The Giants Are Seemingly Everywhere

[rog]

Not that this is a guarantee of accomplishment, the Giants seem to be associated with more players than just about any team this fall.  They've been associated with a lot of players before, but not to the extent of this off-season.

I'm pretty sure this winter will bring a lot more action than this fall has.  That is true of most teams.  It has been a VERY slow fall.

We have talked about the factors limiting the Giants are a lack of prospects to trade and the very high level of the salary budget they have already spent.  Regarding the latter, the Giants are at the same place regarding the luxury tax as the Dodgers -- a 50% penalty for every dollar spent above the cap.  The free-spending Dodgers' goal this off-season is to get below the threshold so when next year's expected fine crop of free agents is available, they'll be penalized "only" 20% instead of 50%.  They're trying to position themselves for the future, and the Giants are looking to do the same thing.

Here is something encouraging I am seeing:  The Giants are working hard to cut salary so they will have the flexibility, as Gary mentioned, to go after free agents and more expensive veterans they might be able to trade for.

It may be possible that if the Giants absorb some of the cost of contracts to players like Hunter Pence and Denard Span, or if they add in enough prospects and/or other roster players, they can shed salary to use in that regard.

Spending the money on free agents is especially beneficial, since they get the advantage of the free agents in addition to whichever players they receive in trade.  They LEVERAGE the salary dollars they free up.

The Giants have said that there may be players traded who are players fans will surely miss. I don't think Matt Moore fits that description, so we'll see what awaits.  Perhaps the Giants were thinking of Hunter Pence when they made that statement.  Maybe they were talking about a player who is still effective.  They might be talking about BOTH -- as well as Denard Span.

I still think there is a possibility the Giants will make more moves this off-season than most within memory.  As Gary, Mark and others have mentioned, the Matt Moore trade was just the beginning of priming the pump.

I'm hoping Mark is right that the Giants now have about $20 million to spend on free agents and trade acquisitions.  If  they could move Span and/or Pence, they might be able to increase that to $30 or $40 million or more.  THAT would be exciting.

The top 11 free agents as rated by MLB Trade Rumors remain unsigned.  In the words of the "X-Files," they're out there.

I think the Giants still face a huge task, but they may be more successful in cutting salary than I had thought.  That would be a huge bonus and make the task at hand a little less daunting.

[klaiggeb]

I like your optimism, Rog, wish I could share it.

Too many times burned by our front office for me to feel comfortable.

And when I say "burned," I don't necessarily mean in the moves made.

I mean that what they SAID, IMHO, had no meaning what-so-ever in what they intended to do.

I've since become convinced that they knew from day 1 they had ZERO chance to get Stanton, but went through the motions to get everyone off their back.

Why do I say this?

Because IF they were serious, the money WAS there; 218 million.

They didn't get him and now... well, now seem reluctant to spend the money.

I know you explained your take on this, Rog, but I do not agree with you.

boly

[rog]

I think one of the Giants' objectives is to land one very big fish, either this off-season or next. I think they would have broken the budget if they could have made that fish (no pun) Giancarlo Stanton. Now that they were unsuccessful in landing him, they want to stay below the salary cap so they can still pay "only" a 20% penalty if they break the bank with next year's free agent crop.

As for the Giants' knowing that Stanton wouldn't sign with them, if so, they took a $235 gamble they were right. Why would they hype a trade they knew they couldn't make? Yes, it brought publicity for a month or so, but in the end, the result was another failure, which is likely having a more damaging effect than if they hadn't gone after him at all.


It's really easy to criticize from afar. More Monday morning quarterbacking. For example, Boly, which moves did you suggest the Giants make? Did they fit within the budget (including the possible stretch to allow them to sign a super star)? What were your fallback plans?

You believe the Giants are better off for not trading for Stanton. Boagie and I, at the very least, agree (although I'm not as sure of my position as I was before I did a better job of analyzing the situation). Yet you still find a way to criticize the Giants even when they DIDN'T do what you wanted them not to do.

Regarding Stanton, you didn't know how good a fielder he was, which is important at AT&T. You still don't know how playing in AT&T would have been likely to affect his home run total. I'm guessing you didn't know and still may not know how many games he has missed over the course of his career.

Finally, I would love to know the statements the Giants made where they lied to us. My guess is that you may not remember exactly what was said in some of them and that you may have misinterpreted other things that were said. And in yet others, you may not understand the difficulty in carrying out those plans once the off-season began in earnest.

Have you ever answered for us, for instance, how you would balance going after Plan A with the possibility of missing out on your chance if you switch to Plan B too soon, and missing out of Plan B if you stay too long with Plan A and don't land Mr. Plan A?

You have mentioned that none of the rest of us knows nearly as much about teaching as you do. How could we? We've almost never been in the classroom and thus faced all the problems it presents. Wouldn't our criticizing you as a teach be similar to our criticizing Bobby Evans as a GM?

If we are going to criticize Bobby Evans for lying to us, shouldn't we be able to bring up the quotes where he did so? And then, be open to other interpretations? And consider what may have gone wrong to prevent the execution of the plan?

Check this out from "Around the Foghorn."

aroundthefoghorn.com/2017/12/15/san-francisco-giants-bobby-evans-plan/


Or this from SFGiants.com:

www.mlb.com/giants/news/brian-sabean-bobby-evans-discuss-offseason/c-257311994


I'll stop there, although I'm sure you can find more if you look.

Here is another question: How can we criticize the Giants for lying when we don't yet know what they're going to do? As I mentioned earlier, none of the top 11 free agents has signed yet. It has been a very slow off-season, which likely means the Giants have had the choice of remaining patient or making bad deals now. Perhaps we should be happy they're exercising patience.

Recently the Giants have been attached to Evan Longoria and Maikel Franco. It is said that they are asking the Rays to take on one of their bad contracts (Pence or Span) in order to deal for Longoria. The Giants will likely have to change their stance on that. But notice that Longoria hasn't yet been traded anywhere else, so the possibility the two teams might get together still remains.

If we were Bobby Evans, what would we do RIGHT NOW in order to live up to our promises? We shouldn't forget either about that nasty little salary cap problem.

How does Bobby live up to his promises so that he hasn't lied to us?

While we're at it, let's discuss the Giants' alleged cheapness. Two winters ago they signed both Johnny Cueto and Jeff Samardzija. Among this year's free agent class, only Yu Darvish (6/$160) is expected to sign for more than Cueto (6/$132), and only Darvish, Jake Arrieta (4/$100) and Mashahiro Tanaka ($5/100) are expected to sign for more than the Giants paid Jeff Samardzija (5/$90). The Giants have exceeded the salary cap each of the past three seasons, which hardly qualifies them as cheap.

When we say what they said and what they did were two different things, I feel we ignore two important aspects:

. According to what we know, the Giants have been pursuing many of the really big fish. They have tried, but not always been successful. If you're seriously competing with six other teams for a player, your presumed chance of success is one in seven. Yet we seem to feel they should be successful all the time. If they go after a guy and don't land him, we still criticize them. (Think Giancarlo Stanton.)

. When the Giants go into the off-season, they have a primary plan. Not being able to land their primary targets can cause them to change that plan. If they continue to do what they set out to do, that may no longer be the best strategy.