|
Post by donk33 on Dec 20, 2014 0:25:29 GMT -5
I don't think Cabrera sucks at all, I think he's a good player. Would have preferred him to McGehee, but maybe the much cheaper McGehee will give them a chance to do something more. dk...maybe Gillaspie is available...
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 20, 2014 10:50:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 21, 2014 8:29:46 GMT -5
Sabean said he's going to see Baer again about just how much money he has left to spend this offseason. I think he has something up his sleeve, and I'm looking forward to seeing it. Maybe even Randy will like it! (Although nothing short of trading for Mike Trout will satisfy him!)
|
|
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 21, 2014 12:48:15 GMT -5
It would have been nice if Sabean asked Baer this BEFORE he started going cheap
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 21, 2014 20:50:30 GMT -5
Randy -- It would have been nice if Sabean asked Baer this BEFORE he started going cheap Rog -- Come on, Randy. First of all, Brian hasn't gone cheap. He's looked for value with the money he had available, but he hasn't gone cheap. The only guy he got who was inexpensive was McGehee, and that was because Casey isn't yet eligible for free agency. If Brian is asking Baer for more money at this point, that is a very GOOD sign. It appears he's assessed what he can accomplish within the budget and would like to put a cherry on top by spending more and acquiring someone such as James Shields. Hey, maybe I've OVERestimated the budget, and he's simply trying to get enough money to have $10 million or so to spend on a left fielder. Hopefully I've UNDERestimtated the budget, but chances are I'm pretty close. All I did was more or less escalate the budget about the same as it has been escalated over the past several years. If the Giants spend more than I estimated they had available, it will almost certainly be because Brian is successful in getting the extra money he is asking for. Hey, I could live with a Blanco/Denorfia platoon if the Giants could sign Yoan Moncada, who will likely become at least a star. But as we have been discussing, the Giants will almost certainly have to take at least some of Moncada's money from a different budget. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2626/asleep-wheel?page=2#ixzz3MaRtq2QD
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 21, 2014 23:07:17 GMT -5
Why do some fans think there's a chance of still landing James Shields?
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 22, 2014 9:33:17 GMT -5
Why do you think there isn't? By all accounts they're still talking to him. He's supposedly asking for 5/110 and if someone out there gives it to him he won't be a Giant. However nobody will and the Giants are in the picture when it comes down. Nick Cafardo just reported yesterday that the Giants and the Red Sox are the two teams still most interested in him, although the Red Sox need has lessened with the acquisition of three starters this offseason and the Giants need has lessened with the signing of Peavy. I'm sure the Giants will backload a deal so the year one hit where they have limited funds are lessened.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 22, 2014 10:56:50 GMT -5
I doubt very much that the Giants will land Shields, but I think it shows they are serious by not simply moving on to something else.
The worst-case scenario would have been to be strung out by Shields and then have to truly scrape the bottom of the barrel if they didn't land him.
The Giants basically landed three 2nd-tier players, and there weren't that many first-tier players out there. I know it doesn't seem that way to some, but the Giants have accomplished more than the majority of MLB clubs.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 22, 2014 15:04:47 GMT -5
Why do you think there isn't? By all accounts they're still talking to him. He's supposedly asking for 5/110 and if someone out there gives it to him he won't be a Giant. However nobody will and the Giants are in the picture when it comes down.
Boagie- Is Peavy going to be a closer?
I don't see ANY chance of signing James with the signing of Peavy. If they do sign him, then maybe Randy was correct with the title of this thread. The Giants don't have money to burn like the Dodgers. They can't go out and have 6 starters signed to significant contracts while we still have no left fielder, that would be monumentally stupid.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 22, 2014 22:43:04 GMT -5
I can see them signing another starter and obviously it would be Lincecum to the bullpen, not Peavy. I agree that Shields is too pricy though, and the Giants will focus what money they have on LF. If another starter is needed due to injury or ineffectiveness, I think they'll do their usual in season dealing.
|
|
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 23, 2014 2:22:29 GMT -5
an 18 million dollar long reliever? Interesting concept
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 23, 2014 6:24:00 GMT -5
Randy -- an 18 million dollar long reliever? Interesting concept Rog -- If you are saying the Giants shouldn't sign James Shields, then since they couldn't sign either Pablo Sandoval or Jon Lester for reasons other than money, what are you saying they should have done? I think Max Scherzer is the cream of the pitching crop. But if you gamble on getting him and fail, it would be too late to do much of anything else beyond the bargain basement. The only other cream of the crop proven free agent was Hanley Ramirez. Would you want him at perhaps 5/$105? So what would you have done, Randy? How would you have better spent the $30 million or so the Giants have in their budget than they appear to be spending it? Why are we criticizing when we have no realistic solutions? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2626/asleep-wheel?page=2#ixzz3Mid8cbSM
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 23, 2014 11:07:09 GMT -5
I know Randy was all in on Yasmany Tomas who ended up signing for 68 mil for 6 years. So that's roughly 12 mil a season. Mark didn't like Melky, but let's suppose you sign him. Melky is making 13 mil in 2015. So that's 25 mil, with about 10 mil left to sign a pitcher? Obviously Vogey would take that. I think you could get Vogey for a lot cheaper, but there ya go, I'd say that's an exciting lineup for next season.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 23, 2014 14:58:40 GMT -5
Boagie -- I know Randy was all in on Yasmany Tomas who ended up signing for 68 mil for 6 years. So that's roughly 12 mil a season. Mark didn't like Melky, but let's suppose you sign him. Melky is making 13 mil in 2015. So that's 25 mil, with about 10 mil left to sign a pitcher? Obviously Vogey would take that. I think you could get Vogey for a lot cheaper, but there ya go, I'd say that's an exciting lineup for next season. Rog -- Not a bad plan by any means, but one that carries a lot of risk, primarily with Tomas. Tomas isn't considered even a good outfielder, so he likely would be a liability at third base. That would be OK if he hit a ton. But his forte is hitting for power, which might have been muted by playing at AT&T. The offensive question with Tomas is whether he'll hit for average. From what I have seen, the consensus seems to be that he probably won't. I would have liked to see them sign Melky. He was actually part of my plan for spending the $30 million I believe is available. And I have supported Vogelsong as well. He has been underrated as a Giant, alhthough at this time he's probably a #5 or possibly a #4. The Giants' primary risk would have been with Tomas. I think you may be right that he would have been worth the risk, but if he hit for more power but less average than Pablo and was a poor fielder, I'm not sure he would have made a good acquisition. One thing I would question about your plan too is whether the Giants truly have $35 million in their budget. I think it's more like $30, and that may be a little high. Using your numbers though, the Giants could have signed Peavy, Melky (or Tomas), Romo and McGehee. Or they could have substituted Vogelsong for Romo. I just don't think the budget had quite that much to work with. One thing to remember too is that just because another team signed a player for a certain amount doesn't mean the Giants could have signed the player at that level. For instance, Melky or Tomas would likely have cost at least a little more than they signed for elsewhere. Again, I see your plan as being riskier than some and I don't think it fits the Giants' budget. But I don't see it as a bad plan. It is one that could have turned into a home run if Tomas turns out to be a star. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2626/asleep-wheel?page=2#ixzz3MkhKbafS
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 23, 2014 15:30:28 GMT -5
I don't know where you got the idea I didn't want Melky, Boagie, I think you're mixing me up with Randy. I would have loved to see Melky back.
|
|
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 23, 2014 15:35:42 GMT -5
I have seen lots of posts applauding and going along with the resigning of Romo. Here's my problem with it. There are lots of arms far better than Romo's in our farm system. Paying Romo 6 mil for essentially doing the job a rookie scale player could be doing takes away from what might have been offered to Pablo or Lester or Scherzer. Instead of being left with Peavy and McGehee we could have been paying a player that is actually top scale, not mediocre. If we end up out of the playoffs or losing in the playoffs because we don't have the quality at 3rd base or in the rotation to get it done, we might look back at this decision.
|
|
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 23, 2014 15:41:07 GMT -5
I don't know where you got the idea I didn't want Melky, Boagie, I think you're mixing me up with Randy. I would have loved to see Melky back.
Dood - Rx is right, that was me. I don't want that dirty rotten greazey conniving lying bastard back under ANY circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 23, 2014 22:14:56 GMT -5
Randy -- I have seen lots of posts applauding and going along with the resigning of Romo. Here's my problem with it. There are lots of arms far better than Romo's in our farm system. Rog -- Actually there aren't. I do like some of the young relief arms a lot (just came across a guy who finished the year at San Jose and averagee more than TWO strikeouts per inning and allowed about a hit every two innings. Did you get to see him pitch, Randy? He could be one of those you are referring to. But Romo might be the best reliever in SF Giants history. Or maybe it's Santiago Casilla. They have the tow lowest ERA's among all SF Giants relievers and are among the lowest of any pitcher with as many innings as they have. Casilla in particular has pitched at a Mariano Rivera-type ERA. Randy -- Paying Romo 6 mil for essentially doing the job a rookie scale player could be doing takes away from what might have been offered to Pablo or Lester or Scherzer. Rog -- Not really. It's a $7.5 million average, but perhaps $6 this season. But the Giants had already lost out on Pablo and Lester when they signed Sergio, so he didn't affect those negotiations. And I think it's highly unlikely they'll be in on Scherzer. Randy -- Instead of being left with Peavy and McGehee we could have been paying a player that is actually top scale, not mediocre. Rog -- Whom would you recommend? Once nice thing about that duo is that the Giants are committed to them for only two years and one year respectively. The Giants owe them only $27.5 million combined. Randy -- If we end up out of the playoffs or losing in the playoffs because we don't have the quality at 3rd base or in the rotation to get it done, we might look back at this decision. Rog -- I think the value of relief pitchers is overrated, so I can see why you might question re-signing Sergio, as good as he's been. If the Giants hadn't signed Romo, which pitcher or third baseman would you have acquired? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2626/asleep-wheel?page=2#ixzz3MmTbZt8s
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 25, 2014 10:27:56 GMT -5
Our best relief arm in the minors last year was Hunter Strickland, Randy, and who did you want on the mound for a big post season out, Strickland or Romo? That's part of the reason for bringing him back, big outs in October. Those big arms in the minors are a year or two away and we don't know about them in big situations. By the time they're ready, Romo's contract will be up. Rog, I think the kid you're referring to as Ray Black. He throws triple digits.
|
|
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 25, 2014 13:34:30 GMT -5
I don't blame Strick at all for his postseason...he clearly wasn't ready and Bochy put him in an unfair position. A full season in the show will fix that
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 25, 2014 14:46:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 25, 2014 14:58:09 GMT -5
Randy -- I don't blame Strick at all for his postseason...he clearly wasn't ready and Bochy put him in an unfair position. A full season in the show will fix that Rog -- Which if I'm doing the math correctly, should bode quite well for 2016. As for not blaming Hunter (I believe your nickname for him should be stricken) for his poor post season performance, why not? Did you think someone else was throwing those pitches? It wasn't so much that Hunter didn't pitch well (that wouldn't have been such an unusual result), it was that he gave up six home runs in 8.1 innings. SIX. The rest of the Giants' pitching staff yielded 9. In about 155 innings. In other words, Strickland allowed home runs more than 12 times as often as the rest of the staff. Yes, the Giants may have gotten ahead of themselves with Hunter. But SIX home runs? In 8.1 innings? Apparently they didn't get as far ahead of him as he got ahead of himself. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2626/asleep-wheel?page=2#ixzz3MwONEYsm
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 25, 2014 15:05:45 GMT -5
Mark -- Rog, I think the kid you're referring to as Ray Black. He throws triple digits. Rog -- You have indeed nailed the situation in black and white, as usual, Mark. Admittedly Black, 24, was old for Low A ball, where he pitched most of the season. He was old for High A San Jose, where he wound up. But even Tim Lincecum struck out "only" about 1 1/2 batter per inning in the minors. When you have more than four times as many strikeouts as hits allowed, as Black did, you're amazingly dominant. Black's only negative was that he allowed just one fewer walk than he allowed hits. Did you get a chance to see Black pitch, Randy? I haven't even seen a scouting report on him and just noticed him in the past week. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2626/asleep-wheel?page=2#ixzz3MwR7W28j
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 25, 2014 21:57:55 GMT -5
Black was set back two years with a torn labrum, Rog, which is the reason he's still in Single A at 24. Look for a rapid rise.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 26, 2014 7:27:27 GMT -5
Mark -- Black was set back two years with a torn labrum, Rog, which is the reason he's still in Single A at 24. Look for a rapid rise. Rog -- I was going to ask why Black hadn't pitched in 2012 or 2013. Figured it was some kind of injury, and given the long recovery period, thought it must be rather serious. It's amazing how well pitchers can recover from surgery these days. Which is why I expect a strong return from Matt Cain. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2626/asleep-wheel?page=2#ixzz3N0RJAq00
|
|