this is going to SUCK

[sfgdood]

Boagie- them celebrating on our field magnifies the off season moves (or lack thereof) as a failure, and that work needs to be done. I didn't like seeing it, but it needed to be seen.

Dood - It magnifies it for the fans, or it SHOULD. Some fans still choose to drink the koolaide and say what a happy jolly season it was. Management can say what they want publicly...that doesn't bother me as much as it bothers Boly. I just hope to God that they recognized their failure far before the moment they witnessed the Dodgers dancing on the AT&T mound.

[Rog]

I don't think that the Giants or their fans think 2015 was a happy, jolly season. I thought Bruce Bochy may have come the closest when he said that because of the adversity they overcame, he might value them even higher than his championship teams.

It probably wouldn't be the worst thing to stick to the facts instead of trying to make them up.

[sfgdood]

I haven't detected the least amount of anger or disgust at failing to make the playoffs. Until I do, they give off the air of not taking ownership of the failure and thus have no intention of doing anything differently. Ergo, we can expect the same kind of offseason we had last year and a similar team outcome in 2015.

[Rog]

Especially from a team that has won three World Championships in six years, you should expect a more measured response than the one you're looking forward. You shouldn't expect the Giants to fly off the handle.

I realize you would like to see more emotion, but emotion gets in the way of rational decision-making, and that is certainly what we need from the Giants now. Opportunities are out there, and until we see how the Giants do in handling them, any criticism is merely premature speculation.

All I would ask is that we keep an objective opinion, rather than coming from a position of pre-judgment. That's what fair people do.

[sfgdood]

I would indeed like to see more emotion...but more important than that would be seeing accountability for failure from a team that has been equally likely to miss the playoffs than not lately. This should piss off a "championship caliber" franchise.

[Rog]

You realize there are 29 other sets of major league fans who would trade places with us over the past five seasons, don't you?

[sfgdood]

yep, but I'm not concerned about them...I'm only concerned about the 10 teams that we are envious of because we were failed by our front office

[Rog]

Here's the funny thing, Randy. At the end of the World Series, there are at least nine of those 10 teams who would still trade places with the Giants over the entirety of the past six seasons.

So if you're concerned only about the 10 teams still alive, remember that at least nine of them will still be envious of the Giants. Maybe all 10, since no one will have won three World Championships during that team aside from the Giants.

Just how spoiled are we getting? Don't you remember at least SOME of the agony of not winning a single World Championship for 55 seasons?

[sfgdood]

I remember it all very well. But when you rest on your laurels, that's when the last laurel starts to get farther and farther into the past. I believe in calling it what it is. Last offseason was a failure and that's why we are golfing and fishing instead of playing in the playoffs.

[Rog]

Last offseason was a failure and that's why we are golfing and fishing instead of playing in the playoffs.


Rog -- We could argue that the Giants got lucky with Duffy, Heston and Tomlinson, but the truth is that had the Giants stayed healthy, we might be sitting here giving them high laurels, having gotten into the playoffs with a fair amount of money still available for this winter's almost unprecedented free agent pitcher crop.

To be honest though, there is a fair chance that some would still be complaining, and a fair chance that the postseason could be over for the Giants as early as tomorrow.

One unprecedented accomplishment the Giants accomplished last season. They became the first team to ever win 13 postseason games.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3060/suck?page=2#ixzz3nwX6doyw

[Rog]

By the way, resting on their laurels would have been RESTING on their laurels -- not making several moves as they did.

[sfgdood]

most of the moves last offseason involved bringing back players that were on the 2014 team so that doesn't really count as a new move. Among the truly new moves one was pretty good (Aoki) and one was terrible (McGehee). And since I was referencing the offseason, the midseason moves also do not count. It's easy to scramble desperately and say "see, we tried"...but if you would have recognized the need for quality healthy pitchers in the offseason, some of those long losing streaks could have been avoided.

[Rog]

What this all boils down to is money. You think they should have spent more, and while I would have loved to see them do so, I also knew what prudent spending meant.

Here's the thing about greed. We'd all LIKE the Giants to spend more. But to EXPECT it is to be greedy.

Incidentally, the Giants DID recognize the need for a quality healthy pitcher (asking for more than one would have been greedy, greedy, greedy), and by all accounts they gave an excellent effort to get one. I don't know how your life goes, but things don't always go according to plan. For you to argue that they weren't willing to spend the money is by all accounts flat-out wrong.

To make matters worse, had Jon Lester or James Shields signed with the Giants for what they were offering, we would be ruing the contract. The Padres are already doing so with Shields' pact.

Let's try to find some common ground.

Do we agree that the Giants spent the 4th-most on payroll of any MLB team?

Do we agree that they entered the luxury tax?

Do we agree that the Pablo contract would have thus far been disastrous?

Do we agree with the Padres that the Shields' contract was a bad one?

Do we agree that while the jury is still out on the Lester contract, the Cubs were expecting better than a 10-12 record -- especially in the contract year in which he's still in or close to his prime?

Do we agree that due to expiring contracts the Giants have more money to spend this off-season than last and that if they had signed one of their top three targets, that wouldn't have been the case?

Do we agree that there are better pitchers than Lester and Shileds who are available this off-season?

Do we agree that there is more depth in starters available in this year's free agent market?

Do we agree that there is no objective measure that indicates that the Giants would have made the postseason if they had Sandoval, Lester or Shields?

Do we agree that there IS objective evidence that the Giants would have made the playoffs or come very close if not for their multitude of injuries?

Do we agree that the McGehee signing was horrible?

Do we agree that the rest of the signings were between OK and good?

Do we agree that 2016 is a new year?

Do we agree that the Giants have more weapons now than they had this time last year?

If we agree on these things -- or even most of them, or even some of them -- wouldn't it be prudent to wait and see what happens rather than predjudging the off-season?

Do we agree that prudence is usually a good thing?

[sfgdood]

Here's the thing about greed. We'd all LIKE the Giants to spend more. But to EXPECT it is to be greedy.

Incidentally, the Giants DID recognize the need for a quality healthy pitcher (asking for more than one would have been greedy, greedy, greedy), and by all accounts they gave an excellent effort to get one. I don't know how your life goes, but things don't always go according to plan. For you to argue that they weren't willing to spend the money is by all accounts flat-out wrong.

Dood - They were obviously not willing to do what it takes to get the job done.






To make matters worse, had Jon Lester or James Shields signed with the Giants for what they were offering, we would be ruing the contract.

Dood - you don't know that






Let's try to find some common ground.

Do we agree that the Giants spent the 4th-most on payroll of any MLB team?

Do we agree that they entered the luxury tax?

Dood - yes and yes






Do we agree that the Pablo contract would have thus far been disastrous?

Dood - only if you assume he would have had the exact same year here or worse. Not a given





Do we agree with the Padres that the Shields' contract was a bad one?

Dood - not as bad as the McGehee, Hudson and Lincecum contracts





Do we agree that while the jury is still out on the Lester contract, the Cubs were expecting better than a 10-12 record -- especially in the contract year in which he's still in or close to his prime?

Dood - but...you told us that w/l record was meaningless in evaluating pitchers.





Do we agree that due to expiring contracts the Giants have more money to spend this off-season than last and that if they had signed one of their top three targets, that wouldn't have been the case?

Dood - agreed...but if they end up going cheap, then that will be a moot point.





Do we agree that there are better pitchers than Lester and Shileds who are available this off-season?

Dood - yes. We'll see if any of them are Giants next year. If not, it's a second straight failed offseason.





Do we agree that there is more depth in starters available in this year's free agent market?

Dood - yes, but I don't want medium or lower tier starters. If we settle for that, it's a loss





Do we agree that there is no objective measure that indicates that the Giants would have made the postseason if they had Sandoval, Lester or Shields?

Dood - and no objective measure that says they would have missed the playoffs either





Do we agree that there IS objective evidence that the Giants would have made the playoffs or come very close if not for their multitude of injuries?

Dood - no. And to use that excuse gives no accountability to the people that put this flawed team on the field





Do we agree that the McGehee signing was horrible?

Dood - duh!





Do we agree that the rest of the signings were between OK and good?

Dood - maybe...but the team still missed the playoffs so the amount of good was limited.





Do we agree that 2016 is a new year?

Dood - yes and the price of eggs is rising sharply lately...what's the point?





Do we agree that the Giants have more weapons now than they had this time last year?

Dood - it's a debatable point. Both have/had several question marks





If we agree on these things -- or even most of them, or even some of them -- wouldn't it be prudent to wait and see what happens rather than predjudging the off-season?

Dood - this is a message board. We don't wait. We comment before, during and after action is taken. That's the point.





Do we agree that prudence is usually a good thing?

Dood - depends on if you want to be good or great. I prefer great.

[Rog]

Do we agree that prudence is usually a good thing?

Dood - depends on if you want to be good or great. I prefer great.


Rog --Which is why one should be prudent. The chances of success are much higher when we are prudent.

Anyway, we agreed on most of the points, although you seemed to feel the need to add rejoinders even after you agreed.

One thing you were clearly wrong on (sorry about that). There IS objective evidence that indicates the Giants would have been right in there if not for the injuries. You may not agree with it, but to deny it exists if flat-out wrong.

And, yes, there IS objective evidence that indicates the Giants wouldn't have made the playoffs with Sandoval, Lester or Shields. Again, you can agree or disagree with it, but to call it less than objective is well, non-objective at best.

And while we don't know for sure that Pablo would have had a bad year if he played here, what in the world would lead us to believe otherwise?

Heck, we suspected it though when you were so strong in your support of him!


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3060/suck?page=2#ixzz3o2JlDcsr

[sfgdood]

Well since you seem to think stats not only tell us what happened but also what will happen or what would have happened in a different situations, I can only say...wow

[Rog]

Well since you seem to think stats not only tell us what happened but also what will happen or what would have happened in a different situations, I can only say...wow


Rog -- If you look at what I posted, that isn't what I said at all. This isn't the first time you've tried to put words in my mouth, but I hope it's the last.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3060/suck?page=2#ixzz3o2pkDZ7x

[sfgdood]

Rog -- If you look at what I posted, that isn't what I said at all. This isn't the first time you've tried to put words in my mouth, but I hope it's the last.

Dood - well it certainly was implied...unless we are to believe you are a sooth sayer and dead-on-balls accurate predictor of all possible scenarios...in which case you should be cleaning up in Vegas rather than wasting your talent on this board.

[Rog]

Rog -- If you look at what I posted, that isn't what I said at all. This isn't the first time you've tried to put words in my mouth, but I hope it's the last.

Dood - well it certainly was implied.


Rog -- You inferred. I didn't intend to imply. That's one of the ways miscommunication happens.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3060/suck?page=2#ixzz3o4WAgR6h