Giants to sign Miguel Tejada

[SFGRTB]

Giants To Sign Miguel Tejada : MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com

Not really what I was wanting. 1 year $6.5 million.


Thoughts???

 

[li0lsh]

Wow.

 

[filosofy29]

Not what I was hoping for, but at least it's only 1 year.

 

[TidrowThePitchingMaster]

Eh, This is a Sabes overpay, but the market is really thin this year, and as Filo said, it's just 1 year.

I'll give this the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

 

[SFGRTB]

Definatly an overpay, but on 1 year deals, I tend not to care about the money figure.

 

[sfsportsfan]

ball sacks


oh well. its only one year

 

[calsnowskier]

I am totally OK with this signing. 1 year place-holder and a guy who has been around forever. He knows what he is doing.

He is no all-star anymore, but neither was Uribe. This is the type of deal that opens the door for Crawford this season if he earns the spot in Fresno.

 

[TKellion]

The way I see it he is filling Uribe's role along with Derosa.That means Fontenot is a likely non tender.Our pitching staff must be getting sick of the lack of range on the right side of the infield.Hopefully Crawford and Gillaspie show they are ready in ST and AAA and come up late June early July.

 

[msgkings322]

Eh, This is a Sabes overpay, but the market is really thin this year, and as Filo said, it's just 1 year.

I'll give this the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

Remember, we just completed something early November...Sabes gets all benefits of all doubts from me for 3 years.

This is a meh signing, replaces Uribe with an equal guy on a 1 year deal. We'd all like to get excited getting a new toy to play with but is he really much worse than Hardy? And we don't have to trade anyone for him. And he is a good clubhouse guy and good Latin mentor (like Uribe was).

I give this move a B-, but frankly there were no A level moves available to Sabes beyond getting Jeter to sign a 3 year deal for $30 mil. Which of course wasn't happening.

 

[filosofy29]

Remember, we just completed something early November...Sabes gets all benefits of all doubts from me for 3 years.

This is a meh signing, replaces Uribe with an equal guy on a 1 year deal. We'd all like to get excited getting a new toy to play with but is he really much worse than Hardy? And we don't have to trade anyone for him. And he is a good clubhouse guy and good Latin mentor (like Uribe was).

I give this move a B-, but frankly there were no A level moves available to Sabes beyond getting Jeter to sign a 3 year deal for $30 mil. Which of course wasn't happening.

I agree with this. I think it's about a B- move overall. That said, when we're getting excited over J.J. Hardy, it shows you what kind of talent level is out there. Don't get me wrong, Hardy is a good player, but not something to get worked up about. This will get us through to next year and hopefully there will be a better SS market out there.

 

[tzill]

I agree with this. I think it's about a B- move overall. That said, when we're getting excited over J.J. Hardy, it shows you what kind of talent level is out there. Don't get me wrong, Hardy is a good player, but not something to get worked up about. This will get us through to next year and hopefully there will be a better SS market out there.

Signing Jeter to 3/30 would be nothing more than a B move, given his age and declining skills.

That aside, this from Schulman today:

I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants waited to see if J.J. Hardy is nontendered tomorrow and becomes a free agent. He might be a good fit with Tejada and could be had more cheaply than Bartlett.

 

[Heathbar012]

It's a pity we all agree so much. I agree with everything above. I must add: If we were going to be happy with Hardy as a starter, imagine how we'll feel about him as a platoon guy. Or does that block development? Burriss won't be a consistent starter ever and Crawford is at least a year away, right? Would you guys prefer he cut his teeth a little this year or try to grab Hardy at 1 year/$5 mil? Too much? Can he be had for less?

 

[tzill]

It's a pity we all agree so much. I agree with everything above. I must add: If we were going to be happy with Hardy as a starter, imagine how we'll feel about him as a platoon guy. Or does that block development? Burriss won't be a consistent starter ever and Crawford is at least a year away, right? Would you guys prefer he cut his teeth a little this year or try to grab Hardy at 1 year/$5 mil? Too much? Can he be had for less?

That's the $20MM question. I'd be OK with Hardy on a two year deal, and I suspect he'll get $5-6MM per. Hardy flat out is just a very good defensive SS. That way, we could use Miggy as we originally intended to use UUU -- as a supersub utility guy. Of course, that prompts the question: what to do with DeRosa.

All in all though, Miggy was a solid add. Great clubhouse guy that the latino dudes revere. He completely replaces Rent and UUU's intangibles.

 

[calsnowskier]

It's a pity we all agree so much. I agree with everything above. I must add: If we were going to be happy with Hardy as a starter, imagine how we'll feel about him as a platoon guy. Or does that block development? Burriss won't be a consistent starter ever and Crawford is at least a year away, right? Would you guys prefer he cut his teeth a little this year or try to grab Hardy at 1 year/$5 mil? Too much? Can he be had for less?

I do not think that Crawford, at this point, is a big enough prospect to worry about blocking him. If we could get Hardy at decent $$ (I think 5M is too much) than he would be a good add. We could play him and Miggy at SS; Miggy and Panda at 3B; and let Crawford earn his spot on the team through a hostile takeover.

 

[Heathbar012]

I like these answers. I am assuming if Hardy is signed that DeRosa becomes the everyday left fielder. Is it lazy of me to ask if Hardy is signed to a 2 year, $10 mil contract, is there enough money for the arbitration eligible guys and keeping our bullpen tight? I know cal said that is too much. Is possibly losing out on Ross or Lopez or Casilla the reason why? Sorry I'm so full of questions today. Actually supporting the Tejada signing (mostly because of the length) has confused the rest of my brain.

Edit: Assuming a DeRosa/Belt platoon with DeRosa or Tejada taking over third in case of Panda implosion.

 

[TidrowThePitchingMaster]

I like these answers. I am assuming if Hardy is signed that DeRosa becomes the everyday left fielder. Is it lazy of me to ask if Hardy is signed to a 2 year, $10 mil contract, is there enough money for the arbitration eligible guys and keeping our bullpen tight? I know cal said that is too much. Is possibly losing out on Ross or Lopez or Casilla the reason why? Sorry I'm so full of questions today. Actually supporting the Tejada signing (mostly because of the length) has confused the rest of my brain.

Edit: Assuming a DeRosa/Belt platoon with DeRosa or Tejada taking over third in case of Panda implosion.

Baggs had a tweet yesterday that his source said the Giants had 5-7 million to spend on a shortstop and they spent it on Tejada. So if Baggs is right, I don't see us signing Hardy.

Schulman disagrees.

 

[calsnowskier]

Baggs had a tweet yesterday that his source said the Giants had 5-7 million to spend on a shortstop and they spent it on Tejada. So if Baggs is right, I don't see us signing Hardy.

Schulman disagrees.

I do not have access to the the twitter feed, so there may be more info I am not aware of, but if they get Hardy, the Miggy $$ would not be considered SS money anymore. It would be utility $$. (thus Miggy = Uribe; Hardy = Rent)

 

[Heathbar012]

I do not have access to the the twitter feed, so there may be more info I am not aware of, but if they get Hardy, the Miggy $$ would not be considered SS money anymore. It would be utility $$. (thus Miggy = Uribe; Hardy = Rent)

And that would certainly be an upgrade... at least in non-clutch situations. Last year, Uribe and Rent made a total of 13.25 million. If that is the barometer, anything under six mil per for Hardy should be smart spending.