CC to San Fran (speculation, for fleerdon)

by Matt in LA on May 30, 2008 12:02 PM EDT

It's still pretty dumb, but my early season suggestion that the Giants could hang around long enough to have an interest in CC is a little more viable today than it was last week or last month.

They just completed a sweep of the division leading, earth scorching Diamondbacks: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=280529129, and now the Padres, a struggling division rival, is up next.

They're still 7 back, but if they made it through June where they are or slightly better, wouldn't they have to have an interest in bringing back the Cy winning local product?

Since I doubt they'd give up Lincecum, who do they have that we might want?

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Omar Vizquel.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on May 30, 2008 12:09 PM EDT 0 recs

The Giants have one of the weakest farm systems in baseball right now.

Unless Lincecum or Cain is in the discussion, I don’t see what else they would have to offer us.

by talonk on May 30, 2008 12:11 PM EDT 0 recs

Outside of Lincecum and Cain, the Giants have next to nothing. Nothing.

by APV on May 30, 2008 12:13 PM EDT 0 recs

I’m inclined to think that Jonathon Sanchez may turn out to be a pretty good pitcher.

by hans on May 30, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

This is silly. Sweep or no sweep, the Giants seem committed to the future, and they are absolutely terrible this season. Seven games behind with two substantially more talented teams ahead of them. The Wild Card outlook is worse — they’re 8.5 games back with five teams ahead of them.

Why would the 9th best team in the league make the biggest win-now trade of the season?

by Jay on May 30, 2008 12:16 PM EDT 0 recs

Well, C.C. could probably slot nicely between Fred Lewis and Bengie Molina.

by fleerdon on May 30, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up 1 recs

They wouldn’t do it without a window for an extension, but I think it’s plausible that CC would be open to that.

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on May 30, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

Do you honestly think they’d tie down two $18M pitchers in their rotation?

by talonk on May 30, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

Matt, I’m sorry, I don’t want to be rude, but this is totally divorced from reality.

by Jay on May 30, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up 0 recs

At what point is something better than nothing?

I don’t know enough about the compensatory pick system, but at some point, isn’t it worth picking up a player that we know is at least capable of buttoning his jersey at a major league level if we’re sure to lose CC this offseason?

I am certain the Giants would simply take CC and pay him his $18mm per if he were offered at no cost, so that establishes that a trade is viable.

Still, let’s think of this as the first post in a series of potential suitors, starting at the bottom and ending at the Yankees.

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on May 30, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

First off, CC is not making $18M this season, my bad if that’s what you inferrred. He is only making $9M this season. $18M is going to be his starting point for negotiations. He’ll probably end up closer to the $20M+ that Santana got.

by talonk on May 30, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up 0 recs

Actually, C.C. is making $12 million this season, thanks to $3 million in bonuses and incentives. He is still owed about $8 million of that, given the date.

Matt, the “divorced from reality part” isn’t trading C.C., it’s the Giants acquiring him. For any number of reasons. I’m not aware of any reason you have offered for why it would make sense, other than (a) he’s from that area, and (b) they’re only seven games back, so what the hell, sell the farm! There are probably ten other teams more likely to acquire C.C., if not 15 or 20.

by Jay on May 30, 2008 8:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

They’re trying to get younger, while staying “competitive” instead of rebuilding.

Their focus is on pitching, with 2 quality righties already at the front of their rotation.

Their payroll is significantly lower than previous years, leaving substantial enough money in the budget to absorb $12 mil this year and $18 next for a pitch who is much less likely to fall off a cliff.

I agree that there are ample teams to set off a bidding war, but the bent of my post was to discuss whether their is any merit in considering the Giants.

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on May 31, 2008 1:06 AM EDT up 0 recs

Even assuming you’re right about the Giants’ objectives, acquiring C.C. would still be a very odd move for them to make at this stage. It’s the kind of move you make when you already have all the pieces of the puzzle together, a heavily invested team with a chance to win without that player, and is acquiring him to be pushed over the top.

Think about the D’Backs and Mets acquiring Haren and Santana — those teams would have been expected to be among the better teams even without those pitchers, it’s a move to get from 85 wins to 90, which is the leverage point around which the ROI on the cost of acquiring a player is at its peak. The Giants, on the other hand, are a 70-win team — charitably — and this is basically the low-point of ROI on acquiring players.

by Jay on May 31, 2008 9:30 AM EDT up 0 recs

While the Giants would never do this, they are not truly committed to the future. See Sabean’s recent comments about the Giants contending this year. Plus, they are pretty set on starting pitching, they can’t hit (and apparently neither can we.)

by Fredward on May 30, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

Could we alter the title of this FanPost a little to indicate that it’s speculative? I’m not trying to be a jerk; I was a just a little - what’s the word? - verklempt before I followed the link.

by fleerdon on May 30, 2008 12:31 PM EDT 1 recs

i would suggest:

“The Giants only have Lincecum and Cain”

by Brick. on May 30, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up 1 recs

Thanks. While you were typing that, though, I just created a network of 14 para-sites and posted a link to the original on each of them. To which I added, “Lincecum isn’t enough. Would Lincecum and Cain be enough?”

by fleerdon on May 30, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think Cain would be in the discussion.

And their top minor leaguer is a third basemen… though he is young and shitty.

LeCavs!
If you were good enough, maybe we'd name it after you.

by Matt in LA on May 30, 2008 12:50 PM EDT 0 recs

Two things, the Giants have been outscored by 47 runs this year. They are not good. They aren’t going to trade young talent away.

Also, you can’t call a top flight prospect like Villalona crappy without explaining yourself. The guy gets great scouting reports. He is in the Sally League at 17, and he’s not getting completely overwhelmed. His isolated power is .170.

by ClarkM on May 31, 2008 3:07 AM EDT up 0 recs

Kinda random but did you know that Branch Rickey invented isolated power in the 1950’s? He called it power average, though.

by gahnki on May 31, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

To echo everyone else, they really do only have Lincecum and Cain. There isn’t another guy on that team I’d want.

The 2008 Cleveland Indians: Home of the Triple Steal, Unassisted Triple Play, and not a heck of a lot more.

by westbrook on May 30, 2008 3:25 PM EDT 0 recs

I could somewhat see CC signing with a Bay Area team

after all, he has strong connections to the Bay Area, and regularly appears on Vallejo Car Comercials (for years, and they are still coming out regularly).

But, the A’s either a) don’t have the money or more likely b) already have a rotation full of cheap, good starters. The A’s are CC’s home team, that is, he grew up rooting for them.

The Giants on the other hand have two really good pitchers on the cheap, a couple decent pitchers, and a REALLY expensive craptastic pitcher (Zito). They have absolutly no one in the lineup or the farm, but do have a ton of money commited to their team. They need a good draft pick, but they have a history of giving away draft picks just to save money (see: Michael Tucker). So while CC might be a decent fit for the Giants in that he’d be back in the Bay Area (though not for his home team) and the Giants could use more pitching, the GIants SHOULD be focusing on rebuilding and not handing out long term, expensive contracts to left handed starters who may be on the decline. They’ve already done that once thus far.

by Zonis on May 30, 2008 5:21 PM EDT 0 recs

whoa watch the use of the header line there….this ain’t South Side Sox here, we have standards.

But aside from that, I think your right on both accounts, I don’t see him going to the Bay Area. Now the Dodgers may be a team that would look to add him.

by hans on May 31, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up 0 recs