Do you remember when Jack Ruby paid Teamsters to remove debris from Building 7 and use it to build the soundstage used to fake the moon landing? Sure, we all do. It's a key part of American history. It helped shape my cynical view of everything, and it's why I can SEE THROUGH THE LIES. I'll let the SHEEPLE follow the official story, man.

As such, I'm starting to get a little suspicious about Major League Baseball and the 2008 free agent market. Adam Dunn and Pat Burrell were not offered arbitration, even though they're likely to get multi-year deals. The Yankees did not offer arbitration to Bobby Abreu, even though an overpriced one-year deal would seem like a pretty good fit for he Yankees in a worst-case scenario. Even the Yankees, though, are expecting to cut back.

Everyone seems to be terrified -- terrified! -- of a player making too much money on a one-year contract, and they're willing to forego potential draft-pick compensation because of their terror. What is the reason for this suddenly cautious fiscal approach? Let's go to our panel:

"The poor economy has affected some things." -- Diamondbacks GM Josh Byrnes

"Some teams must factor in potentially serious declines in revenues." -- Jim Duquette

"(Muffled whispers of a discouraging nature, spoken to MLB executives behind closed doors)." -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker

"I feel things are a little different. We need to review our priorities a little bit." -- Frank McCourt, board member of COBRA, the Foot Clan, and V.E.N.O.M., and owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers

Oh. I see. The economy. If people have less money to spend, baseball gets less of that money. It makes intuitive sense, and...wait...you, in the back. The gentleman with the diamond-encrusted man-servant and the golden hovercraft. You had something to add?

"Since (MLB had) record revenues, every team, whether it be clubs receiving revenue sharing, or clubs with extraordinary seasons at the gate, trickle-down effects of a recession have historically not dramatically affected baseball." -- Scott Boras

That's kind of a word salad there, Scotty. Your dependent clause didn't really have a resolution, but I think I get the point. The important part is at the end: Recessions and baseball aren't as intertwined as recessions and small-business loans, just to give one example. I hate to agree with Scott Boras, but I'm wondering if the economic hullabaloo hasn't given the owners an excuse to say, gee, we just can't spend right now. The economy, and all that. Would you like to buy this apple?

I don't have much more than a hunch. I don't even have a graph other than this one. There isn't any evidence for my hunch, and until free agents actually start, you know, signing contracts, there won't be any. This all just feels like the 2002 offseason, when teams were terrified -- terrified! -- that their young, arbitration-eligible players would start making oodles and oodles of cash, so they just let the players walk. No arbitration, no trades. Just go into the wild, young players, and seek your fortune elsewhere. The Player's Union claimed collusion, and MLB eventually coughed up a few million with no admission of guilt.

Economics aren't really my bag, so this post has all of the polish of a forwarded e-mail chain. Consider this an Open Bud Selig is a Man Worthy of Suspicion Thread. I'd love to read arguments either way.

Player A’s career stats as a starter:

Player B’s career stats as a starter:

The lower walk rate and lower home runs allowed rate might tip the scales in favor of B. Park effects aren’t included in this, and those would probably tip the scales a little bit further in B’s direction. Still, pretty even, right? There’s one more piece of information, though:

2009 Salary:

• Player A – Looking for an invitation to spring training; was due for arbitration (2008 salary: $1.08M)
• Player B - $9.88M

Woof. Player A is Kevin Correia, and Player B is Jason Marquis, with whom the Giants were linked in a recent Ken Rosenthal column. It was a vague mention of casual interest rather than a hot, hot, hot tip, but as far as rumors go, it makes sense.

This isn’t to suggest that the Giants were foolish to let Correia go – Correia’s peak will always be that of a back-of-the-rotation guy. There is some evidence that Correia was unlucky last year, but while that 6.05 ERA probably doesn’t reflect Correia’s true ability, it would be optimistic to expect anything below, say, a 5.00 ERA.

And this isn’t to suggest that Correia is interchangeable with Marquis. Not exactly. Other than 2006, Marquis has been a reliably average starter. He’s pitched close to 200 innings for the past five years. If I had to choose just one for a rotation spot, all things being equal, I’d choose Marquis. All things are not equal, though. Marquis is overpaid. Correia, if he returned to the pitcher he was before last season, would be a relative bargain. The risk of counting on Correia to rebound is worth the extra $6M, I would think.

If the Cubs throw in some salary, and the Giants don’t give up anything more than a Darren Ford-type player, I wouldn’t mind a deal for Marquis. I’ll just wonder why they didn’t try Kevin Correia one last time. Because when I wrote that the Giants should sign a free-agent starter, I was hoping for someone who would only cost money. Marquis fits the profile of what I was looking for – an innings eater with about a 1% chance of going Kyle Loshe on the world – but I’m terrified that Brian Sabean looks at Marquis’s Baseball-Reference page, and sees something like this:

Because if anything of value is needed to trade for Jason Marquis, the Giants should stay away. For a non-prospect? He’s a piece of advent-calendar chocolate. Slightly chalky, probably around since 2000, but not the worst thing in the world. For an actual, honest-to-goodness, potential piece of the future? Marquis is a piece of black licorice covered in fire ants at the bottom of a latrine.

Thus concludes today’s Overreaction to Stray Rumor Theatre. We would like to thank our sponsor – Mutual of Omaha – and we would also like to thank readers like you.

Let’s see. Is there something that Giants fans should be thankful for? Something that did or didn’t happen? Something major that would have changed life as we know it, perhaps ripping open the fabric of space and time? Hmm. Can’t think of anything off the top of my head….

Oh. Right. That.

I would like to give thanks for Tim Lincecum, Cy Young Award winner, in a Giants uniform. I would like to give thanks for Alex Rios, useful and moderately productive player, in a Blue Jays uniform.

There’s a new brand of revisionist history going around, and it posits that Lincecum-for-Rios was never on the table – that it was just wishful thinking by the Blue Jays front office and/or Toronto media. I’d like to believe that; I really would. But when you have articles that directly quote Brian Sabean and a radio interview in which Sabean talks about a potential trade at length , the conspiracy theories don’t make a lot of sense.

Alex Rios for Tim Lincecum.

Tim Lincecum for Alex Rios.

I am thankful. I am thankful. I am thankful.

If you would like to revisit the progression, here’s a primer:

• The first whiff of a rumor. It’s so, so ridiculous that it’s laughed off.
• Local confirmation of the rumor’s validity. Oh. Oh my.
• Barely concealed panic masked as incredulity. Incredulity had outrage on retainer, just in case.
• People actually arguing for the trade. KNBR listeners who called in were split down the middle.
• Actual panic masked as a response to a pro-Lincecum-for-Rios article. A response to the article from the original author. More panic.
• An eventual mea culpa from the de facto voice of the trade's supporters.

I am thankful. I am thankful. I am thankful. It just seemed like something that was worth revisiting.

I'm winding up my degree at San Jose State, and one of the final requirements is a small practicum assignment. I need to use my writing skillz in a positive, non-profit capacity. After those stipulations, it's pretty open. I can edit the literature of a non-profit group, write a flyer, edit or compose web-based information. I can work with individuals too -- helping edit schoolwork for someone who struggles with writing, reading "Little Women" to people at a homeless shelter like Moe (no joke), etc...

Is there anyone out there who has something in mind for me? The only requirement for the other party is that someone from the receiving end of the help writes up a little paragraph (up to a page) about my work.

Note that because I'm a procrastinating moron, this would need to move somewhat quickly, as my small report on what I did is due next Thursday, so it would need to move somewhat quickly. E-mail me at mccoveychronicles @ gmail.com if you know of anything.

Thanks. And now we return to our regularly scheduled overreaction to stray rumors.

A funny thing happened between this post decrying the possibility of an Renteria-indebted Giants team, and the false-positive news that Renteria signed for two years. Surprise of surprises, I kind of liked the idea. Oh, sure, by most accounts, Renteria's fielding has declined. His range, if you believe anecdotal evidence, is now somewhere between Russ Davis and a guy in a Grimace costume. If stats are your thing, there's evidence that Renteria's fielding has been in a slow decline for a while. Sure, his offense was down last year, and a mid-30s player isn't always the best bet to rebound. And, yes, Renteria's signing yesterday would have cost the Giants a second-round pick, which seems like a poor investment for a rebuilding team. And...

Wait, where was I? Oh, right, why I was kind of excited yesterday. My if/and/then scenarios:

If Renteria is productive, and Burriss performs well in the minors or majors, then the Giants have a tradeable contract with Renteria if the Giants don't contend, or a productive veteran in the outside chance the Giants do contend.

If Renteria is a dud, and Burriss performs well in the minors or majors, then the Giants aren't out much. Renteria isn't the difference between Sabathia or no Sabathia, or the difference between a Lincecum extension or letting him walk.

If Renteria is a dud, and Burriss is a dud, then the team will have to find a shortstop somewhere else before they're good. Note this scenario would be the same without Renteria.

If Renteria is productive, and Burriss is a dud, then Sabean's lack of faith will look like a nice slice of goateed genius.

And I share that lack of faith in Burriss. I humbly apologize, but I can't help it. For five years, I've been yapping things like "play Todd Linden!"or "give Damon Minor a shot!", but when a young shortstop comes up and shows off a good glove and a .357 on-base percentage, suddenly I start backing away. But Burriss shouldn't have been in the majors last season. That he did better than expected was a huge boost to the youth movement, but his performance wasn't a likely one when considering that Burriss was just a year removed from playing his way out of San Jose.

Most importantly, if Burriss struggled -- we're talking a true sub-Mendoza, Bocock-blocking of the Giants' offense -- there wasn't another option. Ivan Ochoa? The actual Brian Bocock? Good gravy. And the options in next year's free agent class are miserable -- unless former Rated Rookies like Khalil Greene or Bobby Crosby are the types of reclamation prospects that shuck your oysters, there's absolutely nothing of value on the free agent market. Maybe the Giants could swing a trade, but either they would have to deal substantial pitching talent for a promising shortstop, or they would have to take a Burrissish chance on an unknown quantity.

The risk of Burriss struggling probably isn't worth a four-year deal to Furcal. The if/and/then scenario breaks down right away, as a broken and expensive Furcal would almost be as hard to trade as Barry Zito. The risk certainly isn't worth three- or four-years to Orlando Cabrera or Renteria. Those kind of contracts seem like recipes for future untradeable, unwatchable malcontents.

But two years? Suddenly, I'm thinking about how nice the offense would look if Renteria repeated his 2007 season. I'm thinking, great, now Burriss can get the development time in Fresno that he skipped, and Kevin Frandsen can finally get the put-up-or-shut-up season that his minor league career warrants. And if Renteria decomposes before our eyes, the deal isn't long enough to affect much of anything.

The difference between two years and three years to Edgar Renteria: surprisingly huge. I was already looking forward to the rest of the offseason. Now, I'm not especially looking forward to the eventual four-year, $40M deal that Renteria does sign with the Giants, but for a moment, the acquisition made sense.

Remember how worried a lot of us were when the Giants were linked to Carlos Lee? And remember how, when the Giants didn't sign Lee, how they turned around and signed Barry Zito with the money earmarked for Lee?

Damn, how I wished the Giants had signed Carlos Lee. With Lee, the Giants probably would have been forced to fill center field with an in-house option, like, oh, Randy Winn. This would mean no Rowand. No Rowand would give the Giants more money to throw at C.C. Sabathia (still a bad move, but with no Zito around, I'm down...)

Sure, Lee would be worth a few more wins each year, which would have meant that the Giants wouldn't have been able to draft Buster Posey. But that's good news for you Smoakophiles out there, right?

Oh, and Bengie Molina would not have ever had to hit clean-up. The laws of nature would not have been violated so.

Read the hindsight-strengthened stupidity of this quote and shudder:

I'm sorry, Carlos. I'm sorry, readers. I'm sorry, world.

Come back, Carlos! I didn't mean those hurtful things!

Comment starter: What free-agent signing in the past were you terrified of, only to have it turn out to be a good deal? Or, at least, would have helped the Giants more than the option they eventually signed?

One of the more baffling rumors, courtesy of sfgiants.com:

The organization has invited him to meet its parents and everything. Hudson plays a position at which the Giants could use an upgrade, though there are semi-reasonable options in place if the Giants choose to ignore second base. Still, Kevin Frandsen and Eugenio Velez should never, ever, never, ever stand in the way of a team looking to sign a free agent. As fallback options, they’re not bad, but fallback options are all they should be.

Hudson plays silly defense. At least, he used to. And his on-base percentages for the past three years have been good: .367, .376, and .354 going back to 2006. He has a little pop, and he runs well. What’s not to like?

He’s 31, and he wants five years and $50M. Good gravy. How about no.

He had season-ending surgery last year to put a wrist bone back in place. In May, he had hamstring issues. Last year, he tore a ligament in his thumb a couple of months after jamming his ankle. Oh, and he’s 31. The wrist bone thing is serious – because the wrist bone connects to the arm bone that connects to the shoulder bone that connects to the heart bone that connects directly to the gamer bone – but it wouldn’t be as much of a red flag if he didn’t have a sordid injury history.

If the Giants signed Hudson, their second-round draft choice would go to a division rival. There's about a 10% chance that would come back to haunt the Giants, but it would sting if the Hudson signing bequeathed the next Dustin Pedroia to the Diamondbacks.

And Hudson just might be a Bank One creation. Now, home/road splits aren’t the final word on a player’s offensive ability. Almost every player hits better at home than on the road. Almost everyone laughed at the Nationals for trading for Alfonso Soriano, who appeared to be an Arlington mirage, and almost everyone learned a little bit of a lesson. But it’s wacky to just ignore park effects. In Arizona, Hudson is an MVP candidate. On the road, he’s close to the low end of what we’d hope for from Kevin Frandsen:

Again, this doesn’t guarantee that he’d come to Mays Field and magically transform into Away Hudson for 162 games, but danged if that doesn’t raise more red flags than were raised for Yuri Gagarin’s parade through Moscow. Here’s five years! Fifty million clams! And…oh, dang. You really can’t hit away from Arizona. Well, we certainly aren’t re-signing you in 2014. You cost yourself a lucrative extension, pal.

Orlando Hudson: What you get when Edgardo Alfonzo’s contract mates with Ray Durham’s contract. Stay away. Far away. Far, far away. Two-year deal? Sure. I’m in. Three-year deal. Heck, that shouldn’t cripple a franchise. Five years, at star money? Insanity. If he were a 30-homer guy, I could see why the Giants would take the gamble. Or, if the Giants were a .500 team last season, I could see how he might help them become a contender. But he isn't, and they aren't.

No.