Outside Topic Giants/Niners 2022 thread - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Giants/Niners 2022 thread (/thread-22890.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Giants/Niners 2022 thread (/thread-22890.html)
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - DC 86 - 01-25-2022
(01-25-2022, 03:23 PM)Mick Wrote:(01-25-2022, 02:36 PM)Phogge Wrote: Gausman just wasn’t the same guy in the second half. Let’s wait until the season starts before we panic guys.
I think that long term free agent pitcher contracts turn into Barry Zito or Johnny Cueto too often. Super-expensive, and they get one good year out of them. Giants got an 18-5 year from Cueto when he was 30, then Cueto turned 31 (same age as Gausman is now) and he has won 21 games total in the five seasons since then. Zito had a seven year contract with the Giants and had one (1) winning season...and had a 4.15 ERA during that season.
As far as Gausman goes...he was unhittable through June 23, at which point his ERA was 1.49 and he was 8-1. Then on 6/29 he gave up three runs and five walks in five innings and on July 5 he gave up two runs (just five base runners) in seven innings with 8 strikeouts. ERA 1.74. He hit the wall on July 19; two HRs in three innings, no decision. Gave up six earned runs on July 24th to pick up his fourth loss (ERA climbed to 2.21) and gave up three runs in 4 1/3rd on 7/30, losing again to fall 9-5. After 110 innings...he hit the wall.
I don't think SF wanted him for one season, and knew that he wanted a multi year contract. At 5 years, $110 mms., I anticipate one good year, and at some point Shapiro or Atkins, maybe LaCava ends up losing their jobs.
I agree about the risk of long term pitcher contracts, but if you don't spend on pitching you need to spend on hitting and fielding.
Regarding the 1H/2H numbers, I addressed that above. If he actually hit a wall then his strikeout and walk rates would have declined instead of improved.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - Giants - 01-25-2022
(01-25-2022, 03:38 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-25-2022, 03:23 PM)Mick Wrote:(01-25-2022, 02:36 PM)Phogge Wrote: Gausman just wasn’t the same guy in the second half. Let’s wait until the season starts before we panic guys.
I think that long term free agent pitcher contracts turn into Barry Zito or Johnny Cueto too often. Super-expensive, and they get one good year out of them. Giants got an 18-5 year from Cueto when he was 30, then Cueto turned 31 (same age as Gausman is now) and he has won 21 games total in the five seasons since then. Zito had a seven year contract with the Giants and had one (1) winning season...and had a 4.15 ERA during that season.
As far as Gausman goes...he was unhittable through June 23, at which point his ERA was 1.49 and he was 8-1. Then on 6/29 he gave up three runs and five walks in five innings and on July 5 he gave up two runs (just five base runners) in seven innings with 8 strikeouts. ERA 1.74. He hit the wall on July 19; two HRs in three innings, no decision. Gave up six earned runs on July 24th to pick up his fourth loss (ERA climbed to 2.21) and gave up three runs in 4 1/3rd on 7/30, losing again to fall 9-5. After 110 innings...he hit the wall.
I don't think SF wanted him for one season, and knew that he wanted a multi year contract. At 5 years, $110 mms., I anticipate one good year, and at some point Shapiro or Atkins, maybe LaCava ends up losing their jobs.
I agree about the risk of long term pitcher contracts, but if you don't spend on pitching you need to spend on hitting and fielding.
Regarding the 1H/2H numbers, I addressed that above. If he actually hit a wall then his strikeout and walk rates would have declined instead of improved.
Carlos Rodon and Seiya Suzuki are the two guys I think SF should focus on. I think they could get Rodon at below market term/$$ due to his health concerns and Suzuki at market rate.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - DC 86 - 01-25-2022
(01-25-2022, 04:04 PM)Giants Wrote: Carlos Rodon and Seiya Suzuki are the two guys I think SF should focus on. I think they could get Rodon at below market term/$$ due to his health concerns and Suzuki at market rate.
I have argued for Rodon in this thread previously, he's exactly the kind of high-risk/high-reward gamble that a wealthy team such as SF should me making. The contract length will be short, but he won't be below market even with his injury concerns.
Suzuki would be great but there will be immense competition (almost all the high-revenue teams made contact with him prior to the lockout), he may prioritize location/club over money which could favor SF, but it's not something to count on.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - Phogge - 01-25-2022
I only count ERA, wins and great control. All the other modern stats give me a migraine. Gausman didn’t pass my eye test in the second half. Plus it’s time to give some younger guys the chance for #5 in the rotation.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - DC 86 - 01-25-2022
(01-25-2022, 05:34 PM)Phogge Wrote: I only count ERA, wins and great control. All the other modern stats give me a migraine. Gausman didn’t pass my eye test in the second half. Plus it’s time to give some younger guys the chance for #5 in the rotation.
Nothing wrong with that, we are each entitled to our own assessments.
However, his control was better in the second half than in the first half (his walk rate fell from 6.9% to 5.9%). And there isn't a single from office that pays any attention to wins or raw ERA.
In any case, I wasn't trying to hold a referendum about Gausman per se; I'm just surprised that Giants fans are pleased with spending so much less than other high revenue clubs.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - BobK - 01-25-2022
I really doubt front office people don’t care about wins.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - DC 86 - 01-25-2022
(01-25-2022, 06:16 PM)BobK Wrote: I really doubt front office people don’t care about wins.
They care zero about the pitcher wins statistic.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - triangle2 - 01-25-2022
DC, I wonder if taking a pass on big free agents is simply the most significant manifestation of the paradigm shift from analytics. Simply, the argument seems to be that in a (mostly?) non-PED era, peak performance years are much earlier than what we grew accustomed to during the 80's and 90's. Free agent signings are then considerably riskier since most players are likely to be very close to regression at the start of the contract rather than at the end. As a result, a team would stay away from the expensive free agents, prioritize the draft, international signings, and home growing quality players under team control.
It seems to me that this makes it much more plausible that a team might buy out a couple of arbitration years in exchange for a couple of extra years at a 'rational' price. Imagine you sign a developed college player at age 21 who makes the team at age 24. After six years of team control, that player might be already on the decline by the time he's a free agent. So, you buy out a couple of arbitration years and get a 4 year deal that expires at age 31 or 32. Every once in a while, you bite on longer deal for a Posey or Crawford with the hope that this is a franchise guy who gets another extension at age 32 because he's beloved, or has shown durability, or has three World Series rings.
One test is whether Farhan goes all in for Suzuki. At age 27, he could be exactly what the Giants want: a really valuable player who would come in at close to peak performance at an age where you can feel better about paying top dollar and see that top performance over several years of the contract. In contrast, look what happened when the Giants traded for Longoria for his age 32 season. Longoria had really terrific performance through his age 30 season and then fell off the cliff. The Giants got 125, 129, 53 (Covid year), and 81 games, one season of 20 home runs, and no 70+ RBI years.
To me, this is why the most interesting part of the lockout is the dispute over the length and details of team control and arbitration, the service time manipulation issue, and how MLB doesn't seem to want to raise base salaries. I suspect a lot of people have done the math.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - Phogge - 01-25-2022
Just asking DC. How many front office people do you have conversations with. Not trying to be a dick or to be snarky. Some guys do just enough to win. But they win. I get that front offices are metric driven. But as an old timer who cherished wins against Cal and others I loved W's 1-0 or 10-9. I've had both.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - BobK - 01-25-2022
Yes DC I meant Pitcher wins. That was your quote
Moving on. Wish we had signed Gausman.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - DC 86 - 01-25-2022
(01-25-2022, 07:16 PM)triangle2 Wrote: DC, I wonder if taking a pass on big free agents is simply the most significant manifestation of the paradigm shift from analytics. Simply, the argument seems to be that in a (mostly?) non-PED era, peak performance years are much earlier than what we grew accustomed to during the 80's and 90's. Free agent signings are then considerably riskier since most players are likely to be very close to regression at the start of the contract rather than at the end. As a result, a team would stay away from the expensive free agents, prioritize the draft, international signings, and home growing quality players under team control.
It seems to me that this makes it much more plausible that a team might buy out a couple of arbitration years in exchange for a couple of extra years at a 'rational' price. Imagine you sign a developed college player at age 21 who makes the team at age 24. After six years of team control, that player might be already on the decline by the time he's a free agent. So, you buy out a couple of arbitration years and get a 4 year deal that expires at age 31 or 32. Every once in a while, you bite on longer deal for a Posey or Crawford with the hope that this is a franchise guy who gets another extension at age 32 because he's beloved, or has shown durability, or has three World Series rings.
One test is whether Farhan goes all in for Suzuki. At age 27, he could be exactly what the Giants want: a really valuable player who would come in at close to peak performance at an age where you can feel better about paying top dollar and see that top performance over several years of the contract. In contrast, look what happened when the Giants traded for Longoria for his age 32 season. Longoria had really terrific performance through his age 30 season and then fell off the cliff. The Giants got 125, 129, 53 (Covid year), and 81 games, one season of 20 home runs, and no 70+ RBI years.
To me, this is why the most interesting part of the lockout is the dispute over the length and details of team control and arbitration, the service time manipulation issue, and how MLB doesn't seem to want to raise base salaries. I suspect a lot of people have done the math.
I agree completely, it's evident that teams have become much smarter about paying for older free agents, which is the underlying issue in the current labor dispute. However:
1. The Giants aren't being active for even younger free agents (Correa to play third base?) or players willing to sign short term deals, e.g. Stroman.
2. As one of the highest revenue teams in MLB the Giants can afford to take some chances. The Dodgers may be the most analytically inclined team in MLB (and Zaidi's former employer) but they are willing to deviate from optimal efficiency because they have the financial wherewithal to withstand bets gone wrong. They took a chance and signed Cole Hamels which proved to be insane, but it doesn't hamper them going forward because they're a wealthy club, as are the Giants.
You're absolutely right and SF is a very well run organization, but with their financial resources they should be able to find a way to intelligently raise payroll to the level of other high revenue clubs.
(01-25-2022, 07:47 PM)BobK Wrote: Yes DC I meant Pitcher wins. That was your quote
Yes I just wanted to be clear, since your reply could be interpreted as me claiming that front offices don't care about wins in general, which of course they do. I stand by my statement about pitcher wins, specifically.
(01-25-2022, 07:42 PM)Phogge Wrote: Just asking DC. How many front office people do you have conversations with. Not trying to be a dick or to be snarky. Some guys do just enough to win. But they win. I get that front offices are metric driven. But as an old timer who cherished wins against Cal and others I loved W's 1-0 or 10-9. I've had both.
In answer to the first question, several, on almost a daily basis. I'm glad to elaborate offline or in person someday.
The narrative of "pitching to the score" has been debunked in numerous studies. Now that game logs are available going back to 1900 it turns out that pitcher statistics are remarkably consistent for individual pitchers whether pitching in a one run game or when the situation is a five run margin.
You should cherish every win that you recorded. They are meaningful, they're just not used in any predictive or evaluation models these days.
lex24 - lex24 - 01-25-2022
(01-25-2022, 01:20 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-24-2022, 11:12 PM)Giants Wrote:(01-24-2022, 08:59 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-24-2022, 12:28 PM)Mick Wrote: Gausman says the Giants never made him an offer. He signed for $110 million for five years.
https://twitter.com/KevinGausman/status/1485349317741269005?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1485349317741269005%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Faroundthefoghorn.com%2Fposts%2Fformer-sf-giants-pitcher-sets-record-straight-on-foray-into-free-agency-01ft4b4hzdcs
Wow. That is concerning. Giants ain’t gonna compete by being cheap. Don’t know if I’d have paid him $110 for 5. But I would have taken a shot at signing.
IMO, $110 for 5 was a big overpayment. No surprise there since overpayments are part of the free agent signing process. You generally receive a fair return on the front half of the contract but take a big hit on the back half. I believe Gausman fits that profile. Therefore, I believe Zaidi made the right call. He isn’t hoarding money because he is frugal. He is just looking for that unique someone who he thinks will provide value over the length of the contract (good luck, Farhan…).
(01-25-2022, 10:18 AM)Phogge Wrote: Too much for Gausman and in the second half Webb was the best pitcher in the league.
I don't understand these comments at all coming from a fan perspective.
1. From an ownership perspective it makes all the sense in the world to cut payroll as much as possible. Following last year's spectacular season attendance and sponsorship will be very strong, and the club is going to make a ton of money regardless of whether they reach the playoffs or not, regardless of whether they win the division or finish third with 85 wins. The revenue line is relatively inelastic so reducing costs is almost all pure profit.
2. Grant Brisbee at The Athletic predicted a $130 million payroll, presumably based on some internal insight. Fangraphs projects slightly less. That's roughly the level of the Twins and Reds payrolls last season. The Giants are one of the highest revenue teams in MLB, and the franchise is the fifth most valuable in the game (a reflection of projected future revenues and income) so it's ridiculous for their payroll to be in the 15th-17th range and for the team to be cutting payroll after such a successful season.
3. When teams don't re-sign their own players it's often a red flag. Possible medical issues or proprietary internal information that other teams aren't properly weighing. Maybe that's the case with Gausman. But SF made no effort (or only half hearted efforts) to pursue Ray, Rodriguez, Stroman, Gray, Garcia or Matz. They essentially signed Cobb in place of Gausman and saved $10 mm/year in the process. On a dollar-for-dollar basis I'm sure that signing Cobb is smarter than signing most of those others, i.e. Ray and Stroman probably aren't going to be more than twice as good as Cobb. But most of that group (and Gausman obviously) are all projected to be better than Cobb in absolute terms. So his signing is either genius (identifying the best available pitcher even though he's not projected as such by the industry) or simply saving money. More likely the latter.
4. A perfectly valid strategy which I would endorse is to spend money on position players while cobbling together a starting pitching staff from undervalued assets. Starters are less important than ever and prone to injury at some point when awarded a long term contract. This is what I assumed the Giants were doing when they essentially sat out the starting pitcher market. But they've also been inactive in the position player market. Their three best players last year were Posey (retrired), Crawford (35 years old coming off a career year that surely will regress) and Belt (will play at 34 years old this year and also likely to regress). But SF so far hasn't been involved in pursuing any position player free agents. Will SF operate at the top of that market (Correa) or near the top (Bryant, Castellanos, Story, Conforto)? All of those guys are going to be "overpaid" so the Giants may just pass and look for bargains (Pham?) and pray that they sign Suzuki.
When business re-opens I may be proven completely wrong and the Giants may move to aggressively improve the team. But right now it looks like SF is going to celebrate being $80 million or so under the luxury tax and I don't see why that's something that fans should be excited about. Signing Cobb instead of Gausman is "smart" and passing on free agents whose contracts are likely to age poorly is "very smart", but the Giants are a wealthy team owned by wealthy people who are capable of making some "not totally smart" moves and those would be a lot more fun for fans.
Each individual decision (such as not making an offer to Gausman) is entirely defensible but not something to cheer for if it's part of a master plan to reduce payroll substantially and just pocket the profits instead of investing them elsewhere.
Agree 1000 percent. I can’t understand why fans care about frugality. Eddie D was the best owner in Bay Area history. Spent. Spent. Then spent some more. I get it luxury taxes salary caps etc. have changed things. But that still doesn’t make me want ownership to be “frugal. I want them to hit the upper limits and if they have to pay a luxury tax so what. It’s not my money. And if you think Zaidi is good at finding bargains – well then certainly he should be good at determining who to spend big money on.
Giants better do something. Otherwise they are going to be in for a big fall next year.
RE: lex24 - Mick - 01-25-2022
(01-25-2022, 01:20 PM)DC 86 Wrote: 4. A perfectly valid strategy which I would endorse is to spend money on position players while cobbling together a starting pitching staff from undervalued assets. Starters are less important than ever and prone to injury at some point when awarded a long term contract. This is what I assumed the Giants were doing when they essentially sat out the starting pitcher market. But they've also been inactive in the position player market. Their three best players last year were Posey (retrired), Crawford (35 years old coming off a career year that surely will regress) and Belt (will play at 34 years old this year and also likely to regress). But SF so far hasn't been involved in pursuing any position player free agents. Will SF operate at the top of that market (Correa) or near the top (Bryant, Castellanos, Story, Conforto)? All of those guys are going to be "overpaid" so the Giants may just pass and look for bargains (Pham?) and pray that they sign Suzuki.
When business re-opens I may be proven completely wrong and the Giants may move to aggressively improve the team. But right now it looks like SF is going to celebrate being $80 million or so under the luxury tax and I don't see why that's something that fans should be excited about. Signing Cobb instead of Gausman is "smart" and passing on free agents whose contracts are likely to age poorly is "very smart", but the Giants are a wealthy team owned by wealthy people who are capable of making some "not totally smart" moves and those would be a lot more fun for fans.
Each individual decision (such as not making an offer to Gausman) is entirely defensible but not something to cheer for if it's part of a master plan to reduce payroll substantially and just pocket the profits instead of investing them elsewhere.
My sense is that the Giants always wanted to be strong up the middle with Posey and Crawford, and have no worse than the third best position player in the league at the other six positions, ideally. Seems like that was the formula for 2010-2014.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - lex24 - 01-26-2022
HOF lost any small shred of credibility it had. Scott Ostler pretty much nailed it. Ortiz was linked to steroids. But he was and is so likeable. Bonds and Clemons otoh were colossal jerks. So, they don’t get in. Middle school popularity contest.
I’ll say it again, to have the guy that presided over the steroid era in and use steroids as a reason to keep players out is the height of hypocrisy.
Schilling should be in also. He failed the popularity contest big time. But that should have nothing to do with whether he’s in the Museum.
Then there is Jeff Kent. Who simply has some of the best numbers for a second baseman in history. But for some reason they don’t count. In part cause they have decided RBI’s don’t matter. Yep, try winning without them. I get it - not predictive. So freaking what. If a guy consistently produces runs, that freaking matters. (So, if you need metric support look at his career RISP numbers. They are slightly higher than his overall slash line. An analytic way to determine the guy actually was a producer.) The question isn’t whether he will drive in runs if picked up as an FA by the Baltimore Orioles. It’s about a career. And all Kent did is produce at a level few other second baseman have. But he too was a jerk. Hell, 32%. That’s absurd.
Big Papi was loved. And he played for the RedSox. The darlings of baseball, along with their hated rivals. I guess he got extra points for his fantastic defense.
What a freaking joke.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - BobK - 01-26-2022
Thank you Lex. So well said. What a brobdingnagian joke on baseball. Let’s keep the best out of the Hall because they didn’t treat me a sports write with respect.
And the lock out continues. Al so the owners can make more money.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - teejers1 - 01-26-2022
(01-26-2022, 09:35 AM)BobK Wrote: Thank you Lex. So well said. What a of immense proportions joke on baseball. Let’s keep the best out of the Hall because they didn’t treat me a sports write with respect.
And the lock out continues. Al so the owners can make more money.
I knew there were subject matters where Lex, Bob, and I could all agree!
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - BobK - 01-26-2022
Wow I can't believe this We agree. LOL TJ will you bew at the games this weekend?
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - teejers1 - 01-26-2022
(01-26-2022, 12:32 PM)BobK Wrote: Wow I can't believe this We agree. LOL TJ will you bew at the games this weekend?
Yes, barring conflict with kids' games. My time look ahead horizon is 24 hours these days, so I haven't contemplated weekend schedule. I know kids play Friday evening and Saturday . . . sometime, so there well may be a conflict. I'm hoping Stanford plays on Sunday, at least, which is open.
RE: Giants/Niners 2022 thread - DC 86 - 01-27-2022
(01-25-2022, 03:23 PM)Mick Wrote: I don't think SF wanted him for one season, and knew that he wanted a multi year contract. At 5 years, $110 mms., I anticipate one good year, and at some point Shapiro or Atkins, maybe LaCava ends up losing their jobs.
They've got a strong young core, one of the best farm systems in the game and they report to a faceless corporation that doesn't obsess over wins and losses - I think Shapiro et al have one of the best and safest situations in the game, unless Rogers sells the team.
lex24 - lex24 - 01-28-2022
(01-27-2022, 11:16 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(01-25-2022, 03:23 PM)Mick Wrote: I don't think SF wanted him for one season, and knew that he wanted a multi year contract. At 5 years, $110 mms., I anticipate one good year, and at some point Shapiro or Atkins, maybe LaCava ends up losing their jobs.
They've got a strong young core, one of the best farm systems in the game and they report to a faceless corporation that doesn't obsess over wins and losses - I think Shapiro et al have one of the best and safest situations in the game, unless Rogers sells the team.
5 years at $110 is hardly a bet the job number. You have to accept a certain amount of risk. I’ve seen no indication that the Jays paid Gausman significantly more than market. IIRC, when the Giants signed Zito, the word was their offer was way over market.
Im fine with the Giants not matching the offer. But if Gausman is telling the truth, they didn’t even make an offer. Ok. Then go get someone that can give you what Gausman did.
$130 million payroll according to Grant Brisbee. PATHETIC if true.
If the Giants don’t make significant moves if and when the lockout ends, they will finish below .500. That involves adding at least one RH bat and a starting top of the rotation pitcher.
I think Webb has a bright future. He also has had arm issues. And he goes from being the No 4 or 5 starter to the Ace. That’s added pressure. He certainly showed he can handle pressure last year. But it’s just slightly different when you are the Man out of the shoot. Be nice to have someone to pair him with. Gausman was that guy last year. Despite his post all star slump. He pitched fairly well down the stretch. And he was nails in the first half. Funny how that didn’t seem to count….
Webb, DeScalafani, Wood, Cobb and ? Not complete. And in need of a high rotation guy. If they are too cheap to get one, they deserve to be a 78-82 team…..