Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 15, 2019

Madison Bumgarner reaches 5-year, $85M deal with D-backs | ESPN

Left-hander Madison Bumgarner and the Arizona Diamondbacks have agreed to a five-year, $85 million deal, sources familiar with the agreement told ESPN’s Jeff Passan.

Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 15, 2019 at 05:27 PM | 111 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: diamondbacks, giants, madison bumgarner

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. never forget: the pee tape is 57i66135 Posted: December 15, 2019 at 05:51 PM (#5908858)
i have to say, i'd actually rather have zach wheeler at 5/120.


not because wheeler is better that bumgarner (he's not) or because he's more reliable (again, no), or because he's less of an injury risk (hahahah). nah, i'd rather have wheeler because bumgarner is literally the biggest ####### in baseball.



i'm surprised he's not a brave.
   2. never forget: the pee tape is 57i66135 Posted: December 15, 2019 at 05:52 PM (#5908859)
and speaking of....goddamnit. what the ####, hamels?
   3. The Duke Posted: December 15, 2019 at 06:21 PM (#5908861)
Seems like a great deal - can’t believe he didn’t get more given other deals getting done.
   4. eric Posted: December 15, 2019 at 06:28 PM (#5908862)
Seems like a great deal - can’t believe he didn’t get more given other deals getting done.


Agreed. As an Angels fan I am very disappointed they didn't beat that offer. They need at least two strong starters and pickins are gettin slim.
   5. PreservedFish Posted: December 15, 2019 at 06:45 PM (#5908866)
Maybe I'm just a sentimental mushhead, but if I were the Giants, I would've done what I could to hang onto him.
   6. Jeff Francoeur's OPS Posted: December 15, 2019 at 08:13 PM (#5908878)
Muncy: "Go get it out of the pool."
   7. Walt Davis Posted: December 15, 2019 at 08:15 PM (#5908879)
I'll WAG that other teams were willing to go higher in AAV but at fewer years.

By today's standards, he's got a lot of mileage on his arm. Quickly looking at some roughly similar pitchers in terms of IP through 29 in the 5-SP era ... very mixed as we might guess. Glavine, Viola, Buehrle and Vazquez pretty much carried right on. Stieb, Smoltz and Saberhagen remained some combo of effective and healthy enough to put up 10-14 WAR. Then there's a big gap down to Livan and another half-dozen pitchers at 5 or below. A few of those had probably already established themselves as worse than Bumgarner at 28-29. But Jose Rijo looked better but got hurt; Alex Fernandez looked like he had recovered but got hurt again; Livan looked darn good at 28-29 and remained durable but not high quality; Andy Benes was never as good as Bumgarner and stayed relatively healthy with only a small decline.

I suppose this deal breaks even around 10 WAR total which seems it should be a bit below expectation for Bumgarner. I'd prefer this to Wheeler's contract.
   8. Dock Ellis Posted: December 15, 2019 at 08:17 PM (#5908880)
For better or for worse, the Giants are pretty brand-conscious team and tend to overvalue guys like Matt Cain, Pablo Sandoval, and Hunter Pence that fans adore, so it's surprising they couldn't hang onto Bumgarner at this price.
   9. Tin Angel Posted: December 15, 2019 at 08:22 PM (#5908882)
Andrew Baggarly @extrabaggs

I'm able to confirm from a source not connected to the Giants that they indeed made a four-year offer to Bumgarner in the $70 million range.
   10. Jeff Francoeur's OPS Posted: December 15, 2019 at 09:01 PM (#5908886)
2019: Away (5.29 ERA) vs. Home (2.93 ERA)
2018: Away (4.97 ERA) vs. Home (1.63 ERA)
   11. JRVJ Posted: December 15, 2019 at 09:40 PM (#5908889)
I was very surprised that the Diamondbacks signed Bumgarner, since they traded Goldschmit last off-season, let Corbin and Pollock go last off-season and traded Greinke during 2019.

And then I looked at their payroll for 2020 and onwards, and it turns out they will have a low payroll in 2020 and a very low payroll in 2021. So I guess they decided to spend a little on Bumgarner to supplement their rotation going forward (and perhaps to take some pressure from the franchise for not spending much).

What does surprise me is how down Bumgarner's stock must be with other teams, if this is all he could get.
   12. Curtschillingsdingleberrybatboy Posted: December 15, 2019 at 09:57 PM (#5908892)
He’s prolly got a scary MRI or something.
   13. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:50 AM (#5908900)
For better or for worse, the Giants are pretty brand-conscious team and tend to overvalue guys like Matt Cain, Pablo Sandoval, and Hunter Pence that fans adore, so it's surprising they couldn't hang onto Bumgarner at this price.

Things are different now that Zaidi is in charge.
   14. PreservedFish Posted: December 16, 2019 at 08:04 AM (#5908905)
Things are different now that Zaidi is in charge.


But why? He's got bosses. They can tell him what to do.

I totally get why they'd want to hire a guy like Zaidi. What I don't get is why ownership allows itself to be captive to a philosophy they don't agree with. I guess the obvious response is, "but they do agree with it," and that's probably right. The Giants have a reputation for being less cynical than other teams, heck, they paid for their own stadium, but "I'll slash payroll and you'll make beaucoup bucks and maybe in 4-5 years we'll have a great team" must be very attractive, even if it figures to squander at least some of the immense good will that the locals have for their team.

With that said, the story in Boston was that Dombrowski ran amok, as if he had hijacked the team, so who knows.
   15. PreservedFish Posted: December 16, 2019 at 08:31 AM (#5908906)
Although by the pure ERA+ and WAR numbers Bumgarner hasn't often been a real HOF-quality ace, he's extremely prominent due to his extraordinary postseason record and his strong identification with a single highly memorable and highly successful franchise. He's got a chance to sneak in as the David Ortiz of pitchers. But if this is the beginning of a second career as a peripatetic kinda OK starter, I think it'll soften those associations and weaken his case. Of course Bumgarner seems like the type of person to absolutely not give a #### about the HOF or his reputation or what anyone says about him, so, yeah, might as well take that extra $10M, and get to enjoy the proximity to his horses.
   16. PreservedFish Posted: December 16, 2019 at 08:40 AM (#5908907)
Just imagine if Kenny Lofton had played with the Indians for the rest of his career. Do you think it makes a difference to his Hall case for most voters?
   17. RoyalFlush Posted: December 16, 2019 at 10:33 AM (#5908939)
But why? He's got bosses. They can tell him what to do.


What's the point of bringing in a GM you want if you aren't going to listen to him?
   18. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: December 16, 2019 at 10:40 AM (#5908940)
Just imagine if Kenny Lofton had played with the Indians for the rest of his career. Do you think it makes a difference to his Hall case for most voters?


I think it made all the difference. If Lofton had his exact same career, but all with Cleveland, he would be, among other categories, the Indians career WAR, Games, Runs, and Hits leader. I initially added SB leader, but he already is, by a healthy margin. That's a hell of a hook.
   19. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 10:50 AM (#5908945)
"I'll slash payroll and you'll make beaucoup bucks and maybe in 4-5 years we'll have a great team" must be very attractive, even if it figures to squander at least some of the immense good will that the locals have for their team.


This idea of goodwill seems to be a running constant for you. Is there any sort of study that suggests that holding onto old vets will keep attendance figures up? It seems like using peripheral stats to make some point or other when the raw numbers dont tell you what you want to hear...

SImilarly, the idea that winning a division or whatever will produce long term attendance is a constant. Like even nowadays people are worried the Nats will lose their attendance figures if they dont keep Rendon. Of course their attendance is likely to drop in a year or two but it wont be because they lost Rendon. For these small to mid level markets, a pennant or a new stadium will cause a spike but thats it or so it seems from the stuff I looked at.
   20. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 10:54 AM (#5908947)
What's the point of bringing in a GM you want if you aren't going to listen to him?

Drafting, Int'l FA, player development. It makes total sense to trust a GM on 99% of the things that he knows more about than ownership, and over-rule him on one thing he probably doesn't know more about (the marketing value of Bumgarner being a career Giant).
   21. RoyalFlush Posted: December 16, 2019 at 11:11 AM (#5908954)
Drafting, Int'l FA, player development. It makes total sense to trust a GM on 99% of the things that he knows more about than ownership, and over-rule him on one thing he probably doesn't know more about (the marketing value of Bumgarner being a career Giant).


"Hey - come be our GM. You can do all the minor league stuff, but we're going to make all the calls on free agency. Sound good?"

I don't think Zaidi signed on for that arrangement.
   22. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 11:19 AM (#5908957)
I cant help but point out that the name Madison was almost unknown in the US until the TV show Moonlighting which debuted in 1985. BY 1987 the number of Madion's born was surging, and most names like this will actually peak a generation later when kids who grew up with Maddies will start naming their kids Madison.

Naturally this particular Madison was born at the height in popularity of the TV show.
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 11:20 AM (#5908958)
"Hey - come be our GM. You can do all the minor league stuff, but we're going to make all the calls on free agency. Sound good?"

I don't think Zaidi signed on for that arrangement.


Pretty much every owner has a say on large free agent contracts. You think Cashman signed Cole, or Eppler signed Rendon without consultation and approval from ownership?

No executive in any business has complete discretion, unless he owns the company.
   24. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: December 16, 2019 at 11:21 AM (#5908960)
"We're going to make the calls on our own legendary players being offered free agent contracts when that happens every 3 years or so" sounds pretty normal.

The only problem is when you sign multiple legendary players who are already declining to 7-year deals, like the Tigers. Take it a couple years at a time.
   25. PreservedFish Posted: December 16, 2019 at 11:22 AM (#5908962)
I don't think Zaidi signed on for that arrangement.


I wouldn't be surprised. He's a senior executive, but why would he expect to have perfect autonomy? There's always someone in a bigger office.

I figure that many of the biggest FA negotiations happen more or less above the GM's head. I'm mostly talking about the ARods and so forth, and I don't think the Giants would interfere with another FA signing a similar contract (eg a Grandal), but Bumgarner is a special case.
   26. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 16, 2019 at 11:23 AM (#5908963)
(the marketing value of Bumgarner being a career Giant)
Which is...?
   27. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: December 16, 2019 at 11:27 AM (#5908964)
I cant help but point out that the name Madison was almost unknown in the US until the TV show Moonlighting which debuted in 1985. BY 1987 the number of Madion's born was surging, and most names like this will actually peak a generation later when kids who grew up with Maddies will start naming their kids Madison.

And the movie Splash.
   28. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 12:29 PM (#5908989)
Zaidi is one of those dudes for whom the "process" is an end in itself (*) and "cleverness" -- i.e., things like spending $12.5M for the 15th pick in last year's draft -- and winning the support of the baseball faction that celebrates "cleverness" is an end in itself. In their obsession with being "clever," those kinds of people tend to ignore, give short shrift to, or be bad at the things that count way more and as a result tend to crash and burn. There's a very good chance this is where this is headed and it's probably best at this point that it just get there as soon as possible.

(*) Including the "process" by which he selected Harris and other underlings, Gabe Kapler, and the coaching staff.
   29. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 12:35 PM (#5908992)
the marketing value of Bumgarner being a career Giant)

Which is...?


High actually. Read the stories about Zaidi's interactions with the fanbase and then look at the attendance figures. Attendance cratered last year and dropped from 40K to 33K per game in just two years and the 2017 team that drew 40K per night was dreadful. As close observers understand, the attendance figures are predominantly a vote of no confidence in the "new direction" the organization took last winter.

Another drop this year, and ownership will almost certainly re-evaluate next winter, and another drop is virtually certain. There was no need to "rebuild" and the Giants fanbase has less of a tolerance (*) for the idea than other fanbases.

(*) For whatever reason, probably tied to some degree to the three championships in six years and the contributions of people like Pat Burrell, Jose Guillen, Michael Morse, Cody Ross, Aubrey Huff, etc., to those championships. Giants fans rightly, through lived and observed experience, see the high bullshit component in the idea of having to "plan" championships for where you are in the "success cycle."
   30. RoyalFlush Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:17 PM (#5909001)
Pretty much every owner has a say on large free agent contracts. You think Cashman signed Cole, or Eppler signed Rendon without consultation and approval from ownership?


Apologies if I implied he would have free reign to do anything he wants with ownership's money. I didn't mean that.

What I am saying is Zaidi was a sought after GM commodity and that he probably had the opportunity to set up some ground rules. I'm assuming one of those ground rules would be veto power on huge contracts. You know... groceries and all that.

ETA: He was only hired in '18. I imagine they discussed this very issue in the interview process.
   31. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:23 PM (#5909003)
No executive in any business has complete discretion, unless he owns the company.


An essentially corrupt bargain between sabery GMs and ownership has infested baseball. Sabery GM promises ownership millions more on the bottom line, in return, ownership agrees to situation where GM can be said to be "rebuilding," making him therefore not really accountable.(*) This bargain has been aided and abetted by a baseball faction with intelligence, but whose worldly understandings are less developed, that has supported the sabery GMs' every whim, and in turn has been taken advantage of by ownership groups throughout baseball -- so much so that the faction has boomeranged from the fundamental idea that "you don't need to spend money to win" to "ownership isn't spending enough money" in the temporal equivalent of the blink of an eye.

(*) I manage several employees of high schooling and achievement; each and every one of them would prefer being unaccountable to being accountable. It's the natural human preference.
   32. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:27 PM (#5909004)
I cant help but point out that the name Madison was almost unknown in the US until the TV show Moonlighting which debuted in 1985.


Was Cybill Shepherd's character on that show named "Madison"? I never heard her called anything other than "Maddie," which is usually short for Madeline.

In any event, I doubt that a couple in Hickory, North Carolina, named their son Madison because there was a TV show featuring a beautiful, glamorous woman named Madison.
   33. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:28 PM (#5909005)
Madison Bumgarner is the only man I've ever heard of with the first name Madison. They must have named him just before it got recognized as a girl name.
   34. DCA Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:29 PM (#5909006)
(*) For whatever reason, probably tied to some degree to the three championships in six years and the contributions of people like Pat Burrell, Jose Guillen, Michael Morse, Cody Ross, Aubrey Huff, etc., to those championships. Giants fans rightly, through lived and observed experience, see the high bullshit component in the idea of having to "plan" championships for where you are in the "success cycle."

Yes, those championships were due to Burrell, Guillen, et al and not Posey, Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Belt, Sandoval, Crawford, Romo, Wilson, and Sanchez (all of whom did their best work under their first 6 seasons of control).

EDIT: for comparison, the best cost-controlled (first 6 years) players currently on the Giants roster who were there at the opening of the 2018 season are probably Austin Slater and Reyes Moronta, a bench OF/1B bat and an injured RP. The cupboard is bare.
   35. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:36 PM (#5909008)
"How dare you be the best team in baseball and sweep the World Series in 2012 with Barry Zito's and Angel Pagan's bloated contracts on your books!!" ... said no actual fan of baseball or a baseball team ever.
   36. Greg Pope Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:36 PM (#5909009)
Was Cybill Shepherd's character on that show named "Madison"? I never heard her called anything other than "Maddie," which is usually short for Madeline.

Her name was definitely Madeline.
   37. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:38 PM (#5909010)
EDIT: for comparison, the best cost-controlled (first 6 years) players currently on the Giants roster who were there at the opening of the 2018 season are probably Austin Slater and Reyes Moronta, a bench OF/1B bat and an injured RP. The cupboard is bare.


It doesn't matter, and you didn't need to add the "EDIT," because your premise and logic are completely false.
   38. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:41 PM (#5909011)
The series revolved around cases investigated by the Blue Moon Detective Agency and its two partners, Madeline "Maddie" Hayes (Shepherd) and David Addison Jr. (Willis).
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:41 PM (#5909012)
Apologies if I implied he would have free reign to do anything he wants with ownership's money. I didn't mean that.

What I am saying is Zaidi was a sought after GM commodity and that he probably had the opportunity to set up some ground rules. I'm assuming one of those ground rules would be veto power on huge contracts. You know... groceries and all that.

ETA: He was only hired in '18. I imagine they discussed this very issue in the interview process.


Well, A) this is not a huge contract; 5/85 is moderately large at best, B) ownership can never give an employee veto power, it's unenforceable. They can always change their minds.

Do you think Zaidi going to quit if the owner decided to sign Bumgarner? That's his only recourse.
   40. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:48 PM (#5909014)
They must have named him just before it got recognized as a girl name.
Madison Bumgarner is now on his way to your house to punch you in the nose.
   41. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:50 PM (#5909015)
Madison Bumgarner is the only man I've ever heard of with the first name Madison.


There are others. Seems like it was more common in the 19th century (maybe in honor of James Madison?).
   42. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:53 PM (#5909017)
The saber "revolution" being ultimately appropriated by ownership as a means of cover to make more money is essentially the story of capitalism. In this case, that process has been very bad for the product on the field and it's hard to see how that problem gets fixed. One way of course is for the ideas to get rightly discredited, but if all that had to be done to fix things was to rationally discredit their shaky intellectual underpinnings, the world wouldn't have as many problems as it does.
   43. JJ1986 Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:54 PM (#5909018)
Bumgarner was born in 1989 and Splash, Too came out in 1988 so that's probably the connection.
   44. flournoy Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:54 PM (#5909019)
The notion of "veto power" is bizarre. Is there any instance anywhere of someone hiring a subordinate, and including the clause that the subordinate may veto his instructions if he so chooses?
   45. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:56 PM (#5909020)
At least there's only one "d," and it's not the far more pretentious "Maddison." Even I might have been ok with stupidly letting Maddison Bumgarner go to a division rival.
   46. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 01:57 PM (#5909021)

High actually. Read the stories about Zaidi's interactions with the fanbase and then look at the attendance figures. Attendance cratered last year and dropped from 40K to 33K per game in just two years and the 2017 team that drew 40K per night was dreadful. As close observers understand, the attendance figures are predominantly a vote of no confidence in the "new direction" the organization took last winter.

They were coming off of a playoff appearance in 2017. Performance usually has a bit of a lag effect on attendance so it's hardly surprising that after being terrible in 2017 and pretty bad in 2018, attendance would suffer in 2018 and 2019.
   47. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:00 PM (#5909022)
They were coming off of a playoff appearance in 2017. Performance usually has a bit of a lag effect on attendance so it's hardly surprising that after being terrible in 2017 and pretty bad in 2018, attendance would suffer in 2018 and 2019.


Maybe in aggregate that's the case, I wouldn't disagree -- but in this particular case I'm confident it's as I described.
   48. Nasty Nate Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:00 PM (#5909023)
They gave him a girl's name to distract from all the bum gardening in the surname. Just like in that Johnny Cash song with the protagonist Sue Taintrover.
   49. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:01 PM (#5909024)
Hickory is in Catawba County, which is a couple of counties over from Madison County (famous for its Christmas tree farms) on the Tennessee border. It's also possible that Madison is a last name on his mother's side or something like that. I know someone who has the presidential first name of McKinley because it was his mother's mother's maiden name.
   50. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:13 PM (#5909028)
Maybe they named him Madison cuz they knew he'd be a #####.
   51. Traderdave Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:22 PM (#5909032)
   52. caspian88 Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:34 PM (#5909037)
Madison Bumgarner is a hot potato that I'm glad the Giants won't be holding for the next five years.

I'm also glad this new management team is working to stockpile prospects with promise in exchange for expensive veterans who honestly aren't all that good. Going into 2019, this team had almost nothing in the high minors, and tons of money locked up into declining veterans and middle relievers. They've turned some of those relievers (and a couple of FA signings) into players with some promise and shed a ton of money on ezchange (which is now being used to add even more players with future promise.

This management team is definitely not just trying to horde cash to no end except the bottom line - they were heavily in on Harper last year, they kicked the tires on Cole, they offered Bumgarner four years at a higher average salary than the Diamondbacks did, and they just spent $12.5 million to pick up a first round pick.

The key driver of all of these moves is depth for the future. Prospects are hit and miss, but if you have a lot of ok prospects you have a lot of potential hits, and trade bait you can use to acquire veterans someone else wants to unload. Considering how barren the Giants' upper minor league system was, this is the right move to both compete in the near term (the Giants were a heck of a lot better in 2019 than I expected) and in the future.
   53. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:41 PM (#5909041)
I cant help but point out that the name Madison was almost unknown in the US until the TV show Moonlighting which debuted in 1985. BY 1987 the number of Madion's born was surging, and most names like this will actually peak a generation later when kids who grew up with Maddies will start naming their kids Madison.

And the movie Splash.
Splash came out in 1984, but don’t forget the 1982 founding of the Federalist Society (which uses a silhouette of James Madison as its logo). I’m told they are quite influential.
   54. Jaack Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:42 PM (#5909042)
High actually. Read the stories about Zaidi's interactions with the fanbase and then look at the attendance figures. Attendance cratered last year and dropped from 40K to 33K per game in just two years and the 2017 team that drew 40K per night was dreadful. As close observers understand, the attendance figures are predominantly a vote of no confidence in the "new direction" the organization took last winter.

Another drop this year, and ownership will almost certainly re-evaluate next winter, and another drop is virtually certain. There was no need to "rebuild" and the Giants fanbase has less of a tolerance (*) for the idea than other fanbases.

(*) For whatever reason, probably tied to some degree to the three championships in six years and the contributions of people like Pat Burrell, Jose Guillen, Michael Morse, Cody Ross, Aubrey Huff, etc., to those championships. Giants fans rightly, through lived and observed experience, see the high bullshit component in the idea of having to "plan" championships for where you are in the "success cycle."


The Giants decline in attendance is tied to them not being very good and the Warriors becoming the popular team in the bay area due to their dynasty. The Giants are now 3 seasons removed from relevance. It certainly isn't because of the change in leadership, which most fans aren't exactly aware of.

You clearly aren't a close observer of the Giants, because no close observer would even make note of Jose Guillen's 'contributions' to the Giants championships, considering he only played 42 games, was terrible, got suspended for PEDs, and was left off the postseason roster.
   55. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 02:48 PM (#5909043)
The Giants decline in attendance is tied to them not being very good and the Warriors becoming the popular team in the bay area due to their dynasty. The Giants are now 3 seasons removed from relevance.


The Giants had high attendance when the Warriors won championships and then 73 games and then another championship. (*) This is silly.

It certainly isn't because of the change in leadership, which most fans aren't exactly aware of.


Most fans aren't aware that the Giants got a new Pres/GM last year? This is even sillier.

(*) And the Warriors stink now and the Giants' attendance is very likely to go down again this year.

   56. Jaack Posted: December 16, 2019 at 03:17 PM (#5909049)
I'm acquainted with a number of Bay area sports fans. Not avid internet commenting fans, but people who would go to 8-10 games per year, watch plenty more on TV. Interest among those fans, who make up a large chunk of attendees, waned significantly. Those people may have been aware of a leadership change, but the Giants didn't exactly make it a public thing - the most well known leadership on the team, Sabean and Bochy, remained connected to the team. Those fans certainly weren't aware of the change in philosophy and they absolutely were not basing their purchasing decisions based on their distaste for that philosophy. They lost interest because the Giants had been losing (which is before Zaidi came in) and because the collective interest shifted to Golden State as the one sports team to closely follow for casual observers. The Warriors are fading, but the 49ers are good now, so they will likely be the team for the moere casual sports fan to focus on.

Now this is based on my observations - I don't have absolute data. But it's not silly, because I actually know people who are watching the Giants less. It's less silly than your random asserations that have even less hard data to back them up, and it's certainly less silly than referencing Jose Guillen as a key contributor to the Giants.
   57. Tin Angel Posted: December 16, 2019 at 03:50 PM (#5909061)
But it's not silly, because I actually know people who are watching the Giants less.


Have lived in SF since 2006, and I'd estimate the degree of interest in the Giants and Warriors hasn't been this low since 2008 or so. For the Giants, over the past couple of years if you are in a bar people either aren't paying an ounce of attention or request the A's be put on since they are at least playing for something. In the same bars there used to be four TV's playing the Giants and 20-30 people watching/cheering. The Warriors might as well not even exist this year. As for the 49'ers, it's complicated...once they moved from the city a lot of people wrote them off forever. Though I'm sure there are a lot of bandwagoners this year.
   58. PreservedFish Posted: December 16, 2019 at 03:56 PM (#5909063)
The saber "revolution" being ultimately appropriated by ownership as a means of cover to make more money is essentially the story of capitalism. In this case, that process has been very bad for the product on the field and it's hard to see how that problem gets fixed. One way of course is for the ideas to get rightly discredited, but if all that had to be done to fix things was to rationally discredit their shaky intellectual underpinnings, the world wouldn't have as many problems as it does.


The real problem, SBB, is that the idea is not discreditable. The saber-GM's are right, and so are the owners. Why struggle for 75 wins when you can implode your team, reap insane profits, and patiently load up for a coordinated "success-cycle" run at the top?

The issue is that while any one team might be right to employ this strategy, it sucks for the fans, and if 10-12 teams all do the same thing at once, it's a disaster for the league as a whole.
   59. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 04:20 PM (#5909071)

...And the movie Splash.


THat is what WIkipedia says. SPlash was 1984 and Moonlighting was 1985. But there were only 42 Madisons in all of US in 84. After that: 299 in 1985; 645 in ’86; 750 in ’87; 821 in ’88; and 1,223 in ’89. YOu sometimes see that with TV shows, where the TV show debuted in the fall then the next year its on the whole year and the name will double. There's a TV show in the 60s I cant recall, and the year it was on in the fall there was a trend and then the next year it doubled.

I think the tv show had a larger impact on people and it seems the huge jump coincides along with the shows popularity.

Was Cybill Shepherd's character on that show named "Madison"? I never heard her called anything other than "Maddie," which is usually short for Madeline.


Well yeah that's a good point, but when a name starts trending you will see it caryover onto other similar name. Like Alexandra and ALexia and Alex; If I recall they all started to trend at the same time. Or like Alice, Allison etc. If a name sounds similar it will trend with the others.

In this case you see Madylen and other spellings also trending upward at the same. Perhaps there is some sort of cross pollination going on w/the movie and the TV show?

More on the history, Madison its supposed to be a derivation of Maud; an English name. There were less than 5 female Madisons/year until 1970 (Social Security only lists names when they hit 5 per year). Until that time, boys named Madison outnumbered girls. the female: Madison was chugging along from 1970-1983 not even in the top 1000 baby names until SPlash/Moonlighting.


Baby names are really interesting. Allison is one that Im still not sure of. It started to trend in the mid 60s, which the closest one at that point in time, is Allison Parks playmate of the year in 1966. But Im not sure you name your kids after centerfolds but then again we're only talking a handful of babies that start these trends; so maybe 40 babies were named after her. If not here, then The actress who played in the attack of the 50 foot WOman also used the name Allison, but that was some years before.

Or Brooke. What sparked that one? Would you believe Brook Benton's Rainy Night in Georgia, was no. 4 in 1970 the year that name started to trend up.

Or Heather...? Im thinking it was McCartneys adopted daughter that kicked this off.
   60. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 04:26 PM (#5909073)
The real problem, SBB, is that the idea is not discreditable. The saber-GM's are right, and so are the owners. Why struggle for 75 wins when you can implode your team, reap insane profits, and patiently load up for a coordinated "success-cycle" run at the top?


There are several problems with this line of analysis.

First, very few teams are in a position where they have to "struggle" to get to 75 wins, and even that total is biased by the fact that so many teams have intentionally tanked. The Giants are clearly not one of these "struggling" teams. They won 77 games last season even after (stupidly) essentially entirely punting the 2018-19 offseason.

Second, where you are in the "success cycle" is not even close to as predictable as advertised. MLB teams often surprise dramatically to the upside.

Third, even with perfect transparency into runs scored and allowed -- which no one has -- the natural play in the pythag relationship makes accurate prediction impossible. A team that scores as many runs as it allows could make the playoffs ... or it could go 75-87 or somesuch.

Fourth, the act of seeing how many wins are generated by a roster and players you might want to go with in the "out years" gives you a great data point as to how many wins they might generate when you "think you're ready to contend," and eliminates much of the guesswork. The same thing is true of the coaching staff.

There are more, but these are more than enough to badly discredit the entire exercise, so I'll leave it here.
   61. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 04:40 PM (#5909079)
Actually, I will add a fifth:

There's no such thing as a "success cycle." The fortunes of teams in competitive sports tend to ebb and flow to be sure, and things like the draft are there to help game things in that direction -- but there's nothing inherently cyclical about sports success or failure -- as there is with things far more organically cyclical like the business cycle. Teams have long runs of sustained success in all sports and, unlike things like the business cycle, other than drafting lower which can be easily overcome, there's nothing in the nature of that success that carries within it the seeds of eventual downturn or failure -- as we find in the business cycle. That is particularly true in baseball, which doesn't even have a salary cap.

I know this risks sounding mean-spirited, but a lot of this reads to me like people who really don't know these real-world concepts very well trying to port them to baseball because the real world concepts give their application to baseball a patina of weight or seriousness that baseball itself doesn't possess. It's kind of the same thing with the "replacement player," which obviously borrows from the idea of the risk-free asset in finance, but the markets in baseball and finance are so different that the two things are essentially entirely dissimilar. The "return" on the replacement player isn't risk-free and the search for and identification of the replacement player isn't risk free and therefore, the replacement player can't really be properly used as a benchmark of anything useful. Compare the replacement player and the market for the replacement player with something like the 2-year US treasury market and the differences will hopefully be readily apparent.
   62. A triple short of the cycle Posted: December 16, 2019 at 04:42 PM (#5909080)
Maybe they named him Madison cuz they knew he'd be a #####.

Life ain't easy for a boy named Madison.
   63. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:03 PM (#5909093)
...the replacement player can't really be properly used as a benchmark of anything useful.


The replacement player as a concept became necessary because you have to give someone positive value if they are holding down a position, at least at an average MLB competency.

Otherwise you have start giving players negative value for being less than average and it will be wonky in some calculations. Its weird because the value is set by conceptual idea of a .300 winning team and what its players would be like. There's no real empirical way that Im aware of to set it; but having said that do you not understand that some values need to be set to POSITIVE in order to make numbers work?
   64. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:05 PM (#5909094)
One way of course is for the ideas [sabermetrics] to get rightly discredited,


Can you provide us one sabermetric idea that you think is wrong headed? I know you dont like walks; do you think walks are not being correctly weighted in these formulas?
   65. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:07 PM (#5909096)
More on the history, Madison its supposed to be a derivation of Maud; an English name.

Wiki actually says it was a derivation of Matthew, where Madison was a variant of Mathieson (son of Matthew):

Madison is a surname of English origin that has become a popular given name in the United States. Madison, commonly spelled Maddison in Northeastern England, is a variant of Mathieson, meaning son of Matthew, although possibly occasionally standing for son of Maddy, where Maddy is a pet form of Maud.
   66. The Yankee Clapper Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:17 PM (#5909100)
Allison is one that Im still not sure of. It started to trend in the mid 60s, which the closest one at that point in time, is Allison Parks playmate of the year in 1966.
I suspect very few of those who read the magazine could name the centerfold unless she was already a well known actress or model. Clearly the mid-1960s rise of Allison is attributable to Bob Allison, who played for the Senators/Twins from 1958-70.
   67. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:18 PM (#5909102)
I think the female version/history (of Maud) is what I saw, I was going really fast.


Surnames as first names is also real interesting. I thought Peyton Manning had been named after Walter Peyton, but I think someone explained its a family name. Also the name: Scott, I dont know if that was always around because there were Scotties, either of Brittanic or Canis variety; or because of the fame of WInfield Scott Hancock who is sometimes referred to as Scott Hancock. I havent really researched it just going from memory.
   68. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:21 PM (#5909104)
I thought Peyton Manning had been named after Walter Peyton, but I think someone explained its a family name.
That and Walter spelled it Payton.
   69. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:25 PM (#5909107)
. Clearly the mid-1960s rise of Allison is attributable to Bob Allison, who played for the Senators/Twins from 1958-70.


The name jumps 150 places (to no. 280) in 1958 so maybe. It was still fairly non descript when it spike in 1965 (Allison Parks PMOM Oct 1965) and then went right back down in 1966. It started its latest rally in 1970 which has carried it into the top 40 most of the last 15 years. Another rally that lasted an entire generation which is typical with female names.

Female Madisons peaked at no. 2 in 2001 and 2002, so if youre a high school senior your probably sick of this time by now. Harper's my favorite, it totally owes its huge position to the Harper character on Wizards of Waverly Place. I think that was 2006...
   70. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:26 PM (#5909108)
That and Walter spelled it Payton.


I can never remember because THe WOrld Almanac of whatever his rookie year 1974? spelled it with the "e" and every time it comes up I know theres an issue and I cant recall which way is.
   71. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:32 PM (#5909109)
Anyway, I sort of agree with SBB about the "success cycle". Not the strong form claim that he is making, which is that there's no such thing as a success cycle and no reason it should exist in baseball -- there are reasons beyond the draft: (1) players generally peak for a few years and then decline; (2) teams have players under control for a set number of years after which they can become free agents; (3) as he acknowledged, worse teams get higher draft picks, and (4) revenue sharing sends money from the richer teams to the poorer teams.

However, this is more of a reason why good teams won't stay good forever and less of a reason why bad teams should expect to become good. Usually in addition to good draft position and money to spend it takes some combination of skill and luck to turn that into a good team, and teardowns are usually more helpful to ownership's bottom line than they are to building a competitor. I don't think 75-win teams should always go all-in to try to make the playoffs at the risk of sacrificing long-term success or flexibility, but 75-win teams should make real efforts to get better and not tank -- you may still end up only winning 75 games (or fewer) but you also might be the 2019 Twins.

The concept of replacement players has its uses. As long as it's used appropriately there's nothing wrong with it.
   72. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 16, 2019 at 05:33 PM (#5909110)
Clearly the mid-1960s rise of Allison is attributable to Bob Allison, who played for the Senators/Twins from 1958-70.


My sisters Killebrew and Battey can attest to that.
   73. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 06:01 PM (#5909117)
No Zolio?
   74. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 06:13 PM (#5909121)
Usually in addition to good draft position and money to spend it takes some combination of skill and luck to turn that into a good team, and teardowns are usually more helpful to ownership's bottom line than they are to building a competitor. I don't think 75-win teams should always go all-in to try to make the playoffs at the risk of sacrificing long-term success or flexibility, but 75-win teams should make real efforts to get better and not tank -- you may still end up only winning 75 games (or fewer) but you also might be the 2019 Twins.


(Jumping off point, not disagreement)

Here's the problem, though. There's really no such thing as a "75-win" team, and sabermetrics helps tell us why. Wins are the ultimate result of runs scored and allowed, and runs scored are the result of the events that generate them -- singles, doubles, homers, etc. So it's a two step process: Events become runs, runs become wins.

Both those steps have huge uncertainty built into them. (*) The translation of events to runs has a big error component and the translation of runs to wins (pythag) has a big error component. Thus, we can't identify a "75-win team" even if we can perfectly identify a team generating the events that a 75-win team typically generates. And we're not even close to be being able to do that.

Which means that the entire premise of the "rebuilding" exercise for all but a very few teams falls entirely apart. As the previous paragraphs show, "We only project to win 75 games this year, therefore we should punt the year and retool" is an inherently senseless and self-negating statement. There is no such thing as projecting to win 75 games.

So at that point, what we should do is simply admit that a lot of this is entirely unpredictable and the subject of human whim and behavior and foible and motivation and accident and all the rest. That should be cause for celebration and why it isn't remains a source of a not insignificant amount of confusion.

(*) Sabermetrics call that uncertainty "luck," but it's far better referred to as "baseball" or even "the beauty of baseball."

The concept of replacement players has its uses. As long as it's used appropriately there's nothing wrong with it.


As long as people don't pretend that risk-free replacement performance is actually available in the real-world market for free talent, or the market generally, I'm good with it.
   75. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 06:15 PM (#5909122)
There was a QB for Wisconsin a couple years ago that was named after Bart Starr. The Indiana starting QB this year is Peyton Ramsey, named after Peyton Manning. He has two brothers that his parents -- read, his dad -- named after QBs. One is Montana, I think. Can't remember the other.
   76. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 16, 2019 at 06:29 PM (#5909125)
He has two brothers that his parents -- read, his dad -- named after QBs. One is Montana, I think. Can't remember the other.
Farve.
   77. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 06:49 PM (#5909130)
We might as well take 74 to its logical conclusion -- and it is the logical conclusion to a logical set of applied premises. I'll be conservative and change 75 to 78, but I'm not convinced we can't go as low as 75.

A team that generates the events that would typically be thought of as the events a 78-win team generates is a contender to make the playoffs.

And since a contender to make the playoffs is a contender to win the World Series:

A team that generates the events that would typically be thought of as the events a 78-win team generates is a contender to win the World Series.

Once this becomes clear, the idea of "rebuilding" becomes ridiculous in the vast majority of circumstances.
   78. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 06:59 PM (#5909131)
I have a red neck friend who named his kids after Allman Bros. songs. There's Melissa, Jessica and Whipping Post.
   79. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 07:10 PM (#5909133)
Both those steps have huge uncertainty built into them. (*) The translation of events to runs has a big error component and the translation of runs to wins (pythag) has a big error component. Thus, we can't identify a "75-win team" even if we can perfectly identify a team generating the events that a 75-win team typically generates. And we're not even close to be being able to do that.

Which means that the entire premise of the "rebuilding" exercise for all but a very few teams falls entirely apart. As the previous paragraphs show, "We only project to win 75 games this year, therefore we should punt the year and retool" is an inherently senseless and self-negating statement. There is no such thing as projecting to win 75 games.</i>

Yes and no. Uncertainty is inherent in most human enterprise. There is such a thing as a team that is expected to win 75 games, but we should acknowledge that there's a pretty big variance around that total. And that doesn't mean you give up all semblance of planning/management. You project as well as you can and develop contingency plans if things don't go as expected (either to the positive or negative). But you're supposed to do what you can to improve your team within reason and spend some money rather than just using it to line ownership's pockets. This deal for MadBum seems like the kind of "within reason" move that a team should make unless they know something about his arm that other teams don't.
   80. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 07:23 PM (#5909135)
Yes and no. Uncertainty is inherent in most human enterprise. There is such a thing as a team that is expected to win 75 games, but we should acknowledge that there's a pretty big variance around that total. And that doesn't mean you give up all semblance of planning/management.


Yes, exactly and that uncertainty should be managed to. By imagining certainty or virtual certainty where there is only uncertainty, Zaidi is failing to do so.

Typically, when people do things like miss these fundamental things, they aren't really missing them, but instead replacing them with self-interested things. That is what is happening with the Giants' GM. It is in his interest to rebuild, even if on a false premise, because it relieves him of any real accountability. He's already had one free year, heading smoothly to two. That's two more than deserved, which isn't his fault -- it's ownership's fault.

   81. caspian88 Posted: December 16, 2019 at 07:29 PM (#5909137)
The Giants are building a team that expects to win between 75 and 85 wins in 2020. They did the same thing between 2018 and 2019 and wound up winning 77 with a pythag of 71.

They're not tanking, they're loading up for the future and the present simultaneously, by being active on the waiver wire and trading expendable assets (mostly relievers) for a combination of active players (Pillar, Dickerson), almost-ready prospects (Yastrzemski, Gott, Dubon, Davis, Bergen), and prospects for the future (Beck, Teng).

They're also throwing a little money at free agents in bulk (Holland, Pomeranz, Vogt, Parra, Solarte, Vincent), remaining active on big name free agents (Harper, Cole, Bumgarner), and using their financial flexibility to acquire assets (Cozart/Wilson).

In other words, they're doing exactly what they should be doing, reloading and rebuilding both in the near term and in the long term by stockpiling assets with potential future value in exchange for assets with limited future value that are merely lower risk (if even that, as Dyson perfectly demonstrates).

The only move that really perplexes me is non-tendering Pillar.
   82. . Posted: December 16, 2019 at 07:30 PM (#5909138)
They should have tried to win the World Series last year and should try to win it this year. That can be done at the same time the farm system is improved. Teams that win the World Series get to draft and make trades, too.
   83. Walt Davis Posted: December 16, 2019 at 08:06 PM (#5909143)
True, there is no such thing as the success cycle ... there is such a thing as the success curve and where you are on it, and whether that slope is up or down where you are, is a very important thing for an FO to understand. So no there's no "cycle" such that failure is likely to be followed by success, etc. But you can clearly be a team that currently has not a lot of talent, most of that talent is old and probably in decline and you have little in the way of young talent on the immediate horizon. You are in a bad spot and, if you do nothing, headed towards a worse spot. So there's no clear value in doing nothing. There may or may not be good value in trying to add short-term talent but that too is not something you can do just by heading to the saber supermarket and chances are you're going to be in this same spot next offseason. There may be good value in selling off the assets you have both in terms of short-term monetary profits and reducing the time before you achieve success again.

Point being, on that curve, your future is not set in stone -- you can move to a higher level, you can move to a lower level ... if you get lucky you might get all the way over to the other side of the hump such that you are currently good and on a (likely) upward trajectory.

A classic example is the 2000 O's. They'd won 79, 78 and 74 over 1998-2000. During the season they had traded FA to be Charles Johnson, Baines (41), Surhoff (35) and Will Clark (36 and decided to retire). Their projected starting lineup for 2001 still had DeShields 32, Bordick 35, Ripken 40, Anderson 37, Conine 35, Fordyce 31 and Belle 34 (about to be diagnosed with his career-ending condition but coming off just a 109 OPS+ anyway). Their best returning players under 30 were Chris Richard 27, Mora 29 and Hairston Jr 25. On the pitching side, Mussina 32 was an FA as was innings-eater Pat Rapp 33 and Scott Erickson 33 was out for 2001. They had a few mildly promising young SPs (Jason Johnson 27, Sir Sydney 24) but their top returning reliever ended up being Buddy Groom 35.

We can debate whether they should have gone into rebuild mode as early as 98 or 99 but there's no question that rebuilding mode was gonna be thrust upon them for 2001. Sure, you never know when a bunch of 35+ players are gonna have a swan song but it's bloody unlikely. And why would this team re-sign Mussina? It's certainly not going to have a major short-term impact on the wins side of the equation. As it is, they did next-to-nothing and won just 201 games over the next three years and topped out at 78 wins over the next 11 years. This was indeed a team that struggled to win 75.

So, on the one hand, the 98-00 O's are evidence against the idea of a success cycle but they are also evidence for the idea of the success curve. Team projections are highly variable but not so variable that a direction-less, under-talented team like the O's had any real chance at competing in that decade-plus. They were also eventually an example of the miracles we see in baseball as they jumped from 69 wins in 2011 to 93 in 2012 (on a 82-80 pythag). That was a funny team built mainly through the draft and small trades (Adam Jones, Chris Davis, etc.) without a huge amount of turnover from the 2011 team. But given their age, we'd have put that 2011 O's team on an upward slope -- not a 24-win improvement obviously but their oldest returning position regular was JJ Hardy at 29 and they swapped 33-year-old Jeremy Guthrie for 29-year-old Jason Hammel. The 2012 O's got only about 1200 PA and 220 IP from players 30+. Their win projection wouldn't have been much rosier but that 2011-2012 team was the opposite of that 2000-2001 team.
   84. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 16, 2019 at 08:36 PM (#5909148)
Typically, when people do things like miss these fundamental things, they aren't really missing them, but instead replacing them with self-interested things. That is what is happening with the Giants' GM. It is in his interest to rebuild, even if on a false premise, because it relieves him of any real accountability. He's already had one free year, heading smoothly to two.

I think there's something to this. A GM who convince ownership to do a five-year rebuild guarantees himself at least three years in the job, and very likely 4 or 5. When you're making several million dollars a year, that's a sweet situation. I wouldn't put it beyond any GM to take the sure route to $10M over doing what's right for the franchise. The principal-agent problem was, is, and ever shall be a royal #####.
   85. Zach Posted: December 16, 2019 at 08:38 PM (#5909149)
What year did The Bridges of Madison County come out?
   86. Zach Posted: December 16, 2019 at 08:41 PM (#5909151)
Ranting about the non-cyclicity of the Success Cycle is one of my favorite pastimes.

A weight bouncing on a spring is cyclic. If it's below the equilibrium point, the spring force actively pulls it backward, which sends it up. If it's above the equilibrium point, gravity pulls it down. The result is a cycle.

Baseball has aging, regression to the mean, and replacement of old players with young players. Those are all powerful *damping* forces. They tend to push things toward the mediocre middle, but don't carry on past the equilibrium point. There's no such thing as momentum in team records.
   87. Zach Posted: December 16, 2019 at 08:43 PM (#5909152)
I agree that sometimes you have to recognize that it ain't your year and it's time for a rebuild. At least in my mind, that's different from intentionally tanking in hopes of putting together a miracle playoff run when all the young players get good at the same time.
   88. caspian88 Posted: December 16, 2019 at 08:54 PM (#5909153)
Since I'm pretty sure the Giants tried to do what it takes to win the World Series 162 times last season, and succeeded in 77 of those 162 attempts (certainly in excess of what I expected, which was closer to 62, and in excess of FiveThirtyEight's prediction at 71 and ZIPS at 70), let's consider what, substantively, you think the Giants could have done differently to "win the World Series" in 2019.

In the immediate term, a team can do four things to improve its roster:

1. Sign free agents.
2. Trade for players.
3. Call up prospects.
4. Get their existing players to play better.

Let's assume that 4 is a given, since I'm fairly certain the Giants' coaching staff was not sitting on their hands and refusing to cooperate. If that is in fact what they did, then they deserved to be fired, and, lo and behold, the Giants' coaching staff is almost totally different for 2020.

...

3 relies on the team having prospects who are ready to contribute at the major league level. Zaidi had essentially zero input on the Giants' farm system going into 2019, and could only work with what he had inherited or what he could acquire through 1 and 2. Giants who were already in the system, appeared in a major league game prior to September, and can reasonably be considered "prospects" include:

- Steven Duggar, who provided a 65 OPS+ with good defense and some speed in CF/RF.
- Austin Slater, who provided a 99 OPS+ with positional flexibility and some speed, primarily as a RF.
- Mac Williamson, who provided a 10 OPS+ in his last chance to claim a starting role, after demolishing AAA for a month (.378/.459/.756), and got released.
- Aramis Garcia, who provided a 39 OPS+ as a third C/1B.

- Tyler Beede, who provided a 82 ERA+ in 22 starts, 117.0 innings.
- Shaun Anderson, who provided a 77 ERA+ in 16 starts, 96.0 innings.
- Logan Webb, who provided a 81 ERA+ in 8 starts, 39.2 innings.
- Conner Menez, who provided a 81 ERA+ in 3 starts, 17.0 innings.
- Sam Coonrod, who provided a 118 ERA+ in 33 appearances, 27.2 innings.
- Tyler Rogers, who provided a 418 ERA+ in 17 appearances, 17.2 innings.
- Ray Black, who pitched 2 innings and was turned into Mauricio Dubon.

Prospects who Zaidi acquired and played for the Giants prior to September:

- Mike Yastrzemski, who provided a 123 OPS+ and good outfield defense, and tied for the team lead in HR; picked up for minor league filler.
- Mauricio Dubon, who provided a 99 OPS+ with good defense and some speed as a 2B; picked up for Pomeranz and Ray Black, both fungible lefty pitchers.
- Tyler Austin, who provided a 79 OPS+ primarily as a lefty-mashing 1B/PH; picked up for minor league filler and released after the trade deadline.
- Mike Gerber, Connor Joe, Zach Green, and Michael Reed, who collectively batted .066/.136/.098 in 66 PA; collectively, they cost the Giants nothing more than minor league filler and some paperwork.

- Travis Bergen, who provided a 77 ERA+ in 21 appearances, 19.2 innings; acquired through the Rule 5 draft.
- Sam Selman, who provided a 99 ERA+ in 10 appearances, 10.1 innings; acquired as a minor league free agent.
- Williams Jerez, who provided a 163 ERA+ in 6 appearances, 6.2 innings; acquired for Chris Stratton, a fifth starter/fungible reliever.

After 1 September, the Giants were eliminated, so I'm ignoring players who debuted after that point. Dubon debuted just prior to September and barely counts.

Basically, the Giants had one position player and a couple of relievers who were ready and able to contribute, plus a few players with low ceilings who played but didn't make waves. Zaidi added an outfielder who probably had a career year but will get a chance next year, a potential starting second baseman, and a few low-level contributors. Looks pretty good to me, two moves that worked out and a few that didn't, mostly in limited time.

...

Trading for players requires you to have assets worth acquiring. The Giants' realistically tradeable assets, going into 2019, were mostly players the Giants' needed if they wanted to make a playoff run:

- SP Madison Bumgarner
- RPs Will Smith, Tony Watson, and Sam Dyson
- 2B Joe Panik

These guys were either (potential) free agents at the end of the year or arbitration-eligible. Everyone else was too expensive, given their past/expected performance (Samardzija, Melancon) or not really very valuable anyway. They still managed to turn some depth and filler (and cash) into contributors, like Yastrzemski, Pillar, Dickerson, and Gott. They kept their starting assets.

During the season, they picked up Kevin Pillar, who held down CF for most of the season and was useful, and Alex Dickerson, who was great for a month and then got hurt. He'll try again in 2020. They traded away a reliever and some filler.

By the trade deadline, the Giants had a slim chance of making the playoffs. They decided not to commit to a fire sale, keeping Bumgarner, Smith, and Watson, but trading Melancon, Dyson, and Pomeranz for prospects and some salary relief. By dumping three relievers (one who was an impending free agent, one who still had $14M committed next season, and one who was expected to make a lot in arbitration and who the Giants may have known was about to get hurt), they picked up their 2020 starting second baseman, a potential 2020 outfielder, three minor league pitchers, and a bad contract. They also bought a second baseman (Scooter Gennett) to try out in place of Panik. They didn't make the playoffs, which was expected, but they dumped some depth to build for the future while not giving up on the remainder of the season.

...

The Giants were active in the free agent market. They went hard after Bryce Harper, one of only three really impactful free agents and the one that best suited their needs - in the end they didn't get him. They did sign a bunch of depth pieces instead, but most of those didn't work out. Stephen Vogt and Donovan Solano were extremely useful, and Gustave was pretty useful. Derek Holland and Drew Pomeranz were failures, but Pomeranz got turned into Dubon and, had they kept him, may have been a valuable reliever.

They were active on the waiver wire before and during the season, too, but those sorts of moves rarely make waves. Rickard, Barraclough, Peralta, and Burch Smith were kinda useful.

...

So, what exactly should the Giants have done differently? Shovel more money at Bryce Harper until he bit? I can see going after someone like Keuchel, sure, but that was hardly going to bring them a championship.
   89. Tin Angel Posted: December 16, 2019 at 09:38 PM (#5909155)
So, what exactly should the Giants have done differently?


He's not going to answer you because that would require backing up his words with actual facts instead of pontificating. I asked him this when he was ripping on Zaidi four months after he was hired for not "doing enough." When pressed his main answer was Zaidi should have signed Marwin González, he of the 1.4 WAR. Because that totally would have made the Giants contenders last year.
   90. Howie Menckel Posted: December 16, 2019 at 09:42 PM (#5909156)
Of course Bumgarner seems like the type of person to absolutely not give a #### about the HOF or his reputation or what anyone says about him,


"I cant help but point out that the name Madison was almost unknown in the US until the TV show Moonlighting which debuted in 1985."

there were some wonderful stories out during Bumgarner's last WS appearance, and one was how the backwoods county he is from was just teeming with Bumgarners.

he even dated a girl with the same last name in high school (no redneck jokes, they're not related), but that wasn't nearly the best part - which was that her name was "Madison Bumgarner" too.

on another note, my brother and his wife once took their three kids to the old sod in Ireland and she asked for a table for 5 in our last name. the waitress points and says, "You see all these people in here? Almost every one of them is a [same name] as well. can you be more specific?"

#rural
   91. Sunday silence Posted: December 16, 2019 at 09:47 PM (#5909157)
I still want to know what sabermetric theories he thinks are flat out wrong headed...
   92. Greg Pope Posted: December 16, 2019 at 10:18 PM (#5909160)
The name jumps 150 places (to no. 280) in 1958 so maybe. It was still fairly non descript when it spike in 1965 (Allison Parks PMOM Oct 1965) and then went right back down in 1966. It started its latest rally in 1970 which has carried it into the top 40 most of the last 15 years. Another rally that lasted an entire generation which is typical with female names.

Where do you find the entire list? I can only find things like top 1,000 and also ranks. For example, I can find that "Khaleesi" entered the top 1,000 in 2014 and climbed up to rank 549 in 2018 (with 560 babies). But not the raw data.
   93. Howie Menckel Posted: December 16, 2019 at 10:22 PM (#5909161)
I had a girlfriend named Alison - which for some reason I think is a much hotter name than Allison (maybe that Twins slugger had gotten into my subsconscious thoughts?).
   94. puck Posted: December 16, 2019 at 11:43 PM (#5909169)
is it because Alison is the Elvis Costello song?
   95. Howie Menckel Posted: December 16, 2019 at 11:49 PM (#5909171)
not sure. I lost my mind on 'Allison Road' at the time; the Gin Blossoms were in vogue then.

yet that song didn't move my allegiance to the 'double L'
   96. jmurph Posted: December 17, 2019 at 09:57 AM (#5909215)
Hey look at that, when the trolling stops it's almost like interesting conversations can take place!
   97. Greg Pope Posted: December 17, 2019 at 10:52 AM (#5909242)
yet that song didn't move my allegiance to the 'double L'

One L just looks weird to me.
   98. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 17, 2019 at 10:56 AM (#5909244)
on another note, my brother and his wife once took their three kids to the old sod in Ireland and she asked for a table for 5 in our last name. the waitress points and says, "You see all these people in here? Almost every one of them is a [same name] as well.
Huh. I had no idea that Menckel is actually an Irish name.
   99. Omineca Greg Posted: December 17, 2019 at 11:27 AM (#5909264)
I have to admit, now that A-Rod has settled down, I thought I wouldn't have to think about the debaucheries and indiscretions of his youth.

The worst of all, the thing that made me wonder about him, was when his loins had a hunger...that could only be satisfied by French clowns. I don't know if this is news to people here, but it's an open secret in the mime community, that A-Rod...well, he had a thing for mimes.

A lot of us theorised that it's because they wouldn't talk to the press.

Or maybe they were afraid to make waves because they didn't want to draw attention to their "whiteface", which in 2019 we all know is wrong, but in A-Rod's hayday (see what I did there?), well, they were just beginning to realise they had a serious headwind going against them.

But anyway, here it is, the most obvious anagram for "Madison Bumgarner"...is "A-Rod's 'Mime Bang Run'".

Gross, eh? Using his fame, celebrity, and let's face it, studliness, to rush out into the city (especially near subway stations) to seduce young mimes, just to satisfy his carnal urges.

Let's ask a mime, and see how she feels about it.

I agree, scandalous.

Let me apologise for this post, the whole concept of Alex having an "A-Rod's 'Mime Bang Run" is just wrong.

It was really more of a canter.
   100. nick swisher hygiene Posted: December 17, 2019 at 11:52 AM (#5909279)
What, you couldn’t find a pic of Madison Albright?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(4021 - 1:25am, May 26)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogNoah Syndergaard offers fiery response to landlord's lawsuit: 'See you in court pal'
(26 - 1:03am, May 26)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogGregg Jefferies complicated Mets’ failure looks different now
(35 - 12:45am, May 26)
Last: flournoy

NewsblogPensacola Blue Wahoos list stadium for Airbnb rentals
(4 - 12:29am, May 26)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogOT – NBA CoronaThread 2020
(3004 - 11:55pm, May 25)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (May 2020)
(225 - 7:26pm, May 25)
Last: ckash

Newsblogcoronavirus and baseball collide in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea
(3 - 4:53pm, May 25)
Last: Rally

NewsblogWhere have all the top lefty pitchers gone?
(18 - 3:02pm, May 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogLeitch/MLB: The best moment in each ballpark's history
(95 - 1:15pm, May 25)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogCrew chief: Umpire told Jeter he was tagged by Rolen in stolen base attempt
(153 - 1:36am, May 25)
Last: Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean

Newsblog'The Wild West:' MiLB Teams On Chopping Block Scramble To Find MLB Partner
(19 - 10:05pm, May 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogWe Can Show Baseball Reruns, Too
(61 - 9:50pm, May 24)
Last: Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques

NewsblogAngels will furlough non-playing employees on June 1
(12 - 8:07pm, May 24)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of MeritNew Eligibles Year by Year
(981 - 3:22pm, May 24)
Last: Jaack

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-22-2020
(30 - 12:15pm, May 24)
Last: VCar

-->

Page rendered in 0.8221 seconds
46 querie(s) executed