[DC 86]

Watch what Dodgers do this off season.  Seager is probably going to be a 6 to 7 $ 180 to 200 million guy.  Giants won’t  even consider, I suspect. Dodgers look to be ready to resign. If they also add Scherzer at around $30 to $35 for a year or two and sign Taylor, you have your answer. The organizations will be dealing at completely different levels.  Giants cannot consistently compete if that is the case.

Great post and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I don't doubt that LAD will spend very aggressively, but so far they have only signed Heaney. My point being that some agents wait for the market to settle before seriously considering offers, others are surely waiting for more clarity on the next CBA, smart teams take their time to assess the market instead of panicking or acting impulsively, moreso now given labor uncertainty. Matz had many suiters and was never likely, but (if Passan is accurate) SF has re-signed two starters to alleviate the pressure, which is one more than any other team has signed thus far.

Historically teams have done better by waiting to sign free agents later in the cycle rather than coming out of the gates and trying to blow away the field. If the Giants haven't spent aggressively prior to the next opening day that would be a big problem, but a big surprise too.

[DC 86]

Watch what Dodgers do this off season.  Seager is probably going to be a 6 to 7 $ 180 to 200 million guy.  Giants won’t  even consider, I suspect. Dodgers look to be ready to resign. If they also add Scherzer at around $30 to $35 for a year or two and sign Taylor, you have your answer. The organizations will be dealing at completely different levels.  Giants cannot consistently compete if that is the case.

Great post and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I don't doubt that LAD will spend very aggressively, but so far they have only signed Heaney. My point being that some agents wait for the market to settle before seriously considering offers, others are surely waiting for more clarity on the next CBA, smart teams take their time to assess the market instead of panicking or acting impulsively, moreso now given labor uncertainty. Matz had many suiters and was never likely, but (if Passan is accurate) SF has re-signed two starters to alleviate the pressure, which is one more than any other team has signed thus far.

Historically teams have done better by waiting to sign free agents later in the cycle rather than coming out of the gates and trying to blow away the field. If the Giants haven't spent aggressively prior to the next opening day that would be a big problem, but a big surprise too.

[Goose]

While I hope the Giants acquire players that can help them, I am not of the opinion that can be measured by how much money they spend. A bad deal for a good player is still a bad deal. You need to pay a player what you believe they are worth. That number is certainly influenced by the estimated "market value" but shouldn't be determined by it. A team also shouldn't spend money just because it can. The Giants have room to spend, which gives them an opportunity to get players at contracts the Giants can afford and the players will accept. That is a good thing. I trust the Giants will spend appropriately. It may not be LA Dodger proportions, but IMHO that may not be a bad thing.

[Goose]

While I hope the Giants acquire players that can help them, I am not of the opinion that can be measured by how much money they spend. A bad deal for a good player is still a bad deal. You need to pay a player what you believe they are worth. That number is certainly influenced by the estimated "market value" but shouldn't be determined by it. A team also shouldn't spend money just because it can. The Giants have room to spend, which gives them an opportunity to get players at contracts the Giants can afford and the players will accept. That is a good thing. I trust the Giants will spend appropriately. It may not be LA Dodger proportions, but IMHO that may not be a bad thing.

[lex24]

While I hope the Giants acquire players that can help them, I am not of the opinion that can be measured by how much money they spend. A bad deal for a good player is still a bad deal. You need to pay a player what you believe they are worth. That number is certainly influenced by the estimated "market value" but shouldn't be determined by it. A team also shouldn't spend money just because it can. The Giants have room to spend, which gives them an opportunity to get players at contracts the Giants can afford and the players will accept. That is a good thing. I trust the Giants will spend appropriately. It may not be LA Dodger proportions, but IMHO that may not be a bad thing.

For the umpeenth time, why as a fan should I want anything other than owners ready to spend big?  When have I suggested they should blithely spend that money. You trust Zaidi you give him a big budget and let him make his decisions. I just want him to have a big budget. 

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

---

Watch what Dodgers do this off season.  Seager is probably going to be a 6 to 7 $ 180 to 200 million guy.  Giants won’t  even consider, I suspect. Dodgers look to be ready to resign. If they also add Scherzer at around $30 to $35 for a year or two and sign Taylor, you have your answer. The organizations will be dealing at completely different levels.  Giants cannot consistently compete if that is the case.

Great post and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I don't doubt that LAD will spend very aggressively, but so far they have only signed Heaney. My point being that some agents wait for the market to settle before seriously considering offers, others are surely waiting for more clarity on the next CBA, smart teams take their time to assess the market instead of panicking or acting impulsively, moreso now given labor uncertainty. Matz had many suiters and was never likely, but (if Passan is accurate) SF has re-signed two starters to alleviate the pressure, which is one more than any other team has signed thus far.

Historically teams have done better by waiting to sign free agents later in the cycle rather than coming out of the gates and trying to blow away the field. If the Giants haven't spent aggressively prior to the next opening day that would be a big problem, but a big surprise too.

  Seems we’re starting to see the market set a little bit for mid-level pitchers. But I haven’t seen anything yet for top of the rotation starting pitchers such as Gausman or frankly any of the big free agent bats  that are floating around. It generally is a waiting game see who blinks first. Then once somebody signs it goes fast and furious. That could be different this year, of course, given the impending lockout.

At the end of the day, I trust Zaidi. Not so much the ownership group.  Just a little impatient to see who they land.

[lex24]

While I hope the Giants acquire players that can help them, I am not of the opinion that can be measured by how much money they spend. A bad deal for a good player is still a bad deal. You need to pay a player what you believe they are worth. That number is certainly influenced by the estimated "market value" but shouldn't be determined by it. A team also shouldn't spend money just because it can. The Giants have room to spend, which gives them an opportunity to get players at contracts the Giants can afford and the players will accept. That is a good thing. I trust the Giants will spend appropriately. It may not be LA Dodger proportions, but IMHO that may not be a bad thing.

For the umpeenth time, why as a fan should I want anything other than owners ready to spend big?  When have I suggested they should blithely spend that money. You trust Zaidi you give him a big budget and let him make his decisions. I just want him to have a big budget. 

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

---

Watch what Dodgers do this off season.  Seager is probably going to be a 6 to 7 $ 180 to 200 million guy.  Giants won’t  even consider, I suspect. Dodgers look to be ready to resign. If they also add Scherzer at around $30 to $35 for a year or two and sign Taylor, you have your answer. The organizations will be dealing at completely different levels.  Giants cannot consistently compete if that is the case.

Great post and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I don't doubt that LAD will spend very aggressively, but so far they have only signed Heaney. My point being that some agents wait for the market to settle before seriously considering offers, others are surely waiting for more clarity on the next CBA, smart teams take their time to assess the market instead of panicking or acting impulsively, moreso now given labor uncertainty. Matz had many suiters and was never likely, but (if Passan is accurate) SF has re-signed two starters to alleviate the pressure, which is one more than any other team has signed thus far.

Historically teams have done better by waiting to sign free agents later in the cycle rather than coming out of the gates and trying to blow away the field. If the Giants haven't spent aggressively prior to the next opening day that would be a big problem, but a big surprise too.

  Seems we’re starting to see the market set a little bit for mid-level pitchers. But I haven’t seen anything yet for top of the rotation starting pitchers such as Gausman or frankly any of the big free agent bats  that are floating around. It generally is a waiting game see who blinks first. Then once somebody signs it goes fast and furious. That could be different this year, of course, given the impending lockout.

At the end of the day, I trust Zaidi. Not so much the ownership group.  Just a little impatient to see who they land.

[Giants]

While I hope the Giants acquire players that can help them, I am not of the opinion that can be measured by how much money they spend. A bad deal for a good player is still a bad deal. You need to pay a player what you believe they are worth. That number is certainly influenced by the estimated "market value" but shouldn't be determined by it. A team also shouldn't spend money just because it can. The Giants have room to spend, which gives them an opportunity to get players at contracts the Giants can afford and the players will accept. That is a good thing. I trust the Giants will spend appropriately. It may not be LA Dodger proportions, but IMHO that may not be a bad thing.

For the umpeenth time, why as a fan should I want anything other than owners ready to spend big?  When have I suggested they should blithely spend that money. You trust Zaidi you give him a big budget and let him make his decisions. I just want him to have a big budget. 

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

---

Watch what Dodgers do this off season.  Seager is probably going to be a 6 to 7 $ 180 to 200 million guy.  Giants won’t  even consider, I suspect. Dodgers look to be ready to resign. If they also add Scherzer at around $30 to $35 for a year or two and sign Taylor, you have your answer. The organizations will be dealing at completely different levels.  Giants cannot consistently compete if that is the case.

Great post and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I don't doubt that LAD will spend very aggressively, but so far they have only signed Heaney. My point being that some agents wait for the market to settle before seriously considering offers, others are surely waiting for more clarity on the next CBA, smart teams take their time to assess the market instead of panicking or acting impulsively, moreso now given labor uncertainty. Matz had many suiters and was never likely, but (if Passan is accurate) SF has re-signed two starters to alleviate the pressure, which is one more than any other team has signed thus far.

Historically teams have done better by waiting to sign free agents later in the cycle rather than coming out of the gates and trying to blow away the field. If the Giants haven't spent aggressively prior to the next opening day that would be a big problem, but a big surprise too.

  Seems we’re starting to see the market set a little bit for mid-level pitchers. But I haven’t seen anything yet for top of the rotation starting pitchers such as Gausman or frankly any of the big free agent bats  that are floating around. It generally is a waiting game see who blinks first. Then once somebody signs it goes fast and furious. That could be different this year, of course, given the impending lockout.

At the end of the day, I trust Zaidi. Not so much the ownership group.  Just a little impatient to see who they land.

I don’t think any of big dollar free agents will sign until the CBA is settled.  If SF can lock up Wood and Cobb before next Thursday, they will be in a good position heading into the post-lockout period.  

Also, the deadline for offering arbitration has been moved up so teams will have 24 hours to review the players that are non-tendered prior to the end of the current CBA.  There could be some fast action on them next Wednesday.  

Overall, I have no problem with how Zaidi is handling business.  He has earned our trust. We have a long way to go until Opening Day.

[Giants]

While I hope the Giants acquire players that can help them, I am not of the opinion that can be measured by how much money they spend. A bad deal for a good player is still a bad deal. You need to pay a player what you believe they are worth. That number is certainly influenced by the estimated "market value" but shouldn't be determined by it. A team also shouldn't spend money just because it can. The Giants have room to spend, which gives them an opportunity to get players at contracts the Giants can afford and the players will accept. That is a good thing. I trust the Giants will spend appropriately. It may not be LA Dodger proportions, but IMHO that may not be a bad thing.

For the umpeenth time, why as a fan should I want anything other than owners ready to spend big?  When have I suggested they should blithely spend that money. You trust Zaidi you give him a big budget and let him make his decisions. I just want him to have a big budget. 

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

---

Watch what Dodgers do this off season.  Seager is probably going to be a 6 to 7 $ 180 to 200 million guy.  Giants won’t  even consider, I suspect. Dodgers look to be ready to resign. If they also add Scherzer at around $30 to $35 for a year or two and sign Taylor, you have your answer. The organizations will be dealing at completely different levels.  Giants cannot consistently compete if that is the case.

Great post and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I don't doubt that LAD will spend very aggressively, but so far they have only signed Heaney. My point being that some agents wait for the market to settle before seriously considering offers, others are surely waiting for more clarity on the next CBA, smart teams take their time to assess the market instead of panicking or acting impulsively, moreso now given labor uncertainty. Matz had many suiters and was never likely, but (if Passan is accurate) SF has re-signed two starters to alleviate the pressure, which is one more than any other team has signed thus far.

Historically teams have done better by waiting to sign free agents later in the cycle rather than coming out of the gates and trying to blow away the field. If the Giants haven't spent aggressively prior to the next opening day that would be a big problem, but a big surprise too.

  Seems we’re starting to see the market set a little bit for mid-level pitchers. But I haven’t seen anything yet for top of the rotation starting pitchers such as Gausman or frankly any of the big free agent bats  that are floating around. It generally is a waiting game see who blinks first. Then once somebody signs it goes fast and furious. That could be different this year, of course, given the impending lockout.

At the end of the day, I trust Zaidi. Not so much the ownership group.  Just a little impatient to see who they land.

I don’t think any of big dollar free agents will sign until the CBA is settled.  If SF can lock up Wood and Cobb before next Thursday, they will be in a good position heading into the post-lockout period.  

Also, the deadline for offering arbitration has been moved up so teams will have 24 hours to review the players that are non-tendered prior to the end of the current CBA.  There could be some fast action on them next Wednesday.  

Overall, I have no problem with how Zaidi is handling business.  He has earned our trust. We have a long way to go until Opening Day.

[Goose]

While I hope the Giants acquire players that can help them, I am not of the opinion that can be measured by how much money they spend. A bad deal for a good player is still a bad deal. You need to pay a player what you believe they are worth. That number is certainly influenced by the estimated "market value" but shouldn't be determined by it. A team also shouldn't spend money just because it can. The Giants have room to spend, which gives them an opportunity to get players at contracts the Giants can afford and the players will accept. That is a good thing. I trust the Giants will spend appropriately. It may not be LA Dodger proportions, but IMHO that may not be a bad thing.

For the umpeenth time, why as a fan should I want anything other than owners ready to spend big?  When have I suggested they should blithely spend that money. You trust Zaidi you give him a big budget and let him make his decisions. I just want him to have a big budget. 

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

Lex24, I wasn't suggesting you had said anything at all. Mine was a "stand alone" post. I basically agree with most of your position, as it happens. The  place we may differ is that I don't want the Giants to spend "big". The Giants should have a budget for player salaries, and it should be as big as they can endure. Nothing says they must or should spend it all. They should spend as much of it as will help them win. They may chose to hold some significant amount back for contingencies, like "rent a player" if they think that is a better way to go. I trust Zaidi to do the right thing and optimize the use of the money. If some is left on the table, fine. We may use it later.

[Goose]

While I hope the Giants acquire players that can help them, I am not of the opinion that can be measured by how much money they spend. A bad deal for a good player is still a bad deal. You need to pay a player what you believe they are worth. That number is certainly influenced by the estimated "market value" but shouldn't be determined by it. A team also shouldn't spend money just because it can. The Giants have room to spend, which gives them an opportunity to get players at contracts the Giants can afford and the players will accept. That is a good thing. I trust the Giants will spend appropriately. It may not be LA Dodger proportions, but IMHO that may not be a bad thing.

For the umpeenth time, why as a fan should I want anything other than owners ready to spend big?  When have I suggested they should blithely spend that money. You trust Zaidi you give him a big budget and let him make his decisions. I just want him to have a big budget. 

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

Lex24, I wasn't suggesting you had said anything at all. Mine was a "stand alone" post. I basically agree with most of your position, as it happens. The  place we may differ is that I don't want the Giants to spend "big". The Giants should have a budget for player salaries, and it should be as big as they can endure. Nothing says they must or should spend it all. They should spend as much of it as will help them win. They may chose to hold some significant amount back for contingencies, like "rent a player" if they think that is a better way to go. I trust Zaidi to do the right thing and optimize the use of the money. If some is left on the table, fine. We may use it later.

[DC 86]

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

I believe the AAV was similar but that only St. Louis was willing to commit to four years. It would be consistent with Zaidi's philosophy to be competitive on salary but to hold the line on contract length for a pitcher in his thirties.

[DC 86]

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

I believe the AAV was similar but that only St. Louis was willing to commit to four years. It would be consistent with Zaidi's philosophy to be competitive on salary but to hold the line on contract length for a pitcher in his thirties.

[lex24]

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

I believe the AAV was similar but that only St. Louis was willing to commit to four years. It would be consistent with Zaidi's philosophy to be competitive on salary but to hold the line on contract length for a pitcher in his thirties.

Thanks.  Makes sense.

[lex24]

But I also have some concerns that they seem to finish second a lot. So if they made an offer, for example, to Matz that was similar to what he signed for I would be interested. If on the other hand they were only willing to go to X and he got significantly more I’d be interested in that too. Of course I’ll never know but it would be interesting to find out.

I believe the AAV was similar but that only St. Louis was willing to commit to four years. It would be consistent with Zaidi's philosophy to be competitive on salary but to hold the line on contract length for a pitcher in his thirties.

Thanks.  Makes sense.

[lex24]

Marte to Mets. 4 years around 75 million.  Darn.  He was the No 1 position player  on my wish list.  I hope the Giants didn’t pass on him cause he wanted 4 rather than 3 years. Process is great. And I get Zaidi not being thrilled with longer term deals.  But you can’t be so locked into it that you blow opportunities.  Marte would have  looked good roaming CF.  Which is a big area of need for the Giants.



Mets also signing Canha.  2 years 26 million.  I’m sure Zaidi kicked the tires.  But I wouldn’t pay him that.

Maybe Taylor….

[lex24]

Marte to Mets. 4 years around 75 million.  Darn.  He was the No 1 position player  on my wish list.  I hope the Giants didn’t pass on him cause he wanted 4 rather than 3 years. Process is great. And I get Zaidi not being thrilled with longer term deals.  But you can’t be so locked into it that you blow opportunities.  Marte would have  looked good roaming CF.  Which is a big area of need for the Giants.



Mets also signing Canha.  2 years 26 million.  I’m sure Zaidi kicked the tires.  But I wouldn’t pay him that.

Maybe Taylor….

[slide]

...Mets also signing Canha.  2 years 26 million.  I’m sure Zaidi kicked the tires.  But I wouldn’t pay him that. 

from Ken Rosenthal:  (2) Ken Rosenthal on Twitter: "Here are Canha’s values the past four seasons according to Fangraphs’ dollars metric, which is WAR converted to a dollar scale based on what a player would earn in free agency: ‘18: $16.7M ‘19: $32.2M ‘20: $13.9M (short season) ‘21: $20.7M Agreement with Mets: 2 yrs/$26.5M" / Twitter

[slide]

...Mets also signing Canha.  2 years 26 million.  I’m sure Zaidi kicked the tires.  But I wouldn’t pay him that. 

from Ken Rosenthal:  (2) Ken Rosenthal on Twitter: "Here are Canha’s values the past four seasons according to Fangraphs’ dollars metric, which is WAR converted to a dollar scale based on what a player would earn in free agency: ‘18: $16.7M ‘19: $32.2M ‘20: $13.9M (short season) ‘21: $20.7M Agreement with Mets: 2 yrs/$26.5M" / Twitter

[qwerty49]

Marte to Mets. 4 years around 75 million.  Darn.  He was the No 1 position player  on my wish list.  I hope the Giants didn’t pass on him cause he wanted 4 rather than 3 years. Process is great. And I get Zaidi not being thrilled with longer term deals.  But you can’t be so locked into it that you blow opportunities.  Marte would have  looked good roaming CF.  Which is a big area of need for the Giants.



Mets also signing Canha.  2 years 26 million.  I’m sure Zaidi kicked the tires.  But I wouldn’t pay him that. 

Maybe Taylor….

Agree Marte was a big one.  Farhan seems more focused on the (Potential) B-minus jewel in the rough (Dickerson, Mikey Yaz).  Meh.

[qwerty49]

Marte to Mets. 4 years around 75 million.  Darn.  He was the No 1 position player  on my wish list.  I hope the Giants didn’t pass on him cause he wanted 4 rather than 3 years. Process is great. And I get Zaidi not being thrilled with longer term deals.  But you can’t be so locked into it that you blow opportunities.  Marte would have  looked good roaming CF.  Which is a big area of need for the Giants.



Mets also signing Canha.  2 years 26 million.  I’m sure Zaidi kicked the tires.  But I wouldn’t pay him that. 

Maybe Taylor….

Agree Marte was a big one.  Farhan seems more focused on the (Potential) B-minus jewel in the rough (Dickerson, Mikey Yaz).  Meh.

[old spanish trail]

Marte to Mets. 4 years around 75 million.  Darn.  He was the No 1 position player  on my wish list.  I hope the Giants didn’t pass on him cause he wanted 4 rather than 3 years. Process is great. And I get Zaidi not being thrilled with longer term deals.  But you can’t be so locked into it that you blow opportunities.  Marte would have  looked good roaming CF.  Which is a big area of need for the Giants.



Mets also signing Canha.  2 years 26 million.  I’m sure Zaidi kicked the tires.  But I wouldn’t pay him that. 

Maybe Taylor….

Agree, Lex. I was hoping for Marte and I would have paid him Mets money.

[old spanish trail]

Marte to Mets. 4 years around 75 million.  Darn.  He was the No 1 position player  on my wish list.  I hope the Giants didn’t pass on him cause he wanted 4 rather than 3 years. Process is great. And I get Zaidi not being thrilled with longer term deals.  But you can’t be so locked into it that you blow opportunities.  Marte would have  looked good roaming CF.  Which is a big area of need for the Giants.



Mets also signing Canha.  2 years 26 million.  I’m sure Zaidi kicked the tires.  But I wouldn’t pay him that. 

Maybe Taylor….

Agree, Lex. I was hoping for Marte and I would have paid him Mets money.

[BobK]

Gausman to Blue Jays??
Wood still hasn’t signed?
Two potential FA pitchers going elsewhere not to the Giants ??
Stoman a possible to Giants ?

So many questions

[BobK]

Gausman to Blue Jays??
Wood still hasn’t signed?
Two potential FA pitchers going elsewhere not to the Giants ??
Stoman a possible to Giants ?

So many questions

[Giants]

Gausman to Toronto.

5 years/$110 million.

[Giants]

Gausman to Toronto.

5 years/$110 million.

[BostonCard]

Niners win again, now 6-5.  By the way, as bad as we’ve been, I don’t think I’ve ever seen us have to burn a time out because one of our quarterbacks lined up behind the right guard instead of the center (as happened to Kirk Cousins today).

BC

[BostonCard]

Niners win again, now 6-5.  By the way, as bad as we’ve been, I don’t think I’ve ever seen us have to burn a time out because one of our quarterbacks lined up behind the right guard instead of the center (as happened to Kirk Cousins today).

BC

[old spanish trail]

Gausman to Toronto.

5 years/$110 million.

Good for  him. I doubt Fahran would go that high or long.

---

Former SF wr Bourne sure made a good decision and the Patriots are delighted to have him.

[old spanish trail]

Gausman to Toronto.

5 years/$110 million.

Good for  him. I doubt Fahran would go that high or long.

---

Former SF wr Bourne sure made a good decision and the Patriots are delighted to have him.

[CompSci87]

Niners win again, now 6-5.  By the way, as bad as we’ve been, I don’t think I’ve ever seen us have to burn a time out because one of our quarterbacks lined up behind the right guard instead of the center (as happened to Kirk Cousins today).

BC

That's a good one. I recall a long ago story about a QB lining up behind the guard and the center snapping the ball anyway, such that it flew way up in the air. Might have been told in George Plimpton's book.

[CompSci87]

Niners win again, now 6-5.  By the way, as bad as we’ve been, I don’t think I’ve ever seen us have to burn a time out because one of our quarterbacks lined up behind the right guard instead of the center (as happened to Kirk Cousins today).

BC

That's a good one. I recall a long ago story about a QB lining up behind the guard and the center snapping the ball anyway, such that it flew way up in the air. Might have been told in George Plimpton's book.

[DC 86]

Niners win again, now 6-5.  By the way, as bad as we’ve been, I don’t think I’ve ever seen us have to burn a time out because one of our quarterbacks lined up behind the right guard instead of the center (as happened to Kirk Cousins today).

BC

That's a good one. I recall a long ago story about a QB lining up behind the guard and the center snapping the ball anyway, such that it flew way up in the air. Might have been told in George Plimpton's book.

John Elway famously lined up behind a guard in his first game as a starter for the Broncos.

[DC 86]

Niners win again, now 6-5.  By the way, as bad as we’ve been, I don’t think I’ve ever seen us have to burn a time out because one of our quarterbacks lined up behind the right guard instead of the center (as happened to Kirk Cousins today).

BC

That's a good one. I recall a long ago story about a QB lining up behind the guard and the center snapping the ball anyway, such that it flew way up in the air. Might have been told in George Plimpton's book.

John Elway famously lined up behind a guard in his first game as a starter for the Broncos.

[Phogge]

In the old single wing the QB (blocking back) always lined up between the guard and tackle.

[Phogge]

In the old single wing the QB (blocking back) always lined up between the guard and tackle.

[lex24]

Niners win again, now 6-5.  By the way, as bad as we’ve been, I don’t think I’ve ever seen us have to burn a time out because one of our quarterbacks lined up behind the right guard instead of the center (as happened to Kirk Cousins today).

BC

That's a good one. I recall a long ago story about a QB lining up behind the guard and the center snapping the ball anyway, such that it flew way up in the air. Might have been told in George Plimpton's book.

John Elway famously lined up behind a guard in his first game as a starter for the Broncos.

Yep.  Versus Steelers. I think he was  1-7 until they knocked him out of the game.  Later commented that he came to LOS, saw Jack Lambert with his eyes like saucers and drooling, and wondered if he should have gone into accounting…..

---

Nov - bad month for Giants. Posey and Gausman gone.  Marte, Semien Canha, Matz all guys Giants “interested in” sign elsewhere.

Gausman 5 years 110.  I actually was surprised Semien didn’t go for more.  

If Giants refuse to go more than 4 years, they can forget signing any key FA.  Still think Marte was a great option

[lex24]

Niners win again, now 6-5.  By the way, as bad as we’ve been, I don’t think I’ve ever seen us have to burn a time out because one of our quarterbacks lined up behind the right guard instead of the center (as happened to Kirk Cousins today).

BC

That's a good one. I recall a long ago story about a QB lining up behind the guard and the center snapping the ball anyway, such that it flew way up in the air. Might have been told in George Plimpton's book.

John Elway famously lined up behind a guard in his first game as a starter for the Broncos.

Yep.  Versus Steelers. I think he was  1-7 until they knocked him out of the game.  Later commented that he came to LOS, saw Jack Lambert with his eyes like saucers and drooling, and wondered if he should have gone into accounting…..

---

Nov - bad month for Giants. Posey and Gausman gone.  Marte, Semien Canha, Matz all guys Giants “interested in” sign elsewhere.

Gausman 5 years 110.  I actually was surprised Semien didn’t go for more.  

If Giants refuse to go more than 4 years, they can forget signing any key FA.  Still think Marte was a great option

[BobK]

I’m upset about Gausman, very. He was a key. If this Farham saying he can build just watch I don’t care hoping lightling strikes again

Stoman possible I read but I’m sure a maybe

[BobK]

I’m upset about Gausman, very. He was a key. If this Farham saying he can build just watch I don’t care hoping lightling strikes again

Stoman possible I read but I’m sure a maybe