How about platooning him along with Bowker in RF? Not the ideal platoon as both are left handed bats but it would at least give us a chance to figure out if either of them actually has a future in this league. You mentioned that Winn has been a good Giant and we can't argue with the extensions Sabes signed him to but what about the fact that having Winn on the team effectively blocked Schierholtz development over the last few years? Especially since Winn did nothing to help this team actually win games and we could have gotten some looks at Bowker and Nate instead.

I'd like to see them give Schierholtz a chance. Play him early in the year and leave him alone. His defense is worth the experiment and if he flops there would be several alternatives on the bench no doubt. It's hard to understand why he hasn't received more play thus far.

I actually would like to see them resurrect the Bowker at first base experiment. With experience I think he could be serviceable defensively and hit for power and average. He looks like more of a liability in the outfield with his lack of speed. I don't see Ishikawa amounting to much offensively.

f) Don't make a decision yet, make Schierholtz and Bowker both play fall and winter ball. Mid-way through spring training, decision is still the same, the options are pretty much the same and most trade opportunities are still there. An exception that would force an earlier decision: landing Bay or Holliday, and only if one of them were slated for right field.

>...landing Bay or Holliday, and only if one of them were slated for right field.

It's unlikely the Giants will land either, and if they do, they won't be slated for RF - particularly Bay.

Play Schierholtz in RF, period. Let's see what he's got.

Despite his travails with the breaking ball, he has proven he can drive a hard fastball.

We had a similar scenario with Matt Williams who initially couldn't hit a breaking ball.

Now if he couldn't catch up with a hard fastball, then he would be a late inning defensive replacement type of player.

Bowker should be a given a fair chance to win the LF job. If he can hit consistently, he'll be better than Velez, who is a very good utility player but definitely not starter material.

Play that funky Schierholtz, White Boy . . .

Start Schierholtz for 2 months, adjust as necessary.

I disagree with the assertion that Bochy refused to play Schierholtz. Nate didn't play much initially but he also wasn't hitting while the starters were hitting, to some extent: he was hitting .239/.257/.328/.586 to June 10th in limited AB.

Then Lewis' struggles forced the Giants to start playing Schierholtz (someone might have been injured too, as Nate starting began before Lewis was benched, but Lewis' cold streak gave Nate the opportunity to continue starting). Starting June 11th, Nate was starting most games. His hot hitting initially helped too. In the next 40 games, he played in every game, starting 30 of them, but he was already turning cold in July.

Then he was severely injured, putting him on the DL.

After he returned, in August, out of 18 games in the month remaining, he played in 16 and started 12 of them. However, he hit only .208/.255/.417/.671 that month. So for the rest of the season, he only got into 22 of the 31 games, starting only 10 games, as the Giants gave Velez and other OF more ABs. And he didn't hit any better, in fact he was worse, .205/.271/.273/.549.

So Bochy gave him an extended run of basically being the starter, but after his very hot initial streak, he was pretty cold the rest of the way. I would guess that he returned before he was truly ready and then just fell behind.

Still, I think his minor league track record speaks well of his ability to be able to be a solid average hitting RF who can play good defense, if given the chance. I think he should all healed and ready to go for 2010 when the time comes.

Right now, I think he has the RF starting spot as long as he has a decent spring training, with Lewis and Bowker battling for LF.

However, if the Giants should acquire an OF to fill the LF position (getting a CF could push Rowand to LF), I think that Nate would be considered the incumbent for RF but that Bowker and Lewis will be competing strongly with him for RF as well.

Given Sabean's statements, it sounds like while they are OK with who they currently got, they will bottom fish this year and see who is available in December/January to give us a better bat on the cheap (non-tenders as well as free agents). Sounds like they would avoid Type A's too, if I am reading between the lines correctly, in order to keep their pick.

light...spark up...bud...resin-ate... :)

The easy answer would be B, but I would like to see A. People forget he had that collision in Atlanta in late July and did not seem 100% after that. I am believer in Nate. Yes, he swings at breaking balls that he could hold up on (Professor makes a very valid comparison with a young Matty Williams, who could not tough that breaking ball and would swing nearly every time), but it seems like every time he makes contact, he puts solid wood on the ball. He may be the strongest Giant on the team and his gun from right reflects that. I think his hitting that breaking ball is easier to fix than Bowker's hole in his swing, I dont see Bowker becoming an everyday player in the big leagues.

Now for free agent notes, there has been much mentioned about Molina going to the Mets, that would save us a bit of dough and force the Giants to prepare for life after Molina. But also my thoughts on Cuddyer (Twins gave him his 2011 option and Angels seem willing to keep Figgins at any cost. Figgins was also changed to a Type A free agent, so would cost us a potentially valuable draft pick, but so would Holliday or Bay).

Looks like the Rangers will let Blalock walk, a cheap one-year incentive laden deal would be more interesting to me than Nick Johnson. if we sign Nick Johnson, a professional hitter and all, he would be hurt by July 1 with a high probability of being done for the season). I rather get the potential home run right-handed bat out of Blalock. Dye still seems he could be had fairly cheap.

But may be the opening to offer Bay 5 years at $15 mill a year. In terms of Holliday, if I were Sabean I would tell Boras to go suck on it...

Here are my off-season moves:

Add Bay for $15 mill, Penny for $8 after incentives, B. Wilson gets $4 on arb offer, J. Sanchez $2 mill. I have Linceucm penciled in at $6 mill as part of a 5-year extension. That gets my payroll to $92 mill. Conceivably Lincecum could be a bit higher, but not a big hit from last year's $90 mill level. Add in a catcher at a $2-$3 mill (Torrealba?), then we are at the $95 mill plus mark. Or do we let Pablo platoon a little at catcher?

Also it was suggested that F. Sanchez could see action at third, opening up 2B for Velez instead of LF. I dont think Uribe will be back...watch him end up in Seattle with Beltre on the way out.

Lineup:

1) Velez - 2B/LF/CF (still dont think he is the right leadoff guy - could Burriss step in?
2) F. Sanchez - 3B
3) Pablo - 1B/C
4) Bay - LF
5) Nate - RF
6) Torrealba - C
7) Rowand/Torres - CF
8) Renteria/Burriss - SS

I am not completely sold on Bay, but we should see a lot more runs and a lot less DPs with this lineup. Rowand would be on a very short leash with me and I would dangle his butt to the Cubs and I would pay half his salary but I am not taking Bradley back. Torres as the starter in CF would also land him at leadoff in my lineup...

I think it is very important to have a really good defensive RF in our park. Nate will produce enough to keep his defense on the field. If they are going to upgrade significantly on offense it has to be in LF and 1B, or 3B and move Pablo to 1st.

Not to blunt your humor,but you seem to have a chronic problem with puns...

Gauging from the market trends, it seems as though teams are reluctant to give up their draft choices for Type A FA.

Offering Molina arbitration, thus, becomes more tricky because will will be more inclined to take $8 mil for one year than what he seems to be projecting on the open market ($5-6).

Yes, he's a good player, but hasn't it been a problem for the Giants to let go of veterans in the past to the detriment of younger players (Russ Ortiz over Lincecum a couple of years ago)?

I can't believe that Gordon Beckham, who was drafted in the same year as Buste, is not only a starter for the ChiSox, but a ROY candidate. The Rangers are already projecting Justin Smoak as their 1B as early as this Spring.

Buster is as good if not better than Beckham and Smoak. Let's see what he's got.

The funny thing is that the list you link to for Nate rates him in the negatives with his arm.

Shierholtz is/was barely above replacement level. Even Bill James' wildly optimistic (in my opinion) projection shows him with mediocre numbers. If the Giants want to win, they must replace Schierholtz.

Lefty and compadres, I saw the note in MLB Trade Rumors that the Reds may be willing to shop Votto if someone is willing to take one of their high-contract pitchers Harang or Arroyo, both being paid just over $12 mill for 2009...Arroy obviously hasd better numbers last year. I would pounce on this opportunity, especially if we did not have to give up on J. Sanchez. What are your thoughts?

Votto is certainly strong enough as a left-handed hitter to hit 30 plus homers. If you add Arroyo, obviously no need to sign Penny and actually would be just about $4 mill more than I would think they would have paid Penny. Plus Votto would be locked up for 4 more years, arb eligible next year...

Trade: Pucetas-Valdez-Ishikawa-Fred Lewis for Arroyo-Votto

Pete must have seen the same article on traderumors that I did referring to the Reds looking at trading some pieces but I can assure you that Votto will not be one of them and especially not for a bunch of crap. Phillips however might be available and if FSancho can play 3rd like people are saying, why not go after Phillips who has a pretty reasonable contract and could step in and bat third for us. Another option would be to look at Uggla again or simply stick Gino at 2nd and Sancho at 3rd and score 2.3 runs a game again next season.

This does present a few more options though if Sanch can play some 3rd. Even if we have to live with Gino at 2B, I would assume that would open up the opportunity to sign a quality outfielder such as Bay but more then likely Dye. Any way you look at it we are still going to be short on offense next season but my hope is that they give playing time to the best players and not the highest paid ones like Rowand and Renteria (thank god we don't have Winn and hopefully Bengie will be gone too). If they open it up a bit more and let Torres and Gino take starts in CF over Rowand and give guys like Nasty and Bowker a chance to prove themselves next year then at least we have a little something to look forward to. I really don't care if the offense sucks again next year just as long as it doesnt suck with guys like Rowand, Renteria, and the rest of the down and out garbage we have been employing over the last few years. I have no problem watching young players mature and learn the game, it is the old past their prime veterans that are overpaid and suck that have bothered me over the last few years.

We have 5 outfielders now, Schierholtz, Bowker, Lewis, Torres and Velez. The top 3 should be our main starters barring trade, or vs very tough lefties although Schierholtz has no problems vs. lefties. Torres could start vs some very tough lefties, and Velez once in a while. That leave's Rowand. Why do we have Rowand anyway. For two straight years the guy has not been worth a shoelace during the second half of the season. Great attitude, weird stance, low on offensive clutchness, and never saw a slider he did not like, but yet he cannot hit a slider and I do not expect Muelens to change that. I would like a gamer like Rowand a lot better if he could hit. Trade him for value or else just play him vs lefties. 12 mil for just lefties, but so what, baseball dollar numbers have no resemblance to any reality.