What would we have done differently?

[Rog]

Here is what the Giants did last winter (that we know about):

.  Offered Pablo Sandoval $95 million.  Result:  Lost him for 5 years

.  Offered Jon Lester $155 million.  Result:  Lost him for 6 years

.  Offered James Shields $80 million.  Result:  Lost him for 4 years

.  Offered Jake Peavy $24 million.  Result:  Signed him for 2 years.

.  Offered Sergio Romo $15 million.  Result:  Signed him for 2 years

.  Offered Casey McGehee $5 million.  Result:  Signed him for 1 year.

.  Offered Nori Aoki $5 million for 1 year.  Result:  Signed him for 1 year.

.  Offered Ryan Vogelsong $4 million for 1 year.  Result:  Signed him for 1 year

,  Traded for Mike Leake

.  Traded for Marlon Byrd

.  Traded for Alejandro De Aza


So I ask:  What would we ourselves have done differently?  Please be specific.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, with all due respect, I'm not going into this again.



You can see it anyway you want, I just don't happen to agree.


I STILL remember the comments from Evans and Bochy; "we already have 6 starters...."

what a crock.

boly

[Rog]

I understand why you might not want to go into this again, but what would you have done differently? What specifically would you have done that the Giants didn't do?

What would we have done differently? I believe that was the question. Has it ever been answered?

It seems unlikely that the Giants would be in the post season this year if they had signed Sandoval, Lester OR Shields. It wasn't so much that the Giants weren't good enough as that they weren't HEALTHY enough.

Think about these names: Peavy, Lincecum. Hudson, Cain, Affeldt, Susac, Sanchez, Belt, Panik, Aoki, Pagan, Pence and Blanco. Just in the outfield alone, each of the top four have missed a significant part of the season. Among that foursome, haven't about two full seasons of playing time has been missed? The rotation missed a similar amount of the season. The infield fared pretty well. It missed less than a full season. Catching, about the same.

When a team loses more than the equivalent of five seasons by important players, it can be a long season. That the Giants weren't eliminated until game 157 was actually a pretty decent performance under the circumstances.

[sfgdood]

The Giants obviously were successful at making piddly signings and keeping their own aging players...but when it comes to going out on the market and bringing in highly sought after talent, they are tragically inept. You can back their moves all you want...the bottom line is our players will all be golfing and fishing in October when the Dodgers and the Cubs will be in the playoffs. Just like EVERY odd year.

And it sucks.

[klaiggeb]

What would I have done differently.

1-I WOULD have found a way to sign Shields. You simply cannot convince me he would rather play for SD than SF, considering our 3 WS in 5 years..ooops. Thanks to management, now 6


2-I would NOT have signed 6-4-3 McGhee

3-I would NOT have attempted to sign Pablo for the money he was asking

4-I would have moved and/or released Lincecum before the season began.

That's 4. If I need to come up more, just let me know.

But those 4 are frickin' huge!

boly

[Rog]

1-I WOULD have found a way to sign Shields. You simply cannot convince me he would rather play for SD than SF, considering our 3 WS in 5 years..ooops. Thanks to management, now 6


2-I would NOT have signed 6-4-3 McGhee

3-I would NOT have attempted to sign Pablo for the money he was asking

4-I would have moved and/or released Lincecum before the season began.

That's 4. If I need to come up more, just let me know.

But those 4 are frickin' huge!


Tell us what you REALLY think, Boly! But let's examine them one-by-one:

1. Shields isn't likely to have made the difference. The Padres were looking to deal him at the deadline, but at his salary, they couldn't find any takers.

2. If the Giants hadn't signed Casey McGehee, they might have been forced to start Duffy sooner, and that might have gained them a win.

3. I definitely agree with you that the Giants shouldn't have tried to sign Pablo. But he saved them from themselves, so whether the Giants went after Pablo or not, their season wouldn't likely have been affected.

4. Releasing Tim Lincecum before the season began wouldn't have helped. Who would they have replaced him with? Their rotation was stretched far enough as it was. As it was, Tim didn't pitch all that badly when he was healthy, and he posted a 7-4 record. Signing Shields might have helped them win a couple more games. So between that and not signing Casey McGehee, we're up to maybe three more wins. Now, if all three of those were against the DODGERS, we'd be in business!

Getting back to Shields, what would you have done with his situation? The Giants offered him a slightly better contract than he wound up getting, so clearly they offered at least market value for him. Would you have given him the 5/$110 he was seeking? That may be enough money to sign Jordan Zimmermann, although I suspect Jordan might approach the 6/$155 Jon Lester received. Off the top of my head, I would rather have Jordan now than Jon a year ago.

The Giants made what i believe was a prudent decision regarding Shields. They offered him what they thought was good value for his services. Both the market and his performance this season point to their being right. So if they had waited, they might have signed him. Probably would have, as it turned out.

But what if they hadn't? Shields didn't sign until three days before Valentine's Day, or no more than a week before pitchers and catchers reported. If the Giants had been unable to sign Shields -- and don't forget, at that time he thought he would get at least $20 million more than they were offering -- what would they have done on February 11th? Who was left at that time to fill third base and left field, plus two rotation and one bullpen slot?

To summarize, the only way the positions you are taking here are at all likely to have worked would have been to badly overpay Shields. Don't we feel that free agents are overpaid as it is? Now we want the Giants to overpay them even MORE?

If the Giants had signed Shields to the five-year pact he was seeking when they gave him the 4/$80 ultimatum, they would have been stuck with him through less than three months before his 38th birthday. James' ERA this season pitching in a pitchers' park is 3.91. What do we think it would be four years from now?

The fact is that THIS SEASON James wasn't worth the $20 million per season the Giants offered him. The Padres are looking for a team to pick up his contract and give them enough in return to save face. I'm almost certain they would take Jake Peavy straight up for him. Perhaps if the Giants strike out with their free agent pitching targets, they might consider going that way. But I doubt it. Too much money for an aging pitcher.

The Giants signed an aging pitcher in Peavy. But at least they signed him for only two years and for a much lower annual cost than they could have signed Shields. Would you have wanted the Giants to go 4/$$100 or 5/$110 for Shields. That's likely pretty close to what they would have needed to offer when they instead pulled the plug on their 4/$80 offer. Even that offer now appears to have been too much.

So back to my original question: What would we have done to make the playoffs? If they had signed Pablo, Duffy might not have gotten his chance. If they had signed Lester or Shields (in addition to Peavy), Heston might not have gotten his shot -- at least until later in the season.

Would Sandoval, Lester or Shields have been good signings? As it turns out, probably not.

Was McGehee a good trade? Now THAT'S humiliating!

Peavy? Probably.

Romo? Maybe.

Aoki? Absolutely.

Vogelsong? Probably not a difference-maker either way -- except that it would have put even more pressure on an unsure rotation.

The bottom line is that the Giants -- though no fault of their own -- seem to have made better overall deals than their first three choices. If they can sign Zimmermann and Leake this winter, they will very likely be a better team than if they had signed BOTH Lester and Shields. Only God could help them if they had signed Pablo.

So will they be able to sign Zimmermann and Leake? Or even Kazmir and Leake? We have little choice but to wait and see. But until then why don't we -- and this is a revolutionary idea -- wait and see?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3061/differently#ixzz3nG7maV00

[klaiggeb]

Tell us what you REALLY think, Boly!

You asked, Rog, so I responded.

B

For me, it's simple. They folded too soon in the negotiations for Shields. No way he would have signed with SD given the option to sign with a 3 times in 5 years WS champion.

Secondly, there was absolutely NO chemsitry in SD. I heard that reported MANY TIMES on XTRA, the Padre station.

Because the Giants have such good chemistry, and the fact that Vogey and Hudson would NOT have had to pitch so much, I believe Shields WOULD HAVE HAD a large impression on the season.

Shields ERA alone was far better than either Vogey or Hudson put.

Shields starts, or Lester's starts in lieu of those 2 makes up about 3-8 games in the standings.

Heck, how many times were we OUT of games early because of Vogey or Hudson's starts?

Way too many.

It's silly to continue to hash this out.

I do NOT agree with your logic, you do NOT agree with mine.

Let's leave it there.

boly

[Rog]

They folded too soon in the negotiations for Shields. No way he would have signed with SD given the option to sign with a 3 times in 5 years WS champion.


Prior to last winter and probably the winter before that, we asked how GM could balance getting the players he wanted with waiting too long. In this case, here is what appears to have come down.

First, the Giants made what apparently turned out to be Shields' best offer. When he turned down 4/$80 with rumors of 5/$110 swirling around, the Giants felt they needed to move on or get left behind.

Second, the Giants had gauged the market correctly, as Shields apparently never got an offer again that was as high as the Giants'. Shields blew it, which will sometimes happen as a player and his agent try to get the best deal they can.

Third, Shields was essentially the last pitcher to sign, waiting until February 11th before accepting a deal that was for less than the Giants had offered him months earlier.

My question here would be, what did the Giants do wrong? They offered Shields more than the market ultimately determined James was worth. Should they have taken the risk of waiting to sign Shields with the possibility of winding up empty-handed? How would a rotation of Bumgarner, Hudson, Lincecum, Heston and Petit looked? How upset would we have been THEN?

Let's also ask this question: Would signing Shields have been a good thing? It's hard to argue that it would have been a good idea to sign him at the 5/$110 he wanted, but how about 5/$100? That might have gotten the job done, whereas their 4/$80 didn't. Well, given that the Padres were and apparently still are trying to get out of the 4/$75 contract Shields ultimately signed, it's hard to argue that going 5/$100 for him would have been prudent.

Let's put this in perspective. If the Giants are unable to come up with at least one very good and one good starter this winter, last winter will probably be viewed as a failure in regard to the rotation. But if they are able to use the money they saved by not signing Sandoval, Lester or Shields.

Leake is likely coming back. He strongly implied on last night's postgame show that he would like to. We have asked why pitchers DON'T seem to want to come to the Giants, when it seems a whole lot is going for pitchers here. Well, Leake WANTS to return, and we saw last night how good he can be.

I believe we are premature in judging whether the Giants should have signed Lester or Shields. The early evidence indicates they shouldn't have (unless one thinks they truly would have made the playoffs with one of them, which would seem far more likely if they were only two or even three games behind). But if they don't come up with good pitchers this winter, it will be tough to argue that the past and upcoming winters were a success.

Let's look at some reality here. If the Giants had stayed healthy, they probably would have made the playoffs. Isn't it a lot easier to argue that the five years or so missed by important players was far more detrimental than not having Lester or Shields? With those injuries, they likely wouldn't be making the postseason even with Lester or Shields. How in the world would either of those guys make a six-game difference.

One can make that argument only with an extended domino effect being in place. If even one of those several dominoes fell, the Giants still would be falling themselves.

If a player like Lester or Shields make a six-game difference, how many games was Buster Posey worth? Brandon Crawford? Matt Duffy? Brandon Belt? Joe Panik? Nori Aoki? Angel Pagan? Gregor Blanco? Hunter Pence? Madison Bumgarner? Jake Peavy? Chris Heston? Marlon Byrd?

One would have to think that those guys on average would be worth at least as much as a 10-12 pitcher (Lester) or one with a 3.91 ERA (Shields). So now we would be saying that if the Giants didn't have any of the above guys,, they would have won only 10 games or so. Even if they had fielded the River Cats team, they would have won far more than that. Heck, Jarrett Parker alone would have broken Barry Bonds' home run record! Mac Williamson would be leading the league in groupies.

In reality, not many players make a difference of six games in a season. If they did, a poor team -- say 70 wins -- could simply add three of them and become a contender. Right? Both Lester and Shields have had seasons in which they at least approached being six-win players. But neither was close this past season.

How about the domino effect on the bullpen? Well, the bullpen hasn't been the Giants' biggest problem. Only one team in the major leagues has fewer blown saves than the Giants. The decimated rotation and outfield have been much bigger issues.

Let's stop and think if good-but-far-from-great pitchers are worth six games a season. Madison Bumgarner IS a great pitcher, or at least close to it. The Giants have gone 19-13 in his 32 starts, and right at .500 in the rest of their games. 19-13 compared to 16-16 is only a three-gaqme difference.

That's from a pitcher who is considered a 6-win player. That's about four times as much as Shields or Lester is considered to be.

Having another Madison Bumgarner quite possibly would have put the Giants in the postseason. Having Jon Lester or James Shields likely would not have.

If you believe otherwise, build a win-by-win scenario in which they would have won six more games (which might or might not have put them in the postseason). With Bumgarner we can probably do so. With Lester or Shields, we can't.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3061/differently#ixzz3nKFCYfuh

[klaiggeb]

Rog, you're welcome to see it your way, I disagree.

I think the Giant propaganda machine got into the Kool Aide, spiked it, and the fans drank it right up.

They convinced their fans we "had a legit shot," when we didn't, and I contend that from Bochy right on up, they pretty well knew it.

They had a crappy plan and they knew it, and their mid season 'fix' signing Mike Leake, wasn't enough to cover their boner.

It's kind of like their "400+" consecutive game sell outs.

What a frickin' Crock!

I WAS WATCHING that Thursday night when the 49ers were on TV, and I'll bet the FRICKIN' farm we had less than 22,000 fans in seats.

Sell out my fat fanny!

That was taking propaganda to interplanetary levels!

That lie was so bold and so bad it was unbelieveable!

Worthy of any lying politician!

And people believed it.

That was embarassing!

As to this season, I will never forgive the front office for what they did; what they put their loyal fans through.

We deserve better.

We buy their stuff, go to the games, and those of us that can't get there, but the package on DirecTV!



Had they made bold moves to begin with, we wouldn't be here.

And please, Rog, don't ask me what they could have done. I've already explained that too many times.

I expect honesty, not deception.

I expect truth.

I expect the Giant front office to put in the kind of effort the players put forth on the field.

I expect the Giant front office to put in the kind of effort all of US would put in if WE had the job.

I expect...it seems, too much.

boly

[donk33]

When they announce the attendance figure, they are reporting tickets sold.... the Giants sold the tickets and the buyers might have decided to stay home...but it still counts as a ticket sold... there are at least 2 factors that result in empty seats ...season ticket holders stay home and don't resell tickets...Ticket agencies buy blocks of tickets and eat a lot of them because they priced them too high..... teams used to report both tickets sold and "rears" in the seats for the game....the Dodgers would announce ahead of the game that it was a sell out and they would have about 7,000 empty seats...usually blocks of seats where you need oxygen to climb to your seat and field glasses to see the players....the scalpers would make money on the jacked up prices of the tickets they sold over what they paid for all the unused tickets they were stuck with....and fans got scdewed...as usual....

[klaiggeb]

I undersstand that, Don...but THAT many empty seats?

boly

[donk33]

Oct 2, 2015 21:05:19 GMT -5 klaiggeb said:

I undersstand that, Don...but THAT many empty seats?

boly

dk....you have to figure that they sold a lot tickets =for the Dodger  games when the Giants were still in the race...when the Giants folded their tents and gave up the ghost,  the fans stayed home......

Heck, I turned off the game on my computer....I'm now watching the Clipper basketball exhibition....the Giants are getting whipped good by the Rockies.....

Have the Giants announcers ever told the fact that  the Rockies big hitter's young brother plays for the Giants low A team...Jonah Arenado...he hasn't shown much, but he just turned 20....

[rxmeister]

Boly, I'm going to have to disagree with you big time on your comments. First of all, the Shields signing. Weren't you and Randy the two guys who continued to talk about how we had a dreadful off season while the Padres were loading up? If you thought the Padres became better than the Giants with all their off season moves, why don't you think Shields felt the same way? And to top it off, Shields is from Southern California. And anyone who knew this offseason that kid Matt Duffy was going to be better than NL comeback player of the year Casey McGehee would have to be a psychic. Let's not forget that Duffy was ticketed for Sacramento until he had that great spring. And one thing you always do that I disagree with is constantly say we should trade a guy without thinking just how untradeable his contract might be. You do it with both Pagan and Lincecum. Who's trading for Timmy, making 17 million and coming off a dreadful off season. The Giants are overpaying him out of sentimentality. What other team has a sentimental link that would make them overpay him? Looking at the starting pitching available this off season is going to make you very glad we're not saddled with James Shields, by the way.

[sfgdood]

There are two things that are undisputed. 1) The last two months of 2014, the Padres were the best team in the NL West AND 2) they added significant talent to the team in the offseason. The fact that they were unable to play up to the level most believed they would at the start of the season isn't because the pieces weren't there. You could call it a lack of chemistry or an off year for most of the pieces or whatever you like. The Giants had the chemistry, but they didn't get the necessary pitching to compete...that is also a fact.

Nobody I know outside of Boagie was predicting big things for Matt Duffy. However the demise of McGehee was, in my eyes, very foreseeable. He had a good first half of 2014 but in the second half he looked more like the guy that played his way off the continent. I have made no secret that I wanted Pablo to return, but I would have been ok if the second choice was someone a lot more productive than Casey McGehee. As it turns out, the Giants got very lucky with Matt and that has been a welcome surprise. But it still didn't mask the deficiencies on the mound.

An argument could be made that not signing Lester or Shields could turn into a net plus for the team in the long run...but there is no question that just one of those guys would have been a huge gain for the 2015 season.

[Rog]

They had a crappy plan and they knew it,



Rog -- I don't think they knew their play was crappy or they would have attempted another -- which in fact they did. Their plan was to re-sign Pablo, and that indeed was a flawed plan, as several here felt at the time. They did go on to other plans, at least two of them -- Lester and then Shields. When they were shut down again and yet again, they went to what was no higher than their fourth plan, which ultimately involved the five guys they wound up with.

Three of the five guys performed well, and after a horrible start, Vogelsong helped keep the ship afloat long enough that the Giants weren't eliminated until September 29th. If the Giants had a flawed ultimate plan, knew it, suffered through five man-years of injuries to important players and stayed alive until game 157, they must have pulled of a miracle.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3061/differently#ixzz3nhkllhtI

[Rog]

I expect the Giant front office to put in the kind of effort all of US would put in if WE had the job.


Rog -- I would bet that almost all of us got more sleep this past year than did Bobby Evans. The Giants put in effort, AND they were willing to spend money. They increased their payroll more than they have increased it most year, and they may well have been willing to spend more if they had been able to sign one of their top targets.

None of us truly knows what type of effort they put in. I'm going merely by what is USUALLY the case with jobs like that.

We know that many here didn't like the results of their efforts and then were even more disappointed when the Giants didn't make the playoffs after their moves were made, but we don't know if the effort was there or not.

I suspect it was. But I don't truly know. None of us were there.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3061/differently?page=1#ixzz3nhmfoKBr

[Rog]

Incidentally, while the Giants picked up only part of their salaries based on the late dates at which they acquired them, the combined salaries of Leake, Byrd and De Aza were about $22 million. In 2016 those guys will make about a combined $30 mill, although it is unlikely to be entirely from the Giants.

[Rog]

The Giants had the chemistry, but they didn't get the necessary pitching to compete...that is also a fact.


Rog -- You know, it probably isn't a fact. In fact, given that they stayed alive until game #157 while suffering about five-man years of injuries to important players would indicate that it is FAR from a fact.

It is your opinion, and the opinion of many others. But it isn't a fact.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3061/differently?page=1#ixzz3nhpHCwhY

[klaiggeb]

Rog you can argue until your purple with orange spots in the fact that chemistry doesn't exist...

With all due respect, you can call it not a fact all you want, but until you've PLAYED on teams that have it and teams that don't, you can't possibly understand it.

Believe me, it's real.

After yesterday's game yesterday Vogey ADDRESSED that point. For the players, it IS real.

For numbers guys, it isn't because you can't quantify nor measure it.

boly

[Rog]

An argument could be made that not signing Lester or Shields could turn into a net plus for the team in the long run...but there is no question that just one of those guys would have been a huge gain for the 2015 season.


Rog -- Actually there IS a question. I think it is pretty clear either one of them would have been a gain, but it isn't at all clear that either would have gotten the Giants into the playoffs. In fact, either one likely wouldn't have.

Jake Peavy didn't throw nearly as many innings as either one, but he was similarly effective when he did so. One could certainly make an argument for Lester over Jake, and yet John didn't quite reach .500. The Cubs themselves went 17-15 in Jon's starts.

The Giants went 22-19 in the combined starts of Peavy and Vogelsong. The Cubs went two games over .500 in Jon's starts, and yet the Giants would have needed to go 19 games over .500 in the starts of Peavy and Vogelsong in order to tie the Dodgers. That would be a 30-11 record.

One can be pretty sure Jon wouldn't have made the difference, and his ERA was over half a run lower than Shields', which would make it highly unlikely the Giants would have made it with Shields, either.

So let's look at the impact on the bullpen of not having a pitcher like Lester or Shields to go deeper into the game. Remember, the Giants need 8 (or 9) more victories. They blew only 15 saves. Let's suppose they had blown the fewest saves of any team in the majors. That would be 12, by the Indians in six fewer opportunities. So if the Giants had blown the fewest saves of any team in baseball, it would have been worth three wins at most (possibly fewer, since teams do go on to win games after a blown save).

No matter how one looks at it, there is just no rational way the Giants would have won 8 or 9 more games with Lester or Shields. If there is a rational way, please explain it. It wouldn't have come from the improvement of Shields or Lester. It wouldn't have come from fewer blown saves by the bullpen. In fact, it wouldn't have come from both sources. No matter how rationally looks at the situation, the numbers just don't add up. They just don't.

And given the amount of injuries the Giants suffered, is that a shock?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3061/differently?page=1#ixzz3nhq2FjQq

[Rog]

Rog you can argue until your purple with orange spots in the fact that chemistry doesn't exist...


Rog -- Boly, I love you, man. But what the heck are you thinking here? I have never once said that chemistry doesn't exist. Probably the biggest reason I haven't said that is because I believe it DOES exist. And I've been studying it for 40 years (ever since the 1974-75 Warriors won the NBA Championship with about as much chemistry as any team in sports history).

What I have said is that I don't know how many games it is worth.

I can't believe how often I get misquoted here. I do realize memory can be a fickle friend, so perhaps I shouldn't be.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3061/differently?page=1#ixzz3nj1sZWL9

[Rog]

I mentioned that the Giants blew 15 saves this season.

In 2014 they blew 18. In 2012 they blew 14. In 2010 they blew 16. In other words, the bullpen blew about as many wins this season as they did the three years they won the championship.

We're likely over-blowing the Lester or Shields effect, and we're likely over-blowing the bullpen effect. The injury effect? I'm not so sure.