OT: SF Giants 2022

[wco81]

On paper at least, the Giants aren't in a hurry to try to keep up with other NL teams.

They shed the salaries of Gausman and Cueto, they did re-up the Brandons, after both had very good years but for under $20 million each.

They gave Alex Wood and DeScalfini extensions and signed a couple of bottom of the rotation pitchers in Alex Cobb and now Matt Boyd, both over 30, mostly been mediocre.

The big FA signing is Rodon, 2 years $44 million but the second year is a player option so if he has a big year, they'd have to pay him or watch him walk.

They lost out of Suzuki, not clear if they declined to pay what the Cubs are going to pay him or the player wanted to go to the Cubs.

Kris Bryant signed a huge contract with the Rockies, way more than anyone thought he'd get. Probably a defensible decision not to give him that kind of money.

They signed Joc Pederson to a 1-year deal. Supposedly Pederson thought he'd go play in Japan because he wasn't getting much interest.

Maybe that's the only way they can get sluggers to sign to play at AT&T, those who may not play in the MLB at all or Giants as last resort.


After all these moves they have 27 players signed for this season at $140 million.

Dodgers have 31 players signed at $231 million, though that doesn't include Freddie Freeman's deal yet.

In 2023, they have 21 players under contract at $101 million so they will be shedding for instance Brandon Belt's $18 million and could be done with Longoria.


I don't know if it's the front office or Zaidi holding back on spending. Maybe they really believe top prospects like Luciano and maybe Matos and Ramos will have big impact in 2023?

I'm fine with them not giving out a deal like the one Kris Bryant got but there's going to be the DH this year.

Maybe they figure they can still get one of the 3 WC berths.


Not that there are such great free agents left -- Correa, Story, Castellanos and Conforto are still unsigned but Correa and Story would have to switch to 2B or Crawford would have to.


Odd Kenley Jansen is unsigned at 34, though he still had a good season, 38 saves, 2.22 ERA last season.

[Scoots1994]

I think Zaidi has faith in his staff and the coaches and I think ownership has faith in Zaidi.

It will be interesting to see how they do this year based on what they haven't done so far this offseason.

[Samurai]

Joc Pederson was an OK signing but hard to get excited about it when the Dodgers land Freeman. Seems impossible to keep up with them.

[wco81]

IIRC, I think their payroll has been as high as $170 million.

Last year attendance wasn't that great despite winning 107 games. I think covid restrictions weren't lifted until maybe later in the summer?

They might have better attendance to start out the year, maybe more march sales too. Staying in at least WC attendance should keep the stands filled relatively. Warriors struggling in the playoffs may shift a lot of fans into baseball in April, May, June.


When AT&T opened and probably through around 2015, they were one of the top teams in revenues in baseball. That probably is no longer the case after a few losing seasons.


As for Zaidi, this will be his fourth season in charge. Of course 2020 was a washout, with only 60 games played. But the Giants have improved every year under him being in charge so he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

He hasn't spent big yet and every one of his moves have panned out better than expected, usually involving players who weren't valued highly by other teams and them tending to outperform expectations here.

Will his magic touch continue?

We will see, though that doesn't seem a sustainable approach. How often can you keep hitting on undervalued players who've done little or nothing in their careers and signed with Giants, usually after they're over 30, for a year or two?

If he has a long-term strategy, it's not obvious, other than getting rid of the albatross contracts he inherited. All but Longoria's contract are now gone.


Or maybe his long-term strategy is finding these value free agents, signing them to prove-it short-term deals. Most fans assumed these were just stop-gap measures while the team worked off these bad contracts but maybe that is the approach or it's being dictated by ownership.

If he really wanted to spend more than he's being allowed to, he might bail in a season or two for teams which are more liberal with the wallets.

His previous team isn't bargain-hunting certainly. So what is Farhan's true strategy and philosophy when it comes to roster construction?

Is it anything like his former colleagues with the Dodgers, who seem willing to spend whenever they fall short?

Or does he want to be a slightly richer version of Beane and the Tampa Bay Rays baseball operations people, continually searching for bargains, supplementing with home-grown players or two?

[Scoots1994]

No reason to try to compete in money with the Dodgers. Their local TV deal is insane. Every team in MLB has to give 34% of their local TV revenue to the MLB shared revenue pool but because of a lawsuit settlement with old Dodgers owner McCourt the Dodgers only have to pay $84M (with limited increases annually) which helps the Dodgers get a couple hundred million a year for local media. MUCH more than any other MLB team ... one estimate I saw said the Dodgers get more than $150M MORE than the Giants get.

[tarantism]

No reason to try to compete in money with the Dodgers. Their local TV deal is insane. Every team in MLB has to give 34% of their local TV revenue to the MLB shared revenue pool but because of a lawsuit settlement with old Dodgers owner McCourt the Dodgers only have to pay $84M (with limited increases annually) which helps the Dodgers get a couple hundred million a year for local media. MUCH more than any other MLB team ... one estimate I saw said the Dodgers get more than $150M MORE than the Giants get.

And the Giants are a large market team! It's a major systemic issue that will eventually kill the MLB. Kids who didn't grow up with baseball as the biggest sport have no reason to support small or mid market teams with no chance at any sustained success. What's the point?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Samurai]

No reason to try to compete in money with the Dodgers. Their local TV deal is insane. Every team in MLB has to give 34% of their local TV revenue to the MLB shared revenue pool but because of a lawsuit settlement with old Dodgers owner McCourt the Dodgers only have to pay $84M (with limited increases annually) which helps the Dodgers get a couple hundred million a year for local media. MUCH more than any other MLB team ... one estimate I saw said the Dodgers get more than $150M MORE than the Giants get.

Unfortunately if you want to win the West, you still have to get past the Dodgers and their unlimited bank account. They roll out their own all star team, not a regular baseball team. How can you compete with that? Dodgers are the best reason for having a salary cap.

[tal57]

On paper at least, the Giants aren't in a hurry to try to keep up with other NL teams.

They shed the salaries of Gausman and Cueto, they did re-up the Brandons, after both had very good years but for under $20 million each.

They gave Alex Wood and DeScalfini extensions and signed a couple of bottom of the rotation pitchers in Alex Cobb and now Matt Boyd, both over 30, mostly been mediocre.

The big FA signing is Rodon, 2 years $44 million but the second year is a player option so if he has a big year, they'd have to pay him or watch him walk.

They lost out of Suzuki, not clear if they declined to pay what the Cubs are going to pay him or the player wanted to go to the Cubs.

Kris Bryant signed a huge contract with the Rockies, way more than anyone thought he'd get. Probably a defensible decision not to give him that kind of money.

They signed Joc Pederson to a 1-year deal. Supposedly Pederson thought he'd go play in Japan because he wasn't getting much interest.

Maybe that's the only way they can get sluggers to sign to play at AT&T, those who may not play in the MLB at all or Giants as last resort.


After all these moves they have 27 players signed for this season at $140 million.

Dodgers have 31 players signed at $231 million, though that doesn't include Freddie Freeman's deal yet.

In 2023, they have 21 players under contract at $101 million so they will be shedding for instance Brandon Belt's $18 million and could be done with Longoria.


I don't know if it's the front office or Zaidi holding back on spending. Maybe they really believe top prospects like Luciano and maybe Matos and Ramos will have big impact in 2023?

I'm fine with them not giving out a deal like the one Kris Bryant got but there's going to be the DH this year.

Maybe they figure they can still get one of the 3 WC berths.


Not that there are such great free agents left -- Correa, Story, Castellanos and Conforto are still unsigned but Correa and Story would have to switch to 2B or Crawford would have to.


Odd Kenley Jansen is unsigned at 34, though he still had a good season, 38 saves, 2.22 ERA last season.

Of course it is solely on the front office/ownership, with Zaidi being the perfect executor in exercising their wishes in holding back on spending as much as he can. By the way, considering himself very shrewd (maybe he is), I believe he enjoys that challenge of rejuvenating mediocrity, had beens or post injured for a year or two. Sabean's career legacy consisted of nothing but scavenger hunting under the same ownership guideline, while having the best years of Bond in his back pocket.

Sure Dodgers are making more money than the Giants, but it is only relevant into the discussions on how they are spent and who pockets more. Both teams are swimming in money. Meaning if the Giants wanted to bring Freeman contract in, they can do so with the same relative ease. However, if the Giants ownership wants to pocket as much as the Dodgers are, they have to spend less. That is how they wind up with Joc, while the Dodgers get Freeman. I am not advocating getting Freeman, Story or Bryant's idiotic contracts. But Suzuki or Castellanos should absolutely have been in play.

Neither will be here because of the demands on the prohibitive to Zaidi length of their deals at obviously high cost per year. The structure of Giants ownership group with its gazillion of investors (including large Corps) is one of the most prohibitive for the sports franchise. It is ran as baseball version of Microsoft, when crossing the budget line is an absolute taboo. It created the situation when passion into winning is second to how the investment does and the profit it generates. And that in turn creates the situation when huge but sudden and unexpected success becomes the blessing and the the curse at the same time. While everyone is joyful for the success, it allows ownership to hold on or curb the new spendings while skating on those past accolades without loosing much PR. Until enough downtime had passed and the natives become restless.

[Scoots1994]

Of course it is solely on the front office/ownership, with Zaidi being the perfect executor in exercising their wishes in holding back on spending as much as he can. By the way, considering himself very shrewd (maybe he is), I believe he enjoys that challenge of rejuvenating mediocrity, had beens or post injured for a year or two. Sabean's career legacy consisted of nothing but scavenger hunting under the same ownership guideline, while having the best years of Bond in his back pocket.

Sure Dodgers are making more money than the Giants, but it is only relevant into the discussions on how they are spent and who pockets more. Both teams are swimming in money. Meaning if the Giants wanted to bring Freeman contract in, they can do so with the same relative ease. However, if the Giants ownership wants to pocket as much as the Dodgers are, they have to spend less. That is how they wind up with Joc, while the Dodgers get Freeman. I am not advocating getting Freeman, Story or Bryant's idiotic contracts. But Suzuki or Castellanos should absolutely have been in play.

Neither will be here because of the demands on the prohibitive to Zaidi length of their deals at obviously high cost per year. The structure of Giants ownership group with its gazillion of investors (including large Corps) is one of the most prohibitive for the sports franchise. It is ran as baseball version of Microsoft, when crossing the budget line is an absolute taboo. It created the situation when passion into winning is second to how the investment does and the profit it generates. And that in turn creates the situation when huge but sudden and unexpected success becomes the blessing and the the curse at the same time. While everyone is joyful for the success, it allows ownership to hold on or curb the new spendings while skating on those past accolades without loosing much PR. Until enough downtime had passed and the natives become restless.

The Dodgers can spend 3-4 times as much as the Giants and take home Giants money. The MLB is completely broken because of the Dodgers. They even broke revenue sharing.

Pre-revenue sharing on JUST the local TV deal the Dodgers average $340M a year and the Giants $70M. After revenue sharing the difference is greater. And that's just the local TV deal ... the Dodgers get more money on every local revenue aspect than every other team in the MLB.

I'm fine with major sports owners spending their money, but for the Giants to compete with what the Dodgers can spend they would potentially have to go all the way past "making less money" to losing big money.

[wco81]

Of course it is solely on the front office/ownership, with Zaidi being the perfect executor in exercising their wishes in holding back on spending as much as he can. By the way, considering himself very shrewd (maybe he is), I believe he enjoys that challenge of rejuvenating mediocrity, had beens or post injured for a year or two. Sabean's career legacy consisted of nothing but scavenger hunting under the same ownership guideline, while having the best years of Bond in his back pocket.

Sure Dodgers are making more money than the Giants, but it is only relevant into the discussions on how they are spent and who pockets more. Both teams are swimming in money. Meaning if the Giants wanted to bring Freeman contract in, they can do so with the same relative ease. However, if the Giants ownership wants to pocket as much as the Dodgers are, they have to spend less. That is how they wind up with Joc, while the Dodgers get Freeman. I am not advocating getting Freeman, Story or Bryant's idiotic contracts. But Suzuki or Castellanos should absolutely have been in play.

Neither will be here because of the demands on the prohibitive to Zaidi length of their deals at obviously high cost per year. The structure of Giants ownership group with its gazillion of investors (including large Corps) is one of the most prohibitive for the sports franchise. It is ran as baseball version of Microsoft, when crossing the budget line is an absolute taboo. It created the situation when passion into winning is second to how the investment does and the profit it generates. And that in turn creates the situation when huge but sudden and unexpected success becomes the blessing and the the curse at the same time. While everyone is joyful for the success, it allows ownership to hold on or curb the new spendings while skating on those past accolades without loosing much PR. Until enough downtime had passed and the natives become restless.

Well the Mets are big spenders and Texas gave Corey Seager a huge contract. Also Marcus Semien. I think they may be trying to get a new stadium or something.

On the TV contract, yes it makes sense. I think Yankees also have a huge local TV deal, not sure about Mets.

Cubs you would think also has a huge deal.

Red Sox too, as they cover like the whole Northeast.

Dallas is a bigger TV DMA than the Bay Area but that team has been in the dumps that maybe they feel they have to spend big to break out of it.

Padres are in a smaller market but they have a $190 million payroll compared to $140 million for the Giants. The crazy thing is, Tatis isn't even making $10 million yet and won't until 2024 and won't hit $20 million until 2025.

Rangers payroll is $95 million right now, but that includes both Seager and Semien with their big contracts, so I guess they had to catch up.

According to this, the Dodgers would pay $13.2 million in luxury taxes while the Mets would pay over $20 million. Guess it helps to have a guy worth well over $10 billion as an owner.

$13.2 million doesn't sound like much of a penalty for spending so much.

[wco81]

Meant to add, there is still speculation that hitters are unwilling to sign with the Giants unless no other MLB team would sign them because of the ball park.

Suzuki might want to put up good numbers as soon as he can while maybe that's a factor for Freeman as well. That and maybe the lure of playing on an all-star team with an inside track to the WS.

[tal57]

[quote="wco81"]Meant to add, there is still speculation that hitters are unwilling to sign with the Giants unless no other MLB team would sign them because of the ball park.

Suzuki might want to put up good numbers as soon as he can while maybe that's a factor for Freeman as well. That and maybe the lure of playing on an all-star team with an inside track to the WS.[/quote

I don't think ball park is the reason hitters are not signing here. Last year the Giants hit franchise record in homers. If you give them long term deals and pay premier hitters premium money, they will come.

I believe the Giants are roughly 20 mil under last year's payroll and have no intention to get anyone else. They never fill a no doubt contender, while always looking for the balance in projecting constructed roster that would simply stay competitive at the lowest cost possible. Than hope that the bolt of lightning strike like it did in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2021.

The steady, no doubt contenders don't win 3 titles, then don't come close in making the playoffs in all 3 subsequent years. As much as everyone was jubilant in winning those titles (including myself), it doesn't take away from the fact all three titles and 107 win season were all miracles. I project the Dodgers to win the WS next year. It is a safe projection based on the roster, regardless whether they win it or not. Did a single person in the entire universe had predicted any of the 3 Giants titles and 107 win season? Baseball is the only sport where such miracles can happen, and what this ownership is counting on year after year.

[tarantism]

After Farhan said they are likely done on offense, they are now being reported as one of the four finalists for Story. They must assume that he or Crawford will comfortably move over to second? Story is definitely a bigger name and good player, right?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[wco81]

After Farhan said they are likely done on offense, they are now being reported as one of the four finalists for Story. They must assume that he or Crawford will comfortably move over to second? Story is definitely a bigger name and good player, right?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

He's put up much better offensive numbers, still around 30. But he played at Coors Field.

Crawford had his career year at the plate last year but he also won the Gold Glove in the NL so despite being much older, he must still have the agility and the arm to play SS.

I'd have to wonder about Story's production away from Coors.

Correa better player but he's seeking something like a $350 million contract and nobody seems interested in giving it to him.

[shazam_guy]

One good thing about the DH is that it makes more at-bats for Darin Ruf, who was all kinds of good in 2021 and deserves some more ABs.

Zaidi has always been someone who finds other people's castoffs, going back to his days with the As. It's Moneyball, and so far it's working well for the Gs. I wouldn't want to splash out on a big free agent anyway, since it seems like half the time they don't live up to the commitment and the team's stuck with a long-term anchor salary. The Dodgers are following the Angels path of trying to have expensive stars at every position, but that doesn't always work out. The Zaidi way makes it easier to change course if something's not working.

[wco81]

Has any real Moneyball team won the championship?

Rays seem like the closest and the Giants last year, though the Giants payroll was more than double the payrolls of the A's or the Rays.

[Samurai]

After Farhan said they are likely done on offense, they are now being reported as one of the four finalists for Story. They must assume that he or Crawford will comfortably move over to second? Story is definitely a bigger name and good player, right?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

He's put up much better offensive numbers, still around 30. But he played at Coors Field.

Crawford had his career year at the plate last year but he also won the Gold Glove in the NL so despite being much older, he must still have the agility and the arm to play SS.

I'd have to wonder about Story's production away from Coors.

Correa better player but he's seeking something like a $350 million contract and nobody seems interested in giving it to him.

Do we know what Story's career stats, or at least last 3 years or so, at AT&T Park are? I can't imagine they would even kick the tires on Story (or Correa) without having first checked if Story(Correa)/Crawford are willing to move to 2B/3B in the short term.

[shazam_guy]

If you get your team to within a few games of the Series, you're in pure-chance territory where anything can happen.

And, as several people have pointed out, we are in no position to compete with the Dodgers on a dollar-for-dollar level -- I doubt we ever will be. But high-priced FAs alone -- as the Angels have proved conclusively -- ain't enough by itself.

So we take the best of what's available other than "throw all the money at it". And the Rodon signing shows that they're not going pure Moneyball anyway.

[shazam_guy]

Follow-up:

Just checking the team payroll for the championship years:

10th in 2010

18th in 2012

7th in 2014

and last year:

12th in 2021

So in one sense, we're right in the sweet spot of where we've been in past successful seasons. Long story short: I'm not worried about us getting outspent by teams we knew we were going to get outspent by.

In case anyone cares, this came from Baseball Cube.

[wco81]

They don't have to be at the top of the league in payroll every year. But the sport overall hasn't been doing bad.

It set an all-time revenues record in 2019 despite the declining TV ratings at $10.7 billion.

Yet payroll has gone down. Payroll peaked at $4.7 billion in 2017.

MLB has signed deals with Nike, Apple and others in recent years.

Attendance may not be back to pandemic levels even this year.

But it makes sense why there was a lockout and they had to negotiate a new CBA. Players wanted to raise the luxury tax line much higher than the owners wanted, to increase spending.

I believe in the last couple years of free agency before the pandemic, free agent spending was down as well. Sure players like Trout got huge contracts but teams weren't spending as freely.

I guess the Giants are part of that trend and it remains to be seen if the Mets and the Dodgers will benefit from the spending.


But it's true, money alone doesn't guarantee rings, more the case in baseball than in other sports.