07-16-2019, 08:15 AM
I'm not a fan to see the team waddle around .500, Bob. If you're not 10+ games over .500 at the trade deadline, you aren't a legit contender and fooling yourself into thinking staying status quo is going to improve the situation in terms of near and long-term planning.
The Athletic just did an article on contending NHL teams. One of the most consistent over the last decade has been the SJ Sharks. A primary reason is because they have been willing to make really tough personnel decisions that at the time were quite unpopular, but in the end made the team more competitive more consistently.
I do want Giants to trade the established assets for more younger ones, and re-sign them as Free Agents, but I also realize it will be politically unfeasible for the Giants to unload those guys to teams with a similar record and place in standings.
Just be glad I'm not this guy, Bob. He doesn't even seem to recognize the Giants are now just 3 GB of a playoff spot. I'm at least acknowledging the trade priority for the Giants may be changing.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2719...y-deadline
The Athletic just did an article on contending NHL teams. One of the most consistent over the last decade has been the SJ Sharks. A primary reason is because they have been willing to make really tough personnel decisions that at the time were quite unpopular, but in the end made the team more competitive more consistently.
I do want Giants to trade the established assets for more younger ones, and re-sign them as Free Agents, but I also realize it will be politically unfeasible for the Giants to unload those guys to teams with a similar record and place in standings.
Just be glad I'm not this guy, Bob. He doesn't even seem to recognize the Giants are now just 3 GB of a playoff spot. I'm at least acknowledging the trade priority for the Giants may be changing.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2719...y-deadline