[old spanish trail]

LA was all about pitching back then.   Very few rotations have ever been as good as Koufax, Drysdale, Podres and Osteen with Perranoski in the pen.  The only sure thing the Giants had v. LA in those days was McCovey v. Drysdale.  Willie Mac owned double D. 

Good news on the horizon, Phogge…

The ghost runner and shift will both be things of the past next year.  

OTOH, exit velocity and other analytics are here to stay

Shifts will hopefully be gone.  At least take away the guy playing short right.  But I think Ghost Runner  may be here to stay.  Players  like it.Also think they bring in pitch clock.  It’s having a big impact in minor leagues.

Giants injuries are piling up. Pederson to have  MRI on groin today.  And Flores (my goodness is he slow) may have hurt himself “sprinting” to first in the 9th.

Good news is Wade and Yaz may be close to coming back.  And La Stella is close to starting a rehab.  He should be ready by next April……

Next April, lol

[old spanish trail]

LA was all about pitching back then.   Very few rotations have ever been as good as Koufax, Drysdale, Podres and Osteen with Perranoski in the pen.  The only sure thing the Giants had v. LA in those days was McCovey v. Drysdale.  Willie Mac owned double D. 

Good news on the horizon, Phogge…

The ghost runner and shift will both be things of the past next year.  

OTOH, exit velocity and other analytics are here to stay

Shifts will hopefully be gone.  At least take away the guy playing short right.  But I think Ghost Runner  may be here to stay.  Players  like it.Also think they bring in pitch clock.  It’s having a big impact in minor leagues.

Giants injuries are piling up. Pederson to have  MRI on groin today.  And Flores (my goodness is he slow) may have hurt himself “sprinting” to first in the 9th.

Good news is Wade and Yaz may be close to coming back.  And La Stella is close to starting a rehab.  He should be ready by next April……

Next April, lol

[lex24]

With all due respect, both you and your Cal fan are completely wrong….

1.  The Giants organization is loyal to a fault to their players.  They have resigned guys to big contracts year after year.  Why?  Because they know the fans are invested in the players.  Heck, in many cases, this has been a detriment to the performance of the club.  The Giants organization (since the Sabean era) are well aware of the value of continuity and the connection between the fans and players.  Quite frankly, I think your friend confused the Giants and A’s.  If you want a good example of a team that spotlights its GM and rotates through players without regard, look no further than Billy (Mr. Turnover) Beane.

2.  Carlos Rodon was a top dollar FA (his AAV is the same as Gausman’s).  SF signed him.  As for Suzuki, where is your irrefutable proof that he would have signed with SF had the Giants offered more than anyone else?   Free agents make their decisions based on many factors.  Finances are only one piece of the puzzle.

3.  Gausman?  A five year deal was a non-starter.  SF made the right move passing on him in favor of the three shorter term contracts (Cobb, Rodon and DeSclafani).  

Based on your remarks, you would think the Giants are fumbling around at the bottom of the NL.  In fact, they are coming off a franchise record 107 win season and currently lead the NL West.

The bottom line is fielding a competitive team that is in the mix all season.  The Giants currently meet that objective.

Agree and disagree. 

1.   I don’t think this FO is going to be committed to resigning guys year after year.  This isn’t Sabean at the helm.  They resigned Crawford because of his value.  Belt signed the qualifying offer. So, I don’t think your comment reflects this front office.  I think it reflects its predecessor.

2. Rodon is essentially a one year deal. He will opt out next year. Let’s see if Giants are in the mix.  I bet no.

3.  Agree on Gausman.  I’m more inclined to be wary of long term contracts for pitchers then for everyday players. 

4.  I don’t care the excuse, Giants lost on Suzuki.  That’s a bargain contract.  They supposedly had eyed him for a while. For one reason or another, they couldn’t close.  That’s a failure.  Period.

[lex24]

With all due respect, both you and your Cal fan are completely wrong….

1.  The Giants organization is loyal to a fault to their players.  They have resigned guys to big contracts year after year.  Why?  Because they know the fans are invested in the players.  Heck, in many cases, this has been a detriment to the performance of the club.  The Giants organization (since the Sabean era) are well aware of the value of continuity and the connection between the fans and players.  Quite frankly, I think your friend confused the Giants and A’s.  If you want a good example of a team that spotlights its GM and rotates through players without regard, look no further than Billy (Mr. Turnover) Beane.

2.  Carlos Rodon was a top dollar FA (his AAV is the same as Gausman’s).  SF signed him.  As for Suzuki, where is your irrefutable proof that he would have signed with SF had the Giants offered more than anyone else?   Free agents make their decisions based on many factors.  Finances are only one piece of the puzzle.

3.  Gausman?  A five year deal was a non-starter.  SF made the right move passing on him in favor of the three shorter term contracts (Cobb, Rodon and DeSclafani).  

Based on your remarks, you would think the Giants are fumbling around at the bottom of the NL.  In fact, they are coming off a franchise record 107 win season and currently lead the NL West.

The bottom line is fielding a competitive team that is in the mix all season.  The Giants currently meet that objective.

Agree and disagree. 

1.   I don’t think this FO is going to be committed to resigning guys year after year.  This isn’t Sabean at the helm.  They resigned Crawford because of his value.  Belt signed the qualifying offer. So, I don’t think your comment reflects this front office.  I think it reflects its predecessor.

2. Rodon is essentially a one year deal. He will opt out next year. Let’s see if Giants are in the mix.  I bet no.

3.  Agree on Gausman.  I’m more inclined to be wary of long term contracts for pitchers then for everyday players. 

4.  I don’t care the excuse, Giants lost on Suzuki.  That’s a bargain contract.  They supposedly had eyed him for a while. For one reason or another, they couldn’t close.  That’s a failure.  Period.

[Giants]

My final comment on Suzuki.

The Giants didn’t lose; the Cubs won.

As for the Giants FO, they are quite savvy. They know what the fan base wants (winning and continuity) and they will deliver in that order.

Rodon - an interesting situation. Given how SF handled Gausman, I would tend to agree with you that Giants fans should not expect him to return if he wants a five year deal.

[Giants]

My final comment on Suzuki.

The Giants didn’t lose; the Cubs won.

As for the Giants FO, they are quite savvy. They know what the fan base wants (winning and continuity) and they will deliver in that order.

Rodon - an interesting situation. Given how SF handled Gausman, I would tend to agree with you that Giants fans should not expect him to return if he wants a five year deal.

[DC 86]

Carlos Rodon was a top dollar FA (his AAV is the same as Gausman’s).  SF signed him.  As for Suzuki, where is your irrefutable proof that he would have signed with SF had the Giants offered more than anyone else?   Free agents make their decisions based on many factors.  Finances are only one piece of the puzzle.

There are many factors, but finances are almost always the determining factor. Every top free agent this offseason signed for the highest reported offer: Seager, Bryant, Semien, Freeman, Story, Baez, Scherzer, Ray, Gausman, Correa, Castellanos, Schwarber, Marte ... No "hometown discounts" or other factors apparently in play for any of those guys.

SF offered Rodon the most money and he signed with SF. Good aggressive move by Zaidi to essentially offer a second year player option which other clubs were wary about. That closed the deal.

Chicago offered Suzuki the most money and he signed with Chicago. We are supposed to believe that he's the one exception and that it's a mere coincidence that he signed with the team that made the biggest offer and that if the Giants had proposed $85 million or more that it would have been futile. Of course there's no irrefutable proof either way, but the bottom line is that similar to other free agents he signed with the club that offered the biggest contract, and it wasn't the Giants.

[DC 86]

Carlos Rodon was a top dollar FA (his AAV is the same as Gausman’s).  SF signed him.  As for Suzuki, where is your irrefutable proof that he would have signed with SF had the Giants offered more than anyone else?   Free agents make their decisions based on many factors.  Finances are only one piece of the puzzle.

There are many factors, but finances are almost always the determining factor. Every top free agent this offseason signed for the highest reported offer: Seager, Bryant, Semien, Freeman, Story, Baez, Scherzer, Ray, Gausman, Correa, Castellanos, Schwarber, Marte ... No "hometown discounts" or other factors apparently in play for any of those guys.

SF offered Rodon the most money and he signed with SF. Good aggressive move by Zaidi to essentially offer a second year player option which other clubs were wary about. That closed the deal.

Chicago offered Suzuki the most money and he signed with Chicago. We are supposed to believe that he's the one exception and that it's a mere coincidence that he signed with the team that made the biggest offer and that if the Giants had proposed $85 million or more that it would have been futile. Of course there's no irrefutable proof either way, but the bottom line is that similar to other free agents he signed with the club that offered the biggest contract, and it wasn't the Giants.

[OutsiderFan]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 

The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

[OutsiderFan]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 

The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

[Phogge]

LOL. You guys are still rehashing the off season.

[Phogge]

LOL. You guys are still rehashing the off season.

[lex24]

My final comment on Suzuki. 

The Giants didn’t lose; the Cubs won.

As for the Giants FO, they are quite savvy.  They know what the fan base wants (winning and continuity) and they will deliver in that order.

Rodon - an interesting situation.  Given how SF handled Gausman, I would tend to agree with you that Giants fans should not expect him to return if he wants a five year deal.

Every fan base wants winning and continuity. 

 If I read somewhere that the Giants told Suzukis agent “come to us before you sign, give us a chance to beat it.”   And that they did things to show how much they wanted him, as the Cubs did, I’ll agree with you. Until then, I’m sticking to this being a fail.  An extra 5 mill a year probably could have made up for those few extra family dinners…..

---

LOL. You guys are still rehashing the off season.

Beats thinking about the real world……:)

[lex24]

My final comment on Suzuki. 

The Giants didn’t lose; the Cubs won.

As for the Giants FO, they are quite savvy.  They know what the fan base wants (winning and continuity) and they will deliver in that order.

Rodon - an interesting situation.  Given how SF handled Gausman, I would tend to agree with you that Giants fans should not expect him to return if he wants a five year deal.

Every fan base wants winning and continuity. 

 If I read somewhere that the Giants told Suzukis agent “come to us before you sign, give us a chance to beat it.”   And that they did things to show how much they wanted him, as the Cubs did, I’ll agree with you. Until then, I’m sticking to this being a fail.  An extra 5 mill a year probably could have made up for those few extra family dinners…..

---

LOL. You guys are still rehashing the off season.

Beats thinking about the real world……:)

[Mick]

I wish we'd signed Suzuki.  Illinois' state income tax would be about $7 million less over the life of the contract.  Suzuki had many factors, but my sense is that the Giants weren't all in on him.

I don't like long term contracts for older players.  I think Gausman -- who is having an AMAZING start -- is going to be a disappointment.  He had one winning season aside from his .500 year and 14-6 year  with the Giants.  He hasn't given up a walk in 24 innings across four starts.  His record is 1-1.

I didn't like Spec Richardson or Tom Haller as GMs.  Al Rosen was just okay.  Didn't like Quinn.  Sabean was terrific.  I get very special vibes about Farhan and Scott.

[Mick]

I wish we'd signed Suzuki.  Illinois' state income tax would be about $7 million less over the life of the contract.  Suzuki had many factors, but my sense is that the Giants weren't all in on him.

I don't like long term contracts for older players.  I think Gausman -- who is having an AMAZING start -- is going to be a disappointment.  He had one winning season aside from his .500 year and 14-6 year  with the Giants.  He hasn't given up a walk in 24 innings across four starts.  His record is 1-1.

I didn't like Spec Richardson or Tom Haller as GMs.  Al Rosen was just okay.  Didn't like Quinn.  Sabean was terrific.  I get very special vibes about Farhan and Scott.

[Phogge]

My business experience was with Horace, Chub and Speck. Please understand the context. Horace, Fran McCarthy and the City were hoodwinked by Charlie Harney into building a "State of the Art" ballpark at Candlestick Cove. No EPA then, no wind studies and in a horrible part (barely) of San Francisco. Horace and Chub were blessed with the game's greatest all around player in history and the magnificent (and historically overlooked) farm director and scout supervisor Jack Schwartz. Jack had built up baseball's best farm system with stars emerging like McCovey, Cepeda, Jim Ray Hart, the Alous, Marichal, Perry, Leon Wagner, Willie Kirkland, Jose Cardenal and Manny Mota, albeit with not enough pitchers. The Giants were early heavy hitters in the Caribbean and the first team to extensively scout the Dominican.

Once the euphoria of the Mays in SF era ended and amidst scores of negative press reports about the wind and cold Horace (with no outside business) faced a money crisis with Chub Feeney in New York as the president of the NL.. Ironically Schwartz had rebuilt the system with Gary and Gary, Kingman, Goodson and others once again making the Giants competitive just as the Stonehams' went broke. The scuttlebutt in the office at CP was that Kingman was unloaded to make the monthly payroll. The Giants became an NL receivership operation while buyers were encouraged to take a tumble. I was involved with a Saudi group as an "advisor" but they never made a bid and as far as I knew the press never learned of the interest. Doubt that Baseball would have even allowed a bid.

So I bring my commercial plan to the leagues appointed GM, Spec Richardson. I would estimate that it took Spec about a minute and a half to scrutinize my abstract before he just said, "We don't desire your services." In fact a lucky break because it forced me back into a full time role as a DP at age 27.

From those dismal days Bob Lurie (great guy) emerged and then the group that still own the franchise. A great ballpark was built and the team ascended the mountain. Then another dip and a new savior emerged, Farhan. He has a way and right now it means no mega deals. So far it's working and that is just fine. I am still a die hard and proud of it although as a North Beach native my heart belongs to the Seals and the Bay Bombers both RIP.

[Phogge]

My business experience was with Horace, Chub and Speck. Please understand the context. Horace, Fran McCarthy and the City were hoodwinked by Charlie Harney into building a "State of the Art" ballpark at Candlestick Cove. No EPA then, no wind studies and in a horrible part (barely) of San Francisco. Horace and Chub were blessed with the game's greatest all around player in history and the magnificent (and historically overlooked) farm director and scout supervisor Jack Schwartz. Jack had built up baseball's best farm system with stars emerging like McCovey, Cepeda, Jim Ray Hart, the Alous, Marichal, Perry, Leon Wagner, Willie Kirkland, Jose Cardenal and Manny Mota, albeit with not enough pitchers. The Giants were early heavy hitters in the Caribbean and the first team to extensively scout the Dominican.

Once the euphoria of the Mays in SF era ended and amidst scores of negative press reports about the wind and cold Horace (with no outside business) faced a money crisis with Chub Feeney in New York as the president of the NL.. Ironically Schwartz had rebuilt the system with Gary and Gary, Kingman, Goodson and others once again making the Giants competitive just as the Stonehams' went broke. The scuttlebutt in the office at CP was that Kingman was unloaded to make the monthly payroll. The Giants became an NL receivership operation while buyers were encouraged to take a tumble. I was involved with a Saudi group as an "advisor" but they never made a bid and as far as I knew the press never learned of the interest. Doubt that Baseball would have even allowed a bid.

So I bring my commercial plan to the leagues appointed GM, Spec Richardson. I would estimate that it took Spec about a minute and a half to scrutinize my abstract before he just said, "We don't desire your services." In fact a lucky break because it forced me back into a full time role as a DP at age 27.

From those dismal days Bob Lurie (great guy) emerged and then the group that still own the franchise. A great ballpark was built and the team ascended the mountain. Then another dip and a new savior emerged, Farhan. He has a way and right now it means no mega deals. So far it's working and that is just fine. I am still a die hard and proud of it although as a North Beach native my heart belongs to the Seals and the Bay Bombers both RIP.

[BostonCard]

The salary cap in baseball is not like the one in the NBA or the NFL, where most teams are at or just under the hard cap. In baseball, it is a very soft tax; two teams were above it and another five were within 10 million of the cap, but the bull of the teams were well under it.

That the Giants were under $210 million in payroll is neither here nor there. The issue, as best articulated by DC, is that the Giants clearly have the revenue to be able to spend more and have elected not to.

BC

[BostonCard]

The salary cap in baseball is not like the one in the NBA or the NFL, where most teams are at or just under the hard cap. In baseball, it is a very soft tax; two teams were above it and another five were within 10 million of the cap, but the bull of the teams were well under it.

That the Giants were under $210 million in payroll is neither here nor there. The issue, as best articulated by DC, is that the Giants clearly have the revenue to be able to spend more and have elected not to.

BC

[Phogge]

The salary cap in baseball is not like the one in the NBA or the NFL, where most teams are at or just under the hard cap. In baseball, it is a very soft tax; two teams were above it and another five were within 10 million of the cap, but the bull of the teams were well under it.

That the Giants were under $210 million in payroll is neither here nor there. The issue, as best articulated by DC, is that the Giants clearly have the revenue to be able to spend more and have elected not to

BC

So be it. Why not wait until just before the trade deadline to bitch about big contracts again? Bitch all you want about on-field stuff.

[Phogge]

The salary cap in baseball is not like the one in the NBA or the NFL, where most teams are at or just under the hard cap. In baseball, it is a very soft tax; two teams were above it and another five were within 10 million of the cap, but the bull of the teams were well under it.

That the Giants were under $210 million in payroll is neither here nor there. The issue, as best articulated by DC, is that the Giants clearly have the revenue to be able to spend more and have elected not to

BC

So be it. Why not wait until just before the trade deadline to bitch about big contracts again? Bitch all you want about on-field stuff.

[Giants]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 

The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

Joe Garagiola said it best (paraphrasing) - in life, you get one social security number and one baseball team.  Mine is the Giants.  Having said that, I am hardly a blind follower.  I have disagreed with many decisions the FO has made over the years.  In the recent past, I thought chasing Stanton and Harper for the money/term that were being discussed were terrible ideas and would have been disastrous in the long run. I am thankful they missed out on both guys.  

Based on your rebuttable, it is evident that you have a narrative into which you are trying to squeeze the facts rather than taking the facts and building a narrative around them.  

The fact is the you cannot buy your way to a championship no matter how much money you spend.  Otherwise the Yankees would never lose.  

I am quite satisfied that SF is “all-in” on winning.  They have spent a fortune on a new training complex in Arizona, they have poured a ton of resources into talent development and they have largest coaching staff in the game. They have rebuilt the farm system into one of the best in the game.  In terms of creating a foundation that will yield a competitive team on the field every season for the foreseeable future, they are at the adult table with the best franchises in the game.  As a fan, that is all I can ask.

[Giants]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 

The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

Joe Garagiola said it best (paraphrasing) - in life, you get one social security number and one baseball team.  Mine is the Giants.  Having said that, I am hardly a blind follower.  I have disagreed with many decisions the FO has made over the years.  In the recent past, I thought chasing Stanton and Harper for the money/term that were being discussed were terrible ideas and would have been disastrous in the long run. I am thankful they missed out on both guys.  

Based on your rebuttable, it is evident that you have a narrative into which you are trying to squeeze the facts rather than taking the facts and building a narrative around them.  

The fact is the you cannot buy your way to a championship no matter how much money you spend.  Otherwise the Yankees would never lose.  

I am quite satisfied that SF is “all-in” on winning.  They have spent a fortune on a new training complex in Arizona, they have poured a ton of resources into talent development and they have largest coaching staff in the game. They have rebuilt the farm system into one of the best in the game.  In terms of creating a foundation that will yield a competitive team on the field every season for the foreseeable future, they are at the adult table with the best franchises in the game.  As a fan, that is all I can ask.

[Mick]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 

The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

Joe Garagiola said it best (paraphrasing) - in life, you get one social security number and one baseball team.  Mine is the Giants.  Having said that, I am hardly a blind follower.  I have disagreed with many decisions the FO has made over the years.  In the recent past, I thought chasing Stanton and Harper for the money/term that were being discussed were terrible ideas and would have been disastrous in the long run. I am thankful they missed out on both guys.  

Based on your rebuttable, it is evident that you have a narrative into which you are trying to squeeze the facts rather than taking the facts and building a narrative around them.  

The fact is the you cannot buy your way to a championship no matter how much money you spend.  Otherwise the Yankees would never lose.  

I am quite satisfied that SF is “all-in” on winning.  They have spent a fortune on a new training complex in Arizona, they have poured a ton of resources into talent development and they have largest coaching staff in the game. They have rebuilt the farm system into one of the best in the game.  In terms of creating a foundation that will yield a competitive team on the field every season for the foreseeable future, they are at the adult table with the best franchises in the game.  As a fan, that is all I can ask.

I'd have to agree. Was really against the Stanton and Harper signings.  Harper does not hit well at Pac Bell Park.  Historically, he'd hit best (or near best) in Philadelphia.  His current split is .276/.337/.513/.852, and he's in the fourth year of a 13 year contract paying $27.5 mms. annually (dropping to $23.5 mms. in a few years).  2/3rds of his ABs have been in Philly, and he's nearly 100 points higher in OPS at Philly vs. on the road.  Giancarlo is at -0.1 WAR, hitting .257 with a .642 OPS.  He's 32 years old, and has had two great seasons for the Yanks in five years.

Both Stanton and Harper have six more years to run on their contract through Age 38.  I wouldn't want them.

[Mick]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 

The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

Joe Garagiola said it best (paraphrasing) - in life, you get one social security number and one baseball team.  Mine is the Giants.  Having said that, I am hardly a blind follower.  I have disagreed with many decisions the FO has made over the years.  In the recent past, I thought chasing Stanton and Harper for the money/term that were being discussed were terrible ideas and would have been disastrous in the long run. I am thankful they missed out on both guys.  

Based on your rebuttable, it is evident that you have a narrative into which you are trying to squeeze the facts rather than taking the facts and building a narrative around them.  

The fact is the you cannot buy your way to a championship no matter how much money you spend.  Otherwise the Yankees would never lose.  

I am quite satisfied that SF is “all-in” on winning.  They have spent a fortune on a new training complex in Arizona, they have poured a ton of resources into talent development and they have largest coaching staff in the game. They have rebuilt the farm system into one of the best in the game.  In terms of creating a foundation that will yield a competitive team on the field every season for the foreseeable future, they are at the adult table with the best franchises in the game.  As a fan, that is all I can ask.

I'd have to agree. Was really against the Stanton and Harper signings.  Harper does not hit well at Pac Bell Park.  Historically, he'd hit best (or near best) in Philadelphia.  His current split is .276/.337/.513/.852, and he's in the fourth year of a 13 year contract paying $27.5 mms. annually (dropping to $23.5 mms. in a few years).  2/3rds of his ABs have been in Philly, and he's nearly 100 points higher in OPS at Philly vs. on the road.  Giancarlo is at -0.1 WAR, hitting .257 with a .642 OPS.  He's 32 years old, and has had two great seasons for the Yanks in five years.

Both Stanton and Harper have six more years to run on their contract through Age 38.  I wouldn't want them.

[OutsiderFan]

So anyway, I heard Tristan Beck was promoted to Sacramento, is tearing it up, and could be making his Giants debut soon.

This means the Giants have Hjelle and Beck as possible rookie starters ready to debut this year.

[OutsiderFan]

So anyway, I heard Tristan Beck was promoted to Sacramento, is tearing it up, and could be making his Giants debut soon.

This means the Giants have Hjelle and Beck as possible rookie starters ready to debut this year.

[DC 86]

Both Stanton and Harper have six more years to run on their contract through Age 38.  I wouldn't want them.

It's easy to argue against 13 year contracts, nobody has advocated for that model, so those are really just straw men. This year's free agents (with the exception of Seager) all signed 3-6 year contracts. Suzuki (who has been the focus of this discussion) is 27 years old and signed for five years.

[DC 86]

Both Stanton and Harper have six more years to run on their contract through Age 38.  I wouldn't want them.

It's easy to argue against 13 year contracts, nobody has advocated for that model, so those are really just straw men. This year's free agents (with the exception of Seager) all signed 3-6 year contracts. Suzuki (who has been the focus of this discussion) is 27 years old and signed for five years.

[Giants]

So anyway, I heard Tristan Beck was promoted to Sacramento, is tearing it up, and could be making his Giants debut soon.

This means the Giants have Hjelle and Beck as possible rookie starters ready to debut this year.

Beck at Richmond - 14 innings pitched, 10 hits, 7 walks and 19 K’s.  2.57 ERA.

He has not pitched for the River Cats yet.

Based on the numbers, he has good stuff.  He just needs to figure out how to throw the ball consistently in the strike zone.

[Giants]

So anyway, I heard Tristan Beck was promoted to Sacramento, is tearing it up, and could be making his Giants debut soon.

This means the Giants have Hjelle and Beck as possible rookie starters ready to debut this year.

Beck at Richmond - 14 innings pitched, 10 hits, 7 walks and 19 K’s.  2.57 ERA.

He has not pitched for the River Cats yet.

Based on the numbers, he has good stuff.  He just needs to figure out how to throw the ball consistently in the strike zone.

[Phogge]

Against the fearsome Tri City Dust Devils last night:

Kyle Harrison 4IP 1ER 2BB 11K and he's 20 years old.

[Phogge]

Against the fearsome Tri City Dust Devils last night:

Kyle Harrison 4IP 1ER 2BB 11K and he's 20 years old.

[DC 86]

So anyway, I heard Tristan Beck was promoted to Sacramento, is tearing it up, and could be making his Giants debut soon.

This means the Giants have Hjelle and Beck as possible rookie starters ready to debut this year.

Beck isn't even on the Giants 40-man roster and has pitched a total of 14 innings at AA.

Hjelle yes, since the Giants will surely need spot starters at some point.

[DC 86]

So anyway, I heard Tristan Beck was promoted to Sacramento, is tearing it up, and could be making his Giants debut soon.

This means the Giants have Hjelle and Beck as possible rookie starters ready to debut this year.

Beck isn't even on the Giants 40-man roster and has pitched a total of 14 innings at AA.

Hjelle yes, since the Giants will surely need spot starters at some point.

[lex24]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 



The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

Joe Garagiola said it best (paraphrasing) - in life, you get one social security number and one baseball team.  Mine is the Giants.  Having said that, I am hardly a blind follower.  I have disagreed with many decisions the FO has made over the years.  In the recent past, I thought chasing Stanton and Harper for the money/term that were being discussed were terrible ideas and would have been disastrous in the long run. I am thankful they missed out on both guys.  

Based on your rebuttable, it is evident that you have a narrative into which you are trying to squeeze the facts rather than taking the facts and building a narrative around them.  

The fact is the you cannot buy your way to a championship no matter how much money you spend.  Otherwise the Yankees would never lose.  

I am quite satisfied that SF is “all-in” on winning.  They have spent a fortune on a new training complex in Arizona, they have poured a ton of resources into talent development and they have largest coaching staff in the game. They have rebuilt the farm system into one of the best in the game.  In terms of creating a foundation that will yield a competitive team on the field every season for the foreseeable future, they are at the adult table with the best franchises in the game.  As a fan, that is all I can ask.

Um… Harper was MVP last year. And here’s the thing - they supposedly went after him. And Suzuki. And a bunch of others. Yet….

So here is my narrative:

Team1. Smart Front office. Great at grabbing diamonds in the rough Great farm system. Tremendous history. $290,000,000 payroll.  Top 5 value wise in MLB. And willing to keep spending freely.

Team 2 :  Smart Front office. Great at grabbing diamonds in the rough. Great farm system. Tremendous history. $145,000,000 payroll.  Top 5 value wise in MLB.  And not willing to spend.

Which team has the advantage?

PS: Going Sat and Sun. Unfortunately Giants hit hard by Covid. Yaz. Belt. Little. Leone.

[lex24]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 



The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

Joe Garagiola said it best (paraphrasing) - in life, you get one social security number and one baseball team.  Mine is the Giants.  Having said that, I am hardly a blind follower.  I have disagreed with many decisions the FO has made over the years.  In the recent past, I thought chasing Stanton and Harper for the money/term that were being discussed were terrible ideas and would have been disastrous in the long run. I am thankful they missed out on both guys.  

Based on your rebuttable, it is evident that you have a narrative into which you are trying to squeeze the facts rather than taking the facts and building a narrative around them.  

The fact is the you cannot buy your way to a championship no matter how much money you spend.  Otherwise the Yankees would never lose.  

I am quite satisfied that SF is “all-in” on winning.  They have spent a fortune on a new training complex in Arizona, they have poured a ton of resources into talent development and they have largest coaching staff in the game. They have rebuilt the farm system into one of the best in the game.  In terms of creating a foundation that will yield a competitive team on the field every season for the foreseeable future, they are at the adult table with the best franchises in the game.  As a fan, that is all I can ask.

Um… Harper was MVP last year. And here’s the thing - they supposedly went after him. And Suzuki. And a bunch of others. Yet….

So here is my narrative:

Team1. Smart Front office. Great at grabbing diamonds in the rough Great farm system. Tremendous history. $290,000,000 payroll.  Top 5 value wise in MLB. And willing to keep spending freely.

Team 2 :  Smart Front office. Great at grabbing diamonds in the rough. Great farm system. Tremendous history. $145,000,000 payroll.  Top 5 value wise in MLB.  And not willing to spend.

Which team has the advantage?

PS: Going Sat and Sun. Unfortunately Giants hit hard by Covid. Yaz. Belt. Little. Leone.

[old spanish trail]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 



The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

Joe Garagiola said it best (paraphrasing) - in life, you get one social security number and one baseball team.  Mine is the Giants.  Having said that, I am hardly a blind follower.  I have disagreed with many decisions the FO has made over the years.  In the recent past, I thought chasing Stanton and Harper for the money/term that were being discussed were terrible ideas and would have been disastrous in the long run. I am thankful they missed out on both guys.  

Based on your rebuttable, it is evident that you have a narrative into which you are trying to squeeze the facts rather than taking the facts and building a narrative around them.  

The fact is the you cannot buy your way to a championship no matter how much money you spend.  Otherwise the Yankees would never lose.  

I am quite satisfied that SF is “all-in” on winning.  They have spent a fortune on a new training complex in Arizona, they have poured a ton of resources into talent development and they have largest coaching staff in the game. They have rebuilt the farm system into one of the best in the game.  In terms of creating a foundation that will yield a competitive team on the field every season for the foreseeable future, they are at the adult table with the best franchises in the game.  As a fan, that is all I can ask.

Um… Harper was MVP last year.  And here’s the thing - they supposedly went after him. And Suzuki.  And a bunch of others. Yet….

So here is my narrative:

Team1. Smart Front office. Great at grabbing diamonds in the rough Great farm system. Tremendous history. $290,000,000 payroll.  Top 5 value wise in MLB. And willing to keep spending freely.

Team 2 :  Smart Front office. Great at grabbing diamonds in the rough. Great farm system. Tremendous history. $145,000,000 payroll.  Top 5 value wise in MLB.  And not willing to spend.

Which team has the advantage?

PS: Going Sat and Sun.  Unfortunately Giants hit hard by Covid.  Yaz. Belt. Little.  Leone.

Maybe covid will allow Slater to force himself into the lineup. My bet, Gonzalez peters out. Ruf hasn't started the season yet. And who are these other guys? Slater has found his mojo.

[old spanish trail]

Major professional sports are so compelling because they are the only endeavor in which we get to witness extreme competition within the bounds of a regulated competitive landscape with a lot of transparency. Nothing else comes close.

As fans of the teams competing, we want our team to win and push the envelope to do so.  When a sport has a salary cap and a team is $100M below that cap, there is clearly a reason to be skeptical that team is "all in" on winning. Any time a team isn't "all in" on winning, the fans can and should be expected to be unsatisfied. 

Moreover, we can be fans of a team and not be a rubber stamp for everything the team does. There is a fine line between rooting for and defending a team's actions, and overzealously criticizing it. 



The worst thing a fan can do is be blindly loyal to the team to whom they have attached themselves. I see a lot of blind loyalty to the Giants in this thread that makes excuses for and buys into the Giants' propaganda about spending to win.

It simply is not credible to claim the Giants lost Suzuki to the Cubs for "non-financial reasons."  The Giants would have landed him if they offered more money than the Cubs. Just like they landed Rodon because they offered the most money. 

I can buy not giving Gausman 5 years, but why not give him more per year on fewer years. Hell, pay him $80M for two years, because it's all about paying for performance, and the Giants can easily afford that.

Fans are in fact rooting for the front office - including those who say they aren't in this thread - while thinking they are rooting for the players. The reasons used to refute my friend's assertion in fact prove it to be correct!

Joe Garagiola said it best (paraphrasing) - in life, you get one social security number and one baseball team.  Mine is the Giants.  Having said that, I am hardly a blind follower.  I have disagreed with many decisions the FO has made over the years.  In the recent past, I thought chasing Stanton and Harper for the money/term that were being discussed were terrible ideas and would have been disastrous in the long run. I am thankful they missed out on both guys.  

Based on your rebuttable, it is evident that you have a narrative into which you are trying to squeeze the facts rather than taking the facts and building a narrative around them.  

The fact is the you cannot buy your way to a championship no matter how much money you spend.  Otherwise the Yankees would never lose.  

I am quite satisfied that SF is “all-in” on winning.  They have spent a fortune on a new training complex in Arizona, they have poured a ton of resources into talent development and they have largest coaching staff in the game. They have rebuilt the farm system into one of the best in the game.  In terms of creating a foundation that will yield a competitive team on the field every season for the foreseeable future, they are at the adult table with the best franchises in the game.  As a fan, that is all I can ask.

Um… Harper was MVP last year.  And here’s the thing - they supposedly went after him. And Suzuki.  And a bunch of others. Yet….

So here is my narrative:

Team1. Smart Front office. Great at grabbing diamonds in the rough Great farm system. Tremendous history. $290,000,000 payroll.  Top 5 value wise in MLB. And willing to keep spending freely.

Team 2 :  Smart Front office. Great at grabbing diamonds in the rough. Great farm system. Tremendous history. $145,000,000 payroll.  Top 5 value wise in MLB.  And not willing to spend.

Which team has the advantage?

PS: Going Sat and Sun.  Unfortunately Giants hit hard by Covid.  Yaz. Belt. Little.  Leone.

Maybe covid will allow Slater to force himself into the lineup. My bet, Gonzalez peters out. Ruf hasn't started the season yet. And who are these other guys? Slater has found his mojo.