|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2012 2:04:47 GMT -5
The Giants are said to be in on the bidding for free agent outfielder Scott Hairston, a right-handed hitter with 20 homers in 398 at bats last season. Hairston's asking price would seem high for the Giants, but he has killed them over the years, so they have seen him at his best. Coming off such a good season though, I don't think Hairston will be worth the money.
The Giants were said to be in on reliever Jason Grilli until the Pirates re-signed the former Giants prospect for 2/$6.25. The Giants likely didn't have enough of a role to justify it, but I think Grilli -- who struck out 90 batters in 58.2 innings this past season -- is a very nice pickup at that price.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 13, 2012 9:50:16 GMT -5
Grilli supposedly turned down more money, but since the Pirates are now looking to deal Joel Hanrahan, it's possible they promised Grilli the closing role. As for Scott Hairston, he's shrewdly waiting out the market. Nick Swisher is in a higher price range, but once he signs, it's between Hairston and Cody Ross as best right handed hitting corner outfielders left on the market. At this point most teams are offering him a two year contract as a right handed platoon, and he's waiting for someone to step up with a third year and a shot at everyday player. I think there's a definite fit with the Giants here, as he's only 32 and he could possibly beat out Blanco to become the regular left fielder if he hits like he did last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2012 12:29:28 GMT -5
Mark -- I think there's a definite fit with the Giants here, as he's only 32 and he could possibly beat out Blanco to become the regular left fielder if he hits like he did last year. Rog -- Those thoughts went through my mind as well, but I'm not sure the Giants will think that they can afford him, and I worry whether he will be worth the money involved. I do like Scott better than Cody, for three reasons. . I presume Scott will come a fair amount cheaper. . Scott's platoon split isn't as high as Cody's, so he may be a better fit for an everyday player. . Cody will almost certainly make far too much to be a platoon player. By the way, I could see giving Scott a third year if his price is reasonable. For me, it comes down more to annual price than to term. Don't know if the Giants think they have the money, but it does seem they would most benefit from going with one mid-level free agent and one bargain basement guy to fill their skin-deep outfield. And indeed, Ross and Hairston will almost certainly be the mid-level guys left, although Cody is shooting for more than a mid-level deal. IMO he's searching for an unlevel deal. At about $5 million per win now, free agency is tough for teams. What makes it even tougher IMO is that the marginal cost likely increases as one moves up the spectrum. Getting back to Hairston, last season he was actually valued at half a win LESS than Gregor. He easily beat Gregor at the plate, but Gregor was valued at more than a win higher in the field than Hairston and a third of a win more on the bases. I'm with Boagie in that I don't think Wins Above Replacement are completely accurate, but I do believe they are usually a good approximation. "Chemistry" probably won't allow this, but I would strongly consider moving Gregor to center field and leadoff, where I believe his value would be greatest. I would make him the strong half of a platoon with -- get this -- Andres Torres. I would then have speed, defense and platoon flexibility in center. I'd have a lot of strikeouts too, although Torres doesn't strike out too badly against lefties, and does hit them fairly well. I think Andres should be available on the cheap. He has value because he hits lefties, is a marvelous fielder and good base runner, and gets on base better than he hits. Torres his only .230 in 2012, but his line drive percentage was a wonderful 24.7%, indicating he may have hit in tough luck. He became a pronounced ground ball hitter, which usually isn't good, but might be OK with Andres' speed. He would fit the Giants' new modus operandi at the plate, seeing more than four pitches per plate appearance last season. When I began this post, Andres hadn't even entered my thinking. Now, I'm excited about his possiblities. He's an aging speedster, and those don't usually age well. But at 35 next season he won't be OLD. Andres has had trouble staying healthy, but in a platoon role, that shouldn't be as much of a problem. Mark is probably in better position to judge this, and I suspect he'll say -- along with most of the rest of the baseball world -- that I'm nuts, but I'm intrigued by the idea -- especially since the Giants badly need two outfielders and don't seem to have a lot of money available to do so. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1407&page=1#7919#ixzz2Ex2EmEkW |
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 13, 2012 14:11:27 GMT -5
Rog, either you're psychic or you're pulling our legs, because Torres has been signed by the Giants, and it happened BEFORE you posted this!
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2012 18:47:08 GMT -5
Mark -- Rog, either you're psychic or you're pulling our legs, because Torres has been signed by the Giants, and it happened BEFORE you posted this! Rog -- Let me go over the progression here -- Scouts honor. Late last night I looked at MLB Trade Rumors, more than anything to keep up on what was happening around the leagues. I came across Hairston and Grilli as guys the Giants had been/were in on. I remembered that you liked Hairston, and I had posted previously about liking Grilli. I also started to post about Scott Van Slyke, DFA'd by the Dodgers, but while my initial research was promising on the son of Andy Van Slyke, a more detailed look at Van Slyke, including a very high-strikeout winter league, discouraged me. Your post early this morning prompted me to comment on Hairston, whom I didn't think the Giants felt they could afford (although their alleged pursuit of BOTH Hairston and Grilli did give me pause). I began thinking about a platoon partner for Gregor Blanco, something I had previously mentioned in a negative sense with regard to the likely expensive Cody Ross. I looked up Hariston's platoon splits, and they weren't nearly as large as Cody's, making me favor him over Cody, but still thinking he was too expensive for a platoon player. As I looked at Gregor, I realized he isn't really a bad center fielder. Kind of a poor man's Michael Bourn. I also knew that he didn't have a huge platoon split, but found that he did have one big enough to be important. So even though I doubt very much that the Giants would move Angel Pagan out of center field (even though on a performance basis, they quite possibly should), I strongly like the idea. So whom to platoon with Gregor, needing a guy who could play center field? I remembered that Andres had a platoon split that favored his performance against lefty pitching. After I verified it and looked at how Andres performed overall (OBP as opposed to simply BA), I realized he could indeed be a very fine platoon match for Andres. I went to a couple of appointments with my girlfriend and didnt' really think any more about it -- until I returned this afternoon and saw to my shock that the Giants had again signed Andres. This isn't the first time something like this has happened here, but I post enough ideas that SOME of them are bound to come true. I'd like to think I know the Giants pretty well and analyze baseball in a logical fashion, so it was nice to again see something happen -- especially in so quick a manner. You are the one who sparked my thinking here, Mark. I had been thinking about a CORNER platoon partner for Gregor, when it dawned on me that whether they realized it or not, they should be concentrating on a CENTER FIELD platoon partner. I would be shocked if the Giants did move Pagan out of center, so the Giants' thinking was different than mine. But to my same-day shock, the result was the same. Perhaps the platoon will become successful enough that the platoon will lead off, with Pagan dropping to second in the order or perhaps sixth (which is probably better). Realistically, I expect the platoon -- if in fact it even develops -- will hit 7th, but with both Blanco and Torres, it certainly has the potential to lead off. The bottom line is that regardless of how I reached the decision or the Giants reached the decision that Andres would be a good fit, I'm glad it happened. It's almost as if my prayer for the day was answered. In fact, as you pointed out, already HAD happened. I'm certainly not psychic, but I'd like to think I can come up with good answers to a question, challenge or problem. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1407&page=1#7925#ixzz2EydBg7vD |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2012 19:05:05 GMT -5
Another couple of personal comments here.
At first last winter, I didn't like the Torres/Ramirez trade, but after further analysis I realized that Pagan was more of a certainly than Torres, and that Ramirez had likely been pitching a little over his head. So I'm glad I was able to come around to the right side of that trade, even if it took me a few weeks to do so.
(I should add that I never came around on the Sanchez for Melky trade, and clearly I was WAY off base there.)
Another comment is that while reading in Bleacher Report about the Torres signing, I also came across an article on the Giants' best free agent signings. Looking back, I found them intriguing.
#6 was Juan Uribe. Long before the Giants signed him, I recommended that specific signing.
#5 was Bengie Molina, a signing I was pretty neutral on.
#4 was Jeremy Affeldt. I had recommended him as a signee.
#3 was Aubrey Huff, a player I had actually recommended the Giants sign him a couple of years earlier.
#2 was Ryan Vogelsong, who caught completely off guard.
#1 was the re-signing of Jason Schmidt. IIRC that was pretty much a no-brainer, especially since the Giants had traded a lot (including Vogelsong) for hiim at the previous trade deadline.
Other good signings I would cite would be Gregor Blanco and Santiago Casilla. Anyone else want to cite a few?
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 22, 2012 18:47:26 GMT -5
At first last winter, I didn't like the Torres/Ramirez trade, but after further analysis I realized that Pagan was more of a certainly than Torres, and that Ramirez had likely been pitching a little over his head. So I'm glad I was able to come around to the right side of that trade, even if it took me a few weeks to do so.
(I should add that I never came around on the Sanchez for Melky trade, and clearly I was WAY off base there.)
Another comment is that while reading in Bleacher Report about the Torres signing, I also came across an article on the Giants' best free agent signings. Looking back, I found them intriguing.
#6 was Juan Uribe. Long before the Giants signed him, I recommended that specific signing.
#5 was Bengie Molina, a signing I was pretty neutral on.
#4 was Jeremy Affeldt. I had recommended him as a signee.
#3 was Aubrey Huff, a player I had actually recommended the Giants sign him a couple of years earlier.
#2 was Ryan Vogelsong, who caught completely off guard.
#1 was the re-signing of Jason Schmidt. IIRC that was pretty much a no-brainer, especially since the Giants had traded a lot (including Vogelsong) for hiim at the previous trade deadline.
Other good signings I would cite would be Gregor Blanco and Santiago Casilla. Anyone else want to cite a few
Allen- Bonds didn't even make the top 6? I agree, but I would have to say I'm suprised that others do.
I disagree that the Giants gave "alot" for Schmidt. Vogey was just a prospect at the time. In the games he had pitched for the Giants, he wasn't anything special. The other player they gave up was Armando Rios, a steroid addled outfielder who quickly blew out a knee when he got to Pittsburgh. The Giants also got useful part timer John VanderWal in the deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 23, 2012 10:25:26 GMT -5
Other good signings I would cite would be Gregor Blanco and Santiago Casilla. Anyone else want to cite a few
Boagie: Ellis Burks, 2 years - 10 million. 96 RBIs both years with a .964 and 1.025 OPS in those two years.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 2:56:10 GMT -5
Rog -- Other good signings I would cite would be Gregor Blanco and Santiago Casilla. Anyone else want to cite a few Allen- Bonds didn't even make the top 6? Rog -- Only a very prejudiced guy who had his mind made already made up (Who? Allen?) wouldn't have noticed that all the free agent signings cited were from the past five seasons. By the way, Allen, even with all your biases, you don't think the FIRST signing of Bonds was the best the Giants have made -- or at LEAST among the top six? Gadzooks! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1407#ixzz2FxBrSb00 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 2:57:34 GMT -5
By the way, I goofed on the time frame, having missed Schmidt. So we're not looking at only the last 10 years, not 5.
Believe it or not, the signing of Bonds goes back 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 24, 2012 11:14:35 GMT -5
Rog -- Only a very prejudiced guy who had his mind made already made up (Who? Allen?) wouldn't have noticed that all the free agent signings cited were from the past five seasons. Boagie- Perhaps one should include that important detail when posting from an outside source  I obviously didn't pick up on that either, hence the Ellis Burks signing I mentioned. I agree with the list, maybe not the order, I'd have put Huff #1, Uribe #2..based on the bargain, roles in the clubhouse, the regular season numbers, and their contribution in the post season. |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 11:47:38 GMT -5
Boagie -- I'd have put Huff #1, Uribe #2..
Rog -- Based on contribution in 2010 I would have to agree. Perhaps the evaluators considered that Huff cost $3 million, while Uribe was had for the even-lower, bargain price of $1 million.
I might have asked this in another post, but does anyone know the highest amount paid to any Giants free agent signing last season?
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 24, 2012 12:39:04 GMT -5
Rog -- Other good signings I would cite would be Gregor Blanco and Santiago Casilla. Anyone else want to cite a few Allen- Bonds didn't even make the top 6? Rog -- Only a very prejudiced guy who had his mind made already made up (Who? Allen?) wouldn't have noticed that all the free agent signings cited were from the past five seasons. Allen- The Jason Schmidt re-sogning was when? By the way, Allen, even with all your biases, you don't think the FIRST signing of Bonds was the best the Giants have made -- or at LEAST among the top six? Allen- At the time, most definitely. Looking back after his entire time with the Giants, it depends on your point of view. If one wants to look merely at the numbers Bonds put up and the fannies he put in the seats, it's a great signing. If one wants to look at the shame he brought to the franchise, the other players that were drawn into the steroid trap, and the shameful lack of integrity of Bonds, Magowan, and the rest of Giants' management, then maybe not so much. I know integrity and playing by the rules are quickly becoming a thing of the past (look at our Pres. and his administration) but there are some dinosaurs out there who still believe in these things. |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 13:12:58 GMT -5
Rog -- By the way, Allen, even with all your biases, you don't think the FIRST signing of Bonds was the best the Giants have made -- or at LEAST among the top six? Allen- At the time, most definitely. Looking back after his entire time with the Giants, it depends on your point of view. If one wants to look merely at the numbers Bonds put up and the fannies he put in the seats, it's a great signing. If one wants to look at the shame he brought to the franchise, the other players that were drawn into the steroid trap, and the shameful lack of integrity of Bonds, Magowan, and the rest of Giants' management, then maybe not so much. Rog -- See? This is where I think you show either bias or a lack of perspective. The FIRST signing of Bonds brought only respect to the franchise, as the team immediately won 103 games, which was and still is a San Francisco Giants record. Don't your points relate only to SUBSEQUENT signings? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1407&page=1#8058#ixzz2FzhPR5xe |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 24, 2012 14:12:11 GMT -5
Your point seems to be ( as it often is) that I lack perspective or am biased because I don't agree with you. Subsequent signings are totally irrelevant. If you want to pretend that the whole steroid thing and the subsequent phony denial didn't happen, then it's a great signing. I guess that's a nice world to live in.
If you want to face reality and realize the disgrace Bonds and Magowan brought to the franchise, and the taint that lasts to this day where the Giants are concerned, then I'm not sure you can view the signing as a good one.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 24, 2012 15:37:05 GMT -5
The original signing of Bonds was criticized by most everyone outside of SF because it suddenly began the overpaying of free agents...he probably paid off for the Giants, but it sent the player's agents on a feeding frenzy that gets worse every year......wouldn't it be nice if the player's salaries were a little lower and the ticket prices were lower, too...baseball in this area has been taken over by the organized kid's teams....you never see kids just out on the ball field hitting the ball around....my city has nothing going on in the off season...many parks and school fields void of kids except for soccor ...and some kids from the ghetto playing some hoops...city to the east of us has lots of organized teams playing baseball and softball all year round....
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 21:29:36 GMT -5
Allen -- Your point seems to be ( as it often is) that I lack perspective or am biased because I don't agree with you. Subsequent signings are totally irrelevant. If you want to pretend that the whole steroid thing and the subsequent phony denial didn't happen, then it's a great signing. I guess that's a nice world to live in. If you want to face reality and realize the disgrace Bonds and Magowan brought to the franchise, and the taint that lasts to this day where the Giants are concerned, then I'm not sure you can view the signing as a good one. Rog -- Look at what I wrote. I mentioned that it was SUBSEQUENT signings of Bonds that we should consider if we consider Barry's use of steroids. There are many who disagree with me, Allen, who I consider not to be biased. But regarding steroids, I agree with you that not only did Barry shame himself, but the major leagues themselves disgraced themselves. They simply turned a blind eye. But when the subject of Barry comes up, you go off. IMO you lose all sense of perspective. Again, I agree with you on the subject of steroids. That is why I posted that I would have an ethical dilemma if I were a Hall of Fame voter this season. Where we differ is that it appears you would simply dismiss Barry out of hand, while I would try to look at all sides of the argument. So in this instance, you and I agree -- and yet I think you are biased. In many other instances, posters have disagree with me, and yet I see no bias on their part. You know I like you, but from what I have seen even on the political part of the board, you are sort of the "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up" camp. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1407#ixzz2G7VC8E2o |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 21:42:16 GMT -5
Allen -- Subsequent signings are totally irrelevant. If you want to pretend that the whole steroid thing and the subsequent phony denial didn't happen, then it's a great signing. I guess that's a nice world to live in. Rog -- By saying that subsequent signings are irrelevant, you are saying Barry's steroid use is -- or at least may be -- irrelevant. As far as we know, Barry didn't use steroids during his first contract with the Giants. If we look at Barry's stats, it would appear he began to receive the benefits of steroids in 2000 or 2001. I have speculated that he began taking them when he was injured in 1999, but that is merely conjecture. But it seems likely that if Barry had sadly passed away at the end of his first contract, he would already have been in the Hall for a decade or so and would be considered fairly high on the list of all-time players. So, yeah, I would say subsequent Bonds contracts were relevant. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1407&page=1#ixzz2G7a89US2 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 21:49:15 GMT -5
Don -- The original signing of Bonds was criticized by most everyone outside of SF because it suddenly began the overpaying of free agents... Rog -- I don't think that Barry was the first free agent to have been viewed by some as being overpaid. Don -- he probably paid off for the Giants, Rog -- Hard to argue that his first contract didn't pay off. In fact, it has been said that Barry was the guy who got AT&T built. Don -- but it sent the player's agents on a feeding frenzy that gets worse every year...... Rog -- There seems to be little evidence that such a "frenzy," if that is the appropriate word, had already begun. Don -- wouldn't it be nice if the player's salaries were a little lower and the ticket prices were lower, too. Rog -- Since businesses price based on their vision into supply and demand, there is little if any evidence that if salaries were lower, that prices would be lower. I may be wrong here, but it would seem to me it is the OWNERS who agree to pay these salaries. It is illegal for them to collude, but it is the teams themselves who collectively decide what a player's salary should be -- at least above the minimum. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1407&page=1#ixzz2G7dJqszz |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 26, 2012 12:40:18 GMT -5
Again, I agree with you on the subject of steroids. That is why I posted that I would have an ethical dilemma if I were a Hall of Fame voter this season.
Allen- Why? Why would you reward a cheater with the games' greatest honor?
Where we differ is that it appears you would simply dismiss Barry out of hand, while I would try to look at all sides of the argument.
Allen- I think you believe that my focus is solely on Bonds, I would apply the same rule to any steroid user. Mcgwire, Sosa, ARod, Clemens, I wouldn't even consider any of them.
know I like you, but from what I have seen even on the political part of the board, you are sort of the "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up" camp.
Allen- Give me a for instance Rog.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 26, 2012 23:13:58 GMT -5
Rog -- know I like you, but from what I have seen even on the political part of the board, you are sort of the "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up" camp. Allen- Give me a for instance Rog. Rog -- For instance, you seem to believe there is no question all steroid users should be kept out of the Hall. Yet there are so many issues, including that baseball turned a blind eye to the situation. I think you see too many things as black or white. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1407#ixzz2GDpxh400 |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 27, 2012 11:40:29 GMT -5
That argument has nothing to do with anything factual. It calls for an opinion. Mine is that anyone who cheated shouldn't be in the HOF. I have considered that baseball turned a blind eye to the problem, but that doesn't excuse the player's dishonesty. You seem to have ignored how unfair including those that cheated would be to those that didn't cheat.
What this comes down to, from you, from some others on the board, from Ratto, from some guys on the radio talks shows, is that you want your boy Bonds to be in the HOF.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 13:15:35 GMT -5
Allen -- That argument has nothing to do with anything factual. It calls for an opinion. Rog -- And the best opinions are as fact-based as possible. Without the FACT that Barry used steroids, we wouldn't be having this converstation. Allen -- Mine is that anyone who cheated shouldn't be in the HOF. I have considered that baseball turned a blind eye to the problem, but that doesn't excuse the player's dishonesty. Rog -- If I could start the Hall over again, it wouldn't have so many members. Like you, I wouldn't allow anyone who cheated (which, sadly, a lot of Hall of Famers did). I wouldn't admit marginal candidates, but rather those who clearly stood above. I would have no problem leaving out players who seemed by the preponderance of the evidence to have cheated. But the Hall has admitted plenty of cheaters; plenty of marginal candidates. Hey, perhaps we should be purist and say that despite these other issues, we should start right now with "improving" the caliber of players admitted to the Hall. Still, while I agree with you that the players knew they were doing wrong, I would question whether their achievements should be punished by being allowed by baseball when baseball turned a blind eye. And I would wonder what to do with those who were SUSPECTED of steroid use, not proven to have used. Allen -- You seem to have ignored how unfair including those that cheated would be to those that didn't cheat. Rog -- Which, by the way, makes Pedro Martinez's peak -- assuming he himself didn't cheat -- all the more amazing. Here is a guy pitching to steroid-crazed hitters, pitching to them in hitter-friendly Fenway Field, and still posting an ERA of 1.74 -- more than three full runs below league average -- in 2000. Allen -- What this comes down to, from you, from some others on the board, from Ratto, from some guys on the radio talks shows, is that you want your boy Bonds to be in the HOF. Rog -- Here is where you go wrong, Allen. Barry is not "my boy." He's certainly not the curmdgeonly Ray Ratto's. I admire you for your ethics here, even if I don't think you fully appreciate other's opinions on the matters. You clearly don't even understand the thought process others on this board are using (no pun). I respect you for your opinion and at the purest level, agree with it. But I have mentioned the ethical DILEMMA. You seem to see none. I don't think the issue is as black and white as you do. If I do arrive at the same final opinion as you, I will feel I have tried to examine in depth all the issues involved. I hope I'm wrong, but your posting on baseball and political matters don't give me the impression you try to look clearly at all sides of an issue. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1407&page=1#8147#ixzz2GHDBeNCD |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 27, 2012 20:08:08 GMT -5
I agree. I would be alot harder than even baseball is on steroid cheats. No suspensions. Get caught once and it's hit the bricks. No severance, no hearing. Goodbye and good riddance.
Steroid cheats know that what they're doing is wrong. Why cut them a break? It's not as iof they just "made a mistake". They decided to cheat and they cheated. Make the consequences more dire and they'll think at least twice before they cheat.
I have no problem with excluding the cheaters. I feel no empathy whatsoever for them.
|
|
I obviously didn't pick up on that either, hence the Ellis Burks signing I mentioned.