|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 11, 2014 18:20:42 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 Dec 11, 2014 22:06:03 GMT -5
you been sniffin glue bro?
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 11, 2014 23:59:31 GMT -5
If the Giants don't do something soon, he may be the only starter left!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 14:18:55 GMT -5
Doesn't he actually have THREE World Series ring? Oh, wait. You're talking about Chris Carpenter, not Tim Lincecum.
No, no, no. He's also a former Giant? On, you're talking about Barry Zito! I heard a rumor he's available.
Wait, wait. That's not it. You're talking about Jake Peavy, and he is indeed the guy I think the Giants will sign, unless they get James Shields and Jake has already re-signed by the time the Giants lose out on Shields.
In that case I think the free agent would be Ryan Vogelsong, who has two rings and was the most consistent starter and arguably the best over a year-plus period. And that's assuming they don't trade for Cole Hamels.
Speaking of Hamels, the Giants probably COULD put together a package to get him. They could sign Asdrubal Cabrera to play second base, then highlight a trade package with Joe Panik and Andrew Susac. I'm not recommending it; merely stating that it could probably be done. The Giants DO have young players to trade, although some of them would hurt.
It is conceivable that the Giants could trade for BOTH Hamels and Chase Utley. Again, not saying that I want to. But Utley's age and contract would likely make it possible.
They won't trade him, of course, but Madison Bumgarner just might have the most trade value of any player in the game. Excellent pitcher coming off a fabulous World Series and with one of the most team-friendly contracts in the game. The Giants have Madison locked up for the next five seasons! At only $52 million.
To put this into perspective, would you rather have Madison for five years at $52 million, or John Lester for six years at $100 million more? Bumgarner isn't as good as Clayton Kershaw, but given their respective contracts, I wouldn't trade Bumgarner for Kershaw straight up.
The only thing I worry about with Bumgarner is that he pitched 271 innings last season. Pitched them pretty well though, didn't he!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 14:22:31 GMT -5
By the way, this rather have Bumgarner or Kershaw thing goes right to the concept of Shields and little left over for the other three holes or spread the money out over three or four holes. Bumgarner is closer to Kershaw than a lesser starting pitcher might be to Shields, but you get the idea.
If there are lots of holes, it can be better to fill them all satisfactorily than to fill one spectacularly and hope for the best with the other holes.
As we stated earlier, depends on the holes and players involved. But the marquis guy isn't necessarily a slam dunk. (Even though I think the Giants are finally going to get their man!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 14:25:53 GMT -5
I think something is going to happen with the Giants and SOON. And if it doesn't happen soon, that likely is an indication that the Giants are now all in on Shields, much as they were with Pablo and Lester.
Of course, what I'm expecting is Shields, Melky Cabrera, Chase Headley and Sergio Romo! And that's before the trade for Cole Hamels and Chase Utley. And the re-signing of Barry Zito.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 12, 2014 14:41:24 GMT -5
I was initially kidding about Zito. But, I might not be totally against the idea depending on their other moves.
For example, if we land Melky Cabrera, and a solid 3rd baseman, I could see invites to spring training for Vogelsong and Zito, and let those two duel it out for a spot in the rotation.
Rog, I would have a hard time trading Panik for Hammels straight up. Not that I don't like Hammels, he's good, but for how much longer? I think Panik could be a very solid player for many years to come. Also, the only bright spot in our farm system is the pitching, another good second baseman in our farm system could be a long time away.
|
|
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 Dec 12, 2014 14:55:06 GMT -5
Rog - I think something is going to happen with the Giants and SOON. And if it doesn't happen soon, that likely is an indication that the Giants are now all in on Shields, much as they were with Pablo and Lester.
Dood - Oh yeah I feel SOOOO much better now, because those other times they went ALL IN, they had such winning hands. And this time the pot (Shields) is so much lighter, bluffing aint gonna get it done.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 12, 2014 15:14:43 GMT -5
I love Joe Panik, but Cole Hamels is one of the best pitchers in baseball and I'd throw in Crick if they threw in Utley. That trade would make them the regular season team to beat in the NL as well as their usual post season team to beat. Don't see that trade happening though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 18:07:54 GMT -5
Boagie -- Rog, I would have a hard time trading Panik for Hammels straight up. Not that I don't like Hammels, he's good, but for how much longer? I think Panik could be a very solid player for many years to come. Also, the only bright spot in our farm system is the pitching, another good second baseman in our farm system could be a long time away. Rog -- Some very good points here. Very good. Let's take a look at them one-by-one: . How long will Cole Hamels be a top pitcher? Glad you asked. Cole is a year older than Jon Lester and had the very same ERA last season (2.46). Both pitchers have had very consistent peripherals. Both pitchers have been consistent innings eaters. Hamels has thrown about 1500 more pitches than Lester, but he has done so in 200 more innings. Hamels has thrown fewer pitches per inning and thus will likely continue to throw fewer pitches going forward. Hamels shows no signs of slowing down, and he has only four more years left on his contract. The Giants should be getting four pretty good years if they were to acquire Hamels. . Panik could be a solid player for many years to come. Yes, he could be. Joe is almost seven years younger than Cole. I have perhaps been his biggest supporter here, and he surprised even me with his fine play this past season. I didn't realize he was so good defensively. Still, in Hamels we're talking about one of the best in the game at the most valued position in the game. In Joe, we're looking at a player whose OPS was .711, even though it seemed much higher. In Cole, we're looking at a proven postseason player. In Joe, we're looking at player with a .233 career postseason average. (Hey, you and Randy are the ones who say postseason performance is so important in evaluating a player! I believe you keep it in decent perspective though.) In Cole, we're looking at a pitcher with a 3.27 career ERA. In Joe, we're looking at a player who batted only .257 in AA a year ago. . The strength of the Giants' farm system is pitching. They don't have much on the farm at second base. Very good point here. A couple of things though. First, the Giants' minor league pitching had a tough year in 2014. They aren't ranked nearly as highly as they were a year ago. In contrast, Susac, Duffy and Panik himself greatly improved, balancing the whole thing out a bit. The Giants are badly in need of another good starting pitcher. They see it as their top priority. They would hate to lose Panik, but they have Duffy and Adrianza as possible young replacements. The thing that would make it tough for me to trade Panik and other young players for Hamels is that he will make about $100 million over the next four seasons, while the young Giants players mentioned above are all cost-protected for six more years. I agree with you that I wouldn't make the trade of Panik and more for Hamels. Panik straight up for Hamels becomes a little more dicey, and that is one I might make. Probably not though. I think Panik is the type of player a good team craves (nearly as much as top notch starting pitching). Probably if the Phillies wind up trading Hamels, he will go to a team such as the Dodgers, who have prospects to trade and a salary budget to absorb Hamels' high salary. No, I wouldn't trade Panik for Hamels. I'm with you on that one. I don't see how the Giants could acquire him Cole for less, but I wouldn't make the trade. Better to pay Shields and keep Panik. In fact, likely far better (assuming the Giants can sign James for a contract similar to the one I mentioned I would offer.) Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2618/rotation-help#ixzz3Lj34rfDl |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 13, 2014 12:30:42 GMT -5
Mark- You been sniffin glue bro?
Boagie- Perhaps, but I like Zito for the same reason you don't like Shields.
Barry is a winner, Shields is a loser...I'm assuming that's why you don't like him. That's also why I wouldn't mind Vogelsong. The Giants have still won every game Vogey has started in the post-season.
Rog likes to drown us with meaningless stats, but in the end its all about winning, and that's what the Giants pitchers do.
Bumgarner, Cain, Lincecum, Vogelsong, Zito--winners.
Shields- loser
Verlander- loser
Lee- loser
Kershaw- looooser
I realize it sounds ridiculous to most, but yep, I'd take Vogey or Zito before Shields in a heartbeat.
We all wanted Lester, but let's face it, he absolutely shit the bed against the Royals. He's a loser too. I'm glad the Cubs got him. Apparently they haven't learned their lesson about blowing a bunch of money on a few free agents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 13, 2014 14:03:33 GMT -5
Mark -- I love Joe Panik, but Cole Hamels is one of the best pitchers in baseball and I'd throw in Crick if they threw in Utley. That trade would make them the regular season team to beat in the NL as well as their usual post season team to beat. Don't see that trade happening though. Rog -- With the Phillies trying to shed salary and rebuild, something might be workable there with a little tweaking. I thought about that one too. The problem from the Giants' perspective is that they would be taking on too much payroll, especially in the case of the older Utley. Tempting though, isn't it? If the Giants could get the Phillies to take on a little salary, it could work out. The Giants would need to have enough money left in their budget to get a platoon partner for Gregor Blanco and pick up at least a satisfactory third baseman. Maybe a guy who could platoon with Arias. The Giants weren't willing to part with Crick a year ago, but I'll bet they are willing to do so now. Thus far in his career, Crick has made Tim Lincecum look like a control artist. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2618/rotation-help#ixzz3Lo1ZkDpQ |
|
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 Dec 13, 2014 14:05:03 GMT -5
Sorry Boag but I still think the glue is too close to your nose. Zito, while I love what he did in the 2012 postseason, was during his time in SF at best a decent #4 or 5...and at worst a train wreck. Now he's been out of the game for a year. I don't waste time with him.
Vogey is aging quickly before our eyes and not in a good way. He once could challenge in the strike zone with his very straight fastball when he had the giddyup to get it past hitters...now it just gets whacked and he has to nibble to get by. which means lots of walks and not a lot of IP.
Yes I don't like Shields' postseason resume but he's not a loser April-September. Not my preference over Lester or Scherzer, but better than the other options on the FA market. Lester a loser? Because of one bad game you forget all his postseason success? I don't think so. And Verlander may be declining but his postseason resume is overall very good (just ask the A's), despite a rough Game 1 in SF in 2012. And Kershaw may not be MadBum in the playoffs, but Id still take him in a heartbeat because if the Dogs had a decent bullpen, they'd have beaten the Cards and maybe us too.
Look at Peavey's postseason resume a bit and you wouldn't want him back either. I like Jake but not willing to give him another 3 years. Not unless we crap out with Shields. I'd rather (as would the Giants) stay with Lincecum this year and hope that either Crick or Blach could be ready for 2016...and there will also be some fine FA pitchers after next season too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 13, 2014 14:36:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 13, 2014 14:42:38 GMT -5
Dood - Oh yeah I feel SOOOO much better now, because those other times they went ALL IN, they had such winning hands. And this time the pot (Shields) is so much lighter, bluffing aint gonna get it done. Rog -- I don't believe the Giants were bluffing on Sandoval, Tomas or Lester. We don't know about Tomas, but in the other two cases, it wasn't the money. By the way, I heard that on the day of the parade, Pablo was talking about not coming back. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2618/rotation-help?page=1#ixzz3LoBvcaOH |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 13, 2014 14:43:36 GMT -5
With Pablo, the Giants may have been done in by David Ortiz. With Lester, it may have been Rick Dempsey who did the damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 13, 2014 14:49:05 GMT -5
Boagie's rationale for who is a winner and who is a loser is surprisingly simplistic for someone who knows so much about sports. I had to actually double check to see who wrote it I was so surprised. So if Barry Zito gives up 9 runs five starts in a row but the Giants score 10 each time he's a winner, and if James Shields gives up one run five starts in a row he's a loser? Ok. A couple of terrific playoff appearances in seven years doesn't erase what a bad pitcher he was, and you don't get the nickname "Big Game James" if you don't have a history of pitching well when your season is on the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 13, 2014 14:59:37 GMT -5
Boagie -- I realize it sounds ridiculous to most, but yep, I'd take Vogey or Zito before Shields in a heartbeat. Rog -- I think that would be a very bad decision, at least in the short term. Bumgarner, Cain, Lincecum, Vogelsong, Zito--winners. Shields- loser Verlander- loser Lee- loser Kershaw- looooser Rog -- Including the postseason: Bumgarner -- 74-52 Cain -- 99-97 Lincecum -- 106-81 Vogelsong (since returning to the Giants) -- 42-33 Zito -- 171-146 (65-80 with the Giants) Shields -- 117-96 Verlander -- 157-94, 7-5 in the postseason Lee -- 150-94, 7-3 in the postseason Kershaw -- 99-54 I presume you were joking. The non-Giants are a combined 523-338. That's a combined .607 winning percentage, which translates to 98 wins over a season. Losers. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2618/rotation-help?page=1#ixzz3LoDd6zm9Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2618/rotation-help?page=1#ixzz3LoDBmKBh |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 13, 2014 15:03:22 GMT -5
Randy -- Look at Peavey's postseason resume a bit and you wouldn't want him back either. Rog -- Look at his regular season resume, and you definitely would. On balance? He looks pretty decent. Not nearly as good as he once was though. Maybe I WOULD rather have Shields than Jake and Romo. Given the total contracts though, probably not. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2618/rotation-help?page=1#ixzz3LoHJwras |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 13, 2014 22:56:39 GMT -5
Shields -- 117-96
Verlander -- 157-94, 7-5 in the postseason
Lee -- 150-94, 7-3 in the postseason
Kershaw -- 99-54
I presume you were joking. The non-Giants are a combined 523-338. That's a combined .607 winning percentage, which translates to 98 wins over a season.
Boagie- Yep, 523 wins among them, .607 winning percentage, 98 wins in a regular season...yet zero world Series rings. This isn't a disturbing trend to those who believe the post season is luck, but I'm not one of those people. I've evolved past that point as a fan.
Verlander, Lee, Shields and Kershaw don't lose in the post season because of dumb luck, they lose because anytime someone puts pressure on them they shrivel up on the mound.
Prior to 1994 I could see having one of these guys, but with two wild cards now, shitting the bed in the post season makes you near worthless on a major league roster. You basically just need to not suck to make it in.
That's why Lester is a good fit in Chicago, he won't need to worry about the post-season anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 14, 2014 9:25:29 GMT -5
Didn't Lester win two rings in Boston, Boagie? Why are they wasting time talking to Shields when Guillermo Mota and his two rings are still sitting out there? There might be no worse argument you can make than picking short post season sample sizes over full season performances. Oh wait, there is one worse. Thinking one player is better than another because he has a ring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 14, 2014 11:27:26 GMT -5
Boagie- Yep, 523 wins among them, .607 winning percentage, 98 wins in a regular season...yet zero world Series rings. This isn't a disturbing trend to those who believe the post season is luck, but I'm not one of those people. I've evolved past that point as a fan. Rog -- I'm shocked. You place World Series rings seemingly above all else (including reason). I would hate to see the Giants pick up Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw (assuming they could afford to do so) even though those two players have a shot at going down in baseball's top 10 -- ever. Clearly those guys are losers. They don't have a single ring between. Much better to have Barry Zito. Or Don Liddle -- except that Liddle is dead. But Liddle won his ring, and was more than pleased with his huge Series contribution. He won the final game of the 1954 World Series, yielding only a single run in 6.2 innings as the Giants defeated the Indians 7-4 to sweep the Series. But Liddle was pleased most of all because he threw what many consider the out that turned the series in the Giants' favor. We've all seen it. Opening game of the Series. 2-2 tie with no one out in the top of the 8th. The Giants have Sal (The Barber) on the mound, but The Barber begins to cut it too close. He walks Hall of Famer Larry Doby to lead off the inning, then yields a single to Al Rosen, who just one year before had been named the AL MVP and chosen the Major League Baseball Player of the Year. (No wonder many fans thought the 111 win -- versus just 43 losses Indians might sweep the Series.) The Indians have slugger Vic Wertz at the plate. Wertz is to go 4 for 5 in the game, including a double and a triple. The last time he was up with runners on first and second, he tripled both home, breaking the maiden on the contest and giving the Indians a 2-0 lead in the top of the first. Manager Leo Durocher calls for Liddle, setting up a lefty-lefty matchup with the powerful Wertz. As important as Liddle's win was to be in game 4 to clinch the Series, this is the moment that fans believe will turn the Series opener. Liddle throws and "There's a long drive to left field ... I believe ..." Oops, wrong postseason game. No, he throws and Wertz hits a high line drive to almost straightaway center field. It appears to the world that he has hit a triple to clear the bases and give the Indians a 4-2 lead with an excellent opportunity to add more. But the center fielder streaks back on the ball, runs to the spot as he often did, then,turns straight back and looks over his head, still racing at breakneck speed. The ball starts to descend. Its arc says no human can catch up, and Giants fans are hoping Mays' strong arm can limit Wertz to a triple, not an inside-the-park home run. But in the distance, looking like a wide receiver, Mays somehow pulls the ball in over his right shoulder. (He HAD tapped his glove, after all.) Doby, a speedy center fielder himself, tags at second, nearly passed by the trailing Rosen. Will he be able to score all the way from second on the tag up, as Mays himself has done on multiple occasions? Mays whirls just in front of the tall wall, sprawling to all fours from the twisting force of the throw as he flings a startlingly strong vector that rises as high as Wertz's high line drive had. Doby advances to third, but no further. He is to remain stranded there, and the game remains tied until the bottom of the tenth inning, when pinch hitter Dusty Rhodes, his hangover finally gone, pinch hits with runners on first and second, just as they had been when Wertz came to the plate for the Indians two innings earlier. Rhodes hits a towering three-run shot just into the right field porch at the Polo Grounds. The Giants win 5-2 with Mays himself scoring the winning run. It was Liddle who had gotten the game's most important out. In fact, it was his only out in that key game one. With right-handed hitting pinch hitter Dale Mitchell coming to the plate, Durocher brought in his top reliever, right-hander Marv Grissom, to replace Liddle. When Grissom completed his long walk from the center field bullpen, not far from where Mays made the catch, "which must have seemed like an illusion to a lot of fans out there," Liddle flipped Marv the ball telling him, "Well, I got MY man." With the tiniest of help, Liddle had in fact gotten his man -- and three games later, his ring. I wish he were still alive. I would want him on my team. Never mind that he lasted only four seasons and 428 innings. He was a winner. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2618/rotation-help#ixzz3LsyFAZh3 |
|
