User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.5717 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Seriously - is there a worse GM in baseball than Sabean right now? Ed Wade perhaps?
?????
.....
!!!!!
?
!
?????????????????????????????????????????????????
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.
Matsui is old. Luke Scott for Cain would make a lot more sense.
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.
It can't be. They can't be giving Rowand $85 million. It's just not possible.
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.
Did I miss 14?
Don't you know? The Yankees spending habits are forcing poor teams like the Giants to spend so much money on non-superstars.
At least the Roberts contract is nowhere as bad as the Pierre contract.
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.
One of the 5 worst? Who's worse? With his revenue/market advantage, that roster is absolutely inexcusable.
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?
I hate this signing but I think the Hunter contract is just as bad if not worse.
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.
Rowand looks a lot like Wells and Hunter to me, but he's signed for a lot less money.
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.
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.
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.
Also, there are worlds of shades of gray between the Florida plan and the Giants' "plan."
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.
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.
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.
You are also talking about a bunch of terrible contracts and saying see, his is about the same as theirs.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Giants are that team. Their hitting is dreadful, and they don't have anything on the way.
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.
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.
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.
Aaron, Welcome to the best division in baseball ..
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.
Of course, that just means that signing Torii Hunter would have been a bad deal for the Giants, too.
Chone: .277/.343/.443James: .287/.347/.473
ZIPS: .277/.340/.427
AVG: .280/.343/.448
Hunter
Chone: .282/.345/.491James: .274/.329/.482
ZIPS: .278/.332/.481
AVG: .278/.335/.485
Given the two year age gap, is that worth an extra $6 million a year?
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......
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.
That is the nicest thing I can say.
Holy hannah, Sabean's an idiot.
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.
But it's not just Hunter. Take a look at all of the big OF signing from this year and last year:
Pleayer Yrs $/YSoriano: 8 $17M
Lee: 7 $18M
Hunter: 5 $18M
Drew: 5 $14M
Rowand 5 $12M
Matthews: 5 $10M
Pierre: 5 $9M
Guillen: 3 $12M
Jones 2 $18M
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good point. Shattered hips for everyone!
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.
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.
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?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main