|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 11, 2013 15:06:14 GMT -5
Jon Heyman reported today that the Giants are basically in on all starters, even at the highest level, which includes Matt Garza, Ubaldo Jimenez and Ervin Santana. They're also considering free agent outfielders, which includes center fielders, as they would consider moving Angel Pagan to LF to preserve his legs. He finally acknowledged that their refusal to change Buster Posey's position will all but keep them out of the Brian McCann sweepstakes.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 11, 2013 18:54:26 GMT -5
As an addendum, Henry Schulman actually talked to Sabean, and he's said he has little interest in players with QO's. That would contradict Heyman's report of course. Henry also says they prefer looking at pitchers who only want short term offers. They're supposedly one of the four teams showing the most interest in Brandon Arroyo.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 11, 2013 20:19:18 GMT -5
Any relation to Bronson Arroyo?
This would be the worst place for McCann to sign. He won't hit for as much power here, and he will have to contend with Posey for PT. I can't believe he hasn't signed with the Yankees yet.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 12, 2013 8:13:09 GMT -5
The Giants have so many damn Brandons I get confused sometime! He'll probably change it after joining the team.
|
|
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 Nov 13, 2013 12:28:07 GMT -5
I'm more apt to believe Schulman who has more and better sources within the team than Heyman. Plus, his information is in line with what Baggerly is reporting so there is confirmation.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 13, 2013 23:47:58 GMT -5
I agree. I'll stick with our writers for accuracy. I'm also seeing that the Twins are considered the front runner for Bronson Arroyo. They can have him.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 14, 2013 19:44:35 GMT -5
News today has the Giants in "ongoing negotiations" with Bronson.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 14, 2013 20:19:09 GMT -5
Bob Nightengale, who's a pretty reliable source, said that Arroyo really wants to pitch for the Giants, and the two sides are a "perfect fit." I wouldn't mind two years, but if they go to three because of the threat of the Twins, (who supposedly want him badly) I'll bet they'll be sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 14, 2013 23:59:14 GMT -5
Bob Nightengale is a mainstream sports writer who often badmouths the Giants, how is he a reliable source?
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2013 9:28:16 GMT -5
You can report on discussions you've heard accurately, regardless on whether you like the team or not. Anyway, it appeared up until yesterday that the Twins were the main competition for Arroyo, but a report came out this morning that they've shifted their focus to Nolasco. I'll now be surprised if the Giants DON'T sign Arroyo.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 15, 2013 9:52:20 GMT -5
I'll now be surprised if the Giants DON'T sign Arroyo.
---boly says---
as the # 4 or 5 guy, I can live with Arroyo.
Anyway you slice it, these last 2 years, he's posted considerably better numbers than Tim.
boly
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2013 10:11:01 GMT -5
In a tough ballpark for pitchers, too. I like him as a number four, but I hope they don't go three years for him. I'd also like a similar signing for number five as well.
|
|
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 Nov 15, 2013 18:56:53 GMT -5
I would think 2 and a club option would be the limit the Giants would go for Arroyo. If he demands more, they can get either Hudson or Harren for one year.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2013 21:20:24 GMT -5
Just read that the Giants are in on Nolasco as well, and the Twins are not as close to signing him as rumored yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 15, 2013 22:11:37 GMT -5
I would imagine all these situations are quite fluid.
|
|
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 Nov 15, 2013 23:06:39 GMT -5
I would be shocked if the Giants sign Nolasco...he's wanting a 5 or 6 year deal for large dollars. The Giants are more likely to get a guy that will just hold the places of Crick et al
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 16, 2013 1:15:55 GMT -5
If they sign nolasco for five or six years I too will be shocked. And extremely disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 16, 2013 6:58:20 GMT -5
According to the rumors out there, they've offered him three years.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 20, 2013 16:01:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 21, 2013 0:30:42 GMT -5
Rog -- If he often maligns the Giants, doesn't that make his comment that Bronson Arroyo would like to pitch for the Giants (a point that has been cited here previously) and that they are a perfect fit even more credible? The report doesn't exactly malign the Giants.
Boagie- You think he has any sort of inside source to validate his report? He likely has no friends within the Giants organization, and I doubt he heard from Arroyo himself. If he heard anything, it was likely from Arroyo's agent, whom would say anything to get his client a contract.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 22, 2013 13:02:36 GMT -5
Rog -- If he often maligns the Giants, doesn't that make his comment that Bronson Arroyo would like to pitch for the Giants (a point that has been cited here previously) and that they are a perfect fit even more credible? The report doesn't exactly malign the Giants. Boagie- You think he has any sort of inside source to validate his report? He likely has no friends within the Giants organization, and I doubt he heard from Arroyo himself. If he heard anything, it was likely from Arroyo's agent, whom would say anything to get his client a contract. Rog -- Perhaps you would like to read a summer quote from Bronson himself: "I love San Francisco," Arroyo says. "I love the whole vibe of the city. I love walking down the street and see a guy in a tuxedo, two guys holding hands and some girl with tattoos riding a skateboard. I love the eclecticness of the city...." I just don't understand why we have posters here who get down on a player (or in this case, a writer) and become skeptics that the facts don't seem to matter. As for whether Nightengale has sources inside the Giants, I have no idea. As far as his hating the Giants, do you have inside sources? Here are some of the things I have read from Nightengale that make me think he hates the Giants: "The Giants are no fluke. They don't use gimmicks. They just play hard." Nightengale said the Giants were a fluke. Clearly he hates them. He didn't? "Come on, Sandoval hit only 12 homers in the regular season, so now he's Barry Bonds? Verlander has lasted four or fewer innings just twice in three years, and it's going to happen twice in five days? The Tigers have lost only three times in the last 22 days, and now they're going to match that in a week? It can't possibly happen. Can it?" "Advantage, Tigers. Then again, you can't be sure after tonight." Once again Nightengale shows he hates the Giants. He has the nerve to point how flukey it would be if the Tigers lost (not that the Giants won) the Series. He says it can't happen, but then asks an open-ended "Can it?". He says the because the Tigers have played so well lately and still have Verlander to pitch at least one more time, the Tigers have the advantage. But then he adds, "Then again, you can't be sure after tonight." "On Saturday night, the San Francisco Giants slapped the Tigers around, winning 2-0, and this World Series is mercifully almost over. The Giants are up 3 games to 0. It feels like 300 to 0. If the Tigers were a real animal, they'd be taken out and shot." Heyman says the Giants should be "taken out and shot." Clearly he hates the Giants. Wait. It was the TIGERS he said that about? Now, Nightengale did predict the Tigers would win the World Series. With their pitching led by Justin Verlander, how well they had been playing, and how close the Giants came to being eliminated not once but twice, which reasonable man wouldn't have? But he did add "...no one can deny the Giants have a whole lot of mojo going on." Are you going to open your mind on this one, or will it become another Carlos Beltran? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2085&page=1#16954#ixzz2lOeuNNeX
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 24, 2013 3:56:04 GMT -5
He didn't just predict the Tigers would win, he predicted the Giants not having any chance whatsoever. He also predicted they would lose to the Cardinals. Mind you, this was after they won it all with the same core 2 years prior, and Mr. Nightingale gives no consideration to that fact. He also gave no consideration to momentum after the Cardinals series. To me, after the 7th game of the NLCS, it was a done deal. But that's because I pay attention, I'm not just a sports writer fueled by hype, like your buddy.
Perhaps if Bob had some more connections to teams like the Giants he wouldn't make such bone headed predictions.
So yes, I do question him being a reliable source, when its painfully obvious he has little to no inside track on any Giants happenings. Btw, you really haven't explained what makes him a reliable source.
As far as Arroyo's comments, that's great. That's probably what Bob read that made him a "source."
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 24, 2013 6:43:24 GMT -5
Bogey, your reasons to discredit Bob Nightengale are pretty weak. Picking against the Giants doesn't mean he hates the team. Who didn't pick against the Giants in both the 2010 and 2012 World Series? And what impartial baseball observer wouldn't view the Tigers as the favorite, as they swept the Yankees and had a well rested Verlander all set to pitch against Barry Zito in games one and five? To anybody, that's a 2-0 Tigers advantage, which means the Giants have to win 4 of 5 against the likes of Fister, Scherzer and Anibal Sanchez.. Only a Giants fan would pick the Giants facing those odds. As for Nightengale's sources, I've never heard of the Giants having an ax to grind against any writer, so I'm pretty sure if Nightengale calls Bobby Evans or Brian Sabean, they'd be as candid with him as any other reporter.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 24, 2013 13:28:09 GMT -5
Boagie -- He didn't just predict the Tigers would win, he predicted the Giants not having any chance whatsoever. He also predicted they would lose to the Cardinals. Mind you, this was after they won it all with the same core 2 years prior, and Mr. Nightingale gives no consideration to that fact. He also gave no consideration to momentum after the Cardinals series. To me, after the 7th game of the NLCS, it was a done deal. But that's because I pay attention, I'm not just a sports writer fueled by hype, like your buddy. Rog -- Let's look at the flaws in this argument: . Nightengale (like most) predicted the Tigers would win. He didn't say the Giants had no chance. . How is it he showed bias when he chose the Cardinals to beat the Giants? Of the Giants' six series to win their two World Series, in how many series were they favored? . He didn't give any consideration to the Giants' momentum after the Cardinals series? First, how do you know he didn't? Second, didn't the Giants have a similar type of momentum after the Reds series -- and then proceed to lose three of four to the Cardinals? . Nightengale is a writer fueled by hype? How in the world do you know that? He's a respecteed writer; he writes for an important publication in USA Today; and most of the sportswriters have fallen by the wayside due to the internet. . Nightengale is my buddy? Clearly he isn't, which kind of shows the desperation in your argument, doesn't it? When someone makes unsubstantiated claims such as you did here, I have a hard time believing the rest of their argument. I don't close my mind to it, but it does make me wonder how a person can be so unrational in one area and then turn around and be fully rational in another closely related one. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2085&page=1#17042#ixzz2laWOKHll
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 24, 2013 13:29:48 GMT -5
Mark -- Bogey, your reasons to discredit Bob Nightengale are pretty weak. Picking against the Giants doesn't mean he hates the team. Who didn't pick against the Giants in both the 2010 and 2012 World Series? And what impartial baseball observer wouldn't view the Tigers as the favorite, as they swept the Yankees and had a well rested Verlander all set to pitch against Barry Zito in games one and five? To anybody, that's a 2-0 Tigers advantage, which means the Giants have to win 4 of 5 against the likes of Fister, Scherzer and Anibal Sanchez.. Only a Giants fan would pick the Giants facing those odds. As for Nightengale's sources, I've never heard of the Giants having an ax to grind against any writer, so I'm pretty sure if Nightengale calls Bobby Evans or Brian Sabean, they'd be as candid with him as any other reporter. Rog -- Now there's a rational argument. One can agree or disagree, but it would be hard for him to say the argument was irrational. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2085&page=1#ixzz2laaSx5bX
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 24, 2013 15:17:21 GMT -5
If you've ever read Nightengale on twitter you can tell he's a Cardinals fan, but that doesn't mean he's incapable of covering or talking about other teams. And it sure doesn't mean the Giants don't like him or won't speak to him because of his allegiances.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 24, 2013 21:19:03 GMT -5
You guys make great arguments, none that I can dispute. However, still nothing that tells me he has any inside source around the Giants or Arroyo. Do you guys automatically believe everything you read?
|
|
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 Nov 24, 2013 21:24:28 GMT -5
Nightengale is a pompous ass just like most of the rest of the East Coast biased national media. In 2010 they regarded the Giants beating the Phillies as a fluke. In 2012 they gave the Yankees way more credit than they deserved, and by virtue of beating the Yankees handily, they declared the Tigers and Verlander to be unbeatable. They showed little understanding of the game and gave zero credit to the Giants as National League penant winners. Unless you're the Dodgers and throwing money in all directions, west coast teams will ALWAYS get short shrift in the national media.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 25, 2013 10:15:02 GMT -5
Boagie -- You guys make great arguments, none that I can dispute. However, still nothing that tells me he has any inside source around the Giants or Arroyo. Do you guys automatically believe everything you read? Rog -- I have no idea what his sources are, Boagie. I just don't see the evidence he hates the Giants. Just because someone picks against the Giants doesn't make them a Giants hater. Heck, I mentioned Yasiel Puig before last season. Does that mean I hate the Giants, or that I pay attention to baseball? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2085&page=1#17057#ixzz2lfdbaHTf
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 25, 2013 10:29:40 GMT -5
Randy -- Nightengale is a pompous ass just like most of the rest of the East Coast biased national media. In 2010 they regarded the Giants beating the Phillies as a fluke. In 2012 they gave the Yankees way more credit than they deserved, and by virtue of beating the Yankees handily, they declared the Tigers and Verlander to be unbeatable. They showed little understanding of the game and gave zero credit to the Giants as National League penant winners. Unless you're the Dodgers and throwing money in all directions, west coast teams will ALWAYS get short shrift in the national media. Rog -- Perhaps you could give us strong evidence rather than just throwing a wild opinion out there. By the way, in trying to find out where Bob Nightengale might have grown up (I couldn't find it), I found out I know two of the members of the Baseball Writers Association, neither of whom I would have guessed were members. By the way, if you're talking as the East Coast bias solely as it might exist due to time differences, I'll go along with you -- although the internet and ESPN would have reduced its existence. But if you're talking about the media being biased because they live in the East, I would doubt that exists to much degree. But I'm open to your giving strong proof that it does. (Incidentally, I don't know if the two guys I know would be considered part of the national media, but not surprisingly given that I know them, both are West Coast guys. And I just saw a third that I once replaced on a writing assignment. Naturally, he's West Coast too. And for those guys who are depricating of the "stats nerds," I notice several of them are members of the BBWA too. Oh, the president of the organization writes for the San Francisco Chronicle. Perhaps the "national media" is a little more diverse than one might have thought.) Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2085&page=1#ixzz2lfeH7Y9d
|
|