|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2012 9:56:43 GMT -5
A season is made up of three thirds.
Why do I mention the obvious? Because in that final third of a season two players showed not what a difference a day makes (24 little hours), not how much difference a season makes, but how much difference a third of a season can make.
At the trade deadline there was talk of Melky Cabrera making $70 million over five years. There was talk of Marco Scutaro making ... well, there was no talk about what Scutaro WOULD make.
The previous winter Scutaro had been handed to the Rockies for a relief pitcher with a five ERA in the majors. Oh, and he also had nearly a five ERA in the minors, capped off by 9.72 in 64 AAA innings in 2011.
Scutaro didn't hit a lick outside Colorado, so he was handed to the Giants for Charlie Culberson, a second baseman who should have been hoping to have a Four A career.
Perhaps Scutaro might get an Aubrey Huff-type contract. No, not the one we hate. The one for a year at $3 million. He probably wouldn't have to sign a minor league contract, although at age 37, who knows?
If you had been asked which player would sign for more, you would have scoffed at the question. Yet Cabrera, coming off two .300 seasons, in the prime of his career, and nine years younger than Marco somehow received four million less.
We all know the reason -- yet was there a reason?
In Cabrera's case, steroids -- not the hint of, but actual proven PED use -- hit his market value harder than the Great Depression. That is understandable.
But how did two months -- well, two months of the regular season and a postseason in which he hit .150 and .250 in two of his three series (albeit .500 in the other) -- turn Marco Scutaro from a guy likely to get for a one-year contract at perhaps what he made in 2012 into a $20 million player?
The answer is a question -- What have you done for me lately?
And a statement -- Free agents bask in the glow of winning a World Series. Just ask Huff, whose $22 million contract was even bigger than Scutaro's, over a year's less time.
Oh, and one other statement that forced the deal as much as the previous question and statement. Scutaro was the only proven starting second baseman on the market, even if he had played the position for the Giants only since Melky was caught on PED's.
Since 2008, Marco has played five different positions. But he sure wasn't paid like a utilityman, was he?
Does this mean I'm against the deal? Probably not for the upcoming season. But wouldn't it be nice ( to quote the Beach Boys) if the arrival of Joe Panik a year from now "forced" the Giants to trade Marco?
I think Marco is worth $20 million in the clubhouse. On the field, not so much.
Not the new coming of Huff, but not the arrival a year ago of Cabrera and new $40 million player Angel Pagan.
If not for the stigma of PED's and the question of their impact on performance, it is possible Cabrera could have picked up another $55 million, Pagan another $30 million, and Scutaro $15 million by playing for the World Champions?
For players who a year ago "commanded" Jonathan Sanchez, Andres Torres, Ramon Ramirez, and -- what the heck was his name again -- in return?
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 6, 2012 0:10:23 GMT -5
Rog- If you had been asked which player would sign for more, you would have scoffed at the question. Yet Cabrera, coming off two .300 seasons, in the prime of his career, and nine years younger than Marco somehow received four million less.
We all know the reason -- yet was there a reason?
In Cabrera's case, steroids -- not the hint of, but actual proven PED use -- hit his market value harder than the Great Depression. That is understandable.
But how did two months -- well, two months of the regular season and a postseason in which he hit .150 and .250 in two of his three series (albeit .500 in the other) -- turn Marco Scutaro from a guy likely to get for a one-year contract at perhaps what he made in 2012 into a $20 million player?
The answer is a question -- What have you done for me lately?
Boagie- I disagree. Scutaro did play over his head down the stretch and certainly in the NLCS. But he's also PROVEN to be a consistent player who makes consistent contact, and consistency makes out well at the negotiating table. Pissing off fans, teamates, making fake websites and getting caught taking banned substances doesn't. Signing a player to a multi-year contract is putting trust in that person to contribute and be a strong part of the team. After last season how can the Giants ownership put trust in a player like that?
I know you're still upset that the Giants didn't resign Cabrera, I kind of wish they had been able to keep him too, but not for what the Blue Jays offered him. He's just not worth that much.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 6, 2012 6:55:30 GMT -5
At the end I was kind of hoping that Scutaro would sign with the Cardinals, leaving the Giants the money to sign Nick Swisher. Three years for a 37 year old player is ridiculous, although I think he'll stay reasonably healthy, although certainly not as productive. I'll give him credit for being true to his word that he wanted to stay a Giant. He apparently told the Giants at the start if they offered 3 and 20 he would sign no matter what, and he turned down 2 yrs 18 million from the Cardinals to come back.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2012 11:30:49 GMT -5
Boagie- I disagree. Scutaro did play over his head down the stretch and certainly in the NLCS. But he's also PROVEN to be a consistent player who makes consistent contact, and consistency makes out well at the negotiating table. Rog -- Marco was indeed playing on a $6 million option last season, so he was a known and somewhat valued commodity entering the season. Yet when the Giants traded for him, he had hit so poorly outside Coors Field that the Giants were able to snag him for Four-A player Charlie Culberson. And in the off-season, the Rockies picked him up for a guy with a five ERA in the majors and minors combined. In other words, as Marco was passing his 36th birthday and approaching his 37th, teams were picking up him and his $6 million contract for almost nothing in trade. That's the sign of a guy who is viewed as being overpaid. And when you hit the free agency market at age 37, the last thing you want is to be seen as being overpaid. It is likely that Scutaro would have signed a one-year contract at somewhere between 50% and 100% of his 2012 contract -- and likely closer to the lower figure. In two months plus a postseason, Marco made an added $15 million or so. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#7849#ixzz2EI1cXGgI
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2012 11:39:29 GMT -5
Boagie -- I know you're still upset that the Giants didn't resign Cabrera, I kind of wish they had been able to keep him too, but not for what the Blue Jays offered him. He's just not worth that much. Rog -- I'm not upset that the Giants didn't re-sign Melky, and I fully understand some of the reasons they didn't. And if a lot of his value the past two seasons stemmed from PED usage (and he is scared that he won't be able to avoid detection in the future), he won't be worth 2/$16. But I do think 2/$16 for Melky is a better gamble than 3/$20 for Marco. And, no, I'm not saying the Giants shouldn't have re-signed Marco, even though the third -- and quite possibly the second -- are problematic. Aside from Marco, the free agent market was bereft of second basemen. It's a shame Joe Panik isn't ready, but he is thought to be at least a year away, quite possibly two. If Gregor Blanco plays as he did early last season, the Melky question will become mostly moot. Gregor is a guy who has shown that defense, speed and the ability to take a walk have value. Still, he needs to hit better than the .244 he managed in 2012. Most importantly, he needs to get on base more than a third of the time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2EI3Fa4VN
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2012 11:55:20 GMT -5
Mark -- He apparently told the Giants at the start if they offered 3 and 20 he would sign no matter what, and he turned down 2 yrs 18 million from the Cardinals to come back. Rog -- Man, 2/$18. That's a LOT. I figured Marco would get a healthy raise to 2/$15, but I didn't expect a third year or 2/$18. I really liked the Giants compromise offer of two years with a vesting option for the third. That guaranteed Marco two years -- and a third if he played well and stayed healthy. I don't think Marco's contract is the worst the Giants have given out, but I do think that at some point during the deal we won't like it. On the other hand, if Marco plays well for two years and Joe Panik is ready to take his place the third season, I don't think we will mind having Marco as a utilityman. And if the Giants didn't re-sign Marco, what the heck WERE they going to do? I would have looked to make a trade or sign Kelly Johnson. I wanted the Giants to sign Kelly three years ago (at 1/$2.35, he turned out to be a bargain), but since 2010 he has been making less contract, and he has never been a good fielder. Last season his OPS dipped below .700. Then again, so had Marco's before the Rockies traded him. And that was with the Rockies. It's been a while since a potential free agent increased the money of his next contract by as high a percentage as Marco did. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2EI5XrWMR
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 6, 2012 14:14:05 GMT -5
Rog- In other words, as Marco was passing his 36th birthday and approaching his 37th, teams were picking up him and his $6 million contract for almost nothing in trade. That's the sign of a guy who is viewed as being overpaid.
Boagie- Scutaro wasn't the type of guy who was going to fetch big name prosepcts, because he doesn't have a ton of power, and he doesn't have a ton of speed or a great glove. He is however a solid player who puts the ball in play. After Scutaro was traded to the Giants, Jim Tracy said that Marco got more bad luck than any player he'd ever seen. He consistently made solid contact and didn't have much to show for it.
Judging a player on who they were traded for isn't exactly a solid argument. The Rockies were obviously trying to unload some payroll going into the offseason, it made sense for them, and it made sense for the Giants to get Scutaro since they were in a pennant race, as we saw, it worked out quite well for them.
I was a little surprised at the 3 years, I was expecting 2 years and maybe a 3rd year team option at around 8 mil a year. So 3 years for 20 million actually seems reasonable.
The worry on this board seems to be that Angel Pagan and Marco Scutaro will force the Giants to move Brown and possible Panik, I don't see that being the case.
Brown is probably a year out, and also can play any position in the outfield. Pence is a free agent after 2013, at least for now. We've already established that Blanco is more geared to be a 4th outfielder. So as of right now we'll have two open spots in the outfield starting in 2014, not to mention the bench which could be where Brown finds himself in 2014. Going foward it looks like we'll have numerous holes in our outfield, it would be quite stupid for the Giants to trade a player like Brown who could end up filling one of those holes for next to nothing, for many years to come.
Panik will not likely be ready by the start of 2014, although he could be called up at some point. The start of 2015 seems more likely and would be the last year of Scutaro's contract. Panik too could find himself on the bench more during his first year in the majors. It would appear that the Scutaro contract lines up perfectly with the expected progression of Joe Panik.
It could also turn out that neither Brown or Panik become impact players at the major league level.
I think the Giants have been very smart about their moves thus far.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2012 20:32:42 GMT -5
Rog- In other words, as Marco was passing his 36th birthday and approaching his 37th, teams were picking up him and his $6 million contract for almost nothing in trade. That's the sign of a guy who is viewed as being overpaid. Boagie- Scutaro wasn't the type of guy who was going to fetch big name prosepcts, because he doesn't have a ton of power, and he doesn't have a ton of speed or a great glove. He is however a solid player who puts the ball in play. Rog -- It wasn't that Marco wasn't traded for big-name prospects, it was that he was traded for prospects who almost didn't have any name at all. A guy with a five ERA in both the majors AND the minors? A four-A player seemingly destined to be a career minor leaguer? I agree with you that you can't always judge a player by whom he is traded for. But Carlos Beltran fetched Zack Wheeler, while Marco brought .. well, virtually nothing. Boagie -- After Scutaro was traded to the Giants, Jim Tracy said that Marco got more bad luck than any player he'd ever seen. He consistently made solid contact and didn't have much to show for it. Rog -- Marco has made contact his entire career. Just about as much as any player in the game. When the balls he hits fall in, he's a good hitter; when they don't, he isn't. What the Giants got for 3/$20 is an aging, average hitter with little range, who has hit well the past two seasons but due to his age could go in the tank at any time. Let's hope he ages like Omar Vizquel, who performed well until a late age and is still playing. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#7857#ixzz2EKE6r000
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2012 20:35:12 GMT -5
Boagie -- I was a little surprised at the 3 years, I was expecting 2 years and maybe a 3rd year team option at around 8 mil a year. So 3 years for 20 million actually seems reasonable. Rog -- Free agent salaries were expected to inflate by about 20% this winter. That seems about the way it's going. Marco is probably what was a $6 million player (his salary each of the past two seasons), and he was offered $8 million per season for two years. That's a 25% increase, despite the age concern. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2EKFlhRYX
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2012 20:37:50 GMT -5
Boagie -- The worry on this board seems to be that Angel Pagan and Marco Scutaro will force the Giants to move Brown and possible Panik, I don't see that being the case. Rog -- Why would those two players cause either Brown or Panik to be moved? The Giants would start Brown right now if he were ready. Scutaro takes up Panik's likely spot, but Joe isn't likely to be ready before 2015, which as you mention is Marco's final contract season. The Giants might be FORCED to trade either or both players to fill holes (left field now, perhaps a starting pitcher a year from now), but Pagan and Scutaro don't force the Giants to move either of them -- especially Brown. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2EKGJUI2T
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 6, 2012 22:27:48 GMT -5
Rog- What the Giants got for 3/$20 is an aging, average hitter with little range, who has hit well the past two seasons but due to his age could go in the tank at any time. Let's hope he ages like Omar Vizquel, who performed well until a late age and is still playing.
Boagie- God, I hope Scutaro doesn't turn out like Vizquel. Vizquel was terrible in a Giants uniform. His first 2 years weren't bad, but his two final years were about as bad as you can get offensively. He had absolutely no interest in the Giants winning.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 1:36:22 GMT -5
Rog- What the Giants got for 3/$20 is an aging, average hitter with little range, who has hit well the past two seasons but due to his age could go in the tank at any time. Let's hope he ages like Omar Vizquel, who performed well until a late age and is still playing. Boagie- God, I hope Scutaro doesn't turn out like Vizquel. Vizquel was terrible in a Giants uniform. His first 2 years weren't bad, but his two final years were about as bad as you can get offensively. He had absolutely no interest in the Giants winning. Rog -- Omar was good until his final season with the Giants, when I believe he was injured. He was particularly good in his second, when he hit .295. How do you know Omar had no interest in the Giants' winning? As far as I know, he was considered the consumate professional. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#7861#ixzz2ELQl3TuY
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 7, 2012 11:31:58 GMT -5
Rog -- Omar was good until his final season with the Giants, when I believe he was injured. He was particularly good in his second, when he hit .295.
Boagie- So you think batting .246 with an obp of .305 is a good season? That's what Omar hit in 2007, the 3rd year of his 4 year tenure with the Giants. Brandon Crawford batted .248 this year. I love Crawford, but even I can admit he's bad offensively. The only good thing about Crawford offensively is that he often saves his good at-bat for the right time.
Defensively, there is no comparison to Omar throughout his career. I remember a play as a Giant where he faked to first base while trying to turn a double play (which the runner going to first was going to beat out) in an instant shifted his feet and threw behind the runner at 3rd who took a wide turn and caught everyone by surprise, even the camera man. For me, that's the highlight of his time with the Giants. At that time in his career he'd lost range, and he never really had a good arm, but as instincts go, nobody at any position could touch Omar. I happen to think Omar is a first ballot Hall of Famer, but at far as his time with the Giants is concerned, it just wasn't good.
Rog- How do you know Omar had no interest in the Giants' winning? As far as I know, he was considered the consumate professional.
Boagie- The same way we knew Brandon Belt or Timmy were lacking confidence last season, body language. Omar would pop up with runners on and he'd jog down towards first with that half smirk on his face. He didn't care. I don't know any better indication than body language, do you?
In Vizquel's defense, I think alot of players had that same lack of determination. Randy Winn was like that, Michael Tucker, Ray Durham, Stever Finley, Pedro Feliz..the list can go on and on.
The fact that those teams lost alot of games, and the team we have now won 2 WS in 3 years isn't just a fluke. Posey, Cain, Lincecum, Bumgarner..ect, expect to win. Anything less than winning another World Series is now a dissapointment. Vizquel, Winn, Klesko and Tucker were more concerned with picking up their armani suit from the cleaners.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 12:46:37 GMT -5
Boagie -- So you think batting .246 with an obp of .305 is a good season? That's what Omar hit in 2007, the 3rd year of his 4 year tenure with the Giants. Brandon Crawford batted .248 this year. I love Crawford, but even I can admit he's bad offensively. Rog -- I agree Omar's 2007 was iffy, but in fact I nearly said he was Brandon Crawford that season-- good field, no hit. It was in 2008 that Omar really fell apart, although that may have been in part due to injury. As I said, I hope Marco ages like Omar Vizquel. I'm sure the Giants thought Omar was done, but since leaving them, he has hit .266, .276, .251 and .235 in a utility role. The last was his age 45 season. That is what I meant by aging like Omar Vizquel. Or was it because Marco will be playing his 37-, 38-, and 39-year-old seasons with the Giants, and Omar hit 19 points above, 1 point below and 23 points above his career mark. That would put Marco at .295, .275 and .299. You would take those averages, wouldn't you? Oh, and Omar won two Gold Gloves in those three seasons. I'd take that, as well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#7863#ixzz2EOACfvJE
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 12:53:48 GMT -5
Boagie -- I happen to think Omar is a first ballot Hall of Famer, but at far as his time with the Giants is concerned, it just wasn't good. Rog -- I'm not sure Omar is even a Hall of Famer, although he likely will get in eventually. But a first ballot guy? When Juan Marichal didn't get in until his second ballot? I can't buy that one at all. And until his last season, his career OPS as a Giant was right at his career mark. Even with that last, horrible season, he was close in that regard. So let me get this straight: You think Omar is not only a Hall of Famer, but a first ballot guy. You think he was "terrible" in a Giants uniform. Yet he won Gold Gloves in half his Giants seasons, hit five points below his career mark, and had an OPS that was 17 points below. Those statements are incongruous. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2EOD071X0
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 12:54:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 13:08:35 GMT -5
Rog- How do you know Omar had no interest in the Giants' winning? As far as I know, he was considered the consumate professional. Boagie- The same way we knew Brandon Belt or Timmy were lacking confidence last season, body language. Omar would pop up with runners on and he'd jog down towards first with that half smirk on his face. He didn't care. I don't know any better indication than body language, do you? Rog -- I strongly believe you mistake lack of confidence with not caring. You honestly think Brandon nor Tim cared about winning? I think you've lost your mind. Boagie -- In Vizquel's defense, I think alot of players had that same lack of determination. Randy Winn was like that, Michael Tucker, Ray Durham, Stever Finley, Pedro Feliz..the list can go on and on. Rog -- Let's see. Aging players in Omar Vizquel, Randy Winn, Michael Tucker, Steve Finley -- and a very iffy Pedro Feliz more or less in Pedro's prime (if he had one) on the one hand. Brandon Belt, Tim Lincecum, Buster Posey, Matt Cain, Madison Bumgarner, Ryan Vogelsong, Pablo Sandoval, Hunter Pence, Melky Cabrera, Angel Pagan, Sergio Romo, Santiago Casilla -- oh, and let's throw in Marco Scutaro, just for good measure -- on the other. The first group didn't care about winning, while the second group did. You don't suppose it had anything to do with talent, do you? Boagie -- The fact that those teams lost alot of games, and the team we have now won 2 WS in 3 years isn't just a fluke. Posey, Cain, Lincecum, Bumgarner..ect, expect to win. Rog -- I could be wrong here, but I think talent and luck had a lot more to do with it than attitude. Boagie -- Anything less than winning another World Series is now a dissapointment. Vizquel, Winn, Klesko and Tucker were more concerned with picking up their armani suit from the cleaners. Rog -- And you know that because you followed them to the dry cleaners, right? Let's get real here. When players win, it is beecause they are determined, have great chemistry and strong leadership, right? And when they lose, it is because they don't care about winning, have poor chemistry and poor leadership, right? Talent and good seasons vs. bad have little to do with it? Let's make it simple to the point of over-simplifying: In 2010 Aubrey Huff had a near-MVP season, Buster Posey was the Rookie of the year, and nearly every move Brian Sabean made turned to gold. In 2011, Huff was a shell of his 2010 self, Buster missed two-thirds of the season to injury, and "savior" Carlos Beltran got injured as well. In 2012, Melky Cabrera, Angel Pagan, Hunter Pence, Marco Scutaro, two improved Brandons arrived, and Buster was healthy. How much of that was because of determination, chemistry and leadership? Determination, chemistry and leadership all help -- but talent and performance win. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2EOF8Ubza
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 13:42:22 GMT -5
Let's put it this way. I can show you game after game where talent and performance won. Can you show me a lot of games where determination, chemistry and leadership won?
As for determination, there are plenty of teams that had it, but weren't quite talented enough to win.
Chemistry? There have been plenty of teams that had chemistry but weren't good. As for the good teams with chemistry, are they good because they have good chemistry, or do they have good chemistry because they're good?
How often do we find out a team has good chemistry BEFORE they win?
Leadership? The Giants' team leader is said to be Buster Posey. They call Buster a "quiet leader." You know, one who leads with his performance? Since Buster is one of the most talented players in the game, one could argue that it is talent that leads the Giants -- in more ways than one.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 7, 2012 18:52:25 GMT -5
Rog -- I strongly believe you mistake lack of confidence with not caring. You honestly think Brandon nor Tim cared about winning? I think you've lost your mind.
Boagie- I wasn't putting Timmy and Brandon in the same group as Vizquel and the 2007 Giants. I was merely using the body language of Timmy and Brandon as an example of how it's easy to visually pick up on someone's attitude. Tim and Brandon showed that their failures were upsetting them, whereas Vizquel, Winn, Tucker, Durham and others seemed to be perfectly fine with their failures. Not that I enjoy seeing a player throwing a fit, but if you flat out stink and you're making a ton of money, I'd prefer you throw a bat or two rather than having almost lackadaisical body language.
Rog -- Let's see. Aging players in Omar Vizquel, Randy Winn, Michael Tucker, Steve Finley -- and a very iffy Pedro Feliz more or less in Pedro's prime (if he had one) on the one hand.
Brandon Belt, Tim Lincecum, Buster Posey, Matt Cain, Madison Bumgarner, Ryan Vogelsong, Pablo Sandoval, Hunter Pence, Melky Cabrera, Angel Pagan, Sergio Romo, Santiago Casilla -- oh, and let's throw in Marco Scutaro, just for good measure -- on the other.
The first group didn't care about winning, while the second group did. You don't suppose it had anything to do with talent, do you?
Boagie- Talent always figures in, but if you're saying Ryan Vogelsong pitches on talent alone, I think many people might disagree with you. Ryan Vogelsong is the perfect example of determination being the key factor in succeeding.
So is Matt Cain. Matt Cain was drafted 25th overall in the 2002 draft. The #1 draft pick that year was Bryan Bullington, obviously at that point Bullington was considered to be a better talent than Cain. In your opinion what was the key factor in why Cain has been successful, while Bullington has spent the last two years in Japan?
Not that Cain is more determined than anyone else in baseball, or that he has no talent, but I think the deciding factor that makes Matt Cain, Cain and not Bullington is his determination.
Back to Vogelsong..I don't think there's anyone that knows the Ryan Vogelsong story that doesn't think determination played a huge role in him working his way back from Japan and finding a spot on a major league team and finally getting to the biggest stage and contributing in a major way. Ryan is talented of course, and he's great at spotting his pitches, but what makes Ryan, Ryan is his determination to win.
I see the same thing in Posey, Bumgarner and many others. That's why the team wins on the biggest stage.
Thats why teams with plenty of talent like Bonds, Kent, Snow, Aurillia, Schmidt, Nen...ect..didn't win.
Rog- In 2010 Aubrey Huff had a near-MVP season, Buster Posey was the Rookie of the year, and nearly every move Brian Sabean made turned to gold.
In 2011, Huff was a shell of his 2010 self, Buster missed two-thirds of the season to injury, and "savior" Carlos Beltran got injured as well.
In 2012, Melky Cabrera, Angel Pagan, Hunter Pence, Marco Scutaro, two improved Brandons arrived, and Buster was healthy.
Boagie- Do you think talent was the main reason Buster came back from a serious injury? I'm sure Buster got up every morning during his rehab and said "I'm going to just use my talent today to work out my leg and for the next number of months, then I'll be ready for spring training.
Do you think talent was the reason for the Giants coming back from down 0-2 against the Reds and 1-3 against the Cardinals?
Barry Zito's talent was the main facor in the game of his life against the Cards in game 5? Or do you think his head was in the right place?
To me, all these show determination and the refusal to fail.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 19:54:01 GMT -5
Boagie- Talent always figures in, but if you're saying Ryan Vogelsong pitches on talent alone, I think many people might disagree with you. Ryan Vogelsong is the perfect example of determination being the key factor in succeeding. Rog -- Ryan is an excellent example. That said, as Don has pointed out here, Ryan's problem was more one of injury than talent. His arm has come back. Heck, he throws in the same speed range as Madison Bumgarner and Matt Cain -- and faster than Tim Lincecum. I agree that Ryan is an example of determination. But I think the other four Giants starters are pretty tough competitors as well. More than anything else, I consider Ryan to be an example of perseverence. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#7869#ixzz2EPuadCw2
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 20:05:26 GMT -5
Boagie -- So is Matt Cain. Matt Cain was drafted 25th overall in the 2002 draft. The #1 draft pick that year was Bryan Bullington, obviously at that point Bullington was considered to be a better talent than Cain. In your opinion what was the key factor in why Cain has been successful, while Bullington has spent the last two years in Japan? Rog -- I can't answer that one definitively, since I don't know that much about Bullington. My sense though is the following: . I don't think Bullington had the stuff Matt had. Bryan wasn't a high-strikeout guy in the minors, while Matt was. . Matt was younger, and younger pitchers naturally have more development potential. . Bullington did pretty well in the minors, until he apparently hurt his arm and missed the entire 2006 season. In 2005, both Bullington and Cain pitched in AAA. Bullington's ERA was 3.28, while Cain's was 4.39. After Bullington returned from injury in 2007, he wasn't very good anymore. As I said, I don't know why Matt turned out so much better than Matt. But I think the possible reasons I proffered make some sense. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2EPwQp2TV
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 20:14:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 20:22:09 GMT -5
Boagie- Do you think talent was the main reason Buster came back from a serious injury? I'm sure Buster got up every morning during his rehab and said "I'm going to just use my talent today to work out my leg and for the next number of months, then I'll be ready for spring training. Rog -- No question Buster's determination helped his recovery. But if he had been just as determined, yet not able to come back due to the injury being more severe, he wouldn't have had the talent he neded to become the NL MVP. And if he hadn't been as talented as he is, his determination wouldn't have converted him from a .250 hitter to a league leader. We don't know for sure how Buster's determination factored into his comeback (although I suspect it was an important factor), but we do know his talent had a lot to do with it. When Buster's career is over, will we think talent or determination played a greater part in it? I strongly suspect we will think talent was the greater factor. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2EQ1stmEk
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2012 20:22:56 GMT -5
If determination were truly more important to playing baseball than talent is, I suspect Boly would have gone on to have a fine major league career.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 7, 2012 22:04:53 GMT -5
Rog- If determination were truly more important to playing baseball than talent is, I suspect Boly would have gone on to have a fine major league career.
Boagie- If Boly had the skills to be a shortstop at the major league level I'd have taken him over the 2007-2008 Omar Vizquel. However, I'd bench him for Scutaro...Which brings me back to my original point...God forbid Scutaro turn out like Vizquel.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 8, 2012 12:13:10 GMT -5
If determination were truly more important to playing baseball than talent is, I suspect Boly would have gone on to have a fine major league career.
boly says---
right on the mark. Determination simply isn't enough. BUT when determination is combined with talent... that's a different story.
I had the 'wanna' and 'determination' for 20 players... but on the talent part... Well, College and Military was the best I could do.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 8, 2012 14:47:26 GMT -5
Boly- right on the mark. Determination simply isn't enough. BUT when determination is combined with talent... that's a different story.
Boagie- That's my point, Boly. The Giants teams of the past had plenty of talent, as does the current team. What separates the 2010-2012 team from the others is their determination. I think we can owe alot of that mindset to Bochy and his staff. I know all the players have the utmost respect for Bochy, but have you ever seen a starting staff get so upset about being taken out of the game? It appears they have total disdain for Bochy when he's making his way out to the mound.
We know Blanco's speed (or talent defensively) saved Matt Cain's perfect game, but does Michael Tucker not give up on a ball that seems, off the bat, an impossible catch? I don't think he does. We know Barry Bonds would play it off the wall too. How about Reggie Sanders? Putting almost anyone from previous Giants teams in that same situation of an almost impossible play to make, 99% of them would pull up.
This to me is the difference. That difference, to me, is noticeable.
Previous years that ball drops, or the big run doesn't score, or the pitcher doesn't get out of the jam, or being down 0-2, and 1-3 in a series the proverbial nail had already been securely set into the coffin. In some instances we'd be that team that got the lead and blew it.
Not anymore.
Do we really believe that the 2010-2012 team is just more talented than teams with Mays, McCovey, Marichal, Clark, Williams, Bonds Kent and Schmidt? From the discussions here about how some previous teams were likely better than the current team, we know that's NOT the opinion of this board.
I know talent plays a big part in winning, but what separates the Giants now from the teams of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000's is that this team doesn't doubt itself.
When we put together the starting staff of the all-time great Giants team, Matt Cain, more times than not, found his way into the starting rotation, near the bottom. But yet, Cain pitched the first perfect game in Giants history. Between the handful of great pitchers that came before him in the rotation and in history, Cain was the only one to have pitched a perfect game. Some were close I'm sure, but couldn't quite finish it off. Cain finished what he started because he didn't let the pressure and the situation get the best of him, his determination trumped the noise of the crowd. His mindset was unwavered by any of the distractions trying like mad to enter his head. Talent of course played a part, but what made Cain finish it off was his determination and mindset.
Pablo Sandoval was the first Giant in History to hit 3 homeruns in a World Series game. As we know, talent again did play a part. But is Sandoval the most talented Giants player to ever play in a World Series game? What do you think Pablo was thinking after having two homeruns and being up again with a chance to hit his 3rd? Pablo knew, the fans knew, everyone knew. Even with the pressure on during a World Series game, he parked his 3rd homerun over the centerfield fence. That impressed me. Not the fact that he hit 3 homeruns, but the idea that he did it under alot of pressure on the biggest stage and two of those he hit against a pitcher's stature that previous Giants players would have likely yielded to.
In 2010 we slayed the big beasts we faced. Cody Ross made Roy Halladay look human. In the World Series the Giants as a group took down Cliff Lee.
In 2012 Pablo wielded the sword (or bat in this case) that slayed the big beast. Is Pablo more talented than Verlander? I don't think there's anyone in baseball who thinks that. The key factor was Pablo didn't let Verlander get in his head.
Now I'm not saying ALL teams that win the World Series have a ton of determination, focus and leadership, but this team does. That kind of recipe turns a talented team into a good team. Throw in some consistency, then you have yourself a dynasty.
The accolades and trophies keep rolling in with these guys, perhaps it's time to stop calling it just talent and luck. There are plenty of talented and lucky teams out there. These guys possess something that some teams and players may never understand.
Michael Jordan and Larry Bird understand.
Joe Montana understands.
Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera understand.
Buster Posey, Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum after this year, understand.
Determination, unwavering mindset, and the refusal to lose.
That's what brings you two WS championships in three years.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 9, 2012 10:20:40 GMT -5
The accolades and trophies keep rolling in with these guys, perhaps it's time to stop calling it just talent and luck. There are plenty of talented and lucky teams out there. These guys possess something that some teams and players may never understand.
---boly says---
Boagie, I don't disagree with you. I think you hit the proverbial nail right on the provervbial head.
This is a talented team, and that, combined with the unrelenting "determination," "wanna," as I would call it, made all the difference in the world.
My comment about determination + talent was in reference to ME... since I was the one Rog pointed out.
I had a TON of # 1, but not enough of # 2.
boly
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 9, 2012 13:09:39 GMT -5
Boagie -- Do we really believe that the 2010-2012 team is just more talented than teams with Mays, McCovey, Marichal, Clark, Williams, Bonds Kent and Schmidt? Rog -- The Giants have had some very talented teams, but until 2010, the luck factor hadn't been on their side. I think back to 2002 and wonder if there was ANY regular season game in which Nen, Worrell and Rodriguez ALL failed. It was extremely rare for even TWO of them to fail. We now know that Nen as pitching with a forever-ruined arm. Had he been able to stay healthy, the Giants would likely have won that sixth game of the World Series even after Rodriguez and Worrell had failed. And had McCovey's shot been just a few feet away, the 1962 Giants would have won the World Series, as well. Regarding the Giants of the 1960's, the chances are good they would have won at least one World Series had there been wild cards. There were other very good teams in the 60's aside from the Giants, and they had to win a three-game playoff just to reach the one World Series they did make. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#7883#ixzz2EZyCXjxg
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 9, 2012 13:13:21 GMT -5
Boagie -- We know Blanco's speed (or talent defensively) saved Matt Cain's perfect game, but does Michael Tucker not give up on a ball that seems, off the bat, an impossible catch? Rog -- I honestly believe Gregor may be the only player in history who would have caught that ball. He made the catch only with excellent effforts from his head, his legs and his glove. I don't think any other right fielder would have been playing that far toward center field. I wrote at the time that Blanco's catch wasn't all THAT far from the one Willie Mays made in the 1954 World Series. And this time Blanco wasn't the center fielder. By the way, Willie wouldn't have caught that ball had he been the center fielder. His wonderful ability to go back on balls had him playing a very shallow center field. Even he couldn't have gotten back to that one. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2EZzlbi1l
|
|