o
Uh...what?
No, it's not likely to hurt the team's playoff chances, as they have no playoff chances for a while barring a massive overhaul of the team. No, its' not likely to waste any of their money. No, this move alone isn't grounds to fire Sabean (although I'd argue that the overall body of Sabean's work IS enough to fire him). No, it's not a huge deal.
None of that means that, as a baseball fan, I can't give my opinion on a move and discuss it on a baseball forum.
Last edited by ohms_law; 09-08-2008 at 08:32 AM.
Registered User
Wow....I drew a different conclusion after stating in my first post that it wasn't really a big deal and explained why. After someone else did as well. After you chimed back in with talk of super prospects, super duper prospects, and super duper duper spects with cherries on top. I kind of thought you were looking to argue that this is in fact a big deal somehow had more insight on the players development than me, everyone else in the forum, and the Giants themselves.Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If we are in agreement, why are we arguing?
o
Disagreeing with a move doesn't mean I think it's a big deal. I disagree with the move to pull Cliff Lee from the game today after 104 pitches and 7 and a third innings, and then using 2 relievers to get the final 2 outs, but, it's not a big deal. I think calling up Gillaspie is a dumb move, and further shows Sabean's inability to develop position players, but, taken by itself, it's not a big deal.Wow....I drew a different conclusion after stating in my first post that it wasn't really a big deal and explained why. After someone else did as well. After you chimed back in with talk of super prospects, super duper prospects, and super duper duper spects with cherries on top. I kind of thought you were looking to argue that this is in fact a big deal somehow had more insight on the players development than me, everyone else in the forum, and the Giants themselves.
Because you're drawing assumptions that aren't true.If we are in agreement, why are we arguing?
Registered User
Very very true. But when one or actually more come in and say its not a big deal, highlight a few examples and then you go out of your way on more than one occasion to refute those reasons and never state or agree that its not a big deal....it really looks like you in fact do look at it as such, a big deal. Actually, it looks more like one refusing to admit that maybe he was wrong or made too much of an issue out of something.Disagreeing with a move doesn't mean I think it's a big deal.
See, there's a difference between discussing thoughts on a move, and trying to impose your will upon others. Had this merely been a discussion on the move, as I was trying to have, I would state as I had that i'm impartial to it as I don't see it a big deal. They know more than we do about the player, maybe it'll work maybe it wouldn't. I wouldn't go out of my way to refute your opinions with bogus talk of super prospects, and super duper prospects which can't really be discussed or argued. We all know that this is one of the Giants top prospects. Whether you want to call him solid, super, duper, or what was the other one...oh...FANTASTIC...really doesn't matter as at the level they are at (a-ball) its a crap shoot.
Sorry, I know I rub some people the wrong way....but there are many who tell me you seem to look to argue just for the sake of it. I got the sense of that here.
o
If all you said was that it wasn't a big deal, I wouldn't have disagreed. I disagreed with the idea that it was somehow an innovative, genius, smart move. In fact, at first, you didn't even say "It's not a big deal." You devised reasons that it was a GOOD move.
I'm not trying to impose my will upon others. Sorry that you feel that way. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this crap. Why is it that when I state my opinions, and debate the merits of something with someone that disagrees, I'm "trying to impose my will on others"? I can't ever simply discuss and disagree without being accused of that entirely untrue statement, and the same doesn't go for other members of the forum. I'd like to kindly ask you, and others that have made the same "accusation", to stop, and take my opinions just as you would anybody else's - as simply my opinion.See, there's a difference between discussing thoughts on a move, and trying to impose your will upon others.
As I said above, this is not how you started the discussion off. After a couple posts, you made the statement that you didn't think it was a big deal. At first, you were disagreeing with me saying that it was a bad move.Had this merely been a discussion on the move, as I was trying to have, I would state as I had that i'm impartial to it as I don't see it a big deal.
Yep, and it's my opinion that it won't. So what?They know more than we do about the player, maybe it'll work maybe it wouldn't.
I don't even know where you're going with this, except that it's pretty immature. The talk of the "super prospects" was just to show the instances of where such a decision IS a good decision. I think it's fine to call up a prospect early if he's a top-of-the-line prospect, a huge talent, a consensus top-10 prospect in the game, a guy that did well in the minors. I think it's silly to call up a prospect and waste a 40 man roster slot on a good prospect that hasn't shown much in the minors.I wouldn't go out of my way to refute your opinions with bogus talk of super prospects, and super duper prospects which can't really be discussed or argued. We all know that this is one of the Giants top prospects. Whether you want to call him solid, super, duper, or what was the other one...oh...FANTASTIC...really doesn't matter as at the level they are at (a-ball) its a crap shoot.
I posted a thread saying that I think this was a silly move. You come playing devil's advocate, and I'm the one looking to argue just for the sake of it?Sorry, I know I rub some people the wrong way....but there are many who tell me you seem to look to argue just for the sake of it. I got the sense of that here.
Registered User
Maybe rather than blame everyone else, try to look in a mirror?I'm not trying to impose my will upon others. Sorry that you feel that way. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this crap. Why is it that when I state my opinions, and debate the merits of something with someone that disagrees, I'm "trying to impose my will on others"? I can't ever simply discuss and disagree without being accused of that entirely untrue statement, and the same doesn't go for other members of the forum. I'd like to kindly ask you, and others that have made the same "accusation", to stop, and take my opinions just as you would anybody else's - as simply my opinion.
You are correct.If all you said was that it wasn't a big deal, I wouldn't have disagreed. I disagreed with the idea that it was somehow an innovative, genius, smart move. In fact, at first, you didn't even say "It's not a big deal." You devised reasons that it was a GOOD move.
After stating I'm neither for or against it, you posted this here below, which is really a bunch of nonsense that can not be substantiated in any way and extends an argument nobody was making, that this was a good or bad move. Just trying to help you out here big guy, you seem to be getting a little fed up at the reactions you get from others. I understand that at times things get misunderstood, happens to me often too.I'm playin devils advocate here....I"m not supporting the move, but am not attacking it either. I think it fair to say that there are some players that could greatly benefit from a taste in the show early in their development.
Those players tend to be of the "super prospect" type, like Alex Rodriguez. Conor Gillaspie, while a solid prospect, is far from that level. If you look at the recent list of players that were called up the same year they were drafted, it's full mostly of players that crushed the ball in the minors, like Ryan Zimmerman and Rickie Weeks. Those players also had more of a "pedigree" so to speak, as they were FANTASTIC prospects, and not just very good ones.
And as boomboom said, it starts the arbitration/free agent clock too early, as well as taking up spots on the 40-man roster.
o
Cut it out. I'm continually attacked for giving my opinions, particularly when they disagree with people, and it results in unfair accusations like the one you're making against me that I am somehow trying to "impose my beliefs" on people regarding a minor league call-up.
I'm sorry, but this paragraph confused the hell out of me.You are correct.
I was responding specifically to this:After stating I'm neither for or against it, you posted this here below, which is really a bunch of nonsense that can not be substantiated in any way and extends an argument nobody was making, that this was a good or bad move.
stating that the players that tend to benefit from a taste in the show early in their development tend to be guys in the highest rung of prospects.I think it fair to say that there are some players that could greatly benefit from a taste in the show early in their development.
Um,GM aren't you the one always arguing that 50 or 100 games isn't a large enough sample size,so 24 Is ?
Why is it such a dumb move ? From PG Crosschecker:
From going through the SFG minors there is no "ready" 3B available & Rohlinger has flunked in an almost small sample size - .103/.133/.207 & is actually better suited to SS/2B.Gillaspie furthered his reputation as one of the top hitters in college baseball this spring, hitting .421-10-77 and throwing in eight triples, 16 steals and 36 walks for added measure. He was at his best as the season wore on and hit two home runs and drove in five in the Missouri Valley Conference tournament championship game..... but there seems to be no question that he has the bat speed and hitting skills to hit line drives at all levels
There other option is playing FA to be Aurilia who is definately NOT going to be their starter in '09.So what if it starts the Arbitration clock ticking IF it shows he can handle the position & be that 3B they need in 09 ? & if he fails in the September call up what will that hurt ? (actually it won't as he will NOT serve the full month as he was CALLED up Post September 1 & thus he becomes a super 2 like Braun last year)
Overall you are more criticizing Sabean because of his other PAST decisions (& MOREOVER when was GM in another organization with OTHER aims) BUT this year he has done a reasonable job & has found some of his FUTURE players - Burriss has been good with a "nice" .276 BA & has shown he can handle SS,also the pen has found nice players in Hinshaw/Matos/Romo & some of the other rookies have had honourable mentions - power from Bowker/Sandoval has shown he is ready with a .350 BA at 21 years old.....
SFG has done "bad" this year but not as bad as some writers/analysts & posters (INCLUDING myself) predicted,WHO all predicted they would be LAST but they aren't.
Lastly:
Um Sabean doesn't DEVELOP players' he trades for them or draft's them IT IS the coaches that develop players' AS WELL as the players' themselves,who just well develop or don't but DEFINATELY not Sabean....
If anything HE has aided the Giants' this year BY not trading for Stop gap "AAAA" players & forced the organization to look ACTIVELY if their minors could/can handle MLB play - some have panned (see above),some have not (your Bocock example but also Horwitz or Timpner) BUT at least they are putting these guys UNDER REAL life action not "simulated" fire.
He even went further by dealing this year's starting 3B to the Astros (I think) in order to further scrutinize next YEAR'S 3B options - Sandoval/Gillaspie BEFORE the season ends & their PLAY will decide if the Giants play the 3B FA market - if anything pretty shrewd move in a lost season & may save the Giants' 10's OF MILLIONS of dollars if Either/both actually have a good/great September.
o
Never said that.Um,GM aren't you the one always arguing that 50 or 100 games isn't a large enough sample size,so 24 Is ?
And they're definitely not going to make the playoffs this year, so why not play Aurilia there the rest of the season, and then see what Gillaspie does in spring training before deciding whether or not to put him on the 40 man roster, tying up a spot when he very well may not be ready?There other option is playing FA to be Aurilia who is definately NOT going to be their starter in '09.
Sabean and his front office makes the decisions on who to trade for and draft and who to put in charge of the on-field development. They've done a good job with pitchers. They've done a horrible job with position players. The last major league regular developed by them was Bill Mueller.Um Sabean doesn't DEVELOP players' he trades for them or draft's them IT IS the coaches that develop players' AS WELL as the players' themselves who just well develop....
I'd urge anybody interested in this particular call-up to read the comments on the Baseball Think Factory link I posted above, and I'll re-link it here.
Last edited by ohms_law; 09-08-2008 at 08:39 AM.
No YOU NEVER said it but implied it in your very 1st post by quoting his R-Ball stats rather than use the MUCH larger sample College stats (WHICH shows he a top class/advanced hitter).
I was simply showing that the stats sample size is very,very small to judge by & even if he was hitting 0.500/0.600/1.100 I would say the same...
Because as I said in the post & Will re post,1
& also 2:.So what if it starts the Arbitration clock ticking IF it shows he can handle the position & be that 3B they need in 09 ? & if he fails in the September call up what will that hurt ? (actually it won't as he will NOT serve the full month as he was CALLED up Post September 1 & thus he becomes a super 2 like Braun last year)
The latter is called Financial viability & also it is logical to SEE if a player can handle the pressure/position at MLB BEFORE the Hot Stove - the other way round isby dealing this year's starting 3B to the Astros (I think) in order to further scrutinize next YEAR'S 3B options - Sandoval/Gillaspie BEFORE the season ends & their PLAY will decide if the Giants play the 3B FA market - if anything pretty shrewd move in a lost season & may save the Giants' 10's OF MILLIONS of dollars if Either/both actually have a good/great September.
now that is illogical BECAUSE Spring is after FA signing period & thus the decision would be based on unknown information....see what I mean ?
Since 1997 when he was hired Sabean has over viewed 10 drafts - results as you say have been varied but very similar to MOST large organizations who use FA to build upon,below with in parentheses those still with the team:
1998 Draft 7 have become MLBers
1999 3 (Taschner still with SFG)
2000 8 (Threets 7th rounder)
2001 6 (Hennessy,Lowry)
2002 6 (Cain,Lewis who is their LF starter,Ortmeier,Correia)
2003 7 (Wilson 24th rnd,Misch,Sadler)
2004 4 (Bowker who is their 1B,Timpner,Frandsen,Sanchez 27th!)
2005 2 (Hinshaw 15th,Romo 28th)
2006 3 (Lincecum,Rohlinger,Bocock)
2007 0
2008 1 (Gillaspie)
I don't doubt that Sabean has faults but he plays with the cards MacGowan deals him (cash/Aims eg Bonds' era) but his drafting has not been as bad as some stated & this year he has definately changed strategy (post Bonds) & promoted "youth" in order to be better in 09/10
o
College stats give very little to no indication about how a player will hit in any professional league, particularly the majors.
I'm not sure what this list is supposed to prove. It certainly doesn't prove that the Giants have developed any solid major league position players.Since 1997 when he was hired Sabean has over viewed 10 drafts - results as you say have been varied but very similar to MOST large organizations who use FA to build upon,below with in parentheses those still with the team:
1998 Draft 7 have become MLBers
1999 3 (Taschner still with SFG)
2000 8 (Threets 7th rounder)
2001 6 (Hennessy,Lowry)
2002 6 (Cain,Lewis who is their LF starter,Ortmeier,Correia)
2003 7 (Wilson 24th rnd,Misch,Sadler)
2004 4 (Bowker who is their 1B,Timpner,Frandsen,Sanchez 27th!)
2005 2 (Hinshaw 15th,Romo 28th)
2006 3 (Lincecum,Rohlinger,Bocock)
2007 0
2008 1 (Gillaspie)
Anyway, whatever. I guess I'll just never criticize or disagree with any decision by any front office because general managers are infallible and always make the right decision.
Just to resumé this (from MLB.com):
& without being a critique doesn't a professional baseball organisation know something about players' they see 24/24 & 7/7 since they signed for X million(s) & have scouted BEFORE numerous times?Bobby Evans, the Giants' director of player personnel, explained Gillaspie's promotion by citing the left-handed batter's offensive potential and the team's void at third base, where no certain regular is penciled in for 2009. Moreover, the list of potential free-agent third basemen is headed by injury-plagued veterans such as Joe Crede and Hank Blalock and 35-year-old Casey Blake.
"We have some decisions to make this offseason," Evans said. "Having a chance to evaluate [Gillaspie] at this level is very important."
Gillaspie, the 37th overall selection in the Draft, hit a combined .269 with no home runs and 15 RBIs in 24 games for the Giants' Rookie-level Arizona League affiliate and short-season Salem-Keizer. But Evans indicated that Gillaspie's potential transcended those statistics.
"I think [with] the bat ... every staff person who has seen him come through Arizona and Salem has been very impressed," Evans said. "And he plays a key position for us right now. He's in the right place at the right time."
Said Gillaspie, who'll report to the Giants' instructional-league camp in Arizona after the regular season ends, "It's more of a learning experience for me to be up here."
Asked about comparisons made between Gillaspie and former Giants third baseman Bill Mueller, Evans said that Gillaspie is more offensively advanced than Mueller was at the same stage, although Mueller was more polished defensively.
I mean they brought him up,not to sell tickets, BUT because they think he will be an asset in 09 & in the future ....
Did they do wrong bringing up Sandoval ? Or Burriss or isn't September THE TIME teams' who aren't in the playoffs cameo players for the following season ?
Registered User
French....will you stop making all kinds of sense for crying out loud.
French....will you stop making all kinds of sense for crying out loud.
o
Fine, major league organizations are infallible and can never make wrong or stupid decisions, as evidenced by the fact that whenever I disagree with a decision they make, inevitably, you or dickay (usually) immediately have to tell me why I'm wrong and the front office is right. Always. Front offices are infallible.
Sandoval has been in the minors for 4 years. This year he showed significant improvement, raking in High-A before being promoted to AA, where he continued to rake, all as a 21 year old. Such a rapid ascent and strong performance for his age deserves a promotion. Beyond that, he's starting to near the professional service time where he must be protected on the 40 man roster or be subject to the Rule V draft. Burriss is 23 already and a defense/speed-first player.Did they do wrong bringing up Sandoval ? Or Burriss or isn't September THE TIME teams' who aren't in the playoffs cameo players for the following season ?
Neither have parallels with Gillaspie, who is in his first professional season, and as a 20 year old, hit poorly in Rookie/Low-A.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
