Younger!?
"I think it's fair to say with free agents, we're going to go through a huge transformation," general manager Brian Sabean said. "It's going to be a huge makeover. ... I don't know if you say the last hurrah, but you can do the math. I can see us getting younger and attacking the market as aggressively as we can. The one thing we can hang our hat on is our young pitching."
Younger, Brian? Younger? Blasphemy.
Well it's good to hear him say all the right things anyway - attacking the market, getting younger.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Unfortunately...
Alex Gonzalez
Aubrey Huff
Juan Pierre
A.J. Pierzynski
Craig Wilson
Yeah... not much to attack...
We need a proven .300 AVG catcher right?
Re: We need a proven .300 AVG catcher right?
I'm sure you weren't suggesting the Giants sign one of those other players to play catcher.
Re: We need a proven .300 AVG catcher right?
by Ruths Curse Steakhouse on Jul 12, 2006 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: We need a proven .300 AVG catcher right?
by Josh from The New Giant Thrill on Jul 12, 2006 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: We need a proven .300 AVG catcher right?
Personally, I think a cat fight between A.J. and Anna Benson would have been a great event after the HR hitting event. And I would bet on Anna, but she better watch his nails.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 12, 2006 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Attacking the Market
at least...
Re: at least...
But I'm keeping the faith in Sabean. As much as people deride the farm system, close to half the team (40%?) is now home grown and the majority of them are in their 20's. You can't run before you walk so I take that as a sign of positive progress, even though part of that was because of the failure on the part of vets/"vets", like Munter, Taschner, Walker, Fassero, and Worrell.
And we have a number of players who should be pushing to the majors over the next 2-3 years in EME, Valdez, Schierholtz, Ishikawa, Lewis, Ortmeier, Linden, Griffin, Joaquin, Martis, plus all the pitchers doing well now whose names I only know through Steve's diaries (Pereira, et al)
In terms of prospects, this era, for me, is probably the best it has ever been, since I first followed the Giants. There were probably at most two handfuls of pitchers (Grant, Remlinger, Torres, Cook, Mulholland, Downs, Wilson, Garrelts) who I was really excited about as prospects (and I admit that lack of information was part of the reason, though I've collected the Media Guide for nearly 20 years now, so it's not that big an excuse, I read through the players stats to find players like Benji Simonton, Rickert Fineyte, and some pitcher named Hostetler or something like that, who had great years then fizzled) over all these years until recently and none of them ever panned out, really (though who's to say any of the current will pan out either). And hitters, after early excitement with Dave Kingman, George Foster, Chris Speier, Gary Mathews, Garry Maddux, it was pretty sparse, Jack Clark, Chili Davis, Will Clark, Matt Williams, as far as impact type of players (and I am being kind to include Chili).
And as I noted, who's to say any of these will pan out, but I'm pretty jazzed overall about our farm system. Perhaps it is because of such lowered expectations of all the failures we had before, but I think it is more an appreciation of how hard it really is to draft players when you do not get a draft pick in the first 10 picks overall, particularly in the first 5 picks, where you typically have a pretty good chance to pick up someone who is good or better. I don't intend to beat a dead horse but the odds are like 9-1 against picking a good player even with a late first round draft pick. So if you are average, you pick one good player, maybe a couple useful players, and a whole bunch of marginal to career minor leaguers, over 10 years of late first round draft picking. And obviously the odds are even worse going to the latter rounds, much much worse.
One of these days I'm going to calculate what the expected value, in terms of star, good, useful, and mediocre players are, when the probabilities are summed up for a draft and over a GM's career, that should give a better indication whether or not to appreciate what Sabean has done, maybe my impression is wrong.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 12, 2006 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions
counter to the counter...
Re: at least...
Sabean is one of the best GM's in baseball in my opinion. Magowan wanted to win it during Bonds' era and all trades and free agency signings were geared towards that goal, even if that means the minor leagues are left depleted, with young pitching the main position drafted over the years even if they were mostly used for trade bait ie Nathan , Williams, Moss, Ainsworth, and Liriano of which only Nathan and Liriano is the only one in the majors, so there are other GM's who thought the Giants had some prospects that ended up not working out.
I think after this year there will be some lean years with the young pitching being the only thing keeping the Giants competitive while we pay for past sins during the Bonds era which was pretty fun to watch until the past two years.
That being said, if we just had Nathan back and thought to use him as a closer and not a starter or set up man, the Giants would have won several more division championships in that time.
by Andy In Fresno on Jul 12, 2006 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I know this isn't the way it works...
- You put 90 million into a team for 10 years (every year increasing by some marginal value according to the rest of the league) and some years they get into the playoffs and sometimes they don't. Once or twice they go deep into the playoffs. But never win anything. 900 million over 10 years.
- You put 50 million into a team for 6 years and then 150 million into a team for the remaining 4 years. For 6 years you squander in 4th and 5th place, once or twice having the worst record in the league. But then the last 4 years you compete in the playoffs, going into them all 4 years, going deep in two or three of the years, and winning the World Series once or twice. 900 million over 10 years.
It's kind of a trade off. Do you want excitement for a long time but no real success? Or do you want to hate the team for a few years and then succeed for a few years, then go back to hating the team?
Re: I know this isn't the way it works...
Then again, how have the Tigers been doing? For that matter, how about the Reds? In attendence that is. But how much lower are their revenues today vs. when the bad streak began? 2-3 years is my gut talking but I don't have any data on this...
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 12, 2006 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: I know this isn't the way it works...
I want more than anything to see the Giants win the World Series, even if only once. I would rather have us suck for 9 years and win it once. However, should that happen, my position would change. I would rather see my team do well every year but not win it all, if I had already seen them win it once.
It's like the 49ers. I couldn't care less if they win another super bowl. Do I want them to? Sure. But I would much rather have 10 decent years in a row than have the last few years over and over with one more championship.
Re: I know this isn't the way it works...
I want long-term excitement and success
Let's look at option 2 a different way: For two or three years, you spend fifty to sixty million on ML payroll and invest heavily in some serious player development. You evaluate the farm systems of successful organizations and apply what you learn so that you can start to rebuild what you've ignored for the last fifteen years. You suffer a few bad seasons, but every year you make a little progress and you start getting a few exciting young players. You use that excitement, along with your beautiful, relatively new ballpark and ride out the lean years until you can start relying on the farm to regularly produce a few legitimate ML ball-players every year. Then, without neglecting development, you start going after some decent free-agents, including an all-star or two. After seven or eight years, if you find yourself in a good enough position, you spend some reserve cash and take your shot.
What does all that cost? Maybe as little as 750M, maybe as much as 900M or a little more (ignoring the effects of inflation). The point is that you've got a source of young, cheap talent that you can use or deal. It's not by any means perfect and there will be the occasional famine, but it's not the random crapshoot that some would suggest. Its a market and if other organizations can prosper, then so can we if we commit to it.
They have to get younger...
Re: They have to get younger...
Re: They have to get younger...
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Jul 12, 2006 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: They have to get younger...
by howtheyscored on Jul 12, 2006 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: They have to get younger...
by losingcalifornia on Jul 12, 2006 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Let's wait
Re: Younger!?
Re: Younger!?
How about they sign...
http://sports.espn.go.com/minorlbb/news/story?id=2516986&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines
Re: How about they sign...
by leewhee on Jul 12, 2006 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: Younger!?
by orangeandblackattack on Jul 12, 2006 5:43 PM PDT reply actions
Re: Younger!?
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 13, 2006 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions

by 



















