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 Jul 23, 2013 19:36:29 GMT -5
This could very well turn out to be the most depressing season I can ever remember as a Giants fan. I've seen worse Giants teams but I can't remember a team play this far under their expectations. These are the same guys that raised a banner in April. And now they just are listless and whenever they get a little bit of momentum, it doesn't last very long before a losing streak comes.
On top of all that, the pitching--which has been the foundation of our success--is in shambles, likely to be overhauled in the offseason, and our farm system is near to the worst if not THE worst in baseball.
Oh how the mighty have fallen, and the bottom of the pit doesn't seem to be getting any nearer. I guess the bright side is good seats might become easier to get soon...
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 23, 2013 20:16:46 GMT -5
Interesting. When someone here says the pitching needs to be overhauled, you disagree mightily. In fact, when anyone proposes any changes, you disagree. Against the Reds, we're not even competitive. We have no business scheduling these guys.
|
|
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 Jul 24, 2013 1:31:37 GMT -5
I didn't say it NEEDED to be overhauled but with 2/5 of the rotation set to become FAs it's sort of inevitable. Only 2/5 is set in stone for next year as of now. It scares me to drastically change the formula that won us 2 world titles. But it seems like it's going to happen, like it or not.
I can certainly understand the argument saying it DOES need overhauling...but change doesn't always make things better.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 24, 2013 2:36:31 GMT -5
To keep going with pitchers that aren't pitching well is just nuts. To pay pitchers that aren't pitching well $20 million (Hi Barry) and up (Hello Tim) even moreso. These guys have been good, and I respect what they accomplished, but their contracts are up and they're not going to take the significant cut in pay their current pitching warrants. It's time to evolve.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 24, 2013 10:00:03 GMT -5
Wake me up when September ends « Thread Started Yesterday at 7:36pm »
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 24, 2013 10:09:42 GMT -5
To keep going with pitchers that aren't pitching well is just nuts. To pay pitchers that aren't pitching well $20 million (Hi Barry) and up (Hello Tim) even moreso. These guys have been good, and I respect what they accomplished, but their contracts are up and they're not going to take the significant cut in pay their current pitching warrants. It's time to evolve.
Boagie- I'm sure Randy understands your thinking here, Allen, as do I. But you have to recognize the alternate view, and the alternate view is how the Giants were able to win it all in 2012. Without Zito, Lincecum and Vogelsong we don't get through the post-season. Prior to that they were all struggling to an extent. Zito had a terrible 2011 season which led a lot of posters calling for his release. Vogelsong struggled late in 2012 and a lot of posters wanted him in the the bullpen for the postseason. And then of course Lincecum who generated a lot of trade talk during the trade deadline last year. Again I understand your point..just be mindful that your proposed strategy for running a ballclub would have probably knocked us out in the first round last year.
Your idea of upgrading via trades is also what made the Giants jump on the Wheeler for Beltran trade, which turned out rather poorly for the Giants, in 2011 and we're still feeling it now with the outings of Surkamp and the other incapable pitchers we've asked to make spot starts.
However, if the Giants have no interest in resigning Lincecum and can land a sure fire, future big league all-star prospect then they should probably do it. But we shouldn't accept a handful of mid-level prospects, we already have that.
|
|
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 Jul 24, 2013 10:20:03 GMT -5
Surkamp's outing wasnt very disturbing to me for a few reasons...
A) His ceiling isnt very high anyway. There are at least 3 pitchers in our system Im more excited about, although Surkamp is the most ML ready among them.
B) He's still recovering from TJ surgery. It takes a while to get back in a groove and consistent.
C) He had some really bad luck in that 2nd inning.
He'll be fine...but not great, IMO.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 24, 2013 11:01:12 GMT -5
Boagie- I'm sure Randy understands your thinking here, Allen, as do I. But you have to recognize the alternate view, and the alternate view is how the Giants were able to win it all in 2012. Without Zito, Lincecum and Vogelsong we don't get through the post-season.
Allen- Very true. But that's the past. It doesn't help us now. Without Mays we don't win in 54. Should we bring him back as well?
Prior to that they were all struggling to an extent. Zito had a terrible 2011 season which led a lot of posters calling for his release. Vogelsong struggled late in 2012 and a lot of posters wanted him in the the bullpen for the postseason. And then of course Lincecum who generated a lot of trade talk during the trade deadline last year. Again I understand your point..just be mindful that your proposed strategy for running a ballclub would have probably knocked us out in the first round last year.
Allen- Uh, no. These guys didn't have expiring contracts last year. Do you want to shell out $42 million again next season for Zito and Timmy? Seriously? Remember, we're talking 9-17, 4.81 combined. I'm sorry, I don't see that as being worth $42 million. Also, I believe that combined they have two road wins, both by Timmy.
Your idea of upgrading via trades is also what made the Giants jump on the Wheeler for Beltran trade, which turned out rather poorly for the Giants, in 2011 and we're still feeling it now with the outings of Surkamp and the other incapable pitchers we've asked to make spot starts.
Allen- Apples and oranges. You're talking about trading a top prospect for a rental vs. trading two guys on the downhill slope with expiring, prohibitively expensive contracts.
However, if the Giants have no interest in resigning Lincecum and can land a sure fire, future big league all-star prospect then they should probably do it. But we shouldn't accept a handful of mid-level prospects, we already have that.
Allen- Just what do you think Timmy will bring? You're speaking of a guy with a .333 winning percentage this season and an ERA of 4.73. And lest we think this is a one season anomaly, let's remember he was 10-15, 5.18 last year. He's lost in double digits for four straight seasons now. You want to pony up $20+ million (and probably for a number of years) for that? I'd let Timmy walk before I re-signed him.
|
|
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 Jul 24, 2013 12:06:21 GMT -5
Lincecum will get a good size contract, both in years and in dollars, because of his resume and his stuff (the No No wont hurt his bargaining ability as well)...but I sincerely doubt he will get more than 16 or 17 mil per year unless he goes off the rest of the season, which he is fully capable of. I expect Zito will come quite cheap but probably no less than 2 years and an option year. I don't believe the Giants will bring both back, but it all depends on what the market is like. In either case the Giants would likely be able to get a hometown discount for either.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 24, 2013 14:43:07 GMT -5
I think there will be some team idiotic enough to pay Tim what he made this year. There almost always is. Tim's got alot of fan appeal here, he's a quirky guy who does dope, and SF people love that. They see him as a non-conformist who still succeeded, I guess. Would you bring him back for $16-17 mullion? I sure wouldn't. You can get 5-10, 4.73 for alot less than that.
|
|
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 Jul 24, 2013 15:02:05 GMT -5
Id go as many as 3 years on that 16-17 mill for Tim if there wasnt another pitcher with equal ability available. I don't think teams take into account being quirky when negotiation contracts. But the difference between you and I is that I believe, as do many teams, that the No No shows that Tim is a lot closer to being the CY Tim than he has been in a long while. Not many of them would predict a 4.73 ERA in 2014.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 24, 2013 15:02:22 GMT -5
Boagie-just be mindful that your proposed strategy for running a ballclub would have probably knocked us out in the first round last year.
Allen- Uh, no. These guys didn't have expiring contracts last year.
Boagie- You didn't suggest getting rid of Zito or Lincecum prior to this season?
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 24, 2013 15:09:35 GMT -5
Allen- Very true. But that's the past. It doesn't help us now. Without Mays we don't win in 54. Should we bring him back as well?
Boagie- I wouldn't have traded him in '55 for Bud Norris, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 24, 2013 16:27:26 GMT -5
Id go as many as 3 years on that 16-17 mill for Tim if there wasnt another pitcher with equal ability available.
Allen- Tim's not a prospect. We're past wanting ability. We need results. I might ive him $16-17 million total for three years.
I don't think teams take into account being quirky when negotiation contracts.
Allen- No, but it explains his appeal to the SF fans.
But the difference between you and I is that I believe, as do many teams, that the No No shows that Tim is a lot closer to being the CY Tim than he has been in a long while. Not many of them would predict a 4.73 ERA in 2014.
Allen- These people didn't watch his last start? He was just hammered. The Reds were playing home run derby with his pitches. You just can't pay big money for a guy who's up and down like that.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 24, 2013 16:32:18 GMT -5
Boagie-just be mindful that your proposed strategy for running a ballclub would have probably knocked us out in the first round last year. Allen- Uh, no. These guys didn't have expiring contracts last year. Boagie- You didn't suggest getting rid of Zito or Lincecum prior to this season? Allen- Not for a rental. I might do it now though.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 24, 2013 16:33:26 GMT -5
Allen- Very true. But that's the past. It doesn't help us now. Without Mays we don't win in 54. Should we bring him back as well? Boagie- I wouldn't have traded him in '55 for Bud Norris, that's for sure. Allen- Since Bud wasn't even born then, I doubt that you could.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 24, 2013 20:45:43 GMT -5
Randy -- I can certainly understand the argument saying it DOES need overhauling...but change doesn't always make things better. Rog -- Of course it doesn't. Sometimes it has little effect, and other times if even makes things worse. The key is to evaluate the moves that are available and their probabilities of success along with the risks involved. I certainly wouldn't NOT makes moves simply because they don't always work out. If one took that stance he would almost never make a move. To me, there are two significant factors here: . The Giants probably need an outfielder right now more than they need a starting pitcher. . As Randy or Allen or someone already said, the Giants' staff a year from now will almost certainly be different by one or two pitchers. One reason Bud Norris might be attractive is that he would be around for 2014 and 2015, giving the Giants' young starters a chance to develop. I think one of the reasons the Giants considered the trade deadline a fluid situation is that they realized they need to balance this season with the need for new starters and almost certainly at least one outfielder going forward and with keeping the window of opportunity open. Again, one player who fits all those areas would be Bud Norris, who might be around for a long time. There may be other players available out there who could help now and potentially in the mid-term and in the long term. If such players are available, they deserve consideration. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1919#ixzz2a17CJdWB
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 24, 2013 20:52:27 GMT -5
Boly -- And then... the bottom fell out. Injuries prompted the fall, but they can no longer be used as the excuse Rog -- I think this principle applied in 2011, and I know it has applied in other seasons. The early sign of trouble was that the Giants weren't outscoring their opposition by much, but were winning the close ones to keep the record going. In the longer run, one of two things usually happens. Either the team starts getting a better run differential, or they stop winning as much. So the signs were there early. But I don't think the effect of the injuries should be ignored. Remember how earlier this season we were talking about how the Dodgers couldn't win because they didn't have the right chemistry? Perhaps we should have considered more heavily that their losing might have been because their players were hurt and not playing. The Giants and Dodgers are going in opposite directions. The Giants became injured and now are losing. The Dodgers have gotten healthier and now are winning. Or maybe the chemistry suddenly leaped from the Giants' clubhouse into the Dodgers'. I don't think we should ignore chemistry, but there are two issues with it. . Does good chemistry breed winning, or does winning breed good chemistry? . No matter how much we would like to be able to measure the impact of chemistry, it will likely be a long time before that can be done accurately. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1919&page=1#ixzz2a1A4FfsU
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 24, 2013 21:03:46 GMT -5
I'm not all that depressed by this season. Don't get me wrong; I'm not happy about it, either. In fact, so far I'm unhappy. But I'm not depressed.
I get depressed when the season ends for my team. Sure, we can say that it's over now, but it really isn't. How depressed do you think Giants fans were on August 13, 1951 when the Giants trailed by something like 13 1/2 games? Then came the greatest finish in Giants history.
I believe it was back in 1914 when the Braves I think it was were a HORRIBLE team a ways into the season. They were WAY out of first place. In fact, they were so bad that they played their AAA team -- and lost something like 9-1.
But there was a silver lining. The pitcher who beat them, along with a fellow pitcher or two, were called up, and suddenly the Braves were a strong team. They won 82 of their last 112 games and wound up winning the pennant going away.
Those are extreme instances, of course, but the point is they DO happen.
And that's why we shouldn't (yet) be depressed.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 24, 2013 21:05:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 24, 2013 21:16:13 GMT -5
Boagie -- However, if the Giants have no interest in resigning Lincecum and can land a sure fire, future big league all-star prospect then they should probably do it. Rog -- Unless they want to trade Buster Posey or Madison Bumgarner, they can't. There aren't many sure-fire future Hall of Fame prospects. And when they are out there, why in the world would a team trade them unless it is for some type of Holy Grail player? The Tigers traded two of the top prospects in the game for Miguel Cabrera (along with three or four lesser prospects IIRC). These prospects were so good that the Tigers also took on the salary of Dontrelle Willis, who had fallen apart as a pitcher and never truly re-surfaced. Cameron Maybin was the #6 overall prospect at the time of the trade. Andrew Miller had been #10 a year before. (One rank ahead of Tim Lincecum, I might add.) Those guys were about as close to sure-fire future All-Stars as they come. Except that neither has been an All-Star. In fact, neither has become a truly good player. Would I trade two months of Lincecum for a sure-fire future All-Star? You bet. But which team would be crazy enough to make that trade with the Giants? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1919&page=1#ixzz2a1F7g7PU
|
|
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 Jul 24, 2013 21:25:56 GMT -5
I get depressed when the season ends for my team. Sure, we can say that it's over now, but it really isn't. How depressed do you think Giants fans were on August 13, 1951 when the Giants trailed by something like 13 1/2 games? Then came the greatest finish in Giants history.
Dood - they would have been more depressed if Leo Durocher was sitting Willie Mays like Bochy is doing with Posey.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 25, 2013 9:31:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 25, 2013 9:34:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 25, 2013 9:41:14 GMT -5
Boagie -- Without Zito, Lincecum and Vogelsong we don't get through the post-season. Rog -- There are two sides to this story. From a literal standpoint you are absolutely right that without Zito, Lincecum and Vogelsong, the Giants don't win the World Series in 2012. And Allen is absolutely right when he says that would depend on whom they were replaced with. Would the Giants have won the World Series in 2012 if they had traded Tim Lincecum before the season? He would have brought a lot, but there is no way to know the answer to the above question. Would the Giants be a better team today? Very likely. But even then, would Angel Pagan be here? How about Hunter Pence? What about Chad Gaudin? Marco Scutaro? Melky Cabrera? Oh, wait. We're talking about dynamic situations, not static ones. The Giants have stood pretty pat after each of their two World Championships. Then they have struggled. But the question is, which players would you have traded last winter? Which free agents would you have signed? Even now those aren't simple questions. Back then, they were very difficult ones. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1919&page=1#ixzz2a4HQlGuV
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 25, 2013 9:41:28 GMT -5
Would I trade two months of Lincecum for a sure-fire future All-Star? You bet. But which team would be crazy enough to make that trade with the Giants?
Boagie- The Giants were crazy enough to do it for a 2 month rental player with chronic knee problems. There might be some team out there that has interest in Tim's postseason success for this year and has interest in resigning him as well.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 25, 2013 9:43:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 25, 2013 9:44:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 25, 2013 9:48:31 GMT -5
Randy -- Lincecum will get a good size contract, both in years and in dollars, because of his resume and his stuff (the No No wont hurt his bargaining ability as well)...but I sincerely doubt he will get more than 16 or 17 mil per year unless he goes off the rest of the season, which he is fully capable of. I expect Zito will come quite cheap but probably no less than 2 years and an option year. I don't believe the Giants will bring both back, but it all depends on what the market is like. In either case the Giants would likely be able to get a hometown discount for either. Rog -- I think Tim would like to stay. Maybe Barry as well. I doubt Tim will re-sign for less than 3/$50. Probably more than that. But the Giants might be able to sign him for that amount. I don't want Barry Zito back, but the Giants have a net $11 million option for him. If they wanted to, they could perhaps re-sign him for something like 2/$18 rather than exercise the option. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1919&page=1#ixzz2a4K6Dutn
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 25, 2013 9:54:56 GMT -5
Rog --I get depressed when the season ends for my team. Sure, we can say that it's over now, but it really isn't. How depressed do you think Giants fans were on August 13, 1951 when the Giants trailed by something like 13 1/2 games? Then came the greatest finish in Giants history. Dood - they would have been more depressed if Leo Durocher was sitting Willie Mays like Bochy is doing with Posey. Rog -- Completely different story. Willie rarely played catcher, and he was for the most part able to stay strong as a horse. Had quite a string of 150-game seasons (out of 154). But when he collapsed from exhaustion pretty close to the prime of his career, the Giants sat him for a few games. I'm suspect your comment was simply a frustrated reaction to seeing that Buster was out of the lineup. I was disappointed to. Then I realized the Giants had just played a double header, and I suspect the Giants and/or Buster felt it would be best for him to rest for two days. The Giants have been riding Buster pretty hard. Even after sitting out last night's game, he's on pace to start 146 games this season. Sometimes it is better when someone does something that at first glance seems crazy to try to look below the surface for reasons why the decision might not be as crazy as it seems. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1919&page=1#ixzz2a4KyOhzD
|
|