|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 12, 2015 10:38:57 GMT -5
"Wouldn't it be nice..."
Wouldn't it be nice if somehow, some way, this team DID pull off the impossible; rip off a 13-2 record and the Dodgers stumbled and fell?
Wouldn't it be nice if, with all the injuries, (and let's face it, we've had a TON), the guys taking the place of our Walking Dead, pulled off a miracle?
Wouldn't it be nice if, for just one month, our aging starters could have the Final Spurt of their careers and pitched like "those of yesteryear?
Yeah! Wouldn't it be nice!
Not going to happen, but this is my final 'dream' for 2015.
A foolish,
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 12, 2015 13:10:02 GMT -5
I'd prefer the Giants to get realistic and protect their assets. Shut down Panik, sit Byrd so we don't get stuck with his option, don't take risks with Cain's arm, start getting Posey used to the idea that first base is his future. Focus on 2016 and beyond...Kershaw and Greinke are going to prevent the Dodgers from going into freefall so it really makes no difference what kind of run we go on.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 12, 2015 15:49:30 GMT -5
This week should tell that tale quite well.
If, by Wednesday/Thursday, we're still 7 1/2 games out, I agree.
But if we've closed it to say, 4 or 5, with games still left with LA... Can't shut those guys down.
And can you imagine the bitch to the players union IF we knowingly shut Byrd down ONLY to prevent him from getting the cash?
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 16, 2015 15:29:13 GMT -5
sit Byrd so we don't get stuck with his option, don't take risks with Cain's arm, start getting Posey used to the idea that first base is his future. Rog -- I think sitting Byrd so the Giants don't get stuck with his option would be showing bad faith. Situations could dictate it, and that would be fair, but with Aoki, Blanco and Pence perhaps unlikely to return, it wouldn't seem those situations would arise in a natural, unforced way. I too would like to see him become a free agent, but I don't want the Giants to "cheat" to make it happen. They were well aware of the option when they traded for him. Byrd needs only 60 plate appearances in the Giants' last 17 games. Incidentally, Byrd has driven in 24 runs in his 24 games as a Giant. I'd say he's done more than his share. As for Posey's future being first base, how do we know that, at least in the short-to-mid-term? Buster has said he would like to stay primarily a catcher as long as he can, and the Giants seem to concur. I think there is little doubt that Buster will become primarily a first baseman at some point. He has the arm for third, but I'm not sure about the range. I think we can agree that first base is Buster's position of the future, but we don't know when. And it's not like his playing first base the rest of the way would give Susac or even Sanchez more experience catching the Giants' staff. Is this comment on your part anything more than a result of your dislike (or shall we call it disappointment) with Brandon Belt? Brandon's OPS in August and September is .918. Not a big base stealer, he's an efficient one. He's stolen 11 bases in his past 12 attempts. So what he's been is a good-hitting first baseman who is a very good fielder and has sneaky base stealing speed. Yep, just the kind of guy we'd like to bench. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys#ixzz3lvy7TesR
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 16, 2015 15:32:16 GMT -5
This thing is still a definite long, long shot, but with three home games left with the Dodgers, the Giants certainly aren't out of chances. FAR better than the "Dumb and Dumber" shot.
|
|
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 16, 2015 15:34:21 GMT -5
Tragic Number is 11 on September 16. I wouldn't want to have to live on those odds
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 16, 2015 17:20:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 17, 2015 6:50:55 GMT -5
Byrd's age is scary, but if you tell me he's going to play like this next year then I have no problems whatsoever with him reaching that option. I see the Giants just called up Mac Williamson, and I'm wondering if perhaps that's a sign the Giants will sit down Byrd shortly. That's certainly not Bochy's style though. Perhaps they've decided to keep Byrd and let Aoki go.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 17, 2015 10:04:25 GMT -5
Mark -- I see the Giants just called up Mac Williamson, and I'm wondering if perhaps that's a sign the Giants will sit down Byrd shortly. That's certainly not Bochy's style though. Rog -- I wondered the same thing. That would seem very unfair. The Giants said they brought Mac up so he could experience big league life, which might mean they brought him up to experience big league life, not necessarily to play. It certainly does bode well for Mac to play in the majors soon (no worse than next September). Mark -- Perhaps they've decided to keep Byrd and let Aoki go. Rog -- Unless they feel Nori is injured long-term, that would surprise me. Even with two injuries, Nori played well, and at a net $4.8 million ($5.5 million option less $700K not to pick up the option), is very inexpensive. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys#ixzz3m0Zd55Gi
|
|
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 17, 2015 12:58:43 GMT -5
Guess what guys...LIFE aint fair! Oh boo hoo the Giants are going to do what's best for the team and not what's best for old man Byrd. I don't give a crap about Byrd's butthurt feelings. He's been in this business a long time and he should know by now how the game goes. Cry me a river, Mr. Millionaire ballplayer.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 17, 2015 20:43:08 GMT -5
Guess what guys...LIFE aint fair! Oh boo hoo the Giants are going to do what's best for the team and not what's best for old man Byrd. I don't give a crap about Byrd's butthurt feelings. He's been in this business a long time and he should know by now how the game goes. Cry me a river, Mr. Millionaire ballplayer. Rog -- Here are the problems with your crassness, Randy. First of all, the Giants might wind up having the exercise the option anyway, since the Players' Union might well get involved. Secondly, you ask why players don't want to come to the Giants, and I have little answer -- virtually none when it involves a pitcher. But if you want to begin to break down that door, "cheating" Marlon Byrd may not be the way to begin. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys#ixzz3m3Avxzmu
|
|
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 18, 2015 2:04:20 GMT -5
oh my bad...of course you know all about the contract and the details of the option clause. That must mean it reads that the team MUST play the player unless he's hurt, right? Ok...I was mistakenly under the impression the team could decide freely to play whoever they want.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 18, 2015 2:45:11 GMT -5
oh my bad...of course you know all about the contract and the details of the option clause. That must mean it reads that the team MUST play the player unless he's hurt, right? Ok...I was mistakenly under the impression the team could decide freely to play whoever they want. Rog -- Where was it suggested that the Giants couldn't make that decision? You most certainly weren't mistaken that teams can play whichever players they want, but you may have overlooked some of the implications of not playing Marlon. I have mentioned some of them, so you must have seen them. I find it intriguing that you want the Giants to spend more money on players, but want them to "cheat" one of the players they just traded for. A person should have ethics and follow them. I'm sorry you don't feel that way, but it does give an indication of why you always seem to be so angry and disillusioned here. Try doing the right thing, and you might be rewarded by feeling better. At the least you would have the inner satisfaction of knowing you did the right thing. Right now I don't sense much inner satisfaction, and I wish for that for you. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys#ixzz3m4dJX7VX
|
|
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 18, 2015 2:53:54 GMT -5
ok so if it's not mandated in writing that the Giants MUST play Byrd as long as he is healthy, why is it "cheating him" if they choose to play someone else? I'm not suggesting they do not pay his salary while he is under contract. To me, that is all they are obligated to do. If you know differently for a fact, please cite the legal authority which spells this out.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 18, 2015 3:27:49 GMT -5
ok so if it's not mandated in writing that the Giants MUST play Byrd as long as he is healthy, why is it "cheating him" if they choose to play someone else? Rog -- Because it shows bad faith. The Giants are indeed free to play whomever they wish. But Marlon has played quite well for them, and not playing him now would stink of simply trying to avoid the guarantee. How many games did Hunter Pence not get started in 2013 when the Giants failed to make the postseason? RBI's are a team-related stat, but when a batter has 25 of them in 25 games, he's doing something right. In 98 at bats, Marlon is just one RBI behind Gregor Blanco, Nori Aoki and Justin Maxwell. He's seven behind Angel Pagan. At his present pace, Byrd would have over 150 RBI's if he played a full season. I just don't think it's fair of the Giants to do that. I wish he weren't coming back, but I would feel even worse if the Giants sat him simply to avoid his option's vesting. Marlon has ALREADY done enough to justify his playing the rest of the season. The Giants have 16 remaining games. If Marlon doesn't muster a single RBI in any of those, he'll still be on a pace of 98 RBI's in a 162-game season. It is unlikely that any Giant will reach 98 RBI's this season, although Buster Posey still might. Hopefully Brandon Crawford will get healthy and reach at last 80. Matt Duffy and Brandon Belt should reach 75. Posey ranks #8 in NL RBI's. Crawford is tied for 15th; Duffy is tied for 22nd; and Belt is #26. This was a surprise to me, but Matt Kemp is 3rd, and Kris Bryant -- who was wasted the first half of April in the minors and hasn't received a lot of respect here -- is tied for 4th. Nolan Arenado is leading the league, although if the Rockies didn't play the Giants so many times, he might not be leading. Unless Paul Goldschmidt, who is #2, also didn't play so many games against the Giants. The top three, and five of the first nine, RBI leaders come from the NL West. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys#ixzz3m4kXFHXw
|
|
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 18, 2015 4:04:13 GMT -5
Ok here's my take...if you intend to keep the player, it might be deemed bad faith to sit him out to avoid the option vesting. If you want to re-negotiate, you could probably start that process so he knows what to expect. BUT...if you do NOT plan to keep the player, then sitting him to avoid being stuck with the option makes sound business sense and if he doesn't get that, then he's probably not too bright.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 18, 2015 8:34:33 GMT -5
I understand what Randy is saying, but I think he's lost sight of the big picture. Ever see the movie or read the book "Eight Men Out" about the Black Sox scandal? Eddie Cicotte had a clause in his contract paying him a bonus if he won 30, so the owner Charles Comiskey ordered him benched before he could reach it. This is why he joined the others to throw the World Series. Now this is an extreme example, but isn't benching Marlon Byrd so he doesn't reach his vesting option along those lines? And as Rog pointed out, the players union would take a look at that and probably file a grievance. As we go into the off season do you want that hanging in the air for agents and players to see? If I'm a free agent pitcher and the Giants talk to me about bonuses for innings pitched, I'm going to think about what they did to Marlon Byrd and think about playing elsewhere.
|
|
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 18, 2015 11:42:37 GMT -5
I think the critical difference here is the Giants are not the team that negotiated and signed the contract. They've only had the player for a month. Yes he's been productive but he's no spring chicken and no team wants to pay top dollar for an old 4th or 5th outfielder.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 18, 2015 18:13:43 GMT -5
But they traded for the contract, and now they're the one that really should do the right thing and honor it. When the Reds signed him to that contract they knew full well they could always get out from under it because he had trade value. The Giants took the contract with their eyes wide open.
|
|
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 18, 2015 19:14:31 GMT -5
It works both ways, Rx...Byrd also had his eyes wide open. He knew that he could be traded and that the new team would be fully within its rights to bench him to avoid the option vesting. I think the best way if the Giants want him back is to negotiate now or at least make Byrd aware that they want him back but at a lower price.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 19, 2015 7:25:44 GMT -5
Again, it is not acceptable practice to bench ANY player as he approaches a vesting option, so I'm pretty sure that neither Byrd or the Giants have contemplated that happening. That was the risk the Giants took when they acquired him. And just like they couldn't get Zack Wheeler back after Beltran left, they have to live with the consequences of acquiring a player that couldn't put them over the top.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 20, 2015 12:29:07 GMT -5
|
|
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 20, 2015 13:09:06 GMT -5
If the team gets eliminated from contention early, as it seems is now inevitable, there is nothing unethical about starting young players and bench 38 year olds to end the season...it happens all over the league
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 20, 2015 14:22:46 GMT -5
If the team gets eliminated from contention early, as it seems is now inevitable, there is nothing unethical about starting young players and bench 38 year olds to end the season...it happens all over the league Rog -- The situation can be complicated when a vesting issue is at stake. If the Giants want to see the youngsters (which certainly isn't a bad idea), they could simply tell Marlon that they are automatically vesting his option and then go ahead with playing whomever they feel is most appropriate. You know what I tell my son? There will be times in life where it will be easy to compromise your ethics and benefit from it financially, but do the right thing, and in the long run you'll be glad you did. I think my son actually listened. I was proud when he told me he turned down a job for 60% more money because it would mean a 3 hour round trip commute. He told me the lady he declined later called him back and said she couldn't believe he was passing up so much money. I asked him if he were having any second thoughts. He told me there were no second thoughts to have, that he'd already given his word. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys#ixzz3mJ9g5gD1
|
|
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 20, 2015 14:48:53 GMT -5
You know what I tell my son? There will be times in life where it will be easy to compromise your ethics and benefit from it financially, but do the right thing, and in the long run you'll be glad you did.
Dood - that's an admirable notion on a personal level. However, team management has a deeper obligation to the team. As I have said over and over, it all comes down to whether you are planning on keeping Byrd for 2016. If so, then you can either allow the option to vest or renegotiate a more favorable deal. If you don't plan on keeping him next season, you are doing WRONG by the team if you allow the option to vest.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 21, 2015 14:14:47 GMT -5
I think the critical difference here is the Giants are not the team that negotiated and signed the contract. Rog -- You're right. They're the team that accepted the clause when they traded for him. The Reds would certainly have been ethically obligated to handle the situation fairly, and the Giants are doubly so, since they picked up an EXISTING option when they knew how close Byrd was to vesting it. I read somewhere that if the Giants mistreat Byrd here, no free agent will want to come here, since options are often involved in contracts and vesting options are common. Do the right thing no matter what, but in this case the two come together. The move would not only be ethical, it would be prudent. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys#ixzz3mOyvPgKU
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 21, 2015 14:19:35 GMT -5
Dood - that's an admirable notion on a personal level. However, team management has a deeper obligation to the team. Rog -- Really good rationale. Yes, that's far too often the way it is in today's world. Getting away from the ethics involved and the deceipt, isn't Marlon part of the team now? You know. The one management has its obligation to? Not only is this idea deceitful and unethical, it's penny wise and pound foolish. It's sacrificing the means for the end. It's selling out the future for the present. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys?page=1#ixzz3mP07hp1u
|
|
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 21, 2015 14:31:31 GMT -5
It's only deceitful and unethical if they told Byrd that they planned on playing him every day no matter what and then they do not. If they tell him what their exact plans are, there is definitely no deceit, and according to most, no breech of ethics either.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 23, 2015 7:07:09 GMT -5
If he comes within a couple of at bats and gets benched, there's going to be a grievance filed by the union, and if Byrd doesn't want to do it, the union will probably insist. He seems like a really good guy, animated and friendly in the dugout, and I saw yesterday after Brown got his first major league hit, he was the one on the top step of the dugout making sure the ball was thrown in for the kid to have. Why you want to screw the guy out of money he's earned, Randy? You sure do play favorites on the Giants. If it comes down to Aoki or Byrd next year, I'd prefer Aoki, but if it comes down to ethically doing the right thing, I'd keep Byrd and decline Aoki's option.
|
|
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 23, 2015 11:37:00 GMT -5
I don't really care one way or another if they keep Byrd or not. All I'm saying is if they communicate their intentions to him I don't see any deceit or breech of ethics.
|
|