Since there’s little else concrete to ponder Giant-wise right now except for the umpteen permutations of an A-Rod-less lineup or the trade package necessary to snag Miguel Cabrera, I’ve been thinking some more about the Omar Vizquel deal.
One thing in the comments last week kept nagging me: the bitterness that Omar got a raise. For the record it was from $4 million to $5 million, a paltry sum by current standards. And $5 million — for a starting shortstop with good-to-great defensive skills and the possibility of a pretty good on-base percentage and excellent base-running — is reasonable these days. So if you think it was right to sign Omar but took issue with the raise, sorry. No dice.
If you take issue with him being on the team at all, I’ll let Christina Kahrl of Baseball Prospectus make the counterargument:
While some might decry the expense, given a generally young rotation and sufficient statistical evidence that Vizquel's value on defense remains unimpaired by age, keeping Little O makes sense. If having a reliable shortstop in 200[8] and 200[9] helps Matt Cain, Tim Lincecum, and Jonathan Sanchez blossom into full-fledged acedom, you can sort of squint and see the outline of a plan not too unlike the Atlanta's turnaround in the early '90s, back when the Braves put a very similar faith in the powers of Rafael Belliard. However, even in his decrepitude as a hitter, Vizquel's still more of an asset than the Belliards—or Adam Everett, or John McDonald, or the Tony Pena Jr. types some GMs are turning to.
I’ll leave out the next part of her blurb which describes the rest of the Giants’ situation as “flat-out bad.” Graveyard? What graveyard? Whistle whistle la la la. Hum di dum di dum.
