Master Index of Archived Threads


Bored-ass trade speculation (lies and fever dreams)

willpie Nov 03 2007 08:36 AM

The lie: This article ([url]http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7400932[/url]) claims--among other things--that "The Giants have even let it be known that Tim Lincecum, their No. 1 pick in 2006, can be had for a quality bat." Clearly, this sportswriter needs to spend less time in opium dens. The idea that the Giants might be that stupid does appeal to me, though, and what is the offseason for if not for whiling away the dark months with daydreams of stuff that probably won't happen? So: just how quality a bat are we talking here, and who do you give them? The fever dream: Milledge. Straight up. Does it sound better if I point out that their outfield sucks? Randy Winn is tops on the depth chart for Right Field AND Left Field. No, you say? Would they pop for potential and salary relief if you packaged Milledge with a young pitcher for Lincecum and Zito's contract?

smg58 Nov 03 2007 10:24 AM

They wouldn't take Milledge for Lincecum. If they're that desperate to dump Zito's contract, I wouldn't be very eager to take it. I'm not sure what "quality bat" we could afford to part with. Delgado perhaps, but that deal would make no sense at all for them.

soupcan Nov 03 2007 01:15 PM

I remember watching Lincecum pitch and thinking 'that guy is a serious arm injury just waiting to happen.'

DocTee Nov 03 2007 07:34 PM

He reminds me alot-- An awful lot-- of Hideo Nomo.

A Boy Named Seo Nov 04 2007 08:22 AM

Lincecum is completely bad-ass. His minor league numbers are eye-popping. Made me think of a right-handed Cole Hamels. No way they watch him ascend through the minors, reach the majors with success, and then trade him for a "quality bat" unless he's already broken and they know it, or they're stoopid. If they do, though, I want some of that.

seawolf17 Nov 04 2007 10:41 AM

No way the Giants are that dumb, but I'd deal anyone in our farm system for Lincecum.

OlerudOwned Nov 04 2007 04:33 PM

These are the same Giants with the same GM that traded Joe Nathan, Francisco Liriano, and Boof Bonser for A.J. Pierzynski. I have absolutely no problem believing that they could be that dumb. (I'm Victor Diaz. Let's go get some burgers.)

seawolf17 Nov 04 2007 06:37 PM

Excellent. We'll take Cain and Lincecum for Ramon Castro. Thanks.

Rockin' Doc Nov 05 2007 04:42 AM

I hate to rain on your dream, but isn't Castro a free agent? He's not even the Mets to trade at present. If we're going to dream, we might as well dream big. I propose Schoeneweis for Cain and Lincecum

MFS62 Nov 05 2007 11:22 AM

Rockin' Doc wrote: I hate to rain on your dream, but isn't Castro a free agent? He's not even the Mets to trade at present. If we're going to dream, we might as well dream big. I propose Schoeneweis for Cain and Lincecum And if they insist, I'd throw in David Newhan. Later

smg58 Nov 05 2007 11:34 AM

I can't imagine they'd consider dealing Lincecum or Cain without first seeing if they could free themselves of Zito, preferably before the big free agents start signing. So if they're desperate enough to even consider trading Lincecum, they might be desperate enough to take any lowball offer for Zito they can get. And that might present an opportunity.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 05 2007 11:39 AM

A team that trades for Zito would probably be willing to give up a higher quality player if the Giants agree to throw in some money. Because of his high salary, you could probably get Zito for just a box of Cracker Jacks. I think the Giants won't be able to deal him without agreeing to continue to pay a portion of Zito's salary, and if they do that, then they have the right to get someone of more than negligible value in return. How many years and dollars does he have left? At this point, I'd prefer one year of Schilling.

MFS62 Nov 05 2007 11:41 AM

Obtaining Zito might only be for one year. Any player who had been signed to a multi-year FA contract becomes a free agent if traded during the term of that contract. OTOH, being reunited with his former pitching coach might be enough for Zito to waive that right should the Mets get him. Later

metirish Nov 05 2007 11:46 AM

Are the Giants looking to get rid of Zito or is that just chatter on here?, ] Barry Zito p 7 years/$126M (2007-13), plus 2014 club option * signed as a free agent 12/06 (largest-ever pitcher contract at signing) * 07:$10M, 08:$14.5M, 09:$18.5M, 10:$18.5M, 11:$18.5M, 12:$19M, 13:$20M, 14:$18M club option ($7M buyout) * option vests with 200 IP in 2013 or 400 IP in 2012-13 or 600 IP 2011-13 * if 2014 option vests, Zito may opt out & receive $3.5M buyout * full no-trade clause * award bonuses: o Cy Young award: $0.5M for winning once, $0.75M for 2nd time, $1M each for 3 or more ($0.2M for placing 2nd in vote, $0.15M for 3rd, $0.1M for 4th, $50,000 for 5th) o MVP: $0.25M for winning, $0.15M for 2nd place in vote, $0.1M for 3rd, $75,000 for 4th, $50,000 for 5th o WS MVP: $0.2M o Gold Glove, All Star selection or LCS MVP: $0.1M each * perks: suite on road trips * Can't imagine it would be easy to try and dump that contract on anyone.

MFS62 Nov 05 2007 11:49 AM

And having Peterson may be the only way to get around that no-trade clause. Later

metirish Nov 05 2007 12:02 PM

I think the Giants need to build around their pitching and overhaul the every day lineup, with a better lineup maybe Zito wins more games .

Benjamin Grimm Nov 05 2007 12:07 PM

MFS62 wrote: Obtaining Zito might only be for one year. Any player who had been signed to a multi-year FA contract becomes a free agent if traded during the term of that contract. That's really inaccurate. Zito, if traded this winter, would have the right to demand a trade, and if he's not traded by (I think) March 1, he could opt for free agency. Some players have made the demand, but I can't recall a time it's ever resulted in free agency. If a player isn't dealt by March 1 he generally withdraws his trade demand; he doesn't want to void that multi-year deal. Zito certainly wouldn't opt out of that contract that he has. There's no way he'd get a better one, even if he was Cy Young in 2008. (Darryl Hamilton was a Met who demanded a trade and then backed off when the Mets didn't actually trade him. I'm sure there are many other examples.)

smg58 Nov 05 2007 02:31 PM

The no-trade clause might make the whole discussion moot, but if he were to waive it to come here then he presumably wouldn't turn around and demand a trade -- especially since he's not in a position where getting out of his current contract would work to his benefit. I do think the Mets would be one of a small number of teams he'd waive the clause for, and if the Giants are intent on dealing a pitcher to get hitting help (or to free money to get hitting help), they would have to prefer (or at least you'd think they'd prefer it) moving Zito to trading Lincecum or Cain. If all of the above is true, the Mets could be in a position to name the terms if they ask for Zito. It's one of those things where you have to at least ask.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 05 2007 02:34 PM

I'd only accept Zito from the Giants if he came with a minimum of $35 million in salary offsets over the remainder of his contract.

Edgy DC Nov 05 2007 02:49 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 06 2007 06:27 AM

How about if they take a burdensome contract off the Mets hands? The Mets are mostly in good condition in this department, but Mets that are unlikely to produce at their salary level going forward include Scott Schoeneweis, Guillermo Mota, and Carlos Delgado.

sharpie Nov 05 2007 02:50 PM

I would think it would be Noah Lowery that the Giants would trade if they were trading a starting pitcher. Had a good year, is a good pitcher, but doesn't have as high an upside as Lincecum or Cain.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 05 2007 02:54 PM

Edgy DC wrote: How about if they take a burdensome contract off the Mets hands? The Mets are mostly in good condition in this department, but Mets that are unlikely to produce at their salary level going forward include Scott Schoeneweis, Guillermo Mota, and Carlos Delgado. That could work, too. Delgado could (and should) be dealt if the Mets sign Alex Rodriguez. Unloading Delgado wouldn't offset $35 million, but it could reduce the amount that the Mets would have to demand from the Giants. I should say that I really don't see any of this happening. It's just idle November speculation. If they're going to bring in a veteran starter I'd rather have one year of Schilling than six of Zito. The argument for Zito, on the other hand, is that while Schilling could replace Glavine for 2008, we'll soon need someone to give us a lot of innings in the following years as Pedro and Hernandez continue to age. Pelfrey could get us back some of those innings, but not all of them.

sharpie Nov 05 2007 03:30 PM

I'm not so sure Zito would waive the no-trade to the Mets. He seems pretty intent on staying a California boy.

smg58 Nov 05 2007 03:31 PM

Edgy DC wrote: How about if they take a burdensome contract off the Mets hands? The Mets are mostly in good condition in this department, but Mets that are unlikely to produce at their salary level going forward include Scott Schoeneweis, Guillermo Mota, and Carlos Delgado. Mota and Schoenweis fall into the "addition by subtraction" category as far as I'm concerned, so any offer should start with them. A deal for Zito that involved those two would add $7.7M to the team payroll this year. Zito's deal is backloaded, though, and while I might not ask for as much "cash consideration" as Grimm would I do think a substantial amount is necessary. Delgado is like Zito in some ways; not sure it's fair to dismiss him after one bad year, but yes his stock is down. Delgado for Zito would create a bigger need than the one we're addressing, though, while adding substantially to the long-term payroll commitment. (Keep in mind that we're paying about $12M of Delgado's contract, with Florida footing the rest. Given his track record outside of this year, that's not an awful commitment).

Benjamin Grimm Nov 05 2007 05:01 PM

The way I see it, the only reason the Mets would need to unload Delgado is if they signed Alex Rodriguez and put either him or Wright at first base.

Edgy DC Nov 05 2007 07:55 PM

Well, there are a batch of real firstbasemen out there also.

Elster88 Nov 05 2007 09:03 PM

smg58 wrote: ="Edgy DC"]How about if they take a burdensome contract off the Mets hands? The Mets are mostly in good condition in this department, but Mets that are unlikely to produce at their salary level going forward include Scott Schoeneweis, Guillermo Mota, and Carlos Delgado. Mota and Schoenweis fall into the "addition by subtraction" category as far as I'm concerned, so any offer should start with them. A deal for Zito that involved those two would add $7.7M to the team You know, Schoeneweis had a pretty good end to his season. Finding good relievers isn't easy. Not that he is necessarily a good reliever but he might be.

Edgy DC Nov 06 2007 06:25 AM

I don't believe in addition by subtraction. I believe in burdensome contracts and blockedroster spots, but those aren't really the same thing.