Likely... Not Likely...

[klaiggeb]

Evans isn't showing his hand too early, but my guess is, this is the direction he will and won't go.

1-Belt is going no where.

2-He'll sign a good closer, but not necessarily the best closer he could

3-He will NOT acquire a LF bat.

4-He'll seek to improve the bench.

5-He will sign some solid bullpen guys to help us.

boly

[Rog]

Brandon isn't going anywhere, regardless of how we feel about him here. The Giants didn't give him a six-year contract a year ago to trade him after one season, particularly when it was his best.

The Giants will acquire a closer, likely Mark Melancon. My personal choice would be Kenley Jansen, but he's going to get an arm and a leg and a torso to sign.

They might also add a very good set up man, or possibly plan B would be to add TWO very good set up men, letting them and Will Smith battle it out for the closer job.

If they could find just the deal for a left fielder, they will likely do so. But more likely, they'll see how the two young guys do, with the idea of shoring up the position at the trade deadline if necessary.

I don't expect anything beyond a minor league contract to help fortify the bench. Brown is set as the catching backup, and Gillaspie and Tomlinson should handle the infield backup slots. If they could find just the right guy, they might acquire a center field backup, although Gorkys Hernandez is likely the guy, and there is always some possibility they will bring Gregor Blanco back.

The Giants have bullpen depth; they mostly don't have bullpen STRENGTH. In Will Smith, they likely have more than we realize. Maybe more than even they think.

If the Giants could pick up a rotation depth piece on the cheap, they still might do that. If Ryan Vogelsong wanted to return at $2 million for instance. But again, the Giants will likely give the young guys the shot and shore up at the trade deadline if necessary.

In the past year, the Giants have picked up seven players who are in the playing or pitching rotation. They aren't likely to make nearly that many changes this time around.

[sfgdood]

1-Belt is going no where.

Dood - that is the sad truth. If we get the same meager production from Belt and Posey or, worse, Buster goes down with another injury, we will be lamenting that stupid contract we gave Belt that was NOT earned...and even more ruing the Duvall trade for the lousy rental Leake.

[Rog]

Dood - that is the sad truth. If we get the same meager production from Belt and Posey or, worse, Buster goes down with another injury, we will be lamenting that stupid contract we gave Belt that was NOT earned.


Rog -- Sorry, Randy. You're not going to find any GM's out there who don't think Brandon played to his contract this year. In order to earn his six-year contract, he needs to earn about 11 WAR. He earned more than four already this past season.

Yeah, I know, WAR is artificial stat, but it is one that GM's use. MLB.com, which is sponsored by -- get this -- Major League Baseball, came out with an article entitled "War, what is it good for? Ranking Free Agents."

The sad truth, Randy, is that on the issue of baseball stats, you're still in the 20th century.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3557/#ixzz4NhBsKYDp

[rxmeister]

Gregor Blanco posted a farewell video to Giants fans on his instagram site, so I guess their first order of business was to tell certain players they would be going in another direction. If you consider Mac the LF starter next year, that would make Parker and Gorkys Hernandez the backups. Goodbye to Gregor, who was a large contributor to two championships and good luck wherever you go.

[klaiggeb]

Yeah... as much as I was on Blanco's case, he WAS a great Giant.

He did soooooooooooooooooooooo much for this organization, and he was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO UNSELFISH.

Don't see that much from professional athletes.

He was a GOOD guy.

boly

[Rog]

The Giants kind of signaled to Gregor that he would be gone when they gave him only one plate appearance in September. That said, I was very surprised when they placed him on the postseason roster.

But as Mark stated, the roster is more balanced with Gorkys (righty hitter) and Parker (lefty) as outfield backups than both Parker and Gregor from the left side. On the infield, Conor is the lefty and Tomlinson the righty.

If the Giants do indeed give left field to Williamson and Parker, the roster is almost set now. Only the pitching staff remains, and the first four starters are cast in stone. Then we've got Blach, Cain or the longshot Beede. The bullpen will consist of the new closer, Law, Strickland, Kontos, Smith and some combination of Blach, Cain, Okert, Osich, Gearrin and another outside reliever.

Certainly a surprise or injury or two is possible, but I can't remember such a set roster at this time of year. I guess the biggest drama will be WHO the new closer will be and then which candidate wins the fifth starter job.

[Rog]

Although Jansen and Chapman are superstar closers, Mark Melancon has 98 saves the past two seasons, a career 1.04 WHIP, and ERA's the past four years of 1.39, 1.90, 2.23 and 1.64.

He's averaged right at an inning per appearance and has been quite good at finishing games. The past two seasons he has finished 130 times in 153 appearances.

Over the past four seasons, he's walked only 45 batters in 290 innings. Melancon will be 32 when the season starts.

We have recently seen Chapman consistently throw over 100 mph,but I think the prize will be the 29-year-old Jansen, who has struck out 591 batters over the past six seasons.

Chapman will also be 29 and has struck out 617 over that time, but he's prone to wildness with 173 walks in 377 career innings. He did limit his walks last season to 18 in 58 innings, and he's capable of throwing large numbers of innings (58 last season even after being suspended two months).

Even the Dodgers rejected Chapman on moral grounds, so I don't see him coming here, and Jansen may be too expensive. The Giants have hinted that Melancon will be the top target. That said, my choice is Jansen, who is not only an even better pitcher, but is three years younger. I would think the Dodgers will bid very high to keep him though.

Get this, guys. The Dodgers' plan to build from within is bearing fruit. That means they will have quite a few inexpensive players, which means if they really, truly want a guy, they can spend a fortune if they wish. The other side of that though is that they have cut their league-leading payroll and last winter showed a lot of prudence (for them) in what they were willing to pay free agents.

[klaiggeb]

I'm not a fan of Chapman, rog, and the reason has little to do with baseball.

He's a spouse abuser... like Josh Brown of the NY Giants.

I have little time for them, and don't want people like them on my team.

boly

[Rog]

As a person, Chapman is clearly reprehensible -- as sadly have been many other baseball players. As a pitcher, he's been excellent. I have advocated using him in a Mike Marshall-type role. I don't think he could come close to equaling Marshall's 208 innings in 1974 or his 179 innings in 1973, but I'll bet Aroldis could throw over 100 frames without a lot of difficulty. I might be wrong here though.

Aroldis's 71 innings in 2012 is his career high. But he has also been consider for starting. Control would make a difference, since it could allow him to keep his number of pitches to a reasonable number.

Speaking of Marshall, we talk about starters throwing as many as 300 innings or so when we were kids, but isn't Marshall's 208 innings in 106 appearances perhaps the most impressive of all? We've seen starting pitchers around 250 innings in recent years (quite a feat in today's game), but we haven't seen a reliever come ANYWHERE close to Mike's 208 in 106 appearances.

This past season I think of Chris Devenski, a reliever who threw a lot of innings effectively. But Devenski threw 58 fewer games and 100 fewer innings. Marshall's feat boggles the mind.

We talk about baseball records that won't be broken, but I would bet Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak would fall before Marshall's 208 innings in relief -- assuming either is broken.

[sfgdood]

The sad truth, Randy, is that on the issue of baseball stats, you're still in the 20th century.

Dood - the players may be different but the game is still the same. 90 feet between bases, 60.5 feet from the pitching rubber to home plate. Plate the same size, though the strike zone floats. Still 3 strikes and you're out. Still 3 outs in an inning. Still a 9 inning game. You stats geeks can invent new metrics and gobbledygook all you want. As long as the basics of the game do not change, RBI and HRs will continue to be THE vital numbers when measuring run production. Once that changes, the game will no longer be the one I grew up loving.

[Rog]

As long as the basics of the game do not change, RBI and HRs will continue to be THE vital numbers when measuring run production.


Rog -- The game is ALL about scoring runs and preventing them (getting outs). But the problem with a stat such as the RBI is that runs scored is a team stat. With the exception of a home run, each run is the result of the effort of two to four players.

Boly indicated he was more concerned about RBI's than how a guy hit with runners on and in scoring position. If Player A outhits Player B with runners on and in scoring position and their home runs are similar, there are other factors at work if Player B has more RBI's -- such as more and/or better opportunities.

From a team standpoint, scoring runs on offense and getting outs on defense are what count. As such, evaluating a batter involves not only his production (total bases, walks, etc.), but also his AVOIDING making outs.

One of the important aspects of baseball is that it isn't timed. A team can be down by 10 runs but not run out of TIME to win the game. Hence, obscene comebacks are possible (even bigger than the Giants' not being able to get three outs before the Cubs scored four runs). A batter makes a contribution when he gains a base, and he creates a negative (with few exceptions) when he makes an out -- or worse, a double play.

As fans, we give runs plenty of attention (as we should). But at the level of an individual player, it's about gaining bases and avoiding making outs. With RBI's and runs scored, the only way a player doesn't count on his teammates to help is if he hits a home run. RBI's and runs scored are HUGELY important stats -- but they are team stats far more than individual stats.

Give me players who gains bases and avoids making outs, and I'll get you runs. Most runs are the result of a team effort -- not a single player. And runs and RBI's are team statistics far more than individual ones.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3557/#ixzz4NlAtEioe

[klaiggeb]

One of the things the Giants have excelled at, is getting quality "people."

It is clear that Chapman is NOT that.

The last scandal involving a Giant's player was Cabrera... and he WASN'T even invited back at the end of the year.

I like their plan.

Good players who are quality people.

To get Chapman would go against that, and I don't think they would do anything to kill team chemistry.

boly