Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Giants - Signed Renteria

San Francisco Giants - Signed SS Edgar Renteria to a 2-year, $18 million contract.

Renteria’s been all over the place offensively in recent years since his breakthrough 2002 season, with 3 seasons below a 90 OPS+ and 3 above 110.  Last year was one of those down seasons and his defense has slipped to the point where he’s below-average at short.

All that being said, I don’t have a problem at all with this signing for a few reasons.

- It doesn’t hurt the rebuilding process in any way.  The Giants waited to seal the deal, unlike the notorious Michael Tucker signing, until the Tigers declined to offer arbitration to Renteria.  The team’s infield options, especially at those positions that can’t possibly be played by Pablo Sandoval regularly, are nonexistent.  Emmanuel Burriss has no business as a starting shortstop at this point, and very likely never will be a good starting option.  That Burriss wasn’t anywhere near the worst SS the Giants had this year says a lot about the team’s depth at the position.

- It’s a good time to compete in the NL West.  The Giants aren’t a good team in the AL East sense, but there are good reasons for the Giants to want to seize the opportunity to compete for the division with the situation as it is.  3 of the other teams in the league are unable to seriously invest in their teams, with McCourt woefully undercapitalized thanks to his smoke-and-mirrors financial portfolio, the Diamondbacks stretched, and the Padres unable to spend even if they wanted to thanks to the John Moores divorce drama.  That just leaves the Rockies, an organization that never really displays any coherent strategy and just kind of exists, like the Beat Again era Orioles.  The Giants are walking on a very slow treadmill and incremental improvement is likely more profitable in their division than any other.  If the Giants can manage to squeeze out a divisional title, the Lincecum/Cain combo becomes more valuable and the team could do some surprising damage in a league in which there are no real dominant teams.

- The deal is only for 2 years, which limits the downside of signing Renteria considerably.  He’s not old (just turned 33 officially and he’s likely to actually be 32) and while his defense his dropped off, he’s not in Marlins Infielder Territory and should be able to do a tolerable job as long as he doesn’t start hitting like the players the Giants trotted out there in 2008.  Renteria represents a tremendous improvement even in the likely worst-case scenario and the quickest way to add a lot of extra wins is to deal with the worst problem.

And yes, the Vazquez

2009 ZiPS Projection - Edgar Renteria (SS)
—————————————————————————————————————-
          AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   SO SB   BA OBP SLG OPS+
—————————————————————————————————————-
2009       507 77 143 26   2   8   58 45   68 10 .282 .341 .389   91
2010       488 73 138 24   2   7   54 43   65   9 .283 .339 .383   89  
—————————————————————————————————————-

Offense %
STAR   22
AVG   57
REP LV 98

OPS+  %    OBP   %    3B     %    Hits   %
>160   0     >.400   1     >10   0     >200   0
>140   0     >.375   10     >5     10     >150   25
>130   0     >.350   37
>120   2     >.325   75     2B     %
>110   10     >.300   96     >45   0
>100   25               >30   22
>90   50
>80   76
>60   99

BA     %    SLG   %    HR     %    SB     %
>.350   0     >.550   0     >50   0     >70   0
>.325   6     >.500   0     >40   0     >50   0
>.300   20     >.450   4     >30   0     >30   1
>.275   59     >.400   32     >20   0     >10   49
>.250   91     >.350   82     >10   16

—————————————————————————————————————-
Top Comps:  Phil Rizzuto, Dave Concepcion

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 04, 2008 at 10:10 PM | 48 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

   1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 04, 2008 at 10:42 PM (#3021064)
BOOOO!!! BTFers are supposed to hate every free agent signing!
   2. zenbitz Posted: December 04, 2008 at 10:50 PM (#3021073)
Woo hoo! Now only 3 gaping craters in the infield to fill (minus 1 for where Pablo plays)
   3. zonk Posted: December 04, 2008 at 10:50 PM (#3021074)
BOOOO!!! BTFers are supposed to hate every free agent signing!


Dan sold out!

Notice the comps - he's also saying Renteria should be a Hall of Famer.
   4. Steve Treder Posted: December 04, 2008 at 10:56 PM (#3021089)
This is what I said about this signing in the other thread:

Argh.

As is so often the case with Sabean signings, the issue isn't that Renteria is a bad player, or that he's being overpaid. It's more along the lines of: what's the point? Yet another stopgap who will likely give the Giants a couple seasons of meh performance, only to need to be replaced by another stopgap at that point -- precisely because they aren't taking the opportunity to at least attempt to develop young talent at the position.
   5. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 04, 2008 at 10:58 PM (#3021092)
Yet another stopgap who will likely give the Giants a couple seasons of meh performance, only to need to be replaced by another stopgap at that point -- precisely because they aren't taking the opportunity to at least attempt to develop young talent at the position.

That's independent of Renteria's signing, though - bringing him in does not hinder anything, there's no loss of player and there's nobody they could develop that would be ready to take over in less than 2 years.

Besides, if a Brian Sabean move is good enough that I'll actually compliment him, it must be a damn good move indeed!
   6. Steve Treder Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:05 PM (#3021099)
bringing him in does not hinder anything, there's no loss of player and there's nobody they could develop that would be ready to take over in less than 2 years.

I don't know ... Emmanuel Burriss could take over right now. He wouldn't be good, but probably wouldn't be terrible, and at least provides the possibility of developing into something good, cheap, and with a future.

Signing Renteria doesn't give me heartburn, but it's just another in the long sequence of sideways steps.
   7. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:08 PM (#3021102)
Steve, for once I'll argue with you...

I have to admit that I like this a lot better than the Affeldt/Howry signings. It may be (and is) a stopgap measure, but let's face it, the Giants' offense royally blew last year, and Renteria represents a considerable improvement over Bocock/Vizquel/Burriss (who I have to keep reminding myself, is NOT the fellow who shot himself in the leg).


A stopgap measure would be if, after this year, they signed Jason Varitek to a two year deal (assuming he signs a one year deal someplace this year).
   8. zenbitz Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:25 PM (#3021121)
Steve - the reason this move makes sense is that there's not really any downside. Also, the clock is running on Cain/Lincecum being cheap. When they are being paid "Zito dollars" that competetive advantage is going away.

And I am of the opinion that Burriss would indeed, be terrible with the stick. The other problem is that there's no plan B - and look what happened last year when Vizquel was injured. And I am wishcasting that Renteria can play adequate defense.

Heck signing ANY FA SS would have been a good move for depth... but replacement level SS bats are really, really low.
   9. Steve Treder Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:26 PM (#3021122)
It may be (and is) a stopgap measure, but let's face it, the Giants' offense royally blew last year, and Renteria represents a considerable improvement over Bocock/Vizquel/Burriss

Renteria's OPS+ in 2008 was 84. Burriss's was 81.

Granted, it was a down year for Renteria, and granted, Burriss might very well not keep that up. But still: it isn't obvious that Renteria is going to hit all that much better than Burriss over the next two years. And it is obvious that he's more injury-prone, and likely has less defensive range.

I repeat it isn't a terrible move, but neither am I persuaded that it's $18 million clearly well spent.
   10. Steve Treder Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:29 PM (#3021129)
I am of the opinion that Burriss would indeed, be terrible with the stick.

What is the basis of this opinion? Burriss hit over .300 in low A in 2006, and over .300 in high-A in 2007, and .283 as a utility player in the majors in 2008. He has no power, but he appears to have good plate discipline and makes consistent contact. He won't be a great hitter, but what's the basis for predicting that he'll be "terrible with the stick"?
   11. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:35 PM (#3021133)
The Giants can still use Burriss at 2B (what are their options right now? Velez - yuck Denker - oops that's right, we got rid of him, Ochoa - no way....). As I stated in the Howry thread, what the Giants could REALLY use is a solid presence at 1B/OF, which one would think would be relatively easy to find.
   12. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:36 PM (#3021136)
Maybe the poster speaks from experience.
   13. Steve Treder Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:42 PM (#3021143)
what are their options right now? Velez - yuck Denker - oops that's right, we got rid of him

Wait, they got rid of Denker? I missed that. What the hell did they do that for? He's one of the few infield prospects they have who's kind of intriguing.

But I guess this is another example of what I'm talking about: instead of exercising some patience and actually finding out if any of this kids might develop, we keep papering the positions over with make-do blah "proven veterans."
   14. zenbitz Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:45 PM (#3021144)
Dan projects him to hit: .254/.307/.294

His 2008 numbers were over 260PAs and very walk heavy. If he can really put up a .360 OBP, then he can do it in Fresno for a year.

I also think Burriss numbers last year represent a short term peak, and Renteria's a trough.

I hope that Burriss goes bananas in AAA and makes me look silly for supporting this move.
   15. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:50 PM (#3021150)
Is Burriss likely to be at AAA this year, or will he be playing second? Shouldn't we expect the latter? And if so, is Steve saying the Giants should start Eugenio Velez instead of Renteria?
   16. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:53 PM (#3021156)
Wait, they got rid of Denker? I missed that. What the hell did they do that for? He's one of the few infield prospects they have who's kind of intriguing.

This is one topic for which Giants fans seem to be in almost perfect harmony, at least on McCovey Chronicles... - I don't think anybody knows why this was done....

Perhaps Travis ran over Sabean's dog....
   17. Steve Treder Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:54 PM (#3021158)
And if so, is Steve saying the Giants should start Eugenio Velez instead of Renteria?

I'm saying that unless they get at least one serious bat to play 1B/OF, the odds of them contending in 2009 are very long; one can't count on every team in the division nosediving at the same time, as happened in '08. And thus I'm saying that the short-term improvement of a Renteria over any number of kids in the lineup in '08/'09 is a questionable investment.

I'm not saying it's a terrible signing. I'm saying it's a blah signing.
   18. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:55 PM (#3021159)
Brian Bocock was a disaster at the plate last year, but Burriss held his own in limited action.

Anyway, I buy the idea that offensively Renteria projects better than Burriss for the next two years, but when you take defense into account I don't know if any advantage exists. At the very least, I don't think the aggregate net difference is worth $9M a year (ie, 2 wins). It's analogous to the RF situation, in which they have Randy Winn taking up space and $8.5M in salary (albeit Winn is the opposite of Renteria: plus defense and minus offense relative to position). Winn's not a bad player, but he's a poor fit for the Giants who need actual production, not just an overpaid placeholder.

I do prefer this signing to giving a 4 year deal to Furcal for ~$48M. But like the Affeldt and Howry signings, it just seems like the Giants are treading water. In the 1990s, Sabean used to look in the bargain bin for a veteran to handle RF; now he's doing it at SS and MR--but he's not trying to complement Bonds, he's trying to REPLACE Bonds. And the results aren't pretty. Until the Giants sign another elite hitter (or two), they'll continue to wallow around as one of the weakest offensives in the NL no matter how good Lincecum, Cain, et al are (particularly if they are punting on at least one up-the-middle defense position).
   19. Steve Treder Posted: December 04, 2008 at 11:57 PM (#3021162)
It's analogous to the RF situation, in which they have Randy Winn taking up space and $8.5M in salary (albeit Winn is the opposite of Renteria: plus defense and minus offense relative to position). Winn's not a bad player, but he's a poor fit for the Giants who need actual production, not just an overpaid placeholder.

Yes.

I do prefer this signing to giving a 4 year deal to Furcal for ~$48M. But like the Affeldt and Howry signings, it just seems like the Giants are treading water.

Yes.

In the 1990s, Sabean used to look in the bargain bin for a veteran to handle RF; now he's doing it at SS and MR--but he's not trying to complement Bonds, he's trying to REPLACE Bonds. And the results aren't pretty.

Yes.
   20. Walt Davis Posted: December 05, 2008 at 12:15 AM (#3021168)
I'll mostly side with the "pick on Steve" brigade. :-)

If Burriss has promise, there's not much harm giving him AAA time to show it ... and he can still develop into a decent, cheap option. So nothing particularly wrong with this signing.

But I understand the "oh good, another move that's OK in isolation but is the 13th straight mediocre (or worse) move we've made" frustration -- it's just not how good teams are built.

And if the move is Burriss to 2B, this move seems worse than treading water. I think you'd be better off with Burriss at SS and Hudson (say) at 2B ... and I think you might actually get Hudson for the same annual price as Renteria.

OK, now scrambles to b-r and sees that Hudson hasn't hit as well as I think he has but still ... with Renteria/Burriss, seems you have an average SS and a well below-average 2B; with Burriss/Hudson you'd have a below-average SS (but not _well_ below) and an average or slightly better 2B.

Still, my only serious question about this is the Furcal question -- how many more years and how much more money to get him? And is he fully recovered? Assuming a reasonably healthy Furcal, somewhere around 4/$48 is probably my breaking point -- i.e. pretty sure I'd much rather have Furcal at 3/$36 than Renteria at 2/$18 ... unless I believe in Burriss or some other prospect.
   21. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 05, 2008 at 12:38 AM (#3021178)
And if the move is Burriss to 2B, this move seems worse than treading water. I think you'd be better off with Burriss at SS and Hudson (say) at 2B ... and I think you might actually get Hudson for the same annual price as Renteria.

Precisely. I would have much preferred signing Hudson for $9/M (for up to 4 years, ideally 2-3). Hudson projects pretty comparably to Renteria's optimistic projection (minus a little power, plus some OBP) but is in the neighborhood of average to slightly above average defensively. Burriss' marginal value is optimized at SS, where he is a plus defender and (perhaps) slightly below average offensively (relative to position).

Although signing Hudson would continue the problem with Sabean's post-Bonds lineup construction: throw money at guys who project to be #6 hitters, plug them into the middle of the order, and then cringe when they underperform. Molina, Lewis, Rowand, Winn... these aren't bad players, but they are very good role players, not building blocks for a credible offense.

And you shouldn't overpay for #6 hitters because their marginal value is not that great over the next best alternatives. For example, Winn's a better player than Schierholtz, but he's not $8.5M better.

Set aside the total busts (Zito, Roberts) and injury (Lowry) and here are the highest paid Giants for 2009:
- Rowand: $8M
- Renteria: $7M
- Winn: $8.25M
- Molina: $6M
- Affeldt: $3M
- Howry: $2.75M

Only Molina and Rowand have a good chance at providing significant positive return. On the rest, the Giants are spending nearly $21M on perhaps a total 2 marginal wins over their low-cost internal options. That's money that could have been spent on an elite hitter who would provided at least 4 marginal wins.
   22. rfloh Posted: December 05, 2008 at 12:39 AM (#3021180)
It's analogous to the RF situation, in which they have Randy Winn taking up space and $8.5M in salary (albeit Winn is the opposite of Renteria: plus defense and minus offense relative to position). Winn's not a bad player, but he's a poor fit for the Giants who need actual production, not just an overpaid placeholder.

Yes.


Unless salaries drop significantly this offseason, Winn is not an overpaid placeholder. He's an above average overall player, being paid below market rate.
   23. Steve Treder Posted: December 05, 2008 at 12:47 AM (#3021183)
Unless salaries drop significantly this offseason, Winn is not an overpaid placeholder. He's an above average overall player, being paid below market rate.

Okay. He's a reasonably-paid placeholder. Whoop-de-dee.
   24. phredbird Posted: December 05, 2008 at 12:53 AM (#3021185)
He's not old (just turned 33 officially and he's likely to actually be 32)


why does everybody think he might actually be younger than his stated age? i'm really curious.
   25. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 05, 2008 at 01:00 AM (#3021190)
In the abstract, Winn is fairly priced. Which is why it's realistic for Sabean to be working hard to find a team that could use him. Roberts, on the other hand, is barely worth a NRI much less $6.5M, so he's obviously a sunk cost.

But for the Giants, who have a nearly-as-good RF in Schierholtz, Winn offers a perhaps only ~.5 marginal wins. That's what makes the $8.25M a poor value for them. And there's a decent chance that Schierholtz outperforms Winn in 2009, further increasing the opportunity cost of playing Winn.

Winn at $8.25M makes sense for some clubs, perhaps even most clubs. But for the Giants, I maintain that he's an overpriced placeholder.
   26. zenbitz Posted: December 05, 2008 at 01:05 AM (#3021191)
and I think you might actually get Hudson for the same annual price as Renteria.


Hudson's a type A and that is what the Giants really cannot afford to be giving up.

The Winn/Rowand/Dave Roberts situation in the OF is not a good analogy, because the Giants did (and do) have bunches of OK corner OF types (Lewis, Shierholtz, Bowker, etc.). They needed 1 CF, got Roberts. Found out he couldn't play CF. Then got Winn and Rowand redundantly.

Renteria is a similar case except Burriss is not as good as the OF prospects were, and after that you are at the Ochoa Plan. So, after years of papering over holes unnecessarily, I think this was one hole that need to be papered over.

I agree that they still need an actual for real bat (1B presumably), but if they had one, they would still need a SS.

Renteria is probably +4 wins over what they had last year and +2 wins over Burriss.

There is no move that makes the other bad contracts go away, that is just sunk money.

These little paper over moves (2 relievers + Renteria) were needed to even GET the Giants to a point where a single big bat might make a substantial difference.
   27. DL from MN Posted: December 05, 2008 at 01:25 AM (#3021202)
Lots of "single big bats" available though. Even after Tex and Manny there's Burrell, Dunn, Abreu, Milton Bradley, Giambi, and Raul Ibanez.
   28. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: December 05, 2008 at 01:33 AM (#3021210)
Dunn

If that happened, I could possibly forgive Sabean. Possibly...
   29. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 05, 2008 at 01:49 AM (#3021223)
why does everybody think he might actually be younger than his stated age? i'm really curious.

Back when MLB caught the Braves signing Betemit too early, the Miami Herald investigated and found that Renteria was signed at 15 as well.
   30. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: December 05, 2008 at 01:51 AM (#3021224)
Really??? In that case, we KNOW his age, right? And is it 32 or 33?
   31. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 05, 2008 at 03:18 AM (#3021254)
Really??? In that case, we KNOW his age, right? And is it 32 or 33?


Well, it was just one source and they didn't detail how they discovered it. I'm in the habit of doing two projections for Renteria, one for each age, and average. It doesn't make a difference, really, but it still bugs me.
   32. phredbird Posted: December 05, 2008 at 03:52 AM (#3021266)
if he's really younger, he's got a heckuva chance of hanging around and making 3,000 hits. that'll make for one interesting HOF discussion.
   33. PreservedFish Posted: December 05, 2008 at 03:55 AM (#3021269)
Does it matter?
   34. Walt Davis Posted: December 05, 2008 at 03:57 AM (#3021270)
Winn at $8.25 on the Cubs sounds fine to me as long as you don't want much in return. Could make a nice CF/RF rotation with Johnson/Fukudome.
   35. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 05, 2008 at 05:07 AM (#3021304)
brian bocock joins pete lacock in the "awaiting dirty baseball limericks" pantheon.
   36. RJ in TO Posted: December 05, 2008 at 05:13 AM (#3021310)
brian bocock joins pete lacock in the "awaiting dirty baseball limericks" pantheon.


Don't forget Rusty Kuntz.
   37. A triple short of the cycle Posted: December 05, 2008 at 07:08 AM (#3021370)
The Giants don't trade Winn because he's the best guy (non-pitcher) on the team and not real expensive. Sabean has said as much. He can't bear to part with him. Of course he is a fool to not trade him.
   38. villageidiom Posted: December 05, 2008 at 03:50 PM (#3021434)
Middle-infield Type A/B free agents who weren't offered arbitration, by descending Elias rank and type:

EliasR Tp Name
79.429 A RENTERIA
70.089 B Kent
59.598 B Loretta
56.571 B Uribe

Not that the Elias rankings are the best measure out there, but Renteria seems to be the cream of the no-draft-pick crop.

If the Giants went into this offseason trying not to give up draft picks, they've done a pretty good job so far acquiring maximum benefit for minimum draft-pick penalty. There were ten* Type A free agents on the market after the arb deadline who were not offered arbitration by their former team. The Giants have signed two, including the only such middle infielder.

The Giants aren't losing any compensible free agents this year, so the draft picks they have are the most they'll have. They have the 6th overall pick in the 2009 amateur draft. Let's say 80% of compensible free agents sign with new teams; that means there'll be something like 20 sandwich picks, which means the Giants' next picks will be the 56th, the 86th, the 116th, etc. It's bad enough that the Dodgers could have as many as four picks slotted ahead of the Giants' second pick. Can they afford to lose any of these? Can they afford for their second pick to be the 86th, or the 116th?

* Nine, if you exclude the retired Mike Mussina from the "market".
   39. jmurph Posted: December 05, 2008 at 03:53 PM (#3021436)
I know it's not this simple, but is there any other team that would have come close to $9m per year? It seems like they overbid.
   40. rfloh Posted: December 05, 2008 at 04:05 PM (#3021442)
But for the Giants, who have a nearly-as-good RF in Schierholtz, Winn offers a perhaps only ~.5 marginal wins. That's what makes the $8.25M a poor value for them. And there's a decent chance that Schierholtz outperforms Winn in 2009, further increasing the opportunity cost of playing Winn.

Winn at $8.25M makes sense for some clubs, perhaps even most clubs. But for the Giants, I maintain that he's an overpriced placeholder.


Well, I agree that they should definitely try to get something good for him.

Also, it's Rowand that is the bigger problem. If they hadn't signed Rowand, Winn could probably be an acceptable stopgap in CF.
   41. Walt Davis Posted: December 05, 2008 at 07:54 PM (#3021666)
The Giants finished well in the bottom half so their first round pick is protected. They have limited risk in signing a Type A FA. With all the compensation picks, they'd only be surrendering something like the 40th-45th pick.
   42. villageidiom Posted: December 05, 2008 at 08:56 PM (#3021717)
With all the compensation picks, they'd only be surrendering something like the 40th-45th pick.
With no compensation picks, their second pick would be #36. There are 25 free agents who could generate sandwich picks. You're assuming only 4-9 of the 25 will sign with other teams? That seems low to me.
   43. Charlie O Posted: December 05, 2008 at 10:00 PM (#3021774)
I was thinking the same thing as jmurph. Were the Giants bidding against themselves as they did with Zito? Who was offering $16 million or $17 million that forced the Giants to reach $18 million?
   44. Walt Davis Posted: December 05, 2008 at 10:22 PM (#3021800)
You're assuming only 4-9 of the 25 will sign with other teams? That seems low to me.

No, I'm assuming (correctly!) that I have no idea how many compensation picks there are in a typical year nor whether this is likely to be a typical year.
   45. rawagman Posted: December 05, 2008 at 10:42 PM (#3021829)
IMHO, I think this is actually a great move. For a poor team, it is much easier to improve poor areas than average ones. If they go with Winn, Lewis and Rowand, the Giants may have an average outfield. Sandoval splitting time between C, 3B and 1B will be an average bat. Molina behind the plate may be average. Schierholtz has as much hope as anyone as being an average 1B. That leaves the middle infield. Burriss was pleasantly non-horrid last year, but has no power whatsoever, meanign pitchers are more likely to challenge him as he continues to swing softly, lowering his OBP considerably. Velez is average only as a pinchrunner. Renteria can provide average contributions as a SS. More if he can be trained to play 2B and another (average) SS be brought in.

Another mediocre area for the Giants last year was the bullpen. It is reasonable to assume that Howry and Affeldt will provide average to slightly above production in the 6-8 innings. And neither will cost the Giants draft picks like Linebrink did to the ChiSox last year.

It is reasonable to expect Zito to perform more like he did in the second half than the first and for Lowry to be a better than average 5th starter if he's healthy and for Sanchez to improve on last season (as in more durability). All of that averageness, plus the two aces and maybe an upgrade at 3rd (Cantu for Sanchez will be overpaying and create a need for another starter) will give the Giants a very good chance in a fairly weak division. And no big ticket kids are being held back.
   46. villageidiom Posted: December 05, 2008 at 10:44 PM (#3021832)
If you were assuming you have no idea, you would've given a range of 36-61 for their second-rounder, no?
   47. RollingWave Posted: December 06, 2008 at 07:36 AM (#3022011)
It is reasonable to expect Zito to perform more like he did in the second half than the first and for Lowry to be a better than average 5th starter if he's healthy and for Sanchez to improve on last season (as in more durability). All of that averageness, plus the two aces and maybe an upgrade at 3rd (Cantu for Sanchez will be overpaying and create a need for another starter) will give the Giants a very good chance in a fairly weak division. And no big ticket kids are being held back.


one of those? yeah, all of them? highly unlikely.

If there's any reasoning in Sabean's manuver so far, it's that he's stocking up on useful trade chips, all 3 guys are signed 2 year to reasonable deals, so if they do well enough in either season by the deadline he might be able to flip them for something that might help a bit more in the longer run.

If that's he's logic, he should start by fliping Bengi Molina and Randy Winn.. NOW.
   48. dregarx Posted: December 06, 2008 at 11:04 PM (#3022178)
Now that Winn is in his final contract year, does it make a whole lot of sense to trade him away if there are no remarkable offers? I mean, I always thought they should've dealt him to clear space to audition Schierholtz, Bowker, etc. but since he has only a year left, what are the advantages of keeping him? Will he get them a draft pick next year? Either way, they take his contract of their salary on 2010, so if they could get a 2nd-round pick next year, wouldn't that be a viable option?

I don't know the specifics about compensation, so that might not be a viable plan. But I haven't seen anyone talking about that option, so I don't really know what happens when Winn becomes a free agent.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3604 seconds
66 querie(s) executed