Giants looking to add a high-profile executive

[Pattersonca65]

I looked at Sportstrac team salaries this morning and was surprised that the Giants were No 2. in team payroll at approx $205 million just below the Boston Red Sox. The Dodgers were third at approx $199 million.

 

[SFGRTB]

IMHO there is a very big difference between a team's 'philosophy' and a management 'culture. I actually think it is the same components that you see in the business world. The 'philosophy' is what they sell to the employees, clients, and in our case .... the fans. They tell you what they think you most likely want to hear. On the other side of the coin is the actual 'culture' that is used to implement the philosophy. This only works if both the philosophy and the culture are actually in agreement. Because management 'tells' you something doesn't really mean they intend to do that. It's very easy to sell the idea that we will develop our youth and build for tomorrow ... but ... when in fact you continue to play the vets and keep the youth on the bench ... because you think your overall objective is to 'win games' ... the culture doesn't support the philosophy. Last year we were told that they were going to take a much more analytical approach with our pitching. They were going to use the numbers to make decisions. I don't believe that Bochy ever looked at any analytical data when making pitching changes. He typically goes with his gut feeling. Again ... a mismatch. As a fan this has been a very tough 2 1/2 years of baseball. I feel that management's culture has been centered around trying to patch the team together and hope to get lightening in a bottle. Most of the FAs that we signed were 3 years or more past their prime. Once great players, they were now on the other side of the curve. For me personally, it's a little sad when most of my baseball energy is now channeled into the Doyers, hoping for an epic fail!
Not sure what our plans for 2019 are .... but deep down inside I just don't want another repeat of 2018. I don't want to see another 'patch' job. I could tolerate a 90 loss season if I truly believed that they were restructuring, rebuilding, evaluating youth etc. Something that was preparing us for a better tomorrow.

Tim Flannery actually shed a bit of light on this on the post-game show last week (I think the day that Evans was fired). They were discussing this very topic, culture/philosophy and how it pertains to Bochy's future. Pretty much everyone was in agreement that Boch would return next year, but it would most certainly be his last. I don't think that's really surprising to anyone here.

The interesting part was the why. They all agreed that they'll probably look in a different direction that aligns more analytical, someone who is basically an extension of the GM. Flannery specifically said that Boch is the opposite of that, and it was the precise reason he came to SF in the first place (I have a feeling Flan talked a bit too much about this).

Flan said in his latter years in San Diego, the front office would send someone down with a piece of paper on what the lineup should look like that night and that Bochy would crumple the paper and throw it away, instead making the lineup his way (again, I think Flan meant this as a compliment, not really realizing what he was saying). He has (or had?) that freedom in SF, though. At this point, either a producer was telling Flan to cut it out, or the angel on his shoulder did, but he stopped talking about it. Still, it was quite validating of our suspicions.

That being said, I do think 2019 will be another 'patch' job, because as long as Bochy is around that's what you're going to get. There will be a lot going on behind the scenes, though, and hopefully a lot of action in the minor league/international level. And perhaps the new executives (emphasis plural) will get creative with the roster construction to force Bochy's hand a bit (i.e. keep him away from the savvy vets).

 

[Stokes1931]

Tim Flannery actually shed a bit of light on this on the post-game show last week (I think the day that Evans was fired). They were discussing this very topic, culture/philosophy and how it pertains to Bochy's future. Pretty much everyone was in agreement that Boch would return next year, but it would most certainly be his last. I don't think that's really surprising to anyone here.

The interesting part was the why. They all agreed that they'll probably look in a different direction that aligns more analytical, someone who is basically an extension of the GM. Flannery specifically said that Boch is the opposite of that, and it was the precise reason he came to SF in the first place (I have a feeling Flan talked a bit too much about this).

Flan said in his latter years in San Diego, the front office would send someone down with a piece of paper on what the lineup should look like that night and that Bochy would crumple the paper and throw it away, instead making the lineup his way (again, I think Flan meant this as a compliment, not really realizing what he was saying). He has (or had?) that freedom in SF, though. At this point, either a producer was telling Flan to cut it out, or the angel on his shoulder did, but he stopped talking about it. Still, it was quite validating of our suspicions.

That being said, I do think 2019 will be another 'patch' job, because as long as Bochy is around that's what you're going to get. There will be a lot going on behind the scenes, though, and hopefully a lot of action in the minor league/international level. And perhaps the new executives (emphasis plural) will get creative with the roster construction to force Bochy's hand a bit (i.e. keep him away from the savvy vets).

Interesting.

I was thinking today about how the Dodgers handled Muncy and how the Giants will handle Shaw. Both have power to spare. With the A's, Muncy was borderline terrible. But the Dodgers let him play, and he responded with 35 HR. I have no idea whether he went to some hitting guru over the off-season, etc. But that the Dodgers gave him almost 400 at bats, and we rewarded big time, is telling. Under the Giants' current management and philosophy, there is no way Shaw would get that many at bats. And the most homers Muncy had at AAA in a season was 12. No one could have predicted this, of course, but some players develop in their own time, and playing is the key to development. Under our current regime, Shaw could hit four homers in a weekend, and then sit for a week. I think Shaw could have a bright future, but not in this system, not with this approach. Of course, I thought Damon Minor was going to be the next Kingman back in the day.

 

[LHG]

Interesting.

I was thinking today about how the Dodgers handled Muncy and how the Giants will handle Shaw. Both have power to spare. With the A's, Muncy was borderline terrible. But the Dodgers let him play, and he responded with 35 HR. I have no idea whether he went to some hitting guru over the off-season, etc. But that the Dodgers gave him almost 400 at bats, and we rewarded big time, is telling. Under the Giants' current management and philosophy, there is no way Shaw would get that many at bats. And the most homers Muncy had at AAA in a season was 12. No one could have predicted this, of course, but some players develop in their own time, and playing is the key to development. Under our current regime, Shaw could hit four homers in a weekend, and then sit for a week. I think Shaw could have a bright future, but not in this system, not with this approach. Of course, I thought Damon Minor was going to be the next Kingman back in the day.

Listen to that interview with Sabean I posted further up this thread to find out how he feels about the outfield prospects (I get the feeling he was talking mainly about Williamson and Shaw, you know, the power guys).

Here's a bit on Muncy - Real or not? Dodgers getting lift from surprising sources
Specifically, from that article:
"He has made a couple of swing changes since his A's days, adding a little leg kick and lowering his hands, and now he's hitting the ball much harder."

And I was bothered by how the Giants handled Minor. They brought him up slowly and then reward him for a pretty decent rookie season by shipping him off. His AAA numbers weren't that great in 2003 but the team re-acquired him, he forced a promotion in 2004 and was never heard from again. They had a shiny new first base prospect in Lance Niekro. I never understood why they were so high on that guy.

 

[tzill]

IMHO there is a very big difference between a team's 'philosophy' and a management 'culture. I actually think it is the same components that you see in the business world. The 'philosophy' is what they sell to the employees, clients, and in our case .... the fans. They tell you what they think you most likely want to hear. On the other side of the coin is the actual 'culture' that is used to implement the philosophy. This only works if both the philosophy and the culture are actually in agreement. Because management 'tells' you something doesn't really mean they intend to do that. It's very easy to sell the idea that we will develop our youth and build for tomorrow ... but ... when in fact you continue to play the vets and keep the youth on the bench ... because you think your overall objective is to 'win games' ... the culture doesn't support the philosophy. Last year we were told that they were going to take a much more analytical approach with our pitching. They were going to use the numbers to make decisions. I don't believe that Bochy ever looked at any analytical data when making pitching changes. He typically goes with his gut feeling. Again ... a mismatch. As a fan this has been a very tough 2 1/2 years of baseball. I feel that management's culture has been centered around trying to patch the team together and hope to get lightening in a bottle. Most of the FAs that we signed were 3 years or more past their prime. Once great players, they were now on the other side of the curve. For me personally, it's a little sad when most of my baseball energy is now channeled into the Doyers, hoping for an epic fail!
Not sure what our plans for 2019 are .... but deep down inside I just don't want another repeat of 2018. I don't want to see another 'patch' job. I could tolerate a 90 loss season if I truly believed that they were restructuring, rebuilding, evaluating youth etc. Something that was preparing us for a better tomorrow.

I think a lot of fans think like you do. The question is: how many games would you go to next year if it was obvious that they will not contend? How many games would you watch?

Say they sell off Bum, Belt, maybe Panik, Strick, another reliever. Would you go/watch about the same? More? Less?

 

[SF11704]

I think a lot of fans think like you do. The question is: how many games would you go to next year if it was obvious that they will not contend? How many games would you watch?

Say they sell off Bum, Belt, maybe Panik, Strick, another reliever. Would you go/watch about the same? More? Less?

Interesting question! I'm not really sure but I also don't know if I'm a good candidate for the question. I live in NY, so I'm a displaced Giant fan.
I typically follow the games via the GDTs that are posted here. I'm sure that the emotional investment would be less but I can't say how much less.
I also think that the team ownership has a big responsibility in 'selling' the restructure/rebuild/whatever they call it. they need to promote the idea and draw the fans into it. Actually try and make them a part of the effort. In NY the Rangers (hockey) are doing that right now. Sent a letter to all season ticket holders telling them what they were doing and why. They laid out some sort of a plan to move forward. They are promoting all the new 'kids' and trying to change their image as they move forward. Can't say it will work but it is interesting. They were honest and up front when this all started. I'm sure they will lose some fans but I'm also sure they will retain quite a bit of their base. As you 'hinted' at ... they are concerned about garden revenues and are doing whatever they can to close that predicted 'gap'.

I'll always be a Giant fan, so I will always follow them I'm just not sure about the emotional investment though.

 

[calsnowskier]

I think a lot of fans think like you do. The question is: how many games would you go to next year if it was obvious that they will not contend? How many games would you watch?

Say they sell off Bum, Belt, maybe Panik, Strick, another reliever. Would you go/watch about the same? More? Less?

Great questions.

I would still follow the team, obviously (this board is not a good place to get any other answer), and like 11704, I only go to 1 or 2 games a year as it is.

But would I watch “every” day? Probably not. But even when they are winners, I only watch/listen to maybe 130 games a year. This past month, I watched/listened to probably less than 5. But that was because there was no reason to watch. They were “trying to win”, but failing miserably. If they are rebuilding, I watch for different reasons. Will this young 3B develop? Will this trash-heap SS be a gem? Will the 1B be good enough to fetch something in a trade (ok, this won’t change)? As it was this year, why bother watching? They were playing a bunch of old dudes who didn’t care.

 

[stanford the manford]

I think a lot of fans think like you do. The question is: how many games would you go to next year if it was obvious that they will not contend? How many games would you watch?

Say they sell off Bum, Belt, maybe Panik, Strick, another reliever. Would you go/watch about the same? More? Less?

i'm a partial season tix holder.... 18gms give or take. the giants won't content next year as they didn't this year. it'll be 3+ yrs before they are seriously in contention depending on what is done with sabean/bochy. i'd rather see a roster of potentials than a roster of players that won't help in 3+yrs. as i've said, sell them while they still have some value. posey, belt, bum, panik in 3 yrs will bring less in trade value than they will today. i want hope, not over the hill vets...

 

[stanford the manford]

i'm a partial season tix holder.... 18gms give or take. the giants won't content next year as they didn't this year. it'll be 3+ yrs before they are seriously in contention depending on what is done with sabean/bochy. i'd rather see a roster of potentials than a roster of players that won't help in 3+yrs. as i've said, sell them while they still have some value. posey, belt, bum, panik in 3 yrs will bring less in trade value than they will today. i want hope, not over the hill vets...

btw this it the first year since the mid 90s where i didn't watch or listen to every game that i could. no interest in a team that isn't going anywhere and isn't on an upswing. i could care less about the 'core' players. at friday's game against the doyers, i don't think anyone on the lineup was over .250

 

[tzill]

btw this it the first year since the mid 90s where i didn't watch or listen to every game that i could. no interest in a team that isn't going anywhere and isn't on an upswing. i could care less about the 'core' players. at friday's game against the doyers, i don't think anyone on the lineup was over .250

This is the loss of revenue the Giants are fearing.

 

[calsnowskier]

This is the loss of revenue the Giants are fearing.

But I think his lack of interest comes from floundering, not tanking. If the team was going somewhere, there would be different interest. Running in place on a broken ankle just causes more damage.

 

[tzill]

But I think his lack of interest comes from floundering, not tanking. If the team was going somewhere, there would be different interest. Running in place on a broken ankle just causes more damage.

Sure, but what percentage of the fan base draws the distinction? They are either contending or not for most people. If they are not, people stop watching/attending.

I don't think a youth movement where the team loses 90+ is going to draw butts and/or eyeballs.

 

[stanford the manford]

Sure, but what percentage of the fan base draws the distinction? They are either contending or not for most people. If they are not, people stop watching/attending.

I don't think a youth movement where the team loses 90+ is going to draw butts and/or eyeballs.

giants won't be contending whether there is a rebuild or not. by not rebuilding they are just prolonging the floundering and there's noting interesting about it

 

[tzill]

giants won't be contending whether there is a rebuild or not. by not rebuilding they are just prolonging the floundering and there's noting interesting about it

Maybe, Eeyore, but the Giants perspective is maximizing attendance/viewership. A full on rebuild (trading Bum, Belt, etc) would kill attendance and viewership.

Ain't...gonna...happen.

 

[msgkings322]

Maybe, Eeyore, but the Giants perspective is maximizing attendance/viewership. A full on rebuild (trading Bum, Belt, etc) would kill attendance and viewership.

Ain't...gonna...happen.

They might trade Bumgarner, really.

 

[stanford the manford]

Maybe, Eeyore, but the Giants perspective is maximizing attendance/viewership. A full on rebuild (trading Bum, Belt, etc) would kill attendance and viewership.

Ain't...gonna...happen.

i agree it won't happen, but it you think attendance hasn't been killed you haven't been attending games

 

[tzill]

They might trade Bumgarner, really.

I'd lay 2-1 odds that doesn't happen. In fact, 3-1 odds. They just won't do it.

 

[tzill]

i agree it won't happen, but it you think attendance hasn't been killed you haven't been attending games

It's down, but not killed. Viewership is still solid. And I've been to plenty of games.

 

[msgkings322]

It's down, but not killed. Viewership is still solid. And I've been to plenty of games.

There's no path to competing for rings again without a true rebuild. They may not see that but it's pretty obvious.

 

[msgkings322]

I'd lay 2-1 odds that doesn't happen. In fact, 3-1 odds. They just won't do it.

I don't want to bet it but I think it's more an even money bet.