|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 11, 2014 9:53:19 GMT -5
Someone asked here what Andrew Friedman could do that Ned Colletti couldn't. We seem to be getting answers -- in fact, more answers than from any other team in baseball.
There are many players involved whose names we don't yet know, so it's hard to evaluate the moves. But I do believe Friedman has answered the question more aggressively than anyone expected. Here are some of the things written by CBS Sports:
"Dodgers remake roster without big payroll hike, trading top prospects"
"The Dodgers temporarily had the #13, #14, #15 and #18 prospects in all of baseball." (#18 Andrew Heaney has since been traded to the Angels for 2B Howie Kendrick.)
"A series of moves like that is exactly why the Dodgers brought in Andrew Friedman."
Don't we wish the question had been answered less aggressively? The Dodgers won 94 games a year ago, and yet they might be a better team now with more prospects. Not the kind of answer we were looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 11, 2014 11:04:56 GMT -5
And this is what I HATE this time of the year so much.
Giant management 'appears' to have made overtures for needed, big time players... only to be rejected.
Other teams in the division make substantial moves while the Giants 'seem' to be just sitting there, doing nothing.
And THAT is frustrating.
Right now, with the Dodgers having made the major moves today, we're staring a distant second place right in the face.
Right NOW....
All that could change.
But if we don't land Shields, or someone else of his quality, we will not win next year, because our starting staff is BELOW average... at best.
That's my opinion.
Right now, as I am EVERY off season with management, I'm disgusted with their inactivity.
So once again I quote Monica from Friends, and I say to Sabean and management; "Bite me, paperboy!"
a very angry, and frustrated,
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 Dec 11, 2014 13:28:10 GMT -5
By the way...the Dodgers had all those top rated prospects as bargaining chips...do you know how many Giants prospects are in the top 100? Probably just Crick, if that. And he isn't real HIGH on the list after a bad 2014. All the more reason we NEED to fill our holes with QUALITY talent...not mediocre or bargain basement stock.
Help is not on the way from the farm system anytime soon. The sense of urgency has just not been there this offseason. I guess the Giants are hoping they can find some gems off the scrap heap again. Maybe they can but it's not usually a winning formula.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 12, 2014 9:20:23 GMT -5
Making a lot of moves doesn't make you necessarily better. However they're not done. If they turn those prospects into good major league players that's one thing, but if they stay as is, they're not as good as the team that ended the 2014 season. Key pieces added: Kendrick, McCarthy, Grandal, Rollins. Key pieces lost: Kemp, Gordon, Haren, Ramirez. They've actually lost more than they gained at this point, because Kemp and Ramirez are the best two players on those lists. As for how many prospects they have, I don't know if you've noticed, but prospects are no longer in vogue in Major League Baseball because so many of them bomb. As Sabean has said, what everyone wants now is "major league ready talent." Those are the elite of prospects, who have either played in the majors already or have had outstanding years in AAA ball and are viewed as can't miss.
Screw the Dodgers, let's talk about our inactive club. I'm getting a little concerned that the parade has passed them by. Melky and Headley are still out there, but the top pitchers are gone except for Shields and Scherzer, and Bobby Evans' comment yesterday about not wanting to get into drawn out negotiations with pitchers and a desire to sign someone quickly, points to either a trade or Jake Peavy. I'm starting to think this will wind up as another post championship off season where we just re-sign our own. 2015 just might be another forgettable odd season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 14:33:32 GMT -5
Randy -- By the way...the Dodgers had all those top rated prospects as bargaining chips...do you know how many Giants prospects are in the top 100? Probably just Crick, if that. And he isn't real HIGH on the list after a bad 2014. All the more reason we NEED to fill our holes with QUALITY talent...not mediocre or bargain basement stock. Help is not on the way from the farm system anytime soon. The sense of urgency has just not been there this offseason. I guess the Giants are hoping they can find some gems off the scrap heap again. Maybe they can but it's not usually a winning formula. Rog -- Very good points, Randy. Crick might indeed make the bottom half of the top 100 (no sure bet), although he may also be joined by southpaw Ty Blach (about whom I hope will give us a scouting report, and we don't expect it to be perfect, so don't worry about that). Let's just give the Giants time to execute what is by now at best Plan D. That doesn't mean it's a bad plan, just as Plan A, B and C weren't necessarily the best, either. I think the Giants are going to sign James Shields. I think they are frustrated at finishing second. Regardless of how they go, I hope they save lots of money for the 19-year-old Cuban prospect Moncado. The consensus seems to be that he will become an impact player. One note that could be positive. There is a possibility next year's crop of free agent pitchers will be even better than this year's. And the Giants could have significant money coming off the books. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2616/question-answered#ixzz3LiIbS4yY |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 14:42:02 GMT -5
Mark -- prospects are no longer in vogue in Major League Baseball because so many of them bomb. Rog -- The other side is that prospects enable a team to get the most out of its payroll, since they are cheaper for at least six major league seasons. Mark -- As Sabean has said, what everyone wants now is "major league ready talent." Those are the elite of prospects, who have either played in the majors already or have had outstanding years in AAA ball and are viewed as can't miss. Rog -- Which is why I think prospects are STILL in vogue. The guys you're talking about are mostly prospects (depending on one's definition). Mark -- Screw the Dodgers, let's talk about our inactive club. I'm getting a little concerned that the parade has passed them by. Melky and Headley are still out there, but the top pitchers are gone except for Shields and Scherzer, and Bobby Evans' comment yesterday about not wanting to get into drawn out negotiations with pitchers and a desire to sign someone quickly, points to either a trade or Jake Peavy. I'm starting to think this will wind up as another post championship off season where we just re-sign our own. 2015 just might be another forgettable odd season. Rog -- You could be right, although I still think the Giants will come out of this alright. That doesn't necessarily mean a great 2015, as players such as Madison Bumgarner may be stretched a little thin. But I think the Giants will wind up with some decent pickups. I think they may well make a preemptive move with James Shields. If they make a strong six-year bid for Shields as they did for Lester, I think they will win the prize. (Not sure that is the best way to go, but the options are admittedly dwindling. The Giants are likely right to want to move quickly to fill at least one of the holes they have.) And I'd just LOVE to see them not finish second in the Moncado bowl, whenever that one will kick off. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2616/question-answered?page=1#ixzz3LiKMxPgt |
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 12, 2014 15:17:50 GMT -5
Shields is 32, so I think there's no way you go six years like you did with the 30 year old Lester. As for the prospects thing, ML ready means a bit more than just a prospect. It's more of a sure thing can't miss prospect as supposed to just a prospect.
|
|
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 Dec 12, 2014 15:38:27 GMT -5
Rog - I think the Giants are going to sign James Shields. I think they are frustrated at finishing second. Regardless of how they go,
Dood - I guess there are worse options out there...but I bet we end up paying WAY too much for a postseason choke artist. I never liked him stealing Worthy's name and he's been anything BUT worthy of it...more like Big LAME James than Big Game.
Rog - Let's just give the Giants time to execute what is by now at best Plan D. That doesn't mean it's a bad plan, just as Plan A, B and C weren't necessarily the best, either
Dood - do you usually save your best strategy to be implemented only after the worse options have failed?
Rog - One note that could be positive. There is a possibility next year's crop of free agent pitchers will be even better than this year's. And the Giants could have significant money coming off the books.
Dood - yep, time to look forward to the even numbered year already eh? I wonder if Sabean's new contract gave him this offseason off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 18:15:13 GMT -5
Mark -- As for the prospects thing, ML ready means a bit more than just a prospect. It's more of a sure thing can't miss prospect as supposed to just a prospect. Rog -- Perhaps you're right. I see an MLB-ready prospect as more a prospect who would likely make a big league roster in the next year, not necessarily a can't miss guy. But major league teams may see it differently than I -- or you, or than either of us). A guy I would have called major league ready three years or so ago was Nick Noonan. IIRC Boly really liked the guy after he had played just a bit. He played 40-something or so games with the Giants, so I would say he was about as big league ready as he was going to get. But obviously he wasn't can't miss, as had been mentioned here since about 2009. I thought of Noonan because he just signed a minor league contract with the Yankees. They think he is at least minor league ready! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2616/question-answered#ixzz3LjCCrRrx |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 18:31:44 GMT -5
It's been a couple of years ago, but the primary prospect the Giants used to acquire Hunter Pence was catcher Tommy Joseph, a former 2nd-round draft pick with tremendous raw power who had built himself from a poor defensive catcher into more than a satisfactory one. The year before he had been traded, he hit .270, had a .471 SLG and was chosen the Cal League's top defensive catcher while playing at San Jose.
Joseph has had injury issues with the Phillies in AA and AAA, and has a long way to go to reach the majors (although good health could quickly shorten that timeframe). Joseph wasn't a guy I was high on, but obviously the Phillies were. He immediately became either their best or their 2nd-best catching prospect.
Depending on whom you listened to, Joseph may have been a good prospect, but clearly he wasn't major-league ready.
The two guys the Giants got Jake Peavy for this past summer were Edwin Escobar and Heath Hembree. I'm not sure either was viewed as being major league ready, although Hembree was a September call up for the Red Sox. Escobar was the key, and he isn't considered overly ready. Escobar posted a combined 4.94 AAA ERA last season, going 4.50 for the Red Sox AAA team after the trade.
Anyway, I guess my point is that different teams like different types of prospects. Established teams like major league ready guys, while non-contending teams may prefer the younger prospects with higher ceilings. Even the Dodgers have recently traded for prospects of various levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 18:38:49 GMT -5
Regarding Shields, I think he will receive a 5-year contract. To me though, 6/$125 wouldn't be much different than 5/$115. The player's agent would likely view 6/$130 necessary to equal 5/$115. But he'd love to get that 6th year.
I would prefer 5/$115 with a one-year option for $10 million net to 6/$130. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed though to 6/$125. 6/$125 compared to 5/$115 would mean the Giants would be getting Shields' sixth year at $10 net. If he's any good at all, he'd likely command $10 in 2020. Of course, he could also be out of the game. But even as a LOOGY, he would likely command at least $5 million (which will likely be the rate for a guy like Javier Lopez by then).
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 18:44:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 18:59:03 GMT -5
Hey, perhaps I'm not giving enough credit to James (Is) Worthy. I see he is ranked the #96 all-time NBA player by Basketball-Reference's Fan Elo Rater. Just ahead of Nate Thurmond. I would have to doubt that ranking, but that's what the fans said, so it shouldn't be completely disregarded.
By the way, over his 12-year career, Worthy averaged 17.6 points, 5.1 rebounds, 3.0 assists and 1.1 steals. He shot a very impressive .525 percentage.
Nate averaged 14.5 points, 14.5 rebounds, 2.6 assists and 0.6 steals over his 14 years. Nate suffered a lot of injuries, but he was darn good when he could play. He was the reason the Warriors thought they could trade Wilt Chamberlain, although that trade turned out to be one of the worst in NBA history. They got almost nothing in return for the most dominant player in NBA history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 18:59:51 GMT -5
Hey, perhaps I'm not giving enough credit to James (Is) Worthy. I see he is ranked the #96 all-time NBA player by Basketball-Reference's Fan Elo Rater. Just ahead of Nate Thurmond. I would have to doubt that ranking, but that's what the fans said, so it shouldn't be completely disregarded.
By the way, over his 12-year career, Worthy averaged 17.6 points, 5.1 rebounds, 3.0 assists and 1.1 steals. He shot a very impressive .525 percentage.
Nate averaged 14.5 points, 14.5 rebounds, 2.6 assists and 0.6 steals over his 14 years. Nate suffered a lot of injuries, but he was darn good when he could play. He was the reason the Warriors thought they could trade Wilt Chamberlain, although that trade turned out to be one of the worst in NBA history. They got almost nothing in return for the most dominant player in NBA history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 12, 2014 19:01:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 13, 2014 7:27:22 GMT -5
You see 5 yrs 23 million per for James Shields? Wow, that's excessive. I see 5 yrs at about 17-18 per year. You could be right though, the market is crazy. I don't really know how you can give 5/115 to James Shields and then look Madison Bumgarner in the eye every day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 13, 2014 7:48:04 GMT -5
Mark -- You see 5 yrs 23 million per for James Shields? Wow, that's excessive. I see 5 yrs at about 17-18 per year. You could be right though, the market is crazy. Rog -- The GM, the agent, and Jon Heyman combined to project Jon Lester at an average 6/$140. He actually received 6/$155. They projected Shields at 5/$102.5. A bump up to 5/$115 would represent about the same proportionate bump for Shields. Here is part of what Heyman said about Lester: "His resume is actually better than Scherzer's. He is a postseason dynamo, a big plus." And about Shields: "A monster as an innings eater and a true ace (although obviously not as good or as young as Scherzer and Lester." I'm starting to think that Peavy and Romo at about the same cost and with a shorter commitment would be better than Shields. Tough call on that one. By the way, Peavy is projected at 2/$25 (I think he'll get three years), and Romo is projected at 3/$20 (I think he'll get more money than that). Signing Peavy and Romo might involve close to a $50 million commitment saving. I'm leaning in that direction. If you're going to over pay, wouldn't it be better to overpay with a lesser commitment? Mark -- I don't really know how you can give 5/115 to James Shields and then look Madison Bumgarner in the eye every day. Rog -- Another reason to go with Peavy and Romo. That said, Madison signed his contract of his own free will. I suspect the Giants will reward him with an extension, but either Bumgarner's agent failed him, or Madison was willing to give the Giants a big hometown discount in exchange for the guarantee of a long commitment to him. I admire Madison if he did so. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2616/question-answered#ixzz3LmSJBbMC |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 13, 2014 11:11:55 GMT -5
Roger--"A monster as an innings eater and a true ace (although obviously not as good or as young as Scherzer and Lester." I'm starting to think that Peavy and Romo at about the same cost and with a shorter commitment would be better than Shields. Tough call on that one. ---boly says--- Rog, if that's what you're thinking, then, IMHO, you're not just wrong, but out in leftfield with one of those old mechanical, with a level adding machines!  Seriously, I LOVE Peavy and Vogey! I really do! But at best, they are 6 inning guys. and if they are back to back in the rotation, a bullpen killer. For us to have a SERIOUS starting corps, it needs to look something like this: Bumgarner Shields (or someone with his talent and ability) Cain (A HEALTHY, back to what he was Cain) Who? Not sure, but he'd have to be an Ervin Santana type of guy Hudson Is it doable? Not now. Not the way Sabean and management have fritered and farted around. Now we'd be stuck with an above average rotation IF Shields gets to us. Bumgarner Shields Cain Hudson Peavy Back to what I said above: 2 back to back, 6 inning, bullpen killer guys. boly |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 13, 2014 11:12:30 GMT -5
I meant to say "lever" adding machines.
If you're old enough, you'll know what I'm referring to.
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 Dec 13, 2014 13:38:26 GMT -5
Boly...I know you don't want to hear this but you can forget about the Giants getting both Shields AND another starter...Lincecum is going to start the year in the rotation. That's a given
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 13, 2014 13:46:08 GMT -5
Boly -- Seriously, I LOVE Peavy and Vogey! I really do! But at best, they are 6 inning guys. and if they are back to back in the rotation, a bullpen killer. For us to have a SERIOUS starting corps, it needs to look something like this: Bumgarner Shields (or someone with his talent and ability) Cain (A HEALTHY, back to what he was Cain) Who? Not sure, but he'd have to be an Ervin Santana type of guy Hudson Is it doable? Not now. Not the way Sabean and management have fritered and farted around. Rog -- It was probably never doable to begin with. You're looking for Shields and Santana or their equivalents. Shields will get something like say $22 million per season, and Santana got $14 million. That's $36 million, or about $6 million more than the Giants have to spend. Maybe with heavy backloading, but here is what we would be left with: . Back loading on a five-year contract with a 32-year-old pitcher and back loading on a four-year contract with a 32-year-old. In other words, about halfway through the contracts it is likely we would ask why was it again that we did this? . No Sandoval replacement. . No Morse replacement. . No Romo replacement. The Giants just have too many holes for an escalating market to accommodate their signing two high-level starters. Boly -- Now we'd be stuck with an above average rotation IF Shields gets to us. Bumgarner Shields Cain Hudson Peavy Back to what I said above: 2 back to back, 6 inning, bullpen killer guys. Rog -- Six-inning pitchers are NOT bullpen killers, especially if you separate them. In fact, there were only 31 qualifying NL starters who averaged six innings per outing. One of them was Tim Hudson. Because he went between the two leagues, Jake Peavy wasn't a NL qualifier. But between the two leagues, he qualified easily. In other words, the two guys you're worried about actually pitch MORE innings than the average starter. For #4 and #5 guys, they're virtual innings eaters. I understand your concept, but the game is played much differently now than in our youths. That's why the Giants carry 12 and sometimes 13 pitchers. If your starter can average six innings, that leaves 486 innings to be pitched by the bullpen. That's just under 70 innings for each of the seven relievers. Of the six relievers who were with the Giants for the whole season, the only one who wasn't within shouting distance of 70 innings was Javier Lopez, whose role is different. And that was with only Bumgarner, Hudson and Cain/Peavy reaching the magic six inning mark. Neither Vogelsong nor Lincecum did. Incidentally, I do have one concept that can help with any innings problems that do develop in the bullpen. Use a rotating 12th pitcher, moving guys up from the minors and then sending them down again. Maybe not over the entire season, but when a pitcher goes on the disabled list, for instance. One more incidentally I'll bet we didn't know: 39% of pitchers go on the disabled list at least once each season. The Giants have actually been rather lucky in this regard, so they can withstand a short-inning starter better than most teams. By the way, I came across a possible reason Jean Machi lost it at the end of the year. The poor guy pitched in 71 games, six more than Javier Lopez, the LOOGY. Sergio Romo, Juan Gutierrez and Jeremy Affeldt also broke the 60 mark. Finally, one more incidentally: Except in a rare emergency, I wouldn't use a reliever more than two games in three days. And with the exception of the long man, I would use each fullly-healthy reliever at least once every four days -- preferably once every three days. When relievers are used three days in a row, their performance drops on that third day. And being used that third straight day isn't helping their arms much. The Giants were in particularly good shape to do this because they actually had two closers last season. In addition, Jeremy Affeldt is capable of closing, and Javier Lopez could close with a decent lead and primarily lefties coming up in the 9th inning. The other thing I would do is not use my closer to close a three-run lead unless he already had two straight days off. Why waste your closer on a lead almost any pitcher can hold most of the time? Instead of using him on that three-run save, have him available and rested to make a closer save the next day. Using relievers that way would help their arms out a lot. By the way, the Giants' pitchers having such a good record of not going on the DL may be one more thing for which we can praise Dave Righetti. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2616/question-answered#ixzz3LniUexTX |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 13, 2014 22:15:27 GMT -5
Rog, I disagree about 6 inning pitchers. IF we could depend upon 6 each time out, that would be fine. And when I say "each time," I mean 2 things; 1 Have a reasonable chance to GET 6 out of them, and then 2, hoping that 60% of the time, which is more realistic that they can go 6.
If they go back to back 5 we have a problem. They're no longer young, with lots of years on their arms.
I don't think we can count on Vogey or Peavy to do that; thus my statement; bullpen killers
You see the high road. I see the enema.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 13, 2014 22:19:06 GMT -5
--Randy----Boly...I know you don't want to hear this but you can forget about the Giants getting both Shields AND another starter...Lincecum is going to start the year in the rotation. That's a given
---boly says--I know. But it doesn't change my thinking about what I WOULD HAVE DONE. I think Sabean/management has queered the goose on this one, Randy, I really do.
Sandoval, it is now obvious did NOT want to come back.
Which makes his hypocrital, lying statement during the parade all the worse.
But that aside, we could have and should have landed Lester, or Shields at the very least.
THEN I would have been happy with Santana for the next move, and to heck with over priced Headley.
We get the pitching, and my moves would have done that, and we go in house for the rest. NOT my first choice, but as Rog pointed out, too many holes to fill.
Thus, again, Posey to 1B Belt to LF, Susac behind the plate, and Duffy, or someone else, at 3B.
As I said, I think management screwed up big time.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 14, 2014 9:33:07 GMT -5
I think our final haul will be one of Shields/Peavy and one of Headley/Astrubal Cabrera/ Jed Lowrie and then a righty platoon partner for Blanco in the outfield. If that's the final result, assuming the Dodgers don't add any more big time players, (and Friedman said he's far from done) then that team is good enough to win the west.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 14, 2014 10:53:16 GMT -5
Mark--I think our final haul will be one of Shields/Peavy and one of Headley/Astrubal Cabrera/ Jed Lowrie and then a righty platoon partner for Blanco in the outfield. If that's the final result, assuming the Dodgers don't add any more big time players, (and Friedman said he's far from done) then that team is good enough to win the west.
---boly says---
IF...IF we get Shields, Mark, I agree. But if that's the extent of what we're able to do, it still leaves me grumpy, and distrubed because of what we could have done/should have done, and winning the West is all we're likely to accomplish... unless Sabean does something stunning during the season.
Not exactly the Merry Christmas I had hoped for.
And thus the reason why I can't stand the off season.
So much noise, so much pomp and circumstance... and very little bang.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 14, 2014 14:31:12 GMT -5
Boly -- Rog, I disagree about 6 inning pitchers. IF we could depend upon 6 each time out, that would be fine. And when I say "each time," I mean 2 things; 1 Have a reasonable chance to GET 6 out of them, and then 2, hoping that 60% of the time, which is more realistic that they can go 6. Rog -- I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but I'm thinking it's that you would like a pitcher who can go at least six innings 60% of the time. Perhaps you mean OVER six innings 60% of the time. Last season Tim Hudson went six or more innings 61% of the time. He went over six innings 45% of the time. Peavy went six or more innings 78% of the time and over six innings 50% of the time. By comparison, Madison Bumgarner went six or more innings 82% of the time and over six innings 58% of the time. What we see is that Hudson's late-season hip injury limited his ability to go deeply into games, but that Peavy went deeply into games nearly as often as the staff ace. If Hudson is still feeling the effects of his hip injury, he probably won't go as deeply into games as we would like. If he's recovered, he quite possibly will. In Tim's first 21 starts, he went six or more innings 76% of the time. That's really close to Peavy and not far behind Bumgarner. But in his final 10 starts -- after he began being bothered by his injury, one would presume -- he went six or more just 30% of the time. So in Peavy and Hudson, the Giants would have one pitcher who pitched fairly deeply into games last season and one who did until he suffered a bothersome hip injury. If the Giants had Peavy and Hudson as their #4 and #5 starters as you indicated, they likely wouldn't have a problem. What is far more likely is that Hudson and Tim Lincecum will be #4 and #5. That could well be something of an issue -- although not a huge one IMO. Tim went six or more innings in just 58% of his starts. But before he imploded soon after the All-Star game, he had gone six or more innings in 70% of his starts and actually was on a streak of eight straight starts of six innings or more. By comparison, Bumgarner had two streaks of eight starts of six innings or more, and he extended the final one to 10 (16 if we count the postseason). Bumgarner is one of the top innings-eaters in the game. If the Giants are concerned that Hudson and Lincecum back-to-back would put too much strain on the bullpen, all they have to do is separate them. Given that the All-Star game allows a team to juggle its rotation, it would be easy to do without limiting the starts of the top starters by very much. For instance, if the Giants hadn't chosen to sit Bumgarner out of his final start so he would be ready for the one-game playoff, he would have started 34 games last season. Most years I don't think it is too hard to split the bottom two starters and still get at least 33 starts out of each of the top three starters. The Giants almost certainly AREN'T going to have both Shields and Peavy as was the case in your illustration, but if they did, they should have almost no problems whatsoever overworking the bullpen. Even with Hudson and Lincecum as #4 and #5, there shouldn't be much of a problem if the Giants separate them in the rotation. Here's something to think about too. While Hudson and Lincecum were in the rotation (26 games for each), there was only one time in which neither pitched five innings or more. Splitting the two shortest-innings starters, spreading work out better for each reliever, carrying a rotating 12th reliever and occasionally going to 13 relievers during long periods without a day off or when the relief corps does begin to get stressed are ways to keep the bullpen fresh instead of overworked almost no matter what the conditions. In a worst-case scenario, the starter and/or long man simply has to eat innings to refresh the bullpen. Games are of different natures. The tight games. The occasional extra-inning contest. The games of falling far behind and then catching up. The blowout games. Careful managing of workloads and communicating with the pitchers regarding their readiness can usually provide the opportunity to get relievers proper rest. Yes, there are some principles to be followed, as mentioned above. But they are rather simple principles. Perhaps from inside they aren't really as easy as when looking from outside, as we are. But I can't imagine these principles can't be used at least most of the time. It does take something that isn't a baseball strong point: a willingness to experiment and change. Even if Hudson and Lincecum and #4 and #5 and struggle more to eat innings than they did last season, the Giants should be able to withstand it. Doing things the way they're doing them, it might be tough, but doable. Making a few modifications it should be relatively easy most of the time. That's part of managing and coaching are about: putting players and pitchers in situations in which they can best succeed. Overworking a pitcher doesn't provide that opportunity, but with proper managing, overwork can be avoided. I'm curious about your thoughts, Boly, and the thoughts of others. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2616/question-answered#ixzz3LtJTOqzz |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 14, 2014 14:45:29 GMT -5
Boly -- But that aside, we could have and should have landed Lester, or Shields at the very least. THEN I would have been happy with Santana for the next move, and to heck with over priced Headley. Rog -- The Giants still may land Shields. That they haven't signed someone or someones else shows that they believe they are strongly in the race for him. Speaking of races, there are usually a handful of teams competing for these players. We shouldn't expect the Giants to win every time, or even come close to doing so. That would usually require paying even more than the already extravagant prices. But let's suppose the Giants had signed Shields or especially Lester right away. There just wouldn't have been enough money left over for Santana. I'm frustrated with you, Boly, in that we have been speaking for a month or more about the Giants' having $30 million or so to spend to fill at least three holes. Let's suppose it would have taken $162 million (likely a conservative number) to sign Lester, instead of the actual $155 he chose over the Giants' offer. That's $27 million per season. And let's suppose they would have needed to pay $56 million to Santana instead of the $54 million he signed for. That's another $14 million. The total is $41 million, so the Giants would have already spent $11 million over budget and not done a thing to address third base or left field. And at the beginning of next season they would have been beholden to a 31-year-old pitcher for six years and a 32-year old for four more. The decline curve for pitchers after the age of 30 isn't pretty. There was no way they were going to have both Lester and Santana in the rotation. Counting Lincecum as sixth starter, they would have been paying over $95 million per season just for their starting pitchers. There are teams whose entire salary budget is half that. About the only way the Giants would have all the players we want would be for them to become the Dodgers. I don't think we want that. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2616/question-answered?page=1#ixzz3Lu0hdGgP |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Dec 14, 2014 14:52:09 GMT -5
Boly -- IF...IF we get Shields, Mark, I agree. But if that's the extent of what we're able to do, it still leaves me grumpy, and distrubed because of what we could have done/should have done, and winning the West is all we're likely to accomplish... unless Sabean does something stunning during the season. Not exactly the Merry Christmas I had hoped for. And thus the reason why I can't stand the off season. So much noise, so much pomp and circumstance... and very little bang. Rog -- The Giants don't need bang so much as they need value. They're trying to replace five players who may sign for as much as a combined $60 million with a budget half that big. I'm disappointed that we aren't being more realistic here. There is a Korean pitcher pitcher who was just posted whom I believe the Giants are interested in. They have also shown interest in a strong Korean hitter. Going in those directions might make it possible to fill some holes more economically. There is a pitcher returning to the US from overseas that just signed for the bargain basement price of 2/$3. I wish the Giants had signed him, but with them still looking at Shields and almost certain to acquire some kind of at least 2nd-tier starter, he probably didn't think his best chance to make a rotation was with the Giants. I wish someone out there could come up with a good plan to add at least a starter, a third baseman and a left fielder for a combined $30 million. Until we can do so, why are we complaining. "Why do we talk about this and that when this and that hasn't happened yet?" Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2616/question-answered?page=1#ixzz3Lu4BG2Gl |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 14, 2014 16:25:55 GMT -5
Rog -- The Giants don't need bang so much as they need value.
---boly says---Rog, I don't mean "bang" as in a hitter, I mean after all their noise, which I now believe was mostly rhetoric to appease the fans, the bang I spoke of means noise followed by a BIG move.
We didn't do that.
As for Shields, since he'd cost us, what, a # 1 draft pick? I don't see him here.
Wish I did, but management has shown me that THIS off season, they will rattle off some noise like they want to make a splash, but in the end, will go and do exactly what Randy has been saying: Go bargain basement, and on the cheap.
Sad.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 14, 2014 16:34:04 GMT -5
Rog--But let's suppose the Giants had signed Shields or especially Lester right away. There just wouldn't have been enough money left over for Santana. I'm frustrated with you, Boly, in that we have been speaking for a month or more about the Giants' having $30 million or so to spend to fill at least three holes.
Let's suppose it would have taken $162 million (likely a conservative number) to sign Lester, instead of the actual $155 he chose over the Giants' offer. That's $27 million per season.
And let's suppose they would have needed to pay $56 million to Santana instead of the $54 million he signed for. That's another $14 million.
The total is $41 million, so the Giants would have already spent $11 million over budget and not done a thing to address third base or left field. And at the beginning of next season they would have been beholden to a 31-year-old pitcher for six years and a 32-year old for four more. The decline curve for pitchers after the age of 30 isn't pretty.
There was no way they were going to have both Lester and Santana in the rotation. Counting Lincecum as sixth starter, they would have been paying over $95 million per season just for their starting pitchers. There are teams whose entire salary budget is half that.
==boly says===
We keep talking about "X" amount of dollars to spend, and I'm saying that IF management was serious, that "X" would be a lot higher than it is.
#1 I would move Lincecum. SOMEONE would take him in a deal, you can bet your proverbial bippy on that one
#2 I DON'T go out and even try to land a 3Bman. I've said before, we can fill it in house.
#3 We could go on the cheap for a LF to platoon with Blanco, but I wouldn't do that either.
Again, I go in House. Move Posey to 1B, and get MORE bang from his bat. I put Susac behind the plate, put Belt in LF, and use Blanco and maybe Ishi for late inning defense, and have an audition for 3B. I give Duffy the first shot, but who knows, we could come up with an Aubrey Huff, bargain basement kind of guy with that 1 good year left. But 3B would NOT be my priority.
#4 I let Romo walk. He may have one more good year left in him, but since it's a "money" thing, I say Sergio, we loved what you did for us! Now, we wish you the best.
With my plan WE HAVE the money to get 2 top flight pitchers, and we can fill the bullpen internally.
Now, since I'm convinced at what management is going to do, here's what I see.
1-We re sighn a fading Romo.
2-Over pay for either a LF or 3Bman
3-Sign some bargain basement types for spots 4 and 5 in the rotation
Bad choices, IMHO, bad, bad... BAD choices.
boly
|
|
