04-05-2022, 10:00 PM
So did Clint Hartung.
Outside Topic 2022 Giants thread
04-05-2022, 10:01 PM
(04-05-2022, 02:07 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'm not going to be an apologist for the Giants not spending more on their roster, but will play a little devil's advocate.
The Giants have the oldest position player group in MLB. The Giants also have a lot of good prospects in the pipeline. Now let's look at one position, Right Field.
Farhan Zaidi believes Darrin Ruf will provide as much production this year as anybody he could have signed as a Free Agent. Let's say they signed Kris Bryant or Nick Castellanos (who went to Philly and was guy I had my eye on) to play that spot. They would have been paying $25M for a few years to them. That would prevent the Giants from plugging in say Heliot Ramos in 2023, who will be making less than a $1M, and also getting this productive year from Ruff, and they'd have to pay what, $125M for that pain?
If Ramos stalls out his development in 2022, the Giants can look at a free agent RF next year. But if Ramos rakes, not signing Castellanos will prove the smarter decision.
I'm sensitive to the possibility the Giants are being too frugal, but am not ready to die on that hill just yet.
I understand you're playing the devil's advocate, but I'll offer a few obvious rebuttals nonetheless:
1. Having too many good players is never a problem The addition of the DH alleviates the issue of two players who play the same position. You can move a right fielder to left field or move around your infielders if necessary. Not to mention the fact that the Giants lineup consist of so many over-30 players that significant time lost to injuries is almost a certainty. In the worst (or best) case scenario then an excess of good players means that you have valuable trade assets.
2. Darin Ruf turns 36 years old in July. He hit very well last year but was also used prudently to maximize his strengths; he only had 312 plate appearances. Will he be as productive as one of the prime free agents available? doubtful.
3. Heliot Ramos is a very good prospect but far from a can't-miss. He was ranked as the #70 overall prospect by The Athletic, #94 by Baseball America, and didn't make the top-100 by Fangraphs or Baseball Prospectus. Projects to be a regular but not a star that a team should be concerned about blocking or moving.
4. And in any case right field is far from the best example of a clear free agent upgrade. How about second base (Tommy LaStella, 33 years old, one season in his entire career in which he's been much more than a replacement player) or third base (Evan Longoria, 36 years old, only was able to play 81 games last year and already injured this year). Wouldn't Trevor Story be a significant upgrade? And if you want to dream what about Carlos Correa or Corey Seager?
Bottom line, the Giants have made a smart business decision to operate with a mid-market payroll - they can still contend for a wild card while maximizing profits. But from the standpoint of maximizing the number of games won or maximizing the chances of winning the division there's no rational argument for not signing better players that were available.
My assumption is the following, speaking in the presumed voice of Giants ownership: "Unfortunately we're in the same division as the Dodgers. In order to compete with them we would need to spend $100 million more per year. With the addition of another wild card we can maintain a mid-market payroll, reach the playoffs more often than not, and then try to get hot/lucky the way we did in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Fans will come out either way and sponsors will sign up either way. It doesn't make sense to almost double our payroll for a 45% chance of winning the division when we can pocket the profit and still have a good chance to reach the playoffs. If we were in the NL central spending an additional $30 million per year probably makes us the favorite to win the division, but in the west we still would be way behind the Dodgers on talent. So why spend the money to win six or seven more games and still face an enormous gap vis a vis LA."
(04-05-2022, 02:07 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'm not going to be an apologist for the Giants not spending more on their roster, but will play a little devil's advocate.
The Giants have the oldest position player group in MLB. The Giants also have a lot of good prospects in the pipeline. Now let's look at one position, Right Field.
Farhan Zaidi believes Darrin Ruf will provide as much production this year as anybody he could have signed as a Free Agent. Let's say they signed Kris Bryant or Nick Castellanos (who went to Philly and was guy I had my eye on) to play that spot. They would have been paying $25M for a few years to them. That would prevent the Giants from plugging in say Heliot Ramos in 2023, who will be making less than a $1M, and also getting this productive year from Ruff, and they'd have to pay what, $125M for that pain?
If Ramos stalls out his development in 2022, the Giants can look at a free agent RF next year. But if Ramos rakes, not signing Castellanos will prove the smarter decision.
I'm sensitive to the possibility the Giants are being too frugal, but am not ready to die on that hill just yet.
I understand you're playing the devil's advocate, but I'll offer a few obvious rebuttals nonetheless:
1. Having too many good players is never a problem The addition of the DH alleviates the issue of two players who play the same position. You can move a right fielder to left field or move around your infielders if necessary. Not to mention the fact that the Giants lineup consist of so many over-30 players that significant time lost to injuries is almost a certainty. In the worst (or best) case scenario then an excess of good players means that you have valuable trade assets.
2. Darin Ruf turns 36 years old in July. He hit very well last year but was also used prudently to maximize his strengths; he only had 312 plate appearances. Will he be as productive as one of the prime free agents available? doubtful.
3. Heliot Ramos is a very good prospect but far from a can't-miss. He was ranked as the #70 overall prospect by The Athletic, #94 by Baseball America, and didn't make the top-100 by Fangraphs or Baseball Prospectus. Projects to be a regular but not a star that a team should be concerned about blocking or moving.
4. And in any case right field is far from the best example of a clear free agent upgrade. How about second base (Tommy LaStella, 33 years old, one season in his entire career in which he's been much more than a replacement player) or third base (Evan Longoria, 36 years old, only was able to play 81 games last year and already injured this year). Wouldn't Trevor Story be a significant upgrade? And if you want to dream what about Carlos Correa or Corey Seager?
Bottom line, the Giants have made a smart business decision to operate with a mid-market payroll - they can still contend for a wild card while maximizing profits. But from the standpoint of maximizing the number of games won or maximizing the chances of winning the division there's no rational argument for not signing better players that were available.
My assumption is the following, speaking in the presumed voice of Giants ownership: "Unfortunately we're in the same division as the Dodgers. In order to compete with them we would need to spend $100 million more per year. With the addition of another wild card we can maintain a mid-market payroll, reach the playoffs more often than not, and then try to get hot/lucky the way we did in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Fans will come out either way and sponsors will sign up either way. It doesn't make sense to almost double our payroll for a 45% chance of winning the division when we can pocket the profit and still have a good chance to reach the playoffs. If we were in the NL central spending an additional $30 million per year probably makes us the favorite to win the division, but in the west we still would be way behind the Dodgers on talent. So why spend the money to win six or seven more games and still face an enormous gap vis a vis LA."
(04-05-2022, 07:39 PM)lex24 Wrote:(04-05-2022, 02:07 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'm not going to be an apologist for the Giants not spending more on their roster, but will play a little devil's advocate.
The Giants have the oldest position player group in MLB. The Giants also have a lot of good prospects in the pipeline. Now let's look at one position, Right Field.
Farhan Zaidi believes Darrin Ruf will provide as much production this year as anybody he could have signed as a Free Agent. Let's say they signed Kris Bryant or Nick Castellanos (who went to Philly and was guy I had my eye on) to play that spot. They would have been paying $25M for a few years to them. That would prevent the Giants from plugging in say Heliot Ramos in 2023, who will be making less than a $1M, and also getting this productive year from Ruff, and they'd have to pay what, $125M for that pain?
If Ramos stalls out his development in 2022, the Giants can look at a free agent RF next year. But if Ramos rakes, not signing Castellanos will prove the smarter decision.
I'm sensitive to the possibility the Giants are being too frugal, but am not ready to die on that hill just yet.
Actually signing a FA would not have meant they don’t sign Ruf, or plugging in Ramos. Not in the least. Zaidi made the same comment vis a vis Ruf and FA. The obvious question to ask is why not both? 25 million brings this years payroll to a modest $165,000,000.
Speaking of Ramos. ‘20 hurt him perhaps more than any other Giants prospect. He seemed to be on the cusp after ‘19. Has a rather pedestrian year in ‘21. Not sure his star is shining quite as brightly. This is a big year for him. He has the tools and looks the part. But so did Todd Linden….
Todd Linden, classic AAAA player. Shone in AAA, couldn't quite do it in the bigs. Ramos needs to do well this year, seems to have stalled at AA, between Sacto and Richmond had an OPS of about .750. Still, he's just 21.
Giants tied A's, 7-7 yesterday. Yaz HR, most players got 1-2 hits. Only down side was Alex Wood giving up 5 runs in 3 1/3 innings.
Opening Day against the Marlins on Friday...literally thousands of seats available.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(04-05-2022, 07:39 PM)lex24 Wrote:(04-05-2022, 02:07 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'm not going to be an apologist for the Giants not spending more on their roster, but will play a little devil's advocate.
The Giants have the oldest position player group in MLB. The Giants also have a lot of good prospects in the pipeline. Now let's look at one position, Right Field.
Farhan Zaidi believes Darrin Ruf will provide as much production this year as anybody he could have signed as a Free Agent. Let's say they signed Kris Bryant or Nick Castellanos (who went to Philly and was guy I had my eye on) to play that spot. They would have been paying $25M for a few years to them. That would prevent the Giants from plugging in say Heliot Ramos in 2023, who will be making less than a $1M, and also getting this productive year from Ruff, and they'd have to pay what, $125M for that pain?
If Ramos stalls out his development in 2022, the Giants can look at a free agent RF next year. But if Ramos rakes, not signing Castellanos will prove the smarter decision.
I'm sensitive to the possibility the Giants are being too frugal, but am not ready to die on that hill just yet.
Actually signing a FA would not have meant they don’t sign Ruf, or plugging in Ramos. Not in the least. Zaidi made the same comment vis a vis Ruf and FA. The obvious question to ask is why not both? 25 million brings this years payroll to a modest $165,000,000.
Speaking of Ramos. ‘20 hurt him perhaps more than any other Giants prospect. He seemed to be on the cusp after ‘19. Has a rather pedestrian year in ‘21. Not sure his star is shining quite as brightly. This is a big year for him. He has the tools and looks the part. But so did Todd Linden….
Todd Linden, classic AAAA player. Shone in AAA, couldn't quite do it in the bigs. Ramos needs to do well this year, seems to have stalled at AA, between Sacto and Richmond had an OPS of about .750. Still, he's just 21.
Giants tied A's, 7-7 yesterday. Yaz HR, most players got 1-2 hits. Only down side was Alex Wood giving up 5 runs in 3 1/3 innings.
Opening Day against the Marlins on Friday...literally thousands of seats available.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
04-06-2022, 06:30 AM
(04-05-2022, 10:01 PM)DC 86 Wrote: Bottom line, the Giants have made a smart business decision to operate with a mid-market payroll - they can still contend for a wild card while maximizing profits. But from the standpoint of maximizing the number of games won or maximizing the chances of winning the division there's no rational argument for not signing better players that were available.
My assumption is the following, speaking in the presumed voice of Giants ownership: "Unfortunately we're in the same division as the Dodgers. In order to compete with them we would need to spend $100 million more per year. With the addition of another wild card we can maintain a mid-market payroll, reach the playoffs more often than not, and then try to get hot/lucky the way we did in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Fans will come out either way and sponsors will sign up either way. It doesn't make sense to almost double our payroll for a 45% chance of winning the division when we can pocket the profit and still have a good chance to reach the playoffs. If we were in the NL central spending an additional $30 million per year probably makes us the favorite to win the division, but in the west we still would be way behind the Dodgers on talent. So why spend the money to win six or seven more games and still face an enormous gap vis a vis LA."
I will rebut your devil's advocate rebuttal :)
Explain the Padres. The Giants are in a much larger market than San Diego and are worth a lot more than the Padres as well. Yet the Padres are also outspending the Giants, and also above the tax threshold, at $214M in 2022.
I can justify not spending into the tax THIS season, as it is a bit of a transition year for the Giants. They need to see what their prospects can do over this full minor league season - even if that means trading some - as they plan for the "Post-Brandons" era.
There is one other devil's advocate position to take. The Braves were 88-74 and won the World Series with a $153M payroll that was #11 in MLB in 2021. The Braves did win their division, but we all know it's not that difficult to win World Series as a Wild Card. The Giants are at $143M as of now for 2022, and they can add some big contracts in trade market as well.
(04-05-2022, 10:01 PM)DC 86 Wrote: Bottom line, the Giants have made a smart business decision to operate with a mid-market payroll - they can still contend for a wild card while maximizing profits. But from the standpoint of maximizing the number of games won or maximizing the chances of winning the division there's no rational argument for not signing better players that were available.
My assumption is the following, speaking in the presumed voice of Giants ownership: "Unfortunately we're in the same division as the Dodgers. In order to compete with them we would need to spend $100 million more per year. With the addition of another wild card we can maintain a mid-market payroll, reach the playoffs more often than not, and then try to get hot/lucky the way we did in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Fans will come out either way and sponsors will sign up either way. It doesn't make sense to almost double our payroll for a 45% chance of winning the division when we can pocket the profit and still have a good chance to reach the playoffs. If we were in the NL central spending an additional $30 million per year probably makes us the favorite to win the division, but in the west we still would be way behind the Dodgers on talent. So why spend the money to win six or seven more games and still face an enormous gap vis a vis LA."
I will rebut your devil's advocate rebuttal :)
Explain the Padres. The Giants are in a much larger market than San Diego and are worth a lot more than the Padres as well. Yet the Padres are also outspending the Giants, and also above the tax threshold, at $214M in 2022.
I can justify not spending into the tax THIS season, as it is a bit of a transition year for the Giants. They need to see what their prospects can do over this full minor league season - even if that means trading some - as they plan for the "Post-Brandons" era.
There is one other devil's advocate position to take. The Braves were 88-74 and won the World Series with a $153M payroll that was #11 in MLB in 2021. The Braves did win their division, but we all know it's not that difficult to win World Series as a Wild Card. The Giants are at $143M as of now for 2022, and they can add some big contracts in trade market as well.
04-06-2022, 07:40 AM
(04-06-2022, 06:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(04-05-2022, 10:01 PM)DC 86 Wrote: Bottom line, the Giants have made a smart business decision to operate with a mid-market payroll - they can still contend for a wild card while maximizing profits. But from the standpoint of maximizing the number of games won or maximizing the chances of winning the division there's no rational argument for not signing better players that were available.
My assumption is the following, speaking in the presumed voice of Giants ownership: "Unfortunately we're in the same division as the Dodgers. In order to compete with them we would need to spend $100 million more per year. With the addition of another wild card we can maintain a mid-market payroll, reach the playoffs more often than not, and then try to get hot/lucky the way we did in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Fans will come out either way and sponsors will sign up either way. It doesn't make sense to almost double our payroll for a 45% chance of winning the division when we can pocket the profit and still have a good chance to reach the playoffs. If we were in the NL central spending an additional $30 million per year probably makes us the favorite to win the division, but in the west we still would be way behind the Dodgers on talent. So why spend the money to win six or seven more games and still face an enormous gap vis a vis LA."
I will rebut your devil's advocate rebuttal :)
Explain the Padres. The Giants are in a much larger market than San Diego and are worth a lot more than the Padres as well. Yet the Padres are also outspending the Giants, and also above the tax threshold, at $214M in 2022.
I can justify not spending into the tax THIS season, as it is a bit of a transition year for the Giants. They need to see what their prospects can do over this full minor league season - even if that means trading some - as they plan for the "Post-Brandons" era.
There is one other devil's advocate position to take. The Braves were 88-74 and won the World Series with a $153M payroll that was #11 in MLB in 2021. The Braves did win their division, but we all know it's not that difficult to win World Series as a Wild Card. The Giants are at $143M as of now for 2022, and they can add some big contracts in trade market as well.
I'm not sure I understand your point about the Padres. I wasn't defending the Giants position, merely articulating what I think the Giants ownership's thought process and strategy is. Over the last few years the Padres have tried to energize a previously moribund fan base by investing in players, which is not a problem that SF faced. In some ways the Giants faithful fan base is a deterrent to more aggressive spending since revenue is fairly inelastic compared to other franchises. Btw the tax threshold this year is $230 million so the Padres are still comfortably below it.
The Braves success goes to my point, especially with three wild cards per league starting this year. Why should a team invest in building a 100-win team when it can put together an 85-win team for substantially less cost and still have a chance at winning it all. Even if the team misses the playoffs it will maintain fan interest as long as it's in contention into September, as Giants articulated earlier.
With the exception of Ramos the Giants best prospects played in A-ball last year, it's not as if they're on the cusp of reaching the majors, so 2022 is not a transition year, it's the beginning of a transition period, unless reinforcements aren't brought in to fill the gap the team will stagnate. The Giants will likely be active at the trade deadline to some degree (as with Bryant last year) but those rentals cost prospects, while free agents only cost money. In any case, one doesn't preclude the other.
(04-06-2022, 06:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(04-05-2022, 10:01 PM)DC 86 Wrote: Bottom line, the Giants have made a smart business decision to operate with a mid-market payroll - they can still contend for a wild card while maximizing profits. But from the standpoint of maximizing the number of games won or maximizing the chances of winning the division there's no rational argument for not signing better players that were available.
My assumption is the following, speaking in the presumed voice of Giants ownership: "Unfortunately we're in the same division as the Dodgers. In order to compete with them we would need to spend $100 million more per year. With the addition of another wild card we can maintain a mid-market payroll, reach the playoffs more often than not, and then try to get hot/lucky the way we did in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Fans will come out either way and sponsors will sign up either way. It doesn't make sense to almost double our payroll for a 45% chance of winning the division when we can pocket the profit and still have a good chance to reach the playoffs. If we were in the NL central spending an additional $30 million per year probably makes us the favorite to win the division, but in the west we still would be way behind the Dodgers on talent. So why spend the money to win six or seven more games and still face an enormous gap vis a vis LA."
I will rebut your devil's advocate rebuttal :)
Explain the Padres. The Giants are in a much larger market than San Diego and are worth a lot more than the Padres as well. Yet the Padres are also outspending the Giants, and also above the tax threshold, at $214M in 2022.
I can justify not spending into the tax THIS season, as it is a bit of a transition year for the Giants. They need to see what their prospects can do over this full minor league season - even if that means trading some - as they plan for the "Post-Brandons" era.
There is one other devil's advocate position to take. The Braves were 88-74 and won the World Series with a $153M payroll that was #11 in MLB in 2021. The Braves did win their division, but we all know it's not that difficult to win World Series as a Wild Card. The Giants are at $143M as of now for 2022, and they can add some big contracts in trade market as well.
I'm not sure I understand your point about the Padres. I wasn't defending the Giants position, merely articulating what I think the Giants ownership's thought process and strategy is. Over the last few years the Padres have tried to energize a previously moribund fan base by investing in players, which is not a problem that SF faced. In some ways the Giants faithful fan base is a deterrent to more aggressive spending since revenue is fairly inelastic compared to other franchises. Btw the tax threshold this year is $230 million so the Padres are still comfortably below it.
The Braves success goes to my point, especially with three wild cards per league starting this year. Why should a team invest in building a 100-win team when it can put together an 85-win team for substantially less cost and still have a chance at winning it all. Even if the team misses the playoffs it will maintain fan interest as long as it's in contention into September, as Giants articulated earlier.
With the exception of Ramos the Giants best prospects played in A-ball last year, it's not as if they're on the cusp of reaching the majors, so 2022 is not a transition year, it's the beginning of a transition period, unless reinforcements aren't brought in to fill the gap the team will stagnate. The Giants will likely be active at the trade deadline to some degree (as with Bryant last year) but those rentals cost prospects, while free agents only cost money. In any case, one doesn't preclude the other.
04-06-2022, 08:46 AM
OMG, it's time for the actual games to be played. The Giants are what they are. It just might, just might be a day or two early to write them off.
Holy f****** C*****.
Holy f****** C*****.
04-06-2022, 10:02 AM
Per Cot’s Baseball Contracts, The Padres are currently at $228,985,000 v. a CBT of $230,000,000. That is why they are trying to deal Eric Hosmer. They need some wiggle room to allow them to pursue trade options during the season.
Note: the calculation for the CBT includes player benefits and a variety of other charges.
Note2: Since SD exceeded the CBT in 2021, they will pay a repeater penalty if they go over this year.
Note: the calculation for the CBT includes player benefits and a variety of other charges.
Note2: Since SD exceeded the CBT in 2021, they will pay a repeater penalty if they go over this year.
Per Cot’s Baseball Contracts, The Padres are currently at $228,985,000 v. a CBT of $230,000,000. That is why they are trying to deal Eric Hosmer. They need some wiggle room to allow them to pursue trade options during the season.
Note: the calculation for the CBT includes player benefits and a variety of other charges.
Note2: Since SD exceeded the CBT in 2021, they will pay a repeater penalty if they go over this year.
Note: the calculation for the CBT includes player benefits and a variety of other charges.
Note2: Since SD exceeded the CBT in 2021, they will pay a repeater penalty if they go over this year.
(04-06-2022, 10:02 AM)Giants Wrote: Per Cot’s Baseball Contracts, The Padres are currently at $228,985,000 v. a CBT of $230,000,000. That is why they are trying to deal Eric Hosmer. They need some wiggle room to allow them to pursue trade options during the season.
Note: the calculation for the CBT includes player benefits and a variety of other charges.
Note2: Since SD exceeded the CBT in 2021, they will pay a repeater penalty if they go over this year.
Thanks, Giants. I had taken OF's $214 million figure at face value. Besides the benefits that you mentioned the CBT also calculates a player's salary for tax purposes differently than actual salary, which is why a player's CBT tax is re-calculated when he's traded, i.e. AAV on remaining contract changes the tax number even though his actual contract is unchanged.
Interestingly, Sportrac states that the Padres luxury tax payroll is $266 million in their "Luxury Tax Tracker", well over the threshold. Cot's refers to "projected CB tax" payroll so perhaps that accounts for the discrepancy.
(04-05-2022, 01:21 PM)Mick Wrote: Eddie D. had the luxury of operating without a salary cap all through the Montana years.
MLB doesn't have a salary cap either. However the owners have employed a brilliant public relations campaign to convince fans that going over the CBT threshold is a terrible thing and that they should cheer their billionaire owners for treating the CBT line as a de facto cap.
(04-06-2022, 10:02 AM)Giants Wrote: Per Cot’s Baseball Contracts, The Padres are currently at $228,985,000 v. a CBT of $230,000,000. That is why they are trying to deal Eric Hosmer. They need some wiggle room to allow them to pursue trade options during the season.
Note: the calculation for the CBT includes player benefits and a variety of other charges.
Note2: Since SD exceeded the CBT in 2021, they will pay a repeater penalty if they go over this year.
Thanks, Giants. I had taken OF's $214 million figure at face value. Besides the benefits that you mentioned the CBT also calculates a player's salary for tax purposes differently than actual salary, which is why a player's CBT tax is re-calculated when he's traded, i.e. AAV on remaining contract changes the tax number even though his actual contract is unchanged.
Interestingly, Sportrac states that the Padres luxury tax payroll is $266 million in their "Luxury Tax Tracker", well over the threshold. Cot's refers to "projected CB tax" payroll so perhaps that accounts for the discrepancy.
(04-05-2022, 01:21 PM)Mick Wrote: Eddie D. had the luxury of operating without a salary cap all through the Montana years.
MLB doesn't have a salary cap either. However the owners have employed a brilliant public relations campaign to convince fans that going over the CBT threshold is a terrible thing and that they should cheer their billionaire owners for treating the CBT line as a de facto cap.
04-06-2022, 02:02 PM
I was only looking at the Padres 40-man payroll, which is $214M on Spotrac.
If you add in all benefits, they are at $233M, which is $3M over the first tax threshold and creates a tax bill of almost $13M for them.
It adds up to a total cost of $243M for the Padres to pay for their team in 2022. Or basically $100M less than the Giants.
The Dodgers are spending almost double the Giants in 2022.
It's going to be very difficult to convince the Giants fan base they are trying to win if this disparity continues into 2023, UNLESS the Giants are making post season noise.
If you add in all benefits, they are at $233M, which is $3M over the first tax threshold and creates a tax bill of almost $13M for them.
It adds up to a total cost of $243M for the Padres to pay for their team in 2022. Or basically $100M less than the Giants.
The Dodgers are spending almost double the Giants in 2022.
It's going to be very difficult to convince the Giants fan base they are trying to win if this disparity continues into 2023, UNLESS the Giants are making post season noise.
I was only looking at the Padres 40-man payroll, which is $214M on Spotrac.
If you add in all benefits, they are at $233M, which is $3M over the first tax threshold and creates a tax bill of almost $13M for them.
It adds up to a total cost of $243M for the Padres to pay for their team in 2022. Or basically $100M less than the Giants.
The Dodgers are spending almost double the Giants in 2022.
It's going to be very difficult to convince the Giants fan base they are trying to win if this disparity continues into 2023, UNLESS the Giants are making post season noise.
If you add in all benefits, they are at $233M, which is $3M over the first tax threshold and creates a tax bill of almost $13M for them.
It adds up to a total cost of $243M for the Padres to pay for their team in 2022. Or basically $100M less than the Giants.
The Dodgers are spending almost double the Giants in 2022.
It's going to be very difficult to convince the Giants fan base they are trying to win if this disparity continues into 2023, UNLESS the Giants are making post season noise.
04-06-2022, 02:52 PM
Interesting article on the "Curse of LF since Bonds Retired." I didn't realize that a different guy has started in LF on Opening Day EVERY year since 2007, which was Barry's last year. And that includes the 3 WS championships.
https://www.sfgate.com/giants/article/sa...059438.php
https://www.sfgate.com/giants/article/sa...059438.php
Interesting article on the "Curse of LF since Bonds Retired." I didn't realize that a different guy has started in LF on Opening Day EVERY year since 2007, which was Barry's last year. And that includes the 3 WS championships.
https://www.sfgate.com/giants/article/sa...059438.php
https://www.sfgate.com/giants/article/sa...059438.php
04-06-2022, 03:09 PM
The RiverCats opened their season on Tuesday and Heliot Ramos did this:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MLBPipeline/status/1511531260723740675[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MLBPipeline/status/1511531260723740675[/tweet]
The RiverCats opened their season on Tuesday and Heliot Ramos did this:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MLBPipeline/status/1511531260723740675[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MLBPipeline/status/1511531260723740675[/tweet]
04-07-2022, 09:55 AM
Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
04-07-2022, 11:53 AM
(04-07-2022, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
That is exactly (in so many words) what they said about Bernie Williams when they traded George Foster to the Reds in 1971. LOL. I was there on payroll when I heard it. How did that work out Horace?
(04-07-2022, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
That is exactly (in so many words) what they said about Bernie Williams when they traded George Foster to the Reds in 1971. LOL. I was there on payroll when I heard it. How did that work out Horace?
(04-07-2022, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
Sorry, Mr. Zaidi, but that’s bullish-t. They had plenty of room to sign a RH bat and still “leave room” for Ramos.
(04-07-2022, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
Sorry, Mr. Zaidi, but that’s bullish-t. They had plenty of room to sign a RH bat and still “leave room” for Ramos.
04-07-2022, 02:18 PM
(04-07-2022, 01:51 PM)lex24 Wrote:(04-07-2022, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
Sorry, Mr. Zaidi, but that’s bullish-t. They had plenty of room to sign a RH bat and still “leave room” for Ramos.
It's so ridiculous that I didn't comment initially.
1. Correa and Story bat from the right side also. 2. Suzuki bats from the right side also, at a substantially lower price than the players that Zaidi mentioned. Interesting that he wasn't mentioned. 3. Castellanos or Suzuki could play LF, RF or DH, Bryant could play 3B or OF or DH No blocking. 4. Ramos projects to be a regular, chance of being a star or being a bust. If he ever has a season on par with any of the elite free agents it would be a major success. 5. Ramos hit 4 home runs in 229 at bats in AAA last year so a big season in MLB is probably not imminent. 5. If the Giants signed a free agent who both blocked Ramos and played so poorly that SF released him instead of using him at another position or on the bench, it would have no impact whatsoever on the Giants ability to compete because they could absorb the financial impact. Of course it would reduce their profits, which is the real issue here.
P.S. (unrelated but nice) Nico Hoerner started at shortstop and hit a two-run home run for the Cubs this afternoon.
(04-07-2022, 01:51 PM)lex24 Wrote:(04-07-2022, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
Sorry, Mr. Zaidi, but that’s bullish-t. They had plenty of room to sign a RH bat and still “leave room” for Ramos.
It's so ridiculous that I didn't comment initially.
1. Correa and Story bat from the right side also. 2. Suzuki bats from the right side also, at a substantially lower price than the players that Zaidi mentioned. Interesting that he wasn't mentioned. 3. Castellanos or Suzuki could play LF, RF or DH, Bryant could play 3B or OF or DH No blocking. 4. Ramos projects to be a regular, chance of being a star or being a bust. If he ever has a season on par with any of the elite free agents it would be a major success. 5. Ramos hit 4 home runs in 229 at bats in AAA last year so a big season in MLB is probably not imminent. 5. If the Giants signed a free agent who both blocked Ramos and played so poorly that SF released him instead of using him at another position or on the bench, it would have no impact whatsoever on the Giants ability to compete because they could absorb the financial impact. Of course it would reduce their profits, which is the real issue here.
P.S. (unrelated but nice) Nico Hoerner started at shortstop and hit a two-run home run for the Cubs this afternoon.
Giants 28 to start.
15 pitchers - the 5 starters plus Brebbia, Long, Beede, Doval, Rogers, McGee, Garcia, Alvarez, Leone, Littell.
13 regulars- Casali , Bart, Belt, Estrada, Dubon, Williams, Crawford, Yaz, Pederson, Duggar, Ruf, Slater, Flores.
La Stella is in his usual slot. Injured list.
Only mild surprise is that they didn’t go 14-14 and keep Vosler. Down to 26 on May 2.
Changes will be fast and furious. Giants used 31 pitchers last year.
Athletic had an interesting article about how the Cubs wooed Suzuki. Wonder what the Giants did. I placed their failure to sign a long term FA squarely on ownership not willing to come up with the money. I still do. The other possibility is harder to accept and that is that Zaidi and Company cannot close on a big deal.
15 pitchers - the 5 starters plus Brebbia, Long, Beede, Doval, Rogers, McGee, Garcia, Alvarez, Leone, Littell.
13 regulars- Casali , Bart, Belt, Estrada, Dubon, Williams, Crawford, Yaz, Pederson, Duggar, Ruf, Slater, Flores.
La Stella is in his usual slot. Injured list.
Only mild surprise is that they didn’t go 14-14 and keep Vosler. Down to 26 on May 2.
Changes will be fast and furious. Giants used 31 pitchers last year.
(04-07-2022, 02:18 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(04-07-2022, 01:51 PM)lex24 Wrote:(04-07-2022, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
Sorry, Mr. Zaidi, but that’s bullish-t. They had plenty of room to sign a RH bat and still “leave room” for Ramos.
It's so ridiculous that I didn't comment initially.
1. Correa and Story bat from the right side also. 2. Suzuki bats from the right side also, at a substantially lower price than the players that Zaidi mentioned. Interesting that he wasn't mentioned. 3. Castellanos or Suzuki could play LF, RF or DH, Bryant could play 3B or OF or DH No blocking. 4. Ramos projects to be a regular, chance of being a star or being a bust. If he ever has a season on par with any of the elite free agents it would be a major success. 5. Ramos hit 4 home runs in 229 at bats in AAA last year so a big season in MLB is probably not imminent. 5. If the Giants signed a free agent who both blocked Ramos and played so poorly that SF released him instead of using him at another position or on the bench, it would have no impact whatsoever on the Giants ability to compete because they could absorb the financial impact. Of course it would reduce their profits, which is the real issue here.
P.S. (unrelated but nice) Nico Hoerner started at shortstop and hit a two-run home run for the Cubs this afternoon.
Athletic had an interesting article about how the Cubs wooed Suzuki. Wonder what the Giants did. I placed their failure to sign a long term FA squarely on ownership not willing to come up with the money. I still do. The other possibility is harder to accept and that is that Zaidi and Company cannot close on a big deal.
Giants 28 to start.
15 pitchers - the 5 starters plus Brebbia, Long, Beede, Doval, Rogers, McGee, Garcia, Alvarez, Leone, Littell.
13 regulars- Casali , Bart, Belt, Estrada, Dubon, Williams, Crawford, Yaz, Pederson, Duggar, Ruf, Slater, Flores.
La Stella is in his usual slot. Injured list.
Only mild surprise is that they didn’t go 14-14 and keep Vosler. Down to 26 on May 2.
Changes will be fast and furious. Giants used 31 pitchers last year.
Athletic had an interesting article about how the Cubs wooed Suzuki. Wonder what the Giants did. I placed their failure to sign a long term FA squarely on ownership not willing to come up with the money. I still do. The other possibility is harder to accept and that is that Zaidi and Company cannot close on a big deal.
15 pitchers - the 5 starters plus Brebbia, Long, Beede, Doval, Rogers, McGee, Garcia, Alvarez, Leone, Littell.
13 regulars- Casali , Bart, Belt, Estrada, Dubon, Williams, Crawford, Yaz, Pederson, Duggar, Ruf, Slater, Flores.
La Stella is in his usual slot. Injured list.
Only mild surprise is that they didn’t go 14-14 and keep Vosler. Down to 26 on May 2.
Changes will be fast and furious. Giants used 31 pitchers last year.
(04-07-2022, 02:18 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(04-07-2022, 01:51 PM)lex24 Wrote:(04-07-2022, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Just heard Farhan Zaidi say to Tim Kawakami that Ramos is "one notch of strike zone refinement away from really making an impact for us."
He added one of the main reasons they didn't sign a Bryant or Castellanos as a right handed hitter is because they "wanted to leave opportunity" for Ramos.
Sorry, Mr. Zaidi, but that’s bullish-t. They had plenty of room to sign a RH bat and still “leave room” for Ramos.
It's so ridiculous that I didn't comment initially.
1. Correa and Story bat from the right side also. 2. Suzuki bats from the right side also, at a substantially lower price than the players that Zaidi mentioned. Interesting that he wasn't mentioned. 3. Castellanos or Suzuki could play LF, RF or DH, Bryant could play 3B or OF or DH No blocking. 4. Ramos projects to be a regular, chance of being a star or being a bust. If he ever has a season on par with any of the elite free agents it would be a major success. 5. Ramos hit 4 home runs in 229 at bats in AAA last year so a big season in MLB is probably not imminent. 5. If the Giants signed a free agent who both blocked Ramos and played so poorly that SF released him instead of using him at another position or on the bench, it would have no impact whatsoever on the Giants ability to compete because they could absorb the financial impact. Of course it would reduce their profits, which is the real issue here.
P.S. (unrelated but nice) Nico Hoerner started at shortstop and hit a two-run home run for the Cubs this afternoon.
Athletic had an interesting article about how the Cubs wooed Suzuki. Wonder what the Giants did. I placed their failure to sign a long term FA squarely on ownership not willing to come up with the money. I still do. The other possibility is harder to accept and that is that Zaidi and Company cannot close on a big deal.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/extrabaggs/status/1512123665051049989[/tweet]
04-07-2022, 03:09 PM
(04-07-2022, 02:21 PM)lex24 Wrote: Athletic had an interesting article about how the Cubs wooed Suzuki. Wonder what the Giants did. I placed their failure to sign a long term FA squarely on ownership not willing to come up with the money. I still do. The other possibility is harder to accept and that is that Zaidi and Company cannot close on a big deal.
Zaidi was part of closing plenty of deals in LA, which leads me to conclude that the difference is budget/ownership. The Dodgers have been smart but opportunistically aggressive in the Guggenheim era, a model that the Giants could follow but have chosen not to. As a capitalist I can't begrudge ownership maximizing profits, but it's disappointing for fans, and it surprises me that fans praise the Giants as if it were their money being saved.
(04-07-2022, 02:21 PM)lex24 Wrote: Athletic had an interesting article about how the Cubs wooed Suzuki. Wonder what the Giants did. I placed their failure to sign a long term FA squarely on ownership not willing to come up with the money. I still do. The other possibility is harder to accept and that is that Zaidi and Company cannot close on a big deal.
Zaidi was part of closing plenty of deals in LA, which leads me to conclude that the difference is budget/ownership. The Dodgers have been smart but opportunistically aggressive in the Guggenheim era, a model that the Giants could follow but have chosen not to. As a capitalist I can't begrudge ownership maximizing profits, but it's disappointing for fans, and it surprises me that fans praise the Giants as if it were their money being saved.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »