Either Cain or Lincecum are years away from being able to garner a Santana-like package. JS is 29 - this is who he is and will be - one of the best pitchers in all of baseball. The risk factor associated with the acquisition of Santana is pretty much only injury-based.

Cain and Lincecum present equivalent if not greater injury risks and also present the risk of not panning out.

This issue of "mileage" is overrated and also cuts both ways. Santana has proven that he can pitch full seasons and post-seasons and be effective. Indeed, the performance of Fausto Carmona and CC Sabathia come playoff time illustrates the difference.

Would Cain or Lincecum garner a nice package via trade? Sure. But there is a reason why Cain and Lincecum are cheaper commodities right now, they are for the most part unproven.

"Milwaukee, the Yankees and the Giants are among the teams which have expressed interest in Troy Percival. "

I'm not sure I agree the Giants are dealing from a position of strength. Much like 3B and CF, the market, in this case trade market, is starting to be saturated with starting pitchers. Usually I'd think that impossible, but because the demands seem to be so extreme, there won't be much movement so the pitchers will remain available. Garza was one, but supposedly the A's are dangling Blanton and Haren while the Orioles are open to moving Bedard. Toss in Santana, Dontrelle, and maybe even Peavy...

The key in any market is to stay ahead of the curve. If pitching heavy teams like the Twins, A's and Padres are going to break up above avg. starting rotations and deal 1s and 2s who still make their recipients no more than average from a starting pitching standpoint, the Giants have more to gain by keeping their rotation relatively intact. If the Padres deal Peavy, it is easily the division's best. So rather than give up Cain or Lincecum for a couple of young bats, strengthen the bullpen (the Giants have missed out on a couple affordable options already) so that innings 7, 8, and 9 are relatively locked down, and stay focused on defense.

A team built that way will contend in the West with some luck, and they'll be able to hold down the fort without blowing any salary flexibility in 2009 and 2010. By that point, the next wave of offensive prospects have hopefully been identified and are ready to see some time, hopefully 3 of the group of Ortmeier, Schierholtz, Lewis, Frandsen, and Player X (a prospect they can acquire for Sanchez let's say) have turned into certifiable keepers, and with the available payroll the team can sign or trade for a power bat or 2.

Oh, and as far as Percival goes, supposedly he's close on a multiyear deal with the Rays. I really like the restraint Sabean has shown thus far in not getting involved in this nonsense (Linebrink, Percival, Hunter, A-Rod, etc).

Thank Goodness the Giants fans are making more sense. I have always said, never trade good, young pitching when it's cheap (ineligible for free agency).

I know we need power bats, but the pickins are slim and we don't want to downgrade the good pitching we currently have for an average hiiter that we will over-pay, constraining our payroll budget for the next 3-5 years.

"we don't want to downgrade the good pitching we currently have for an average hiiter that we will over-pay, constraining our payroll budget for the next 3-5 years."

No, we certainly don't. I'm not advocating a trade for an average, overpaid hitter. For example, Delmon Young is neither average nor overpaid. If the Giants trade either Cain or Lincecum, he's the type of hitter the Giants should target. Miguel Cabrera? I'm mixed on the idea. His looming free agency scares me.

I just found this blog entry from Buster Olney, who argues the same thing but substitutes Dan Haren for Cain. Cain hasn't had the breakout year Haren had in 2007, but few will argue that it's just a matter of time.

To be clear: I'm not saying the Giants should trade Cain (or Lincecum), I'm simply pointing out why a GM looking for front-line pitching should be willing to give up the same bounty for them as he would for Santana.

"To be clear: I'm not saying the Giants should trade Cain (or Lincecum)."

I too would NOT be in favor of trading GOOD YOUNG PITCHING but the one thing that you seem to be overlooking is the "make-up" of these individuals and who you want to actually "count on" in the future regardless of how good their pitching arms are. My belief is that Matt is pretty mature for his age and will soon have that BREAKOUT year. I do however know quite a bit about Tim and feel he could do something stupid that would diminish his value. If the opportunity was there to get equal potential qulilty in return then I'd say trade Timmy before his value decreases.

Lefty, to phrase Purdie's point another way-- something that I've said before-- you trade Lincecum or Cain and you take a very good starting rotation and make it above average. However, the hitter acquired, no matter how good, takes the Giants lineup from pretty bad to below average (see last year with Bonds in the lineup). Is that worth it? No.

We're 3 hitters away from a good lineup 1-8. We can't reasonably expect to acquire 3 GOOD bats in the next 3 years. Rather than trade Cain or Lincecum for one of those, I'd rather bank that the organization finds a way to develop one of those bats in the next 3 years, and signs the other. By 2010, with legit 3-4 hitters and Cain-Lincecum-Zito performing as they should (with 2 of Lowry, Correia, Sanchez, Bumgarner, etc filling out the rotation), it's not unreasonable to figure this team can perform at a .600 clip.

On another note: Noah Lowry for Adrian Beltre... would any of you do that?

>Noah Lowry for Adrian Beltre... would any of you do that?

I would if Seattle threw in a little cash.