SAN FRANCISCO IS A BIG MARKET.

Granted they had to pay for their own baseball park.

Nick Johnson feels left out.

As long as it's not a Phillie being a stalking horse.

Florida is also a big market.

Sabean essentially said he refuses to be a “stalking horse” for any player who is just using the Giants to get more money elsewhere, and that the Giants will talk only to free agents who have a genuine interest in coming to San Francisco.

Finally! A buyer for my mind reading device! This thing has been harder to sell than I though it would be.

Non-tendering Garko and spending an extra $5-8m to get LaRoche or Johnson (or Beltre at 3B, Panda to 1B) seems like a waste of a (theoretically) good 1B platoon (and Ishikawa can actually hit at AT&T;Park--SSS obviously). RF is a different story; I've got no faith in Schierholtz, though I assume many Giants fans would disagree. Even so, with the "2nd tier" OFers being a bit old or a bit crap and the Giants more than one meh-bat away from a good offense, I'm not sure it makes any sense to dump Schierholtz for the chance to lock up Marlon Byrd.

I have to assume this is Sabean's way of saying "We're keeping payroll down". Unfortunately, he usually follows this with his "But we're still gonna be competitive" signing of a Renteria-type. For a team that did so well with one elite player, it's sad to see them accumulate pointless mid-range FA contracts that prevent them from signing anybody worth paying.

Randy Winn can be talked into a 3 year/$25 million contract.

this is a policy change from last winter when Sabean was letting Boras use the Giants to drive up Manny's price with the Dodgers.

To die in the saddle, must be my destiny
But to ride this stalking horse I must be crazed

this is a policy change from last winter when Sabean was letting Boras use the Giants to drive up Manny's price with the Dodgers.

Yeah, why again is being a stalking horse bad? Driving up the price your competitors pay can be good.

I can see that you don't want to have your off-season plans ruined by having something fall through after your other options are gone. But that doesn't preclude negotiating, it just dictates how you negotiate (e.g. time limits on your offers, moving on quickly if you can't make a deal, having good backup plans that don't involve FAs, etc.).

Yeah, why again is being a stalking horse bad? Driving up the price your competitors pay can be good.

Barry Zito? They talked themselves all the way up to a record setting contract at the time.

Barry Zito? They talked themselves all the way up to a record setting contract at the time.

That's not being a stalking horse, that's bidding against yourself. I guess if you have no idea what players are worth, staying out of the free agent market entirely would be a good plan.

this is a policy change from last winter when Sabean was letting Boras use the Giants to drive up Manny's price with the Dodgers.

Yeah, why again is being a stalking horse bad? Driving up the price your competitors pay can be good.

Well, there were, as a result, more than a few Giants fans who actually believed Manny-to-SF was a serious possibility and felt let down when it didn't happen. So that's one negative.

That's not being a stalking horse, that's bidding against yourself. I guess if you have no idea what players are worth, staying out of the free agent market entirely would be a good plan.

I thought they were only in it to drive up the Mets price, and then realized they were the only team really that interested in Zito.

I thought they were only in it to drive up the Mets price, and then realized they were the only team really that interested in Zito.

If so, then they violated the premise of driven up the price. You never offer more than you think the player is worth. Anyone who has done a roto auction knows this. Sometimes the guys sticks you with your bid.

Ishikawa can actually hit at AT&T;Park--SSS obviously

Mmm, no.

But is Sabean a hot walker?

Mmm, no.

Mmm, yes. In an admittedly small sample (172 AB's), he hit 349/400/535.

Of course, if you're arguing that Ishikawa is a mediocre offensive 1Bman, and AT&T;Park is a tough place for someone without Bondsian power to hit, so he must not be able to hit at AT&T;Park, I really can't argue with you.

No, he's arguing that the split is completely unrepeatable in the long term and illegitimate evidence in any kind of reasonable discussion of personnel decisions.

No, he's arguing that the split is completely unrepeatable in the long term and illegitimate evidence in any kind of reasonable discussion of personnel decisions.

Yep, that.

If there is evidence that Ishikawa is, or is likely going to develop into, a big league hitter good enough to command either a starting 1B job, or a LHB platoon 1B job, I haven't seen it. And his split in 172 AB's in 2009 is most definitely not it.

Yeah, why again is being a stalking horse bad? Driving up the price your competitors pay can be good.

My impression is that this behavior is rare for MLB owners/GM's. Perhaps it's a gentleman's agreement. The Mets and the Yankees, for example, do not get in bidding wars. As some have stated above: a GM makes a very expensive mistake if a bluff gets called.

Oops: sorry, snapper, it was you who pointed it out.

Have you seen any evidence Nate Schierholtz is ever going to do jack-#### as well? Because I sure haven't.

I understand where Sabean is coming from because the market sucks in terms of top-tier hitters and Bay has one really obvious big-money suitor already. I also suspect the Giants do not want to raise payroll very much in any case, which is really annoying.

If so, then they violated the premise of driven up the price. You never offer more than you think the player is worth. Anyone who has done a roto auction knows this. Sometimes the guys sticks you with your bid.

I've been wondering about this. What if a team was driving up a bid and then got word that their offer was the highest and decided they had gone too far? What would be the repercussions for withdrawing their bid? Obviously the player and the agent would be mad but making offers isn't a binding process, I don't think. I guess Furcal allegedly backed out of a deal with the Braves last off-season but it seems to me like the Giants only have themselves to blame for Zito. If they really thought they had overplayed their hand in trying to bid up his contract and that he wouldn't be worth the money, they could have found some kind of excuse to back out, couldn't they have? (I'm not saying that it would be right to do that.)

People are reading too much into this. It has nothing at all to do with not driving up FA prices and absolutely everything to do with the Giants' seemingly annual attempt to lower offseason expectations.

If I'm an agent and a team withdraws its offer for one of my players, I don't ever negotiate with them again. If I'm a team bidding against this "rogue" team, I'm really pissed off if I win. Were they really in, or did they just do that to drive my price up? It's called "negotiating in bad faith", and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a pretty draconian rule or precedent to prevent it.

Have you seen any evidence Nate Schierholtz is ever going to do jack-#### as well? Because I sure haven't.

I'm not particularly impressed with Schierholtz, either, at least not as a first-stringer. I would say, however, that he has a better shot than Ishikawa at a decent ML career, at least as a role player, because:

- Schierholtz hit consistently well (not great, but well) in the minors, while Ishikawa was all over the place
- Schierholtz isn't a good defensive outfielder per se, but he has solid tools of decent speed and a very strong arm, while Ishikawa is rather slow, and is never going to play anywhere but 1B; thus Schierholtz could be deployed in a corner OF/1B role, while Ishikawa never could
- Schierholtz looks like the type who could develop more HR power (indeed he must if he's to have much ML future), while Ishikawa looks as though he's pretty much maxed out on his HR power

And his split in 172 AB's in 2009 is most definitely not it.

My, what a lovely strawman...It's a factoid, introduced as a cherry-on-top parenthetical, with a SSS-warning just in case. The kid looked good at the plate at home all year, and the numbers bear it out; in a park that causes as many problems for hitters as AT&T;, that's notable. Not sure where I used it as evidence of his development.

Of course, given that Sabean has already cited Matt Holliday's lackluster 180 AB's in SF as reason not to pursue him, I see no reason to assume that he'll ignore Ishikawa's success at home. A "reasonable discussion of personnel decisions" has nothing to do with Brian Sabean.

If I'm an agent and a team withdraws its offer for one of my players, I don't ever negotiate with them again. If I'm a team bidding against this "rogue" team, I'm really pissed off if I win. Were they really in, or did they just do that to drive my price up? It's called "negotiating in bad faith", and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a pretty draconian rule or precedent to prevent it.

Yeah, in every industry setting with which I'm familiar, behavior such as that can sometimes "win" in the short run, but you're setting yourself up as a pariah in the long term. The smart executive thinks not only about this particular deal, but, win or lose, how his relationships and reputation will come out of it, in order to be prepared for the next deal. Integrity matters.

The kid looked good at the plate at home all year, and the numbers bear it out; in a park that causes as many problems for hitters as AT&T;

And he looked rotten on the road all year. That's every bit as relevant as how he did at home. Moreover, AT&T;has played as a neutral-to-pretty good hitters' park for the past six consecutive years.

Yeah, in every industry setting with which I'm familiar, behavior such as that can sometimes "win" in the short run, but you're setting yourself up as a pariah in the long term. The smart executive thinks not only about this particular deal, but, win or lose, how his relationships and reputation will come out of it, in order to be prepared for the next deal. Integrity matters.


Definitely true. But, there are plenty of ways to have discussions with a player, "set parameters" without actually making an offer.

"Gee Manny, we'd really like work something out in the 2-3 year $50-60M range. If that's something your interested in, come back to us, and we'll run it past ownership."

Which can be wriggled out of through "We're really sorry, since we last talked season ticket sales haven't been up to expectations. Ownership wants us to keep the budget down."

If you actually make an offer, yeah, you're screwed if you back out.

Which can be wriggled out of through "We're really sorry, since we last talked season ticket sales haven't been up to expectations. Ownership wants us to keep the budget down."

If you actually make an offer, yeah, you're screwed if you back out.

Exactly. One must be very clear to distinguish between something that's being considered and something that's being offered. An offer is a promise.

And he looked rotten on the road all year. That's every bit as relevant as how he did at home.

Again with the strawman. Nobody is arguing any differently.

Moreover, AT&T;has played as a neutral-to-pretty good hitters' park for the past six consecutive years.

I'll go with the players on this.

Nobody is arguing any differently.

Dude. You were the one suggesting that Ishikawa could be the front end of a "(theoretically) good platoon," and you were the one presenting his '09 home split as the evidence for it. The SSS isn't just a caveat, it's the entire issue.

I'll go with the players on this.

Would those be the players who've produced more runs in games at AT&T;than in Giants' road parks for six straight years?

It also just doesn't seem worth it to me in MLB -- it's not going to deliver much of an advantage.

Seems to me you have basically two scenarios. For both, let's say there's an FA pitcher with the initials BZ.

1. You and everyone else in the league realizes that BZ is a big risk. Your competitor thinks he's really good. If you feign interest, maybe you can sucker your competitor into signing him for 7/$119. But that carries a big risk for you -- and given your competitor's evaluation of his talent is already so out of whack, your competitor is gonna sign him for 6/$100 anyway without any risk to you.

2. You think BZ is worth maybe 6/$90 but you think if you go a little higher, maybe your competitor will go to 6/$100 or even 7/$119.

So in both scenarios you're "successful" but what have you really cost the other team and what have you gained for yourself. OK, so your competitor has a couple million less per year to spend -- big deal. How could that possibly be worth any level of risk of getting stuck with the player in scenario 1 or the pretty high risk that you're gonna get stuck paying $1-2 M more per year than you want to in scenario 2?

It's one thing to bluff a few time over dozens of hands at the poker table but it strikes me as pointless and dumb to bluff over 1 of the 3-4 big money FAs in any given offseason.

Note the scenario changes in roto auctions where you're bidding on all players (hundreds of hands) and teams usually have a salary cap. That's much more of a zero-sum game. Still, it's hard to see much payoff in genuine bluffing -- i.e. bidding substantially more for a player than you think he's worth.

Dude. You were the one suggesting that Ishikawa could be the front end of a "(theoretically) good platoon," and you were the one presenting his '09 home split as the evidence for it. The SSS isn't just a caveat, it's the entire issue.

For the second time, I split that off into a parenthetical precisely because it's not evidence of his future performance, and nowhere did I suggest his terrible road numbers didn't matter--but thanks for inferring!

Would those be the players who've produced more runs in games at AT&T;than in Giants' road parks for six straight years?

No, it's the ones who complain about the difficulty of adjusting to AT&T;park. Like Ishikawa, and Garko...

Look, there are two lineup spots the Giants could improve without eating salary or blocking Posey-- corner OF and corner IF. In both cases, they've got a young incumbent who they obviously had some faith in last year (and at 1B, a platoon partner they recently traded for as well), who hasn't lived up to that faith so far. Is the upgrade from Garko/Ishikawa to Nick Johnson worth an extra $5-8 million next year plus a long term commitment? What about Schierholtz to Byrd or Damon? My point is that while both of those spots could easily be improved, it's far less clear whether signing "2nd tier" FA's to extended contracts makes more sense than letting the kids develop another year, hoping one of them sorts it out, and having enough cash to sign an elite player to fill the other spot later.

So in both scenarios you're "successful" but what have you really cost the other team and what have you gained for yourself. OK, so your competitor has a couple million less per year to spend -- big deal. How could that possibly be worth any level of risk of getting stuck with the player in scenario 1 or the pretty high risk that you're gonna get stuck paying $1-2 M more per year than you want to in scenario 2?

It's one thing to bluff a few time over dozens of hands at the poker table but it strikes me as pointless and dumb to bluff over 1 of the 3-4 big money FAs in any given offseason.

Note the scenario changes in roto auctions where you're bidding on all players (hundreds of hands) and teams usually have a salary cap. That's much more of a zero-sum game. Still, it's hard to see much payoff in genuine bluffing -- i.e. bidding substantially more for a player than you think he's worth.

That, and the teams that who are consistently doing the high bids like the Cubs will find out that their budget is finally tapped on their own. Really, the Yankees are the only ones who can and pick up whomever they want.

Someone (GGC, Vincennes) may have noted this, but that's an improper use of "stalking horse" there.

it's not evidence of his future performance

Then how does it apply in a theoretical manner?

it's the ones who complain about the difficulty of adjusting to AT&T;park. Like Ishikawa

Okay, surely you have to see the humor in this ... :-)

Is the upgrade from Garko/Ishikawa to Nick Johnson worth an extra $5-8 million next year plus a long term commitment? What about Schierholtz to Byrd or Damon? My point is that while both of those spots could easily be improved, it's far less clear whether signing "2nd tier" FA's to extended contracts makes more sense than letting the kids develop another year, hoping one of them sorts it out, and having enough cash to sign an elite player to fill the other spot later.

On this we agree. Sabean's done this before, with other system-produced journeyman-level prospects such as Todd Linden and Yorvit Torrealba, showing no patience in their possible development and replacing them with proven veteran journeymen who, while they might perform marginally better, do so while tying up far more payroll.

I'll be writing about this shortly, but it seems near given the Lincecum would surpass Papelbon's record setting salary arbitration deal last year. If the Giants don't want to get killed in subsequent years, and providing The Freak is not mostly effective due to deception, AND avoids injury, Sabean and the Giants brain trust might be focusing on wrapping up Timmy long term. How could they not be "high" on him right now? Soft revenue draw at the gate due to awards and his marketability. Said this on Full Count Pitch, but unless his agent filed some insanely high arb figure, you'd have to say he's going to win handily in salary arbitration. How could that not be a part of the commentary coming out of the Giants on the FA market?

Still, it's hard to see much payoff in genuine bluffing -- i.e. bidding substantially more for a player than you think he's worth.

I agree. You never "bluff" an offer that is more than the guy is worth. But, you might "bluff" an offer on a guy you don't really want, but want to drive up the price, at a price where you still think he's worth it.

Say the Yankees don't really want Holliday, but think his "value" is $20M per year, up to 6 years. If they hear rumors Boston is closing in on him for $90M/5, They very well may bid $110M/6 just to set a floor for Boston. If they get him, they have to change plans, but don't really overpay.

If the Giants don't want to get killed in subsequent years, and providing The Freak is not mostly effective due to deception, AND avoids injury

Key question at the end there, isn't there? Do I not recall all manner of stories and surmising by those in the know that Lincecum and his form were injuries waiting to happen? Given the Prior example (pun intended now that I notice it), there are grains of salt with those, but still.

Have the Giants made a good big-ticket free-agent signing since Barry Bonds?

Have the Giants made a good big-ticket free-agent signing since Barry Bonds?

They certainly haven't made many, but depending on our definition of "big-ticket," and depending on whether re-signing their own free agents counts, there have been a few that worked out very well: Ray Durham (the first time), Omar Vizquel (also the first time), Jason Schmidt, Ellis Burks.

Ray Durham (the first time), Omar Vizquel (also the first time), Jason Schmidt, Ellis Burks

The best part about that is that Omar Vizquel (the first time) was at what, age 36-37? Ellis freaking Burks who I forgot played with the Giants at all, that was his mid-30s, Durham was north of 30 but I don't remember by how much, and Schmidt may have been just under 30.

So Bay is in the mix, barely, but Holliday is right out at age 29. :)

(EDIT) LOL - If any of the Jays fans pass through here, you'll get a kick out of the results for the newish feature that Sean mentioned a while back, typing the [whatever] gives you the most popular record chosen for people using that search term, a way to skip all the non-important Rodriguezes and the MiLB stat pages. Try typing the Holliday.

Someone (GGC, Vincennes) may have noted this, but that's an improper use of "stalking horse" there.

Correct. Eugene McCarthy was a stalking horse for RFK in 1968. A trial run as an anti-war candidate.

But just roll with it.

We have examples of proposals being made and withdrawn. Last year, the Astros made an offer of 3years/$28.5M to Randy Wolf and then withdrew it.


I doubt Tellem is going to keep his clients from signing with the Astros if they offer the best deal, as this was an isolated incident with the economy as an extenuating cicrumstance. But it probably isn't something the Astros should make a habit of doing.

Tellem

Man, I hope Arn's clients, at least a few, started calling him Soulja Boy.

[46] Any idea when the Houston negotiations were? Tellem pulled a similar stunt (only backwards) with Furcal in December, signing him to the Braves then Dodgers.

We have examples of proposals being made and withdrawn. Last year, the Astros made an offer of 3years/$28.5M to Randy Wolf and then withdrew it.

Sure, but Wolf counter-offered, he didn't accept. You can have an offer outstanding, and then withdraw it. Offers aren't good forever.

What you can't do is make the offer, the other side accepts, and then you say, oh no, never mind.

Sure, but Wolf counter-offered, he didn't accept. You can have an offer outstanding, and then withdraw it. Offers aren't good forever.

Wolf didn't have time to counter-offer it. It was pulled one day it was offered, and then he and his agent was told that the Astros wouldn't be able to sign him.

Raised about a half-hour from Dodger Stadium, Wolf, 32, won 12 games for the Houston Astros and San Diego Padres last season. It appeared he would return to Houston this winter after winning six of eight decisions in August and September, after which the Astros briefly offered him three years and $28.5 million to stay on.

According to sources, Wolf’s agent, Arn Tellem, made a counter proposal, the original offer was withdrawn and Astros general manager Ed Wade signed Mike Hampton (for $2 million guaranteed) instead.

That's not what the article linked in [46] says. I have no independent knowledge.

But, in any case, withdrawing an offer, even quickly, may be bad form, but it does not rise to reneging on a contract once a deal is offered and accepted.

withdrawing an offer, even quickly, may be bad form, but it does not rise to reneging on a contract once a deal is offered and accepted.

Exactly. They aren't the same thing at all.

I assumed that Sabean was just talking crazy, but damn me if 'stalking horse' isn't a legitimate idiom. Once again, pinioned by my ignorance of both business and politics. And everything else, I suppose.

Once again, pinioned by my ignorance of both business and politics. And everything else, I suppose.

Hey, we have to keep someone around to make the likes of Shooty and Treder look good.