2013 Rosterbation

[gp956]

I agree with this pretty much 100%. I was just backing up sfgrtb's assertion that the same pitfalls/ails that happened with Rowand wouldn't happen with Bourn. They're not even close to the same type of player. I think Bourn would have a much greater chance to living up to an inflated FA contract than Rowand ever did.

I'm not advocating to go out and grab Bourn though.

I don't get this logic. Why is Bourn less inclined to decline than Rowand? Because he's more of a speed guy? Or is it because he was never as good as Rowand - hence shorter fall?

Now, I'm not against a Bourn signing because of what occurred with Rowand, I just threw out Rowand's expiring contract as a joke. I'm against Bourn because he won't be worth to the Giants what he's going to get as a FA. We've got enough coverage in speed/defense guys to cover that aspect of the game. I'd rather use the RDF towards another guy with 30 HR power.

 

[filosofy29]

I don't get this logic. Why is Bourn less inclined to decline than Rowand? Because he's more of a speed guy? Or is it because he was never as good as Rowand - hence shorter fall?

Now, I'm not against a Bourn signing because of what occurred with Rowand, I just threw out Rowand's expiring contract as a joke. I'm against Bourn because he won't be worth to the Giants what he's going to get as a FA. We've got enough coverage in speed/defense guys to cover that aspect of the game. I'd rather use the RDF towards another guy with 30 HR power.

Because in my opinion, the home ballpark is more conducive to how Bourn plays more so than it was for Rowand's talents. He didn't have 1 great year of HR's in a launching pad park and wouldn't be expected to be a middle of the order bat. In my opinion he's a better defensive CF'er, he steals bases at a much higher clip than Rowand, and could still maintain his average here (not as reliant on HR's). Rowand hit 27HR's (if memory serves me correctly), before he got his big payday from us. I'd be expecting Bourn to hit like 3. Part of Rowands worth was his "power". Namely, and I could be wrong here, Rowand needed a good hitters park to be "worth" it......I don't think Bourn would need to play in a launching pad park to be considered as successful. I wouldn't say Bourn is "less likely" to decline than Rowand, just that he'd be put in a much better position to succeed (even if overpaid).

I figured your earlier comment for a joke, but then Marco (and possibly others) started extrapolating a bit on the subject, so I just wanted to make the distinction on my opinion. That's all.

 

[gp956]

Because in my opinion, the home ballpark is more conducive to how Bourn plays more so than it was for Rowand's talents. He didn't have 1 great year of HR's in a launching pad park and wouldn't be expected to be a middle of the order bat. In my opinion he's a better defensive CF'er, he steals bases at a much higher clip than Rowand, and could still maintain his average here (not as reliant on HR's). Rowand hit 27HR's (if memory serves me correctly), before he got his big payday from us. I'd be expecting Bourn to hit like 3. Part of Rowands worth was his "power". Namely, and I could be wrong here, Rowand needed a good hitters park to be "worth" it......I don't think Bourn would need to play in a launching pad park to be considered as successful. I wouldn't say Bourn is "less likely" to decline than Rowand, just that he'd be put in a much better position to succeed (even if overpaid).

I figured your earlier comment for a joke, but then Marco (and possibly others) started extrapolating a bit on the subject, so I just wanted to make the distinction on my opinion. That's all.

Well, Rowand was a gap hitter too, before he got to AT&T. The thing that worries me about Bourn is that much of his offensive value comes from having a high BABIP, and for a player you'll be paying through his age 34 year, it's hard to project how well those legs will hold up. The best thing Bourn does is keep the ball on the ground - that could work well at AT&T. I wish Oxy would think about hitting more ground balls too - his BABIP would jump considerably.

 

[SFGRTB]

Well, Rowand was a gap hitter too, before he got to AT&T. The thing that worries me about Bourn is that much of his offensive value comes from having a high BABIP, and for a player you'll be paying through his age 34 year, it's hard to project how well those legs will hold up. The best thing Bourn does is keep the ball on the ground - that could work well at AT&T. I wish Oxy would think about hitting more ground balls too - his BABIP would jump considerably.

Thats the difference between Rowand and Bourn, and the point Filo and I are arguing. Rowand was a gap hitter, yes. But he was more of a flyball gap hitter, which works in Citizens Bank and U.S. Cellular fields very well. In AT&T, its and O-U-T. So as a result, Rowand tried to become more of a pull hitter and that's where he really lost his swing and went down the shit hole that ended his career.

Bourn won't try to do that; he knows that if he hits the ball in the air, his swing/approach is off (at least I'd hope he knows this). He's a line drive gap hitter, much more suited here than Rowand.

 

[gp956]

Thats the difference between Rowand and Bourn, and the point Filo and I are arguing. Rowand was a gap hitter, yes. But he was more of a flyball gap hitter, which works in Citizens Bank and U.S. Cellular fields very well. In AT&T, its and O-U-T. So as a result, Rowand tried to become more of a pull hitter and that's where he really lost his swing and went down the shit hole that ended his career.

Bourn won't try to do that; he knows that if he hits the ball in the air, his swing/approach is off (at least I'd hope he knows this). He's a line drive gap hitter, much more suited here than Rowand.

No one is arguing that Rowand and Bourn are the same player. But just because they are different, does not imply that Bourn will not have a precipitous decline in offensive numbers. I simply wanted to understand how you guys could confidently assert that Bourn would not suffer a decline, since steep declines occur pretty much universally.

In any case, the real point against Bourn is the price tag and length of years he'll command at a position the Giants have somewhat covered. He's a nice complementary piece, but certainly not a player to open your wallet to.

 

[Giantsmojo]

Trade Tim Lincecum for Mike Olt 3B

FA
Hamilton 4/60
Cabrera 3/36
Scutaro 2/4

Blanco CF
Belt 1B
Cabrera RF
Hamilton LF
Sandoval 3B
Posey C
Crawford SS
Scutaro 2B

Cain
Bumgarner
Vogelsong
Zito
Petit

Bench
Keischnick RF/LF
Christian OF
Sanchez C
Arias UTL
Pill 1B

Surkamp
Hensley
Lopez
Bochy
Castilla
Romo
Wilson

 

[CameronFrye]

No one is arguing that Rowand and Bourn are the same player. But just because they are different, does not imply that Bourn will not have a precipitous decline in offensive numbers. I simply wanted to understand how you guys could confidently assert that Bourn would not suffer a decline, since steep declines occur pretty much universally.

In any case, the real point against Bourn is the price tag and length of years he'll command at a position the Giants have somewhat covered. He's a nice complementary piece, but certainly not a player to open your wallet to.

This.

I would love to have Bourn, but the money he will get from another team is going to price him out of the Giants' plans. Bourn will not be signed for less than 4 years and likely for at least $12 mil per. He's not worth that kind of money.

 

[CameronFrye]

Trade Tim Lincecum for Mike Olt 3B

FA
Hamilton 4/60
Cabrera 3/36
Scutaro 2/4

Blanco CF
Belt 1B
Cabrera RF
Hamilton LF
Sandoval 3B
Posey C
Crawford SS
Scutaro 2B

Cain
Bumgarner
Vogelsong
Zito
Petit

Bench
Keischnick RF/LF
Christian OF
Sanchez C
Arias UTL
Pill 1B

Surkamp
Hensley
Lopez
Bochy
Castilla
Romo
Wilson

There is ZERO chance that Hamilton accepts a deal like that. The kind of year he is having right now, he will get 7 figures from some team. It won't be the Giants.

Melky is not going to sign a home-town discount.

You are close with Scutaro, but I think he'll get $4 mil per. 2 years, $8 mil seems a bit more likely.

 

[Heathbar012]

There is ZERO chance that Hamilton accepts a deal like that. The kind of year he is having right now, he will get 7 figures from some team. It won't be the Giants.

Melky is not going to sign a home-town discount.

You are close with Scutaro, but I think he'll get $4 mil per. 2 years, $8 mil seems a bit more likely.

This. Good to have you back, Cam.

 

[filosofy29]

No one is arguing that Rowand and Bourn are the same player. But just because they are different, does not imply that Bourn will not have a precipitous decline in offensive numbers. I simply wanted to understand how you guys could confidently assert that Bourn would not suffer a decline, since steep declines occur pretty much universally.

In any case, the real point against Bourn is the price tag and length of years he'll command at a position the Giants have somewhat covered. He's a nice complementary piece, but certainly not a player to open your wallet to.

Looking back through the thread, some of the language I used could be picked apart in regards to Bourn. That said, I don't think my assertions were any stronger than the adverse assumptions of decline. I will say, I intended to do it in the spirit of Bourn "not necessarily" declining ala Rowand (although I can see the confusion). I'll also admit though, you may have been dealing from a position of strength as I've done zero research on how speedy leadoff hitters numbers are affected from ages 30-34 (or even any age similar to those). I think you and xXEricSmithXx or perhaps Bhaakon had a good back and forth argument on somthing similar way back when on Disney iirc. Regardless, I think we're all close enough to agreement to split any more hairs on the subject. I digress.

I agree with your second paragraph whole-heartedly. Truth be told, I'm not really for or against Bourn. If the Giants don't go after him in the offseason, good, he'll be overpaid and wouldn't fill the most pressing need. If they do for some reason go after him and get him, I'll look at the positives he brings to the table and hope that Gary Brown can be a good puzzle piece in a trade.

 

[mistgl]

There is ZERO chance that Hamilton accepts a deal like that. The kind of year he is having right now, he will get 7 figures from some team. It won't be the Giants.

Melky is not going to sign a home-town discount.

You are close with Scutaro, but I think he'll get $4 mil per. 2 years, $8 mil seems a bit more likely.

Truer words have never been spoken. Hamilton is the hands down MVP unless he gets hurt, or falls off a really big cliff production wise.

4/60-5/50-5/60 is Bourn territory, depends on the demand.

Melky will probably be in the 10 mil per year group as well, just more years than three.

What I really don't see happening in that dudes scenario is the Rangers trading Olt for Lincecum. Unless he has a stellar second half, no one will give up anything for him.

 

[Stokes1931]

This. Good to have you back, Cam.

I thought for sure Cam would rise to the "30 HR" reference, but must have been trolling too fast, or it was buried in all the verbiage. I was SURE he'd see it, though. It did not effect him in the least.

 

[Stokes1931]

Looking back through the thread, some of the language I used could be picked apart in regards to Bourn. That said, I don't think my assertions were any stronger than the adverse assumptions of decline. I will say, I intended to do it in the spirit of Bourn "not necessarily" declining ala Rowand (although I can see the confusion). I'll also admit though, you may have been dealing from a position of strength as I've done zero research on how speedy leadoff hitters numbers are affected from ages 30-34 (or even any age similar to those). I think you and xXEricSmithXx or perhaps Bhaakon had a good back and forth argument on somthing similar way back when on Disney iirc. Regardless, I think we're all close enough to agreement to split any more hairs on the subject. I digress.

I agree with your second paragraph whole-heartedly. Truth be told, I'm not really for or against Bourn. If the Giants don't go after him in the offseason, good, he'll be overpaid and wouldn't fill the most pressing need. If they do for some reason go after him and get him, I'll look at the positives he brings to the table and hope that Gary Brown can be a good puzzle piece in a trade.

Man, with Melky, Bourn, and Blanco (how long is Oxy signed for?), the Giants would lead the league in triples for a few years.

While I would love to see Bourn here, we missed out on signing him a year ago at a decent price. His speed and SB's would be great, if a manager other than Noggin would allow him to use such speed. And his "D" in CF would be a step or two up from Oxy.

Our problem is not getting guys on base, but getting them home.

 

[gp956]

Looking back through the thread, some of the language I used could be picked apart in regards to Bourn. That said, I don't think my assertions were any stronger than the adverse assumptions of decline. I will say, I intended to do it in the spirit of Bourn "not necessarily" declining ala Rowand (although I can see the confusion). I'll also admit though, you may have been dealing from a position of strength as I've done zero research on how speedy leadoff hitters numbers are affected from ages 30-34 (or even any age similar to those). I think you and xXEricSmithXx or perhaps Bhaakon had a good back and forth argument on somthing similar way back when on Disney iirc. Regardless, I think we're all close enough to agreement to split any more hairs on the subject. I digress.

I agree with your second paragraph whole-heartedly. Truth be told, I'm not really for or against Bourn. If the Giants don't go after him in the offseason, good, he'll be overpaid and wouldn't fill the most pressing need. If they do for some reason go after him and get him, I'll look at the positives he brings to the table and hope that Gary Brown can be a good puzzle piece in a trade.

I don't think anyone stated Bourn would decline like Rowand. I think Marco stated Rowand's (and Winn's, Finley's, and Roberts') decline makes him cringe at signing another CF at their absolute peak price. That's what we call being risk averse, and it doesn't imply that the worst outcome is the expected outcome. You pro-Bourn crowd are closing on the wrong argument - an argument no one made. And with a dubious counter argument to boot, i.e. Bourn won't decline because he's not like Rowand.

And think about Marco's argument. Why go into a risky investment to cover a hole that may not be there, with a player that really isn't a difference maker? And pay top dollar at the same time!

 

[Giantsmojo]

Truer words have never been spoken. Hamilton is the hands down MVP unless he gets hurt, or falls off a really big cliff production wise.

4/60-5/50-5/60 is Bourn territory, depends on the demand.

Melky will probably be in the 10 mil per year group as well, just more years than three.

What I really don't see happening in that dudes scenario is the Rangers trading Olt for Lincecum. Unless he has a stellar second half, no one will give up anything for him.

Melky should not sign for more then 3 years unless it's closer to 20 Million a year then 10. Melky is 28 in 3 years he will still young enough to cash in a gain with a 5-6 year deal. Maybe the dollar figure is a tad low, but in the ballpark.

Yes the Hamilton Contract is quite low, I forgot to look at age, thought he was younger and he is at the age where he should be looking at a 6/7 year deal in the 100M+ range.

As for Lincecum, the Rangers can afford to take a risk in acquiring Lincecum for a 3B prospect as they have Beltre locked up at 3B until 2016 and another highly rated 3B prospect. If Lincecum has a great second half then it would cost more then just a Prospect, maybe 2 or 3.

 

[gp956]

I thought for sure Cam would rise to the "30 HR" reference, but must have been trolling too fast, or it was buried in all the verbiage. I was SURE he'd see it, though. It did not effect him in the least.

He would not take the bait.

 

[tzill]

I thought for sure Cam would rise to the "30 HR" reference, but must have been trolling too fast, or it was buried in all the verbiage. I was SURE he'd see it, though. It did not effect him in the least.

 

[gp956]

I missed it.

 

[Mays-Fan]

This.

I would love to have Bourn, but the money he will get from another team is going to price him out of the Giants' plans. Bourn will not be signed for less than 4 years and likely for at least $12 mil per. He's not worth that kind of money.

This is why I strongly oppose signing star-quality free agents. There are posters here who just don't fully understand free market principles. In a free market system, asset (player) prices inflate as competitors bid against one another. Prices inflate until the asset offers only a market rate of return - there are no bargains out there. If a team thinks they see a bargain out there, they bid up the price until the bargain is gone. Further, teams with bigger markets, for example the Yankees, further inflate player prices because players are worth more to them because they get more revenues from them.

In short, it just isn't worth it for us to sign high-priced FA's. Best is to develop players from within, and sign only tactical FA's for shorter terms and lower prices than top-flight FA's.

 

[msgkings322]

This is why I strongly oppose signing star-quality free agents. There are posters here who just don't fully understand free market principles. In a free market system, asset (player) prices inflate as competitors bid against one another. Prices inflate until the asset offers only a market rate of return - there are no bargains out there. If a team thinks they see a bargain out there, they bid up the price until the bargain is gone. Further, teams with bigger markets, for example the Yankees, further inflate player prices because players are worth more to them because they get more revenues from them.

In short, it just isn't worth it for us to sign high-priced FA's. Best is to develop players from within, and sign only tactical FA's for shorter terms and lower prices than top-flight FA's.

Good post. I agree, the only way the big deals truly work is if you get lucky.

I do think if you have one simple thing missing and a guy available that fixes it, you take the chance. That's where Quentin comes in. 4/40ish isn't a mega deal and we need a real thumper to bat 4th. This is the only move they need to make. That and keep Melky.

Mays, are you saying you wouldn't sign Melky? Because it looks like he will be maybe the #2 or #3 FA hitter on the market.

Our other issue if of course Tim. And no one least of all me knows how that's going to play out.