Outside Topic The Giants - 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 The Giants (/thread-17809.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 The Giants (/thread-17809.html)
RE: The Giants - Phogge - 08-04-2019
They wouldn’t have brought much and Farhan would have been tied to a spit, roasted and eaten by writers and fans alike.
He didn’t move them and now it’s time to move on.
lex24 - lex24 - 08-04-2019
So, Outsider tell us, what were the offers? Unless you know, you have no basis for claiming Bum and Smith “should have” been traded
(08-04-2019, 03:44 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: "MY" Mets are 9-1 in their last 10. Giants are 4-6 in their last 10. Mets now have the best record since break and are .5 GB of Giants. Fangraphs has the Giants at just a 5% chance to make playoffs. Mets are now a 20% proposition.
The Giants remaining schedule has a .531 win percentage. The next most difficult schedule among wild card contenders is the .512 the Cardinals face. The Nationals, Phillies, and D-Backs all have under .500 opponent records remaining.
The Giants should have traded Bumgarner and Smith. I get why they didn't, but that doesn't mean it was a smart choice.
RE: The Giants - qwerty49 - 08-04-2019
(08-04-2019, 12:17 PM)Mick Wrote: Giants were wild card winners of the W/S in 2014, when they went 88-74. Currently 56-55, the Giants would have to go 32-19 in the remaining 51 games to hit that threshold again. That's a 63% winning clip. Only the Dodgers are winning at that rate in the NL.
Giants still only 2.5 back of the wild card.
87-88 wins has been the traditional threshold for wildcard in past years, but this year MIGHT be different.
If Wash or Philly merely play at their current winning 52.3%, they will win 85 games. For the Giants to win 86, they will have to go 30-20, exactly .600 ball, the rest of the way.
And that is IF Wash and Philly don't play any better down the stretch, and IF neither Milwaukee, AZ or the Mets, who are all tied with SF in the loss column, don't pass them.
They really need to take 2 of 3 from the Nats this week. Losing today was a real lost opportunity.
RE: lex24 - OutsiderFan - 08-05-2019
(08-04-2019, 09:51 PM)lex24 Wrote: So, Outsider tell us, what were the offers? Unless you know, you have no basis for claiming Bum and Smith “should have” been traded
Something is better than nothing. They would have received more than nothing. I understand ownership wants to play meaningful games in September, and that the remaining players would have been upset if the team threw in the towel seemingly so close to contention by trading its most valuable assets, but I’m fairly confident the baseball people knew the July run run was iron pyrite and fully expected regression to the mean with this team. The realities were staring them in the face, and the odds were heavily stacked against the Giants even with Bumgarner and Smith. FZ and his team knew this more than any fan.
This isn’t some hindsight position I’m taking. It would have been a really hard decision to trade them, but the talent gap between the Giants and Dodgers, Padres, D-Backs, Braves (to name a few in the NL) is so big that it requires every opportunity the Giants have to close it. The Dodgers in particular are just ridiculously loaded and need to be attacked by getting better in any way possible. The Giants haven’t been willing to make the tough decisions. This is a big reason why the hole they must get out of is so big.
The Giants traded OF Bryan Reynolds and P Kyle Crick to Pirates two years ago for Andrew McCutchen. Crick stinks, but Reynolds is now Leading the NL in batting this week. No guarantees on trades, but it seems highly unlikely the Giants wouldn’t have made themselves better by trading Smith and Bum.
RE: The Giants - Mick - 08-05-2019
(08-04-2019, 01:59 PM)Phogge Wrote: Belt AB, 5th inning. Piped fastball at 94. Swing and miss. DFA him, he’s killing the Giants. Eat the contract.
Saw A-Rod commenting on a Giants game about a month ago. He said he didn't think much of their chances because they were swinging late on fastballs in fastball counts.
Separately, he said he really liked Brandon Belt, thought Belt was in the wrong park, and if Belt were almost anywhere else he'd be a 30 HR guy with near-gold glove defense. Not sure that's true, his OPS is virtually identical, and actually slightly higher at home than away.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 08-05-2019
(08-05-2019, 03:48 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Something is better than nothing.
OK, as I have pointed out, by keeping both of them, they can extend qualifying offers. If they then don't sign them, they get compensating draft picks. So, by keeping them, they get "something". Is that better than what they could have got in a trade? I don't know, but your "something is better than nothing" argument is defeated by this fact.
RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 08-05-2019
(08-04-2019, 09:51 PM)lex24 Wrote: So, Outsider tell us, what were the offers? Unless you know, you have no basis for claiming Bum and Smith “should have” been traded
(08-04-2019, 03:44 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: "MY" Mets are 9-1 in their last 10. Giants are 4-6 in their last 10. Mets now have the best record since break and are .5 GB of Giants. Fangraphs has the Giants at just a 5% chance to make playoffs. Mets are now a 20% proposition.
The Giants remaining schedule has a .531 win percentage. The next most difficult schedule among wild card contenders is the .512 the Cardinals face. The Nationals, Phillies, and D-Backs all have under .500 opponent records remaining.
The Giants should have traded Bumgarner and Smith. I get why they didn't, but that doesn't mean it was a smart choice.
To be fair, Phogge made a similar comment stating that Bum and Smith wouldn't have brought much. Doubt anybody here has any concept of what trade options were available, so who knows what could have been offered by desperate GMs. Nor does anyone here have a clue as to what the "sell price" of Bum and Smith from the Giants perspective. I'm sure there was a level, but nobody came close, so Bum and Smith stayed.
RE: The Giants - OutsiderFan - 08-05-2019
It almost certainly went something like this:
The Giants were offered ostensibly greater value than a compensatory draft pick if both guys didn't sign after getting qualifying offers. Why else would the Giants trade them if the trade offer wasn't better than the value of a QO compensatory pick would give them? Makes zero sense to trade otherwise and the buyers know this. But the Giants wanted a premium higher than any team was willing to pay.
I'd guess on a scale of a 1-10 price, the Giants wanted at least a 9 for Bum and they would have taken a 6 for Smith, but they weren't going to trade Smith if they kept Bum, or keep Bum if they traded Smith. The Giants were offered a 7 or 8 for Bum, but nothing more, so they walked away. Let's assume for argument's sake, that a compensatory pick is valued at 5.
Translation: The Giants valued Bum way more than the market. This is exactly the problem the Giants have had that got them into the mess they are now in. They overvalue their players to their detriment, lots of times for sentimental reasons. Bill Walsh and Bill Belichick would not approve, and neither do I.
RE: The Giants - magnus - 08-05-2019
Pick compensation definitely something to factor in.
However, not sure the Giants would extend a qualifying offer to Smith. What's the commitment? 17? 18 million? Given Craig Kimbrel's struggles to find a contract this past offseason, Smith might jump on the one year deal.
No disagreement on Bum though.
RE: The Giants - Phogge - 08-05-2019
Conjecture is like an ex-wife. Press on pals.
RE: The Giants - Mick - 08-05-2019
(08-05-2019, 11:14 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It almost certainly went something like this:
The Giants were offered ostensibly greater value than a compensatory draft pick if both guys didn't sign after getting qualifying offers. Why else would the Giants trade them if the trade offer wasn't better than the value of a QO compensatory pick would give them? Makes zero sense to trade otherwise and the buyers know this. But the Giants wanted a premium higher than any team was willing to pay.
I'd guess on a scale of a 1-10 price, the Giants wanted at least a 9 for Bum and they would have taken a 6 for Smith, but they weren't going to trade Smith if they kept Bum, or keep Bum if they traded Smith. The Giants were offered a 7 or 8 for Bum, but nothing more, so they walked away. Let's assume for argument's sake, that a compensatory pick is valued at 5.
Translation: The Giants valued Bum way more than the market. This is exactly the problem the Giants have had that got them into the mess they are now in. They overvalue their players to their detriment, lots of times for sentimental reasons. Bill Walsh and Bill Belichick would not approve, and neither do I.
Walsh always used to say that it was better to trade a player a year early than a year late, which led to him trading a 30 year old Ronnie Lott who promptly led the NFL in interceptions with eight in his first year with the Raiders. Lott had half of his career forced fumbles after he left the 49ers. He also had more annual tackles every single year after he was traded than in the four years prior to the trade.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LottRo00.htm
RE: The Giants - OutsiderFan - 08-06-2019
"MY" Mets are now ahead of the Giants in the Wild Card standings, even faster than I thought they would be after Monday's results.
The bad news is Anibal Sanchez, who hasn't lost since May 10 and starts tonight for the Nats, has only allowed two runs in 31 career IP at Oracle Park and is 3-0 with a .58 ERA agains the Giants in his career.
I guess the good news is Cueto is off to a roaring start in his rehab assignment.
RE: The Giants - BobK - 08-06-2019
Mick re Ronnie Lott Bill Walsh’s retired as the 49er coach in 1988. He didn’t release Ronnie.
RE: The Giants - Phogge - 08-06-2019
Believe Bill was team president.
And never mention Bill and the Patriot Bill together. Walsh was tough but had a sense of humor. The other is a miserable excuse for a human being. Another in the long line of Bill Parcells. The worst may be coaching in New Orleans.
RE: The Giants - cardcrimson - 08-06-2019
(08-05-2019, 07:52 PM)Mick Wrote:(08-05-2019, 11:14 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It almost certainly went something like this:
The Giants were offered ostensibly greater value than a compensatory draft pick if both guys didn't sign after getting qualifying offers. Why else would the Giants trade them if the trade offer wasn't better than the value of a QO compensatory pick would give them? Makes zero sense to trade otherwise and the buyers know this. But the Giants wanted a premium higher than any team was willing to pay.
I'd guess on a scale of a 1-10 price, the Giants wanted at least a 9 for Bum and they would have taken a 6 for Smith, but they weren't going to trade Smith if they kept Bum, or keep Bum if they traded Smith. The Giants were offered a 7 or 8 for Bum, but nothing more, so they walked away. Let's assume for argument's sake, that a compensatory pick is valued at 5.
Translation: The Giants valued Bum way more than the market. This is exactly the problem the Giants have had that got them into the mess they are now in. They overvalue their players to their detriment, lots of times for sentimental reasons. Bill Walsh and Bill Belichick would not approve, and neither do I.
Walsh always used to say that it was better to trade a player a year early than a year late, which led to him trading a 30 year old Ronnie Lott who promptly led the NFL in interceptions with eight in his first year with the Raiders. Lott had half of his career forced fumbles after he left the 49ers. He also had more annual tackles every single year after he was traded than in the four years prior to the trade.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LottRo00.htm
Statistics. . . .Lott also played in an average of 15.75 games per year his last four seasons in the league, but only 11.75 in his last four seasons with the 49ers, so his season tackle stats are a bit misleading. Similarly, the Niners won an average of 12.75 games and two Super Bowls over that stretch, and probably weren't relying on safeties to make tackles. The Jets and Raiders won an average of 7.75 games while he played for them and methinks there's a good chance, their d-lines and linebackers weren't so hot. Finally, Lott's "approximate value" listed in the stats you referenced dropped pretty significantly after he left the Niners, especially after his first year with the Raiders.
RE: The Giants - magnus - 08-06-2019
Panik has been DFA'ed
Back in 2016, Jon Heyman reported that the Yankees wanted Panik for Andrew Miller. Giants said no, so Miller went to the Indians.
RE: The Giants - Goose - 08-06-2019
(08-06-2019, 03:07 PM)magnus Wrote: Panik has been DFA'ed
Sad, but had to happen. He isn't a viable major league player anymore. It is not impossible that he recovers his form, but it hasn't looked probable for a while.
RE: The Giants - Phogge - 08-06-2019
Who needs Andrew Miller when you have Andrew Suarez.
lex24 - lex24 - 08-06-2019
Hard to believe they would have done that even up. Suspect NY wanted more.
(08-06-2019, 03:07 PM)magnus Wrote: Panik has been DFA'ed
Back in 2016, Jon Heyman reported that the Yankees wanted Panik for Andrew Miller. Giants said no, so Miller went to the Indians.
lex24 - lex24 - 08-06-2019
Charlie Dressen.
I hope Panik lands with Mets and resurrects his career. A good Giant. They lose the 2014 series if he doesn’t make that great play.