|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 23, 2024 13:24:29 GMT -5
I'm really interested to see how Melvin is going to set the batting order up.
He's already said he wants Lee 1 hole and Soler 4.
Which begs the question; where does Wade go?
Here's my best guess vs RHP
Lee Estrada Wade Soler Conforto Bailey Yaz JD Luciano
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 25, 2024 0:04:59 GMT -5
MIght end up being whoever is healthy enough to suit up.
|
|
|
Line Ups
Feb 25, 2024 9:26:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 25, 2024 9:26:03 GMT -5
That word health keeps popping up doesn't it.
Be nice to see us stay healthy for most of the year
Being healthy what a concept!
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 25, 2024 11:44:15 GMT -5
Winn's injury is the most concerning, but Lee, Ramos, Yaz, Teng, Luciano, and Slater are also injured. The silver lining is that this might open up an opportunity for Matos. I think this was one of the reasons they were not concerned about Conforto crowding out one player or another because so many of them, especially the outfielders, are injury prone. I think FZ actually assumes at least one of them will be hurt at any given time. At any rate, its probably not a good idea to speculate on lineups if they are having trouble fielding healthy guys.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 25, 2024 12:53:52 GMT -5
You make a good point, Reed.
This team DOES have a huge history of injuries that just won't go away, OR the same players continue to get hurt.
Slater and Yaz topping that list.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 25, 2024 19:56:41 GMT -5
A big reason why a lot of his players get injured is because the players are injury prone and are more likely to accept a lesser contract such as Rodon in 2022, deSclafani's first contract, Cobb, and Conforto, not to mention Boyd and Rosenthal. In the past, you have referred to it as bad luck or the injury bug but when they continue to sign injury prone players, it isn't bad luck. Players with injury prone pasts should be expected to have injury prone futures (Soler, Murphy, Bellinger, Yaz, Slater, Haniger, and on and on). The rotation was constructed with injuries in mind for 2022 and 2023 and this is the same situation in the outfield for 2024. I guess we have to give FZ credit for not re-signing Rodon in 2023.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 25, 2024 21:21:59 GMT -5
You are correct. You diagnosed the situation right the first time.
Once again, bad personnel management by Farhan
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 26, 2024 9:26:33 GMT -5
The way they approach it is like this: they are not using five or six guys as the rotation for the year. They have to fill 162 starts and most of the guys they use will not be available from opening day all the way to game 162. Same with the outfield. Conforto is not seen as blocking anyone because Conforto himself, Yaz, Slater, and Lee get hurt a lot, so much so that they can assume (and expect) that at least one of them will be on the IL at any given time. The guys with options will backfill as necessary and could end up playing full time for most of the season given that the preferred starters get hurt so much.
The signing of Boyd in 2022 was a waste. His contract was for $5 million plus incentives so he was rehabbing a flexor tendon injury and was expected to come back in the summer. Turns out he never made an appearance for the Giants, ended up re-signing with the Tigers in 2023 , then underwent TJ. At the time of the Boyd signing, media was saying it was smart because it was a discounted signing for half season reinforcement but its pretty clear that signing injured players runs the risk of the player not recovering from the initial injury and greater chance of future injuries. This was Matthew Boyd, but also Trevor Rosenthal, Tommy La Stella, Luke Jackson. Sometimes they get lucky with Rodon and Jackson but more often than not, it ends badly and its not a sustainable strategy. On a lesser scale, they are doing the same with Cole Waites, Donovan Walton, and Thomas Szapucki. I guess they felt they wanted to supervise their own rehab but to be honest, its likely that none of the three will make it back.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 26, 2024 12:57:36 GMT -5
I can't disagree with one word, Reed.
And the thoughts that keep going through my mind are singular:
BAD personnel management from the top
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 26, 2024 17:45:47 GMT -5
I can't disagree with one word, Reed. And the thoughts that keep going through my mind are singular: BAD personnel management from the top One thing that is somewhat encouraging is that they have not bitten on Bellinger and Chapman. Bellinger was supposed to be one of the top hitters in this year's free agent class but he gets hurt a lot. Bellinger is also a Boras client so he was demanding and not getting top dollar. In fact, the Cubs just signed him for 3 years/$80 million which is a lot less than what he wanted. The structure of the deal was $30 million for 2024 and 2025 (if he does not opt out) and $20 million for 2026 (again if he does not opt out). $30 million for 2024 is too much for the Giants and I think that would put the Giants over the competititve balance tax according to Cot's contracts. They are at $212 million and the threshold is $237 million. Jordan Montgomery seems to make more sense since he is looking for salary in $20-25 million/year range and because he is a pitcher. Chapman does not make sense if they are this close to the CBT because their need for pitching is greater than need for better defense at third. I"m not sure if you are aware but they also did not come to terms with JD Martinez (so they pivoted to Soler). The reports were that JD did not want to come to SF but that is contradicted by his agent Boras making a counter offer which the Giants refused. Giants offered $14 million and he wanted $20 million. Probably a good idea to stand their ground on a Boras client.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 26, 2024 18:58:40 GMT -5
Looks like the Luciano backup will be Nick Ahmed (hit .212 in 2023). You might be asking why not Brandon Crawford? What I've heard was that the plan was that the Luciano backup would be DFA fodder mid-season and they did not want to embarrass Crawford by DFA'ing him mid-season. Crawford was signed by St Louis so he lands somewhere. The Crawford situation would have been tricky because he would be competing with the AAA players like Fitzgerald and if he makes the team, he would be DFA candidate. For Crawford, getting DFA by the Giants and DFA by the Cardinals are two different things.
This might also mean they have given up on Chapman. With Luciano's injury history, the backup might end up playing close to full time but signing Ahmed makes more sense than signing Chapman at Boras-inflated prices.
Chapman seems like a good fit for the Cubs since Candalerio did not re-sign with them and they still have cap room to sign him. Better the Cubs get stuck with him than the Giants.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 26, 2024 20:04:25 GMT -5
I can't disagree with one word, Reed. And the thoughts that keep going through my mind are singular: BAD personnel management from the top One thing that is somewhat encouraging is that they have not bitten on Bellinger and Chapman. Bellinger was supposed to be one of the top hitters in this year's free agent class but he gets hurt a lot. Bellinger is also a Boras client so he was demanding and not getting top dollar. In fact, the Cubs just signed him for 3 years/$80 million which is a lot less than what he wanted. The structure of the deal was $30 million for 2024 and 2025 (if he does not opt out) and $20 million for 2026 (again if he does not opt out). $30 million for 2024 is too much for the Giants and I think that would put the Giants over the competititve balance tax according to Cot's contracts. They are at $212 million and the threshold is $237 million. Jordan Montgomery seems to make more sense since he is looking for salary in $20-25 million/year range and because he is a pitcher. Chapman does not make sense if they are this close to the CBT because their need for pitching is greater than need for better defense at third. I"m not sure if you are aware but they also did not come to terms with JD Martinez (so they pivoted to Soler). The reports were that JD did not want to come to SF but that is contradicted by his agent Boras making a counter offer which the Giants refused. Giants offered $14 million and he wanted $20 million. Probably a good idea to stand their ground on a Boras client. If Monty is asking for that kind of money, teams would be nuts to pay it.
Yes, he's a better than average pitcher, who has been with 3 teams in as many years.
I ask, why is that?
There's an issue there that I'm not seeing
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 26, 2024 22:20:59 GMT -5
St Louis dealt him to Texas in a salary dump and because of his free agency. I think the Yankee deal was also made with the free agency in mind. Montgomery is the only free agent starting pitcher remaining who is better than average. The rest are dregs like Lorenzen, old guys like Cueto and Greinke, and damaged goods like Syndergaard. If Montgomery is not affordable, I'm not seeing any reason to make a deal.
Unlike the Giants, other teams do not like to hang onto upcoming free agents and would rather trade them away than to have them leave and get nothing.
|
|
|
Line Ups
Feb 27, 2024 8:17:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 27, 2024 8:17:04 GMT -5
Reed- Looks like the Luciano backup will be Nick Ahmed (hit .212 in 2023). You might be asking why not Brandon Crawford? What I've heard was that the plan was that the Luciano backup would be DFA fodder mid-season and they did not want to embarrass Crawford by DFA'ing him mid-season. Crawford was signed by St Louis so he lands somewhere. The Crawford situation would have been tricky because he would be competing with the AAA players like Fitzgerald and if he makes the team, he would be DFA candidate. For Crawford, getting DFA by the Giants and DFA by the Cardinals are two different things.
Boagie- I'm not sure I agree. Before they signed Ahmed I was totally fine with not bringing on Crawford for another year, because it looked like they were going with the kids.. But now they're saying they want a veteran presence there? This seems like another pointless Tom Murphy type move..
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 27, 2024 9:41:22 GMT -5
Reed- Looks like the Luciano backup will be Nick Ahmed (hit .212 in 2023). You might be asking why not Brandon Crawford? What I've heard was that the plan was that the Luciano backup would be DFA fodder mid-season and they did not want to embarrass Crawford by DFA'ing him mid-season. Crawford was signed by St Louis so he lands somewhere. The Crawford situation would have been tricky because he would be competing with the AAA players like Fitzgerald and if he makes the team, he would be DFA candidate. For Crawford, getting DFA by the Giants and DFA by the Cardinals are two different things. Boagie- I'm not sure I agree. Before they signed Ahmed I was totally fine with not bringing on Crawford for another year, because it looked like they were going with the kids.. But now they're saying they want a veteran presence there? This seems like another pointless Tom Murphy type move.. If Crawford were not a San Francisco icon, the whole process would be a lot simpler. I think the Giants were hoping Crawford would retire after 2023 and send him off into the sunset. If he were not a legend, they could have offered Crawford a chance by way of minor league contract just as they are doing with Ahmed. However, Crawford is the franchise's greatest shortstop. They don't want to embarrass Crawford by making him look bad if he has to compete for a job and potentially lose out on one of the last roster spots to someone like Fitzgerald, Schmitt, or Wisely. Also, if Crawford plays poorly, they would have to think twice about putting him through the embarrassment of the DFA process. The way they view Ahmed is similar to the way they viewed AJ Pollack last season. Ahmed will get a shot as part of the Farhan Churn and I think what the Giants want to happen is that Ahmed will be used as a placeholder until one of the youngsters can take over. In essence, Ahmed is here to get DFA'ed.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 27, 2024 14:10:56 GMT -5
I can't disagree with one word, Reed. And the thoughts that keep going through my mind are singular: BAD personnel management from the top And now with Beck's hand injury, FZ is on thin ice and the season has not even started. The only good thing that might come of this is that if the whole thing collapses quickly, FZ might get let go sooner.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 27, 2024 20:06:38 GMT -5
Reed- Looks like the Luciano backup will be Nick Ahmed (hit .212 in 2023). You might be asking why not Brandon Crawford? What I've heard was that the plan was that the Luciano backup would be DFA fodder mid-season and they did not want to embarrass Crawford by DFA'ing him mid-season. Crawford was signed by St Louis so he lands somewhere. The Crawford situation would have been tricky because he would be competing with the AAA players like Fitzgerald and if he makes the team, he would be DFA candidate. For Crawford, getting DFA by the Giants and DFA by the Cardinals are two different things. Boagie- I'm not sure I agree. Before they signed Ahmed I was totally fine with not bringing on Crawford for another year, because it looked like they were going with the kids.. But now they're saying they want a veteran presence there? This seems like another pointless Tom Murphy type move.. If Crawford were not a San Francisco icon, the whole process would be a lot simpler. I think the Giants were hoping Crawford would retire after 2023 and send him off into the sunset. If he were not a legend, they could have offered Crawford a chance by way of minor league contract just as they are doing with Ahmed. However, Crawford is the franchise's greatest shortstop. They don't want to embarrass Crawford by making him look bad if he has to compete for a job and potentially lose out on one of the last roster spots to someone like Fitzgerald, Schmitt, or Wisely. Also, if Crawford plays poorly, they would have to think twice about putting him through the embarrassment of the DFA process. The way they view Ahmed is similar to the way they viewed AJ Pollack last season. Ahmed will get a shot as part of the Farhan Churn and I think what the Giants want to happen is that Ahmed will be used as a placeholder until one of the youngsters can take over. In essence, Ahmed is here to get DFA'ed. Outstanding analysis, Reed!
I just assumed Crawford was done. I really can't believe with HIS terrible numbers these last couple of years, he wants to still play.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 27, 2024 20:07:32 GMT -5
I can't disagree with one word, Reed. And the thoughts that keep going through my mind are singular: BAD personnel management from the top And now with Beck's hand injury, FZ is on thin ice and the season has not even started. The only good thing that might come of this is that if the whole thing collapses quickly, FZ might get let go sooner. Hadn't heard about Beck's hand injury.
I'd LOVE Farhan to be on thin ice and be shown the door.
But if Beck can't go, I'm guessing they sign Monty really soon.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 27, 2024 22:36:18 GMT -5
If Crawford were not a San Francisco icon, the whole process would be a lot simpler. I think the Giants were hoping Crawford would retire after 2023 and send him off into the sunset. If he were not a legend, they could have offered Crawford a chance by way of minor league contract just as they are doing with Ahmed. However, Crawford is the franchise's greatest shortstop. They don't want to embarrass Crawford by making him look bad if he has to compete for a job and potentially lose out on one of the last roster spots to someone like Fitzgerald, Schmitt, or Wisely. Also, if Crawford plays poorly, they would have to think twice about putting him through the embarrassment of the DFA process. The way they view Ahmed is similar to the way they viewed AJ Pollack last season. Ahmed will get a shot as part of the Farhan Churn and I think what the Giants want to happen is that Ahmed will be used as a placeholder until one of the youngsters can take over. In essence, Ahmed is here to get DFA'ed. Outstanding analysis, Reed!
I just assumed Crawford was done. I really can't believe with HIS terrible numbers these last couple of years, he wants to still play.Not my analysis. This was Brady Klopfer on McCovey Chronicles. Kurtenbach from the Mercury said that Brandon Crawford could not be a backup shortstop for the 2024 Giants mainly because of his relationship and loyalty to the fanbase. Kurtenbach also said that while hitting .194, his defensive metrics was close to that of JD Davis. Giants also did it with consideration for Luciano. If Luciano has a couple of 0-for days or makes an error, fans won't be clamoring for Ahmed to take over but they would for Crawford, even if it isn't the MVP-caliber Crawford. Crawford was signed by St Louis as a backup but that wouldn't fly in SF. Crawford has earned the right to choose to continue playing or not but if I had five young kids and did not need the money, I probably would have retired. The kids won't stay that young forever and you cannot get that family time back. Susan Slusser said that Bumgarner has some interest in rejoining San Francisco but that would be awkward, as well. If the Giants have not gone after Crawford or Belt, it would be difficult to see them going after another icon player and be forced to cut him somewhere down the line.
|
|
|
Line Ups
Feb 28, 2024 8:47:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 28, 2024 8:47:02 GMT -5
Crawford is a grown adult, and he's not stupid either, he knows he's fighting for even just a bench role. I don't think him losing out on that role in a Giants uniform would taint his legacy or diminish what he's done over the years.
The fact is he needed someone to take a chance on him, and Farhan wasn't going to do that. I totally understood that mindset when we appeared to be leaning on Luciano and Fitzgerald, but with the addition of Ahmed now, I see no reason why the Giants couldn't have put Crawford in that role.
I imagine Bob Melvin is the one that pushed to pickup Ahmed since they had a history in AZ together. They rewarded that relationship in AZ, but not the relationship Crawford had with SF? I just don't understand that thinking.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 28, 2024 11:05:41 GMT -5
I believe the scenario the Giants have in mind is that Luciano, Fitzgerald, and Lopez do well in camp and Ahmed will be DFA'ed unless there is an injury or one of the four candidates (Wisely, also) craters. They did not put him on the 40 man. I realize that Ahmed is inferior to Crawford in every aspect of the game but watching favorite players struggle has always been hard for me. Listening to the announcers make excuses for Crawford's fielding the past two seasons was cringeworthy. That being said, the reason why management favors a guy like Ahmed over Crawford is that they can dump Ahmed at the drop of the hat, they cannot do so with Crawford.
In the 60s, I saw the declines of Mays and Marichal. They were still above average when they were headed downward but it was a steep slope. It got to the point where Mays was falling down in the outfield during the world series and the commissioner making a special exemption to get him into the 1973 All Star game. The one that bothered me the most was when McCovey retired in the middle of the season. He was forced to go on national TV after the retirement and one question he was given was why did he retire abruptly in the middle of the season. His answer was "I wanted to make room for Rich Murray". More times than not, it doesn't end well, particularly if the player is legendary or a fan favorite.
The most recent ones that were hard to watch were seeing Lincecum, Cain, and Bumgarner decline and maybe two of those could have been prevented (Lincecum making adjustments to his violent motion and Bum's dirt bike accident).
I also had to watch co-workers who tried to work after heart attacks and strokes or when they passed age 60. No fun seeing them being pushed so hard by management or being ridiculed by younger co-workers. I realize everyone's situation is different and Crawford deserves to continue on his own terms but I've seen a guy die three months before retirement and another guy who died just six months after he retired. I'm not saying this will happen to Crawford but he is not a legend in other parts of the country and he would not get the respect of fans and peers that he has gotten in SF.
We had this discussion earlier last year regarding Bochy either retiring or getting forced out. FZ is the kind of boss that will be careful not to explicitly force people out or say anything negative but he is the kind of person who would make it difficult on the employee to stay where the employee would come to his own conclusion that it is time to leave. FZ probably loaded up the clubhouse with computers and analysts which made Bochy unconfortable but Bochy can flash his four WS rings in FZ's face and say "this is what I think of your analytics". FZ does not look at his players as people but more like this guy is taking up a spot on the 26 man or this guy is taking up space on the 40 man. For Crawford, FZ kept loading up on backup SS without ever mentioning Crawford, because that's what he does. Managers are like that nowadays, especially the younger ones.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 28, 2024 12:21:02 GMT -5
Once again, Reed, my compliments! Well written piece and I couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 28, 2024 17:21:50 GMT -5
In the years before I retired, my position was a liability to the company. I was occupying a 40 hour/week slot and the managers wanted to reduce it to a 24 hour/week position to save money. They assigned me some unusual research positions which did not have anything to do with my own work and it was really difficult to grasp all of the necessary training. It is likely my managers were trying to make things so hard for me that I would quit. The thing that eventually pushed me out was that my own union started screwing around with everyone's hours. Management and union look at workers as interchangeable pieces designed to fit their agenda, never taking into account a given individual's strengths and weaknesses. Nowadays, management looks at everyone as if they were Kiki Hernandez, a guy they can plug in anywhere, but not necessarily excel at anything. To be honest, I probably could have stayed at work another three years but why bother.
|
|
|
Line Ups
Feb 29, 2024 14:57:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 29, 2024 14:57:49 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying, Reed and Boly. But you're looking at it from the GM's point of view. Players in Crawford's situation just want to get invited to spring training, anyone's spring training, so they can showcase their skills and maybe find some team out there that has interest. The Cardinals are giving Crawford that opportunity, but we should have.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 29, 2024 16:26:25 GMT -5
I don't disagree with what you're saying, boagie.
I put myself in Crawford's situation. Would I want to continue to play and embarrass myself like he's been doing?
Mays should have retired years earlier, and so should have Crawford.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 29, 2024 18:44:47 GMT -5
I also do not disagree. I felt that Crawford could have provided some valuable mentoring to the young players. It is pretty clear that Zaidi ghosted Crawford and that he did not want Crawford and any potential distractions around any longer. I understand why management did this but it was not handled well and personal relations is not FZ's strong suit.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Feb 29, 2024 18:53:24 GMT -5
And now with Beck's hand injury, FZ is on thin ice and the season has not even started. The only good thing that might come of this is that if the whole thing collapses quickly, FZ might get let go sooner. Hadn't heard about Beck's hand injury.
I'd LOVE Farhan to be on thin ice and be shown the door.
But if Beck can't go, I'm guessing they sign Monty really soon.The hand injury appears to be caused by an aneurysm in the arm. This is caused by congenital defect, atherosclerosis, or injury and is basically a weakness or ballooning of an artery in Beck's upper arm. David Cone had a similar thing and they used a leg blood vessel to replace the arm vessel. Now, they have artificial vessels so maybe the rehab will not take as long as Cone's. Cone was out for four months rehabbing the arm and leg. If Beck opts for the artificial vessel, he would be rehabbing the arm only. I believe there was a Japanese player who recently had the same problem but did not recover. So, best case scenario would be for Beck to miss about four months and pick up where he left off like Cone did. Worst case scenario is that it is career ending. Doing no surgery is out of the question because Beck will be at increased risk for blood clots in the future. They did not say how big the aneurysm was but if it is bigger than an inch in diameter, the treatment would be a stent-graft (similar to the one used in heart surgery).
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 29, 2024 21:06:57 GMT -5
So we haven't even cleared spring training and a guy we were hoping would win a starter's spot is out... for at least 4 months.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 29, 2024 21:08:13 GMT -5
I also do not disagree. I felt that Crawford could have provided some valuable mentoring to the young players. It is pretty clear that Zaidi ghosted Crawford and that he did not want Crawford and any potential distractions around any longer. I understand why management did this but it was not handled well and personal relations is not FZ's strong suit. IMHO this isn't the first time a personnel decision was handled poorly by Farhan.
What is it going to take to get this management stoogy out the door?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 29, 2024 21:12:28 GMT -5
In the years before I retired, my position was a liability to the company. I was occupying a 40 hour/week slot and the managers wanted to reduce it to a 24 hour/week position to save money. They assigned me some unusual research positions which did not have anything to do with my own work and it was really difficult to grasp all of the necessary training. It is likely my managers were trying to make things so hard for me that I would quit. The thing that eventually pushed me out was that my own union started screwing around with everyone's hours. Management and union look at workers as interchangeable pieces designed to fit their agenda, never taking into account a given individual's strengths and weaknesses. Nowadays, management looks at everyone as if they were Kiki Hernandez, a guy they can plug in anywhere, but not necessarily excel at anything. To be honest, I probably could have stayed at work another three years but why bother. I sympathize with your plight, Reed.
Though my situation wasn't quite the same, I was at the top end of the salary scale and they were offering all sorts of incentives to pay teachers MUCH less.
I loved teaching when I began in 1981... but watched it go into the toilet more and more each year.
I had had enough 3 or 4 years before I pulled the plug, yelled Geronimo and leaped out the door.
Now I'm in Idaho and I wish I could have left and quit years before.
I was all over the states when I was in the AF.
I have family from west coast to east coast and there is NO WHERE like here!
None!
Still a red state that loves the 2nd amendment and has THE most friendly people I've ever seen!
In my 4 1/2 years here I've meet 5 crabby people. I could have run into that many backing out of my driveway in California!
|
|