[DC 86]

DC, Thanks for the detailed response….

I ran with an either/or summary of thoughts because of your question.  To wit, “Wouldn’t it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects?”  

I read the question as though you were looking for an either/or answer….

No big deal.  Heck, I am glad my comments yielded your rejoinder.  It provides an opportunity to explore the issue further.

1.  We absolutely agree it is not necessary to choose only one approach.  I believe in pouring resources into scouting and signing international talent along with identifying and selecting domestic talent through the draft.  That should always be the #1 source of talent. Free agency along with mid-season trades to fill key gaps on the roster should be utilized judiciously.  As noted, I am not a big fan of spending millions on long term deals.  Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule.  For example, SF went all in on Bryce Harper and came up short.  No one could accuse SF of low-balling Harper.  He just went with an offer that worked better for him.  

2.  We agree on the issue of older guys being more vulnerable to injuries.  It is will interesting to see how Zaidi addresses this concern as the season unfolds.  

3.  I didn’t include Correa because, in effect, he signed a one year deal with Minnesota.  The Giants may get a second bite of that apple after the ‘22 season.  

4.  See #3.  in addition, I couldn’t resist tossing Turner’s name in the hat because of the “Addition By Subtraction” factor.  What would be more fun than poking the Dodgers in the eye by signing one of their key players? 

5. We agree re: Suzuki.  However, we have no idea of whether he would have spurned Chicago for a few million more.  Regardless, I wish he was wearing Orange and Black this season.  One other thought, I try to approach my fandom as though I was an investor and fan.  As an investor, I want a solid ROI every year.  As a fan, I want a winning program.  Otherwise, you are living in an unrealistic world.  I think Zaidi does an excellent job of balancing the two requirements.  

6.  We can disagree.  I think it is quite helpful to management to see how players react to playing within the structure that has been established by Zaidi.  

What has gone unsaid is Zaidi’s commitment to giving the young talent rising through the minors an opportunity to play.  As we know, the Giants are loaded at the High A/AA level of the minors.  (Hypothetically) Rather than playing a $25 million guy who is hitting .220 in his fourth year of a long term deal, let’s give Luis Matos who is tearing up the minors a shot.  And no, releasing the highly-paid vet is not a prudent financial decision.

In summary, we agree more than we disagree.  I guess the big difference is (speaking as Charles Johnson) that I never take my eye off the bottom line while demanding excellence from my subordinates.

Thanks, Giants. We do agree more than disagree. You're right that I did frame the question as signing free agents vs acquiring rentals via trade, and while realistically they are both parts of the equation I view rentals as filling the gaps that home grown players and free agents failed to address, so they are less desirable to me, albeit necessary.

Correa did sign a one year deal, but why weren't the Giants involved? this was actually an ideal situation for SF. The lockout left little time to develop his market, Texas had signed Seager, Detroit (his expected landing spot) signed Baez which severely limited his leverage, so SF could have pounced with a long term offer but didn't. Seems like a lost opportunity. I understand that SF's philosophy is to avoid jumping in early into bidding war, but this was a spot to opportunistically come in late when there apparently weren't other bidders at the desired total contract range.

I understand the investment aspect which is important for long term sustainability, but at the moment the Giants strike me as akin to a company with enormous amounts of unused capital, waiting for the perfect opportunity, unwilling to reduce ROI even if it enhances overall profit.

As to the development of minor leaguers, the Giants excel at strategically deploying their roster to maximum effect, and the addition of the DH gives the team even more flexibility. I doubt that a promising rookie will ever be blocked; either a declining veteran will be used in a more limited role or (in the worst case scenario) traded with SF continuing to pay a portion of his salary, which the Giants can easily afford. In any case, this year's free agents (except for Seager) signed for 3-6 years, so it's not a Pujols or Cabrera situation. And while the Giants do have a number of promising minor leaguers, the likelihood of any of them becoming elite players is still low.

[DC 86]

DC, Thanks for the detailed response….

I ran with an either/or summary of thoughts because of your question.  To wit, “Wouldn’t it be better to have signed players on the open market rather than having to trade prospects?”  

I read the question as though you were looking for an either/or answer….

No big deal.  Heck, I am glad my comments yielded your rejoinder.  It provides an opportunity to explore the issue further.

1.  We absolutely agree it is not necessary to choose only one approach.  I believe in pouring resources into scouting and signing international talent along with identifying and selecting domestic talent through the draft.  That should always be the #1 source of talent. Free agency along with mid-season trades to fill key gaps on the roster should be utilized judiciously.  As noted, I am not a big fan of spending millions on long term deals.  Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule.  For example, SF went all in on Bryce Harper and came up short.  No one could accuse SF of low-balling Harper.  He just went with an offer that worked better for him.  

2.  We agree on the issue of older guys being more vulnerable to injuries.  It is will interesting to see how Zaidi addresses this concern as the season unfolds.  

3.  I didn’t include Correa because, in effect, he signed a one year deal with Minnesota.  The Giants may get a second bite of that apple after the ‘22 season.  

4.  See #3.  in addition, I couldn’t resist tossing Turner’s name in the hat because of the “Addition By Subtraction” factor.  What would be more fun than poking the Dodgers in the eye by signing one of their key players? 

5. We agree re: Suzuki.  However, we have no idea of whether he would have spurned Chicago for a few million more.  Regardless, I wish he was wearing Orange and Black this season.  One other thought, I try to approach my fandom as though I was an investor and fan.  As an investor, I want a solid ROI every year.  As a fan, I want a winning program.  Otherwise, you are living in an unrealistic world.  I think Zaidi does an excellent job of balancing the two requirements.  

6.  We can disagree.  I think it is quite helpful to management to see how players react to playing within the structure that has been established by Zaidi.  

What has gone unsaid is Zaidi’s commitment to giving the young talent rising through the minors an opportunity to play.  As we know, the Giants are loaded at the High A/AA level of the minors.  (Hypothetically) Rather than playing a $25 million guy who is hitting .220 in his fourth year of a long term deal, let’s give Luis Matos who is tearing up the minors a shot.  And no, releasing the highly-paid vet is not a prudent financial decision.

In summary, we agree more than we disagree.  I guess the big difference is (speaking as Charles Johnson) that I never take my eye off the bottom line while demanding excellence from my subordinates.

Thanks, Giants. We do agree more than disagree. You're right that I did frame the question as signing free agents vs acquiring rentals via trade, and while realistically they are both parts of the equation I view rentals as filling the gaps that home grown players and free agents failed to address, so they are less desirable to me, albeit necessary.

Correa did sign a one year deal, but why weren't the Giants involved? this was actually an ideal situation for SF. The lockout left little time to develop his market, Texas had signed Seager, Detroit (his expected landing spot) signed Baez which severely limited his leverage, so SF could have pounced with a long term offer but didn't. Seems like a lost opportunity. I understand that SF's philosophy is to avoid jumping in early into bidding war, but this was a spot to opportunistically come in late when there apparently weren't other bidders at the desired total contract range.

I understand the investment aspect which is important for long term sustainability, but at the moment the Giants strike me as akin to a company with enormous amounts of unused capital, waiting for the perfect opportunity, unwilling to reduce ROI even if it enhances overall profit.

As to the development of minor leaguers, the Giants excel at strategically deploying their roster to maximum effect, and the addition of the DH gives the team even more flexibility. I doubt that a promising rookie will ever be blocked; either a declining veteran will be used in a more limited role or (in the worst case scenario) traded with SF continuing to pay a portion of his salary, which the Giants can easily afford. In any case, this year's free agents (except for Seager) signed for 3-6 years, so it's not a Pujols or Cabrera situation. And while the Giants do have a number of promising minor leaguers, the likelihood of any of them becoming elite players is still low.