What is?retep wrote:This is beautiful.
Moneyball
I'm just enjoying it! SHEESH!
If I could guide the discussion back to the original purpose, the point was to give Sabean some credit for what he's done in the shadow of Billy Beane's fame.
What's clear is that the Giants have rebuilt faster than I think anyone anticipated, and it's not as if all the other teams are under .500 or something.
This is key, because the major knock against Sabean was that, while he was building winning teams around Bonds/Kent, he was doing so at the cost of the farm system... which is true!
But Sabean has shown that he can do both: win now and rebuild when needed. How many other GMs can wear both hats so well?
If I could guide the discussion back to the original purpose, the point was to give Sabean some credit for what he's done in the shadow of Billy Beane's fame.
What's clear is that the Giants have rebuilt faster than I think anyone anticipated, and it's not as if all the other teams are under .500 or something.
This is key, because the major knock against Sabean was that, while he was building winning teams around Bonds/Kent, he was doing so at the cost of the farm system... which is true!
But Sabean has shown that he can do both: win now and rebuild when needed. How many other GMs can wear both hats so well?
And all I'm saying is that your saying so was rather ambiguousretep wrote:I'm just enjoying it! SHEESH!
I wasn't entirely sure what you were referring to, or even if you were being sarcastic.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think Sabean is in Beane's shadow, or anyone else was in Beane's shadow for that matter. Beane got a lot of attention because he did build winning teams (regardless of postseason failures) with a very radical system in place, while making some very shrewd moves to get some players for virtually nothing (ie: Damon, Dye, Lidle), all while doing it with constantly one of the smallest payrolls in baseball. People took notice, and now his methods are employed around the league. Sabean on the other hand had money to throw at players like Bonds, Kent and the like, which is a lot more traditional style of GMing. Thus people only noticed the bad moves, and he got a bad reputation some of which is deserved.If I could guide the discussion back to the original purpose, the point was to give Sabean some credit for what he's done in the shadow of Billy Beane's fame.
Let's be clear here... The Giants haven't had a winning season in 4 years (last one being in 04, and haven't been to the postseason since 03). That's not entirely a short stretch of time to be rebuilding. A better argument here would be no one expected the Giants to be doing as well as they are, which I would agree with. You can't say for sure that the Giants are already "rebuilt" because they're above .500 before the All-Star break. They're missing offense terribly, their pitching is what's keeping them going. How long till that falters? Who knows?What's clear is that the Giants have rebuilt faster than I think anyone anticipated, and it's not as if all the other teams are under .500 or something.
To be truthful, Bonds hurt the team bad. Sabean was almost obligated to bring him back when he should've been let go and the money used on something better. It's a tough spot to be in knowing that you shouldn't get a guy but if you don't the fans will lynch you.This is key, because the major knock against Sabean was that, while he was building winning teams around Bonds/Kent, he was doing so at the cost of the farm system... which is true!
But Sabean has shown that he can do both: win now and rebuild when needed. How many other GMs can wear both hats so well?
Regardless, I still contend that a GM shouldn't be lauded for taking 6 years to rebuild a team.
Rules:
1. I am always right.
2. If I am ever wrong, read rule number 1.
1. I am always right.
2. If I am ever wrong, read rule number 1.
I agree with much of wait you said, but there is one major point I disagree with: that it took the Giants 6 years to rebuild.
The Giants haven't had a winning season since 2004--that's true, but you can hardly call that the beginning of rebuilding, so you're cut down to 5 years.
In 2005, I think nearly everyone thought the Giants had their best team on paper in... years! Though the moves look bad now, they were the ones most people would have made.
They had no shortstop, so the got Omar Visquel
They had no closer, so the got the NL saves leader in Benitez (again, who else would you have gotten that year?)
The Giants needed more power, and the got Alou to play right.
There were some other moves too, but the point was that the Giants were maneuvering to contend again. You're down to 4 years
2006 sucked. I don't even remember much of anything except that the Giants decided to make their money on the Bonds homerun chase. This was awful!
But in 2007, the Giants tried to contend again by adding Zito (after they missed on a number of outfielders that would have replaced Bonds.) The Giants were generally picked to finish last that year, but the division was so weak that Zito (before knowing he'd suck like ass) that the Giants were no considered dead on arrival. More importantly, they were not trying to rebuild.
2008 was the first year that the Giants really went into rebuilding mode. Real rebuilding mode means that you give the youth a chance to play and show their stuff. No more Bonds, Durham was benched, Visquel was benched, Aurillia was benched, and so on.
And in 2009, they are winning.
ONE YEAR REBUILDING!
The Giants haven't had a winning season since 2004--that's true, but you can hardly call that the beginning of rebuilding, so you're cut down to 5 years.
In 2005, I think nearly everyone thought the Giants had their best team on paper in... years! Though the moves look bad now, they were the ones most people would have made.
They had no shortstop, so the got Omar Visquel
They had no closer, so the got the NL saves leader in Benitez (again, who else would you have gotten that year?)
The Giants needed more power, and the got Alou to play right.
There were some other moves too, but the point was that the Giants were maneuvering to contend again. You're down to 4 years
2006 sucked. I don't even remember much of anything except that the Giants decided to make their money on the Bonds homerun chase. This was awful!
But in 2007, the Giants tried to contend again by adding Zito (after they missed on a number of outfielders that would have replaced Bonds.) The Giants were generally picked to finish last that year, but the division was so weak that Zito (before knowing he'd suck like ass) that the Giants were no considered dead on arrival. More importantly, they were not trying to rebuild.
2008 was the first year that the Giants really went into rebuilding mode. Real rebuilding mode means that you give the youth a chance to play and show their stuff. No more Bonds, Durham was benched, Visquel was benched, Aurillia was benched, and so on.
And in 2009, they are winning.
ONE YEAR REBUILDING!
I guess our differences lie in what we define as rebuilding. I personally think that if you don't make the playoffs for several years, hell, you don't even contend for the playoff you're in rebuilding mode. If you signing a bunch of veterans and trying to squeeze them instead of playing youngsters, that's your own fault.
And yes, you're winning in 2009. So far. Don't forget you guys started out pretty damn shitty, and the season is long from over. If you continue to do well today and into next year, congratulations, you're rebuilt. At this point it's still too early to call though.
And yes, you're winning in 2009. So far. Don't forget you guys started out pretty damn shitty, and the season is long from over. If you continue to do well today and into next year, congratulations, you're rebuilt. At this point it's still too early to call though.
Rules:
1. I am always right.
2. If I am ever wrong, read rule number 1.
1. I am always right.
2. If I am ever wrong, read rule number 1.
I agree! I think what the Giants did is kinda similar to how Atlanta has responded to the end of their rule... a mix of old veterans (Glavin, Garret Anderson) but not making a choice to rebuild.TheLegend wrote:It's pretty hard to support a GM who is losing and not rebuilding. They are supposed to be the same. Just don't mention it to the Pirates.
It sucks to be a fan when it happens, but its understandable to not react at once when you start loosing... keep thinking you're one or two players away from winning again.
Actually, aren't the A's sorta doing that now?
To be fair, I don't blame them very much. The coliseum sucks ass.retep wrote:I agree, and it's fucked up. I was hopeful when Wolfe came around but he's worse than anyone.Tayster wrote:The way I see it, the A's will putter around without doing anything significant till they get a new ballpark wherever.
Rules:
1. I am always right.
2. If I am ever wrong, read rule number 1.
1. I am always right.
2. If I am ever wrong, read rule number 1.
They had a couple of sites laid out in Oakland, spent a few million of surveys (One by Jack London Square, the other in the Coliseum parking lot), and they were both nixed by the Oakland City Council. Fremont came about from Cisco's involvement, but that's been shut down now as well. So... who knows?retep wrote:Of course, but you should try to then build a new stadium! And not in Fremont miles away from BART.
Rules:
1. I am always right.
2. If I am ever wrong, read rule number 1.
1. I am always right.
2. If I am ever wrong, read rule number 1.