Giants Sign Freddy Sanchez: 2 years, $12M

Announced late Friday, the Giants signed Freddy Sanchez to a reported (Chron's Schulman then Merc, based on what sfgiants.com's Haft wrote), 2 years, $12M contract. Reports from sfgiants.com, Chronicle, and Merc. As a side note, Noah Lowry (unsurprisingly), Justin Miller, and Kelvin Pichardo have been released, freeing 3 spots on the 40 man roster. Baggarly also noted that the following players are eligible for arbitration: Tim Lincecum, Brian Wilson, Jonathan Sanchez, Brandon Medders and Ryan Garko. Plus, the Giants are having conversations with all their free agents, but only about what the Giants are thinking, not that the Giants necessarily want them back.

Sanchez could have had an $8.1M contract for 2010 if he really wanted to, so in essence he is being paid $3.9M for 2011. Given that Hudson, a comparable 2B, last season only got $3M plus incentives (which eventually got him a total about $8M, if I recall right), Sanchez was trading off the risks that 1) he could be in Type A free agent hell for two years, not knowing who he would be playing for, and getting stuck with which ever team happens to be looking for a cheap 2B, and accepting whatever contract they offer, particularly considering his injury problems this season, and 2) he could be injured again, you never know considering he's entered his 30's, look at what happened to Ray Durham, healthy all his 20's then every, s-i-n-g-l-e season he's injured.

For that, he knows he's playing for a good rising team that was in the playoff hunt in 2009 and possibly the next two years plus don't have to worry about where he's going to be for the next two years nor what contract he might end up with. And there's the injury thing.

Also, for what it's worth, he felt bad that he was not able to contribute to the pennant run, as was intended by the trade, and that the Giants traded a "pretty high prospect" for him.

Giants Thoughts

Not surprised about a deal, I expected a deal to happen. But 2 years at $12M was an unexpected and nice surprise. I thought that perhaps the 3 year $20M offer that Sanchez gave Pittsburgh might be resurrected, but this is even better. Perhaps he wanted security for now but wanted to test free agency with a healthy body next time. Taking one year at lower pay when there is an $8.1M option doesn't make sense, but a 2 year at these terms does.

That's why all the hand-wringing a lot of Giants fans (i.e. the section of Sabean Naysayers out there) did, worrying about what might happen, was all for naught. They just automatically think that Sabean is going to screw it up in some way, but as I noted, it made sense for both sides to work out a deal for a reasonable amount of money. So we did end up with somebody good for Alderson, and given how poorly he was doing in AA for the Pirates, it looks like we sold high, and all the angst over Franchez was much ado over nothing.

Not surprised that Lowry was released (technically, his option was turned down and then he was outrighted, so as to avoid arbitration, and now he has the right to turn down the assignment and become a free agent, which will happen). His agent accused the Giants staff of incompetance, which is pretty silly because Lowry had problems that had never been seen in baseball before, they had to go to another sport to find such an instance. The Giants said that they are still open, but there is no way they can come back to the Giants and not look bad for the lawsuit that appears to be percolating on Lowry's end. Good luck with your career Noah, thanks for all the good pitching.

I was a little surprised by Miller being outrighted until I found out that he's up for arbitration. With so many players up for arbitration, they probably thought that they could outright him and then try to keep him as an option for next year, since he was signed to a minor contract last year and had his arm surgery. Medders, however, would have been a hot item on the free agent market. I think Miller will stick around and the Giants are talking with him.

Kelvin Pichardo's release possibly ends the Michael Tucker saga in SF. Pichardo was who we got in the trade for Tucker and for a number of years, it looked like he might make the team as a reliever, but despite good numbers in the minors, he never got the call up to the majors, even when basically every pitcher on the 40 man got called up and got at least a cup of coffee in the majors, in 2008. He's probably gone, probably will sign up with someone else since it doesn't look like it's going to happen here.

I am good with the deal for Sanchez. Forget his great season, that's ain't happening again. Still, if you average what he did in his other four seasons, that's a .326 OBP and .407 SLG for a .733 OPS. Plug that into the lineup calculator, compare batting 2nd (which is where the Giants envision him hitting, though apparently 3rd is an option too; .250/.299/.332/.632) with what we got from batting 2nd last season (guys hitting 2nd in lineup didn't do much better than the 2B too; .236/.281/.329/.611), and we add roughly 0.15 to 0.2 runs to the lineup, just with that one move. That would move us from 4.06 runs per game to at least 4.2 runs per game, maybe 4.25 runs scored per game, which, if our pitching holds up, would add two wins to our team.

We should also have improvements at 1B (Ishi-Garko platoon) and SS (Renteria healthy and back to normal offense), plus possibly 3B (Sandoval produce over full season) and RF (someone got to do better than what Winn provided, either Schierholtz or Bowker), leaving LF for a possible free agent or trade acquisition for an upgrade.

Plus, over the last two months of the 2009 season, after the acquisitions for the offense, the team averaged 4.24 runs per game. Obviously, a big chunk of that was from Uribe (who according to the press conference is looking to go free agent, not surprising), but what I wanted to show is that improvements we already have now at 2B, 1B, and SS (relative to 2009), should be at least equivalent to that uptick in offense, meaning that is not a pipe dream that the offense could be improved over last year's 4.06 runs scored without any new additions.

Still, hopefully the Giants can take a calculated risk in the free agent market and improve the team to get us to the 90+ win range. And not just by adding a power hitter but also by adding a #5 starter who can do better than what we got from our #5 starters, Randy Johnson, Ryan Sadowski, and Joe Martinez (obviously, Brad Penny did pretty well). Plus, if Sanchez can continue to improve, that would also help too. Same with Zito.

As I've been noting, I'm happy with how the Giants are set up for 2010. We have clear areas of possible improvements in both our offense and pitching that look like we have a pretty good chance of improving on the number of wins we get in 2010 over 2009. Still, enough could go wrong that we could take a step back in 2010 too.

As much as I would like to see Posey starting, I think the Giants are going to follow the Orioles/Weiters route and acquire a catcher to be the starter holding the seat warm for Posey in 2010. Given that Weiters is considered a better hitter than Posey and yet did not do that well in the majors until his last month, it might behoove the Giants to keep Posey in AAA for most of 2010, and just get him ready for the starting job in 2011. Research by Baseball Foreaster showed that it is usually better to keep the prospects in AAA for a whole year in order to have a better feel for the prospect's true abilities and have a better chance that he succeeds when he does make the majors, than to assume his good hitting over a partial season will hold up on the majors.

According to the news from the press conference announcing Sanchez's deal, Sabean "sees a late-developing free-agent market, particularly for the Giants, because he feels no desperation to sign players." That does not preclude the Giants from pursuing one of the bigger names (Holliday and Bay) as they are usually late developing too, particularly Boras clients. But it probably does mean that it will be a relatively slow off-season for Giants news, as the Giants will not be actively pursuing many (if any) free agents for a quick signing. That probably means no quick signing of a reliever, like we did last year with Affeldt and Howry, or a LF, at least initially. And that could have been predicted once the season ended, not a lot of spots open on the team, as much as people want wholesale changes on offense.

Late (meaning Jan/Feb 2010) signings for LF, RF, 1B, and 3B (and I suppose C) are possible as the Giants take a chance on somebody and giving them a chance to win a starting spot or a vet is unsigned and looking for a spot. That's also when teams have released arbitration eligible players in December and they could be available in that time frame and desperate for a shot somewhere, anywhere. I would also throw out Dallas McPherson's name out there, if he's healthy and hitting in spring, he could push Sandoval to 1B and get a semi-starting job at 3B.

Sabean also noted that he's working on stabilizing the top of the order (1-4), and the only way we can stabilize leadoff is via signing a free agent leadoff hitter. The premier free agent there would be Chone Figgins, who could play 3B or LF for us full-time, or move around as needed, though he would probably prefer to be in one spot, and as a free agent, that could become something that he is looking for in a team. If they got him, the Giants would be set at three of those spots: Figgins, Sanchez, and, of course, Sandoval, and might leave batting 3rd open for Schierholtz or Bowker to try to win.

Also, since they are looking at Franchez batting 3rd, I have to assume that could mean Renteria 2nd, Franchez 3rd, and Sandoval 4th. The news keep on focusing on getting a cleanup hitter, but Sandoval is that already, in my opinion, so they could go this route during the season. And that would work if Renteria was back to his normal self (heck, if he's back to his normal self, he would probably be better off hitting 3rd).

Sabean Like Sanchez, Really He Does

One of the big debate among fans has been about how good Sanchez is and whether Sabean knows what he has in the lefty. There is good news for Sanchez fans like me from Hank Schulman, from his The Splash blog.

He reports that at the Comcast Lunch, I suppose just today, Sabean said that he can't imagine trading a bigger, stronger Jonathan Sanchez for a bat, adding further that Noah Lowry will have to wrest the fifth spot in the rotation from the incumbent Sanchez.

What happened is that Greg Papa asked about trading Sanchez for a corner infielder and Sabean, noting he saw Sanchez throw Tuesday in Arizona, said, "He's bigger and stronger. He's ready to pitch. I have a hard time thinking we could trade this player for value. Plus, he's the incumbent. Lowry is going to have to unseat him."

Vote of Confidence for Sabean and Bochy

Meanwhile, Neukom said at the lunch, "We think we have the best general manager and field manager in baseball,"adding they all decided it would be best to concentrate now on putting a good team on the field and worry about those messy contract issues in October.

Giants Thoughts

What this means is that Sabean doesn't think he will get equivalent value for Sanchez in trade. And I totally agree. If Sanchez can pitch for a whole season like he did - and dominantly so - in the first half of the 2008 season, he would put together a sub-4 ERA season, which would make him easily a #2 type starter. That is easily worth a middle-of-lineup hitter but he won't fetch anyone like that right now. On the other hand, I think he's capable of showing it in 2009.

However, an idea I've been luxuriating in has been this: what if we just kept Sanchez and create a truly monster rotation? Sanchez strikes out a LOT of batters, which as I have reported, is key to a successful playoff run in the post-season. With Lincecum, Cain and a #2 caliber Sanchez, we would have not only a young rotation but one with three pitchers who could arguably be the #1 or #2 starter for any team in the league, with Bumgarner and Alderson looking to join them in 2010 or 2011.

The only way that works is if the Giants position prospects continue to show the skills they showed in the minors and develop further.

• That would mean Ishikawa at 1B, who as I showed in a recent post, isn't that platoon oriented, no more so than other young players who are top lefty firstbasemen. Plus he plays great defense there.
• That would mean Villalona continues to develop and be capable of playing 1B or 3B in the future.
• That would mean Frandsen and Noonan become the clear choices at 2B now and in the future, respectively.
• That would mean Burriss continues to develop and can handle SS
• That would mean Sandoval proves to be adept enough to field 3B adequately and continue to hit well.
• That would mean Lewis continues to develop and can hit 20 HR as he thinks he can.
• That would mean Schierholtz translate what he did in the minors to the majors.
• That would mean Posey continues to amaze with his hitting.

Those are a lot of ifs, driven by the fact that the Giants don't have any truly plus hitters except potentially Posey and hopefully Villalona and Rafael Rodriquez. Still, the above is not totally out of the question either:

• Ishikawa and Frandsen have had success hitting in the majors, as well as the minors, and just need to continue it.
• Burriss, despite his defensive lapses, shows good hitting skills that should continue to develop.
• Sandoval was actually above average defensively in his short stint at 3B in the majors last year, and both Baseball America and Deric McKamey thought that he could become adequate defensively at 3B with experience and practice, and reportedly he took thousands of grounders over the off-season to prepare for 3B. And he showed good hitting skills with his peripherals throughout most of his minor league career and just continued to show it in the majors, with the added plus of adding power to his mix in 2008.
• Schierholtz hasn't had a disappointing season yet and has continued to hit over .300 when given the chance in the majors.
• And Villalona, Noonan, and Posey did well in the minors in 2008 and showed enough that I think they will continue to do so in 2009.

So there is a lot of ifs, but there is a lot of positives to take as well. The question to me is, will the positives be enough to boost the offense enough to win a lot of games with the pitching we got?

I think so. Most of the projections I've seen places the Giants at around .500 for the season, or 81 wins. And personally, I think some of the projections are conservative, I think it is very possible that some of the players could beat their projections. I think that is a decent expectation to have for this season and not that hard a hurdle to jump over and do better without a lot of over-performances. I think if we can just get two out of the three (Sandoval, Ishikawa, and Frandsen) to meet their projections, the Giants can make 81 wins, and I think they can.

To get over 81 wins in 2009, it would take a few of the below:

• Sanchez pitching like Cain or better with a mid-3-ish ERA
• Johnson pitching like he did in 2007 and 2008
• Zito pitching like he did with the A's, with an ERA below 4.00
• Wilson moving to the upper echelon of closers with a low 3 (or better) ERA
• Rowand hitting the way he was the first two months of 2008 for a whole season
• Lewis being able to hit 20 HR while still hitting like he has hit in the majors so far
• Renteria having another of his career peak seasons
• Frandsen matching training buddy Dustin Pedroia's breakout season in 2008

These are not what I would call likely or probable occurences but wouldn't surprise me if they happen either. Well, except for the last one about Frandsen.

I like where the Giants are right now in terms of their development. I think Sabean has done a good job so far and is deserving of the vote of confidence Neukom gave him. It is also as I had suspected, that Neukom does like Sabean but couldn't be too open about his support early in his term as owner, though I think this is still kind of early as well, I would have waited until after spring training and passed it on as part of the opening day celebration.

Still, I wouldn't give Sabean an extension now. I think we need to see generally good progress by the Giants young players and prospects for him to get an extension. Big question marks that need to be answered positively, besides those above, include:

• Posey showing he has what it takes to do well in the majors
• Villalona showing he has progressed
• Rodriguez showing he is worth the money given him
• Bumgarner and Alderson continue to do well at a higher level
• Some good performances among the other prospects, like Gillaspie, Kieschnick, Crawford, Adrianza, Fairley, Noonan, Culberson, Downs, Rohlinger, Jesus Guzman, Thomas Neal, Hector Sanchez, Julios Izturis, Henry Sosa, for examples

I think in particular Posey, Villalona, and Rodriguez. At least one of them and Sandoval must continue to show that he is a plus hitter, that there is a good hitter for the Giants in the future. Still, if the rotation continues to perform great, that could be enough for me to say yes to an extension as well.

2009 Pitching Rotation

According to accounts, such as Hank Schulman, the pitching rotation will be Tim Lincecum, Randy Johnson, Matt Cain, Barry Zito, and the #5 starter, Sanchez or Lowry.

As others have noted, such as McCovey Chronicles and Bay City Ball, that is a pretty good rotation order. As Bochy has noted in recent interviews, like on KNBR, he likes this rotation because it splits up the lefties. As Chris/Xanthan notes in Bay City Ball, having Zito in #4 spot is pretty good. I think he should be past the point where he's insulted by his spot in the rotation and be focused more on pitching well no matter where he is in the rotation.

Obviously, it's do or die for him and the contract and he's already got two strikes against him. I think this is the season he finally delivers what we have been hoping to get from him with this contract. As I noted in previous posts, he struck out more in 3 games sequences in 2008 than he has since his early years. He's also working out like a demon this off-season with Wilson and I think Wilson's hang-loose attitude could rub off on Zito and help him not over-think so much when he pitches in 2009, which I think hurt him as the contract weighed on him.

As I noted here on Bay Bridge Baseball, I think that the Giants should start Sanchez no matter what and just keep Lowry in the bullpen as long relief/spot starter. I don't think that there is any way his arm is ready for a full MLB season and let's him get acclimated to MLB again while being backup should any starter goes down or is ineffective, particularly Randy Johnson since he's going to be 45 years old.

Meanwhile, Sanchez is on the brink of a breakout season where he could warrant a premier middle-lineup hitter in exchange next off-season if he puts it all together. It would be a total waste to put him back in the bullpen in face of that, particularly since if we put Lowry in the rotation and he puts in another nice season, he's still not going to net us a middle-lineup hitter in trade.

Either way, an OK Sanchez or Lowry should mop up against other teams' #5 starters, they should end up doing very well for themselves in the win column. Most team's #5 are lucky if their ERA are in the 5's, and whoever wins should be good for ERA under 5.

I believe that the competition between Sanchez and Lowry is mainly manufactured to 1) give Sanchez compeitition so that he doesn't mail it in during spring training and 2) give Lowry further incentive to do well and prove that he's back in spring training so that he doesn't mentally give up had there not been any spot available for him to win, plus to show respect for what he had done previously as a starters for us. I believe that Sanchez should win the "competition", thus allowing Lowry to sit in the bullpen and work his way back to the rotation.

Also, given the extreme youth (Cain and Lincecum) and age (Johnson) in the rotation, it might make sense for the Giants to go with a 6 man rotation after the All Star break, or starting in August, where most makeup games for rained out games are scheduled, with the 6th man's spot skipped where there is actually a free day that week. And if Sanchez does prove to be inconsistent again in the first half of 2009, then we could switch him to the bullpen and start Lowry, assuming Lowry was successful in the first half, and hopefully build value for trading Lowry in the off-season since he's still cheap for 2010 assuming he can start OK. Or make him and Lowry alternate being the 6th rotation skip.

I think being in the #3 spot will help Cain in that the opposing starter will be that much less talented and he will finally put together a winning season in the 12-15 win range, and perhaps even have an outside shot at winning 20. Given how well he has pitched plus improvement, his ERA should be in the 3.5 ERA range and most middle rotation guys have an ERA in the 4.5 range, yielding a Pythagorean of roughly 20 wins. Not likely, but I think he finally ends up with more wins than losses in 2009.

Lincecum, barring any setback, god forbid, should do alright for himself again being the ace of the staff, though not 18-5 good, maybe more like 15-10 good. Being at the top of the rotation instead of #3 will mean he face better pitchers generally, but if he can continue to keep his ERA under 3.00, as he has since the end of May 2007, it won't matter much who we face, he'll be winning games with him starting.

Johnson I think will be in the worse position out of the starters. He had a competitive enough ERA in 2008 for a #2 starter (a THT study had ace starters under 4.00 ERA, #2 starters in the low 4's or better, #3 starters in mid-4's, #4 starters in high-4's, and #5 starters in 5's and 6's), but assuming some decline due to his age, that means that he's probably going to be seeing a losing record overall assuming that other team's #2 continue doing well. That works for the Giants brass because Johnson is a rental and the main point with him is not to have a winning record in particular but to reach 300 wins, take some pressure off the young starters, particularly Cain, Zito, and Sanchez, and impart some sage mentoring to Lincecum, Cain, and Sanchez. And should he succumb physically to age finally, Lowry should be there to take over the rest of the season, which gives Lowry some early rest to build up strength and get used to things again. The only way his contract don't work is if he injures himself early and don't pitch much if at all for us.

Overall, I think we have a strong rotation that will pitch well for us and be one of the top rotations in 2009 in the NL. I think the offense will be improved enough for that to translate into more wins and get us to .500 or nearly so. While the offense will still be below average as most fans still complain about, that is not the point, for as long as the rotation and bullpen are above average, that should be enough for us to win our share of games and be competitive in the poor NL West division.

And a Gung Hay Fat Choy to everyone! Go Giants!

Good Report on Frandsen Plus Rumors and Speculations

John Sickels, a minor league expert, wrote in his Minor League Ball blog the following about Kevin Frandsen:

Kevin Frandsen, SS, San Francisco Giants: Looks healthy which is the important thing after missing the season due to a torn achilles. Line drive bat, hits to the opposite field, hustles, won't have much home run power. Played shortstop down here and looked fine, can handle second base no problem defensively.

Still, Sickels thinks Kevin is a 2B in full-time play.

Baggarly's Back

Andy Baggarly had a juicy post on Giants rumors and he's not even at the GM meetings.

• The biggest news, as Andy notes:  Giants have interest in Rafael Furcal.  This makes sense, much like how the acquisiton of Rowand made sense:  add another strong vet to the mix.  In Rowand's case, it allowed Schierholtz to gain another year of experience at AAA, and Lewis backed up Roberts really well, with Schierholtz as the second alternative had the need arise.  In this case, this sets up SS, with Frandsen and Burriss fighting for 2B, and if both do well enough, Frandsen slides to 3B, with Sandoval sticking to 1B.  Also, as Baggarly also notes, he would lead off, allowing us to bat Lewis in the middle (though I was envisioning Burriss in the leadoff spot).  Plus we steal him from the D-gers, though they do have Ivan DeJesus and Chin-Lung Hu in the wings (however, DeJesus looks terrible in AFL according to Sickels and Hu didn't do well in majors last year).
  
  And this works even if injury prone Furcal - he's 31 next year and has had two straight injury reduced years, particularly in 2008 - continues to be injury prone, as that would allow Burriss and/or Frandsen time at SS. However, this only really works if it is a two year deal with an option, because we cannot be saddled with a gimpy shortstop for big bucks for a long time.  Particularly not into our prime period of 2010-2015 when we should have our best prospects productive and under our control.   Perhaps the option can be tied to playing time in 2009-10, like Vizquel's was.   He took a shorter deal with LA for more money so perhaps he might be willing to do that again.
  
  If the Giants are already looking this SS route, if Furcal falls through, perhaps they might go after Adam Everett who plays great defense but might give that back offensively. However, that would be an upgrade on last year because the SS position only hit .228/.295/.281/.576 overall. Everett over the past three seasons had OPS of .642, .599, and .601 (career .653, but much done at Houston's hitter's park. Still, he'll be 32 next year and with declines offensively, could continue to decline. Plus, it appears he was injured twice during the season (and missed a lot of time in 2007 as well), so perhaps he's an injury risk today.
  
• Other names include Pat Burrell and Jimmy Rollins, but most probably not happening.
• Scott Eyre was mentioned, but apparently Eyre loves pitching for the Phillies and his home is close to their spring training complex.  It'll probably come to who offers the bigger bucks again, which is how we lost him to Chicago last time.
• Bengie Molina rumors appear to be just that, nothing substantial.   I would note here that I saw a headline that Pudge and Veritek will be hot commodities because of a short supply in the catcher's market, so the teams that lose out on them might decide to be more substantial with their offer for Molina in the future.
• Lastly, Andy speculates that Aaron Rowand could be in the mix in trade talks.  The market for CF is strong as evidenced by the Brewers picking up Mike Cameron's $10M option, and the Yankees and ChiSox are shopping for CF (Rowand being a former ChiSox, and they pursued him strongly before the Giants got him).  According to scouts that Baggarly spoke with, Rowand's defense has fallen so much that Randy Winn was actually better (and most reports I've heard is that he's poor in CF).    Still, any trade would have to have a substantial return and the Giants would need to get another righty hitter to balance things out, particularly if Schierholtz is the new RF.  Plus, he has limited trade protection.
• Oh, and Baggarly guesses that it's 75-25 that Cain remains a Giant.  I would think it would have to be greater than that, because I don't think any team is going to be willing to shell out that much, I would expect to get much more than what the D-backs got for Haren, and only the Rays, I think, would be in a good enough position to trade off that many young good players for a Cain - yet they don't really need a Cain, they have Kazmir, Shields, Garza, and soon Price.  

Shea Had Something to Say Too

John Shea had a column on the Giants too:

• Asked if Cain is untouchable, Sabean said, "Yes.  Clubs know that.  That hasn't necessarily discouraged clubs from inquiring or making suggestions of offers.  But we don't see anything out there that gives us a net gain by losing him."
• So to get offensive help, he will try other ways, including free agency and trades for pitchers not named Cain, Lincecum, or Wilson.  "We have a list of very definitive untouchables for various reasons.  After that, if someone wants to get creative and we could find a way to do something, even if it takes more than one prospect, we're willing to do it."
• Sabean will be attending the Giants' ownership group meeting in SF tonight.
• Sabean has been told to conduct business as usual, despite the tumbling economy, with the priority of adding a couple of hitters - a corner infielder and middle infielder to complement Sandoval and Burriss in the infield and of rebuilding the bullpen around Wilson.
• Sabean noted, "You never know if someone might be interested.  Having said that, we know what the competition's going to be.  Make no mistake.  It's a short list of quote, premium difference-makers.  Very short."
• Also reports that Furcal's group "indicated the Giants are interested in the shortstop as a leadoff hitter." 
• Basically Burriss will play either 2B or SS and Sandoval wil play either 1B or 3B.  
• Sabean has not met many agents but is expected to.  He was seen speaking to Craig Landis (former Giants prospect, FYI) who represents Bobby Howry (also a former Giants prospect).   Sabean appears confident he can redo his bullpen through free agency.
• He also met with the agent company representing Dunn, Burrell, Hudseon, and CC Sabathia (and here it is affirmed that the Giants are not in the market for front-line starting pitchers).  
• Sabean also noted that Frandsen has a shot at winning 2B starting job.  He's currently playing SS because Burriss's knee is banged up.
• Also, they are still hopeful that Lowry will be in the Opening Day rotation (imagine how good we would have been in 2008 with a healthy Lowry manning a rotation spot instead of Correia/Misch/etc.  That could have been at least a 10 game swing as those pitchers went a combined 3-13 in 29 starts;  Lowry going 8-8 instead would but the Giants at 77-85, only 8 games under .500 vs. 18 games under .500).  
• In addition, Kevin Pucetas could be in competition for the final rotation spot as well, which is surprising but a good surprise.  But still surprising given the word after the season that the team would not rush players as they had in 2008, as Pucetas was only in Advanced A San Jose and, frankly, Tim Alderson outpitched him there.   However, Kevin will be 24 next year and Alderson only 20, so with Bumgarner and Alderson probably only a season or two away from being in the majors, perhaps the Giants felt like they should take a good look at Pucetas now.

Giants Thoughts

I mainly looked here at what the Giants might do commented on that and tried not to put as much of my opinion into what I would do as I am posting tomorrowing a discussion of various free agents and my thoughts on whether we should pursue them or not.  Here, I am mainly an observer who gives opinion on what may or may not be happening.

I guess the main news is that Burriss and Sandoval pretty much owns two spots in the infield but which two depends on who the Giants acquired during the off-season.  And the threshold is high, the Giants are only looking at "premium difference makers".    Plus, as noted before, the Giants are looking to boost the bullpen.  And it appears that the Giants are not pursuing any outfielders, leaving a number of premium difference makers like Manny not part of the mix in the Giants plans. 

Looks like they will pursue Furcal, though how seriously, I don't know, as they shied away from Vlad Guerrero reportedly because of his bad back (though according to a well-respected Bay Area media member, Ted Robinson, a significant factor was because Vlad didn't like Felipe Alou).  He'll be OK with a short contract but not a long one.

And apparently they are eyeing Juan Uribe as a possible replacement for Rich Aurilia, depending on how cheaply they can get him from the ChiSox (which I would put in the category of dumpster-diving; not that there's anything wrong with that).   I am OK with that if he's cheap enough.  It'll be fun for the crowd to yell "Ooo-Ree-Bay" again.  

Pat Burrell, on the other hand, is pretty much dismissed in the above articles, but he used to play 1B like Dunn as well.  However, I doubt that his hometime discount will amount to enough for the Giants to sign him and his defense stinks, and Sabean loves good defensive players.   

Still, you never know what a player might do, because if the Giants are interested in Furcal, they are obviously entertaining thoughts of shelling out another $12-13+ M contract and maybe Burrell doesn't need the biggest contract and accepts one that is good enough, like Carlos Lee did with Houston.  Burrell is a South Bay native and I believe was a Giants fan growing up.  In addition, because his defense leaves a lot to be desired, the Giants might not want to have two subpar defensive player in Burrell and Sandoval at the corner infield spots.  We will see.

I don't think that the Giants will want to pursue Dunn.  I think there is enough interest on the part of other teams to put his price out of range of the Giants.  And he's not going to give any hometown discount to the Giants.

Same thinking on Mark Teixiera.  As much as he fits the Giants ideal 1B - hitter plus great defensively - he is with Boras and he will want one of the largest contracts in history.  I don't think the Giants want to go in that direction.

I am hoping the Giants are limiting contracts to the 2 years plus 3rd year option or at most a 3 years plus 4th year option variety so that the contracts are ending right around when we need to sign Cain and Lincecum to long term deals.  That would make it easier to trade them too.

I'm a bit afraid that the media is mentioning Bumgarner and Alderson in the trade talks and hope that is because Sabean did not explicitly name them and thus the writers are just taking an analytical leap there.  Sabean, as I noted, like to maintain a list put together by our coaches and scouts on, basically, who our keepers are and who we are willing to give up.  I assume both are on the keeper list.

Looks like the #5 spot will be competed for by Lowry, Pucetas, and probably Misch as well, and possibly Correia should he be re-signed (I'm betting that he's going to another team like the Padres instead, though).  

The outfield appear to be set with Lewis, Rowand, and Winn, with the outside possibility that the Giants will float Rowand's name to see what offers he gets.  As I noted before, I hope they keep him, I think he'll be better in 2009 and the team will be sorry to get rid of him if they do.

Given the hot market for catchers in free agency, I think some teams might decide that it would be better to have Bengie Molina than overpay for the two stars on the market, Ivan Rodriguez and Jason Veritek, or, alternatively, he will look better when the two sign with other teams and the remaining bidders are left with no catcher.   However, I think it would take a pretty good offer to get the Giants to trade Molina, so I think he'll be with the team to start the season but could be gone by mid-season when the inevitable injury hits a contending team's catching and they need a catcher and thus might overbid for him.  Plus the Giants by that point should be back far enough that they could give up without shame and start building for the future again at mid-season.  

Lastly, Cain's not going anywhere because it is going to take a huge overbid to get him away from the Giants and that's been true for at least 3 years now, and if a team hasn't been willing to do that before, they are probably not willing to do it today, as he's pitching much as he has, at least at the surface. 

However, as I noted in another post, Cain greatly improved in 2008 because he actually pitched well on the road, whereas previously he only pitched well in SF and poorly on the road.  He should be ready to take off in terms of production as a starting pitcher in 2009, I would bet.

Lowry's May Be Out for Season

As been feared by Giants fans when Lowry was shut down in mid-April, the Giants have announced that Lowry might not return this season: when asked about Lowry pitching in 2008, Bochy said, "That's questionable. We don't know if he'll be back on the mound for us this year." Then the head trainer, Dave Groeschner, noted that even if Lowry were to resume throwing on July 1, he's need six to eight weeks without further setbacks to get his arm in shape to pitch. By then, it would be mid-August or early September.

Groeschner still won't rule out returning completely. They are waiting for the pins-and-needles sensation in his forearm to subside and recently the feeling has migrated from Lowry's upper forearm toward his wrist, which he says indicates that it might soon disappear.

Giants Thoughts

That's bad news but luckily Sanchez has made the best of his opportunity and our rotation has not been hurt that badly; it suffered more from losing Correia and adding Misch. I had been advocating trading him since the end of the 2006 season but we can forget about trading him now. His contract only goes to 2009, which is next season. I doubt under the circumstances that they are going to pick up his option for the 2010 season and instead try their luck to resign him for lower bucks without going to arbitration for that season.

Meanwhile, if you pencil in Lowry for the 2009 rotation, that would leave the Giants having to choose between Correia or Sanchez for the rotation, plus Misch would be a capable #5 starter and there are a number of pitchers coming up the system in two or three years, like Sosa, Alderson, Bumgarner, Bucardo, plus possibilities like Cowart, Pucetas, Snyder, Tanner.

So I would expect the Giants to actively shop both Correia and Sanchez, perhaps even as soon as July or August, presuming the Giants fall further from the race by then, and pulling the trigger if the price is right. By then, there will be desperate playoff contenders looking for another good starter due to injury and/or lack of performance, and the two of them would make fine additions to most rotations. Using that leverage, the Giants could get a team to give up a prospect ready for the majors in 2009 in order to get Correia and Sanchez in 2008 in order to make the playoffs.

If that don't happen, then both of them should be shopped for a good position prospect, we reportedly were offered Carlos Gomez by the Mets for Sanchez previously, so if Sanchez can continue to do well this season, we should be able to get more than that for him, particularly if the other team is desparate for a good starter.

Correia will be harder to get more in trade for him, but he's the type of #4/5 starter you need in order to win a division title (then he can go into relief during the playoffs) so I'm OK with keeping him if the value is not out there. Sanchez is definitely the shinier bauble to trade and hopefully the Giants can pick up some good prospects for him before the 2009 season, at least a good hitting infielder plus another prospect or two. That's presuming he continues to improve and develop this season.

Giants Fire Sale?

The MLB rumor site quoted Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sport reporting that the "Giants have informed several teams that they are shopping over a dozen of their major league and minor league players." Ken Rosenthal said some of the players include Ray Durham, Rich Aurilia, Randy Winn, and Steve Kline. The author of the site then actually called the Giants "and found out that Travis Ishikawa and Noah Lowry are both on that list as well." He suggested that this is a Giants fire sale.

Not quite because not every player who should go in a fire sale were mentioned. All the players listed make a lot of sense to trade because they are holding back younger players or is not as necessary anymore or both.

Durham out = Frandsen starting at 2B. Durham's horrid 2007 notwithstanding, he has had a very solid career, and a good spring could convince another team that he is back enough to obtain. The level of player we get back will correspond fully with how much the other team believes Durham is back.

Aurilia out = Velez as uber-utility guy. Aurilia had a horrible 2007, probably caused by a fender bender in spring training. But he's a relatively cheap vet who can play the whole infield and hit OK enough for a team to take him for a nothing prospect sent to the Giants. And the Giants are happy to oblige because they don't need him right now, except as 3B insurance, but there are others who should do OK at 3B, like Frandsen and possibly Velez.

Randy Winn was one of the few to have a good 2007, so the Giants should want to trade him because he could net a good prospect, unlike the others = Nate Schierholtz and/or Fred Lewis getting a chance to start in RF. They can't platoon since both are lefties, but they would be competing for playing time there. Or they could give Lewis the starting role for half a season, and if he can't hold it, bring up Schierholtz, or even Bowker, depending on who is doing better (though it appears that Bowker might be prepped as Ortmeier's replacement if Dan falters).

Steve Kline out = probably Jose Capellan being kept. Giants have a number of young good RP who are out of options or could be lost: Valdez, Threets, Capellan. The first two have been doing well, and the third, Capellan, comes highly recommended, Felipe Alou would lose a lot of face if they return him to the Red Sox because they got him in Rule 5 draft.

Noah Lowry out = Jonathan Sanchez or Pat Misch in. Both need to start in the majors to see how they do, but Correia looks good to go in winning the only open spot, and Lowry is the most expendable of the top four of Cain, Lincecum, Zito, and Lowry (obviously Zito's contract precludes any trade, and the Giants aren't trading the other two, no matter how many fans want them to).

Unfortunately, Lowry went under the knife Friday for surgery, so he's not going to be traded right now. I assume the Giants are kicking the tires, as Sabean would say, in order to set the table for trading him by mid-season.

Travis Ishikawa is a failing prospect and there are now other prospects looking to be the Giants future 1B. First, we have Angel Villalona, who most rate as being in the Top 30 (or better) overall among all prospects. So even if Ishikawa came up this year, Angel will take the spot in a couple of years. Then there is Dan Ortmeier who looks to be getting the chance to start there until Angel is ready, plus if he is OK at 1B, he colld always return to the OF. If Ortmeier falters, then John Bowker would next get the chance. And there are a number of college 1B who the Giants could pick in this season's amateur draft with their #5 pick overall.

Still, Ishikawa is a great defender and has considerable power plus walks a lot, and he really needs to start in AAA or he'll be lost by the Giants next season as he only has one option left. But they appear to like McClain and he plays 1B at AAA plus they are trying out John Bowker at 1B as well (he could also come up mid-season and start in RF too).

I think they should keep him because he has been severely bothered by the poor parks at San Jose and Norwich (see MiLB.com's series by Jonathan Mayo for insight on how bad these parks are for hitters), they need to see how he does in AAA, in more regular parks. But it is not like he's a sure thing, it is just that he showed a lot of power and ability to walk despite the bad hitting environment in San Jose and Norwich is just a bear to play in for almost any power hitter. There should be other teams willing to give him a chance, heck, even Todd Linden got picked up and Ellison was traded twice and was a glorified pinch-runner with each team.

Giants Thoughts

The names on the list above are no surprise to most Giants fans. What is surprising, at least to those who don't read here, is that Dave Roberts is not on the list. As I have been harping on, the Giants want Roberts around to teach tips to the speedsters we'll have up here in 2008 and 2009. The key to making aggressive basestealing work is to not get caught and Roberts steals both in quantity (23-49 while starting regularly) and quality (81% career success; 88% last two seasons).

There was only six names revealed in the two articles, meaning that about five to seven more names are on the list that were not noteworthy enough for the authors to mention. Here are some of my thoughts on who else might be on the list.

Given that the Giants list outfielders as a desire, I have to think that Rajai Davis and Clay Timpner are on the list. Rajai Davis was never much of a prospect, a AAAA candidate until he had that nice month with us before the league caught up with him. And Clay Timpner really only works in CF and we just signed Aaron Rowand to play CF for a long while. Maybe Fred Lewis is on the list too, though I would think he would be mentioned if Ishikawa was.

In addition, they are reportedly looking for set up relievers, so it could be that Brad Hennessey might be on the list as well. As nicely as he has done, in a wide variety of roles - starting, long relief, set-up, and closing - he does not have the power arm that Giants management likes, so he could be a case of selling high, after doing so well in 2007 in a number of roles, as well as oping a spot for one of the trio of relievers we would lose if not on the Giants 25 man roster come starting day: Merkin Valdez, Erick Threets, and Jose Capellan.

He could net a good prospect due to how well he has done, how flexible he can be in a variety of situations, and how much longer they have to control him. It could explain why the Giants started him recently in spring training. You know, show how valuable he can be to prospective teams.

I would also add Randy Messenger and maybe Vinnie Chulk as possibilities too. Particularly Messenger after his big blow up over his demotion the other day. With so many other good young relievers who cannot be sent down, the Giants could afford to trade these two while the trio are doing well and the two have some trade value as major league relievers.

Chulk would not get sent down in any case, but had a nice year last season and thus could net a nice prospect back. Messenger was just sent down recently, as the Giants still had an option on him, but, still, he did well for us until he busted his fist in the wall, which probably cost us any chance of getting anyone good for him in trade, but I would not mind losing him because he don't strike out that many batters on a K/9 basis. We need strikeout pitchers to be more successful in the playoffs and neither of them are stellar in that regard.

Oddly enough, the Giants are looking for backup catchers, which implies that they are not happy with Eliezer Alfonzo or Guillermo Rodriguez as our backups. Given their offensive show during the Carribean Winter Leagues, that suggest they are looking for a strong defensive catcher to complement Molina, whose defense has seen much better days. I like Alfonzo as backup, but given the Giants future relies so much on pitching, it would behoove us to pick up someone solid defensively as a backup catcher, for defensive purposes at the end of the game, plus he could see starts when Bengie Molina is struggling offensively, which is his only area of value-add.

I Guess Lowry Won't Be Traded Now

The Giants announced today that Noah Lowry will undergo surgery on his left wrist. The 411:

Lowry, 27, was diagnosed with exertional compartmental syndrome in his forearm. Giants manager Bruce Bochy said Lowry could resume throwing in two to three weeks and might not rejoin the starting rotation until late April, although an official prognosis won't be issued until after the surgery.

The Mayo Clinic's Web site described exertional compartmental syndrome as "an exercise-induced neuromuscular condition that causes pain, swelling and sometimes even disability in affected muscles of the legs or arms. The condition can occur in both beginning and seasoned athletes in sports that involve repetitive movements."

In layman's terms, throwing causes compression in Lowry's forearm compartment, resulting in a pressure buildup that squeezes a nerve which weakens Lowry's hand. Dr. Gordon Brody will perform Lowry's surgery, which is expected to be a mild procedure, by making a small incision and releasing the fascia -- akin to slicing a sausage casing -- around the forearm muscles.

Ew, TMI!

Obviously, this should kill all the stupid Lowry for Crede trade rumors that have been flying around. Why the Giants would give up 3 cheap years of a good pitcher for one year of a below average 3B, I don't know, but all the Sabean haters were having a field day crying over how Sabean would do this trade.

I'm OK with this news. It is not great, but I'm OK because it will allow the Giants to start another pitcher in April - whether Sanchez or Misch, as I'm assuming that Correia is now in for sure, though, heck, either could push Correia out with a stellar April when Lowry comes back. In addition, Lowry clearly has been having health issues and this is probably the straw that breaks the camel's back for most teams, his value is severely devalued now, if it wasn't before. Still, getting to basically rest during April should keep Lowry fresh for the second half and he should be able to pitch the rest of the season relatively healthy (though that didn't work in 2006).

In other news, Frandsen has been removed from being the starting SS both because he was struggling there and there seems no use to putting him through a huge position change when he is struggling and it would only be for a week or two during the regular season. The leading contender is Brian Bocock, who has impressed with the glove (some report him as the best fielding SS in our system) and bat, though his bat was the problem last season in Advanced A level. Also competing are Emmanuel Burriss and last year's AAA starter, Ivan Ochoa. I would prefer Ochoa, just to see what he can do up here, but I would be OK with Bocock.

Lastly, Randy Messenger was sent down and he was not happy about it, though he has been horrible this spring, and the odds of him making the 25-man roster was between slim and none. Merkin Valdez has been having a hot spring, which is good because we are out of options and lose him if we try to waive him to the minors. Erick Threets is also out of options and likewise has been doing well. If they make it, then the odds of Jose Capellan making it seems pretty slim if the team goes with a 11 man pitching staff, as Bochy would like to do. Haven't heard what he has done so far. The bullpen right now looks like Brian Wilson, Tyler Walker, Brad Hennessey, Vinnie Chulk, plus two others, with Valdez, Threets, Capellan, and Kline the main competitors there. I can see Kline being traded to make space before the end of spring. El Lefty Malo has been having a nice series of articles on the bullpen, check there for more info.

Tim Lincecum: Please Stay Long Time!!!

The Giants made Tim Lincecum available to the press prior to the KNBR/Giants FanFest event that was held yesterday (Saturday) at AT&T. Press views were available via the Chronicle, Mercury, and sfgiants.com. Each gave their take on what was said and heard.

The common theme was that Lincecum was not happy about possibly being traded to Toronto. He tried not to think or read about it, but friends would bring it up with him. The bottom line was that he enjoys being here, wants to be here, and is glad to be here.

sfgiants.com/Haft

The sfgiants.com version by Chris Haft added that he said, "I don't want to leave yet, I want to get my feet wet here. I've had such a great time with this organization in such a short time." It also had other news, including signing Kevin Correia to a $1.075M contract, the mid-point between the two, avoiding arbitration, plus that Sabean is not interested in anyone in free agency though a trade is still possible. Sabean noted, "We just don't see anybody out there who's going to change our fortunes dramatically in the present or future, especially the future, on the free agent market.

Haft also repeated the oft-mentioned (and oft-cringed) Crede trade rumor, but this quote and actions thus far suggest quite the opposite to me in a number of ways. One is that Crede is only a one year rental because Boras is his agent and if the Giants were only willing to give Feliz two years and no more, Crede is not getting more than that because his batting line is basically interchangeable with Feliz - and boosted by his home park - and he is worse defensively (though good defensively, Feliz is now that good).

Two is that even if Crede signs for two years - 2008 and 2009 - that hardly satisfies Sabean's statement about emphasizing the future. Some cynical fans like to make fun of Sabean but in his time as GM, he has said what he meant, meant what he said, even if he couldn't execute it during the off-season (like 2003 when he said the A.J. trade wasn't the only thing the Giants were doing - and it was - or last off-season when he said the team was getting younger but nobody young would sign with us, despite even offering more money to Carlos Lee).

Third is that Frandsen appears capable of deliverying offense (better) and defense (worse) at 3B comparable to Crede overall (not equal to but comparable), which violates the objective for "dramatic" change if a trade is to be made. Therefore, I don't see how the Giants can target Crede if they hold to their public statements of the past half year. But all the rumor mongers say that the Giants are extremely interested because of Rowand and/or Schuler, so we will see. I would be greatly disappointed if the Giants trade any good prospect for one year of Crede, even more disappointed if they then sign him to a long-term contract.

Chronicle/Schulman

Henry Schulman gave a bit more in his Chron take. It added some nice funny quotes from Matt Cain and a good discussion of Lincecum's efforts to add a fourth pitch, a "hard" slider that he was working on in the bullpen late in the 2007 season: "The changeup became a go-to pitch for me when I needed it. It wasn't great early on, but it's definitely a pitch I'm more comfortable with. I want to be able to find that with my slider. If it only takes a couple of starts or bullpen (sessions) to get that slider going, that's it. I want to throw four pitches."

Schulman also had some discussion by Sabean about giving Ortmeier and Frandsen significant opportunity to win spots while the outfielders will find little opportunity with Rowand and Winn starting and Roberts the frontrunner for LF, though a trade could change things.

Mercury/Baggarly

Andrew Baggarly, I think, had the most significant news by far of the three accounts, and he had three of them to boot. First is that he quoted Lincecum in reaction to fans had connected with him: "It is very reassuring to have in the back of your mind [the fan's support]. To hear so many fans wanted me to stay, that motivates me. When it comes to free agency or signing somewhere, something like that could make a difference." Hence my title and hopefully other fans will do likewise.

The second bit of significant info was that Lincecum said he expects to sign a one-year contract for this season, with the possibility of negotiating a multi-year deal after that. I was hoping to get him signed to a contract similar to Lowry and Cain, but I like to see his confidence of doing well and getting a better contract. Self-motivation like that is rare.

One of Lincecum's traits I like is that he is driven to improve to make more money but is fair about it, unlike most of Boras's clients who I consider money hungry opportunists - there is enough money for everyone without leveraging the huge advantage that players have in the marketplace currently. Tim had a figure he wanted and didn't sign in 2005 for less, preferring to improve himself in 2006 and earn what he felt he wanted. Even with the Giants, he didn't settle for slot, he wanted what the #10 had got the year before and the Giants eventually gave it to him. Then he went out to show he was more than worth it.

Lastly, Baggarly had additional quote on the slider that was significant: "I plan to be a four-pitch starter. I'd love for it to be a pitch I can throw for strikes, but its looking like a strikeout pitch. The more I throw it, the more comfortable it feels." The top pitchers have at least four pitches they can throw for strikes. And it is even better when it is so good that it is a strikeout pitch.

These were all info Giants fans would want to know, news none of the other accounts included. That is why I wish the Giants would provide video or audio of all of these news conferences so that the fans can hear for themselves what is being said, instead of having it filtered by the writers. Sometimes interesting information is left out by one or another or, for all I know, all of them.

Baggarly had other news. One was that several clubs plan to scout Noah Lowry to see if his elbow is sound. At the moment, Lowry is expected to report healthy. I have to assume that with top arms like Santana, Haren, and Bedard on the market, that probably killed trade interest in second tier pitchers like Lowry until they were all traded. Now the losers in those trades might turn their attention to this second tier, like Lowry and Blanton, pitchers who are good but not great. That's interesting info too!

He also noted that Zito might not be the opening day starter. Bochy said that Zito is not the automatic choice. I think that its only logical to do that, to give Cain and Lincecum something to shoot for, but I have to assume that, barring a total meltdown on Zito's part in spring training (which I don't expect), Zito will be the opening day starter. One, why put additional pressure on your young aces-to-be, when Zito is being paid so well? Two, putting our young guns against lesser pitchers should result in more wins for them overall. Three, being back of the rotation means at least one less start - maybe two if the rotation is shifted after the ASG - for starters 3 to 5, who are probably Lowry, Lincecum, and Correia/Sanchez. All three could use less starts in 2008.

Good News and Bad News

On a side note, the good news is that I've just gotten a job offer. It is exactly as my friends' cliche went when they learned of my job loss: you'll find a better job, better company, better pay. However, the bad news is that I like to devote myself 24/7 to my new job so that the learning curve is as short as possible and I contribute to the team as soon as possible, so I might be a bit slow for a while to react to Giants news and such. Once I get into the routine of things, then my posts here should return to normal.

Perfect Storm: Trade Lowry to Twins

I saw a headline of a rumor that caught my eye: Twins Might Get Fogg? And if you know the players in the league, Josh Fogg isn't even an average pitcher, he is very much a back of the rotation pitcher, at best a #4 starter, but I'm thinking more like a #5. His career ERA is 4.90 where the league ERA was 4.48 and his ERA+ was 91 where 100 is average. And he has never had one season where he was above 97. This is the guy they want to replace Johan Santana in their rotation?

Lowry is the Answer

That got me thinking, what about Lowry? Lowry would be a huge improvement over Fogg as a replacement for Santana in the rotation. His lowest ERA+ was 95; his career ERA is 4.03 where the league average was 4.38, and his career ERA+ is 109. And he is still young - just 27 for 2008 - and under relatively cheap control with a contract that lasts to 2009 and has an option for 2010. And while Lowry's late season injury problems of the past two seasons might scare off other teams, they took on Francisco Liriano's problems and have now took on Deolis Guerra's injury problems, so they must think that they are experts in handling pitchers who are injury prone.

Now who could we get from them. Well, in the Delmon Young trade, they got Brendan Harris, who is normally a SS but is right now slotted for 2B for them. However, they have Alexi Casilla who is their Eugenio Velez-esque speedburner who was originally slated to be their new 2B. We could get Harris in the trade, which would allow the Twins to start Casilla as they had originally intended.

He had a very nice season offensively at SS in 2007 (have no idea how good his fielding is) and has hit well in the minors coming up the ladder - and he could be either our starting 3B or be a Chone Figgins-type utility guy and get starts at 2B, 3B, and SS. And he could probably be our future SS, particularly if Vizquel sucks offensively, which I kind of expect (he couldn't even muster up one month with an OPS above 700, 688 was the highest, 670 next; he had four months at 745 and above, much above, just the year before). He could be starting by mid-season.

Now he alone is not enough for Lowry, in my opinion, Lowry is a more proven major leaguer, more successful major leaguer. He also is under contract and while we can trade him, we don't need to trade him, whereas the Twins just spent big bucks to lock up Morneau and Cuddyer, so they cannot afford to dick around on price and negotiate much, they need pitching, good pitching, and while they have some nice pitching with potential, the rotation is full of question marks up and down, with Scott Baker having the least question marks. Lowry might be a question mark by the end of the season, but at least he is unquestionably good before Sept: career ERA of 3.83 from start of season to end of August.

For the other player, there are a number of options. One is to get back 3B Brian Buscher. We lost him in the Rule 5 draft to the Twins last season and he had a great year in AA/AAA for them. Of course, that's probably because he got away from the hell-holes that is the stadium homes for the San Jose Giants and Connecticut Defenders. He's a 3B and, what do you know, we have an open spot at 3B in 2008. Buscher bats left, so he and Frandsen could split 3B between them, plus Frandsen could steal a start every week from Durham at 2B.

Another option could be C Wilson Ramos. He played on their A-ball team in 2007 and hit 783 OPS at age 19 (average age of pitchers in that league was 21.7 or 2 years older). He ranked 33rd in the league in OPS and he was not far behind highly hyped C Hank Conger, who was also 19 and hit a little higher with an 808 OPS. Baseball America has him as their #3 prospect. They have Joe Mauer already at C and he looks to be there a long time, so they won't need Ramos.

Lastly, there's SS Trevor Plouffe. Only 21, he was in AA last season and hit .736 OPS with 12 SB. Baseball America ranks him as the Twins #10 prospect, though all that will change with the addition of all the prospects from the Santana trade. Not as interesting as Ramos, but still he could be a good pickup for SS while Harris moves to 3B.

Giants Thoughts

After looking through the prospects lists, there are a lot of interesting prospects that the Giants might get from the Twins. To pair off with Harris, I think Ramos is probably the best deal and best for the Giants going forward, as catcher is always a hard spot to fill and, frankly, we only have Pablo Sandoval as our best looking catching prospect and yet only a season ago, he was a bust prospect. As nice as it would be to get Buscher back to fill our 3B need, I think Ramos would be a better value as well as fill a future position of need.

However, maybe, since the Twins appear to have picked up Mike Lamb for the purpose of being their starting 3B, they might be willing to throw in Buscher into the deal if we give them a pitching prospect in addition. If they can accept a pitcher that the Giants are willing to part with, then we got a deal. If we can do that, we got good prospects for C, 3B, and SS then and the Twins would have a rotation that goes from nice but very suspect, to respectable, as Lowry would fit nicely with Liriano, Baker, Slowey, and Perkins in the rotation (Boof is OK as a #5 starter but he might not even make the rotation in 2008). Lowry would take the #3 spot behind Liriano and Baker, a spot he should do very well in for them.

Pitcher's Command: Giants Starters

The Hardball Times have an article on what's important when looking at a pitchers' K/BB ratio. The standard is that you want starters with K/BB over 2.0 and ideally over 2.4. But are there other factors that should guide your opinion on which pitcher is better?

Walks Not Always Bad

What the study by Derek Carty does is separate starting pitchers into three categories: low strikeout pitchers, solid in both, and high walk. Low strikeout pitchers was categorized as having: 2.00+ K/BB, 5.00- K/9, 50+ IP. Solid in both pitchers had: 2.00+ K/BB, 2.75+ BB/9, 7.00- K/9, 50+ IP. And High walk pitchers had: 2.00+ K/BB, 3.50+ BB/9, 50+ IP.

When the pitchers were split in those three categories, what he found was that pitchers with high walks had the best ERAs. In the NL, the High Walk pitchers had an ERA of 3.85, while the other two had 4.21 and 4.28 ERAs. The split was even wider in the AL, the High Walk pitchers had a 3.75 ERA, while the other two had 4.40 and 4.48 ERAs. How can that be when it has been drummed into us that high walk pitchers are to be avoided or at least strongly admonished?

What he concluded is that: "All K/BB rates should not be treated equally." Which, as he noted, is pretty obvious from the data. He also noted:

"Pitchers who achieve their K/BB rates using pinpoint control and poor strikeout rates are not nearly as good of a bet as those who achieve their K/BB rates by getting a high number of strikeouts, even if they have below-average control."

Leave Them Young Giants Starters Alone

Of course, what a lot of Giants fans have been saying, me included, is that Lincecum and Cain need to get their walks under control if they are to become elite pitchers. But as this study shows, even if you walk a lot (over 3.5 BB/9), as long as you strike out a lot as well, that mitigates the danger inherent in walking batters and adding runners, as a lot of strikeouts means less balls in play, and less BIP means less hits, and less hits means less run scoring hits, even if you happen to walk more than is usually prudent.

All in all, they are not just another brick in the wall, they are clearly among the elite in the majors and we have the privilege of getting to see two of them pitch for our beloved team, the Giants. Just another piece of evidence that keeping them is better than trading them away for even very good players like Rios. As the table shows, there are only 17 of them like that in the NL, and we got two of them.

That is a strength, that is a competitive advantage. An advantage throughout the season, an advantage any season we make the playoffs. Now Sabean has to build us a lineup that is capable of scoring enough runs for the pitchers to win more often than not.

Strong Starting Rotation IS Competitive Minimum Now In NL West

I think that it should be noted that while it is a competitive advantage in general, it is the competitive minimum in the NL West starting in 2008 (in order of finish):

• D-backs: Arizona upped the ante with their bold trade for Dan Haren to pair with Brandon Webb. They also have The Big Unit, Randy Johnson, contributing as well, plus Micah Owings and Doug Davis. Still, Johnson is a big question mark with no established or up-coming starter in the wings other than untested Yusmeiro Petit and while Owings had a great season and a better second half, curiously, he was much worse on the road than at home - 3.81 ERA at home vs. 4.96 ERA on the road - suggesting that his home numbers was the fluke and thus he should suffer a sophomore slump in 2008. Other negatives: despite low groundballs%, his BABIP was a strong .280, suggesting that he should suffer a regression to the mean and see his BABIP rise to the .300 area; his K/9 is a relatively weak 6.25; his BB/9 is borderline at 2.95 (3.0 is max you want to see it at); he pitched more games at home, where he did well, than on the road, and this should even out in 2008. He falls into the Solid in Both category, which had the worse ERA among the three categories. Even with Haren, too many question marks to be top rotation, but still strong and led by two ace-type starters in Webb and Haren (though as I had cautioned previously, Haren probably will not pitch as well as last year, despite moving to NL, he was lucky in a number of ways).
• D-Rocks: Colorado has a nice set of starters who could be comparable to the Giants rotation: Jeff Francis, Aaron Cook, Jason Hirsh, and Ubaldo Jimenez, with Franklin Morales waiting in the wings. However, while Francis and Cook are solid, they are not as good as any other team's top two starters. Hirsh still needs to put things together and pitch to his potential, though since he's in the back of the rotation, he did OK last season. Jimenez needs to show that he can pitch like he did in 2007 for a full MLB season, when batters get another chance to figure him out. He did do a lot (LOT) worse in September than he did in August (with low BABIP too, though he does get a significant amount of groundballs and give up less line drives). Same for Morales, whenever he gets a chance to start, D'Rocks have Kip Wells in the rotation at the moment.
• D-Dres: San Diego has Jake Peavy and Chris Young heading their rotation, and a year ago, they were probably the elite of the NL West, but now the other teams have caught up and perhaps even passed them up. The rest of their rotation includes the incomparable Greg Maddux (but very old now), Mark Prior (who hasn't been healthy in ages), and Randy Wolf (who hasn't been healthy AND good for ages now, and will be 31 in 2008; you don't get healthier with age).
• D-gers: LA has Brad Penny, Derek Lowe, and Chad Billingsley heading their rotation, plus Hiroki Kuroda and Esteban Loaiza, and Jason Schmidt lurking around, saying he's feeling better and probably competing with Loaiza for the last spot in the rotation.

So why trade one off now to build up the rotation? Because if we do, we would just have to get another one somehow once the lineup is fixed. And the Giants right now - with Cain, Lincecum, Zito, Lowry, and Correia - is probably comparable with the rotations above, based on past performances and expected performances in 2008. Why break up that strength (and probably make it a weakness) by trading off one of the top two guys in Cain and Lincecum? To me, that would be like covering up a hole in the dam by removing your finger from another hole in the dam: either way, the dam is leaking and you are no better off overall. And in this case, even worse now, you don't have twin aces like the rest of the division.

I think there are a number of strengths to having Cain and Lincecum together. Both Cain and Lincecum ranked among the leaders in a number of the leaderboards for starting NL pitchers in the Bill James 2008 Handbook and in THT 2008 Annual. If one should falter, the other should be good, there should always be one pitching like an ace - if you only have one ace, like when we only had Schmidt on top, when he did poorly, there was no one else around to pick up the slack, and the team suffered. Their high K/9 pitching will help us in the playoffs. And in short series, like the playoffs, they can pretty much take over them as a tandem.

The rest of the rotation is pretty good too. Zito is comparable to the other teams' #3 starters, given that others have injury history, short history of success, and/or are old. Only the D-gers appear to be comparable, or even superior, to our top 3.

However, Lowry pushes us above other rotations. I think Lowry is head and shoulders above any other teams' #4 starter. None can really match his performance and experience. And while he has had health problems, the others' #4 had worse injuries or has less successful experiences which put them much below him.

Given Bochy's history of protecting pitchers, I see him not letting Lowry go as deep into games as he did in 2007, in terms of number of pitches. He let him go to 100 or more pitches in half his starts (13 out of 26) and he went 105 or more pitches 6 times, over 110 pitches 3 times, and he reached 125 pitches one time. Though he still only averaged 98.5 pitches per game in 2007 and the number of starts over 100 is much much less than what Alou put him through, I think Bochy's going to restrict him even further in 2008. I think he will continue to target him at about 100 pitches, but will not let him go beyond 105 pitches anymore, and perhaps could even try to keep him under 100 each game. I could also see the Giants try to rearrange the rotation in the second half to give him less starts overall.

Lastly, Correia is about as questionable and potentially good as any other #5. This can go either way in wide swings, but generally, a team's #5 starter should not affect the top 4 overall competency much, unless he has a totally breakout or totally disastrous season.

Lots of Groundballs Are Good Too: Sign Lincecum Soon

He also noted a table he put together that showed that pitchers who can get more than 50% groundballs are also able to keep their ERAs low. So that's a way a pitcher can get away with poorer K/9 and/or BB/9 rates. Still, while Lincecum is a high K/9 pitcher, he also gets a lot of groundballs in his balls-in-play too, a great combination to have in a pitcher. And hence another reason why he should not be traded.

The only reason he should be traded is if the Giants medicos decide that his arm really is ready to fall off. Otherwise, we should sign him soon and buy out all his pre-free agency years plus get an option on his first free agent year, if not try to get his second year as well.

Rumor: Lowry for Melky Cabrera

I have seen the post on Peter Gammon's blog that supposedly the Giants would like to trade Lowry for the Yankees Melky Cabrera. If the Giants want to trade Lowry and that is all the Giants can get for Lowry, then I would rather we wait until Lowry's value goes up, because it will.

The odd thing is that Gammon's said that the Yankees would turn down that offer. I'm not sure why. Lowry is a potential #2 starter and the Yankees have been in a huge need for starters. They were so bad off that they committed $46M for unknown Kei Igawa (who I said would not do as well here as other thought, same for Dice-K too, and thus far I've been right, though it will be years before one or the other side can say they did the right thing or not).

Of course, they can use young position players as well, but normally price is not an object for them, so they can buy another player if they want. Cabrera came up as a CF and it it there that he would have the most value, but right now we have Dave Roberts playing there, though if the Giants foresee not resigning Bonds for 2008, then Roberts could shift back to LF, where he was very good defensively, but poor offensively for a LF, though obviously a plus in SB.

Melky is young - 22 - and perhaps power can develop but right now he has low teens potential in homers and SB, nice but not that good, certainly not good enough for a potential #2 starter like Lowry. He also don't walk that much, so his main value is if he can hit for .300 and he does make good, though not great, contact, not striking out that much. Seems to me that Freddie Lewis can do that if given the chance in CF, a mid-700 OPS, low teens homers, but he probably can be a plus stealer and get 20+ for us.

Plus, what would it do for us now? It would weaken the rotation, by replacing Lowry with Ortiz or perhaps Sanchez, but then Cabrera would be the 4th OF, replacing Linden. I don't think that Cabrera will do that much better than Linden during this season, certainly not enough to warrant losing Lowry. He may be better in the future as he is only 22, but that is not worth a pitcher who can be a #2 if he is back to how he used to be and who has cost certainty with his low contract. We should be getting a lot more than Melky for Lowry, else we should just keep Lowry.

Your 2007 Giants: Big 6 Questions

Ol' Big 6 himself, Christy Mathewson must be grinning from ear to ear with the Giants new centerpiece of Zito, Cain, and, eventually, Lincecum, and possibly Sanchez. The Giants have rarely had two top guns leading the rotation: Mathewson and Iron Man Joe McGinnity, Mathewson and Rube Marquard, Carl Hubbell and Hal Schumaker (yeah, I did't know him either), perhaps the 1954 rotation of Johnny Antonelli, Ruben Gomez, Sal Maglie, and Don Liddle, then during my era, Marichial and Perry, Reuschel and Garrelts (made me think of Laurel and Hardy), Burkett and Swift, Schmidt and Rueter. Yeah, kind of reaching at the end there...

This is my annual Q&A on factors that I believe are critical in any scenario regarding the Giants success in the upcoming season, from highest to lowest.

Q1: Barry Good or Barry Bad

I've written a number of posts on Bonds and he is still the stick that stirs the Giants offensive chances, centerpiece or no centerpiece. Clearly, there is no precedence for a 42 year old, and soon to be 43 year old hitter, to continue to still be at the top of his game enough to be among the league's best hitters. Ted Williams probably could have done it if he felt like it, but he didn't try. Most hitters succumb to age and fade away before they reach their late 30's, let alone 40's.

Here are some publicly available projections on the web for Bonds, scroll down to the section for 2007. They expect around 329 AB, 444 PA (approximately since not all project HBP, SF, SH), 24 HR (meaning he's expected to pass Aaron by season's end), 74 runs, 64 RBI, .283/.468/.568/1.036. Plus throw in 3-4 steals. Not too shabby for anyone at any age, let alone 42-43.

He seems to be healthy and doing well in spring training. He is being moved to the third spot and we'll see how it goes. We'll never know how bad this move really is, but theories range from this being a non-move to one that will hurt the Giants ability to maximize their scoring opportunities. From my post here, I believe that this is going to hurt them.

However, the lineup seems to be pretty balanced, top to bottom, with no true under .700 OPS baddies (Perez) but not many goodies above .800 (Durham, Bonds), so maybe the point about where Bonds bat is relatively a non-factor. All the other regulars have been in the .700 OPS club and while that is not great for middle of lineup type of guys - 3, 4, 5, 6 - Bonds and Durham occupy two of the spots and a third, Klesko/Aurilia, could combine to be over .800 if Klesko is back to "normal" (more on that later).

Bonds has been pretty good - except for his knee incident that started everything - about avoiding injuries so it is pretty much him against Father Time, and Bonds has been beating him bad for years now. And while the circumstantial evidence that he was an abuser of performance enhancement drugs has been significant, I think if he has another good season that builds upon last season, he has to put some doubters on edge regarding how much steroids/HGH really helped him during his out-of-the-world streak.

Given that Jason Grimsley was harangued by G-men to try to entrap Barry Bonds into giving it all up, showing how desperate they are to get Barry, clearly the government is being driven by certain people who have Barry in their cross hairs. I would bet that Barry and his home has been under surveillance since Balco blew wide open and that any and all packages that are headed to Barry are examined to the greatest degree possible and that anyone associated with Barry will feel the prying eyes of the government to see if they might be involved as well. And thus far, nothing.

So if Barry can ignore all the other "stuff" and hit as well as the projections, that is the minimum requirement for the Giants offense to be OK. Without him, it is very improbable, if not impossible, and the season will sink pretty fast, much like 2005.

Q2: Klesko Good or Klesko Bad

As I have noted in posts like these, I think Klesko can be the magic sauce that makes the Giants offense move from just OK with Bonds to be above average. He could be the Ellis Burk addition of 2007, making the offense that much better. But will he?

Bochy says that Klesko is back to the Klesko of old. If so that is pretty potent. His decline started in 2003 and given that he was entering into his 30's, that's nothing to be ashamed of. Still, in his decline, with congenital problems with his shoulder where there is bone on bone contact, he was still a better hitter than any other hitter on the Giants other than Barry and Ray-Ray: he hit .263/.370/.440/.809 with 26 AB/HR and still a great eye, with his BB/K ratio at 0.93 (best hitters are above 1.00). The year prior to that season, he hit .300/.387/.537/.924 with 19 AB/HR and 0.88 BB/K, and that's very good.

If so, that means that there is not that great a drop in the offense when the annointed LF is in the lineup for when Barry isn't playing - Barry projected 1.036 OPS, Klesko last great year .924 OPS. That's better than inserting in sub-.700 Steve Finley into the lineup (he recently realized that no one thinks of him as a starter so he accepted a job as a backup somewhere) whenever Barry or Moises sat.

On a side but related note, people talk about the drop in offense now that we lost Moises, but really, with him missing so many games, it was really MoiseLey who played "RF" and MoiseLey combined was only a mid .700 hitter at best. The additions of Roberts, Klesko, and Aurilia I think will more than make up for the losses of Alou, Finley, Hillenbrand, Niekro, in the lineup, just because of how bad those other (and still another to be discussed, Winn) hit in 2006.

And, in addition, if he is hitting that well, he's probably the starting 1B against RHP, which makes Bochy's decision become "who plays 3B, Aurilia or Feliz?" And if Aurilia is hitting like he did last season (above .800), it is probably him, but if he is hitting like he was before (.700's or less), then it becomes whoever between Feliz and him are hitting well at the moment. And Feliz is actually an acceptable offense at 3B when he is fresh - his hitting takes a huge dip from the first half to the second half - so Aurilia could find himself sitting much more than he thought he might when he thought he was the starting 1B.

However, as much as I like Frandsen, I can see Aurilia taking over for Vizquel a lot during the season because Vizquel has been in the habit of hitting around .700 every other year for a number of years - like his body tires out or something before recovering - and he's due for 2007. If he's hitting that poorly, I can see Aurilia getting a number of starts there "to keep Vizquel fresh and to give Aurilia starts since Klesko is getting most 1B starts."

Q3: Morris/Lowry Good or Morris/Lowry Bad

As I've written in a number of posts regarding the starting rotation, I think that it is best to view Lowry and Morris as a tandem pair for the #3 and #4 spots in the rotation. And despite their problems last season, I think that both can return to their former performance levels of prior years. According to research on starting pitchers (In The Hardball Times) they both pitched as well any #3 and #4 starter in 2006, despite their problems. If both are healthy, they both should pitch much better than that.

But will both do that? While there is a possibility that happens, the more conservative move is to assume that one will do so and the other will pitch like 2006 (I don't think that it is likely that both perform like in 2006).

The reasons why Lowry should pitch well is that when he was healthy, in 2005 and 2006, he was able to pitch at a high 3 ERA performance level, for a year and a half, which is #2 starter performance. His performance did not lag with repeated exposure to hitters, in fact, he had his patented late season surge (around August) both years, showing that when he is on, he is totally dominating. There is a physical reason for his poor 2006 season - his strained oblique muscle in his first start of the season - and if you look at his key indicator stats month by month (K/9, BB/9, K/BB), they improve month by month until he had his injury in September, when the wheels came off. He even had his August surge too. In fact, his good walk rate remained good during his struggles, which allowed him to continue to do relatively well, but his strikeout rate plummetted. You can do OK like that but not as well as Lowry was before.

The only question mark is whether he is fully recovered and that is where it gets less likely for him to do well. I recently read that he is still experiencing something with that oblique muscle, which had caused him to change his throwing mechanics, and which obviously affects his pitches. But he has been throwing much better this spring, so I expect him to hit the ground running when the season starts.

Morris is a controversial area for Giants fans. People see his salary and think, nay, demand, that he should be a top of the rotation starter. Yeah, it stinks to pay so much for so little, thus far. However, instead, I think fans should focus on what he can do in the context of the Giants rotation. He is nominally the 4th starter based on his stats from last season. Unfortunately, he had so many things going on that it is hard to read what exactly to expect from him in 2007.

Of course, I think I see, but others disagree, so I'll note them again here. First, Morris pitched poorly in the beginning of the season and a number of people (including myself) attributed that to being overamped trying to pitch well to justify his new contract and to please the fans. But even if you don't give him that, he pitched well enough to drive his ERA down to the low 4 area, #2 starter area, by mid-July. He then bounced around the mid-to-high 4 ERA range after that until September when his ERA blew up because of the mysterious rib injury that he suffered somewhere, somehow, sometime in August or perhaps even July. In any case, his ERA was still in the mid-4 range when August ended. Thus, even with all the problems Morris had last year, until his rib injury kicked in in September, he was pitching like a #2/3 starter overall.

That is a huge advantage over other teams if your #4 starter is pitching like a #3 and your #3 starter (Lowry) is pitching like a #2 starter. And keeping the runs given up down is key to the Giants winning because the offense is not too good but not too bad either, with only Bonds as the clearly above average player, and Durham and Klesko as possibly better than average. In addition, there will be platooning most probably with Roberts (Linden) and Klesko (Aurilia and Bonds), so that will help the offense be more balanced against LHP as well as RHP.

One of my problems in my previous analysis of what is going to happen in a season is that while I think it is a higher probability that each of the players does well, however, cummulatively, I should be ratcheting down the good expected outcomes, since by random chance, there will be poor performances popping in. So instead of saying that both will pitch like a #2 in 2007, which I think both have a good chance of doing, individually, I examine the odds of the two of them pitching like a #3 and #4 starter in 2007, and I think it's likely that one of them will be able to pitch like a #2, with the other pitching at least like a #3 starter (ERA below 4.84). Even in their poor 2006 season, both pitched like a #3 and #4 starter, so I don't think that it is much of a stretch to say that the two, in tandem, will pitch like a #2 and #3 starter, which would be an advantage over most other teams in the middle of the rotation.

Add to that the great spring of Russ Ortiz, who is capable of #2 starter performance but is slotted #5, and among the three of them, I don't see why we cannot expect at minimum a #2, #3, and #4 type of performance from our #3, #4, and #5 starters. Obviously, if everything went our way, the Giants could potentially have 3 #2 type performance from these three starters, and hence why I've been saying that the Giants have a good chance of winning the division and doing some damage in the playoffs, because when you have dominating pitching from your starting staff, as a whole, that's when the value of pitching outweights the hitting of individual position players who play everyday.

Q4: Cain Ace or Cain Sophomore Jinx

I have written about Cain's change in 2006 season in a number of posts plus here is a a quote from an artice on Cain on sfgiants.com that really made me fall in love with him:

"That's going to come sooner or later, hopefully," said Cain, appearing intrigued by the possibility of achieving a no-hit milestone. "You want to be able to do that once."

Cain also possesses an aptitude that has hastened his improvement. When he's presented with something new, said Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti, "you don't have to tell him twice."

Thus, when Cain answers a question about how his perspective has changed now that he's in his third big-league camp, his well-worn response sounds more genuine than hackneyed. He truly understands the pitfalls of complacency, although the notion that he won't make the season-opening rotation is ludicrous.

"I have to compete like usual," said Cain, who finished 13-12 with a 4.15 ERA last season and tied for fifth in the National League Rookie of the Year balloting. "There are always guys coming in here kicking to come up. I feel like I always have to perform to earn my spot."

After all, Cain was among those ambitious prospects not long ago. "You've
got guys who want to come up as badly as you did at that time," he said.

Clearly, I don't think that Cain will have much problems pitching like an ace in 2007, but again that is not a conservative stance. So instead I use his 2006 season as a model for 2007. Will he have a sophomore jinx?

Looking at his 2006 season, he got better as the season went along, showing that while hitters might have been learning about him through repetition, Cain learned even more about the hitters and did even better. I would say that the odds favor that he should do at least what he did in 2006, that he will not regress from where he was last season, and he was a #2 with his 4.16 ERA. Obviously, the upside is that he attain full-blown ace status (which would happen if he repeats his second half 3.38 ERA).

Like with Morris and Lowry, I have been pairing up Cain with Zito when viewing performances overall, and I think that while both are capable of ace status, I think it is conservative to say that out of Cain and Zito, one will be an ace (ERA under 3.78) and the other will be a #2 (ERA under 4.31). The average NL ace had an ERA of 3.51 and average #2 had an ERA of 4.04, and that is not something to bet on as Zito hasn't reached 3.51 in ages and it is too much to expect Cain to do that (yet, that is). But I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that both should have ERAs in the high 3, which is about what you get when you average the average ace with the average #2 starter (ERA of 3.78 to be exact), so I think the Giants will be covered overall there with Cain and Zito in comparison with other #1/#2 tandems.

Q5: Zito Good Enough or Zito Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail

I've posted a number of articles about the Giants $126M man (that's some inflation over the $6M man :^), since the Giants signed him to his lucrative contract. After his funky introduction to the Giants - "here's my new pitching motion, hope you love it" - he has been quietly good all spring, pitching like Zito has shown that he can, but with some tweaks and improvements. From what I've read since he was signed, Zito is like the pitching equivalent to Barry Bonds in terms of nutrition, working out, and trying to find that extra edge that will give you an advantage over the other team.

That gives me encouragement that the long contract won't be an albatross on the Giants payroll the way that Nen's contract, Alfonzo's contract, or Benitez's contract, were. As I had noted before, given the inflation rate of salaries, particularly pitcher's salaries, because Zito's contract starts out low initially, the average pitchers's salary will have caught up with Zito's high priced portion of the contract and thus, as long as Zito can pitch like an average pitcher, like a #3 type pitcher, the Giants will be OK as long as he is healthy and can pitch. And given his track record and maniacal devotion to being the best physically and mentally, that seems like there's a good chance that he can do that.

In addition, I just realized that even if he starts scuffling by the end of his long contract, the Giants should be covered pretty well by then because of Sabean's (and Tidrow's) focus on pitching. Over the intermediate term, the Giants should have a rotation full of cheap starters and relievers: Cain, Lowry, hopefully Lincecum and Sanchez too, then the crop of relievers here and coming up. As expensive Zito's contract will be, that would be made up by how cheaply we will be paying for starting pitching for our other young starters and relievers. Potentially, our whole pitching staff could be paid less in aggregate than Zito alone, starting midway through the contract.

Then there is the matter of how well Zito will pitch. In this case, the future can wait, what can he do for us right now. As much as saber-theory hate pitchers like Zito, Ortiz, Rueter, they were successful for a long time doing what they were doing. So you cannot blanket apply those princicples on Zito, as I learned soon after looking at Zito sabermetrically. He just plain makes hitters unable to get hits off of him and that makes up for his walks, flyballs turning into HR, and low strikeout rate.

Even without that, just statistically, while his stats do not scream "best contract ever given a starting pitcher ever" nor do they look like Cy Young type of seasons, they have been still pretty good, in the 3's for the most part, and that is great to have in your rotation, where you plug him in and can expect something in the 3's. And that's what I expect, particularly since ERA's are typically lower in the NL than the AL, which makes a lot of sense since there is that easy prey, the pitcher, waiting in the 9th spot, an easy out for the most part, in fact an easy strikeout as well. Unless there is an injury of some sort, I expect Zito to do well and deliver a high 3 ERA at minimum, and potentially something in the mid-3's, which would be just awesome, when paired with Cain, as I noted above in the Cain section.

With Zito/Cain paired as well as any team's #1/#2 and Lowry/Morris/Ortiz looking capable of at least a #2/#3/#4 performance out of the #3/#4/#5 slots, the Giants starting pitching will keep the Giants in a lot of games. With an average or perhaps better offense, the Giants can win a lot of games if the starting rotation can pitch like they are capable of.

Q6: Randy Winn Good or Randy Winn Bad

Randy Winn can be a key part of the offensive equation. He is, right now, an odd puzzle piece of the lineup where you don't know where to put him. Leadoff is taken by Roberts and Vizquel owns #2. Bonds just took #3, which is one that I thought would have been good to have Winn at, which means Durham is #4. You obviously don't bat Winn 5th, so that leaves #6, 7, and 8, and right now Bochy seems to want to bat him 8th. And if he hit like he did in 2006, particularly the second half, that's exactly where he should be hitting.

However, I believe his second half of 2006 was as flukey as his 2005 with us, when he suddenly became Barry Bonds for a month. As I noted in another post, if you look at his 2005-2006 stats together, they look like any other season he has had for most of his career, once he became a starter. Look at the splits 1st half vs. 2nd half: .275/.345/.440/.785 with 8 HR in 298 AB vs. .247/.289/.349/.638 with 3 HR in 275 AB. The first half is vintage Winn, the second, a horrible mess. So I think he will return to have a regular Winn type of season, about what he did in the first half of 2006, only over a full season.

And that will be critical to the lineup because then there will not be any sucking hole in the lineup with a sub-700 OPS starter. Last year, Finley, Winn, Alfonso (after first month), Feliz (all of the second half of the season), and the 1B, were batting somewhere in the 600's OPS, just killing the offense. This season, however, we got Roberts, Vizquel, Bonds, Durham, Aurilia/Klesko, Molina, Feliz, and Winn, there should not be one bat under 700 in the bunch, though Vizquel might be right there at 700 all season. And Linden and Frandsen appear ready to hit above that when they come in and spot-start.

As much as people say that Durham won't hit like that again, he has consistently been an above 800 hitter for a long while now - I think 2006 balances his 2005 - and as long as he hits around 820-850 OPS, he will be fine. Roberts could be affected by AT&T but he's never been much of a HR hitter, so I think his hitting there will be fine, despite being a LHH. Vizquel should be at least 700, and with Bonds now hitting behind him, that could help him out and get him more good pitches to hit. Bonds will be Bonds. I think Klesko will force his way into a platoon in the lineup and that Bochy will be playing Aurilia all around the infield (though that will take starts away from Frandsen), particularly at 3B if Feliz falters again. Feliz will play as long as he hits - and a 790-ish OPS is nothing to sneeze at - but with Aurilia and Frandsen around, he's going to sit if he isn't hitting that, so the offense will still be OK if he messes up. Molina has been a consistent 700's range OPS so I don't think he'll be a problem.

So that leaves us with Winn. As I noted, he really stunk in the second half. But that is one half out of many seasons of good play, where he had a high 700, 800-ish OPS most seasons. If the second half of 2006 is the real Winn, then the lineup could be in trouble, because while Linden might be a good replacement for Winn, he's also backing up CF plus LF sometimes, if Klesko plays 1B and Aurilia or Feliz is sitting. He can only play one position at a time. Thus it is a key factor if Winn can return to his former form, else the dominos start falling.

Particularly coming out of the 8th spot, he could be acting as the Giants bottom of the lineup lead-off hitter, getting on base and starting a rally in front of the top of the lineup. He gets on base, get to 2B via steal or pitcher sacrifice, then Roberts, Vizquel, and Bonds get a shot at driving him in. In addition, if his bat returns, he will be driving in runs as well from that position, for when the guys ahead of him are getting into scoring position. Most teams have a crappy hitter in 8th, if he hits like he is capable, .750-.800 range, then the Giants would have one of the best 8th place hitters around.

Giants in 2007

I normally publish a huge evaluation of the Giants lineup and pitching each season but I'm just too far behind in my work to do so this year. But I've done a lot of the basic work involved with that, so I've been writing to those facts in my posts, including this one.

The lineup, while not Murderer's Row, they are potentially OK to good (.750-.800 OPS) up and down the lineup. Plus there will not be many weak spots vs. RHP or LHP because platooning will put our best hitters in against the starting pitcher, unlike previous years when there were players who should have been platooned. The lineup will be as balanced as it has ever been and I think they can score just enough runs to support our starting rotation, scoring in the 4.5 runs, perhaps more, range. That's plenty if the starting rotation is as good as I think it could be, conservatively.

Meanwhile, the starting rotation could potentially be filled with #2 starter type of performances, high 3, low 4, and if they can do that, the Giants will not only have a winning record but could win the division. I think the Dodgers, despite their big signings, went backwards getting Pierre for the top of their lineup. He's going to kill rallies with his mega-low OBP (low relative to other top of lineup hitters). The Padres are betting on improved performances to maintain what they had last season, but have a rookie manager, who will make rookie mistakes sometimes, no matter how prepared he thinks he is. The D-backs are relying on too many youngsters, they would all basically have to do well for them to win. And Colorado I will worry about when they give me something to worry about.

Even if the rotation don't do that well, I think Cain and Zito will be able to do in aggregate as well as or better than most #1/#2 pairings. Then with Lowry, Morris, and Ortiz, I do not think that it is too much of a stretch to think that getting #2, #3, #4 type performances from the group of them is likely, and that would still keep the Giants competitive all season, even with our offense, even with our bullpen.

Our bullpen is a big area of worry, but, as much as I hate Benitez and think that he is not that good a person, the main thing is that when he is healthy and on, he's dominating, and he has been dominating all spring. Unfortunately, some players we were expecting more out of has not been delivering, but I think that the Giants have enough bodies in the minors that they can rotate relievers in and out for the first few months of the season and not seriously damage their chances of winning games, particularly with Bochy wanting to go to Benitez for more than one inning and Molina getting Benitez to concentrate on just getting guys out quickly and keeping his pitch count down (which he hopefully is working with Cain, Zito, and Ortiz on, as well).

Also, the setup men seem to be OK. Kline will be quietly good and Chulk I liked, his stats in Toronto were good, but I think the manager there just don't know what he is doing, so the main problem will be in middle relief. But you normally bring them in when the game is sort of out of hand anyway, so the odds of winning is usually slim at that point anyhow. And while some people say that our rotation is not innings eaters, I think all of them are capable of pitching 200 IP, which is 1000 IP out of 1400 or so IP. That basically leaves the 8th and 9th to pitch, normally, so for the close games, you bring out the big guns, but if the Giants have a good lead, you bring in the question marks and see if they can get out of the inning, allowing you to save your best relievers. If not, then you bring in the calvary to save the day, particularly with Benitez pitching more than 1 inning occassionally.

Thus, overall, I think the Giants will do well all season, and stay competitive for the lead. If the starting rotation is as good as I think it could be potentially, I think the Giants have a chance to not only win the division title, but to go deep into the playoffs. How can they not if the rotation is really balanced and all pitches like #2 starters? Just like a balanced lineup means no weak spots offensively, having a balanced rotation will mean no weak spots there either, and the back end of the rotation will easily take care of other teams's #3, #4, and #5 starters regularly. The bullpen, while weak, is strong enough where it counts: closer and set-up relievers. I think that it can be a good season in 2007 as long as the question marks above is answered positively, else the scenario is that we'll have another bad year like 2005 and 2006 and Sabean's job in danger (but that's a story for another post).