It would've been better if both were on the Giants.
2007-01-03 06:38:01 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Yes they will be no better
2007-01-03 06:40:46 · answer #1 · answered by gman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Schimdt and Zito will have comparable seasons for the next 3 years - the big difference is the contracts they signed. I thought the Dodgers deal for Schmidt was one of the more reasonable contracts in an ridiculous offseason.
As a Mets fan, I wanted Zito to sign with the Mets badly but he is not near good enough to deserve the highest contract ever given to a pitcher. In my opinion, the Giants would have been a lot better off matching the deal the Dodgers gave Schmidt (3 years at $47 million) than the insanity they rewarded Zito (7 years at $126 million).
2007-01-03 19:34:17 · answer #2 · answered by jkennedy442 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Giants would of been incredible with both Schmidt and Zito but of course it would of not been a wise business choice to do that. At first I thought paying Zito that much was bad but they need an All-Star starter to head there rotation and they have himfor 7 yrs. I think they have a better rotation now with Zito in and Schmidt out but only better by little.
2007-01-07 22:45:31 · answer #3 · answered by Brian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Zito> Schmidt
2007-01-04 01:58:04 · answer #4 · answered by SF Giants 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's always interesting to see how starting pitchers will do when they switch leagues.
The only up side with getting Zito is that he's a lefty. He could win 2 to 3 more games than Schmidt overall. Is 2 to 3 more games worth what the Giants are paying him? No.
2007-01-03 14:51:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Schmidt staying with the Giants teamed with Zito and Cain would have been great.
But the reality is that Schmidt is on the downside of his career having lost some velocity with his pitches. Thus getting Zito is an upgrade.........though he still ain't worth $126 million.
Should have saved some of that money to get a closer (Benitez sucks @ss).........and some damn protection for Bonds.
2007-01-03 23:02:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Getting Zito for Schmidt was a good trade, but the Giants still have some pretty old players on their team. (Go to the site below)
2007-01-07 01:47:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. He is nothing more than a very expensive replacement for Jason Schmidt. The only difference between Zito and Schmidt is Zito gets a much bigger paycheck. Sorry if you personally are for the hole Zito acquisition.
2007-01-03 19:50:47 · answer #8 · answered by Smooth Move EX-LAX 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would say Zito is a better pitcher than Schmidt, but I still don't see much happening from the Giants this year. They need to replace there GM.
2007-01-03 14:59:12 · answer #9 · answered by manmagoonbt 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the SF rotation will improve not based on the Zito signing but who they have already. Matt Cain is an exceptional young pitcher who had an outstanding final two months of the season. He can be your prototypical ace leaving Barry Zito to be the true #2 pitcher he is. Noah Lowry also has shown brilliance if he can get his curveball and changeup over for strikes. If Cain and Lowry continue to progress, this rotation could have 3 above average pitchers leading it, with Matt Morris balancing the back as the #4 guy.
2007-01-04 16:40:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's funny but I thought about that the moment they announced the deal for Zito. They're definetly NOT getting an upgrade by adding Zito and it may be less than what they had if he can't adjust to the NL hitters who may be more free swingers than the AL.
2007-01-03 15:04:32 · answer #11 · answered by Oz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋