Sad Panda

[Islandboagie]

m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=12449511&city=boston&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B%22ref%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F%22%7D

[Rog]

Boagie -- m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=12449511&city=boston&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B%22ref%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F%22%7D

Rog -- This story makes it appear even less that the Giants lied to us.

Matt Cain was very happy with his first outing of the spring today. The health of the Giants' pitchers is improving daily.

Casey McGehee said that if he didn't make Giants fans forget Pablo, he would give his salary back.

OK, so I'm the liar!

[sfgdood]

I think these quotes, if accurate, show that both sides were deceitful. Certainly Pablo's side was. And the Giants, if not deceitful, then they were amazingly clueless. I think it should have been very clear that Pablo felt, rightfully, disrespected by the initial lowball offer. He had, after all, been paid near minimum wage for very productive output. After that it would have been near impossible to repair the damage. And Sabean's poor treatment of Pablo's agent, perceived or real, was the icing on the cake. What seems very strange now is all the rhetoric on both sides during the offseason which seemed to portray two sides negotiating in good faith when now by Pablo's statements we can see was not the case. It was clearly a front being put up by one or both sides. If Pablo is accurate in his statements concerning Sabean's behavior, then it is very easy to see now why we suck so bad at luring FAs

[Rog]

There is one thing we may be overlooking here. The best teams set a value on players and don't exceed that value.

Would it have been nice to re-sign Pablo? Of course. But is he as valuable a player as Hunter Pence, who signed for less than the Giants were offering Pablo.

Does Pablo carry more risk than Pence? Given the physical condition of the players, this one goes without saying.

Was Pablo on a downward or upward track? Clearly his hitting was declining, as his OPS dropped from .909 to .789, .758 and .739. From the left side, he remained a very good hitter, although even there he declined from a .961 OPS in 2011 to .824 last season. But right-handed, he fell apart, dropping from .723 to .745, .686 and finally to .563.

Perhaps he will change things around this season, but right now he is essentially a platoon player. 5/$95 is a lot to pay for a platoon player, and apparently the Giants were prepared to go even higher.

It wouldn't be at all surprising to see Pablo bounce back this season. He's moving from a pitchers' park to a hitters' arena. But two questions will still remain: Would he have done that at AT&T, and how does he look over the four remaining years of the contract?

My feeling is that the Giants' lack of signing Pablo or Jon Lester won't look too good this season. It might even continue a couple of years after that. But by the time their respective contracts (5/$95 for Pablo and 6/$155 for Lester) are complete, the Giants will be glad they didn't sign either player (even though now they are SAD they couldn't).

Signing James Shields might be a different matter. He's older, but 4/$75 seems like a good gamble there. And in fact, the Giants offered him 4/$80, only to be declined when Shields' camp felt he would receive a better offer by waiting.

The Giants moved on to Peavy and Romo. Shields moved on to a lesser contract.

The Giants didn't lose any of the three on money. It appears they were willing to go above the contracts for Pablo and Lester, and it has been said that they DID go what ultimately turned out to be the contract for Shields.

With the exception of Shields, I think the Giants offered too MUCH for this trio.

5/$95 for a declining player who essentially saved his bacon with an excellent postseason. 6/$155 for a pitcher who saved his bacon with an outstanding 2014 season (2.46) after posting 4.82 and 3.75 ERA's the previous two. 4/$80 for an older pitcher who has been extremely consistent over the past four seasons but posted ERA's of 4.14 and 5.18 the two seasons before that.

IMO only Shields is worth his contract.

Over the past three seasons, Lester's ERA has been 3.65. Jake Peavy, the pitcher the Giants wound up with, stands at 3.70 over that period. Lester is 2 1/2 years younger. Lester's trend is clearly better than Peavy's. Lester has thrown 24 more innings per season than has Peavy.

Does that justify Lester's receiving $130 million more with a contract that is three years longer? Perhaps it does, but it is far from an open and closed case. Particularly since the risk is so much higher with Lester and with the free agent market for pitchers this next off-season expected to be outstanding.

The Giants weren't outbid for any of the top three players they pursued. Yet it isn't inconceivable that two of the three will prove to be clearly overpaid. IMO the Giants tried to overspend, but they failed. Is it a bad thing to fail at overspending?

Or is it good luck?

[Rog]

Randy -- And the Giants, if not deceitful, then they were amazingly clueless.

Rog -- And may have turned out to be lucky.

I have said this pretty much all along, Randy. The primary difference between you and me here is that you would have blown up the budget, while I planned within it. There is little question your plan (although I'm not sure you have provided the players you think it would have yielded) would have provided better players.

But at what cost? Despite what you think, the Giants don't have unlimited money to spend. If their spending the 4th-most among the 30 teams isn't enough for you, you are unlikely to be satisfied. If three World Series isn't enough for you, you are unlikely to be satisfied.

After winning the World Series in 2010, the Giants increased their 2011 payroll by $22 million. After winning again in 2012, they increased it by $5 million. After winning it all last season, they increased payroll by $20 million.

You expected them to change their pattern and increase payroll by $40 million? Compared to 2011 and 2013, the increase was on the high side. Pretty much as was projected here.

If after the 2009 season I had told you the Giants would increase their payroll by 2015 by $77 million MORE than the profligate Yankees increased their payroll, would you have taken it? Unless you were being totally unrealistic, you certainly would have.

And that's just what has happened.

You misread the tea leaves and then complained when your excessive vision didn't become truth.

The Giants did what they said right after the season that they would. In fact, they spent on the high side. You simply expected an unrealistic result and then were understandably disappointed.

You started off wrong, so it's no surprise that you finished wrong.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2750/sad-panda?page=1#ixzz3TzhyRVtI

[sfgdood]

Is it a bad thing to fail at overspending?

Or is it good luck?

Dood - we shall see. But here's the rub. These are players that the Giants wanted badly enough to pay big dollars to. They weren't going to do that for just mediocre or "platoon" players. This last offseason was just a larger scale repeat of what we have seen pretty much every offseason for decades now. The absolute flat INability to close deals. Personally I see it as a bad thing and here's why.

Our core group is getting older, not better.

Our farm system sucks.

We flat out SUCK at signing FA talent.

The competition has a significant edge in available payroll money for the foreseeable future.

We had the opportunity to sign deals that long term may have not looked great but would have enabled us to take full advantage of the window of opportunity to win more titles while our core hasn't slipped too far. I would much rather mortgage the future which is far less certain than the here and now than to waste what precious little time we have left. Once this core group is used up, it will be very hard to compete, particularly if the farm system doesn't get beefed up.

[sfgdood]

You misread the tea leaves and then complained when your excessive vision didn't become truth.

Dood - I don't see it that way. I made no prediction about what the Giants eventually would do. I only opined what I would do in their position. I would have chosen to put a better team on the field. The Giants chose to stay within the budget and try to win with cut rate players added to the roster.




The Giants did what they said right after the season that they would. In fact, they spent on the high side. You simply expected an unrealistic result and then were understandably disappointed.

Dood - didn't expect it but hoped for it, certainly.




You started off wrong, so it's no surprise that you finished wrong.

Dood - oh I'm far from finished. But the Giants magical run of titles just might be.

[Rog]

But here's the rub. These are players that the Giants wanted badly enough to pay big dollars to. They weren't going to do that for just mediocre or "platoon" players.

Rog -- Of course not, with the exception of Pablo Sandoval. Would you say that a guy who hits for an OPS of .745, .686 and .563 from one side of the plate should be platooned? If someone asked you that question blind, without telling you it was Pablo, I'm pretty sure you would say yes.

A platoon player can be valuable, particularly when he forms the strong side of the platoon as Pablo would. But is that player worth anywhere near 5/$95 coupled with his weight issues?

Randy -- This last offseason was just a larger scale repeat of what we have seen pretty much every offseason for decades now. The absolute flat INability to close deals.

Rog -- The Giants didn't have a problem closing deals. They did, however, have troubles with their top choices.

Randy -- Personally I see it as a bad thing and here's why.

Our core group is getting older, not better.

Our farm system sucks.

We flat out SUCK at signing FA talent.

The competition has a significant edge in available payroll money for the foreseeable future.

Rog -- I think your first three statements are accurate, if possibly overstated. But the fourth one?

The Giants are spending FAR less than the Dodgers, as is every other NL team. But the Giants are outspending the Nationals by $11 million, the Cardinals by $55 million, the Reds and Cubs by $56 million, the Padres by $76 million and the Pirates by $85 million.

Your statement applies only to the Dodgers. In the case of the Cardinals, Reds, Cubs, Padres and Pirates, the opposite is true.

What you're talking about here is like complaining because your older brother gets more allowance than you, and your five others get far less than you.

You're spoiled.

As for the core of the team, it's not all that old. Bumgarner and Posey are easily under 30, and Cain has just turned 30. The two Brandons might also be considered core players, and they're also easily below 30. Joe Panik is even younger. I would consider the bullpen to be a core component, and it is indeed aging. That being said, reliever is the least expensive position to replace.

The Giants also have about $50 million of salaries expiring at the end of the season. That should put them in nice position to replace one or two starters, a third baseman if necessary, and a component or two for the bullpen. The bullpen also has two strong pitchers (Strickland and Okert) who may not be far from readiness. Derek Law is throwing again.

Finally, the Giants have somehow figured things out pretty well over the past five seasons -- even without your help. You do your job, and let them do theirs.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2750/sad-panda#ixzz3U0U9x6rl

[sfgdood]

Rog -- Of course not, with the exception of Pablo Sandoval. Would you say that a guy who hits for an OPS of .745, .686 and .563 from one side of the plate should be platooned? If someone asked you that question blind, without telling you it was Pablo, I'm pretty sure you would say yes.

Dood - if given JUST this information, I might agree. But given the totality of the resume, I would strongly disagree. This is the reason many accuse stats geeks of not getting it...selective geekery.




What you're talking about here is like complaining because your older brother gets more allowance than you, and your five others get far less than you.

You're spoiled.

Dood - if by spoiled you mean I expect my team which has been very successful to do all it can to keep the team successful at a time when the Padres the Nats and the Dodgers are improving, yes that's true...I am unabashedly spoiled. I like when the Giants are winning and would much rather that continued...guilty as charged, officer take me away in cuffs. If you or others don't want to see that the farm system is awful and that the core group is getting older and not better then that is your prerogative. My eyes are wide open.




The two Brandons might also be considered core players, and they're also easily below 30. Joe Panik is even younger.

Dood - decent role players but not even close to superstar status. The real problem is in the starting rotation. Yes Bumgarner is young and locked up to a very team-friendly contract. But the rest of the rotation is old and riddled with question marks. Even Cain at 30 is making huge money, is coming off an injury and no sure bet to return to former glory. The Nats, Cards, Pads and Dodgers all have far better rotations. Even Pittsburgh's might be better. The Cubs' just got a lot better.




The Giants also have about $50 million of salaries expiring at the end of the season. That should put them in nice position to replace one or two starters, a third baseman if necessary, and a component or two for the bullpen

Dood - it should indeed...but of course just because you have the money to get talent doesn't mean you will and Sabean's track record sucks...so it's more likely the team will pocket most of the money and pick up more bargains off the scrap pile.

[Rog]

Rog -- Of course not, with the exception of Pablo Sandoval. Would you say that a guy who hits for an OPS of .745, .686 and .563 from one side of the plate should be platooned? If someone asked you that question blind, without telling you it was Pablo, I'm pretty sure you would say yes.

Dood - if given JUST this information, I might agree. But given the totality of the resume, I would strongly disagree. This is the reason many accuse stats geeks of not getting it...selective geekery.

Rog -- Fine. Correct me. What SHOULD I have been looking at? I was pretty much looking at just what I should have been, but if you have a better idea, please share it with us.

It's just so counterproductive to say someone did something wrong and then not come up with a better solution. Let's see what you suggest.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2750/sad-panda#ixzz3U2VL1oYm

[Rog]

Rog --You're spoiled.

Dood - if by spoiled you mean I expect my team which has been very successful to do all it can to keep the team successful at a time when the Padres the Nats and the Dodgers are improving, yes that's true.

Rog -- What I mean is that you can't be happy with what the Giants have accomplished the past five seasons. You expect them to spend like mad men in the upcoming season.

How is it, Randy, that looking at what Brian Sabean first said I was able to predict almost exactly what the Giants would spend?

In contrast, you don't seem to have a grasp on reality here.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2750/sad-panda?page=1#ixzz3U2W9W0np

[Rog]

Rog -- The two Brandons might also be considered core players, and they're also easily below 30. Joe Panik is even younger.

Dood - decent role players but not even close to superstar status.

Rog -- Complete red herring here, Randy. Where is it that I say these guys are superstars? Clearly they aren't. What I said is that they MIGHT be considered core players. Do you see the difference?



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2750/sad-panda?page=1#ixzz3U2WrC0tj

[Rog]

Randy -- The real problem is in the starting rotation. Yes Bumgarner is young and locked up to a very team-friendly contract. But the rest of the rotation is old and riddled with question marks.

Rog -- Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum aren't old. Yusmeiro Petit is merely insurance, but he's not old either.

Jake Peavy is older, but he's not old. You seem to like the idea of signing James Shields, who is all of seven months younger than Peavy.

The only guy in the rotation who is old is Tim Hudson, and he is definitely old. Another insurance guy, Ryan Vogelsong, is old too.

But the Giants could put out four pitchers 30 or younger plus Peavy, who is 33. That's not an old rotation.

Now, the question marks you bring up are real. But Henry Schulman believes the Giants are prepared to trade for a starter at the deadline if they need to. As has been mentioned here time after time, the 2016 free agent pitcher class is expected to be top notch. As has also been brought up ad infinitum, the Giants have about $50 million in expiring contracts.

Here are the ages of some of the prospective free agent pitching class:

Doug Fister 30

David Price 29

Johnny Cueto 29

Yovanni Gallardo 29

Ian Kennedy 30

Mat Latos 27

Rick Porcello 26

Jeff Samardzija 30

Jordan Zimmermann 28

That's nine fairly young pitchers, and there are another 40 or so who could be on the market. Clearly one isn't going to get a kid on the free agent market, but next winter there could be a very nice crop of 30 years or younger.

Next year's crop is expected to be both better and younger than this year's. If the Giants could snag even one of these guys, it would be quite nice. If they could get a top notch guy and a mid-rotation guy, their rotation could be pretty nice.

Aside from Tim Hudson, the Giants' rotation right now averages less than 30 years of age. Even with Hudson in the mix, it averages only 32. The Giants' rotation isn't an old group. A year from now it quite possibly will be even younger.

You make a good point that the Giants' window of opportunity won't last forever. But it's nowhere near slamming shut. The only area of the team I would consider old would be the bullpen, and there are a few youngsters who might help that change in the next year or two. Relievers are the cheapest commodity to acquire.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2750/sad-panda?page=1#ixzz3U2XZTWD7

[Rog]

Randy -- just because you have the money to get talent doesn't mean you will and Sabean's track record sucks...so it's more likely the team will pocket most of the money and pick up more bargains off the scrap pile.

Rog -- It's NOT more likely that will be the case. The Giants aren't going to pocket most of that money, and you can take that to the bank.

How close did I come this year on their spending? Close enough that you should pay close attention when I say that your comment that the Giants will pocket most of the $50 million of expiring salaries is very ill-informed. If the Giants increase their payroll by enough to cover the built in increases and projected increases for arbitration-eligible players, they should have a nice nest egg to spend in what could be an outstanding year for free agent pitchers.

The pitching class appears to be both stronger and deeper. That should be a nice combination for the Giants, who will likely be looking to replace Hudson and Lincecum. If one of the young guys is ready to take one of those two spots, there could be a lot of money available for one of the top tier guys.

When you say that the Giants will most likely pocket most of the $50 million, Randy, you once again illustrate a very slim grasp on the monetary side of the equation.

You thought the Giants should have spent more this year and that they will now pocket most of the savings next year. You're very likely wrong on both counts.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2750/sad-panda?page=1#ixzz3U2mIWuHJ