Giants spending too MUCH on payroll?

[Rog]

The only National League team that compares with the Giants' success over the past five seasons would be the Cardinals, who have made the World Series the two years the Giants haven't.  This season the Cardinals are spending $115 million on payroll, $54 million less than the Giants.

Sure, you say, but the Giants are selling out every game.  True.  In fact, their 3.369 million attendance last season was only 172,000 less than the Cardinals' 3.541 million.

So the question arises:  Are the Cardinals spending too little on payroll, or are the Giants spending too much?

[Islandboagie]

I don't really care what the Cardinals payroll is. But what do you think a Cardinals fan would say, after losing two difficult NLCS series to the Giants? I don't think they're content with the outcome.

[Rog]

My point here is that to criticize the Giants for not spending enough is a fool's game.

A year ago the Giants met the Pirates in a one-game playoff. The Giants prevailed, but clearly the two teams were pretty close together. They had the same regular season record.

This season the Giants are spending more than twice as much on payroll as the Pirates are. If someone were criticizing the Pirates for not spending enough, perhaps I could see it. But for someone to criticize the Giants for not spending enough simply shows delusion.

It is one thing for us to discuss which players the Giants should spend their money on. That is something that as fans we at least have a clue about. But when we try to tell the Giants how MUCH they should spend, we're talking about something we don't have a clue about.

I'm a former CFO, so I might have some validity in thinking about WHY the Giants spend what they do. But even I don't know enough about their situation to tell them how MUCH they should spend.

About all I can do is look at how much the Giants are spending compared to other teams. I can see which teams have the best media deals, which is where the REALLY big money is starting to come from. I can see attendance figures. Based on these factors and my background, I can form what may be reasonable conclusions.

But I'm not in a position to make an informed judgment about how much the Giants or any other team should spend. I can state two facts though:

. The Giants haven't been spending the most of any team, but they have been around the top quartile and this season rank #4.

. It has worked out pretty well for them the past five years.

Would I love to see the Giants spend more money? As a fan, of COURSE I would. I would love to see them win the World Series just about EVERY season. But I shouldn't be telling them how much they SHOULD spend any more than I should tell anyone here how much they should spend on a house. I just don't have the knowledge.

Unless I'm simply forgetting it, no one here has shown how they have a plan for the Giants' spending the money they spent on trades and free agents that is better than what they actually did. All anyone seems to do is make the lame statement that the Giants should have spent more.

How in the heck would any of us know that? I get frustrated with those who don't discuss with their mouths/fingers and brains. A little heart is fine too, as long as it doesn't overcome logic.

But when some talk seemingly with other parts of their bodies, I begin to wonder. Sometimes they speak about things they have little clue about. And frankly, their discussions reflect it.

[Rog]

This past winter the Giants spent $28 million per season to replace players (including those they re-signed) who received an average annual fee of $46 million. It's certainly hard to say they got better, but for the $18 million difference it's hard to argue they did horribly. In addition to making a nice recovery, they avoided any commitments of over two years and committed $102 million less.

If we look at Wins Above Replacement to estimate the difference, we see that the Giants lost 2.3 wins based on Baseball-Reference's WAR and according to Fan Graphs, they actually gains 0.3 wins. The bottom line is that despite spending at least $18 million less per season and committing $102 million less, the Giants didn't kill themselves.

Free agent wins are worth about $6 million per win these days. Spending $18 million less would be viewed as losing right at three wins. The Giants didn't lose that many. Based on the average of Baseball-Reference's WAR and that of Fan Graphs, they lost one win.

That's an impressive off-season.

So the Giants didn't get bad players for their bucks. Quite the contrary. Which means any deficiencies they had stem from the misconception that they didn't spend "enough" money. Since we have no way of determining how much is enough, we have no argument against their off-season.

The Giants didn't get any big names, but this appears to be a case of more substance than flash. They didn't sign the sizzle, but they still got the steak.

[Rog]

By the way, when we say the Cardinals' fans aren't content with the outcome, given that they spend in the middle of the pack and have won more World Series the past five seasons than all but 27 other teams, why WOULDN'T their fans be, if not satisfied, at least pleased?

I don't think people understand that winning a World Championship in baseball is rare. On average, a team wins one every 30 years. To win three in five seasons, even as one of the top spenders, is amazing.

I became a Giants fan the next year after they won the 1954 World Series. Five years ago I wouldn't have been shocked if when I died, the Giants never won a single World Championship in all my years as a fan. Maybe I simply appreciate the Giants' recent success more. I probably put it in better perspective than many.

[donk33]

Mar 11, 2015 13:03:12 GMT -5 Rog said:

This past winter the Giants spent $28 million per season to replace players (including those they re-signed) who received an average annual fee of $46 million. It's certainly hard to say they got better, but for the $18 million difference it's hard to argue they did horribly. In addition to making a nice recovery, they avoided any commitments of over two years and committed $102 million less.

If we look at Wins Above Replacement to estimate the difference, we see that the Giants lost 2.3 wins based on Baseball-Reference's WAR and according to Fan Graphs, they actually gains 0.3 wins. The bottom line is that despite spending at least $18 million less per season and committing $102 million less, the Giants didn't kill themselves.

Free agent wins are worth about $6 million per win these days. Spending $18 million less would be viewed as losing right at three wins. The Giants didn't lose that many. Based on the average of Baseball-Reference's WAR and that of Fan Graphs, they lost one win.

That's an impressive off-season.

So the Giants didn't get bad players for their bucks. Quite the contrary. Which means any deficiencies they had stem from the misconception that they didn't spend "enough" money. Since we have no way of determining how much is enough, we have no argument against their off-season.

The Giants didn't get any big names, but this appears to be a case of more substance than flash. They didn't sign the sizzle, but they still got the steak.

 dk..with the money they spent, they finished off with the 5th best record in the NL..... When it comes down to the facts, we don't have the slightest idea how much revenue the Giants had as they are split into so many separate companies.....how much TV revenue do they really have?? Did they sell their  rights to their TV company for less than they could receive from some other company?? How much is their share of the  national TV contracts with the number of TV outlets that carry baseball and where do  they hide the revenue???  between the sell outs, stadium revenue, media cash, and all the stuff people buy ...there is plenty of money to go around...but it all depends on how they spend it....and Sabean doesn't have a great history on that score despite the Giants success on the field in recent years....Zito's contract, etc....how many second basemen did he buy before he called up Panik...5 or 6? how much money has he blown on the international market?

[sfgdood]

I'll stick to my "fools game." If the Giants prove me wrong by making the playoffs THIS YEAR, then I will gladly eat major crow with humble pie for dessert.

As they say in St Louis...Show Me.

[Islandboagie]

My point here is that to criticize the Giants for not spending enough is a fool's game.

A year ago the Giants met the Pirates in a one-game playoff. The Giants prevailed, but clearly the two teams were pretty close together. They had the same regular season record.

Boagie- I agree with the point you're trying to make. But saying "that other team has a smaller payroll" isn't a solid argument. The Cardinals don't have a high payroll because they have a loyal fan base that will come whether they win or lose. The Giants don't have that. The Pirates don't have the same expectations as the Giants or Cardinals. Same with the Yankees and Redsox, if they don't win a World Series then the season was a dissapointment.

[Rog]

Randy -- I'll stick to my "fools game." If the Giants prove me wrong by making the playoffs THIS YEAR, then I will gladly eat major crow with humble pie for dessert.

Rog -- It isn't as if the Giants' making the playoffs would prove you wrong or their not making them would prove you right.

I think you're all wet here, but I don't think the Giants' making the playoff is better than a flip of the coin. The question isn't whether the Giants make the playoffs or not, but did they do the best they could with the money available? If they made good decisions, they did their jobs whether the Giants make the playoffs or not. And if they didn't do their jobs, that isn't determined by how they fare either.

There are so many factors going into this season that aren't dependent on their off-season moves:

. How will Matt Cain recover?

. Will Tim Lincecum bounce back?

. Does Tim Hudson still have gas left in the tank after another surgery?

. Will Angel Pagan be healthy?

. Will Hunter Pence be healthy, which can no longer be taken for granted by seemingly everyone aside from Boly?

. Will Joe Panik suffer through a sophomore slump?

. Will this be a breakout season for Brandon Belt?

. Will the bullpen show its age and come down from what has been a very high level for a long time?

If we knew the answers to these questions, we would see how important the off-season dealing was. Right now, the Giants could have made all the right moves and not even make the playoffs. They could have made the wrong ones and yet repeat as World Champs.

One thing I think we can be fairly confident of: The Giants are likely to have more healthy players than they had in last year's postseason. Pagan and Cain should be healthy, and the Giants' left fielder isn't likely to be limited being a designated hitter.

Yet the Giants won the World Series, which shows just how foolish it is to judge the Giants' off-season by their results this upcoming season. No question those moves factor in, but they make up at most 20% of the total picture.

So let me come back to the important question here: It's not whether the Giants should spend more or not. That's their decision, and we don't have enough knowledge to do more than guess at that. It's whether the Giants got as much with their $30 million or so per season as they could have.

Certainly they get a high score for spreading out their risk. Certainly they get a high score for keeping their risk short-term. But in addition to those questions, could they have gotten more than they did with the available
$30 million?

Boly probably came the closest here to doing so when he said that he would move Buster to third base, catch Susac, and thus reduce the Giants' needs by one. He told us he would have focused on adding two starting pitchers, presumably better than the Giants did with Peavy and Vogelsong.

Using his strategy, we might come up with Shields instead of McGehee, Vogelsong, Aoki and Romo. Certainly Shields is better than any of the other four, but is he better than ALL of them? Would he make up for the hit the Giants would take in depth? Certainly a rotation of Bumgarner, Shields, Cain, Peavy and Hudson would have fewer question marks and more answers than the present rotation.

I think we know that the Giants preferred Shields to Peavy and Romo. If James had accepted their 4/$80 offer (which in hindsight he likely would), the Giants almost certainly wouldn't have re-signed Peavy and Romo. Romo's average salary and Peavy's are almost exactly what Shields' would have been. The rotation would have Shields in it instead of Peavy.

Would that have been better than having Peavy in the rotation and Romo in the bullpen? I think my answer on that one would be yes, but it would be close.

Moving Buster to third base might have allowed the Giants to sign both Shields AND Peavy. But it would have meant no Romo in the bullpen and likely Blanco in left field. With Pence out now, the Giants would REALLY be hurting. Their outfield of Pagan, Blanco and Ishikawa/Perez would be even worse than their postseason outfield of Pence, Blanco and Ishikawa/Perez.

The Giants would have had a clearly better rotation, but would have taken a hit in the outfield, in the bullpen, and in their depth. The would be in a tough situation if Susac also suffered a sophomore slump or simply wasn't proven yet.

To be honest, the more I look at what the Giants did in the off-season, the better it looks. Does it look as good as it might have if the Giants had $20 million per season more to spend? Certainly not. But with the budget they were dealing with, I can't see any way they would have done appreciably better.

Can anyone else? If not, then we're really talking about nothing.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2755/giants-spending-on-payroll#ixzz3U6sxki7C

[sfgdood]

I think you're all wet here, but I don't think the Giants' making the playoff is better than a flip of the coin. The question isn't whether the Giants make the playoffs or not, but did they do the best they could with the money available?

Dood - I am all wet but that is just because of the rain. The Giants making the playoffs is everything and the only thing that matters. I don't give a hoot how great you did staying under budget. The idea is not to win in the economics of business. That is what you look at. I don't. I look at games won, making the playoffs and playoff success. The Giants have proven they are good every other year. Now it's up to them to prove to me that their methods can avoid the odd year failure. If not, then I am going to continue to call them out on their offseason failure. If you do your jobs in the offseason then you have less variables to worry about. If you have to make excuses for failing every other year then your method is flawed and the team's success in even years can be said to be IN SPITE of the GM and the FO, not because of them.

[sfgdood]

but I don't think the Giants' making the playoff is better than a flip of the coin.

Dood - again with the all luck philosophy. Maybe we should just flip coins and forget the 7 month season and postseason? You clearly don't watch the games anyway

[Rog]

Rog -- but I don't think the Giants' making the playoff is better than a flip of the coin.

Dood - again with the all luck philosophy. Maybe we should just flip coins and forget the 7 month season and postseason? You clearly don't watch the games anyway

Rog -- So I take it you think the Giants' chances of making the playoffs are better than 50/50? What are you seeing in the team that I'm missing? And why are you criticizing them so heavily if you think it is more likely that they will make the playoffs than not?

Personally, I think the Giants' chances of making the playoffs are about 50/50. What is tougher is how high their chance of winning another World Series is once they make them. I really don't know how to evaluate that.

Based on the last five years, it's 100%. Based on probabilities, it's quite a bit less than that. I really don't know how to evaluate it. Does anyone here know how?

And Randy, do you truly think the Giants' chances of making the playoffs are better than 50%? If so, I'll take that. They barely made them last season, the competition seems to have improved, and it was almost impossible to fully replace their free agents -- let alone improve them -- with the salary budget as it was.

If their chances of making the playoffs are better than 50%, under the circumstances I would definitely take that. Probably means pretty good productivity from the trio of Cain, Hudson and Lincecum. I'm in!


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2755/giants-spending-on-payroll#ixzz3U7BDgbuO

[Rog]

Randy -- If you have to make excuses for failing every other year then your method is flawed and the team's success in even years can be said to be IN SPITE of the GM and the FO, not because of them.

Rog -- You're the only one I've heard who thinks the Giants' general manager and front office are failing. I myself believe they might be overrated, but certainly not failing. How is it that a team -- almost any team -- can win three World Championships in five years if its GM and front office are failing? And if they win three World Championships in five years, how is it that the GM and front office are failing?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2755/giants-spending-on-payroll?page=1#ixzz3U7DLYtlN

[sfgdood]

The Giants FO did a good job of using their high first round picks for a period of time...those picks and some other acquisitions allowed them to build a very strong pitching staff and eventually to those three titles. If the FO had continued to add on consistently, then the team would not have failed so miserably in 2011 and 2013. The draft picks since that time have left the farm system depleted and the lack of good FA pickups have put the roster in a position where even the most optimistic of fans admits it's no better than a coin flip to make the playoffs.

A team that wins three titles in 5 years but sandwiches those with years where the playoffs are not even sniffed, yes I call that FO failure, particularly when you can't use lack of revenue as an excuse. I give Bochy a lot more credit for the titles than Sabean. Sabean gives him crumbs and it's near miraculous that Boch has had as much success as he has.

[sfgdood]

Rog -- So I take it you think the Giants' chances of making the playoffs are better than 50/50? What are you seeing in the team that I'm missing?

Dood - yeah if that's what you take from what I have posted then you are most definitely missing a lot. Never said that, never posted it and never even thought it. Man you stats geeks have really warped minds.

[Rog]

Dood - I am all wet but that is just because of the rain. The Giants making the playoffs is everything and the only thing that matters. I don't give a hoot how great you did staying under budget.

Rog -- Under your premise, every team should spend as much money as possible, since that maximizes it potential for making the playoffs. And if every team spends as much money as possible, payrolls will go crazy and all teams will fold.

Using your logic, the Giants should have signed the top 15 or so free agents, since with the exception of 10 or so players on their roster, an improvement was available for each spot. The way to maximize the Giants' potential for making the playoffs would be to sign each of those top 15 or players. If every team did the same, there would be no limit to the bidding, and no team could be successful.

You are living in a fantasy world, so there is little if anything I can say to you that will make the slightest difference.

Perhaps you can tell us why the Giants didn't try to sign ALL the top free agents?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2755/giants-spending-on-payroll#ixzz3U7LzSEja

[Rog]

Randy -- The Giants FO did a good job of using their high first round picks for a period of time...those picks and some other acquisitions allowed them to build a very strong pitching staff and eventually to those three titles. If the FO had continued to add on consistently, then the team would not have failed so miserably in 2011 and 2013.

Rog -- The Giants' strategy after the 2010 and 2012 seasons -- much as it was this off-season -- was to retain most of the players who had just helped it win the World Championship. That didn't work out well in the following season, but it did turn out quite well two years later.

I won't ask you what you would have done differently after the 2010 and 2012 seasons, since with 20/20 hindsight I would be shocked if you couldn't come up with better solutions (although not necessarily ones that would have allowed for World Championships two years later). What I have continually asked you though and been greeted with deafening silence is, with the $30 million or so available for free agents, what would you have done differently this past off-season?

If you can't answer that simple question, you're essentially saying that the Giants did about as well as you can see, since you don't have a better solution to offer.

Offer a realistic solution or just stop making foolish comments. Then you have become the guy who complains about everything but doesn't have any solutions to offer.

You don't seem to have a clue what to do aside from throwing more money at the problem. And if you throw more money at the problem, how do you know when it is time to stop? If you don't know when to stop, there is no limit to what you would spend. Almost anyone except perhaps for you can see that is a very destructive approach.

The best that could then be said for you is that you have a knack for telling people how much money they should spend even though you don't know their full financial picture. Heck, you couldn't even be bothered to read the whole Forbes article you quoted.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and you appear to be very, very dangerous. No balanced budget guy you. At least not for the money of others.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2755/giants-spending-on-payroll?page=1#ixzz3U7OAYFMy

[Rog]

Rog -- So I take it you think the Giants' chances of making the playoffs are better than 50/50? What are you seeing in the team that I'm missing?

Dood - yeah if that's what you take from what I have posted then you are most definitely missing a lot.

Rog -- I realize you didn't say that. In fact, you said much the opposite. I was simply pointing out that you called my statement that IMO the Giants had a coin flip chance of making the playoffs as my saying it was simply luck that was involved.

What I was saying is that I felt it was 50/50 whether the Giants would make the playoffs this season. Almost anyone without an agenda could see that.

You are frustrating because you aren't stupid but you act that way. If I didn't think you were SMART enough to understand, I wouldn't even mention it. But you are, and you should.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2755/giants-spending-on-payroll?page=1#ixzz3U7R2lMd8

[Rog]

Randy -- You clearly don't watch the games anyway

Rog -- That is as stupid as your tag line. Don't let reality get in your way.