|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 21, 2015 23:09:17 GMT -5
Advertisement
MLB July 21, 2015 9:07pm EDT
MLB trade rumors: Braves reportedly put Juan Uribe on the block
By: Joe Rodgers
"THE RUMOR: The Braves are shopping recently acquired third baseman Juan Uribe.
REPORTED BY: CBS Sports' Jon Heyman.
MORE: Best landing spots for Justin Upton | Where should Papelbon go?
THE DETAILS: After selling off Craig Kimbrel and Justin Upton on the eve of opening day, the Braves are looking to continue the rebuild. Heyman reports they are hoping for a mid-range prospect for Uribe and want the acquiring team to pick up the roughly $3 million remaining on his deal.
THIS SEASON: Uribe entered Tuesday's game batting .279/.346/.456 with seven home runs in 44 games since being acquired from the Dodgers in May in a six-player deal.
SN's TAKE: The Mets were one team Heyman listed as having talks with the Braves about Uribe, but they are believed to have bigger names on their list. Of course, that could all change if David Wright, who still has not been cleared to begin baseball activities, receives a negative diagnosis in the near future. Albeit in a small sample size, the 36-year-old Uribe is batting .280/.357/.580 against left-handed pitchers in 33 games this season and could be a useful bat for the Mets, who are last in MLB in batting average against left-handers.
Heyman lists the Nationals and Giants as other teams that could use Uribe's services, while the Pirates could make for an interesting destination. In need of infield help with Josh Harrison and Jody Mercer on the disabled list, the Pirates are currently relying on Sean Rodriguez and Brent Morel at the hot corner. Uribe could be a decent option for the Bucs should talks about infielders Ben Zobrist, Cliff Pennington and Clint Barmes fall through."
Thoughts?
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member 
Posts: 47
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 22, 2015 10:48:25 GMT -5
I'll pass on Heyman, boagie... but picking up Uribe as a bench player to replace Arias would be a very, VERY solid move, IMHO.
He's a vet who can still hit some, and with some power.
He can play 3B and likely 2B, though his range at SS wouldn't be very good at all.
IF Cabrera works out, or if not, then adrianza, we have that hole plugged.
I'ld look into it... but I wouldn't pay much to get him.
I still want Chapman and I DO believe we have the pieces in the system to make it work, WITHOUT parting with 2 of our top arms.
Meaning Arroyo and 1 top arm, or something close to that.
boly
|
|
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 Jul 22, 2015 12:40:03 GMT -5
I wouldn't hold my breath on Chapman, Boly. The Giants feel Strickland is the closer of the future and Chapman would cost too many prospects to be just a rental. In fact with the return of Affeldt and the emergence of both Strickland and Osich, I think the Giants are happy about where the bullpen is and will be going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 22, 2015 13:57:43 GMT -5
I don't think Boly is holding his breath, and I'm not either, but I do think Chapman is less likely to suck a farm system dry, than a top notch starter or a big bat. The aging Reds core might actually force the organization to seek quantity over quality. It could be that teams with a starter or big bat might be wanting players that the Giants aren't willing to let go of, like Duffy, Panik...ect. And as I mentioned in another thread, we could always get Chapman and turn him into a starter after this season, which would plug some of our starting rotation holes moving forward.
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member
Posts: 47
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 22, 2015 15:02:35 GMT -5
Randy: I thought Chapman was under contract for another year. Was I mistaken?
I, too, see Strickland as the closer of the future, if not this season, then next.
But when Affeldt gets activated, SOMEONE has to go... .and I'm betting that someone is Osich.
Last night he was just so-so, and since Bochy HAS to make a choice, it's likely to be him over Romo.
Thing is, I STILL CONTEND we need a starter. We really, really do.
Bumgarner, Cain, Heston, New Guy, Peavy/Hudson/Vogey/Lincecum.
My point is still the same, and it's the SAME ONE Greg Papa and Bill Laskey brought up the other day; you simply canNOT have 2 or 3 of your staff who are 5 inning pitchers.
And unless we DO get a guy who can give you 6 or 7 steady...we're up a creek because we WILL burn out the bullpen BEFORE September even gets here.
boly
|
|
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 Jul 22, 2015 15:17:37 GMT -5
I agree Boly. I don't know what we could get but with Aoki returning and assuming no more huge injuries, a wild card spot is a possibility. But a consistent quality starter would be a great help. Here's Bobby Evans' problem. Selling to management that the team needs another starter with 8 already on the roster, particularly when you've been telling them since 2013 that the arms in the minors would be ready no later than next Spring.
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member
Posts: 47
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 22, 2015 18:31:45 GMT -5
Your points are good ones, Randy, but if I'm management I look REALLY, REALLY hard at those 6-7 or 8 starters, and if I'm fair.... IF I'M FAIR, I don't like what I see after Bumgarner, Cain and Heston.
Vogey: Old
Hudson: Old
Lincecum: not old, but going down hill in a hurry!
Is it that far fetched that one or more of them gets either: Released, retires (Hudson), or gets traded?
To me, it isn't that far fetched.
I mean consider the teams with a chance, and being a starter short to get them into the playoffs.
In THAT scenario, Vogey or Hudson could be moved.
We'll see, but as I say, it's not that much of a stretch.
boly
|
|
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 Jul 22, 2015 19:19:17 GMT -5
Ok, so let's say management agrees with you. How much are you willing to trade for a 2 month rental? If you want someone that would remain under team control past 2015, then you're talking about trading more prospects to get him. And if you make THAT kind of deal, what does that say about your belief in the pitching prospects?
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jul 23, 2015 9:31:44 GMT -5
Not sure which player you're referring to there, Randy, but if it's Chapman, he's not a FA until after 2016. The thing which draws me to Chapman besides that 103 mph fastball is that most other contenders have a top flight closer so he's perfect for the Giants and the competition shouldn't be so fierce. I don't want Uribe because I'm happy with Duffy at 3b, and don't think he can play anywhere other than 3B these days. When he was younger you could move him all over the infield. I agree they need reliable starting pitching though. I'm very happy with Cain and Peavy right now, but not sure it will last, and Tim Hudson is obviously done, with Vogey and Lincecum in the same category.
|
|
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 Jul 23, 2015 14:34:23 GMT -5
That comment was a general one. I don't see the Giants making a trade for a big target. As usual, they will do some tinkering but nothing attention-grabbing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 24, 2015 12:44:46 GMT -5
The Giants have been an excellent deadline deal team, with their success coming from the little deals, not the big ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jul 25, 2015 9:46:24 GMT -5
Uribe was traded last night to the Mets. They need more than him and Kelly Johnson to pick up that offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 27, 2015 8:45:50 GMT -5
Rog- The Giants have been an excellent deadline deal team, with their success coming from the little deals, not the big ones.
Boagie- Pence was a pretty big deal and quite successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 28, 2015 23:36:21 GMT -5
With the exception of the ill-fated Beltran trade, the Pence deal was the biggest deadline deal the Giants have made in years. And it did indeed work out quite well.
Something I read about Aoki is that he becomes a free agent if he has something like 550 plate appearances. He has 294, so the way the Giants are hitting the ball and with him eventually batting lead off again (after Pagan cools down), he's got a chance. Aoki compiled those plate appearances in 68 games (entering tonight's contest). If he stays on that same pace over the last 63 games he would wind up with 566 plate appearances and just make the cut off.
I suspect the Giants would try to keep him, but it would seriously cut into their budget, as he likely could command a strong three-year contract.
Those who complained about the Giants' getting "only" Aoki this past winter hadn't yet come out of hibernation, had they? Some would have preferred Michael Morse, but I think history has shown that would have been a very bad move.
My guess is that the Giants will finally acquire a big rotation fish this winter. Speaking of which, the Padres are said to be shopping James Shields and are expected to have to pick up some of his remaining $65 million on his contract to do so. Jon Lester has only a 5-8 record, but his 3.32 ERA is impressive after a slow start. The problem with Jon is that he'll be paid quite a bit of money after he has likely passed his top pitching years.
And Pablo Sandoval? Do the words "He saved the Giants from themselves" ring any clearer now?
Now, the one guy the Giants didn't pursue -- Max Scherzer -- might have been the best guy to sign. And his hated agent structured a deal for him that made it cash flow-affordable while paying Scherzer a huge amount in total. The way the deal turned out, the Giants could have afforded it. Replace Jake Peavy and Sergio Romo with Max, and the Giants might be running away with the NL West.
They probably wouldn't be running away, but they might have a semi-comfortable lead over the dreaded Dodgers.
|
|
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 Jul 29, 2015 1:23:39 GMT -5
You're the biggest hypocrite I've ever come across. If I only had a had a dime for every time you've posted the words "small sample" or "wait till the contract plays out" I'd make Bill Gates seem like a skid row bum. But now you're in a hurry to break your arm patting yourself on the back about Pablo and others. Comedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jul 31, 2015 8:09:44 GMT -5
One hundred games isn't a small sample anymore, Dood, it's the way it is. The player has been declining for quite some time and it's incredible the Giants didn't see it and unbelievably fortunate that another team stupidly spared them from a huge mistake made out of the same loyalty you're showing him. You know what's funny? You love Pablo for what he did for us but have no problem with what's he done this year because he's done it in another uniform. However if he had re-signed with the Giants and showed up for camp so out of shape and had this terrible year for them you would he absolutely killing him. Can you imagine the difference if the Giants were playing this year's Pablo at third every day instead of Matt Duffy? We would be selling today instead of buying!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 31, 2015 11:27:34 GMT -5
a consistent quality starter would be a great help. Here's Bobby Evans' problem. Selling to management that the team needs another starter with 8 already on the roster, particularly when you've been telling them since 2013 that the arms in the minors would be ready no later than next Spring. Rog -- Apparently he's a good salesman. We'll see if that continues this winter. If Mike finishes his season strongly, he'll make a ton of money in free agency. Even if he's just so-so the rest of the way, finishing in the top 10 in innings pitched is a nice selling point. If Mike is a good fit with the team, I'd try to lock him up right away. The Giants have a lot of money coming off the books (nearly $30 million between the two Tim's), but in addition to built in salary increases, their arbrtation-eligible players (primarily the two Brandon's and Gregor Blanco) will be expensive. It would seem to be a good idea to wrap up the two Brandon's too. Blanco as well. He's one of the better fourth outfielders around, and his versatility has been quite beneficial. If the Giants are able to keep the players they have including Leake, they'll have done well. And I'm not including the two Tim's obviously. At his low price, I'd think seriously about keeping Ryan Vogelsong, who should be a contributor out of the bullpen as well as being ready for any needed spot starts. Like Tim Hudson, he can't keep pitching forever. But the way the season has gone, the Giants' re-signing of Ryan this past winter was a solid move. He's a fine pitcher for his almost ridiculously-low price tag. And, no, I have no idea what the Giants will do with their vast stable of pitchers. They have more quantity than quality, but the quality isn't too bad, either. Remember too that there are arms such as Osich available in the minors. With Jeremy Affeldt eligible for free agency this winter, Osich could be his clear replacement. And that would save several million dollars to sign and re-sign other players. I know it seems as if the Giants should have unlimited money for player salaries, but while they are one of the top spenders, their pockets go only so deep. The Dodgers are outspending them by $100 million, but the Giants are showing that's not entirely how much you spend, but how you spend it. Mike Leake could test the depth of their pockets this winter. But if they could offer $95 million for Pablo Sandoval and be willing to slightly higher, they should be able to come up with the money for what could be a pitcher just beginning to reach his potential. Remember how Jake Peavy worked out last season. Leake is pitching far, far better than we Peavy when the Giants traded for Jake. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2940/ooooooo-ribe#ixzz3hU7zcj1W |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 31, 2015 11:41:46 GMT -5
You're the biggest hypocrite I've ever come across. If I only had a had a dime for every time you've posted the words "small sample" or "wait till the contract plays out" Rog -- You make a good point here. I wouldn't totally write off Pablo. I have already mentioned that he has gotten himself in shape before. But he has yet to be able to retain it, and unless he turns over a solid new leaf, his problem will likely get only worse. His contract is only about one-eighth over, so he has time to redeem himself. But he's digging himself a big hole. I myself thought he might resurrect himself for a year or two and was more worried about the last two to four years of his contract. That he's wasting (or waisting) the early part of the pact is indeed cause for concern. Incidentally, remember how you pooh-poohed the possibility of signing Chase Headley and we felt he might be as good or better than Pablo -- with less time and money risk? Chase has been coming on strongly (which I see because I now check out players I might want to put on my fantasy teams) and has clearly outplayed Pablo thus far. Runs scored and RBI's are team-dependent, but Chase has outscored Pablo by 20 runs and also has 8 more RBI's. He has clearly outplayed Pablo in the field. The one area in which Chase has disappointed is that he hasn't taken nearly as many walks (26) as usual. Headley has played to about the level of his contract. Pablo has fallen a little short on his. If the Giants had re-signed Pablo, you would be considerably more accurate with your constant putting down of Brian Sabean. And frankly, Brian was apparently willing to do so. It's not a new statement here that Pablo saved the Giants from themselves. They have built excellent team chemistry by keeping their team comparatively intact. But they've also re-signed some players who didn't go on to earn their contracts. Thankfully, Pablo won't be in that group. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2940/ooooooo-ribe?page=1#ixzz3hUGkEs9k |
|
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 Jul 31, 2015 13:03:18 GMT -5
One hundred games isn't a small sample anymore, Dood, it's the way it is. The player has been declining for quite some time
Dood - without that rapidly declining player, there would have been no parade, no banner raised and no ring ceremony.
and it's incredible the Giants didn't see it and unbelievably fortunate that another team stupidly spared them from a huge mistake made out of the same loyalty you're showing him.
Dood - I agree that the Giants are better off without Pablo but then again if Duffy didn't come out of nowhere to do things totally unexpected, we would be stuck with DP McGehee and WISHING we had Pablo, big contract and all.
You know what's funny? You love Pablo for what he did for us but have no problem with what's he done this year because he's done it in another uniform. However if he had re-signed with the Giants and showed up for camp so out of shape and had this terrible year for them you would he absolutely killing him. Can you imagine the difference if the Giants were playing this year's Pablo at third every day instead of Matt Duffy? We would be selling today instead of buying!
Dood - even more funny is you, Rog and everyone else make the assumption that if he stayed his season would be exactly the same as it has been AND that there is no way at age 28 that Pablo can EVER get back to his solid self. As I said, if we win a ring without him, I will have been proven wrong...if not, well it is what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 31, 2015 13:56:10 GMT -5
Dood - I agree that the Giants are better off without Pablo but then again if Duffy didn't come out of nowhere to do things totally unexpected, we would be stuck with DP McGehee and WISHING we had Pablo, big contract and all. Rog -- I think it is pretty safe to assume that if the third base problem hasn't been solved, the Giants would have or would be taking action by 1:00 today. Here is the key though, Randy. The Giants took a low-price shot with McGehee. They kept their risk low. With Pablo's $95 million demands, they would have been mortgaging their future. 12% of their payroll would have been wrapped up in an under-performing asset. Add that to the contracts of the two Tim's, and the Giants would have had nearly a third of their payroll under-performing. That's a tough formula for success. Let's just get to the bottom of this, Randy. If the Giants had been re-signing the Pablo of 2008, 2009 and 2011, the risk would have been worth it. But they were looking at the Pablo of 2012, 2013, 2014 and declining. Why spend close to $100 million on a guy who has been a good but not great player the previous three seasons, has been declining and has health and weight risks? Why couldn't you see that back then? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2940/ooooooo-ribe#ixzz3hUpwiE5i |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 31, 2015 13:57:54 GMT -5
Let me ask this question: Pablo could still pull out his contract, but would you sign him to it today? If the season were ending today and Pablo were becoming a free agent, how would you be willing to pay him?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 31, 2015 14:03:13 GMT -5
How much are you willing to trade for a 2 month rental? Rog -- If the Giants are unable to re-sign Mike Leake, the deal swings against them. If contributed to another World Championsihip, one could argue in favor of it. But assuming the prospects the Giants gave up to get him are good (IMO Duvall isn't), they need to re-sign Leake and have him continue to be successful. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2940/ooooooo-ribe#ixzz3hUt6spT6 |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 31, 2015 14:06:05 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 Jul 31, 2015 14:06:41 GMT -5
Here's what I know...in those "declining" years, the Giants won 2 of their 3 world championships, with Pablo being a huge part of both. If the Giants prove they can win a title without him I'll pronounce myself to be just as stupid as you say I am. Until then your numbers mean absolutely squat in the grand scheme
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 31, 2015 14:08:28 GMT -5
Dood - even more funny is you, Rog and everyone else make the assumption that if he stayed his season would be exactly the same as it has been AND that there is no way at age 28 that Pablo can EVER get back to his solid self. Rog -- You know what is the funniest of all? No one here thinks there is no way Pablo can ever get back to his solid self. And did you mean that performance-wise or physically? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2940/ooooooo-ribe?page=1#ixzz3hUugDOT2 |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 31, 2015 14:12:14 GMT -5
Here's what I know...in those "declining" years, the Giants won 2 of their 3 world championships, with Pablo being a huge part of both. Rog -- They won their first championship with Pablo playing so poorly that he received only 17 at bats in the postseason. Pablo rebounded nicely in 2011 after coming to camp in his best shape, but he began declining again in 2012. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2940/ooooooo-ribe?page=1#ixzz3hUv9QWVp |
|
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 Jul 31, 2015 14:21:44 GMT -5
Here's what I know...in those "declining" years, the Giants won 2 of their 3 world championships, with Pablo being a huge part of both.
Rog -- They won their first championship with Pablo playing so poorly that he received only 17 at bats in the postseason. Pablo rebounded nicely in 2011 after coming to camp in his best shape, but he began declining again in 2012.
Dood - Here's what I know...in those "declining" years, the Giants won 2 of their 3 world championships, with Pablo being a huge part of both. Nothing in your statement counters that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 31, 2015 14:31:38 GMT -5
Here's what I know...in those "declining" years, the Giants won 2 of their 3 world championships, with Pablo being a huge part of both. Rog -- They won their first championship with Pablo playing so poorly that he received only 17 at bats in the postseason. Pablo rebounded nicely in 2011 after coming to camp in his best shape, but he began declining again in 2012. Dood - Here's what I know...in those "declining" years, the Giants won 2 of their 3 world championships, with Pablo being a huge part of both. Nothing in your statement counters that. Rog -- You are right on the money there. It does show though that Pablo was merely one piece of the puzzle. Just as they did in 2010, the Giants are getting by pretty well without him in 2015. In fact, this is the most promising an odd-numbered year has been in an oddly long time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2940/ooooooo-ribe#ixzz3hV0PxC2f |
|
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 Jul 31, 2015 15:21:51 GMT -5
Rog -- You are right on the money there. It does show though that Pablo was merely one piece of the puzzle. Just as they did in 2010, the Giants are getting by pretty well without him in 2015. In fact, this is the most promising an odd-numbered year has been in an oddly long time.
Dood - I'm wondering if the early stages of Alzheimers is setting in for you, now. In 2010, Pablo was the starting 3rd baseman for most of the regular season, and he was still reasonably productive, though definitely down from previous seasons. At the end of that season when Pablo slowed down, Uribe stepped in and carried the load at 3rd through the playoffs. But at this time in 2010, the Giants were not getting by "without" Pablo because he was still starting.
|
|
