It's been a long time since the Giants traded a good veteran for a passel of prospects, a full-blown rebuilding move. How long? How about never, does that work for you?
At least not since Brian Sabean took charge in late 1996 -- I thought going back through Sabean's trade record would yield a restocking of the shelves or two, nothing as dramatic as what Billy Beane pulled off with the Dan Haren, Nick Swisher, Joe Blanton purges of the past year, but something.
Um, Russ Ortiz for Damian Moss and Merkin Valdez?
You have to go back to the Matt Williams trade, Sabean's first, for a jaw-dropper, but everyone who came back was a major-leaguer. (For those of you still in knee pants, this was the "I am not an idiot" trade that brought Jeff Kent, Jose Vizcaino and Julian Tavarez to the Giants.)
This is a man, and this is an organization, that stubbornly, proudly, adamantly refuses to trade away veterans near peak value for a bunch of unproven whippersnappers. There are many reasons: suspicion about prospects; perennial contention that gave the team no reason to rebuild; and, in more recent years, veterans with burdensome contracts and limited talent who wouldn't fetch a bundle of prospects in return.
The reason I write this, and the reason I went back to look at Sabean's trade record, was organizational depth. (Do burdensome thoughts on your favorite team's organizational depth keep you up at night? You might be suffering from what some call total baseball geekwad syndrome, or TBGS. Ask your doctor if El Lefty Malo is right for you.)
Yes, nice crop of young fellas in A-ball this year, blah blah blah, but the Giants are seriously lacking in upper minor strength. Schierholtz, Sandoval, Burriss, and Frandsen are all getting their shots at the show this year (or should), leaving AAA to the Scott McClains of the world. If they flame out en masse, it's going to be at least a year, maybe two or three, 'til the next reinforcements arrive. Some of the problem has been solved intelligently by signing Randy Johnson and Edgar Renteria to short contracts, giving the organization more breathing space for guys like Burriss and Kevin Pucetas. Last year's situation, which felt like an audition for High School Musical 5, will not be repeated this year. Unless, and I'm typing this with my fingers and toes crossed, the team suffers a rash of injuries -- injurious rashes? -- and before you know it it's all inexperienced hands on deck again.
In other words, it might be a fun soup this year, but it's still thin. Real depth would make me feel better, not a third base depth chart that looks like this:
1) Roly-poly guy who has barely played third professionally.
2) Guy who sproinged his achilles' tendon and missed all of 2008, before which he wasn't a good third baseman.
3) Rich Aurilia, if he doesn't mind waiting 'til March 15 for a job.
Wouldn't it be nice to have "Super studmuffin who should eat the PCL for lunch this year" somewhere on that list?
The problem is, the only player on the 40-man roster other than Tim Lincecum who would return a premium bounty of prospects -- say, one blue chipper plus a couple others -- is Matt Cain. Randy Winn or Bengie Molina might pry loose a promising youngster from a team that's desperate for a CF or decent catcher, especially in June or July. But now the Giants think they'll be one of those teams this summer. And with draft picks now a prized possession, they might be more inclined to hold on and let the veterans walk when their contracts expire.
The questions to you are these: With the Giants' moves this off-season and the suddenly cheap free agent labor in general, do the Giants really need to restock the pipeline? Are you worried about their depth? Are you genetically prospect-phobic or prospect-centric? What theoretical scenario tingles your pringles more: the idea of trading Matt Cain for Prince Fielder, or Matt Cain for five prospects who will make the upper reaches of the farm system instantly respectable? Please note this is not advocacy for such a trade. I'm just askin'.
