|
Post by Rog on Jan 29, 2014 10:53:02 GMT -5
This is hypothetical, of course, but if the low posting cost to bid on Tanaka had been established at the very beginning of the off-season, would the Giants have made a strong bid for the Japanese pitcher as they reportedly did with the first baseman slugger Abreu? What effect would that have had on the moves they did wind up making?
Here's another hypothetical: If the Giants had landed Abreu after re-signing both Hunter Pence and Tim Lincecum, would they still have had the money to sign Tim Hudson?
And yet another: If the Giants had been able to land Dan Haren instead of re-signing Ryan Vogelsong, would they have had enough money left to still sign Mike Morse?
Finally: Did the Giants lose out to the Dodgers on Haren more because of money or because of Dan's SoCal roots?
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Jan 29, 2014 16:11:31 GMT -5
I believe Lincecum, Hudson and Vogelsong will have better numbers than Tanaka or Haren.
I also think Morse will have better numbers than Abreu.
Which is why I don't partake in a lot of this international market and "what if?" nonsense.
I'm not that impressed by the Dodgers. Yeah they won the division, but not because they beat the Giants. The Giants beat themselves. And the Dodgers got their asses handed to them by the team that we beat in 2012. I'm not worried.
I can't wait to see Pablo in good shape, a rebound season for Cain, Tim Hudson anchoring our staff, a left fielder who can hit and a healthy Pagan and Scutaro setting the table. Stop bitching about what we don't have when what we do have has been better than anyone else in baseball during the last 4 seasons.
We won in 2010 and 2012..it's an even year again, I say bring on the f*cking Dodgers!
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 29, 2014 17:48:30 GMT -5
Boagie -- I believe Lincecum, Hudson and Vogelsong will have better numbers than Tanaka or Haren. Rog -- That seems unlikely to me. Tanaka didn't get paid so much because the scouts thought Lincecum, Hudson and Vogelsong would have better numbers. Haren was very good last season from July on. Boagie -- I also think Morse will have better numbers than Abreu. Rog -- That one seems more plausible to me. Before he began to suffer from injuries, Morse was very, very good in 2011. One thing that might be overlooked is that if the Giants had signed Abreu, they would have needed to move a very good first baseman to left field, where he likely would have been no better than average in the field. From all accounts, Abreu is better suited for the American League, since he isn't a very good first baseman who projects to get worse there as he gets older. It is said that being an American League team is why the White Sox were willing to give Abreu the Giants felt they shouldn't. Boagie -- Which is why I don't partake in a lot of this international market and "what if?" nonsense. Rog -- I pretty much partake unless the subject is politics. Thanks very much for reviving the board, Boagie. Boagie -- I'm not that impressed by the Dodgers. Yeah they won the division, but not because they beat the Giants. The Giants beat themselves. Rog -- So let me get this right. You're not that impressed by the Dodgers, since the Giants beat themselves. What makes you so confident that the Giants won't beat themselves again, and the Dodgers won't be both better and healthier? Boagie -- And the Dodgers got their asses handed to them by the team that we beat in 2012. I'm not worried. Rog -- I think you're in denial, but I certainly hope you're right. Perhaps you could grace us with a little of the research and analysis that leads you to that belief. I could use a little cheering up. Boagie -- I can't wait to see Pablo in good shape Rog -- One more reason the Giants may not have gone for Tanaka is that they should probably lock both Pablo and Brandon Belt up long-term soon. That's going to cost a pretty penny. Boagie -- , a rebound season for Cain, Tim Hudson anchoring our staff, a left fielder who can hit and a healthy Pagan and Scutaro setting the table. Rog -- If all that happens, the Giants should be very good. What is it that you see happening to the Dodgers though that makes you think they won't be even better. Boagie -- Stop bitching about what we don't have Rog -- We certainly agree on this one. Boagie -- when what we do have has been better than anyone else in baseball during the last 4 seasons. Rog -- The Giants almost certainly haven't been the best team in baseball over the past four seasons, but there is no denying they have gotten hot at the right times. Boagie -- We won in 2010 and 2012..it's an even year again Rog -- You're right on about that. I love the optimism and hope it isn't misguided. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical#ixzz2rpUsqOt8
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 29, 2014 18:23:02 GMT -5
A comment on the Dodgers' not beating the Giants, but rather the Giants beating themselves:
The Giants finished 16 games behind the Dodgers. That would indicate both that the Dodgers beat the Giants and the Giants beat themselves. Further evidence that the Dodgers beat the Giants came when the Bums won 42 out of 50 games in late June through the middle of August.
The Giants went 11-7 against the Dodgers, which wasn't indicative of beating themselves.
Overall though, the Dodgers beat the Giants and the Giants beat themselves. That's why the Giants were pretty much out of it early in September.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Jan 30, 2014 0:43:33 GMT -5
Rog -- I think you're in denial, but I certainly hope you're right. Perhaps you could grace us with a little of the research and analysis that leads you to that belief. I could use a little cheering up.
Boagie- I gave you my analysis. Just because it wasn't filled with sabremetrics doesn't mean it's not viable.
I explained about Pablo's weight loss and Pagan being healthy as reasons I felt the Giants would be better. I could go on and on but I've been busy lately so I've tried to keep it simple.
Plus, predicting what will happen next season is really just a guess. Even when you add all the stats to your analysis the outcome is often the same. For instance you and Brian Kenny were certain the Nationals were going to go undefeated last season.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jan 30, 2014 7:57:24 GMT -5
I like your optimism, Boagie, but there's a lot of doubtfuls and maybes that have to turn out positively for your predictions to come through. There's a reason why players like Vogelsong and Morse slipped down and attracted little interest in the free agent market. It would sure be a fun season if it all happened though!
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 31, 2014 13:52:00 GMT -5
Mark -- I like your optimism, Boagie, but there's a lot of doubtfuls and maybes that have to turn out positively for your predictions to come through. There's a reason why players like Vogelsong and Morse slipped down and attracted little interest in the free agent market. It would sure be a fun season if it all happened though! Rog -- It has been stated here that there are so many variables going into a season that a team's record could fit into a range of perhaps 20 games. We don't know who will be healthy, who will have good seasons and who will have bad ones. What we CAN do though is use analysis to see what the AVERAGE performance for a player might be and how likely he is to exceed or fall short of that. There can be trends, and they're not necessarily visible on the surface. If we look at health, players who have been injured in the past are more likely to be injured in the future. One of the reasons the Giants were able to acquire Mike Morse is that in addition to his decline last season, he has been iffy from a health standpoint. Morse missed almost all the 2008 season, and after playing 146 games in 2011, he's dropped off to just 88 and 102 the past two seasons. Between Morse's inconsistency (which may be affected by his health) and his inability to stay healthy, Morse appears to be a large risk. If he consistently hit the way he hit in 2011, he'd be making $20 million instead of $6 and would have signed for five years instead of one. On the other hand, the Giants' starting pitching, as Boagie pointed out, had stayed extremely healthy. Even there though, how much did arm health affect the recent downturns by Lincecum, Cain and Vogelsong? Tim Hudson is aging and has missed almost a full season due to arm problems. He's coming off a serious ankle injury. It might turn out just the opposite, but considering all the factors, it appears to me that Morse is a much bigger question mark health-wise than the rotation. Pablo Sandoval has been a health problem, but he has no hamate bones and appears to be in much better shape. I see his health risk as being only slightly above average. Contrary to that, Angel Pagan has a long history of debilitating injuries, so I see his risk as being high (and something we haven't discussed here). When one couples the injury histories of Morse and Pagan, it is good the Giants have Gregor Blanco, and I think there is a fairly high probability that they will need another outfielder by the trade deadline. What I am saying is that there are so many variables that a prediction doesn't have a high probability of being accurate, but it does help one to see a baseline of how a team MIGHT perform under normal circumstances. This post itself is perhaps an example of how we can learn pertinent information. I had thought about Morse's inconsistent performance but hadn't properly considered the impact health might have had on that performance. I had empasized the inconsistency of performance more than the inconsistency of health. Until Morse's checkered health history got me thinking about the added importance of a fourth and fifth outfielder, I hadn't even THOUGHT about Pagan's health history, instead simply feeling that a winter off would make Pagan healthy for the 2014 season. In other words, while my prediction may not come true at all, I'm better prepared now to evaluate the season than I was when I began this post. Allen has said (more or less) that I don't respect any opinion unless agrees with mine. In reality, the opinion I get the MOST from is the opinion that disagrees with mine but has been so well thought-out or at least brings up points I hadn't properly researched. When someone thinks of something I hadn't or at least hadn't properly considered, I respect that opinion a lot. Sometimes someone says something that disagrees with my opinion but which seems to me to have a significant probablity of being false. I at least respect that opinion enough to do added research to prove it, disprove it or at least cast more light on it. I enjoy predictions because they make me think. Do they support my own thoughts? Do they not support my thoughts? What can I learn from having read (or made) the prediction? I appreciate stats because they are facts. They can certainly be misinterpreted or misapplied, but there is no denying they are factual. An example is my surprising statistical discovery that the early Johnny Bench let a lot of pitches get by him. From 1970 on, that wasn't the case. It is almost like two different catchers. Is there something different about the Reds' pitching staffs after 1970 that would cause this phenomenon, or did Johnny suddenly improve after the 1969 season? It is something I wish I could sit down and discuss with him. He might say, yes, I worked hard on that the winter between 1969 and 1970. He might have said that the pitching staff or its approach to pitching changed between the two time frames. He might say he hadn't even noticed the phenomen (although given the intelligence of Bench, I doubt that is the case). To be honest, if someone were interviewing Johnny about his career, that is a question that probably should be asked. Not many would know to ask it. I certainly wouldn't have had I not examined his early record so I could compare it with Buster Posey's record. Bringing this back around, no prediction has a high probability of coming true just as is expected. But some predictions are gut feels, while others are more thought out. Befoe I got into stats, my predictions were more gut feels than anything. Now they're a little bit better thought out. That certainly doesn't mean they will come true. But it likely increases the possibility that will be the case. And why is it not possible to couple scouting with stats? That is what almost all the big league teams now do? I know a heck of a lot more about baseball than I do about hockey, but when Randy (I believe it was. Heck, maybe it was I) brought up the Sharks, it was I who mentioned goalie Alex Stalock, who along with rookie Tomas Hertl and perhaps veteran Joe Pavelski) has been the surprise of team. I have thought about this, and Randy has made a lot of comments about me that were either wrong or were mostly guess-work on his part. Unlike he, I know the truth about these subjects. I guess I'll simply let it rest at that. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical#ixzz2s00p3Tyg
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 31, 2014 14:05:03 GMT -5
I favor the long-term signing of Brandon Belt and Pablo Sandoval, as I have stated before. Certainly there are questions about Pablo's weight, but if he were to hit the free agent market this season off even an average year for him, he might be the top hitter available. He'll be only 28, which is young for a free agent. He would likely command a mega-contract. Lock him -- and Belt -- up now. In each case, it might coincidentally be called tightening the belt.
Belt and Pablo will cost a pretty penny. How will the Giants pay both of them, plus Posey, Bumgarner, Cain and Pence, in the long run? It appears to be though savings in the rotation.
Cain will continue to be a $20 million pitcher, but Bumgarner gave the Giants a sweetheart deal and will be quite affordable for years. The rest of the savings should come from the Giants' closet full of young starting pitchers coming up through Class A and now beyond.
I believe only one out of the quartet of Cain, Lincecum, Hudson and Vogelsong will be with the Giants two seasons from this one. That would seem likely to be Cain. A resurgence of Lincecum or Vogelsong, or surprising continued vitality from Hudson might increase that total to two.
But look for the majority of the rotation two years from now to be 26 or under. Hopefully we will be able to put a decimal in the number and come up with an ERA, likely for Bumgarner.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Jan 31, 2014 16:01:30 GMT -5
I agree with just about everything you said here, Rog. But, like the Giants, the Dodgers also have a high number of questionmarks surrownding their core players. Either, Kemp and Billingsley have always been prone to nagging injuries. Kershaw, even at his age, has already shown signs of elbow trouble. Puig started off strong but came back down to earth. Gonzalez is getting up there in age. Just some things to consider when assessing the two teams.
Let's also not forget that the same posters who are questioning the success of the Giants in 2014 also predicted the Diamondbacks to easily win the division in 2012 as well as predicting the Rockies to win it in 2010. History has shown that there are far too many variables that can benefit or hurt a team once the season starts.
|
|
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 1, 2014 0:40:35 GMT -5
I agree with just about everything you said here, Rog. But, like the Giants, the Dodgers also have a high number of questionmarks surrownding their core players. Either, Kemp and Billingsley have always been prone to nagging injuries. Kershaw, even at his age, has already shown signs of elbow trouble. Puig started off strong but came back down to earth. Gonzalez is getting up there in age. Just some things to consider when assessing the two teams.
Dood - the key difference here, Boagie, is that the Dodgers, like the Yankees, are more than capable of spending their way out of such difficulties. The Giants seem intent on not spending enough to save years of rebuilding.
Let's also not forget that the same posters who are questioning the success of the Giants in 2014 also predicted the Diamondbacks to easily win the division in 2012 as well as predicting the Rockies to win it in 2010. History has shown that there are far too many variables that can benefit or hurt a team once the season starts.
Dood - it's not the Giants players' and choaches' efforts I'm doubting. It's the ownership. There's still a chance the Giants can make the playoffs...maybe even win the division if all goes just right. But that would be despite the greed of the owners, not aided by them.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 1, 2014 4:15:53 GMT -5
Randy -- The Giants seem intent on not spending enough to save years of rebuilding. Rog -- Since Brian Sabean took over 17 years ago, how many seasons have the Giants spend rebuilding? I guess that would be three. The first season the Giants posted fewer than 86 wins in the Sabean era was 2005, the season Barry Bonds missed almost entirely. The Giants continued to struggle for three more seasons (2006 through 2008) before winning 88 games in 2009. What makes you think the Giants will be rebuilding any time soon? Many of their key players still haven't hit 30. A few more recently did so. The area the Giants look to be most in need of rebuilding is the rotation -- and that is their strongest area in the minors. The only two new players the Giants added this off-season were Tim Hudson and Mike Morse. If Gary Brown had come through as some expected, they would have needed to add only Hudson. Perhaps we should be thankful for the bountiful roster the Giants HAVE rather than complain about the players they DON'T have. Have we Giants fans become spoiled brats? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical#ixzz2s3ktH3W6
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 1, 2014 4:45:05 GMT -5
Boagie -- I agree with just about everything you said here, Rog. But, like the Giants, the Dodgers also have a high number of questionmarks surrownding their core players. Either, Kemp and Billingsley have always been prone to nagging injuries. Kershaw, even at his age, has already shown signs of elbow trouble. Puig started off strong but came back down to earth. Gonzalez is getting up there in age. Just some things to consider when assessing the two teams. Rog -- You are right with what you say here, Boagie. The Dodgers have the advantage of having more depth than the Giants to overcome injuries. The Dodgers won the NL West by 11 games despite having only three of their five starting pitchers pitch significant innings. They also overcame the loss of Hanley Ramirez for half the season. The Dodgers have four All-Star level outfielders, which helps them overcome any health issues there. They already have six starting pitchers, and odds are they'll still add one of the top free agent pitchers. Their bullpen depth is just OK. They lack infield and catching depth. They also enjoy a rich enough farm system that they could trade for a good player or players at the deadline should they need them. They have four prospects whom some would consider the equal of Kyle Crick, or at least close to it. Actually, Boagie, you do make a good point about the Dodgers. But they won the NL West by 11 games (16 over the Giants) despite having an OPS over .803 from only Yasiel Puig and Hanley Ramirez, both players they had for only part of the season. They won it despite receiving almost no contribution from Josh Beckett and Chad Billingsley, their 4th and 5th starters, and having Rickey Nolasco for less than half the season. They won it despite having Matt Kemp for less than half the season. You do make a good point though. The Dodgers didn't play well enough to win the division over the Giants in 2012 even after acquiring a boat load of good players at the trade deadline. They were playing poorly last season until the addition of Puig and the return of Ramirez and Zack Greinke from injury. They're not infallible. But they're darn tough. I do think you've gotten me to look closely enough to realize the Dodgers could be had in the right circumstances. We should realize from following the Giants after their two World Championships that it can be hard to repeat a very good season. Part will depend on how they fare in the pitching free agent market or in trading for David Price (gasp). Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical?page=1#scrollTo=18665#ixzz2s3njVGDh
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 1, 2014 8:35:54 GMT -5
I doubt they'll get David Price, because Tampa has an excellent team and will probably be contending all season. As for Dood and his relentless ownership bashing, I think your expectations are way too high, and you're going wrong because you're comparing their spending practices to the Dodgers, a team that's totally out of control. The Giants have gone the route of locking up their own players, rather than go crazy overspending for free agents. The Giants have one of the highest payrolls in baseball, but you can't kill them for trying to show some practicality. Be thankful that they've locked up our favorites, like Cain, Bumgarner, Posey, Lincecum, Pence etc and we aren't losing them to teams like the Dodgers and Yankees like everyone else is.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 1, 2014 12:04:00 GMT -5
Rog -- You are right with what you say here, Boagie. The Dodgers have the advantage of having more depth than the Giants to overcome injuries.
Boagie- Are we sure about that? The Giants have 3 very solid bench players (Blanco, Arias, and Sanchez. After that it gets a little thin. But as you mention later the Dodgers lack catching and infield depth.
Rog--The Dodgers have four All-Star level outfielders, which helps them overcome any health issues there. They already have six starting pitchers, and odds are they'll still add one of the top free agent pitchers. Their bullpen depth is just OK. They lack infield and catching depth.
Boagie- I dont believe Carl Crawford is at an all star level anymore, I question whether Kemp is at that level anymore and Puig has yet to prove if he can sustain that level.
Puig only hit .273 in the second half and .214 in Sept/Oct.
The Dodgers do have 6 pitchers, but Beckett and Billingley are huge question marks. Petit was better than both last season.
I'd also like to point out that the Giants (pitchers not included) hit .269 while the Dodgers hit .268. These numbers are while Posey had a down year and Pagan, Sandoval, and Scutaro were hindered by injuries.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 1, 2014 12:09:20 GMT -5
Mark -- I doubt they'll get David Price, because Tampa has an excellent team and will probably be contending all season. Rog -- You're probably right here. I think there is a good chance David will go somewhere though, although you're right that it might be at the trade deadline or after the season. Your comment points toward how the Rays were able to win 16 more games last season than the Giants despite having a payroll less than half as high. The Rays follow one principle and its corollary: They lock up their top young players early. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, they trade the player. Last season their top offensive player (and possibly the best third baseman in the game now that Miguel Cabrera has moved to first) just $7 million. Almost immediately after Longoria arrived in the majors, the Rays locked him up for 6/$17.5 plus three extremely affordable option years. Yes, there IS a decimal point in th money. They signed James Loney, who had an averagish year at first base, for $2 million. They locked up pitcher Matt Moore for 5/$14 plus three option years. Moore went 17-4, 3.29. Alex Cobb wasn't yet arbitration eligible and went 11-3, 2.76 for $502K. Chris Archer went 9-7, 3.22 for a similar amount. They picked up Archer from the Cubs for Matt Garza, who this winter is -- notice the pattern -- eligible for arbitration. Price himself made $10 million. A year ago the Rays traded James Shields, whom they had locked up for 7/$38.5 but who was eligible to make $9 million last season and $13.5 million this year before becoming eligible for free agency at the end of this season, for Wil Myers, who posted an .831 OPS for the Rays last season while playing for little more than the minimum. In that deal, they also acquired pitcher Jack Odorizzi, who was rated the #45 overall prospect by MLB.com. The Rays' successful pattern indicates they will trade Price between now and this time next year. They will hope to get top prospects who are major-league ready or close to it. (Odorizzi, now 23, pitched 29 innings for the Rays in 2013.) If they are overwelmed with an offer, they might trade Price now. More likely seems the trade deadline if they have a poor season and next winter if they don't. I think Brian Sabean has done a nice job as GM of the Giants, but clearly Andrew Friedman has been awesome for the Rays. If one wants to look at the Rays compared to the Giants, look at what the Rays have paid Evan Longoria (drafted 7 spots ahead of Tim Lincecum) compared to what the Giants have shelled out for Tim. Look at their getting very top prospects Myers (rated the #4 overall prospect when the Rays traded for him a year ago) plus Odorizzi for James Shields, while the Giants are paying Matt Cain over $20 million per season. The Giants have good general management. The Rays might have the best in the business. And that is why David Price will be traded -- oh no -- when the price is right. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical#ixzz2s5Yeuif9
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 1, 2014 12:11:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 1, 2014 12:14:32 GMT -5
Rog -- You are right with what you say here, Boagie. The Dodgers have the advantage of having more depth than the Giants to overcome injuries. Boagie- Are we sure about that? The Giants have 3 very solid bench players (Blanco, Arias, and Sanchez. After that it gets a little thin. But as you mention later the Dodgers lack catching and infield depth. Rog -- You're selling me, Boagie. I thought about it last night, and you have changed my mind quite a bit here. Despite all their spending, the Dodgers have vulnerabilities. Their ability to sign one of the remaining top pitchers could be a key for them. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical?page=1#scrollTo=18670#ixzz2s5jTRGkP
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 1, 2014 13:21:09 GMT -5
Rog--The Dodgers have four All-Star level outfielders, which helps them overcome any health issues there. They already have six starting pitchers, and odds are they'll still add one of the top free agent pitchers. Their bullpen depth is just OK. They lack infield and catching depth. Boagie- I dont believe Carl Crawford is at an all star level anymore, I question whether Kemp is at that level anymore and Puig has yet to prove if he can sustain that level. Rog -- All good points, although the combination of Kemp and Puig this season could rival the impact of Ramirez and Puig last season. I used the phrase "All-Star level outfielders" because all but Puig have made the All-Star team, while Puig almost made it despite having played little over a month. I agree with you that Crawford in particular is no longer an All-Star, and Morse at $6 million is a better gamble than Crawford at his inflated contract. Boagie -- Puig only hit .273 in the second half and .214 in Sept/Oct. Rog -- Outstanding point. The MLB Network chose Puig as the #1 right fielder right now, but your statistics do shed doubt on that. Perhaps a lot of doubt, actually. Still, he's a guy I'd LOVE to have. I don't think he's making much more than Morse. Boagie -- The Dodgers do have 6 pitchers, but Beckett and Billingley are huge question marks. Petit was better than both last season. Rog -- Both Beckett and Billingsley were injured last season and pitched only 55 innings between them. The other side of this issue is their respective career ERA's are 3.94 and 3.65 compared to Petit's 5.20. Also, their combined 4.72 major league ERA in their injury-riddled season compared pretty well to Petit's 4.52 last season at Fresno. I'm pretty sure Petit impressed us all last season. Still, he gave up nearly a hit per inning. What he did do was make a huge cut in what is still a 1.7 HR/9 rate and pitch with excellent control (2.1 W/9). With the dollars involved, Billingsley's very poor health of late, and Petit's needing to be only a 6th starter, I'd rather have Petit. That said, I have long liked Billingsley, calling him a poor man's Matt Cain. I don't know about his arm health, but if he's healthy, he's a bargain at 3/$35 with an option for a 4th season. 2015 is his option year. By the way, there are a lot of parallels between Billingsley and Cain, although their careers have gone different directions the past five years or so. Cain was drafted #25 overall in 2002, while Billingsley was drafted #24 overall a year later. The two pitchers are within four months in age. Both are similar in build and pitching style. Both had similar success in their early careers. Boagie -- I'd also like to point out that the Giants (pitchers not included) hit .269 while the Dodgers hit .268. These numbers are while Posey had a down year and Pagan, Sandoval, and Scutaro were hindered by injuries. Rog -- I'm looking at total team numbers here, but the Dodgers' overall .264 wasn't too much higher than the Giants'. Where they lacked was in power and getting on base. That is reflected by the Giants' ranking 10th in OPS compared to the Dodgers' ranking 4th. Where the Dodgers excelled by far the most over the Giants was their pitching. Their 3.25 ERA was three-quarters of a run less than the Giants' 4.00. The Dodgers ranked #2 in NL ERA, while the Giants came in at #12. The Giants might be able to outhit the Dodgers this coming season. Outpiching them appears a harder task. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical?page=1#scrollTo=18671#ixzz2s5kAESQk
|
|
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 2, 2014 22:01:20 GMT -5
Randy -- The Giants seem intent on not spending enough to save years of rebuilding.
Rog -- Since Brian Sabean took over 17 years ago, how many seasons have the Giants spend rebuilding? I guess that would be three.
Dood - Once again...the game has changed. The Dodgers have the means to spend like the Yankees, and that means if the Giants don't adjust, they will end up being in constant rebuilding mode.
Perhaps we should be thankful for the bountiful roster the Giants HAVE rather than complain about the players they DON'T have. Have we Giants fans become spoiled brats?
Dood - or maybe we just have to hope they get lucky like we did for 50 years before the first title.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 3, 2014 10:50:20 GMT -5
Randy -- The Giants seem intent on not spending enough to save years of rebuilding. Rog -- Since Brian Sabean took over 17 years ago, how many seasons have the Giants spend rebuilding? I guess that would be three. Dood - Once again...the game has changed. Rog -- The point is that the Giants almost certainly aren't INTENT on not spending enough to save years of rebuilding, and they've thus far done a good job of it in the Sabean era. My guess is that the Giants are in the second half of the top quartile in profit and in the same second eighth in spending. Their cash flow likely isn't even that high -- and might be considerably lower. The test will come in 2017 or 2018, Randy. The Giants say they are on track to pay off the stadium sometime that year. Their cash flow should improve immensely at that time. The owners likely (and properly) will want to be paid back some for the cash flow they gave up while paying off the stadium, but a signifcant infusion of cash should be available for the salary budget, as well. That's good, since salaries will likely have increased a fair amount more than they have already. TV revenue is growing. Let's put a little historical perspective into the discussion. Over the weekend I came across a saved copy of the Chronicle from November 11, 1992. It proclaimed that the proposed move of the Giants to Tampa Bay had been aborted by a sale to new local ownership. A side story even spoke of how disappointed the residents of the Tampa area. The city of San Francisco had been lukewarm in previous voting on proposed stadia, and the new owners would ultimately solve that problem by building their own. That meant a significant reduction in cash flow until the stadium could be paid off. In what may turn out to have been a very prudent business decision, the Giants' owners have accelerated their huge payments for the stadium, opened in 2000. The Giants had moved to San Francisco from New York in 1958. Less than 20 years later they had nearly been moved to Toronto. Less than another 20 years, and the venue nearly became Tampa. Now, after another two decades, the Giants seem firmly entrenched in the City by the Bay. Perhaps it is the added experience that us old guys on the board have that puts the entire picture in better perspective, Randy. We too would love to see the Giants spend more. But we realize the limitations on cash flow of paying for the Giants' own stadium and particularly in accelerating the payments so that the team will have more flexibility for a coming period of increased spending by teams as a whole. Even more importantly, we are thankful that the present ownership has ended the turmoil of keeping the team in San Francisco. Maybe you just had to go through the turmoil to understand it. Having lost the Giants from New York, Don likely understands it better than any of us. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical#ixzz2sGxR0RGb
|
|
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 3, 2014 23:58:22 GMT -5
I completely reject and RESENT you even suggesting for a moment that the near move to Tampa meant nothing to me because of my age. At the time I was a season ticket holder and remember vividly that final game at Candlestick in 1992, which you probably did NOT attend, watching with tears in my eyes as the Giants waved to the crowd after what we all believed would be the final time any of us would see the San Francisco Giants play. That was a very painful time for me on many levels as I had worked tirelessly on the phones and going door to door campaigning for the Giants' proposed San Jose stadium measure. Anyone who says in my company that the A's deserve to have the territorial rights to San Jose better be prepared to put his dukes up quickly.
Here's the deal, whether the Giants ownership is being greedy or isn't...if you don't spend the dough, you cannot expect to be in the hunt every year. It's just NOT going to happen. And if you're main opponent IS willing to spend the dough, you're even less likely to make any noise. We can see that beginning to happen now.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 4, 2014 11:05:52 GMT -5
Randy -- I completely reject and RESENT you even suggesting for a moment that the near move to Tampa meant nothing to me because of my age. Rog -- Before you start rejecting and resenting things, you might want to keep a cool head and re-read what you read -- lest you misinterpret and overreact. Please find where I said that the potential move to Tampa meant nothing to you, because of your age or otherwise. What was said is that some of us remember and went through BOTH times the Giants nearly left. I even pointed out that Don was ahead of us all in that regard, since the move of the Giants TO San Francisco no doubt hurt him the most. I was around then too, but the move didn't impact me that much both because I was too young to fully understand the implications and because I was a Giants fan in the Midwest to whom the move meant little. Randy -- At the time I was a season ticket holder and remember vividly that final game at Candlestick in 1992, which you probably did NOT attend, watching with tears in my eyes as the Giants waved to the crowd after what we all believed would be the final time any of us would see the San Francisco Giants play. Rog -- Randy, once again you show your preconception of me without knowing the facts. In truth I WAS at that game. Perhaps as you wrote, I "probably did NOT attend," but I would say the fact that I actually did is more relevant than what I PROBABLY did or didn't do. On our way to the Giants games we used to drive by 7th and Townsend where we hoped the Giants would play. That measure, along with others, was defeated, as you probably remember. Do you remember the night George Shinn walked around the stadium between the box and reserve seats and received a big ovation from the crowd? At that time he was believed to be going to purchase the Giants and keep them in San Francisco. His bid fell through, and later it appeared he might have been purchasing the team to move them to North Carolina anyway. Where I believe you probably WEREN'T because of your age (although I could be one who is wrong here) is at the Jack Tarr Hotel at the rally to keep the Giants from moving to Toronto. I remember in part because Chris Speier waved to us from the stage on which the event was being held. The Giants were saved in good part because cattleman Bud Herseth stepped in as the minority partner to Bob Lurie, who couldn't afford to make the bid unaided. Years later, after the present group had bought the team, my dad received what he was told was the final Giants had Bud wore. There is no way to know, of course, but the hat sits with my dad's glove on a shelf in my son's old room. The one keepsake from the Lurie/Herseth era that I do know to be authentic is a bat Chris Speier used in his final game with the Giants. On it he wrote an authetication of it as beng used in his final game, and it was personalized to my dad. Chris batted only three times in that final game, so you can see that my dad was on his short list. My mom and dad once kept Chris and Aleta's kids over a weekend so that Aleta could accompany Chris to the Giants games in San Diego. Aleta had asked me what they could do for my dad, and I said I didn't know. She finally decided to have Giants TV announcer Gary Park publicly thank my parents, telling him that my parents were as much like the kids' grandparents as their own were. So, no, I didn't mean to insinuate that you didn't care about how close the Giants came to leaving in 1993. What I was saying is that you hadn't gone through as much as the rest of us -- and especially Don. On the other hand, you have come right out and said that I'm not a true Giants fan. I hope you can see from the above and from other anecdotes I have written here why that is dead wrong and why I myself am the one who should be resentful. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical#ixzz2sMtrvVLFRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical#ixzz2sMsIIRv6
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 4, 2014 11:14:25 GMT -5
---Randy says--- Here's the deal, whether the Giants ownership is being greedy or isn't...if you don't spend the dough, you cannot expect to be in the hunt every year. It's just NOT going to happen. And if you're main opponent IS willing to spend the dough, you're even less likely to make any noise. We can see that beginning to happen now.
---boly says---
Sadly, Randy, I agree.
THAT is what professional sports has become, and I find it a disgusting trend.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 4, 2014 11:19:28 GMT -5
Randy -- Here's the deal, whether the Giants ownership is being greedy or isn't...if you don't spend the dough, you cannot expect to be in the hunt every year. Rog -- Even if you DO spend the dough, you're not likely to win the division every year -- or even make the playoffs every time. We haven't seen the Giants' books, so we don't know what their cash flow is. What we DO know is this year they are paying over 50% more in salaries than they did when they won the World Championship in 2010. If the Giants don't spend more after they pay off the mortgage, which they say will be 2017, perhaps we can reasonably complain that they aren't spending enough. As it is, we just don't have enough information to make an informed judgment. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical?page=1#scrollTo=18688#ixzz2sN0b6kJ6
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 4, 2014 11:56:49 GMT -5
---Randy says--- Here's the deal, whether the Giants ownership is being greedy or isn't...if you don't spend the dough, you cannot expect to be in the hunt every year. It's just NOT going to happen. And if you're main opponent IS willing to spend the dough, you're even less likely to make any noise. We can see that beginning to happen now. ---boly says--- Sadly, Randy, I agree. THAT is what professional sports has become, and I find it a disgusting trend. Rog -- We have complained for YEARS that the Yankees have such a big advantage because they can outspend everyone. So let's look at some facts: In the 44 years from 1921 through 1964, the Yankees were in the World Series 29 times. They won 20 of those World Series. In fact, in the four decades between 1923 and 1962, the won 20 World Series and lost only 5. They have never come close to accomplishing such a feat since. The Yankees did later approach such domination over a much shorter period. In the 8 years between 1996 and 2003, they did make the World Series 6 times, winning 4 of them. Let's take a look at the 40 or so years since the advent of free agency compared to that 44 year period from 1921 through 1964. As mentioned, the earlier period showed 29 World Series appearances for the Yankees. Over the period of free agency, the Yankees have made the World Series 11 times, winning 7 of them. The Yankees have won the World Series only once in the past 13 years. So what we have seen is that despite the trend we are discussing, the top team in baseball hasn't fared nearly as well in the era of free agency as they did prior to it. In fairness, there are almost twice as many teams competing. Would we be happy if the Giants made the World Series 5 times in a decade and won 3 of them? I think we would be VERY happy. That would mean the Giants made the World Series 50% of the seasons and won 30% of the seasons. But what would that mean for the other 29 teams? It would mean that they DIDN'T make the World Series 95% of the time and didn't win it 97% of the years. How greedy ARE we Giants fans? Let's not forget that there are more than 20 teams out there who would LOVE to be spending as much as the Giants are. Let's not forget that the Dodgers and the Yankees don't get EVERY player they want. The Dodgers lost out on Tanaka, and the Yankees lost Robinson Cano, who has likely been one of the two most valuable players over the past five years or so. If one puts things into perspective, I believe we're being selfish here. (By the way, give Tampa Bay the same payroll last year as the Giants had, and they probably7 would have won 100 games. How would you feel about our team spending more if we were TAMPA BAY fans?) Perhaps we should go back to the "good old days" when the Yankees won it all every other year or so. I can honestly tell you that duing the first 16 full seasons of my life, the Yankees were in the World Series 14 times, winning 9 of those times. Oh, and in the last full season BEFORE I was born, they won it all too. Those were the days, my friend. We thought they'd never end. But much as I hate to admit it, they weren't as great as we remember them. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical?page=1#scrollTo=18691#ixzz2sN3pRERv
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 4, 2014 12:59:19 GMT -5
---boly says---
Sadly, Randy, I agree.
THAT is what professional sports has become, and I find it a disgusting trend.
---boly says---
Rog, I'm not arguing with the facts. They are what they are.
But Randy's point, and mine, is that the Dodger brain trust is NOT filled with incompetent boobs who just spend to spend, as Georgie boy often did.
They've got a guy I think is pretty sharp in the front office, Ned Colletti, and HE, knows baseball.
The Dodger brain trust 'seems' to be allowing the baseball people to make decisions, NOT ownership, as George often did.
That egotist seemed to think HE was smarter 'n his baseball people.
Not so in LA.
And that is why I'm concerned.
So, that being the case, we can literally throw out all the Yankee numbers as moot. Just like I would throw out Daniel Stern's numbers for the Redskins, and idot Jerry what's-his-name for the Cowboys.
Meddling owners screw up the pot, so to speak.
And the Dodgers don't have meddling owners
boly
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 4, 2014 15:31:09 GMT -5
As a Giants fan, I'm not happy about what the Dodgers are doing. Not only are they spending as drunken sailors, their long-term plan is to develop from within, which would mean they wouldn't necessarily HAVE to spend big money to be highly competitive.
And I'd love to see the Giants be the ones spending as drunken sailors, as well as using more statistical analysis to help make better decisions (which they're already doing more than in the past). I'd love to see them put together a state of the art draft and development team, using available technology to go above and beyond what any other team has yet done.
But they're running a business, and we don't know their cash flow. That makes it very difficult for us to determine what is reasonable. What we do know is that they were able to win it all in 2010, and they've increased their payroll over 50% since then. I can't speak for anyone else, but they've never increased payroll that much for a constant number of emplyoees anywhere I've worked.
My point isn't that exploding the Giants' payroll wouldn't work for us fans. It would have the potential to work GREAT for us. But since I'm not privvy to the Giants' books and their owners' expectations, I can't say whether it is practical for them.
I asked Randy where he would save the $25 million per season to have signed Tanaka, and all he has mentioned is that the Giants should spend more. Hey, Christmas should come every day of the year too, but I'm not sure that's very practical.
I'm not at all saying the Giants should cry poor, but how much extra would WE have to spend if we had a huge mortgage and were paying it off twice as fast? You don't think having to pay off their own stadium while other teams don't have the same requirement doesn't put the Giants at a cash flow disadvantage? Yet they're STILL spending in the top quartile on salaries.
I can't say for sure whether it would be practical for them to do more, but the facts we do know wouldn't seem to point in that direction. How many here know for sure that the Giants have the extra money to spend to even approach the Dodgers?
I'm not saying anyone here is wrong. As a fan, conceptually I'm with them all the way. What I'm saying is that I don't think any of us knows if our obvious suggestions are practical from a financial standpoint.
When I was growing up, I didn't understand why we couldn't buy just about anything we wanted. My dad had a nice income, and we had partial season tickets for all the weekend games. How much better could life be?
What I didn't understand is that there are plenty of bills to pay, and very few can spend as much as they want. And even THEN there are at least some limitations.
If we could take up a collection for $50 million per year and somehow give it to the Giants, I suspect they would find a good way to spend it. But you pretty much gotta have it to spend it.
The Giants have a lot. But we have no way of knowing whether it would be prudent for them to spend say another $25 to $50 million per year. It's easy for us to spend THEIR money -- without knowing for sure that they have it.
If we stop and think about it, if every team could spend as much as the Dodgers -- including the Giants -- the competition would be even tougher than it is with the Dodgers outspending the other teams. The Giants already have an "unfair" advantage in salary budget. It just isn't as much of an advantage as the Dodgers enjoy.
|
|
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 4, 2014 23:56:17 GMT -5
Boly is right on the money...the Dodgers are not only outspending us by a LOT, they also have better personnel. Even more important they are holding everyone accountable. If players arent performing, they will be gone. If lots of those players are underperforming, then front office people can be on the hook as well. There is a zero tolerance for failure policy and that's what a franchise needs to maintain a high level of excellence.
As for Rog's faulty memory, my suggestion was to lighten payroll by trading useless players (that is if they need to, which I don't believe they necessarily would), but of course he only remembers what fits his agenda. And comparing the Giants budget to that of a common household is so absurd that it hardly merits a response.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 9:30:48 GMT -5
Randy -- As for Rog's faulty memory, my suggestion was to lighten payroll by trading useless players Rog -- Unless you're specific about which players you would trade away to reach the $25 million, this is a non-answer. How much money do you think "useless" players command? And if they do command much, why would other teams pay for overpaid, useless players? As I say, please be specific. Maybe you've got a good idea. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical#ixzz2sSQQUQNW
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2014 9:51:14 GMT -5
Randy -- Boly is right on the money...the Dodgers are not only outspending us by a LOT, they also have better personnel. Even more important they are holding everyone accountable. If players arent performing, they will be gone. If lots of those players are underperforming, then front office people can be on the hook as well. There is a zero tolerance for failure policy and that's what a franchise needs to maintain a high level of excellence. Rog -- You guys are right on the money. So how do the Giants improve themselves and still stay within budget? We ALL agree that we'd love to see the Giants spend more money. That's a no-brainer. The question is how do they improve the team without going over budget? The two moves I would make that could have a minor impact on salary in the short run would be to lock up Brandon Belt and Pablo Sandoval. The tough issue there is that it forces up the budget in future years. The answer would be to hope the young pitchers progress so they can dampen the payroll. But those moves don't significatly help out this season. So what would YOU (group you, not individual you) do? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2180/hypothetical?page=1#scrollTo=18706#ixzz2sSWa0mK7
|
|