January 12, 20242 yr 36 minutes ago, fathom said: That won’t go well (as a starter) He’s going to walk the world.
January 12, 20242 yr 54 minutes ago, fathom said: That won’t go well (as a starter) Teams are so stupid. The only positive thing is that park is awful for hitters but just an awful idea.
January 12, 20242 yr 57 minutes ago, fathom said: That won’t go well (as a starter) At least it’s not too crazy of an amount of money where they can move him to the pen.
January 12, 20242 yr Another team wants a pitcher to pitch. Holy jumping up and down when is this madness going to end!
January 12, 20242 yr Author Actually, this is not the craziest idea. Stretch him out during ST. Give him some starts to begin the season. They can always revert him back to relief if it does not work.
January 12, 20242 yr 8 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said: Another team wants a pitcher to pitch. Holy jumping up and down when is this madness going to end! Hicks did start 8 games for the Cardinals in 2022 but he didn’t fare very well, which is why they probably kept him as a reliever. He walked the world in a small sample size, but it is what it is. Failed starters become relievers. Edited January 12, 20242 yr by WhiteSox2023
January 12, 20242 yr Author Do you consider 8 starts are enough to consider a failure? I agree that Hicks looks to be a better relief pitcher but is there a downside to this?
January 12, 20242 yr 3 minutes ago, Snowy Demon said: Do you consider 8 starts are enough to consider a failure? I agree that Hicks looks to be a better relief pitcher but is there a downside to this? This is the second $20 million a year gamble that San Fran has taken on a starter this offseason. The downside is having 25% of their payroll locked up in two guys who are useless as starters, which is possible. They have historically been quite good at working with in-between cases like these and turning them into key rotation pieces, but this is more money than they have previously risked on doing that.
January 12, 20242 yr 13 minutes ago, Snowy Demon said: Do you consider 8 starts are enough to consider a failure? I agree that Hicks looks to be a better relief pitcher but is there a downside to this? Well it’s a terrible contract to begin with imo. There were few more overrated players entering this offseason than Hicks imo.
January 12, 20242 yr Author To me, Snell and Bellinger are the two most risky signings this off season.
January 12, 20242 yr Not sure why he would be a starter, but again, this would have been a nice move had we have been competitve
January 12, 20242 yr Joel Zumaya - esque if executed well. Not a starter and not durable enough to even consider it. And Zaidi isn't known around the game for being dumb. Quite the opposite. But this one feels more desperate than anything.
January 12, 20242 yr 8 minutes ago, ChiSoxJon said: Not sure why he would be a starter, but again, this would have been a nice move had we have been competitve Or another in a long string of bad reliever moves that just burned through money that could have been pooled together for 1 and possibly 2 All-Star quality position players.
January 12, 20242 yr 39 minutes ago, ChiSoxJon said: Not sure why he would be a starter, but again, this would have been a nice move had we have been competitve Overall yeah, I don't think I'd like this one. For the White Sox this would be a move that, if it didn't work out perfectly, would be really expensive. Put this in with Moncada's bad back and you might as well throw in the towel on spending for a year. Maybe the Giants get away with this because of their coaching staff? If they do, then they have one valuable staff out there.
January 13, 20242 yr 2 hours ago, Balta1701 said: Overall yeah, I don't think I'd like this one. For the White Sox this would be a move that, if it didn't work out perfectly, would be really expensive. Put this in with Moncada's bad back and you might as well throw in the towel on spending for a year. Maybe the Giants get away with this because of their coaching staff? If they do, then they have one valuable staff out there. Except that "luck" from the 100+ win pitching staff hadn't held up over time...Wood DeSclafini then later Rodon. Only one really really solid starting pitcher on the roster now. Things would look entirely different had they been able to retain Gausman. Edited January 13, 20242 yr by caulfield12
January 13, 20242 yr 6 hours ago, Balta1701 said: This is the second $20 million a year gamble that San Fran has taken on a starter this offseason. The downside is having 25% of their payroll locked up in two guys who are useless as starters, which is possible. They have historically been quite good at working with in-between cases like these and turning them into key rotation pieces, but this is more money than they have previously risked on doing that. Isn't it $11mil AAV? That seems reasonable for a 27-year-old closer if he fails as a starter (not that he would take that role away from Doval) and I agree with you that SFG would be the team to help him with his command issues. Whether or not his body can hold up or still throw 100mph as a starter is a different question. I like these kinds of risky moves though. Edited January 13, 20242 yr by nrockway
January 13, 20242 yr https://sports.yahoo.com/hicks-presents-giants-intriguing-pitching-224527064.html Hicks did not exceed two innings pitched in any of his 65 outings last season and his career high is five innings, which coincidentally came against the Giants in 2022. While it's unclear what role Hicks has been preparing for this season, the 27-year-old could have a slow ramp-up to a starter's-level workload to begin the 2024 season. Also, 2.05 ERA in 2023 when not exceeding 1.0 IP. Edited January 13, 20242 yr by caulfield12
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.