If the alternative was Manny Burriss, and with this team that would be the other option, then I'll take it.

Decent move for SF. If they can acquire 2 or 3 more average players, they could be dangerous.

If they can acquire 2 or 3 more average players, they could be dangerous.

This is true. For all the talk of signing a "big bat", it would help as much to remove the massive holes of suck in the lineup.

I'm very fearful of a Jason Bay or even worse, Jermaine Dye signing, and them thinking they have solved their problems offensively.

From what I've read, the Giants outperformed from expected by about 30 runs, so they are likely already in a hole to repeat their record from last season, even if the pitching repeats at a similar level.

The Giants problems are fixable, I just don't have any faith in the current management accurately identifying solutions.

I'd like to see them actively trying to move Brian Wilson, now that he's moving into arb. They have other options for their pen coming via the system, and a very good closer, perhaps packaged with something else, should provide a way to shore up some more holes. I don't see Sabean recognizing this. He gave Armando Benitez 3yrs/21MM, so I think he believes that this amount is a reasonable amount to pay for a closer. And perhaps it is. I think that Wilson's contract would be fair value, but a trade would make sense from their position of relative strength here and holes elsewhere.

I dunno, with Sanchez at 2B the biggest suck-hole is gone; if a Garko/Ishikawa platoon put up OK numbers and Renteria didn't totally suck, adding Bay might make for a decent offense. Lotta ifs.

They could definitely use an upgrade at corner outfielder or 1B, but I'm not sure what they can afford. Between Lincecum, Wilson, JSanchez and Garko's arb, payroll will be in the high $80m's; Sabean said their 2010 limit will be high-80's/low 90's. Even if they give Bumgarner the 5 slot and spend nothing on a backup/placeholder catcher, they probably don't have the cash for Bay without moving a contract. They could dump Garko and use his arb towards Nick Johnson or LaRoche, but I'm not sure they'd be willing to give up on Ishikawa and Garko to make that kind of investment.

I still think a deal based around Rowand for Milton Bradley could work for both sides, if Torres can take CF everyday.

I still think a deal based around Rowand for Milton Bradley could work for both sides, if Torres can take CF everyday.

Please don't encourage Brian Sabean. This idea has "disaster" written all over it.

I think what Bay would bring with the bat, he would take away with the glove.

I trade Rowand for Bradley in a heartbeat, even though Bradley is a major headcase. He's got one less year on his contract, and the total value is $16MM less. And at least, if Bradley is a problem, he costs so much less to cut, giving you options that you will not have with Rowand.

This is a logical move WHEN you consider they traded for him & had to give up their no #3 prospect.The alternatives would have been Burriss (ouch that bat) OR worse,a return to the "old days" by signing a FA (like Hudson) & giving up a 1st in compensation....the choices were limited & they took the best one available.

Nothing filthy about this signing.

So it's not a dirty Sanchez?

So it's not a dirty Sanchez?

No that's Jonathan Sanchez.

I'd trade Rowand for Bradley in a heartbeat as well, but Sabean loves our GRITTY TELEGENIC WHITE GUY.

Being a Pittsburgher and seeing Sanchez play numerous times, I have a lways been a firm believer that he is a bonafide .300 hitter with above-average defense at 2B. The Pirates miss him.

His .340 batting title in 2006 on a pretty sucky Pirates team was impressive. He was hitting well this year before traded.
Freddie's still a very good hitter and will benefit the Giants if he stays healthy in 2010.

He has a great attitude to boot.

@11 That's fine and dandy, but he's also a bonafide 330 OBA player. Over/under on 25 BBs this year?

This is a remarkably better result than anything I'd have considered realistic 2 days ago. Szym mentions the 2010 option, which makes the AAV on this extension, which we all knew was coming, pretty amazing IMO.

@13, the option didn't trigger so the Giants had no obligation to pick it up. I think the bigger question is who were they bidding against and going into his age 32 season did they really need to even pay that amount?

@14. Well, other options would likely have cost a draft pick, so there is that cost to account for. The other options were to sign someone else for what, $4-5 MM and lose a pick or pick up his option. If you think he'll be a viable option in 2010, then it is reasonable to pick him up for one more year at half the option price.

There is a whole psychology aspect of this, since they already gave up a guy who might be equivalent to what they'd give up as a draft pick. I think this deal needs to be separated from the trade.

Well, the Giants could have traded for Iwamura for a relief prospect apprently. The question is, do you like Sanchez more than Iwamura?

@16 was just reading about that trade. Heck, the RP is 26..hardly a prospect.

I like Iwamura better. Didn't think he'd go so cheap. Jeez.

Yeah, the Giants could have traded Merkin Valdez for Iwamura. :)

Or the Giants could clean up their act trade a dirty sanchez and a merkin for milton bradley and coco crisp.

Doesn't Coco Crisp has a $9 million option? Are the Royals picking it up?

The option's for $7 mil. or so. No way they pick that up, right?

@11 That's fine and dandy, but he's also a bonafide 330 OBA player. Over/under on 25 BBs this year?

25.

It's annoying to compare the Iwamura trade to the Sanchez trade and think about how we could still have Alderson, but they are really different situations. The Giants felt that they needed a 2B at a particular time in order to try to make the playoffs. Sanchez was available for the price they paid at that time. The fact that he then got injured and didn't really help them at all sucks (and maybe they should have expected that given his history), but there's no way to know whether Iwamura was available at that time for the price he turned out to be available after the season. If they had the choice at that moment to trade either Alderson for Sanchez or some 26 year old non-prospect for Iwamura, then obviously the Iwamura deal would have been better, but that option probably didn't exist at the time they made the trade.

Also Iawamura was injured for part of the 2009 season, don't remember if he was back yet by the time the Giants traded for Sanchez.