Bring on the Flames: My assessment of the Giants for 2003
ama...@worldnet.att.net
Note on my methodology: I prefer to think in terms of how a group has
changed and react to the changes to the entire unit. Hence there will be no
talk here about how we lose offensively by replacing Kent with Durham.
Manager:
* Felipe Alou replaces Dusty Baker; "It's a Beautiful thing" replaces
"Dustiny"
* Some consider a loss; I think it is for the better
* Alou, if anything, has a great track record of developing and recognizing
players (not withstanding someone's charge, valid as may be, that the Giants
didn't really have any good prospects during the Baker years) which we will
need with a great batch of young players ready to burst onto the scene:
Ainsworth, Foppert, Williams, Bonzer, Linden. Baker has earned a deserved
reputation for
relying on veterans, often to the detriment of the team and the development
of younger players. It's starting again in Chicago with the acquisition of
favorite ex-Giants of his and the trade with L.A. for two positions where
the Cubs have two hot rookies.
Outfield:
* Bonds, Grissom, Cruz with Benard backup, maybe Torcato and Feliz
* Bonds, what can you say, couldn't have a better year, could he? I expect
a drop off but not greatly.
* Cruz will play RF instead of Sanders
- Offensively is about the same as Sanders but with a slight drop off.
However this is offset by the fact that Sanders is on the downside of his
career and Cruz should be on the upswing. Plus Cruz is only being paid $1M
this year (rest deferred) which is much less than the $3.5M that Sanders had
for his option year.
* Grissom will play CF instead of Shinjo/Lofton
- Offensively should be way better than what we got from CF last year,
even if he plays full-time in CF. We didn't get much out of the position
until Lofton got hot in September, especially with Baker insisting on
batting Shinjo lead-off when he was more suited for positions 5-7. Plus if
he bats two ahead of Bonds, he may get the Bond's halo effect. Defensively
about the same if you average Shinjo's brilliance and Lofton's creakiness.
* Overall, should get about the same amount of offense from the outfield,
especially when comparing bench strength vs. last year when we had Dunston,
Goodwin, and Shinjo there (then again almost anything would be better).
Plus if Cruz can return to his form of two years ago, I think the offense
will be improved.
Infield:
* Snow, Durham, Aurillia, Alfonzo with Perez, Feliz, and Gallaraga backup
* Snow couldn't get any worse, could he? Expect slight drop (how much
lower can he go though?) due to age
but we get a bonus if we get into the playoffs.
* Aurillia is recovered from his injury plus in last year of contract so I
expect him to improve offensively over last year, with something in between
2001 and 2002. I also think it's a good chance for more like 2001 given how
he was hitting before he was injured and how he hit in Sept and Oct after he
finally recovered.
* Alfonzo, while a 3B, is taking Kent's place offensively. While not the
player Kent is now, he is better than the player Kent was until he was
traded to the Giants and entered the offensive distortion zone that is
Barry's spot in the order. As long as he can stay healthy and just do what
he did in 2001-2002, down years vs. his 1999/2000, he should score and drive
in a lot of runs, in the 80-100 range. This is a drop from Kent but not a
drastic drop even if he is out with an injury (his 2002 would have been
considered decent except in comparison with his previous peak years). I see
a early Giants Kent if not injured, an Ellis Burks-lite if battling
injuries.
* Durham, however, is a vast improvement over David Bell. Much as I liked
Bell, I'm glad he left so that we could get Durham and Alfonzo.
* Overall, I expect about the same offense, with Aurillia more than making
up for what drop Snow has over last year and Durham's superiority over Bell
making up most of the drop for Alfonzo versus Kent. If Alfonzo is
injury-free, we have an upside here as well, though that will be mitigated
by our bench, solely because of Neifi Perez, the giant offensive sink-hole.
Defense should be about the same as Alfonzo is good with the glove and it
sounds like Durham is no worse than Kent.
Catcher:
* Benito and Yorvit return
* Sorry Benito, pot or no, there's no fountain of youth for catchers, so I
expect a drop in production, especially since last year was his best in
years.
* Yorvit also played better than expected last year as well so I expect a
drop here as well.
* Overall, a drop offensively but luckily we aren't dependent on their
offense.
Lineup:
* Looking like it may be Durham, Grissom, Cruz, Bonds, Alfonzo, Aurillia,
Snow, Santiago.
* I think it would be better Durham, Cruz, Bonds, Alfonzo, Aurillia, Snow,
Grissom, Santiago, but I won't quibble here much as long as Bonds has good
hitters behind him. I just prefer guaranteeing Bonds hit in the first
inning. (I would actually prefer batting Bonds 2nd and moving Cruz to 5th
in this case but I know no one would go for that).
* The problem is not getting runners on ahead of Bonds, the problem is that
unless the runner is on first, he will get walked in those situations.
Hence we need players behind him who can drive in a lot of runs so that the
other team will question the wisdom of giving the following players another
runner to drive in. Alfonzo and Aurillia have shown that they could do this
before. That's why I like Bonds batting 2nd as it would give us three good
hitters behind him, making the other team pay when they walk him. I checked
to see what would happen with Alfonzo 2nd vs. Aurillia. It only results in
5% more AB's with a man on first; that's the only one that counts for
giving Bonds an AB as basically all other situations gives the other team
the idea of walking Bonds.
* As noted above, offense is expected to be about the same for both the
infield and the outfield and down from the catching spot. Presumably
offense from pitchers are down due to lost of Ortiz, a good hitter. Overall
a slight drop in offense, with the potential to improve on last year's
total, which ranked 3rd in runs scored.
Starting Pitching:
* Ortiz trade was good. Realized after the trade that Ortiz is kind of
like the pitcher's
equivalent of Benard. At least twice over the past 3-4 years, he had nice
stats at the end of the year but only did so because he had a horrible first
half, but a great second half. Also makes sense from a baseball standpart
as well. Our farm system has 4 great pitching prospects - Ainsworth,
Foppert, Williams, Boof - plus more who would be considered a top prospect
for other teams, but the majority of them are righties (I think the top
lefty, Hannaman, only pitched A ball last year). So Moss is a lefty
counterpart to these prospects.
* Schmidt is now the ace. Should have a better year since his injury took
away at least a month of the regular season from him.
* Rueter will be his consistent self and win more than he loses but he
probably falls back to a high 3's/low 4's ERA.
* Livan actually didn't have a horrible year, just a horrible W-L record.
Looking back at starts where he kept the opponents to 3 runs or less, games
he should have won if he had average support, he should have had 18 wins
last year. But given all the losses, I don't think that he'll have a worse
year than last year. In fact, especially since it looks like he'll be
pitching in the 3rd spot this year, instead of going up against the other
teams' aces, I would expect him to do better, especially with the horrible
record he had last year.
* Moss is the question mark obviously. Based on the fact that it took him
so long to develop, I would expect him to fall back some from last year when
he was in the top 5 in keeping the opponent's batting average low.
* I expect Ainsworth to get the 5th spot with Jensen as the long reliever.
He did very well last year and I expect the same from him this year. I
expect him to do better than Jensen did last year, maybe not record wise,
but statistics wise.
* Overall, three better, two worse, so I would expect the starting pitching
to do about as well as last year.
Relief Pitching:
* Nen is the closer and, despite the surgery, I would expect him to do no
worse than last year as last year was actually a down year relatively for
him.
* Worrell is the setup guy initially but I would expect him to fall back
from last year's great season but still do well.
* FRod is the other setup guy and probably will take over the role full
time once Worrell falters. He was horrible for half the year so he should
do much better this year.
* Eyre is the lefty killer but can also take on righties, a vast
improvement, any way you look at it, over Fultz last year.
* Zerbe is the all purpose reliever and I would expect him to do about the
same as next year. He really impressed me during the playoffs and would be
bummed if the Giants got rid of him.
* Jensen is the new long reliever. He won't have stats as good as Witasick
but Witasick was really only used in blow-out, no pressure situations (and
wasn't happy with that; reason he gave for moving to SD) so even if Jensen
struggled initially, it wouldn't be in situations where we had a good chance
of coming back to win anyhow. Plus he could swap places with Ainsworth if
Ainsworth falters and Williams and Foppert aren't ready to come up at that
time
* Alternatively, we can make Zerbe long relief so that when Christensen
comes back, we can drop Jensen back to AAA.
* Overall, relief pitching is about the same as last year but with a slight
drop as FRod does much better than last year and Eyre is an improvement over
Fultz but we lose Witasick's nice stats and Worrell falls back and Nen is a
question mark because of his surgery.
* Prediction: Livan is gone by mid-year and we will not be forced to pay
him $6M next year. If he has a knockout spring, he may go if a starter goes
down for another team. If still here and he is doing great, there may be a
team that will need an arm and will take him on and we'll bring in Foppert
or Williams, depending on who is doing better, or Jensen if neither. If he
is doing average, there should be a team who is desperate for a starter so
that they can stay in contention and we'll give him away for a low A
prospect or two or three. If he is doing poorly or horribly, then the
Giants can tell him he needs to go to AAA and work things out and bring in
the young pitcher doing best at the time. If he refuses, he becomes a free
agent and we don't have to worry about his option year vesting. If he
accepts, I think he still has to go through waivers, so someone might claim
him and again our problem goes away (or hopefully; I'm no lawyer and don't
know what happens if the Giants release him and someone takes him on and he
makes the 217 inning necessary to vest the option but it wouldn't make sense
that the Giants get stuck with it if he's already released and with another
team). If no one claims - probably not - he goes down and loses the chance
to make his option year vest.
Overall Assessment:
* Giants are now managed by someone experienced with developing young
players and handling experienced players (his years of managing in Carribean
Leagues) and can hopefully help bring to fruition our corp of young pitching
prospects as he did with Pedro Martinez, John Wetteland, Mel Rojas, Carlos
Perez, Ken Hill, Ugueth Urbina, and Dustin Hermanson. He's also developed a
lot of position players as well - Vladimir Guerrero, Henry Rodriguez, Larry
Walker, Rondell White, etc., and maybe he can salvage Feliz, Torcato, or
Niekro or help Linden.
* The offense, barring serious injury to our key quintet - Bonds, Durham,
Alfonzo, Aurillia, and Cruz - we should be just as potent as last year with
massive potential upsides should Alfonzo and/or Cruz experience the Bonds
Distortion Zone that Kent, Burks, Aurillia, and Santiago experienced batting
ahead and behind Bonds.
* The pitching should be about the same. Starting should be about the
same, with a full season from a healthy Schmidt and with Ainsworth an
improvement over Jensen but balanced with a drop off from Rueter and Moss
versus Ortiz. Livan will be Livan, shouldn't get any worse and if he does,
he'll be replaced. The bullpen will suffer a drop, with Worrell falling
back and Witasick gone, but balanced by a full healthy season of FRod and
Eyre vs. Fultz. Nen's surgery is a problem, but even if he's out
significantly, FRod should be able to take over without much of a hitch.
* The defense will suffer an overall drop due to older remaining players
and replacement players not on par defensively.
Conclusion:
* Team was 3rd in runs scored and 2nd in ERA. With offense down a little
and pitching about the same, and their Pythagorean record was 4 games better
than actual (99 games but only won 95), the Giants should again win about
90-95 games, even with a 10% drop in offense, and maybe take the Western
Division. Arizona played above Pythagorean (+1) and didn't do much to
improve during the off-season and fields an old team so their stats should
go down too, leaving them with a record in the low 90's as well so it could
be a battle to the end again. Los Angeles won 3 more games than Pythagorean
predicted and they didn't do much to improve themselves except addition
through subtraction, so they should win less games than last year (89) even
with a bump-up in stats from the moves they did and end up with a record in
the low to mid 80's unless someone breaks out offensively. San Diego just
lost Hoffman for half the year; enuf said. And Colorado is Colorado, not a
threat until they prove otherwise.
Looking ahead to Post-Barry era:
The budget currently is at $72M for next year for the players currently on
roster right now and assuming Livan's option does not vest, Snow is paid
off for his option year, Cruz is paid off for his option year, and includes
Rueter's extension. That leaves space to resign Aurillia (notice that he
said he was interested in an extension but didn't say anything about a home
discount; he probably wasn't happy that Jose Hernandez only got $1M. I
expect the Giants to let him test the market and to try to re-sign him) and
Cruz.
That also is low enough to try to sign or trade for the "next" Barry
Bonds-type player as we move closer to the transition era away from Bonds as
"da man". This "next-era" player will have to take a big deferment, on the
order of $5M per year, during Bonds' contract. Otherwise we'll have to
trade either Nen or FRod to be able to afford him.
I assume that locating such a player is a stronger imperative than resigning
Aurillia or Cruz - unless somehow Cruz becomes that guy, as Aurillia is too
old - as we need to prepare for the post-Barry era. And Vladimir Guerrero
is the only player on the free agent market in 2004 that fits the bill.
That he has a strong personal connection with Felipe Alou and Luis Pujols is
all the better for the Giants. However, Nomar Garciaparra is also
available for 2005 should Vlad fall through. Nen's contract will be up
after 2004 so the Giants would save $9M there but lose about half of that to
raises for other players already signed. Plus Neifi's contract will be up
as well (albatross...), saving nearly $3M (!?! For every Kent, there's a
Neifi...)
Wayne Alan Simon
Tommy
For the most part, I was impressed by your lengthy and detailed analysis
of the 2003 Big Guys..........except when I read this:
>Livan actually didn't have a horrible year,
>just a horrible W-L record. Looking back
>at starts where he kept the opponents to
>3 runs or less, games he should have
>won if he had average support, he
>should have had 18 wins last year. But
>given all the losses, I don't think that he'll
>have a worse year than last year. In fact,
>especially since it looks like he'll be
>pitching in the 3rd spot this year, instead
>of going up against the other teams'
>aces, I would expect him to do better,
>especially with the horrible record he had
>last year.
Suffice it to say that I disagree with what you say here in its
entirety. But what I find interesting is that after reading this faint
left-handed praise of Livan's season last year, you later on in your
treatise cite numerous scenarios as to how The Big Guys can possibly
unload The BFI in the course of the coming season. In other words, after
first stating that he wasn't as bad last year as his W-L record says he
was (not to mention the WS!), you then desperately cite every possible
scenario in which you hope we can get rid of him.
Interesting, that.
Douglas Berry
<ama...@worldnet.att.net> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>* Bonds, what can you say, couldn't have a better year, could he? I expect
>a drop off but not greatly.
My only concern about Bonds is his lack of speed in the outfield.
Let's face it, he's not getting the jump on balls like he used to.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Richard Booroojian
<ama...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:2xh7a.72758$zF6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Preview of the 2003 Season: "It's gonna be beautiful."
>
> Note on my methodology: I prefer to think in terms of how a group has
> changed and react to the changes to the entire unit. Hence there will be
no
> talk here about how we lose offensively by replacing Kent with Durham.
This was a very interesting and entertaining post, and of course far more
involved and detailed than I would ever have the energy to do. It also
provides the rest of us the perfect opportunity to respond with far less
output of effort, so thank you for that.
FWIW, my methodology involved just typing my opinions, with only a modest
amount of factual basis (at best) behind it. Nothing new there, huh?
> Manager:
>
> * Felipe Alou replaces Dusty Baker; "It's a Beautiful thing" replaces
> "Dustiny"
> * Some consider a loss; I think it is for the better
> * Alou, if anything, has a great track record of developing and
recognizing
> players (not withstanding someone's charge, valid as may be, that the
Giants
> didn't really have any good prospects during the Baker years) which we
will
> need with a great batch of young players ready to burst onto the scene:
> Ainsworth, Foppert, Williams, Bonzer, Linden. Baker has earned a deserved
> reputation for
> relying on veterans, often to the detriment of the team and the
development
> of younger players. It's starting again in Chicago with the acquisition
of
> favorite ex-Giants of his and the trade with L.A. for two positions where
> the Cubs have two hot rookies.
Also belonging here is a mention of the coaching situation; any staff that
rids us of Sonny Jackson has the potential to be an upgrade. I am not as
sure as some that the Giants will be better off without Gene Clines,
however. (And it still kills me that after we had to put up with Sonny all
those years at third base, he won't be messing that role up for the Cubs.)
As for Dusty vs. Alou, I think questions of whether Baker is better or
deserved to be forced out are kind of irrelevant, because he was just ready
to leave and wanted to go. I know he blames Peter Magowan for the parting,
but I don't think he is looking enough into his own heart and realizing that
after 15 years here, he was looking for reasons to be offended because he
was just tired of being here. I can say with certainty that I will never be
able to work at the same place for 15 years (I have never been any place
longer than 6.5 years) because after a while, I am just tired and bored of
it. I think Dusty was in the same position.
Because of that, I do believe that Baker, had he stayed, would have been
more and more affected by the underlying and growing sense of unhappiness
and restlessness that was building up inside of him. I think some of that
was already coming out the last few years as he started to become more
stubborn about his lineup and roster choices and less and less tolerant of
criticism. None of this is intended to demean his work or effort; I think
it is clear that he was the best San Francisco Giants manager yet. However,
I think he was getting dangerously close to the point of diminishing returns
here.
So, based on that, I think Alou, who has a strong managerial pedigree as
well, will be a more successful manager for the Giants this year than Dusty
would have been. I think Dusty will do well for the Cubs and good for him.
I don't like Dusty's snarky attitude towards the Giants right now, but I
will always have warm feelings for him. I think he is a solid enough guy
that in a year or two, he will come to realize that the divorce was as much
his fault as the Giants'. I hope so; I would hate to feel like he is
disaffected towards the Giants and their fans forever.
Bonds vs. Bonds has to be a drop-off, because his season last year was
possibly the greatest offensive performance in ML history.
Cruz vs. Sanders has a real potential to be an upgrade, but I don't know if
it is a slam dunk. There is a part of me that thinks Cruz is going to be
the big disappointment of 2003, because instead of learning plate discipline
from watching Bonds, he is going to become an even less selective swinger
trying to match him for home runs. I sure hope I am wrong in this.
While Grissom will probably be an upgrade over the first half center field
situation, I think he will be a regression from Lofton. I don't care about
the Giants in the first half, because they were an underperforming bunch.
In the second half, though, and especially in the playoffs, Lofton was very
effective, and I don't see Grissom getting near that level. He should be
better than Lofton defensively, though.
Last year's bench was a joke, especially once Benard got hurt. Who is this
year's bench in the OF, though? Benard and then Torcato? Bonds, Cruz,
Grissom, Benard and Torcato are the only outfielders on the roster right
now.
One last question: at some point, I think we all know that Bonds will have
to start slowing down (hopefully not too much this year, of course).
However, if everyone keeps walking him, how will the other teams ever figure
out that it's happening?
I can't believe Snow can be any worse than last year, and I really do think
he will be better almost out of pure reverse gravity (I'm sure my good
friend Greg will disagree). I also would rather have the Big Cat over Minor
any day of the week. I hope they keep those two, then clear all of them out
in 2004 for someone cheaper and better. Or, at least, cheaper.
I am very upbeat on Durham and Alfonzo vs. Kent and Bell. In fact, as I
have said elsewhere, Durham was #1 on my wish list this off season (even
over Kent). I believe Kent is not going to set the world on fire in Houston
as much as everyone thinks he is going to. However, I suspect Bell is going
to look good on the potentially high flying Phillies. None the less, I
think we will end up with the better deal with Durham and Alfonzo, both in
2003 and down the road.
I agree with your thoughts on Aurilia. I would be interested to see how he
would do batting fifth or sixth, which is where he may end up.
I can't figure out their reserve infielder situation, other than of course
hating Neifi, but since I was never overwhelmed with last year's group
either (not much liking Martinez either), I guess it isn't going to matter.
Dumping Minor would be a plus in my book; I really dislike him for some
reason and dread the possibility that he would ever be a starter for the
Giants.
> Catcher:
> * Benito and Yorvit return
> * Sorry Benito, pot or no, there's no fountain of youth for catchers, so
I
> expect a drop in production, especially since last year was his best in
> years.
> * Yorvit also played better than expected last year as well so I expect a
> drop here as well.
> * Overall, a drop offensively but luckily we aren't dependent on their
> offense.
I think the interesting question here will be what happens in 2004. I don't
think catching was a key offensive spot in 2002 (the playoffs
notwithstanding) and I doubt it will be in 2003 either. However, I don't
think it will be a big problem area either. Like him or not, Santiago has
been decent the last two years.
(...)
> Starting Pitching:
> * Ortiz trade was good. Realized after the trade that Ortiz is kind of
> like the pitcher's
> equivalent of Benard. At least twice over the past 3-4 years, he had nice
> stats at the end of the year but only did so because he had a horrible
first
> half, but a great second half. Also makes sense from a baseball standpart
> as well. Our farm system has 4 great pitching prospects - Ainsworth,
> Foppert, Williams, Boof - plus more who would be considered a top prospect
> for other teams, but the majority of them are righties (I think the top
> lefty, Hannaman, only pitched A ball last year). So Moss is a lefty
> counterpart to these prospects.
I agree with this 100%. I liked Russ, but I don't think the Giants will
miss him or his 2004 salary requirements.
> * Schmidt is now the ace. Should have a better year since his injury
took
> away at least a month of the regular season from him.
Well, I am worried that he will experience health problems again, but
otherwise, I think this is going to be his year.
> * Rueter will be his consistent self and win more than he loses but he
> probably falls back to a high 3's/low 4's ERA.
Agree
> * Livan actually didn't have a horrible year, just a horrible W-L record.
> Looking back at starts where he kept the opponents to 3 runs or less,
games
> he should have won if he had average support, he should have had 18 wins
> last year. But given all the losses, I don't think that he'll have a
worse
> year than last year. In fact, especially since it looks like he'll be
> pitching in the 3rd spot this year, instead of going up against the other
> teams' aces, I would expect him to do better, especially with the horrible
> record he had last year.
I have to agree with Tommy here; the Big Fat Idiot was terrible and almost
cost the team their playoff spot. While it's true that they gave him less
run support than any other starter last year, opposing teams also scored
more than half a run per game more in his starts than any other starter.
(These numbers are for the whole game, so it includes bullpen innings.)
starts scored per start allowed per start
Hernandez 33 4.33 4.58
Ortiz 33 5.18 3.85
Jensen 30 5.17 4.00
Rueter 33 4.97 3.15
Schmidt 28 4.89 3.68
Ainsworth 4 3.25 2.75
(I hope this table formats ok.)
Granted, the team's record in his starts (14-19) was worse than the expected
Pythagorean record in those starts (16-17), but in both cases, his was by
far the worst such record for the main five starters. (By the way, the
Giants were 18-15 in Ortiz's starts, the second worse such record of the Big
5, although there they really underperformed the Pythagorean expectations of
21-12. Hmmm, maybe I should be a little more concerned about that move after
all. Nah; Ortiz also had the highest pitch count per inning and per start
on the squad. Worth worrying about is that Schmidt was right behind him on
both counts.)
> * Moss is the question mark obviously. Based on the fact that it took
him
> so long to develop, I would expect him to fall back some from last year
when
> he was in the top 5 in keeping the opponent's batting average low.
I am positive about him, not that I have any real basis other than pure
optimism for that opinion.
> * I expect Ainsworth to get the 5th spot with Jensen as the long
reliever.
> He did very well last year and I expect the same from him this year. I
> expect him to do better than Jensen did last year, maybe not record wise,
> but statistics wise.
For some reason, I think Jensen has a better chance to stick in the rotation
than this. I also think that if he doesn't stick in the rotation, he will be
traded for a bullpen veteran (see below).
> * Overall, three better, two worse, so I would expect the starting
pitching
> to do about as well as last year.
I think I agree with this. Once Livan is gone in 2004 and the young guys
(hopefully) get their chance, this could be a fun group to watch.
> Relief Pitching:
> * Nen is the closer and, despite the surgery, I would expect him to do no
> worse than last year as last year was actually a down year relatively for
> him.
I think he will be way down. In fact, I think this is the year it all starts
to catch up with him. He has had a long run as a top notch closer, and most
closers just don't last that long.
> * Worrell is the setup guy initially but I would expect him to fall back
> from last year's great season but still do well.
I have a bad feeling about him for some reason. He just feels like this
year's Alan Embree.
> * FRod is the other setup guy and probably will take over the role full
> time once Worrell falters. He was horrible for half the year so he should
> do much better this year.
I think he will be back on his game, and hopefully he won't lie when he is
hurting going forward. I think he skated somewhat on this issue; his lack of
honesty was probably as harmful to the team as anything outside of the BFI
last year.
> * Eyre is the lefty killer but can also take on righties, a vast
> improvement, any way you look at it, over Fultz last year.
> * Zerbe is the all purpose reliever and I would expect him to do about
the
> same as next year. He really impressed me during the playoffs and would
be
> bummed if the Giants got rid of him.
I agree with both of these. I like Zerbe beyond what his ability or overall
performance should earn. There is just something gritty about him.
> * Jensen is the new long reliever. He won't have stats as good as
Witasick
> but Witasick was really only used in blow-out, no pressure situations (and
> wasn't happy with that; reason he gave for moving to SD) so even if Jensen
> struggled initially, it wouldn't be in situations where we had a good
chance
> of coming back to win anyhow. Plus he could swap places with Ainsworth if
> Ainsworth falters and Williams and Foppert aren't ready to come up at that
> time
> * Alternatively, we can make Zerbe long relief so that when Christensen
> comes back, we can drop Jensen back to AAA.
I worry less about the bullpen than many, because it's the one area that
Sabean is always looking to tinker with, and he has actually proven very
adept in finding effective guys off the scrap heap, with the pickup of Eyre
being a good example. However, he puts a pretty high premium on experience
here, and he seems to be very willing to spend money beyond what one would
think makes sense for bullpen roles.
If Jensen doesn't make the starting rotation, I think he will be an
extremely tradable commodity given his record last year and his low salary
demands for the next few years. Given Sabean's track record, I would fully
expect him to trade Jensen to someone like the Pirates or the Royals for a
more expensive and older long relief guy. I'm not saying it would make
sense, but that's what I think will happen if Jensen isn't a starter. What I
wish they would do is use him as bait to dump Perez and pick up a decent
reserve outfielder and infielder, plus maybe a cheap bullpen role player,
which doesn't seem out of the question as Jensen should be considered a
reasonable major league starter. However, that hasn't been Sabean's style.
> * Overall, relief pitching is about the same as last year but with a
slight
> drop as FRod does much better than last year and Eyre is an improvement
over
> Fultz but we lose Witasick's nice stats and Worrell falls back and Nen is
a
> question mark because of his surgery.
If Nen is off his game, this could be a worrisome area, but I think it will
probably muddle along ok.
If the Big Fat Idiot gets within a light year of 217 innings this year, I
will renounce my moratorium on calling Sabean "BFS".
I dream of seeing the Livan sent down to AAA (what a party we could throw to
celebrate that one), but it will never happen. After all, the BFI is a
big-game pitching star, right?
> Overall Assessment:
>
> * Giants are now managed by someone experienced with developing young
> players and handling experienced players (his years of managing in
Carribean
> Leagues) and can hopefully help bring to fruition our corp of young
pitching
> prospects as he did with Pedro Martinez, John Wetteland, Mel Rojas, Carlos
> Perez, Ken Hill, Ugueth Urbina, and Dustin Hermanson. He's also developed
a
> lot of position players as well - Vladimir Guerrero, Henry Rodriguez,
Larry
> Walker, Rondell White, etc., and maybe he can salvage Feliz, Torcato, or
> Niekro or help Linden.
If Alou somehow helps the Giants land Vlad next year, he will be a hero for
the ages here. Otherwise, I will be happy if he just keeps the team on an
even keel post-Dusty.
> * The offense, barring serious injury to our key quintet - Bonds, Durham,
> Alfonzo, Aurillia, and Cruz - we should be just as potent as last year
with
> massive potential upsides should Alfonzo and/or Cruz experience the Bonds
> Distortion Zone that Kent, Burks, Aurillia, and Santiago experienced
batting
> ahead and behind Bonds.
Here are the Giants' runs scored numbers for the last seven years:
1997 785
1998 845 (163 games)
1999 872 (last year at Candlestick)
2000 925
2001 799
2002 783
In retrospect, considering that Pac Bell Park is turning out to be such a
pitcher's park, that 2000 number is sure eye-popping. No, it's astounding.
But it is also an indictment of the offense in 2001 and 2002, which,
considering they featured two of the greatest offensive seasons by a single
player in major league history, were substandard. I think there is room for
improvement over the last two years, and I think they have the right kind of
players to experience that improvement, assuming they all stay reasonably
healthy.
> * The pitching should be about the same. Starting should be about the
> same, with a full season from a healthy Schmidt and with Ainsworth an
> improvement over Jensen but balanced with a drop off from Rueter and Moss
> versus Ortiz. Livan will be Livan, shouldn't get any worse and if he
does,
> he'll be replaced. The bullpen will suffer a drop, with Worrell falling
> back and Witasick gone, but balanced by a full healthy season of FRod and
> Eyre vs. Fultz. Nen's surgery is a problem, but even if he's out
> significantly, FRod should be able to take over without much of a hitch.
>
> * The defense will suffer an overall drop due to older remaining players
> and replacement players not on par defensively.
I wonder about this, actually, I think that the defense should be about the
same. Grissom is better than Lofton, Cruz could be better than Sanders (who
wasn't bad in right, it's true), Durham and Alfonzo would seem to be about
as good defensively as Kent and Bell, at least to me.
Of course, that may be my silly optimism rearing its ugly head again.
> Conclusion:
>
> * Team was 3rd in runs scored and 2nd in ERA. With offense down a little
> and pitching about the same, and their Pythagorean record was 4 games
better
> than actual (99 games but only won 95), the Giants should again win about
> 90-95 games, even with a 10% drop in offense, and maybe take the Western
> Division. Arizona played above Pythagorean (+1) and didn't do much to
> improve during the off-season and fields an old team so their stats should
> go down too, leaving them with a record in the low 90's as well so it
could
> be a battle to the end again. Los Angeles won 3 more games than
Pythagorean
> predicted and they didn't do much to improve themselves except addition
> through subtraction, so they should win less games than last year (89)
even
> with a bump-up in stats from the moves they did and end up with a record
in
> the low to mid 80's unless someone breaks out offensively. San Diego just
> lost Hoffman for half the year; enuf said. And Colorado is Colorado, not
a
> threat until they prove otherwise.
I think the Giants will win over 90 games if Barry is relatively healthy.
Starting in 1997, the only year they did not win at least 89 games was 1999,
where Bonds was out for a month. Even then they won 86 despite finishing
4-11 in their last 15 games.
As to whether that will be enough to get them back into the playoffs is
unclear. We do know this much:
- somehow or other, the interleague schedule will favor the RBacks
- the Giants will lose at least one game against Arizona this year because
the umpires will cheat (it happens every year like clockwork).
- if Arizona has any type of injury problem which might open the door to the
Giants, the league office will fall all over itself to guarantee more debt
for the RBacks so they can go acquire Vlad. His mom will approve.
- If Fox somehow manages to sell the Dodgers during the season, I would
expect them to get a five game pop in the standings just out of general
happiness. I also have a bad feeling that Kevin Brown will finally get
healthy at some point this year, just in time for a critical start against
SF, and we all know how that game would go.
As for the West, I think it will be the same three teams competing again
this year. I don't expect SD or Colorado to stay in it all year, although
they both might be better than last year. It's unclear what Hoffman's injury
will mean, although if Robby Thompson were to make a comeback, I guess it
does mean he could settle into the batter's box a little more comfortably
(the above was not meant as a serious observation, only to show that some of
us have very long and bitter memories with regards Mr. Hoffman).
By the way, the team I am most worried about in the NL is the Cardinals. I
also think the Phils will be pretty good, although not as good as everyone
thinks. I bet the Mets will disappoint again, the Braves are going to
really fall off and the Cubs will be decent but won't sniff the playoffs.
I'm not clear what the Astros will do, but I kind of think they won't be as
good as expected.
There, all my baseless opinions are on the table. Now I can just look
forward to the season starting so we can find out what is really going to
happen.
rb
Dr. Wayne Simon
"Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:qois5vk88fopv71s3...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 05:40:14 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> <ama...@worldnet.att.net> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
> >* Bonds, what can you say, couldn't have a better year, could he? I
expect
> >a drop off but not greatly.
>
> My only concern about Bonds is his lack of speed in the outfield.
> Let's face it, he's not getting the jump on balls like he used to.
>
Of course his hamstring isn't getting any younger.
ama...@worldnet.att.net
I don't agree with you that he is a BFI (I would add an "L" for Big Fat LAZY
Idiot). It was not intended to be praise, so I apologize for that, I just
wanted to make the point that he wasn't really as bad as most posters in
this NG has painted him but in no way do I want him on our team. (besides,
what if one of the other 29 MLB teams actually reads these posts? We got to
give them a reason for trying to take him off our hands :^).
Also, I was rushing my writing, got kids...
Tommy wrote in message
<6095-3E5...@storefull-2215.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
ama...@worldnet.att.net
>
><ama...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:2xh7a.72758$zF6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Preview of the 2003 Season: "It's gonna be beautiful."
>>
>> Note on my methodology: I prefer to think in terms of how a group has
>> changed and react to the changes to the entire unit. Hence there will be
>no
>> talk here about how we lose offensively by replacing Kent with Durham.
>
>
>This was a very interesting and entertaining post, and of course far more
>involved and detailed than I would ever have the energy to do. It also
>provides the rest of us the perfect opportunity to respond with far less
>output of effort, so thank you for that.
>
>FWIW, my methodology involved just typing my opinions, with only a modest
>amount of factual basis (at best) behind it. Nothing new there, huh?
Well, brilliant minds think alike; that's my methodology too.
Thanks, I should have tried to address this area as well. I can't believe
that there could be anyone worse than Sonny Jackson! (He's going to be a
"special assistant", so he has the potential to mess up a whole lot of areas
than just 3B; don't they use that as a euphemism usually, like, "he's
'special' and just different from us.") Nothing against Clines, but given
that Snow has regressed severely from even his poor previous production, we
just needed another hitting instructor to take a look at him and see if he
can do anything.
>As for Dusty vs. Alou, I think questions of whether Baker is better or
>deserved to be forced out are kind of irrelevant, because he was just ready
>to leave and wanted to go. I know he blames Peter Magowan for the parting,
>but I don't think he is looking enough into his own heart and realizing
that
>after 15 years here, he was looking for reasons to be offended because he
>was just tired of being here. I can say with certainty that I will never
be
>able to work at the same place for 15 years (I have never been any place
>longer than 6.5 years) because after a while, I am just tired and bored of
>it. I think Dusty was in the same position.
I can see this angle. He definitely was giving all the signals that he
wanted to leave. Plus he should have figured out that Sabean's stance -
shown in the Rod Beck free agent situation - is to avoid being held hostage
to the free agent. Either you are with us or you are against us. By going
free agent and testing the waters, he was against us.
>Because of that, I do believe that Baker, had he stayed, would have been
>more and more affected by the underlying and growing sense of unhappiness
>and restlessness that was building up inside of him. I think some of that
>was already coming out the last few years as he started to become more
>stubborn about his lineup and roster choices and less and less tolerant of
>criticism. None of this is intended to demean his work or effort; I think
>it is clear that he was the best San Francisco Giants manager yet.
However,
>I think he was getting dangerously close to the point of diminishing
returns
>here.
Very perceptive! I can see that as well, perhaps in myself with him. I
agree with you that he was the best SF Giants manager yet. I don't intend
to demean his legacy either, but rather pointed out what I thought was a
flaw that lessened his value to us in the future.
>So, based on that, I think Alou, who has a strong managerial pedigree as
>well, will be a more successful manager for the Giants this year than Dusty
>would have been. I think Dusty will do well for the Cubs and good for him.
>I don't like Dusty's snarky attitude towards the Giants right now, but I
>will always have warm feelings for him. I think he is a solid enough guy
>that in a year or two, he will come to realize that the divorce was as much
>his fault as the Giants'. I hope so; I would hate to feel like he is
>disaffected towards the Giants and their fans forever.
I think the Cubs will like him as well plus he gets a fresh start as a
savior rather than a second-guessed underling. I don't like his attitude
either but I expected that from someone who didn't speak to his dad for a
long time. But like that situation, he will eventually reconcile with the
Giants who, frankly, give him the opportunity to be manager when he probably
would have had to waited another 5-10 years before another team would give
him a chance.
Yes, but so was the season before (I know, ain't gonna happen :^).
>Cruz vs. Sanders has a real potential to be an upgrade, but I don't know if
>it is a slam dunk. There is a part of me that thinks Cruz is going to be
>the big disappointment of 2003, because instead of learning plate
discipline
>from watching Bonds, he is going to become an even less selective swinger
>trying to match him for home runs. I sure hope I am wrong in this.
I would tend to agree even though Bonds warps the pitch pattern for the
players hitting before and after him so much that Cruz should see some
improvement over last year's results, but that would only put him on par
with what Sanders did last year. Whether he can match his production from
two years ago will depend on how much he is willing to listen to Felipe this
year since Felipe claimed to be looking forward to working with Cruz because
he saw the flaw Cruz has in his approach. Since Felipe is not emphasizing
going for the homers, he shouldn't fall into that bad habit.
>While Grissom will probably be an upgrade over the first half center field
>situation, I think he will be a regression from Lofton. I don't care about
>the Giants in the first half, because they were an underperforming bunch.
>In the second half, though, and especially in the playoffs, Lofton was very
>effective, and I don't see Grissom getting near that level. He should be
>better than Lofton defensively, though.
That's why I said over the production of the combined year of Shinjo/Lofton;
Grissom should be able to easily beat their combined performance this year,
mainly because of the mis-use of Shinjo. I would have preferred keeping
Shinjo at $1.2M and starting him in CF and bat him 7th than signing Grisson
to $4.5M and batting him 7th because of Shinjo's defense. We will need
defense this year in CF with Bonds in left, Cruz in right, and Durham at 2B.
Plus I didn't think Lofton was very effective until Sept/Oct.
>Last year's bench was a joke, especially once Benard got hurt. Who is this
>year's bench in the OF, though? Benard and then Torcato? Bonds, Cruz,
>Grissom, Benard and Torcato are the only outfielders on the roster right
>now.
I think it is addition through the subtraction of Dunston and Goodwin and
through a healthy Benard.
>One last question: at some point, I think we all know that Bonds will have
>to start slowing down (hopefully not too much this year, of course).
>However, if everyone keeps walking him, how will the other teams ever
figure
>out that it's happening?
Because they will pitch to him until he proves he's back full strength then
it'll be another walkathon. That's what happened last year, he hit, what
4-6 homers in the first week, then started getting walked constantly.
That's what I'm hoping too but I didn't want to count on it in my
evaluation. I'm happy about Big Cat as well. I assume they are going to
give Torcato and Niekro a strong look at first base next year.
>I am very upbeat on Durham and Alfonzo vs. Kent and Bell. In fact, as I
>have said elsewhere, Durham was #1 on my wish list this off season (even
>over Kent). I believe Kent is not going to set the world on fire in
Houston
>as much as everyone thinks he is going to. However, I suspect Bell is
going
>to look good on the potentially high flying Phillies. None the less, I
>think we will end up with the better deal with Durham and Alfonzo, both in
>2003 and down the road.
Durham was my number 1 as well. I think Kent will get exposed in Houston as
well but he's going to cry all the way to the bank (eventually since it
sounds like most of it is severely deferred). I don't think Bell is going
to look good. If I recall correctly, he only batted well when batting in
the bottom of the order over the past three years, in the 7 and 8 and 9
positions, so I think the pressure gets to him higher in the order.
However, since he is a big free agent signing, I think the pressure will be
to bat him 2nd or 6th on the order which will bring down his performance. I
was totally amazed when I realized that we may have actually improved on
Kent/Bell and I stopped regretting Bell taking off at that point.
>I agree with your thoughts on Aurilia. I would be interested to see how he
>would do batting fifth or sixth, which is where he may end up.
I would be interested too, though it looks like Alou is experimenting with
him batting 3rd. As Bonds and Alou have been noting, as long as Bonds
continue to hit like he has, teams will walk him. That's why I want to take
advantage of his historic rate of getting on base and maximizing the chance
of driving him in by batting Alfonzo, Aurillia, and Cruz after him.
>I can't figure out their reserve infielder situation, other than of course
>hating Neifi, but since I was never overwhelmed with last year's group
>either (not much liking Martinez either), I guess it isn't going to matter.
>Dumping Minor would be a plus in my book; I really dislike him for some
>reason and dread the possibility that he would ever be a starter for the
>Giants.
I consider Minor to be Rob Deer re-incarnated as a first baseman. :^)
>
>> Catcher:
>> * Benito and Yorvit return
>> * Sorry Benito, pot or no, there's no fountain of youth for catchers, so
>I
>> expect a drop in production, especially since last year was his best in
>> years.
>> * Yorvit also played better than expected last year as well so I expect
a
>> drop here as well.
>> * Overall, a drop offensively but luckily we aren't dependent on their
>> offense.
>
>I think the interesting question here will be what happens in 2004. I
don't
>think catching was a key offensive spot in 2002 (the playoffs
>notwithstanding) and I doubt it will be in 2003 either. However, I don't
>think it will be a big problem area either. Like him or not, Santiago has
>been decent the last two years.
I like him too and thought he did great during the season batting behind
Barry but, I'm sorry, he's getting very close to the point where he is too
old to catch a full season effectively. But as you noted, it won't be a big
problem area either.
>(...)
No, but that's OK. I know the overall statistics for Livan. However, I
recalled that after this hot 4-0 start he had a number of games where he was
again dominant but ended up losing 1-0, 2-1, so I printed out his game by
game stats and made a thumb-up/thumb-down for each start: did he pitch well
enough for his team to win assuming he got 4 runs of support. That is how I
got his 18 wins.
I hate the Big Fat Lazy Idiot too and, as I noted later, I detailed how we
can be rid of him (then again I thought that we would be free of Neifi - the
new BFI next year? - by releasing him. Little did I know...)
>Granted, the team's record in his starts (14-19) was worse than the
expected
>Pythagorean record in those starts (16-17), but in both cases, his was by
>far the worst such record for the main five starters. (By the way, the
>Giants were 18-15 in Ortiz's starts, the second worse such record of the
Big
>5, although there they really underperformed the Pythagorean expectations
of
>21-12. Hmmm, maybe I should be a little more concerned about that move
after
>all. Nah; Ortiz also had the highest pitch count per inning and per start
>on the squad. Worth worrying about is that Schmidt was right behind him on
>both counts.)
I'm concerned about Schmidt too but not overly so. I think he'll be OK.
>> * Moss is the question mark obviously. Based on the fact that it took
>him
>> so long to develop, I would expect him to fall back some from last year
>when
>> he was in the top 5 in keeping the opponent's batting average low.
>
>I am positive about him, not that I have any real basis other than pure
>optimism for that opinion.
I am positive too about him; I was just judging that he will probably fall
back from what he did last year.
>> * I expect Ainsworth to get the 5th spot with Jensen as the long
>reliever.
>> He did very well last year and I expect the same from him this year. I
>> expect him to do better than Jensen did last year, maybe not record wise,
>> but statistics wise.
>
>For some reason, I think Jensen has a better chance to stick in the
rotation
>than this. I also think that if he doesn't stick in the rotation, he will
be
>traded for a bullpen veteran (see below).
I actually like Jensen and if I could magically make BFI disappear, then I
would gladly have Jensen in the rotation. Unfortunately, that is not an
option right now so I had to make a decision. Ainsworth won't learn
anything else in AAA; he's already complaining and talking about moving to
where he gets an opp. We need to see what he is made of, and not as a long
reliever. If Ainsworth tires near the end, Jensen could take over.
>> * Overall, three better, two worse, so I would expect the starting
>pitching
>> to do about as well as last year.
>
>I think I agree with this. Once Livan is gone in 2004 and the young guys
>(hopefully) get their chance, this could be a fun group to watch.
This is probably the best crop of youngsters coming up ever, certainly the
best since Montefusco, Falcone, and Haliki came up.
>
>> Relief Pitching:
>> * Nen is the closer and, despite the surgery, I would expect him to do
no
>> worse than last year as last year was actually a down year relatively for
>> him.
>
>I think he will be way down. In fact, I think this is the year it all
starts
>to catch up with him. He has had a long run as a top notch closer, and
most
>closers just don't last that long.
I'm thinking a bit like that too, especially seeing Hoffman, but I'm hoping.
>
>> * Worrell is the setup guy initially but I would expect him to fall back
>> from last year's great season but still do well.
>
>I have a bad feeling about him for some reason. He just feels like this
>year's Alan Embree.
>
>
>> * FRod is the other setup guy and probably will take over the role full
>> time once Worrell falters. He was horrible for half the year so he
should
>> do much better this year.
>
>I think he will be back on his game, and hopefully he won't lie when he is
>hurting going forward. I think he skated somewhat on this issue; his lack
of
>honesty was probably as harmful to the team as anything outside of the BFI
>last year.
I totally agree with that. I think that costed us the Western Division
title.
Not that sounds like a plan! I would love to be rid of Neifi's salary right
now and losing Jensen would be relatively painless in the long run; even if
he was in the rotation, he's hopefully just keeping the spot warm for
Foppert or Williams.
But in my scenario, he's pitching crappy when they try that. If he's
pitching OK, then I can live with that as we are winning and it enables us
to try to trade him to a desperate team. After all, the Mets snookered the
Reds with Estes.
As I noted at the beginning, I tried to look at everything as a unit and
while the Giants may have experienced a drop in runs in 2001 and 2002
relative to 2000, the fact is that they were still 3rd in runs scored last
year. I don't think it indicts the offense of 2001 or 2002, but rather it
just emphasizes how great our offense was when we had Burks in there;
basically we lost a .330-.350 hitter and replaced him with a .260 hitter (or
less in 2001). I think that if Cruz can hit like in 2001 and Aurillia ends
up between his career average and his phenomenal 2001, our offense can be as
good as 1999-2000.
Plus, assuming that the Pythagorean method is valid - it judges winning
percentage by the ratio of runs scored to total runs scored and given up for
those not in the know - I was only trying to judge how the 2003 Giants would
fare against what they did in 2002 and adjust the Pythagorean by those
changes.
>
>> * The pitching should be about the same. Starting should be about the
>> same, with a full season from a healthy Schmidt and with Ainsworth an
>> improvement over Jensen but balanced with a drop off from Rueter and Moss
>> versus Ortiz. Livan will be Livan, shouldn't get any worse and if he
>does,
>> he'll be replaced. The bullpen will suffer a drop, with Worrell falling
>> back and Witasick gone, but balanced by a full healthy season of FRod and
>> Eyre vs. Fultz. Nen's surgery is a problem, but even if he's out
>> significantly, FRod should be able to take over without much of a hitch.
>>
>> * The defense will suffer an overall drop due to older remaining players
>> and replacement players not on par defensively.
>
>I wonder about this, actually, I think that the defense should be about
the
>same. Grissom is better than Lofton, Cruz could be better than Sanders (who
>wasn't bad in right, it's true), Durham and Alfonzo would seem to be about
>as good defensively as Kent and Bell, at least to me.
I assumed drops in Bonds, Snow, and Santiago, even for Grissom (vs.
Shinton), Cruz, Aurillia, Durham, and Alfonzo, ending in overall drop, but
not greatly.
That's OK with me as long as the DBacks (RBacks?) trade away 2-3 of their
top prospects to Montreal and the Giants sign him after the year. Otherwise
it'll be like Atlanta getting McGriff for nothing all over again.
>- If Fox somehow manages to sell the Dodgers during the season, I would
>expect them to get a five game pop in the standings just out of general
>happiness. I also have a bad feeling that Kevin Brown will finally get
>healthy at some point this year, just in time for a critical start against
>SF, and we all know how that game would go.
>
>As for the West, I think it will be the same three teams competing again
>this year. I don't expect SD or Colorado to stay in it all year, although
>they both might be better than last year. It's unclear what Hoffman's
injury
>will mean, although if Robby Thompson were to make a comeback, I guess it
>does mean he could settle into the batter's box a little more comfortably
>(the above was not meant as a serious observation, only to show that some
of
>us have very long and bitter memories with regards Mr. Hoffman).
Hoffman is slated to be out for half the year. Good night Pads!
>By the way, the team I am most worried about in the NL is the Cardinals. I
>also think the Phils will be pretty good, although not as good as everyone
>thinks. I bet the Mets will disappoint again, the Braves are going to
>really fall off and the Cubs will be decent but won't sniff the playoffs.
>I'm not clear what the Astros will do, but I kind of think they won't be as
>good as expected.
I totally agree about the Cardinals. I think the Phillies will be overrated
as well. I think the Mets will do OK under Howe but he doesn't have his
trio of great arms anymore. The Braves will probably be OK, they just
somehow do that. The Cubs are due for a big bounceback - their Pythagorean
was way negative last year so even if nothing changed, they were probably
due for a 5-7 games improvement over last year. I think the Astro fans will
not be happy about the Kent signing, either because of his lack or what it
does to Biggio.
>
>There, all my baseless opinions are on the table. Now I can just look
>forward to the season starting so we can find out what is really going to
>happen.
Me too! I've been looking forward to this since we lost the lead in game
6...
Thanks, I wanted to bounce my ideas on the season to see if it was valid or
not and was gratified to see that the worse objection was to my audacity to
say that Livan actually wasn't that bad last year.
> rb
>
>
Gregg Pearlman
>>rids us of Sonny Jackson has the potential to be an upgrade. I am not as
>>sure as some that the Giants will be better off without Gene Clines,
>>however. (And it still kills me that after we had to put up with Sonny all
>>those years at third base, he won't be messing that role up for the Cubs.)
>
> Thanks, I should have tried to address this area as well. I can't believe
> that there could be anyone worse than Sonny Jackson! (He's going to be a
> "special assistant", so he has the potential to mess up a whole lot of areas
> than just 3B; don't they use that as a euphemism usually, like, "he's
> 'special' and just different from us.") Nothing against Clines, but given
> that Snow has regressed severely from even his poor previous production, we
> just needed another hitting instructor to take a look at him and see if he
> can do anything.
Here's the amazing part about Sonny: I can't remember what year it was
-- either '98 or '99 -- but they made him the bench coach and had Wotus
man third base. Okay, that's not the amazing part. Here's the amazing
part: Next season they put Sonny back out on the lines. I mean, couldn't
they *see* what was going on?
Gregg
Richard Booroojian
<ama...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fCE7a.74296$zF6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Richard Booroojian wrote in message ...
> >
> ><ama...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:2xh7a.72758$zF6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> Preview of the 2003 Season: "It's gonna be beautiful."
> >>
> >> Note on my methodology: I prefer to think in terms of how a group has
> >> changed and react to the changes to the entire unit. Hence there will
be
> >no
> >> talk here about how we lose offensively by replacing Kent with Durham.
> >
> >
> >This was a very interesting and entertaining post, and of course far more
> >involved and detailed than I would ever have the energy to do. It also
> >provides the rest of us the perfect opportunity to respond with far less
> >output of effort, so thank you for that.
> >
> >FWIW, my methodology involved just typing my opinions, with only a modest
> >amount of factual basis (at best) behind it. Nothing new there, huh?
>
> Well, brilliant minds think alike; that's my methodology too.
The brilliance of it is that while everyone can argue about your
conclusions, they can't find errors in your approach. I am very confident
that nobody would want to slog around in my brain to try to figure out where
I went wrong.
(...)
> >So, based on that, I think Alou, who has a strong managerial pedigree as
> >well, will be a more successful manager for the Giants this year than
Dusty
> >would have been. I think Dusty will do well for the Cubs and good for
him.
> >I don't like Dusty's snarky attitude towards the Giants right now, but I
> >will always have warm feelings for him. I think he is a solid enough guy
> >that in a year or two, he will come to realize that the divorce was as
much
> >his fault as the Giants'. I hope so; I would hate to feel like he is
> >disaffected towards the Giants and their fans forever.
>
> I think the Cubs will like him as well plus he gets a fresh start as a
> savior rather than a second-guessed underling. I don't like his attitude
> either but I expected that from someone who didn't speak to his dad for a
> long time. But like that situation, he will eventually reconcile with the
> Giants who, frankly, give him the opportunity to be manager when he
probably
> would have had to waited another 5-10 years before another team would give
> him a chance.
I think dusty is classy enough to come to this point eventually. I read in
the paper today that it is coming out that the Giants had nothing to do with
releasing the news about Baker's IRS problems. That will help as well.
(...)
> >One last question: at some point, I think we all know that Bonds will
have
> >to start slowing down (hopefully not too much this year, of course).
> >However, if everyone keeps walking him, how will the other teams ever
> figure
> >out that it's happening?
>
> Because they will pitch to him until he proves he's back full strength
then
> it'll be another walkathon. That's what happened last year, he hit, what
> 4-6 homers in the first week, then started getting walked constantly.
This assumes he gets injured. If he didn't, would they just keep walking him
until he turns 90?
(...)
> >I am very upbeat on Durham and Alfonzo vs. Kent and Bell. In fact, as I
> >have said elsewhere, Durham was #1 on my wish list this off season (even
> >over Kent). I believe Kent is not going to set the world on fire in
> Houston
> >as much as everyone thinks he is going to. However, I suspect Bell is
> going
> >to look good on the potentially high flying Phillies. None the less, I
> >think we will end up with the better deal with Durham and Alfonzo, both
in
> >2003 and down the road.
>
> Durham was my number 1 as well. I think Kent will get exposed in Houston
as
> well but he's going to cry all the way to the bank (eventually since it
> sounds like most of it is severely deferred). I don't think Bell is going
> to look good. If I recall correctly, he only batted well when batting in
> the bottom of the order over the past three years, in the 7 and 8 and 9
> positions, so I think the pressure gets to him higher in the order.
> However, since he is a big free agent signing, I think the pressure will
be
> to bat him 2nd or 6th on the order which will bring down his performance.
I
> was totally amazed when I realized that we may have actually improved on
> Kent/Bell and I stopped regretting Bell taking off at that point.
I am still amazed at how well they did with Durham and Alfonzo. Obviously,
the proof will be on the field, but there were the kind of moves I used to
expect from any team other than the Giants.
> >I agree with your thoughts on Aurilia. I would be interested to see how
he
> >would do batting fifth or sixth, which is where he may end up.
>
> I would be interested too, though it looks like Alou is experimenting with
> him batting 3rd. As Bonds and Alou have been noting, as long as Bonds
> continue to hit like he has, teams will walk him. That's why I want to
take
> advantage of his historic rate of getting on base and maximizing the
chance
> of driving him in by batting Alfonzo, Aurillia, and Cruz after him.
If Aurilia hits third, I think he will have a great year, health permitting
(boy, that sure seems to be a recurring theme this year).
> >I can't figure out their reserve infielder situation, other than of
course
> >hating Neifi, but since I was never overwhelmed with last year's group
> >either (not much liking Martinez either), I guess it isn't going to
matter.
> >Dumping Minor would be a plus in my book; I really dislike him for some
> >reason and dread the possibility that he would ever be a starter for the
> >Giants.
>
> I consider Minor to be Rob Deer re-incarnated as a first baseman. :^)
I consider him to be the reincarnation of J.R. Phillips, which is much more
insulting in my opinion.
(...)
> >> * I expect Ainsworth to get the 5th spot with Jensen as the long
> >reliever.
> >> He did very well last year and I expect the same from him this year. I
> >> expect him to do better than Jensen did last year, maybe not record
wise,
> >> but statistics wise.
> >
> >For some reason, I think Jensen has a better chance to stick in the
> rotation
> >than this. I also think that if he doesn't stick in the rotation, he will
> be
> >traded for a bullpen veteran (see below).
>
> I actually like Jensen and if I could magically make BFI disappear, then I
> would gladly have Jensen in the rotation. Unfortunately, that is not an
> option right now so I had to make a decision. Ainsworth won't learn
> anything else in AAA; he's already complaining and talking about moving
to
> where he gets an opp. We need to see what he is made of, and not as a
long
> reliever. If Ainsworth tires near the end, Jensen could take over.
I hope Ainsworth doesn't start mouthing off too much.
> >> * Overall, three better, two worse, so I would expect the starting
> >pitching
> >> to do about as well as last year.
> >
> >I think I agree with this. Once Livan is gone in 2004 and the young guys
> >(hopefully) get their chance, this could be a fun group to watch.
>
> This is probably the best crop of youngsters coming up ever, certainly the
> best since Montefusco, Falcone, and Haliki came up.
Ah, Ed Halicki. I think if he hadn't had that fluky illness thing, he might
have been a really good pitcher that we all still would be talking about.
(...)
> >If Jensen doesn't make the starting rotation, I think he will be an
> >extremely tradable commodity given his record last year and his low
salary
> >demands for the next few years. Given Sabean's track record, I would
fully
> >expect him to trade Jensen to someone like the Pirates or the Royals for
a
> >more expensive and older long relief guy. I'm not saying it would make
> >sense, but that's what I think will happen if Jensen isn't a starter.
What
> I
> >wish they would do is use him as bait to dump Perez and pick up a decent
> >reserve outfielder and infielder, plus maybe a cheap bullpen role player,
> >which doesn't seem out of the question as Jensen should be considered a
> >reasonable major league starter. However, that hasn't been Sabean's
style.
>
> Not that sounds like a plan!
Albeit one that has almost no chance of actually being implemented.
> I would love to be rid of Neifi's salary right
> now and losing Jensen would be relatively painless in the long run; even
if
> he was in the rotation, he's hopefully just keeping the spot warm for
> Foppert or Williams.
Why do I just know that right now, Neifi is considered one of the
untouchable ones on that roster?
(...)
> >I dream of seeing the Livan sent down to AAA (what a party we could throw
> to
> >celebrate that one), but it will never happen. After all, the BFI is a
> >big-game pitching star, right?
>
> But in my scenario, he's pitching crappy when they try that. If he's
> pitching OK, then I can live with that as we are winning and it enables us
> to try to trade him to a desperate team. After all, the Mets snookered
the
> Reds with Estes.
If this actually happened, I would not only extend the moratorium on calling
Sabean BFS, I might start to praise him on a regular basis.
Of course, it would depend on what they also gave up, and how rank the stuff
they get back is.
(...)
> >There, all my baseless opinions are on the table. Now I can just look
> >forward to the season starting so we can find out what is really going to
> >happen.
>
> Me too! I've been looking forward to this since we lost the lead in game
> 6...
I am still heartsick about game six. Not that anyone asked, but I just
looked in there and, surprise, I am still not over it at all. I guess I
will be some day, but I think it might take years.
rb
simy1
>
> > Starting Pitching:
> > * Ortiz trade was good. Realized after the trade that Ortiz is kind of
> > like the pitcher's
> > equivalent of Benard. At least twice over the past 3-4 years, he had nice
> > stats at the end of the year but only did so because he had a horrible
> first
> > half, but a great second half. Also makes sense from a baseball standpart
> > as well. Our farm system has 4 great pitching prospects - Ainsworth,
> > Foppert, Williams, Boof - plus more who would be considered a top prospect
> > for other teams, but the majority of them are righties (I think the top
> > lefty, Hannaman, only pitched A ball last year). So Moss is a lefty
> > counterpart to these prospects.
>
> I agree with this 100%. I liked Russ, but I don't think the Giants will
> miss him or his 2004 salary requirements.
>
The "nice stats at the end of the year" include a 90% winning
percentage in august-september. It takes him a long time to get going,
and this happens year after year. That is just who he is, a high
maintenance pitcher who could, in his best years, be a fringe
candidate for the Cy Young. In the playoffs he pitched like an ace.
And Moss is just not as good a commodity. We will regret that trade. I
see nothing wrong with an all righty rotation.
Michael Bakunin
Especially when half your games are in Pac Bell, which is sort of like the
anti-Coors for righthanded pitchers, given what it does to lefty power.
Tommy
>I am very confident that nobody would
>want to slog around in my brain to try to
>figure out where I went wrong.
Said confidence is quite well placed, Greggy-poo.{:^)
ama...@worldnet.att.net
>The "nice stats at the end of the year" include a 90% winning
>percentage in august-september. It takes him a long time to get going,
>and this happens year after year. That is just who he is, a high
>maintenance pitcher who could, in his best years, be a fringe
>candidate for the Cy Young. In the playoffs he pitched like an ace.
>And Moss is just not as good a commodity. We will regret that trade. I
>see nothing wrong with an all righty rotation.
And Benard hit .300 -something at the end of the season as well and ended up
with a below average average. And it just brought Ortiz back to .500 the
two years he did that.
Don't get me wrong though: I like Ortiz. I just wanted to point out that
Ortiz is not perfect either and could be maddeningly inconsistent as well.
Though it does kill me that basically we traded Ortiz's salary so that we
could get Neifi Perez and Marquis Grissom. If we would have kept Shinjo and
then signed Cruz instead, I think that would be a pretty good outfield plus
we get to keep Ortiz.
However, what was done was done and then somebody had to be traded. I was
reading somewhere a rant about how Rueter should have been traded, not
Ortiz, as Ortiz was better. That is debatable - I think Rueter rocks,
though not to a $6M/year contract - but it is not the point.
The point is that we got a pitcher who actually pitched pretty well last
year plus a VERY good prospect with the pitcher who's new name escapes me,
but his old name was Manuel Mateo or something like that (he was rated our
10th best prospect somewhere). I don't think other teams share my
enthusiasm for Rueter and the best we could have gotten for him would not
have been a starter that had a good year and we certainly wouldn't have a
good prospect tossed in as well. Plus Rueter was a FA after the year while
Ortiz was signed to 2004. I think Sabean did pretty well in the trade,
getting two very good prospects (I still consider Moss a prospect until he
has another good year).
Tell me which rotation you would rather have: One with Schmidt, Ortiz,
Livan, Jensen, and one of our prospects or one with Schmidt, Rueter, Livan,
Moss, and one of our prospects? While I like what I've read about Foppert,
it's only been one year and he won't last a year starting at the MLB level.
Williams' maturity has been hard-earned via his mother's early death but
from what I've read, he needs another year. Ainsworth I like, and as I
noted in my posting, my preferred #5 over Jensen, but if you keep Ortiz, you
would have both Jensen and Ainsworth in the rotation then (unless you were
thinking of signing a FA pitcher, which I would be against as I don't want
to add salary). Then the difference between the two is would you rather
have Ortiz and Jensen in the rotation or Rueter and Moss? I think
Rueter/Moss would outdo Ortiz/Jensen.
That same rant also said that Ortiz would do better than Rueter AND Moss
over the next three years. That I highly doubt as Ortiz is going to miss
the Giants' high octane offense unless the Braves somehow trick the Padres
into giving them Nevin for a 6-pack of Coke and a Georgia Peach. That
writer forgot about Ortiz's high road ERA as well.
Lastly, while Ortiz did do well in the playoffs, and he saved our butts in
the Atlanta series, Rueter did well too and I think that if Rueter had
started two games instead of Ortiz or BFLI, we probably would be celebrating
our first W.S. right now.
ama...@worldnet.att.net
>the paper today that it is coming out that the Giants had nothing to do
with
>releasing the news about Baker's IRS problems. That will help as well.
I didn't hear that yet; whew, makes me feel better about Giants management.
It just didn't seem to be their style. But how did they prove the Giant's
innocence?
Here's a warped thought I had this morning on this. Given how Dusty likes
to manipulate the media all the time, what if he arranged for a friend to
leak the news out afterward to make it look like the Giants did it and makes
him look like the offended party? I know, warped, but thoughts just pop up
sometime.
>> >One last question: at some point, I think we all know that Bonds will
>have
>> >to start slowing down (hopefully not too much this year, of course).
>> >However, if everyone keeps walking him, how will the other teams ever
>> figure
>> >out that it's happening?
>>
>> Because they will pitch to him until he proves he's back full strength
>then
>> it'll be another walkathon. That's what happened last year, he hit, what
>> 4-6 homers in the first week, then started getting walked constantly.
>
>This assumes he gets injured. If he didn't, would they just keep walking
him
>until he turns 90?
Huh?!!!!!!!!? Oh, "full strength", sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he's
injured. What I meant to say was that once he proves that he is the Barry
Bonds of 2001-2002 - "full strength" - and not a mere mortal, then the walks
will continue. I think it will be a rite of spring every year to challenge
Barry the first week or two to see if he's still got it and if he does, the
walks will then continue.
>If Aurilia hits third, I think he will have a great year, health permitting
>(boy, that sure seems to be a recurring theme this year).
Well, his injury was not because he body wore out, so I don't think I would
worry about it, unlike when Bonds elbow problems came out. I think Aurillia
will have a killer year - a "Kent-ian" year if you will, batting 3rd ahead
of Barry.
>> I consider Minor to be Rob Deer re-incarnated as a first baseman. :^)
>
>I consider him to be the reincarnation of J.R. Phillips, which is much more
>insulting in my opinion.
Ah, now that 's name I never thought I would hear again. What do you think
of Randy Elliot instead?
>
>I hope Ainsworth doesn't start mouthing off too much.
Me too.
>> This is probably the best crop of youngsters coming up ever, certainly
the
>> best since Montefusco, Falcone, and Haliki came up.
>
>Ah, Ed Halicki. I think if he hadn't had that fluky illness thing, he
might
>have been a really good pitcher that we all still would be talking about.
Yes, he would have. I think he's still the last Giant's pitcher to pitch a
no hitter at home (oops almost said Candlestick). Montefusco was the last
Giant's pitcher period. Sad....
>I am still heartsick about game six. Not that anyone asked, but I just
>looked in there and, surprise, I am still not over it at all. I guess I
>will be some day, but I think it might take years.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, Willie McCovey still isn't over the
1962 loss.
simy1
> simy1 wrote in message <7218de3b.0302...@posting.google.com>...
> >The "nice stats at the end of the year" include a 90% winning
> >percentage in august-september. It takes him a long time to get going,
> >and this happens year after year. That is just who he is, a high
> >maintenance pitcher who could, in his best years, be a fringe
> >candidate for the Cy Young. In the playoffs he pitched like an ace.
> >And Moss is just not as good a commodity. We will regret that trade. I
> >see nothing wrong with an all righty rotation.
>
> And Benard hit .300 -something at the end of the season as well and ended up
> with a below average average. And it just brought Ortiz back to .500 the
> two years he did that.
Ortiz W/L: 14/12, 17/9, and 14/10 in the last three years. Also,
interesting enough, every year he has held the opposition below .200
in August and just above that in September. He is clearly excellent
late in the season. Every year May was by far his worst month.
>
> The point is that we got a pitcher who actually pitched pretty well last
> year plus a VERY good prospect with the pitcher who's new name escapes me,
> but his old name was Manuel Mateo or something like that (he was rated our
> 10th best prospect somewhere). I don't think other teams share my
> enthusiasm for Rueter and the best we could have gotten for him would not
> have been a starter that had a good year and we certainly wouldn't have a
> good prospect tossed in as well. Plus Rueter was a FA after the year while
> Ortiz was signed to 2004. I think Sabean did pretty well in the trade,
> getting two very good prospects (I still consider Moss a prospect until he
> has another good year).
we gave away a top 30 pitcher for an ordinary guy.
>
> Tell me which rotation you would rather have: One with Schmidt, Ortiz,
> Livan, Jensen, and one of our prospects or one with Schmidt, Rueter, Livan,
> Moss, and one of our prospects?
The one with Ortiz.
Gregg Pearlman
Agreed, especially 'cause Richard is the one who said it.
Gregg
Richard Booroojian
"Gregg Pearlman" <EEEE...@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:3E61AD63...@EEEEEEgp.com...
See, I told you nobody would want to slog around in there. I can actually
see that Gregg's might be more interesting, anyway.
rb
Gregg Pearlman
My what?
Gregg