"This can't go on all the time—all this franticness and jumping around. We've got to go someplace, find something." Jack Kerouac, On the Road
For the San Francisco Giants, that place is the World Series. That thing is the championship trophy.
After five long years of frantic futility and jumping around the periphery of the National League West races, the time for excuses has long since passed.
Consider the following seven data points:
The Giants haven't finished above .500 since 2004; they haven't really been close.
They haven't managed better than a third place finish in Major League Baseball's weakest division since that same year.
Their 2007 payroll of over $90 million was good for 12th in MLB.
Barry Bonds' 2007 salary was $15.8 million.
SF's 2008 payroll of just under $77 million was good for 17th in MLB and they actually spent less per player than the Cincinnati Reds (who finished 18th in total payroll).
Barry Lamar Bonds no longer patrols leftfield.
We loyal fans were assured that the money freed by Bonds' departure wouldn't just be pocketed by the owners, that a substantial amount would be put back into spikes.
14 comments Last one added 7 months ago — Leave a Comment
Danny Penza 7 months ago
As a Giants fan, I share your opinion that the futility need to stop. However, as I wrote a few weeks back, fans NEED to be patient. If a franchise wants to develop and have home grown players play a key roll in the success of the organization, like the Giants are now finally doing, patience has to be present.
A lot of Giants fans have to hunch that, "Oh, we need one more player and we're off to the playoffs." The Giants aren't even that close. They have a guy hitting fourth who would hit sixth on every team that made the playoffs last year. They had one of the worst offenses in the game the past two seasons. And while players like Sandoval, Lewis, Burriss, and Schierholtz are coming up through the pipeline and starting to produce at the Major League level, they still haven't proven themselves for more than a couple months.
So I can't say this enough...Time is needed to evaluate. That's the purpose of a rebuilding process. To evaluate what you have and then go from there. Don't put the expectations on these kids' shoulders that it's playoffs or bust. People tend to forget that while the Rays were sucking for so many years, they were just racking up the talent in their system. And what happened? The players got a chance to develop and they obviously made their historic run last season.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 7 months ago
I agree to an extent.
I just think that 5 years of postseason drought and 4 years of not having a chance from the jump is patient enough, given the circumstances.
And although I mentioned the championship at the beginning, the article is ultimately an argument for a move or two to improve the offense, which would make SF a playoff contender (which, in my opinion makes anyone a championship contender).
With a staff like that and another effective bat or two, the Giants would certainly be able to contend in the watered-down NL West (Padres are a mess, ditto Rockies if they dump Holliday, I'm not scared of LA even if they keep Ramirez b/c they're gonna lose some pitching, Arizona would be tough).
I agree that time is needed to evaluate, but 4-5 years is a long time by any standards, especially a successful franchise's.
Thanks for the constructive feedback though.
Andrew
Edit Comment Cancel
Danny Penza 7 months ago
But if you think about it, this was the first year of no playoffs without Bonds, which changes the story a little bit in my eyes. Yeah, they sucked the final four years with Bonds, but at least now they are building from within instead of just signing random vets to plug holes.
What doesn't make sense to me is that you say that 4-5 years of evaluating is enough time to evaluate talent. However there is just one problem with that...Most of the players on the current roster weren't with the club or even in professional baseball when the Giants were last in the playoffs. So to say that they have had plenty of time to be evaluated doesn't make much sense to me. Heck, who even knew who Pablo Sandoval is until he exploded in the minors last season? Not many.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 7 months ago
True, except I didn't say they had been evaluating Burriss, Sandoval, et al. for 4-5 years.
Look, it was obvious in 2005 when Bonds started to throw wheels that the plan of surrounding him w/"talent" wasn't going to work anymore. The management, had its primary goal been winning, should have been evaluating talent at least that year (I say the year before since Bonds was getting older and they missed the playoffs but whatever). However, they knew Bonds would be around for at least a couple more years and SF would be profitable for as long as he was around so they didn't evaluate talent.
They made a bunch of moves that made it look like they were trying and would have borne fruit had they worked, except they were highly unlikely to work (except financially). That was obvious b/c whenever Bonds went down (or anyone else), SF had no one in the offensive cupboard. These guys were all pretty old and baseball is a long season.
Lastly, I'm not advocating getting rid of the young guys nor am I advocating signing a guy for a year to try to win a WS. I'm saying add a quality piece to the young core and they would compete, maybe even for the playoffs depending on how good the piece is.
And they should seriously consider adding a high-quality piece b/c they have the money, the market, and, if they can get into the playoffs, who knows what Lincecum/Cain can do in short series.
Edit Comment Cancel
Danny Penza 7 months ago
I'm not saying that you said get rid of the young guys. My point is, when you have younger players, especially considering the majority players are between 22 and 26, you have to give them time. Would the playoffs be nice? Yeah sure. But honestly, I will take losing for a few seasons, stock the system even more than it is now, and then welcome the high picks from 2007 and 2008 to the big club in 2010 and seriously contend.
I know fans want playoffs, that's the dream of every fan. But come on, look at the big picture. I would rather see the Giants build from within and develop players instead of spending over their heads on some player who three years later, might turn out to be a total waste of time and money.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 7 months ago
Wait man.
The Rays weren't just bad, they were damn near the worst team in baseball for almost a decade and they still were a total shock this year. It's not like building from within is that easy even when you're getting a top 3 pick every year. And the Giants won't get those picks b/c their young talent will keep them from the absolute bottom of the barrel.
Obviously spending over their heads (although I'm not sure that's possible considering the market they're in) would be a bad idea, which is why I'm saying don't sign the guys I mentioned - nor Furcal nor any of the others huge names; I'd take Texiera but he's gonna be way out of SF's price range and probably common sense's.
Astute management in the right market can spend AND build from within. You don't need to overpay to bring in helpful pieces and it's not like all the blue chippers in the league were taken in the first 5 picks of the first round. I don't even know if those guys have a better average of making it to the Show than other 1st rounders.
Fact as I see it is nothing is guaranteed so you take your shots when you have them. With the right player or two next year, the Giants could have a shot and that's more certain than angling for several years down the line.
The big picture, as I see it, is that young pitchers are fragile and no one knows which ones will be around for years and which ones will burn out quickly. 2010 sounds like it's around the corner, but that's a full year away.
Who would have thought at the end of 2003 that 2005 would have looked like it did?
And I don't understand why nurturing from within requires a payroll < $80 mil when they play in one of the larger markets in the country. SF is not LA or Boston or NY, maybe even not Chicago. But damn if it shouldn't be able to compete with Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Seattle, St. Louis, Houston, and Milwaukee.
You might not agree with my view of the big picture, but don't imply I fail to see it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Danny Penza 7 months ago
But as any draft goes, you can make the wrong pick. The Padres in 2004 took Matt Bush. The Tigers then took Justin Verlander. Obviously, we know who Verlander is while Matt Bush is now trying to stay afloat in the minors as a pitcher. So while yeah, it's easy to get the top talent drafting in the top three every year for almost a decade, it's still important to make the right pick.
And I would like to see where I said you didn't get my point. Come on man, we're better than that.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 7 months ago
No, I am better than that. I'm not sure you are:
"I know fans want playoffs, that's the dream of every fan. But come on, look at the big picture."
To which I replied:
"You might not agree with my view of the big picture, but don't imply I fail to see it."
You insulted me by implying I was short-sighted and unreasonable, I called you on it, and then a debate of emails exchanged almost hourly stopped. You can claim that something suddenly demanded your attention and I can't call bullshit b/c it's entirely possible. But call me skeptical.
Whatever.
You still lied and ran your mouth that I said the Giants had to make the playoffs this year when all I ever said is they need to try to be in contention after so many years of being terrible.
You still lied and ran your mouth that I missed your point about player development when I just had a different take on the idea and EXPRESSLY acknowledged your point.
And don't give me this nonsense about not complaining about losing since the roster is different. By that rationale, the management can just switch up rosters indefinitely and never field a winner. I guess you're content if they just cycle indefinitely through Todd Lindens, Jason Ellisons, Lance Niekros, and other fresh bodies?
Lastly, I love it when people like you try to hide behind the "it's not my life" line.
It's not my life either, which is why I don't feel the need to lie to total strangers. If you disagree or everyone disagrees or I'm wrong about something, so be it. This is a diversion so I'm not losing sleep.
For some reason, you can't say the same thing.
You knew what you were tying was false and you typed it. Call it exaggeration, call it rhetoric, use whatever semantic rose-colored lens you want. You know it and I know it.
And you don't even have the integrity to admit and apologize for it. Instead, you try to worm your way out and throw it back on me.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rory Davis 7 months ago
Great piece Andrew...
I'm sick an tired of fielding sub par teams. We've had our chance to rebuild and we've finally started to see some fruits of our labor. I don't think we need one big piece, but we definitely need a bat in the middle of our lineup to place first or third. I wouldn't be opposed to trading Pablo to get that piece, but w/o him, we would have another hole.
I'm fed up! Giants management did pocket Bonds' money and we haven't seen it funnel back through our system, that is, of course, if you don't count higher concession and ticket prices.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 7 months ago
I agree, don't get rid of Pablo. I'd like to see what he can do for a full year.
And don't get me started on the management. They deserve a ton of credit for keeping SF in the City, but that's gotta lapse at a certain point. Since they privately funded Pac Bell, it's not like they kept the Giants here out of charity. I think they're seeing a pretty good return on that risk.
Not to mention the Bonds' contract heist. And they've trimmed even more money by dumping Aurilia and Vizquel (plus Durham) so, factoring in raises due players, etc., etc., they should have plenty of money to spend wisely.
Totally agree with the big piece being unnecessary, especially since the biggies on the market are Ramirez, Sabathia, Dunn, etc. (don't think SF has legit shot at Tex).
Furcal's the only one that intrigues me, but that's probably b/c I'm an ex-SS and his arm is infatuating.
Andrew
Edit Comment Cancel
Rory Davis 7 months ago
I had a Furcal discussion with my buddy already, here's what we decided:
1. We both love his game offensively and defensively
2. When he's hot he can be as good a catalyst as anyone, think Rollins.
3. BUT...If he signed a nice contract with the Giants (not expected to do anything next year) we both agreed that it would be easy to see him getting fat a bloated (see Miguel Cabrera on the Marlins before he got traded) and it would be easy for him to not give 100%.
4. We could easily envision him pulling a "Schmidt" on the Giants, thus returning the favor
The negatives outweigh the positives. By signing a fulltime SS, it would allow Manny Burris to move to 2B and our infield would be nearly set, with the exception of 1B...
I say its a dumb move overall.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 7 months ago
Yeah, I think Furcal would be a mistake in reality. If he worked perfectly, it would be great. But it is highly unlikely it would work perfectly for the reasons you mentioned. And we didn't even get into his frailty issues.
Edit Comment Cancel
SKELETOYS 7 months ago
AT&T Park is a pitcher's dream and hitter's nightmare. Solid hitters just do not want to play here and watch their numbers diminish, so the Giants are going to be hard-pressed to sign someone with power. Manny is attractive because he's one of the few hitters available who wouldn't be deterred by the odd dimensions of AT&T Park. He comes with a load of baggage though and do we really want another head-case on our young and impressionable team? That wouldn't be a wise choice. Neither is trading Cain. With a one-two punch of Cain and Lincecum we'll win our share of low scoring ballgames. Trade anyone but those two! Hopefully we'll land a free agent hitter or 2 that we don't have to give up the farm for!
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 7 months ago
I agree. Keep Cain and Lincecum, but I'd listen to offers for anyone else.
Thanks for the comment.
Andrew
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.