it's official...the Giants have thrown in the towel.

[sfgdood]

Matt Moore traded for insignificant prospects. We can stop hoping for playoffs for a few years

[rog]

I never guessed this would be your reaction to the Moore trade. Trading Moore is less salary. Have a little vision.

[sfgdood]

i do...but our GM has shown a tremendous INability to sign hitters. I also am hearing from Pavlovic that that the Giants' priority is to remain under the luxury tax...translation, on the cheap we go, once again.

[rog]

Wake up, Randy. The Giants have been among the spending leaders pretty much all decade. They were apparently ready to break into the luxury tax big-time if they could have acquired Giancarlo Stanton, he of the highest contract in major league history. As it is, they're almost certain to enter the luxury tax area for what I believe will be the fourth consecutive season.

Calling them cheap is like calling Santa Claus skinny.

I agree with you that you do possess vision. Unfortunately it is only of the tunnel you are stuck in. Come on out into the sunshine. It's been a warm fall, and for the Giants, things are just starting to heat up.

Baby, the rain must fall.

[rxmeister]

Giants are trying to both improve the team and remain under the luxury tax. The Moore trade gives them about 20 million in free agency. What you might not know, Randy, is that being in the luxury tax area isn’t just about money. When you’re in the tax area three years in a row (which the Giants will be in if not avoided this year) there are additional penalties that affect draft position and international signings. That goes beyond simply paying money. You and others complain about the Giants crappy minor league system. You want it to get worse with penalties like this?

[klaiggeb]

I didn't know that, Mark, but as I said in another thread, I love the fact that we are re stocking our farm system. We won the last time, mostly, BECAUSE of our farm system.

Time to get back to basics; get young; get better for the future.

Last thing I wanted to see was a bunch of useless FA moves that bring us a bunch of stiffs and we don't compete anyway.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Randy- Matt Moore traded for insignificant prospects. We can stop hoping for playoffs for a few years

Boagie- Oh my gosh, how can we continue without the worst pitcher in the NL last season?

[sfgdood]

The two prospects we got are pretty much garbage, Boly...the salary dump was the main objective...but that only does us any good if Bobby Boy can actually close a deal for a legit hitter

[garyd4sf]

Dec 15, 2017 20:49:12 GMT -5 sfgdood said:

Matt Moore traded for insignificant prospects. We can stop hoping for playoffs for a few years

9 Million savings in the payroll...clearing room for a FA signing?

[Islandboagie]

Randy- The two prospects we got are pretty much garbage, Boly...the salary dump was the main objective...but that only does us any good if Bobby Boy can actually close a deal for a legit hitter

Boagie- The post was mine, and what do you expect to get in return for the worst pitcher in the NL?

I think Moore could turn it around, but the Giants aren't in a position to hope it happens. They need to make moves to attempt to please fans like you and Boly who won't be happy until we have an outfield of Stanton, Trout and Harper.

If you want to blame anyone for dumping Moore and his salary, blame yourself.

[klaiggeb]

Boagie, that's not fair.

I was never big into the Stanton idea. I just didn't want him going to LA.

I've said from day 1; we need guys with 20+ HR pop. Not 40+

I've also been harping on speed and defense since we moved to AT&T

boly

[sfgdood]

Yeah you're right...I'm the one that told Evans to get Moore, then I put a curse on him.

[rog]

The two prospects we got are pretty much garbage, Boly.


Rog -- It might be wise to read about the guys before judging them. I posted a link on the pitcher the Giants picked up in the Rule 5 Draft, and Mark has clearly checked out Wolff, for reasons I might be able to guess.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4204/official-giants-thrown-towel#ixzz51Tz6sL9m

[rog]

the salary dump was the main objective.


Rog -- There I agree with you.

[Islandboagie]

Randy- Yeah you're right...I'm the one that told Evans to get Moore, then I put a curse on him.

Boagie- No, but you are in the unreslistic group of fans that believe we need to spend a trillion dollars every off season. Then you turn around and wonder why we don't have the top prospects.

[rog]

It's official ... Randy has thrown in the towel. Again.

[rog]

I've said from day 1; we need guys with 20+ HR pop. Not 40+

I've also been harping on speed and defense since we moved to AT&T

Rog -- Power is becoming a more important part of the game, and the Giants have far less of it than any other team in the game. They were something like 27 homers behind the next worst team. If Giancarlo Stanton's 59 homers had been added to the Giants' total last season, they would still have finished just 23rd in the majors in homers.

In other words, adding just Stanton wouldn't really have been enough, which isn't to say the Giants are in position that they CAN do enough.

To make this simple, let's suppose that Stanton hits 40 homers and the Giants get three 20 homer guys. Assuming they're replacing guys who hit 10 homers, that an exact balance. In either case, the Giants add 30 homers (which really isn't enough).

But they have four positions open. 20 homers at each of those positions would add 40 more homers. Still not enough, but a start. Except that since defense is the focus in center field, they probably won't add many there. They're back to a plus 30 homers.

Spreading the homers throughout the lineup is a great idea. But without at least one truly big bopper, the Giants aren't likely to catch up. The gap is just too big.

And homers are becoming more important, while speed and defense are becoming less important. When there is a lot of hitting, particularly home runs, speed becomes less important than not losing outs on the bases. The hits -- especially homers -- will drive home most of the runs even without a steal or extra base taken on the base paths.

Likewise, as fewer balls are put into play (because of homers and strikeouts), fielding becomes less important. This isn't to say that speed and defense aren't important. It's just that now it takes more speed and defense to make up for less power.

The Giants need to improve in specific areas, but more than anything else, they simply need to IMPROVE.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4204/official-giants-thrown-towel?page=1#ixzz51Xd9Ivk0

[klaiggeb]

Rog-In other words, adding just Stanton wouldn't really have been enough, which isn't to say the Giants are in position that they CAN do enough.

***boly says***

And I was ADAMANT that it wouldn't be.

From the beginning I said that it would be a waste of time to sign Stanton IF we didn't get the players to go around him.

And now, after being willing to spend all that money, as Randy said, they appear to be going on the cheap again.

How you can be set to drop a wad like 218 million, and then suddenly, "not" have money to spend.

Confuses me.

boly

[rog]

Let me explain the situation, Boly. I can understand why you were confused, and you did indeed say signing Stanton alone wouldn't be enough. I don't think anyone here thought it would be.

As for the Giants' spending $218 million, I suspect that wouldn't have been the case. As we discussed and we are now seeing even without trading for Stanton, the Giants are trying to cut some payroll to give them breating room to make changes.

I think the Giants were, however, willing to go into the luxury tax if they could sign Stanton, who is a special player. The Giants have indicated that they would spend more if the right player came along.

Let me ask you and Randy this question: If the Giants have been in the luxury tax the past three seasons and are struggling to avoid doing so for a fourth straight season (which would increase their luxury tax percentage all the way up to 50%, while dropping below it for a year drops it to 20%).

Let's suppose the Giants were to sign Bryce Harper next winter, and the luxury tax hit was $35 million per season, forcing the Giants $35 million into the luxury tax area. Having to pay "only" 20% instead of 50% would be a $10.5 million savings in 2019, and savings would continue after that.

Today's game takes a financially-savvy approach. We don't get that from the Dodgers' essentially giving players away so they can drop below the salary cap?

Remember when the Dodgers' new ownership said their goal was to develop from within and that they were spending the big bucks in the meantime to be competitive? Their plan is working pretty well, isn't it? We were outraged at their spending and ignored the warning that the building from the inside was the bigger worry for the Giants than all the money the Dodgers were spending.

Now we're seeing those thoughts were right.

[rog]

It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if the Giants spend more money this season than the Dodgers? Had they signed Stanton that almost certainly would have been a reality, and even now the potential is there.

[rog]

Randy, you seem to be upset even when the Giants follow your directions. You're a tough guy to please.

[Islandboagie]

It may have just been the Giants goal to show interest in Stanton and get the Marlins up to an amount of money off that contract to the point where the Dodgers wouldn't have interest.

[rog]

I think the Giants really wanted Stanton, Boagie, even though you and I didn't. The Marlins and they had agreed on a trade. All Stanton had to do was ratify it.

I've rethought that trade a bit. The Giants wouldn't have had to give up much to get Giancarlo. They agreed only to pay $230 million of Stanton's contract, meaning they were getting him for $23 million per season, which was a bargain. I had been thinking of the entire $295 million.

It Stanton opted out, the Giants would almost certainly have gotten their money's worth out of the contract. If he didn't opt and stayed healthy, they likely would have at least come close to getting their money's worth. The real risk was if he became seriously injured.

One thing about it is that I think the Giants' best window might be in say 2020 through 2022. Stanton likely would have been there only for 2020 among those years. The Giants were of course hoping they would be competitive even this season.

It sounds like the Giants are shopping Pence, and perhaps if they pick up say $4-$6 million they could find a taker. But I believe I read that Hunter has a full no-trade contract, and he's probably pretty happy in SF. If faced with a part-time role though, he might want to move to a team that would play him full time so that he can build his value for free agency next year. That could be his final contract.

Speaking of no-trade contracts, I would like to reiterate that a player negotiates that into his contract. His signing team doesn't have to agree to it, and in fact if they pay extra money, the player might forego the clause.

But let's think about it from the player's side. Perhaps he has a family that he doesn't want to uproot once he signs his contract and makes the one move if necessary.

I think we forget that the players are real people. I also think we got way off track by talking about collusion and underhandedness with regard to the Atlanta/Dodgers trade. It was a valid trade that benefited both teams. That it did so in different ways for each team really doesn't matter, does it?

Players are stubborn when they exercise their no-trade clause, the one they legitimately negotiated into their contract? Hardly.

Two teams that have made a creative trade that benefits both sides have colluded? Probably not.

Collusion is where, for instance, all teams would agree that they wouldn't pay more than a set number in salary or give raises above a certain percentage. How did the Braves and Dodgers collude? Each team simply agreed to a trade that the opposite team felt benefited them most.

Why do we feel the need to criticize so many things?

We complained that the Giants weren't doing anything (despite their clearly making big efforts to land both Stanton and Ohtani), and they almost immediately made a move. Which of course some then criticized because they didn't understand that the trade was merely priming the pump.

For understanding so little, we criticize a lot. Does one make up for the other?

[sfgdood]

In 1992, the Giants had one of their worst years ever. They went 72-90 and Bob Lurie agreed to sell the team off to a group from Tampa. The subsequent offseason was predominantly an effort to keep the team in SF. After the Magowan group was able to successfully keep the team here, they made just one major move...signing the reigning MVP, Barry Bonds. In 1993, the team record was 103-59. I'm pretty sure most of you wanted to do more than just get Bonds, but apparently it wasn't needed to win 31 more games than the year before.

Funny old world, innit?

[rog]

Of course we would all have loved the Giants to add more than Barry Bonds, but I can't tell you how excited I was when they added him. He had won the MVP two out of the past three seasons and finished second the other time. In other words, while Stanton is certainly a huge star, Bonds was at a different level.

But more importantly, the Giants' top four hitters were Will Clark, Matt Williams, Willie McGee and Robby Thompson. This year's team had Buster Posey, Brandon Belt, Joe Panik and Denard Span.

They had excellent defense, headed by center fielder Darren Lewis. The Giants had poor defense, as highlighted by center fielder Denard Span.

The 1992 team's rotation was Billy Swift, John Burkett, Bud Black and Trevor Wilson. The Giants have Ty Blach and Chris Stratton in theirs.

The 1992 team had relievers Rod Beck, Jeff Brantley and Michael Jackson. The Giants have Mark Melancon recovering from surgery, Sam Dyson -- who posted a 6.09 ERA last season, and Hunter Strickland.

Aren't you comparing apples and oranges?

By the way, it isn't impossible the Giants even as they stand right now couldn't win a World Series. It's simply not at all likely.

[rog]

Very nice to hear from you, Gary. Very salient comment. You should hang around more often.

[klaiggeb]

Gary usually has some interesting insight to add.

[rog]

Well, he's got me THERE!

[klaiggeb]

No, you frequently add interesting stuff, Rog.

But your unwillingness to listen to arguments and EVER change your mind... is beyond frustrating.

I can't think of even ONE TIME, Rog, not once, when you've conceded an argument.

You state your position and never, ever back down.

boly

[rog]

I realize it doesn't seem like it, but I've changed my mind more than a few times, Boly. I may be in the process of changing my mind on the Longoria as we speak.

Maybe we disagree on whether Franco is a hacker because we define it differently. (I agree, by the way, that Franco is toward the hacker side of the spectrum; I just don't see him as a full-blown hacker.)

To me a hacker is a guy who goes out of the strike zone a lot in comparison to how often he swings when the ball is in the zone. Pablo Sandoval would be my #1 exhibit as a hacker. Pablo has swung at about four of nine pitches outside the strike zone over the course of his career. He has swung at about four out of five pitches inside the zone. Joey Votto last season would be my #1 example of a guy who's NOT a hacker. He went outside the strike zone only about once every six pitches. And it wasn't simply that he was taking tons of pitches and not being aggressive. He swung at about two out of every three pitches that was IN the strike zone.

On the Giants, would we say that Joe Panik is the most disciplined hitter? Over his career he has swung at only about one in four bad pitches, while swinging at about three out of every five strikes. This past season Joey remarkably swung at about four more good pitches than bad ones. Pablo has swung at less than twice as many good pitches as bad. Anything under twice as often says hacker to me. But in that regard, Maikel at about 2.3 times as many strikes swung at as ball has been closer to Joe (about two and a half times as likely to swing at a strike as at a ball) than to Pablo (only about 1.8 times as likely to swing at a strike as a ball.

Franco is in between these groups. He's swung at about one out of three bad pitches while swinging at three of four pitches in the strike zone. To me, that's a very aggressive hitter, but not a hacker. He's swung at good pitches more than twice as often as bad ones. Joe has swung at good pitches even a little more often compared to bad ones.

If Maikel is closer to Joe than to Pablo, I have a hard time calling him a hacker. Instead, I would call Maikel aggressive. Hundley too has swung at about 2.3 times as many strikes as balls. I would consider Hunter Pence to be a hacker. He's swung at about 2.1 times as many strikes as balls.

I'm thinking hacker starts when a guy swings at about only 2.1 or 2.2 times as many strikes as balls.

Here's the first article I came across when I put "baseball hackers vs. disciplined hitters" into my browser.

fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-disciplined-mlb-batters/


They had A.J. Pierzynski as the biggest hacker. A.J. swung only about 1.5 times as often at strikes as at balls. Pablo was ranked very close to the bottom. He swung at about 1.7 times as many strikes as balls.

I would rank Franco as an aggressive hitter with "hackerish" tendencies, but a more aggressive hitter than a hacker.

Maybe it simply comes down to definition.

I would categorize a hacker as a guy who swings at almost anything without discernment. Franco shows some discernment IMO.

From Wikipedia's Glossary of Baseball:

hack[edit]
To swing awkwardly at the ball. "As his son stood in the batter's box and hacked away, Wolpert came up with the idea of opening his own batting cage in Manhattan."[1] Sometimes said of an aggressive hitter who would swing at any pitch within reach, whether high, low, inside, or outside. "An unrepentant free swinger who hacked at anything in the same area code as the strike zone, Puckett drew just 23 walks that year."[2]


Franco doesn't walk a lot, which would swing him in the "hacker" direction. But he doesn't "swing at any pitch within reach, whether high, low, inside, or outside."

Maybe it does come down to definition. I think we agree Franco is definitely aggressive. But he's a lot more aggressive on pitches IN the strike zone than outside it.

I don't know. Is it a poe-TAY-toe, poe-TAH-toe kind of thing? In Franco's case I would say it's close either way. Maybe it simply depends on where one draws the "hacker" line. We agree that Franco is closer to a hacker than he is to disciplined. It seems to be WHERE we draw the line between "hacker", "disciplined hitter" and "somewhere in between" that we differ. I have Franco on the "somewhere in between" category, while you have him as clearly a "hacker."