|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 24, 2015 11:42:56 GMT -5
It ain't just Strickland; suddenly it's darned near everyone in the pen serving up a fat one.
Seriously, where did this suddenly come from?
For most of the year, it hasn't been an issue, but on this road trip?
Holy cow!
These guys are serving up not just Home Runs, but huge blasts!
And our guys?
Suddenly it seems all we have in warning track power.
We're darned lucky LA decided to do it's "Titanic" act.
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 Aug 24, 2015 13:41:26 GMT -5
it's ridiculous...LA is giving it to us and we still can't take it...meanwhile Chicago is pulling away and Arizona is crawling up our butthole.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 24, 2015 13:57:54 GMT -5
You said it, Randy.
They're basically saying, "we don't really want it that badly..."
And we're... well, swinging at pitches that AREN'T strikes, and our staff is finding the heart of the plate with fastballs and hanging breaking pitches.
Guess we don't want it badly enough, either.
I mean, part of me understands the loss that Pence and Panik gives us...
But that does NOT explain the crazy assed swinging at pitches that aren't even close to being strikes.
And right now... right NOW... the biggest offenders are:
Posey
Byrd
Belt
And not necessarily in that order.
And if anyone noticed, THAT is the heart of our order.
Want to have a chance to win, boys and girls? Well if you do, that crap has to come to a sudden and abrupt halt! Like, ummmm right now.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 24, 2015 16:21:07 GMT -5
I'm starting to think it's not our year. Then again, it doesn't look like it's the Dodgers year either so we just might steal this thing. This is certainly a team that needs to re-tool the pitching staff this offseason no matter what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 24, 2015 20:25:35 GMT -5
Bingo, Mark, Bingo!
And not just a minor tweak. Our pitching needs a major over haul.
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 Aug 24, 2015 20:31:27 GMT -5
we don't have much bleedin' choice. The contracts of Hudson, Lincecum, Leake and Vogelsong come off the books...so there WILL be an overhaul. Point is who do we bring in?
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 25, 2015 9:39:10 GMT -5
We've already mentioned re-signing Leake and Jordan Zimmerman. Another cheap option could be Jeff Samardzija, who they were interested in last year. Having a dreadful year but still throwing 97 mph. I'm sure Rags can straighten him out,
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 29, 2015 15:06:51 GMT -5
It's easy to forget that Marco Scutaro's money comes off the books too. It's also easy to forget that a lot of the saved money will go to raises already built in or likely to come through arbitration.
I think Mike Leake will be a priority. It doesn't seem as though the Giants would have traded for him if they didn't think he would be a great guy to re-sign.
The Giants will almost certainly be looking for two or more starters and a center fielder. Maybe they'll be confident that Tomlinson will be able to convert, but I'd guess he should be looked at more as the #1 utility guy, who should add the outfield to his positions.
We're talking a lot of money here. I don't know if the luxury tax threshold increases or not, but the Giants are already on the cusp. They were willing to exceed it to get Utley, but I wonder if they would want to start the season over it. On the other hand, if it doesn't go up, they'll be rather hamstrung unless they make an increase similar to last off-season -- or perhaps an even bigger increase if they want to truly shore up the pitching.
If they were able to get one of the top free agent pitchers along with Leake (let's say Jordan Zimmermann, since the Giants are said to be interested), a rotation of Bumgarner, Zimmermann, Leake, Heston and Cain/Peavy/Vogelsong wouldn't be bad.
It is conceivable the price on Lincecum will drop low enough that the Giants would keep him around, but that seems unlikely.
I would guess Zimmermann and Leake would combine to earn $35-$40 million per season -- maybe even more. If it were on the lower end, that wouldn't be too much more than Lincecum, Hudson and Vogelsong earn this season.
It would be a mistake though not to remember the built-in raises and arbitration. I haven't looked, but I would think at least $20 million.
|
|
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 Aug 29, 2015 15:30:13 GMT -5
If the Giants do not get AT LEAST one, if not two, of the big 3 FA pitchers this offseason (Zimmerman, Price and Cueto) we will know for certain that winning isn't nearly as important to them as keeping their money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 1, 2015 8:30:22 GMT -5
If the Giants do not get AT LEAST one, if not two, of the big 3 FA pitchers this offseason (Zimmerman, Price and Cueto) we will know for certain that winning isn't nearly as important to them as keeping their money. Rog -- Seriously now, 30 teams out there need starting pitching, and you think the Giants should get two out of the three big names? Zimmermann will likely be the least expensive of the three, and the Giants are said to be targeting him. If they re-sign Mike Leake and also sign Zimmermann, I think most would consider that to make for an excellent off-season. To sign two of the three would almost certanly cost more than $45 million per season -- and involve contracts of six or seven years. To sign Price and Cueto might require committing to $300 million or more. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3005/gopher-balls#ixzz3kUdKtvnF |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 1, 2015 9:33:35 GMT -5
No one EVER even addressed the question I've posed 3 times. This will make it 4.
WHY don't more FA pitchers want to sign here?
Shields, Lester among others.
AT& T is a great place to pitch and EVERYONE acknowledges what a great fan base SF has.
So why do they take similar money to sign elsewhere?
I mean, seriously. If I'm a top pitcher, and you offer me 100 million to play in a city where they're not likely to challenge for a pennant, or 90 million to play for a team that is a perennial contender... to me, it's a no brainer!
I pick the contender! I want that damned ring!
And for gosh sakes, who's going to miss 10 million!
No one, and I mean NO ONE is going to spend THAT MUCH MONEY (100 million) IN 3 LIFE TIMEs!
Taking money you'll NEVER spend, and NOT playing on a winner, IMHO, is not just stupid, but asinine.
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 Sept 1, 2015 11:50:21 GMT -5
If the Giants do not get AT LEAST one, if not two, of the big 3 FA pitchers this offseason (Zimmerman, Price and Cueto) we will know for certain that winning isn't nearly as important to them as keeping their money.
Rog -- Seriously now, 30 teams out there need starting pitching, and you think the Giants should get two out of the three big names? Zimmermann will likely be the least expensive of the three, and the Giants are said to be targeting him. If they re-sign Mike Leake and also sign Zimmermann, I think most would consider that to make for an excellent off-season.
To sign two of the three would almost certanly cost more than $45 million per season -- and involve contracts of six or seven years. To sign Price and Cueto might require committing to $300 million or more.
Dood - it's looking more and more likely that this will be a third straight odd year failure. The winning pedigree is taking a big hit because this time the starting pitching is nowhere near where it needs to be which wasn't the case even in the other odd year failures. If the Giants do not go all out and LAND at least one of the top 3 FA pitchers this offseason, it's a failure of monumental proportions and we can expect more of what we are seeing now...close but no cigar.
|
|
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 Sept 1, 2015 12:23:50 GMT -5
Here's the point, though. Yes I'd be fine with re-signing Leake and signing one of the big 3 FAs...BUT if Leake is the big signing, I will be very much NOT pleased.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 1, 2015 14:56:19 GMT -5
Randy, I TOTALLY agree.
Leake is a # 3 guy at best. If HE'S the big starting add... we're in trouble.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 4, 2015 13:17:22 GMT -5
No one EVER even addressed the question I've posed 3 times. This will make it 4. WHY don't more FA pitchers want to sign here? Shields, Lester among others. Rog -- I think no one answered because there is no way of knowing. Let me take a crack at Lester and Shields though. In Jon's case, the Cubs hired one of his buddies as a special assistant or advisor, which may have thrown the balance their way. As we are seeeing, the Cubs have really fine young hitters, meaning that over the course of Jon's contract, they could be at least as good a contender as the Giants. In Sheilds' case, I think he and his agent misjudged the market. He said no to the Giants' 4/$80 offer, thinking he could get more money and possibly a fifth year. He wound up taking slightly less with the Padres, but one can see why he said no to the Giants even though he realized they had to move one. And they pretty much DID have to move on. If they had waited on Shields -- who hasn't been all that great this season anyway and will turn 34 by the end of this year -- they might have come up empty-handed. Remember how we asked how a team could balance its top priorities with the chance of letting even secondary and tertiary plans slip away? To their credit, the Giants quickly moved from Sandoval to Lester to Shields and then on to other contingencies this past off-season, doing a decent job of filling their holes without making long commitments -- and without getting caught holding the bag. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3005/gopher-balls#ixzz3knKtJAkD |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 4, 2015 13:44:06 GMT -5
Leake is a # 3 guy at best. Rog -- Let's evaluate this in context. In 2013 Leake ranked #21 in the NL in ERA and #24 in Innings Pitched. Last season Leake ranked #29 in ERA and #6 in Innings Pitched. Despite his injury, this year he ranks #17 in ERA and #19 in Innings Pitched. Given that there are by definition 15 #1 starters in the National League per season, doesn't that sound an awful lot like a #2? Wouldn't it be more fair to say that Mike is a #3 AT WORST, rather than AT BEST? I agree with you that Giants would greatly benefit if Mike is the SECOND-best starter they acquire or re-sign this off season, but I do think he and Madison Bumgarner would form an above-average 1/2 punch. The questions then become, will Chris Heston continue to make a good #3 (We'll learn more tonight.)? Can Matt Cain regain enough form to be at least a #4 or #5? Can Jake Peavy remain healthy and be at least a #3? The Giants need to add at least one starter in addition to Leake, and a true #1 or #2 would be great. If the Giants can sign Leake and one of the top three starters, I think they won't have to do much else to make it a highly successful off season. Easier said than done, of course, but it seems a reasonable goal. Another center fielder in addition would make it a marvelous off season. But how do they unload Angel Pagan? Realistically, they probably simply have to hope he can get completely healthy and bounce back. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3005/gopher-balls?page=1#ixzz3knONQoii |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 4, 2015 16:37:00 GMT -5
Roger-Given that there are by definition 15 #1 starters in the National League per season, doesn't that sound an awful lot like a #2? Wouldn't it be more fair to say that Mike is a #3 AT WORST, rather than AT BEST?
***boly says**
I like Leake a LOT, Rog. I really do, and I WANT him back.
For me, Rog. No. I think #3 is the highest I could ever rate him.
Thus, the "at best."
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 9, 2015 14:56:30 GMT -5
I like Leake a LOT, Rog. I really do, and I WANT him back. For me, Rog. No. I think #3 is the highest I could ever rate him. Thus, the "at best." Rog -- We can discuss whether Mike is a #3 "at best" or "at worst" or somewhere in between, but his performance over the past three seasons has been consistent with that of a #2. Could you give two or three examples of a #2 so we can compare Mike to them? The numbers I presented showed Mike to be right around the bottom of the top 20 in the NL over each of the past three seasons. Given that the 15 NL teams combine to have 15 #1 starters, how can being #20 or better not be a #2? Here's an intriguing comparison for you. One pitcher has made 27 starts, thrown 168 innings, has yielded 74 runs, 67 of them earned and has a 9-10 record. The other has made one fewer start, thrown the same number of innings, yielded four fewer runs and two more earned runs, has won the same number of games, and has lost two fewer. One makes $9.75 million; the other makes $155 million over six seasons. Which pitcher is Mike Leake -- and which is Jon Lester? Clearly it doesn't matter. They've both been essentially the same pitcher this season. Well, except for their contracts. If we're saying that Leake is a #3 at best, what does that say about Lester? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3005/gopher-balls#ixzz3lGu7Shvk |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 9, 2015 16:25:00 GMT -5
I wouldn't be crazy with Leake as a 2, but on some teams, he'd could be 'it'.
Just not in a division where you're competing with Kershaw and Greinke as 1 and 2
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 10, 2015 17:54:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't be crazy with Leake as a 2, but on some teams, he'd could be 'it'. Just not in a division where you're competing with Kershaw and Greinke as 1 and 2 Rog -- Sounds like we're into semantics here. I think we both view Leake as a #2, but don't want him to be the GIANTS' #2, although I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth. The Dodgers' Ryu is an excellent #3 man in the rotation, and I'm guessing he'll be back next season. I would think say Bumgarner, Zimmerman and Leake would be right up there with Kershaw, Greinke and Ryu, although I'd still give the advantage to the Dodgers. Kershaw is just so fabulous that it's tough, even with Greinke's being more inconsistent from year to year. Speaking of Greinke, it's not a given that he'll be back with the Dodgers, is it -- although it would seem likely that he will? Zack might be this year's Max Scherzer on the market of he chooses to test the free agent market, as is his option. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3005/gopher-balls#ixzz3lNXACyrV |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 11, 2015 9:41:39 GMT -5
Roger-The Dodgers' Ryu is an excellent #3 man in the rotation, and I'm guessing he'll be back next season. I would think say Bumgarner, Zimmerman and Leake would be right up there with Kershaw, Greinke and Ryu, although I'd still give the advantage to the Dodgers. Kershaw is just so fabulous that it's tough, even with Greinke's being more inconsistent from year to year.
**boly says***
I agree with all of your points, Rog.
One thing is for sure, with the three you mentioned, we'd be in really good shape.
Slide Peavy in at # 5 and Heston at # 4, and we'd have a BETTER rotation than LA
boly
|
|
