Randy Winn

MS <none DeleteThis @attbi.com> wrote in news:2008081807385316807-none@attbicom:

> Look at Lastings Milledge down near the bottom of the pack. I'm glad
> Sabean didn't trade one of our starting pitchers for him!

The obvious starting pitcher to trade at the time was Noah Lowry.

Milledge is 23 this season, and is hitting a bit worse than Winn. I'd
much rather have Milledge than Lowry. I have no idea if the Mets would
have done it last year, but it's very reasonable that they might have
(and of course the Giants could have tossed in anything on the roster at
that point other than Lincecum, Cain, and Sanchez, without any cost to
this year's Giants or the future).

I still think that failing to move Lowry mid-season last year was a
bigger mistake in terms of on-field cost than signing Zito.

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

Jonathan Bernstein wrote:

> I still think that failing to move Lowry mid-season last year was a
> bigger mistake in terms of on-field cost than signing Zito.

Maybe, but that's hard to say without knowing who we would have ended up
spending Zito's money on.
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

On Aug 18, 2:03 pm, Brent Peterson <brentpeterso....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> bgg wrote:
> >> I like Winn but simply cannot BELIEVE the Devil Rays haven't traded
> >> for him considering their lack of maturity and rash of injuries.
> >> Downright peculiar if you ask me.
>
> > Here's the probably explanation. They don't think that Winn is any
> > better than what they already have, and/or Sabean is overvaluing Winn
> > compared to what the Rays are willing to trade, and perhaps not
> > willing to eat any salary.
>
> I'll vote for the "overvaluing Winn" option.  Just a couple of weeks
> ago, Sabean offered up Randy Winn as an example of the type of player he
> wants to acquire via trades and free agency.  I have little doubt that
> Sabean overestimates Winn's value.
>
>    Also, Crawford is expected to be back fro
>
> > the playoffs, (and Longoria is expected back by Sept. 1), so if the
> > Rays think that they have enough to make the playoffs without Winn,
> > then there's no point in trading for him since he'd sit behind
> > Crawford.  Also, there are probably other slap hitting outfielders
> > available that are comparable to Winn, and might be cheaper, e.g
> > Pierre, Payton.
>
> Pierre and Payton are not comparable to Winn.  They are both much, much
> worse.  Neither hits well enough to be on a major league roster, even
> though they both can (kinda) play CF.  If Pierre were making <1 million
> a year, a team might be able to justify having him around as a 5th
> OF/pinch runner type.  But with his big contract (bigger than Winn's),
> there's no reason any team would want him.
>
> -Brent

I agree with you about Pierre, except that the Dodgers are likely
willing to eat enough of Pierre's salary to make it palatable to the
acquiring team. Payton on the other hand has a much more modest
salary, and is a free agent at the end of 2008. Winn's signed through
2009 for another $8.25 million, and Pierre is signed through 2011
())))) ), with $28.5 million remaining. Of course, we also have
Roberts signed through 2009 as well for $6.5 million. It seems like
one or both of Roberts and Winn needs to be gone before Spring
Training.
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

Jamal Bernhard <noone DeleteThis @nowhere.net> wrote in
news:_Riqk.21924$N87.11782@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
>
>> I still think that failing to move Lowry mid-season last year was a
>> bigger mistake in terms of on-field cost than signing Zito.
>
> Maybe, but that's hard to say without knowing who we would have ended
> up spending Zito's money on.

No question, although I do think that most of the money would have wound
up in ownership's pockets. But they would have spent some on someone,
and that player might well have been better than Zito.

OTOH, if they had traded Lowry for a league-average, cheap, CF, then the
Rowand money would be available for something else...not that there's
any guarantee that they would have spent that money, or if they did that
they would have spent it on something worthwhile.

I'll absolutely agree that there's no way to know anything for sure
about this stuff.

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

Jonathan Bernstein wrote:

>>> I still think that failing to move Lowry mid-season last year was a
>>> bigger mistake in terms of on-field cost than signing Zito.
>>
>> Maybe, but that's hard to say without knowing who we would have ended
>> up spending Zito's money on.
>
> No question, although I do think that most of the money would have wound
> up in ownership's pockets. But they would have spent some on someone,
> and that player might well have been better than Zito.
>
> OTOH, if they had traded Lowry for a league-average, cheap, CF, then the
> Rowand money would be available for something else...not that there's
> any guarantee that they would have spent that money, or if they did that
> they would have spent it on something worthwhile.
>
> I'll absolutely agree that there's no way to know anything for sure
> about this stuff.

The one thing I feel pretty sure about is that management was doomed to make a
mistake with the money they gave Zito. It was clear that with Bonds on the way
out they felt the team needed a "marquee name" who would represent and be the
face of the Giants going forward. You're asking for trouble when you make
decisions based on these types of factors instead of actual talent. If it hadn't
been Zito, they would have over-spent on someone else who fit that mold, though
whoever that might have been would probably not have crashed and burned as badly
as Zito has.
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

Brent Peterson <brentpeterson01.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:48a9e4e2$1@darkstar:

> bgg wrote:
>
>>> I like Winn but simply cannot BELIEVE the Devil Rays haven't traded
>>> for him considering their lack of maturity and rash of injuries.
>>> Downright peculiar if you ask me.
>>
>> Here's the probably explanation. They don't think that Winn is any
>> better than what they already have, and/or Sabean is overvaluing Winn
>> compared to what the Rays are willing to trade, and perhaps not
>> willing to eat any salary.
>
> I'll vote for the "overvaluing Winn" option. Just a couple of weeks
> ago, Sabean offered up Randy Winn as an example of the type of player
> he wants to acquire via trades and free agency. I have little doubt
> that Sabean overestimates Winn's value.

Could be, but I don't see why the Rays would give up much for him. He's
probably better than Gross, but not a whole lot...I doubt if it would be
worth one win over six weeks (plus or minus two wins). The Rays have had
some injuries, but they are fairly deep in mediocre corner OFers.

> Also, Crawford is expected to be back fro
>> the playoffs, (and Longoria is expected back by Sept. 1), so if the
>> Rays think that they have enough to make the playoffs without Winn,
>> then there's no point in trading for him since he'd sit behind
>> Crawford. Also, there are probably other slap hitting outfielders
>> available that are comparable to Winn, and might be cheaper, e.g
>> Pierre, Payton.
>
> Pierre and Payton are not comparable to Winn. They are both much,
> much worse. Neither hits well enough to be on a major league roster,
> even though they both can (kinda) play CF. If Pierre were making <1
> million a year, a team might be able to justify having him around as a
> 5th OF/pinch runner type. But with his big contract (bigger than
> Winn's), there's no reason any team would want him.

Those two guys are clearly worse than Winn, but it's a fair point that
there are lots of guys who are within a win or so of Winn (sorry) over six
weeks. If the Rays wanted someone, and Sabean held out for a serious
prospect, they could just move on to whatever the Orioles or Mariners or
Padres were willing to move for less.

Plus he has a history there, right (curse you, baseball-reference -- how
dare you be down for a couple days every several years)? The old rule
applies to this kind of speculation: never assume that any particular trade
or signing is available, even if it seems to make some sense from outside.
It's reasonable to speculate that Winn might have been moved at the
deadline for X, but not to assume that he could be moved to a particular
team right now for X.

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
> Brent Peterson <brentpeterson01.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in

>>> Here's the probably explanation. They don't think that Winn is any
>>> better than what they already have, and/or Sabean is overvaluing Winn
>>> compared to what the Rays are willing to trade, and perhaps not
>>> willing to eat any salary.
>> I'll vote for the "overvaluing Winn" option. Just a couple of weeks
>> ago, Sabean offered up Randy Winn as an example of the type of player
>> he wants to acquire via trades and free agency. I have little doubt
>> that Sabean overestimates Winn's value.
>
> Could be, but I don't see why the Rays would give up much for him. He's
> probably better than Gross, but not a whole lot...I doubt if it would be
> worth one win over six weeks (plus or minus two wins). The Rays have had
> some injuries, but they are fairly deep in mediocre corner OFers.

You're right. Although I do think it likely that Sabean overvalues
Winn, the Rays may not have been interested at all.



>> Pierre and Payton are not comparable to Winn. They are both much,
>> much worse. Neither hits well enough to be on a major league roster,
>> even though they both can (kinda) play CF. If Pierre were making <1
>> million a year, a team might be able to justify having him around as a
>> 5th OF/pinch runner type. But with his big contract (bigger than
>> Winn's), there's no reason any team would want him.
>
> Those two guys are clearly worse than Winn, but it's a fair point that
> there are lots of guys who are within a win or so of Winn (sorry) over six
> weeks. If the Rays wanted someone, and Sabean held out for a serious
> prospect, they could just move on to whatever the Orioles or Mariners or
> Padres were willing to move for less.

Agreed. And I think it's very unlikely that any team would part with a
first-rate prospect for Randy Winn. I'd settle for a prospect that,
say, has a 50% chance of being league average for his position. (I'm
not sure if such a standard meets your definition of a "serious" prospect.)



> Plus he has a history there, right (curse you, baseball-reference -- how
> dare you be down for a couple days every several years)?

I had no idea. I somehow didn't notice that he played in Tampa Bay for
five years. He even made the All-Star team in his last year with the
Rays.

-Brent
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

"Brent Peterson" <brentpeterson01 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48ab5644$1@darkstar...
> Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
>> Brent Peterson <brentpeterson01 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
>
>>>> Here's the probably explanation. They don't think that Winn is any
>>>> better than what they already have, and/or Sabean is overvaluing Winn
>>>> compared to what the Rays are willing to trade, and perhaps not
>>>> willing to eat any salary.
>>> I'll vote for the "overvaluing Winn" option. Just a couple of weeks
>>> ago, Sabean offered up Randy Winn as an example of the type of player
>>> he wants to acquire via trades and free agency. I have little doubt
>>> that Sabean overestimates Winn's value.
>>
>> Could be, but I don't see why the Rays would give up much for him. He's
>> probably better than Gross, but not a whole lot...I doubt if it would be
>> worth one win over six weeks (plus or minus two wins). The Rays have had
>> some injuries, but they are fairly deep in mediocre corner OFers.
>
> You're right. Although I do think it likely that Sabean overvalues Winn,
> the Rays may not have been interested at all.
>
>
>
>>> Pierre and Payton are not comparable to Winn. They are both much,
>>> much worse. Neither hits well enough to be on a major league roster,
>>> even though they both can (kinda) play CF. If Pierre were making <1
>>> million a year, a team might be able to justify having him around as a
>>> 5th OF/pinch runner type. But with his big contract (bigger than
>>> Winn's), there's no reason any team would want him.
>>
>> Those two guys are clearly worse than Winn, but it's a fair point that
>> there are lots of guys who are within a win or so of Winn (sorry) over
>> six weeks. If the Rays wanted someone, and Sabean held out for a serious
>> prospect, they could just move on to whatever the Orioles or Mariners or
>> Padres were willing to move for less.
>
> Agreed. And I think it's very unlikely that any team would part with a
> first-rate prospect for Randy Winn. I'd settle for a prospect that, say,
> has a 50% chance of being league average for his position. (I'm not sure
> if such a standard meets your definition of a "serious" prospect.)
>
>
>
>> Plus he has a history there, right (curse you, baseball-reference -- how
>> dare you be down for a couple days every several years)?
>
> I had no idea. I somehow didn't notice that he played in Tampa Bay for
> five years. He even made the All-Star team in his last year with the
> Rays.
>
> -Brent
>
>A solid major league player is worth more than a middle of the road
>prospect.
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

Dr. Wayne Simon wrote:
> "Brent Peterson" <brentpeterson01.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Agreed. And I think it's very unlikely that any team would part with a
>> first-rate prospect for Randy Winn. I'd settle for a prospect that, say,
>> has a 50% chance of being league average for his position. (I'm not sure
>> if such a standard meets your definition of a "serious" prospect.)

[clipped discussion that wasn't relevant to the point to which you
responded]

>> A solid major league player is worth more than a middle of the road
>> prospect.

There's no need to put the comparison in the abstract. The question
here is whether Randy Winn is worth more to the Giants than a
middle-of-the-road prospect.

The Giants are, obviously, not going anywhere in 2008. It's also clear
to most that they aren't going anywhere in 2009, either. I think it's
fair to say that they aren't going anywhere until they begin to fill
their ubiquitous position player holes. The Giants need to start the
process of finding players who have at least a realistic chance to be
league average at their position for 2010 and beyond.

Randy Winn is a productive major league player. But he's 34. He's not
going to get any better, and the Giants are going to pay him 9 million
dollars next year to stand out in right field while they go 74-88. (And
the chances are good, by the way, that Winn will hit worse next year
than this year.) After 2009, Winn's contract is over. He'll be 36 and
of no use to the team.

Let's assume that the Giants could get a "middle of the road" 23-yo 3B
(or 1B or SS or OF) prospect for Winn, one that has a 50% chance of
being league average for his position. Such a prospect would cost
nothing. You run him out there in 2009 and see how he does. There's a
chance that he ends up being completely useless; there's a chance that
he ends up being nothing more than a bench player; there's a chance that
he ends up a decent starter; and there's a small but real chance that he
ends up as a better-than-average player. If the prospect coin flip
works out for the Giants, then the team has a cheap, productive player
that fills out a roster spot on the 2010 team.

So, which is worth more to a (theoretically rebuilding) Giants team: an
aging right fielder with no upside or a position player prospect with
upside? I don't think it's a close call.

-Brent
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

"Ron Johnson" <johnson.TakeThisOut@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message news:
>
> He's not *bad*, just not particularly valuable.

That's stating the obvious. You'll find very few people who think Winn
is valuable. Unfortunately, Sabean is one of them.
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

"Ron Johnson" <johnson.DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:504960b7-e79b-4dd4-95a8-054fd0bc6123@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 7:50 am, "Awesome Lincecum" <Lince....DeleteThis@sf.giants> wrote:
> > "Jonathan Bernstein" <j....DeleteThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > news:Xns9AFDEE3BC70EEjhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Greg Lentz <nodamns....DeleteThis@speakeasy.net> wrote in
> > >news:vsmha410dfdtq897g5226vfmar5hch9lpi@4ax.com:
> >
> > > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:15:49 -0700, MS <n....DeleteThis@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>Don't understand why people are down on Randy Winn. He's a solid
..300
> > > >>hitter with speed and good defense. The Giants need more like him.
Are
> > > >>you disappointed because he's not another Barry Bonds?
> >
> > > > Because he has zero power in a power position?
> >
> > > Yup; these days, if you can't keep your SLG higher than Winn's current
> > > 424, you just aren't going to be much of a corner OFer unless you're
> > > getting on base at a terrific clip, and he doesn't. He's clearly a
> > > major leaguer, but he's stretched as a starting RF. Now, there are
> > > worse, there's basically no chance that he'll be a plus player on the
> > > next good Giants team, and given his age it's unlikely that he'll be
> > > even a marginal regular on the next good Giants team.
> >
> > > He's not the reason the Giants are terrible this year...but he's
> > > basically a stopgap solution, not a long term plus.
> >
> > That's all true, but then again, *ideally* you want a plus player, but
> > you're just not gonna get a plus player (or even an average player) at
every
> > position. As of this moment, Winn's actually right around average for
NL RF
> > (but I think his BA was only .280 just 2 weeks ago; he must be red hot
> > recently). Right now he's tied (with Griffey) for 9th in OPS for NL
RFs,
> > and 36 points higher than All-Star Fukudome. hehe. I guess you can do
> > better than Winn at RF, but you can also easily do worse.
> >
> > And of course, he might not be able to sustain his current stats to
finish
> > the year. It's dangerous to look at a player's stat right when he's
having
> > a hot streak (remember Molina in May?).
> >
> > Wow, what happened to Pence? He has 17 HRs, but his OPS stinks!
> >
> > NL RF OPS
> > Lance Berkman 1.033
>
> Playing first -- he hasn't touched the OF all year. Pence
> has started all but 6 games for the Astros

Hmm... wonder why the website listed Berkman then. But that means Winn
moves up one place...


> > Ryan Ludwick .993
> > Brad Hawpe .914
> > Rick Ankiel .878
>
> He's playing mostly CF.

Winn's moving up another place?

>
> > Matt Kemp .829
> > Andre Ethier .825
>
> (Kemp has settled in CF.)

Damn, by the time this is done, Winn might be in the top 3!

> > Corey Hart .816
> > Brian Giles .810
> > Ken Griffey Jr. .787
> > Randy Winn .787
> > Skip Schumaker .786
>
> (Also of the Cardinals -- he's mostly played left)

OK, maybe I shouldn't trust the website...

> > Kosuke Fukudome .757
> > Jeremy Hermida .751
> > Hunter Pence .746
> > Lastings Milledge .730
>
> He's played center all year. Kearns is much worse)
>
> > Jeff Francoeur .645
>
> You're missing Nady, Jenkins, Church and Upton

Well, supposedly, the ones I listed are "qualified RF", so maybe these guys
don't have enough ABs?

> The starters have actually averaged .273/.346/.449
> which is unusually close to positional average.

That's right where Winn is, in terms of OPS. Winn's BA looks way better
though.
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

"Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9AFE6EF88964Fjhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.17.102...
> MS <none DeleteThis @attbi.com> wrote in news:2008081807385316807-none@attbicom:
>
> > Look at Lastings Milledge down near the bottom of the pack. I'm glad
> > Sabean didn't trade one of our starting pitchers for him!
>
> The obvious starting pitcher to trade at the time was Noah Lowry.

Sure, but I'm pretty sure at the time Sabean would've traded Sanchez before
he'd trade Lowry.

But of course, Sanchez wasn't worth much at the time; it would have to be
Sanchez plus other player(s)/prospect(s).
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn 

On Aug 20, 12:22 am, "Awesome Lincecum" <Lince... DeleteThis @sf.giants> wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <john... DeleteThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message news:
>
> > He's not *bad*, just not particularly valuable.
>
> That's stating the obvious.  You'll find very few people who think Winn
> is valuable.  Unfortunately, Sabean is one of them.

I think you're right. So, are you predicting an off-season contract
extension too?
 >> Stay informed about: Randy Winn