3rd place

[klaiggeb]

Many of you aren't going to agree with me, but I don't see us, barring MASSIVE injuries to top line players on the Padres and Dodgers, finishing ANY better than 3rd place.

And ONLY 3rd place if Colorado fails to make some significant moves.

The Dodgers have THE best rotation in the division

The Padres, I argue, have the 2nd best.

Potentially, the Padres now have the best every day line up, with the Dodgers, 2nd.

So we can talk "rings" all we want, and believe me, they are AWESOME! But talking about the past is all we'll be able to do.

And that gets old quickly.

The 2015 season is right around the corner, and it really sits badly in my craw, KNOWING in advance I'm going to have to watch a team with little to no chance to win.

And this BEFORE the season even begins!

Of course, like all of you, I'll watch each and every game because I LOVE our Giants. I'll hold on to an irrational hope that "somehow" we'll figure it out and win.

But we won't because we won't have the talent.

All year long, I'll REMEMBER what we COULD have done, and DIDN'T.

And like it or not, in spite of ALL the good moves Sabean and management have made over the years, I will NEVER, EVER forgive him/them for the enema they KNOWINGLY gave us all.

Because I believe that is exactly what they did.

It's like Mark alluded to when he suggested; they might have gone on the cheap.

Or as Randy said, it's all about lining their pockets with green.

And if ya'all don't find that sad and disgusting... well, then I guess we aren't on the same page.

boly

[sfgdood]

Your fears are well founded, my friend. The entireity of the NL West is doing all they can to improve their clubs and the Giants are stuck in quicksand, doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Even the DBacks might pass us by soon. I'm so glad we were able to pull out Game 7 this season because I'm not seeing another trip to the Fall Classic anytime soon the way things are going now.

[rxmeister]

Even if the Giants don't make another signing the rest of the offseason, my pessimism would only extend to the 2015 season. Randy, why do you think a bad offseason will keep them down for the foreseeable future?

[sfgdood]

Mostly pessimistic because Brian Sabean will still be our GM next offseason and he has shown zero ability to close a deal this offseason. It'll be scrap heap city once again.

[klaiggeb]

Randy---Mostly pessimistic because Brian Sabean will still be our GM next offseason and he has shown zero ability to close a deal this offseason. It'll be scrap heap city once again.

---boly says---

Of course the flip side of that argument, Randy is that Brian will have learned a HUGE lesson from miscues (what I call failures) this season.

boly

[Rog]

Randy -- Mostly pessimistic because Brian Sabean will still be our GM next offseason and he has shown zero ability to close a deal this offseason. It'll be scrap heap city once again.

Rog -- Unless the Giants win the World Series again this season, I think the bumbler should be fired!

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2632/3rd#ixzz3MRjhslgu

[Rog]

Boly -- Of course the flip side of that argument, Randy is that Brian will have learned a HUGE lesson from miscues (what I call failures) this season.

Rog -- One lesson Brian seems to be learning this off-season is that with $30 in the budget for free agents and players acquired via trade, it IS possible to address four positions. Don't forget the Giants still have about $10 million with which to address left field.

None of their moves have been sexy, but given the inflated market for free agents, they have been decent values. As is almost always the case, it's tough to tell how these guys will turn out. But if the Giants have picked up four wins by signing these guys, they have spent their money well.

Last season FanGraphs had the trio at 3.6 Wins Above Replacement. So the Giants are pretty much on target with the moves.

Are they great moves? Probably not. We're talking about good players overall, but certainly not world beaters. But each has filled a hole in anywhere from an acceptable to a good manner.

I'm not overly excited by the moves, but I'm not depressed as some here are.

My guess is that McGehee will be given short shrift here. Last season he came back from missing a full season to injury. I don't want to in any way say he's as good a player as the man he is replacing.

But I do want to note a couple of things:

. McGehee's career high of 23 home runs is just two less than Pablo's career high.

. His career high of 104 RBI's is 14 better than Pablo's career high.

Offensively, McGehee is the type of hitter we crave here. He hits in the clutch, and he drives home runners from third with fewer than two outs.

Clutch? Yeah. .294 batting average and .823 OPS with Runners In Scoring Position. That's almost exactly how Pablo has hit. Pablo has a .294 batting average and an .831 OPS.

Good with runners on third and fewer than two outs? In 134 opportunities, McGehee has driven home 99 runners. In 202 chances, Pablo has driven in 143. Casey has driven in .74 runners per chance; Pablo, .71. Pablo has hit 7 homers in these situations to just two from Casey, so overall it works about evenly.

Want those two-out hits with RISP? Casey has hit .313 with a .909 OPS. Pablo has hit .279 with an .850 OPS.

So if Casey is as good in the clutch as Pablo, why isn't he (nearly) as good as Pablo?

First of all, their gloves. Casey is a mediocre fielder, and while Pablo has in some seasons been less than mediocre, last season he was very, very good.

Second, Casey is older and has suffered from serious injury, and he hasn't been as good lately as before. Pablo has followed a similar track, but his decline hasn't been as noticeable.

Third, while Casey has been good in the clutch, he is clearly less powerful than Pablo. Last season Casey's isolated power (slugging percentage less batting average was a poor .070. Over his career it has been a decent .134, but coming back from injury last season, he showed no power (yet still drove home 76 runs). Pablo's career ISO is clearly better at .171. Last season Pablo's ISO of .136 was nearly double that of McGehee's no-power season.

What we can expect from McGehee is unknown. What we can realistically hope for is a good hitter who is best in the clutch and whose glove won't hurt you.

Is McGehee Sandoval? No way. But he will also cost about $3.5 million next season, while Pablo's new contract calls for $19 million per year.

Pablo is the better player. McGehee will likely be the better value.

And what did we say the Giants needed to get this off-season? Value. Given that each team has only so much to spend, it's about value. Will Pablo ($19 million per season) be worth five and a half times what McGehee will making? Probably not.

If the Giants had re-signed Pablo and Peavy, they would be out just about out of budget. Instead, they have acquired Peavy, Romo and McGehee, and still have about $10 million to spend on a left fielder. Another trade may be on the way.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2632/3rd?page=1#ixzz3MRk6NnlI

[Rog]

Boly -- Or as Randy said, it's all about lining their pockets with green.

Rog -- I love you, man, but don't you guys read the facts?

The Dodgers have an $8 billion plus TV contract. BILLION. How can the Giants spend with that?

The Giants are paying off their stadium. The Dodgers have owned theirs for decades.

The Giants are PRE-paying the stadium, hopefully to free up more payroll after 2017.

These are facts, Boly. Ignoring them can be bad for one's health -- and certainly for his state of enjoyment.

You guys are talking with angst. I'm talking with facts. Which one makes more sense?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2632/3rd?page=1#ixzz3MRuk8h3U

[Rog]

Randy -- It'll be scrap heap city once again.

Rog -- This just isn't in agreement with the facts. Here is what each player accomplished last season, and admittedly I'm cherry picking here.

Sergio Romo had an excellent 0.95 WHIP and had a save or hold in 34 of 39 opportunities IIRC.

Jake Peavy posted a 2.17 ERA in 78.2 innings with the Giants. Without acquiring him, the Giants almost certainly don't win the World Series, because they almost certainly don't make the post season.

Casey McGehee drove in three more runs than Pablo Sandoval.

Scrap heap city? More like World Championship city, if you've noticed.

Brilliant moves? No. Scrap heap moves? Are you kidding?

[Rog]

So far I'm happy with the moves. Not delighted, but happy. The Giants have filled three holes more than adequately, and they still have $10 million to spend.

Given that the Giants' budget for next season allows for about $30 million of acquisitions, who here has a better plan? Seriously. Who hear has a better plan? Spell it out so we can compare.

Seriously.

Otherwise, all we're doing is spitting into the wind. And even the word spitting might be one letter off.

[sfgdood]

So far I'm happy with the moves. Not delighted, but happy. The Giants have filled three holes more than adequately, and they still have $10 million to spend.

Dood - If mediocre is more than adequate in your world, then you are right

[rxmeister]

Dood, the Giants have made solid additions so far this offseason. Not spectacular, but solid. If you want a 200 million dollar expenditure at every position you should become a fan of the Dodgers or Yankees, although even those teams are showing restraint this offseason. What moves would you have made, and don't say sign Lester or Pablo, because all indications were that not only did the Giants try, but they didn't let themselves get outbid. So what would GM Randy have done that GM Sabean failed to do?

[sfgdood]

one thing GM Randy wouldn't be doing is going cheap and mediocre like GM Sabean. I want quality across the board, not mediocre. I could live with SOME mediocrity as long as there is one or two top dollar studs in there to match.

[Islandboagie]

I don't know about solid..I think solid would have been to retain Pablo, Vogey, Morse and Romo. That would have been solid. Mcgehee isn't a bad pickup, but still a downgrade to Pablo. They still need to pickup a GOOD outfielder. Not someone who's been sketchy in the last few years.

At this point, I'm not excited, but I'm still optimistic because a full year from Panik and Belt might pick up the slack. A 100% healthy Pagan and picking up a good left fielder would get me excited. If you add Cain returning to form and Lincecum being consistent, it would put the rest of the national league west in our rear view mirror.

[Rog]

Randy -- Mostly pessimistic because Brian Sabean will still be our GM next offseason and he has shown zero ability to close a deal this offseason. It'll be scrap heap city once again.

Rog -- Given that Brian has won three World Championships in five seasons and because he has closed not one deal but three, your statement has no basis in fact.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2632/3rd#ixzz3MaN1KDXV

[Rog]

Rog -- So far I'm happy with the moves. Not delighted, but happy. The Giants have filled three holes more than adequately, and they still have $10 million to spend.

Dood - If mediocre is more than adequate in your world, then you are right

Rog -- On a team that already has above-average talent, acquiring average players to fill holes has a value. Calling as a group the threesome the Giants acquired mediocre is quite conservative.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2632/3rd?page=1#ixzz3MaNcVzdn

[Rog]

Randy -- I could live with SOME mediocrity as long as there is one or two top dollar studs in there to match.

Rog -- The Giants do have two top studs in Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner. Surround them with some good players (Cain, Belt, Panik, Pagan, Pence, Romo, Casilla and Affeldt), and all you need is a few more average players to have a nice team.

If you weren't going to be happy unless the Giants signed two of the top-dollar players, you weren't being at all realistic. How were the Giants going to sign two $20 million plus players with only $30 million in the budget and at least one more hole to fill?

We have continually asked you for your own plan of how to spend the $30 million and you have repeatedly refused to offer it.

If you continue to be unrealistic, you are indeed setting yourself up for frustration.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2632/3rd?page=1#ixzz3MaOPwcTC

[Rog]

Boagie -- I don't know about solid..I think solid would have been to retain Pablo, Vogey, Morse and Romo.

Rog -- Those expectations were unrealistic. The Giants have about $30 million to spend, and those guys will likely sign for about a combined $42 million or so.

In order to avoid disappointment, I think the strategy to take would be to make a reasonable estimate of the available budget. For instance, I think the $160 million posited by the author quoted here was too light.

Then add up the money that is already committed to players on the roster. Add to that reasonable estimates for the players in arbitration. Subtract this figure from the estimated budget, and you have a decent estimate of how much is available.

Then try to come up with the best strategy to spend that available money that you can. That gives one a base line with which to judge the success or failure of the total off-season acquisitions.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2632/3rd?page=1#ixzz3MaPsyFfX

[Rog]

Randy -- one thing GM Randy wouldn't be doing is going cheap and mediocre like GM Sabean.

Rog -- Actually, given the budget you would, Randy. You might be able to acquire ONE of the top guys and then go on the cheap, or you could spread the $30 million among the four holes.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2632/3rd?page=1#ixzz3MaRGXKyM

[rxmeister]

I don't agree with your definition of solid, Boagie. First of all, Romo is back, Peavy is better than Vogelsong by a lot, especially considering the age difference, and LF is not finished yet. I think having McGehee at third instead of Pablo gave them the finances necessary to bring back Peavy over Vogelsong, keeps them in the Shields hunt, and means they'll get a better left fielder. Morse lumbering around LF for the next two seasons would have been a disaster. They're not having the glitzy offseason of a team like the Padres, who are now looking to trade Wil Myers for Cole Hamels, but it appears pretty solid to me.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- Those expectations were unrealistic.

Boagie- it's unrealistic for a world series championship team to resign their free agents? Only Pablo was a top tier free agent on that list. The rest were low B, high C players.

Maybe I'm starting to see Randy's argument.

[Islandboagie]

Mark- I don't agree with your definition of solid, Boagie. First of all, Romo is back, Peavy is better than Vogelsong by a lot, especially considering the age difference, and LF is not finished yet.

Boagie- How is Peavy better than Vogelsong by a lot? Peavy was very good with the Giants, but their overall numbers in 2014 were similar. Vogey actually had one more win while having the same amount of losses. Over the last 4 years Vogelsong has been the better pitcher. We could both have a legitimate argument supporting each pitcher, but saying either pitcher is A LOT better than the other is factually inaccurate.

I would have gone with Vogey, because he would have taken less money to sign, and he's also a sentimental choice.

[rxmeister]

I don't care how Peavy pitched with the Red Sox, I care how he pitched for us. 2.17 ERA and he's much younger than Vogelsong. You said yourself that Vogey would be cheaper to sign than Peavy. Why? Obviously Peavy's better.

[sfgdood]

it's foolish to ignore what a player did for most of this year when you sign him to a new contract

[Rog]

Rog -- Those expectations were unrealistic.

Boagie- it's unrealistic for a world series championship team to resign their free agents? Only Pablo was a top tier free agent on that list. The rest were low B, high C players.

Maybe I'm starting to see Randy's argument.

Rog -- Here's why it was unrealistic to re-sign the Giants' five free agents. Sandoval 5/$95. Peavy 2/$24. Romo 2/$15. Morse 2/$16. Vogelsong 1/$8? That's a combined $54.5 million per season.

Dollars the Giants have committed to existing player for 2015 plus close estimates for arbitration elible: $143 million.

$143 + $54.5 = $198.5 million.

Giants' opening day payroll in 2014 = $149 million.

Assuming the Giants could have re-signed their five free agents at the price they signed for or might sign for, they would have needed to increase their payroll by $49.5 million. That's raising the payroll by a third, which is unrealistic.

With sellouts, concessions and merchandise, why WOULDN'T they raise payroll by a third? Three answers:

. Paying off the park.

. Paying off the park in advance.

. No $8 billion TV contract such as the Dodgers have.

This is at least the third time we've gone over this. Is the third time the charm?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2632/3rd#ixzz3MiRTAiwh

[Rog]

Randy -- it's foolish to ignore what a player did for most of this year when you sign him to a new contract

Rog -- I agree with you this time, Randy. I've been doing quite a bit of that, although when we disagree, it's usually by a lot.

It's also foolish to ignore what a player did for the rest of the year. And foolish to ignore what he's done the past three years or more.

2012 -- 3.37

2013 -- 4.17

2014 -- 3.73

Combined over the past three seasons -- 3.70. Jon Lester's ERA over the past three seasons is 3.65. I'm not trying to say Peavy is anywhere nearly as close to being the equal of Lester as those numbers would indicate, but can we see that Peavy at 2/$24 may be a better deal than Lester at 6/$155? Especially since we don't know how much it would actually have taken the Giants to acquire Lester. (My guess is that 7/$175 might have done it, but I don't know if even that would have overcome close friend Rick Dempsey with the Cubs.)

Be honest now. You had no idea their ERA's were that close over the past three seasons, did you? Lester has the advantage of having been by far the best this past season. He was also the better of the two in 2013. But in 2015, Peavy was better by nearly a run and a half.

Would I rather have Lester if the time and dollars were the same? Not even close.

Would I rather have Peavy at 2/$24 or Lester at say 7/$175? I think that one's pretty obvious, as well. There is a pretty good chance that Peavy won't be a burden at any time in his 2-year contract. It is almost certain that Lester would have been a later liability at the price the Giants would likely have had to pay to acquire him. And Jon's contract would have had the Giants shopping in the bargain basement for their other three replacements.

Was I disappointed when the Giants didn't re-sign Pablo? Yes. Did it truly make sense to re-sign him, especially when it likely would have taken something like 6/$115? Not really.

Was I disappointed when the Giants didn't sign Lester? Yes. Did it truly make sense to re-sign him, especially when it likely would have taken something like 7/$175? Not really.

Are Peavy, Romo and McGehee world beaters? The closest would be Romo, and he plays the least important position of the three and is coming off a so-so season (disappointing 3.72 ERA; fabulous 0.95 WHIP).

Peavy will likely be about a league-average starter. McGehee might be an average third baseman, or he may be a little below average.

The Giants are paying them about $23 million this season and have committed $42.5 million total (assuming a $3.5 million arbitration figure for McGehee). That's not bad for filling three important positions with roughly average players (with Romo being better than average).

If the Giants can do as well in left field as they did with those three vacancies, I believe that given their salary budget, they will have had a successful off-season.

Your argument is that the Giants should have spent more money. If they had an $8 billion dollar TV contract such as the Dodgers have, they would have done so.

Before we criticize the Giants for not spending more, we should become better acquainted with the facts. It's only fair.

[Rog]

Since over the past three seasons Jon Lester has yielded 28 unearned runs to Jake Peavy's 16, Lester's RUN average has actually been higher than Peavy's run average over the past three seasons. Some think run average is a better way of evaluating pitchers than earned run average.

On another note, the 2015 ZiPS projections say "With regard to their field players, San Francisco doesn’t currently feature so much a stars-and-scrubs sort of configuration as they do a Buster-Posey-surrounded-by-roughly-average-players one."

ZiPS has Buster projected at 6.4 Wins Above Replacement, followed by Hunter Pence (2.5), a surprising Brandon Crawford 2.4, Brandon Belt (1.9), a surprising Andrew Susac (1.9), Angel Pagan (1.8), Joe Panik (1.8) and then Casey McGehee (1.7).

They also project Madison Bumgarner to be surrounded by so-so starters and good relievers who don't pitch enough innings to contribute a high WAR. Bumgarner is projected at 4.3 WAR, followed by Jake Peavy at 2.2, Tim Hudson at 1.4 and Matt Cain at 1.3. Sergio Romo leads the relievers at 0.6 WAR.

Looking at the Giants' off-season acquisitions, the projections look rather favorable. Peavy at 2.2, McGehee at 1.7 and Romo at 0.6 add up to 4.5 WAR. For a cost of $23 million in 2015, that's "only" $5.1 million per WAR, which is rather good.

The ZiPS for the Red Sox and Cubs aren't out yet, so I don't know what the projections for Pablo Sandoval and Jon Lester are.

But if the ZiPS projections turn out to be reasonable, the Giants have done a pretty nice job with their three additions. Especially since both Peavy and McGehee have filled big holes.

Other projections will of course view those players differently. The Steamer projections I posted yesterday for the three players are lower, for instance. If we take the average of the ZiPS and Steamer projections, the Giants' moves thus far would be about average.

Giving the difficulty of filling the third base and starting pitching positions, I still think they have done just fine. Again though, whether they go clearly positive, clearly negative or simply stay about the same will depend on the left fielder they acquire.

So far though, so good. The Giants haven't hit a home run, but they've gotten on base consistently.

[rxmeister]

Let's not forget two other factors when comparing Vogelsong vs. Peavy. Vogelsong spent the year in spacious AT&T while Peavy was in bandbox Fenway. And Peavy was in the AL pitching in the DH league while Vogelsong had the advantage of facing opposing pitchers. And the age factor cannot be stressed enough, especially when you had the older one struggling at the end of the year while the younger one was pitching his best ball.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- Here's why it was unrealistic to re-sign the Giants' five free agents. Sandoval 5/$95. Peavy 2/$24. Romo 2/$15. Morse 2/$16. Vogelsong 1/$8? That's a combined $54.5 million per season.


Boagie- I didn't suggest resigning Peavy. As far as the others, I think they could have been had for cheaper if the Giants showed interest early on, rather than putting them all on the back burner. I believe Morse wanted to remain a Giant, I'm sure Vogey did too. Your numbers are the situation now, not the situation if the Giants had played it differently.

The only unrealistic factor that remains is the chance of you ever considering anything beyond the numbers presented to you.

[Islandboagie]

Mark- Let's not forget two other factors when comparing Vogelsong vs. Peavy. Vogelsong spent the year in spacious AT&T while Peavy was in bandbox Fenway. And Peavy was in the AL pitching in the DH league while Vogelsong had the advantage of facing opposing pitchers. And the age factor cannot be stressed enough, especially when you had the older one struggling at the end of the year while the younger one was pitching his best ball.

Boagie- I didn't forget either of those factors, but I still don't think it makes Peavy better by a lot.

As far as age, Vogey is older, but if you consider the workload each has endured on their arm, I don't think what's left in the tank is that drastically different. Despite age, Vogelsong has had an all-star caliber season more recently than Peavy. And I haven't even discussed the post season yet.