McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Spencer Hall's Sports Meme Power Rankings

Perfect




A lot of folks are puzzled, surprised, outraged and totally fucking flummoxed by the alleged ineptitude of the Giants suits and mouthpieces.  But they're neither inept nor stupid.

Well, let me clarify that.  If by inept and stupid, since 2002, one means competent in the pursuit and attainment of championships, then they are incompetent.  If one is talking in the context of winning baseball, yes they are stupid. If one is talking from the perspective of desiring and working towards a championship, than yes, they are inept.

But that does not appear to be the context of the Giants. The Giants, or more correctly, the ballplayers, seem more to be the loss leader in the greater scheme of things. How else to explain what to most McCoven, are the insane free agent contracts issued year after year to the likes of Armando Benitez, Matt Morris, Dave Roberts, Barry Zito, Aaron Rowand, Edgar Renteria, Rich Aurilia, Matt Morris, Ryan Klesko and others, Matt Morris.  Those acquisitions are deplorable to serious students and followers of MLB. 

Thats not the point.  The point being that  these are players/acts that are recognizable to the folks that the Giants are trying to attract through the turnstiles.  People looking for a ballpark experience with players that have market-proven "q" rating; positive images for the typical casual fan whose sum baseball knowledge bank consists of the sports pages of the local paper, the local news, occasionally ESPN, and maybe a couple of years of playing some youth ball as a pre-adolescent.

Those contracts will never ever win anyone a championship (just look at the last 7 years since Magowan threw his temper tantrum after the 2002 World Series), but they are guaranteed to garner positive spin from mainstream media as "accessible, cordial, gritty, savvy, acommodating, generous" etc. etc. types of players.  And to the audience the Giants are catering to, this all sounds like good entertaining fun.  Don't take my word for it.  Just look at the 85% capacity that the Giants run out there year after year, despite fielding a second tier team for 5 consecutive years.

The San Francisco Baseball Company is simply not in the business of winning MLB championships.  They are in the business of running an amusement park.  If one thinks of Pacbell, nee SBC, nee AT&T in the same light that one views Disneyland, Discovery Kingdom, Magic Mountain, than everything the Giants do makes perfect sense.

The players are the killerwhales, the dolphins, the roller coasters, and Mickey Lou Seal Mouse all rolled into one.  Serious followers of baseball are not the folks that Larry Baer and Bill Neukom are catering to, anymore than roller coaster engineering students are the target market of Six Flags Amusement Parks.  Not to say that Major League Baseball is not the main attraction.  It is. It is part of the "Complete Ballpark Experience",  as is Larry Baer's mantra, complete with overpriced parking, concessions and  souvenirs.  One only has to watch the typical Comcast home game broadcast of the interminable "cute kid" cutaways and non-stop pans of "grandpa ball-dudes" falling on their ass everytime a foul ball comes their way.

But if one looks at the Giants in that context and from the perspective of running a "Ballpark Experience" as opposed to "pursuing championships", than everything the Giants have done in the last several years is brilliant.

They are top tier in attendance, cable tv contracts, local media favoritism, and middle of the road in terms of payroll. By and large, the fans at the park are happy. They may occasionally boo Barry Zito if he gives up 7 runs in the third inning, but by for the most part, Giant fans either cheer or go to the garlic potato concessions when the Giants are getting knocked around by the likes of Aaron Harang, Jason Hamel, and the corpse of Lefty Gomez.. As for expressing displeasure, there really isn't much.  The fries taste good, the view is sweet, Bengie has heart, Winn has class, Rowand is game, and Timmy is cute.

Don't believe me?  How do people think fans in Philadelphia, New York would react to the repetitive and monotonous failures displayed in San Francisco by Barry Zito, Aaron Rowand, Edgar Renteria, Dave Roberts, Randy Winn and Bengie Molina?  Ask Alex Rodriguez, or Mitch Williams about how shortcomings and failure are looked upon by fans in those two constant playoff cities.

I went to my first Giants game in 1958, a day game against the Pirates that the Giants lost.  For years through the Stoneham bankruptcy, to Lurie's love-hate relationship with his team, through Magowan's fanboy naivete, I've always believed that the management was always serious about winning championships, especially during the Stoneham years; afterall MLB was the family business as it is for the Steinbrenners and as it was for the O'Malley's.  Lurie inherited skyscrapers from his father, but he was a very nice and gentle soul, who really did love the Giants and wanted desperately to win.  As did Magowan. But his ego got the best of him and he moved on out.

So now the Giants are run by a guy who made millions being the mouthpiece for one of  the most condescending collection of corporate pricks in the history of this country.  An organization who only went to war on a sure thing. Where the tables were completely stacked against their opponents.  It does not work that way in baseball.  The Steinbrenners, and Lorias, and John Henry's, and Artie Moreno's are not Apple, Commodore or some poor programmer slaving away waiting to get ripped off by Microsoft. .

The perennial contenders in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, and Boston are tough, experienced and MOTIVATED to win.  They are about winning first. They are about the "ballpark experience" second. They are slavishy devoted to winning.  They are about competitive sports and they will do anything and everything to win.  The Steinbrenners are obsessed with winning. As is Artie Moreno in Anaheim. And John Henry in Boston. And Nolan Ryan in Dallas

I'm not picking up my ball, stomping my foot and flipping the Giants off. Those are futile gestures.  I am however about 90% apathetic, and 100% skeptical of most anything they do; nevertheless.  I find the front office twits to be just that; boring twits and prevaricators  who have been boring and prevaricating twits since high school.  They may be successful in a social-status sense, but a bigger collection of bores and propagandists I've not seen since I decided to stop watching political commentary in the 80s. And they continuously field a team of non-performers to match their personalities. Non-threatening, approachable, non-controversial celebrities. Affable liberal urban dwellers and suburban soccer moms alike are the target audience.  Which is just perfect when your goal is to run the best baseball amusement park in America in an upscale urban environment.

Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy are the perfect middle management types. Staff and Field. Yes men who never veer from the company line of hear no, see no, speak no evil. It would not reflect well on Larry Baer's campaign to succeed the Emperor Seligula

Perfect.

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.

4 recs  |  Comment 147 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

nah

Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.

by delorean on Oct 15, 2009 10:07 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Brilliant!

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ugh, Matt Morris.

Bengie Molina is the slowest human in existence- except maybe Homer Simpson. And Man-Ram.

by Ramah71 on Oct 18, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don’t forget Matt Morris.

by Grant on Oct 15, 2009 10:13 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

The autotagger didn’t pick him up for some reason. Which makes the autotagger a suitable replacement for Sabean

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was just poking fun because you listed him twice. Heck, I’d put him in for a third time, just for good measure.

by Grant on Oct 15, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's like a lightning strike

That we got Rajai, and then poof, he was gone.

"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.

by hairball on Oct 15, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You saved the best for last

Seligula = priceless!!

"The part of the roster where most of the money is spent, though, is on free agents and guys acquired through trade — guys Sabean did play a big role in acquiring. And they are not good. When you get 2/5 of a pitching rotation for free, you would think you could do better with $76 million than to field the league’s worst offense."
-Taliesin September, 2009

by Lyle on Oct 15, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

THAN!

Turns out you can spell Ugnio Vlz without 4 E's

by The Gene Hackman on Oct 15, 2009 10:30 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Good stuff, like always. I think deep down we all know this to be true, but none of us wants to seriously consider it or acknowledge it, because of the implications. To acknowledge and discuss this is to give in to the fact that winning is not the Giants primary goal…and to that I have nothing to say. I do not want to accept the reality that I’m rooting for a loser, that not only will we always be the underdog – but that we don’t particularly care if we’re winning or losing. We’re the FCS football team happy to take our $500,000 paycheck to get destroyed by Florida or LSU – not only are we expected to lose, we’re content to lose as long as the money flows our way.

As a fan that thought depresses me more than that crushing defeat on the last day of the season in 1993 did, or watching Dustan Mohr break his ankle but still catch the damn ball in 2004, then having our bullpen do what the bullpen did best that year 3 days later. At least those gave me the hope that we were trying, even if we failed. Acknowledging that the organization’s priorities don’t even include winning….well…I’d much rather pretend otherwise, even if it means lying to myself.

by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 10:32 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

The worst thing is that the current FO regime will be here a while

And I don’t just mean Sabean/Bochy. 2 years is nothing, in the grand scheme of things, but how long do we have to put up with microsoft boy?

Sad fan is sad.

"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.

by hairball on Oct 15, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’ve never really bought into the whole, “They just want to make money, and don’t care about winning.” For one, in the long run it makes no sense, and as competent businessmen, I’m sure they realize that if the team has losing season after losing season, people will eventually stop coming to the park. Right now, the newness of it, along with likeable players like Lincecum and Pablo keep attendance up. However, if the team shows no progress to winning after a decade or so, I sincerely doubt attendance will stay as high as it has.

I think the biggest problem is not attitude towards winning/making money, it’s that the organization is filled with “Good ’ol boys”, who would like to play the game it used to be played, rather than accept the help of statistical analysis. Certainly, with players like Zito and Rowand there was a marketing aspect to the signing (likeable players that help move the organization away from the Bonds era), but I’m sure they actually thought these were good players at the time.

And therein lies the problem—the inability to find the right kind of value in players, and the inability to negotiate reasonable contracts for free agents.

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Oct 15, 2009 10:34 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

People in the Bay Area have clearly demonstrated their willingness to pay good money to watch the Giants lose.

Turns out you can spell Ugnio Vlz without 4 E's

by The Gene Hackman on Oct 15, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess that is debatable

The question to ask is: Are they still going and temporarily tolerating the losing because of likable players, the potential of the young players, and because it’s still a new-ish stadium, or are people going because they are okay with losing and really don’t give a crap. If it’s the latter, then we’re in trouble

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Oct 15, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not really. They’ve demonstrated that home run record chases are a handy substitute for a winning ballclub.

"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."

by i did my job on Oct 15, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

If they’re just being chislers, they’re nearly as bad at that as they are putting together a good offense.

Please hit better, Randy Winn.

by oldjacket on Oct 15, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There’s also a difference between “winning” and “winning the WS”. To win the WS, you have to expect to make the playoffs year in and year out (after all, your odds of winning the WS once you’re in the playoffs are still close to 1/8 no matter how good/bad you are). To simply “win”, all you have to do is finish above .500 and create the illusion you’re “in this thing”, take this year as an example….

by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They're NOT competent businesspeople

They see way too much value in the pride of the old way of doing things. Competent businesspeople are able to adapt and catch new currents, so they don’t get stuck in an eddy.

"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.

by hairball on Oct 15, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

On the other hand, the Giants have always "had a lot of heart"

I think they’re trying way too hard to preserve that legacy.

"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.

by hairball on Oct 15, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The fact that they’ve made it to their respective positions show that they are competent businessmen. Competent baseball businessmen? I might disagree with that, but even if you disagree with how they got to where they did or how they make decisions for the baseball team, they obviously did something right along the way to get there.

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Oct 15, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The 'good old boys' is part of the marketing

How many statues are around the ballpark? How many retired players are in the organization? This organization is selling you the nostalgia of yesteryears. They’re are selling you on “intensity”, “gamers”, “warrior spirit”, “balls of fire”, and “playing the game the right way”.

You want to see how the game was played back in the “good old days”? Come on down to AT&T Park to relive America’s pasttime.

El Presidente Larry Baer's epitaph
"Nothing important ever happened without me."

by ResDog on Oct 15, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes, come to AT&T to see dead-ball era baseball

Our pitcher might as well be Juan Marichal and any opposing pitcher may as well be Bob Gibson. Why don’t we just raise our mound and be done with it?

These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx

by RDreamer on Oct 15, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Marichal could bat clean up for us!

Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.

by daveinexile on Oct 15, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sure

even though he will be 72 next Opening Day, he can’t be worse than Molina.

SIGN MARCHALL GINATZ BRAZSZ

These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx

by RDreamer on Oct 15, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If they're merely looking to bring people to the park....

…I’d suggest signing players that are a good bit different than Benitez, Morris, Roberts, Zito, Renteria, Rowand, Aurilia and Klesko. Probably all of those players are “net costs” in that their salary is a good bit more than their draw at the gate and their jersey sales. If its $$$ you seek, scalp your payroll to the bare bone or sign someone the casual fan really, significantly wants to come and see. Otherwise, you’ve got nothing more than a bunch of interchangeable parts.

Plotting the ultimate demise of Gore51 (never met him, I dunno he could be swell) so as to adopt Kyle Nicholson.

"I don’t know much about sabre-stats but there’s nothing better than white tea and poptarts first thing in the morning" - tk

by Whiteteaandpoptarts on Oct 15, 2009 10:57 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I think your reply alludes to what I am somewhat feebly attempting to convey here. What you write is absolutely correct…for you and other serious followers of the game. At the time the signings of the folks we are talking about, Benitez, Morris, Roberts, Zito all created positive and generous amounts of media attention, and consequently free advertising in reaching the casual fan, who has only a network tv celebrity kind of name recognition awareness of the typical non-superstar major league ballplayer.

Hence we hear Freddy Sanchez referred to constantly as 3 time all-star, career 300 average hitter. Those kinds of things make serious followers and serious fans alike want to break large pieces of furniture with their bare hands, but to the average casual fan and ticket buyer, “3 time all-star, and career .300 average” are filled with fungible meaning and add credibility and worth to the product the Giants are peddling.

And to clarify one very very important point, subscribing to the Freddy Sanchez is an All-star fallacy has nothing to do with whether one understands or knows “the art and science of baseball” or being smart or ignorant or anything of the sort. It has to do with the amount and quality of information that is being processed by the typical fan.

Most of the time they’re just not paying that close attention and rely upon what they read, hear and see in mainstream media. If enough people say Zito, Morris, Rowand, Roberts, Renterai are all “Cy Young” “All Star” Gritty, Savvy guys, one can hardly blame the ticket buyer or casual fan for believing what they read hear and see.

I don’t blame fans. I blame people who are supposed journalists and who are supposed to know better to report out these things in msm. Not cheerlead.

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t blame fans. I blame people who are supposed journalists and who are supposed to know better to report out these things in msm. Not cheerlead.

As Lars has pointed out: Baggs and Hank, we’re looking at you.

Turns out you can spell Ugnio Vlz without 4 E's

by The Gene Hackman on Oct 15, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Look back in anger . . .

Dear me, be not so parochial. Risible “journalism” in sports coverage is just another of those glorious old-time Bay Area traditions.

Professional baseball analyst since 1980.

by owlcroft on Oct 16, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Excellent Points

I agree to a point. During the Bonds years, Magowan was asked in an interview why the ownership group didn’t just go for it and pull a Florida Marlins — signing a bunch of high level free agents to surround Bonds, win a championship, and then trade the players for prospects and endure some down seasons of low cost/low revenue. Magowan said they didn’t want to go that route, that there were no guarantees, and that they wanted to remain competitive every year. To me that meant they didn’t want to interrupt the revenue stream. They are handicapped by their stadium loan, but it seems they just aren’t big risk takers.

by Keith0909 on Oct 15, 2009 11:30 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

But who really wants to be the Florida Marlins?

Would you really want to follow a team with that kind of player turnover? If anyone does, they can simply go across the Bay for a team resembling that.

I completely agree with what Magowan said (whether or not that’s how he truly felt). There arent’ any guarentees, and if they had spent all their money going for broke for one or two years, then this terrible drought that we’ve had would have been even a couple years longer. The best way to win a championship is to try to get to the playoffs every year, and that’s by staying competitive.

I’m just saying I agree with the theory he put out there, not necessarily with his execution of said theory.

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Oct 15, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They Won Two Championships

Having been a Giants fan for nearly 50 years, I would take 2 championships with a lot of bad baseball in between. I know there are no guarantees, but the point is that this ownership group didn’t go for it when they had one of the best offensive players of all time. The only problem is that the Marlins made it work because they got most of their scouting infrastructure from the old Expos, who were very good at scouting and developing players.

by Keith0909 on Oct 15, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And for the last several years the Giants have given us lots of bad baseball with ZERO championships. I’m with you. Especially in the era of free agency, the maximum time a major market team should be out of the playoffs is two years. And by Major Market I mean top 8

1 New York,
2 Los Angeles
3 Chicago
4 Philadelphia
5 Dallas
6 San Francisco
7 Boston,
8 Atlanta

Extra Points for the one city without a MLB championship

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually two.

by Keith0909 on Oct 15, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow, that makes the Rangers look really pathetic. At least the Giants have made it to the World Series a couple of times, even with two teams in the (slightly smaller) market.

by taliesin on Oct 15, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I stand corrected of course. The whole point of me bringing up the Rangers in the post was that they were bringing in a baseball guy to run things in Nolan Ryan. Now he may not be up to the process of winning championships, but everybody knows his penchant for competing on the field and what a ferocious presence on the mound he was when his goal was within reach.

It appears they have the financial resources in Texas to give Nolan what he wants/needs to take his team to the next level.

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of The Four 2 Team Markets Listed Only One Is't Big Enough To Be A "Major Market" When Shared.

Replace the Bay Area With Houston. The Giants belong at among the mid market teams not at the major market teams.

by giantsrainman on Oct 15, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

First off, the A’s are very clearly not equals within the Bay Area market. Second, what makes you think the Giants market doesn’t compare to those other ones?

by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There Have Been Years When The A's Attendence Was Higher Then The Giants

This could happen again especially if the A’s are allowed to move to San Jose. That said, all two team markets have a team that tends to dominate the market more often then not (Yankees over Mets, Dodgers over Angels, Cubs over White Sox, and Giants over A’s) but the Bay Area market is clearly the smallest of these four. Finally, it can be argued that the Dallas and Houston markets are not only bigger then the Giants average share of the Bay Area market but they are both bigger then the whole Bay Area market including the A’s average share. Just look up the populations of the three.

by giantsrainman on Oct 16, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

First off, population estimates are weird, because how do you define a markets population? If you go by MSA’s, the Bay Area is split into multiple MSA’s whereas most other cities MSA’s cover a huge amount of area. Not sure what baseball uses for their market calculations, though. Also, population isn’t the only factor in market size. Income is a big factor, too. Not many places in the U.S. can compete with the Bay Area on a disposable income basis.

As for the A’s, you’re right, if they move to San Jose that could have a big effect in getting the market split close to equally again. In the present, with the Giants at AT&T and the A’s stuck in their piece of crap, we definitely have a sizable advantage….

by Missing Barry on Oct 16, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess it depends on each individual. I rather enjoy becoming attached to the players, being given the chance to watch their talent grow. It almost feels like a surrogate family. Yeah, it sucks that we have zero championships to show for it, but I have confidence that when they do win a championship, it will feel immensely more satisfying.

That being said, if i were In your shoes and had been following for 50 years, I certainly might trade it all for a championship.

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Oct 15, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I rather enjoy becoming attached to the players, being given the chance to watch their talent grow. It almost feels like a surrogate family. Yeah, it sucks that we have zero championships to show for it, but I have confidence that when they do win a championship, it will feel immensely more satisfying.


I said this exact same thing. Word for word. Identical.

in 1962
in 1963
In 1965
In 1971
in 1978
in 1981
in 1982
in 1987
in 1988
in 1989

I could go on, but you get the point.

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

jezzo.. learn some html why don’t I

jezzo.. learn some html why don’t Iman that is some ugly blockquote excess.

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

winning a championship 2 times in 14 years

and still manage to somewhat contend with a nonexistent payroll? not too shabby

by sfoakbay on Oct 15, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes – mere contention is sufficient, hence the emphasis on ‘meaningful ballgames’ that aren’t playoff games.

Utter frustration and futility.

by Johnny Disaster on Oct 15, 2009 11:42 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

There might be some truth to this, but they must want to win also, even if they can’t figure out how to do it. Otherwise, why spend all that money on high end draft picks? They could just go slot like the pirates if that’s what it was about.

I don’t know the answer to the problem but Sabean is a**hole enough to want to win a championships just to tell all his detractors to go f themselves.

"Matt Cain will save the children, but not the Dodger children" - I realize this is someone else's signature but I wanted to emphasize it because it is so damn genius on several levels at once.

by I own a Kayak and I'm not sure why now on Oct 15, 2009 11:55 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

" but they must want to win also, even if they can’t figure out how to do it".

Not really in my opinion. Six straight years of finishing at or near the bottom of the NL West standings and rewarding those who are responsible for the design, planning, construction and deployment of those rosters, with 3 additional years is not in keeping with the pursuit of championships. It is however; rewarding those responsible for several years of the homestatis of a very nice Baseball theme park, and getting them out from under the wrath of Selig during the Bonds years..

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And to continue in this vein

KNBR this morning is leading the charge in explaining away the Giants anticipated non-pursuit of Matt Holliday, Jason Bay or any other high-profile free-agent. They have merely dusted off, almost word for word, the same talking points that were proferred during public discussions of Vladamir Guerrero, Bobby Abreau and just about anybody else that does not fit into the San Francisco Baseball Company’s business model of the San Francisco Ballpark Experience.

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 11:57 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

They were actually saying make a strong run at Bay this morning, when I was listening.

Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.

by cain1rstballothof on Oct 15, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Radnich

You know. The guy who can’t get his lips off of Willie Brown’s, Gavin Newsom, and John Burton’s shoes

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gary Radnich cares more if a guy is famous, as opposed to good. He is a starfucker.

Please hit better, Randy Winn.

by oldjacket on Oct 15, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Its kind of too bad. When he isn’t so damn insecure about his career or do defensive about his social standing, he can be entertaining. But now, he seems perpetually engaged in self-justification for his every word and action.

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I find him enjoyable as a radio personality, but he seems pretty bored by bay area sports.

Please hit better, Randy Winn.

by oldjacket on Oct 15, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No kidding. He is pretty condescending towards folks who are students of the games or sports, always denigrating their passion as childish when he occasionally gets boxed in by the rare articulate well-thought out fan who presents him with an enthusiastic counterpoint to the company pablum he continually spouts.

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This makes a lot of sense. As precisely the kind of fan that this model is targeting, it’s a disturbing thought.

--
Long ago they came west over the mountains, and I have rooted for them years uncounted; and together through many ages of this world we have fought the long defeat.

by shanghaijim on Oct 15, 2009 12:57 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

lets analyze this just a little further.

This years’ home experience was perhaps the best in the N.L. not just for the garlic fries, or the 90 year old ballboys from N.Y. that still are giants fans, as they trip over their own canes and break their noses trying to retrieve a foul bass, but because the giants at home had the best record in the national league. If the giants winning experience was so bad at home, imagine how the experience was for the rest of the N.L..! I think the problem was on the road. So the bad experience was for those fans who watched, listened to or followed the games on the internet was mostly during the road trips. The problem is they put together a winning home team, and a losing road team. Fans could go to the park in SF, and reasonably expect a win. On the road however, they just plain sucked. So how does one fix this along with the OBP, and the low BB, and the crappola power numbers? Maybe Lansford should have remained the home hitting coach, and they could have hired a disciplinarian hitting coach on the road. Bochy needs to motivate these guys to win when they are away from their home cooking. The product on the field at home is good, the product away is minor league. So explain that!

by bradleybear on Oct 15, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

to the average fan

they love the giants, the home experience, fries, and are content to contend for the playoffs and miss it, or even finish below .500, because they don’t realize the vicious cycle of it

by sfoakbay on Oct 15, 2009 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've propagated a similar theory myself

In this comment here. In summary, I fear the Giants goal is to become the Cubs — compete just enough that the ballpark remains an attractive destination.

So I am plenty familiar with the theory. But it really does have some flaws when you use it as a way to try to explain the Giants’ organizational behavior. Even if your goal is to be merely “competitive” to optimize your profit margin, you wouldn’t do many of the stupid things that Sabean has done to “improve” the offense over recent years — Rowand, Roberts, Renteria, etc. You’d try to get mediocre production at a low price, not a high one. You wouldn’t go for the overpriced veteran coming off a career year; you’d go for young guys, or vets coming off an injury-plagued down year, things like that. In other words, you’d eschew the Aaron Rowands of the world and pursue the Juan Uribes. And even if you did go for veterans at market prices, you’d shop for on-base percentage, not batting average and RBI.

So while I believe the Giants may be pursuing this strategy, even if they are, they are really not good at it.

by taliesin on Oct 15, 2009 1:33 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

It makes more sense if you look at the extra money as coming out of the advertising budget rather than operations.

Utter frustration and futility.

by Johnny Disaster on Oct 15, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So you’re saying guys like Rowand and Renteria “sell themselves” because they’re known quantities? I’ve considered that possibility, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. As the whole “Scott Rowand” meme suggests, most people in the Bay Area didn’t know anything about Rowand until he came here. If you want names that the casual fan will be interested in seeing, you have to go for the really big stars — which they obviously have not done.

by taliesin on Oct 15, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good points. But to respond, a guy like Rowand has been marketed based upon bad situational awareness and getting skull-fucked in the process. Anybody that watches Rowand for entire plays and not follow the ball will note that the guy has the attention span of a gnat. Hence his countless overthrows, missing cut-offs, bad jumps, and so forth.

But the clip of him running into a fence showing nightly over and over, and the fact that he appears to look like a kid living next door to a soccer mom was a great part of his appeal. It was that he fit the mold of the mythical Giants player: “Gritty, Savvy, Servicable, Team Chemistry, Clubhouse Leader Giants Way” type of platitudes the Baer boys are peddling.

It wasn’t just his World Series Ring and his career .788 OPS that got him a 5 year $60 million contract.

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

But that's just the point

If that’s what they were trying to do, they failed miserably. They gave a big contract to a guy who was relatively unknown among most fans, so they didn’t make a big publicity splash. And, as a guy coming off a career year in a hitters’ ballpark, he was unlikely to justify the big contract with great performance that would make him a fan favorite, a “centerpiece,” if you will.

by taliesin on Oct 15, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This

Or more to the point, what you said above.

I agree to both central points of this post.

1). The Giants ownership is capitalizing on positive historical franchise image and beautiful ballpark environment to enhance a Cubs-like brand name, and are eschewing taking any “risk” to build a championship, Instead ownership strives to only be “competitive” with middle of the pack salary budget in order to achieve steady following, attendance and revenue stream.

2). Giants management, employed by ownership, is incompetent in striving to be competitive, due to an inability to build a farm system and judge talent.

The first point may be particularly frustrating to old timers like myself and E, but the second point is the gospel of the McCoven and the most relevant to analyze on a daily basis.

by San Francisco Slim on Oct 16, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or has been paying attention

Depending on whether you consider Posey and Bumgarner “graduated,” the Giants’ farm system is either above average (but not elite) or towards the bottom of the majors. After those two, what’s left? Neal and Wheeler, I guess, and a bunch of guys who might someday threaten to be prospects. They’ve clearly made progress on building the farm system, largely because they were terrible for three seasons (=high draft picks), but I think the jury’s still out as to whether organizationally they have the will and the aptitude to build a top farm system over the long haul.

by taliesin on Oct 19, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeppers

i was mostly trying to give reasoning to why aaron rowand was given such a large contract. i mean, you could go back and find countless examples of sabean failing epically, and they’ve been a countless amount of fanposts done on the topic

by sfoakbay on Oct 16, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He was well known as the face first into the fence guy… Barry just doesn’t differentiate other humans very well.

Utter frustration and futility.

by Johnny Disaster on Oct 15, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Always the Case

Historically, whether intentionally or not, the Giants have always been a team with big stars who have competed but usually fallen short of a championship. They have only 5 WS titles in their history (plus a few pre-WS titles), despite winning the most games of any sports franchise ever, and having the most players in the Hall of Fame who played some part of their career with the team. As a Dodger fan pointed out to me, this makes them the most underachieving team in history.

by Keith0909 on Oct 15, 2009 2:18 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Well the Washingto Nationals Expos come to mind, so I’m not sure what underachieving means unless the postulate is that the Giants had tons of talent for over 100 years but that particular talent never performed to expectations?

On the other hand, the Giants were owned by the Stoneham family up until 1976, and they won the majority of their pennants in that time as well as their 5 world series titles in the years leading up to the sale to Bob Lurie and Bud Hergeth.

They have been owned locally for the past 34 seasons by two different ownership groups. That is approximately 6 generations of baseball careers given the average MLB career is around 5.6 years more or less. During that time they have won exactly two pennants and lost 8 of the 11 World Series games they have played in. They have gotten worse. Not better. In spite of 15 years of the best player of the modern era.

I guess what you write goes to the heart of things. Winning World Championships is extremely difficult and the chances are slim even when you have unlimited financial resources and a burning desire to win. If thats all that it took, the Yankees would win the World Series every year almost non-contested. But they don’t. Too many other owners are blood thirsty competitors and will go to any length to win, at whatever cost. Theyare “all-in”.

Neukom and company know this I am fairly certain. And they have made a calculated decision to not go “all-in”, simply because the stakes for a partnership are too high. Getting 30 millionaires to agree to risk everything with not even a 50/50 chance of recouping their investment, let along winning a championship is never going to happen. The only guy that seemed at one time to have a burning desire to win at all costs was Peter Magowan, but we all saw what happened. The day to day grind after so many years finally wore him down. Baseball is a tough and punishing business. Neukom knows this. He simply does not and cannot play against the big dogs under the restraints of the current ownership structure

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Despite all the constraints regarding stadium debt, ownership structure, etc., the Giants could (theoretically) still compete. They’re obviously able to have a $90 million payroll and still make money. Several teams are consistently competitive and occasionally win championships with smaller payrolls. But for that to happen, the Giant’s front office would have to be smart, and as Grant and others have complained, they just don’t have faith that that’s the case. To your point, maybe it’s that very ownership structure that keeps things conservative, and stifles new approaches, although Neukom strikes me as someone that would welcome innovative analysis.

by Keith0909 on Oct 15, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There’s nothing wrong with the budget. They just keep spending the money stupidly.

Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
31 May 2007, 21:38 EST - the last time Matteh's career W-L wasn't below .500
We are at war with Los Angeles. We have always been at war with Los Angeles.
Lowering the Quality of Internet Discourse Since 1985™

by S.F. Giangst on Oct 23, 2009 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

16 teams spent more money than the Giants in 2008. 12 teams did in 2009. The gap between the Giants and White Sox, the team right in front of the Giants in 2009, was ~$13.5M (showing that all 12 teams were spending substantially more than the Giants). Winning takes money. You really think, given the Giants market, that there should be that many teams outspending them?

This is where I got my info.

by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Define “market”.

Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
31 May 2007, 21:38 EST - the last time Matteh's career W-L wasn't below .500
We are at war with Los Angeles. We have always been at war with Los Angeles.
Lowering the Quality of Internet Discourse Since 1985™

by S.F. Giangst on Oct 24, 2009 2:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well…that’s a hard request. We know there are lots of people in the Bay Area. We know they have large incomes. We know the Giants get a lot more support than the A’s. Between ticket revenue, our cable contract, and merchandise sales, the Giants are a big market team. Not the biggest, but definitely up there…though coming up with an actual ranking on markets is hard….

by Missing Barry on Oct 25, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the Giants could (theoretically) still compete.

There’s that word (compete) again. And that is exactly the focal difference between what it takes to win, and what it takes to compete.

The Stenibrenners are committed to winning championships. The Bill Walsh 49ers went into every season after 1980 with the presumption that they would be in the playoffs—the objective being winning the superbowl, not competing for a playoff spot.

I know this sounds like parsing, but there is a definite mindset to using the word compete and using the word win.

The Royals, Pirates, Nationals, Indians, Orioles use the term compete religiously.

The Angels, Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies use the term win religiously

by E Ticket on Oct 15, 2009 3:32 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Good point. By having the mindset of winning, you “compete” — in other words be in the mix for a playoff spot and make the playoffs consistently — in order to put yourself in a position to win a championship. It’s interesting you bring up Bill Walsh, as he had almost complete control of the team as well as carte blanche to try whatever he wanted. Some things didn’t work out (Renaldo Nehemiah comes to mind), but most did. The Giant’s corporate structure may inhibit that.

by Keith0909 on Oct 15, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Giants have admitted this many times.

The real problem is Ownership. But, we can’t fire the owner….
Here in Phoenix ,Jerry Colangelo, who brought the Diamondbacks two world series, was given the boot as Managing partner because he was trying too hard to win (spending too much). I know the same would happen to any Managing partner running the Giants who actually TRIED to win the World Series- and Neukom knows it probably much better than I do.

chilibean_3 says: Cybermaldonado, "I don’t think you understand anything. Anything at all." Stay classy chilibean my friend.

by cybermaldonado on Oct 15, 2009 3:57 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Point for GRM

I’m drawing a BLANK on that myself…

Cyber , you’re down here also? Makes at least three of us.

Ya know...ignorance really IS bliss.
Well - I do , anyway.

by victor frankenstein on Oct 15, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe I’ve just heard about the World Series win so many times it seems like more than one.

chilibean_3 says: Cybermaldonado, "I don’t think you understand anything. Anything at all." Stay classy chilibean my friend.

by cybermaldonado on Oct 17, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This kind of gets to, strictly as a Giants fan, why the Passing of Mrs. Burns could be the most pivotal thing in the 2009 season. The personal tragedy aside we know she and he her husband were willing to pay to improve the product. No offense to the surviving Burns but we just don’t know if the same holds true for them and if so to what degree and in what forms.

Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.

by daveinexile on Oct 16, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Stay tuned!

Ya know...ignorance really IS bliss.
Well - I do , anyway.

by victor frankenstein on Oct 16, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s the ownership structure that leads to compromise and consensus decision-making which takes the organization down the beaten path that leads to being competitive rather than being winners. Most of them are faceless and namless (at least to me). In a down economy, the top of their checklists are fannies in the seats, stadium mortgage payment to make, and a profit share to cash at year end. Will a 90 mill payroll get it done? If you’re faceless and nameless and have the comfort of the company of others with similar aims, winning the WS definitely comes in lower than the profit share. The lunatic fringe at MCC will never run you out of town because they don’t know who you are. The front man with the bowtie knows his clients, and so we begin to see more of the same old. Sabean knows the priorities of his paymasters, so he ends up treading the beaten path of “proven” vets as a safer bet at having fannies still in the seats heading toward september. That he consistently doesn’t get enough bang for the buck out of 90 mill is by now very arguable.

Oh, to have an ego-driven tyrant with bottomless wealth for an owner….

"Hey old-timer, where am I ?"

"You can't get there from here."

by pynchon59 on Oct 15, 2009 4:18 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

/ Al Davis rattles his walker to face towards Mays Field and “smiles”

Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.

by daveinexile on Oct 16, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Attendance

It is clearly related to many factors such as the market and the performance of the team, but one thing that is clear is new parks increase attendance and that drops with time. There have been 11 new parks since Camden Yards that have been around for at least 5 years and the average increase in attendace across all of them in the first year in the new park was 42.5%. I made a little graph of what happens to attendance (normalized to the first year in the new park) over time and you can see there is a plateau for a few years and then a rather steep decline.

 The sample sizeas you get out past 10 years is small, but the trend seems real. I predict attendance at ATT will continue to fall unless they win (it is already down 14% from 2000).

by capn on Oct 15, 2009 4:45 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

this is the most logical thread in a while

thanks E, i share many of the same thoughts.

Dodgers fans eat their young.

by redhornet78 on Oct 15, 2009 10:31 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Run, do not walk , to the nearest psychiatric facility.

(note extra spaced comma in tribute to Uncle Frankenstein)

by E Ticket on Oct 16, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good take.Sort of depressing, but it has to be said.

So , E , do you advocate lowering our expectations in order not to feel shorted?

Ya know...ignorance really IS bliss.
Well - I do , anyway.

by victor frankenstein on Oct 15, 2009 11:50 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Well (as Jack Benny used to say)

Though they showed an 8 game upward swing from last year, they still finished 7 games behind the Dodgers in third place, and there is nothing to suggest that they can close that gap in the near future. They sure haven’t beaten the Dodgers in recent years for the most part. And before you can even begin to think about competing for a playoff spot, they have to get by the Dodgers.

Targeting a wildcard is simply defeatism disguised as “competing”, so if they are serious, they have to be better than the Dodgers. Its been that way since they were in New York. And they do have one advantage. The Giants interleague rivalry is with the A’s; the Dodgers is with the Angels, so the Giants get a mild 3 game advantage there most years. But enough of that.

I’ve always looked upon Sabean as a forked-tongued, opportunistic interloper, whose every pore oozes contempt for fans, and ballplayers alike. To him players are chattel, the fans, merely marks. He is so mindful of so many college coaches, scouts, and gamblers that I’ve had the displeasure of having to interact with over the years. Some succesful, many not so much.

He is the perfect fit for a Microsoft mouthpiece who so far, has demonstrated no passion for the game, the players, the fans that I have seen or heard.

The fans and players were greatly loved by Harlan, than later Sue Burns and to a certain extent Peter Magowan. Thats all gone now. And her passing was extraordinarily sad. Her passing always brings forth the adage of the good always dying too soon.

So yes. Lower your expectations the same way Niner fans did when John York and Terry Donahue and the Dennis Erickson idiocy replaced Eddie DeBartolo, Carmen Policy and Bill Walsh exceptionalism. York effectively killed off the last remnants of the Walsh era. Nuekom and his ilk have started a new era of cold, calculating, dispassionate corporate boardroomism.

by E Ticket on Oct 16, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

a forked-tongued, opportunistic interloper, whose every pore oozes contempt for fans, and ballplayers alike. To him players are chattel, the fans, merely marks.

You have such a gift for public relations work!

Ya know...ignorance really IS bliss.
Well - I do , anyway.

by victor frankenstein on Oct 16, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Our motto!

Every client a happy and satisfied oozer!

by E Ticket on Oct 16, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Great post, but sorry for not sharing in all the gloom and doom around here. Reading this post and all the others, you would think we just finished up another 90 loss season instead of finishing 88-74. They had a good season, they have a decent payroll, and they have an outstanding farm system, so why is everyone running around saying the sky is falling? I’m disappointed we kept Sabean and Bochy, but that was expected after 88 wins. Talk to me after a bad off season followed by a bad 2010 and maybe I’ll be right there with you, but for now I’m looking at the bright side.

No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you

by rxmeister on Oct 16, 2009 6:25 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Well, just to give you some of the reasons why there’s more pessimism than you’d expect – 88 wins is nice but didn’t get us into the playoffs, and if you delve deeper into things you’ll find we mostly likely were not an 88 win team. More like an 82-84 win team. Of course that doesn’t mean anything for this past season – we won 88 games and that is now a fact, it is what actually happened. It means a lot for next season, though, if our talent level is more like an 84 win team that’s 4 more wins we have to come up with, in addition to the gap that already exists, to be a playoff team.

Also, I don’t know how “outstanding” the farm system is at this point. Posey is outstanding. Neal had a great year. A couple other guys like Bond did well. But by and large, despite not graduating any significant prospects, our farm system is looking worse right now than it did at this point last year. Villalona…..don’t even need to get into that. Barnes and Alderson are gone. Guys like Noonan and Fairley don’t ever look like big leaguers. Bumgarner isn’t as shiny as he was at this point last year.Adrianza can’t hit. Gillaspie isn’t looking very good….

Mostly, though, the sky is falling because Sabean and Bochy are back. They really are that bad….

by Missing Barry on Oct 16, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Mostly, though, the sky is falling because Sabean and Bochy are back. They really are that bad….

I am realy hard pressed to think of manger in a postion that the talent requires hims to use the weakest points of his style as often as Bochy. The resault are not good either.
Sabean is kind of like Herpes. We can’t cure him we can only hope he leaves us a alone for awhile.

Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.

by daveinexile on Oct 16, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ugh. I was aware of most of the goings-on you cited. But primarily as seperate events involving individual players. Your summary of the farm system events this past year, seems even more evidential of the continuance of the disproved status quo.

But it reminds of Sabean’s boasting dismissively some time ago, that he barely knew the names of his minor-leaguers, and that his primary concern was with the “big club” and that he had underlings to tend to the farm system, and viewed young minor leaguers primarily as bargaining chips for “proven and established” players.

And why anyone would expect a guy like Sabean who has earned millions and tenure doing what he has been doing for years to break with the past is not being very realistic.

by E Ticket on Oct 16, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree about Sabean, but just how much power does he have these days? Even Sabean has talked about the influence that someone like Tidrow has had on his picks, (ex. Lincecum) and there are other competent people around him who seem to know what they’re doing as well. His talk about OBP may just be lip service, but on the other hand I didn’t hear him talking at all about it the last few seasons, so perhaps Neukom, Barr, Shelley etc. are not only in his ear, they might actually have a big hand in building next year’s team. As I said in another thread, if they take a run at someone like Nick Johnson, and make no effort to bring back someone like Bengie Molina I think that’s a good sign that this organization is going in the right direction.
     As for the farm system, maybe your picture of it is more gloomy than mine, but a team with a decent payroll doesn’t need to produce 25 great players from their system to become a contender, it just needs to augment the major league roster. It’s funny that you mention that Bumgarner isn’t as “shiny” as he used to seem, but you then point out Alderson as a big loss. If Bumgarner isn’t shiny, than Alderson is a freaking black hole!

No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you

by rxmeister on Oct 16, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, I’m the one that made the points about the farm system…

Anyways, yes I agree Alderson lost some of his shine as well. I don’t know if you noticed, but the point I was making was I went through Baseball America’s top 10 list from before the season, and pretty much everyone in the Top 10 has lost some of their prospect shine. Posey improved. Romo was #10 so he graduated and is looking good as a relief pitcher (though he’s still only a relief pitcher). Rodriguez is still the exact same – young unknown with physical tools. After that of the other 7, 2 are gone, and the other 5 are looking worse than they did at the beginning of the year. That’s not a good step for the farm system…

by Missing Barry on Oct 16, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I really don’t agree about Bumgarner losing his shine anyway, although your other points are excellent. Yeah, he lost some velocity at the end of the year and his K’s went down, but he still didn’t get hit hard and he’s just a kid, so a velocity loss at the end of the season is expected. Then he comes up to the majors, and even though it’s just ten innings, he posts an 1.80 ERA with 10 K’s. He’s still pretty shiny to me.

No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you

by rxmeister on Oct 16, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s all about the K’s. The velocity isn’t as big a deal to me. The 5.8 K/9 in 107 innings in AA is the big deal.

by Missing Barry on Oct 16, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Pitchers who are unknown to the league, always have the initial advantage if they have a reasonable amount of strike-zone command. To wit, Joe Martinez, Ryan Sadowski and even Brad Hennessy and Scott Munter and a bunch of others had good initial success. And than the league makes the adjustment. Thats why loss of velocity is critical at this juncture.

The more velocity, the more room for location error since more velocity equates to less reaction time for the hitter. Velocity loss in spite of what the media spin is, is a big deal in a young pitcher. Stamina is one of the difference makers in MLB pitching evaluation and even drafting…hence the question of Lincecum falling to number 10 in the draft to begin with.

by E Ticket on Oct 16, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not to downplay the importance of velocity, I think you’re right on all points, I just don’t see the reason to be concerned about Bumgarner’s velocity since he’s so young and it’s only his second full season of pro ball. Basically, I think he’ll recover some, if not all, of it. Obviously that’s not for certain, though….

The strikeouts are a big deal, though, because if you don’t strike people out in AA you won’t succeed in MLB unless you’re an extreme GB pitcher (which Bumgarner is not). It indicates that his offspeed stuff is still fringy and he isn’t getting enough swings and misses with it. Some of it’s due to velocity, but some of its due to bigger potential issues.

by Missing Barry on Oct 16, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and iirc

didn’t they adjust his pitching motion to temporarily decrease velocity?

by sfoakbay on Oct 16, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I won’t quibble with you over some of the minutiae of the individual player evaluation process. If it bears repeating, that Sabean has done some things correctly, I concur. But from my point of view, the larger issue is that he has an established track record for all to see in the last several years since Baker and Bonds departed, and should be evaluated on that.

And having said that, I believe the Emperor has no clothes as evidenced by 6 consecutive lower tier finishes in the NL West. Regardless of wins-losses. Regardless of Timmy’s Cy Young. Regardless of fun times with Pablo. To expect him to all of a sudden be successful to get this team to the next level, when even as I write this, the front office is trotting out the same excuses for not doing anything different is not just being hopeful or optimistic, it is bordering on wishful thinking….which is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. That is the fun part of being a fan. The escapism of it all. Hell, when I’m immersed in a ballgame, nothing else counts. Not cancer, death, taxes or toenail fungus.

But we simply cannot dismiss the previous 6 years of playoff non-appearance, 5 years of woefully inept position player acquisitions, the disastrous humiliating signings of Zito, Rowand, Renteria and now apparently Freddy Sanchez, the steady mantra of “ballpark experience” from Baer and mainstream media, and truly and honestly believe that things are going to CHANGE DRAMATICALLY for the better. And I say dramatically because the current crew clearly has not accomplished a damn thing when it comes to the final standings for the past several years.

And Neukom rewards the perpetrators with 2 + 1 contracts.

That is not the way you get to the highest levels of achievement if winning championships is your goal

by E Ticket on Oct 16, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

as evidenced by 6 consecutive lower tier finishes

should be 5 consecutive lower tier finishes.

by E Ticket on Oct 16, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Considering it took a 22 year old Phenom ( with almost MVP type numbers) and a pair of Starters that spent the entire season in the running for Cy Young votes I would consider this about as low of a result as one could expect.

Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.

by daveinexile on Oct 16, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

do you expect those three to have bad seasons next year?

No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you

by rxmeister on Oct 16, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I didn’t expect Sandoval to play as well for at long. I expected more , and longer, periods of adjusting to the league adjusting to him. I also expect worse defense for longer.

I knew Cain is capable of a season like this, and better but I was not so sure this would be the year he we was going to get being efficient is a good thing. Nor did I expect him to get the efficacy thing so early. So Yes, he as well, out did my expectations.

Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.

by daveinexile on Oct 16, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry Rx. I misread "did" for "do"

I think we can expect something similar next season. In Sandoval’s case maybe a bit less due to no base runner on in front of him and the managements apparent lack of interest in fixing that.

The biggest worry I have is Tim going the Mark Fidrych route. That drop in speed in September coupled with his use patterns the last 2 seasons and a manager that wants to think it is between 1975 and 1995 does not exactly worry me , yet, but it does make me watchful.

Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.

by daveinexile on Oct 16, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know. Such a disparity in talent and performance is not a foundation for success. Especially in light of the discrepancy in compensation between the polar opposites. Everybody knows that is how the MLPA and the Owners worked out the labor agreement and thats what agents tell their clients.

But you have to know that if you’re kicking major ass and making your pitches and the guys that are supposed to be helping you put up the numbers you need for your salary drive, are overpaid cronies and useless selfish hacks, than in spite of the happy happy talk, it is one more thing that does not help these guys get over the top.

by E Ticket on Oct 16, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actualy, It Shuld Be Just 4 (2005 Thru 2008).

Neiter 2004 nor 2009 were lower tier finishes as the Giants finished both seasons with the 5th best record of sixteen teams in the NL.

by giantsrainman on Oct 16, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Which means…they didn’t make the playoffs? I’d call that a lower tier finish.

by Missing Barry on Oct 18, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Lower Tier Is Pretty Well Defined

It is bottom 8 in a league of 16 or bottom 2 in a division of 5. It is not 3 in a division of 5 while still being 5th in a league of 16.

by giantsrainman on Oct 18, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Who decided on these definitions, exactly? Calling a team that didn’t make the playoffs on a “lower tier” or “2nd tier” compared to playoff teams seems pretty reasonable to me? Playoff teams have a chance to win a championship. The Giants did not.

by Missing Barry on Oct 18, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're Kidding Right?

Bottom tier is just another way to say bottom half. If tier refered to more then two groups (which in this context it clearly does not) then the Giants would still not be in the bottom group but one culd say then that they are not in the top group either.

by giantsrainman on Oct 18, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ah so you’ve changed the wording from “lower tier”, which is a relative comparison, to “bottom tier”….

I’ll take this opportunity to change the wording myself, and clearly state that the Giants are clearly not in the same class as the teams that make the playoffs. Those teams try to win championships. Hows that?

by Missing Barry on Oct 18, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Lower And Bottom Are The Same

Stading alone they both just indicate the existence of a Upper or Top.

by giantsrainman on Oct 18, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes. This is exactly what I meant; particularly in the context of the post. Winners win divisions. The consolation prize is the wildcard. If you can’t even win the consolation prize, you’re a bottom feeder occasionally getting close to the surface, for a few oxygen bubbles, but eventually sliding back into the primordial ooze of Sabean’s ancestral origins. :D

by E Ticket on Oct 19, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Then Why Did You Find The Need To Change From 6 to 5?

It seems to me you have been caught changing your “intended” meaning mid stream. If this was what you ment then you would have just stuck with 6 as the Giants missed the playoffs six straight seasons 2004-9. The fact that you changed this proves that your “intended” meaning had nothing to do with playoff appearances but was rather a tiered grouping with the existence of lower (and therfore upper as lower’s opposite) the only info your readers had to determine your “intended” meaning.

by giantsrainman on Oct 19, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What are you gonna do about it?

Billy Ripken is not a fuck face

by Karlifornia on Oct 16, 2009 1:50 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Call Ghostbusters?

by E Ticket on Oct 16, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I Agree With The Major Thrust Of This Post.

There is indeed very little doubt in my mind that the goal of Giants ownership and thus management too is to “be competative” as opposed to “win a World Series”. I think this has always been the case for not only the current ownership group (since 1993) but both previous SF ownership groups as well. The Giants ownership would very much like to win a World Series (one could even say would love to win a World Series) but they are not willing take financial risks to improve their chances to do so.

That said, I think this is true of all ownership groups including the Yankees. The difference is not the amount of risk the owners are willing to take the difference is the resources the owners have without taking such risk.

by giantsrainman on Oct 16, 2009 4:53 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

GRM finds the MAJOR THRUST of this POST agreeable...

/lols

Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all

McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.

GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!

by baetown415 on Oct 16, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I Also Agree That It Is Impossible To conclude That Sabean Is Not Resonsible for Wasting The Resources The Giants Do Have.

Even though I am one of the few that is willing to assume that MaGowan is the primary culpret for both Zito and Rowand’s contracts there are (as you point out) just too many bad contracts to be able to rationally conclude that Sabean isn’t a culpret too. For that matter, I find it very hard to believe that Larry Baer is without fault in these.

That said, I believe that Giants ownership understands that these mistakes were made (though they will not be admitting this publicly) and have a plan in place to correct this that Sabean is the author of. What I believe saved Brain’s job both at the end of the MaGowen era as well as at the end of this season is that he sold them a plan that both acknowledged these mistakes and indentified how he planned to correct them.

As for me, I like the progress the Giants have shown over the last two years and I am thus still in the wait and see camp.

by giantsrainman on Oct 16, 2009 5:46 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I don’t see any evidence that Magowan is to blame for Rowand’s contract. Sabean incorrectly identified centerfield as a problem position for the Giants’ and pursued both Juan Pierre and Gary Matthews Jr. before settling on Dave Roberts. After realizing that he was wrong about Roberts he then went after Rowand. Meanwhile Randy Winn was there all along. Yes, Randy Winn is not the perfect CF for a spacious ballpark, but that was just a small problem, not a major one. Sabean sticks his fingers into the small holes in the dike (insert bad lesbian joke here) while floods continue to pour unchecked through the massive ones.

No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you

by rxmeister on Oct 17, 2009 5:23 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Seconded

Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.

by daveinexile on Oct 17, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You Could Be Right As Neither Of Us Really Know.

I think Rowand’s signing (like Zito) has MaGowan’s (and for that matter Baer’s) fingerprints all over it. The Giants first tried to stupidly replace Barry as the “centerpiece of the team” with Zito (like this ever really had any chance to work) and then fialing at this they decided to just replace Barry in both the outfield and batting order but choose badly and went with someone who had no chance to suceed in such a staring role as he was only suited for the supporting roles he had played in the past.

by giantsrainman on Oct 17, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

All things being relative

Having just under E’s seniority – my first game was in ‘62 – I share the decades long frustration, but I’ve got to say this management is freaking brilliant compared to some of the past owners and management of the Giants. I know that’s not saying much, and it is the time of year for all Giants fans to complain why our team in not in the playoffs, but I’ve also always been one of those who looks for any positive developments. There are a hell of a lot of those. I’ll take Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Wilson, and the Panda, all signed and developed by this management, as the core of my future team any day. That’s not even talking about some young prospects I love checking on every now and then. Right now, I’m at least convinced this team has a plan for how to win – through a long delayed reliance on their farm system. That’s especially true about the emphasis, which I agree with, on pitching development. Bumgarner, Runzler, and Joaquin are going to be fun to watch as they join the staff in the next year or two.

It’s been a wrenching few years since the shift from Bonds plus supporting cast was the modus operandi of this team, but I would remind E and some others that those where some damn good years – brought to you by essentially the same management. There are a lot ways to build a winning team, but the transition between the two eras has been hard.

So, yeah, I feel the same pain, but I don’t find the cynicism warranted.

by Sayhey on Oct 16, 2009 9:44 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I was right there with you tell the last 2 weeks of July. Both those trades and their results along with how playing time was allotted in the final 3 months has forced me to leave that happy realm. To steal from another childhood tale, this is the type of crew that would kill the goose to get at the gold that is obviously inside.

Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.

by daveinexile on Oct 17, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree. Past management traded away MVP or hall of fame talent for nothing. However, those management teams had to at least be trying for a championship as the only way they could promote the team, as they couldn’t exactly market the “ballpark experience” at Candlestick.

by Keith0909 on Oct 17, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

From a macroscopic viewpoint I agree that prior management teams were not as successful in making money. As Keith mentions, Stoneham literally traded away Hall of Famers for dirty dish scrapings:

Willie Mays for Charlie Williams.
Orlando Cepeda for Ray Sadecki.
Gaylord Perry for Sam McDowell.
Willie McCovey for Mike Caldwell and
Juan Marichal for cash to Boston.

By 1973 they were all gone. Stoneham was done in financially as much by bad real estate deals in Arizona as the windblown Stick and the crime-ridden parking lots surrounding it. And as good as the Giants lineups were during his San Francisco stewardship, they won only one pennant, such was the strength of the Dodgers and Cardinals, in the 60s and the Dodgers and Reds in the 70s.

Stoneham, simply did not have the financial resources to compete against the Dodgers. But before he went broke in the 70s, he worked and spent his ass off to put the best team forward every year until the Stick did him in. For him it was always about winning championships, even though he made some really bad trades like the Cepeda for Sadeckei and George Foster for Frank Duffy fiascos.

But Baseball was his only business. He pioneered the development of Latin American ballplayers, and knew talent inside and out having learned the game under his old man Charlie. Much the same way Hank Steinbrenner and Peter O’Malley learned the game under their fathers.

When it came to developing ballplayers, (remember this was before free agency), neither Lurie nor the current management team, belong in the same conversation with either of the Stonehams.

Lurie was a tightwad and not a risk taker, and beneficiary of inherited real estate wealth from his old man Lou. He was a half-measure guy whose best decision was to hire Al Rosen and Roger Craig. He got fed up with the disaster of Candlestick and sold out to Harlan Burns and company, though retaining a small financial interest in the club.

As for the current collection of owners in the post-Burns/Magowan era of the SF Baseball era, I put forth my thoughts on them in the original post.

I will encapsulate them thus:

They have breathed new life into what was once a run down wharf area decomposing away next to the entrance to the Third Street Bridge. A superb marketing organization. As good a business member of an urban community as one could ever dream of. Purveyor to urban progressives and conservative suburbanites alike. A more family friendly organization would be hard to find.

Compassionate benefactor of children charities, hospital funding, aids and cancer research, wounded military troops, and loyalty beyond duty to favored former players. A wonderful organization and admired employer. Just like the Walt Disney Company. And about as likely to win a world championship as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

by E Ticket on Oct 17, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

But you have a lot failure in your future, kid.

"All I know is right now, you comeback and do you dwell on that? I think you're man enough to take it, you're man enough to chew on it, to spit it out and you learn from it. ... I think winners let it go. I think losers dwell on it and talk about it all week and that screws you up for the next opportunity going forward." - Mike Singletary after the 49ers loss to the Vikings

by SFGuy on Oct 17, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

/becomes yankees fan

by sfoakbay on Oct 17, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

btw

totally fucking flummoxed

this phrase needs to be used more often

by sfoakbay on Oct 17, 2009 11:53 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

So do you think the “we need Nice Guys!” drumbeating is a reaction to having Lamar on the team and his making the fans uncomfortable? And indefensible to other teams’ fans? I can’t tell how many times I’ve fielded the “but how can you support Barry? He’s such an ASSHAT!” And you go, OK, well, … yeah? And that’s not enough to win the inevitable debate.

Still backing Notgardo, wheresoever he may wander. (Don't forget to wriiiite!)

by tk on Oct 19, 2009 2:04 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

E – What you post is wrong because I wish it too be wrong.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.

by zenbitz on Oct 27, 2009 12:06 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about San Francisco Giants.
Start posting about the Giants »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Dnw_small
MCC Recipe Swap & Food Talk Jamboree
Small
What I Would Do With the Roster

Recent FanPosts

Timmy_avatar_small
Expansion Teams / Relocation Discussion
Howtheyscoredcat_small
Lincecum Arbitration Results Prediction Thread!
Panda_bubble_small
First Baseman of the future
Timmy_avatar_small
Downloadable Game Broadcasts?
29x2_small
All-time favorite SF Giants: closer
Small
Would you trade Jeremy Affeldt?
Panda_bubble_small
Sabean putting alot of weight in Winter leagues?
Lincecum_small
Fourth Annual McCovey Awards Ceremony
Orangeapple_small
OT: What's your favorite Firefox theme?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Overlord

174246766_ea2fd78204_small Grant

Minions

Fawlty_small WalrusMan

Dog2_small kenshin1

Lincecum_small Natto

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

Goofus_small Goofus

Det_7193_small jponry

Minor League Guru

Small steve S