Post by sharksrog on Nov 23, 2013 16:04:03 GMT -5
I think the Giants' signing of Tim Hudson might possibly be the very best move with regard to the entire free agent market. We have already discussed the reasons --and the risks.
I came across the blog "Rany on the Royals." (I believe "Rany" is Rany
Jazayerli, who sometimes is a guest on the MLB Network.) Rany believes the Royals should have gone higher than the Giants' 2/$23 in order to sign Hudson, since he believes Tim gives his team a chance at positive performance, whereas he believes Jason Vargas -- whom they just signed for 4/$32 -- doesn't give them much of a shot at that.
Without going back over Hudson, Rany prefers Phil Hughes over Vargas, since he believes Hughes would give up far fewer home runs in Kansas City than he does in Yankee Stadium and because at just 27 years of age, he would appear to have more upside than Vargas (and perhaps most of the pitchers on the free agent list).
Here is a stat for you: Vargas' career road ERA is 5.17. At 4.10, Hughes' is more than a full run lower. The thinking man chooses whom?
In theory, Vargas would have been a nice signing for the Giants. His career ERA isn't bad, and as a southpaw, he would better balance out the Giants' rotation. He's been an innings-eater the past four seasons, perhaps making him a decent bet for the next four seasons. (Vargas will be only 31 when next season begins.)
But Vargas had had the advantage of pitching his career in wonderful pitchers' parks. He would have that in San Francisco, of course, but where would the upside come from?
Thank goodness the Giants signed Hudson, and while Hughes isn't my very first choice, on a two-year contract at a reasonable price, he would indeed offer upside.
On the other hand, unless the Giants can get a proven commodity such as Bronson on a two-year contract without breaking the bank, what's wrong with Ryan Vogelsong, whose potential one-year time frame would certainly open up a spot for Edwin Escobar or Kyle Crick in 2015?
Presumably, that would leave a little more money for left field. On the other hand, I could go with what the Giants have there (Blanco, Belt, Perez) plus a bargain basement guy -- as long as there was plenty of money to properly fill the position at the trade deadline.
Not exactly sure why the Giants didn't go for Chris Young, but he too was only a partial answer. (Maybe that's why?) Clearly their top priority remains another good starting pitcher.
We might be pleasantly surprised with the name of that #5 starter. I'm getting something of a good vibe about it.
I came across the blog "Rany on the Royals." (I believe "Rany" is Rany
Jazayerli, who sometimes is a guest on the MLB Network.) Rany believes the Royals should have gone higher than the Giants' 2/$23 in order to sign Hudson, since he believes Tim gives his team a chance at positive performance, whereas he believes Jason Vargas -- whom they just signed for 4/$32 -- doesn't give them much of a shot at that.
Without going back over Hudson, Rany prefers Phil Hughes over Vargas, since he believes Hughes would give up far fewer home runs in Kansas City than he does in Yankee Stadium and because at just 27 years of age, he would appear to have more upside than Vargas (and perhaps most of the pitchers on the free agent list).
Here is a stat for you: Vargas' career road ERA is 5.17. At 4.10, Hughes' is more than a full run lower. The thinking man chooses whom?
In theory, Vargas would have been a nice signing for the Giants. His career ERA isn't bad, and as a southpaw, he would better balance out the Giants' rotation. He's been an innings-eater the past four seasons, perhaps making him a decent bet for the next four seasons. (Vargas will be only 31 when next season begins.)
But Vargas had had the advantage of pitching his career in wonderful pitchers' parks. He would have that in San Francisco, of course, but where would the upside come from?
Thank goodness the Giants signed Hudson, and while Hughes isn't my very first choice, on a two-year contract at a reasonable price, he would indeed offer upside.
On the other hand, unless the Giants can get a proven commodity such as Bronson on a two-year contract without breaking the bank, what's wrong with Ryan Vogelsong, whose potential one-year time frame would certainly open up a spot for Edwin Escobar or Kyle Crick in 2015?
Presumably, that would leave a little more money for left field. On the other hand, I could go with what the Giants have there (Blanco, Belt, Perez) plus a bargain basement guy -- as long as there was plenty of money to properly fill the position at the trade deadline.
Not exactly sure why the Giants didn't go for Chris Young, but he too was only a partial answer. (Maybe that's why?) Clearly their top priority remains another good starting pitcher.
We might be pleasantly surprised with the name of that #5 starter. I'm getting something of a good vibe about it.
