5/15 GDT - PopRox @ SF

[gp956]

Marco Scutaro can hit a HR in the 9th off our closer, and we can't drive home runners on 1st and 2nd and no outs, twice? Serious case of gripping. An order of Slumpbusters all around, please.

Eskstein, Scutaro, Hairstons....what's the deal, man?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Pedantic much?

Zone to lefthanders is skewed to off the outside corner.....pretty damn close to "right down the middle"

Wow. That is not at all what it looked like (to me) when I saw it on TV. I wish I had been recording it so that I could look at it again ( the wife was watching the earlier recorded "Glee").

 

[MarcoPolo]

PS: Dodgers lost tonight.

 

[gp956]

Wow. That is not at all what it looked like (to me) when I saw it on TV. I wish I had been recording it so that I could look at it again ( the wife was watching the earlier recorded "Glee").

Also, width-wise it was right in Nate's "hotzone".

 

[gp956]

Wow. That is not at all what it looked like (to me) when I saw it on TV. I wish I had been recording it so that I could look at it again ( the wife was watching the earlier recorded "Glee").

Here you go:

 

[Stokes1931]

What was Nate thinking? With two strikes, you can't take anything that close.

I much prefer this one:

 

[Heathbar012]

Yup. That was a frustrating one for all the reasons listed here. All I could tell myself last night was: "No team that makes those fielding errors deserves to win a game, no matter how much it really seemed like they deserved to win."

Side note: I enjoy seeing an angry Jim Tracy more than almost any current manager (especially when he has every right). Where is Angry Jim's twitter feed?

 

[ColinCoby]

No coach is never really to blame for lousy play, but sometimes an organization needs to shake things up. The hitting on this team has been shit for...how long?

Enough excuses. It might be time to pass out some pink slips.

 

[Heathbar012]

No coach is never really to blame for lousy play, but sometimes an organization needs to shake things up. The hitting on this team has been shit for...how long?

Enough excuses. It might be time to pass out some pink slips.

A World Series Championship is never a bad thing, but unfortunately, it does a great job sweeping deficiencies under the rug. I don't know that Bam Bam did or said anything that Carney (or any other coach, for that matter) didn't. It's interesting that Lansford was the scapegoat for '09, and without doing any analysis, it's easy for a casual fan to simply give credit to Muelens, but you're right, I think the talent is there. It's the approaches that need tweaking.

I'm not calling for anyone's job (like it would matter if I did). I think this just opens my eyes to how little (or great -on the fence much?) an impact a hitting coach can really have. It's more about luck for these guys. It is a good question for our well-informed, opinionated forum, though. How much impact do you think a hitting coach really has on the successes and failures or a Major League squad? It has to be minimal either way, right? And less than the manager (which is also minimal given that they don't swing the bat) that "sets the agenda" (ie. "we want guys who aren't afraid to swing" or "always take the first pitch unless you're certain that ball isn't coming back"), no? Should more blame or praise be put on the manager if they do a good job of catering their strategy to the personnel?

 

[gp956]

A World Series Championship is never a bad thing, but unfortunately, it does a great job sweeping deficiencies under the rug. I don't know that Bam Bam did or said anything that Carney (or any other coach, for that matter) didn't. It's interesting that Lansford was the scapegoat for '09, and without doing any analysis, it's easy for a casual fan to simply give credit to Muelens, but you're right, I think the talent is there. It's the approaches that need tweaking.

I'm not calling for anyone's job (like it would matter if I did). I think this just opens my eyes to how little (or great -on the fence much?) an impact a hitting coach can really have. It's more about luck for these guys. It is a good question for our well-informed, opinionated forum, though. How much impact do you think a hitting coach really has on the successes and failures or a Major League squad? It has to be minimal either way, right? And less than the manager (which is also minimal given that they don't swing the bat) that "sets the agenda" (ie. "we want guys who aren't afraid to swing" or "always take the first pitch unless you're certain that ball isn't coming back"), no? Should more blame or praise be put on the manager if they do a good job of catering their strategy to the personnel?

The squad as a whole? Close to zero. I think Tiger Woods swing changes provide an apt analogy. The guy has won majors with three different swing coaches, and before it's over, he'll probably get another major with yet another coach.

 

[MarcoPolo]

No coach is never really to blame for lousy play, but sometimes an organization needs to shake things up. The hitting on this team has been shit for...how long?

Enough excuses. It might be time to pass out some pink slips.

As long as there are butts in the seats, the owners really don't care that much. A recent game (it might have been Mon night's game) it was announced "40 straight sell-out home games" (or some number very close to 40, if my aging memory is correct, which it so often isn't).

So ... don't expect a huge increase in salary any time soon. Changes will be coming next season for sure, with Rowand, Huff, Wilson, Cabrera, Sanchez, Affeldt, and Pagan all being FAs after this season. That's 12 + 10 + 8.5 + 6 + 6 + 5 + 5 -2 million off the books (60.5). There's already 12-13M in contractually guaranteed raises, so about 45M to pay for 2 starting OFs, a closer, a starting 1B and 2B, a backup IF and a few guys for the pen. I'm sure some of the guys can be found in-house for cheap (especially in the pen and backup roles) so 40M can bring in a few nice bats (not super-stars, decent hitters) to relace the ineptitude at a few spots in the order.

As long as the team sells out and sells lots of beer and hotdogs, no drastic (expensive) changes will be made this season.

 

[gp956]

As long as there are butts in the seats, the owners really don't care that much. A recent game (it might have been Mon night's game) it was announced "40 straight sell-out home games" (or some number very close to 40, if my aging memory is correct, which it so often isn't).

So ... don't expect a huge increase in salary any time soon. Changes will be coming next season for sure, with Rowand, Huff, Wilson, Cabrera, Sanchez, Affeldt, and Pagan all being FAs after this season. That's 12 + 10 + 8.5 + 6 + 6 + 5 + 5 -2 million off the books (60.5). There's already 12-13M in contractually guaranteed raises, so about 45M to pay for 2 starting OFs, a closer, a starting 1B and 2B, a backup IF and a few guys for the pen. I'm sure some of the guys can be found in-house for cheap (especially in the pen and backup roles) so 40M can bring in a few nice bats (not super-stars, decent hitters) to relace the ineptitude at a few spots in the order.

As long as the team sells out and sells lots of beer and hotdogs, no drastic (expensive) changes will be made this season.

It's a 100 straight sellouts. And since the streak started, the payroll has climbed from approximately 93M to 130M. Sorry, but your entire argument is BS. Although your conclusion may actually be correct!

 

[calsnowskier]

It's a 100 straight sellouts. And since the streak started, the payroll has climbed from approximately 93M to 130M. Sorry, but your entire argument is BS. Although your conclusion may actually be correct!

Also, simply adding $$ will not neccesarily == better players or wins.

Zito
Rowand
Huff
Benitez
Alphonso
Roberts
ect
ect
ect

 

[Heathbar012]

Also, simply adding $$ will not neccesarily == better players or wins.

Zito
Rowand
Huff
Benitez
Alphonso
Roberts
ect
ect
ect

Very true, but more recent signings have given fans at least a little bit more faith in the scouting and opinions of the decision makers (some present company excluded... at times).

 

[MarcoPolo]

It's a 100 straight sellouts. And since the streak started, the payroll has climbed from approximately 93M to 130M. Sorry, but your entire argument is BS. Although your conclusion may actually be correct!

The payroll first went up with the WS windfall profits. My argument was that they wont go up drastically NOW, *this season*, not that they didn't go up in the past. If the payroll was still 93M I wouldn't be saying it - but at 130M, I am.

Bowtie is gone (among other things) for having "wasted" money (firing players), and spending money without approval. You think Baer is going to make that same mistake? Again, I don't see ownership committing to any big deals involving big money before the end of this season. For all the reason I already gave.

 

[calsnowskier]

But, Marco...

Taking this past season as an example, What moves do you think the Giants shuld have made that they did not, that was an example of them being cheap?

Reyes? He signed a 7 year deal, and he is made of glass. Passing on him (assuming they even had a chance) was just good business.

Pujols? He will be an albatross by year 3, if not sooner (I think he is just slumping now; he should be fine this year).

Rollins? We were likely one of only 2 teams he was considering, but he was/is old and diving fast.

Beltran? Assuming we even had a chance at signing him (not a given), he signed for about the upper limit of what we here were slotting him for.

Cuddyer? Ross? Fielder? other?

 

[tzill]

No coach is never really to blame for lousy play, but sometimes an organization needs to shake things up. The hitting on this team has been shit for...how long?

Enough excuses. It might be time to pass out some pink slips.

Agreed. ManBur goes first.

He's awful.

 

[tzill]

As long as there are butts in the seats, the owners really don't care that much. A recent game (it might have been Mon night's game) it was announced "40 straight sell-out home games" (or some number very close to 40, if my aging memory is correct, which it so often isn't).

So ... don't expect a huge increase in salary any time soon. Changes will be coming next season for sure, with Rowand, Huff, Wilson, Cabrera, Sanchez, Affeldt, and Pagan all being FAs after this season. That's 12 + 10 + 8.5 + 6 + 6 + 5 + 5 -2 million off the books (60.5). There's already 12-13M in contractually guaranteed raises, so about 45M to pay for 2 starting OFs, a closer, a starting 1B and 2B, a backup IF and a few guys for the pen. I'm sure some of the guys can be found in-house for cheap (especially in the pen and backup roles) so 40M can bring in a few nice bats (not super-stars, decent hitters) to relace the ineptitude at a few spots in the order.

As long as the team sells out and sells lots of beer and hotdogs, no drastic (expensive) changes will be made this season.

1. You have no idea if the owners care or not, yet you state your opinion as fact.
2. It's 100 straight sellouts, FWIW. Now 101 I think.

Giants have $81MM currently committed to the 2013 season:
Barry 20M
Freak 20.25
Cainer 20.83
Huffer 2.0
LOOGY 4.25
Panda 5.7
Bum 0.95

The following Arb guys, and best guess as to 2013 salary:

Weez 4.0
KCYa 5.0
Romo 3.0
Nate 2.0
Hensley 1.0
Buster 4.0
White Shark 2.0
Arias 1.0
ManBur 0
Whitey 0

The following Free Agents, and best guess:

Melkman 3/27
Franchez 0
Affeldt 2/8
Pagan 0
Riot 0
Mota 0

And the following are under total club control (0.4-0.5M each):
Runzler
Kontos
Baby G
Stamos
Otero
Chipmunk
Chez3
Kamp
Adrianza
Correa
Culberson
Edlefsen
Gillaspie
Hacker
Kieshnick
Peggs

That's about 31 players, leaving 9 spots on the 40 man and the ML roster like so:

C - Buster, Chez3
1B - Baby G, Chipmunk
2B - FA, Culberson
3B - Panda, Arias
SS - Stamos
OF - Melkman, White Shark, Nate, Kieshnick/Peggs
SP - Horse, Bum, Freak, Vogey, Zeets
CL - KCYa
8th - Romo, Affeldt
SR - Weez, LOOGY
LR - Hensley, Kamp

2B FA 2013:
Lopez, Izturis, Johnson

 

[gp956]

The payroll first went up with the WS windfall profits.

Uh, no. Ever hear of The Permanent Income Hypothesis? The bump up to 130M has everything to do with the current and future income anticipated from their RSN deal. We're seeing this across all of baseball. And, although I have no inside visibility on this income, what little has leaked to the public suggests the payroll will stabilize around 170M for the Giants. It'll be smart for the Giants to approach this new set point as strategically as possible. <------ we call this cost imputation, btw, i.e. how shifting demand drives costs. In your conception implied by "As long as there are butts in the seats, the owners really don't care that much," costs would not rise.

My argument was that they wont go up drastically NOW, *this season*, not that they didn't go up in the past. If the payroll was still 93M I wouldn't be saying it - but at 130M, I am.

No. Your argument was simple and clear: "As long as there are butts in the seats, the owners really don't care that much",

Clearly that is an assumption at odds with reality, and no amount of bringing in equally specious "adjustments" to your original statement divert from the fact that your argument is BS. That doesn't imply your conclusion is wrong though. Think of it like this: in the prediction thread I listed my prediction for every series, I think I've been wrong for half of them so far (would have been in all but one except for last night's debacle). So despite being wrong in most of my specific predictions, I may end up exactly right in my "conclusion". What's the old saying - "don't mistake luck for brains"?

 

[tzill]

Uh, no. Ever hear of The Permanent Income Hypothesis? The bump up to 130M has everything to do with the current and future income anticipated from their RSN deal. We're seeing this across all of baseball. And, although I have no inside visibility on this income, what little has leaked to the public suggests the payroll will stabilize around 170M for the Giants. It'll be smart for the Giants to approach this new set point as strategically as possible. <------ we call this cost imputation, btw, i.e. how shifting demand drives costs. In your conception implied by "As long as there are butts in the seats, the owners really don't care that much," costs would not rise.



No. Your argument was simple and clear: "As long as there are butts in the seats, the owners really don't care that much",

Clearly that is an assumption at odds with reality, and no amount of bringing in equally specious "adjustments" to your original statement divert from the fact that you're argument is BS. That doesn't imply your conclusion is wrong though. Think of it like this: in the prediction thread I listed my prediction for every series, I think I've been wrong for half of them so far (would have been in all but one except for last night's debacle). So despite being wrong in most of my specific predictions, I may end up exactly right in my "conclusion". What's the old saying - "don't mistake luck for brains"?

This. Well played my alt.

Marco, I know you've been on the board a while, but it bears repeating -- this board is tougher on common "fanspeak" than most. Thus, if you're going to offer a prediction (i.e. the Giants are not going to raise payroll as long as attendance remains high) then you'd better be prepared to support that with logic.

I know from experience that posting hasty psycoanalysis of players and FO folk will get you burned.

Nothing personal, but we try real hard on this board to remain above the "Giants owners are cheap" meme.