PDA

View Full Version : Giants Sign Randy Johnson



redsfandan
12-26-2008, 10:15 PM
Giants Sign Randy Johnson By Ben Nicholson-Smith [December 26 at 8:46pm CST]

The Giants have signed Randy Johnson to a one year deal, the team announced in a press release. The terms of the deal aren't yet known. Andrew Baggarly and Ken Rosenthal were right on this one.

Johnson joins fellow-Cy Young Award winners Tim Lincecum and Barry Zito in a San Francisco rotation that also includes Matt Cain and Jonathan Sanchez.

Newman4
12-26-2008, 10:32 PM
Three lefties in the rotation.

TheNext44
12-26-2008, 10:41 PM
Maybe this will free up Sanchez?

Trade EE for Sanchez, sign Wiggington. Trade Arroyo for a SS. Andrus? That frees up more money to sign Dunn. ;) ....Or Burrell.

Edd Roush
12-26-2008, 10:49 PM
Maybe this will free up Sanchez?

Trade EE for Sanchez, sign Wiggington. Trade Arroyo for a SS. Andrus? That frees up more money to sign Dunn. ;) ....Or Burrell.

If the Giants think that signing a 45 year old Randy Johnson now makes Johnathan Sanchez dispensible, they never deserve to enjoy success in my life time. Johnson is a dinosaur and should not be counted on for anything more than a #5 starter. Sanchez, on the other hand, is our equivalent of Johnny Cueto. He is a rising star and should not be dealt for a defensively challenged third baseman.

That being said, if the Giants do call the Reds and offer Jonathan Sanchez for EdE, I do that deal in a heartbeat. However, my twist is I would not trade Arroyo and I would just plug Sanchez into the 5 hole and let him produce without the pressure of being a #4.

I really wish the Reds could make this deal, sign Wiggington and sign Burrell or Dunn and then trade minor league chips for an Andrus/Brandon Wood/Andino. This is the series of moves I would make to make the Reds interesting next year and make them a legit challenger to the Cubs for 2010.

redsfandan
12-26-2008, 11:32 PM
MLB.com's Chris Haft heard from a baseball source that the deal guarantees the Big Unit $8MM in 2009 and includes performance bonuses that could reach $2.5MM and award bonuses that could reach another $2.5MM. The AP agrees.

757690
12-26-2008, 11:54 PM
He should make that up with the added attendance in the games he starts.
This may sound crazy, but with that rotation, and all the cutbacks the d- backs are making, I could see the giants having a better record in 09 than the d- backs

Ghosts of 1990
12-27-2008, 01:00 AM
Glad to see he's still gonna be part of MLB.

They were intent on finding another lefty.

NorrisHopper30
12-27-2008, 02:15 AM
He should make that up with the added attendance in the games he starts.
This may sound crazy, but with that rotation, and all the cutbacks the d- backs are making, I could see the giants having a better record in 09 than the d- backs

The Giants still suck, they are awful.

CincyRed44
12-27-2008, 07:32 AM
With this signing does it free up Jonathan Sanchez to be traded? What would it realistically take to get him? Encarnacion +?

Andrus is an intriguing acquisition but just Arroyo is not going land him. That trade would include something like Arroyo, Thompson OR Bailey AND Burton. They want young solid MLB ready pitching. OBTW... The Giants have lots more to offer along those lines then the Reds. This would deplete our pitching staff greatly not sure it's worth it.

ChatterRed
12-27-2008, 11:59 AM
We could have had RJ for $8 million and only a 1 year deal?

Fire Jocketty.

Would have solidified our 5th starter position without trading away prospects or major leaguers.

I'm starting to get sick of how the Reds are doing nothing.

Edd Roush
12-27-2008, 12:10 PM
We could have had RJ for $8 million and only a 1 year deal?

Fire Jocketty.

Would have solidified our 5th starter position without trading away prospects or major leaguers.

I'm starting to get sick of how the Reds are doing nothing.

How exactly do you reach the conclusion that the Reds could have signed Randy Johnson for $8 million? Just because he was willing to sign for that much doesn't mean he would sign for that much here.

I'm glad Jocketty didn't plunk down that much money for the fifth spot in the rotation. We still have black holes in leftfield and shortstop that need to be remedied way before we start worrying about the fifth spot of the rotation that already has two viable candidates (Rameriez and Owings).

Newman4
12-27-2008, 12:14 PM
We could have had RJ for $8 million and only a 1 year deal?

Fire Jocketty.

Would have solidified our 5th starter position without trading away prospects or major leaguers.

I'm starting to get sick of how the Reds are doing nothing.

I'd rather take my chances with Brad Penny or Ben Sheets for similar money, give or take.

jmac
12-27-2008, 12:43 PM
How exactly do you reach the conclusion that the Reds could have signed Randy Johnson for $8 million? Just because he was willing to sign for that much doesn't mean he would sign for that much here.

I'm glad Jocketty didn't plunk down that much money for the fifth spot in the rotation. We still have black holes in leftfield and shortstop that need to be remedied way before we start worrying about the fifth spot of the rotation that already has two viable candidates (Rameriez and Owings).
I agree with all your points. You never know with Johnson's age, how he will hold up and I would rather put the money in better places.

Slyder
12-27-2008, 01:12 PM
Plus he's west coast guy isnt it? We'd have to give him ridiculous money for him to come this far east. Plus Johnson hasnt exactly had the cleanest bill of health 45 with a bad back how many starts can you be certain of.

TheNext44
12-27-2008, 03:20 PM
We could have had RJ for $8 million and only a 1 year deal?

Fire Jocketty.

Would have solidified our 5th starter position without trading away prospects or major leaguers.

I'm starting to get sick of how the Reds are doing nothing.

I agree that we should have signed Randy if given the chance, but I read on MLBTR that Johnson only even looked at offers from the West Coast.

Edd Roush
12-27-2008, 03:33 PM
I agree with all your points. You never know with Johnson's age, how he will hold up and I would rather put the money in better places.

Well, looking back, I would much rather have given Randy Johnson 30 million dollars and spend all available money for next year than "save money" and give it to Willy Taveres. I think I am going to need a break from Redszone for a while.

jmac
12-27-2008, 04:21 PM
Well, looking back, I would much rather have given Randy Johnson 30 million dollars and spend all available money for next year than "save money" and give it to Willy Taveres. I think I am going to need a break from Redszone for a while.

You are assuming Walt is done for winter which I dont think he is.

redsfandan
12-27-2008, 07:19 PM
I've always been a fan of Randy Johnson but I'm actually glad he won't pitch for us in '09. If you look at what he did in 2008 his May start in Atlanta was his only start outside of the parks in his home division where he was the Big Unit of old. Based on his other 2008 road starts if we had signed him he probably would have been just as likely to have games for us where he allowed 5 runs or more in 6 innings as games where he allowed 2 or 3 runs. The NL West parks (and lineups) will just help him more and the NL Central parks (and lineups) would have meant more ugly games.

Also, he will paid a BASE of $8 million and could be paid as much as $13 million when incentives are included. The final bill will likely be around $10m but for us it would be $10m (or more) for 160+ innings and an era well over 4. We already have options like Ramirez and Owings who could do that, or come pretty close, and for ALOT less than $8-13m.

Imo, he should be elected to the Hall of Fame in his first year on the ballot but that doesn't mean he would have made sense for us in '09 at this point in his career.

redsfandan
12-27-2008, 08:28 PM
Maybe this will free up Sanchez?

If the Giants think that signing a 45 year old Randy Johnson now makes Johnathan Sanchez dispensible, they never deserve to enjoy success in my life time. Johnson is a dinosaur and should not be counted on for anything more than a #5 starter. Sanchez, on the other hand, is our equivalent of Johnny Cueto. He is a rising star and should not be dealt for a defensively challenged third baseman.

With this signing does it free up Jonathan Sanchez to be traded? What would it realistically take to get him? Encarnacion +?

We shouldn't be too surprised by what some teams may do. :eek::p::rolleyes:


Giants Will Listen To Proposals Involving Sanchez By Ben Jones [December 27 at 6:58pm CST]
Now that the San Francisco Giants have lefty veteran Randy Johnson locked up, they are willing to listen to offers involving Jonathan Sanchez. Chris Haft of MLB.com asked Giants general manager Brian Sabean about the possibility after signing Johnson.

From Haft:

"We're going to have to be open-minded," Sabean said, although he repeated that he wouldn't obtain a player who's eligible for free agency after 2009.

The Giants have been listed as one of the teams who might be a good trade partner with the New York Yankees for a corner outfielder, in particular Xavier Nady, but he doesn't meet Sabean's requirement regarding free agency. Nady's contract ends after the '09 season.

ChatterRed
12-28-2008, 12:54 PM
I've always been a fan of Randy Johnson but I'm actually glad he won't pitch for us in '09. If you look at what he did in 2008 his May start in Atlanta was his only start outside of the parks in his home division where he was the Big Unit of old. Based on his other 2008 road starts if we had signed him he probably would have been just as likely to have games for us where he allowed 5 runs or more in 6 innings as games where he allowed 2 or 3 runs. The NL West parks (and lineups) will just help him more and the NL Central parks (and lineups) would have meant more ugly games.

Also, he will paid a BASE of $8 million and could be paid as much as $13 million when incentives are included. The final bill will likely be around $10m but for us it would be $10m (or more) for 160+ innings and an era well over 4. We already have options like Ramirez and Owings who could do that, or come pretty close, and for ALOT less than $8-13m.

Imo, he should be elected to the Hall of Fame in his first year on the ballot but that doesn't mean he would have made sense for us in '09 at this point in his career.

The dude is healthier now than he's been in years. I know he's not the same RJ, but for a team that posted an e.r.a. over 7.00 at the 5th starter spot, it sure would be nice to have solidified this position. And everyone conveniently forgets we have no lefthanded starter.

So he wouldn't come East? Fine. That is the end of the story, but my point still stands.........that the Reds are doing nothing while others are making some prudent smart moves.

Ugghhhh Taveras.

redsfandan
12-28-2008, 02:54 PM
I really, really, REALLY hope people don't think it would have been smart for us to outbid San Francisco for him.

ChatterRed
12-28-2008, 06:25 PM
I really, really, REALLY hope people don't think it would have been smart for us to outbid San Francisco for him.

No but I think it would be smart to solidify the 5th starter position. It could be considered solely responsible for the Reds lousy finish in the standings last year. I remember analyzing wins and losses and e.r.a. from the 5th starter position last year and it was beyond ugly, with a plus 7.00 e.r.a. and like 20+ losses..........it was a huge reason for the Reds lack of success, and so many on here just dismiss what could possibly be one of the most important areas of need. The Reds could seriously gain 10 more wins in the standings just by having a competent 5th starter.

But I guess we'll do what we always do and go into the '09 ready to let all of the also-rans duke it out for the 5th position. :rolleyes:

redsfandan
12-28-2008, 10:06 PM
I definitely wouln't consider the 5th starter position "solely responsible for the Reds lousy finish in the standings last year". When you looked at the 5th starter stats did you compare them to what ALL of the other teams received from their 5th starter(s)? My point is that teams sometimes end up with "ugly" production from their #5. It's not just us.

I'd have no problem if we picked up someone like Mulder cheap but I think you're really selling the "also-rans" we have now a little short. Personally I think that's where the team could be improved already. So, I'll just disagree with your opinion of our current 5th starter candidates.

ChatterRed
12-29-2008, 10:30 AM
I definitely wouln't consider the 5th starter position "solely responsible for the Reds lousy finish in the standings last year". When you looked at the 5th starter stats did you compare them to what ALL of the other teams received from their 5th starter(s)? My point is that teams sometimes end up with "ugly" production from their #5. It's not just us.

I'd have no problem if we picked up someone like Mulder cheap but I think you're really selling the "also-rans" we have now a little short. Personally I think that's where the team could be improved already. So, I'll just disagree with your opinion of our current 5th starter candidates.

Same attitude as every year. Never fails.

Why compare every team's 5th starter production? I'm just talking about the Reds. If other teams want to try and "get by" with some filler material in the 5th starter spot, that's their problem. Why do the Reds have to do the same?

"Solely" was a bit strong, but it was one of the top 3 reasons easily.

Blood Red Path
12-29-2008, 02:42 PM
My question would be... why are you so convinced that the 5th starter spot isn't already improved over last year??

We didn't have Owings last year until down the stretch, given a full year we could expect, based off 162 game projections from his 2-year carreer...

180 IP/10 W/177 H/136 K/64 BB/sub-5.00 ERA/1.32 WHIP/ and an ERA+ dangerously close to league average(for those who put stock in those things).

And that is not taking into account improvement by a 26 year old player, and also considering last season as statistically valid for these conclusions and not calling it what it likely was- just a sophomore slump(considering he still had less hits than innings pitched and a better than 2-1 K/BB ratio).

OWINGS CAREER #'S:
____age W L G GS IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA ERA+ WHIP
2007 - 24 8 8 29 27 152.7 146 81 73 20 50 106 4.30 109 1.28
2008 - 25 6 9 22 18 104.7 104 73 69 14 41 87 5.93 77 1.38

If we get something close to Owings 2007 or even his young career avg., then we will be good at the #5 spot.

redsfandan
12-30-2008, 03:33 AM
... If other teams want to try and "get by" with some filler material in the 5th starter spot, that's their problem. Why do the Reds have to do the same? ....

I don't think that's what the Reds are doing at all. We have 2-3 prospects and another young pitcher that was very solid in his rookie year. No "filler". No "also-rans". And no journeymen pitchers. Just young, cheap pitchers with upside. That's what a team like the Reds have to do with the 5th starter spot. They can't afford to spend $8-13m on a 5th starter when that money is needed to be spent on a leftfielder.

The 5th starter candidates we have now are better than what we have had in years and could possibly come close to matching what Johnson would do if he pitched for us. I'll agree that we'll have a problem if we end up with a 7+ era from that spot in '09 but I think we could have a sub 5.50 era and it would be hard to complain about that. And I'd MUCH rather use what money we have to spend on a leftfielder with power so we don't have Hairston as our starting leftfielder.

ChatterRed
12-30-2008, 01:14 PM
I don't think that's what the Reds are doing at all. We have 2-3 prospects and another young pitcher that was very solid in his rookie year. No "filler". No "also-rans". And no journeymen pitchers. Just young, cheap pitchers with upside. That's what a team like the Reds have to do with the 5th starter spot. They can't afford to spend $8-13m on a 5th starter when that money is needed to be spent on a leftfielder.

The 5th starter candidates we have now are better than what we have had in years and could possibly come close to matching what Johnson would do if he pitched for us. I'll agree that we'll have a problem if we end up with a 7+ era from that spot in '09 but I think we could have a sub 5.50 era and it would be hard to complain about that. And I'd MUCH rather use what money we have to spend on a leftfielder with power so we don't have Hairston as our starting leftfielder.


I guess I just think bigger than everyone else. I want a 5th starter and a leftfielder with power. :D:thumbup:

Hybrid
12-30-2008, 03:29 PM
I don't think the Reds could have outbidded the Giants for him. He made it pretty clear that he wanted to be on the West Coast.

flash
12-31-2008, 10:48 PM
I think the Reds could get Sanchez for Bailey and Keppinger. The Giants really want a 3bman so they can move sandoval to first. The Reds could also offer Bailey and Rosales and see is the Giants bite. If the Reds offered Keppinger I would like to get a minor leaguer in return. The question is who would the Reds want. The Giants farm system doesn't have a lot to offer.

Herb Tarlek
01-04-2009, 05:14 AM
I still think that it would be premature to give up on Bailey.
He certainly has more upside than Sanchez.

Jerry Narron
01-04-2009, 08:37 AM
You are assuming Walt is done for winter which I dont think he is.
After he signs Hairston Jr he'll be done.