Turns 35 in February. Became a full-time player in 2006 with the Rangers, making 59 starts in RF, 40 starts at 3B, and 26 starts at 2B. His 2008 slash line with the Cubs .285/.376/.481 (117 OPS+) is better than all 2009 Giants not named Sandoval. He had 80 starts at 2B, 53 in the OF, and 10 at 3B that year, his career best (.376 wOBA in 593 plate appearances), and was worth about 3.8 WAR.
Obviously we like his versatility. He seems like the ideal Boch/Sabes player--grizzled vet, some pop, a post-season resumé, NL pedigree, can play different spots, and hits anywhere in the lineup. It would be nice if it were a younger player with upside, but that's not our way. At least, not with position players. I like our young pitchers and their upside, but this "one-Aaron-Rowand-at-a-time" philosophy of lineup construction is a teeth-gritting affair. Aaron Rowand's career line? Glad you asked: .280/.339/.448 for a .788 OPS and 102 OPS+. And now Mr. DeRosa's: .275/.343/.424 for a .767 OPS and 97 OPS+. Toss in FSanchez and that is the very definition of "league average." In fact, the NL last season had an average line of .259/.330/.409, only a .739 OPS, so we've got surplus of average we can spread around!
I've been whining all along that we need at least a "league-average" offense to win. This assumes, of course, that our awesome pitching remains awesome. I don't abide by the "bloop-double-and-two-productive-out" school of run-scoring. Sure, it's cute and perky and all that, but three-run HRs are a LOT better, no matter how boring they are. So I think we need another serious bat to complement Sandoval. Matt Holliday just might have to take a 3-year, $40 M deal instead of the 6-year $80 M payday he says he wants, and if that happens there is no reason why the Giants couldn't court him. But I figure we'll sign Juan Uribe. He can play short if/when Renteria goes down, and can handle the other three IF spots. DeRosa would work in LF, assuming Lewis gets dumped and Project Velez is abandoned. That would give Olympic Nate his shot in RF, and we could keep Panda at 3B and give Ishikawa the bulk of the time at 1B. Fielding is important, and DeRosa would likely contribute better with the glove in LF than anywhere else, he's known as a below-average infielder.
Other than that, Swiss Army knives are pretty cool. I mean, when you are backpacking you can't carry a freakin' toolbox so you have to have a half-assed scissors, a half-assed carving knife, a half-assed Phillips-head screwdriver, and a half-assed file. Having them in one convenient package is very cool. (Personally, I'm a Leatherman guy, but that's a quibble.) But if you had a choice, would you buy a proper tool for each task or just a bunch more Swiss Army knives? The Giants are going the multiple Swiss Army knife route here, I think, in their continuing quest for "league-average." I'm reminded of that old saw: careful what you wish for.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Buster, Buster, Buster
Buster Posey, right now, is the most important person in the Giants organization. Unless we have a secret plan to sign Matt Holliday, it is pretty clear that the Giants are "standing pat." There's some upside to that: Sabean can't fuck up and throw away another pitching prospect or trade Jonathan Sanchez for a mediocre has-been. And Jaysus-Mary-Joseph can we please not sign Johnny-Fookin'-Damon? We could get the same performance from Fred Lewis, could we not? For the record, I'd love to sign Matt Holliday, but the cement overshoes known as Barry Zito and Aaron Rowand most likely rule that out. I'm plugging my ears and going "nee-nee-nee-nee" over and over again thinking about the $15 million that Tim Lincecum will get in arbitration. At least that dude deserves his raise.
No, it's all about Buster. CHONE says Buster will deliver a .262/.339/.399 line in 122 games (100 hits, 50 runs, 21 2B, 9 HR, 40 BB, 73 SO). Not bad for a wet-behind-the-ears kid, eh? FanGraphs has both the Bill James and fan-vote projections for 2010, and they are more generous (.270/.331/.405 with 128 hits in 131 games, 25 2B, 11 HR; and .282/.359/.438 with 105 hits in 101 games, 22 2B, 11HR). Bill James says 43 BB and 86 SO, the fans say 41 BB and 71 SO. The fans like Buster and his stats translate to 3.0 WAR. That would be something. Only Tim Lincecum (8.2), Matt Cain (3.6), and Pablo Sandoval (5.2) contributed more than 3.0 WAR to the Giants in 2009. Juan Uribe was 2.9, just for comparison. Freddy Sanchez was a 3.2, 4.8, and 3.7 WAR player at his peak (2005-2007). Wouldn't it be swell if he could conjure up a 2010 like that?
Here's what John Sickels says about Buster (after grading him our only "A" prospect):
No-brainer. All he needs is playing time.
I think we know that. Let's hope the Giants do as well. So--now that we figure the Giants are NOT going to sign a hitter or two, Buster's 2010 performance becomes that much more important. So, what do you expect from Buster next year? Check out Brian McCann, Russell Martin, Kurt Suzuki, and Joe Mauer. Where does Buster project when matched up with these established backstops?
No, it's all about Buster. CHONE says Buster will deliver a .262/.339/.399 line in 122 games (100 hits, 50 runs, 21 2B, 9 HR, 40 BB, 73 SO). Not bad for a wet-behind-the-ears kid, eh? FanGraphs has both the Bill James and fan-vote projections for 2010, and they are more generous (.270/.331/.405 with 128 hits in 131 games, 25 2B, 11 HR; and .282/.359/.438 with 105 hits in 101 games, 22 2B, 11HR). Bill James says 43 BB and 86 SO, the fans say 41 BB and 71 SO. The fans like Buster and his stats translate to 3.0 WAR. That would be something. Only Tim Lincecum (8.2), Matt Cain (3.6), and Pablo Sandoval (5.2) contributed more than 3.0 WAR to the Giants in 2009. Juan Uribe was 2.9, just for comparison. Freddy Sanchez was a 3.2, 4.8, and 3.7 WAR player at his peak (2005-2007). Wouldn't it be swell if he could conjure up a 2010 like that?
Here's what John Sickels says about Buster (after grading him our only "A" prospect):
No-brainer. All he needs is playing time.
I think we know that. Let's hope the Giants do as well. So--now that we figure the Giants are NOT going to sign a hitter or two, Buster's 2010 performance becomes that much more important. So, what do you expect from Buster next year? Check out Brian McCann, Russell Martin, Kurt Suzuki, and Joe Mauer. Where does Buster project when matched up with these established backstops?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Bud Humbug
Thomas Boswell in the Washington Post writes that Commissioner Bud Selig has appointed a 14 man committee to "analyze ways to improve baseball." Mr. Boswell writes, "After the various embarrassments of this year's postseason, piled on top of a recession-plagued year with sinking attendance, MLB has decided to get serious about correcting its problems, many of which have festered for years. From excessively long games to bad umpiring to World Series games in November to the intractable DH rule, Selig says, 'There will be no sacred cows.' " You can read the entire article here.
The committee will consist of managers Joe Torre, Mike Scioscia, Jim Leyland, and Tony LaRussa and executives and owners from Philadelphia, Toronto, Atlanta, St. Louis and Baltimore. Also, Frank Robinson. Mr. Boswell then lists 10 ideas for fixing the game, including more instant replay, a proposal to make mid-inning relief pitchers pitch to at least two batters, other proposals to speed up the game by a time-saving 15 or 20 minutes (Mr. Boswell apparently thinks this 15 or 20 minutes is "the elephant in the room," not scheduling games in November and not awarding the World Series home team advantage to the winner of the All-Star team. Mr. Boswell is very enthusiastic about this committee, comparing it to a "holiday gift."
Forgive me if I don't share Mr. Boswell's enthusiasm. Bud Selig has never done anything for baseball that does not involve getting more money from the public and stuffing it into billionaires' pockets. Starting games in November that run until 1 am on school nights on the east coast? As long as tv wants it, that is not going to change, unless tv decides that they want them to START at 1 am. Tony LaRussa on a committee to decide whether to make relief pitchers pitch to at least two batters? Has Mr. Boswell ever seen Mr. LaRussa manage a game? I could see how they could collectively decide how to make life less comfortable for the umpires, but you know what? I really could care less. I get burned as anyone when a call doesn't go the Giants way, but hey, we could make it like football and basically have the game be run by video (see stories about the Dallas Cowboy stadium on deadspin.com). How boring. Speed up the game by 15 minutes? First of all, no one, NO ONE would then think that baseball would become lively if they think it is boring now. Second, how much do you want to bet that that 15 minutes would not be filled up with trying to sell you more crap. That is what the problem with the time in baseball is - the fact that playoff games take 6 hours because 3 and a half hours of commercials are crammed in.
Are they discussing revenue sharing and how they should set a minimum salary level if they want competitiveness? I think it is obvious that some teams make more money off of revenue sharing than they pay out in salaries, never mind ticket sales and tv revenues. How do the fans of these teams feel? Are there any fans on the committee? No? How unsprising. Are they going to address the DH? No, they are going to deal with crap that is marginal and then trumpet their "findings" while ignoring the stuff they should fix.
So, over your Irish coffees, what would you change about baseball games? What do you think should be changed that actually could be (in other words, a shorter season is a non-starter)? Happy Holidays.
The committee will consist of managers Joe Torre, Mike Scioscia, Jim Leyland, and Tony LaRussa and executives and owners from Philadelphia, Toronto, Atlanta, St. Louis and Baltimore. Also, Frank Robinson. Mr. Boswell then lists 10 ideas for fixing the game, including more instant replay, a proposal to make mid-inning relief pitchers pitch to at least two batters, other proposals to speed up the game by a time-saving 15 or 20 minutes (Mr. Boswell apparently thinks this 15 or 20 minutes is "the elephant in the room," not scheduling games in November and not awarding the World Series home team advantage to the winner of the All-Star team. Mr. Boswell is very enthusiastic about this committee, comparing it to a "holiday gift."
Forgive me if I don't share Mr. Boswell's enthusiasm. Bud Selig has never done anything for baseball that does not involve getting more money from the public and stuffing it into billionaires' pockets. Starting games in November that run until 1 am on school nights on the east coast? As long as tv wants it, that is not going to change, unless tv decides that they want them to START at 1 am. Tony LaRussa on a committee to decide whether to make relief pitchers pitch to at least two batters? Has Mr. Boswell ever seen Mr. LaRussa manage a game? I could see how they could collectively decide how to make life less comfortable for the umpires, but you know what? I really could care less. I get burned as anyone when a call doesn't go the Giants way, but hey, we could make it like football and basically have the game be run by video (see stories about the Dallas Cowboy stadium on deadspin.com). How boring. Speed up the game by 15 minutes? First of all, no one, NO ONE would then think that baseball would become lively if they think it is boring now. Second, how much do you want to bet that that 15 minutes would not be filled up with trying to sell you more crap. That is what the problem with the time in baseball is - the fact that playoff games take 6 hours because 3 and a half hours of commercials are crammed in.
Are they discussing revenue sharing and how they should set a minimum salary level if they want competitiveness? I think it is obvious that some teams make more money off of revenue sharing than they pay out in salaries, never mind ticket sales and tv revenues. How do the fans of these teams feel? Are there any fans on the committee? No? How unsprising. Are they going to address the DH? No, they are going to deal with crap that is marginal and then trumpet their "findings" while ignoring the stuff they should fix.
So, over your Irish coffees, what would you change about baseball games? What do you think should be changed that actually could be (in other words, a shorter season is a non-starter)? Happy Holidays.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Watching, waiting
The Boston Red Sox, one of the best teams in the business, jumped on John Lackey to beef up their rotation and signed Mike Cameron to mitigate the loss of Jason Bay. The Philadelphia Phillies, defending NL champs, give up Cliff Lee but get Roy Halladay, keeping their edge. The newly-crowned New York Yankees lose Hideki Matsui and Chien-Ming Wang but pick up Curtis Granderson and re-sign Andy Pettite. Big teams, big players, big moves. These guys mean business. Another team that means business is the Seattle Mariners. Last year Seattle scored 640 runs--that's 17 less than the Giants. And that's in the American League! But they gave up only 692 runs, the fewest of any AL team. The Cubs, Braves, Cardinals, Dodgers, and Giants were better, and the NL champion Phils were close at 709 RA. The Mariners were 85-77 last year, respectable, but 12 games back of the division-winning Angels. So what has Seattle done so far this off-season? They just picked up the aforementioned Cliff Lee. Wow--that's quite a 1-2 punch with Felix Hernandez. And they signed Chone Figgins--taking a key player from their division rivals--to improve the lineup. If I was Mariners fan, I'd be excited, but I'd still be hoping to add another bat. Nonetheless, the Mariners think they have a shot at the title and they are going for it.
Meanwhile, your San Francisco Giants have improved the club for the divsion race next year by __________________________ (fill in the blank). I say we've improved the club by dumping out-machine Molina and (maybe) giving the job to Mr. Golden Spikes. Otherwise, I'm still watching and I'm still waiting.
Meanwhile, your San Francisco Giants have improved the club for the divsion race next year by __________________________ (fill in the blank). I say we've improved the club by dumping out-machine Molina and (maybe) giving the job to Mr. Golden Spikes. Otherwise, I'm still watching and I'm still waiting.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
" . . . and soon fell out of favor. . . "
FanGraphs' RJ Anderson breaks down the Garko move. He thinks it is one of the silliest of the off-season. Even if you skip the story, look at the graph comparing Adam LaRoche's wOBA with Ryan Garko's. The blue line is "league average."
Grant at McChronic is just as bewildered. Garko was worth something when we acquired him--he was worth exactly one pitching prospect. Apparently that pitching prospect had almost no value because the Giants aren't willing to pay Garko $2 M or so next year (he was paid $466 K this year).
The Giants traded for Freddy Sanchez, who was hurt and couldn't play. We gave away a pitching prospect for a guy that could not help us. Then we gave that same guy $12 M for the next two years. No audition at all for FSanchez--he had the part already. The other guy we traded for, Ryan Garko, got an audition of sorts. But the poor lad took a fall on his first entrance and that was it. The organization wrote him off and never looked back. All it cost was another pitching prospect, and we all know the Giants lead the world in pitching prospects, so we shouldn't be upset if we use them up like kleenex.
I know that Ryan Garko is nothing special, but he's a reasonably competent major-leaguer who doesn't cost a lot and can deliver value with the bat. He sounds like the kind of player we need a surplus of, not the kind of player we cut loose. According to Extra Baggs, Garko "didn't have nearly the impact the Giants hoped and soon fell out of favor with manager Bruce Bochy."
Great. Our team is run like a junior high cheerleading squad. I suppose all will be better when we give $25 million to Adam LaRoche.
Grant at McChronic is just as bewildered. Garko was worth something when we acquired him--he was worth exactly one pitching prospect. Apparently that pitching prospect had almost no value because the Giants aren't willing to pay Garko $2 M or so next year (he was paid $466 K this year).
The Giants traded for Freddy Sanchez, who was hurt and couldn't play. We gave away a pitching prospect for a guy that could not help us. Then we gave that same guy $12 M for the next two years. No audition at all for FSanchez--he had the part already. The other guy we traded for, Ryan Garko, got an audition of sorts. But the poor lad took a fall on his first entrance and that was it. The organization wrote him off and never looked back. All it cost was another pitching prospect, and we all know the Giants lead the world in pitching prospects, so we shouldn't be upset if we use them up like kleenex.
I know that Ryan Garko is nothing special, but he's a reasonably competent major-leaguer who doesn't cost a lot and can deliver value with the bat. He sounds like the kind of player we need a surplus of, not the kind of player we cut loose. According to Extra Baggs, Garko "didn't have nearly the impact the Giants hoped and soon fell out of favor with manager Bruce Bochy."
Great. Our team is run like a junior high cheerleading squad. I suppose all will be better when we give $25 million to Adam LaRoche.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
A proper Irish coffee
You'll need a proper glass, of course.
Whip heavy whipping cream to a thick froth that stands. Toss 1 tsp. table sugar in the bottom of a proper Irish whiskey glass. Add 1 oz. Irish whiskey. I like Jameson, but Irish whiskey and coffee is an alchemy of sorts. You'll have to find your own right mix. Fill that glass to within 1/2-inch of the top with fresh-brewed black coffee. I like Peet's. Regardless, use a full-flavored coffee, but not too roasted. Alchemy, remember? Add 1/8-tsp. of vanilla extract to the coffee. Spoon whipping cream on the top so that it makes a nice mound. Watch the lovely strands of cream make fractal curlicues down the glass. Drink. Repeat.
Whip heavy whipping cream to a thick froth that stands. Toss 1 tsp. table sugar in the bottom of a proper Irish whiskey glass. Add 1 oz. Irish whiskey. I like Jameson, but Irish whiskey and coffee is an alchemy of sorts. You'll have to find your own right mix. Fill that glass to within 1/2-inch of the top with fresh-brewed black coffee. I like Peet's. Regardless, use a full-flavored coffee, but not too roasted. Alchemy, remember? Add 1/8-tsp. of vanilla extract to the coffee. Spoon whipping cream on the top so that it makes a nice mound. Watch the lovely strands of cream make fractal curlicues down the glass. Drink. Repeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)