Comments on: …. Idiot?

By: marc

marc — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:52:53 +0000

well, shore, John, but my point was that there was no absolutely no guarantee that the Giants would get “younger, faster and healthier” – on the face of it, they got a crowd of losers. The fact that Kent ended up so good was not so predictable at all, nor in the free agent marketplace, if he ended up being good,would he be cheap. By your logic, then the Giants should trade Caincecum for about 12 players of age 16 and that would be better.

However, even though this is in the wrong thread, I do fear Sabean trading Cain, Lincecum or Lowry to anyone for anything. “Younger, faster and healthier” (and cheaper) should be the mantra now. A trade for Rios doesn’t make a lot of sense, maybe it’s a fair deal, but why do it?

By: Jay T.

Jay T. — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:47:42 +0000

Wow! Great URL…

“While Lincecum is mostly known for his fastball, he does have very strong off-speed pitches. If he uses these pitches a little more often, he could move quickly from a very good pitcher to one of the best pitchers in the league. ”

This kind of praise is rare from the Hardball Times – they rarely miss over there when it comes to evaluating younger players in the league.

Shit. I just know Sabean’s going to do it.

By: Jay T.

Jay T. — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:41:23 +0000

While I agree with the general principle of trading a pitcher for a bat, trading a YOUNGER pitcher with even more potential for a proven bat is NOT a good idea. I’m okay with a Lowry / Sanchez and whoever package, but Cain and Lincecum need to stay untouchable like they were supposed to be. I could have dealt with getting Cabrera and Willis, but while Rios is a solid young player, this would be a considerable mistake. The Jays MUST include a prospect pitcher at the very least.

By: grega

grega — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:04:41 +0000

Actually there are some similarities to the Matt Williams deal. If you reverse the teams. The Blue Jays are in a similar position to benefit from this deal the way the Giants did back then.

By: Mark O'Connor

Mark O'Connor — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:07:09 +0000

I remember the Williams deal vividly because it was announced on my birthday (13 Nov). Got lots of calls from friends saying “Oh, man, sorry Mark, they just gave you a crappy present.” My response was “NO, this is a GOOD trade, you have to give up quality to get quality.” I was a minority voice at the time, Williams was a fine player and very popular, but he was clearly the most trade-able of the guys not named Barry on the team. Trading Lincecum has no correlation to the Williams deal. Lincecum is all about an investment in the future. Put it this way–if we had Miguel Cabrera, would we trade him? No, we’d build a team with him. Same for Matt and Tim. Sure we need bats and position players, but we got lucky and now have two tremendous pitching talents. This duo has a real chance be the foundation of the team for the next decade. I’d rather take the risk with Tim (and Matt) than without. (And BZ will be the best #3 starter in the league!)

By: El

El — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:45:14 +0000

Interesting look at what happens when Timmy throws his changeup.

http://tinyurl.com/2dlqmy

Do not let this guy go.

By: Hobbes2d

Hobbes2d — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:06:13 +0000

It was 2 injured seasons, 94 was a strike year. A year in which he was on pace to break Roger Maris’ HR record. He was awesome in 95 too but then he started getting those foot injuries.

As for this rumored deal, I don’t see it happening. Rios is a good player but not nearly enough. I have no problem trading Lincecum but it has to be for 2 or 3 young positional players with talent.

By: giantsrainman

giantsrainman — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:55:46 +0000

Me, I would rather the Giants say Fuk-U to us fans and then we respond Do-Me at the cost of 3 years and $45M then this brain dead trade idea.

By: John

John — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:21:19 +0000

Marc,

You need to re-read my post. I already acknowledged the error. Williams was, however, expensive, 33 years old, and coming off of 3 consecutive injured seasons. Dealing him for youth was nothing like dealing Lincecum for Rios, which is my point. And hindsight has nothing to do with it, by the way.

Trading old players at the beginning of their decline years has been a baseball staple for decades, Branch Rickey was famous for saying he’d rather trade someone too soon rather than too late. The Giants got younger, faster and healthier, and gained financial flexibility in the Williams deal, and again, that cannot be said for this idea/rumor.

By: marc

marc — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:01:59 +0000

I think it should be pointed out that with the Williams/Kent trade we have the benefit of a lot of hindsight – Williams wasn’t thought of as washed up (though he would be soon) and Kent was seen as a high-maintenance jerk who didn’t have the work ethic to make something of his potential.And Kent came with a busload of players in the deal.

That Kent went on to have the career he has, and Williams flamed out was just lucky on Sabean’s part.