2013 San Francisco Giants Thread

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

I wouldn't trade Crick straight up for Price.

See you said it lol

Originally posted by DatNyjerSireez:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
I wouldn't trade Crick straight up for Price.

See you said it lol

.

I don't know about crick + belt for Price.



One one hand, getting Price would allow the G's to have the best rotation in the NL again. On the other hand, he has about two more years left on his contract and he's going to command 22+ million per year with a seven year deal at age 31. To me, that contract spells disaster. If the G's were SO CLOSE to contend for the title and they can find a suitable 1B replacement, I would do it. But since I think they're going to struggle to even make the WC, I don't think it's worth it.

But it's going to take Belt, Crick, and another prospect to get this done. Price has two more years of arb left, which isn't a whole lot, but it is longer than the typical contract years we see players get traded on. Oregon Duck, i think it's a good discussion! Now what do you think it would take to get Jay Bruce? I know the reds will never trade him due to his reasonable contract, age, and the reds being contenders, It may take someone like Pablo, Crick, and filler to get that done.

Originally posted by pdizo916:
I don't know about crick + belt for Price.



One one hand, getting Price would allow the G's to have the best rotation in the NL again. On the other hand, he has about two more years left on his contract and he's going to command 22+ million per year with a seven year deal at age 31. To me, that contract spells disaster. If the G's were SO CLOSE to contend for the title and they can find a suitable 1B replacement, I would do it. But since I think they're going to struggle to even make the WC, I don't think it's worth it.

But it's going to take Belt, Crick, and another prospect to get this done. Price has two more years of arb left, which isn't a whole lot, but it is longer than the typical contract years we see players get traded on. Oregon Duck, i think it's a good discussion! Now what do you think it would take to get Jay Bruce? I know the reds will never trade him due to his reasonable contract, age, and the reds being contenders, It may take someone like Pablo, Crick, and filler to get that done.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think fixing our rotation should be our greatest concern heading into the offseason. Obviously things have to go right, but I think our lineup is pretty close to being set as is (although we obviously need an upgrade in LF)

Belt showed that he can be a 20 HR 80 RBI at 1st base, Panda looked better towards the end of last year—and it'll be a contract year for him—Pagan will be healthy and Crawford showed that he can be a .280 hitter when healthy. I actually like our offense right now, but that does not translate to winning championships, IMO. Our rotation needs to improve because it was pretty bad last year. If we make a big trade for someone like Bruce, I rather it be a starting pitcher.

Originally posted by OregonDuckNiner:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Please tell me when I said I wouldn't trade Crick straight up for Price. I said I would never trade Belt AND Crick for Price. I dont think there was one person that said they wouldnt trade Crick for Price straight up. Quick making things up.

You're right, my bad. I thought it was you, but it was Niners99 who said it in his first post. Guess he changed his mind.

Originally posted by Niners99:
We dont need David Price. Crick could be Price in 2-3 years. No chance I would deal Belt or Crick right now, let alone both.

Didnt you just complain about people putting words in your mouth? I stated that I didnt want to deal either Crick or Belt right now. That statement wasnt about David Price, I just dont think trading either player is a move the Giants should make.

If the Rays called up and said "Price for Crick, straight up." I think you have to make that deal, just based on the fact that we'd be thrilled if Crick became David Price someday, and even thats only a hypothetical. But, I highly doubt the Rays would do that. There are better pitching prospects that they could land for Price, so that scenario is moot.

So to recap, I would NOT trade Belt+Crick for Price. I would NOT trade Belt for Price. I WOULD trade Crick for Price, but it wont happen. And I think the Giants should NOT trade either Belt or Crick at all, unless were getting some crazy return.

Originally posted by Niners99:
Didnt you just complain about people putting words in your mouth? I stated that I didnt want to deal either Crick or Belt right now. That statement wasnt about David Price, I just dont think trading either player is a move the Giants should make.

If the Rays called up and said "Price for Crick, straight up." I think you have to make that deal, just based on the fact that we'd be thrilled if Crick became David Price someday, and even thats only a hypothetical. But, I highly doubt the Rays would do that. There are better pitching prospects that they could land for Price, so that scenario is moot.

So to recap, I would NOT trade Belt+Crick for Price. I would NOT trade Belt for Price. I WOULD trade Crick for Price, but it wont happen. And I think the Giants should NOT trade either Belt or Crick at all, unless were getting some crazy return.

lol I guess that was pretty hard to understand since you just mentioned that you wouldn't trade for Price like a sentence before that. Whatever. I'm done talking about it.

Originally posted by OregonDuckNiner:

Originally posted by pdizo916:
I don't know about crick + belt for Price.



One one hand, getting Price would allow the G's to have the best rotation in the NL again. On the other hand, he has about two more years left on his contract and he's going to command 22+ million per year with a seven year deal at age 31. To me, that contract spells disaster. If the G's were SO CLOSE to contend for the title and they can find a suitable 1B replacement, I would do it. But since I think they're going to struggle to even make the WC, I don't think it's worth it.

But it's going to take Belt, Crick, and another prospect to get this done. Price has two more years of arb left, which isn't a whole lot, but it is longer than the typical contract years we see players get traded on. Oregon Duck, i think it's a good discussion! Now what do you think it would take to get Jay Bruce? I know the reds will never trade him due to his reasonable contract, age, and the reds being contenders, It may take someone like Pablo, Crick, and filler to get that done.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think fixing our rotation should be our greatest concern heading into the offseason. Obviously things have to go right, but I think our lineup is pretty close to being set as is (although we obviously need an upgrade in LF)

Belt showed that he can be a 20 HR 80 RBI at 1st base, Panda looked better towards the end of last year—and it'll be a contract year for him—Pagan will be healthy and Crawford showed that he can be a .280 hitter when healthy. I actually like our offense right now, but that does not translate to winning championships, IMO. Our rotation needs to improve because it was pretty bad last year. If we make a big trade for someone like Bruce, I rather it be a starting pitcher.

In 3 years our pitching staff is going to be fully restocked with good young arms who are ready to take over Major League jobs. Until the reinforcements start arriving in 2015, I dont think spending a ton of money, or trading away players like Belt to bolster the rotation is a good strategy at all. There will be a decent SP or 2 available for bridge-gap prices this offseason. No need to do anything we'll regret later.

Our season went down the toilet when Pagan got hurt, and we lost our ability to get things started from the top of the order. Its not ideal, but we can still win the division next year with Bumgarner, Cain, Lincecum, Vogelsong, Gaudin/Petit/Free Agent. It would be a nightmare to watch Brandon Belt become an all-star 1B with someone else.

Originally posted by OregonDuckNiner:

Originally posted by Niners99:
Didnt you just complain about people putting words in your mouth? I stated that I didnt want to deal either Crick or Belt right now. That statement wasnt about David Price, I just dont think trading either player is a move the Giants should make.

If the Rays called up and said "Price for Crick, straight up." I think you have to make that deal, just based on the fact that we'd be thrilled if Crick became David Price someday, and even thats only a hypothetical. But, I highly doubt the Rays would do that. There are better pitching prospects that they could land for Price, so that scenario is moot.

So to recap, I would NOT trade Belt+Crick for Price. I would NOT trade Belt for Price. I WOULD trade Crick for Price, but it wont happen. And I think the Giants should NOT trade either Belt or Crick at all, unless were getting some crazy return.

lol I guess that was pretty hard to understand since you just mentioned that you wouldn't trade for Price like a sentence before that. Whatever. I'm done talking about it.

I said, in a separate sentence from the Price part, "I would not trade Crick or Belt right now".

I did not say "I would not trade Crick or Belt for Price right now."

Is that hard to understand?

Originally posted by Niners99:
In 3 years our pitching staff is going to be fully restocked with good young arms who are ready to take over Major League jobs. Until the reinforcements start arriving in 2015, I dont think spending a ton of money, or trading away players like Belt to bolster the rotation is a good strategy at all. There will be a decent SP or 2 available for bridge-gap prices this offseason. No need to do anything we'll regret later.

Our season went down the toilet when Pagan got hurt, and we lost our ability to get things started from the top of the order. Its not ideal, but we can still win the division next year with Bumgarner, Cain, Lincecum, Vogelsong, Gaudin/Petit/Free Agent. It would be a nightmare to watch Brandon Belt become an all-star 1B with someone else.

I mean that would be great, but I honestly do not see that happening. The 3-4-5 of of that rotation is cluttered with question marks. In a perfect world, Timmy figures out how to pitch and becomes a competent 3-4 starter, but who knows if that's going to happen. Yes, Vogelsong was fatigued last year, but he'll be 37 next year and is no guarantee to be the same pitcher he was a couple years ago. And I'm not sold on Petit being a starter for an entire season, either. It would be a miracle if the Dodgers don't win the division next year if we go into the season with that rotation you suggested.

Originally posted by OregonDuckNiner:

Originally posted by Niners99:
In 3 years our pitching staff is going to be fully restocked with good young arms who are ready to take over Major League jobs. Until the reinforcements start arriving in 2015, I dont think spending a ton of money, or trading away players like Belt to bolster the rotation is a good strategy at all. There will be a decent SP or 2 available for bridge-gap prices this offseason. No need to do anything we'll regret later.

Our season went down the toilet when Pagan got hurt, and we lost our ability to get things started from the top of the order. Its not ideal, but we can still win the division next year with Bumgarner, Cain, Lincecum, Vogelsong, Gaudin/Petit/Free Agent. It would be a nightmare to watch Brandon Belt become an all-star 1B with someone else.

I mean that would be great, but I honestly do not see that happening. The 3-4-5 of of that rotation is cluttered with question marks. In a perfect world, Timmy figures out how to pitch and becomes a competent 3-4 starter, but who knows if that's going to happen. Yes, Vogelsong was fatigued last year, but he'll be 37 next year and is no guarantee to be the same pitcher he was a couple years ago. And I'm not sold on Petit being a starter for an entire season, either. It would be a miracle if the Dodgers don't win the division next year if we go into the season with that rotation you suggested.

Lincecum looked like he started to figure things out. He's basically having to learn how to pitch again, just without high velocity. Now that he doesnt have permanent command of his fastball/split change anymore, hes learning to command the rest of his repertoire more consistently to fall back on.

I think hed be one of the better 3 starters in baseball for us next year, and obviously Bum/Cain as a 1-2 isnt too shabby. The last 2 spots CAN be guys like Vogelsong, Petit, Gaudin, etc. as long as we have backup plans. This season we foolishly decided that we didnt need any safety net SP's, and we were left scrambling to plug holes all year by yanking Gaudin out of the pen, and forcing Mike Kickham to take a beating when he clearly wasnt ready.

Even if we just bring in Bronson Arroyo as a 4 starter, I think wed be in good shape to let the 5 spot be a ST battle.

Dave Price can EAD. Belt and Crick are the future.

why are we still talking about Price?? Its not happening guys, move on.....

Originally posted by Frisco69ers:
why are we still talking about Price?? Its not happening guys, move on.....

http://nypost.com/2013/10/05/rays-ace-could-be-prize-of-offseason/

And what else is there to talk about?

From MLBTR - I dont care where the f**k Price goes as long as it isnt to the Dodgers.

"On yesterday's Baseball Tonight Podcast, ESPN's Buster Olney told colleague Tim Kurkjian that the Dodgers are expected to be the most aggressive team in pursuing a trade for David Price this offseason. A Price acquisition would give the Dodgers an unthinkably dominant front four of Clayton Kershaw, Zack Greinke, Price and Hyun-jin Ryu"

No word would be able to describe how much I'd hate the Dodgers if that happened.