|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 3, 2015 14:06:28 GMT -5
The Royals non-tendered Holland, making him a free agent, should the Giants have any interest?
|
|
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 3, 2015 18:44:12 GMT -5
I can't abide thinking of any position except starting pitching right now. Without a severe upgrade in that department, the rest of the roster means squat
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 4, 2015 2:47:49 GMT -5
I can't abide thinking of any position except starting pitching right now. Without a severe upgrade in that department, the rest of the roster means squat Rog -- Really? I thought the idea was to outscore your opponent. Doesn't that involved both pitching and hitting? Fielding and base running? Eight daily positions, a rotation, a bullpen and a bench? Now, I think we all agree that the Giants need help in the rotation more than anywhere else. But the rest of the roster means a lot more than squat. How can you not see that? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3146/greg-holland#ixzz3tKtIHX3G
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 4, 2015 2:48:25 GMT -5
The question with Holland is health. Just a couple of years ago he was considered in some circles as the best closer not named Mariano Rivera.
|
|
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 4, 2015 12:58:03 GMT -5
I can't abide thinking of any position except starting pitching right now. Without a severe upgrade in that department, the rest of the roster means squat
Rog -- Really? I thought the idea was to outscore your opponent. Doesn't that involved both pitching and hitting? Fielding and base running? Eight daily positions, a rotation, a bullpen and a bench?
Now, I think we all agree that the Giants need help in the rotation more than anywhere else. But the rest of the roster means a lot more than squat. How can you not see that?
Dood - are you so dense that you cannot perceive the meaning of my words beyond the absolute literal? I have said over and over that the ONLY thing this roster lacks is starting pitching. Of course the rest of the roster is important...but it is already in place, except for a few small bits that are easy fixes. I hope this makes it clear enough for you
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 4, 2015 18:01:37 GMT -5
Of course I knew you were thinking of the rest of the roster, but your statement of "I can't abide thinking of any position except starting pitching right now," would seem to mean something like you can't abide thinking about any other position. Here is my point: Starting pitching is the Giants' position of greatest need, but anything they can do to improve the team could make sense. Starting pitching makes a lot of sense, but it isn't the only way to improve the team. As I have made clear, Jason Heyward would improve the team three ways: hitting, fielding and base running. Of course, Zack Greinke would also help in three ways: pitching, hitting and fielding. But Jason is six years younger than Zack, and his chances of avoiding a drop off are much hetter. If the Giants signed Jason to a 12-year contract they would be getting the same 33-38-year-old seasons as they would get from signing Zack for six years. The difference is that they would also be getting his 27-32-year-old campaigns. Would you rather buy Jason Heyward on the way up or Zack Greinke on the way down? This might be an intriguing way to look at this. If the Giants were to sign Jason, they would be signing him at the same age they locked up Buster Posey for 10 years. If they sign Zack, they'll be signing him around the same age as they re-signed Angel Pagan and Jake Peavy. Again: Heyward on the way up or Greinke on the way down? I'm almost certain the Giants could sign Jason for less per year, but his total contract would likely be higher than Zack's. Maybe the Giants will show once again that they are cheap and choose Zack over Jason! Why choose a contract over $200 million when you can get an excellent player for a little less than $200 mill (maybe)? Would you rather have Greinke (32) and Gordon (32) or Heyward (26) and Leake (28)? Most of Greinke's and Gordon's best seasons are behind them. Several of Heyward's and Leake's may be still ahead. Would you rather pay for a guy's past or his future? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3146/greg-holland#ixzz3tOWp68c4
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 5, 2015 0:15:31 GMT -5
Well, we learned tonight that the Giants or Dodgers wouldn't go six years for Greinke and he's now a Diamondback, and he's the richest player per year in the history of baseball. I heard they have a morning meeting tomorrow with Jeff Samardzija and he's about to take advantage of this situation and get a huge contract, if not with the Giants then with someone else. We were wondering what Plan B was, and we're about to find out. As for Holland, he's out for 2016 with TJ surgery, why would you want him?
|
|