Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 12:56:14 GMT -5
Boly -- Roger, on your list ONLY Scherzer and Shields are worth even getting excited about.
The rest? Flotsam.
You can keep Volquez. I WATCHED his face during his playoff start.
He was scared; He was nervous, and that's NOT a guy I want out there in a big game.
The rest on the list, Roger, I could care less about
Rog -- I guess you were referring to the pitchers, and certainly that crop is becoming more and more cultivated with every day. Certainly Scherzer and Shields are the remaining standouts; Scherzer in particular. Adding either of those two pitchers should make a big impact for a few years.
But either of them would also take up most of the money available to replace a starting pitcher, third baseman, left fielder and reliever. Would it be better to splurge on the starting pitcher (the need the Giants believe they most need to fill) and fill in the other spots as best they can, or would it be better to spread out the money over two or three or even all four needs?
The easy answer, of course, is to fill the biggest need and let the others take care of themselves as bests the Giants can. A pitcher such as the two mentioned really stands out. One can see the improvement in an instant.
We may get to see how that approach works. Apparently the Giants believe in it, futily chasing their top three needs in Sandoval, then Tomas, then Lester. Now they're chasing Shields, and Peter Gammons said "exit polls" at the winter meetings had the Giants getting him.
But is strongly filling one need and patching the others a better approach than providing lesser but fairly effective solutions to two or more of the spots? The answer, of course, is that it depends on the pieces involved.
If the pieces happen to be Jake Peavy via trade, Gregor Blanco moving up from the bench and Joe Panik from the minors, the results can be pretty good. With lesser pieces, not so much.
My point though is that a year ago given the choice between David Price or Peavy, Blanco and Panik, we would have gone for Price without a second thought. Peavy and Blanco were having tough seasons, and Panik was less than a year removed from what the Giants called a "disappointing" season in AA no less.
Adding multiple decent pieces to the mix can be as effective or more than adding the one big and shiny piece. A year ago one couldn't have traded Peavy, Blanco AND Panik for Price, but that unheralded trio wound up helping the Giants more after the trade deadline than Price would have. Even though a year ago we might have looked at the trio and said "flotsam."
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2615/liberal-sf-culture-hurting-signings#ixzz3Lhr3palF
The rest? Flotsam.
You can keep Volquez. I WATCHED his face during his playoff start.
He was scared; He was nervous, and that's NOT a guy I want out there in a big game.
The rest on the list, Roger, I could care less about
Rog -- I guess you were referring to the pitchers, and certainly that crop is becoming more and more cultivated with every day. Certainly Scherzer and Shields are the remaining standouts; Scherzer in particular. Adding either of those two pitchers should make a big impact for a few years.
But either of them would also take up most of the money available to replace a starting pitcher, third baseman, left fielder and reliever. Would it be better to splurge on the starting pitcher (the need the Giants believe they most need to fill) and fill in the other spots as best they can, or would it be better to spread out the money over two or three or even all four needs?
The easy answer, of course, is to fill the biggest need and let the others take care of themselves as bests the Giants can. A pitcher such as the two mentioned really stands out. One can see the improvement in an instant.
We may get to see how that approach works. Apparently the Giants believe in it, futily chasing their top three needs in Sandoval, then Tomas, then Lester. Now they're chasing Shields, and Peter Gammons said "exit polls" at the winter meetings had the Giants getting him.
But is strongly filling one need and patching the others a better approach than providing lesser but fairly effective solutions to two or more of the spots? The answer, of course, is that it depends on the pieces involved.
If the pieces happen to be Jake Peavy via trade, Gregor Blanco moving up from the bench and Joe Panik from the minors, the results can be pretty good. With lesser pieces, not so much.
My point though is that a year ago given the choice between David Price or Peavy, Blanco and Panik, we would have gone for Price without a second thought. Peavy and Blanco were having tough seasons, and Panik was less than a year removed from what the Giants called a "disappointing" season in AA no less.
Adding multiple decent pieces to the mix can be as effective or more than adding the one big and shiny piece. A year ago one couldn't have traded Peavy, Blanco AND Panik for Price, but that unheralded trio wound up helping the Giants more after the trade deadline than Price would have. Even though a year ago we might have looked at the trio and said "flotsam."
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2615/liberal-sf-culture-hurting-signings#ixzz3Lhr3palF
