|
Post by Rog on Mar 27, 2015 13:34:13 GMT -5
Are the Giants spending enough, or should they be spending more? We've been knocking this question around most of the off-season. I thought perhaps I could lend a little perspective.
The Giants are spending at least twice as much this season as 7 teams. They are spending 50% more than 12 teams. They are spending 40% more than 20 teams. They are spending at least $10 million more than 25 teams of the other 29 teams.
I've got a nice comparison for those of us who think they aren't spending enough. We're like the rich kid who gets far more for Christmas than most of the other kids but complains because three kids down the street got more than he did.
Who is more spoiled? He or we?
|
|
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 Mar 27, 2015 14:03:11 GMT -5
Your analogy is flawed for starters because in this case the children (fans) are the ones providing the income with which the parents (ownership) doles out the presents. Then there is the pompous notion that we should not complain because we are just whiney children that don't know any better what's best for us. This is very similar to the idea that tax paying citizens should just let big government control every aspect of our lives because we are too stupid to know what's best for us and we should just shut up because most other countries don't have it as good as us.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 27, 2015 16:31:41 GMT -5
As a country we are too stupid to know what's good for us, look who we elected to be our president.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 27, 2015 16:39:16 GMT -5
Randy -- Your analogy is flawed for starters because in this case the children (fans) are the ones providing the income with which the parents (ownership) doles out the presents. Rog -- If my analogy were flawed, I wouldn't use it. As a fan, I provide a minuscule amount of the team's income. So little that it doesn't really matter. But who cares? You're throwing up a straw man's case. Anyone can be spoiled. Randy -- Then there is the pompous notion that we should not complain because we are just whiney children that don't know any better what's best for us. Rog -- The Giants' franchise is now the 5th-highest in value. They have the 4th-highest payroll. Sounds like symmetry to me. The Giants aren't telling us they know what's best for us. They're telling us they believe they know what's best for their business. Randy -- This is very similar to the idea that tax paying citizens should just let big government control every aspect of our lives because we are too stupid to know what's best for us and we should just shut up because most other countries don't have it as good as us. Rog -- It's not very similar at all. One is a business; one is a government. We have a choice whether we buy tickets or not, but it's detrimental not to pay taxes. We have a say in how government acts, since we have a vote. The Giants are a business, so we don't have a say in how it is run. If we don't like the way they're run, we can always choose another team to root for or just give up watching baseball altogether. For us to tell the Giants how to run their team is ridiculous. It's one thing to say the Giants should have spent their $30 million or so on different free agents than they did. It's quite another to tell them they should have spent more. It would be akin to my telling you you should have bought a more expensive car than you did. I realize I don't drive your car, while you do watch the Giants' investment and live and die with them as fans tend to do. I empathize with you because that's how I feel too. But it isn't up to us to tell the Giants how to run their business, and besides, they have been one of the most successful teams in history over a five year period. I wish the Giants could have signed all three top pitchers, Pablo and one of the top outfielders. It's just not realistic to expect them to do so. My sense is that if the Giants had signed Pablo, they would have seriously back loaded the contract so they had more money to spend on 2015. They might have stretched a few million more to cover the other holes. But while they were willing to stretch out the money with Pablo, Lester or Shields, I don't think they were willing to spend TOO much more THIS SEASON than they did. I looked at how much they spent last season, how much their existing salaries were going to increase, how much they might increase their payroll based on what Brian Sabean said right after the World Series win, and came very close to what they actually spent. I didn't look at it as a fan; I looked at it as a (former) business man. That I was more or less right doesn't make me any happier with the players the Giants signed. I just realize though that they likely did pretty well with the money in the budget. Fans and even writers looked at how much the Giants were willing to spend on top free agents OVER A HANDFUL OF YEARS and interpolated that to mean they were willing to spend more on THIS year. I think they would have been willing to stretch a LITTLE and might have back loaded like crazy, but I don't think they were willing to spend a LOT more than the $30 million or so I predicted for free agents. I thought they would increase their total payroll by about $20 million (13%), and that's pretty much how it came down. There has been talk about the Giants' lying to us, and I understand how we could think that. But if the Giants were lying, how did I come so close to what they actually spent? It's because I listened to what they said and wasn't fooled by long term contracts compared to spending on 2015 alone. The average contracts for the five players the Giants signed were $33 million per season. The amount they are paying those players THIS year is something like $27 million. We got our expectations too high, so naturally we're disappointed. The key to this season will be, as usual, health. If the Giants can get full, productive seasons from Cain, Belt and Pagan, they've got a shot to be a very good team. If not, they can still be good -- hopefully good enough to make the postseason where they take off their shirts and ties and reveal their undershirt with the big "S." If I had told you a year ago that Marco Scutaro wouldn't play and that Cain, Belt and Pagan would each miss half a season or so -- and that Scutaro, Cain and Pagan wouldn't be able to play in the postseason -- would you have panicked at least as much as you're panicking now? Frankly, the Giants lucked out. They didn't expect Joe Panik to make the majors last season. They couldn't have expected nearly as much from Jake Peavy as they got. Gregor Blanco did an adequate job in center field. Andrew Susac and Matt Duffy came up to provide depth. Heck, Duffy was less than a year removed from San Jose. Can I tell you that will happen again this season if necessary? No. I don't think it will. But I'm expecting a break through year from Belt, and I'm expecting Cain to be reasonably productive. Tim Lincecum is showing some positive signs, and I'm expecting improvement, but I don't know how much that improvement will be or even if it will occur. I don't think the bullpen is likely to be quite as good, and now Hunter Pence is out for close to a month. This season is filled with question marks just as last season was. Last year at this time we didn't know all the questions that would come up, and we may not know this year either. I've stated that I think the playoffs are 50/50. Based on what we could see at the time, how much better were they a year ago? Even if the Giants had signed Pablo AND Shields, I don't think they would be as good as the Dodgers in the regular season. The primary question seems to be if they will be good enough to make the Wild Card. It's rarely easy -- even with the 4th-highest payroll in baseball. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2771/perspective#ixzz3VcItLl8O
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 28, 2015 10:58:40 GMT -5
In the past, I never had a problem with the amount of money spent, because I did NOT want us spending-stupidly.
This year I had a HUGE problem in HOW the money was spent, as I've explained adnauseum.
I still do, and won't launch into my tirade here.
Suffice it to see that recent publication had our record project out at 81-81, and I, personally, think that's too high.
IF...IF we do NOT make a trade line deal for a top arm, I'm saying we'll win more like 75 games.
I'm saying that I believe our starters are not good enough to keep us in the race (read Hudson, Lincecum and Vogelsong), and that Cain, based upon his spring, is STILL an unknown, and a large one at that.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 29, 2015 10:56:32 GMT -5
It's not that I'm overly optimistic. I'm giving the Giants a 50/50 shot at making the playoffs, and I think given all the health issues, that may be overly generous.
It's just that I don't see how they could have spent their money much better than they did. Give me more money to work with, and I can do better. Don't give me more and tell me I have the same restriction as the Giants self-imposed about keeping Buster behind the plate, and I could maybe come up with a slightly better solution, but not by much.
In round numbers, the Giants were replacing $50 million annually in talent with a budget of $30 million. That they came as close as they did was pretty good IMO.
It's likely going to come down to health, and a lot of that involves the rotation. I'm cautiously optimistic, but the are a lot of pieces with various sized question marks.
I think what irks me here though is that aside from Boly's suggestion to move Buster to third base, no one has come up with a plan to spend the $30 million or so per season better than the Giants did. In fact, I don't think anyone has come up with detailed solution at all.
If we're going to criticize, we should have a better solution. If it's to spend more money, well, we'd have a better house if you spent half a million more on it too, wouldn't we. The only challenge is to come up with better for the same.
Boly started with a key change idea. The Giants would have Susac and Sanchez behind the plate, which might work out fine, or might be premature. The Giants would have saved about $5 million (on McGehee, whose name is pronounced "McGee," according to him). That would have put them in the ball park of not signing Peavy and Romo and instead adding Lester.
Except that Lester decided to go elsewhere, and likely will be considered something of a burden by the end of his six-year contract. They could have had Shields instead of Peavy and Romo -- except that James wasn't ready to sign, thinking he would wind up with a contract bigger than the 4/$80 the Giants offered him. He didn't, but they had to either defecate or get off the Thomas Crapper.
Peavy and Romo weren't the worst save in the world, if you can pardon the pun, which wasn't intentional and didn't apply to Peavy anyway.
I just want to see a detailed plan that someone thinks provides more for the same amount of money. Anyone here can do better if he uses more money.
We can say the Giants should have spent more money, and if they had moved to LA instead of San Francisco, they would have been in a very good position to do so. Is that what we wanted 57 years ago?
We can be realistic, or we can play fantasy baseball without having to join a league.
|
|
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 Mar 29, 2015 13:11:24 GMT -5
It's not that I'm overly optimistic. I'm giving the Giants a 50/50 shot at making the playoffs
Dood - which for a defending WS champion is absolutely UNacceptable, embarassing and shameful.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 29, 2015 14:26:50 GMT -5
It's not that I'm overly optimistic. I'm giving the Giants a 50/50 shot at making the playoffs
Dood - which for a defending WS champion is absolutely UNacceptable, embarassing and shameful.
***boly says***
Randy, couldn't agree more.
Here we are... World-Frickin'-Champions... and because of inept management in the off season, the experts, you, Rog and I... are AT BEST(!!!!) giving them a 50-50 shot.
That's just flat out sad.
No. Wait. You said it much better.
Unacceptable.
Embarassing.
Shameful.
No other way to see things, folks. From where I sit, no other way to see it.
boly
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 29, 2015 19:27:32 GMT -5
It's not that I'm overly optimistic. I'm giving the Giants a 50/50 shot at making the playoffs Dood - which for a defending WS champion is absolutely UNacceptable, embarassing and shameful. dk...for the 5th best team in the NL during the regular season, I think the odds are about right.....and I don't think you have to spend the top dollar to become the best team......
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 30, 2015 5:28:02 GMT -5
Boly -- Here we are... World-Frickin'-Champions... and because of inept management in the off season, the experts, you, Rog and I... are AT BEST(!!!!) giving them a 50-50 shot. That's just flat out sad. Rog -- It's sad, but not necessarily unexpected. The Giants barely made the posteason at all last season. If not for the added playoff team, it's probably no better than 50/50 that they would have made the postseason last year. Throw in that teams like the Padres spent and dealt like crazy to catch up and that the Cubs might have the best crop of players entering the majors of any team, and it's actually rather understandable. We tend to think of the Giants as a great team because they won the World Series. For over a two-month period, they were the 2nd-worst team in baseball. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2771/perspective#ixzz3VraDsFQv
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 30, 2015 10:40:49 GMT -5
Randy, couldn't agree more.
Here we are... World-Frickin'-Champions... and because of inept management in the off season, the experts, you, Rog and I... are AT BEST(!!!!) giving them a 50-50 shot.
Boagie- So it's like every season's prediction. I like our chances!
2010- the Rockies 2011- the Padres, Rockies or Giants. 2012- the Diamondbacks were going to not only win the division, but also the World Series. 2013- Dodgers 2014- Dodgers 2015- Dodgers
The fact that you guys are giving them a 50/50 chance is being more optimistic than previous years.
|
|
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 Mar 30, 2015 12:31:09 GMT -5
I love the optimism Boagie...but with all the question marks, particularly in regards to power, injuries and pitching, there is plenty to be pessimistic about.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 30, 2015 13:26:37 GMT -5
See, Boagie, I agree with Randy. Other years we had question marks... but not like this year.
And last year, please remember, I stated, emphatically, and PRIOR to that horrendous slump period, and prior to Morse' injury, I thought that THAT Giant team was THE best, all around, I'd seen since the 1962 Giants.
this year? We've got question marks around the question marks.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 30, 2015 14:04:01 GMT -5
Boly, they looked that good because they had the best record in baseball. Pretty sure you or anyone else didn't predict they come out strong like that.
There were question marks about Posey before last season too since he had a down year in 2013.
There were question marks about our pitching staff then, just like there are now. None of you were thrilled to see Vogelsong in the rotation in 2013. None of us are that thrilled to see Peavy this year.
I don't know how the Giants will fare this season, I'm hoping they prove you and Randy wrong (which they often do.)
What I do know about this season compared to last, is we have much better depth for Bochy to work with.
If an infielder falls flat on his face (like Hicks did a month or two into the season) or injured (Belt) we have Duffy and Ishikawa waiting in the wings.
If one or two of our starting pitchers gets roughed up, we have Vogelsong, Petit, Heston, Blach and perhaps Crick to replace them.
If Hector Sanchez has another concussion, we have Susac. We had Susac last year too, but now we know he's fully capable of being a major leaguer.
Same story with the bullpen. We have a number of arms to call upon. I'm very intrigued by some of our young relief arms, especially Okert and Mejia.
There are always question marks. This year it seems like they have a lot more answers to those questions.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Mar 31, 2015 7:56:16 GMT -5
I think this team is much deeper than last year's bunch, as Boagie pointed out, and we all know how last year turned out. Of course I'm going with how it looks on paper, and on paper the 2014 team didn't look like eventual World Series champions. One thing we always know, is that if we are failing in any area, the Giants will make the changes they need to make during the season. Say what you want about Brian Sabean. Even if you're scratching your head at the deadline deals he makes, they almost always get it done.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 31, 2015 22:17:39 GMT -5
Boly -- Other years we had question marks... but not like this year. Rog -- See below. Boly -- And last year, please remember, I stated, emphatically, and PRIOR to that horrendous slump period, and prior to Morse' injury, I thought that THAT Giant team was THE best, all around, I'd seen since the 1962 Giants. Rog -- And then the Giants went into a 20-36 slump which precisely equaled the Giants' two worst full months in their only 100-loss season in franchise history. Boly -- this year? We've got question marks around the question marks. Rog -- In 2010, the Giants began the season with Aubrey Huff, whose batting the previous season was .241/.694, which were among the very worst averages of any first baseman in the majors. Their shortstop, Edgar Renteria, was coming off a .250/.694 season and was slowing down considerably in the field. Aaron Rowand was there center fielder. Need I say more about that position? Mark DeRosa was playing left field and coming off a serious wrist injury which would never allow him to be a good player again. John Bowker, now a Giant again after having been out of the majors since 2011, started in right field. Barry Zito wasn't the fifth starter, but the fourth. Todd Wellemeyer was the fifth starter in what would turn out to be the final season of his career. Santiago Casilla had posted a 5.11 ERA in his 152 game career. Denny Bautista had a career ERA above 6.00 in his 100 game career, and wouldn't play major league ball again after 2010. Waldis Joaquin would finish his 22-inning career in 2011. Brandon Medders would pitch 15 innings in 2010 and never surface in the majors again. So the Giants entered the 2010 season with question marks (no pun on DeRosa) at five of the eight positions. They had a 5th starter as their 4th starter, and more or less a non-starter as their fifth. They had four very serious question marks in their bullpen, only one of which (Casilla) reached a favorable conclusion. In short (no pun on Renteria), the Giants entered the 2010 season with FAR more problems and question marks than they have this season. Basically, seven starters (including two pitchers) were question marks, as well as four relievers. That's 11 of the 25 players on the roster. And I haven't even mentioned Jonathan Sanchez in the rotation plus Eugenio Velez and Eli Whiteside on the bench. So the Giants actually had 14 big question marks on the 25-man roster. I think maybe we had forgotten about that. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2771/perspective#ixzz3W1Qm7JJ6
|
|