sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Feb 5, 2014 0:12:53 GMT -5
Rog -- When there is a free agent, in theory each team has a 3% chance of landing that free agent. Still, we seem to be unhappy if they don't snag the BIGGEST free agents, even though there are multiple needs to address.
Dood - I don't think it's being greedy to expect to get just ONE of those guys once in a blue moon. We seem to NEVER have (except for Barry Bonds when he was available, and he wanted to come home and had his agent contact the Giants first). And if it IS being too greedy to expect that, how about show us you're putting in the effort to get one?
I guess where we disagree isn't on whether we would like to see them do more, but rather on the practicality of their doing so. Why criticize the lack of something when in fact it was reasonably significant to begin with and the uncertainty of doing more is unknown from a financial standpoint.
Dood - blame the Giants themselves for winning the titles. If they had not done so the expectations placed on the franchise would not be so lofty. But having won 2 titles in such short order, it is now no longer good enough to just be a winning team. They have to at least put forth a strong effort to return to championship form and when the competition gets stiffer, they have to up the ante.
To say the Giants have been cheap isn't correct.
Dood - compared to what? If you're comparing them to the rest of the league, that's a joke. Do you want to be just a bit above average or do you want to be WAY above average?
To say we'd like more is natural. To say that is practical isn't within our knowledge base. Do we honesty think the Giants don't WISH they were able to spend more and put an even better team on the field?
Dood - If they truly wished it, they could make it happen. It's just not important ENOUGH to them.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 10:05:11 GMT -5
Dood - I don't think it's being greedy to expect to get just ONE of those guys once in a blue moon. Rog -- This off-season the Giants have signed or re-signed three high-profile players -- Pence, Lincecum and Hudson. They entered the off-season needing three starters and a left fielder. They spent about $50 million per season on the above plus Mike Morse and addressed -- if not necessarily solved -- all four positions. Is there any other team out there who addressed as many positions? Maybe the Yankees. Seven years ago the Giants signed the high-profile Barry Zito. Obviously that didn't work out, but at least until the re-signing of Pence, it was the Giants' biggest free-agent signing since Barry Bonds. I think too that we should look at how the Giants are keeping their home-built or other core players. They have spent and/or committed a LOT of money to Matt Cain, Madison Bumgarner (a signing coup) and Buster Posey, as well as Pence and Lincecum. That's five players with average contracts exceeding $80 million per season. I mentioned all the spending the Giants have done over the past two years or so. It's pretty significant. Again, it's easy to say the Giants should spend more. The challenge is building the roster and locking its core in long-term while staying on budget. It's kind of like saying, if we spent more, we could have a bigger house and a better car. Of course. But where do we get the money, and how do we continue to save for the college fund and retirement? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2179/positives#page=2#ixzz2sSYRRsC1
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 10:08:16 GMT -5
Dood - blame the Giants themselves for winning the titles. If they had not done so the expectations placed on the franchise would not be so lofty. Rog -- Think of the logic here. BLAME the Giants for winning two World Championships? BLAME them? I realize what you're saying here, but if we have to say something in reverse (such as blaming the Giants for winning two titles instead of celebrating them), we're probably off track a bit. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2179/positives?page=2#scrollTo=18708#ixzz2sSbePCz4
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 10:11:22 GMT -5
Rog -- To say the Giants have been cheap isn't correct. Dood - compared to what? If you're comparing them to the rest of the league, that's a joke. Do you want to be just a bit above average or do you want to be WAY above average? Rog -- To say the Giants have been cheap just isn't correct. As for being WAY above average, of course we do. Duh. There isnt a person on this board who isn't with you 100% there. The question is how to do so and still stay on budget. The Giants did it in 2010 and 2012. This is another even year. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2179/positives?page=2#scrollTo=18709#ixzz2sScQ9qeC
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 10:27:03 GMT -5
Rog -- To say we'd like more is natural. To say that is practical isn't within our knowledge base. Do we honesty think the Giants don't WISH they were able to spend more and put an even better team on the field? Dood - If they truly wished it, they could make it happen. It's just not important ENOUGH to them. Rog -- Apparently it's not important enough to you to make a ground-roots push to come up with the money. We don't know the Giants' financial situation. It's kind of like saying our company could double its benefits if they truly wished it. Of course they would love to do so, and double their own contritubion in the process. But it likely wouldn't be good business. Ultimately the Horace Stoneham wasn't a good enough businessman. The Giants nearly moved to Toronto as a result. The same with Bob Lurie. The Giants nearly moved to Tampa. Your cried when the Giants nearly moved to Tampa. That's understandable and to be commended. Now you're crying after the Giants have won the World Championship twice in four years. That's selfish IMO. The last previous time a team won two World Series in four years was the Yankees in the late nineties and the year 2000. That's a LOT of opportunities since then -- and the Giants are the only team that has been successful in accomplishing the feat. Being selfish in itself is bad enough. Not knowing if the Giants are reasonably to fulfill our spending wish and still being selfish is sophomoric. No one here is denying we would LOVE to see the Giants spend more money. The question is how do they do it? And there is really no way for us to know the answer to that question. You keep saying that the Giants should spend more money. That question is now a moot point. The question is where do they get it, and the answer you keep offering is that they should spend more. Q: Where do they get the money? A: They should spend more. Q: Of course. But where do they get the money? A: They should spend more. The answer is non-responsive. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2179/positives?page=2#scrollTo=18710#ixzz2sSdBtP9q
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 10:31:06 GMT -5
Now here's a hypothetical question we CAN answer:
If we were Brian Sabean and the Giants TODAY found a way to give us an extra $25 million a year to spend -- beginnng this year -- how would we spend it?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 5, 2014 11:19:31 GMT -5
--Rog says---Now here's a hypothetical question we CAN answer:
If we were Brian Sabean and the Giants TODAY found a way to give us an extra $25 million a year to spend -- beginnng this year -- how would we spend it
--boly says---
Rog, had you asked this question a month or two before, we would have had players upon whom we would have liked to spend it.
Now? Now it's too late.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 11:31:43 GMT -5
Rog -- I wondered what you were talking about -- and then I saw the second mention of Heath, which was entirely inadvertent. Dood - thanks for the clarification. The next time--probably sometime soon--you post something idiotic, I'll just ignore it as being "inadvertant" Rog -- Talk on the internet isn't as easy to interpret as talking in person. The nuances, the inflection just aren't there. We have each misinterpreted someone from time to time. But I do make an effort to try to understand what the poster REALLY meant. IMO seeing Heath Hembree listed simply as a name, with no predicate and no period, after a list of well-spelled-out situations was pretty darn easy to interpret as a simple mistake -- unless someone had it out to prove that person wrong no matter what. I think I have been pretty good at understanding such things. As a recent example, I was pretty sure that when you said a bonus baby as Madison Bumgarner was should make the top 10 starters right now, you didn't mean all "bonus babies," since most draft choices received bonuses. I suspected you might not even have meant first round picks (although that was less clear). So I simply took all the pitchers who had been drafted in Bumgarner's year or the three prior drafts as high or higher than he was and showed that only three out of more than 20 actually made the list. I mentioned that you likely hadn't even heard of several of the pitchers on the list. Yet no reply from you. You make no effort to understand the slight bobble I made and then criticize. I do make an effort to understand what you meant, give you the benefit of the doubt (top 10 picks as opposed to all first rounders), and then give facts that show you are way off base. Rather than simply admit I was right (a novel concept), you chose to ignore the situation. That is cetainly your right. IMO it just doesn't show much character. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2179/positives#ixzz2sSukChWd
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 11:36:55 GMT -5
--Rog says---Now here's a hypothetical question we CAN answer: If we were Brian Sabean and the Giants TODAY found a way to give us an extra $25 million a year to spend -- beginnng this year -- how would we spend it --boly says--- Rog, had you asked this question a month or two before, we would have had players upon whom we would have liked to spend it. Now? Now it's too late. Rog -- It's too late -- and yet it isn't. No question it would have been much better to have the extra $25 million all along. Yet there are still highly rated players -- mostly pitchers -- who are still available. There are other ways to spend the money. I was simply asking another hypothetical question, trying to give us all a little more to discuss. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2179/positives?page=2#scrollTo=18717#ixzz2sSxSOZjS
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 11:42:21 GMT -5
I'll restate the question: With 20/20 hindsight, if the Giants had possessed another $25 million per season in their salary budget all along, how would we have spent it?
Would we have used it to sign Tanaka? Cano? Ellsbury?
Would we have changed the overall group of players we would have signed/re-signed?
Would we have used it in another manner?
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Feb 5, 2014 12:17:55 GMT -5
Dood - thanks for the clarification. The next time--probably sometime soon--you post something idiotic, I'll just ignore it as being "inadvertant"
Rog -- Talk on the internet isn't as easy to interpret as talking in person. The nuances, the inflection just aren't there. We have each misinterpreted someone from time to time. But I do make an effort to try to understand what the poster REALLY meant. IMO seeing Heath Hembree listed simply as a name, with no predicate and no period, after a list of well-spelled-out situations was pretty darn easy to interpret as a simple mistake -- unless someone had it out to prove that person wrong no matter what.
Dood - the first part of the paragraph is well taken. I agree that lots of misinterpretations are to be had here. But whether on the internet or in other aspects of life, a succinct--even one word--bullet point can often be used among complete sentenced ones to accentuate a previous point. I see it in sports columns often. If you can't see that much then you probably wont ever.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Feb 5, 2014 12:40:55 GMT -5
Your cried when the Giants nearly moved to Tampa. That's understandable and to be commended. Now you're crying after the Giants have won the World Championship twice in four years. That's selfish IMO.
Dood - not crying, just making a point. I get enjoyment from Giants baseball whether they win or lose. I get a lot MORE when they win. But as much as you want to emphasize 2010 and 2012, which were amazing seasons, you seem to have already forgotten 2013, which was putrid. It also made very clear to most observers that the Giants will not return to 2012 form doing things the same way they did that year. The game has changed in the NL West. You just don't seem to get that. And if Brian Sabean doesn't get it soon, then even with all the success he has brought, his seat deserves to get scalding hot.
You mocked me for saying it's the Giants fault, but it is. If they had gone on just being a pretty good team every year, most fans would accept it. They wouldn't like it necessarily but we had been used to it all these years. By winning 2 championships, the team raised the bar and expectations. There can be no doubt about that. The Giants know or should know this. Maybe not all Giants fans will be disappointed if they have a winning season, finish behind the Dodgers and watch other teams compete for the title this year. I will, because we do have players in place with championship pedigree and I'd prefer to not have to waste this opportunity and wait another 30 years or more for the next parade.
I think you'd actually prefer it if the Giants had to wait until these players are gone and have to rebuild the team before winning another title because then you could compare the stats and have a giddy time of that. Me, I prefer not to wait.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Feb 5, 2014 13:56:18 GMT -5
Dood - I don't think it's being greedy to expect to get just ONE of those guys once in a blue moon.
Rog -- This off-season the Giants have signed or re-signed three high-profile players -- Pence, Lincecum and Hudson.
They entered the off-season needing three starters and a left fielder. They spent about $50 million per season on the above plus Mike Morse and addressed -- if not necessarily solved -- all four positions. Is there any other team out there who addressed as many positions? Maybe the Yankees.
Seven years ago the Giants signed the high-profile Barry Zito. Obviously that didn't work out, but at least until the re-signing of Pence, it was the Giants' biggest free-agent signing since Barry Bonds.
Dood - sorry but none of these guys, good players though they may be, qualifies in my mind as a "high profile" player, with the possible exception of Zito who had the good fortune of being in a one team bidding war between Peter Magowan and himself. I'm talking about guys like Pujols and Hamilton and Cano. I'm not saying I want or would have wanted those guys specifically at their price, but it would have been nice to have even been in the running for those guys and sign one similar to them at some point. We always seem to either have to content ourselves with re-signing our own, trading away top prospects or picking at some other team's cast offs.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 5, 2014 15:36:38 GMT -5
I get your point, Randy. But MY point (not Rog's) is both Pujols and Hamilton have been bust signings for the Angels. Big free agent signings are normally at the back half of their peak, which means the majority of their contract will be while their skills are diminishing due to age. It's like paying full price for a used car with 100,000 miles on it.
I believe the Giants are being cheap by being content with Abreu and Perez. A better use of their money would have been strengthening their bench and bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 15:43:23 GMT -5
Dood - sorry but none of these guys, good players though they may be, qualifies in my mind as a "high profile" player, with the possible exception of Zito who had the good fortune of being in a one team bidding war between Peter Magowan and himself. I'm talking about guys like Pujols and Hamilton and Cano. I'm not saying I want or would have wanted those guys specifically at their price, but it would have been nice to have even been in the running for those guys and sign one similar to them at some point. Rog -- Most signings of that type are ultimately unsuccessful. It is probably better for the Giants if they weren't in the running for most guys like that, although we don't know for sure if they were or not. I agree with you though that in all but perhaps a very few, they weren't. Something I find intriguing if conflicting. You now say you wish the Giants had been in the running for some of these top-profile (as opposed to high profile) guys, whereas before you have maintained that it was worth almost nothing unless the objective was landed. An example would be the highly-rated international free agent Abreu. Randy -- We always seem to either have to content ourselves with re-signing our own, trading away top prospects or picking at some other team's cast offs. Rog -- While the Giants have made mistakes along the way, they have also had a lot of successes. With regard to re-signing a team's own players, that helps promote organizational unity. Generally, the mistakes the Giants have made has been with players acquired soon before they became free agents -- not their homegrown players. With regard to trading away top prospects, the only one I can think they would regret trading is Zack Wheeler. That was a bad mistake, and one Brian Sabean made when he went against his own philosophy. As for picking up another team's castoffs, the Giants have been highly successful in doing so. Without doing so, they almost certainly wouldn't have won the World Series in 2010 (Huff, Uribe, Burrell, Torres, Ross, Casilla and Mota). They probably wouldn't have won in 2012 (Vogelsong, Theriot, Blanco, Arias, Casilla, Kontos and Mijares). Here is someting to consider, Randy. One could say that the Giants used the money saved when Barry Bonds retired to sign the other Barry. One could further say that making the mistake on Zito kept the Giant out of the market more than you or I would have liked. One can argue that Zito's expiring contract allowed the Giants to re-sign Pence. Looking forward, the Giants are locking in big blocks of salary. They should probably lock in some more with Sandoval and Belt. Will that hamstring them in the future, as may have been the case with the Zito contract? Perhaps not. The key to not being tied up financially in the future will be the development of the young players. It seems likely that in two years the Giants will no longer have both Lincecum and Cain. Hudson's contract will be expiring, unless it is extended in the meantime. Vogelsong will likely be out of the picture. If the Giants are able to replace three of those four guys, the savings would be at least $35 million. That would give the Giants money to pay their young players and hopefully still leave enough for them to expand their presence in the free agent market and/or trade for players with higher (not astronomical) salaries. That clearly appears to be the way the Giants hope to be headed. It would be really nice if by sometime this season the Giants had Bumgarner, Posey, Cain, Pagan, Sandoval and Belt locked up for the long term. Those are six pretty good core players. Throw in some good young pitchers, and the Giants could be good, locked in, and young. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2179/positives#page=2#ixzz2sTr3TSAH
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 15:45:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 15:48:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 15:53:33 GMT -5
Boagi -- I believe the Giants are being cheap by being content with Abreu and Perez. A better use of their money would have been strengthening their bench and bullpen Rog -- I'm sure the Giants are hoping to find a way to add depth. They did at least KEEP some depth in the bullpen by re-signing Lopez and perhaps by purchasing the left-hander Huff they just added. If we are to criticize them for not coming close to meeting their objectives this winter though, it would be in regard to depth. Good point. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2179/positives?page=2#scrollTo=18733#ixzz2sU0ALieM
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 15:56:05 GMT -5
I think Hunter Pence would have qualified as a high profile free agent had he tested the market. Wouldn't he have been in the top three or four outfielders there?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 5, 2014 17:16:56 GMT -5
--Rog---I think Hunter Pence would have qualified as a high profile free agent had he tested the market. Wouldn't he have been in the top three or four outfielders there?
Re---boly says---
Rog, that's an excellent point, and I feel a very valid point.
One "could" argue that we DID spend big in free agency. We just spent our money to keep a player we already had, and wanted back.
Lopez, also would have commanded big money, though certainly not near as much as Hunter.
But when looking at "bullpen" money, which is different than "big bopper/position player" money, he would have been at the top of many Loogy Lists.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Feb 5, 2014 17:57:32 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about one of the top 3 or 4 at his position. I was talking about the number one guy at his position, if not #1 overall.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 7, 2014 1:27:02 GMT -5
Boly -- One "could" argue that we DID spend big in free agency. We just spent our money to keep a player we already had, and wanted back. J Rog -- The Giants could have spent about the same money per season and signed say Bronson Arroyo, Phil Hughes, Sin-Soo Choo and Phil Bray to go along with Tim Hudson and Mike Morse. They would have been able to do so without committing to too many more years than they gave Lincecum, Vogelsong, Pence and Loez. Arroyo and especially Choo were considered among the top free agent names. We could talk about the six new free agents the Giants signed, some of whom are pretty darn good. But would the be a better team, even spending perhaps a little more and committing to more years? The Giants' plan was to re-sign Pence and Lincecum. They hoped to re-sign Lopez. I think they may have been looking at Dan Haren and settled for Vogelsong after Dan signed with the Dodgers. Would they have been a better team going the outside direction I mentioned? Maybe they would have. At the least, they would have given us more new players to get excited about. In the short run, that might have made them a slightly better team. But that is certainly no certainty. The one certainty that would exist is that the Giants would have tied up their payroll longer and quite possibly have suffered on the back end with an aging Choo. The point I am making here though is that the Giants got similar quality (Who knows? Maybe even better.) by going mostly inside. Certainly they kept more continuity and presumably more of whatever chemisry exists in the clubhouse. We would probably be more excited by having more new faces. But would the team have been better off? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2179/positives#page=2#ixzz2sc6RDmxU
|
|