Has anyone seen a dollar amount yet?

A quote I hope is in Omar Vizquel's future: "Get that damn kid off my lawn!"

* Starts Sobbing*

Seriously - is there a worse GM in baseball than Sabean right now? Ed Wade perhaps?

oh jeeze, looks like it's suicide again for me :(

What a terrible signing. I have no idea what Sabean is thinking.

If this is possible, is it really that crazy to think a Matsui for Cain package could be in the future?

!!!!!

?????

.....

!!!!!

?
!
?????????????????????????????????????????????????

In a world gone mad, only Shooty can save you. Vote Shooty in 2008!

Also, I feel sorry for the next gm of this team. Good luck with this mess.

I posted in another thread: My guess is $72 million.

The McCovey Caved-In Face...can't wait!

If this is possible, is it really that crazy to think a Matsui for Cain package could be in the future?

Matsui is old. Luke Scott for Cain would make a lot more sense.

Over-under for games played for Rowand over the life of this contract? 500? 400?

I'm glad my allegiance lies on the other side of the bay...

This seems like a signing because the front office had to sign someone this offseason. Even if Rowand plays as well over this 5-year contract as he did in 2007, what does this accomplish? The Giants are still a bad team with almost no chance at competing this year or the foreseeable future, so how does this help them in any way? They should either have gone balls out and have signed Arod and a bunch of other players or blown up the entire team (not that there's much to sell off) and try rebuilding.

Is Rowand their youngest starting position player?

Based on Rowand's career, I believe he will be worth this contract in 2010 and 2013, so hopefully they got an option on the deal.

needless to say, matsui's age is a virtue

Yeah, if Rowand's getting anything close to way Torii got from LAA, then this is a WTF deal for the ages - maybe it's not so bad @ a Guillen level, but the length is an issue regardless. Granted, his defense might help out the pitching staff a smidge (assuming they're mostly FBers), but what's the move to spacious PacBell going to do to him as a hitter? Last year he had a wicked home / road split (mostly in the SLG department - 82 point drop away from CBB), which differs from his consistency during the 3 previous campaigns

"way Torii" = "what Torii"

Is Rowand their youngest starting position players?

The Giants have started their youth* movement!


The big mistake will be when they re-sign Rowand to a long-term contract five years from now.


* Youth meaning under 35 years in Giantese.

Supposedly in the neighborhood of $85 million!! Oh God why has thou forsaken me?

Please don't make me laugh. I just had a tooth pulled. I guess I shouldn't read this thread then.

I suspect that the article is going to be very wrong. Rowand may be in SF for a year, year and a half, but he'll be one of the few veterans that will have any trade value when the inevitable rebuilding phase comes along.

Oh yeah - that turd's not gonna go down with just one flush.

Supposedly in the neighborhood of $85 million!! Oh God why has thou forsaken me?

It can't be. They can't be giving Rowand $85 million. It's just not possible.

Zito + Rowand = World Series. Possibly five of them. Good job, Sabes!

wasn't that broken face catch in CBB v the mets?

Yahoo says $60 million. I want to buy a sniper rifle.

Five years? Really?

If the AAV is anywhere over 12 million, the contract is an utter utter joke.

This also says $60 million.

It'd be funny if Sabean leaked $85 million so when you saw it was only $60 mil you wouldn't think it was so bad.

MSI - While refreshing the page, I've seen your value drop from 15 to 13 to 12.

Did I miss 14?

anybody want to complain about the Yankees' and Red Sox's profligate spending habits right now?

aleskel, I was just thinking the same thing. At least $15M a year for Rowand, for four years? Posada's contract doesn't look too bad now, does it?

Nah I just keep thinking about how old he is and the length. Even if its a bad contract, there's no way it is more than 13 or 15.

anybody want to complain about the Yankees' and Red Sox's profligate spending habits right now?

Don't you know? The Yankees spending habits are forcing poor teams like the Giants to spend so much money on non-superstars.

So, both the Giants and Dodgers sign new CFs one year after signing CFs.

At least the Roberts contract is nowhere as bad as the Pierre contract.

Brian Sabean is the reason for the gap between the A.L and N.L.

Heh, check out this headline.

Dayn Perry is probably pissed this didn't happen two days ago.

Well this should push Kendall off that top 5 bad contract lists. This has to be the #1 worst contract of the offseason and cements Sabean as one of the top 5 worst GM's in baseball.

Awesome! Now the Giants get to start THREE CFs (Roberts in LF, Rowand in CF, Winn in RF) and NONE of the young outfielders they should be starting (Lewis, Schierholz, Velez, POS Davis). A trade with San Diego has to be coming, right? Roberts plus garbage for Chase Headley? @#$!^&!^ What a complete joke.

Aaron is an all-around player who is coming into his prime

Next he'll sign Hank Aaron for left field, he's a little out of his prime but was one of the greatest players ever.

But given Rowand's playing style, it makes sense; the more Rowand ruins himself, the more he'll be a "True Giant," meaning he'll play like he's 37! I don't think Sabean paid enough! This is gonna work out awesome. Just awesome. And, now that they've filled that outfield hole with all that Aaron Rowand awesomeness, Sabean can just tweak the trade from "Rios for Lincecum" to "Overbay for Lincecum." Then, and only then, will the Giants truly be the most boring, sucktastic team in all of baseball!

5 years 60 million

Well, that was unexpected. And stupid.

Didn't expect him to end up in San Francisco of all places. Wow.

This has to be the #1 worst contract of the offseason and cements Sabean as one of the top 5 worst GM's in baseball.

One of the 5 worst? Who's worse? With his revenue/market advantage, that roster is absolutely inexcusable.

Here's what I don't get.

We criticize the Marlins for not spending money, and we criticize the Giants for spending money.

I'm not suggesting that the Giants should have signed Rowand, or defending that signing (I'm actually glad that the White Sox didn't get him). But what exactly would we have the Giants do? Putting the "fire Sabean" comments aside, I assume people would say "plan for the future/get all young players." But if every team in baseball that doesn't have a good-to-great shot at the playoffs next year (20 or so teams) decided to sell off all players but their young stars, wouldn't it totally screw up the game's economics and competition? Wouldn't we have 5-10 teams acquiring great players at reduced rates (because everyone is offering their players around, and these teams are the only buyers), and a bunch of teams that completely suck? How would that be good for baseball, or good for fans of these teams?

One of the 5 worst? Who's worse? With his revenue/market advantage, that roster is absolutely inexcusable.

I hate this signing but I think the Hunter contract is just as bad if not worse.

If he has 5 years remotely good as his 2007, this is a good contract.

But that seems very unlikely. He's had two good years in the last 5.

What are the odds of serious injuries taking a chunk out of some of the years of this contract? Not as likely as a lot of people here think. His 2006 injury was not the kind of thing that's going to recur. Aside from that he's been healthy.

I don't get why people are so worked up over this. Rowand's ZIPs is basically the same as Hunter's, they have the same Plus/Minus defensive rating over the last 3 years, Hunter's just one year younger, and Hunter's missed just as much time over the past few years.

Rowand looks a lot like Wells and Hunter to me, but he's signed for a lot less money.

What's the problem?

It's hard to hate the contract, compared to just about ever other CF contract signed in the last two years. With baseball inflation, it's the same money as Matthews/Pierre, to whom Rowand is superior, and 1/3 less than Hunter, to whom Rowand is equal.

What's the problem?

5 years is the problem. The money's reasonable, but given that contract length it will almost certainly become problematic at some point.

I don't get why people are so worked up over this. Rowand's ZIPs is basically the same as Hunter's, they have the same Plus/Minus defensive rating over the last 3 years, Hunter's just one year younger, and Hunter's missed just as much time over the past few years.

Rowand looks a lot like Wells and Hunter to me, but he's signed for a lot less money.

What's the problem?

Because the marginal wins that Hunter will provide to a 90-ish win Angels club are much more valuable to the team than the marginal wins Rowand will provide to a 70-ish win Giants team. This money should have been spent on international scouting and signing talented players over-slot in the 2008 draft. Just awful.

What's the problem?

its not just the contract he's signing; its the team he's signing it with. What good does it do for the Giants to sign a mediocre player to a long, heavy contract? It won't make them competative next year and probably not the year after. By the time this team is theoretically going to be competative in 3 or 4 years, Rowand is likely going to be dead weight.

Just off the top of my head, at least the following 16 teams have a legit shot at making the playoffs next year, with good health and couple of breaks on their side: AL- Boston, New York, Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit, Anaheim, Seattle, NL- Atlanta, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee, Colorado, Arizona, San Diego, Los Angeles

Also, there are worlds of shades of gray between the Florida plan and the Giants' "plan."

Rowand's ZIPs is basically the same as Hunter's

Except for 60 points of slugging.

What's the problem?

Look at their performances over the last three years. You've got Hunter, who has been above average every year at the plate. And then you've got Rowand, who was as good as Hunter last year and as good as Coco Crisp the two years before.

Is Rowand the 123 OPS+ guy or is he the new version of Darin Erstad? I don't know. I do know Hunter is a good bet to put up a <100 OPS+ next year.

Edit: Since it's 60, not 85, I don't think it's a bad contract. I don't think bad teams should just throw in the towel because they aren't going to win. I still think Hunter is a better player then Rowand.

I'm not suggesting that the Giants should have signed Rowand, or defending that signing (I'm actually glad that the White Sox didn't get him). But what exactly would we have the Giants do? Putting the "fire Sabean" comments aside, I assume people would say "plan for the future/get all young players."

Oh, now. We criticize the Marlins for getting rid of the good young players they have just as they begin to get expensive, and for perpetually keeping their payroll below the cost of a Big Mac. No one thinks the Marlins should go out and spend $12M or $15M on an Aaron Rowand; we think they should spend that kind of money on Miguel Cabrera! And we think that the Giants should recognize that for right now -- not into perpetuity, as with the Marlins -- it makes no sense to be spending ridiculous sums of money chasing that 63rd win, but instead they should maybe invest it in signing some actual draft picks, international prospects, scouting, etc., and begin (finally) to rebuild a farm system that is bereft of the position player prospects who might lead them back to something meaningful.

This signing has absolutely nothing to do with the Giants winning a damned thing, either short-term or long-term. For that reason, it is exactly like what the Marlins do all the time. That is why they are both criticized, and why there is no inconsistency in knocking them both.

But what exactly would we have the Giants do?

The issue, of course, is that their near-total absence of system-produced position player talent, they have put themselves in a position of having essentially no choice but to populate the lineup with free agents. And given that, Rowand at $12M/year isn't a bad choice.

But the larger issue is that it's a road that leads nowhere. Until/unless the Giants' farm system produces some reasonable position players, the best they can hope for is to not suck too hard.

Rowand has had over an .800 OPS twice, has always played in big time offensive parks and will be lucky to post an .800 OPS for the Giants more than 1 time in that 5 years. I see him as an average fielder in CF according to Tango's google doc. I must say the deal was much worse when they said $85M of course, it is still bad at $60M but not nearly as bad.

You are also talking about a bunch of terrible contracts and saying see, his is about the same as theirs.

What's the problem?

Piling on here, but yeah, in a vacuum, this contract is fine and Hunter's is a mess. But take into account the talent around both guys, and this signing is indefensible.

What's the problem?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the problem is that the Giants already have like 100 OFs; the last thing they needed is another one, especially one that probably won't perform as well as he has in the past due to park factors plus natural regression plus age. Sure, it could work out, but why do this when there are other holes to fill? (Who the hell is going to play 1B, 3B, etc.?) Why invest this kind of money and years in a CF who on the low end projects to play a smidge better than Randy Winn offensively; Randy Winn, who the Giants already have and can't reasonably trade and who will now in all likelihood block one of the players the Giants should be playing this year, RF Nate Schierholz. Yes, defense is fantastic, especially for a team that will in all likelihood rely on their pitching to win games, but this trade just seems really, really dumb on the face of it.

I think the response to 48 would be "Since the Giants are going to suck anyway, they should play their young players, to see if any of them is genuinely valuable. Even aside from the young players being cheap, since they are under the team's control, if someone at age 24 turns out to be as good as Rowand, he's immensely more valuable as a trade chip or in allowing the team to spend money on another position. But they will never know, because they haven't given the young players starting jobs in which they could potentially shine."

I agree with 48 in the case of a team that knows its young players aren't any good. For the 2005 Royals it was a better idea to pay a veteran left fielder than to pretend Shane Costa was the right man for the job. Of course, they then made the mistake of choosing Terrence Long as that left fielder, but keeping the team from being totally embarrassing is the right impulse to have.

Florida's plan is to spend as little as possible, field an insanely young team, and max out at 70 wins if things go right. Sabean's plan is to spend a shitton of money, field an insanely old team, and max out at 70 wins if things go right. So, yeah: what's the problem? I see none at all, because all I care about is seeing my team spend money, and recognizing the names on the line-up card. In this respect: Sabean is awesomeness, and Rowand, whose offensive #s should translate just wonderfully in SF, is gonna take this squad over the top, baby. Yeah.

Was Rowand an A or a B free agent? Does he cost the Giants their 2nd round pick?

Because the marginal wins that Hunter will provide to a 90-ish win Angels club are much more valuable to the team than the marginal wins Rowand will provide to a 70-ish win Giants team. This money should have been spent on international scouting and signing talented players over-slot in the 2008 draft. Just awful.

It's not a two year deal, and the Giants have plenty of cash. They should have a good pitching staff for the next few years at a reasonable price. They have no hitting coming up through the system, so their pitching would just go to waste.

I'd much rather see them add good position players at reasonable prices than sit tight or trade away their pitching. They now have an excellent OF defense to complement their flyballish pitching staff and expansive OF. So they won't make the playoffs this year--neither will 21 other teams. They've improved their team for a reasonable price without blocking anyone worthwhile. They had a 106 ERA+ and 89 OPS+, so they're clearly adding to the weak half of their squad--he's projected to be their best hitter this year. They also underperformed their Pythag, which suggests they weren't as bad as their record. They were 9th of 16 in BP's 3rd order wins.

I guess I'm rambling, but I think this will help the Giants win more games over the next few years and won't prevent them from winning more games after that should they happen to rebuild well.

By the standards of Gary Matthews and Juan Pierre, this isn't that bad. I think Rowand might even play up to the value, though he'd need to stay healthy to do it (which isn't all that likely with the way he plays).

You guys are forgetting the golden rule (otherwise known as the Minaya rule) of general managers. An otherwise bad move is made good if it prevents an even worse move. This signing puts a roadblock on the Lincecum--Rios deal (much to my chagrin) thus making the signing of Rowand the best move of the offseason.

It's not a two year deal, and the Giants have plenty of cash. They should have a good pitching staff for the next few years at a reasonable price. They have no hitting coming up through the system, so their pitching would just go to waste.

Point taken. Though by the time they could contend, Rowand will clearly have entered his decline phase. That's kind of a scary prospect, especially for a guy who a)sacrifices his body in the outfield, b)never has provided a real, consistent gauge of his hitting abilities. Is he the .270/.329/.407 guy from his age-27 season? The .309/.374/.515 guy playing in a bandbox in 2007? It's a reasonably safe bet that at no point over the life of this contract will he replicate the year he had in 2007, and that likelihood is all but nil by the time the Giants could possibly contend.

I guess I'm rambling, but I think this will help the Giants win more games over the next few years and won't prevent them from winning more games after that should they happen to rebuild well.

Right, because they've demonstrated the ability to do this so well over the past few years. This snarkiness is not directed at you, but rather at Sabean and co.

I'd much rather see them add good position players at reasonable prices than sit tight or trade away their pitching. They now have an excellent OF defense to complement their flyballish pitching staff and expansive OF.

And the excellent defense will make the pitchers' stats better.

Is Rowand the 123 OPS+ guy or is he the new version of Darin Erstad? I don't know. I do know Hunter is a good bet to put up a <100 OPS+ next year.

Rowand's career OPS+ is 106. Over the last 3 years he's been at 103. Over the past 4 years he's at 109. An OPS+ of 106 would have placed him 10th among regular CFers last year (28 players had at least 350 PA). Hunter's been a bit better than that, but he's also 2 years older.

Rowand's career OPS+ is 106. Over the past 4 years he's at 109.

Yeah, but he's not turning in those numbers every year. That's my issue with him. The way I see it, Hunter has as much upside and is a better bet to post at least league average or better numbers.

An OPS+ would have placed him 10th among regular CFers last year (28 players had at least 350 PA).

I didn't mean to suggest he's a bad player, I was thinking 98-01 Erstad, not CWS Erstad. Sorry, my meaning was far from clear.

I agree with 48 in the case of a team that knows its young players aren't any good. For the 2005 Royals it was a better idea to pay a veteran left fielder than to pretend Shane Costa was the right man for the job. Of course, they then made the mistake of choosing Terrence Long as that left fielder, but keeping the team from being totally embarrassing is the right impulse to have.

The Giants are that team. Their hitting is dreadful, and they don't have anything on the way.

Look at their performances over the last three years. You've got Hunter, who has been above average every year at the plate. And then you've got Rowand, who was as good as Hunter last year and as good as Coco Crisp the two years before.

FALSE. Torii Hunter has never had as good a season as Rowand's 07, or Rowand's 04. Using B-P's EqA, which accounts for park and league context, for each players' age 23 seasons onward (both players' whole careers, except for about 20 PA of Hunter's), and career:

Rowand 291/242/268/301/264/255/302 career 278
Hunter 235/242/264/289/260/275/283/284/292 career 272

Rowand beats Hunter on career and every year but one at the same age. He's two years younger as well. I'd rather have Rowand than Hunter at the same money, and it's a no-brainer at 1/3 off. He actually has a decent chance of being worth his contract.

Rowand has had over an .800 OPS twice, has always played in big time offensive parks and will be lucky to post an .800 OPS for the Giants more than 1 time in that 5 years.

Are you in training to be a hack sportswriter? This is blatant misuse of statistics ... you presenting the data in such a way as to completely misrepresent reality. In four years of full-time play, Rowand's OPS has been 905, 736, 746, 889. Yes, he's only been above 800 twice, but that's as many times as he was below, and he was above 800 by a much larger amount than he was below 800 in the other years. His career OPS is above 800, and that includes relatively poor play as a 4th OF early in his career.

Hopefully, this doesn't mean that Roberts and Winn are now in the corners, with Schierholtz blocked.

Rowand's career OPS+ is 106. Over the last 3 years he's been at 103. Over the past 4 years he's at 109.

That's a bit disingenuous. His line hasn't been 109-109-109-109. It's been 130-93-86-123.

There's at least a decent chance that he'll never see another OPS+ over 100.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the problem is that the Giants already have like 100 OFs; the last thing they needed is another one, especially one that probably won't perform as well as he has in the past due to park factors plus natural regression plus age. Sure, it could work out, but why do this when there are other holes to fill? (Who the hell is going to play 1B, 3B, etc.?) Why invest this kind of money and years in a CF who on the low end projects to play a smidge better than Randy Winn offensively; Randy Winn, who the Giants already have and can't reasonably trade and who will now in all likelihood block one of the players the Giants should be playing this year, RF Nate Schierholz. Yes, defense is fantastic, especially for a team that will in all likelihood rely on their pitching to win games, but this trade just seems really, really dumb on the face of it.

Yup. This is a team that hasn't had a 1b with an OPS+ higher than 92 in the last 3 years, and has no 3b - and they're signing a CF who is a rich-man's Randy Winn? Really? They have about 2 interesting young bats - Lewis/Scherholtz(sp? who are OF, and now I'm convinced they will give Roberts/Winn/Rowand the vast majority of PA's relegating the young guys to the bench. If you're going to commit $60 million this year, go sign a player that's actually not at the one position where you have some future hope, however miniscule it may be.

Good, I was really afraid the Friars were going to get into the bidding for him.
Aaron, Welcome to the best division in baseball ..

Using B-P's EqA, which accounts for park and league context, for each players' age 23 seasons onward (both players' whole careers, except for about 20 PA of Hunter's), and career:

Well, that'll teach me to just look at OPS+ while browsing at work. A closer look at the two and I'm inclined to agree with you.

I'm changing my tune a bit, this a better signing then the Hunter one. But there is no guarantee that Rowand progresses the way Hunter did and levels out as a good hitter and not the guy he was in 05 and 06. But yeah, after looking at everything, I'd rather have the Rowand deal.

But yeah, after looking at everything, I'd rather have the Rowand deal.

Of course, that just means that signing Torii Hunter would have been a bad deal for the Giants, too.

Rowand

Hunter

Given the two year age gap, is that worth an extra $6 million a year?

I don't know, they just drafted Nick Noonan and Wendell Fairley who both seem like they could be decent down the road, and Angel Villalona on the way too. In three years or so, when that crop is coming in, if they can deal Rowand for a couple major league ready/capable guys, and in the meantime he gives them nifty production that they otherwise wouldn't have, it's not a huge terrible disaster.

They'll also probably start seeing nice returns on that FSNBA deal.

Which is, all of this is to say, that of course Sabean didn't consider any of this, just that it's possible he'll have been fired in three years and someone else won't be entirely hamstrung by it.

Beane should see if he can't flip Chavez for Lincecum. They do have a 3B hole......

To be fair this isn't the worst deal Sabean has made in the past year even. Zito deal is only 11 months old and that will probably end up on top 10 lists for worst deals in the history of the game.

Yes, he's only been above 800 twice, but that's as many times as he was below, and he was above 800 by a much larger amount than he was below 800 in the other years. His career OPS is above 800, and that includes relatively poor play as a 4th OF early in his career.

I just don't see him posting strong offensive numbers in that park and that division and in that lineup which is just terrible, but yeah I did exaggerate. It won't surprise me if he posts under an .800 OPS most seasons but it also wont' surprise me if he is in the .820 range a few times. I doubt he ever has a year as good as 2007 in that park though.

this isn't the worst deal Sabean has made

That is the nicest thing I can say.

Holy hannah, Sabean's an idiot.

I don't think this is a bad signing for the Giants. When I saw that it was for five years, I assumed the Giants would be on the hook for 75 million at least. The Hunter deal is much worse. If pressed, I'd also say I like it better than the Jones deal. If Andrew is done, the Dodgers are out 36 million. If he does well, they either lose him or pay a ton more money. 60 million for a team like the Giants is not a lot of money. Sure, as stated above, I suppose they could plow that money into development, but I think for most organizations they have different budgets allotted for each (major league payroll vs development expenses).

Factor in that the Giants (IIRC) haven't developed a positional player of note since Billy Mueller, and I think its a defensible, even dare I say, good, decision to sign a competent up the middle player for 60 million. Sure, they could bank the money, stink up the joint, and get a high draft pick, but the Giants haven't shown much of an affinity for the first round of the draft under Sabean anyway.

I don't ascribe much credence to the "tank, bank, and draft" philosophy. The Giants have a loyal fan base that pours money into the team, its not worth risking any good will from the fans by slashing payroll. If Rowand helps the Giants win 74 games instead of 71 in a given year, that's a good thing. There are far worse things they could have spent the money on. And as Gaelan notes above, maybe it prevented them from doing something worse. Getting better is always good, and the Giants are better with Rowand than not.

Who else were they going to spend 60 million on? Jones wouldn't sign for that. Hunter wouldn't sign for that. That's less than a fifth of what A-Rod signed for.

Its a perfectly reasonable signing. No, it won't help the Giants contend. But it might help keep them out of the basement. Which is a worthy goal in and of itself.

Of course, that just means that signing Torii Hunter would have been a bad deal for the Giants, too.

But it's not just Hunter. Take a look at all of the big OF signing from this year and last year:



I think the Rowand deal looks pretty good relative to the rest.

Rowand at $12M sounds reasonable, but for what the Giants needed they should have gambled on Andruw Jones first. That is one power-bereft team.

I think the Rowand deal looks pretty good relative to the rest.

It looks to me like another in a long string of ill-advised long-term contracts given to outfielders.

If the Giants were anywhere close to contention, though, I wouldn't be criticising them.

So, aside from Tim Lincecum pitching every fifth game (and I guess Matt Cain, too), can anyone come up with a compelling reason to watch the 2008 San Francisco Giants? I'm beginning to think that AARP is a silent partner.

So, aside from Tim Lincecum pitching every fifth game (and I guess Matt Cain, too), can anyone come up with a compelling reason to watch the 2008 San Francisco Giants?

There's always the chance that a couple of their three CFs playing in the OF run into each other a la Beltran and Cameron, however, you could probably just catch that on SportsCenter.

Was Rowand an A or a B free agent? Does he cost the Giants their 2nd round pick?

Yeah, he's a Type A. Their lost pick would have been somewhere worse than 50th--it was the 35th pick, but there are already 11 compensation picks.

There's always the chance that a couple of their three CFs playing in the OF run into each other a la Beltran and Cameron, however, you could probably just catch that on SportsCenter.

Maybe all three will run into each other. That would be awesome.

Holy hannah, Sabean's an idiot.

Apparently you are forgetting:

"I am not an idiot." -- Brian Sabean.

Rowand was a Type A but the Giants' first-round pick is Protected, thus the Phillies get the #55 overall pick.

There's always the chance that a couple of their three CFs playing in the OF run into each other a la Beltran and Cameron, however, you could probably just catch that on SportsCenter.

Good point. Shattered hips for everyone!

Unless I missed it the first time since I'm not really paying attention, SportsCenter got around to this signing in the 49th minute of an hour long show. After running a story about the history of the handshake and after Sean Salisbury dismounted from his high horse on the Petrino issue.

That's a bit disingenuous. His line hasn't been 109-109-109-109. It's been 130-93-86-123.

Isn't the latter better for a team like the Giants though? If Rowand put up a 109 OPS+ that makes the Giants what, a 75-win team. If instead he puts up a 90 OPS+ that drops to what 70 wins at worst. Big deal. They're a last-place team either way. But if Rowand puts up a 130 OPS+ maybe that inches the Giants up toward 80 wins and if a few other things go their way, maybe all of a sudden they're not such a bad team.

I'm with Danny. I think this is a fine deal. The Giants have to play somebody in center field. Rowand improves their offense, he improves their defense, and all he costs is money. And it's not any of our money unless the Giants owner is posting here under an alias.

The Giants have to play somebody in center field. Rowand improves their offense, he improves their defense, and all he costs is money. And it's not any of our money unless the Giants owner is posting here under an alias.

It's an opportunity cost. I want to enjoy watching my team play. Those $12m and the draft pick are $12m that aren't spent on someone useful, and a draft pick that doesn't get made. Last year the Giants got Clayton Tanner at #89. They got Schierholtz at #63 in 2003. Tidrow's staff could have made something of #55 and $12m extra a year in non-US scouting and signing bonuses, don't you think?

Worst of all, it's my suspicion that Rowand's bat will look a lot more like Dave Roberts' than people think, but let's wait and see.

Isn't the latter better for a team like the Giants though? If Rowand put up a 109 OPS+ that makes the Giants what, a 75-win team. If instead he puts up a 90 OPS+ that drops to what 70 wins at worst. Big deal. They're a last-place team either way. But if Rowand puts up a 130 OPS+ maybe that inches the Giants up toward 80 wins and if a few other things go their way, maybe all of a sudden they're not such a bad team.

That seems like an awfully large gamble to make - if Rowand puts together another career year and a bunch of other things happen, maybe the Giants won't be embarrassing? That's worth $60 million for five years?

I'm not so sure low-variance is a skill.