Cain trade twitter rumor

[msgkings322]

Gotcha. That's my point. None of these 4 guys rate as high as Alderson did back then.

Exactly.

Just read (Grantland, again) a piece about how prospects may be the current 'overvalued' asset, like how OBP became after Moneyball, etc.

Most baseball wonks like us tend to really fetishize the 'blue chip' 20 year olds who we'd never ever ever deal for a guy who is currently in the bigs...who was of course once a prospect himself.

So I wouldn't trade Cain for a bunch of Jays prospects on that list, but I'd make tzill's hypothetical trade in a heartbeat.

 

[calsnowskier]

Browns really the only one with super star potential, and that could easily dissipate if he lays the egg in AA.

Hembree could be a stud closer or power arm ala Casilla, but you can't really compare the contributions of an all-star closer to that of an all-star impact bat.

I don't know if I would put the "super-star" potential label on Brown. If Brown were to succeed AMAZINGLY well, he would be a Lofton-type player (and again, that is if he hits the mark on every aspect of his game). Lofton was a total stud, but if that is his ABSOLUTE ceiling, it is hard to call him a super-star right now.

Posey was a best-player-in-the-draft level player when he came out. He had a Johnny Bench-level ceiling when he was a prospect. Bum was a near unicorn in HS and has a Clemens (minus the Ks) ceiling. Villalona had Pujols, Thomas, Glenn Davis type of ceiling applied to him. THOSE are super-star prospects.

 

[mistgl]

I don't know if I would put the "super-star" potential label on Brown. If Brown were to succeed AMAZINGLY well, he would be a Lofton-type player (and again, that is if he hits the mark on every aspect of his game). Lofton was a total stud, but if that is his ABSOLUTE ceiling, it is hard to call him a super-star right now.

Posey was a best-player-in-the-draft level player when he came out. He had a Johnny Bench-level ceiling when he was a prospect. Bum was a near unicorn in HS and has a Clemens (minus the Ks) ceiling. Villalona had Pujols, Thomas, Glenn Davis type of ceiling applied to him. THOSE are super-star prospects.

Which has always led me to wonder. Why the fuck did he fall to us at 5? Where teams afraid of what he would cost to sign as a draft eligible Junior?

Beckham is garbage
Alvarez looks pretty awful
Jury is still out on Hosmer
Mautz looks bust worthy

I get that hindsight is 20/20, but what about any of those players made Posey seem less desirable to the 4 teams picking ahead of us?

 

[calsnowskier]

Which has always led me to wonder. Why the fuck did he fall to us at 5? Where teams afraid of what he would cost to sign as a draft eligible Junior?

Beckham is garbage
Alvarez looks pretty awful
Jury is still out on Hosmer
Mautz looks bust worthy

I get that hindsight is 20/20, but what about any of those players made Posey seem less desirable to the 4 teams picking ahead of us?

Posey was a Jr. so he could have walked from the negotiating table.

$$$$$

Period. End of story.

The Giants were willing to pay whatever it would have taken to get him, so they got him.

 

[Stokes1931]

They're deep at pitching too.

1) Travis D'Arnaud, C, Grade B+: Borderline A-: He would be an A- or maybe even an A if he was more effective at throwing out runners and struck out less often, but he can really hit and is still a superior prospect even with those weaknesses.

He's no Susac!

 

[SF11704]

As a long time Giant fan I hate to go here - but - just how important to the Giants is Matt Cain at the moment? He has good stats but yet looks like a .500 pitcher when all is said and done. He's been this way for 7 years. Before you go ballistic - I don't believe this is a Cain issue. It's the way the Giants themselves are structured. You can have some really elite pitching but if you can't score enough runs you tend to minimize the effect of your pitching. Over the course of 162 games we need to field a decent offense or all of our top starters will start sitting around 14-12, 15-11. I think Cain has always had the tools for a 17-20 game winning season. It's been the Giants offense that has kept him at the 13-14 range. Cain is valuable but I think our offense has minimized his value over the past 7 years. Cain with the NYY would be 20 game winner in my opinion. The Cain/Lince/MadBum combination is about as good as it gets. It's a shame that we didn't have the offense to support that rotation. Maybe 2012 will be different.

 

[the_broom]

Going into this year Cain is the one pitcher that I have no concerns about from a performance standpoint. He and Madbum are the first two pitchers I would hold onto. It would take a ridiculously stupid offer to trade Cain.

 

[SFGRTB]

As a long time Giant fan I hate to go here - but - just how important to the Giants is Matt Cain at the moment? He has good stats but yet looks like a .500 pitcher when all is said and done. He's been this way for 7 years. Before you go ballistic - I don't believe this is a Cain issue. It's the way the Giants themselves are structured. You can have some really elite pitching but if you can't score enough runs you tend to minimize the effect of your pitching. Over the course of 162 games we need to field a decent offense or all of our top starters will start sitting around 14-12, 15-11. I think Cain has always had the tools for a 17-20 game winning season. It's been the Giants offense that has kept him at the 13-14 range. Cain is valuable but I think our offense has minimized his value over the past 7 years. Cain with the NYY would be 20 game winner in my opinion. The Cain/Lince/MadBum combination is about as good as it gets. It's a shame that we didn't have the offense to support that rotation. Maybe 2012 will be different.

Cain has averaged 216 innings since 2007 and is an absolute workhorse. If healthy, the Giants could get around 700 innings from 3 pitchers, that's about half a season's work to 3 guys. There are reasons the bullpen is as good as it is, one of them is because guys like Cain can go deep into ball games and keep the boys down there fresh. Cain is one of the most important guys on this staff and I would trade Tim before Cain.

That being said, a team would have to sell their soul to pry one of them away.

 

[tzill]

He's no Susac!

 

[tzill]

As a long time Giant fan I hate to go here - but - just how important to the Giants is Matt Cain at the moment? He has good stats but yet looks like a .500 pitcher when all is said and done. He's been this way for 7 years. Before you go ballistic - I don't believe this is a Cain issue. It's the way the Giants themselves are structured. You can have some really elite pitching but if you can't score enough runs you tend to minimize the effect of your pitching. Over the course of 162 games we need to field a decent offense or all of our top starters will start sitting around 14-12, 15-11. I think Cain has always had the tools for a 17-20 game winning season. It's been the Giants offense that has kept him at the 13-14 range. Cain is valuable but I think our offense has minimized his value over the past 7 years. Cain with the NYY would be 20 game winner in my opinion. The Cain/Lince/MadBum combination is about as good as it gets. It's a shame that we didn't have the offense to support that rotation. Maybe 2012 will be different.

No offense SF, but this is just a silly post. W-L record is a TERRIBLE way to evaluate a pitcher.

Cain's last three seasons, in WAR and ERA+

ERA +: 148, 124, 123 (league average is 100)
WAR: 5.1, 4.1, 3.9 (1.0 WAR roughly equals $4.8MM)

so, his three year averages are 132 ERA+ and 4.4

That translates to a guy who is a perennial all-star who should be paid around $21MM a year. That is....elite.

You can't look at W-L.

 

[calsnowskier]

As a long time Giant fan I hate to go here - but - just how important to the Giants is Matt Cain at the moment? He has good stats but yet looks like a .500 pitcher when all is said and done. He's been this way for 7 years. Before you go ballistic - I don't believe this is a Cain issue. It's the way the Giants themselves are structured. You can have some really elite pitching but if you can't score enough runs you tend to minimize the effect of your pitching. Over the course of 162 games we need to field a decent offense or all of our top starters will start sitting around 14-12, 15-11. I think Cain has always had the tools for a 17-20 game winning season. It's been the Giants offense that has kept him at the 13-14 range. Cain is valuable but I think our offense has minimized his value over the past 7 years. Cain with the NYY would be 20 game winner in my opinion. The Cain/Lince/MadBum combination is about as good as it gets. It's a shame that we didn't have the offense to support that rotation. Maybe 2012 will be different.

Cain in that jet-streamed bandbox??

He is an EFFECTIVE fly ball pitcher, but I doubt he would be effective in THAT stadium. There are a lot of Cain-to-the-Spanks rumors out there, but I just do not see a good fit there.

 

[the_broom]

Cain in that jet-streamed bandbox??

He is an EFFECTIVE fly ball pitcher, but I doubt he would be effective in THAT stadium. There are a lot of Cain-to-the-Spanks rumors out there, but I just do not see a good fit there.

I have no doubt that his numbers might inflate a bit...though it would be interesting to see what would happen with a ton of run support. He might relax and be as effective...or he might lose his edge that he has now knowing that one mistake could mean the game.

 

[SF11704]

In the post I clearly stated that this was not a reflection of Cains abilities. I did state that his statistics were great. My position was about his value to the Giants as they are currently structured. I was not rating Cain by his W-L record. I was simply stating that he was a 14 game winner (sub 500 for his career) because they can not provide him with any decent offense. His W-L record is a reflection of the support he has received over the years not his pitching abilities. His value to the team is not fully realized because they can not leverage it. Look at the number of games the Giants lost last year when they gave up 3 or less runs. It's amazing. As good as their pitching was it was not leveraged. Maybe I should have said his value to the team will not be realized simply because they have not been able to to take maximum advantage of it. Sort of like having a winning lottery ticket but you never have the chance to redeem it. The value of the ticket is your ability to redeem it.

 

[tzill]

In the post I clearly stated that this was not a reflection of Cains abilities. I did state that his statistics were great. My position was about his value to the Giants as they are currently structured. I was not rating Cain by his W-L record. I was simply stating that he was a 14 game winner (sub 500 for his career) because they can not provide him with any decent offense. His W-L record is a reflection of the support he has received over the years not his pitching abilities. His value to the team is not fully realized because they can not leverage it. Look at the number of games the Giants lost last year when they gave up 3 or less runs. It's amazing. As good as their pitching was it was not leveraged. Maybe I should have said his value to the team will not be realized simply because they have not been able to to take maximum advantage of it. Sort of like having a winning lottery ticket but you never have the chance to redeem it. The value of the ticket is your ability to redeem it.

Your points really don't make much sense. You say you "don't rate Cain by W-L record, and then say "he's sub 500 for his career." ???

His value isn't his W-L record, it's keeping the team in the games he starts. The PQS stat is probably most useful to analyze that trait.

You say "his value to the team is not fully realized." Well, duh. But that would be the same for ANY pitcher with the Giants the last few years. Not just Cain.

I just don't see the distinction you're drawing. Cain is an elite pitcher. We're really lucky to have him. We should extend him and keep him for the rest of his career. He keeps us in games and is likely to continue doing so for many years.

 

[SF11704]

I'm not rating Cain ... what I'm saying is that the structure of the team over the past few years has not taken advantage of his abilities. His yield (number of wins) from a TEAM perspective should be considerably higher but they have not been able to leverage it. I still contend that if you had a winning lottery ticket but couldn't redeem it ..... what is it's value to you ..... This actually rings of other things I have seen on this board - During the Bonds era we often moaned that we had the greatest offense force in baseball (ever) and couldn't capitalize on it. This was not a reflection on Bond's abilities but on the team's (management most likely) ability to take advatage of it.

I've never once advocated trading Cain or said we weren't lucky to have him. As a fan my metric of measurement is the number of team WINS. If we don't win enough games to make the playoffs then I would like the management team to see if they could do something to correct that.

I personally think that the SF and PHI rotations for the top 4 are equal in abilities but the PHI rotation yielded 61-26 while we were 50-45. I don't think this is a reflection on our rotation but a reflection of the offense from last year. I'm hoping that 2011 was a fluke and we get to leverage what the rotation can provide in 2012.

 

[SF11704]

As a follow up to my own post ..... I like this board and the people on it. I like the idea that there can be differnt opinions and we can all agree to disagree. I just don't want to sound like I'm going to war with anyone. Maybe I need to explain my view a little better. I thibnk that WINS are the most important thing to a fan. It's WINS that gets your team into the playoffs. But WINS are not an individual accomplishment. They may show up in a pitchers W-L record but in fact they are a composite of 3 different elements. Pitching, Offense and Defense. In any game that is played it's the combination of these 3 components that determins whether you'll walk away a winner or a loser for that game. Our pitching component is stellar. Our SP and Bully is one of the best in all of baseball. The other two suffered in 2011. Injuries, off years whatever. It was off. The reflection of that being 'off 'shows up in a pitcher's W-L record. With a decent offense last year and no injuries we most likely make the play-offs and the pitchers records are significantly better in the W-L columns ... without changing the level of thier contribution at all.

 

[tzill]

I'm not rating Cain ... what I'm saying is that the structure of the team over the past few years has not taken advantage of his abilities. His yield (number of wins) from a TEAM perspective should be considerably higher but they have not been able to leverage it. I still contend that if you had a winning lottery ticket but couldn't redeem it ..... what is it's value to you ..... This actually rings of other things I have seen on this board - During the Bonds era we often moaned that we had the greatest offense force in baseball (ever) and couldn't capitalize on it. This was not a reflection on Bond's abilities but on the team's (management most likely) ability to take advatage of it.

I've never once advocated trading Cain or said we weren't lucky to have him. As a fan my metric of measurement is the number of team WINS. If we don't win enough games to make the playoffs then I would like the management team to see if they could do something to correct that.

I personally think that the SF and PHI rotations for the top 4 are equal in abilities but the PHI rotation yielded 61-26 while we were 50-45. I don't think this is a reflection on our rotation but a reflection of the offense from last year. I'm hoping that 2011 was a fluke and we get to leverage what the rotation can provide in 2012.

Okay, maybe we just can't get on the same page, but here's a try:

1. You seem to be talking around the w/l analysis -- you disclaim it as an accurate barometer of a pitcher yet you talk about a pitcher "yielding wins." Even if there were a difference (and the distinction is very slight if there at all) you'd need to analyze the record of the team in games he pitched, not his w/l record. Then, you'd need to compare that to the record of the team in games he didn't pitch and compare the two stats. That would be a more accurate way of analyzing "yield."
2. You iterate the "not taking advantage of his talents" meme. Again...DUH. That's true for every pitcher on the Giants over the last few years. If you're going to look at his performance from that perspective, you'd need to look at the Giants expected wins with league average offense and then subtract out their actual wins, and then split the delta among all Giants starters on a pro rata basis. Then, if your assumption is correct (i.e. that Cain's portion of the delta is larger than anyone elses) you'd expect to see that. In plain language, you'd need to demonstrate that the teams record in Cain's games underperforms expected wins with an average offense by more than other Giant pitchers.
3. All analogies fail. Yours (i.e. the winning uncashed lottery ticket) fails b/c it's inappropriate. A better analogy would be comparing Cain to a lottery ticket that hasn't even been checked to see if it's a winner -- you have no idea if Cain is more or less "leveraged" than other Giant pitchers. There's a Cain lottery ticket, a Timmy lottery ticket, a MadBum ticket, etc. but you haven't checked to see if any of them are winners.
4. Re: Bonds -- the same point is made. By all objective measures, he added more value than he was paid - in terms of WAR or marginal revenue to the team. Would we have won more games if we had a better supporting cast? Probably. But that's ALWAYS the case. We could've won more games in 2010 if we had gone out and signed Matt Holliday. We could've won more games in 2011 if we had signed Carl Crawford. In plain terms "leverage" costs money and/or talent to acquire. You can always have more of it, but at what cost? So when you say "take advantage of it" you're talking about spending more money or making better trades. We'd all like to see that, but the point is so obvious as to be useless.
5. You claim team wins to be your metric. I humbly suggest you actually analyze THAT and not, e.g. a pitchers w/l record. You put forth a comparison with the 2011 Phillies, yet you revert to w/l record (which ignores team record in games where the SP doesn't get a decision). A better comparison would be how the teams did when the top 4 SPs pitched. Then, you'd need to account for run support, ballpark factors, and payroll. Put another way, what if we had acquired Verlander for $25MM a year? How would our top 4 compare then? It's all contextual.
6. It seems your entire point boils down to "the 2011 offense sucked ass and the pitchers, including Matt Cain, suffered." I'm pretty sure everyone on this board knows that and would agree.

FWIW, I hope the offense is better in 2012 too. I expect it will be.

 

[tzill]

As a follow up to my own post ..... I like this board and the people on it. I like the idea that there can be differnt opinions and we can all agree to disagree. I just don't want to sound like I'm going to war with anyone. Maybe I need to explain my view a little better. I thibnk that WINS are the most important thing to a fan. It's WINS that gets your team into the playoffs. But WINS are not an individual accomplishment. They may show up in a pitchers W-L record but in fact they are a composite of 3 different elements. Pitching, Offense and Defense. In any game that is played it's the combination of these 3 components that determins whether you'll walk away a winner or a loser for that game. Our pitching component is stellar. Our SP and Bully is one of the best in all of baseball. The other two suffered in 2011. Injuries, off years whatever. It was off. The reflection of that being 'off 'shows up in a pitcher's W-L record. With a decent offense last year and no injuries we most likely make the play-offs and the pitchers records are significantly better in the W-L columns ... without changing the level of thier contribution at all.

Nothing to disagree with there, SF. You and me -- simpatico.

Rep.

 

[msgkings322]

As a follow up to my own post ..... I like this board and the people on it. I like the idea that there can be differnt opinions and we can all agree to disagree. I just don't want to sound like I'm going to war with anyone. Maybe I need to explain my view a little better. I thibnk that WINS are the most important thing to a fan. It's WINS that gets your team into the playoffs. But WINS are not an individual accomplishment. They may show up in a pitchers W-L record but in fact they are a composite of 3 different elements. Pitching, Offense and Defense. In any game that is played it's the combination of these 3 components that determins whether you'll walk away a winner or a loser for that game. Our pitching component is stellar. Our SP and Bully is one of the best in all of baseball. The other two suffered in 2011. Injuries, off years whatever. It was off. The reflection of that being 'off 'shows up in a pitcher's W-L record. With a decent offense last year and no injuries we most likely make the play-offs and the pitchers records are significantly better in the W-L columns ... without changing the level of thier contribution at all.

SF, nothing you are posting we would disagree with. It's almost tautological. No question, Cain would have more wins if we had more offense. So would Tim, MadBum, and the whole team. But that's true of any pitcher, it's not specific to Cain. Any pitcher that has the Yankees run support will win more than having the Giants'.

So what you're basically saying isn't about Cain, it's saying you feel it's a shame we don't have better offense to support this historically good pitching. And who could argue with that, that's exactly right! Put Cain (or any of our guys) on the 2000-2002 team and yeah, 20 wins easy.

But we are what we are. We aren't unlimited in funds, so we had to pick one or the other. We decided with our park to emphasize pitching. It worked great in 2010, and would've worked in 2011 barring massive historic amounts of injuries. It has every chance of working again in 2012. Now, you could be making a case that we should give up some of that pitching strength to improve the offense, that the team would win more if it was more balanced. That's a very reasonable take, and we go back and forth on it all the time. But it's not specific to Cain, and it's not specific to the Giants. Most teams have to emphasize one or the other, or if both they can't be historically good in either. This is who we are, probably for another 3-4 years if they extend Tim and Matt.

And it goes without saying, we're all friends here and no one thinks you are 'going to war' making your case. To me it just seems kind of obvious: we'd love to have a better O to go with our amazing P. But that's not in the cards for now.

 

[tzill]

SF, nothing you are posting we would disagree with. It's almost tautological. No question, Cain would have more wins if we had more offense. So would Tim, MadBum, and the whole team. But that's true of any pitcher, it's not specific to Cain. Any pitcher that has the Yankees run support will win more than having the Giants'.

So what you're basically saying isn't about Cain, it's saying you feel it's a shame we don't have better offense to support this historically good pitching. And who could argue with that, that's exactly right! Put Cain (or any of our guys) on the 2000-2002 team and yeah, 20 wins easy.

But we are what we are. We aren't unlimited in funds, so we had to pick one or the other. We decided with our park to emphasize pitching. It worked great in 2010, and would've worked in 2011 barring massive historic amounts of injuries. It has every chance of working again in 2012. Now, you could be making a case that we should give up some of that pitching strength to improve the offense, that the team would win more if it was more balanced. That's a very reasonable take, and we go back and forth on it all the time. But it's not specific to Cain, and it's not specific to the Giants. Most teams have to emphasize one or the other, or if both they can't be historically good in either. This is who we are, probably for another 3-4 years if they extend Tim and Matt.

And it goes without saying, we're all friends here and no one thinks you are 'going to war' making your case. To me it just seems kind of obvious: we'd love to have a better O to go with our amazing P. But that's not in the cards for now.

Said much better than I did. Rep.