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 Oct 17, 2015 1:17:04 GMT -5
"I never did say you can't be a nice guy and win. I said that if I was playing third base and my mother rounded third with the winning run, I'd trip her up."
This is how I want our guys to feel about winning and losing...including management.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 17, 2015 1:51:16 GMT -5
I would like to see the Giants play harder to win than any other team -- but within the rules.
Willie loved Leo, and after Leo left the Giants as manager and went into the weekly Game of the Week telecasts on Saturday, Willie hit extremely well when Leo was in the park.
Willie went 1-for-25 to begin his career, but Leo's faith never wavered. My favorite Leo line came when he spoke to Willie on the phone and told him he was being called up to play center field. Willie told him, "I don't think I'm ready, Mr. Leo." Leo asked Willie what he was hitting. ".477," Willie replied.
"Well," Leo said. "Do you think you can hit 2 f-ing 50 for me?" After his horrible start, positively punctuated at the plate only by a homer onto the left field roof off Warren Spahn, Willie was crying at his locker. Leo put his arm around Willie and told him, "As long as I'm manager, you're my center fielder."
And you know what? Except for Willie's time in the Army, he was. Willie remained the Giants' center fielder for more than 15 years beyond that. He was probably the best there of any player in history.
As for Leo, he has joined Willie in the Hall of Fame. One might even say Willie put him there.
For all you Dodger-haters out there, Leo came to the Giants from the Dodgers. I guess we might say he was a slow learner.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 17, 2015 10:14:49 GMT -5
Rog, you missed Randy's point entirely.
Leo was COMMITTED to winning, and in his case comitted to winning at all costs, even if it meant crossing the line.
I would NOT cross that line as Leo did, but Randy's point, I believe was that he wants MANAGEMENT to have that SAME committment.
Right now, we don't see that. We see managment that views "value for the money" first, and winning second.
I do not support that.
Neither do I support spending like the Dodgers do.
We can have that committment by spending smarter, and by NOT giving out 'thanks for the memory" contracts as we did for Huff and others.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 18, 2015 7:06:01 GMT -5
I didn't miss Randy's point at all. How could one miss it? I simply said that I would play as hard as I could to win -- but within the rules, which didn't appear to limit Leo.
I went on to mention a few points about Leo and Willie that I'll be even you didn't know. And of course, Randy wouldn't.
You say you don't support getting value in one's free agent over winning, but are the two mutually exclusive? In the long run, value provides MORE winning.
You would want value for David Price. You said you would go five years to sign him but not seven. Sorry, Boly, you just missed out on him. You said you wouldn't pay Jordan Zimmermann 4/$100. Sorry, you likely missed him too. I think it's pretty clear you wouldn't outbid the Dodgers for Greinke, and you want nothing to do with Johnny Cueto, so even though you say you choose winning over value (Are they REALLY mutually exclusive?), you just missed out entirely on the top four -- even though you said you would be highly disappointed if the Giants did, as well.
The Giants are almost certainly going to offer much more to David Price than you said you would -- but then you're going to criticize them if they don't land him? I'm a bit baffled on that one. I'm missing something here, aren't I?
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 18, 2015 9:50:06 GMT -5
You assume 3 things, Rog.
1-that I would miss out on them, and
2-that I wouldn't have upped the anty.
3-You assume Price wouldn't take less than 7 years.
YOU said 210 million, 7 years. I didn't.
I never said how high I'd go, and though I would go higher than my offer, in terms of years, for Price, I would not.
Same with Zimmerman.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 18, 2015 22:47:02 GMT -5
You assume 3 things, Rog. 1-that I would miss out on them, and 2-that I wouldn't have upped the anty. 3-You assume Price wouldn't take less than 7 years. YOU said 210 million, 7 years. I didn't. I never said how high I'd go, and though I would go higher than my offer, in terms of years, for Price, I would not. Same with Zimmerman. Rog -- I believe you said enough when you said you would give Price only five years and Zimmermann only four. That just isn't going to get it done -- unless you raised the annual salary to an unrealistic amount. I could be wrong about Price's not being willing to take five years and Zimmermann four, but I doubt it. Price is likely worth more this off-season than Scherzer was a year ago, and Max signed for seven years. If Zimmermann isn't right in there with Lester, he's darn close -- and Lester got six years, not four. Now, if you would go seven for Price and at least five for Zimmermann, you might have a shot. But you said you wouldn't do either of those two things. If you have changed your mind, I think you're becoming more realistic. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3094/why-love-leo-lip#ixzz3oywBoUHB |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 19, 2015 17:02:56 GMT -5
I would not go 7 for Price, Rog, but 5 for Zim... that I would consider.
Isn't Zim just 29? And Price, 31?
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Oct 20, 2015 8:11:24 GMT -5
To me it's pretty obvious. Your choices is to overpay for a top starter and compete or pay people exactly what you think they're worth and have a poor rotation. There is no middle ground here. These guys are all going to be overpaid, there won't be any bargains. If you take the stance that you're not going to overpay then you won't be good. So if they give Price 7/210, I'll be shocked, but I'll still be happy. I'm not worried about the year 2020 when he's like Matt Cain now, I'm worried about 2016 and not wanting to sit on the couch watching the Dodgers in the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 20, 2015 9:48:47 GMT -5
You make a good point, Mark.
As an old timer it's hard for me to accept the egos that drive these morons.
But the world is what it is, and as much as I'd like to make it different, I cannot.
Fine.
Sign him for whatever he wants. I want to win.
Sitting and watching other teams play in the post season is painful.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 20, 2015 13:27:54 GMT -5
I would not go 7 for Price, Rog, but 5 for Zim... that I would consider. Isn't Zim just 29? And Price, 31? Rog -- 29 and 30. They are nine months apart. Five years might get Zimmermann. The question seems to be whether he'll get six. I don't think Jordan is viewed as high as Jon Lester, but I think they're pretty close. A year ago I might have given the edge to Zimmermann. Now I would give it to Lester because he pitches more innings and had a better season in 2015. Zimmermann has been the more consistent of the two. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3094/why-love-leo-lip#ixzz3p8LqKzhM |
|
