|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 18, 2013 16:11:09 GMT -5
The 20 games immediately before the All-Star break took the Giants from two games over .500 and likely trade deadline buyers to 8 games below and in a quandry.
The next 11 games will tell the story.
The Giants will need to show clear progress back toward .500 in order to be buyers. Eight games under .500 doesn't give one a strong urge to purchase better players for the stretch run.
Fortunately no one else in the NL West has played well either, so the Giants are just 6.5 games back. A winning streak between now and the deadline could cut the gap and provide an incentive for the team to buy as has been the case in recent years.
The Giants' three wins in four games against the Padres going into the break likely precludes any type of mass selloff, but the possiblity of remaining mostly neutral will be determined by these next 11 games.
Late July can be direction turner. This year more than any in recent memory, the second half of July could go either way.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jul 18, 2013 17:40:31 GMT -5
I don't care what happens the next 11 games...I don't want to be buyers OR sellers. I don't want to lose any of our top prospects and I don't want to lose any of our vets that we will have control over past this season. If we nose dive later (after July), then maybe I wouldnt mind trading some expiring contracts...but I definitely do NOT want ANY quick fix rental players.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 18, 2013 18:53:10 GMT -5
Randy -- I don't care what happens the next 11 games...I don't want to be buyers OR sellers. Rog -- I understand what you're saying, but I feel your position is too rigid. Let's suppose the team loses the next 11 games. That would make 26 losses in their past 31 games. If the Giants can make a strong deal for a player or players they figure they will lose or whom they are planning to get rid of anyway, why not make that strong deal to help out in 2014 and beyond? And let's suppose they win the next 11. That would give them 14 wins in 15 games. You dont think the team should be rewarded for their quick bounceback by exploring the trade market as buyers? What kind of message does that send the players and the fans? Randy -- I don't want to lose any of our top prospects and I don't want to lose any of our vets that we will have control over past this season. Rog -- I understand your point, and it leaves scores of players who could still be traded without interfering with your criteria. Randy -- If we nose dive later (after July), then maybe I wouldnt mind trading some expiring contracts... Rog -- Before the trade deadline the Giants can offer a player and see what they can get for him. After the trade deadline, the only way they can trade a player is to put him on revokable waivers. That means one team can make a claim to block another team, with no intention of trading for the player. Anything the Giants were trying to gain beyond shedding salary might be thwarted. Randy -- but I definitely do NOT want ANY quick fix rental players. Rog -- I think that is too narrow a position. What if the Giants had taken that position a year ago and not acquired Marco Scutaro? And as they showed in their acquisition of Hunter Pence, there are players available who are more than rentals. I think staying flexible may be an asset for the Giants. Why make decisions now when so much could change in 11 games? 11 games from now, the Giants could be looking like the worst team in the majors (and for over two months, at that) or they could be looking like a team which is just a player or two away from being serious World Series contenders. Remember back in 2010 when you said trade deadline pickups Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez were "ham and eggers?" That breakfast material might well have made the difference between becoming World Champions and not even making the playoffs. About 49 weeks ago you gave up on the Giants. If they hadn't made their trade deadline deals, there is a significant chance they wouldn't have won the World Series last season. In other words, your attitude at or near the trade deadline two of the past three seasons might well have cost BOTH championships. Now, in 2011 you were right to oppose the Wheeler for Beltran trade. But did you notice you had considerable company on that one -- which despite Brian Sabean's take may have been fairly close to a no-brainer? If the Giants had taken your advice, they would still have Zack Wheeler and be in much better position to face an off-season in which they could potentially lose as many as three starting pitchers. But they likely wouldn't have won a World Series for 58 seasons. What I'm really saying here is that the Giants could well be in better position 11 games from now to evaluate the actions they should take at the deadline. Not saying the jist of your ideas aren't good. Merely saying they may be premature. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#12809#ixzz2ZRXcWu4U |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jul 18, 2013 23:07:48 GMT -5
The main point I'm making is if you keep trading prospects every single trade deadline, pretty soon you end up with the 28th ranked farm system in the Big Leagues. And if you're already ranked 28th, you go even further downward. Now, the Giants arent a poor team but they aren't the Yankees or Dodgers either. They can't just buy more and more assets every offseason to make up for a dwindling prospects list. It's lunacy to say what was right to do one season is always going to be the right thing to do. Just because there's a nonwaiver trade deadline coming up doesn't mean a move MUST be made either to buy or sell assets. It amuses me how crazy fans get this time of year. Some people even say the Giants are OBLIGED to make moves because of the championships they have won. Those Trade Deadline guys you say the Giants couldnt have won without last year are the same ones you say aren't good enough now to win without making more moves. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
I'm not in favor of making moves just to show you are willing to make a move. We all know Brian Sabean is willing to do so. I want to keep our top prospects unless there is a proven stud out there we might get for more than a month or two. Other than that, no thanks. If that means we don't make the playoffs this year, so be it. It wasn't meant to be.
Oh and by the way...would you stop beating that dead "ham and egg" horse already? I already copped to being wrong about Lopez and Ramirez countless times. Less wrong about Ramirez, though, since he has been lit up royally these last two seasons and I believe he's back sitting on his couch in the DR at the moment.
~Dood
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jul 18, 2013 23:48:59 GMT -5
And let's suppose they win the next 11. That would give them 14 wins in 15 games. You dont think the team should be rewarded for their quick bounceback by exploring the trade market as buyers? What kind of message does that send the players and the fans?
Dood - This is absolute CRAP. The team owes nothing to the players other than to keep paying their ridiculous salaries. The team was built to win and it's up to the players to get that done. They shouldn't be looking over their shoulders for help if they aren't doing their jobs.
As for "owing" the fans...If the fans think they are owed more than 2 championships in 3 years, then it's time for a reality check for them too. The Giants are trying to be good not just this year but for many years. Selling off young talent only shortens the time frame.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 19, 2013 15:29:11 GMT -5
Randy -- The main point I'm making is if you keep trading prospects every single trade deadline, pretty soon you end up with the 28th ranked farm system in the Big Leagues. And if you're already ranked 28th, you go even further downward. Rog -- We understand your point here, Randy, but there are several factors at work: . How well are new prospects being added through the entry draft, through overseas signings, even though Rule V signings? . How well are the prospects in the system developing? . How good are the prospects being traded? With the exception of the ill-fated Wheeler dealing, how much have the Giants' trades the past three seasons hurt their prospect list? IMO you're getting all shook up over something you don't even know the magnitude of. But then you seem to tend to overreact. 11 months ago you were giving up on the 2013 season. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#12816#ixzz2ZWcU1ZV0 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 19, 2013 15:30:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 19, 2013 15:37:50 GMT -5
Randy -- Those Trade Deadline guys you say the Giants couldnt have won without last year are the same ones you say aren't good enough now to win without making more moves. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Rog -- Let's step back a little here, Randy. First, no one here has said that the Giants can't win with what they have. Second, as you yourself have pointed out, every season is different. In this case, the roster ISN'T the same as it was. Angel Pagan, Santiago Casilla and Ryan Vogelsong are out. Those are three important players for the Giants. Players play differently in different seasons. Do you think it would have been appropo to say that the Aubrey Huff the Giants won with in 2010 was the same Aubrey Huff in 2011 (except, of course, in the most literal of senses)? Is this year's Matt Cain the Cain of 2012? Let's not forget about the loss of Melky Cabrera. The Giants entered the season knowing they had a very good chance of having a hole in left field. Then they lost Pagan, making them in need of as many as two outfielders. Due in part to injuries, the rotaton and bullpen are now showing cracks as well. The situation this season is different than last year. I believe you yourself would admit it should be judged by itself. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#ixzz2ZWdmC5JF |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 19, 2013 15:44:35 GMT -5
Randy -- I want to keep our top prospects unless there is a proven stud out there we might get for more than a month or two. Rog -- The Giants haven't indicated they will trade top prospects, nor have they indicated they will go after a rental player (with the exception that they did so with Ricky Nolasco. Apparently they didn't make much of a bid for Ricky, which IMO was as it should have been.) We might be getting our panties in a figurative bunch here without really knowing what is going on. That's why I suggest we see what the next 11 games bring. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#ixzz2ZWfk2m7A |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 19, 2013 15:49:53 GMT -5
Randy -- Oh and by the way...would you stop beating that dead "ham and egg" horse already? I already copped to being wrong about Lopez and Ramirez countless times. Less wrong about Ramirez, though, since he has been lit up royally these last two seasons and I believe he's back sitting on his couch in the DR at the moment. Rog -- It has seemed to me that you have treaded lightly with regard to your being wrong about those trades. It is good to see you are a man of character who has admitted his mistake. As for Ramirez, he pitched very well for the Giants and then helped them get Angel Pagan. This year he returned for cheap and sadly didn't perform. But the Giants got a LOT of value for him. As well as Lopez. It is also a little irksome that not only did you make the "ham and eggers" comment, you took your usual hard stance behind it when challenged, rather than admitting right away that you might be wrong. We all make mistakes, Randy. I personally respect those most who admit to having made them -- and who acknowledge at the time they MIGHT be making them. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#ixzz2ZWhVCvzG |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 19, 2013 16:02:57 GMT -5
Rog -- And let's suppose they win the next 11. That would give them 14 wins in 15 games. You dont think the team should be rewarded for their quick bounceback by exploring the trade market as buyers? What kind of message does that send the players and the fans? Dood - This is absolute CRAP. The team owes nothing to the players other than to keep paying their ridiculous salaries. The team was built to win and it's up to the players to get that done. They shouldn't be looking over their shoulders for help if they aren't doing their jobs. As for "owing" the fans...If the fans think they are owed more than 2 championships in 3 years, then it's time for a reality check for them too. The Giants are trying to be good not just this year but for many years. Selling off young talent only shortens the time frame. Rog -- You're simply overreacting here, Randy -- much as you did 11 months ago. No one has SUGGESTED the Giants give up top prospects unless the return is significant and long-lasting. All we have really said is that we would trade Gary Brown and Joe Panik for Bud Norris. Brown and Panik are no longer top prospects, and the Giants would control a bona fide major leaguer starter for 2 1/3 years minimum -- likely longer given Norris' stated preference for playing in the area in which he grew up a Giants fan. Why not wait and see what happens, Randy? Then we can critique the moves. We could easily be worrying unnecessarily here. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#ixzz2ZWim6oeI |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jul 19, 2013 18:38:48 GMT -5
Rog -- The Giants haven't indicated they will trade top prospects, nor have they indicated they will go after a rental player (with the exception that they did so with Ricky Nolasco. Apparently they didn't make much of a bid for Ricky, which IMO was as it should have been.)
Dood - Have the Giants always made indications prior to deals they make? To my recollections, there have been many trades or signings (or non-signings) that came completely out of nowhere.
Rog -- You're simply overreacting here, Randy -- much as you did 11 months ago. No one has SUGGESTED the Giants give up top prospects unless the return is significant and long-lasting.
Dood - you need to re-check the "new kid on the trading block" thread. Crick (the #1 Giants prospect according to sfgiants.com), Brown (#2), Panik (#4), Stratton (#3) and Blackburn (#11) were all mentioned as potential trade bait to get the mediocre Bud Norris.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 20, 2013 11:59:39 GMT -5
Mentioned by whom? Writers trying to generate a story? I agree witth you that Sabean is often disingenuous and duplicitous.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 20, 2013 15:06:58 GMT -5
Rog -- You're simply overreacting here, Randy -- much as you did 11 months ago. No one has SUGGESTED the Giants give up top prospects unless the return is significant and long-lasting. Dood - you need to re-check the "new kid on the trading block" thread. Crick (the #1 Giants prospect according to sfgiants.com), Brown (#2), Panik (#4), Stratton (#3) and Blackburn (#11) were all mentioned as potential trade bait to get the mediocre Bud Norris. Rog -- I thnk the consensus is not to trade Crick unless a truly great deal came along. There is hesitation about trading Blackburn, and I think he same would be true of Stratton if we knew him better. Brown and Panik were definitely mentioned. I mentioned them myself. Your prospect rankings are just one of many rankings put out, and those rankings haven't been adjusted for what has happened so far this season. Neither Panik nor Brown has improved his stock, and in fact the opposite is likely true. At first my gut told me NOT to trade Brown and Panik if the opportunity came to acquire Norris. I still would need to think about it, but I'm now leaning toward making such a trade if it were available. With Chad Gaudin doing so well, I don't think the trade will happen now even if it is available. The trade would move Ryan Vogelsong into the bullpen and make Barry Zito the long man. Let's face it. Most good starting-caliber players were hitting better than .248 in AAA as they approached their 25th birthday. Most good starting-caliber players were hitting better than .250 in AA as they approached their 23rd birthday. Bud Norris is more or less an average big league starter. He is proven. He was a big leaguer well before his 25th birthday. Unlike Brown, who is struggling in AAA, Bud posted a 2.71 ERA there. Bud is throwing 65% first pitch strikes this season -- up from 59% last year. 59% is good; 65% is outstanding. Pitchers pitch a lot better when they get ahead. Bud is getting ahead a lot. He had or has a sub-4.00 ERA two of the past three seasons. If the Giants do acquire Bud, there is a good chance he will be a starter for them five or more seasons. With Brown and Panik, we just don't know. Neither Brown nor Panik looks at this point to be more than a second division starter. Norris already is at least that. Bud is only 3 1/2 years older than Brown is. Will Gary develop enough in the next 3 1/2 years to be as good as Bud is now? I think that is far from a certainty. Panik is 5 1/2 years younger and has a lot more time to do so. If such a trade became available, it would be bird-in-the-hand vs. bird-in-the-bush situation. We don't know exactly how long the Giants' window of opportunity will last. That might place more importance on the bird in the hand. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#12844#ixzz2ZcJO1Y9h |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 20, 2013 15:09:37 GMT -5
Allen -- Mentioned by whom? Writers trying to generate a story? I agree witth you that Sabean is often disingenuous and duplicitous. Rog -- I think Randy was referring to us when he said those players had been mentioned. I know I have discussed most of them myself. I haven't found Sabean to be duplicitous. I have been surprised at how frank he has been before some of the trade deadlines. On the other hand, he tries not to tip his hand as to particulars. I think Randy was referring more to playing it close to the vest than to outright trickery. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#ixzz2ZcOCtYIa |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 20, 2013 15:34:08 GMT -5
Let's look at the Giants' deadline deals the past three seasons -- two of which resulted in World Championships.
In 2011, they totally blew it. They took a gamble that Carlos Beltran would put them over the top in order to repeat as champions. Brian Sabean did something he had said as recenty as a few months before that he wouldn't do -- trade a top prospect for a rental player. I believe he felt the Giants would do well with Beltran and that the Giants would re-sign him.
Rest assured that Brian has learned his lesson the hard way by deviating from his outline.
Back in 2010 it was Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez at the deadline. We have discussed how important each was to the World Series run that year, but what did they give up?
The Giants gave up John Bowker and Joey Martinez to acquire Lopez. Neither player has done anything, and in fact I believe both are out of U.S. organized ball (with Bowker playing in Japan).
They got Ramon Ramirez (who once was traded for Coco Crisp) for Daniel Turpen. I thought Turpen pitched at least one game for the Giants, but I can't find a record of it. This season he has pitched in both AA and AAA in the Twins organization. The last season he had a sub-4.00 year in the minors was in 2009.
How about last year?
We know the Giants gave up three players for Hunter Pence. The Phillies didn't re-sign Nate Schieholtz this past winter, but he has been a good platoon player for the Cubs this year.
The key piece to the deal was catching prospect Tommy Joseph. He has been injured a lot this season and is hitting just .179 in A, AA and AAA. He just turned 22, and he's a lot better than those numbers would indicate. Still, his best season was .270 at San Jose in 2011, and he hit .257 in AA last year.
Joseph could become a starting catcher at some point, but the Phillies would be very excited if he became as good a player as Pence is now.
The final player in the deal was pitcher Seth Rosin, who has a 4.33 ERA so far this season in AA.
We expected Pence to play well. The surprise from last year's deadline was how well Marco Scutaro has played. The Giants gave up Charlie Culberson to get Marco. Culberson is hitting .303 this season with hitter-friendly AAA Colorado Springs, but he hit just .136 in a smal trial with the Giants last season. Since the trade, he has 88 strikeouts and just 18 walks in AAA.
The Giants are highly unlikely to give up a Wheeler-level prospect again, certainly not for a rental. But if we look at the other years, they acquired two position starters and two good relievers for essentially just a non-tendered Nate Schierholtz, a low-level prospect (Charlie Culberson) who is playing OK in AAA, and a good but not great catching prospect in Tommy Joseph.
The Giants acquired four significant players -- each of whom has played for the Giants this season -- without giving up a lot.
Personally, I think we should have faith in Brian Sabean until he gives us a strong reason to doubt him.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jul 20, 2013 15:47:51 GMT -5
Personally, I think we should have faith in Brian Sabean until he gives us a strong reason to doubt him.
Dood - agreed...and I do have faith in Sabean. I just have NONE faith in you...and until the Giants actually do trade for Norris, i have little faith in him too.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 20, 2013 16:46:17 GMT -5
Allen -- Mentioned by whom? Writers trying to generate a story? I agree witth you that Sabean is often disingenuous and duplicitous. Rog -- I think Randy was referring to us when he said those players had been mentioned. I know I have discussed most of them myself. I haven't found Sabean to be duplicitous. I have been surprised at how frank he has been before some of the trade deadlines. On the other hand, he tries not to tip his hand as to particulars. I think Randy was referring more to playing it close to the vest than to outright trickery. Brian often has a somewhat distant acquaintance with the truth, at best. Often times I've heard him say he wouldn't make a move, then make that very move the next day. |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 20, 2013 16:52:42 GMT -5
Dood - agreed...and I do have faith in Sabean. I just have NONE faith in you... Rog -- Perhaps you could share with us why you feel that way. As recently as a week ago I don't think there were too many predicting Tim Linecum was on the verge of a "breakout" performance. Randy -- and until the Giants actually do trade for Norris, i have little faith in him too. Rog -- Aside from the advantage of pitching in more of a pitchers' park, what difference would being traded to the Giants have in how much our faith in Bud Norris should be? I would be surprised if the Giants did acquire Norris now, but I do find his newfound ability to throw first-pitch strikes intriguing. I don't prefer him to any of the Giants' starting pitchers except for Barry Zito, but I do think he's a solid major league starter. I do understand your concern should the Giants trade Brown and Panik for Norris, and I do share it. I'm really on the fence on that one and kind of keep going back and forth. I think that precise trade is very unlikely to happen, but I don't know if I could pull the trigger if it were offered. I would need more information than I have now. I do agree with you that the Giants shouldn't mortage their future simply to improve their chances this season. I do share your faith that Brian Sabean can improve the team without impacting the future much. The next 10 games should tell us a lot as to what the Giants will do at the deadline. Maybe as you suggest they should, they will be neither buyers nor sellers. I simply think it is too early to determine the best course of action and think the Giants will benefit from waiting as long as feasible to assess it. I doubt it will happen, but there is still a chance the Giants will be in first place 10 games from now. There is also the chance they could be virtually out of it. That is why I suggest waiting. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#12856#ixzz2ZcjVwX2q |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jul 20, 2013 17:59:24 GMT -5
Dood - agreed...and I do have faith in Sabean. I just have NONE faith in you...
Rog -- Perhaps you could share with us why you feel that way. As recently as a week ago I don't think there were too many predicting Tim Linecum was on the verge of a "breakout" performance.
Dood - because even after that you have been in favor of trading top prospects for a mediocre pitcher in Norris...to name just one reason, that is.
Randy -- and until the Giants actually do trade for Norris, i have little faith in him too.
Rog -- Aside from the advantage of pitching in more of a pitchers' park, what difference would being traded to the Giants have in how much our faith in Bud Norris should be?
Dood - because the trio of Bochy, Sabean and Righetti have proven that they know how to identify pitchers on other rosters that would fit on our team nicely. I'm far from sold on Norris but I have faith in those guys.
The next 10 games should tell us a lot as to what the Giants will do at the deadline. Maybe as you suggest they should, they will be neither buyers nor sellers. I simply think it is too early to determine the best course of action and think the Giants will benefit from waiting as long as feasible to assess it.
Dood - I just dont see a pressing need to do it. That's what desperate teams do. We should keep our prospects unless you're talking about a minor deal. We will need them.
I doubt it will happen, but there is still a chance the Giants will be in first place 10 games from now. There is also the chance they could be virtually out of it. That is why I suggest waiting.
Dood - I suggest waiting even longer. Give the team longer to prove they can get in it. Or to play their way out of it. If a deal can be made in August to unload an expiring contract, have at it. Otherwise, play it out.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 20, 2013 18:07:42 GMT -5
Maybe where you are erring is in identifying Brown and Panik as top prospects. They may be our top prospects but neither is exactly tearing up the minor leagues.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 20, 2013 18:10:20 GMT -5
Why would the Giants acquiring Norris change the level of faith you have in him? If he becomes a Giant, will he suddenly become more than a "mediocre pitcher"?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 21, 2013 8:09:39 GMT -5
Dood - because even after that you have been in favor of trading top prospects for a mediocre pitcher in Norris...to name just one reason, that is. Rog -- I agree Brown and Panik for Norris would be a tough call -- and one I doubt very much will come up this month. If the Giants WERE going to make a trade for a starting pitcher, now would be the time -- with Tuesday's double header looming. If Norris were the pitcher acquired though, his normal day to start would be Wednesday -- a day late to help the Giants with the double header. On the other hand, I think both Brown and Panik dropped in the Giants' prospect rankings in 2012 and have dropped further this year. Depending on how far down one goes with his definition of "top" prospects, each player may no longer fit that description. We have attributed much of Norris' success this season to his getting ahead of hitters by getting his first pitch in. 65% of the time, when we discussed it. In his last start, Norris yielded 6 runs, throwing only 41% first pitch strikes. In the third and fourth innings, he threw only one first-pitch strike over nine consecutive batters. The one he did get over, Seattle's Kyle Seager hit for a two-run homer. On the other hand, Norris gave up 7 runs in his previous start while throwing 22 of 26 first-pitch strikes. Have batters caught up with Norris' first-pitch strikes, and is he now being much more cautions with his first pitch and not throwing nearly as many strikes? Since there seems a posibility Norris will become a Giant at some point, this might bear watching. Norris is expected to be traded before the deadline. If so, I don't think it will be to the Giants, which would seem to greatly limit their chances of acquiring him in the next year-plus. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#12862#ixzz2ZgRFh2yU |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 21, 2013 8:18:59 GMT -5
Randy -- and until the Giants actually do trade for Norris, i have little faith in him too. Rog -- Aside from the advantage of pitching in more of a pitchers' park, what difference would being traded to the Giants have in how much our faith in Bud Norris should be? Dood - because the trio of Bochy, Sabean and Righetti have proven that they know how to identify pitchers on other rosters that would fit on our team nicely. I'm far from sold on Norris but I have faith in those guys. Rog -- Intriguing. Right now Norris is considered to be a good third or fourth starter. You believe he might improve under Giants tutelage. And yet you are very reluctant to give up much to get him. I suppose what it comes down to is that you rate Panik and especially Brown higher than I do. Unless and until they are traded, I hope you are right. Here's a question for you. You say you know talent when you see it, yet this spring you chose Scott Proctor over Chad Gaudin. Proctor is presently retired, while Gaudin has become one of the Giants' most reliable starters. What happened there? The Giants continue to be weak in position prospects (overall, not specifically Brown and Panik), but their strength is said to be their Single A pitchers, particularly those in San Jose. Could you give us a little scouting report on those guys? Also, we know you would be disappointed (disgusted?) if the Giants traded Blackburn (14 strikeouts and just one walk in his last two starts) and especially Kyle Crick (1.04 ERA, 50 strikeouts in 35 innings). Any other pitchers there you would be highly reluctant to trade? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#ixzz2ZgY75Hu3 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 21, 2013 8:44:21 GMT -5
Rog -- The next 10 games should tell us a lot as to what the Giants will do at the deadline. Maybe as you suggest they should, they will be neither buyers nor sellers. I simply think it is too early to determine the best course of action and think the Giants will benefit from waiting as long as feasible to assess it. Dood - I just dont see a pressing need to do it. That's what desperate teams do. We should keep our prospects unless you're talking about a minor deal. We will need them. Rog -- Were the Giants desparate in 2010 and 2012? One could argue that they would have won neither ring without their mid-season moves those two seasons. I get that you don't want the Giants to trade top prospects. I think we agree there, with our difference being that my top prospect list is shorter than yours. By the way, I recently saw where Kyle Crick was ranked the #37 prospect in all of baseball. That certainly qualifies as a top prospect. But I'm not sure any other Giants prospect would be ranked in the top 100, and if so, it would be Blackburn. One could argue that only those two guys are truly top prospects. Any prospect not ranked in the top 100 overall wouldn't be better than a fourth prospect on many teams. Among the present Giants, Matt Cain, Tim Lincecum, Buster Posey, Zack Wheeler, Brandon Belt and Hunter Pence have been ranked among the top 100 prospects by Baseball America. Here is how they were rated: Cain was ranked #10 Lincecum #11 Posey #7 Bumgarner #9 Wheeler #11 Belt #23 Pence #38 This past winter, Krick was ranked #66 by Baseball America, and #86 by mlb.com. Blackburn wasn't rated in the top 100. Brown fell from #38 a year ago by Baseball America to not rated this past winter. He fell from #48 to #100 with mlb.com. Panik hasn't yet been rated in the top 100. Krick and perhaps Blackburn have helped their status this season. Brown and Panik have dropped further. The Giants' only true top prospect may be Crick, with Blackburn perhaps nudging into the top 100 by now. Aside from the ill-fated trade of Wheeler, I think it's been a long time since the Giants have traded a prospect ranked in the top 100. By the way, if we look at the Giants' young core as of now, it is made up of Posey, Cain, Bumgarner and to a lesser extent Lincecum, Pence, Sandoval and perhaps Romo. All but the last two have been top 100 prospects. If we dropped down another notch, we would likely include Belt, Crawford and Pagan. Only Crawford and Pagan hasn't made the top 100 list. Let's hope Crick, Blackburn, Brown, Panik and others add to the young core. But only Crick and perhaps Blackburn truly seem to be considered top prospects. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#ixzz2ZgaNXwE1 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 21, 2013 8:45:56 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jul 21, 2013 10:48:35 GMT -5
By the way, I recently saw where Kyle Crick was ranked the #37 prospect in all of baseball. That certainly qualifies as a top prospect. But I'm not sure any other Giants prospect would be ranked in the top 100, and if so, it would be Blackburn.
One could argue that only those two guys are truly top prospects. Any prospect not ranked in the top 100 overall wouldn't be better than a fourth prospect on many teams.
Dood - you're missing the point. Whether they are among baseball's top prospects or not, they ARE among the Giants' top prospects and that is NOT insignificant. The Giants currently have the 28th ranked farm system in baseball. What happens if you take the best players off that already paltry list? That's right...it gets even more dismal.
With already a ton of money tied up in Posey, Cain, Bumgarner, Pagan and Scutaro in the next few years, and even more going to Sandoval, Romo and possibly Pence...there isn't a lot of cash lying around for top FAs out there. We'll need prospects to contribute, whether Stats Geek America ranks them in their top 100 or not.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 21, 2013 14:43:03 GMT -5
The problem is, can these guys contribute? They may be the Giants' top prospects, (somebody has to be) but that doesn't necessarily mean they're any good. Your mention of money just proves the need to get rid of overpriced players like Zito and Lincecum. Then there would be some cash for FAs.
I'd be really careful with Pablo too. In fact I'd be shopping him like crazy. If Pablo was in shape, he wouldn't have been thrown out at the plate last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 22, 2013 13:19:14 GMT -5
Dood - you're missing the point. Whether they are among baseball's top prospects or not, they ARE among the Giants' top prospects and that is NOT insignificant. Rog -- Your point here is a good one. On the other hand, if the Giants can turn not-great prospects into proven major leaguers under team control for two or more years, that might be a good strategy for both the short- and long-terms. I don't recall your complaining when Tommy Joseph was traded, and at the time, he was ranked by many ahead of either Brown or Panik. Randy -- The Giants currently have the 28th ranked farm system in baseball. What happens if you take the best players off that already paltry list? That's right...it gets even more dismal. Rog -- Of course. When a minor league system has fallen that far (and I've seen them ranked slightly higher, but not even average), using the pieces to acquire proven talent under team control can be one way of overcoming a difficult situation. With the exception of Wheeler, Brian Sabean's track record of trading Giants minor leaguers has been quite good. Randy -- With already a ton of money tied up in Posey, Cain, Bumgarner, Pagan and Scutaro in the next few years, and even more going to Sandoval, Romo and possibly Pence...there isn't a lot of cash lying around for top FAs out there. We'll need prospects to contribute, whether Stats Geek America ranks them in their top 100 or not. Rog -- Your ridiculously snide remark notwithstanding, you make another good point. But the player we're talking about acquiring, Bud Norris, will likely make somewhere around $6 or $7 million next season. He's making only $3 million this season. You have made a couple of good points here, Randy, and remember, I have gone back and forth on whether I would trade Brown and Panik for Norris or not. I'm not sure how to value chemistry, but it sounds as if the move would be a good one from a chemistry standpoint. Certainly Norris REALLY wants to play in SF, which could result in a bit of a hometown discount in the future. How valuable do we think Norris is in comparison with Brown and Panik together? And as you point out, the better Brown and/or Panik become, the more money it could save the Giants. Tough call, but I worry that you're not fully considering both sides of the equation. You've been high on Brown; I've been higher on Panik; both players have hurt their status this season. An argument could be made for not trading EITHER Brown or Panik while they're down. But how high will they bounce? Brown doesn't get on base a lot, while Panik has very little power. Brown has excellent defense and speed, but isn't yet accomplished at using his speed to steal bases. Panik has excellent plate control, but he still fell into a HORRENDOUS slump that lasted too long. Maybe you're right and those guys will bounce back well. If so, making such a trade wouldn't be very good. On the other hand, if neither turns out to be much more than a platoon player, the trade should be a good one. I'm on the fence. I simply worry that you overvalue Panik and especially Brown, while undervaluing Norris. It would be a shock if that exact trade were made, but in five years we should be able to look back and have a pretty good idea if the trade would have been a good one or not. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1902&page=1#12889#ixzz2Zna8hku4 |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jul 22, 2013 14:20:01 GMT -5
Dood - you're missing the point. Whether they are among baseball's top prospects or not, they ARE among the Giants' top prospects and that is NOT insignificant.
Rog -- Your point here is a good one. On the other hand, if the Giants can turn not-great prospects into proven major leaguers under team control for two or more years, that might be a good strategy for both the short- and long-terms.
Dood - we differ on the definition of "proven" major leaguers. Just because Norris was able to maintain his spot in the horrid Houston rotation and had a good first half doesn't make him "proven" by my understanding of the word. The only thing he's proven is that Houston sucks.
I don't recall your complaining when Tommy Joseph was traded, and at the time, he was ranked by many ahead of either Brown or Panik.
Dood - with Buster Posey doing his thing in the majors and Susac, Sanchez and Monell behind them we were stacked at that position. I worry more about where they rank on our own hierarchy than where they are ranked by some stats geeks.
Rog -- Of course. When a minor league system has fallen that far (and I've seen them ranked slightly higher, but not even average), using the pieces to acquire proven talent under team control can be one way of overcoming a difficult situation.
Dood - once again..."proven" is the key sticking point as far as I'm concerned. For our top prospects I want someone proven to be a stud...not proven to be "ok"
With the exception of Wheeler, Brian Sabean's track record of trading Giants minor leaguers has been quite good.
Dood - I agree...I'm not questioning him yet because he isnt the one talking about making this ill-advised trade.
Rog -- Your ridiculously snide remark notwithstanding, you make another good point. But the player we're talking about acquiring, Bud Norris, will likely make somewhere around $6 or $7 million next season. He's making only $3 million this season.
Dood - Then he'll be highly overpaid
You have made a couple of good points here, Randy, and remember, I have gone back and forth on whether I would trade Brown and Panik for Norris or not. I'm not sure how to value chemistry, but it sounds as if the move would be a good one from a chemistry standpoint. Certainly Norris REALLY wants to play in SF, which could result in a bit of a hometown discount in the future.
Dood - weren't you the one saying chemistry doesn't mean squat on a baseball team?
How valuable do we think Norris is in comparison with Brown and Panik together? And as you point out, the better Brown and/or Panik become, the more money it could save the Giants.
Dood - I'll give them Tanaka and Francoeur instead. Two proven vets by YOUR estimation.
Tough call, but I worry that you're not fully considering both sides of the equation. You've been high on Brown; I've been higher on Panik; both players have hurt their status this season.
An argument could be made for not trading EITHER Brown or Panik while they're down. But how high will they bounce?
Dood - in the esteemed words of Mark Jackson..."trials and tribulations are transportation for where you're going." We don't know where either Brown or Panik are headed yet in their careers but I can tell you they have what it takes talent wise to make it a long journey.
I'm on the fence. I simply worry that you overvalue Panik and especially Brown, while undervaluing Norris.
Dood - 4.29 Career ERA...3.91 ERA this year (and climbing)
~Dood
|
|
