The Giants’ run in 2010 was magical, something a devoted city and passionate fan base deserved. Barring something big – and the Giants seem to be done with this offseason after arbitration crushed any hope at a similar payroll as last year – it’s also a championship that won’t be repeated.I'm not outraged by this line, nor do I agree with it in the slightest. Rather, I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed because I know Jeff Passan is a great writer, and that he has a profound understanding of the game. In fact, he wrote an absolutely fantastic profile on Voros McCracken just a few days ago.
This article of his, however, reflected a lack of creativity and original thinking. Right off the bat, I must say this: of course it's tough to repeat a championship. That's the case with every team, regardless of the level of talent they have. In order to win a championship, you need to have great players, and you need to have your great players stay healthy, and continue to perform well. Moreover, you need to have your team get hot at the right time -- in the playoffs. Year after year, great teams don't win the World Series, simply because they didn't play to their maximum potential at the right time.
If the Giants don't win the World Series next year, are we to say that Jeff Passan was absolutely right? No, because a number of factors determine the world champions -- factors that go far beyond the players on the team. Passan's piece wasn't a unique perspective either. We've heard this all offseason long, from a number of writers.
My biggest issue with the piece, however, is the notion that a team must have an active offseason in order to be successful. My interpretation of pieces like this is that these writers think the Giants are being lazy, enjoying their world championship and assuming they'll have another great team next year.
Yes, the Giants are assuming they'll have another great team next year (and rightfully so), but they're certainly not being lazy.
Let's take the Mariners for example. In 2009-10, they traded for Cliff Lee and Milton Bradley, extended Felix Hernandez, and added free agents Chone Figgins. They didn't appear to have a good offense, but they certainly appeared to have a competitive team. Their rotation seemed strong, and they had a fantastic defense to back it up. And while they lacked any sluggers, they seemed to have the tools to score runs -- with speedy guys like Ichiro Suzuki and Chone Figgins, and a possible resurrection of power from Milton Bradley. Yet, in spite of their pretty active offseason, they won just 61 games in 2010.
The Texas Rangers, on the other hand, had a pretty quiet offseason in 2009-10. They signed Darren Oliver and the oft-injured Rich Harden to one-year contracts, and in January they signed Vladimir Guerrero -- seemingly at the end of his career -- to a one-year deal. They also added Colby Lewis in January, a pitcher of whom many were unaware. No giant blockbuster deals, and they were certainly quiet in comparison to the Mariners that offseason.Yet, they won over 90 games, and made the World Series for the first time in the history of their franchise.
So don't buy in too much to the myth that a team can be measured by its activity during the offseason. The Giants still have a strong rotation, and with guys like Buster Posey, a fit Pablo Sandoval, Aubrey Huff, Pat Burrell, Cody Ross, and the under-rated Andres Torres, they should be able to provide enough offense in support. Oh yeah, and that bullpen is still rock-solid.
Lastly, the Giants don't have any clear-cut competitors in their division. The Colorado Rockies staff is good, but certainly not nearly as good as that of the Giants. And they have some obvious holes, as they'll be dependent upon some guys like Ian Stewart, Seth Smith, and Ryan Spilborghs to play well. The Los Angeles Dodgers, on the other hand, have a great rotation, but their outfield defense is atrocious, and they'll need to see a new Matt Kemp in order to stay competitive.
Because of this, the Giants have a great shot at making the playoffs again. And from there, anything can happen, really. In the playoffs, though, the advantage often goes to the team with the stronger pitching -- at least in my experience. And the Giants seem to have better pitching than every National League team, with the exception of the Philadelphia Phillies. If the Giants make it to the NLCS, and happen to face the Phillies again, it will be tough to overcome them, and it would be foolish to think otherwise. But while the Phillies have the better rotation, the Giants have the better bullpen -- the importance of which cannot be underestimated.
Crazy Crabbers and Paapfly also both examined this piece, and I recommend you read their takes. Paapfly makes the point that the Giants are keen to prepare for the future by not spending big this offseason, and Crazy Crabbers makes the point that the Giants are competitive with the Phillies.
(Edit: also, check out the comment made on this post by the always-insightful DrBGiantsFan of When the Giants Come to Town. He makes the point that the Giants' offseason was mid-season in 2010, and that this is actually a great offseason by the Giants, when you compare it to that of other teams in the majors. )
