Done!

[sfgdood]

Ok, folks, since there is no news these days other then, "interest" and "reportedly negotiating" I'm getting real tired of this speculation and waiting crap. Have fun, those of you who enjoy it. I'll be back when something more exciting than signing the likes of Justin Maxwell and Travis Ishikawa actually happens.

[klaiggeb]

As I posted in a different Thread, Randy. I feel the same way.

This is NOT fun for me.

boly

[rxmeister]

Not me. All these rumors are almost as fun as the games! Wait until the winter meetings start tomorrow. Highlight of my winter!

[Islandboagie]

I used to enjoy the offseason when the Giants sucked (pre-2010.) Now, usually I just want to Giants to keep the team in tact. Every offseason following a Championship it seems like they are forced to replace their good FA players with mediocre players, and their mediocre FA players with scrap heapers. I hope this offseason is different.

It seems like having a World Series ring on your finger ups a players value, even if they weren't a huge part of winning. That's why the Giants keep having to retool after having their players fished by the Dodgers and Redsox. It might make sense to give a bonus to the World Series winners. 10-20 million dollars? Seems kind of unfair that the winners become a picking ground for other teams that want to win, while also receiving the worst draft pick.

[Rog]

I'm not assigning a cause and effect here, but after the first two World Championships, the Giants pretty much kept their team intact -- and that didn't work very well the following season. It wasn't a total loss though, since it left enough good pieces that after a one-year hiatus, the Giants were able to repeat their tremendous accomplishment.

This year is tougher than the last two though, since the players the Giants have lost will probably command over $50 million per season, making them tough to retain or replace.

As for the value of players who win championships perceived to go up, you're probably right. Kind of a value by association. Kind of a false value, so other teams could wind up overpaying.

As for the draft pick compensation, that is just another step in diluting the free aspect of free agency. As Pablo Sandoval helped demonstrate, it is possible for an organization to control a player for as many as 13 years (11 in Pablo's case, but he got to the major leagues ahead of schedule) before the player can become a free agent.

The players wind up getting overpaid compared to non-free agents, since the demand considerably exceeds the supply, but the players who don't reach free agency (likely 95% of drafted players) get cheated.

I'm not sure a championship team like the Giants gets cheated out of its players because they are viewed with inflated values, so much as it takes good players to win championships, and when those players become free agents, they are hard to afford.

It is tough, but the best way to build a team is recycle prospects. Develop them as much as you can, and when they approach free agency, trade them for more prospect, who can then be developed and again traded before they reach free agency. The other way is to lock up your top free agents early, trading them security for lower salaries later.

The Giants have locked up Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner early, and they've locked up Matt Cain later. They didn't save much money with Cain, but they saved a little with Posey and a LOT with Bumgarner.

If we look at the salaries of good players, they rise parabolicly once a player reaches arbitration and again when he achieve eligibility for free agency. On the other hand, signing someone else's free agent results in the loss of no players presently on the major league roster or in the minors, making them highly attractive for teams that can't afford to trade their own assets for other players, often replacing one hole with another.

With the exception of the draft choice loss inequality, teams like the Giants are penalized no more than other teams with regard to their free agents. Because they are a better team than most of the others, they are at risk of losing better players, but just because they're good, the Giants' players don't get premature free agency.

What we see is the normal cycle of teams, even good teams. When they're lousy, they can acquire top draftees (Lincecum, Bumgarner, Posey and Wheeler), helping them bounce back. When those good players become free agents, they can regress because they can't afford to pay all their free agents.

Heck, the draft is unfair, given that it limits team's access to high school and college free agents. A team can take the strategy of rebuilding through draft choices, but for the most part they are able to choose only player per round, as opposed to attracting as many prospects as they can afford.

The success of the Giants' players, as much as their team success, makes it difficult for the Giants to sign or replace the players.

Sergio Romo helped the Giants win three titles because he pitched well. Pablo helped them win the three by playing well.

Ryan Vogelsong contributed to two of them. Both Jake Peavy and Mike Morse continued to #3 with their strong play in 2014.

If any of those players hadn't performed as well as they did, the Giants might not have won three World Championships. These free agents are being paid more primarily because they played well, not because they won a ring.

Free agency is indeed unfair, but it's to the players, not the teams. A low percentage of the players are eligible for free agency, limiting the supply. Meanwhile there are many teams out there who feel they need one or two key players to improve or at least maintain. The supply and demand dynamic causes the prices to be high. That said, the Giants are in better position to sign or retain free agents than most teams, since their payroll budget is in the top quartile of all the teams.

In a way, teams DO pay for their success. But that's not primarily because they were successful. The primary reason is that they had good players who ENABLED them to be successful. It may take as many as 13 years, but good players finally earn the right to be paid at least as much as they are worth.

Through the first six full major league seasons, players are paid less than they are worth. That is why when they finally reach free agency, they wind up being paid more than they are "worth."

[Rog]

As a sports fan, I'm in heaven right now.

Baseball isn't being played, but as Boagie and Mark have expressed, that doesn't mean teams aren't doing very interesting things.

Meanwhile pro and college football, basketball and hockey are being played. Heck, I can hardly keep up with the games I want to watch, and that is despite not having the Pac-12 Network and having most of the Warriors games blacked out.

With regard to baseball, the action is far less, but the tension is far higher. My dad used to love the "hot stove league," and so do I. What's not to like?

[Islandboagie]

Rog- It is tough, but the best way to build a team is recycle prospects. Develop them as much as you can, and when they approach free agency, trade them for more prospect, who can then be developed and again traded before they reach free agency.

Boagie- is that the best way to build a team, or the best way to have Brad Pitt play you in a movie?

Beane is good at recyling youth, and sometimes they compete, but I hardly think the A's are a good model for building a team.

[sfgdood]

it says a lot that stats geeks think of baseball's offseason as heaven...not postseason or the world series.

[Rog]

Rog- It is tough, but the best way to build a team is recycle prospects. Develop them as much as you can, and when they approach free agency, trade them for more prospect, who can then be developed and again traded before they reach free agency.

Boagie- is that the best way to build a team, or the best way to have Brad Pitt play you in a movie?

Beane is good at recyling youth, and sometimes they compete, but I hardly think the A's are a good model for building a team.

Rog -- I think Billy has been pretty good at team building, but the franchise I would use as the model for the strategy I mentioned would be Tampa Bay.

And example would be this year when they traded David Price for reliever Drew Smyly, who posted a 0.76 WHIP after the trade, and two young infield prospects. The Rays weren't going to be able to afford Price when he became eligible after next season for free agency, so they picked up some useful pieces for him.

Two winters ago they traded James Shields two years before his eligibility for free agency, picking up one of their top hitters in Wil Myers, a bottom of the rotation guy in Jake Odorizzi, and a couple of young prospects, including one who has been rated as high as the #19 overall prospect.

We complain about the Giants' not spending enough money, but there are quite a few teams whose only hope of being competitive is to build with high draft choices and then recycle them for more prospects.

Meanwhile, they locked up Evan Longoria, one of the best third basemen in the game, and starting pitcher Chris Archer (ERA's of 3.22 and 3.33 the past two seasons. They were able to lock up both those players on Madison Bumgarner-like team friendly contracts.

As Giants fans, I don't think we fully appreciate what some of these smaller market teams have done to stay competitive on at least a periodic basis.

We complain that the Giants don't spend enough money, but frankly we're just spoiled.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2611/#ixzz3LHwUniyV

[Islandboagie]

Tampa Bay is basically the same model as Oakland. They stay somewhat competitive by recycling young players for younger players, but they never take it to the next level, and they always leave their fan base upset. They're good at drafting and scouting, but they don't invest enough to build that fan base or the expectations for their franchise.

They're a good model for teams that don't have interest in getting to that next level.

The perfect model for building a team IMO would be the Yankees of the late 90's and the Giants now. Get a good crop of draft picks, lock them down and build around them with veterans.

[Rog]

Randy -- it says a lot that stats geeks think of baseball's offseason as heaven...not postseason or the world series.

Rog -- I don't really know WHAT they think. I can speak only for myself. Certainly I LOVE the postseason and World Series (if the Giants are in them), but aren't you just a LITTLE bit excited with college and pro football, basketball and hockey going on?

I'm almost certain you're excited by the Warriors' best-ever start. The Sharks aren't off to a good start, but they're still well in it and will very likely improve. Rough times for the 49ers, but I'm also a Packers fan myself, and ever since Aaron Rodgers told the fans to R-E-L-A-X, they've lost only one game. Cal's basketball team is off to a very good start, although I don't think they're good enough to get TOO excited about.

There's just a TON of great sports action, all the way down to De La Salle football (and basketball) at the high school level. Throw in kids' football, basketball, soccer, hockey or even fall(base)ball if you've got an athletic kid, and it doesn't really get too much better than this.

Especially in the glow of the third Giants World Championship in five years.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2611/#ixzz3LMnczVbj

[Rog]

Randy -- it says a lot that stats geeks think of baseball's offseason as heaven...not postseason or the world series.

Rog -- Those whom I have seen study stats like all three. You seem to be pulling things out of thin air. Are you simply trying to stir up trouble?

The bottom line is, who cares what someone likes? Either he has thought-provoking ideas or he doesn't. That to me is important, since it provides more opportunity to learn and enjoy.

But if you like something different, that's just fine too. Perhaps we should stick to baseball and not make this personal.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2611/#ixzz3LvpFeDWl

[Rog]

Boagie -- They're a good model for teams that don't have interest in getting to that next level.

The perfect model for building a team IMO would be the Yankees of the late 90's and the Giants now. Get a good crop of draft picks, lock them down and build around them with veterans.

Rog -- Let's examine that. Worked for the Yankees because they had a ton of money to spend. Has worked for the Giants because (as you have mentioned):

A. They've been lucky.

B. They've built with chemistry as well as talent.

C. They have had one or more dominant starters in each World Series season.

D. Their lack of depth doesn't matter as much in the postseason.

E. They've gotten hot at the right time.

F. They were lousy for a while and built the core of their team.

G. By and large they have kept that strong core together.

The most important of all these? Probably F. Hard to imagine the Giants winning three World Series without Tim Lincecum, Madison Bumgarner and Buster Posey. That trio can pretty much be counted on for double digit wins.

Even with Lincecum having a very poor season, the trio finished with 10 Wins Above Replacement this season. That's 29% of the entire total. Take out the trio of top 10 first rounders, and the Giants likely aren't even a .500 team.

So here's the problem with this model (unless your team has a ton of money to spend). Eventually those high draft picks peak and then decline. It is when they decline that it is difficult to keep a good thing going. This is almost certainly destined to bring the team back to a down period, during which it hopes it can draft well with those high draft picks so it can start the cycle over again.

Using this formula mostly in the form of signing free agent Barry Bonds and trading for Jeff Kent, the Giants were a very good team from 1997 through 2004. But they they had four straight down year, which provided the high draft choices with which to rebuild.

It's really tough to keep it going no matter what, but for teams that don't have a lot to spend, the best way to keep it going is to trade off many of your good players as they begin to become expensive, and lock up the other good ones early, before they become too expensive.

The Rays have done an excellent job of this. They were down last season, but they had a decent run and likely will bounce back quickly. The Giants have had a five- or six-year run. The Rays had about the same prior to last season. And the Rays have done it with a payroll about half as high as the Giants.

The Rays' model is a very difficult one. But if it can be accomplished, it can make a competitive team despite a non-competitive market.

Even with Lincecum having a very poor year this season,

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2611?page=1#ixzz3LvxhuEEK

[rxmeister]

The Rays were run by Andrew Friedman and Joel Maddon, who both did nice work with little money and they're gone now. I'd be very afraid of the future if I were a fan of theirs. Come to think about it, the group that came aboard with the Tampa expansion team was the same group that was going to buy the Giants and move them to Tampa. That future less, money less team down there could be our team!