|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 20, 2018 10:00:47 GMT -5
As one of the writers recently pointed out, the Giants do NOT normally go for a "Big Splash Guy" at the trade deadline.
As he pointed out, it's usually guys like Peavy, Burrell, Ross and so forth; guys that appear to be "bargain basement" guys.
Marco Scutaro was certainly not a bargain basement guy, but I remember my reaction when I heard we had acquired him.
"Scutaro? Marco Freaking Scutaro? That's the BEST we could come up with up?
"Just shoot me now and get it over with!"
That, of course, turned out to be a great trade.
But when the deal was made, Scutaro was NOT an impact kind of guy.
He was a solid 2nd baseman and that's all he was.
No one in their right mind could have seen the year he had for us coming when they made the deal.
No one.
And so, I wait. I wait and wait and wait to see what we're going to do this year.
And just like that year we traded for Marco, I'll be on a ship again, following the Giants the best I can on my phone.
I'm not expecting much. I'm really not.
Then again, I've already expected TOO MUCH, it seems, from what I considered a deep, solid line up.
Panik-Disappointment.
Longoria -Disappointment
McCutchen -Disappointment
Pence--Disappointment
Jackson -Disappointment
Posey -Disappointment
That's 6 guys our of 8 who have really not lived up to even their norms.
So I wait.
We all wait.
We wait for the unlikely hope of a player, bargain basement guy or not, who can impact the line up.
What we'll likely get is a Doug Henry type guy, be he a hitter or a pitcher.
I say Doug Henry because I'm still stinging with anger of the deal that brought him too us because it seemed then, as it does not, that THAT was a deal, just to make a deal to appease the fans.
We...wait...
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 20, 2018 10:01:58 GMT -5
As it does NOW, not, NOT.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 20, 2018 10:24:03 GMT -5
I don't think the Giants should waste anything on a 2 month rental. If they do make a trade it should be to help us now AND in the future.
This hasnt been discussed much, but maybe Longoria would be good trade bait? We have Pablo, Hanson and Tomlinson to cover third, we don't need Longoria. I'd imagine Longoria would get us a decent return. Same goes for Mccutchen.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 20, 2018 13:23:01 GMT -5
The Giants have made big trades in three out of the seven years of the 10's.
. 2011 -- Carlos Beltran
. 2012 -- Hunter Pence
. 2015 -- Mike Leake
The other years the trades have been less noteworty, but they fared well in 2010 with Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez, both of whom were key in making the playoffs.
They did almost nothing in 2013, as they were a dozen games below .500 at the deadline.
They did exceedingly well with Jake Peavy in 2014.
In 2016 it was Eduardo Nunez, who became injured.
Last season they were already dead.
What we see is that they made big moves three seasons, and in two of those the player they traded for got hurt and the Giants didn't make the postseason.
Twice they were pretty much out of it and did trade at all.
Three times they made modest moves which helped them win it all in 2010 and 2014, and helped them make the playoffs in 2016.
So their track record has been best with the modest moves, particularly when we add Marco Scutaro in 2012 as Boly mentioned. In 2012 BOTH Pence and Scutaro worked out well, especially Marco, who played some of the best ball of his career.
Their record with big moves would almost certainly be better if not for injury. Ironically, Beltran led the Mets in games played when he was traded to the Giants in 2011, and Leake had a 4-0 record with a 0.60 ERA in 30 innings over his four starts before the trade. Leake too became injured.
The Giants play 10 games before the trade deadline. Those games will determine whether they are net buyers or net sellers. Whether they will try to do the best with what they have, will make the type of middling move or moves that have worked best, or will shoot their wad on a big deal, hoping the player truly is a big deal after the trade -- and stays healthy.
As for the Doug Henry deal, Doug didn't really pitch very well, although he did somehow cobble together a 2.49 ERA. More importantly though, after going 46-39 before the trade deadline, the Giants exploded to go 51-26 after it, winning the NL West.
If the Giants could sign Doug Henry this season at the age of 54 and lead the NL in wins as they did in 2000 when they did trade for Henry, I'd take it.
Wouldn't we all?
I'm guessing too that the fans weren't appeased at the deadline but were appeased when the Giants posted the most wins in the NL.
I'll take it!
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 20, 2018 13:31:41 GMT -5
You missed my point, Rog, and the writer's point.
The Giants don't make block buster deals at the dead line.
They don't.
Beltran WAS one of those, or could have been.
Leake was not a block buster move, nor was Pence.
Pence was a solid player but NOT in Beltran's class.
And my Doug Henry reference was another point you missed.
IMHO, and many of those on the board at the time were APPALLED that THAT is all we did.
It seemed to me then, and now, that it was a move, "Just to appease the fans and make a move."
Might not have been that, but THAT'S what it seemed to be, and I've seen nothing since to alter that opinion.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 20, 2018 13:39:36 GMT -5
This hasnt been discussed much, but maybe Longoria would be good trade bait? We have Pablo, Hanson and Tomlinson to cover third, we don't need Longoria. I'd imagine Longoria would get us a decent return. Same goes for Mccutchen. Rog -- There are problems with trading either Longoria or McCutchen, although I think Andrew could bring a fair return. The trouble with trading Andrew is the first point you made: He's a two-month rental. If he were Manny Machado, he would bring a decent return. Being Andrew McCutchen, he would likely bring a second tier prospect or two. If they could get for him what they got for Eduardo Nunez a year ago, that wouldn't be bad at all (although Shaun Anderson did give up a homer in the Futures Game Sunday). As for Longoria, isn't the bigger problem with Evan not that he will weigh the team down this season but that he's owed a minimum of $72.5 million over the next four seasons ($80.5 over five years if they exercise the fifth-year option)? Why would a team want to take that on to get a fading player in his 30's? When the Giants traded for Evan, didn't we just assume they were stuck with him for better or worse? If the Giants decide to become sellers, it's likely the first three guys they'd like to trade would be Longoria, Jeff Samardzija and Johnny Cueto. But don't we think those guys would be a little tough to trade? Personally, I would try to get rid of as much of their salaries as possible and be satisfied with anything in return. In order to trade those guys, the Giants would likely have to take back bad contracts themselves -- something like the Rays did when they took back Span's contract in the Longoria deal. Shedding the Span contract enabled the Giants to make the deal. But what they did was trade a short-term albatross for what might become a long-term albatross. Span has played better than expected. Longoria has not. I agree with you, Boagie, that I'd try to trade Evan. But realistically, how much can the Giants get in return? Can they even get someone to take the contract? Teams just aren't as dumb as they used to be. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=1#ixzz5LowkpYzb
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 20, 2018 13:40:36 GMT -5
By the way, make that the eight years of the 10's.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 20, 2018 13:51:24 GMT -5
You are correct, Boly, that only the Beltran trade was a true blockbuster. But the Pence and Leake trades were better than the trades when Blockbuster was going out of business.
Pence was a two-time All-Star, the most recent having come the previous season. Leake wasn't as big a star, but he was the hottest pitcher in the game. Those were very significant moves -- quite a bit more than trading for Doug Henry. Much more than trading for Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez, two guys that were called "ham and eggers" here at the time of their trades but who became important for one to six seasons.
As was pointed out, the Henry trade certainly wasn't a big one, but it turned out the Giants didn't NEED a big trade to lead the MAJORS in wins. If the Giants made the trade to appease the fans, they didn't need to. Instead, they gave up Scott Linebrink, who went on to be a decent major league pitcher over 12 seasons.
And finally, if the fans were appalled that all the Giants did at the trade deadline was acquire Doug Henry, I hope they looked back at the end of the season and realized how foolish they were in doing so.
Maybe they should have traded managers!
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 20, 2018 13:59:40 GMT -5
Regarding Marco, while he wasn't doing anything close to what he did for the Giants, he was having a decent season for the Rockies at the time of the trade. The worrisome thing though was that he had hit well in Coors Field but was hitting poorly in away games.
Regarding Burrell and Ross, while both were important deals, neither was a trade deadline move. One other move the Giants made in 2010 which is easy to forget is when they traded Bengie Molina in order to open up a spot for Buster Posey. Virtually everyone remembers when Buster came up, but not as many remember the Bengie trade. Heck, I don't even remember the relief pitcher the Giants traded Bengie for, although I do remember the guy pitched well for a while before injuring his arm and pretty much ending his career IIRC.
When the Giants acquired Aubrey Huff as a free agent before that season, little attention was paid. But while Aubrey was coming off a poor season, he had established a pattern as an every-other-year player. That pattern was GREAT in 2010, but sadly it continued in 2011, and by 2012 Aubrey was pretty much done.
One more point about the Burrell and Ross moves. Neither was a trade. Burrell was a spurned free agent pickup, and Ross was a waiver claim.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 20, 2018 14:05:17 GMT -5
If I were the Giants, I would sell as hard as I could at the deadline. If they lose all their games between now and then, they very likely will. But as it stands now, they run the risk of being caught between being a so-so team and having a chance at making the playoffs.
Boagie has a great idea in trading off the pieces. But with the exception of McCutchen (whose value is limited by his being a lame duck) and Bumgarner, whom the Giants aren't likely to trade, there appears to be significant difficulties in trading away the big names. Belt could probably be traded for decent value either at the deadline or perhaps more likely this coming winter. Panik could be traded, but he's injured and is a young asset who wouldn't bring back a tremendous amount.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 20, 2018 15:43:21 GMT -5
Rog-If I were the Giants, I would sell as hard as I could at the deadline.
***boly says***
Though I'm inclined to agree with Randy, boagie and others, that we should sell and restock kids for the future... there's a part of me that says, no; don't do it.
But it's a coin toss.
Heads is:
IF...IF, and I know it's a big "if..." Longo and McCutchen have big second halfs...as in having FSY (Final Spurt Years) moniker from years back... and the Kids on the mound are for real...I think we can win it all, but would have to do it via the wild card.
IF, there's that word again, if all that comes to pass; Longo and McCutchen and I'll add Panik and Posey have the kind of years they're capable of having, I'll take my chances in a short series with our bullpen.
Tails says:
You're outta your freakin' mind, boly!
The kids on the mound will wear down.
Roger is right, Longo has been on a decline for years and there's nothing that says that's likely to change.
McCutchen is all but done, and Panik? Don' know what's wrong, but it/he ain't right.
Pull the plug, and though I know the fans will simply STOP COMING, we'll have to live with that for a couple of years and then maybe, have another good run.
Okay, enough fantasy land.
Here's what we all know the Giants will do:
They will NOT be sellers until maybe the August 31 deadline.
They're going to delude themselves, as I suggested with "heads" above, and stick with the sorry blue print Bobby E. designed.
They'll keep Evans, though I think that based upon this debacle he should be canned, they'll keep him and let him try again next year.
Pence will still be the pinch hitter off the bench.
Samardzija will get somewhat healthy and they'll run him out there every 5th day to get blown up.
And we'll stay a couple of games above .500 all year long, teasing idiot fans, like me, who really think they have a chance.
boly
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 20, 2018 16:31:16 GMT -5
I think you nailed it, Boly. Barring a collapse over the next 10 games, the Giants seem unlikely to be strong net sellers at the deadline. That's why the next 10 games are so important. I know this sounds sacreligious, but it's probably best for the franchise if the Giants lose their next 10.
|
|
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 Jul 20, 2018 17:29:43 GMT -5
I don't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Rog. I don't believe there's an available player that would put the Giants in a realistic position to win the NL pennant. It's best to sell off expiring contracts now and get what we can
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 20, 2018 19:48:30 GMT -5
When we got Burrell, everyone on the planet thought it was a waste.
When we got Ross, people thought less of that than the Burrell move.
When we got Scutaro he was, well, just a guy.
When we got Peavy, he was getting pounded.
My point is, ya' just don't know.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 20, 2018 20:31:07 GMT -5
They say the only thing we know is that you just never know.
Entering today, the Giants are 3 1/2 games out of the Wild Card. One think to remember too about the Wild Card is that there's a 50% chance for each Wild Card team that they'll be out after just one game. The Giants have dodged the bullet a couple of times before, but there still remains about a 50% chance each year of being a Wild Card that they will be unable to do so.
With the chances of playing more than one extra game being precarious at best, is it worth being buyers? You can't sell that idea to me.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 21, 2018 2:40:20 GMT -5
Just so my position is clear, it's not that I want to sell off all our good players. I want to put the players that have done little to nothing on the table and see if anyone bites. I like McCutchen and Longoria. I think they came here with the right attitude, they both respect the game and are solid teammates, but on the field they haven't done much, get rid of them if anyone wants them.
Tell me honestly, who would you rather have at third? Longoria or Sandoval..if you say Longoria you're either lying, or stupid.
Who would you rather have in the outfield, McCutchen or Pence...or someone else? That one is tougher, but I think I'd rather take my chance with Pence or someone else (maybe Hanson) in LF and put Gorkys in RF.
Nick Hundley has been a good backup for us, but will losing him really hurt our chances to make the post-season? not likely. There might be someone out there that needs a solid veteran backup, let them have him..
Melancon stinks, get rid of him.
Samardjiza..I doubt anyone will want him, but if there's anyone dumber than Evans out there, make the deal, I will personally pack Samardjiza's bags for him.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 21, 2018 9:48:24 GMT -5
Longoria or Sandoval..if you say Longoria you're either lying, or stupid. Rog -- Evan's problem has been threefold: . He's been a little unlucky, although his low line drive rate indicates that it hasn't been to the extent of McCutchen. . He's made far too many outs. (Not enough walks) . He hasn't played well in the field. Had the Giants realized how well Pablo would play (about average), they almost certainly wouldn't have traded for Longoria. Maybe Evan will play well before the deadline and can be traded. (He went 2 for 3 in his rehab debut last night.) And if he were a lame duck like Andrew McCutchen, he probably could be. As it stands, I can't see a team taking him on at anything approaching full salary. Pablo hits righties well and flounders against southpaws. Evan has hit southpaws quite well but hasn't been good against righties. That's a very natural platoon, although I doubt the Giants will go that way with Evan as the short side of the platoon. I don't know how the Giants could have looked at Evan's peripherals from last season and not been concerned. I can't believe they thought he was truly a Gold Glove-level fielder. Those were probably both concerns for them, but they overcame the concerns. When it came to trading, their backs were to the wall. Evan likely does fit the clubhouse well. Evan should hit better when he returns. It's hard to imagine that his fielding would get WORSE. To the extent that the Giants platoon him, he might become a pretty GOOD hitter. He's been very good against southpaws. But he's got to learn again how to take a walk. With a 9% walk rate over his career, Evan has been a little below par, but not horrible. His 4% walk rate so far this season IS horrible. Evan's injury has given Pablo a chance to show that he can play close to ever day. That adds to the Giants' depth and provides a nice platoon opportunity. As Boagie points out, Pablo's play has made Evan expendable. But I think the Giants are stuck with Evan for several seasons. Evan isn't a horrible player. But he's a declining one who is little more than a shadow of his former Hall of Fame-level self. He's been a different player for most of five seasons now. As it stands right now, the Giants are stuck with a lot of salary that is clearly declining and/or injury prone. It doesn't seem like the players the Giants traded for are THAT old, but I think pitching keeps improving, causing a steeper decline curve for hitters. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before#ixzz5LtmbErwX
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 21, 2018 9:53:36 GMT -5
if there's anyone dumber than Evans out there Rog -- That's a bit unfair, Boagie. One can certainly question Bobby's results, but he's far from dumb. He's one of those guys who have forgotten more baseball (and his memory is likely still sharp) than most of us know. Have you listened to Bobby speak? He's far from dumb. It's quite possible he hasn't been as lucky as Brian Sabean was. And I think Brian still has the final say on most of the important matters. I can't imagine, for instance, that Brian didn't sign off on the McCutchen and Longoria trades. And while they somewhat predictably haven't work out as well as many thought, it took a lot of creativity just to pull them off. In a vacuum, I think the Giants would have at least retooled. But they also have seats to sell. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=1#ixzz5LtuWtHch
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 21, 2018 11:02:25 GMT -5
When I say Evans is dumb in this instance, I'm refering to signing the worst consistent pitcher in baseball to a 5 year deal, making nearly 20 million a year. As you point out, Evans is probably a smart guy, but that move would certainly contridict that thought.
I wasn't necessarily jumping for joy with the Cueto deal, but at least Cueto had a reputation as an ace.
Barry Zito's contract is considered one of the WORST in the history of baseball...but at least Barry came off a decent season when we signed him. Barry too had the reputation as a frontline guy.
Signing Samardjiza when we did would have been like giving Zito the same contract after his 2008 season.
I hate to use Zito as an example, because he's much better than Samardjiza and Zito did redeem himself during the 2012 season and post season.
Your argument that Sabean probably signed off on the Samardjiza deal is a solid one. I'm the first person to point out that Sabean still had control when Randy was bitching about Evans a few seasons ago...but I would imagine there was a point in which Sabean sat back and let Evans use his strategy, despite still having the option to veto trades. That's when Samardjiza was signed. I doubt Sabean would have thrown a bunch of money at a project pitcher like Samardjiza. I believe Sabean took the control back after the Stanton deal fell through.
If Evans is in fact smart, show me proof? Just about everything he's done has been a disaster. He took dynasty and turned them into the worst team in baseball. He may have some valuable skill , but clearly that skill is not putting together a baseball team.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 21, 2018 16:01:59 GMT -5
GMs become either smart, or dumb, based upon results.
As boagie outlined in the posts above, the results I've seen from Bobby Evans' signings have, for the most part, been less than good.
When we signed Jackson, it "looked" like a great signing.
Bobby said at the time he was going to be a swing man; NOT a starter.
But he was terrible from the start.
The next tier consists of Hundley, Longoria and McCutchen.
I saw resigning Hundley as a must, and he's been good for us.
The other 2?
Both have been very disappointing, but not to the extent that Jackson was.
Bottom line: Results, and the results of THIS year's moves are not...NOT good.
In the off season I gave him an A- for the moves.
They 'looked' good.
Now?
D+/C-
All that could change in the 2nd half, so we'll see.
Me?
If I'm ownership, Bobby's future in the job rests on how this season ends up.
But right now, if I'm ownership? I'm leaning towards showing him the door.
LEANING...
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 21, 2018 20:43:06 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 21, 2018 20:47:25 GMT -5
Barry Zito's contract is considered one of the WORST in the history of baseball.. Rog -- Not that it was great by any means, but that contract was a bit better than most think. His contract doesn't compare, for instance, with Mike Hampton's. I do believe that Barry's decline was predictable. I also think that deal was Brian Sabean's, not Bobby Evans'. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=1#ixzz5LwZRqm4t
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 21, 2018 20:56:25 GMT -5
Nick Hundley has been a good backup for us, but will losing him really hurt our chances to make the post-season? Rog -- The Giants' margin for error is likely so thin that, yeah, it might. As you say, Nick hasn't been all that valuable despite doing a decent job, but there is almost nothing at Sacramento to replace him. Ryan Hanigan has experience, but he's hitting just .175. Ronnie Freeman hit .194 at Richmond and is hitting .228 for the River Cats. Trevor Brown is hitting .244. Brown would seem to be the likely choice. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=1#ixzz5LwaXO6n4
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 21, 2018 21:01:58 GMT -5
If Evans is in fact smart, show me proof? Rog -- I think it's more appropriate that you show us proof that he's NOT. Bobby received an ACADEMIC -- not an athletic -- scholarship to the University of North Carolina, one of the top 10 public colleges in the country. After graduating with a degree in business, Evans was selected to participate in MLB's Executive Development Program. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=1#ixzz5LwcjP05D
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 21, 2018 21:08:56 GMT -5
I believe Sabean took the control back after the Stanton deal fell through. Rog -- You may be right. I would recommend reading the Sports Illustrated pre-season edition though. The Giants did all they could and worked out a deal with the Marlins, but Stanton was going to play for only one of four teams, the teams he felt had a chance to win right away. Perhaps if the opportunity had come up a few years previous. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before#ixzz5LwfLukZ3
|
|
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 Jul 21, 2018 21:58:47 GMT -5
the main thing that makes Longoria untradeable is his long contract.
Now as far as being buyers or sellers...either way you can wait yourself out of the market. We already have big names like Machado and Familia off the market. One way or others, the Gaints cannot wait too long to make up their minds.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Jul 21, 2018 22:46:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 22, 2018 9:42:43 GMT -5
Again you mis interpret a statement, Rog.
I'm not saying he's a simpleton.
Not even close.
I'm saying the MEDIA'S labels for GM are based upon results.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 22, 2018 16:03:43 GMT -5
Rog -- Not that it was great by any means, but that contract was a bit better than most think. His contract doesn't compare, for instance, with Mike Hampton's.
Boagie- Of course not. I believe in a list I saw Hampton's deal was #1 and Barry's I believe was #2. If not, it was definitely in the top 5. This was a while ago, and probably before the 2012 season. After the 2012 season I think we can all agree Zoo's deal wasn't THAT bad afterall.
Rog- I do believe that Barry's decline was predictable. I also think that deal was Brian Sabean's, not Bobby Evans'.
Boagie- Barry's decline was predictable, and if I remember correctly you did predict it when we signed him. But his decline wasn't my point, my point was that he had the type of season prior to the contract that would warrant a lucrative contract (perhaps not THAT lucrative) and Samardjiza didn't, not even close.
I never said it was Evans that orchestrated that deal, obviously Sabean was the GM then..I was merely making a comparison. But as I recall, Peter McGowan was the guy who pushed for Zito.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 22, 2018 16:32:12 GMT -5
Rog -- I think it's more appropriate that you show us proof that he's NOT.
Bobby received an ACADEMIC -- not an athletic -- scholarship to the University of North Carolina, one of the top 10 public colleges in the country. After graduating with a degree in business, Evans was selected to participate in MLB's Executive Development Program.
Boagie- I meant in a baseball sense. And just because one makes good grades doesn't necessarily mean they're smart. Plus, I think I've given quite a few examples of Evans being rather stupid in his GM decisions.
Guys like Evans are being developed to land with clubs that want to spend little and make a lot, much like most of the teams out there now. These are business guys, not baseball guys. These owners now are sucking up the luxury tax throwbacks and pocketing it instead of putting it back into the payroll. They're abusing the system, and cheating the fans. They hire these business guys to further cut costs and make sound financial decisions to put more money in the pockets of the owners, and cut back on the quality of the product. When they are thrown into a large market situation where a team is expected to compete, they tend to be lost. Now there have been a few that have succeeded, but Evans is not one of them. Evans is a 7-11 manager, trying to run a Ferrari dealership. He's over his head, and it shows.
Now, that doesn't mean he can't improve, but it doesn't appear he has thus far.
|
|