Tim Lincecum a possibility?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sday4x4. Show sday4x4's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    lesser minds?...there you go again hotshot

    nope ...just expect better pickups and out of box thinking to get us out of the current muck this team has been in.

    what are your big ideas on improving the team? or do you just spend your time commenting on others..............thought so

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sday4x4. Show sday4x4's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    this team was right in picking up Gonzalez....now ...this year.......they need a similar move in the pitching dept. Lincecum I said was a stretch (even though Burrito had to put in his 2 cents) , but I'm not content settling for these little nibble moves this year and getting stuck with the same clowns as last year...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    I think Josh Hillbilly Reddick would be enough to get Lincecum.
    Then trade DL Lowrie to the Mariners for King Felix.
    Sign Prince for DH, Pujols for 3rd base.
    Yeah, that should do it!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    I'm not for "nibble moves" either, except to fill out starter depth maybe, but i also realize the reality of not being able to keep trading away the farm every year for a superstar.

    I try to suggest trade options that are somewhat realistic, and am often told I am offering too much, not too little like most here. Nobody is taking Lowrie and reddick for a stud starter, but I do think we have some pieces that other teams need. We may need to get creative and invlove three teams to get some real help, but I do think we can make some major improvements.

    I still think a low cost Cody Ross could help add .100+ points to our RF OPS next year and improve the defense over DMac out there. This would save valuable resources for other slots.

    If Papi walks, I could see Lava starting 115-120 games at DH with Youk getting maybe 35-40. Again, I'd be OK "going light" by using Aviles and Lowrie to fill in at 3B when Youk DHs and maybe bringing VTek back as the back-up catcher to salty (and a little from Lava). More money saved.

    We then keep Paps, sign another solid set-up guy, and 2-3 projects like Wang, Webb, Wake, or Chen to fight for the 6th starter/long relief guy.

    That leaves the remaining resources to go all out for 2 solid starting pitchers or one great one and one good 5th starter type. I do not see any top FA pitchers who will even close to their projected contract cost, so I think a trade will be best. Trading for a high prioced pitcher or a FA to be after 2012 makes the most sense, so we won't have to trade too much. I like Guthrie, Jurrjens or Hanson, Cain or Lincecum, Wandy Rodriguez, and several others as possible trade gets.

    If Papi stays, perhaps Youk could be dealt. We can also trade one of Reddick and Kalish and one of Iggy and Bogaerts. Maybe Lowrie could be dealt to someone for a piece that could be flipped as part of a pitcher trade. I'm not willing to trade our best 3 prospects for anyone but the very best starters in MLB. We have to keep thinking balance.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    It would be nice, but do not forget that Rowland and Huff's contracts run out after 2012 season.  Really the Giants's biggest problem is that they have too many big fat contracts such as Zito, Rowland, Huff, Cains, and Lincecum along with few others making over 8mm a year.  So trading Lincecum does not make any sense.  If they are planning to trade him, sound like the Giants are in the rebuilding mode for the next two years.

    But the Giants is more likely wanting to win it all next year by just adding a new SS (Reyes?).  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]Insanity is making the same mistake and expecting different results. so let's try and trade our number one SS prospect again, and while we're at it, our best catching prospect offensively. Couldn't you also say it was a mistake not to trade Lowrie, Lars Anderson, and countless other top prospects from the past when their stock was highest? We have Bogaerts, who many now feel is better than Iggy, so trading one to help get a great starter would be worth it to me.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]Following up on Moon's take, how crazy was it to trade Hanley Ramirez? The RS went to the playoffs 3 of the first 4 years after that trade and won a WS. And the two principles in that trade were the key guys in the RS WS win in Beckett and Lowell.

    Ramirez has put up nice fantasy numbers on offense, is an average defensive SS and has been known to have attitude issues through his career.

    Now OTOH I put little stock in sportswriter spit balling in the off season having anything to do with reality. Particularly their OPeds, which may have some greater value than our posts but not that much. 

    I get that Lincecum has become a very expensive pitcher, very quickly because of his super 2 status and remarkable start to his career. I get that his body type and unique motion suggest that he may breakdown younger than some pitchers do. 

    BUT deeming Iggy untradable in an exchange that would bring a guy like Tim Lincecum to the RS makes no sense. Iggy projects right now to be Alex Gonzalez with less power, if he progresses. The hype on Iggy is very Boston centric.

    In any transaction involving athletes there are risk for the trade or sigining to go bad. Prospects never become MLB stars and sometimes veterans age badly and or suffer catastrophic injury.

    The Marlins-RS trade of 2006 is actually one of those cases were both sides walked away with good value. Any trade that leads directly to a WS championship is not insanity and without Beckett in 2007 the RS don't go to the WS.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]It would be nice, but do not forget that Rowland and Huff's contracts run out after 2012 season.  Really the Giants's biggest problem is that they have too many big fat contracts such as Zito, Rowland, Huff, Cains, and Lincecum along with few others making over 8mm a year.  So trading Lincecum does not make any sense.  If they are planning to trade him, sound like the Giants are in the rebuilding mode for the next two years. But the Giants is more likely wanting to win it all next year by just adding a new SS (Reyes?).  
    Posted by GoUconn13[/QUOTE]
    Can these statements be reconciled?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]I'm not for "nibble moves" either, except to fill out starter depth maybe, but i also realize the reality of not being able to keep trading away the farm every year for a superstar. I try to suggest trade options that are somewhat realistic, and am often told I am offering too much, not too little like most here. Nobody is taking Lowrie and reddick for a stud starter, but I do think we have some pieces that other teams need. We may need to get creative and invlove three teams to get some real help, but I do think we can make some major improvements. I still think a low cost Cody Ross could help add .100+ points to our RF OPS next year and improve the defense over DMac out there. This would save valuable resources for other slots. If Papi walks, I could see Lava starting 115-120 games at DH with Youk getting maybe 35-40. Again, I'd be OK "going light" by using Aviles and Lowrie to fill in at 3B when Youk DHs and maybe bringing VTek back as the back-up catcher to salty (and a little from Lava). More money saved. We then keep Paps, sign another solid set-up guy, and 2-3 projects like Wang, Webb, Wake, or Chen to fight for the 6th starter/long relief guy. That leaves the remaining resources to go all out for 2 solid starting pitchers or one great one and one good 5th starter type. I do not see any top FA pitchers who will even close to their projected contract cost, so I think a trade will be best. Trading for a high prioced pitcher or a FA to be after 2012 makes the most sense, so we won't have to trade too much. I like Guthrie, Jurrjens or Hanson, Cain or Lincecum, Wandy Rodriguez, and several others as possible trade gets. If Papi stays, perhaps Youk could be dealt. We can also trade one of Reddick and Kalish and one of Iggy and Bogaerts. Maybe Lowrie could be dealt to someone for a piece that could be flipped as part of a pitcher trade. I'm not willing to trade our best 3 prospects for anyone but the very best starters in MLB. We have to keep thinking balance.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon,
    I agree given the needs and the resources we have at our disposal. The focus cleary needs to be on the aquisition of 2 proven veteran starters. I'd say that they could fill that need in FA with Wilson at the top of the list and guys like Buerhle and Jackson as fall backs even Kuroda might pique their interest...

    The real question that the Sox have to answer is related to not only the opening day starting rotation but also the organizational depth at AAA. Do they still see Doubront as a viable 5th starter and how close to being big league ready is Barnes and Ranaundo...Both of whom clearly aren't in the 2012 plans but could factor in the 2013-2014 plans if one or both step up this year and show they're on track to meet epectations. It'll have some bering on the type of starters we'll sign or aquire this offseason...The other thing that'll impact the type of pitchers we aquire the time line for Lackey's return in 2013..hopefully a healthy and ready to get back to the business of getting big league hitters out Lackey...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]It would be nice, but do not forget that Rowland and Huff's contracts run out after 2012 season.  Really the Giants's biggest problem is that they have too many big fat contracts such as Zito, Rowland, Huff, Cains, and Lincecum along with few others making over 8mm a year.  So trading Lincecum does not make any sense.  If they are planning to trade him, sound like the Giants are in the rebuilding mode for the next two years. But the Giants is more likely wanting to win it all next year by just adding a new SS (Reyes?).  
    Posted by GoUconn13[/QUOTE]The answer is always somewhere under the cloak of just are the real limitations on any team in the sport. The Giants historically have had an issue with what they can budget to payroll personnel because of the debt service on the ballpark. Zito and Huff are sunk cost, no doubt about it ($30M). But Cain and Linecumb? They aren't steals but they certainly aren't bad contracts. Cain had a 2.88 ERA and 1.083 WHIP at a cost of $7M in 2011 and $15M in 2012. Lincecum a 2.74 ERA and 1.207 WHIP at $13M in 2011.

    Lincecum's salary was very high for his years of service because of his super two stats and back to back Cy Young seasons. But $20M for those two pitchers in 2011 and $30M in 2012 if that is where Lincecumb's next arbitration ends up at, is not insane money.

    They are in a very winnable division and as they proved in 2010, once you get to post season anything can happen and good pitching never hurts your chances.

    That team scuffled last year because of an extraordinary number of injuries. If the Giants could get a windfall for one of the two starters the may do it but they don't strike me as bad investments.

    And FWIW to me Reyes is a more brittle Carl Crawford, a very over hyped player whose salary is likely to exceed best case scenario and more likely than Crawford was to disappoint.


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    What a freak of a question.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]If they don't sign Ortiz or Pap, that oughta give them enough money build a clone-morph machine and cross-clone Pujols and Lincecum, creating a super two-way force Timbert Pujolcum.  Sure, the heretofore impossible technology would cost more than the money freed up from Ortiz/Papelbon, but, Cherrington, forward thinking man he is, knows that signing the Pujolcum hybrid would still be basically half the cost of signing these two great players separately, and also, we would have the greatest 2 way player since Ruth, thus eliminating on whole roster spot.  
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    Pujolcum..... this is the exact kind of thing the Republican Party has been trying to prevent. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    He would be a fan favorite here. He reminds me a PJ Martinez...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]For a team that has the truck load of talent it will take to get him...I cant see why not. He dominates by getting swings and misses, which a lot of guys still do in the AL.
    Posted by gbman87603[/QUOTE]

    What talent are you talking about? They'd want no less than 3 major league ready prospects. The Red Sox have how many?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility? : The Sox certainly could offer a package comperable to what was proposed in the fangraphs article.  Instead of Montero/Nunez, it could be Lavarnway/Iggy as a starting point. Not saying this makes sense, just comparing to what the article says.
    Posted by JB-3[/QUOTE]

    And throw in 4 other players.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility? : The Sox could easily trade Reddick,Iggy and Exposito and even throw in Youkilis for Tim Lincecum and he would do very well in Boston provided he stays healthy,of course I could win the next big lottery jackpot because I play every week. Better chance that the Sox acquire Tim's services than me hitting the right numbers..
    Posted by sportsbozo1[/QUOTE]

    For the guys you propose? Sabean would laugh for a week straight. Reddick will never amount to anything, Iggy isn't ready and can't hit AAA pitching. Youk is on the way down, and Exposito? Please.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]Insanity is making the same mistake and expecting different results. so let's try and trade our number one SS prospect again, and while we're at it, our best catching prospect offensively. Couldn't you also say it was a mistake not to trade Lowrie, Lars Anderson, and countless other top prospects from the past when their stock was highest? We have Bogaerts, who many now feel is better than Iggy, so trading one to help get a great starter would be worth it to me.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Right but neither would do anything to get Lincecum. If they included Ellsbury, yes.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from peanutandme. Show peanutandme's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    Tim Lincecum is not coming to Boston.

    Prince Fielder is not coming to Boston.

    Albert Pujols is not coming to Boston.

    Just because some news paper reporter wants to write a story, don't believe everything you read. Lincecum is not getting traded, period.

    The Giants won the WS last year, have a very good team capable of winning their division any year, so why would the Giants want to trade away one of the top five pitchers in baseball?

    Certainly their are plenty of player's who are  tradable who Boston would make a offer for, but Lincecum is not one of them.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility? : For the guys you propose? Sabean would laugh for a week straight. Reddick will never amount to anything, Iggy isn't ready and can't hit AAA pitching. Youk is on the way down, and Exposito? Please.
    Posted by ADG[/QUOTE]

    Reddck had a .784 OPS last year.  Ain't chopped liver.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility? : The Sox certainly could offer a package comperable to what was proposed in the fangraphs article.  Instead of Montero/Nunez, it could be Lavarnway/Iggy as a starting point. Not saying this makes sense, just comparing to what the article says.
    Posted by JB-3[/QUOTE]

    Not for nothing, but how do these writers get paid?  Even if Montero can catch, which is still a question, they already have one of the best young catchers in BB.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility? : Not for nothing, but how do these writers get paid?  Even if Montero can catch, which is still a question, they already have one of the best young catchers in BB.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]Same way Carfardo writes in his last mailbag he thins the Rs should sign Reyes and trade Iggy.

    And if Reyes had his typical often injured season with a .343 OBP he'd rip Cherington being Theo-Redux.

     
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility? : IF there is a opportunity like this, I say its a steal for sox. Although I wonder why would Giants send Lincecum just fo Lowrie and Reddick? I think it will take more than that.
    Posted by lhtak

    Look again:
    The Giants get Cueto, Reddick and Lowrie for Lincecum.
    We get Lincecum and Rolen for Youk, Lowrie, Reddick, Weiland and Iggy.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    Don't want him. Just a matter of time before that kid's shoulder explodes.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from lhtak. Show lhtak's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    If Lincecum is really available, I dont mind placing any or combinations of the below players on this trade. He is someone who can help the Sox years to come. I would do the same for Felix as well.

    1) Youk
    2) Els
    4) Dice-K
    3) Lackey
    4) Iggy
    5) Reddick
    6) Lowrie
    7) Weiland and any other minor league player except Lawarnway.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    In Response to Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?:
    [QUOTE]How about this as a framework to work something out? 1) We sign Papi. 2) We trade Youk ($12M), Iggy and Weiland to Cincy. 3) Cincy sends Johnny Cueto to SF and Scott Rolen ($6.5M/'12) to Boston. 4) We send Lowrie and Reddick to SF. 5) SF sends us Lincecum. (I actually would not mind Cueto coming here)
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    I can't see the Reds trading their 25-year-old stud starter and Scott Rolen for Kevin Youkilis, Jose Iglesias and Kyle Weiland.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tim Lincecum a possibility?

    How about this as a framework to work something out?

    1) We sign Papi.
    2) We trade Youk ($12M), Iggy and Weiland to Cincy.
    3) Cincy sends Johnny Cueto to SF and Scott Rolen ($6.5M/'12) to Boston.
    4) We send Lowrie and Reddick to SF.
    5) SF sends us Lincecum.

    (I actually would not mind Cueto coming here)

     

Share