Sunday, March 17, 2013

Game Wrap Spring Training 2013: Giants 9 Rockies 7

Cole Gillespie hit a walkoff 3 run homer to give the Giants the W over the Rockies after a see-saw battle.  Key Lines:

Hunter Pence- 3 for 4, 2B.  BA= .333.  The Rev is red hot and wouldn't it be nice to have him go through some streaks like this in season?

Brandon Belt- 3 for 4, 2B, BB, SB(2).  BA= .404.  Another minor league line for The Belter.

Cole Gillespie- 2 for 2, HR(1).  BA= .306.  And Gillespie serves notice that he is not going to lose that roster spot without a fight.

Brock Bond- 1 for 1, 2B, BB.  BA= .409.  Bond's magical bat continues to argue HIS case for a roster spot.

Tim Lincecum- 4 IP, 3 H, 2 R, 3 BB, 1 K.  ERA= 9.39.  OK start for Timmy.  Might be still a bit generous with the free passes.

Sergio Romo- 1 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 0 K.  ERA= 4.50.  Romo's scoreless frame gets credited with the W.

Pablo Sandoval was scratched from the lineup at the last minute with elbow pain.  He reportedly felt something on a throw yesterday and still had pain today.  THAT does not sound good, but hopefully it's just a strain or some inflammation.

Yusmeiro Petit gets outrighted off the 40 man roster.

37 comments:

  1. I think this is the new normal for Timmy.This is the pitcher he has become. It reminds me a lot of the struggles that Zito has gone through. I think Timmy will be serviceable, maybe have some flashes of brilliance from time to time but in my opinion he will no longer be elite,at least as a starter.

    Cole makes the club out of camp too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'll see about Timmy. I've learned to be cautious about making predictions and judgements like that.

      Delete
  2. Interesting that Petit was removed from the 40-man the day after Chris Heston had a good start. Should we assume this means that Heston will be the one to get the call if the Giants need another starter at some point this season.

    Bond really seems like he'd be a nice late inning option off the bench.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Heston is probably the Giants 7'th starter at this point, #6 being Chad Gaudin.

      Delete
    2. I think Petit is out of options. He would either make it to the 25-man, or out righted. I believe they wanted to see if he could create a trade-value for himself. He did not.
      This was coming. They also need the room on the 40-man roster.

      Delete
    3. I just looked at sfgiants.com, and the Giants only have 34 players on the 40-man, so adding Gillespie, Gaudin, and another infielder is not an issue.

      Delete
    4. Not sure why the "official" site is wrong, but it is. They are missing JCP, Kieschnick, Noonan, and Escobar. All these payers were announced as being added to the 40-man prior to the rule v draft.

      Delete
    5. Wow. That is a lot of missing names. Now it makes sense. We lost Gillaspie (the 3rd baseman) and Petit from the 40-man, and now have 38. They may have to release one more.

      Delete
    6. They got something screwed up while they were optioning the kids.

      I noticed that Escobar is missing as well. Not sure if that's a new procedure for Rule 5 or a mistake on the site.

      Petit cleared waivers. He has the choice of accepting the assignment to Fresno or becoming a free agent.

      Delete
    7. The page is correct. This page reflects those on the 40-man who still remains in the major league camp. This page will eventually become the 25-man roster. If you click on the link on the right side labeled 40-man roster, you'll get the full 40 man roster.

      Delete
    8. Nope.

      Still missing Noonan, Kieschnick, JCP, Escobar...

      Delete
    9. Noonan, Kieschnick, JCP, Escobar, et al were all optioned last week in that big cut down.

      Delete
    10. Sure, but they are still on the 40-man

      Delete
    11. petit aint going anywhere

      he is gonna accept assignment in fresno

      bacci

      Delete
  3. Curse you, Pablo! You couldn't possibly have a hamate bone in your elbow as well!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hank Schlman updated his blog saying Panda has Ulner neuritis an inflamation of the nerve running thru the elbow. i hope that all he'll need is a few days rest.

      LG

      Delete
    2. Since the ulnar nerve lies in close proximity to the ulnar collateral ligament, I am always suspicious that ulnar neuritis in these situations is caused by inflammation or swelling of or around the UCL.

      I may be recalling wrong, but I believe Jesse Foppert's UCL tear originally manifested itself as an ulnar neuritis.

      Of course, Pablo might have just been resting his elbow on an armrest for too long, but the report that he "felt something" when he made a throw doesn't sound particularly good.

      Putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5!

      Delete
    3. sounds to me like he needs to go on the dl

      in other news, the world has discovered that att is the great equalizer

      apparently the japanese were very frustrated that the ball didnt carry at all

      bambam did a great job with the ndr, but in the end the dr were just too strong

      all caribbean final....thats right, two teams of caribbean's hacking away at slop

      should be fun....if people show up, the belle should be hoppin

      oh, and when hanley came to the plate, the crowd in unison screamed...BEAT LA, BEAT LA

      bacci

      Delete
    4. Let's see with Pablo. Hopefully it's just a minor strain or inflammation and will subside rapidly.

      Delete
    5. Maybe Pablo can put his ambidexterity to good use, throw lefthanded and move to 1B. Just kidding!

      Delete
  4. With the injuries and conditioning issues, I have to wonder if we'd be better served by using him as trade bait at some point. Though I suppose that would require Duvall to progress nicely, it's worth considering.

    Lucky

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since other teams know about the injuries and conditioning issues, perhaps it's not worth considering, since the value we would receive for him would be discounted by the degree of perceived risk. The greater the perceived risk, the weaker the argument for trading him, since we would be selling cheaply, unless there's a useful discrepancy between the predictions of the Giants' medical staff (who know the guy well) and those of the would-be acquiring team (who don't) . But also, the less the perceived risk, the weaker the argument for trading him, because we would want him in the lineup. If we had a strong enough 3rd base replacement, or replacement at C so that we could confidently move Posey to 3b, that would affect the wisdom of considering the trade, but we don't.

      Delete
    2. I have said for a long time I would be hesitant to sign a long term high 8 or 9 figure contract with Pablo due to ongoing conditioning concerns. I doubt the current problem has anything to do with conditioning, though. The elbow is just a vulnerable joint in the sport of baseball.

      Delete
    3. I've thought for a while now that a likely trade partner for pablo could be the mets for David wright. He is due to make a lot of money that the mets would rather not pay and if the price was right they could replace him with Pablo and get a few good prospects at the same time which would be consistent with their plan of rebuilding. Wright would be perfect at AT&T and a great guy to have along with posey as our middle of the lineup and I would not be opposed to signing him to a 7 figure contract.

      Delete
    4. Somehow, I don't think that trade is gonna happen.

      Delete
    5. I certainly hope it doesn't, especially since Pato envisions our surrendering "a few good prospects" along with Sandoval. The recent Power Rankings for 3rd basemen on Fangraphs estimates the 2013 WAR for Wright and Sandoval to be about the same (Wright only very slightly ahead). The Giants would lose Sandoval plus "good prospects" plus the differential between Sandoval's and Wright's salaries, and for what? For only a brief minuscule advantage over what they now have. I say "brief" because Wright is already thirty, probably past his prime, whereas Sandoval hasn't yet reached the years when baseball players typically reach their prime. This proposed trade seems, frankly, absurd.

      Most comically, Pato "would not be opposed to signing [Wright] to a 7 figure contract," but I dare say Wright and his agent would be opposed, since with the Mets he has an eight-figure contract, about $15,000,000 per annum.

      Delete
    6. You know you sound exactly the same as you did last offseason when I suggested trading Timmy! Pablo is about as risky a player as you can get while wright is the type of player and person any team would be happy to build around. I'm pretty sure we won't find him eating himself to death or having sex with passed out drunk chicks in Santa Cruz. Aside from being right about Timmy last offseason I also was a big supporter of Cespedes and darvish, besides getting your panties in a wad about things I say har you ever made a bold prediction?

      Delete
    7. David Wright took a slight home town discount to stay in NY and be the face of the Mets franchise. He also acquires full no-trade rights next year as a 10 year player, if it isn't already built into the contract for the year. There is no way, in hell, the Mets are trading David Wright. Any such proposal isn't being bold, its being non-sensical.

      Delete
    8. P-Duk what could be risky about too much eating, fun, and having sex with girls in Santa Cruz? Hell, I do it all the time - and my elbow is fine. Peace & Love is what I say! (unless it's the Bums we are talk'n about.

      Delete
    9. Pato: I'm not going to respond to your vacuum-packed braggadocio; and Shankbone has already, through a reasoned argument, put the likelihood of your proposed trade in its proper place. But I am intrigued by what you think of as a "bold prediction." The prediction seems to rest on the premise that Sandoval's dissolute, gut-gorging, and reckless life will ruin his career enough so that the Giants would be wise not only to accept a significantly older, more expensive player, but also to give up a few good prospects to do so. They would be wise to make the trade even though the prediction (bold or not) on Fangraphs suggests that even in 2013 there isn't a hell of a lot of difference in WAR between the two third-basemen. Has it occurred to you that heeding this premise is all about reducing risk? Your prediction about Sandoval doesn't seem very bold, but rather, fearful and conservative. (I'm not sure that "having sex with passed out drunk chicks" is clearly and directly relevant to performance on the baseball diamond. It seems more like an issue that would assume such relevance only if one's snorts of moral indignation took over from the reasoning process.)

      That is, if your "bold prediction" is that the Mets would swap Wright for Sandoval-plus, Shankbone has shown why one might think it silly. If your "bold prediction" is that Sandoval is so self-destructive that we should get rid of him, at considerable probable cost, then your prudence can hardly be thought of as bold. Have you really given enough thought to what you have said, or is it all spontaneous?

      Delete
    10. Hey team! I think we've run this one into the ground here. I'll just say I have reservations about ever signing Pablo to a huge longterm contract, but I would not trade him right now and the Mets are not going to trade David Wright.

      Delete
    11. I just find it comical Dr. B that a simple trade suggestions causes several people here to lose their minds! The question I feel compelled to answer is the last sentence from Campi's last post asking if I have really given enough thought to what I say or is it all spontaneous. Most of it is spontaneous because I have a job and a life and don't sit in front of my computer contemplating trade scenarios until they are fool proof!

      Breaking down this trade once again since I have been basically called out for not knowing what the hell I'm talking about I came up with a few things that may or may not make sense. David Wright has been on the trade block for a few years now right? He hasn't signed long term for one reason or another so to say he is available (Shankbone disagrees) shouldn't be that far fetched. We just saw the Mets let one of the best SS in the game walk with little compensation and traded last years Cy Young winner for young players so the thought that trading Wright for a replacement as well as something for the future doesn't seem all that out of character with what the Mets seem to have planned. Finally, we obviously have some trade history with the Mets recently so not like we are trading with the A's or another team Sabes never talks to!

      Here is where I just want to reach through my computer and grab you sabermetric nerds by your bow ties and shake some sense into you. All of those lovely fangraph predictions and Bill James and whoever else think they know everything really don't mean anything. They are projections or predictions but unless I'm mistaken I'm pretty sure nobody can see into the future so to continuously use these projections as the basis for your argument is tiresome. How did those predictions pan out for Timmy last year? Did fangraphs show him having a down year? I didn't think so. One more thing, if Pablo is in jail or has a trial hanging over his head because he did something stupid again does fangraphs have a prediction on how that will affect his play?

      The only real point you guys have is the $$$. Dollar for Dollar it doesn't make sense if you just compare Pablo to Wright for this year. Where it might make sense is next year and the years after where Pablo could be anywhere from out of the league to a .300-30-100 player. Wright on the other hand has a much safer track record and all of the stuff that fangraphs and all of the other predictilators don't consider. So Pablo could easily be making the same amount as Wright after he finishes this contract or he could be making nothing while he sits in jail or in a dairy queen eating sundays. Again, I think that is enough thought put into it to make the statement I made and if you don't like it then you can simply not reply!

      Delete
    12. Pato, the world is bigger than Fangraph.

      I have always said, if you are going to bet, bet on yourself, even if you are a heavy (but not fat) underdog.

      But as DrB said, it's time to move on.

      Delete
    13. Pato,

      I'll just say you have a valid point about Pablo's long term future. He might have a long, extremely productive career, but the red flags do dot the landscape with him.

      Timmy has some red flags out there too, even if he has a great season this year.

      Delete
    14. Pato - Google is your friend. The Mets signed Wright to a $138MM deal in December. Here's a link: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121204&content_id=40518804&vkey=news_nym&c_id=nym

      Yes, I disagree he is available when he's signed a nine figure deal. Them's the facts bud.

      BTW - I'm not a saber. Straw hat most the way, just like them stats too.

      You should pat yourself on the back for Darvish and Cespedes though, those were good calls.

      Delete
  5. Hey Bay Area guys - we might have a helium prospect on hand. Matt Krook, a lefty who goes to St. Ignatius has apparently hit 95 MPH and had about 50 scouts at his first start. Need some first hand accounts!

    ReplyDelete