This From Joel Rueter

[klaiggeb]

Key Additions: RP Travis Bergen (Rule 5, TOR), OF Drew Ferguson (Rule 5, HOU), OF Mike Gerber (Waivers, DET)

Key Subtractions: None

At least the San Francisco Giants haven't found a way to get older and more expensive this offseason.

That was the major takeaway last winter when they added Evan Longoria and Andrew McCutchen to a sinking ship, only to again finish a distant fourth in the NL West.

A rebuild is unavoidable at this point; it's just a matter of the front office and ownership accepting that fact.

Holding onto Madison Bumgarner until the trade deadline makes sense if they haven't received an offer to their liking. However, that shouldn't stop them from aggressively shopping the bullpen trio of Will Smith, Sam Dyson and Tony Watson, along with any other veteran piece that might be of interest to a contender.

So far, nothing.

Grade: D



I rest my case.

[rog]

I like the guy's summary, and I like his grade. Giving a "D" rather than an "F" recognizes the Giants have done a little, not done nothing.

As for resting someone's case, wouldn't that be a little like awarding the NL West to the Giants at the 2016 All-Star break? Why are you resting your case when the case isn't even close to being closed?

[rog]

Am I right, Boly, that if I were the one who used a Joel Rueter column as proof, you would be pointing out how bad the journalists are?

In another column, Rueter mentions Bumgarner to the Braves for prospects as "big splash" moves available to each team. For whom would we trade Madison to the Braves?

Rueter writes: "What would it take to convince the Giants to part with Madison Bumgarner now, as opposed to waiting until midseason?

The Braves farm system is overflowing with high-ceiling pitching prospects. The fact that Bumgarner is a one-year rental might take Kyle Wright, Mike Soroka, Ian Anderson and Touki Toussaint out of the conversation.

However, any two of Kolby Allard, Luiz Gohara, Bryse Wilson, Joey Wentz and Kyle Muller might be enough to get the ball rolling, and they could fill out the package from there with a high-ceiling, low-level prospect or two. For a Giants team with one of the thinnest farm systems in baseball, that would hard to turn down."

Rueter mentioned Mark Melancon as the Giants' worst free agent signing of the past decade, also mentioning Pagan, Scutaro, Samardzija, Cueto, DeRosa, Huff, Peavy and Span. He chose Pablo Sandoval as the Red Sox's worst, calling Pablo "an easy choice."

[sfgdood]

Grades can be a snapshot in time...obviously the final grade is most important but it's a good thing to measure progress along the way. I seem to recall ypou doing a lot of cherrypicking stats from just a specific time frame

[rog]

Grades can be a snapshot in time...obviously the final grade is most important but it's a good thing to measure progress along the way. I seem to recall ypou doing a lot of cherrypicking stats from just a specific time frame


Rog -- I usually place stats in a rather reasonable perspective. If I'm judging a player's season, I use the stats from that entire season. If I'm going to judge an executive's off-season, I'm usually going to use the entire off-season.

You pointed it out correctly. Joel gave a progress report, not a final grade. Does a progress report close the case on a final grade? That's what the poster (not you) said, and I don't think that is correct. Sounds like you may agree with me on this one.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter#ixzz5awKiwQxh

[klaiggeb]

Am I right, Boly, that if I were the one who used a Joel Rueter column as proof, you would be pointing out how bad the journalists are?

***boly says***

Actually, no, you wouldn't be.

Journalists are no smarter than we are.

I 'rested' my case because at least SOMEONE else/someone in the media, saw the same thing that I did from the Giant front office and were seemingly disgusted, too.

They've done nothing.

[rog]

Rog -- Am I right, Boly, that if I were the one who used a Joel Rueter column as proof, you would be pointing out how bad the journalists are?

***boly says***

Actually, no, you wouldn't be.

Journalists are no smarter than we are.


Rog -- That sounds to me like a step in the direction of how bad the journalists are.

One thing about journalism is that it's a dying field. Most of those who have survived were among the best. Think about how good the teachers at your school -- or other schools -- would have been had the school been able to hire and fire whomever they wished, were competitive on salary, and could cut say 80% of their staff.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter#ixzz5azzWmzYw

[sfgdood]

it's not that they are all bad---some are. It's that people hold them out to be experts...they aren't.

[rog]

it's not that they are all bad---some are. It's that people hold them out to be experts...they aren't.


Rog --Makes sense. In some cases they likely are somewhat expert though. In the case of sportswriters, they're around the game a LOT, so in some cases their expertise should become pretty good. As you say, not always. But sometimes.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter#ixzz5b0RBnKHB

[klaiggeb]

it's not that they are all bad---some are. It's that people hold them out to be experts...they aren't.

You nailed it, Randy.

To ME, they are no better than actors who feel that, just BECAUSE they have an audience, what they have to say about politics is important.

It isn't.

As you pointed out, all too many sports writers THINK they understand the game because they:

1-Played Little League

2-Own a glove (I'm being facetious)

3-Have watched the game a lot.

4-Can sit behind a keyboard and have people read the crap they poot out.

[rog]

Most sports writers understand the game better than we because they are around the players, managers and coaches a whole lot. None of us gets that benefit.

[sfgdood]

If that is an absolute truism then it is no less true that no team knows Bergen better than the Blue Jays. I'll tell you this, if Dave Phlegming knows the game better than the average fan, then he does an exceptional job of hiding it.

[Islandboagie]

The average Giants fan probably became a fan in the fall of '10. So it is likely that Dave Flemming knows more than the average Giants fan. Does he know more than any of us? While he knows the players personally, and he knows more of the staff and the inner workings of the organization, he doesn't likely know the history of the Giants and the game itself better than a fan who's been following the game for a long time. However, the difference between Flemming and the average mainstream broadcaster, writer or analyst that never took the field is Dave doesn't pretend to be the smartest guy in the room, often times the others do. I actually like Dave because he doesn't try to pretend like he's something that he's not.

Bob Costas thinks he's as much a part of the game as Wrigley Field. Tim Kurtjen (sp?) thinks he's a baseball genius. And Brian Kenny tries to portray himself as having a baseball mind that lets him see deeper into baseball analytics that nobody else on the planet could even fathom. I'm quite certain the first two truly believe they're God's gift to baseball. Whereas I believe Brian Kenny just tries to captivate people like Rog and others who want to be baseball elitist without ever making it through tryouts. I'm not sure Kenny even likes the game all that much.

[sfgdood]

If you listen to Phlegm on the radio, you will hear him trying his best to talk down to the audience...it pisses me off. He sounds a lot like a certain stats geek I know. And then when I watch the game later, I see that he was dead wrong or at least way off base most of the time. He's the stupidest Stanford Grad I know.

[rog]

Rog -- Most sports writers understand the game better than we because they are around the players, managers and coaches a whole lot. None of us gets that benefit.

Randy -- If that is an absolute truism then it is no less true that no team knows Bergen better than the Blue Jays.

Rog -- I see your point. There is correlation between the two statements. But I did say MOST sportswriters, not all. That would seem to imply that most teams would know their player better, but not all, so perhaps not the Jays. Or that the Jays would know most of their players better, but not not necessarily all, meaning Bergen might be the player they don't know better.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter#ixzz5b2XM7V8C

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter#ixzz5b2XFPbS7

[rog]

The average Giants fan probably became a fan in the fall of '10.


Rog -- That seems unlikely. In order for the statement to be true, there would have to be more Giants fans who became fans in the fall of 2010 than there are Giants fans from not just any time in history, but from every other time in history combined. That seems unlikely.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter?page=1#ixzz5b4Zx9WCq

[rog]

I'll tell you this, if Dave Phlegming knows the game better than the average fan, then he does an exceptional job of hiding it.


Rog -- Or we're simply not recognizing it. Let's look at a few facts:

. Dave's role as an announcer is expanding. That would seem unlikely if he didn't know the game better than the average fan. The average fan would recognize it, so his job might be in jeopardy instead of expanding.

. Dave is said to have been one of the two or three finalists for the MLB Network game of the week. If he didn't know the game better than the average fan, it seems unlikely that he would have even been considered, let alone made it that far.


It seems unliely that if Dave's stature within the sports announcing industry is growing, he doesn't know the game better than the average fan.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter?page=1#ixzz5b4aeZeOC

[rog]

Randy -- it's not that they are all bad---some are. It's that people hold them out to be experts...they aren't.

Boly -- You nailed it, Randy.

To ME, they are no better than actors who feel that, just BECAUSE they have an audience, what they have to say about politics is important.


Rog -- Two completely different issues, aren't they? An actor might indeed be an expert actor, yet still not understand that their expertise doesn't necessarily extend beyond acting. Others -- heck some here -- may feel that what they have to say about politics is important, but simply not have the public popularity to have their ideas heard that the actor has.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter?page=1#ixzz5b4c0lP39

[rog]

As you pointed out, all too many sports writers THINK they understand the game because they:

1-Played Little League

2-Own a glove (I'm being facetious)

3-Have watched the game a lot.

4-Can sit behind a keyboard and have people read the crap they poot out.


Rog -- Do we know a single sportswriter who thinks he understands the game because he played Little League ball or particularly thinks he understands the game because he can sit behind a keyboard and have people read the crap he puts out?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter?page=1#ixzz5b4d895jt

[rog]

Bob Costas thinks he's as much a part of the game as Wrigley Field. Tim Kurtjen (sp?) thinks he's a baseball genius. And Brian Kenny tries to portray himself as having a baseball mind that lets him see deeper into baseball analytics that nobody else on the planet could even fathom. I'm quite certain the first two truly believe they're God's gift to baseball. Whereas I believe Brian Kenny just tries to captivate people like Rog and others who want to be baseball elitist without ever making it through tryouts. I'm not sure Kenny even likes the game all that much.


Rog -- I believe we're speaking here about things we have no way of knowing. In order to know what people think, we would have to be able to get inside their minds, and then not misinterpret what we find.

Incidentally, I'm not SURE Brian Kenny likes the game, but I would bet very strongly on it. Why would a person choose to work in a field he doesn't like?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter?page=1#ixzz5b4duZxyY

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- Do we know a single sportswriter who thinks he understands the game because he played Little League ball or particularly thinks he understands the game because he can sit behind a keyboard and have people read the crap he puts out?

***boly says***

By name? No.

But my description fits about 90% of them.

[Islandboagie]

If you listen to Phlegm on the radio, you will hear him trying his best to talk down to the audience...it pisses me off. He sounds a lot like a certain stats geek I know. And then when I watch the game later, I see that he was dead wrong or at least way off base most of the time. He's the stupidest Stanford Grad I know.

Boagie- I think you have the wrong impression of Flemming, Randy. Most of the time he's asking questions of Miller or Kruk, because he doesn't know and fully admits he hasn't been around the game as much as them. But you seem confident in your opinion of him, so I'll leave it at that.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- I believe we're speaking here about things we have no way of knowing. In order to know what people think, we would have to be able to get inside their minds, and then not misinterpret what we find.

Boagie- I can only base my opinion of someone from the way the talk and carry themselves. From that, I think my assessment is fairly accurate. But I knew when I criticized them you'd jump to their defense, as you always do.

[rog]

my description fits about 90% of them.


Rog -- Then just make a list of 10 sportswriters then. Around nine of the 10 should fit your description.

[rog]

Rog -- I believe we're speaking here about things we have no way of knowing. In order to know what people think, we would have to be able to get inside their minds, and then not misinterpret what we find.

Boagie- I can only base my opinion of someone from the way the talk and carry themselves. From that, I think my assessment is fairly accurate. But I knew when I criticized them you'd jump to their defense, as you always do.


Rog -- I didn't defend them. I said that we -- neither you nor I -- have no way of knowing. I understand your point, and often it will be right. But not always. And the problem is that we don't know how many exceptions there are, or when they have occurred.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4988/joel-rueter?page=1#ixzz5b861dKI7