Outside Topic Giants/Niners 2022 thread - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Giants/Niners 2022 thread (/thread-22890.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Giants/Niners 2022 thread (/thread-22890.html)
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - Phogge - 01-08-2022
My favorite untouchable is Elliot Ness. Robert Stack not Costner.
Niners activate Ward, Williams, Dontae and Moseley. Thomas activated yesterday.
So far they haven’t activated Jerry Mertens, Abe Woodson and Joe Arenas.
RE: lex24 - Giants - 01-09-2022
(01-08-2022, 02:51 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:46 PM)Giants Wrote: Lockhart is my primary source for information regarding the farm system. Her reporting is very thorough. That is why I have Bishop in the “untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer” category.
So if she ranks Bishop #9 that means that SF has at least nine minor league players considered "untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer" ?
I guess you can tell that I am not a big fan of trading top prospects, particularly at this time when the team’s core group of stars is nearing the end of their careers.
RE: lex24 - DC 86 - 01-09-2022
(01-09-2022, 12:06 AM)Giants Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:51 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:46 PM)Giants Wrote: Lockhart is my primary source for information regarding the farm system. Her reporting is very thorough. That is why I have Bishop in the “untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer” category.
So if she ranks Bishop #9 that means that SF has at least nine minor league players considered "untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer" ?
I guess you can tell that I am not a big fan of trading top prospects, particularly at this time when the team’s core group of stars is nearing the end of their careers.
Understood. The question is who qualifies as a top prospect. If Bishop is indeed the Giants #9 prospect (and not currently among the top 100 prospects in baseball) then you really mean not trading any real prospects since lower ranked minor leaguers have limited trade value.
It's not an unreasonable position and the Giants should be careful about trading away prospects, my point was that if Bishop is untouchable then pretty much any prospect with trade value is untouchable, which essentially prohibits any substantial trades at all. Generally organizations are very protective of their top (or top two prospects) but willing to explore trades involving others if the return justifies it.
For perspective on this topic in general and on a possible Marte trade specifically, recall that in 2019 the Astros acquired Zack Greinke (35 years old at the time) from these same Arizona Diamondbacks and the price was four prospects (including three who were ranked among the top five in their organization) as well as cash.
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - DC 86 - 01-09-2022
Garoppolo starting today vs LA.
RE: lex24 - Giants - 01-09-2022
(01-09-2022, 08:41 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-09-2022, 12:06 AM)Giants Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:51 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:46 PM)Giants Wrote: Lockhart is my primary source for information regarding the farm system. Her reporting is very thorough. That is why I have Bishop in the “untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer” category.
So if she ranks Bishop #9 that means that SF has at least nine minor league players considered "untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer" ?
I guess you can tell that I am not a big fan of trading top prospects, particularly at this time when the team’s core group of stars is nearing the end of their careers.
Understood. The question is who qualifies as a top prospect. If Bishop is indeed the Giants #9 prospect (and not currently among the top 100 prospects in baseball) then you really mean not trading any real prospects since lower ranked minor leaguers have limited trade value.
It's not an unreasonable position and the Giants should be careful about trading away prospects, my point was that if Bishop is untouchable then pretty much any prospect with trade value is untouchable, which essentially prohibits any substantial trades at all. Generally organizations are very protective of their top (or top two prospects) but willing to explore trades involving others if the return justifies it.
For perspective on this topic in general and on a possible Marte trade specifically, recall that in 2019 the Astros acquired Zack Greinke (35 years old at the time) from these same Arizona Diamondbacks and the price was four prospects (including three who were ranked among the top five in their organization) as well as cash.
Why I hate trading prospects (although I would make the Bryant trade again knowing what was known at the time of the deal)…..
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2021/11/21/six-perfect-innings-from-cubs-prospect-caleb-kilian-bring-the-mesa-solar-sox-the-arizona-fall-league-championship/
Yes, giving up prospects is sometimes necessary to push a team over the finish line. However, as an “investor” with an eye on the long term, I believe SF needs to approach the idea of trading young talent cautiously. There are still guys in the free agent market who would give the Giants the right-handed power they need. Those options should be explored first….
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - BobK - 01-09-2022
I so agree with you Giants. Keep building for the future
lex24 - lex24 - 01-09-2022
(01-09-2022, 12:06 AM)Giants Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:51 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:46 PM)Giants Wrote: Lockhart is my primary source for information regarding the farm system. Her reporting is very thorough. That is why I have Bishop in the “untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer” category.
So if she ranks Bishop #9 that means that SF has at least nine minor league players considered "untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer" ?
I guess you can tell that I am not a big fan of trading top prospects, particularly at this time when the team’s core group of stars is nearing the end of their careers.
On the other side of you of this one. Save for the very top, I’m willing to deal. Not for half season loaners (although there is always the potential whale that at least you consider). But if I can get an established major leaguer under team control for a couple three years, I’m doing it.
I’d love to know how many of the Giants top from 15 from say ’05 to ‘18 have made the major leagues. (And stuck for awhile. Not talking about cup of coffee guys). I leave the last couple years off as many of those prospects are climbing the ladder. My guess is, if you are getting 5 out of your top 15 to the ML you are ahead of the game.
Prospects are just that. Most don’t make it.
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - DC 86 - 01-09-2022
(01-09-2022, 10:20 AM)BobK Wrote: I so agree with you Giants. Keep building for the future
There isn't a single person who disagrees with the notion of building for the future, and the importance of being prudent when trading away prospects. Cost-controlled young talent is a critical asset.
My specific objection was to Giants' labeling Hunter Bishop (the Giants #9 prospect) as essentially untouchable.
Let's look at SF's #9 prospects going back to 2005 (all ranked by minorleagueball.com):
2005 Patrick Misch
2006 Dan Griffin
2007 Nate Schierholtz
2008 Wendell Fairley
2009 Waldis Joaquin
2010 Jason Stoffel
2011 Jorge Bucardo
2012 Heath Hembree
2013 Andrew Susac
2014 Mac Williamson
2015 Adalberto Mejia
2016 Andrew Suarez
2017 Chris Shaw
2018 Garrett Williams
In retrospect, should any of these players have been considered "untouchable"?
In retrospect, if SF had traded any of these players for a 28 year old, in his prime, MVP candidate on a contract that is less than half market value, would SF have regretted it?
RE: lex24 - lex24 - 01-09-2022
(01-09-2022, 10:02 AM)Giants Wrote:(01-09-2022, 08:41 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-09-2022, 12:06 AM)Giants Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:51 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:46 PM)Giants Wrote: Lockhart is my primary source for information regarding the farm system. Her reporting is very thorough. That is why I have Bishop in the “untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer” category.
So if she ranks Bishop #9 that means that SF has at least nine minor league players considered "untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer" ?
I guess you can tell that I am not a big fan of trading top prospects, particularly at this time when the team’s core group of stars is nearing the end of their careers.
Understood. The question is who qualifies as a top prospect. If Bishop is indeed the Giants #9 prospect (and not currently among the top 100 prospects in baseball) then you really mean not trading any real prospects since lower ranked minor leaguers have limited trade value.
It's not an unreasonable position and the Giants should be careful about trading away prospects, my point was that if Bishop is untouchable then pretty much any prospect with trade value is untouchable, which essentially prohibits any substantial trades at all. Generally organizations are very protective of their top (or top two prospects) but willing to explore trades involving others if the return justifies it.
For perspective on this topic in general and on a possible Marte trade specifically, recall that in 2019 the Astros acquired Zack Greinke (35 years old at the time) from these same Arizona Diamondbacks and the price was four prospects (including three who were ranked among the top five in their organization) as well as cash.
Why I hate trading prospects (although I would make the Bryant trade again knowing what was known at the time of the deal)…..
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2021/11/21/six-perfect-innings-from-cubs-prospect-caleb-kilian-bring-the-mesa-solar-sox-the-arizona-fall-league-championship/
Yes, giving up prospects is sometimes necessary to push a team over the finish line. However, as an “investor” with an eye on the long term, I believe SF needs to approach the idea of trading young talent cautiously. There are still guys in the free agent market who would give the Giants the right-handed power they need. Those options should be explored first….
Sure, go after the FA’s first. If you only expend money, great. But the Giants don’t seem willing to step out of their 3 year limit box. Starlin Marte checked every box. A bit older, no doubt. 4 year deal at around $75 Mill. They didn’t sign him.
There are not a whole lot of FA RH bats. Bryant will be 6-7 years at around 200? Doubt Giants will entertain that. Castellanos? If universal DH his value goes up. And I suspect he will be looking at 4-5 years.
So, Zaidi is going to have to determine which prospects he’s willing to deal. I trust he will choose wisely.
As for Killian, maybe he makes it. Maybe he becomes a star. But without Bryant, the Giants don’t take the division . They were within the 9th inning ( and in my book a bad two strikes to, ironically, Bryant) of advancing to NLCS. So, no matter what becomes of those they traded, that deal was justified.
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - BobK - 01-09-2022
Just an FYI Baseball had Bishop at 13
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - DC 86 - 01-09-2022
(01-09-2022, 11:23 AM)BobK Wrote: Just an FYI Baseball had Bishop at 13
I didn't understand this. Baseball America? Baseball Prospectus? #13 among SF prospects?
mlb.com has Bishop as #6 among SF prospects, Giants had said that The Athletic writer (Melissa Lockhart) was his trusted source and she had Bishop at #9. She may be underrating him, but if you go back over the last 15 years the Giants homegrown stars (Posey, Lincecum, Bumgarner) were all ranked at the top of their prospect lists.
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - BobK - 01-09-2022
Yes Baseball America. My trusted source
RE: lex24 - Giants - 01-09-2022
(01-09-2022, 11:06 AM)lex24 Wrote:(01-09-2022, 10:02 AM)Giants Wrote:(01-09-2022, 08:41 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-09-2022, 12:06 AM)Giants Wrote:(01-08-2022, 02:51 PM)DC 86 Wrote: So if she ranks Bishop #9 that means that SF has at least nine minor league players considered "untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer" ?
I guess you can tell that I am not a big fan of trading top prospects, particularly at this time when the team’s core group of stars is nearing the end of their careers.
Understood. The question is who qualifies as a top prospect. If Bishop is indeed the Giants #9 prospect (and not currently among the top 100 prospects in baseball) then you really mean not trading any real prospects since lower ranked minor leaguers have limited trade value.
It's not an unreasonable position and the Giants should be careful about trading away prospects, my point was that if Bishop is untouchable then pretty much any prospect with trade value is untouchable, which essentially prohibits any substantial trades at all. Generally organizations are very protective of their top (or top two prospects) but willing to explore trades involving others if the return justifies it.
For perspective on this topic in general and on a possible Marte trade specifically, recall that in 2019 the Astros acquired Zack Greinke (35 years old at the time) from these same Arizona Diamondbacks and the price was four prospects (including three who were ranked among the top five in their organization) as well as cash.
Why I hate trading prospects (although I would make the Bryant trade again knowing what was known at the time of the deal)…..
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2021/11/21/six-perfect-innings-from-cubs-prospect-caleb-kilian-bring-the-mesa-solar-sox-the-arizona-fall-league-championship/
Yes, giving up prospects is sometimes necessary to push a team over the finish line. However, as an “investor” with an eye on the long term, I believe SF needs to approach the idea of trading young talent cautiously. There are still guys in the free agent market who would give the Giants the right-handed power they need. Those options should be explored first….
Sure, go after the FA’s first. If you only expend money, great. But the Giants don’t seem willing to step out of their 3 year limit box. Starlin Marte checked every box. A bit older, no doubt. 4 year deal at around $75 Mill. They didn’t sign him.
There are not a whole lot of FA RH bats. Bryant will be 6-7 years at around 200? Doubt Giants will entertain that. Castellanos? If universal DH his value goes up. And I suspect he will be looking at 4-5 years.
So, Zaidi is going to have to determine which prospects he’s willing to deal. I trust he will choose wisely.
As for Killian, maybe he makes it. Maybe he becomes a star. But without Bryant, the Giants don’t take the division . They were within the 9th inning ( and in my book a bad two strikes to, ironically, Bryant) of advancing to NLCS. So, no matter what becomes of those they traded, that deal was justified.
We agree on two points…
1. As I indicated, I would have made the Bryant knowing what we knew at the time the deal was made. Yes, the trade was justified.
2. I also trust Zaidi to be very prudent re: considering which prospects he would consider trading.
Add Suzuki to the list of RH possibilities. He is my #1 free agent choice.
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - cardcrimson - 01-09-2022
Wonder why folks are talking baseball during a Niners game. . . .
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - BostonCard - 01-09-2022
Niners Rams go to overtime, and since New Orleans is on the verge of winning, it’s really simple for the Niners: win and they are in.
BC
Actually, I think the Niners can tie and they are in.
BC
Ballgame. The much maligned Niner secondary comes through.
BC
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - DC 86 - 01-09-2022
(01-09-2022, 05:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Niners Rams go to overtime, and since New Orleans is on the verge of winning, it’s really simple for the Niners: win and they are in.
BC
Actually, I think the Niners can tie and they are in.
BC
And they win. Incredible game. Extremely gutsy performance by injured Garoppolo.
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - lex24 - 01-09-2022
Phogge and BobK crow away! I’d given up at 17-0. One of the best games I’ve seen in years. And as DC said, one heck of a gutsy performance. That drive to tie it was as good a drive as I’ve ever seen.
And in the end, Thomas, who has been torched all year, gets the int. On a “Stafford being Stafford” throw.
Finally on another note- Sean Peyton gets to stay home…..Another plus.
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - cardcrimson - 01-09-2022
A tale of two (and a half) halves. What a comeback. Man, the D gave up a ton of 3 and longs again, but come through in the clutch.
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - Phogge - 01-09-2022
Yeah but Lex is trading him. Niners had it all the way. Big time step up by Jennings, Deebo, Armstead, Jimmy, The patchwork OL taking care of Donald.
Niners can beat anybody with their DL.
RE: Giants/Niners 2021 thread - BostonCard - 01-09-2022
Onto Dallas(?). By virtue of Philly’s loss, I think San Francisco winds up with the second wildcard.
BC