesko for one more year to be the sixth.
This means that I just can not see a situation where I would want to bring Vizquel back.  Frankly, I would rather just take our chances with Frandsen as the everyday SS in 2008.

by giantsrainman on Aug 20, 2007 4:16 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Barry putting up great numbers (and setting records in the process) helps the Giants win. Playing for himself (what does that even mean, anyway?) helps the team.
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Aug 20, 2007 5:07 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I think baseball is one of the only sports where "playing for yourself" actually helps the team win.

by sfgfan on Aug 21, 2007 10:50 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
   Before you wanna-be GM's get so carried away you trade Lincecum for the next Pujols "sure thing" --you might look back at the 2000 team. Do you realize just HOW FAR this team is from that one?
   Take a long hard look at some of those offensive numbers. Compare them with the current crop. That team produced - hold on - 925 runs (And two teams had more!) The current team just recently touched number 500. After the glamour numbers check out the walks - 709 - 1st in the league. (The current edition sports 432 walks.)
By the way - the position player in 2000 with the fewest ABs? Pedro "Abe" Feliz.
Best and most telling stat - Joe Nathan hit two home runs!
    Top of the list -  solid right-handed power hitters at first and second. This home field demands it.  At least one outfielder with power from the right side.
    How long will that take? Probably three years. But that's what is needed to score runs at home.

 

by DiMaggio Fan on Aug 20, 2007 4:24 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Huh?
I don't understand anything about what you're saying in the first part of your post

by awesomer on Aug 20, 2007 4:41 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Huh?
You understand what he's trying to say with the rest?

What's the relevance? I mean, really.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 20, 2007 5:07 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I'd like to ask one question about the Rebuilding Manifesto. If you want to rebuild, don't you have to draft and develop young hitters? All of this other stuff is crap! And I like Davis' defense (how couldn't you?), but that dude can't hit! If he could hit, he would be wearing a Pirate's uniform right now. Who's going to hit on next year's team?

I understand that only one team can win the World Series every year, but that doesn't mean that we have to watch this ultra-boring baseball. Get some guys in here that can hit!

On a related note, I hope they don't go after Mike Lowell. He reminds me an awful lot of Edgardo Alfonso. Blech.

by smedley on Aug 20, 2007 4:36 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Just a note for all the pro-Lowry people, I've been as "don't trade Loawry" as anybody here, but wouldn't Misch make Lowry more or less redundant?

I know, it's a lot more complicated than that (we still need to get something GOOD back, for instance), but that's the basic guts of a question I'm still forming regarding Lowry and his actual value in our future...

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 20, 2007 5:03 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Durrr... <drool>
And I really don't think we should trade Loawry. He's a MAJOR talent with the potential to win us 4 Super Bowls!

Lowry on the other hand, he's a chump.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 20, 2007 5:22 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
It would be nice if they would let Misch start so they can see if he can hang or not.  He might get another chance with Ortiz looking to be injured again.

If they think he can handle starting then they should move Lowry if they get a nice package for him.

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Aug 20, 2007 5:48 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Goofus to make "nice package"-joke in 3...2...
Bold Prediction: Klesko will finish the 2007 season with at least 20 HRs. (OPS+ is 129 as of 7/1/07)

by Goofus on Aug 20, 2007 7:53 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
It would be hard to get a nicer package than Lo... ah screw it.
Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 20, 2007 8:02 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
This is what I get for using the phrase "nice package" in a thread titled streakin.

Now I have images of Will Farrell in Old School stuck in my head.

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Aug 20, 2007 8:37 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Exactly rainman, nobody should think that next year's team will be any good.  So why would we sign veterans with no promise or upside.  I personally like the 4 OF's that came up,or are up this year.  And IF Orty can learn a decent 1st, that's good for us, one less OF to take up a spot.  And trade Lowry, cuz we got Mish and Sanchez and some other people wanting to PROVE if they belong too.  Don't resign anyone this year, maybe Feliz as a backup, but that's it.  This next year should be dedicated to finding out how much if any talent we have, then build around that for the  year after.

by giants9107 on Aug 20, 2007 5:10 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
There are a number of things wrong with this line of thinking (starting with the idea that if Feliz is resigned he will magically be on the bench, and ending with "I like the 4 OF's that came up"), but I don't disagree with the basic premise - and I believe it is essentially in line with what a lot of people are also thinking: scrap the stopgap veteran FA plan.
Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 20, 2007 5:21 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

thoughts
1.) Could we trade Lowry, Winn and cash to the Dodgers for LaRoche and Hu? Hell, I might throw in Henry Sosa, too. If so, that would settle us at third and short.

2.) Keep one of the incumbent outfielders -- probably Bonds. He's a short-term commitment, he'll hit well and fans seem to like him. Davis, Lewis and Schierholtz can compete for the last two spots.

3.) The rotation: Cain, Lincecum and Zito have spots nailed down. Sanchez, Misch and Oritz can compete for the last two spots, with Ortiz a mid-season trade candidate if possible.

4.) Get a veteran, overpaid first baseman like Richie Sexson. Trade him away at mid-season if possible.

by Dan from NM on Aug 20, 2007 5:28 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: thoughts
  1. "Fans seem to like him" is a big understatement.
  2. I think Ortiz only has a one year deal, so the Giants would have to resign him if they want to throw him in the starters mix.
Barry Bombs gear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Aug 20, 2007 6:34 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: thoughts
I wouldn't give them Sosa.  Could come back to bite us in the ass.  Give 'em Roberts intsead of Winn.  We can just flash Roberts' post injury #'s.  Obviously lots of cash too.

I like the idea of Bonds too, but cheap.

Sanchez and Misch next year.  I'd rather experiment on a kid than a vet for SP because we have good prospects and there is more upside.  Don't buy into the rehab-Ortiz-and-trade idea.

I'm for Sexson.  I think he will rebound to his mean, and he could have some great success in our park.  He could mentor Ort too.  Maybe there is a potential trade in the offseason with Seattle: Lowry + Winn(OR)Roberts for Sexson/Balentien + Prospect.  We could eat the difference.  Maybe we throw in Correia or Taschner if they make that extra prospect a better one.

I need old crusty vets like I need a nail driven into my brain.

by BawLa on Aug 20, 2007 7:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I really don't think Bonds will seek another contract with us, during his press conference after breaking the record he clearly mentioned how important getting a ring is to him and that that is the only thing left he wants to accomplish in baseball, the 3000 hits will be automatic so long as he plays somewhere next year, but he knows he aint gonna win a ring playing in SF next year as much as we do.

by joeytothelimit on Aug 20, 2007 8:22 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Ummm... I'm pretty sure he also clearly said that he wants to win it here. I don't want to pretend I know what's going on in his head, but I think it is clearly more than any of us usually tend to believe.
Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 20, 2007 8:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
2.  I guess you mean "interesting" OFs in the sense of the Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times..

by zenbitz on Aug 20, 2007 9:36 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
We've had really poor luck this year.  Look at San Diego and Arizona.  Can you say their pitching is dramatically better than ours?  Nope.  In fact, Zito, Cain, Lincecum, Lowry is likely a better staff than either of them have.

If Bonds wants to stay, we keep him.  All other position players are tradable.  

Bonds plus a solid 1-4 in our staff makes us a contender in this division.  We have clearly played below our ability.  It is difficult to have so many players have down years at the same time.

This is a flukey season.  We aren't world beaters but we aren't a 20 games under .500 team.  

I think Davis is in the process of becoming our CF going into next season.  Bonds will likely be back.  Molina is back.  Durham is still signed.  Who knows what will happen after that.  Winn will be in RF most likely.

I think there is a chance we can move Roberts before September.  

Anyway, everyone seems to want to get rid of Lowry even though he is a gamer who pitches beyond the stats.  Stats don't tell everything.  Is there anyone here who doesn't like him?  I mean seriously...we have a great core of young starters.  The foundation of a champion team.

Suppose next year things balance out and we have a bunch of players who bounce back.  Zito and Cain are not sub .500 pitchers.  Lincecum is going to be better and I think Lowry is the sort of pitcher who will continue to be above average, like Woody.  That's a 90 win team.

Now you add Bonds and a postseason appearance and who knows what could happen.

So much doom and gloom in here.  We've had a bad year, yes.  So what?  It happens.  We could still turn it around this year.  Suppose this 5 gamer becomes a 22 gamer?  What then?  We are in the playoff hunt and no one will want to trade Lowry.

by positiveuphemism on Aug 20, 2007 11:11 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Just for some perspective:

AZ: scored - 539, given up 559 record: 16 games over .500.  That is ridiculous.

Us: 531 and 544.  15 games under .500.

These are the two extremes, and big ones, too.

Stats are just that, stats.  They will often tell an accurate story, but not always.

My point: this team is not nearly as bad as many believe it to be.  Giants fans are notoriously hard on their teams.  Other than the bad fortune we have had this year there is really only one thing that we have legitimate gripe with: resigning Sabean.

by positiveuphemism on Aug 20, 2007 11:16 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I love your optimism, but we're talking about the future of our organization, not how things could have gone for us this year.  Don't forget that we're lacking young impact players and we've got a ways to go until we realistically are a playoff-bound team, and perhaps more.
Brian Anderson: converting saves and dominating as best he can.

by Anticon23 on Aug 20, 2007 11:27 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Nobody's saying "I hate Lowry and I want him out!" It's more like, "We're going to need some young hitters to go along with the pitching. Lowry's probably the pitcher we can most afford to trade and he's probably not as good as his ERA looks right now so it would be a good time to sell high. It's not that he's bad... it's that we need to get some hitting and he's the pitcher who we can most afford to give up and would fetch the most."
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 20, 2007 11:25 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I understand the idea behind it.  I just feel that right now we do not have to worry about starting pitching, bar injury, for at least a few years.  That is a great place to build from.  It is a heck of a lot easier to win with solid starting pitching than with a strong offense.

The problem is not letting players go out and develop.  Let's see what we have before we trade things away to see what else we could have.

by positiveuphemism on Aug 20, 2007 11:41 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Keeping the young pitchers together
But, as Roger points out often, in keeping those young starters together for the next few years and NOT trading any of them for hitting, you condemn Cain and Lincecum (and the others) to pitching for teams that will never win much because of poor offenses. Then they become free agents, and have had 3 years' experience with losing in SF, and they look elsewhere.

So, even if Brian Sabean turns over a new leaf and starts drafting hitters in 2008, by the time they arrive in SF in meaningful numbers, Cain et al will be gone.

(How'd I do, Roger?)

Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle on Aug 21, 2007 7:21 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Keeping the young pitchers together
Nicely done, Lyle. Much more concise than I ever manage.

by Roger on Aug 21, 2007 8:19 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Keeping the young pitchers together
Or they will be extra cheap since their w/l is so bad.

by zenbitz on Aug 21, 2007 9:37 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Keeping the young pitchers together
Then wouldn't the logical thing to do is resign a year or 2 before their contracts are up?  Considering none of you want to sign free agent hitters, by your estimates shouldn't we have plenty of cash to do this?

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 21, 2007 3:33 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Keeping the young pitchers together
Well sure, but part of the point is that it's not under your control to do so.

by Roger on Aug 21, 2007 8:23 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It most certainly is not a 90 win team
If the staff was Lincecum, Lowry, Cain, Zito, Sanchez next year, and the offense is this

C:  Molina
1B: Ortmeier
2B: Durham
SS: Frandsen
3B: Feliz
LF: Roberts
CF: Davis
RF: Winn

That team might not hit 60 HRs. There's no way in hell its a 90 win team and frankly should be pretty thrilled if it won 80 games.

Lowry will be at most part of 1 Giants playoff team assuming they pick up his option in '10. There's no way the Giants can compete in the next two years with Lowry on the team unless they want to trade Lincecum or Cain and I don't see that happening.

by awesomer on Aug 21, 2007 12:44 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Blah
The idea that people actually think we are gonna make comparable trades to a trade that didn't happen really makes me shake my head. Blanton is not a Dodger for a reason. Probably the same reason Lowry wont be one. We keep saying that we might dupe colletti or bavasi into a deal but we forget who we have behind the wheel. When Colletti was dealing Bradley for Either we were signing Winn. When Bavasi was signing Johjima we were picking up Roberts. Its hard not to be completely negitive and say to myself that we are stuck with the garbage in the outfield for at least one more year.

by CrackaJack on Aug 21, 2007 12:57 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I loved reading these posts because this is the first time since I've been a serious Giant fan that we have to get into rebuilding.  But I think an interesting thing to think about is how much of an impact Barry will play.  Personally, I think the rebuilding starts THERE.  And by that, I mean, does Barry sign or not?  If we could answer that question IMMEDIATELY in the offseason (which we won't) then we have a good idea of where to go. If Bonds is out, we have $ to blow and we also know we have no draw to the park so surely it's a rebuilding year.  If he DOES sign, we have to make some moves in order to conserve our dough and also be frugal in our trades so that we get some good return.  It would be difficult to have to anticipate Bonds' potential signing while trying to rebuild the team and making moves. I imagine Sabean and Co. will be working fervently to see where Bonds stands so that the remaining pieces can fall together a lot easier.

-D

by dw4848 on Aug 21, 2007 2:13 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
To me this is the exact wrong mentality and exactly why we are where we are.

Management should have started rebuilding two years ago and told Bonds that exact thing. Is Bonds so powerful that management couldnt say that. We are rebuilding and your welcome to stay or go as you see fit. The team didnt rebuild because Bonds was here or not, it didnt rebuild because management is at best ignorant of where we were headed or at worst didnt care and just rode Bonds.

Why do people assume that if we have Bonds we cant do anything but tread water?

by covenant on Aug 21, 2007 4:34 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I don't think we should trade Lowry under any circumstances unless we were offered a deal that was as lopsided as the Morris deal. Actually, I think it will need to be even better for us than that trade. We don't have the prospects to fill a starter spot and Ortiz will be gone (hopefully with something coming in exchange) so Sanchez will have the 5th spot. Valdez is coming off Tommy John so he definitely could not be ready to go come April. I also believe that Durham has reached Benitez-status in that he is just deal weight at 7.5 mil and a roster spot that would be better used on some prospect. In order to get rid of him, we will need to eat a lot of themoney, but hey, that's what rebuilding entails sometimes. Under no circumstances should we resign Feliz. I know he's been hot of late, but the guy is a rally-killer with his groundouts to the left side of the infield and 100+ K's. If we want to have a chance at winning at least a few games and maybe making a playoff run during the rebuilding period (which is remotely possible because of our rotation), I think we need to stay away from long ball hitters. Of course the home run is sexy, but this is the worst division for it. SF and SD are the hardest places to homer in baseball and overall, with the exception of Colorado, it is not easy to homer anywhere, especially with the pitching staffs of these teams. We've relied on the home run for too long and it's time we get a lineup that can use our ballpark to our advantage. We need gap hitters and speed and maybe next year we can get a big name slugger.
Kevin Frandsen's 2009 stats: .315 10HRs 90RBI

by BCsteve on Aug 21, 2007 2:53 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
"BCSteve: We've relied on the home run for too long and it's time we get a lineup that can use our ballpark to our advantage. We need gap hitters and speed and maybe next year we can get a big name slugger."

Well said, and I agree. AT&T (pops) has remained the MLB Park with the lowest HR total per game all of 2007. The HR derby showed that a RH power is not a luxury, but a necessity. The lineup may change, but the Park will not. Why not use it to our advantage ?. Gap to Gap hitters with Speed, good BA, and OBP, will be what helps this team be successful in 2008 and beyond.

I need a Sig ? Damn It !

by nvsfg on Aug 21, 2007 7:50 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I don't disagree necessarily, but it is very easy to give too much credit to park effects, especially since you play half of your games in other parks.

My problem is the idea that hitters with speed, good averages, and good OBP are what will help this team to succeed. The fact is that that is the kind of player that will help any team succeed, regardless of park. The other thing is that those are the kinds of players who support the power structure of today's MLB offense. It's basically a blanket phrase, and you're using it as if it only applies to us. The idea to get good OBP guys who can run is kind of a basic principle of MLB roster building, right behind "have a power base in the middle of the lineup to drive in the runs." Since it does apply to everybody, it does not logically follow that we can succeed without power by going after those guys as opposed to power, because everybody else is going after the same types of guys, but will also have power.

What you bring up that is particularly important is right handed power. Righties are still supressed here, but legit right handed power will always be easier to find and maintain here than legit left handed power.

But for me that's about where I start to draw the line on roster building for park effects. You cannot be a successful team in Major League Baseball today without power. Speed and Gaps will not do the trick except as accessories to power. This is true in every ballpark in the league, and should not be discounted because of park effects. Without three real power bats, you will not compete.

In San Francisco, the power bats we seek out should be right handers, because of park effects.

Anyway, my point is that buiding the Giants roster should not be significantly different than building any other roster in MLB, and certainly not on account of overstated park effects. It might be a condition forced on us because guys don't want to sacrifice their power here and won't sign. That's a different circumstance altogether. It still hurts us, but at least it's not us making a concerted effort to hurt ourselves.

This is why speed and gaps are the only parts of Sabean's plan that scares me. If he is trying to build around these principles because of the park, that is bad. If he is saying that's the plan because he doesn't know if he can secure the power, that's just covering his ass.

That's how I see the park effect argument, anyway.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 21, 2007 9:26 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
No power lefties = no splash hits = no / less  sponsorship $$ from locally based clothing company.
Ray Durham: 79th best hitter in the National League.

by likmaiballs on Aug 21, 2007 9:41 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Power Is Not A Necessary Ingrediant Of Winning!
I am just not buying the arguement that power is a necessary ingredient of winning baseball.  The St Louis Cardinals of the 80's and the Dodgers of the 60's proved otherwise.  There is more then one way to skin a cat.  The Long Ball is just one way but it is not the only way.  Pitching, Defense, and Speed with High OBP can and have overcome a lack of power.

by giantsrainman on Aug 21, 2007 10:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Its all relative
Those teams still had OPS+'s > 100 for most of their reign, and they had ERA+'s in the 120's as a team. They may not have hit HR's like crazy, but not many teams did then either.

by awesomer on Aug 21, 2007 11:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Its all relative
THANK YOU!

If I did not say "today's MLB offense" then shoot me now.

Two decades of history (particularly that whole 1990's one) have made the sport a far cry from what it was for the Cardinals of the '80s.

But even so, I'll try not to digress.

It would be foolish for me to say that it's not possible to build a winning club in today's climate without power. It would, however, be extremely foolish of me to try to build a team without power.

Why? Because the chances of success are so much slimmer than if you did build around a power base that they are almost non-existent. For the sake of argument, I will say 1 in 100 - which I think is extremely generous - teams built this way will succeed. 1 in 3 built the other way (I was going to say 1/2 because of 15/30, you see, but decided to again be generous) will succeed.

Now, if you're a gambling man, then betting on the 1/100 will pay off MUCH greater than betting on the 1/3. Like 33.3bar times better, or something. However, in baseball the reward is not staggered by odds. The reward is the same no matter what your chances were to start, so you better work from the position that gives you the best chances.

Therefore, you better damn well take 1/3. Otherwise, you have no place building a franchise. but you might have a career as a gambler.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 21, 2007 11:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Its all relative
Yes, it is all relative.  Things go in cycles in baseball as in anything else and they always have.  HomeRuns are on a decline as has happened in the past and will happen again in the future.  My point is not that HomeRuns are bad.  My point is that they are not necessary to win.  It is very clear to me that this type of team (like the 80's Cardinals or 60's Dodgers) is the kind of team Sabean intends to build.  In our ballpark I support this change in direction from Power to Speed with High OBP.  I believe the goal is to have 6 guys in the starting lineup with above .350 OBP and above 20 SBs (all at an above 75% sucess rate).  The other two will hit 7 and 8 unless one or more of them actually happens to combine good SLG with good OBP to justify being in the middle of the order.

by giantsrainman on Aug 21, 2007 11:50 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Its all relative
I think we're just coming from different pages of two different books written by the same guy at different stages of his writing career.

You're right that it is possible, and you're right that the logic for doing it at AT&T is stronger than the logic of doing it at any other ballpark in the nation and Canada.

My line of reasoning is that building this kind of team would be a serious overreaction to park effects that only slightly alter the outcome of the game to begin with. I believe that just because the logic for doing it here is stronger than doing it elsewhere does not discount the fact that it is still bad logic.

And this doesn't even take into account the 82 road games we'd lose by putting our team at such a serious offensive disadvantage at opposing ballparks. We'd be competitive in San Francisco and San Diego, and only because the Padres offense is terrible.

But what it comes down to for me is that park effects are not so significant that they warrant trying your luck on something that works once every hundred times (1/80, generously for park adjustment), because at worst they've only taken you from a 1/3 to a 1/5 doing it the other way. 1/80 vs. 1/5 is still a bit of a no brainer.

Let's remember I have no mathematical basis for these fractions. They are simply logical placeholders used to the effect of showing my train of thought, whether or not yours runs in the opposite direction at 45 miles and hour from 100 miles away.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 22, 2007 12:28 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Its all relative
Park effects are in my judgment not driving this chance in direction.  They support this change in direction but they are not driving it.  The high cost of power as opposed to the much lower cost of speed is driving this change in direction.  In essense Sabean is playing Moneyball by going after an undervalued commodity (speed combined with OBP) instead of the overpriced commodity of power conbined with OBP.

by giantsrainman on Aug 22, 2007 12:44 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Its all relative
If he were actually going after OBP, this would be a great strategy!
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 22, 2007 8:21 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Its all relative
Wait, home runs are on a decline? Here's the NL home run per game rate for the last ten years:

0.988 (1998)
1.117
1.159
1.139
1.003
1.045
1.100
0.995
1.100
1.016 (2007)

I see a spike in 1999-2001, but no real decline at all, certainly not in comparison to 1985 (0.733) or 1965 (0.811).

by Evan on Aug 22, 2007 8:35 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Its all relative
I just don't see how you can decontextualize things like that and just chalk them up to "historical cycles". Don't you think that specific, distinct, concrete historical circumstances help to create those cycles? The environment of Dodger Stadium between 1962-68 is completely unique and very very unlikely to repeat.  It wasn't just a "pitcher's era" and Dodger stadium isn't merely a place where the ball doesn't travel well -- although it is that.

In 1962, the commissioner (horrified by Roger Maris 61 HR season undermining the glory of his beloved Babe Ruth) made two dramatic rules changes:  The strike zone got much bigger -- specifically at the top, and a maximum height limit restriction on pitcher's mounds was removed.  Of course, both affected the leagues at large, but the Dodgers were extremely affected in two ways. 1) the new, higher strike zone suddenly turned Sandy Koufax' curve ball into a strike -- he magically "found his control" at the same time this rule change was implemented. 2) While everyone built there mounds high, Dodger Stadium topped everybody by several inches.  It's Bill James I believe, who wrote that you needed a shirpa to find the pitching rubber in Dodger Stadium in the mid-60s.

Those factors are not, in my opinion, likely to ever cycle back. Nor frankly, are the large multi-use stadiums and astro-turf of the 70s and 80s which the Cards made such use of.  As stadiums get smaller and smaller in much of the league, homeruns inevitably trend upward (as Evan shows) and average league ERAs look to top 4.00, putting yourself in the position of scratching and clawing for runs without the ability to pop a homer with some regularity, is just making yourself work harder.

Don't get me wrong -- I love speed. I love it on defense and I love it on the basepaths.  But ignoring power in this day and age seems like a self-imposed handicap.

by Roger on Aug 22, 2007 9:44 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I'm with you.  Lowry should be seen as untouchable.  statistical heuristics be damned.  the kid is a lefty and finds ways to win.  and he looks cool.

keep lowry, unless we get back proven exceptional talent.  and not a goddamned outfielder.

I'd trade cain before lowry.  i don't know how to read peripherals, but i know a winner when i see one.  we might be able to get more for cain anyway, since he's ostensibly so much better than lowry.

"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Aug 21, 2007 1:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
My sarcasm meter is extremely confused. I think you broke it. It actually went off the charts, circled all the way around, and is back on "serious," like a scale that only goes up to 300 so some lucky fool weights 89 pounds...

You can't be serious. Lowry before Cain? Know a winner when I see one? Ostensibly?

He does look cool, though...

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 21, 2007 1:19 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I knew that "i know a winner when i see one" would get some flack.   that was pretty dumb.  and yet:

lowry is 39-30 over his career
cain, the bad seed, is 20-26.

it's gonna take more than more run support for cain to turn it around.

AND if everyone thinks like you then we CAN get more for Cain than Lowry.  Is it not so?

i like 'ostensibly.' rolls off the tounge better than 'supposedly'.  sue me.  (please don't sue me.)

mostly i just don't wanna work and enjoy interacting with y'all.  and i like lowry.

"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Aug 21, 2007 1:42 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Quite frankly, it would be madness to choose to trade Cain over Lowry - especially if you choose to do so because of their W-L records.

Cain is younger, under our control for longer, has a better hit-rate, K-rate, BB-rate, better WHIP, has better stuff, better mechanics... need I go on?

Cain isn't untouchable for the right deal... but it'd have to be a hell of a lot.

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

by jponry on Aug 21, 2007 2:04 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
and a whole lot of that can be chalked up to run support

Lowry: 4.56
Cain: 3.66

That's almost a full run per game more.

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

by jponry on Aug 21, 2007 2:07 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
It's crazy trying figure out what's not-wrong with Cain.  All his stats look great.  The giants just don't win behind him.

I've been looking at their Cain's and Lowry's stats trying to find some kind of unified-stat-theory other than run support which explains why co-Cain would suck so much this year.  

I guess it's just suck by association.

Still plenty of guys are supposed to be good and just never get it right.  Shawn Estes Park comes to mind.  1996 and 1997 sure made Shawny look shiny.

Lowry got knocked around quite a bit last year, and came back this year to give the Giants 13 wins (so far).  13 wins for THIS team.  that's got to count for something.

"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Aug 21, 2007 2:32 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Cain's W/L record
Lack of run support, lack of bullpen support and in a couple of cases, just plain unlucky in getting the ball on certain days.
Bold Prediction: Klesko will finish the 2007 season with at least 20 HRs. (OPS+ is 129 as of 7/1/07)

by Goofus on Aug 21, 2007 2:51 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
he's just been unlucky and has become a poster boy of why W-L record is a bad thing to judge a pitcher by. There's nothing more to it than that.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 21, 2007 2:58 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
In the month of July I dont think Cain had more than 1 quality start.  Everyone was writing him off, saying he should be sent down to the minors, or given a couple starts off.   Fast forward to august 21 and last 5 starts have been great and he looks like hes a completely different pitcher.  Gene Hackman, you are, simply put,  an idiot.

by SabeanSupporter on Aug 21, 2007 3:45 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
You keep using this word "Everyone." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 21, 2007 5:19 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Huh? While there was some support for skipping a start, it was pretty much all conditional on the notion that "if he's tired, it might get him back on track". Nobody seriously suggested sending him down to Fresno. And the idea of putting him in the bullpen was widely dismissed as a bad idea.

Anyway, what does any of that have to do with whether or not TGH is an idiot? I don't get the connection.

Proud adoptive father of the All-Father and his 2.29 ERA

by EliminateMe on Aug 21, 2007 5:41 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
The problem is that Cain hasn't been hitting enough home runs. Only one this season isn't going to cut it.
Barry Bombs gear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Aug 21, 2007 3:55 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Mark freakingTeixeira...
He is positively on fire.

Makes me wish we had gone after him a little harder (with the promise that we make a real effort to re-sign him).  

He's a switch hitter, natural righty.  He'd look good behind bonds.  

I guess there's no way he woulda come here.  Is there any way he won't re-sign with Hotlanta?

"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Aug 21, 2007 10:29 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Mark freakingTeixeira...
Sure it's possible he won't re-sign.

I mean, he could go to Baltimore.

Steve Kline: He's pretty okay!

by groug on Aug 21, 2007 10:56 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Mark freakingTeixeira...
I like him too but we didn't have the chips to get him. Also, I don't think he will resign with ATL and will probably jump ship for Baltimore when his contract is up. The Tex/ Baltimore love affair has been well documented.

Ultimately, seeing what ATL had to give up to get him showed me that we had no chance to begin with.

Eatin' D-Backs and crappin' out Rockies.

by camwoody on Aug 21, 2007 11:44 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Mark freakingTeixeira...
yeah, there's no way we could match a Salty/Andrus/fungible pitching prospects package unless we'd done Cain or Lincecum or something (and with him not re-signing a strong possibility, I wouldn't have done that.)
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 21, 2007 11:48 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

WORD
Eatin' D-Backs and crappin' out Rockies.

by camwoody on Aug 21, 2007 12:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Mark freakingTeixeira...
he'll never sign here. our fair/foul lines don't have real chalk on them.
Congrats, Barry. You're the best there ever was in this game.

by nostocksjustbonds on Aug 21, 2007 12:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Mark freakingTeixeira...
...maybe we can drug him then.  brainwash him somehow.  or just put up Baltimore West signs everywhere.  I've got some extra chalk around here somewhere, I'm almost positive.
"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Aug 21, 2007 12:41 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
HTS: "Anyway, my point is that buiding the Giants roster should not be significantly different than building any other roster in MLB, and certainly not on account of overstated park effects. It might be a condition forced on us because guys don't want to sacrifice their power here and won't sign. That's a different circumstance altogether.

You bring some very valid points to your argument. Every roster should be built on a combination of the two skill sets. If a team is really lucky, you end up with a player that has both, but those are few and far between.

However, I do think the Giants are seeing the effect of the park on their roster. Lee, Soriano,Matthews, and Pierre suggest just that. Not that I would have wanted any of those guys to sign for the ridiculous contracts they were offered. Lee is hitting to 315ft LF porch @ Minute Maid. Hell, I might be able to rake one out to LF in that park:-)

If you look at the avg distance, and areas for the leading HR parks U.S. Cellular Field (3.0 HR per game), Citizens Bank Park (2.97 HR per Game), versus AT&T (1.63 HR per game), there is a glaring difference. The first two parks have HR spread evenly throughout the park, while AT&T is primarily RF for anyone except BLB. There has only been 80 HR's hit at AT&T this year. 39 for the G's, and 41 for the opponents. BLB hit 15 of the Giants 39.

The "speed and gap" plan would work at AT&T because everyone has trouble here. On the road, not so much.

As you stated, the "condition that might be forced upon us" is that the team builds a base of "Speed and Gap to Gap" guys, until a legitimate RH Power Hitter can be secured, drafted, or developed.

I need a Sig ? Damn It !

by nvsfg on Aug 21, 2007 11:03 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
The basic principle being, it seems, that the park does unquestionably dictate Free Agent Interest, but that that* should never dictate interest in Free Agents (the first being an external condition and the second and internal)

*Doubling words is a personal peeve of mine. I hate that I just did it...

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 21, 2007 1:23 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
grant, rebuilding with youth is the way to go, I agree strongly with your #4, avoiding free agents, and your #7, forget A-Rod, and #8, smart shopping for infielders.

Another benefit from saving money in '08, maybe '09--drafting high-profile players. Other teams bypass expensive players, or grab Jackson Williams types.

On Bonds--Shulman and others have been saying that the defensive void is starting to piss off other players.  Time to let him look for a DH contract.  I don't have the stats on winning/losing with him in the lineup, but lately there's plenty of wins when he rests, and plenty of losses when he homers.
A real team player would hit away from the shift once in a while, too.  Bonds sounded proud the night he grounded out into the shift 3 times in Atlanta.

Gotta give Ort an extended trial at first; and Nate should learn it too; and Horwitz should go take grounders at third, his arm is adequate for it; and Velez could be viable at third soon also.

If a good shortstop does not become available--I propose Feliz there for 1 more year!  The offense would be a bonus, I say that seriously.  Many mid-infield prospects in our system at lower levels.

adopter/sponsor of "Go, Antoan" Richardson

by foothillsfan on Aug 21, 2007 11:10 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I hear and understand the arguments on bringing Bonds back.  However, I'm not sure he'll want to sit as much as would be needed to get our gaggle of young OFs adequate ABs, especially considering that Sabean will hopefully move Winn or Roberts, but it is probably not reasonable to assume both (although nice!).  Plus, I just really need to move on.  Please, logic be damned.  Our lack of major league ready position prosects is more acute at the corner infield spots.  With that in mind, why not bring back <drumroll> Jeff Kent to play first and some second as needed.  I know his pop is not the same, but he can be an relatively affordable RBI presence in the middle of the order, has the Giants nostalgia appeal of Bonds and, should be open to a short term rental contract due to his age.  Ortmeier can work into that 1B mix if Kent splits starts between 1st and 2nd.  Lowell is also a good possibility due to our lack of ML ready prospects there.  Are you with me!?!?!

by lucecooler on Aug 21, 2007 11:40 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
To be clear, I mean Lowell at 3B.

by lucecooler on Aug 21, 2007 11:42 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
How about Wilson Betemit as a potential SS for next year?  Wasn't he once the heir apparent to Rafeal Furcal in ATL?  I am not sure if he is even viewed as a SS anymore since he seems to play everywhere, mostly 3rd in LA.

If ARod stays in NY there is nowhere for him to play and even if ARod opts out I doubt they would make him his replacement.

They got him from the Dodgers for Proctor so I wonder if one of our relievers would get it done (Correia, Messenger, Chulk).

He has an OPS of .834 this year with the Yanks and Dodgers.

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Aug 21, 2007 2:30 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I get the sense he's pretty much a corner INF from here on out.  And the Yankees seem to be pretty high on him, so I don't think Cashman would be willing to move him unless he got a great offer for him.
Brian Anderson: converting saves and dominating as best he can.

by Anticon23 on Aug 21, 2007 3:37 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
I think they traded for him exactly so that they could use him to replace A-Rod if he opted out.

He might be expendable if A-Rod re-ups though.

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

by jponry on Aug 21, 2007 3:43 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin' (Betemit)
Always been a fan of Betemit. He seems to have a decent bat, could be had fairly cheap, IMO.

He has played SS for the Yanks this year since the trade. Actually started two games. Not enough career games at SS to quantify good or bad. His career fielding line is 61 GP/332 innings/ .949 Fielding % / 4.55 RF/ .752 ZR.

He's been around for while,(since 2001, cup of coffee), didn't stay up until 2005. Kind of like Pete, but less power ? Cheaper ? His career line is here,Wilson Betemit . He's not the answer to a GM's prayers by any means, but a serviceable, inexpensive, young(ish) switch hitter with a little power.

So who's the reliever offered ?

I need a Sig ? Damn It !

by nvsfg on Aug 21, 2007 3:34 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Streakin'
Well, what if the Mets DO want to give up Jose Reyes or David Wright for Cain?

by LiteralistNinny on Aug 21, 2007 5:15 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

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

Small
Sandoval gets the shaft.

by jpo about 7 hours ago

199 comments | 7 recs

Statsjail_small
Giants Position Production 1999-2009

by xanthan 1 day ago

21 comments | 6 recs

Phoney_small
Players who do and do not have options

by Natto 2 days ago

73 comments | 4 recs

Terrorist_small
OT:Thank You McCovey Chronicle

by jnormous 2 days ago

39 comments | 22 recs

Burnt_small
Fun with Wikipedia

by redhornet78 4 days ago

50 comments | 6 recs

Recent FanPosts

Small
If Johnson Goes to the DL

by jpo about 1 hour ago

10 comments | 0 recs

Timbreakin_small
1/2 Season Review: The Best Games

by rhys about 3 hours ago

5 comments | 0 recs

Timbreakin_small
1/2 Season Review: The Worst Games

by rhys about 3 hours ago

5 comments | 0 recs

Small
Things to love about minor league baseball

by da5id about 7 hours ago

4 comments | 0 recs

Muddy-grace_small
Giants "Fan Appreciation Night" Tonight!

by Viva Gigantes about 8 hours ago

10 comments | 0 recs

Lucy-liu_small
Organization Prospect Depth Chart: Centerfield

by wilriv21 about 19 hours ago

22 comments | 0 recs

Sandoval_small
Sanchez for Sanchez? Rumor of Pittsburgh's Freddy for Jonathan.

by objesguy about 20 hours ago

239 comments | 0 recs

49ers_small
Playoffs, We're talkin about playoffs??

by Dub4lif3 1 day ago

28 comments | 0 recs

0711_kantoku14_b_small
If we get them, will you love them?

by NeifiChicken 1 day ago

46 comments | 0 recs

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

Recent Posts

SPONSORS

Yahoo! Sports

» Read San Francisco Giants News on Yahoo!

» Check out the Yahoo! Sports MLB blog
   Big League Stew

Overlord

174246766_ea2fd78204_small Grant

Minions

Fawlty_small WalrusMan

Dog2_small kenshin1

Phoney_small Natto

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

Goofus_small Goofus

Minor League Guru

Small steve S

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports