|
Moves
Jan 23, 2014 11:04:22 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 23, 2014 11:04:22 GMT -5
Randy -- I heard that the Giants were not even one of the teams who extended an offer...so much for them being big time players in the International market Rog -- I think we should examine all the evidence on that one. The Giants were said to be big-time players with the top international free agent position player, but lost out to the White Sox because they wouldn't offer him an extra year as the White Sox did. Being an American League team, the Sox have the ability to hide him as a designated hitter in his later years. Apparently the guy is already questionable as a first baseman. So why didn't they go hard after Tanaka (which I will agree they very likely didn't do)? Perhaps that is because their rotation is set and they're pretty well tapped out -- certainly to the point where they can't afford $25 million per season for a pitcher who has yet to throw a major league pitch. Every other pitcher who has signed for as much money as Tanaka did is a former Cy Young winner. Clearly the Yankees are hoping he'll become a FUTURE Cy Young winner. Perhaps he will. But with the Giants already having signed or re-signed three actual or potential free agent starters, it would seem the delay with Tanaka's status kept them from any intention they may have had to sign him. Didn't we all figure it would be one of the top money teams, with the finalists supposedly coming down to the Yankees, Dodgers and, hoping to make a big splash, the Cubs. I don't think it was reasonable for the Giants to pursue Tanaka at this late date. Going after the hitter (Abreu, is it) early seemed to make more sense. The horse was out of the barn before Tanaka became available. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=2#ixzz2rEnZ5DgW
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 24, 2014 1:34:07 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jan 24, 2014 1:34:07 GMT -5
Joaquin Arias signed. Two years/$2.6 million.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Moves
Jan 24, 2014 2:11:33 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Jan 24, 2014 2:11:33 GMT -5
Randy -- I heard that the Giants were not even one of the teams who extended an offer...so much for them being big time players in the International market Rog -- I think we should examine all the evidence on that one. The Giants were said to be big-time players with the top international free agent position player, but lost out to the White Sox because they wouldn't offer him an extra year as the White Sox did. Being an American League team, the Sox have the ability to hide him as a designated hitter in his later years. Apparently the guy is already questionable as a first baseman. So why didn't they go hard after Tanaka (which I will agree they very likely didn't do)? Perhaps that is because their rotation is set and they're pretty well tapped out -- certainly to the point where they can't afford $25 million per season for a pitcher who has yet to throw a major league pitch. Every other pitcher who has signed for as much money as Tanaka did is a former Cy Young winner. Clearly the Yankees are hoping he'll become a FUTURE Cy Young winner. Perhaps he will. But with the Giants already having signed or re-signed three actual or potential free agent starters, it would seem the delay with Tanaka's status kept them from any intention they may have had to sign him. Didn't we all figure it would be one of the top money teams, with the finalists supposedly coming down to the Yankees, Dodgers and, hoping to make a big splash, the Cubs. I don't think it was reasonable for the Giants to pursue Tanaka at this late date. Going after the hitter (Abreu, is it) early seemed to make more sense. The horse was out of the barn before Tanaka became available. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=2#ixzz2rEnZ5DgWSo you seriously would prefer having Vogelsong in the rotation over Tanaka? And you also think the Giants would prefer that? Wow.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 24, 2014 22:06:21 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 24, 2014 22:06:21 GMT -5
Randy -- So you seriously would prefer having Vogelsong in the rotation over Tanaka? And you also think the Giants would prefer that? Wow. Rog -- Let's look at your comments: Would I prefer Vogelsong over Tanaka? Of course not. You knew that when you asked the question, didn't you? When you made the comment, I hope you were remembering my mentioning to Boly that Ryan would have to lower his ERA by about 2 3/4 points in order to have the 3.33 ERA Boly predicted. Tanaka could actually DOUBLE his Japanese ERA and do it. If rational people would prefer Ryan to Tanaka, Tanaka wouldn't be making four times as much per season as Ryan is. Of course I would rather have Tanaka. I think it is safe to say Boly feels the same way. And of course the Giants do. But Tanaka costs almost $20 million per season more than Vogelsong, and the Giants don't have anything close to that remaining in their budget. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#ixzz2rNAt1coD
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 24, 2014 22:21:01 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 24, 2014 22:21:01 GMT -5
I have a question to ask the board. If you were a GM going into the off-season and had a lot of needs that you could fill through free agency and/or trades, how would you proceed?
Let's suppose your Plan A waits to sign (such as has been the case with Santana and other top free agent starters, including Tanaka until recently). Let's suppose you're the Giants and have THREE rotation spots to fill.
Do you sign Hudson, Lincecum and Vogelsong for about $35 million or do you wait to see how much the big boys will command? If you wait, what do you do if you're unable to sign any of the big boys?
And if you also need a left fielder, do you wait to see how your pitching situations turns out before addressing that need?
I think a team with a handful of needs needs to put together plans A through (almost) Z and be prepared to move quickly to plan B to plan C to plan etc. if necessary. Otherwise you could wind up with very little or nothing. You could wind up with some budget to spend, but no reasonable players to spend it on.
If you're the Giants, do you want to trade off your young starters in order to fill your rotation with higher-priced pitchers? Or do you want to hope you can fill those three rotation spots with three free agents you feel OK about?
One could certainly question the Giants' decision to re-sign Pence, Lincecum and Vogelsong as well as adding Hudson and Morse, but what would you do when you entered the off-season needing three starters and two outfielders? Would you risk holding the bag or having to grossly overpay to fill only part of your needs?
It's easy for us to sit on the outside and criticize, but I don't think we fully appreciate that the Giants and other teams are shooting at moving targets, targets that can quickly disappear if the team doesn't commit quickly.
The Giants had five key spots to fill. They filled them all for about $60 million. Sure, they could have (presumably) signed Tanaka and Jacoby Ellsbury too. And had about $10 million to fill the other three slots.
In the case of Tanaka, it wasn't until fairly recently that teams could even be sure he would be available this winter. I think we criticize decisions as if they are made with certainty regarding future events. That certianty doesn't exist -- so teams have to go with they can be sure is available. Otherwise they risk being caught without a musical chair on which to sit.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 24, 2014 23:12:38 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jan 24, 2014 23:12:38 GMT -5
I think the Giants would rather have Vogey at his price than Tanaka at his.
I think as a GM every year presents a plan that may have to be changed almost hourly. I do know that if Santana was my plan A, I would devise another plan. I don't think Santana is waiting to sign as much as nobody wants to sign him. He's simply not worth what he's aking. I guess that 5 yr/$100 million thing was more than a bit of a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 25, 2014 2:33:44 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jan 25, 2014 2:33:44 GMT -5
The Giants have signed lefty David Huff, last of the Yankees. Huff went 3-1, 4.67 for the Yankees last year, and has a 5.32 career ERA. You got me as to the why of this.
Former Giant lefty Jose Mijares has signed with Boston.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 25, 2014 16:05:27 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 25, 2014 16:05:27 GMT -5
Allen -- The Giants have signed lefty David Huff, last of the Yankees. Huff went 3-1, 4.67 for the Yankees last year, and has a 5.32 career ERA. You got me as to the why of this. Rog -- Let me give you a few reasons why the Giants might have been interested in Huff: . While his 4.67 ERA was poor, WHIP is usually a more reliable measure of relievers. David huffed and puffed his way to 0.98 WHIP last season. . He throws strikes. 70% of his first pitches last season were strikes. That's Maddux-like. . He limited opponents to 6.8 hits per nine innings last season. . While he has relieved of late, 54 of his 69 major league appearances have come as a starter. I don't think the Giants expect Huff to be a fabulous addition to the bullpen, but it appears he might be able to do a decent job as the third southpaw in the pen and as an emergency starter if needed. I'm not overly excited about Huff, especially since he fares better against right-handed batters than lefties, limiting his value as a LOOGY, but the Giants acquired him for cash considerations. I can see why they might have been intrigued. Not at all comparing Huff to Javier Lopez, but let's not forget that Lopez was actually considered a ham and egger by some when the Giants acquired him. That they acquired Lopez for John Bowker and Joey Martinez itself indicates Javier wasn't the most highly-sought-after southpaw at the time. The Giants have made some nice moves that at the time didn't cause a big splash. Rather than taking the position of why in the world would they want THIS guy, I tend to look for the things they MIGHT like about him. As I mention, I'm not overly excited about Huff. But I do like him more than when all I knew about him was that he went 3-1 with a 4.67 ERA with the Yankees. He's not a hard thrower (91), but he was successful last season with a cutter he threw about once every eight pitches. Mostly he throws the fastball (5 out of 9 pitches) and a change up (2 out of 9 pitches). He's arb eligible, but he won't earn a lot next season. My question with acquiring Huff wouldn't be why, but why not? The move doesn't appear to be high reward, but it certainly is low risk. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#ixzz2rRgYtuTE
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 25, 2014 17:41:47 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jan 25, 2014 17:41:47 GMT -5
They could have done better with Jose Mijares,
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 25, 2014 23:11:59 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 25, 2014 23:11:59 GMT -5
Allen -- They could have done better with Jose Mijares, Rog -- Perhaps. If Jose were to pitch as he did in 2012, I think you're right. If he were to pitch as he did last season, hopefully not. I think the Giants had tired of the out-of-shape Mijares and jumped on Huff when David became available for what one would guess was a small amount of cash. Huff is a first-year arb-eligible player, so he will very likely cost less. I would guess the Giants try to get as much as they can with the big(ger) money, then try to juggle the remaining salary budget as best they can while filling minor roles. Mijares could well turn out better than Huff, but let's hope the Giants are right when they see at least potential in Huff. Remember too that Huff's experience starting in the majors could be a small emergency benefit. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#ixzz2rTSg6yEu
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Moves
Jan 26, 2014 1:45:23 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Jan 26, 2014 1:45:23 GMT -5
If I'm a GM of a team that, like the Giants, has major flexibility with payroll and which has high expectations...I don't stop acquiring top notch talent. Just because Vogey or Morse have signed wouldn't preclude me from trying to get better. If trades need to be made later to lighten the payroll, so be it. This is particularly true when the main divisional foe is gobbling up as much high priced talent as it can get its mitts on.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jan 26, 2014 10:16:13 GMT -5
I'm sure we've noticed in the last couple of years the Giants don't spend crazy in the offseason, preferring to leave themselves with some flexibility to add at the trading deadline. It's not a bad philosophy except for the fact it might cost you prospects.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 26, 2014 13:48:45 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Jan 26, 2014 13:48:45 GMT -5
Would I prefer Vogelsong over Tanaka? Of course not. You knew that when you asked the question, didn't you? When you made the comment, I hope you were remembering my mentioning to Boly that Ryan would have to lower his ERA by about 2 3/4 points in order to have the 3.33 ERA Boly predicted. Tanaka could actually DOUBLE his Japanese ERA and do it. If rational people would prefer Ryan to Tanaka, Tanaka wouldn't be making four times as much per season as Ryan is.
Of course I would rather have Tanaka. I think it is safe to say Boly feels the same way. And of course the Giants do.
---boly says---
While listenting to ESPN radio last week they said that the signing of Tanaka was, when all the money and luxury taxes were added in, cost the Yankees $250 MILLION!
The posting fee alone would have been enough for me to tell him to 'take a hike!'
I don't care HOW good he was in Japan. Japan isn't the show, and regardless of how good he might turn out to be, it was NOT worth taking the chance with the budge the Giants have.
Is Tanaka likely better than Vogey?
Sure!
But at that price? No thanks.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Moves
Jan 26, 2014 22:17:33 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Jan 26, 2014 22:17:33 GMT -5
Boly, the point isnt whether the signing price is too high or isn't. Time will tell on that. The point is the Giants didn't even make an offer. What if the Dodgers had had their offer accepted at about the same price the Giants would have felt comfortable offering? Wouldn't the Giants brass feel pretty stupid right now, especially when they made such a point of announcing they would be "major" players in the international FA market? So far, I'm decidedly UNDERwhelmed at their major plays on that market.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 27, 2014 17:12:28 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Jan 27, 2014 17:12:28 GMT -5
Randy says---Boly, the point isnt whether the signing price is too high or isn't. Time will tell on that. The point is the Giants didn't even make an offer. What if the Dodgers had had their offer accepted at about the same price the Giants would have felt comfortable offering? Wouldn't the Giants brass feel pretty stupid right now, especially when they made such a point of announcing they would be "major" players in the international FA market? So far, I'm decidedly UNDERwhelmed at their major plays on that market.
---boly says---
I don't know where I stand on your point, Randy. On the one hand, I agree, they should have made an offer.
Then comes the question to which I have no answer; "were they TOLD not to bother by owner ship because there was no way in hell they could afford it?"
If the later is the case, why even bother making an offer if the rest of the team they field would have to be below par due to lack of funds?
boly
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jan 27, 2014 20:08:35 GMT -5
I'm still bothered that when the Giants signed Tim Hudson, Brian Sabean made the statement, "we still have plenty of cash to spend," and then wound up bringing back Ryan Vogelsong. They did spend the six million on Michael Morse, but I think we've got a difference of opinion on what "plenty of money" means.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 27, 2014 20:14:01 GMT -5
Post by donk33 on Jan 27, 2014 20:14:01 GMT -5
I'm still bothered that when the Giants signed Tim Hudson, Brian Sabean made the statement, "we still have plenty of cash to spend," and then wound up bringing back Ryan Vogelsong. They did spend the six million on Michael Morse, but I think we've got a difference of opinion on what "plenty of money" means. dk...do the Giants file an earning report in SF newspapers??? They must have a ton of cash with the added TV money and sell-outs for every game??? Is the stadium paid off with doubling their mortgage payments, they should be close to having their loan paid off...
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 1:04:58 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Jan 28, 2014 1:04:58 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm not buying the Giants crying poor...not now...not with the stadium filled to capacity every night and the tv ratings off the charts. This team has the money to get Tanaka...they just are too cheap to pony up. The reason that pisses me off is that the Giants will ALWAYS be incapable of luring FA hitting here because of the stadium so it's imperitive that the team snag as much big time pitching as it can...and cost should NOT be an obstacle. Not now.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 2:21:10 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 28, 2014 2:21:10 GMT -5
Randy -- If I'm a GM of a team that, like the Giants, has major flexibility with payroll and which has high expectations...I don't stop acquiring top notch talent. Just because Vogey or Morse have signed wouldn't preclude me from trying to get better. If trades need to be made later to lighten the payroll, so be it. Rog -- You might want to take a shot at the question I asked about how you (or anyone here) would approach the off-season, not knowing when players would come off the market. But for now, let's look at what you say here. You indicate the Giants have major flexibility with their payroll. I would guess you're both right and wrong. Right, because the Giants' payroll is in the top quartile. Wrong, because MAJOR flexibility would seem to imply something far closer to the Yankees or Dodgers, whom the Giants trail by many millions of payroll. You say you wouldn't stop acquiring top-notch talent. I agree -- but what do you do when the budget is almost gone and a $25 million per year pitcher becomes available? One who is completely unproven at the major league level but looks to have excellent potential. You say that if trades need to be made to lighten up the payroll. Perhaps you are ready to suggest which trades you'd make to raise the $25 million per season over the next half dozen years. I'd love to see your creativity here, since I don't believe I myself could pull it off. One huge problem you or I would face is that the big-dollar guys tend to have no-trade contacts. Coming up with the $25 million savings without creating some vacuums on the team would indeed be a tough proposition. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#ixzz2rftfIAqt
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 2:27:46 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 28, 2014 2:27:46 GMT -5
Don -- Is the stadium paid off with doubling their mortgage payments, they should be close to having their loan paid off... Rog -- As has been reported here before, the Giants say they will have the stadium paid of in 2017. As we have speculated, it may be then that we see the dollars begin to fly. Even now, we have seen their payroll increase by over 50% since they won their first San Francisco World Championship three years ago. That's not insignificant. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#scrollTo=18598#ixzz2rfwgsrll
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 2:31:10 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 28, 2014 2:31:10 GMT -5
Mark -- I'm still bothered that when the Giants signed Tim Hudson, Brian Sabean made the statement, "we still have plenty of cash to spend," and then wound up bringing back Ryan Vogelsong. They did spend the six million on Michael Morse, but I think we've got a difference of opinion on what "plenty of money" means. Rog -- I agree it appears Brian may have overplayed his hand a bit on that one. That said, here may be some of the reasons they didn't go for a pitcher such as Tanaka or any of the other high-profile free agents. . They may not have felt any of the high-profile guys offered value at the price they commanded. . They may have decided to put a bunch of that money into locking up Brandon Belt and Pablo Sandoval long-term. That's an idea I like. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#scrollTo=18599#ixzz2rfyEy1G5
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 2:35:27 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 28, 2014 2:35:27 GMT -5
Randy -- This team has the money to get Tanaka...they just are too cheap to pony up. The reason that pisses me off is that the Giants will ALWAYS be incapable of luring FA hitting here because of the stadium so it's imperitive that the team snag as much big time pitching as it can...and cost should NOT be an obstacle. Not now. Rog -- Let's not forget that the Giants are a BUSINESS. Given that they're already spending in the top quartile, I don't think we should be TOO harsh on them. The big money now is coming from TV deals, and I don't think the Giants have one of the most lucrative ones. Let's just hope that they can get into the playoffs and have something happen like how Mark DeRosa described their 2010 championship -- "Our big horses in the rotation got hot at the right time." Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#scrollTo=18600#ixzz2rfzCecbY
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 11:38:39 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Jan 28, 2014 11:38:39 GMT -5
That would be nice but I prefer a safer bet than hoping for the longer shot to pay off. I think the Giants have a decent shot at making the playoffs but as far as the "horses" getting hot at the right time...well, only Bum and Cain are sure bets right now. The rotation was more solid and even dominant back when DeRo was on the team. We all HOPE that both Vogey and Lincecum can be as consistently great as they were for us in 2010 and 2012 but that's merely a hope at this point. They have to prove it on the field. I like Tim's chances of being very good and the stuff is definitely there to bounce back big but he needs to control it consistently to be great again. Vogey is a wild card. He can be great or he can be putrid. Tanaka may not have done it in America but Japan's League is not the PCL. He not only won there he was a man amongst boys. There's little doubt he will be excellent in MLB.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 13:34:04 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 28, 2014 13:34:04 GMT -5
Randy -- That would be nice but I prefer a safer bet than hoping for the longer shot to pay off. Rog -- Of course. Randy -- I think the Giants have a decent shot at making the playoffs but as far as the "horses" getting hot at the right time...well, only Bum and Cain are sure bets right now. Rog -- Not even them. There are virtually no sure bets. I do like Madison's odds though, and one would think it more likely than not for Cain. I like Hudson's chances too, and I'm reasonably confident with Lincecum. Ryan is a coin flip IMO. Randy -- The rotation was more solid and even dominant back when DeRo was on the team. We all HOPE that both Vogey and Lincecum can be as consistently great as they were for us in 2010 and 2012 but that's merely a hope at this point. They have to prove it on the field. I like Tim's chances of being very good and the stuff is definitely there to bounce back big but he needs to control it consistently to be great again. Vogey is a wild card. He can be great or he can be putrid. Rog -- What I got from DeRosa's comment was that a team has to be good enough to get into the playoffs to get a shot, and then it becomes a matter of getting hot at the right time. Naturally, the better the team, the better their chance of getting hot. But being the best team is far from a guarantee of winning the World Series. Randy -- Tanaka may not have done it in America but Japan's League is not the PCL. He not only won there he was a man amongst boys. There's little doubt he will be excellent in MLB. Rog -- I too think he'll be darn good in the US, even though that wasn't the case with the first such free agent, Dice-K. Tanaka is rated almost as highly as last year's Japanese free agent. Please tell us, though, how the Giants were supposed to be able to afford Tanaka and stay within budget. You indicated that if they had to make trades to shed salary, they should do so, but we haven't yet seen your recommendations. Would we love to have seen the Giants sign Tanaka? Of course. No-brainer. But the Giants spent their money early and locked in solutions, avoiding the risk of waiting and being left holding the bag. How would you have approached the off-season? How would you have arranged the roster to accomodate the signing of Tanaka once the Giants essentially spent their budget? The hard thing here isn't deciding what to do regarding signing Tanaka; the tough thing is to figure out how to do it. Suggestions welcome. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#ixzz2rib07kM1
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 14:05:10 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Jan 28, 2014 14:05:10 GMT -5
For years we heard the old tired excuse of the debt service holding back the payroll budget and we accepted it because we had not won any rings and expectations were low. Well that excuse is gone now. The Giants must face the fact that they can no longer just put a winning team on the field to appease the masses. It's now been two years since the last parade and fans aren't seeing a whole lot of urgency. Bobby Evans made a big to do about being major players in the international market and what did it produce? SQUAT! It's time to put up or shut up. If the budget needs to be raised, raise it. The stadium has been jam packed for the last 3 years. Money talks and BS walks. The Dodgers are spending like it's raining c-notes in LA and we're watching them leave us in the freakin dust. I'm sick of it and it wont be long before all those ticket buyers get sick of it too if this keeps up. As far as I'm concerned, the business of baseball is winning...NOT making the ownership fat off of the stupid panda hat wearing morons who buy stuff at Giants Dugout stores. If this team doesn't make it to the WS this year, it's time to show us the freakin money!
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 17:35:20 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 28, 2014 17:35:20 GMT -5
Randy -- For years we heard the old tired excuse of the debt service holding back the payroll budget and we accepted it because we had not won any rings and expectations were low. Rog -- If we accepted it, it is because we can't change it. It's not that expectations were low. For over two decades now, the Giants have been a pretty good team. Until 2010 and 2012, being a good team didn't produce any World Championships. Guess what? The average team wins one every 30 years. Despite a horribly slow start in World Championships as the San Francisco Giants, the team is now on track with the averages. Do we want better? Of course. But the Giants are in the top quartile of salary spending in the major leagues. I don't see that as unacceptable. Do you? Randy -- Well that excuse is gone now. Rog -- Really? The stadium is paid off? I hadn't seen the new, but I'm excited. Randy -- The Giants must face the fact that they can no longer just put a winning team on the field to appease the masses. Rog -- It's not about appeasing the masses. It's about winning titles and making money. Randy -- It's now been two years since the last parade and fans aren't seeing a whole lot of urgency. Rog -- Two whole years, huh? Tell that to the Cubbies. Tell that to the Red Sox prior to 2004. Tell that to the Giants before 2010. I would LOVE to see the Giants win the World Series this year. I think there is a good chance they will make the playoffs and give themselves a chance to do so. But even if a team is the best in baseball, it is expecting a lot to win the World Series every two years. Randy -- Bobby Evans made a big to do about being major players in the international market and what did it produce? SQUAT! Rog -- So what? If they made the effort, I'm fine with it. They not doubt will analyze why they were unable to sign an international free agent and learn from the experience. If we haven't tried and failed, we haven't taken enough risk. Give the Giants a little time. How many top international free agents were there this winter? Two? That means 28 out of 30 teams failed according to your definition. Which means that even if one puts forth a strong effort, the odds ae against him. If the Giants were an American League team, they likely would have signed Abreu. It has been reported that they were very strongly in the race for a player at one of their better positions already. Randy -- It's time to put up or shut up. If the budget needs to be raised, raise it. Rog -- How much have you yourself contributed to the Giants' new "Raise the Budget" Fund? Randy -- The stadium has been jam packed for the last 3 years. Money talks and BS walks. Rog -- And patience coupled with prudent decisions sometime runs. Randy -- The Dodgers are spending like it's raining c-notes in LA and we're watching them leave us in the freakin dust. Rog -- I'm sorry, Randy, but it isn't your money. The Dodgers had spent a ton of money in 2012, and the Giants still beat them. If you want to see the Giants spend more, start up a contribution campaign among Giants fans. Otherwise, it might be prudent to allow the Giants to run their business. They've done a pretty good job of it two of the past four years. Randy -- I'm sick of it and it wont be long before all those ticket buyers get sick of it too if this keeps up. Rog -- Now you're talking business. Winning and making money is a fine balance. As you correctly point out, if the product isn't good enough, the revenue begins to fall. They have certainly been helped by their new stadium (which we sometimes forget THEY paid for), and they have done a nice job of winning and making money in recent years. Randy -- As far as I'm concerned, the business of baseball is winning... Rog -- As it should to an extent. How would you have liked it if the Giants had moved to Toronto or Tampa Bay, as they nearly did when their business wasn't making money? Randy --NOT making the ownership fat off of the stupid panda hat wearing morons who buy stuff at Giants Dugout stores. If this team doesn't make it to the WS this year, it's time to show us the freakin money! Rog -- Let's suppose the Giants become one of the top four teams in baseball. Their odds of making the World Series are still less than 50%. I don't believe you're being realistic here. Of COURSE we would love to see the Giants spend more money. But we shouldn't be telling them how to do business. If we're upset enough about how they are doing their business, perhaps we should stop buying tickets, watching games on TV, or listening to them on the radio. We should probably leave them to do what they do far better than the rest of us -- run their ball club. We probably should have more patience than a three-year-old. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#ixzz2rjZ3Yvby
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 19:20:27 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Jan 28, 2014 19:20:27 GMT -5
Hey if you don't want honest answers you can stay in fantasy-land. You asked me what I would do if I were in charge and I told you. I know damn well it has little chance of being implemented by this front office because they appear to be more interested in making money than in winning more titles.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 19:40:51 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Jan 28, 2014 19:40:51 GMT -5
For over two decades now, the Giants have been a pretty good team. Until 2010 and 2012, being a good team didn't produce any World Championships. Guess what? The average team wins one every 30 years.
Dood - excuse me for wanting better than just average. We have a small window with the current group that already has produced two rings for us. I prefer to make an honest run at another before we have to start over from scratch, especially considering the failure of the farm system at the moment.
Randy -- Bobby Evans made a big to do about being major players in the international market and what did it produce? SQUAT!
Rog -- So what? If they made the effort, I'm fine with it.
Dood - first off, how do we know they made an honest effort or if it all just lip service? We only have their word to go on. Would they tell us that they half-assed it if that is the case? I doubt it. Results is the only way we can accurately judge the effort.
Rog -- I'm sorry, Randy, but it isn't your money. The Dodgers had spent a ton of money in 2012, and the Giants still beat them. If you want to see the Giants spend more, start up a contribution campaign among Giants fans. Otherwise, it might be prudent to allow the Giants to run their business. They've done a pretty good job of it two of the past four years.
Dood - the Dodgers had only just begun spending money in the middle of 2012. Now they are a year and a half in and have passed the Giants by...and their waving hands are becoming difficult to see. What kind of idiotic comment is that for me to start up a contribution for the millionaire owners? They either want to win or they want to make more money. One is a priority and the other is an afterthought. They HAD done a very good job of balancing the two prior to last year, but now they are far behind the Dodgers in both and they haven't done a lot to try to catch up. That is frustrating.
Of COURSE we would love to see the Giants spend more money. But we shouldn't be telling them how to do business.
Dood - I wasn't telling THEM anything. I was answering YOUR question.
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 19:57:28 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 28, 2014 19:57:28 GMT -5
Randy -- Hey if you don't want honest answers you can stay in fantasy-land. You asked me what I would do if I were in charge and I told you Rog -- Sorry. I didn't realize you were answering the question, which was more like whom you would get rid of in order to acquire the $25 million per year to sign Tanaka. Heck, if money were no object, I suspect the Giants would have made a big-time run at Tanaka and one of the top free agent outfielders. As it was, they acquired Tim Hudson and Mike Morse for less than $20 million per season and without long-term commitments. Not ideal, but not too bad given the budget they had to work with. By the way, depending on how one looks at it, you may be the one in fantasy land, not I. At least until mid-season, the Giants don't appear to be willing to spend much more money, and I don't think any of us is in position to say they are doing the wrong thing. They're running a busines, dood, and I for one am happy they're running it in San Francsco, not Toronto or Tampa Bay. Their fans in New York aren't too happy they're running the business in San Francisco, but those fans are happy that at least they're still runnning the business somewhere. Hey, if the Giants felt able to throw more money at the problem, the solutions would be quite a bit easier, wouldn't they? When I asked how one would save the $25 million per season to save Tanaka, you did realize I was asking how to SAVE the money, right? I appreciate your making an attemp at answering the question, but you seem to have turned the question around and not answered it. I asked how you would save $25 million, and you didn't answer that. Did you? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#ixzz2rkBFHaiG
|
|
|
Moves
Jan 28, 2014 20:17:14 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Jan 28, 2014 20:17:14 GMT -5
Dood - excuse me for wanting better than just average. Rog -- No one said you shouldn't want better than just average. What I said was that it was presumptious to EXPECT it. It's a no-brainer to say it would be nice if the Giants would spend more. It takes a lot more brain-power to come up with how to improve the team WITHOUT spending more. I ask you again: How would you do so from here? Let's take it back a week and see how you would have come up with the $25 million a season to sign Tanaka and stay within budget. Almost ANYBODY can make improvements if they spend more. The challenge is to improve and still stay within budget. That's the job Brian Sabean has, and I asked you or ask you now: What would you have done a week ago if you were Brian? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2113/moves?page=3#scrollTo=18618#ixzz2rkEkJ3bP
|
|