|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 9, 2012 10:17:47 GMT -5
It's a question, not a statement.
But with last year's deals, and the immenent purchase of Greinke, I find I'm already losing interest in the 2013 season.
Unreasonable?
Really?
Yeah, really. And as unrealistic as it sounds, for all intents and purposes, it appears as if the Dodgers have done what they set out to do;
Buy the flag, and maybe a world series.
Oh, sure, they still have to play the games.
Oh, sure, anything can happen.
Oh, sure, the injury bug can still cripple them.
Oh, sure, the chemistry might not be there.
But this has gone from the ridiculous (last year's trades), to the absurd.
Looks to me like ANY scenario for the Yankees from 1940-1964 when the KC Athletics were basically their farm system.
Unlimited cash to spend, so who cares how much "we spend?"
Certainly NOT the fans. Just look at Yankee fans in Stein-Dorks hey-day. All they cared about was the win, not that they bought their way to the flag.
I was looking so forward to the next season, too.
But now?
Who knows how I'll feel when we actually get there, but for right now... I don't know how anyone will be able to compete with them.
Certainly NOT if Lincecum has another "off(?)" year.
Now I know how it feels to have been a Detroit Tiger, Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indian fan in the 1960's.
I don't like it. I don't like it at all.
A very angry, and depressed, aging...
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 10, 2012 15:59:13 GMT -5
Dude you're absolutely killing me. Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous you sound? The dodgers are spending like sailors on shore leave and on the surface they should be much improved...but to let that effect how much you look forward to a season in which the Giants will embark on their second title defense in 3 seasons...well the only way to describe being this panicked before a season even starts after such unprecedented success is pure paranoia. I have one question for you...how many titles do the yankees have the last 12 years? How did the Red Sox' spending sprees in recent years do for them? I'll say it again...spending money guarantees nothing but interest and increased pressure.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 10, 2012 21:21:33 GMT -5
Randy- I have one question for you...how many titles do the yankees have the last 12 years?
Boagie- 9 division titles, 11 trips to the post season, a huge cable deal...I'd say spending money has been fairly kind to the Yankees and the success of their franchise over the last 12 years.
Randy-How did the Red Sox' spending sprees in recent years do for them?
Boagie- 6 trips to the post season and 2 WS championships...again, not too shabby, especially considering they hadn't won a WS prior to that since 1918.
I get your point Randy, and I agree with you, the Giants are still the champs. But the Dodgers have put themselves in a good position to be contenders at least for a wild card birth by spending money. Boly's frusteration is warranted.
One thing that you or Boly didn't touch on is the fact that a Giants, Dodgers rivalry doesn't hurt either team. Believe it or not the Giants actually WANT the Dodgers to compete. The perfect scenario for the Giants come next season is for the Giants and Dodgers to battle all year and then to meet in a playoff series. How exciting would that be? And both teams would be raking in the money.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 10, 2012 22:51:14 GMT -5
Since the Giants sell out every home game, even against the weak teams, why should they want the Dodgers to build up their team?  |
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 11, 2012 9:16:12 GMT -5
Everyone's right here to a certain extent. The Dodgers definitely are attempting to buy a World Series championship, but past attempts to do so have met with mixed results. Look at last year's Marlins as an example of a disastrous attempt to buy a title. On the other hand, the Yankees have bought a few in their time, although only one recently. You cannot buy a short series, and that is what teams forget. One bad pass through even the best rotation in the world and you're done. One hot week for a lesser opponent and you're also done. I heard one expert say yesterday that the Dodgers are now better than the Giants, while I heard another say that the Giants are still better. I don't know what else the Dodgers will do this offseason, but the signing of Zach Greinke does NOT improve them enough, considering the Giants won the division by double digits last year. Not only that, but the Giants might also react to what the Dodgers are doing by expanding payroll further to shore up their needs. They were looking for a cheap left fielder before, perhaps they now look for one a little better. Cody Ross, Scott Hairston and Nick Swisher are still unsigned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 11, 2012 10:59:14 GMT -5
Don- Since the Giants sell out every home game, even against the weak teams, why should they want the Dodgers to build up their team? Boagie- The attendance doesn't fuel these big payrolls we're seeing today, Don. Attendance is of course part of it, but it's the cable deals that are leading the way. Unfortunately for the Giants the stupidest contract they agreed into wasn't the Barry Zito or Aaron Rowand deal, it was the 25 year contract with Comcast RIGHT before the local sports markets went soaring. If they had signed a 4-5 year deal you could very well see Josh Hamilton in a Giants uniform this year. Fortunately the Giants managed to acquire 30% of the Bay Area Comcast company which will likely make them competitive during those 25 years, but not filthy rich like the Dodgers and Yankees right now. This puts the Giants into a position where TV ratings are very important to their revenue, part of the club has more or less become a broadcasting company. Luckily the Giants have won 2 WS in 3 years, so now everyone in the bay area wants a piece of the pie. While the regular games are steadily bringing in money, Comcast's big ticket event in the Bay Area are the Giants - Dodgers games. The Giants and Comcast sports net Bay Area, financially need the Dodgers. The Dodgers in turn also need the Giants. |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 11, 2012 11:07:33 GMT -5
Dude you're absolutely killing me. Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous you sound? The dodgers are spending like sailors on shore leave and on the surface they should be much improved...but to let that effect how much you look forward to a season in which the Giants will embark on their second title defense in 3 seasons...well the only way to describe being this panicked before a season even starts after such unprecedented success is pure paranoia. I have one question for you...how many titles do the yankees have the last 12 years? How did the Red Sox' spending sprees in recent years do for them? I'll say it again...spending money guarantees nothing but interest and increased pressure.
---boly says---
Randy, did you even read the post?
Panic? Hardly.
Disappointement? Yes.
What's with you and the "panic" word? Because I'm ticked at what they're spending. Because I vent and voice my concerns and thoughts, YOU immediately interpret that as panic?
As the Fonz would say, "sit on it."
Sure, all that spending doesn't guarantee the flag... but it sure doesn't hurt.
Let's look at the rotation they roll out there;
Kershaw
Greinke
Beckett
Capuano
Korean guy.
What do we counter with?
Cain
Bumgarner
Vogey
Lincecum?
Zito?
Doesn't quite match up.
With what they've purchased, we don't match up in position players either.
IF you aren't concerned, I have to ask, why not?
You should be.
As I SAID, we still have to play the games, and there are other factors, but even before we begin, I contend we're behind the 8 ball.
Not fun.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 11, 2012 11:45:04 GMT -5
Concerned is one thing..."losing interest" in the upcoming season is absolutely absurd.
I remember you panicking when the new ownership bought the Dodgers. And again when they traded for the big names last season. The sky not only didnt fall, it was brighter than ever with a second championship season in 3 years. And yet after all that you still are with the doom and gloom. I just don't get it.
~Dood
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 11, 2012 11:50:38 GMT -5
Boagie- 9 division titles, 11 trips to the post season, a huge cable deal...I'd say spending money has been fairly kind to the Yankees and the success of their franchise over the last 12 years.
Dood - Considering the difference in spending and the expectations of the franchise and its fans, the record is pretty mediocre. Most teams with average payrolls would be happy but I don't think anyone in The Bronx is bragging about it.
Randy-How did the Red Sox' spending sprees in recent years do for them?
Boagie- 6 trips to the post season and 2 WS championships...again, not too shabby, especially considering they hadn't won a WS prior to that since 1918.
Dood - Yes and the GM that brought them all the success was shit-canned...then they fired 2 managers in 2 seasons. Looking good.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 11, 2012 12:33:28 GMT -5
Boly- Let's look at the rotation they roll out there;
Kershaw
Greinke
Beckett
Capuano
Korean guy.
What do we counter with?
Cain
Bumgarner
Vogey
Lincecum?
Zito?
Doesn't quite match up.
Boagie- You're right, ours is still better.
Why do you put question marks on Lincecum and Zito and leave Beckett and Capuano blank? Lincecum is far better than Beckett, including last year. Over their respective careers, Zito has been noticeably better than Capuano..who IMO was likely juicing last season.
Kershaw is a great pitcher, Greinke is good, but other than his Cy Young season he really hasn't been elite. He's a good #2 or 3 guy. I would take either Matt Cain or Madison Bumgarner over Greinke in a heartbeat, most teams would.
I would easily take Vogelsong over Beckett, Capuano, Harang or Billingsley. Zito I would take over Capuano and some Japanese pitcher who's never pitched in MLB.
Overall the Giants still have the better starting staff, and bullpen.
The concern with the Dodgers is having a healthy Matt Kemp in the lineup, followed by Adrian Gonzalez, Either and Hanley Ramirez. If all 4 of those guys have good healthy seasons, it could get scary.
But you have to ask yourself, what's more likely..Timmy rebounding after having a uncharacteristically down year and the rest of the Giants having about the same season as last year, or a number of the Dodgers having a rebound year, health and production wise?
As of right now, the Giants are far closer to being well rounded. Whereas the Dodgers still have a ton of question marks going into next season.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 11, 2012 12:57:53 GMT -5
Boly- Let's look at the rotation they roll out there;
Kershaw
Greinke
Beckett
Capuano
Korean guy.
What do we counter with?
Cain
Bumgarner
Vogey
Lincecum?
Zito?
Doesn't quite match up.
Boagie- You're right, ours is still better.
Why do you put question marks on Lincecum and Zito and leave Beckett and Capuano blank? Lincecum is far better than Beckett, including last year. Over their respective careers, Zito has been noticeably better than Capuano..who IMO was likely juicing last season.
Kershaw is a great pitcher, Greinke is good, but other than his Cy Young season he really hasn't been elite. He's a good #2 or 3 guy. I would take either Matt Cain or Madison Bumgarner over Greinke in a heartbeat, most teams would.
I would easily take Vogelsong over Beckett, Capuano, Harang or Billingsley. Zito I would take over Capuano and some Japanese pitcher who's never pitched in MLB.
Overall the Giants still have the better starting staff, and bullpen.
---boly says--
Boagie, I think Lincecum and Zito are HUGE question marks. Huge!
As I've posted ad nauseum, I think Tim is never going to get back to being "tim."
I think ERAs in the 4.00s is what we can expect.
Zito, I believe, had his FSY (Final Spurt Year)
Right now, I'll take their top 5 over our top 5 in a heartbeat
We're better, 1 and 2, but after that? I don't think we are.
But you have to ask yourself, what's more likely..Timmy rebounding after having a uncharacteristically down year and the rest of the Giants having about the same season as last year, or a number of the Dodgers having a rebound year, health and production wise?
As of right now, the Giants are far closer to being well rounded. Whereas the Dodgers still have a ton of question marks going into next season.
---boly says---
I don't see Tim ever rebounding.
And yes, they have a lot of question marks, but those questions can get answered really quickly.
boly
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 11, 2012 13:57:09 GMT -5
[ Randy, did you even read the post?
Panic? Hardly.
Disappointement? Yes.
What's with you and the "panic" word? Because I'm ticked at what they're spending. Because I vent and voice my concerns and thoughts, YOU immediately interpret that as panic?
As the Fonz would say, "sit on it."
Sure, all that spending doesn't guarantee the flag... but it sure doesn't hurt.
Let's look at the rotation they roll out there;
Kershaw
Greinke
Beckett
Capuano
Korean guy.
What do we counter with?
Cain
Bumgarner
Vogey
Lincecum?
Zito?
Doesn't quite match up.
With what they've purchased, we don't match up in position players either.
IF you aren't concerned, I have to ask, why not?
You should be.
As I SAID, we still have to play the games, and there are other factors, but even before we begin, I contend we're behind the 8 ball.
Not fun.
boly[/quote]
dk...the thing that bothers me is that the Dodgers now have 8 major league starting pitchers, the Giants only have 5...that leaves the Giants one "tired" arm from deep trouble....
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 11, 2012 14:19:05 GMT -5
Don- Since the Giants sell out every home game, even against the weak teams, why should they want the Dodgers to build up their team? Boagie- The attendance doesn't fuel these big payrolls we're seeing today, Don. Attendance is of course part of it, but it's the cable deals that are leading the way. Unfortunately for the Giants the stupidest contract they agreed into wasn't the Barry Zito or Aaron Rowand deal, it was the 25 year contract with Comcast RIGHT before the local sports markets went soaring. If they had signed a 4-5 year deal you could very well see Josh Hamilton in a Giants uniform this year. Fortunately the Giants managed to acquire 30% of the Bay Area Comcast company which will likely make them competitive during those 25 years, but not filthy rich like the Dodgers and Yankees right now. This puts the Giants into a position where TV ratings are very important to their revenue, part of the club has more or less become a broadcasting company. Luckily the Giants have won 2 WS in 3 years, so now everyone in the bay area wants a piece of the pie. While the regular games are steadily bringing in money, Comcast's big ticket event in the Bay Area are the Giants - Dodgers games. The Giants and Comcast sports net Bay Area, financially need the Dodgers. The Dodgers in turn also need the Giants. dk..the Giants will never match the Dodgers in revenue if the Dodgers have a decent team....TV money aside, the Dodgers have a bigger population to draw from, a much bigger ball park, and more parking revenue. Both teams have the new national TV contract to share with the other teams...the local TV money is almost all gravy....the Dodgers are still looking for a fuyure contract on local TV and the water has been muddied by the contract given to the Lakers...it is still a question of how much the cable companies will pay for TV rights that they are going to pass off to their customers...and the majority of their customers are not really sports fans.... |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 13, 2012 9:21:50 GMT -5
Boly- Right now, I'll take their top 5 over our top 5 in a heartbeat
We're better, 1 and 2, but after that? I don't think we are.
Boagie- In my opinion you got it backwards. the only part of the rotation that can compare with ours is the top two. Lincecum, Vogelsong and Zito to me are better than whoever they decide to make their bottom 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2012 20:22:26 GMT -5
Kershaw Greinke Beckett Capuano Korean guy. What do we counter with? Cain Bumgarner Vogey Lincecum? Zito? Doesn't quite match up. Rog -- You did say it doesn't QUITE match up, so perhaps you're right in that regard. But I have to wonder. Why don't we match them up one-by-one? Kershaw vs. Cain -- As good as Matt is, Kershaw may be the best in the business. Advantage Dodgers. Greinke vs. Bumgarner -- Mad Bum is a very good one, but Greinke is probably better. That said, Mad Bum's ERA's the past three seasons have been 3.00, 3.21 and 3.37, while Greinke's have been 4.17, 3.83 and 3.48. This is hard to believe, but the only season Zack had an ERA as low as ANY of Mad Bum's three seasons was in 2009, when Zack was the best pitcher in baseball with a 2.16 ERA. I think Greinke is the better of the two, but Mad Bum is the more consistent. I guess I would give the Dodgers the slightest of edges here. (As an aside, Greinke will be pitching for a bonus-adjusted $19 million this season, while Mad Bum will receive $950K. Zack will make TWENTY times as much as Madison. I'll address the Dodgers' short- and long-term player acquisition strategies in another post.) Beckett vs. Vogelsong -- Beckett is by far the better-known of the two pitchers, but while Ryan's ERA the past two seasons has been 2.71 and 3.37, Josh has gone 4.03, 3.86, 5.78, 2.89 and 4.65 the past five years. That's not even close. That's a bigger difference than between Kershaw and Cain. So far I've got the Giants ahead through the first three guys in each rotation. Capuano vs. Lincecum -- Capuano's 3.72 ERA last season was his career best. His career mark is 4.28. Lincecum struggled mightily last season, but his career mark is 3.31, or nearly a full run lower than Chris's. Unless we think the 34-year-old Capuano is going to improve further and the 28-year-old and two-time Cy Young Award winner Lincecum is more or less done, the Giants get the edge here. Ryu vs. Zito -- This is a tough one, since we know so little about Ryu. Here is what Keith Law, who ranked Ryu as his #37 free agent in his list of the top 50, said: Ryu has an 88-91 mph fastball and a "plus changeup with good arm speed and a fringy curveball in the upper 70s, which is a better left-on-left option right now than his slider." That doesn't sound like a world-beater to me. I do expect Zito to fall back this season, and the Dodgers do have Chad Billingsley and Ted Lilly coming back from injury and Aaron Harang coming back from a career-best 3.61 ERA, so I would give the Dodgers the clear depth edge. Although I didn't cite it, Don makes a good point as to the Giants' greater rotation vulnerability. Advantage Dodgers here. Putting all the pieces together, I like the Giants' rotation better -- barring injury. The Giants' rotation won't ALL have good seasons, but it does feature two former Cy Young winners (with three between them), two more All-Stars (including the rock-solid Cain) and possibly the best 23-year-old pitcher in baseball. I think you're placing your bet on Lincecum's not bouncing back much, Boly. You honestly wouldn't pick Tim to have a better season than the untested Ryu? The Dodgers have a handful of pitchers who were good last season (one of them overseas), but the Giants have pitchers who are far more proven. A year from now I could regret this choice, but I'll take the Giants' rotation fairly handily. The more I think about it, the more I think the Giants have the advantage -- barring injury, which the Dodgers are far better prepared to handle. Read more at www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/11/winning-bid-for-hyun-jin-ryu-is-257mm.html#sACgSPihbYGRoj0M.99 Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1405#ixzz2Ez0Cpl2B |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2012 20:39:49 GMT -5
Boly -- With what they've purchased, we don't match up in position players either. Rog -- The Giants certainly have the huge advantage at catcher, while the Dodgers have the advantage at first base. In the battle of former A's, the Giants have the advantage at second base. With Ramirez at shortstop, the Dodgers have a large advantage, but no more than the Giants have at third base with Sandoval over Cruz. At least until Carl Crawford returns from injury, the Giants surprisingly have the advantage in left field. The Dodgers have a large advantage in center, and right field is close. I'm not getting a strong Dodgers over Giants vibe here. And the Giants would appear to have a clear bullpen edge. If all goes right for the Dodgers, they could indeed have a better team than the Giants. But I wouldn't rank they ahead of the Giants just yet. I think your argument mostly boils down to how much Linecum will bounce back. Perhaps we should ask, what do you think his ERA will be in 2013? Bill James certainly isn't right all the time, but he projects it at 3.47 -- and that's with Tim walking only three fewer batters and having a WHIP that is .07 above his career mark. What James is saying is that in addition to Tim's not being very good (understatement) last season, he also wasn't the luckiest pitcher at the horseshoe pit. He sees Tim both pitching better and having better luck in 2013. Even though he expects Tim to be nearly as wild. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1405&page=1#ixzz2Ez8o0wfB |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2012 20:44:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2012 20:46:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2012 20:48:46 GMT -5
And I'm expecting Vogelsong to fall back a little, as well, although I'm not as sure about Ryan.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 14, 2012 14:25:20 GMT -5
Randy -- And yet after all that you still are with the doom and gloom. I just don't get it.
Rog -- I agree with you here, Randy. Perhaps the same malady has befallen Boly this winter that dragged you down after the Giants lost three out of four to the Mets as July turned into August.
I'm hoping both of you can offer something to us about your thinking.
Dood - one big difference. My negativity was based on watching how God awful the team played, top to bottom, against the most putrid big league team at the time...Boly is negative following a second world series title run merely because of big money offseason signings by some rival.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2012 14:59:50 GMT -5
Rog -- I agree with you here, Randy. Perhaps the same malady has befallen Boly this winter that dragged you down after the Giants lost three out of four to the Mets as July turned into August. I'm hoping both of you can offer something to us about your thinking. Dood - one big difference. My negativity was based on watching how God awful the team played, top to bottom, against the most putrid big league team at the time...Boly is negative following a second world series title run merely because of big money offseason signings by some rival. Rog -- That's a bona fide explanation. I do think your own frustration with how poorly the Giants were playing may have also been augmented by the heavy-duty trades the Dodgers had pulled off, just as Boly is worried about the added acquisitions made by the Dodgers this winter. The point I would emphasize in both cases though is that we are too heavily influenced by recent events. Sure the Dodgers added the premier free agent pitcher -- but only once has Greinke posted an ERA lower than numbers that have become almost routine for the Giants' top four. Sure the Dodgers added more good players at last year's trade deadline than any team I can remember. And sure, the Giants nadired during that Mets series, especially with it coming at home. But things cycle, and they aren't always as they seem. You were concerned that the Giants couldn't win consistently at home, but seemed to overlook how well they were playing on the more difficult road. And that the Giants were still in first place. Boly may be overly concerned with the Dodgers' continuing to add talent, while not giving enough impact to the Giants' ability to return their team essentially intact. Was I concerned when you posted that the Gints was dead? Of course I was. But hopefully I was able to keep the issues in better balance, as the season ultimately indicated might have been the case. Am I concerned that the Dodgers seem to have limitless pockets? Of course. But the Dodgers' acquisitions have been made more based on reputation (albeit a lot of it deserved), while the Giants won the World Series last season with PERFORMANCE. Do I expect several of the Giants to have lesser seasons this year than in 2012? You bet I do. But I also see a lot of room for improvement from Tim Lincecum, Brandon Belt and Pablo Sandoval. I think it is unlikely that if they remain healthy, the Giants will win less than 90 games. And I think they could win as many as 100. I have already posted my reasons. I think that regardless of how they fare compared to the Dodgers, they will very likely make the postseason, and then we'll have to see where it goes from there. Will they likely repeat? I would have to say no. A team has to win three straight series to do so, and that is almost always unlikely to happen. But more than usual, I like the Giants' chances. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1405&page=1#7949#ixzz2F3cYMx1c |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 14, 2012 16:44:59 GMT -5
Dood - one big difference. My negativity was based on watching how God awful the team played, top to bottom, against the most putrid big league team at the time...Boly is negative following a second world series title run merely because of big money offseason signings by some rival.
Rog -- That's a bona fide explanation. I do think your own frustration with how poorly the Giants were playing may have also been augmented by the heavy-duty trades the Dodgers had pulled off, just as Boly is worried about the added acquisitions made by the Dodgers this winter.
Dood - It wasn't JUST the Mets series that discouraged me...that was merely the final straw that made me believe this team had way too many flaws.
The point I would emphasize in both cases though is that we are too heavily influenced by recent events.
Dood - I think my posts show that i don't panic based on a small sample of games. When that sample is a microcosm of overall performance, however, then I will not be pleased about the possibilities. Recall that at the time, Lincecum was still being lit up (and other starters were showing signs of the same), the bullpen was inconsistent as all hell, Pence wasn't producing much, Melky just got suspended for the season and Pablo was hurt.
You were concerned that the Giants couldn't win consistently at home, but seemed to overlook how well they were playing on the more difficult road. And that the Giants were still in first place.
Dood - The lead at that time seemed precarious with the inconsistent play of the team. I didnt overlook the road record, but that doesn't help much when you are being embarassed at home by the likes of the Mets.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2012 0:44:47 GMT -5
Rog -- That's a bona fide explanation. I do think your own frustration with how poorly the Giants were playing may have also been augmented by the heavy-duty trades the Dodgers had pulled off, just as Boly is worried about the added acquisitions made by the Dodgers this winter. Dood - It wasn't JUST the Mets series that discouraged me...that was merely the final straw that made me believe this team had way too many flaws. Rog -- Have you gone back and analyzed why you saw things differently than they truly were? I find I learn a lot when I make mistakes. Hopefully that helps prevent me from making the same type of mistake in the future. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1405&page=1#7960#ixzz2F62uUWUf |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2012 1:09:48 GMT -5
Rog -- The point I would emphasize in both cases though is that we are too heavily influenced by recent events. Dood - I think my posts show that i don't panic based on a small sample of games. When that sample is a microcosm of overall performance, however, then I will not be pleased about the possibilities. Recall that at the time, Lincecum was still being lit up (and other starters were showing signs of the same), the bullpen was inconsistent as all hell, Pence wasn't producing much, Melky just got suspended for the season and Pablo was hurt. Rog -- I agree that you remained downcast while all those things were going on, but when you raised the white flag after the Mets series the following things were happening: . Lincecum had suffered through a horrible first half, but since the All-Star break, he had pitched well in three of his four game, gone 2-1, and yielded just 8 earned runs in 26.2 innings. During that time he had struck out 32 batters while walking 7. He was, in fact, the pitcher who gave the Giants their only win in the four-game Mets series. . Among the other starters, Matt Cain had struggled somewhat since his perfect game, yet still had a 2.82 ERA on the season. Madison Bumgarner had pitched as well since the break as Lincecum and had a 3.09 ERA on the season. Ryan Vogelsong was the most consistent pitcher in the majors (18 quality starts in 19 total starts), and led the NL with a 2.22 ERA. Barry Zito had suffered through up's and down's for most of the season, but still had a 3.89 ERA -- a quarter run lower than he would end the season. It appears the other starters aside from Lincecum were doing a whole lot better than you give them credit for. . The bullpen had indeed been struggling, in great part because closer Santiago Casilla was going through a slump/blisters problem. Still, the bullpen's WHIP in July was a respectable 1.25 (clearly below its 1.33 on the season). You felt the new closer-by-committee approach would fail, but at least one other poster here pointed out that the approach had failed in the past due to poor relievers, not because of a flaw in the approach. . Hunter Pence wasn't producting much because he had played only two games as a Giant. . We had no idea that Melky was using steroids, although he would be suspended less than two weeks later. . As you correctly stated, Pablo Sandoval had indeed been injured just a week before. All in all, things weren't entirely as you saw them (and apparently still do see them, looking backward). Is it possible you mis-assessed/are mis-assessing the situation? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1405&page=1#ixzz2F63OQQa3 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2012 1:12:12 GMT -5
Rog -- You were concerned that the Giants couldn't win consistently at home, but seemed to overlook how well they were playing on the more difficult road. And that the Giants were still in first place. Dood - The lead at that time seemed precarious with the inconsistent play of the team. I didnt overlook the road record, but that doesn't help much when you are being embarassed at home by the likes of the Mets. Rog -- If one had interchanged the Giants' home and road records, I think you would have come to a very different conclusion. The lead the Giants had was far from insurmountable, but I don't believe they surrendered it. Did you simply misjudge the situation? And if so, what have you learned from the experience? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1405&page=1#ixzz2F69eMEvD |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 22, 2012 15:21:44 GMT -5
It's a question, not a statement.
But with last year's deals, and the immenent purchase of Greinke, I find I'm already losing interest in the 2013 season.
Unreasonable?
Really?
Yeah, really. And as unrealistic as it sounds, for all intents and purposes, it appears as if the Dodgers have done what they set out to do;
Buy the flag, and maybe a world series.
Allen- I can't agree with this. Not yet. The Dodgers have put together a roster of impressive talent that has never really played to its ability. Guys like Crawford, Beckett, Hanley have been more problems than solutions over their career. Crawford is coming off two years of injury and inactivity. Kershaw is coming off a serious hip injury. Ethier has always been an underachiver, as has Billingsley. Greinke has never really pitched in big games. In three post season games, his ERA is 6.48. I don't think we need to size the Dodgers for their rings just yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 25, 2012 12:09:02 GMT -5
Allen- I can't agree with this. Not yet. The Dodgers have put together a roster of impressive talent that has never really played to its ability. Guys like Crawford, Beckett, Hanley have been more problems than solutions over their career. Crawford is coming off two years of injury and inactivity. Kershaw is coming off a serious hip injury. Ethier has always been an underachiver, as has Billingsley. Greinke has never really pitched in big games. In three post season games, his ERA is 6.48. I don't think we need to size the Dodgers for their rings just yet.
---boly says
Firstly, Allen, I am so glad to see your posts back! I, personally missed not reading your input.
I totally agree with your post, especially the "not yet," part.
THAT is why I posted "It's a question, NOT a statement."
It was and continues to be a question, and all of your reasons about Crawford and Kershaw and Greinke and Rameriz are great examples.
Lots and lots of unknowns down here behind the blue curtain.
I think it was Mark who pointed out that ALL of the pressure, at least initially, will be on Mattingly.
THEY, management, as the fans will, WILL feel like WE got you the players, It's YOUR job now to win! Don't screw it up!
And to some extent I know that will be on Mattingly's mind.
But Don is also a smart guy, and I don't think that will factor into the equation at all... until things go badly with the boys in blue.
Then we'll see how it goes.
Rameriz as SS is a huge question mark defensively.
Crawford... lots of talent, but from what I've read, not really a good teammate or good clubhouse guy.
As I said, we'll see.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 25, 2012 19:33:50 GMT -5
What distresses me more is that the Giants chose to basically stand pat. I would have loved to see them pick up Victorino and Lohse. I realize the money is a factor and that we're not going to spend with the Dodgers. But I think both players could have thrived in our park. We did lose Huff, Rowand, Sanchez, and Wilson, so we should have had some $$$ available.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 26, 2012 10:34:08 GMT -5
We did lose Huff, Rowand, Sanchez, and Wilson, so we should have had some $$$ available.
--boly says---
All true. But I can't help but wonder if the money we saved was collectively spread out among those we've signed since;
Pagan, Scutaro and Affeldt, raises to Cain and Lincecum.
I don't know the math, I'm just speculating.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 26, 2012 13:29:09 GMT -5
Allen - What distresses me more is that the Giants chose to basically stand pat. I would have loved to see them pick up Victorino and Lohse. I realize the money is a factor and that we're not going to spend with the Dodgers. But I think both players could have thrived in our park. We did lose Huff, Rowand, Sanchez, and Wilson, so we should have had some $$$ available. Rog -- You weren't around when we discussed the Giants' salary commitments and what might be available. To summarize, even though the Giants freed up a lot of money as you mention, much of that has been given to present players in the form of a negotiated raise. We're talking guys like Lincecum, Cain, Sandoval and a few others. Then there are the guys who receive a raise via their arbitration rights. So when the Giants re-signed Pagan and Scutaro, there wasn't much left. Does that mean the Giants are cheap? Well, the Dodgers are way ahead of the pack with their spending, then there is a lesser gap between the Yankees and everybody. Then come the Red Sox, Phillies and Giants. In other words, aside from the Dodgers and Yankees, the Giants are spending about as much as anybody, and more than the vast majority. Would it have been nice to sign Victorino and Lohse? You bet. But then the Giants would be way ahead of all the other teams aside from the Dodgers and Yankees -- and would be just about equal to the Yankees. What I'm telling you here is fact, Allen. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1405#ixzz2GBReB4pm |
|
