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 Mar 22, 2013 11:34:11 GMT -5
Randy -- Here is what I do know...
Rog -- OK. But how about the stuff I ASKED if you knew? Am I to assume you are completely ignorant of those things (I think to the greater extent, you were.) and still ARE? I would presume you know it now.
Dood - some I didnt know, most of what I did not know I'm not surprised to know, and all of it seems pretty irrelevant to me given the facts I've posted.
Randy -- Gillespie got sent back down to the minors after a cup of coffee in 2011 and hasnt had a sniff of the show since.
Rog -- As a Dodger hater, you should love this guy. The Dodgers won the final game Cole played for the Diamondbacks, but not without a fight. Cole hit a grand slam against them in the 9th.
Dood - I'd be happier A) if the Dodgers had lost, and/or B) if he'd done it as a Giant.
Randy -- He was kicked to the curb by a mediocre team because he had no chance of making the big league roster (not even as a 5th outfielder).
Rog -- Don't know that he had no chance of making the roster, but clearly the Diamondbacks didn't think it was very good, or at least chose to go another way.
Dood - whatever...he wasnt even good enough for the Dbacks to give a shot at making their team...so what good would he be to a championship team when a mediocre one kicked his ass to the curb?
As is the case with a couple of other posters here, you seem to refuse to change your mind or even acknowledge a good point.
Dood - untrue...first, you need to make a good point though
Even on this subject, I used what BOBBY EVANS said to help forge my original (after the pre-spring training Roger Kieschnick choice) opinion that Gillespie would make it. I later briefly changed my opinion to Peguero before changing back after Gillespie's walk-off home run.
Dood - So one at bat in a late inning ST game against some minor league scrub is enough to change your mind? Wow, you're trippin', dude...
Now, as for what I know (or at least appears highly likely):
You seem to disregard a lot of points made that go against your opinion. You don't seem to refute them, but rather to simply ignore them. Your last post is a clear example.
Dood - Only if the point's relevance seems questionable or is given more weight than it deserves.
You try to demean, which is often a sign of desperation.
Dood - one could argue that your arrogance and pomposity shows that you are quite desperate, using your own logic.
You very rarely change your opinion. I'm sure you have on the odd occasion, but I don't remember it.
Dood - your memory is failing.
By the way, Randy, I will re-issue a question I have asked several times here without any signinficant answer: What is it that you know about the game from watching that I don't?
Dood - it's not what I know from watching it...it's what I know from having played it that you do not. You look only at stats to make your opinions. If you see something on the field that doesn't match up with the stats, then you will go with the stats. That's not always bad but there's a lot you don't pay attention to due to this stats bias of yours. I could try to explain it to you but without having had to lace up spikes and chew infield dirt yourself, I doubt you will understand...or if you do understand, you probably will still fall back to the stats, as is your habit.
I believe it was you who made the ridiculous claim that I don't even watch the games, so the very least you could do to support your claim -- even if it is false -- is to give many and clear examples of things you know that I don't.
Dood - I believe what I said that the claims you make made it seem like you do not watch. You were given eyes but you do not always see what is before you...if it isnt a stats sheet.
It's time to step to the plate, Randy. I'm looking for hard, cold facts. Not your frequent ignorance (in the sense of ignoring).
Dood - there you go with your desperately demeaning statements again. Look for your facts on the stats sheet, dude...I'll stick to watching and enjoying the games themselves.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 22, 2013 20:42:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 22, 2013 20:57:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 22, 2013 21:14:44 GMT -5
Dood - whatever...he wasnt even good enough for the Dbacks to give a shot at making their team...so what good would he be to a championship team when a mediocre one kicked his ass to the curb? Rog -- Teams make mistakes, and players grow. These are much younger guys, but both Roberto Clemente and Johann Santana (along with many other very good players) were lost in the Rule 5 draft. The point is, Gillespie has a chance to make the team, even if as a stopgap. Two weeks ago, even with Francisco Peguero hitting over .500, when Bobby Evans was asked if Francisco Peguero was leading and would likely wind up as the 5th outfielder, Evans replied -- and I believe this is word-for-word -- "Cole Gillespike will have something to say about that." So in other words, it is highly likely that the Giants' brass was seriously considering Gillespie two weeks ago. Since then -- aside from his walk-off home run -- he hasn't hit very well. But niether has Peguero. Andrew Baggarly brought up what I thought was a good point when he said that the improvement/return to healthy of Gregor Blanco and Andres Torres could work against Peguero, since it indicated the 5th outfielder would play less. The more the younger Peguero could play, the more likely his chances of making the 5th outfielder position. Maybe if he were going to be more of a 4A than a 5 (my comment). ' Regardless of what you say, Gillespie has a shot at that final outfield position. That's a whole lot more likely than that he will become an insurance salesman this year. You're incorrigible, Randy. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OKBVxhTx
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 22, 2013 23:05:09 GMT -5
Rog -- Don't know that he had no chance of making the roster, but clearly the Diamondbacks didn't think it was very good, or at least chose to go another way. Dood - whatever... Rog -- This illustrates one of the key differences between us, Randy. I try to look at all sides, while you seem intent only on your own. Read what I wrote above. I made YOUR point, not mine -- because there usually are indeed more than one side to the story. I posted something that backed up your side of the argument, and you replied "whatever." That tells me you aren't trying very hard to learn more about the subject. Clearly you didn't even understand what I wrote. Wouldn't the more appropriate response when I brought up an argument SUPPORTING you have been something like "I agree," rather than "whatever?" What in the world does "Don't know that he had no chance of making the roster, but clearly the Diamondbacks didn't think it was very good, or at least chose to go another way" mean? Let's look at it piece by piece. "Don't know that he had no chance of making the roster" is a fact. "But clearly the Diamondbacks didn't think it was very good" indicates that the Diamondbacks didn't think much of Cole, which I believe was YOUR point. "or at least chose to go another way" means that if the Diamondbacks DID think Cole might have made their roster, at the very least they went in another direction. If you're going to be a jerk and not agree when I make points that back up YOUR position, I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion here. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OKdn1Q4B
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 22, 2013 23:06:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 22, 2013 23:08:43 GMT -5
Randy, regardless of who is right here, or if we are both right to some degree, step back and look at your refusal to be reasonable here.
I was reasonable to the point of making a point or two for YOU. At least open your mind rather than not even recognizing it when I make a point in YOUR direction.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 22, 2013 23:15:17 GMT -5
Randy -- I believe it was you who made the ridiculous claim that I don't even watch the games, so the very least you could do to support your claim -- even if it is false -- is to give many and clear examples of things you know that I don't. Dood - I believe what I said that the claims you make made it seem like you do not watch. You were given eyes but you do not always see what is before you...if it isnt a stats sheet. Rog -- Perhaps you would like to give us a few examples. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OKi5WIq0
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 22, 2013 23:19:14 GMT -5
Rog -- It's time to step to the plate, Randy. I'm looking for hard, cold facts. Not your frequent ignorance (in the sense of ignoring). Dood - there you go with your desperately demeaning statements again. Rog -- That wasn't really demeaning. I was afraid it might seem that way, so I made it clear that I was talking about ignoring -- not a lack of knowledge. Randy -- Look for your facts on the stats sheet, dude...I'll stick to watching and enjoying the games themselves. Rog -- You clearly illustrated our differences here, Randy. First of all, you say to look in the stats sheet for facts, as if facts shouldn't matter. Secondly, you say that you'll stick to watching and enjoying the games. This implies that the two are mutually exclusive, which clearly they aren't. If you don't mind, I'll look for facts WHILE watching and enjoying the game. I think you have plenty of intellect to do so as well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OKiSVIah
|
|
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 Mar 24, 2013 1:07:00 GMT -5
Rog -- It's time to step to the plate, Randy. I'm looking for hard, cold facts. Not your frequent ignorance (in the sense of ignoring).
Dood - there you go with your desperately demeaning statements again.
Rog -- That wasn't really demeaning. I was afraid it might seem that way, so I made it clear that I was talking about ignoring -- not a lack of knowledge.
Dood - look up your online dictionary. My dictionary has 3 definitions for Ignorant (of which ignorance is a variant undefined form...ignorance is not listed as a variant undefined form of ignore)...the definitions for ignorant are: 1. Lacking Education or knowledge; 2. Showing a lack of education or knowledge; 3. Unaware or unimformed.
My dictionary shows that your choice of the word "ignorance" could ONLY be seen as demeaning by all 3 definions. The fact that you tried weakly to cover it up just makes it that much more pathetic.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 24, 2013 11:08:06 GMT -5
Rog -- It's time to step to the plate, Randy. I'm looking for hard, cold facts. Not your frequent ignorance (in the sense of ignoring). Dood - there you go with your desperately demeaning statements again. Rog -- That wasn't really demeaning. I was afraid it might seem that way, so I made it clear that I was talking about ignoring -- not a lack of knowledge. Dood - look up your online dictionary. My dictionary has 3 definitions for Ignorant (of which ignorance is a variant undefined form...ignorance is not listed as a variant undefined form of ignore)...the definitions for ignorant are: 1. Lacking Education or knowledge; 2. Showing a lack of education or knowledge; 3. Unaware or unimformed. My dictionary shows that your choice of the word "ignorance" could ONLY be seen as demeaning by all 3 definions. The fact that you tried weakly to cover it up just makes it that much more pathetic. Rog -- I wasn't trying to cover ANYTHING up, and I agree I could have used a better choice of words, but look at what was written. When I posted the word I realized I hadn't quite spoken properly and thus added (in the sense of ignoring). It would be like if I had written -- in the opposite direction -- that you were insightful (in the sense of being able to see). Hey, Randy, read whatever you want into things (and I agree I myself didn't do a very good job here). But it was intriguing that you picked this particular thing to respond to rather than the other, far more meanningful, discussions. As an aside -- and not meant in any way to disparage your point, which I admitted was a good one regardless of my intentions -- I'm kind of surprised by the first two definitions, which seem virtually redundant if not entirely so. Oh, and one final thought. This one IS related to your point here. The root of ignorance is indeed "ignore," which is the direction I was attempting to lead you. If you had merely misunderstood, I would myself have more understanding. That I POINTED OUT that my meaning was a little different than the word would normally indicate leads me to believe -- as was the case when you were critical even though I was supporting your point -- that you are mostly arguing for the sake of arguing. Also, I couldn't help yesterday, watching the game, wondering why John Millar was being such a Dodgers fan and actually talking about Yasiel Puig and why Cole Gillespie obviously hadn't been paying attention. As another aside, Gillespie didn't look very good trying to chase down the catcher's triple, a play which Francisco Peguero almost certainly would have held to a single. But, hey, Gregor Blanco didn't look very good trying to pick the ball up, either. It happens. In a way, one could say Gillespie allowed a potential single to turn into a double, and Blanco compounded the difficulty by allowing it to become a double. Of course, if Gillespie had made his play (which was a tough one, but which the speedier Peguero would handled), Blanco wouldn't have had to make his. And once Blanco picked up the ball, the relay play to third was excellent. Isn't it intriguing that this whole back and forth between us started when I happened to hear Bobby Evans reply to a comment that it appeared the hot-hitting Peguero was winning the 5th outfielder job, and Bobby replied "Cole Gillespie will have something to do with that."? My guess would still be that Cole will win the job, but it wouldn't yet appear to be certain. And we ARE talking about a 5th outfielder job, not the starting left field job or even the primary backup. Intriguing that Baggarly, I believe it was, pointed out that when the Giants had their split squad day (Wednesday?), both Gillespie and Peguero started at the corners. IIRC Peguero went something like 1 for 4, while Gillespie went hitless but drew a walk and scored a run. In other words, NEITHER player exactly distinguised himself at the plate, although it appeared Peguero's performance was slightly less embarrassing. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#9718#ixzz2OTMdSCDg
|
|
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 Mar 24, 2013 13:14:41 GMT -5
Isn't it intriguing that this whole back and forth between us started when I happened to hear Bobby Evans reply to a comment that it appeared the hot-hitting Peguero was winning the 5th outfielder job, and Bobby replied "Cole Gillespie will have something to do with that."?
My guess would still be that Cole will win the job, but it wouldn't yet appear to be certain. And we ARE talking about a 5th outfielder job, not the starting left field job or even the primary backup.
Dood - I just was confused why these guys--mostly Francisco and Roger--were being passed over and sort of forgotten by Evans and Bochy in favor of this nobody from nowhere who was only notable for being a career minor league hack. I want to see our homegrown boys on the big league roster...not someone else's castoff. What's the point of having a minor league system if you're not going to use it? Or maybe the scouting system needs an overhaul.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 25, 2013 9:36:28 GMT -5
Dood - I just was confused why these guys--mostly Francisco and Roger--were being passed over and sort of forgotten by Evans and Bochy in favor of this nobody from nowhere who was only notable for being a career minor league hack. I want to see our homegrown boys on the big league roster...not someone else's castoff. What's the point of having a minor league system if you're not going to use it? Or maybe the scouting system needs an overhaul. Rog -- You keep demeaning Cole Gillespie. This "hack" has a career .867 OBP in the minors. Kieschnick's is .811; Peguero's is .771. There are factors that might equalize those numbers, but there is little evidence the "hack" is less a hitter than the other two. Peguero is easily the best fielder of the three, while Gillespie and Kieschnick are pretty close in the field. Kieschnick flat-out isn't ready, as his very poor spring performance indicates. He has the most power of the three, and his time may not be too far away. One could make a nice argument for Peguero, but if he isn't a better hitter than Gillespie (and the evidence certainly isn't clear that he is), shouldn't he be honing his skills on an everday basis? Right now it is hard to say that Gillespie isn't the equal or better of the other two. With that being the case, why not have both of them playing every day? As for having homegrown boys on the roster, look how many of their top players ARE homegrown (even though Ryan Vogelsong is something of a prodical son). That's probably a nice tribute to the scouts you question, as well. Yes, the Giants have benefitted from three high picks (Lincecum, Bumgarner and Posey), but they scored BIG with each of those picks, far from a certain in a less-than-certain draft. Matt Cain was a third-quartile first rounder, and Pablo Sandoval and Brandon Belt came somewhat out of nowhere. Brandon Crawford was the fourth player selected by the Giants IIRC. The Giants are considered to have among the best young talent is among the best in baseball. The only area I can think of where they are behind the curve is in signing high-visibility foreign free agents. But the Giants win two out of three World Series, and you're questioning their scouting and judgment? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#9721#ixzz2OYrc96bB
|
|
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 Mar 25, 2013 12:09:21 GMT -5
what I'm judging is the current minor league talent pool. Yes the current Giants are good but if you have to bring in a career minor leaguer, your talent pool is lacking. Like you said, the scouts hit it big with high picks but it's clear the organization doesn't think much of what's left.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 25, 2013 12:59:38 GMT -5
Dood- what I'm judging is the current minor league talent pool. Yes the current Giants are good but if you have to bring in a career minor leaguer, your talent pool is lacking. Like you said, the scouts hit it big with high picks but it's clear the organization doesn't think much of what's left.
Boagie- Weren't you for the Carlos Beltran trade too?
We could have Wheeler waiting in the wings right now, which would be very nice considering Lincecum and Zito could likely be gone next year.
As far as the Giants thoughts on their talent pool, I don't think Brown and Panik are off their radar as much as the media would suggest, they both had a good second half.
I know they're excited about Crick, Stratton and Blackburn.
They're excited about Gustavo Cabrera, a 17 year old Domincan kid they drafted who was ranked the #1 international prospect. The scouts love him, 5 tool player who draws comparisons to Justin Upton.
I'm sure they're happy to have Angel Villalona back. Let's not forget that he's still only 22. With his off the radar progress over the last 2 years he could fly through the system and maybe make it to the big club by next year. That's me being very optimistic of course, but power-wise you could probably stick him out there now and he'd hit 20 homeruns, but strikeout 200 times.
But you're right, Randy, we don't have any more Busters, or Timmys, Bumgarners, or Wheelers. Winning World Championships doesn't get you very good picks. But we do have some sneaky prospects who could make some noise in the next few years. I think I'll take the Championships and the sneaky prospects over the high draft picks, at least for a little while.
|
|
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 Mar 25, 2013 13:26:45 GMT -5
Dood- what I'm judging is the current minor league talent pool. Yes the current Giants are good but if you have to bring in a career minor leaguer, your talent pool is lacking. Like you said, the scouts hit it big with high picks but it's clear the organization doesn't think much of what's left.
Boagie- Weren't you for the Carlos Beltran trade too?
Dood - yes and even though Carlos delivered exactly what was expected when he was healthy, clearly the Giants may have miscalculated the pitching depth behind Wheeler.
We could have Wheeler waiting in the wings right now, which would be very nice considering Lincecum and Zito could likely be gone next year.
Dood - quite true...but then again, I heard Zack just got sent back down to the minors too. Not a great endorsement considering RA Dickey fled the rotation.
As far as the Giants thoughts on their talent pool, I don't think Brown and Panik are off their radar as much as the media would suggest, they both had a good second half.
I know they're excited about Crick, Stratton and Blackburn.
Dood - I'm excited about most of those guys...but the Giants' actions of late really shows they arent real excited about any of them. They re-signed Pagan to a long term deal, effectively keeping Brown back. They looked as far as Japan to keep Panick and Noonan back. Crick has been ok but there's no indication the Giants believe he is anywhere near ready. And with Gillespie, the most unkindest cut of all. How do you think Peguero and Keischnick will feel about their opportunities if they can't even crack the big league roster over a 29-year-old AZ castoff? It doesn't seem likely the Giants have much belief in either of those guys anymore.
CSNBA's latest "Inside the Clubhouse" feature from Scottsdale didnt devote a single minute of air time to any of those "prospects"...instead they had a feature on Chad Gaudin.
Ouch
They're excited about Gustavo Cabrera, a 17 year old Domincan kid they drafted who was ranked the #1 international prospect. The scouts love him, 5 tool player who draws comparisons to Justin Upton.
Dood - Tell that to Rog...he'd rather drool over Dodger prospects.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 25, 2013 15:22:52 GMT -5
Randy -- what I'm judging is the current minor league talent pool. Rog -- I agree with you that it isn't very good. I would also say that the Giants' top "prospects" have already reached the majors (Lincecum, Bumgarner, Posey, Crawford and Belt). Zack Wheeler was also a very good pick, and Brown, Panik and Stratton may turn out that way. The Giants' top two prospects this winter were pitchers drafted recently. I'm not seeing a weakness in Giants scouting. Randy -- Yes the current Giants are good but if you have to bring in a career minor leaguer, your talent pool is lacking. Rog -- The Giants have had GREAT success in recent years with retreads. They certainly wouldn't have won the World Series in 2010 without them. How do you think they would have fared last season without Vogelsong, Casilla, Mijares, Hensley, Lopez, Kontos, Theriot, Arias and Scutaro? The Giants acquired EACH of those guys without giving up much of anything. Randy -- Like you said, the scouts hit it big with high picks but it's clear the organization doesn't think much of what's left. Rog -- And rightfully so, IMO. I'm not saying the Giants' scouts are the greatest, but I think it is foolish to say they are deficient. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#9743#ixzz2OaIUiwCU
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 25, 2013 15:27:39 GMT -5
Boagie- Weren't you for the Carlos Beltran trade too? Dood - yes and even though Carlos delivered exactly what was expected when he was healthy, clearly the Giants may have miscalculated the pitching depth behind Wheeler. Rog -- A couple of things here: First, if you are a good enough judge of the Giants' scouts to suggest they be replaced, why weren't you against the Wheeler trade? I guess my point is that if you know enough to rightly say that the Giants should revise their scouting department, you should have known enough not to be for the Beltran trade. Second, I don't think the Giants miscalculated the depth behind Wheeler. It is considered better now than when the trade was made. I think the Giants mostly miscalculated how good Wheeler might become, how the trade would work out in the short run, and how much they would want to re-sign Beltran. If you look back at the Giants' pitching prospects of a year ago, you will see they weren't rated nearly as highly as they are now. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OaKv2SOo
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 25, 2013 15:35:54 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 Mar 25, 2013 15:42:51 GMT -5
Randy -- Yes the current Giants are good but if you have to bring in a career minor leaguer, your talent pool is lacking.
Rog -- The Giants have had GREAT success in recent years with retreads. They certainly wouldn't have won the World Series in 2010 without them.
How do you think they would have fared last season without Vogelsong, Casilla, Mijares, Hensley, Lopez, Kontos, Theriot, Arias and Scutaro? The Giants acquired EACH of those guys without giving up much of anything.
Dood - the difference, of course, between the retreads on that list (I would NOT consider Lopez, Kontos and Scutaro to be retreads since they were acquired via trades...and Theriot was hired to be a starter) and Gillespie is that all of those guys had far more BIG LEAGUE experience than Cole. And most had had far more success in the big leagues also prior to becoming Giants. This is the biggest reason I am dubious about giving this guy the job seemingly with no track record to back it up and also being outplayed by Peguero thus far in the Cactus League.
Also, Hensley and Arias could probably have been replaced without much dropoff. I like Joaquin but the fact is he was replaceable. Hensley was awful as often as he was effective. Vogelsong and Kontos both had to earn their way up to the Giants by performing in Fresno first. I would be much more comfortable letting Cole do that and give Peguero the job which he clearly is earning.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 25, 2013 22:32:15 GMT -5
Dood - yes and even though Carlos delivered exactly what was expected when he was healthy, clearly the Giants may have miscalculated the pitching depth behind Wheeler.
Boagie- There was no depth behind Wheeler when he was traded, which is why I was 100% against the trade.
Dood - quite true...but then again, I heard Zack just got sent back down to the minors too. Not a great endorsement considering RA Dickey fled the rotation.
Boagie- I saw Wheeler pitch, by the end of the year you'll have a much better idea of what we gave up, and you won't like it.
Dood - I'm excited about most of those guys...but the Giants' actions of late really shows they arent real excited about any of them. They re-signed Pagan to a long term deal, effectively keeping Brown back.
Boagie- There are 3 outfield positions in baseball.
Dood-They looked as far as Japan to keep Panick and Noonan back.
Boagie- I didn't agree with signing Tanaka, but Panik is nowhere close to being ready. Noonan I like, but there's nothing wrong with competition for spots. Getting Tanaka wasn't creating a logjam, because as we saw, he's not very good.
Randy- Crick has been ok but there's no indication the Giants believe he is anywhere near ready
Boagie- He's only pitched as high as low A ball, if the Giants thought he was ready then I'd definitely support your idea of firing the scouts.
Dood- How do you think Peguero and Keischnick will feel about their opportunities if they can't even crack the big league roster over a 29-year-old AZ castoff? It doesn't seem likely the Giants have much belief in either of those guys anymore.
Boagie- Keischnick hasn't proven he should get a chance yet. If I were the Giants I'd trade him.
I think the Gillespie/Peguero argument is your best one, and I know this is what is fueling your disagreement of how they're handling things. but I'd like to make a few points for keeping Peguero at Fresno:
First, We have Torres and Blanco, I think they're looking for a player to best compliment their abilities. Torres and Blanco are fast and great defensively, so it would make sense to compliment them with a right handed bat with some pop. Gillespie fits that player better than Peguero does.
Secondly, I don't think the Giants and Bochy see Peguero like you think they do. I believe they consider Peguero a possible starter in the near future. Because of this, it makes MUCH more sense to give Peguero as much playing time as possible. Being the 5th outfielder will definitely limit his playing time. It would make sense to bring Peguero if he gets playing time, if one of the 3 mentioned outfielder doesn't work out, Peguero will be called up. One thing about Sabean in the last few years, he doesn't hesitate pulling the plug on a player. If Torres, Blanco or Gillespie don't produce, they'll be gone.
Like I said before, I agree with you sentiment. I think our guys should get the chance. But lets face it, we're no longer trying to be competitive, we're now the big boys. This isn't the same team that held our young players back because we wanted to play the 38 year old player with the contract. Pence and Pagan are in their prime. Gillespie is only 28.
This team now benches Huff and starts Belt. This team releases Tejada and promotes Crawford. I like how things are going, I think we have a good balance of promoting our guys, and also evaluating the late bloomers like Blanco, Vogelsong and Torres. From what I've seen recently, if Bochy and Sabean like Gillespie and want to give more time to Peguero, then I'm jumping on board too.
|
|
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 Mar 25, 2013 23:00:10 GMT -5
They re-signed Pagan to a long term deal, effectively keeping Brown back.
Boagie- There are 3 outfield positions in baseball.
Dood - True but he is best suited as a CF/top of the order player. As far as I know he hasn't played any corner OF spot as a pro.
I think the Gillespie/Peguero argument is your best one, and I know this is what is fueling your disagreement of how they're handling things. but I'd like to make a few points for keeping Peguero at Fresno:
First, We have Torres and Blanco, I think they're looking for a player to best compliment their abilities. Torres and Blanco are fast and great defensively, so it would make sense to compliment them with a right handed bat with some pop. Gillespie fits that player better than Peguero does.
Dood - I havent seen Gillespie but what I've seen of Peguero the kid has pop in his bat. Maybe it doesn't show in his HR totals but from what I have seen in Gillespie's #s, he isnt exactly a huge deep threat either. He also has the baggage of having been a failure at the big league level AND summarily shit canned by a bad team. I just dont see why this guy gets more credit than what we already have and if he does, why should our scouts keep their jobs?
Secondly, I don't think the Giants and Bochy see Peguero like you think they do. I believe they consider Peguero a possible starter in the near future. Because of this, it makes MUCH more sense to give Peguero as much playing time as possible. Being the 5th outfielder will definitely limit his playing time. It would make sense to bring Peguero if he gets playing time, if one of the 3 mentioned outfielder doesn't work out, Peguero will be called up. One thing about Sabean in the last few years, he doesn't hesitate pulling the plug on a player. If Torres, Blanco or Gillespie don't produce, they'll be gone.
Dood - I might go along with this if Francisco didnt already spend a full season at Fresno last year. He's not a baby. I believe he has more to learn being around a big league clubhouse than he does by staying in the bus leagues for another year.
Like I said before, I agree with you sentiment. I think our guys should get the chance. But lets face it, we're no longer trying to be competitive, we're now the big boys. This isn't the same team that held our young players back because we wanted to play the 38 year old player with the contract. Pence and Pagan are in their prime. Gillespie is only 28.
Dood - again...if this was a veteran who has a track record in the show then I could see THIS argument...but he's been a train wreck failure in the bigs and he got kicked to the curb. Why are we even considering giving him a chance?
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 25, 2013 23:14:17 GMT -5
Randy -- Yes the current Giants are good but if you have to bring in a career minor leaguer, your talent pool is lacking. Rog -- The Giants have had GREAT success in recent years with retreads. They certainly wouldn't have won the World Series in 2010 without them. How do you think they would have fared last season without Vogelsong, Casilla, Mijares, Hensley, Lopez, Kontos, Theriot, Arias and Scutaro? The Giants acquired EACH of those guys without giving up much of anything. Dood - the difference, of course, between the retreads on that list (I would NOT consider Lopez, Kontos and Scutaro to be retreads since they were acquired via trades...and Theriot was hired to be a starter) and Gillespie is that all of those guys had far more BIG LEAGUE experience than Cole. And most had had far more success in the big leagues also prior to becoming Giants. This is the biggest reason I am dubious about giving this guy the job seemingly with no track record to back it up and also being outplayed by Peguero thus far in the Cactus League. Also, Hensley and Arias could probably have been replaced without much dropoff. I like Joaquin but the fact is he was replaceable. Hensley was awful as often as he was effective. Vogelsong and Kontos both had to earn their way up to the Giants by performing in Fresno first. I would be much more comfortable letting Cole do that and give Peguero the job which he clearly is earning. Rog -- You make some good points here, but I would ask a few questions: 1. Was Theriot truly acquired to be a starter? Manny Burriss started 14 games at second base in April; Theriot began 8. In April, Burriss began 15 games; Theriot started 10. Theriot took over at the end of May because Burriss (.499 OPS) was just awful. I think Theriot was acquired because he could back up both second and short. Ryan was somewhat limited by injury, but he wound up starting only half the Giants' games. Together, Burriss and Arias started more, and of course Marco Scutaro took over second base at the trade deadline. 2. I agree with you to an extent that neither Lopez nor Kontos were retreads, yet when he was acquired, you called Lopez a "ham and egger." Did you even noticed when Kontos was acquired? I don't think many here did. 3. Is Peguero truly outplaying Gillespie this spring? At the very least I think one could argue for either player. Peguero's OPS is nearly 50 points lower than Gillespie's, even though Francisco got off to an extremely hot start. Peguero has to hit around .300 to be a good hitter. Because he walks and has more power, Gillespie doesn't have to hit close to .300 to be a good one. Clearly Peguero is the better fielder. But since the Giants' 3rd and 4th outfielders are known for their defense and speed more than for their hitting, the Giants need hitting -- especially power hitting -- from their 5th outfielder. 4. Wouldn't it have been tough to replace Arias without a clear drop off? He played well backing up three positions, and gave the Giants a big boost when Pablo Sandoval was out injured. For instance, Arias was valued at about a win and a half more than Theriot. 5. Would Hensley have been easy to replace?. Hensley filled a very versatile role early in the season, providing 7 holds, 3 wins and 2 saves in the season's first two and a half months. As late as August 18th, he had 8 holds, 4 wins and 3 saves to go with a 3.27 ERA. 6. Is Peguero clearly earning the 5th outfielder job? If so, why has Gillespie outhit him so badly since early in spring training? I think one could make an argument for either player. But to say that Peguero is clearly earning the job would seem questionable to me. Overstated at the very least. Like many who have played winter ball, Francisco got off to a terrifically hot start to spring training. But I believe he has only 8 hits in his last 35 at bats. Peguero clealry has more speed, but he hasn't helped himself much this spring with 3 steals in 5 attempts. Even though Peguero is outhitting Gillespie by 75 points, his OBP is 29 points LOWER. Gillespie gets on base more often and hits for more power. That's not easy to overcome. My final question: Why do you make highly-opinionated statements like "(Peguero) is clearly winning (the job)" without backing your statement up? I have done a far better job of objectively comparing the players and have more fairly stated that one can make an argument for either player (even though Gillespie appears to give the Giants more of the 5th outfielder description they desire). I have a more fair and balanced opinion than you, and yet I provide a detailed comparision of the players, while you simply bluster on. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#9770#ixzz2Oc4SwfbW
|
|
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 Mar 26, 2013 2:12:09 GMT -5
Rog -- You make some good points here, but I would ask a few questions:
1. Was Theriot truly acquired to be a starter? Manny Burriss started 14 games at second base in April; Theriot began 8. In April, Burriss began 15 games; Theriot started 10. Theriot took over at the end of May because Burriss (.499 OPS) was just awful.
I think Theriot was acquired because he could back up both second and short. Ryan was somewhat limited by injury, but he wound up starting only half the Giants' games. Together, Burriss and Arias started more, and of course Marco Scutaro took over second base at the trade deadline.
Dood - I think if Theriot truly believed that he couldnt win a starting spot here, he wouldnt have come. We're seeing this year that he doesnt want to sign because he wants to start.
2. I agree with you to an extent that neither Lopez nor Kontos were retreads, yet when he was acquired, you called Lopez a "ham and egger." Did you even noticed when Kontos was acquired? I don't think many here did.
Dood - I recall being the first to post it here...last year, late in Spring when Hector was doing so great that we had an opportunity to get some value for Chris Stewart. I knew George wasn't a big leaguer yet but was hopeful we would see what he could do soon. I don't recall Bobby Evans telling us that he was going to make the team right off the bat. As to my comments about Lopez...I knew he was a decent LOOGY who had some real good years before but I wanted a lefty who could get righties out also. I wanted Marshall. I hadnt seen enough of Javy to know that was part of his game. That said, I would NEVER have referred to him as a "retread."
3. Is Peguero truly outplaying Gillespie this spring? At the very least I think one could argue for either player. Peguero's OPS is nearly 50 points lower than Gillespie's, even though Francisco got off to an extremely hot start.
Peguero has to hit around .300 to be a good hitter. Because he walks and has more power, Gillespie doesn't have to hit close to .300 to be a good one.
Clearly Peguero is the better fielder. But since the Giants' 3rd and 4th outfielders are known for their defense and speed more than for their hitting, the Giants need hitting -- especially power hitting -- from their 5th outfielder.
Dood - just saying...this guy hasnt shown me enough to say he's better already than what we had. And for Bobby Evans to pick this guy off the scrap heap and say he's better than every other available outfielder that Evans himself drafted is a poor self-indictment.
5. Would Hensley have been easy to replace?. Hensley filled a very versatile role early in the season, providing 7 holds, 3 wins and 2 saves in the season's first two and a half months. As late as August 18th, he had 8 holds, 4 wins and 3 saves to go with a 3.27 ERA.
Dood - Hensley was good early on as you mentioned...but then he got horrible. If he hadn't been bailed out of dozens of his own messes by our better relievers (gaining himself a "hold" each time even though he was rocked), his ERA would have been worse than the already bad 4.62, more commensurate with his ugly 1.58 WHIP.
6. Is Peguero clearly earning the 5th outfielder job? If so, why has Gillespie outhit him so badly since early in spring training?
Dood - I believe Francisco is outplaying Gillespie...if you consider fielding and baserunning as equal thirds along with hitting then it really isnt that close. As I told Boagie, if Gillespie had a good big league track record, then maybe I go along with his selection. But since his only good times have been in the minor leagues, he would need to be outdoing our own homegrown farmhands by a huge amount this spring for me to bypass the guys in whom we have already invested large amounts of time, money and draft picks.
I think one could make an argument for either player. But to say that Peguero is clearly earning the job would seem questionable to me. Overstated at the very least.
Dood - you're entitled to your opinion and it is no better than mine.
My final question: Why do you make highly-opinionated statements like "(Peguero) is clearly winning (the job)" without backing your statement up?
I have done a far better job of objectively comparing the players and have more fairly stated that one can make an argument for either player (even though Gillespie appears to give the Giants more of the 5th outfielder description they desire).
Dood - more desperate demeaning commentary. Screw you asswipe! You think your opinion is so much better than mine and that's fine. It doesnt do a thing to change my nimd. If you dont want to change your opinion, I could not care less.
I have a more fair and balanced opinion than you, and yet I provide a detailed comparision of the players, while you simply bluster on.
Dood - whatever. You're an arrogant pile of dung. Whether you are right or wrong you're still a douchebag. Enjoy that.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 26, 2013 8:11:45 GMT -5
1. Was Theriot truly acquired to be a starter? Manny Burriss started 14 games at second base in April; Theriot began 8. In April, Burriss began 15 games; Theriot started 10. Theriot took over at the end of May because Burriss (.499 OPS) was just awful. I think Theriot was acquired because he could back up both second and short. Ryan was somewhat limited by injury, but he wound up starting only half the Giants' games. Together, Burriss and Arias started more, and of course Marco Scutaro took over second base at the trade deadline. Dood - I think if Theriot truly believed that he couldnt win a starting spot here, he wouldnt have come. We're seeing this year that he doesnt want to sign because he wants to start. Rog -- But you said that Theriot was ACQUIRED to be a starter. That statement appears highly questionable. Manny Burriss was HORRIBLE with the Giants last season, yet in April and May, he started several more games than Theriot. It seems clear that Theriot was acquired to be a utility man, not a starter. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#9782#ixzz2OeQMVxiT
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 26, 2013 8:14:32 GMT -5
Dood - just saying...this guy hasnt shown me enough to say he's better already than what we had. And for Bobby Evans to pick this guy off the scrap heap and say he's better than every other available outfielder that Evans himself drafted is a poor self-indictment. Rog -- Bobby didn't say Gillespie was better than Peguero. What he said was that Gillespie would have something to say about the 5th outfielder spot. Meanwhile, you said that Cole should be selling insurance. Which of you is being objective and showing better judgment? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OeR8Z9CX
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 26, 2013 8:15:51 GMT -5
5. Would Hensley have been easy to replace?. Hensley filled a very versatile role early in the season, providing 7 holds, 3 wins and 2 saves in the season's first two and a half months. As late as August 18th, he had 8 holds, 4 wins and 3 saves to go with a 3.27 ERA. Dood - Hensley was good early on as you mentioned... Rog -- Which means he would have been hard to replace. Early on, Clay's versatility made him one of the most important relievers on the staff. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OeRh7E8E
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 26, 2013 8:23:13 GMT -5
6. Is Peguero clearly earning the 5th outfielder job? If so, why has Gillespie outhit him so badly since early in spring training? Dood - I believe Francisco is outplaying Gillespie...if you consider fielding and baserunning as equal thirds along with hitting then it really isnt that close. Rog -- But fielding and base running AREN'T equal thirds along with hitting -- especially considering power hitting is the primary role the Giants are looking for from their 5th outfielder. Hey, if Peguero could draw a walk, he'd likely be the Giants' STARTING left fielder. But he can't, so he isn't. He would benefit from going back to Fresno and trying to combine plate judgment with still retaining his aggressiveness there. One could argue that EITHER Peguero or Gillespie has had the better spring, but cutting it into (equal) thirds is ridiculous. Why not throw in power hitting, plate judgment and experience to make it SIXTHS? That's even more ridiculous -- but just an expansion of your unfair position. I believe your problem here is that your mind is already made up, and you aren't willing to look at the facts. When one does that, it is clear that an argument can be made for either player and for someone to call one player or the other an insurance salesman is truly foolish. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OeS4gFN1
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 26, 2013 8:31:54 GMT -5
I think one could make an argument for either player. But to say that Peguero is clearly earning the job would seem questionable to me. Overstated at the very least. Dood - you're entitled to your opinion and it is no better than mine. Rog -- Actually, Randy, my opinion IS better than yours. Not because I'm smarter. Not because I'm wiser. Not because I am more knowledgeable. (Heck, not even because I'm older.: My opinion here is better than yours because it is more balanced. It's kind of like the old Billy Martin beer commercial when he is asked whether the beer is better because it's light, or because it tastes great. Billy says "I feel very strongly both ways." Well, for some it was better because it was light and they needed to cut down on calories. For others, it was the taste that was important. In that argument you would be saying that tasting great is FAR more important than being light (or vice versa). In other words, looking at only one side of the argument. Martin's reply was humorous -- but it did imply looking at both sides of the argument and giving weight to each. Your scale appears to be out of balance, Randy. You may be right -- but not to nearly the extent you proclaim. If you truly were, you wouldn't have to resort to phrases such as "selling insurance" and "minor league hack." I have pointed out areas where each player exceeds the other. You try to imply that base running and fielding are as important as hitting for a 5th outfielder. Clearly, you are showing a West Coast bias. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OeTqGntS
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 26, 2013 8:33:55 GMT -5
My final question: Why do you make highly-opinionated statements like "(Peguero) is clearly winning (the job)" without backing your statement up? I have done a far better job of objectively comparing the players and have more fairly stated that one can make an argument for either player (even though Gillespie appears to give the Giants more of the 5th outfielder description they desire). Dood - more desperate demeaning commentary. Screw you asswipe! Rog -- Who appears more desparate here, Randy? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1609&page=2#ixzz2OeWA7CD8
|
|