Wanted to follow up with something after the hastily arranged press conference the Giants threw yesterday. Here is a link to the transcript, courtesy of Tim Kawakami (with assistance from Janie McCauley, Chris Haft, Jorge Ortiz, John Shea and Adam Berry). I will go over the interview later in this post. Kawakami also had a post-press conference exclusive interview with Larry Baer here for the Merc. He did a great job with both.
Lastly, wanted to point out two great articles on the debacle. First, there is Monte Poole's great article on the move, "Just the Latest Rift". Took me FOREVER, to find the article online, no link to it showed up for any of the Mercury articles on the firing of Bill Neukom. The other was Gwen Knapp's "Neukom's ouster a misplay by Giants' ownership", and both make it plain that it was a firing, not a voluntary retirement.
Click on Title for full post
Showing posts with label Bill Neukom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Neukom. Show all posts
Friday, September 16, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Your 2011 Giants: Punking Neukom
This has to be a Giant Punk, right? Surprise, you've just been fired Neukom!
This is not a rumor, the Giants have acknowledged that this will be happening, officially as of the end of this year. Mark Purdy broke the news for the Mercury - Huzzah! Mr. Purdy! - and Al Saracevic of the Chronicle also reports that the Giants acknowledgement after Purdy let their cat out of the bag. Read both for a good overview of what is known right now.
Giants Thoughts
Change at the top is always unsettling. The outward appearance is that this is all about Neukom spending money and the other owners not knowing about it until reading about it in the newspapers. Communication.
Something like that normally is a hand-slap offense that you take care of with an owners meeting, heck, they were all owners, I am sure that Neukom was on their speed dial. Just order him to communicate better. Done.
Seems like there is more to this that we may never learn about.
It appears from the Chronicle's account that it is clear that Larry Baer is the new CEO and face of the Giants. Not that he wasn't a face before, but now he's the guy making the decisions on everything.
I had speculated back when Neukom was first announced that he would be the transition between Magowan and Baer, running the Giants for a number of years (don't recall what I wrote back then, but I would guess 4-9 years) and then Larry would take over. After all, Bow Tie was already 66 YO at that time, so that would put him around 70-75 for real retirement. I assume the group decided that it was time to up the time table on that, for whatever the real reasons are.
I'm open to Baer as our new leader but I view him as part of the failed Magowan management team that resulted in Magowan's ouster. I had been agitating for Magowan to be out since the whole "mediocrities are better than Vlad" debacle, so I was happy about the change. Now, I'm not sure if there is any change. I felt a lot better with Neukom, who has $600M net worth that he could inject into the team if he felt like it, in charge, than Larry Baer, whose main asset is probably his small slice of ownership of the Giants. He will have to prove himself to me.
There could have been ego problems among the other owners, as Neukom is very much tied to the World Series Championship in the minds of many fans. Maybe too many fans credit Neukom and the other owners are chafing about that.
I would agree that the average fan gives Neukom too much credit, judging by the sturm und drang on Twitter that I've seen about this move. Lots of people complaining to the highest heaven about this move, like the Giants will suddenly become a pile of trash after this move.
I would disagree. Sabean, Tidrow, and Barr have been the brains behind the Giants rebuilding efforts and thus the Giants overall success of the past three seasons, 2009-2011. That solid core of players that the Giants control, or could control, for a long time, could keep the Giants competitive, barring another idiot taking out our star player for the season, for the rest of the decade. The big picture still looks good.
Not that Neukom did not bring some good things to the table. I liked his "The Giants Way" theme he gave the team. I hope the Giants keep that and continue to develop that. It was always unspoken traits that players passed to prospects, like what Jack Clark talked about, but now it can be captured in a book that can be passed on to future generations of Giants without having players be the ones passing on the torch. That will help the next time we get into rebuilding and run into a dry spell like the 70's and 80's.
I also like that he was willing to at least entertain the thought of making the best baseball moves by having Sabean bring these decisions to him and allow him the opportunity to make the finances work to do the baseball decision, instead of having Sabean give up on it immediately. Had he been in place back then, the Giants might have been able to sign Vlad as well as get most of those other players without upping the payroll much more. I examined that possibility back then, it was doable.
I also liked his public face. He was a Giants fan, an ordinary joe, from what I saw in interviews and meetings. I never got that from Magowan or Baer. That could also explain the general fan's endearment of Neukom so strongly.
Ultimately, all I really care about is the future of the Giants. The Giants need to make sure that they sign Lincecum and Cain long-term, maybe also Sandoval and Posey too, soon, if we are to dominate the decade as I've been saying for a few years now. It is not a fait accompli. As long as Larry Baer takes care of that, starting with signing Lincecum and Cain to long-term big bucks contracts this off-season, I will be OK with the change over.
If not, then I'll be agitating for Larry Ellison or any other Silicon Valley billionaire to buy the whole team - like I did when I was complaining about Magowan - so that the Giants can sign all our good young players long-term and not see them leave the team as free agents with only draft picks as compensation: that is not a good option to me, if we cannot sign them, let Sabean know now so that he can start trading them to get very good prospects in return, and rebuilding quickly, like how the Marlins transitioned from 1998 to 2003.
Ideally, though, I want an owner like the Angels got, a billionaire who enables a lot of things because he has the money, not owners like we have now with the Giants complaining about hearing of the good uses of the Giants money in the press rather than personally from Neukom. The Angel's owner isn't worried about saving for a rainy day fund due to the extra money the World Series has generated for the Giants. He has been looking for ways to better the team and spending that money. We don't need owners worried about rainy days, we need an owner who will keep our potential juggernaut of a team going for the next decade.
We have the players in place. We only need owners who have the cajones to make that happen. These owners are showing me that they don't have guts to do it by taking out Neukom over a disagreement over how windfall money usage was communicated to the rest of the owners. That is a bullshit explanation that everybody sees through, the fans are not idiots. I give them a vote of no-confidence right now, but am willing to see how Larry Baer does now that he is in charge. I am giving him very little rope right now and this off-season will be interesting in how the Giants handle the payroll and signing players.
This is not a rumor, the Giants have acknowledged that this will be happening, officially as of the end of this year. Mark Purdy broke the news for the Mercury - Huzzah! Mr. Purdy! - and Al Saracevic of the Chronicle also reports that the Giants acknowledgement after Purdy let their cat out of the bag. Read both for a good overview of what is known right now.
Giants Thoughts
Change at the top is always unsettling. The outward appearance is that this is all about Neukom spending money and the other owners not knowing about it until reading about it in the newspapers. Communication.
Something like that normally is a hand-slap offense that you take care of with an owners meeting, heck, they were all owners, I am sure that Neukom was on their speed dial. Just order him to communicate better. Done.
Seems like there is more to this that we may never learn about.
It appears from the Chronicle's account that it is clear that Larry Baer is the new CEO and face of the Giants. Not that he wasn't a face before, but now he's the guy making the decisions on everything.
I had speculated back when Neukom was first announced that he would be the transition between Magowan and Baer, running the Giants for a number of years (don't recall what I wrote back then, but I would guess 4-9 years) and then Larry would take over. After all, Bow Tie was already 66 YO at that time, so that would put him around 70-75 for real retirement. I assume the group decided that it was time to up the time table on that, for whatever the real reasons are.
I'm open to Baer as our new leader but I view him as part of the failed Magowan management team that resulted in Magowan's ouster. I had been agitating for Magowan to be out since the whole "mediocrities are better than Vlad" debacle, so I was happy about the change. Now, I'm not sure if there is any change. I felt a lot better with Neukom, who has $600M net worth that he could inject into the team if he felt like it, in charge, than Larry Baer, whose main asset is probably his small slice of ownership of the Giants. He will have to prove himself to me.
There could have been ego problems among the other owners, as Neukom is very much tied to the World Series Championship in the minds of many fans. Maybe too many fans credit Neukom and the other owners are chafing about that.
I would agree that the average fan gives Neukom too much credit, judging by the sturm und drang on Twitter that I've seen about this move. Lots of people complaining to the highest heaven about this move, like the Giants will suddenly become a pile of trash after this move.
I would disagree. Sabean, Tidrow, and Barr have been the brains behind the Giants rebuilding efforts and thus the Giants overall success of the past three seasons, 2009-2011. That solid core of players that the Giants control, or could control, for a long time, could keep the Giants competitive, barring another idiot taking out our star player for the season, for the rest of the decade. The big picture still looks good.
Not that Neukom did not bring some good things to the table. I liked his "The Giants Way" theme he gave the team. I hope the Giants keep that and continue to develop that. It was always unspoken traits that players passed to prospects, like what Jack Clark talked about, but now it can be captured in a book that can be passed on to future generations of Giants without having players be the ones passing on the torch. That will help the next time we get into rebuilding and run into a dry spell like the 70's and 80's.
I also like that he was willing to at least entertain the thought of making the best baseball moves by having Sabean bring these decisions to him and allow him the opportunity to make the finances work to do the baseball decision, instead of having Sabean give up on it immediately. Had he been in place back then, the Giants might have been able to sign Vlad as well as get most of those other players without upping the payroll much more. I examined that possibility back then, it was doable.
I also liked his public face. He was a Giants fan, an ordinary joe, from what I saw in interviews and meetings. I never got that from Magowan or Baer. That could also explain the general fan's endearment of Neukom so strongly.
Ultimately, all I really care about is the future of the Giants. The Giants need to make sure that they sign Lincecum and Cain long-term, maybe also Sandoval and Posey too, soon, if we are to dominate the decade as I've been saying for a few years now. It is not a fait accompli. As long as Larry Baer takes care of that, starting with signing Lincecum and Cain to long-term big bucks contracts this off-season, I will be OK with the change over.
If not, then I'll be agitating for Larry Ellison or any other Silicon Valley billionaire to buy the whole team - like I did when I was complaining about Magowan - so that the Giants can sign all our good young players long-term and not see them leave the team as free agents with only draft picks as compensation: that is not a good option to me, if we cannot sign them, let Sabean know now so that he can start trading them to get very good prospects in return, and rebuilding quickly, like how the Marlins transitioned from 1998 to 2003.
Ideally, though, I want an owner like the Angels got, a billionaire who enables a lot of things because he has the money, not owners like we have now with the Giants complaining about hearing of the good uses of the Giants money in the press rather than personally from Neukom. The Angel's owner isn't worried about saving for a rainy day fund due to the extra money the World Series has generated for the Giants. He has been looking for ways to better the team and spending that money. We don't need owners worried about rainy days, we need an owner who will keep our potential juggernaut of a team going for the next decade.
We have the players in place. We only need owners who have the cajones to make that happen. These owners are showing me that they don't have guts to do it by taking out Neukom over a disagreement over how windfall money usage was communicated to the rest of the owners. That is a bullshit explanation that everybody sees through, the fans are not idiots. I give them a vote of no-confidence right now, but am willing to see how Larry Baer does now that he is in charge. I am giving him very little rope right now and this off-season will be interesting in how the Giants handle the payroll and signing players.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Hey Neukom! My Giants Business Plan: The Phoenix Strategy of Rebuilding (tm)
I have not written to this series in a while (see here for TOC), but a commenter got me thinking of it again (which drove me to create the TOC) and I thought of another addition to the plan, since a number of commenters seem to think they know how to rebuild a team: the right way to rebuild.
Phoenix Rebuilding Strategy (tm)
The best way to rebuild a team (but not necessarily the best way to run a baseball team) would be to tear down the team once it is clear that reaching the World Series is a likely impossibility, when you have to trade away talent in order to get the payroll into shape. Much like how the A's have been run since Charlie O. Finley, heck, all the way back to Connie Mack, the best way to rebuild is to trade away all the players of value to get prospects back who can be good in a few years or less (the Marlins would make Connie and Charlie O. proud)
Lose Big, Draft High
Meanwhile, as I noted about the draft, the best draft picks in terms of efficient gathering up talent for your re-building team is to ensure that your team is among the Top 5 picks overall, or better yet, the one with the top pick overall. So your team has to stink, pretty much on purpose, and get you those top picks. That apparently is the strategy that they Rays did for all these years, building up a lot of talent in their farm system that is paying off now, and the Marlins have been basically following that strategy during its short life in the majors.
That is the apparent strategy that Bobby Cox used when he was GM of the Braves, before he picked up the pieces he thought he could win with, at which point he took over as manager. It was examining his tactics, tied to my memories of the A's (Connie and Charlie) that led me to this strategy.
By playing mostly the remaining farm prospects you have, who might develop but maybe not, to see if they can do the job, while not picking up free agents to boost up the team, other than a vet or two or three who could mentor one or more of your top prospects, you ensure having a team that is not that good and sure to struggle and lose a lot of games, earning a top draft pick overall, year in year out.
Those are the best picks to have, they can cut your rebuilding time in half or even a quarter if the talent is there. That is because the top 5 picks have the highest chance of delivering you a good starting player by far, roughly 45%. Once you fall down to the 10th, you are talking about half that, or about 23%; once you fall down to the late teens, that is roughly 15%, and if you are competing for the playoffs (i.e. picks 21-30 overall, generally, except when some team fails to sign a first round pick the season before), it is roughly 10%, or half again that of the 10th pick overall. Assuming all the following picks (2nd round and beyond) are roughly equal (because at that point the probability of finding a good player is so small with any of those picks), the main difference between any team's chances of finding a good player is your first round pick, and you can cut your rebuilding time in half (in terms of finding a star player) by being a losing team, and by three-quarters by being one of the worse teams in the majors.
Spackle With Vets When Rebuilding is Nearly Done
Then as your top prospects start coming up and sprinkling your major leaguer roster, you sign key veteran free agents to fill spots where you don't have any good prospect coming up, in order to not block them should they grow and develop, plus pass on their veteran savvy to their young charges. The Giants have done this, first with Matt Morris mentoring Cainer, then later when Randy Johnson mentored Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, and Jonathan Sanchez. They also did that with Bengie Molina mentoring Buster Posey.
Of course, as per the business plan, the draft focus is on the pitching staff and on having a defensively superior lineup that is offensively adequate enough to allow the pitching staff to win at least 90 games and position the team to make the playoffs. And once you get into the playoffs, your team will be positioned to maximize their chances of winning because of the superior pitching staff, superior closer, and good fielding defense (plus a bit of team speed for a cherry on top but not necessary), while being supported by a steady stream of prospects coming up over the next 4-6 seasons from when your team was re-building (and thus still losing).
A couple of good hits while competing for the playoffs (by drafting prospects that should have been drafted earlier but dropped due to some reason and/or finding a starter via international free agency, like Braves picking up Andruw Jones) will help keep the good times rolling longer than expected.
A couple of good hits while competing for the playoffs (by drafting prospects that should have been drafted earlier but dropped due to some reason and/or finding a starter via international free agency, like Braves picking up Andruw Jones) will help keep the good times rolling longer than expected.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Uribe Unusual Usury Leads to Tejada Touching Down in Town
Not official yet until the physical, but the reporting (Baggarly, Schulman) is that Miguel Tejada has agreed to sign with the Giants for $6.5M (again originally tweeted by someone, tweets is now how news get released it seems, because of the immediacy; anyway tweet was a report of what Tejada said) . The 'Dres reportedly was offered the chance to match the Giants offer but declined.
Assuming he is OKed physically - the report is that it won't be done today - he is currently slotted to be the starting SS, as Bochy said he saw enough in September to convince him that Miggy can still handle the position despite his now limited range (his sure hands were noted in reports). Schulman reported that Tejeda will act as a bridge to Brandon Crawford and Ehire Adrianza. But it was also reported that he could end up the starting 3B should the Giants deem Sandoval unfit to start at 3B in 2011.
Sandoval Hard At Work to Keep 3B
However, Baggarly reported that Sandoval has already lost more than 10 pounds since the World Series ended, and for me, that's the only reason he won't start, if he don't lose the weight. Baggarly also joked that this was before Thanksgiving dinner. :^) Haven't reported this, but it was reported by Baggarly about a week ago that Pablo changed his off-season plans again, and for the good: instead of staying in SD near his home and working on getting his weight down, he is now going to experts in Arizona (as reported by Schulman). Sandoval signed on with Triple Threat Performance (Tempe) and will work with them all winter, and the Giants have trainers who live in Arizona and thus will check in on him and be available to him as needed.
I think that this is a very positive and serious move on Pablo's part to regain his Kung Fu Panda mojo back. And this is a well known outfit too. Clients have included Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Gary Sheffield, Mark Mulder, a number of other former Giants as well, which makes sense, there is a former Giants strength coach working there, so he has the connections to recruit players. Lot of football players too, including Simeon Rice, Terrell Suggs, and Levi Jones. I'm really impressed with what they say they do for professional athletes. It appears that Sandoval is manning up to his words before that he wants to be great and is doing what it takes to reach that lofty goal.
I've been saying for a while that I think 2010 was a fluke and this is great evidence that he's serious about getting his body into the shape it needs to be in order to be the starting 3B for the World Champion Giants. This is a long term project, not just a short-term one, to get his body into better and best shape and to stay healthy in the long run.
As I've noted before, his hitting skills was still there in 2010, just in short bursts because of personal issues, issues that should not repeat in 2011. Anybody who have seen his brilliant dashes to homeplate knows that underneath that body that screams "slow and plodding" is a great athlete, I've rarely seen any player score that deftly and precisely at home plate, usually it is the gazelle-like base-stealers. Sandoval is the great player that he showed in 2008-9 and 2011 should be validation of that stance.
Juan Benedict Big-Bucks, Coming Up
Now here's the shocker: in a big scoop, Hank "shaddup!" Schulman reported that Uribe actually turned down a similar contract from the Giants. Reportedly, the Giants had matched the D-ger's 3 year, $20M offer when Colletti made a "take it or leave it" offer of 3 years, $21M over the weekend and Uribe took it, apparently without giving the Giants the chance to match that offer.
Really, it only took $1M to buy Uribe and make him leave the Giants? I guess he didn't leave his heart in SF, like Huff did.
I see this as the Greg Minton syndrome, who was a great closer when not making the big money, OK reliever afterward. He was really mad at the Giants because they battled on his salary every season, but once he got the big bucks, he wasn't as great as he was before. I thought maybe he was just reaching the downside of his career, but he then joined the Angels after finally parting with the Giants and returned to the Moon-man Minton of old for a few more seasons.
For Uribe apparently wanted $25-27M, or at least was asking for that from the Giants, but given that he took far less from the D-gers, he only wanted that from the Giants because he felt that they owed him for what he did in 2009 and 2010 for the team at a reduced salary, as Schulman pointed out.
And he made that clear in his press conference for his signing by what he wasn't saying, he often mentioned his affection for the Giants FANS but never once said anything about the Giants management. Unlike Huff who repeatedly both during the season and after the playoffs talked about his appreciation of the Giants management who brought him in, grateful for a chance to play. Unlike Uribe, who nobody was even willing to give a chance in 2008, he signed with the Giants on a minor league contract. Maybe he should remember that if they didn't do that, he might not have had the chance to show the skills that now earned him a $21M contract.
Still, really, $1M is all it took to steal him away from the Giants, when they already matched the $20M deal? And it sounds that way, Schulman reported that Sabean said, "He obviously wanted to be a Dodger more than he wanted to be a Giant. He didn't give us a chance to keep pace (in negotiations)." Which implies that he never went to the Giants and asked them to match the $21M. Is the game really that much of a business?
Not that I really wanted him at 3 years, $20M though. I'm still happy he's gone, just happier now. And apparently, while the Giants were probably willing to match the D-gers final offer (and did match the $20M), they had the same view of him as I did: he's great as the super-utility guy who could play 2B/SS/3B, depending on need, but not a regular starter at SS.
And that could be the reason why he finally decided on the D-gers, because they are saying that he's the starting 2B for them and made that clear by trading away Ryan Theriot right after signing Uribe on the dotted line. And I guess I can understand that motivation for moving on despite only $1M difference in offers (and likely matching if he had given the team a chance).
Still, it is the freaking D-gers he's moving on to, and had they offered him the $25-27M that he SAID he wanted (but apparently only wanted from the Giants), then at least we can say that we can understand, that this was a big chasm of money difference (and there were a lot of people tweeting that they understood why he took the $21M, because they didn't think the Giants would match that, particularly the 3 year part). But when the player moves on for just $1M more, I don't care if the starting role might have been a key difference, that's just made it personal for me.
Thanks for helping us win the World Championship Juan but DO let the door hit you while you're leaving, MEAT. GAME ON!
Giants Implications
The report is that the Giants are not going to pursue any starting SS now that they have Tejada, though initially it was reported that they were still in on possible trades or signings (speaking of which, the rumor that Sabean was contacting Jeter's agent was true, only that he was only contacting in regards to Fontenot, another client of the agent). I think that makes logical sense. Tejada is obviously here as a starter. If the Giants got another starting SS, then he would have to move to 3B, but then that would block Pablo. Sandoval could then move to 1B, but then that would block Belt, who the Giants have committed to as a starting 1B, having ended the LF experiment (apparently didn't go well).
As much as the Sabean Naysayers might believe otherwise (and shockingly, winning the 2010 World Series Championship did not change many of their opinions of the GM, from what I've been reading; someone just tweeted that he's a "clown"), the Giants have been very good the past few years in leaving open (or now making open with Molina trade) the possibility of one of their young players/prospects coming up and winning a starting spot. They have not blocked any substantial prospect from playing (it is mostly that many of the Naysayers have inflated opinions on what a substantial prospect is). So I don't see the Giants doing anything to take 3B away from Sandoval or 1B away from Belt.
So, yeah, don't see the Giants getting another SS unless he signs for low money and battle Burriss for backup shortstop role. But since the Giants have liked JJ Hardy from before, one would have to think that if he is non-tendered and made a free agent, Sabean will at least kick the tires and see if he would be willing to do the MI utility role for the Giants. After all, Tejada will be 37 next season.
Neukom Coming Through with the Dead Presidents (though Hamilton and Franklin weren't)
Another implication which I haven't seen anywhere yet is that this is a sign that Neukom is coming through in OKing spending more money for baseball decisions. He could have held back the Huff signing as that put the Giants in the $110M range, far beyond the mid to high $90M they had been spending in prior seasons.
True, the playoffs probably gave them the extra money to push the envelope on salaries in 2011, but there is no guarantee that they will make the playoffs next season (no matter how good your team is, it all depends on the other teams in your division; see 60's for how that worked for the Giants) and with his salary, it will be at least in the $110M range both in 2011 and 2012 because of built in raises and probable arbitration raises, particularly for Lincecum (in fact, 2012 gets another big jump because of Lincecum, Wilson, and Sanchez but not big salaries coming off books; Rowand gone in 2013, Zito after 2013).
Now the Tejada signing pushes the budget up even higher, into the $115M range, and Neukom OKed that, as well. That's roughly $20M more than the prior past few seasons and looks to get even bigger when the Giants eventually sign Lincecum to a long-term deal, then Posey.
A further implication also not catpured is that had the Giants signed Uribe to a 3 year, $20-21M contract, they would have still been after a starting SS, since they viewed his role as best being the super-utility guy. That would mean they might have still pursued SS Jason Barlett of the Rays, who they were rumored to be very hot and heavy over (of course, given the quickness of the Tejada signing, that could have just been the Rays pumping the action on Bartlett in the Hot Stove league). Which means another $5-6M raise in the payroll to the $120M range.
Looks like the Giants are willing to eat into the operating profits that they were making before, and perhaps dip into the red a little. Though, as Sabean noted after the Huff signing, they will have to shift some money around to make it work. Given that they got another draft pick with the Uribe signing, that seems to mean the Giants will spend less in the International free agent realm, where they had been spending big bucks previously. Still, the Giants at least is spending the money on players and not losing players by not spending the big bucks.
Belt Still on Fast Track
Chris Haft had a nice article snippet on Belt, Schulman too. Both Sabean and Bochy are very high on Belt (and I've been saying here that don't be surprised to see Belt starting at 1B to start the season). Bochy said, "I think this kid's going to make some noise in Spring Training." Sabean said, "He's on the same track as Posey, which is very fast. While we don't want to rush him, we want to keep an open mind. When he's ready, he's going to be here and hopefully producing as a left-handed hitter in one of those spots." Schulman noted that Belt will get a good look in spring training with an outside chance to win a big-league job.
The way I see it Huff will be starting at either 1B or LF. So the battle will be between Belt at 1B and either Rowand or Schierholtz (or even Burrell, if re-signed) in LF. I still think Burrell will be re-signed as a bench player. They will only go to him if everyone else is scuffling. It is hard for a player of his status to accept a bench role and I applaude him for wanting that just to be on his childhood team again.
I've been rooting for Schierholtz forever, but I don't see him having a breakout spring. He had his chance last season and, really, the season before, but while he can get white-hot as a hitter for a month or so, then he either goes stone cold or gets injured (or both, apparently that's what happened in 2010 season early on). Still, I'm rooting for him to do well and hopefully he will, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm done hoping for Rowand to do something. He's been like Schierholtz, only paid a heck of a lot better. Obviously he willing to rest on his big money contract: last season, realizing he needed to get in better shape, he rode a mountain bike every day during the off-season. Meanwhile, Sandoval is going to fitness experts and getting himself into tip-top shape. Hopefully he can learn from Huff and Sandoval, and perhaps earn some of his remaining money by getting in better shape, but I'm getting the feeling that he'll be just as happy to retire into the sunset riding his mountain bike.
That's why I think Belt has a good chance of breaking out of spring training as the starting 1B. His hitting in 2010 has been at an elite level - a lot of Giants fans think they know what is good hitting, but they don't. Belt, as I've shown in prior posts, hit at a level that only top prospects have hit in the leagues he was in for significant games, particularly for AA. The numbers are deceiving in the minors, not many players hit as well in the majors than they did in the minors, the talent difference in pitching is that great. That is why I think my method of comparison is better, taking the hitter's performance and looking in past seasons in the same league and seeing who hit that well at his age or younger. And Belt was up there with what top prospects who did well eventually in the majors, like Pedroia and others. It is just a matter of time.
Assuming he is OKed physically - the report is that it won't be done today - he is currently slotted to be the starting SS, as Bochy said he saw enough in September to convince him that Miggy can still handle the position despite his now limited range (his sure hands were noted in reports). Schulman reported that Tejeda will act as a bridge to Brandon Crawford and Ehire Adrianza. But it was also reported that he could end up the starting 3B should the Giants deem Sandoval unfit to start at 3B in 2011.
Sandoval Hard At Work to Keep 3B
However, Baggarly reported that Sandoval has already lost more than 10 pounds since the World Series ended, and for me, that's the only reason he won't start, if he don't lose the weight. Baggarly also joked that this was before Thanksgiving dinner. :^) Haven't reported this, but it was reported by Baggarly about a week ago that Pablo changed his off-season plans again, and for the good: instead of staying in SD near his home and working on getting his weight down, he is now going to experts in Arizona (as reported by Schulman). Sandoval signed on with Triple Threat Performance (Tempe) and will work with them all winter, and the Giants have trainers who live in Arizona and thus will check in on him and be available to him as needed.
I think that this is a very positive and serious move on Pablo's part to regain his Kung Fu Panda mojo back. And this is a well known outfit too. Clients have included Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Gary Sheffield, Mark Mulder, a number of other former Giants as well, which makes sense, there is a former Giants strength coach working there, so he has the connections to recruit players. Lot of football players too, including Simeon Rice, Terrell Suggs, and Levi Jones. I'm really impressed with what they say they do for professional athletes. It appears that Sandoval is manning up to his words before that he wants to be great and is doing what it takes to reach that lofty goal.
I've been saying for a while that I think 2010 was a fluke and this is great evidence that he's serious about getting his body into the shape it needs to be in order to be the starting 3B for the World Champion Giants. This is a long term project, not just a short-term one, to get his body into better and best shape and to stay healthy in the long run.
As I've noted before, his hitting skills was still there in 2010, just in short bursts because of personal issues, issues that should not repeat in 2011. Anybody who have seen his brilliant dashes to homeplate knows that underneath that body that screams "slow and plodding" is a great athlete, I've rarely seen any player score that deftly and precisely at home plate, usually it is the gazelle-like base-stealers. Sandoval is the great player that he showed in 2008-9 and 2011 should be validation of that stance.
Juan Benedict Big-Bucks, Coming Up
Now here's the shocker: in a big scoop, Hank "shaddup!" Schulman reported that Uribe actually turned down a similar contract from the Giants. Reportedly, the Giants had matched the D-ger's 3 year, $20M offer when Colletti made a "take it or leave it" offer of 3 years, $21M over the weekend and Uribe took it, apparently without giving the Giants the chance to match that offer.
Really, it only took $1M to buy Uribe and make him leave the Giants? I guess he didn't leave his heart in SF, like Huff did.
I see this as the Greg Minton syndrome, who was a great closer when not making the big money, OK reliever afterward. He was really mad at the Giants because they battled on his salary every season, but once he got the big bucks, he wasn't as great as he was before. I thought maybe he was just reaching the downside of his career, but he then joined the Angels after finally parting with the Giants and returned to the Moon-man Minton of old for a few more seasons.
For Uribe apparently wanted $25-27M, or at least was asking for that from the Giants, but given that he took far less from the D-gers, he only wanted that from the Giants because he felt that they owed him for what he did in 2009 and 2010 for the team at a reduced salary, as Schulman pointed out.
And he made that clear in his press conference for his signing by what he wasn't saying, he often mentioned his affection for the Giants FANS but never once said anything about the Giants management. Unlike Huff who repeatedly both during the season and after the playoffs talked about his appreciation of the Giants management who brought him in, grateful for a chance to play. Unlike Uribe, who nobody was even willing to give a chance in 2008, he signed with the Giants on a minor league contract. Maybe he should remember that if they didn't do that, he might not have had the chance to show the skills that now earned him a $21M contract.
Still, really, $1M is all it took to steal him away from the Giants, when they already matched the $20M deal? And it sounds that way, Schulman reported that Sabean said, "He obviously wanted to be a Dodger more than he wanted to be a Giant. He didn't give us a chance to keep pace (in negotiations)." Which implies that he never went to the Giants and asked them to match the $21M. Is the game really that much of a business?
Not that I really wanted him at 3 years, $20M though. I'm still happy he's gone, just happier now. And apparently, while the Giants were probably willing to match the D-gers final offer (and did match the $20M), they had the same view of him as I did: he's great as the super-utility guy who could play 2B/SS/3B, depending on need, but not a regular starter at SS.
And that could be the reason why he finally decided on the D-gers, because they are saying that he's the starting 2B for them and made that clear by trading away Ryan Theriot right after signing Uribe on the dotted line. And I guess I can understand that motivation for moving on despite only $1M difference in offers (and likely matching if he had given the team a chance).
Still, it is the freaking D-gers he's moving on to, and had they offered him the $25-27M that he SAID he wanted (but apparently only wanted from the Giants), then at least we can say that we can understand, that this was a big chasm of money difference (and there were a lot of people tweeting that they understood why he took the $21M, because they didn't think the Giants would match that, particularly the 3 year part). But when the player moves on for just $1M more, I don't care if the starting role might have been a key difference, that's just made it personal for me.
Thanks for helping us win the World Championship Juan but DO let the door hit you while you're leaving, MEAT. GAME ON!
Giants Implications
The report is that the Giants are not going to pursue any starting SS now that they have Tejada, though initially it was reported that they were still in on possible trades or signings (speaking of which, the rumor that Sabean was contacting Jeter's agent was true, only that he was only contacting in regards to Fontenot, another client of the agent). I think that makes logical sense. Tejada is obviously here as a starter. If the Giants got another starting SS, then he would have to move to 3B, but then that would block Pablo. Sandoval could then move to 1B, but then that would block Belt, who the Giants have committed to as a starting 1B, having ended the LF experiment (apparently didn't go well).
As much as the Sabean Naysayers might believe otherwise (and shockingly, winning the 2010 World Series Championship did not change many of their opinions of the GM, from what I've been reading; someone just tweeted that he's a "clown"), the Giants have been very good the past few years in leaving open (or now making open with Molina trade) the possibility of one of their young players/prospects coming up and winning a starting spot. They have not blocked any substantial prospect from playing (it is mostly that many of the Naysayers have inflated opinions on what a substantial prospect is). So I don't see the Giants doing anything to take 3B away from Sandoval or 1B away from Belt.
So, yeah, don't see the Giants getting another SS unless he signs for low money and battle Burriss for backup shortstop role. But since the Giants have liked JJ Hardy from before, one would have to think that if he is non-tendered and made a free agent, Sabean will at least kick the tires and see if he would be willing to do the MI utility role for the Giants. After all, Tejada will be 37 next season.
Neukom Coming Through with the Dead Presidents (though Hamilton and Franklin weren't)
Another implication which I haven't seen anywhere yet is that this is a sign that Neukom is coming through in OKing spending more money for baseball decisions. He could have held back the Huff signing as that put the Giants in the $110M range, far beyond the mid to high $90M they had been spending in prior seasons.
True, the playoffs probably gave them the extra money to push the envelope on salaries in 2011, but there is no guarantee that they will make the playoffs next season (no matter how good your team is, it all depends on the other teams in your division; see 60's for how that worked for the Giants) and with his salary, it will be at least in the $110M range both in 2011 and 2012 because of built in raises and probable arbitration raises, particularly for Lincecum (in fact, 2012 gets another big jump because of Lincecum, Wilson, and Sanchez but not big salaries coming off books; Rowand gone in 2013, Zito after 2013).
Now the Tejada signing pushes the budget up even higher, into the $115M range, and Neukom OKed that, as well. That's roughly $20M more than the prior past few seasons and looks to get even bigger when the Giants eventually sign Lincecum to a long-term deal, then Posey.
A further implication also not catpured is that had the Giants signed Uribe to a 3 year, $20-21M contract, they would have still been after a starting SS, since they viewed his role as best being the super-utility guy. That would mean they might have still pursued SS Jason Barlett of the Rays, who they were rumored to be very hot and heavy over (of course, given the quickness of the Tejada signing, that could have just been the Rays pumping the action on Bartlett in the Hot Stove league). Which means another $5-6M raise in the payroll to the $120M range.
Looks like the Giants are willing to eat into the operating profits that they were making before, and perhaps dip into the red a little. Though, as Sabean noted after the Huff signing, they will have to shift some money around to make it work. Given that they got another draft pick with the Uribe signing, that seems to mean the Giants will spend less in the International free agent realm, where they had been spending big bucks previously. Still, the Giants at least is spending the money on players and not losing players by not spending the big bucks.
Belt Still on Fast Track
Chris Haft had a nice article snippet on Belt, Schulman too. Both Sabean and Bochy are very high on Belt (and I've been saying here that don't be surprised to see Belt starting at 1B to start the season). Bochy said, "I think this kid's going to make some noise in Spring Training." Sabean said, "He's on the same track as Posey, which is very fast. While we don't want to rush him, we want to keep an open mind. When he's ready, he's going to be here and hopefully producing as a left-handed hitter in one of those spots." Schulman noted that Belt will get a good look in spring training with an outside chance to win a big-league job.
The way I see it Huff will be starting at either 1B or LF. So the battle will be between Belt at 1B and either Rowand or Schierholtz (or even Burrell, if re-signed) in LF. I still think Burrell will be re-signed as a bench player. They will only go to him if everyone else is scuffling. It is hard for a player of his status to accept a bench role and I applaude him for wanting that just to be on his childhood team again.
I've been rooting for Schierholtz forever, but I don't see him having a breakout spring. He had his chance last season and, really, the season before, but while he can get white-hot as a hitter for a month or so, then he either goes stone cold or gets injured (or both, apparently that's what happened in 2010 season early on). Still, I'm rooting for him to do well and hopefully he will, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm done hoping for Rowand to do something. He's been like Schierholtz, only paid a heck of a lot better. Obviously he willing to rest on his big money contract: last season, realizing he needed to get in better shape, he rode a mountain bike every day during the off-season. Meanwhile, Sandoval is going to fitness experts and getting himself into tip-top shape. Hopefully he can learn from Huff and Sandoval, and perhaps earn some of his remaining money by getting in better shape, but I'm getting the feeling that he'll be just as happy to retire into the sunset riding his mountain bike.
That's why I think Belt has a good chance of breaking out of spring training as the starting 1B. His hitting in 2010 has been at an elite level - a lot of Giants fans think they know what is good hitting, but they don't. Belt, as I've shown in prior posts, hit at a level that only top prospects have hit in the leagues he was in for significant games, particularly for AA. The numbers are deceiving in the minors, not many players hit as well in the majors than they did in the minors, the talent difference in pitching is that great. That is why I think my method of comparison is better, taking the hitter's performance and looking in past seasons in the same league and seeing who hit that well at his age or younger. And Belt was up there with what top prospects who did well eventually in the majors, like Pedroia and others. It is just a matter of time.
Monday, March 29, 2010
I'm More Than Ecstatic: And Cain Makes Three - Cain Signs Extension
Reports from Baggs, sfgiants.com, and Hank say that the Giants have signed Matt Cain to a contract extension. Some call it a three year extension, but really, it keeps his current year salary the same ($4.25M), gives him a bump upward in the last year of the contract ($7M plus $1M signing bonus for 2011), which was a vestable option year (nearly $2M raise over the $6.25M vestable option that has escalators and stuff), and $15M for his first year in free agency, which is 2012. They held off of announcing the official signing of Jeremy Affeldt and Brian Wilson which had been leaked out before last week, in order to announce all three signings over the weekend.
As Brian Sabean noted, "It's our window. ... To have these guys for [2012] now. The comfort in knowing that they are going to be in Giants uniforms helping us win games is a statement in itself. It seems fitting. It seems the right thing to do it. Having said that, if we didn't get business done in spring training, we would have halted [the negotiations]. We didn't want it to be a distraction." Sabean noted that they started the talks during the off-season, then started in earnest with everyone at the start of March. Sabean also noted, "We have cost certainty and the fans have the comfort of knowing these guys are going to be in Giants uniforms helping us win games."
Baggarly had a quote with Cain regarding the deal on his blog and Schulman in his article, where Cain discusses how happy he and his wife were with the deal. Cain said, "I think it shows some appreciation of all the things I've done for the Giants, but I also think it shows the way they run the organization. It's a great situation where we could do something for both sides. Me and [wife] Chelsea are more than ecstatic about doing this."
Baggarly wrote in his blog:
Dynastic staff is what I've been talking about the Giants rotation. I'm been writing for a while now about how pitching is our future (since the Giants said that Bonds was no longer our future, one of the Mercury columnist wondered what next and I noted that it's clearly pitching) and how powerful it is to have a pitching rotation that can dominate the other teams in a series, when they have a high PQS DOM%. And now we have all the major pieces covered to 2012 plus still control Lincecum and Sanchez to 2013.
Some are not happy because of the restrictions on the payroll budget due to these guaranteed monies. But at some point, you have to realize that this was coming along with the success of our pitchers, that at some point they are going to get paid big money. And that the Giants management realized that.
I think that Neukom's stance with Sabean regarding the budget, that he should not feel constrained by the budget when bringing baseball recommendations to Neukom, shows that he understood this budget dynamic, punctuated by Zito's huge contract and then Rowand's contract.
But people forget that by 2011, the year some are worried about the Giants payroll, the Giants only have two more seasons of Rowand's salary and three more of Zito (highly unlikely his team option will be picked up nor that he earn the vesting by averaging 200 IP over any stretch). And that by the end of the 2011 season, that's only one season of Rowand and two of Zito remaining, making their contracts easier to trade off if the Giants pony up some money to push their final cost to the other team down to more reasonable levels. And who knows, if Rowand is as improved as he appears to be this spring - after finally figuring out that he should get in shape to earn his money - and if Zito can continue his great second half of 2009 into 2010 and 2011, the Giants could make the trade easily, again with some money added in, but which would save a huge chunk of money for our young players due raises.
In addition, Neukom should not offer to extend the payroll if he wasn't serious, because that would be seriously bad PR for Sabean to say this publicly and it don't happen and we end up trading someone good just to save money. Reportedly they were kicking the tires on Manny Ramirez when the D-gers were trying to re-sign him, which would have meant a bump in the budget of up to $20M that season (I think they were a little under budget at that time).
That is a serious bump of money to allow, even for only one season, so Neukom has a sugar daddy somewhere he can tap into easily for that big coin because from my observation of how much money he supposedly made off Microsoft stock, money he has invested in owning a big chunk of the Giants, and donations he and his wife have made to universities, he should not have a lot of money left (well, plenty for you and me but not to cover that) to cover such a big bump upward.
Other Giants News and Thoughts
Speaking of Neukom, there was a nice article on him on sfgiants.com recently. He talked about this plans for the Giants, both present and future, and about The Giants Way. Part of this way is that they are investing in helping their prospects and players stay in better shape and conditioning, hiring staff and buying equipment:
As Brian Sabean noted, "It's our window. ... To have these guys for [2012] now. The comfort in knowing that they are going to be in Giants uniforms helping us win games is a statement in itself. It seems fitting. It seems the right thing to do it. Having said that, if we didn't get business done in spring training, we would have halted [the negotiations]. We didn't want it to be a distraction." Sabean noted that they started the talks during the off-season, then started in earnest with everyone at the start of March. Sabean also noted, "We have cost certainty and the fans have the comfort of knowing these guys are going to be in Giants uniforms helping us win games."
Baggarly had a quote with Cain regarding the deal on his blog and Schulman in his article, where Cain discusses how happy he and his wife were with the deal. Cain said, "I think it shows some appreciation of all the things I've done for the Giants, but I also think it shows the way they run the organization. It's a great situation where we could do something for both sides. Me and [wife] Chelsea are more than ecstatic about doing this."
Baggarly wrote in his blog:
So the Giants could be looking at a dynastic staff, which is partially what motivated Cain to re-up. He’s not the type to seek his own glory as a No.1 elsewhere. He’s never begrudged “living under Timmy’s shadow” the past couple seasons. On the contrary, he said he loves the competition.Baggarly noted in the article:
“Obviously, the best I got to see were the big three in Atlanta,” Cain said. “We saw it in Oakland with Zito, Mulder and Hudson. It builds us all up. I feel we all share the leadership every time we go out there and pitch.”
“That’s what we’ve been talking about all spring training, that all of us love playing together and really feed off each other. We’ve got great chemistry and that shows with them being able to do these deals. They see this core group and they want to keep these guys together.” "
Cain said he had no reservations about signing away his first year of free agency. He hadn't thought ahead about testing the market, nor was he motivated by the thought of going to another club where he could escape Tim Lincecum's shadow and be the staff aceSchulman wrote:
"When you see a group of pitchers stay together like that "... it builds us all up," said Cain, citing the 1990s-era Atlanta Braves and the Oakland A's staffs with Barry Zito, Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder. "I feel we all share the leadership every time we go out there and pitch."
Lincecum and No. 4 starter Jonathan Sanchez won't be eligible for free agency until after the 2013 season.
"It's amazing to watch these guys throwing seven shutout innings every night," Wilson said. "Every player strives to be part of an organization that values you. "... You work even harder to maintain it and go for the next one. I'll try to be a Giant for the rest of my career."
How wide could this window open for the Giants? Sabean was hesitant to say it could match the unprecedented run the club made from 1997-2003 behind Bonds.
"This group would really have to step it up," Sabean said. "Having said that, maybe last year was the beginning of a run the pitching staff will help to carry. We'll have to figure out more offense in and around this."
They will need much of that offense to come from the farm. The Giants forecast to have limited financial flexibility, particularly in 2012 when Cain and Zito will make $35 million and Tim Lincecum could be due another huge number in arbitration. Aware that his rotation could become a budget killer, Sabean said he's hoping the organization's young hitting prospects will pan out.
As for the risk of investing in pitching?
"It's not like we're giving four- or five-year deals," Sabean said. "We're past that. They're short-window deals that you'd expect both parties would make out."
Giants ThoughtsIn all, ownership agreed to shell out $43.5 million above its previous commitments to Cain, Affeldt and Wilson. The team gains cost certainty while risking guaranteed money to pitchers who might get hurt. The pitchers enjoy that guaranteed money against the risk of leaving more dollars on the table in arbitration and free agency. ...
Cain also said he and his teammates want to be together well into the future.
"We really feed off each other," he said. "We feel we've got great chemistry with everybody. We love this, the fact that we'll be able to play with Wilson the next couple of years, Zito, Timmy, all these guys."
Cain compared the continuity of the Giants' rotation now to the Braves' trio of Greg Maddux, John Smoltz and Tom Glavine, and the A's big three of Zito, Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder.
Wilson, whose 79 saves the last two seasons rank fourth in the majors, said, "Oh, sweet," when told all the deals were done. He pledged to work harder than ever so he can earn another contract "and try to be a Giant for the rest of my career."
Dynastic staff is what I've been talking about the Giants rotation. I'm been writing for a while now about how pitching is our future (since the Giants said that Bonds was no longer our future, one of the Mercury columnist wondered what next and I noted that it's clearly pitching) and how powerful it is to have a pitching rotation that can dominate the other teams in a series, when they have a high PQS DOM%. And now we have all the major pieces covered to 2012 plus still control Lincecum and Sanchez to 2013.
Some are not happy because of the restrictions on the payroll budget due to these guaranteed monies. But at some point, you have to realize that this was coming along with the success of our pitchers, that at some point they are going to get paid big money. And that the Giants management realized that.
I think that Neukom's stance with Sabean regarding the budget, that he should not feel constrained by the budget when bringing baseball recommendations to Neukom, shows that he understood this budget dynamic, punctuated by Zito's huge contract and then Rowand's contract.
But people forget that by 2011, the year some are worried about the Giants payroll, the Giants only have two more seasons of Rowand's salary and three more of Zito (highly unlikely his team option will be picked up nor that he earn the vesting by averaging 200 IP over any stretch). And that by the end of the 2011 season, that's only one season of Rowand and two of Zito remaining, making their contracts easier to trade off if the Giants pony up some money to push their final cost to the other team down to more reasonable levels. And who knows, if Rowand is as improved as he appears to be this spring - after finally figuring out that he should get in shape to earn his money - and if Zito can continue his great second half of 2009 into 2010 and 2011, the Giants could make the trade easily, again with some money added in, but which would save a huge chunk of money for our young players due raises.
In addition, Neukom should not offer to extend the payroll if he wasn't serious, because that would be seriously bad PR for Sabean to say this publicly and it don't happen and we end up trading someone good just to save money. Reportedly they were kicking the tires on Manny Ramirez when the D-gers were trying to re-sign him, which would have meant a bump in the budget of up to $20M that season (I think they were a little under budget at that time).
That is a serious bump of money to allow, even for only one season, so Neukom has a sugar daddy somewhere he can tap into easily for that big coin because from my observation of how much money he supposedly made off Microsoft stock, money he has invested in owning a big chunk of the Giants, and donations he and his wife have made to universities, he should not have a lot of money left (well, plenty for you and me but not to cover that) to cover such a big bump upward.
Other Giants News and Thoughts
Speaking of Neukom, there was a nice article on him on sfgiants.com recently. He talked about this plans for the Giants, both present and future, and about The Giants Way. Part of this way is that they are investing in helping their prospects and players stay in better shape and conditioning, hiring staff and buying equipment:
"The baseball's got to speak for itself because there are so many variables," he said. "We're investing in homegrown talent. We have this very clear strategy, which is better conditioning, better prepared, more clear-headed people playing baseball, and we want to get to a sustainable level of exciting baseball played the right way. After that, we'll have to see what happens."
Neukom raved about the team's mini-camp in January and how much he was impressed with the players' condition when they arrived for Spring Training. ...
"We're at a stage now where we are strong enough to think we don't have to rush [Minor League players] ahead of schedule," he said. "Traditionally, you think in terms of the best and most talented prospects, baseball people would want him to spend probably four years in the Minors before he was ready to come up and contribute at the Major League level.
"It varies from player to player and team to team. We don't want to be desperate. We don't want to rush kids ahead of when they should be coming up, and I think we're in that situation." ...
Neukom said he has spoken to fans and has answers for those who have questions about the team's approach.
"I tell them our goal is a medium-term, long-term goal," he said. "The immediate step was getting the Giants to play winning baseball and to build on that increasingly from homegrown talent and become the kind of team that contend year in and year out. Nobody can have a strict timetable on that."
Finally, we are working to get all our prospects in shape and a good state of mind to focus on baseball. One step at a time. And a great commitment to bulding up the farm system and using that as a key component of keeping the team strong now and in the future. Assuming the team continues to win, that means going after players who fell in the draft because of concerns over how much they want in bonus and paying much over slot for them (which they appear to have had no problem with previously, going way over for Posey and Wheeler) and going after the top Latin American talent out there, preferably hitters as they seem to be better bets relatively (and which is the way they have been doing it, as Villalona and RafRod are the two big signings plus the Giants were in on a couple of other position prospects as well before losing to other clubs).
In other news, Todd Wellemeyer should get announced as the 5th starter. Also, I heard Schulman on KNBR over the weekend (I really liked him on radio, I enjoyed that a lot, he should do a lot more of that on KNBR, I hope) and he covered his blog on the 25-man roster that I wrote about the other day. He made his point that the Giants don't want to put additional stress on their young starter's arm early in the season by giving them additional games, so Wellemeyer will be taking his 5th starter starts which means the Giants will need a long relief guy to be there, which in his thinking would mean Pucetas. And I agree that it is likely that Pucetas will win that role because of how well he had done in spring until his outing this weekend, which ultimately wasn't that bad as he recovered to give us three innings.
However, Schulman also noted that Henry Sosa is being given the opportunity to make the team - a good sign is that he's still with the team - and Sosa has experience as a starter but looks to be a reliever long-term because he's a high effort thrower who has been battling physical problems, and relief would put less stress on him. Sosa has had a great spring as well and would not cost the Giants a 40-man slot because he's already on it (unlike, say, Denny Bautista; the Giants do have two spots open now with the Frandsen trade, but Wellemeyer and Mota appear to have them locked up, Wellemeyer particularly so). So the Giants could decide to bring him up to be the long reliever and sent Pucetas down to AAA to be ready to start if we need it.
I think that is a strong possibility. Pucetas wouldn't be prepared to take a starter's spot if he's pitching long-relief for us. Of course, Bumgarner is probably the first line of defense there, and Pucetas could be sent down at that time to be prepared in case there is another need for a starter. But Pucetas did not do that well last season in AAA, he had a couple of good months early but overall was not that great, and in particular could not strike out very many hitters.
So he still has something to prove in terms of dominating hitters at a higher level, he could have been very lucky this spring (that is why scouting is so much more important than just eyeing the stats like I and others do - but then again, that is all that is available to me). I can see the Giants wanting to see him do well for a season in AAA and be ready to start for them as necessary during the season, while Sosa be our long-guy. That could lead to Sosa joining middle relief next season while Pucetas then take the long reliever role, assuming he does well in AAA this season plus beat out Joe Martinez next spring.
In addition, Baggarly noted that Fred Lewis has been complaining about a rib injury problem, so I smell an extended stint for Lewis on the DL, while the starting RF situation sorts itself out on the 25-man roster in the meanwhile. Schierholtz has been struggling - again unfortunately - and with Bowker's sudden surge (I would note that he wasn't doing that great until those few games, so it would seem odd that Bowker could win the position with just a couple of good games of hitting when not doing that great before), there has been a lot of news about Schierholtz still battling to win the RF spot, and now with Bowker's surge, the Giants might visit Bowker starting in LF while DeRosa starts in RF (which someone else noted DeRosa hasn't played any of this spring, but I would note that he played RF a bit in previous seasons - and well usign UZR/150 rating - and didn't get many/any starts in LF prior to this season, which hasn't even started yet).
Sabean also discussed extensively about Nate's struggles, which can't help him either. Still, that's life as a major leaguer, and the sooner Schierholtz gets used to all that, the sooner he can show what he got at the major league level. He needs to stop tinkering and just do the old rule of: see ball, hit ball, and not complicate it with whether to use batting gloves or not, and so forth.
In any case, if Lewis is on the DL, then the Bowker and Schierholtz (and Torres too I suppose, and maybe Velez too) situation will unfold and perhaps the Giants will put Lewis back on the 25-man roster and move someone else off, instead of trading him. Or by then some other team might be a bit more desperate for an OF capable of starting and give us a better prospect for him.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Hey Neukom! My Business Plan: Draft Philosophy and Strategy
This is the latest in the series that I've been publishing (but it's been a looong while since I added one), here is a link to the Table of Contents, which I just put together recently and will updated as necessary when I add to this series or update any of the chapters.
The MLB Amateur Draft Is Worse Than Most Think
As I have posted before, the draft is a crapshoot (I wrote this under a previous handle). When you are winning, you have lousy draft position, the most you can hope for is around a 10-15% chance with your first round pick in the last third of the round of locating and selecting a amateur who will have the necessities to become a good to great player. Even when you are losing hand over fist, the first pick overall is not even a coin flip on whether he would be a good player or not, though close. Thus, you need a strategy that maximizes your draft picks for finding players for your 25-man roster, no matter where you pick in the first round.
Draft Picks, Like Any Rare Resource, Must be Maximized
With a scarce and rare resource, like a draft pick, you need to maximize it by focusing them on something and you need a strategy that will do that. Focusing on pitching, like the Giants have since almost when Sabean took over (and basically after Dick Tidrow became his VP of Player Personnel) is probably the best way to do it. With the success rate falling exponentially, even when you select the 50 total overall picks most teams select, you are not going to find a good player after the first round very consistently at those odds. It is even worse than a crapshoot, it is finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Given such a poor success rate with the first round pick when you are winning, you can only hope to find one good player with your first round pick every decade that you are winning consecutively. That is not a very good replacement rate.
The fact is that the historical performance is even worse after the first round. Just making the majors is a pretty low success rate, somewhere in the 10-15% range. Even at a 1% success rate for finding a good player after the first round, at 50 picks per year, that is a good player every 2 years, only 5 in a decade. Plus the one a winning team would pick on average, that is 6 good players in a decade.
However, there are 13 starting positions on a team plus a closer, and not all good players last for a whole decade. With maybe 6 good players drafted in a decade, that means that less than half of a starting team can be replaced in a decade, assuming you started out with good players at each position. Thus, no team is going to fill in all their starting positions with good players via the draft alone when winning. There is not enough talent in the prospect pool each year to fill up all the spots with good players. Thus, each pick needs to be maximized.
In addition, a consequence of this dearth of talent is that any strategy for building a winning team has to assume that you will be using free agency to fill in the gaps in your roster. And as long as you sign good players to free agent contracts, the picks you give up is a small price to pay for a good player because the odds of getting a good player is much greater when you sign one than when you pick one, even a pick in the last half of the first round.
Pitching, Pitching, Pitching
As shown in the plan so far in the other chapters, pitching is key to building a more successful team in the playoffs. So it would make sense that one might then focus on pitching in the draft. This way, you control the supply of the critical skills necessary for building a team that maximizes their possibilities of success in the playoffs. However, there is another good reason: roster makeup and flexibility.
Pitching Provides More Options
Let's say you are drafting and have a choice between two guys you think will be equally great, but one is a 1B and one is a starting pitcher. However, what you see is not what you get: sometimes (actually, almost all the time) the prospect fails. Getting a starting pitcher gives you options.
Many a failed pitcher can go to the bullpen. Not only can he go to the bullpen, he can be your long man, middle-innings, set-up, or sometimes even closer. So even when a pitching prospect fails to become a starter, he could fill in up to four other spots on the MLB roster.
Now lets say that both were a success, you now have a great player. If you have the 1B, and another great player is playing 1B, you now have a dilemma (see Giants McCovey/Cepeda and Rangers Teixiera/Gonzalez/Hafner) that does not always resolve itself nicely. If you have a starting pitcher, however, depending on how good he is, he can fill one of up to five spots in the rotation.
A pitcher could fill one of up to 12 positions on the MLB roster, a position player can fill maybe 2 positions relatively evenly, and at best 3, maybe 4, and that usually means you take a hit on defense if he is playing out of position.
Thus, focusing the draft on starting pitching gives you much more flexibility in filling spots in your 25-man roster, helping you fill up more spots and in a faster timeframe. Any pitcher should theoretically fill at minimum the last two spots in the rotation (or more if better) and somewhere in the bullpen outside of the closer and two set-up men, another 4 spots (or more if better). The majority of position players can fill at best 3 spots in the field (the three OF spots or 2B/3B/SS) and most really only can play 2 spots generally at the most. That will help fill your MLB roster with home-grown prospects faster and to a great extent than if you focused on position players or evenly between the two.
Focus, Not Exclusively
Now this is very obvious, but I am not advocating that a team should draft only starting pitchers, that would be suicide. You should never draft based on filling a spot in your lineup, you must always respect the talent that is available to you with any draft pick. Thus, if there is a hitter available who is clearly the best player, then you should pick him, even if you are focusing on pitching.
However, there will be cases where the prospect is just one of many who appear to be equally talented, or closely so. And in those cases, you should go for the starting pitching. Given equally talented prospects, the flexibility in filling the pitching staff is an advantage that tips the scales towards selecting the pitcher.
And by the time you get to anywhere around the 3-5 round (I would guess-timate), when the odds of finding a good player falls to roughly 1% or less, the odds of finding a good player is so low that there should be some competitive advantage gained by a team that focuses on one particular skill particularly well, such as pitching.
Pitching Is the Key
Focusing on pitching works in so many ways. As Baseball Prospectus and The Hardball Times showed, success in the playoffs can be positively influenced by good pitching and fielding whereas offense plays no significant part. But pitching also works in building up a team in a faster and more efficient manner.
Another thing I would posit is that this strategy is even more effective for NL teams to follow. AL teams have a position that NL teams don't worry about: DH. A good hitter who cannot field any position acceptably is useless and thus of little value to an NL team, but he would have value, potentially good value, for an AL team. Thus, over time, AL teams will have a subtle preference for hitters who might not be good fielders, and when they are selecting this player, that will sometimes leave a more valuable pitcher (from the NL team viewpoint) still on the board for the NL team to select. That would give NL teams an overall talent boost in terms of available pitching talent when it is their turn to select and a AL team ahead of it selects a hitter that is of lesser value to the NL team over a pitcher that would have been otherwise selected and of greater value to the NL team.
Overall, finding good players is such a crapshoot that you cannot effectively plan for building a team. When you find one, you can only shout "Eureka!" If a team focuses on position players or split it evenly between position and pitching, there will be the times when you find out that you developed multiple players who can only play one or two positions. That forces you to play someone out of position, which weakens one of the key qualities of a successful team in the playoffs - fielding - or forces you to trade for what you need, and as the history of baseball shows, trading is not a science, a lot of mistakes are often made.
By focusing on pitching generally in your overall draft, you can mainly improve your team over time. No matter how good your future ace looks like (for example, Matt Cain), if you find another future ace (for example, Tim Lincecum), you can easily slot him into the rotation and move everyone else down. And if your awesome starter can't handle starting, then you throw him into the bullpen, where maybe he can be a closer (for example, Brian Wilson). And as you build the pitching staff over time (Jonathan Sanchez and Madison Bumgarner), you could reach the point where you have so many good pitchers that you can start trading off starters to boost up your lineup and/or your farm system greatly without missing a beat in the pitching staff.
The Giants are reaching such a point in their rebuilding cycle, as Jonathan Sanchez is looking more and more like a potential ace in the making, and with another good season under his wing in 2010, and with Bumgarner basically ready to take Sanchez's place, he could be traded, like Dan Haren was, for a bushelful of good and nearly ready prospects who would restock our farm system for the next 3-4 years plus supply one or two prospects about ready to start in the majors. And with Wheeler hopefully coming down the pike in 2-4 years, that could open up another trade possibility within the rotation, and we have another delightful dilemma coming up in the future.
The MLB Amateur Draft Is Worse Than Most Think
As I have posted before, the draft is a crapshoot (I wrote this under a previous handle). When you are winning, you have lousy draft position, the most you can hope for is around a 10-15% chance with your first round pick in the last third of the round of locating and selecting a amateur who will have the necessities to become a good to great player. Even when you are losing hand over fist, the first pick overall is not even a coin flip on whether he would be a good player or not, though close. Thus, you need a strategy that maximizes your draft picks for finding players for your 25-man roster, no matter where you pick in the first round.
Draft Picks, Like Any Rare Resource, Must be Maximized
With a scarce and rare resource, like a draft pick, you need to maximize it by focusing them on something and you need a strategy that will do that. Focusing on pitching, like the Giants have since almost when Sabean took over (and basically after Dick Tidrow became his VP of Player Personnel) is probably the best way to do it. With the success rate falling exponentially, even when you select the 50 total overall picks most teams select, you are not going to find a good player after the first round very consistently at those odds. It is even worse than a crapshoot, it is finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Given such a poor success rate with the first round pick when you are winning, you can only hope to find one good player with your first round pick every decade that you are winning consecutively. That is not a very good replacement rate.
The fact is that the historical performance is even worse after the first round. Just making the majors is a pretty low success rate, somewhere in the 10-15% range. Even at a 1% success rate for finding a good player after the first round, at 50 picks per year, that is a good player every 2 years, only 5 in a decade. Plus the one a winning team would pick on average, that is 6 good players in a decade.
However, there are 13 starting positions on a team plus a closer, and not all good players last for a whole decade. With maybe 6 good players drafted in a decade, that means that less than half of a starting team can be replaced in a decade, assuming you started out with good players at each position. Thus, no team is going to fill in all their starting positions with good players via the draft alone when winning. There is not enough talent in the prospect pool each year to fill up all the spots with good players. Thus, each pick needs to be maximized.
In addition, a consequence of this dearth of talent is that any strategy for building a winning team has to assume that you will be using free agency to fill in the gaps in your roster. And as long as you sign good players to free agent contracts, the picks you give up is a small price to pay for a good player because the odds of getting a good player is much greater when you sign one than when you pick one, even a pick in the last half of the first round.
Pitching, Pitching, Pitching
As shown in the plan so far in the other chapters, pitching is key to building a more successful team in the playoffs. So it would make sense that one might then focus on pitching in the draft. This way, you control the supply of the critical skills necessary for building a team that maximizes their possibilities of success in the playoffs. However, there is another good reason: roster makeup and flexibility.
Pitching Provides More Options
Let's say you are drafting and have a choice between two guys you think will be equally great, but one is a 1B and one is a starting pitcher. However, what you see is not what you get: sometimes (actually, almost all the time) the prospect fails. Getting a starting pitcher gives you options.
Many a failed pitcher can go to the bullpen. Not only can he go to the bullpen, he can be your long man, middle-innings, set-up, or sometimes even closer. So even when a pitching prospect fails to become a starter, he could fill in up to four other spots on the MLB roster.
Now lets say that both were a success, you now have a great player. If you have the 1B, and another great player is playing 1B, you now have a dilemma (see Giants McCovey/Cepeda and Rangers Teixiera/Gonzalez/Hafner) that does not always resolve itself nicely. If you have a starting pitcher, however, depending on how good he is, he can fill one of up to five spots in the rotation.
A pitcher could fill one of up to 12 positions on the MLB roster, a position player can fill maybe 2 positions relatively evenly, and at best 3, maybe 4, and that usually means you take a hit on defense if he is playing out of position.
Thus, focusing the draft on starting pitching gives you much more flexibility in filling spots in your 25-man roster, helping you fill up more spots and in a faster timeframe. Any pitcher should theoretically fill at minimum the last two spots in the rotation (or more if better) and somewhere in the bullpen outside of the closer and two set-up men, another 4 spots (or more if better). The majority of position players can fill at best 3 spots in the field (the three OF spots or 2B/3B/SS) and most really only can play 2 spots generally at the most. That will help fill your MLB roster with home-grown prospects faster and to a great extent than if you focused on position players or evenly between the two.
Focus, Not Exclusively
Now this is very obvious, but I am not advocating that a team should draft only starting pitchers, that would be suicide. You should never draft based on filling a spot in your lineup, you must always respect the talent that is available to you with any draft pick. Thus, if there is a hitter available who is clearly the best player, then you should pick him, even if you are focusing on pitching.
However, there will be cases where the prospect is just one of many who appear to be equally talented, or closely so. And in those cases, you should go for the starting pitching. Given equally talented prospects, the flexibility in filling the pitching staff is an advantage that tips the scales towards selecting the pitcher.
And by the time you get to anywhere around the 3-5 round (I would guess-timate), when the odds of finding a good player falls to roughly 1% or less, the odds of finding a good player is so low that there should be some competitive advantage gained by a team that focuses on one particular skill particularly well, such as pitching.
Pitching Is the Key
Focusing on pitching works in so many ways. As Baseball Prospectus and The Hardball Times showed, success in the playoffs can be positively influenced by good pitching and fielding whereas offense plays no significant part. But pitching also works in building up a team in a faster and more efficient manner.
Another thing I would posit is that this strategy is even more effective for NL teams to follow. AL teams have a position that NL teams don't worry about: DH. A good hitter who cannot field any position acceptably is useless and thus of little value to an NL team, but he would have value, potentially good value, for an AL team. Thus, over time, AL teams will have a subtle preference for hitters who might not be good fielders, and when they are selecting this player, that will sometimes leave a more valuable pitcher (from the NL team viewpoint) still on the board for the NL team to select. That would give NL teams an overall talent boost in terms of available pitching talent when it is their turn to select and a AL team ahead of it selects a hitter that is of lesser value to the NL team over a pitcher that would have been otherwise selected and of greater value to the NL team.
Overall, finding good players is such a crapshoot that you cannot effectively plan for building a team. When you find one, you can only shout "Eureka!" If a team focuses on position players or split it evenly between position and pitching, there will be the times when you find out that you developed multiple players who can only play one or two positions. That forces you to play someone out of position, which weakens one of the key qualities of a successful team in the playoffs - fielding - or forces you to trade for what you need, and as the history of baseball shows, trading is not a science, a lot of mistakes are often made.
By focusing on pitching generally in your overall draft, you can mainly improve your team over time. No matter how good your future ace looks like (for example, Matt Cain), if you find another future ace (for example, Tim Lincecum), you can easily slot him into the rotation and move everyone else down. And if your awesome starter can't handle starting, then you throw him into the bullpen, where maybe he can be a closer (for example, Brian Wilson). And as you build the pitching staff over time (Jonathan Sanchez and Madison Bumgarner), you could reach the point where you have so many good pitchers that you can start trading off starters to boost up your lineup and/or your farm system greatly without missing a beat in the pitching staff.
The Giants are reaching such a point in their rebuilding cycle, as Jonathan Sanchez is looking more and more like a potential ace in the making, and with another good season under his wing in 2010, and with Bumgarner basically ready to take Sanchez's place, he could be traded, like Dan Haren was, for a bushelful of good and nearly ready prospects who would restock our farm system for the next 3-4 years plus supply one or two prospects about ready to start in the majors. And with Wheeler hopefully coming down the pike in 2-4 years, that could open up another trade possibility within the rotation, and we have another delightful dilemma coming up in the future.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Hey Neukom! My Giants Business Plan: Team Built With Speed
Team speed was the way to win early in baseball's history because with the low scoring environment (and low HR environment), each run was that much more precious and leverageable into victories. Hence the glory of Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner in the early days of the 20th Century, the beginning of the modern era of the MLB. However, once the HR drug hit the public's veins, like any good addictive drug, it made the user crave for more.
And I will admit here that I am in love with the long ball too. I grew up with Bobby Bonds, Dave Kingman, Jack Clark being my main HR heroes, though Stretch casted his long shadow then too (and I also love the K too, John "The Count" Montefusco was an early fave of mine too).
BP Study on Success in the Playoffs
But as the BP study showed, no matter how much or how little HR a team hits or even runs it scores, it had very little bearing on the success the team had in the playoffs. There was no significant correlation. In fact, there was no signficant correlation with any offensive metric with success in the playoffs.
However, while that is true, BP did note that there was one offensive stat that had at least a sizeable enough correction for them to note, though not at a statistically significant level: stolen base attempts. Yes, not speed score (which they tried) but stolen base attempts.
Would You Believe A "Team Built on Stealing Bases"?
So my title for this post is not quite precise enough, it is not enough to be built with speed (meaning, say, having a high speed score) but the players must be speedy enough and good enough base stealers to warrant the manager allowing them to make a lot of attempts to steal bases. Oddly enough, stolen base success was not linked to success, but stolen base attempts were. But just making all your slow guys pile up stolen base attempts obviously would not work, so I think the overarching benefit is having a lot of players who are capable of stealing bases successfully.
Giants Thoughts
I hate to bring this up again, but the team we should try to emulate is the D-gers of the 1960's, anchored by Koufax and Drysdale (Lincecum and Cain) in the starting rotation and Maury Wills on the offense, stealing bases and creating havoc on the base paths. They kept the runs allowed low and Wills provided octane to the tepid offense that was just enough offense to enable them to win a lot of games.
I don't know who our Maury Wills will be (originally, I was thinking Marcus Sanders), if ever, but we have a number of speedsters in place across the lineup possibly, so perhaps quantity over quality will do. Fred Lewis is the most obvious, as our current leadoff hitter, though he might be hitting 3rd next season. Other candidates include Emmanuel Burriss, Eugenio Velez, and Antoan Richardson. Or maybe, further down the system and into the future, the guy we got in the Durham trade, Darren Ford, Tyler Graham, Julio Izturis, Shane Jordan, Mike McBryde, and Nick Noonan. And, definitely in combination, no way we'll have a Wills-like base stealer but hopefully together as a unit.
In addition, with Pat Kelly as our firstbase coach and base running coach at the major league level, plus Bochy, who has utilized speed previously when at the Padres, the Giants seem to be set up to be a team that can and will run. And I don't think it is a coincidence that Randy Winn suddenly was able to avoid caught stealings, I think it was the addition of Kelly to the coaching staff that made a big difference. And while success was not one of the significant factors, obviously, if you are going to try a lot of stolen base attempts, the more successful you are in doing that, the better it is for your offense.
And I will admit here that I am in love with the long ball too. I grew up with Bobby Bonds, Dave Kingman, Jack Clark being my main HR heroes, though Stretch casted his long shadow then too (and I also love the K too, John "The Count" Montefusco was an early fave of mine too).
BP Study on Success in the Playoffs
But as the BP study showed, no matter how much or how little HR a team hits or even runs it scores, it had very little bearing on the success the team had in the playoffs. There was no significant correlation. In fact, there was no signficant correlation with any offensive metric with success in the playoffs.
However, while that is true, BP did note that there was one offensive stat that had at least a sizeable enough correction for them to note, though not at a statistically significant level: stolen base attempts. Yes, not speed score (which they tried) but stolen base attempts.
Would You Believe A "Team Built on Stealing Bases"?
So my title for this post is not quite precise enough, it is not enough to be built with speed (meaning, say, having a high speed score) but the players must be speedy enough and good enough base stealers to warrant the manager allowing them to make a lot of attempts to steal bases. Oddly enough, stolen base success was not linked to success, but stolen base attempts were. But just making all your slow guys pile up stolen base attempts obviously would not work, so I think the overarching benefit is having a lot of players who are capable of stealing bases successfully.
Giants Thoughts
I hate to bring this up again, but the team we should try to emulate is the D-gers of the 1960's, anchored by Koufax and Drysdale (Lincecum and Cain) in the starting rotation and Maury Wills on the offense, stealing bases and creating havoc on the base paths. They kept the runs allowed low and Wills provided octane to the tepid offense that was just enough offense to enable them to win a lot of games.
I don't know who our Maury Wills will be (originally, I was thinking Marcus Sanders), if ever, but we have a number of speedsters in place across the lineup possibly, so perhaps quantity over quality will do. Fred Lewis is the most obvious, as our current leadoff hitter, though he might be hitting 3rd next season. Other candidates include Emmanuel Burriss, Eugenio Velez, and Antoan Richardson. Or maybe, further down the system and into the future, the guy we got in the Durham trade, Darren Ford, Tyler Graham, Julio Izturis, Shane Jordan, Mike McBryde, and Nick Noonan. And, definitely in combination, no way we'll have a Wills-like base stealer but hopefully together as a unit.
In addition, with Pat Kelly as our firstbase coach and base running coach at the major league level, plus Bochy, who has utilized speed previously when at the Padres, the Giants seem to be set up to be a team that can and will run. And I don't think it is a coincidence that Randy Winn suddenly was able to avoid caught stealings, I think it was the addition of Kelly to the coaching staff that made a big difference. And while success was not one of the significant factors, obviously, if you are going to try a lot of stolen base attempts, the more successful you are in doing that, the better it is for your offense.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
The Giants Way (tm)
Bill Neukom yesterday had his first official press conference as managing partner - on his second day of work - and Andy Baggarly very kindly posted the transcript on this blog (a man after my own heart, as he saves me the trouble of transcribing everything!).
Following is a copy of his transcription plus my usual comments after each Q&A:
Neukom’s opening statement:
This is a very exciting day for me, Day 2 on the job, so if I can’t answer all your questions as informatively as I’d like to, you’ll have to come back at another time when I know as much about this team as you know. I’m on a very steep learning curve and I’ve got some very smart people to help me learn a lot in a hurry so we can make the Giants the team we all want it to be, and the enterprise in the community we all want it to be.
We are hard at work with plans to build on what we learned during the 2008 season in particular, as well as seasons that preceded it. Baseball is a marathon, as you all know. We’re pleased with some of the developments from the 2008 season. Our job is to take all of that learning, take the talent that we have, and make sure we have an improved performance on the field in 2009. And that means we intend to be competitive. And after we are competitive, we intend to be contending. We want to be contending as soon as possible. We want to be the sort of franchise that puts a contending major league team on the field game in and game out, and affords its community and fan base a contending team year in and year out. And how we’re going to do that is by emphasizing and investing even more in homegrown talent. We have to find the best baseball athletes we can find, through better scouting and better analysis of the amateur draft. We have to emphasize that part of our roster. At the same time, we have to be wise about making strategic trades when it will materially help our team in the medium run, at least, if not the long run, and we have to be willing to enter into the free-trade, free-agent market every now and again, where there is an opportunity to materially improve our competitiveness as a ballclub. And once we have that kind of talent on a regular basis, then we are going to stress fundamentals. We will have a Giants Way. We will be better conditioned and we will work harder. We will be better prepared. We will master the fundamentals in all aspects of the game. And that, we believe, will pay dividends season in and season out. So we will have the best talent, the best teachers and leaders, coaches, our field managers, our instructors, our trainers and the like. Larry (Baer) and I have had several discussions with Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy and they share our enthusiasm for what it is we’re doing to build on ’08 to get us competitive in ’09 and to get us to being a contending ballclub on a regular basis just as soon as possible. They are hard at work. Meetings will be held next week in Arizona. Larry and I will be a part of those meetings. And part of those meetings, and the whole point, is to develop a Giants Way of playing baseball. The first day someone becomes a Giant, he understands how it is we play this game, how we play winning baseball, so we can have the team we want to have, wearing Giants uniforms, and playing in front of our fan base. I think the fan base deserves more and we intend to deliver more to them in the near term and the long term.
ogc: I've seen one commenter say that this is the same corporate B.S. they hear at work. To which I say: of course. Being a corporate leader today requires you to act "leader-like" and B.S. is part of that. About being the best, about being accountable (a typical phrase heard when new leadership comes in when the old leadership is under a bit of a cloud). Thus, as I've been preaching all these years after Sabean press conferences, you need to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Basically, this repeats the message he gave in one of his first press conferences, that the Giants are all about winning (i.e. contending) and that he wants to be winning ASAP. Lots of blah-blahs, but there are key things to note that are new and/or important.
First, clearly the Giants will be built from the farm system first, supplemented with trades and free agency, as needed. That wasn't so clear during the past 5 years as the Giants tried to win with Bonds and within the budget. Second, there will be a "Giants Way" that is a published manual so that it will be very clear to any Giants employee what they need to do in order to be successful at his or her job, whether player or management, and what is expected out of them (beyond just winning). Lastly, his timeline is for 2009 to be another rebuilding year where we are competitive but expects to be contending in 2010.
That to me, is a relatively low bar to get over because the Giants are basically there: they were competitive in the last two months of the season and just needs to continue that, which appears likely if the vets can hit like they are capable of and the youngsters don't regress. This leads me to believe that Neukom likes the work that Sabean has done so far and want to set things up so that when it is time to re-hire Sabean at the end of 2009, he can do so legitimately to the public.
That is why (as I'll discuss below and in previous posts) I believe he has publicly taken the stance that Sabean is under evaluation and won't be just rubber stamped as GM for the future, he has to show the Giants fandom that he's in charge and that everybody is accountable and being seriously evaluated, including himself. He has to prove to the Giants crowd that he's changing things from the way Magowan ran things (without dissing Magowan), that things will be different going forward, because a lot of people are not happy with how the Giants have been run since 2002.
Q: Did you see major strides in ’08? Can the Giants contend in ’09? How will that affect player acquisition this winter?
A: I think we all saw promise in 2008, particularly in the second half with the play of a number of our young ballplayers. The question for us is, coming into a very vigorous and disciplined spring training session, which of those players will be able to sustain their performance on a major league level so we have a competitive team between the lines game in and game out? The other batch of players who didn’t come to our roster this year are also very promising, and you know those names. Frankly, we’re beginning to see the fruits of our advantage of being able to draft higher because of a lesser record over the last three years. So we think our young talent supply is quite good. We’re not persuaded, given the ferocious competition of major league baseball, that that talent will prove to be good enough to make us not just competitive but contenders on a regular basis. So that is why we say we will look for ways to complement that talent in order to have a winning team. We have to think about the team in context of our ballpark, of our division, of what others are doing in other divisions. So it’s a fairly complicated Rubik’s cube in terms of how it is you organize a roster that year in and year out will put a winning team on the field. So we definitely saw some promise, but the question is how many of those people will be able to deliver that consistently over a full major league season? We think some of them will and should, surely, without naming names. Then there’s the next round of talent which is deeper in our farm system. We want to bring those people along in a way that enables them to convert their gifts into major league skills and we think we’ll have maybe a little more time and a little more discretion. Some of the people who came up this year, frankly, came up sooner than might have been perfect if we’d had a deeper system. It somewhat accelerated things in 2008 and we hope we can get to more of a sort of modulated progression for this very promising talent as we bring these people along from Single-A to Double-A to Triple-A and up to the Giants.
ogc: He shows subtle knowledge that our losing has helped out in improving our talent level - most people think that drafting is somehow easy to do if you do it right, while my study showed that the odds of finding someone good increases exponentially as you rise from the back of the 1st round to the beginning. Then, he also acknowledges that this is not enough to field a team, that it must be supplemented by trades and free agents to complete a competitive team, which is something most fans already know, so its not all pearls he is saying.
Important notes include that they will slow the prospect train to the majors in 2009, they will progress players at the pace the development staff deems proper instead of promoting prospects before they are really ready for the majors. That basically points at players like Bumgarner, Alderson, Villalona, Noonan, Pucetas, Snyder, Sosa, Joaquin, down lower in the system, plus new prospects like Posey, Gillaspie, Kieschnick, Crawford, Barnes. However, that makes sense also because most of the top AA and AAA prospects have already been brought up to the majors in 2008, and 2009 will be the year they either prove they belong or not.
Q: I know Sabean’s job. I know Baer’s job. What is your job?
A: My job is to see to it that as an enterprise, primarily on the baseball side but also on the business side, we have the right structure and the right culture so we can provide the resources and the guidance so our baseball experts can put a contending team on the field. And that buck stops with me. Larry does an enormous amount of things across the board for this enterprise but it’s important I think that we have, for example, a culture of meritocracy. That people understand their objectives in every job in this enterprise, that they know they will be fairly judged in terms of how they perform against those objectives, that they will have incentive compensation, and we will have world-class people at every key position on the business side and we will have the best in baseball people at every key position on the baseball side. When I wake up in the morning and I go to sleep every night, I’m thinking about, `What is this organization? This structure? Do we have the right people doing the right things? Are they motivated to be the best possible producers they can be? And then it’s making sure I stay out of the way of these talented people doing what they’re doing, whether it’s scouting baseball players or it’s training baseball talent or it’s running the finances of the organization, or whether it’s having an enlightened human resources culture so that we attract an enormous amount of talent and allow that talent to achieve its potential.
ogc: Now this is corporate talk I understand, my sweet spot. What he says here is basically what any professional services firm has to do, whether accounting firm, programmers, consultants, they are meritocracies and the best professional serices firms have to answer the questions he asks here.
Q: What will the payroll be? How active will the Giants be on the free-agent front this winter?
A: We have asked Brian and his group to look broadly at the question of the roster for 2009 and beyond. That means primary emphasis on homegrown talent, (determining) how much of this young talent can we expect to produce on a sustainable basis during a championship season next year, whether we need to complement it with a trade, or fold those risks and expenses with a free agent signing. The number is something of a placeholder at this point in our financial planning process. We said to Brian and to Bruce Bochy, `Look, don’t be constrained by a placeholder number for player payroll right now. Think of this in terms of how you’re going to assemble a roster that’s going to be competitive in ‘09 and come back to us. We may not be able to afford Plan A. We may tell you that we’re really at Plan B or Plan C because of financial realities.’ But we’ve asked him, `Without being wild about it, don’t be limited entirely by the notion that you have `X’ amount of dollars to spend for ‘09. Think somewhat out of the box and be creative about this. We just think that’s the way you run a talent business.
(Some deleted.)
So we are asking people on the baseball side to bring some creativity to this. And the exciting thing is that they’re already there. Our recent conversations with Brian and Bruce indicate they are talking about a manual so that every single player at every state in his development with the Giants knows exactly what is expected out of them. They are already thinking very creatively about what parts we need to make us the best Giants team we can be in ‘09 and build beyond that. We’re not doing this year to year. It’s about a progression – medium-term, long-term strategic planning, so we get to the point where our fan base knows when we ask them to buy a season ticket, that it will be another season of competitive baseball played the way it ought to be played in San Francisco.
ogc: I wonder what was deleted, disappointing, even if it was boring stuff.
This repeats what he said before, only in greater detail here. He's already said that the question is first, how do we need to be configured to win, then how do we finance that. Thus the payroll question is only pertinent in giving a ballpark (or "placeholder:"as he noted) figure of where the Giants are aiming, but the Giants could theoretically blow that number out of the ballpark if the Giants management feels it is the right move to do for the long-term.
That's what I've been trying to drive home the past 5 seasons since we passed up on pursuing Vladimir Guererro. Even if the rumor by a prominent Bay Area media person that Guererero hated Alou was true, the main thing was that the payroll was contrained that season, and I said the Giants could either think big (getting a big name) or think small (filling all the holes) and they chose to think small, even to the point where they were willing to spend extra to get Maddux but not use that money for other purposes.
I've also been saying the Giants need to bring in more funds to pay for when key talent is available, and not be subject to the whims of the free agent marketplace. So I advocated for either Larry Ellison (or any local billionaire) to take over the Giants or Magowan to find new investors to bring in additional funds when necessary. As I noted when Neukom took over, hopefully his Silicon Valley connections will bring money into our coffers, much like how the D-backs somehow has been doing this for years now.
The Giants have been thinking short-term since 2002, trying to win it with Bonds, so I am glad that the new managing partner is emphasizing the long-term and thinking strategically.
About the manual, I (and many other Giants fans) are thinking "finally", they are going to have a manual. What took them so long? But at least they are doing it now, that is the important thing, though I will believe it when I see it in the hands of prospects.
Q: Is the "Giants Way" mostly on-field fundamentals? How to bunt?
A: It includes that, and there’s a recent memo from Brian to instructional league folks saying, `Here are the kinds of things I want you to emphasize with our Giants players this year.’ What does a 2-1 count mean to you? How do you stretch your lead? Those kinds of fundamentals. That’s all part of the manual. The Giants Way itself will have broader themes to it, but certainly the way the game is played between the lines is an essential part of the Giants Way. The Giants Way also has to be, `What is the kind of talent we want to find and how do we find it?’ Knowing again, we are in this fiercely competitive industry with 29 other teams trying to be smarter than we are. Once you find that talent, how is it you help that talent convert those gifts into skills that win ballgames at the major league level? It’s going to focus on our teaching, our training and our leading by example with our training and coaching core and managerial core. And it also involves how it is they comport themselves off the field as well as on the field. It has to do with the business that they’re a part of. We need to support baseball. That’s what the non-baseball side of the Giants does. And it’s giving every person a reason to excel at what they do so we have the resources to have contending baseball year in and year out.
ogc: Typical leader "rah-rah" stuff that the questioner lobbed a softball into Neukom's wheelhouse. Nothing really new noted here, just more fluffy details.
Q: Peter Magowan was a visible, hands-on presence. How will you compare to Magowan?
A: I’ve leaned on Larry Baer from the day I first became an investor here (in 1995). Now that I’m part of the management team I will continue to lean heavily on him. As I said in May, the Giants are very fortunate. One of our very best assets is we’ve got, by any fair measure, I think the best COO in baseball. And the fact Larry would be willing to re-up and redouble his part in the administration was essential to this transition and gratifying to all the investors. So Larry Baer is front and center and at the top of this pyramid. I will be as visible as my colleagues think is constructive. And I will be as invisible as my colleagues think is instructive for the Giants to be a contending baseball franchise. Central to the Giants Way is listening to and serving our customers, and we have several different kinds of customers. We have people who are just fans and follow us who may not actually put money in our coffers. Those are customers of ours and we need to understand them and inform and educate them. We have people who put hard-earned money into having a baseball experience with us, and those are people we have to listen to and understand and engage in a way they find worthwhile. So I have a lot of learning to do, no question. I’ve learned a lot as an investor. I have a lot more learning to do and Larry will provide an enormous amount of that learning. So will other folks and other sources of information. So I’m not doing this out of any sense of ego. I’m doing this because I’ve been a Giants fan since they came to San Francisco, I was a shareholder under Mr. (Horace) Stoneham’s administration within the first year they moved here — thanks to my dad, who bought me 10 shares because at the time I couldn’t afford it with my paper route. And I’ve followed the Giants quite closely for the last 50 years. It’s an enormous honor and an exciting opportunity for a fan from San Mateo Park to have a chance to be a part of the leadership of this team. I don’t need to be out on front and I don’t need to be prominent. What I want to be is good at my job, and that means, again, we get the right baseball talent and we teach the fundamentals, we play the game the way it ought to be played and have a winning culture and a winning record, and on the business side, we have remarkable people doing extraordinary things because of their incentive to do it.
ogc: This is what I've been saying since the announcement, nobody else focused on this, but clearly the Giants are preparing Larry Baer to be the face and leader of the Giants sometime in the future (probably near future since Neukom is already 66 years old). This was also a great sidestep of the question to say something tangentially related that you were hoping to emphasis in the press conference.
I learned this in school, how some people take over Q&A sessions like this by talking about what they want to talk about, and not answer the question given. Obviously, this is what politicians do regularly, but it is interesting to see it here in a baseball context. Notice how not once Magowan's name is mentioned by Neukom, he's not going to go there, he didn't go there months ago when posed with the same question, he is not going there today.
So he first talks about Larry's prominent role in the new administration then talks about how the Giants Way is all about listening to and serving their customers. Then he talked about what it means to him to be the managing partner, again, without mentioning Magowan. Very smooth.
Q: When and how will you evaluate whether Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy, whose contracts are up after next season, will be the right people moving forward?
A: Both Brian and Bruce enthusiastically have endorsed the notion that we’ve got so much work to do, and it’s good work, that we’re not going to worry about what their status is with the Giants beyond the 2009 season now. We’re not going to be distracted by that. We’re going to focus on making sure our trajectory towards competitiveness goes up from where it was in ‘08 so we can have a team we can all be proud of in ‘09 and beyond. Job One is identifying the talent, teaching the talent and playing the game in a winning way. There will be plenty of time for us after the ‘09 season to look back and evaluate how each of us did and decide where we go from there.
ogc: As noted above and in my previous musings, Neukom has to take the public stance that Sabean and Bochy are being seriously evaluated before they are re-hired. He must know that there are many fans who want Sabean gone and he can't lose those fans from the beginning by talking about how well he thinks of Sabean. Thus he has to take this stance of wait and see.
But as I noted, there are subtle signs that Neukom likes Sabean as GM. It was clear when he was first announced that he respects and likes Sabean, but didn't give full backing for the reasons above I believe. And as I noted above, he didn't put the onus on Sabean to create a contender in 2009, he only asked for a competitive team, which should be attainable relatively easily, as long as everyone performs as expected. So I would expect Sabean to be rehired as long as the team is "competitive" which I read as .500, but since he left it fuzzy, they could be under .500 but better than this year and could be considered "competitive".
In any case, barring any severe regression on the part of young players in 2009, I am hoping that Sabean is given another two year contract (or get his option picked up, as I read somewhere someone said that he had) because the team has progressed enough for me to give him more rope. I like the progress the team showed in 2008 and am very hopeful for 2009 and beyond. I think we can start kicking butt in 2010 if players continue to develop.
Unfortunately, none of the reporters remembered to ask Neukom what Sabean's extended authority entails. This was first mentioned in the intial meetings he had with the press, that Sabean would have extended authority, but no details were given. This would have been the perfect time to ask this.
Q: In compiling the Giants Way, is it an acknowledgment that these things weren’t done in the past?
A: I think it’s a matter of clear communication. I think we’ve had very good instructors and scouts and I’m not looking back and passing judgment on anybody that’s been part of this organization. This organization has had remarkable success as a major league team until the last several years. But I think everyone agrees, with Brian and Bruce at the vanguard, that we can do a better job being clear about what the Giants Way is, making sure it’s front in line for everybody, make sure it goes all the way down to the first day someone becomes a Giant at the lowest level of our baseball organization, and that we teach according to it. And if you do that consistently, whatever your business is, but particularly a game that requires the kind of precise skills that baseball does and is played as a team game when every position is a skill position, if you have that kind of clear message and you teach to that message and are consistent with it, you are just bound to get better results at the end of the day at every level and particularly the major league level. So I think it’s more than a reemphasis on it. It’s some clarification and some commitment to teaching the Giants Way in a very consistent manner.
ogc: Nice try by the reporter, he/she has to ask something like this, but Neukom likewise had to answer his way as well. The additional bit of information gleaned here is that he is taking a business process look at the Giants, and trying to quantify and detail everything so that it is clear to everyone, now and in the future, how you are suppose to do your job. A lot of companies doing this take the 6 Sigma approach, which is not something that is necessary in baseball, but in concept - documenting all your processes - they are similar. And this will enable business process re-engineering in the future, as necessary.
Q: Barry Bonds is in town today. What role will he play, if any, in the organization? Will you build a statue?
A: I think that we all need to be respectful of what Barry Bonds has done for baseball and for this team over the course of his career. We all need to permit the legal process to play out with regard to the pending case involving Barry Bonds. And where we go in the future with Barry Bonds will depend to some extent on the future. I think it was a very good sign that he came to the reunion event. That obviously was a very popular appearance in terms of the fans who are at this ballpark. He’s always been enormously popular with the fans at this ballpark. I think there will be other opportunities for Barry Bonds and the Giants to find common ground — things that can be useful to the Giants and good for him. But we don’t have any concrete plans at this point and we will continue to consider that as we go forward.
Side note: The future will determine the future. Gotta love that.
ogc: To Bagggarly's side note, unfortunately, there is no other or better way to say that. It will all depend on what happens in the future. Obviously, if Bonds is in jail, he isn't doing anything for the Giants while in there, and the Giants would probably not want to do much with him, just pay his foundation for him to lay low and be quiet.
In any case, this is about all he could say about Bonds, move on to the next question.
Q: Have you purchased a home in San Francisco yet?
A: We’re looking for a place as I speak. I intend to have a residence here, and if it takes seven days a week to do a credible job as managing general partner of the Giants, I’ll spend eight days a week here. Whatever it takes.
ogc: Like I said above, some are skilled enough to take the question and use it to push your agenda, which in this case is that he will work hard making the Giants successful again. I guess he's a Beatles fan too. :^)
That said, it's disappointing that he hasn't picked up a place yet. I will allow, however, that perhaps he saw the looming cloud on the business (and thus real estate) world, and decided to wait it out and pick up the same home for much less later on. If so, that shrewdness will pay off for the Giants.
That’s the end of the news conference. Afterward, a couple of us were able to pull aside Neukom and ask a few more specifics:
Q: Is the Giants Way your sole authorship?
A: Having the Giants Way clearly articulated is my idea. It is not an original idea. We’ve heard forever about the Dodger Way, and more recently, the Angels Way. It seemed it would bear fruit for us. I’ve got a rough draft right here. I’ve written two or three pages on the airplane. I don’t think it will micromanage, for instance, whether people have a melatonin or an aspirin at night.
ogc: I wish they could have been more original or be playful with it, like "The Giants Gait" or "How to be a Giant" or "What It Means to be a Giant" or "Giants Handbook" or "Giants Process" or "Giants Meaning" or "Giant Thoughts" or even simply "Giants Manual", anything is better than copying what the D-gers and Angels are doing. Even "The Way of a Giant" is better.
Q: What role should Sabermetrics or other advanced statistical tools be used in player evaluation? Is it more or less important than a conventional scouting approach?
A: Some of each, I think. Baseball is a science and an art. When it comes to picking the talent, we need the sharpest baseball eyes: people who can pick the 16-year-old arm out of the cornfield. We also need to be very well informed with all that is at our fingertips. We need to be smart about that. It’ll be a blend.
ogc: People have mislabeled Sabean, I think. He knows about OBP and such stuff that MoneyBall talked about. And where it concerns thinking differently, Sabean has done that, losing a draft pick to pay for a veteran player, drafting players he thought are good instead of paying attention to what the "experts" think (most of his recent picks were higher than as ranked by Baseball America, sometimes 2-3 rounds ahead of talent ranking), trading Matt Williams to fill multiple positions on the team. I think his disdain was for those who think sabermetrics is a magic box that will make any team successful (and there are many who think that).
Q: Are you a “Moneyball” guy?
A: My view is that “Moneyball” is a very shrewd strategy but it’s not the only strategy. It’s got to be integrated. You’ve also got to have a lot of baseball savvy. We will tailor our strategy and our team to things that work for us.
ogc: I think even Billy Beane recently said that he's not a Moneyball guy anymore, or at least showed that he's not, he picked up a number of veteran free agents (much like how Sabean and the Giants are lambasted for doing similarly), drafted a number of high school prospects early in the draft, another Moneyball no-no (draft college players because they are surer things and not as expensive, particularly high school pitchers who are both risky and expensive), he even had a team of lousy OBP hitters in 2008, the team OBP was a Pedro Feliz-esque .318 in 2008.
The Giants and A's have a history of animosity, so Neukom did well in sidestepping this opportunity to stir things up with the A's by praising it while saying it is not for us.
Q: Can you be more specific about fiscal priorities to player development as opposed to free agency?
A: Over time we will continue to invest in our farm system. I can’t give you a nice numeric answer vs. free-agent opportunities. But they will complement our principal focus. It’s important we have better scouts and better statistical analysis. We just have to outwork people, whether it’s in the conditioning room, down the dirt roads in middle America or in front of the (computer) screen.
ogc: I could have answered this question with about the same text, based on what has been said before. Wasted question.
A better question that gets at what the questioner was trying to ask would be, "If the Giants signed a $20M player like Sabathia, Manny, Teixiera, how would that affect player development? Would we not pursue another high profile Carribean free agent as a result, or will it happen nonetheless?" Or "Would signability of the #6 pick for the 2009 draft be an issue if the Giants spend over the placeholder budget target? Meaning, would we pass on a Posey-type price-tag to get a cheaper prospect?"
Q: How about bringing in the fences?
A: (Pause) It’s not a concept we’re currently considering. I think it’s a very exciting ballpark.
ogc: That is suppose to be part of the beauty of this park, harkening to olden days (particularly the Polo Grounds in NY), plus people could see the game for free from the other side of the right field fense. Changing it now would seem to be a slap in the face to Magowan.
However, since it was noted, I just realized that the way the right field wall is built, with those seats way up there, the owner in the future could decide to add a stretch of seats along that stretch into CF easily, if desired. Perhaps once the mortgage is paid off?
Q: I understand your financial plan for free agents is rather fluid. But this is an organization that made a $126 million commitment to Barry Zito two years ago. Can you flatly rule out another Zito-style contract for someone like CC Sabathia or Mark Teixeira?
A: It depends. We asked our baseball people to look up and down the system. We told them to bring medium-term to long-term strategic lenses to that. We want to be competitive in a sustainable way. We’ll look at everything. We said to Brian, `Look more broadly. Don’t look for easy answers.’ There are financial realities, but we said, `Design a couple different versions of the roster we want to build to get up to that level of sustainable, competitive baseball. Take a broad look, them come back to us and we’ll see how it matches up with our budget or our strength.’
ogc: I think this is a question that needed to be asked, but it is clear from his prior answers that he would answer in this way. But sometimes you have to ask the question anyhow, just to verify your assumption.
In addition, this is basically what he said long ago when he was first announced as the new managing owner, just with greater detail. I think this is great.
What the writers missed asking here is: "If it really makes sense from the baseball side to sign a $20M player, whoever that may be, and push the budget over $100M, where would the extra money come from?" Or they alternatively could have asked, "If the team requires more funds to execute the baseball plans ideally, based on the options presented and the various possibilities, how would the team go about getting such funds?"
Q: Is the Giants Way a fancy way of saying “small ball?”
A: Hustle and conditioning and strategic baseball. Not small ball. It’s an integrated approach. Some games we need to win with a three-run home run. Some games we win with a squeeze play. There’s a lot of different ways to win. My notion is that the right roster with the right strategy will result in a winning team. We all believe in team play and deflecting credit to your teammates.
ogc: Not a very informed question. No where did Neukom say that we are not getting any power hitters. Not sure why this was asked.
I think Neukom's concerns get back to what Felipe Alou was saying when he first came back here, about how he was unable to execute the bunt in the World Series, when the team was filled with home run power hitters like Mays, McCovey, and Cepeda (they hit 204 homers that year), which would have been a critical play had he been able to execute. All Neukom is basically saying is that he wants Giants players to be ready to deliver well executed plays, from the bunt, to hit and run, to turning the double play, hitting to the other side to advance runners, to stealing or taking an extra base when available. To make sure they can deliver even the easiest plays when the team needs it to win.
Winning, if that isn't clear yet, is Neukom's sole focus. And he wants all his players to be ready to do whatever it is they need to do, in order to win. And he is setting the example up top of working 8 days to win, whatever it takes.
Giants Thoughts
Good press conference. The Giants Way is the main new thing to come out of this, as most of the other stuff was already alluded to or discussed previously when he had his first press conference after being appointed the successor. He also clearly set the expectations at competitive in 2009, contending in 2010 and beyond. He wants to win and soon. It was also clearly stated now that Larry Baer is the top of the pyramid. They are, as I noted long ago, preparing him to take over when Neukom is done. He restated how payroll will be handled going forward, as in it will depend on the situation.
Following is a copy of his transcription plus my usual comments after each Q&A:
Neukom’s opening statement:
This is a very exciting day for me, Day 2 on the job, so if I can’t answer all your questions as informatively as I’d like to, you’ll have to come back at another time when I know as much about this team as you know. I’m on a very steep learning curve and I’ve got some very smart people to help me learn a lot in a hurry so we can make the Giants the team we all want it to be, and the enterprise in the community we all want it to be.
We are hard at work with plans to build on what we learned during the 2008 season in particular, as well as seasons that preceded it. Baseball is a marathon, as you all know. We’re pleased with some of the developments from the 2008 season. Our job is to take all of that learning, take the talent that we have, and make sure we have an improved performance on the field in 2009. And that means we intend to be competitive. And after we are competitive, we intend to be contending. We want to be contending as soon as possible. We want to be the sort of franchise that puts a contending major league team on the field game in and game out, and affords its community and fan base a contending team year in and year out. And how we’re going to do that is by emphasizing and investing even more in homegrown talent. We have to find the best baseball athletes we can find, through better scouting and better analysis of the amateur draft. We have to emphasize that part of our roster. At the same time, we have to be wise about making strategic trades when it will materially help our team in the medium run, at least, if not the long run, and we have to be willing to enter into the free-trade, free-agent market every now and again, where there is an opportunity to materially improve our competitiveness as a ballclub. And once we have that kind of talent on a regular basis, then we are going to stress fundamentals. We will have a Giants Way. We will be better conditioned and we will work harder. We will be better prepared. We will master the fundamentals in all aspects of the game. And that, we believe, will pay dividends season in and season out. So we will have the best talent, the best teachers and leaders, coaches, our field managers, our instructors, our trainers and the like. Larry (Baer) and I have had several discussions with Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy and they share our enthusiasm for what it is we’re doing to build on ’08 to get us competitive in ’09 and to get us to being a contending ballclub on a regular basis just as soon as possible. They are hard at work. Meetings will be held next week in Arizona. Larry and I will be a part of those meetings. And part of those meetings, and the whole point, is to develop a Giants Way of playing baseball. The first day someone becomes a Giant, he understands how it is we play this game, how we play winning baseball, so we can have the team we want to have, wearing Giants uniforms, and playing in front of our fan base. I think the fan base deserves more and we intend to deliver more to them in the near term and the long term.
ogc: I've seen one commenter say that this is the same corporate B.S. they hear at work. To which I say: of course. Being a corporate leader today requires you to act "leader-like" and B.S. is part of that. About being the best, about being accountable (a typical phrase heard when new leadership comes in when the old leadership is under a bit of a cloud). Thus, as I've been preaching all these years after Sabean press conferences, you need to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Basically, this repeats the message he gave in one of his first press conferences, that the Giants are all about winning (i.e. contending) and that he wants to be winning ASAP. Lots of blah-blahs, but there are key things to note that are new and/or important.
First, clearly the Giants will be built from the farm system first, supplemented with trades and free agency, as needed. That wasn't so clear during the past 5 years as the Giants tried to win with Bonds and within the budget. Second, there will be a "Giants Way" that is a published manual so that it will be very clear to any Giants employee what they need to do in order to be successful at his or her job, whether player or management, and what is expected out of them (beyond just winning). Lastly, his timeline is for 2009 to be another rebuilding year where we are competitive but expects to be contending in 2010.
That to me, is a relatively low bar to get over because the Giants are basically there: they were competitive in the last two months of the season and just needs to continue that, which appears likely if the vets can hit like they are capable of and the youngsters don't regress. This leads me to believe that Neukom likes the work that Sabean has done so far and want to set things up so that when it is time to re-hire Sabean at the end of 2009, he can do so legitimately to the public.
That is why (as I'll discuss below and in previous posts) I believe he has publicly taken the stance that Sabean is under evaluation and won't be just rubber stamped as GM for the future, he has to show the Giants fandom that he's in charge and that everybody is accountable and being seriously evaluated, including himself. He has to prove to the Giants crowd that he's changing things from the way Magowan ran things (without dissing Magowan), that things will be different going forward, because a lot of people are not happy with how the Giants have been run since 2002.
Q: Did you see major strides in ’08? Can the Giants contend in ’09? How will that affect player acquisition this winter?
A: I think we all saw promise in 2008, particularly in the second half with the play of a number of our young ballplayers. The question for us is, coming into a very vigorous and disciplined spring training session, which of those players will be able to sustain their performance on a major league level so we have a competitive team between the lines game in and game out? The other batch of players who didn’t come to our roster this year are also very promising, and you know those names. Frankly, we’re beginning to see the fruits of our advantage of being able to draft higher because of a lesser record over the last three years. So we think our young talent supply is quite good. We’re not persuaded, given the ferocious competition of major league baseball, that that talent will prove to be good enough to make us not just competitive but contenders on a regular basis. So that is why we say we will look for ways to complement that talent in order to have a winning team. We have to think about the team in context of our ballpark, of our division, of what others are doing in other divisions. So it’s a fairly complicated Rubik’s cube in terms of how it is you organize a roster that year in and year out will put a winning team on the field. So we definitely saw some promise, but the question is how many of those people will be able to deliver that consistently over a full major league season? We think some of them will and should, surely, without naming names. Then there’s the next round of talent which is deeper in our farm system. We want to bring those people along in a way that enables them to convert their gifts into major league skills and we think we’ll have maybe a little more time and a little more discretion. Some of the people who came up this year, frankly, came up sooner than might have been perfect if we’d had a deeper system. It somewhat accelerated things in 2008 and we hope we can get to more of a sort of modulated progression for this very promising talent as we bring these people along from Single-A to Double-A to Triple-A and up to the Giants.
ogc: He shows subtle knowledge that our losing has helped out in improving our talent level - most people think that drafting is somehow easy to do if you do it right, while my study showed that the odds of finding someone good increases exponentially as you rise from the back of the 1st round to the beginning. Then, he also acknowledges that this is not enough to field a team, that it must be supplemented by trades and free agents to complete a competitive team, which is something most fans already know, so its not all pearls he is saying.
Important notes include that they will slow the prospect train to the majors in 2009, they will progress players at the pace the development staff deems proper instead of promoting prospects before they are really ready for the majors. That basically points at players like Bumgarner, Alderson, Villalona, Noonan, Pucetas, Snyder, Sosa, Joaquin, down lower in the system, plus new prospects like Posey, Gillaspie, Kieschnick, Crawford, Barnes. However, that makes sense also because most of the top AA and AAA prospects have already been brought up to the majors in 2008, and 2009 will be the year they either prove they belong or not.
Q: I know Sabean’s job. I know Baer’s job. What is your job?
A: My job is to see to it that as an enterprise, primarily on the baseball side but also on the business side, we have the right structure and the right culture so we can provide the resources and the guidance so our baseball experts can put a contending team on the field. And that buck stops with me. Larry does an enormous amount of things across the board for this enterprise but it’s important I think that we have, for example, a culture of meritocracy. That people understand their objectives in every job in this enterprise, that they know they will be fairly judged in terms of how they perform against those objectives, that they will have incentive compensation, and we will have world-class people at every key position on the business side and we will have the best in baseball people at every key position on the baseball side. When I wake up in the morning and I go to sleep every night, I’m thinking about, `What is this organization? This structure? Do we have the right people doing the right things? Are they motivated to be the best possible producers they can be? And then it’s making sure I stay out of the way of these talented people doing what they’re doing, whether it’s scouting baseball players or it’s training baseball talent or it’s running the finances of the organization, or whether it’s having an enlightened human resources culture so that we attract an enormous amount of talent and allow that talent to achieve its potential.
ogc: Now this is corporate talk I understand, my sweet spot. What he says here is basically what any professional services firm has to do, whether accounting firm, programmers, consultants, they are meritocracies and the best professional serices firms have to answer the questions he asks here.
Q: What will the payroll be? How active will the Giants be on the free-agent front this winter?
A: We have asked Brian and his group to look broadly at the question of the roster for 2009 and beyond. That means primary emphasis on homegrown talent, (determining) how much of this young talent can we expect to produce on a sustainable basis during a championship season next year, whether we need to complement it with a trade, or fold those risks and expenses with a free agent signing. The number is something of a placeholder at this point in our financial planning process. We said to Brian and to Bruce Bochy, `Look, don’t be constrained by a placeholder number for player payroll right now. Think of this in terms of how you’re going to assemble a roster that’s going to be competitive in ‘09 and come back to us. We may not be able to afford Plan A. We may tell you that we’re really at Plan B or Plan C because of financial realities.’ But we’ve asked him, `Without being wild about it, don’t be limited entirely by the notion that you have `X’ amount of dollars to spend for ‘09. Think somewhat out of the box and be creative about this. We just think that’s the way you run a talent business.
(Some deleted.)
So we are asking people on the baseball side to bring some creativity to this. And the exciting thing is that they’re already there. Our recent conversations with Brian and Bruce indicate they are talking about a manual so that every single player at every state in his development with the Giants knows exactly what is expected out of them. They are already thinking very creatively about what parts we need to make us the best Giants team we can be in ‘09 and build beyond that. We’re not doing this year to year. It’s about a progression – medium-term, long-term strategic planning, so we get to the point where our fan base knows when we ask them to buy a season ticket, that it will be another season of competitive baseball played the way it ought to be played in San Francisco.
ogc: I wonder what was deleted, disappointing, even if it was boring stuff.
This repeats what he said before, only in greater detail here. He's already said that the question is first, how do we need to be configured to win, then how do we finance that. Thus the payroll question is only pertinent in giving a ballpark (or "placeholder:"as he noted) figure of where the Giants are aiming, but the Giants could theoretically blow that number out of the ballpark if the Giants management feels it is the right move to do for the long-term.
That's what I've been trying to drive home the past 5 seasons since we passed up on pursuing Vladimir Guererro. Even if the rumor by a prominent Bay Area media person that Guererero hated Alou was true, the main thing was that the payroll was contrained that season, and I said the Giants could either think big (getting a big name) or think small (filling all the holes) and they chose to think small, even to the point where they were willing to spend extra to get Maddux but not use that money for other purposes.
I've also been saying the Giants need to bring in more funds to pay for when key talent is available, and not be subject to the whims of the free agent marketplace. So I advocated for either Larry Ellison (or any local billionaire) to take over the Giants or Magowan to find new investors to bring in additional funds when necessary. As I noted when Neukom took over, hopefully his Silicon Valley connections will bring money into our coffers, much like how the D-backs somehow has been doing this for years now.
The Giants have been thinking short-term since 2002, trying to win it with Bonds, so I am glad that the new managing partner is emphasizing the long-term and thinking strategically.
About the manual, I (and many other Giants fans) are thinking "finally", they are going to have a manual. What took them so long? But at least they are doing it now, that is the important thing, though I will believe it when I see it in the hands of prospects.
Q: Is the "Giants Way" mostly on-field fundamentals? How to bunt?
A: It includes that, and there’s a recent memo from Brian to instructional league folks saying, `Here are the kinds of things I want you to emphasize with our Giants players this year.’ What does a 2-1 count mean to you? How do you stretch your lead? Those kinds of fundamentals. That’s all part of the manual. The Giants Way itself will have broader themes to it, but certainly the way the game is played between the lines is an essential part of the Giants Way. The Giants Way also has to be, `What is the kind of talent we want to find and how do we find it?’ Knowing again, we are in this fiercely competitive industry with 29 other teams trying to be smarter than we are. Once you find that talent, how is it you help that talent convert those gifts into skills that win ballgames at the major league level? It’s going to focus on our teaching, our training and our leading by example with our training and coaching core and managerial core. And it also involves how it is they comport themselves off the field as well as on the field. It has to do with the business that they’re a part of. We need to support baseball. That’s what the non-baseball side of the Giants does. And it’s giving every person a reason to excel at what they do so we have the resources to have contending baseball year in and year out.
ogc: Typical leader "rah-rah" stuff that the questioner lobbed a softball into Neukom's wheelhouse. Nothing really new noted here, just more fluffy details.
Q: Peter Magowan was a visible, hands-on presence. How will you compare to Magowan?
A: I’ve leaned on Larry Baer from the day I first became an investor here (in 1995). Now that I’m part of the management team I will continue to lean heavily on him. As I said in May, the Giants are very fortunate. One of our very best assets is we’ve got, by any fair measure, I think the best COO in baseball. And the fact Larry would be willing to re-up and redouble his part in the administration was essential to this transition and gratifying to all the investors. So Larry Baer is front and center and at the top of this pyramid. I will be as visible as my colleagues think is constructive. And I will be as invisible as my colleagues think is instructive for the Giants to be a contending baseball franchise. Central to the Giants Way is listening to and serving our customers, and we have several different kinds of customers. We have people who are just fans and follow us who may not actually put money in our coffers. Those are customers of ours and we need to understand them and inform and educate them. We have people who put hard-earned money into having a baseball experience with us, and those are people we have to listen to and understand and engage in a way they find worthwhile. So I have a lot of learning to do, no question. I’ve learned a lot as an investor. I have a lot more learning to do and Larry will provide an enormous amount of that learning. So will other folks and other sources of information. So I’m not doing this out of any sense of ego. I’m doing this because I’ve been a Giants fan since they came to San Francisco, I was a shareholder under Mr. (Horace) Stoneham’s administration within the first year they moved here — thanks to my dad, who bought me 10 shares because at the time I couldn’t afford it with my paper route. And I’ve followed the Giants quite closely for the last 50 years. It’s an enormous honor and an exciting opportunity for a fan from San Mateo Park to have a chance to be a part of the leadership of this team. I don’t need to be out on front and I don’t need to be prominent. What I want to be is good at my job, and that means, again, we get the right baseball talent and we teach the fundamentals, we play the game the way it ought to be played and have a winning culture and a winning record, and on the business side, we have remarkable people doing extraordinary things because of their incentive to do it.
ogc: This is what I've been saying since the announcement, nobody else focused on this, but clearly the Giants are preparing Larry Baer to be the face and leader of the Giants sometime in the future (probably near future since Neukom is already 66 years old). This was also a great sidestep of the question to say something tangentially related that you were hoping to emphasis in the press conference.
I learned this in school, how some people take over Q&A sessions like this by talking about what they want to talk about, and not answer the question given. Obviously, this is what politicians do regularly, but it is interesting to see it here in a baseball context. Notice how not once Magowan's name is mentioned by Neukom, he's not going to go there, he didn't go there months ago when posed with the same question, he is not going there today.
So he first talks about Larry's prominent role in the new administration then talks about how the Giants Way is all about listening to and serving their customers. Then he talked about what it means to him to be the managing partner, again, without mentioning Magowan. Very smooth.
Q: When and how will you evaluate whether Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy, whose contracts are up after next season, will be the right people moving forward?
A: Both Brian and Bruce enthusiastically have endorsed the notion that we’ve got so much work to do, and it’s good work, that we’re not going to worry about what their status is with the Giants beyond the 2009 season now. We’re not going to be distracted by that. We’re going to focus on making sure our trajectory towards competitiveness goes up from where it was in ‘08 so we can have a team we can all be proud of in ‘09 and beyond. Job One is identifying the talent, teaching the talent and playing the game in a winning way. There will be plenty of time for us after the ‘09 season to look back and evaluate how each of us did and decide where we go from there.
ogc: As noted above and in my previous musings, Neukom has to take the public stance that Sabean and Bochy are being seriously evaluated before they are re-hired. He must know that there are many fans who want Sabean gone and he can't lose those fans from the beginning by talking about how well he thinks of Sabean. Thus he has to take this stance of wait and see.
But as I noted, there are subtle signs that Neukom likes Sabean as GM. It was clear when he was first announced that he respects and likes Sabean, but didn't give full backing for the reasons above I believe. And as I noted above, he didn't put the onus on Sabean to create a contender in 2009, he only asked for a competitive team, which should be attainable relatively easily, as long as everyone performs as expected. So I would expect Sabean to be rehired as long as the team is "competitive" which I read as .500, but since he left it fuzzy, they could be under .500 but better than this year and could be considered "competitive".
In any case, barring any severe regression on the part of young players in 2009, I am hoping that Sabean is given another two year contract (or get his option picked up, as I read somewhere someone said that he had) because the team has progressed enough for me to give him more rope. I like the progress the team showed in 2008 and am very hopeful for 2009 and beyond. I think we can start kicking butt in 2010 if players continue to develop.
Unfortunately, none of the reporters remembered to ask Neukom what Sabean's extended authority entails. This was first mentioned in the intial meetings he had with the press, that Sabean would have extended authority, but no details were given. This would have been the perfect time to ask this.
Q: In compiling the Giants Way, is it an acknowledgment that these things weren’t done in the past?
A: I think it’s a matter of clear communication. I think we’ve had very good instructors and scouts and I’m not looking back and passing judgment on anybody that’s been part of this organization. This organization has had remarkable success as a major league team until the last several years. But I think everyone agrees, with Brian and Bruce at the vanguard, that we can do a better job being clear about what the Giants Way is, making sure it’s front in line for everybody, make sure it goes all the way down to the first day someone becomes a Giant at the lowest level of our baseball organization, and that we teach according to it. And if you do that consistently, whatever your business is, but particularly a game that requires the kind of precise skills that baseball does and is played as a team game when every position is a skill position, if you have that kind of clear message and you teach to that message and are consistent with it, you are just bound to get better results at the end of the day at every level and particularly the major league level. So I think it’s more than a reemphasis on it. It’s some clarification and some commitment to teaching the Giants Way in a very consistent manner.
ogc: Nice try by the reporter, he/she has to ask something like this, but Neukom likewise had to answer his way as well. The additional bit of information gleaned here is that he is taking a business process look at the Giants, and trying to quantify and detail everything so that it is clear to everyone, now and in the future, how you are suppose to do your job. A lot of companies doing this take the 6 Sigma approach, which is not something that is necessary in baseball, but in concept - documenting all your processes - they are similar. And this will enable business process re-engineering in the future, as necessary.
Q: Barry Bonds is in town today. What role will he play, if any, in the organization? Will you build a statue?
A: I think that we all need to be respectful of what Barry Bonds has done for baseball and for this team over the course of his career. We all need to permit the legal process to play out with regard to the pending case involving Barry Bonds. And where we go in the future with Barry Bonds will depend to some extent on the future. I think it was a very good sign that he came to the reunion event. That obviously was a very popular appearance in terms of the fans who are at this ballpark. He’s always been enormously popular with the fans at this ballpark. I think there will be other opportunities for Barry Bonds and the Giants to find common ground — things that can be useful to the Giants and good for him. But we don’t have any concrete plans at this point and we will continue to consider that as we go forward.
Side note: The future will determine the future. Gotta love that.
ogc: To Bagggarly's side note, unfortunately, there is no other or better way to say that. It will all depend on what happens in the future. Obviously, if Bonds is in jail, he isn't doing anything for the Giants while in there, and the Giants would probably not want to do much with him, just pay his foundation for him to lay low and be quiet.
In any case, this is about all he could say about Bonds, move on to the next question.
Q: Have you purchased a home in San Francisco yet?
A: We’re looking for a place as I speak. I intend to have a residence here, and if it takes seven days a week to do a credible job as managing general partner of the Giants, I’ll spend eight days a week here. Whatever it takes.
ogc: Like I said above, some are skilled enough to take the question and use it to push your agenda, which in this case is that he will work hard making the Giants successful again. I guess he's a Beatles fan too. :^)
That said, it's disappointing that he hasn't picked up a place yet. I will allow, however, that perhaps he saw the looming cloud on the business (and thus real estate) world, and decided to wait it out and pick up the same home for much less later on. If so, that shrewdness will pay off for the Giants.
That’s the end of the news conference. Afterward, a couple of us were able to pull aside Neukom and ask a few more specifics:
Q: Is the Giants Way your sole authorship?
A: Having the Giants Way clearly articulated is my idea. It is not an original idea. We’ve heard forever about the Dodger Way, and more recently, the Angels Way. It seemed it would bear fruit for us. I’ve got a rough draft right here. I’ve written two or three pages on the airplane. I don’t think it will micromanage, for instance, whether people have a melatonin or an aspirin at night.
ogc: I wish they could have been more original or be playful with it, like "The Giants Gait" or "How to be a Giant" or "What It Means to be a Giant" or "Giants Handbook" or "Giants Process" or "Giants Meaning" or "Giant Thoughts" or even simply "Giants Manual", anything is better than copying what the D-gers and Angels are doing. Even "The Way of a Giant" is better.
Q: What role should Sabermetrics or other advanced statistical tools be used in player evaluation? Is it more or less important than a conventional scouting approach?
A: Some of each, I think. Baseball is a science and an art. When it comes to picking the talent, we need the sharpest baseball eyes: people who can pick the 16-year-old arm out of the cornfield. We also need to be very well informed with all that is at our fingertips. We need to be smart about that. It’ll be a blend.
ogc: People have mislabeled Sabean, I think. He knows about OBP and such stuff that MoneyBall talked about. And where it concerns thinking differently, Sabean has done that, losing a draft pick to pay for a veteran player, drafting players he thought are good instead of paying attention to what the "experts" think (most of his recent picks were higher than as ranked by Baseball America, sometimes 2-3 rounds ahead of talent ranking), trading Matt Williams to fill multiple positions on the team. I think his disdain was for those who think sabermetrics is a magic box that will make any team successful (and there are many who think that).
Q: Are you a “Moneyball” guy?
A: My view is that “Moneyball” is a very shrewd strategy but it’s not the only strategy. It’s got to be integrated. You’ve also got to have a lot of baseball savvy. We will tailor our strategy and our team to things that work for us.
ogc: I think even Billy Beane recently said that he's not a Moneyball guy anymore, or at least showed that he's not, he picked up a number of veteran free agents (much like how Sabean and the Giants are lambasted for doing similarly), drafted a number of high school prospects early in the draft, another Moneyball no-no (draft college players because they are surer things and not as expensive, particularly high school pitchers who are both risky and expensive), he even had a team of lousy OBP hitters in 2008, the team OBP was a Pedro Feliz-esque .318 in 2008.
The Giants and A's have a history of animosity, so Neukom did well in sidestepping this opportunity to stir things up with the A's by praising it while saying it is not for us.
Q: Can you be more specific about fiscal priorities to player development as opposed to free agency?
A: Over time we will continue to invest in our farm system. I can’t give you a nice numeric answer vs. free-agent opportunities. But they will complement our principal focus. It’s important we have better scouts and better statistical analysis. We just have to outwork people, whether it’s in the conditioning room, down the dirt roads in middle America or in front of the (computer) screen.
ogc: I could have answered this question with about the same text, based on what has been said before. Wasted question.
A better question that gets at what the questioner was trying to ask would be, "If the Giants signed a $20M player like Sabathia, Manny, Teixiera, how would that affect player development? Would we not pursue another high profile Carribean free agent as a result, or will it happen nonetheless?" Or "Would signability of the #6 pick for the 2009 draft be an issue if the Giants spend over the placeholder budget target? Meaning, would we pass on a Posey-type price-tag to get a cheaper prospect?"
Q: How about bringing in the fences?
A: (Pause) It’s not a concept we’re currently considering. I think it’s a very exciting ballpark.
ogc: That is suppose to be part of the beauty of this park, harkening to olden days (particularly the Polo Grounds in NY), plus people could see the game for free from the other side of the right field fense. Changing it now would seem to be a slap in the face to Magowan.
However, since it was noted, I just realized that the way the right field wall is built, with those seats way up there, the owner in the future could decide to add a stretch of seats along that stretch into CF easily, if desired. Perhaps once the mortgage is paid off?
Q: I understand your financial plan for free agents is rather fluid. But this is an organization that made a $126 million commitment to Barry Zito two years ago. Can you flatly rule out another Zito-style contract for someone like CC Sabathia or Mark Teixeira?
A: It depends. We asked our baseball people to look up and down the system. We told them to bring medium-term to long-term strategic lenses to that. We want to be competitive in a sustainable way. We’ll look at everything. We said to Brian, `Look more broadly. Don’t look for easy answers.’ There are financial realities, but we said, `Design a couple different versions of the roster we want to build to get up to that level of sustainable, competitive baseball. Take a broad look, them come back to us and we’ll see how it matches up with our budget or our strength.’
ogc: I think this is a question that needed to be asked, but it is clear from his prior answers that he would answer in this way. But sometimes you have to ask the question anyhow, just to verify your assumption.
In addition, this is basically what he said long ago when he was first announced as the new managing owner, just with greater detail. I think this is great.
What the writers missed asking here is: "If it really makes sense from the baseball side to sign a $20M player, whoever that may be, and push the budget over $100M, where would the extra money come from?" Or they alternatively could have asked, "If the team requires more funds to execute the baseball plans ideally, based on the options presented and the various possibilities, how would the team go about getting such funds?"
Q: Is the Giants Way a fancy way of saying “small ball?”
A: Hustle and conditioning and strategic baseball. Not small ball. It’s an integrated approach. Some games we need to win with a three-run home run. Some games we win with a squeeze play. There’s a lot of different ways to win. My notion is that the right roster with the right strategy will result in a winning team. We all believe in team play and deflecting credit to your teammates.
ogc: Not a very informed question. No where did Neukom say that we are not getting any power hitters. Not sure why this was asked.
I think Neukom's concerns get back to what Felipe Alou was saying when he first came back here, about how he was unable to execute the bunt in the World Series, when the team was filled with home run power hitters like Mays, McCovey, and Cepeda (they hit 204 homers that year), which would have been a critical play had he been able to execute. All Neukom is basically saying is that he wants Giants players to be ready to deliver well executed plays, from the bunt, to hit and run, to turning the double play, hitting to the other side to advance runners, to stealing or taking an extra base when available. To make sure they can deliver even the easiest plays when the team needs it to win.
Winning, if that isn't clear yet, is Neukom's sole focus. And he wants all his players to be ready to do whatever it is they need to do, in order to win. And he is setting the example up top of working 8 days to win, whatever it takes.
Giants Thoughts
Good press conference. The Giants Way is the main new thing to come out of this, as most of the other stuff was already alluded to or discussed previously when he had his first press conference after being appointed the successor. He also clearly set the expectations at competitive in 2009, contending in 2010 and beyond. He wants to win and soon. It was also clearly stated now that Larry Baer is the top of the pyramid. They are, as I noted long ago, preparing him to take over when Neukom is done. He restated how payroll will be handled going forward, as in it will depend on the situation.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Hey Neukom! My Giants Business Plan: Good Enough Offense Example
It had been so long I did my writing that I left out an example I had put together with some research and analysis.
Good Enough Offense Example
Let's take the following example. Let's pretend that the Giants pitched and played defense well enough to match what the Padre's did last year, allowing 4.11 runs per game. This would mean that they would need to average 4.60 runs scored per game in order to win 90 games. That's roughly the number of runs the Chicago Cubs scored last season.
So I decided to examine what type of offense they had as we would need similar goodness. For the below, I analyzed the Cub's lineup by OPS. For each position, I compiled where they ranked in the NL in 2007, where a Top 5 is considered Good, a Bottom 5 is considered Bad, and being in the middle 6 is considered average.
Cubs By Lineup Position
Here is how they did in 2007 by lineup position:
Leadoff: Good
2nd: Average
3rd: Average
4th: Good
5th: Bad
6th: Average
7th: Average
8th: Bad
The Cubs had two Good, two Bad, four Average.
For the Giants in 2008 (as of 08/18/08):
Leadoff: Average (mostly Lewis; Roberts/Velez brought down below Good)
2nd: Average (but very close to bad; mostly Castillo, Velez, Ochoa, Burriss bad)
3rd: Bad (but very close to average; mostly Winn doing poorly)
4th: Bad (very bad, last; mostly Molina but Rowand bad here too)
5th: Bad (mostly Rowand, but Bowker and Aurilia horrible, would have been Avg)
6th: Average (Mostly Bowker doing bad plus Castillo, but Aurilia did very well)
7th: Bad (Aurilia was easily Avg, but Castillo was bad, Burriss horrible)
8th: Bad (Vizquel and Bocock horrible, Burriss and Holm were good here)
The Giants had three Average, five bad, but one should have been good and four should have been average, leaving three bad. That's pretty close to the Cubs in 2007. Amazingly, Vizquel was so bad that he barely beat out Bocock.
For the Giants in 2009 using current personnel and 2008 stats (OPS to be ranked):
Leadoff: Winn .787 (.787 Good/.722 Avg)
2nd: ??? (.767 Good/.709 Avg)
3rd: Lewis .817 (.893 Good/.777 Avg)
4th: Molina .731 (.874 Good/.788 Avg)
5th: Rowand .790 (.832 Good/.776 Avg)
6th: Ishikawa/Sandoval (.783 Good/.719 Avg)
7th: ??? (.745 Good/.714 Avg)
8th: ???(Ochoa .694) (.672 Good/.588 Avg)
The Giants look to have one Good, three Average, one bad, three ???. Ishikawa/Sandoval should probably beat .719 for Average ranking; if we get a power 3B via free agency, he would bat 6th and they should probably beat .714 for Average ranking as well. Frandsen should be able to do well enough to be Average at any of the question marks, could be good 7th, maybe 2nd too. Ochoa hopefully can be at least average at 8th and SS, but too soon to tell; good now though. Given these guesses, that would leave the Giants at one Good, five average, one bad, 3B still ?. If we could get a good 3B, we could have an offense similar to the Cubs.
Cubs By Playing Position
Here is how the Cubs did in 2007 by playing position:
C: Average
1B: Good
2B: Average
3B: Good
SS: Bad
LF: Good
CF: Bad
RF: Average
The Cubs had three Good, three Average, two Bad.
For the Giants in 2008(as of 08/18/08):
C: Average (mostly Molina)
1B: Bad (last by a lot, mostly Bowker, but Aurilia too)
2B: Bad (close to Avg, only due to Durham who was very good, Burriss and Velez very bad)
3B: Bad (last; mostly Castillo, but all bad)
SS: Bad (last by a lot; mostly Vizquel, Bocock very bad too; both Burriss and Ochoa average)
LF: Average (mostly Lewis who was close to good; Roberts/Ortmeier brought down)
CF: Average (mostly Rowand who was close to good)
RF: Average (close to Good; mostly Winn, but it was others who brought close to good)
The Giants had four Average and four Bad. It looked better earlier when I first did the analysis but that's life within a season, as earlier, we were good at C, CF, RF. Much like how nobody noticed Winn early on when doing well, fans started busting his chops when he had a very slow summer, but now he is on a monster hot streak leading off for us.
For the Giants in 2009 using current personnel and 2008 stats (OPS to be ranked):
C: Molina .731 (.777 Good/.665 Avg)
1B: Ishikawa/Sandoval (.841 Good/.784 Avg)
2B: ??? (Frandsen?) (.751 Good/.688 Avg)
3B: ??? (.788 Good/.714 Avg)
SS: ???(Ochoa .694) (.754 Good/.693 Avg)
LF: Lewis .817 (.864 Good/.712 Avg)
CF: Rowand .790 (.820 Good/.724 Avg)
RF: Winn .787 (.816 Good/.747 Avg)
The Giants have four average, one bad, three ???. Ishikawa/Sandoval most probably are going to be Bad, but if they hit like they did in minors, could be average, particularly as platoon. Frandsen should be at least average at 2B or 3B, could be good 2B. If Ochoa wins SS, could perhaps be average, most probably bad. That would work out to five average, two bad, one ?. Rowand could be good in 2009, he had a horrible June/July, plus he has had problems at home but has been improving during the season. No other chances of another good unless we acquire good 3B. Still, should be much better than all the bads from this season.
Overall
The Giants do not appear to be that far from having an offense like the Cubs did in 2007. If Ishikawa/Sandoval could continue to hit like they did in minors that would solidify 1B and bottom of lineup. If Winn could be traded, I think Schierholtz has the potential to get RF into the good category, but shouldn't be a setback either to drop it to bad, plus provide another RBI and power bat to underwhelming lineup. Frandsen is a potentially good 2B, he has hit everywhere he has played, and should at least be average; would be good hitting #2. Lewis has the potential to move up to good as well, though it will be harder moving away from hitting leadoff and being in LF.
The key thing appears to be getting another plus bat into the lineup, however that can happen. In free agency, 3B appears to be a bit barren, both of power and of youth. Young 3B are signed up quickly, typically. A trade will be problematic unless we give up somebody good ourselves, like Sanchez or Bumgarner (I am hoping Cain and Lincecum are untouchable; Sanchez and Bumgarner are getting there in my mind but not there yet).
The best thing, I believe, is to wait another year, let our young players play in 2009 and see what happens. Ideally, Posey will force his way into lineup by 2010 and be a good C and lineup position for us, and be that plus bat; there is also the possibility he could end up at SS (and be good there) if Sandoval proves to be good as a C. Villalona could be that player as well by 2010-11, depending on how he advances in 2009, ideally at 3B. Dark horses would be Nick Noonan at 2B and Conor Gillaspie at 3B/2B in the 2010-11 timeframe as well. And I would throw out Brandon Crawford at SS, as well, for he could surprise since he was very highly rated in the pre-season, he needs to figure out how to bring that potential back into play, as he did not do that well this season, relatively.
Good Enough Offense Example
Let's take the following example. Let's pretend that the Giants pitched and played defense well enough to match what the Padre's did last year, allowing 4.11 runs per game. This would mean that they would need to average 4.60 runs scored per game in order to win 90 games. That's roughly the number of runs the Chicago Cubs scored last season.
So I decided to examine what type of offense they had as we would need similar goodness. For the below, I analyzed the Cub's lineup by OPS. For each position, I compiled where they ranked in the NL in 2007, where a Top 5 is considered Good, a Bottom 5 is considered Bad, and being in the middle 6 is considered average.
Cubs By Lineup Position
Here is how they did in 2007 by lineup position:
Leadoff: Good
2nd: Average
3rd: Average
4th: Good
5th: Bad
6th: Average
7th: Average
8th: Bad
The Cubs had two Good, two Bad, four Average.
For the Giants in 2008 (as of 08/18/08):
Leadoff: Average (mostly Lewis; Roberts/Velez brought down below Good)
2nd: Average (but very close to bad; mostly Castillo, Velez, Ochoa, Burriss bad)
3rd: Bad (but very close to average; mostly Winn doing poorly)
4th: Bad (very bad, last; mostly Molina but Rowand bad here too)
5th: Bad (mostly Rowand, but Bowker and Aurilia horrible, would have been Avg)
6th: Average (Mostly Bowker doing bad plus Castillo, but Aurilia did very well)
7th: Bad (Aurilia was easily Avg, but Castillo was bad, Burriss horrible)
8th: Bad (Vizquel and Bocock horrible, Burriss and Holm were good here)
The Giants had three Average, five bad, but one should have been good and four should have been average, leaving three bad. That's pretty close to the Cubs in 2007. Amazingly, Vizquel was so bad that he barely beat out Bocock.
For the Giants in 2009 using current personnel and 2008 stats (OPS to be ranked):
Leadoff: Winn .787 (.787 Good/.722 Avg)
2nd: ??? (.767 Good/.709 Avg)
3rd: Lewis .817 (.893 Good/.777 Avg)
4th: Molina .731 (.874 Good/.788 Avg)
5th: Rowand .790 (.832 Good/.776 Avg)
6th: Ishikawa/Sandoval (.783 Good/.719 Avg)
7th: ??? (.745 Good/.714 Avg)
8th: ???(Ochoa .694) (.672 Good/.588 Avg)
The Giants look to have one Good, three Average, one bad, three ???. Ishikawa/Sandoval should probably beat .719 for Average ranking; if we get a power 3B via free agency, he would bat 6th and they should probably beat .714 for Average ranking as well. Frandsen should be able to do well enough to be Average at any of the question marks, could be good 7th, maybe 2nd too. Ochoa hopefully can be at least average at 8th and SS, but too soon to tell; good now though. Given these guesses, that would leave the Giants at one Good, five average, one bad, 3B still ?. If we could get a good 3B, we could have an offense similar to the Cubs.
Cubs By Playing Position
Here is how the Cubs did in 2007 by playing position:
C: Average
1B: Good
2B: Average
3B: Good
SS: Bad
LF: Good
CF: Bad
RF: Average
The Cubs had three Good, three Average, two Bad.
For the Giants in 2008(as of 08/18/08):
C: Average (mostly Molina)
1B: Bad (last by a lot, mostly Bowker, but Aurilia too)
2B: Bad (close to Avg, only due to Durham who was very good, Burriss and Velez very bad)
3B: Bad (last; mostly Castillo, but all bad)
SS: Bad (last by a lot; mostly Vizquel, Bocock very bad too; both Burriss and Ochoa average)
LF: Average (mostly Lewis who was close to good; Roberts/Ortmeier brought down)
CF: Average (mostly Rowand who was close to good)
RF: Average (close to Good; mostly Winn, but it was others who brought close to good)
The Giants had four Average and four Bad. It looked better earlier when I first did the analysis but that's life within a season, as earlier, we were good at C, CF, RF. Much like how nobody noticed Winn early on when doing well, fans started busting his chops when he had a very slow summer, but now he is on a monster hot streak leading off for us.
For the Giants in 2009 using current personnel and 2008 stats (OPS to be ranked):
C: Molina .731 (.777 Good/.665 Avg)
1B: Ishikawa/Sandoval (.841 Good/.784 Avg)
2B: ??? (Frandsen?) (.751 Good/.688 Avg)
3B: ??? (.788 Good/.714 Avg)
SS: ???(Ochoa .694) (.754 Good/.693 Avg)
LF: Lewis .817 (.864 Good/.712 Avg)
CF: Rowand .790 (.820 Good/.724 Avg)
RF: Winn .787 (.816 Good/.747 Avg)
The Giants have four average, one bad, three ???. Ishikawa/Sandoval most probably are going to be Bad, but if they hit like they did in minors, could be average, particularly as platoon. Frandsen should be at least average at 2B or 3B, could be good 2B. If Ochoa wins SS, could perhaps be average, most probably bad. That would work out to five average, two bad, one ?. Rowand could be good in 2009, he had a horrible June/July, plus he has had problems at home but has been improving during the season. No other chances of another good unless we acquire good 3B. Still, should be much better than all the bads from this season.
Overall
The Giants do not appear to be that far from having an offense like the Cubs did in 2007. If Ishikawa/Sandoval could continue to hit like they did in minors that would solidify 1B and bottom of lineup. If Winn could be traded, I think Schierholtz has the potential to get RF into the good category, but shouldn't be a setback either to drop it to bad, plus provide another RBI and power bat to underwhelming lineup. Frandsen is a potentially good 2B, he has hit everywhere he has played, and should at least be average; would be good hitting #2. Lewis has the potential to move up to good as well, though it will be harder moving away from hitting leadoff and being in LF.
The key thing appears to be getting another plus bat into the lineup, however that can happen. In free agency, 3B appears to be a bit barren, both of power and of youth. Young 3B are signed up quickly, typically. A trade will be problematic unless we give up somebody good ourselves, like Sanchez or Bumgarner (I am hoping Cain and Lincecum are untouchable; Sanchez and Bumgarner are getting there in my mind but not there yet).
The best thing, I believe, is to wait another year, let our young players play in 2009 and see what happens. Ideally, Posey will force his way into lineup by 2010 and be a good C and lineup position for us, and be that plus bat; there is also the possibility he could end up at SS (and be good there) if Sandoval proves to be good as a C. Villalona could be that player as well by 2010-11, depending on how he advances in 2009, ideally at 3B. Dark horses would be Nick Noonan at 2B and Conor Gillaspie at 3B/2B in the 2010-11 timeframe as well. And I would throw out Brandon Crawford at SS, as well, for he could surprise since he was very highly rated in the pre-season, he needs to figure out how to bring that potential back into play, as he did not do that well this season, relatively.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)