LOL Matt Cain and Brian Sabean, hell the Giants in general - Page 7

kyleb · #61 07-18-2007, 08:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So, you are a team in win now mode. Do you want to pay a signing bonus or do you want to spend that money on someone who can help you now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen how fast Lincecum made it to the majors?

rwperu34 · #62 07-18-2007, 08:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, he hasn't. There have been very few prospects to come out of the system that Sabean kept. Trading Nathan/Liriano/Bonser is a textbook play that both he and Ned Colletti follow to the letter - they trade their farmhand prospects for established veterans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, I ask you. You are the GM of the San Fransisco Giants circa December 2003. Looking at the players involved, their relative worth, and the needs of the team, do you pull the trigger on that deal? Because I'm a pretty smart guy when it comes to figuring EV, and the Nathan/Liriano/Bonser deal looks like a HUGE win for the Giants to me.

Some of the biggest value a prospect can bring to a team, especially one with a big payroll, is the veterans that can be landed in a trade. It's not like Sabean has ever traded a top 10 can't miss prospect. Heck, I wonder if he's even traded a top 50 prospect? Of course, some of that has to do with not having a very good farm system and not shelling out big bonuses. Which is it? If his farm system is terrible, then he should be trading these guys for help. If it's good, well, then it's good.

[ QUOTE ]
Colletti himself said that everyday he sees Loney/Kemp play, it gets harder to think about dealing them, to which I say "NO [censored] YOU IDIOT, YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO TRADE THEM."

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a huge difference between Loney and Kemp and the guys the Giants have traded away. Loney and Kemp are both better than the guys that start in front of them. That's not Sabean's style. His style is to give up second tier prospects that have a high bust rate for immidiate major league help.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Colletti was Sabean's AGM. Do you see what he does in Los Angeles? Yeah, that's exactly what Sabean taught him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beane and Riccardi have the same relationship.

shemp · #63 07-18-2007, 08:55 PM

If their current roster is the result of "win now" one wonders the wisdom of the architect thinking that this crew could "win now." This has been true for 3 years now, although less gruesome when in a mediocre division.

It leaves me staring with a goofy expression on my face to hear that the GM isn't responsible for malpractice given consecutive horrible rosters on which there is little to no salable talent and zero position players coming out of the farm system-- because he was trying to win this year rather than next or the year after next.

How many consecutive years of sub .500 "win now" before you decide that "win now" isn't one of his tricks? And how bad does he have to be at it before you decide to pass on giving him a chance to "rebuild"?

rwperu34 · #64 07-18-2007, 08:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you are a team in win now mode. Do you want to pay a signing bonus or do you want to spend that money on someone who can help you now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen how fast Lincecum made it to the majors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the % of first rounders who make it that fast, that's only a testament to the brilliance of Brian Sabean.

kyleb · #65 07-18-2007, 08:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Colletti was Sabean's AGM. Do you see what he does in Los Angeles? Yeah, that's exactly what Sabean taught him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beane and Riccardi have the same relationship.

[/ QUOTE ]

And both teams have obvious flaws that are very similar.

shemp · #66 07-18-2007, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you are a team in win now mode. Do you want to pay a signing bonus or do you want to spend that money on someone who can help you now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen how fast Lincecum made it to the majors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the % of first rounders who make it that fast, that's only a testament to the brilliance of Brian Sabean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying it was brilliant to select him or move him that quickly? I can't speak to the former, but the latter was almost out of his hands.

Reup Gang · #67 07-18-2007, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]

And both teams have obvious flaws that are very similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

id say the difference is ricciardi spent a lot of money poorly while beane rarley does it and has good logic behind it when he does. after the blue jays got their payroll bumped up jp went crazy.

and how can prospects not help you win now? the bonds window wasn't 2 years or something, it was like 8 years. even this year they have him and he's one of the best players. nevermind that spending the bonus money on any and all prospects is huge ++++++++ev no matter how much you have to pay.

rwperu34 · #68 07-18-2007, 09:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If their current roster is the result of "win now" one wonders the wisdom of the architect thinking that this crew could "win now." This has been true for 3 years now, although less gruesome when in a mediocre division.

It leaves me staring with a goofy expression on my face to hear that the GM isn't responsible for malpractice given consecutive horrible rosters on which there is little to no salable talent and zero position players coming out of the farm system-- because he was trying to win this year rather than next or the year after next.

How many consecutive years of sub .500 "win now" before you decide that "win now" isn't one of his tricks? And how bad does he have to be at it before you decide to pass on giving him a chance to "rebuild"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it's really up to Peter McGowan when the Giants start to rebuild. As long as I see Barry Bonds running out there two of every three days, I assume that the Giants are trying to win now, build later.

This team is obviously horrendous, as was last years team. I'll give him a mulligan for 2005. I'm not trying to defend these teams at all. I suppose the question I am asking is, can a good GM have a bad couple of years? I think if you look at Sabean's tenure as a whole, it is better than the average GM. I definitely wouldn't run out there to fire him based on two bad years, especially with the fine line he's been asked to walk.

shemp · #69 07-18-2007, 09:06 PM

That's fair enough. You've argued well imo. I obviously disagree. He really lost me (well, maybe he already had) when I felt that he let Felipe hang out to dry despite Sabean had provided so little.

Last comment, I promise. To me there's a bit of can't see the forest for the trees when you defend the roster piecemeal rather than looking at the totality-- and putting it in the context of "desperate to win now" in no way makes it okay.

rwperu34 · #70 07-18-2007, 09:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And both teams have obvious flaws that are very similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

id say the difference is ricciardi spent a lot of money poorly while beane rarley does it and has good logic behind it when he does. after the blue jays got their payroll bumped up jp went crazy.

and how can prospects not help you win now? the bonds window wasn't 2 years or something, it was like 8 years. even this year they have him and he's one of the best players. nevermind that spending the bonus money on any and all prospects is huge ++++++++ev no matter how much you have to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was you that said that Sabean was bad at win now. If it was, you might want to take a deeper look at the Sabean era.

Let me get this straight. Heading into 2001, you are saying to yourself, "I've got Barry Bonds, he's about to go on one of the greatest tears in baseball history that will last until 2004. I should start a mini re-building process right now."