|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 13, 2021 18:43:20 GMT -5
How will they spend all that money? It's not often a franchise player like Buster Posey can retire and the team's biggest offseason question isn't "how will they replace him?" but top prospect Joey Bart softens the blow for San Francisco. Instead, we'll ask how the Giants are planning to spend all that money. Posey, Brandon Belt, Johnny Cueto, and Kevin Gausman are all free agents after making a combined $77.3 million in 2021. Belt and Gausman must be replaced (Cueto too), though that is still a ton -- a ton -- of money to play with this winter, and that's even before we consider a possible payroll increase after a 107-win season and a division title. The Giants are smart and they have money to spend. All signs point to this team having an incredibly impactful offseason.
Which players would we sign if we were the Giants? One factor I found favorable was that Fan Graphs in their Top 50 Free Agents report predicted mostly shorter and less expensive contracts than did MLB Trade Rumors. While they may not choose to spend it all this winter, the Giants have more free agent money available than any time I can remember.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 13, 2021 18:44:08 GMT -5
Anyone here who wishes the Giants had signed Andrew Heaney instead of the Dodgers?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 13, 2021 18:52:09 GMT -5
MLBTR had Heaney as their #50 free agent, expecting him to sign for 1/$6 million. The Dodgers paid him $8.5 million for one season.
Heaney's ERA last season was 5.83, but his ERA predictors ranged between 3.84 and 4.85. He struck out 10.4 batter per nine, and the Dodgers believe they have the levers to significantly improve his performance. Fan Graphs has valued Heaney's performance over the past four seasons at $53 million, although last season's $8 million was the lowest, with 2018's $23 million being the highest. That's heading in the wrong direction, but Heaney gets a lot of both swinging and called strikes, and the past two seasons two-third of his first pitches have been strikes, showing a nice combination of aggressiveness and control.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 13, 2021 19:51:43 GMT -5
Playoff predictions from the CBS team of experts:
2021 MLB postseason staff picks
AL WC: NYY at BOS
Yankees Yankees Yankees Yankees Yankees
NL WC: STL at LAD
Dodgers Dodgers Dodgers Dodgers Dodgers
ALDS: CHW at HOU
Astros Astros Astros Astros Astros
ALDS: WC at TB
Yankees Rays Rays Rays Rays
NLDS: ATL at MIL
Braves Braves Brewers Brewers Braves
NLDS: WC at SF
Giants Dodgers Dodgers Giants Dodgers
ALCS
Astros Astros Astros Rays Astros
NLCS
Giants Dodgers Dodgers Giants Dodgers
World Series
Astros Astros Dodgers Giants Dodgers
World Series MVP
Carlos Correa Kyle Tucker Trea Turner Buster Posey Walker Buehler
Yep, we are worried about what the experts at CBS sports think.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 13, 2021 19:57:11 GMT -5
When it comes to predicting the future, no one is going to be very accurate very often.
With regard to the Giants' offseason, perhaps you would like to share your predictions, Reed. What I found intriguing was the confirmation that the Giants would likely be big spenders. And because they have shown a strong ability to pick up inexpensive players and "rebuild" them with their coaching staff, I found a previous comment that the Giants -- probably more than any other team -- can explore the entirety of the market.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 13, 2021 20:14:57 GMT -5
It is felt that this will be the season they turn the corner and no longer shop at Marshalls and start shopping at Nordstroms. The thing of concern is that a lot of the money is going to be tied up in replacing the starting pitchers. The problem is that while the minor legaue system has improved, the upper levels are only have one or two starting prospects at most and not at the skill level we would like. According to Jay Jackson, Suzuki might be a viable talent and may be someone Giants could splurge on. So with the Nordstrom analogy, we could end up with a couple of nice suits but not enough day to day clothing. Another thing is, we will have to spend Nordstrom prices to dress the same way we did last year. They're at the point some of the minor leaguers need to establish themselves. Bart is coming up by default but it might be time for Matos and Ramos and start saying goodbye to mainstays like Dickerson who served their purpose but need to be transitioned out. I am not going to make predictions because of the uncertainty of the labor situation. Until we start seeing some movement, I have no idea how Zaidi is going to approach this but we do know that after winning 107 and not going deep into the playoffs, the timetable has been shifted forward by about one year. Zaidi has already started doing his thing last week in the Dollar Tree so he's not sitting on his hands.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 13, 2021 21:19:30 GMT -5
I've heard before the Giants would be big spenders during the offseason, but it very rarely happens that way. And when we do spend big, it's for guys like Cueto and Samardjiza. Big names, but not in their prime. The Japanese guy intrigues me because he's only 26, but paying big money for players in their 30s isn't a good strategy in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 13, 2021 21:39:06 GMT -5
Maybe it might be better to let the other guys do the spending. San Diego tried that route and now have two stars and a bunch of albatross contracts. LA has the Bauer disaster and Betts might be showing cracks (best comp for Betts is McCutcheon and Yelich -fast decline).
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 14, 2021 9:26:26 GMT -5
I'm highly confident that Mr. Zaidi will make good decisions. Matt has tried to make the argument with me that there is no guarantee that if Billy Beane had had Brian Sabean-type money to spend that he would have significantly improved the A's performance. He's right, of course. There IS no guarantee. But common sense tells us that if Billy had twice as much to spend as Brian Sabean had, the chances are he would have done well.
Mr. Zaidi first learned his baseball from Billy Beane. It is ironic that it will be with the Giants that he will be sort of testing out Matt's theory. I'm darn optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 14, 2021 10:11:23 GMT -5
Speaking of the Warriors, they're down to just one to four future Hall of Famers now, and one of those has yet to play this season. Last year's #2 overall draft pick has also been injured and unable to play. Yet their 11-1 start is easily the best record in the NBA. As early as their first pre-season game it was apparent they were once again going to be quite good this season. I couldn't see that early they were going to be THIS good, but it was clear they were going to be very good.
There are almost always factors to hold us back. Their schedule has been relatively easy, and most of their games have been at home. We don't know if Klay Thompson, after missing nearly two and a half calendar years, can be close to his old two-way self. We don't know if James Wiseman, as talented as he is, will fit much better than he did last season as a rookie.
But good grief. After losing Thompson, Kevin Durant and Andre Igoudala and finishing with easily the best record in basketball two years ago, suddenly the Warriors have been arguably the best team in basketball so far this season. And that's with virtually no contribution so far from Thompson, Wiseman and their two lottery picks this past summer.
Circling back to Matt's argument that Billy Beane might not have been able to have done all that much better if he had had twice as much to spend, the Warriors have a great organization, but they also outspend all the other teams. They're an example of how great a team with a strong front office, solid coaching and a large amount of money can become.
How far the Warriors fell when they lost much of their nucleus and then lost Stephen Curry to injury in the 2019-2020 season, now nicely they rebuilt last season when Curry returned, and how excellent they have been so far this season despite not yet having Thompson or Wiseman, shows how outstanding Curry is. I could scarcely believe he led the NBA in scoring last season despite being at times as much as triple teamed.
The Warriors have had great players, but they also are showing how well a team can play when they play TOGETHER, and they are showing how important a player Curry is, as well as how impactful Draymond Green can be without scoring.
The recent Warriors are so much better than the Giants were in their so-called "dynasty" years, that's it's almost shocking. The great news for the Giants though is that it appears their best years may be yet to come. And some here didn't like it at all when Mr. Zaidi was hired, beginning the progression. This would be both a generalization and an over-simplification, but one might say that the Giants brought Mr. Zaidi here because they believed that Billy Beane COULD have fared much better if he had twice as much to spend.
By the way, the Boston Celtic were a dynasty. The Warriors were (and perhaps still are) a dynasty. The Yankees were a dynasty. The Montreal Canadiens were a dynasty. The 2010-2014 Giants either weren't a dynasty at all, or if one defines dynasty in such a way that they did qualify, the Giants' dynasty didn't compare to those other teams.
Maybe it was indeed apples and watermelons, Reed. But when we're talking dynasties and possible dynasties, it was still fruit.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 14, 2021 10:13:10 GMT -5
Well, I WAS speaking of the Warriors, but I guess it was in a different thread! Sorry to mix my threads up. These are posts, not wardrobes!
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 14, 2021 13:23:38 GMT -5
Rog- Matt has tried to make the argument with me that there is no guarantee that if Billy Beane had had Brian Sabean-type money to spend that he would have significantly improved the A's performance. He's right, of course. There IS no guarantee. But common sense tells us that if Billy had twice as much to spend as Brian Sabean had, the chances are he would have done well.
Mr. Zaidi first learned his baseball from Billy Beane. It is ironic that it will be with the Giants that he will be sort of testing out Matt's theory. I'm darn optimistic.
Boagie- I guess I consider the younger talented players to make the biggest difference. Winning often comes from drafting talent and finding those inexpensive pieces to fit in around them. Despite Sabean having more money than Beane, it was the inexpensive youth movement and bargain finds that carried the 2010 Giants. I believe Barry Zito was the highest paid pitcher in 2010, yet he was the one left off the post-season roster. If I'm not mistaken Aaron Rowand was the highest paid position player, yet Andres Torres who was a scrapheap find, took over Rowand's job in center.
Obviously money is beneficial when building a team, but it also puts pressure on the GM to make the best use of that money, and often times there's pressure to get the most exciting players available. To me, the free agent market isn't as desirable as it appears. Let's think of what the free agent market really is. It's made up of players, most of which their previous team either didn't want to resign them based on their character or value on the field, or thought the player's asking price was too high for their budget. That normally means that the good players are asking for a ton of money, often too much. Those big free agents' asking prices are usually more in tune with what they've accomplished over the last few years, rather than predicting the value of that player in the future, which more often than not includes the declining years.
You get your biggest value on the field from drafting talented prospects and finding those hidden gems to fill in the holes. Big name free agents are acquired to convince your season ticket holders to buy up another year of tickets.
Money comes with success. If the Giants had not won Championships who knows if they would have locked up their core players to healthy contracts, but the fact that they did win multiple Championships made the decision easy. If not to lock them up for future success, it was to at least reward them for their past success while getting underpaid.
If the A's won a Championship, there would be a lot of pressure to spend money, but they haven't done that. Part of me thinks Beane doesn't want that added pressure, he's happy rolling over the roster every few years and the ownership is overjoyed not having to spend, which is job security for Beane. If Beane were given more money he too could possibly win a Championship, but it's also more likely he'd make more poor decisions. Because in professional sports, bad decisions by a GM are almost always directly linked to money. And when you're not expected to win, there's never any pressure to trade young players for immediate help. Beane is good at his job, but his job is much easier than what Sabean was tasked with, and what Zaidi has to deal with now.
I'm eager to see what Zaidi can do this offseason, but I think he should stick to what he's good at. Making clever under the radar trades, and finding hidden gems. Throwing money at big free agents shouldn't be the strategy.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 14, 2021 13:34:09 GMT -5
Excellent points, and an excellent post, boagie.
I think it would be a good guess to think Farhan zaidi is going to do is exactly what he has been doing it is two years with
But like you, I'm very anxious to see what he does this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 14, 2021 16:12:56 GMT -5
A question, Matt: If you were the Giants prior to the 2016 season what would you have done instead of signing Cueto and Samardzija? Personally, as I said at the time, I would have signed Cueto but not Samardzija. If Cueto had been able to stay healthy (and prior to the Giants' signing him, he had been healthy in all but one of his eight big league seasons, including leading the league in innings pitched in 2014), he would almost certainly have been a very good signing. Samardzija's signing might not have been bad if he too had been able to stay healthy.
Both Cueto (especially) and Samardzija were good in 2016, and with similar luck to what they enjoyed the previous three even-numbered years, the Giants might have won yet another World Series, which would be putting a little different light on the signings. With a healthy Cueto and a healthy Samardzija, Boly thought for a long time that the 2016 Giants were their best team since they came to San Francisco.
Had Mr. Zaidi been running things, the Giants likely would almost certainly have done things differently, and they likely would have done them better. But had their even-season luck continued in 2016 -- and especially if it had continued health-wise a few years longer than that -- the signings might have turned out pretty decently.
During their good run in the 2010's, the Giants emphasized two things: chemistry and the present. It worked pretty well for them -- until it didn't.
Incidentally, here is how Mr. Zaidi can differentiate himself from Brian Sabean. Sabean combined excellent scouting, an ability to spend much more than the average team, and a touch of luck to win three World Championships, but he was unable to sustain things. Mr. Zaidi has the intelligence and seemingly the staff that could allow him to not only be successful, but to sustain that success. Unless a team spends like the Dodgers, that is the biggest challenge. If Mr. Zaidi can long keep the Giants successful against even the free-spending Dodgers (and the threatening Padres), he will differentiate himself from Sabean and almost all GM's, and he'll demonstrate that when one couples great methodology with the ability to spend, one can achieve true greatness.
Long, long way for Mr. Zaidi to go in that regard, but he's off to a highly impressive start.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 14, 2021 16:13:42 GMT -5
I'm eager, not anxious, to see what Mr. Zaidi does this off-season.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 14, 2021 19:11:23 GMT -5
Rog- Matt has tried to make the argument with me that there is no guarantee that if Billy Beane had had Brian Sabean-type money to spend that he would have significantly improved the A's performance. He's right, of course. There IS no guarantee. But common sense tells us that if Billy had twice as much to spend as Brian Sabean had, the chances are he would have done well. Mr. Zaidi first learned his baseball from Billy Beane. It is ironic that it will be with the Giants that he will be sort of testing out Matt's theory. I'm darn optimistic. Boagie- I guess I consider the younger talented players to make the biggest difference. Winning often comes from drafting talent and finding those inexpensive pieces to fit in around them. Despite Sabean having more money than Beane, it was the inexpensive youth movement and bargain finds that carried the 2010 Giants. I believe Barry Zito was the highest paid pitcher in 2010, yet he was the one left off the post-season roster. If I'm not mistaken Aaron Rowand was the highest paid position player, yet Andres Torres who was a scrapheap find, took over Rowand's job in center. Obviously money is beneficial when building a team, but it also puts pressure on the GM to make the best use of that money, and often times there's pressure to get the most exciting players available. To me, the free agent market isn't as desirable as it appears. Let's think of what the free agent market really is. It's made up of players, most of which their previous team either didn't want to resign them based on their character or value on the field, or thought the player's asking price was too high for their budget. That normally means that the good players are asking for a ton of money, often too much. Those big free agents' asking prices are usually more in tune with what they've accomplished over the last few years, rather than predicting the value of that player in the future, which more often than not includes the declining years. You get your biggest value on the field from drafting talented prospects and finding those hidden gems to fill in the holes. Big name free agents are acquired to convince your season ticket holders to buy up another year of tickets. Money comes with success. If the Giants had not won Championships who knows if they would have locked up their core players to healthy contracts, but the fact that they did win multiple Championships made the decision easy. If not to lock them up for future success, it was to at least reward them for their past success while getting underpaid. If the A's won a Championship, there would be a lot of pressure to spend money, but they haven't done that. Part of me thinks Beane doesn't want that added pressure, he's happy rolling over the roster every few years and the ownership is overjoyed not having to spend, which is job security for Beane. If Beane were given more money he too could possibly win a Championship, but it's also more likely he'd make more poor decisions. Because in professional sports, bad decisions by a GM are almost always directly linked to money. And when you're not expected to win, there's never any pressure to trade young players for immediate help. Beane is good at his job, but his job is much easier than what Sabean was tasked with, and what Zaidi has to deal with now. I'm eager to see what Zaidi can do this offseason, but I think he should stick to what he's good at. Making clever under the radar trades, and finding hidden gems. Throwing money at big free agents shouldn't be the strategy. I think that you set up what I feel would be the ideal business model. They have to get a pipeline of minor league talent humming and transitioning to that will be key. They also do not need to go crazy with signing the top free agents. Remember, the sequence in 2016 was that they went after Greinke. Failing that, then they went after Samarzdija, then Cueto. Signing Harper and Cole would have been disaster. It was crazy that they were going after Harper so hard while Michaell Brantley was available and much less pricey. Also, Gerritt Cole was implicated in the spider-tack conroversy.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 15, 2021 2:01:11 GMT -5
That's right, they did go after Greinke, I completely forgot about that. I have gotten caught up in some of those possible acquisitions like everyone else has, but I'm glad now we didn't get them. I can't really think of any big name free agent in recent years that has lived up to their contract.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 15, 2021 16:10:56 GMT -5
Here is a quick outline of how to build an organization:
. Hire smart guys at the top. (Check)
. Hire a manager who meshes with the bosses. (Check)
. Hire a coaching staff who know what the bosses and manager know, and communicate it effectively to the players. (Check)
. Build a strong farm system. (Check)
. Build a strong big league roster based on value. (Check)
. Lock up the good young players early. (First, the Giants need good, young players at the major league level! In Logan Webb, they appear to have their first.)
. Be willing to trade young players before they get too expensive. (A few years down the road.)
. Keep the cycle going. (The Giants are off to a fine start, but the cycle is just beginning.)
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 15, 2021 16:20:51 GMT -5
I was opposed to signing Harper, but thus far he's earned his contract. The Phillies have paid him $67 million over his three seasons with the team, and Fan Graphs calculates his play has been worth $102 million. The question is whether his health and age will allow him to earn the $263 still owed him over the next decade. The reason I was against signing Bryce was that he had missed so many games due to injury. But over his three seasons with the Phillies, he's stayed pretty healthy. That will likely be even more difficult over the next decade.
One guy that wasn't mentioned was Giancarlo Stanton. The Giants had worked out a trade for Stanton, but he too had injury problems, and they have continued since his trade to the Yankees. Giancarlo appears to have done the Giants a big favor by vetoing their trade for him.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 15, 2021 16:42:05 GMT -5
If the A's won a Championship, there would be a lot of pressure to spend money, but they haven't done that. Part of me thinks Beane doesn't want that added pressure, he's happy rolling over the roster every few years and the ownership is overjoyed not having to spend, which is job security for Beane. If Beane were given more money he too could possibly win a Championship, but it's also more likely he'd make more poor decisions. Because in professional sports, bad decisions by a GM are almost always directly linked to money. And when you're not expected to win, there's never any pressure to trade young players for immediate help. Beane is good at his job, but his job is much easier than what Sabean was tasked with, and what Zaidi has to deal with now. The problem with Beane now is that every other major league team has copied the Moneyball format to some degree. The Athletics are still good at evaluating and obtaining players but their previous edge has all but vanished because they do not seem to have evolved their system. I think that the strain of the hunt for a new ball park has extended into affecting baseball operations. Oakland is not really a desintation team and the city seems to just do enough for the A's to give the appearence of trying to keep them when the city actually cannot support them financially. Moneyball is old hat now.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 15, 2021 19:24:44 GMT -5
I think it is fair to say that if the A's won a championship, they would have more money to spend, but not necessarily that there would be a lot of pressure to spend money. Wasn't it twice that the Marlins won it all or at least made the World Series and then immediately sold off their assets?
I believe that if you think Beane is trying to avoid pressure you're wrong. The toughest pressure is trying to win without having money spend.
I am reminded of a fun movie I watched last week. Al Pacino played a rock star, and he was telling his manager (Christopher Plummer) about the pressure he was facing. Plummer replied that being a mother in Africa and having to feed many babies in your village with your breast milk and having the future of your village resting on your "titties" was facing pressure.
Bad decisions in sports are NOT almost always directly linked to money. The magnitude of the bad decision can become larger the more money that is at stake, but plenty of poor decisions are made when the money isn't big. In fact, one might argue that MORE bad decisions are made when the money is little, since one is more likely to sign a bad player when he hasn't as much money to spend.
Saying that Beane's job was easier than Sabean's doesn't make sense. The goal of both Sabean and Beane was to make the playoffs, at which point Sabean declared it was a "crap shoot." But as the Dodgers prove, it's a lot easier to make the playoffs when you have a lot of money to spend. Brian had about twice as much to spend as Billy.
Let me ask you this, Matt. If you have twice as much to spend on a house, do you think it is more or less likely to please your girlfriend than if you have half as much? Brian and Billy were trying to buy the same "house" (a playoff berth). Do you truly think it was easier for Billy?
Reed, you are right that other teams have caught up to the A's to some degree. Almost all the GM's these days are both smart and knowledgeable. Beane's job has gotten harder. Yet over the past four seasons, the A's have played .577 ball, which other than the Dodgers is probably close to as good as anyone else. If we extend back over the past five seasons, the A's are still at .552, which is better than the ball the Giants played in their five-year "dynasty." And the A's did it while spending about half as much as the Giants.
Matt, you keep making excuses for why life is easier for the GM who has less to spend, but if you truly believe that, tell your boss you'd like to take a 50% cut in pay. It will cut your taxes, and perhaps you'll be under less pressure!
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 15, 2021 20:15:22 GMT -5
If you want to know how much easier life is with money, you might get your answer from Ned Colletti or Don Mattingly.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 15, 2021 20:19:25 GMT -5
I think it is fair to say that if the A's won a championship, they would have more money to spend, but not necessarily that there would be a lot of pressure to spend money. Wasn't it twice that the Marlins won it all or at least made the World Series and then immediately sold off their assets? I believe that if you think Beane is trying to avoid pressure you're wrong. The toughest pressure is trying to win without having money spend. I am reminded of a fun movie I watched last week. Al Pacino played a rock star, and he was telling his manager (Christopher Plummer) about the pressure he was facing. Plummer replied that being a mother in Africa and having to feed many babies in your village with your breast milk and having the future of your village resting on your "titties" was facing pressure. Bad decisions in sports are NOT almost always directly linked to money. The magnitude of the bad decision can become larger the more money that is at stake, but plenty of poor decisions are made when the money isn't big. In fact, one might argue that MORE bad decisions are made when the money is little, since one is more likely to sign a bad player when he hasn't as much money to spend. Saying that Beane's job was easier than Sabean's doesn't make sense. The goal of both Sabean and Beane was to make the playoffs, at which point Sabean declared it was a "crap shoot." But as the Dodgers prove, it's a lot easier to make the playoffs when you have a lot of money to spend. Brian had about twice as much to spend as Billy. Let me ask you this, Matt. If you have twice as much to spend on a house, do you think it is more or less likely to please your girlfriend than if you have half as much? Brian and Billy were trying to buy the same "house" (a playoff berth). Do you truly think it was easier for Billy? Reed, you are right that other teams have caught up to the A's to some degree. Almost all the GM's these days are both smart and knowledgeable. Beane's job has gotten harder. Yet over the past four seasons, the A's have played .577 ball, which other than the Dodgers is probably close to as good as anyone else. If we extend back over the past five seasons, the A's are still at .552, which is better than the ball the Giants played in their five-year "dynasty." And the A's did it while spending about half as much as the Giants. Matt, you keep making excuses for why life is easier for the GM who has less to spend, but if you truly believe that, tell your boss you'd like to take a 50% cut in pay. It will cut your taxes, and perhaps you'll be under less pressure! I think the GMs with more money and less money make the same number of mistakes but the GM with more money can fix their error more readily.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 16, 2021 8:06:02 GMT -5
I think you may have summarized it pretty well here, Reed. If they are equal, the GM with less money likely makes more mistakes, but because he doesn't have the money to take big risks, they are smaller mistakes. And because he doesn't have as much money, he doesn't have the luxury of fixing his mistakes as readily.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 16, 2021 10:28:19 GMT -5
Rog- Let me ask you this, Matt. If you have twice as much to spend on a house, do you think it is more or less likely to please your girlfriend than if you have half as much? Brian and Billy were trying to buy the same "house" (a playoff berth). Do you truly think it was easier for Billy?
Boagie- You're right, Rog, but the expectations on the person with more money buying the house is greater. Let's say Beane and Sabean are working for a real estate investing company, Beane is tasked with buying up fixer uppers and flipping them for a profit, Sabean's job is buying up real estate in high market areas and also expected to turn a profit. Obviously Beane is going to get his hands dirty more, and replace a few floors and walls. But Sabean has more pressure, and he's at a higher risk for losing his job if he doesn't deliver. If Beane's fixer upper doesn't turn a big profit they likely just sweep it under the rug and move onto the next one. Let's say the plumber comes in and says the one of houses had a bad leak and needs all new pipes, walls need to be taken out, perhaps some floors need to be replaced...if that house is one that Beane purchased, the company wouldn't be happy, but with fixer uppers sometimes that's expected, if that happened with one of Sabean's houses the shit would hit the fan. Do you agree?
Yes, Beane has had to be more creative in putting together rosters, but it's a cherry on top if they win, the A's only really care about profit. Whereas Sabean was expected to put together rosters that always won, when he didn't it was a disappointment. For Sabean it was more pressure, higher expectations and a greater loss if his strategy didn't pan out.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 16, 2021 11:36:02 GMT -5
Rog- Let me ask you this, Matt. If you have twice as much to spend on a house, do you think it is more or less likely to please your girlfriend than if you have half as much? Brian and Billy were trying to buy the same "house" (a playoff berth). Do you truly think it was easier for Billy? Boagie- You're right, Rog, but the expectations on the person with more money buying the house is greater. Let's say Beane and Sabean are working for a real estate investing company, Beane is tasked with buying up fixer uppers and flipping them for a profit, Sabean's job is buying up real estate in high market areas and also expected to turn a profit. Obviously Beane is going to get his hands dirty more, and replace a few floors and walls. But Sabean has more pressure, and he's at a higher risk for losing his job if he doesn't deliver. If Beane's fixer upper doesn't turn a big profit they likely just sweep it under the rug and move onto the next one. Let's say the plumber comes in and says the one of houses had a bad leak and needs all new pipes, walls need to be taken out, perhaps some floors need to be replaced...if that house is one that Beane purchased, the company wouldn't be happy, but with fixer uppers sometimes that's expected, if that happened with one of Sabean's houses the shit would hit the fan. Do you agree? Yes, Beane has had to be more creative in putting together rosters, but it's a cherry on top if they win, the A's only really care about profit. Whereas Sabean was expected to put together rosters that always won, when he didn't it was a disappointment. For Sabean it was more pressure, higher expectations and a greater loss if his strategy didn't pan out. My cousin used to work as a mutual fund manager in Japan. One little error can cost the firm millions of dollars so he was under tremendous stress around the clock. That stress probably caused him to get another job. As they say in Spider-Man, "with great power comes great responsibility"
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 16, 2021 12:41:06 GMT -5
Matt, you kind of proved my argument. If Sabean has more pressure in your example (which he may or may not), it's because he has all the advantages and more is expected. In the actual baseball world, both Beane and Sabean had the same goal -- to make the playoffs to give them a chance to win the World Series.
The bottom line is that Beane and Sabean put up similar records, but Billy did so by spending about half as much money. Beane did a clearly better job, and your argument that he probably wouldn't have done better if he had more money to spend is as filled with holes as those fixer uppers you have Billy rebuilding in your argument.
I AGREE with you that there is no guarantee that Billy would have done better if he had more money to spend. I fully disagree with you if you were to say it would have been unlikely that he wouldn't have done so. If you think I'm wrong, tell your boss you'd like to take a $50K pay cut and show us that it didn't make any difference.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 16, 2021 14:40:13 GMT -5
Okay you're right Rog. Handing less money with low expectations is a harder job than handling more money with high expectations. Speaking of real estate...what is the housing market like there in bizarro world?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 8:18:16 GMT -5
Matt, you've taken a logical discussion of whether Billy Beane would have been able to win more games if he had more money and devolved it into whether handling less money with low expectations is a harder job than handling more money with high expectations. They're not the same issue.
Plus, regardless of how much money each had to spend, the goal of both Billy and Brian Sabean was the same -- to make the playoffs in order to have a chance to win a World Championship. It's just that Brian had about twice as much money to spend in pursuit of the goal.
As for bizarro world, I'm not sure where that is these days. It used to be in the White House, but there is a new tenant.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 17, 2021 10:23:09 GMT -5
I'll be honest with you, Rog. I take the discussion in a direction where I think you'll start to understand my point.
You initially said that Beane would likely win more games if given more money. That could be true, but when you're playing with more money there IS added pressure from the ownership, media and fans to get results. With more money the failures are also more highlighted. My other point is that Brian Sabean's success during the 2010-2014 seasons was in large part due to being frugal with money. Some of his best moves in his entire tenure with the Giants were trades, drafting and finding gems. The biggest criticisms of Sabean were mostly when he spent money. So my point is, yes, more money is nice to have as Reed mentioned with the ability to fix mistakes, but it also increases and highlights your failures.
I mentioned what I dislike about the free agent market, often times you're paying too much for big names because of what they've done in the past, not what they're expected to do in the future. Essentially you're paying the new car price for a used car. This is why I hesitate to believe a GM would be more successful when pressured to sign big name free agents. I have a feeling Brian Sabean started to see this too, but because of the pressure from the ownership and the media he was forced into making questionable decisions.
Do you remember when the Giants signed Barry Zito? Of course you do...you said back then that Zito was on a decline and was not a good value at that price. You were right. Sabean still signed him, but as we know that was Peter McGowan's guy. McGowan is the one that wanted Zito, not Sabean. Sabean probably felt the same way you did. I was mixed..I knew they were paying too much for him, but I felt we needed a veteran on the staff so I felt it was worth the money. Now, as it worked out, Zito appeased a lot of the media and fan base by helping us win a Championship in 2012 so all was forgiven. But up until that point Zito was considered one of the worst, if not THE worst signing in the history of major league baseball. Who took the brunt of blame for that? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Peter McGowan.
If not for the good drafting of Cain, Lincecum, Bumgarner, Posey, Sandoval, Romo, Wilson etc etc and the good value signings of Vogelsong, Torres, Huff...the bad signings of Zito and Rowand would have not disappeared within each the World Series parade.
Beane is a good GM, but he's good at what he does, which is getting good results from very little money. I think it's been established, and you even stated it in a previous post of your idea on how to build a strong business model. Smart guys at the top, drafting, form a roster based on value, etc etc...we both agree here, Rog. And I think we also both agree that the big name free agents are often if not always overpriced.
You even mentioned trading players before they get too expensive as part of the business model, that's what Beane does probably better than anyone.
I fully admit I don't know if Beane would do better than Sabean if he were put into a more pressured situation of spending big money. He could win a Championship.
But why would you believe he would have greater success not following your business model you posted a few days ago?
Did you change your mind already?
And do you believe following a good business model is harder for the GM than being pressured by ownership to follow a flawed one? I would say a job where you get to do it your way, without pressure from multiple parties is easier. But maybe that's just me.
|
|