Dunston to Giants??
hea...@u.arizona.edu
million for 1 year.
If so, then I think Quinn pulled off a decent deal with the Cards,
getting DeLucia (if in the Giants pen last year he would have been a star
and maybe could have saved a couple of those 11-5 leads in the 8th), and
Allen Watson who I hope will be an above average 4-5th starter. All the
Giants lost was Clayton, who Dunston should repalce nicely and Dunston is
a bargain for 1.5 million.
I think Jocketty got taken given that he has arguably the most popular
player in Cardinals history already returning (reportedly) at shortstop.
The upside for the Cards is Clayton's youth and expected improvements.
--
X3.
LEE45
little breathing space as he grows into the job; he can play 3B, which
could come in handy if Matt Williams is traded as rumored; and he can play
OF.
Anyway, this confirms my speculation a couple of weeks ago about Dave
Magadan's value.
scur...@a.crl.com
On Base Pct. is a problem area for Dunston. With Manwaring, Thompson, Carreon,
and Williams also having traditionally low On Base Pct.'s, the SF offense might
yet again be hurting for baserunners.
This problem was a major concern in 1995, and it was often noted here in the
local papers that Bonds came to bat much to often in the 1st inning with 2 out
and no one on base. Some of the departed players (Clayton, Lewis, D. Sanders)
were criticised for their inability to get on base. I find it odd that a team that
seems to be focused on getting people on base would sign Shawon Dunston.
Maybe Dunston will surprise everybody and get on base a little more often than
is expected.
George Murphy
ElvisG49er
writes:
>which
>could come in handy if Matt Williams is traded
It will not happen. Dunston does not want 3rd base either!!!
LEE45
was in Chicago. Also, I don't think a guy who wasn't tendered a contract
by his old club, was forced to take a big paycut and only has a one-year
deal to boot can be too picky about what position he plays. If he's
smart, he'll do what he's asked.
scur...@a.crl.com
the entire Dunston signing news conference live on the air. He fielded a
lot of questions. When asked where he wanted to bat in the order, or how
many games or at-bats he hoped to get, Dunston's answers were the same:
I just want to play shortstop. He went out of his way to be sure that
his desire to play shortstop was well understood.
He never mentioned the possibility of playing a different psoition, but
he made it extremely clear that he wanted to play shortstop. He also
mentioned that he came to the Giants with an "agreement" that he will
be playing shortstop.
About the batting order - Dunston said that he knows of 3 spots he won't
be hitting - 3rd, 4th, and 9th.
According to the Giants and Dunston, SF was willing to sign Dunston to
a 2-year deal but Dunston wanted the 1-year deal.
George Murphy
Brian Stromblad
That's the whole point. You don't need a high obp ss. I suspect
Dunston will hit at or around his '94/'95 level for 120-130 games which
overall rates him reasonably high vs. other NL ss. They need that
elusive obp from 1b,cf,2b. Once Robby Thompson and his $4mil
salary(say thanks to Bonds) are gone they will have the means to
acquire that talent. If Bonds and other players would keep their mouths
shut and let GM's do there job maybe just maybe they would get better
results. Granted Thompson just had a career year but he was no where
worth the money they gave him. Dunston is a gold mine in comparison.
I'm willing to speculate that the Giants middle 4(3 through
6)Bonds, Williams, Hill and Dunston will be fairly healthy and
productive giving them about the 6th best park-adjusted offense in the
league. just trade for Roberto Petagine and a fly-catcher with .350
obp to bat in the top 2 spots and the would do exceptionlally well.
Later,
Brian
Doug Riblet
>Dunston has not gone on record as being against playing 3rd, even when he
>was in Chicago.
Perhaps not "on record," but he definitely told the Cubs' organization
that he opposed any move away from shortstop. Moreover, Dunston told
reporters that he signed with the Giants, despite more lucrative offers
from other teams, partly because they wanted him to play SS. The Reds
and the Phillies reportedly made offers to Dunston, with the understanding
that he would play 3B for them if he signed.
As a Cubs fan, I'm glad that Dunston nixed the idea of moving him to 3B.
Aside from the fact that he's extremely injury-prone and has lost a step
or two in the field, he would be one of the worst offensive third-basemen
in the league. I've always liked Dunston in that warm, fuzzy, Die Hard
Cub Fan sort of way, but I'm glad he won't be a Cub in 1996.
Doug Riblet / dbri...@students.wisc.edu
## "The important thing in writing is the capacity
## to astonish, not shock." -- Terry Southern
Doug Riblet
>Dunston is a good fit in SF. He can play SS, thus allowing Rich Aurelia a
>little breathing space as he grows into the job; he can play 3B, which
>could come in handy if Matt Williams is traded as rumored; and he can play
>OF.
Dunston has never played 3B or any outfield position in his professional
career. He probably "can" play those positions, but I wouldn't expect
him to play them particularly well.
scur...@a.crl.com
but the Giants don't look like they can afford any more futility in their
batting order.
They will feature 5 hitters in their everyday lineup who struggle to get on base:
Manwaring, Carreon (assuming that he plays 1B), Thompson, Dunston, and
Williams. Make it 6 spots when you throw in the pitcher. When faced with
this problem (lack of people on base), it seems to me that the Giants should have
considered doing something to get someone in the lineup that will get on base.
Signing Dunston just adds to the problem.
The way I see it, it doesn't matter if Dunston is a shortstop or a leftfielder. What
matters is that the Giants have exactly 9 spots in the batting order, and they have
already allocated too many of those to people who do not reach base. They cannot
afford to have more of the same, which is what they will get with Dunston.
I don't know what options the Giants had at SS that might have provided for a
player with a higher OB Pct. However, I would like to think that they could have
come up with a SS that was a better fit for the offense than Dunston.
Of course, I mention Williams as part of the problem based on his career On Base
Pct. His numbers were quite high in 1995, but that was in limited action and I
do not want to assume that he will continue to reach base at his 1995 levels.
George Murphy
hea...@u.arizona.edu
> RE: DUNSTON TO GIANTS??
I don't know, Dunston hitting 7th instead of Clayton or Aurilla is a HUGE
improvement and from the 7th spot who needs on base pct, give me slg pct
cause we all know Manwaring is not going to be a big run producer nor is
the pitcher. I think that given Thompson hitting 2nd, he should be the
focus if he gets on then the giant offense is big time formidible.
Javier as a lead off hitter should have close to a .360 obp and with
Bonds in the third slot, if Thompson gets on, then Williams will be
hitting with plenty of men on base and behind him you have GA Hill,
Carreon and Dunston not a bad pickup trio to bat in teh leftovers after
Bonds Williams.
I hope the Giants consider moving Carreon up to second if Thompson fails
again. Anyway my point is who cares about Dunston's obp if he hits 7th!!
--
X3.
John Hansa
him as a two hitter.
hea...@u.arizona.edu
> RE: DUNSTON TO GIANTS??
>
> From: John Hansa <JJ...@psuvm.psu.edu>
> Reply to: John Hansa
> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 12:31:53 EST
> Organization: Penn State University
> Newsgroups:
> rec.sport.baseball.fantasy
> Reply to: newsgroup(s)
> References:
Carreon had one fewer stolen bases than Thompson last year (1 to 0),
Carreon has a higher oba, Carreon strikes out far less, and CArreon is
better with the bat than thompson. Ideally I would rather see robby bat
2, but given his performance in the last two years, the Giants are going
to have a hard time winning with him hitting like last year and hitting
second.
the alternatives to Carreon are: GA Hill or Dunston. Hill has
the strikeout problem and is a natural fit behind Williams an dbonds.
Dunston is a possibility, bu tneeds to be more patient.
--
X3.
heaton
> RE: DUNSTON TO GIANTS??
>
> From: scur...@a.crl.com
> Reply to: scur...@a.crl.com
> Date: 14 Jan 1996 05:26:09 GMT
> Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access
> rec.sport.baseball.fantasy
> Reply to: newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>> j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Bernstein) writes:
>
>* snip *
>
>> First, since whoever is probably going to be hitting in front of Bonds
>> and Williams, it seems a little silly to worry about SBs. They're
>> worthless in that situation.
>>
>> It's an impossible lineup, though; other than Bonds, Javier, and
>> Manwaring, it's a lineup of classic 5th and 6th hitters. And Javier
>> isn't really a leadoff hitter, either, although he's better than, say,
>> Darrin Lewis. It is IMO a pretty good lineup overall, but certainly
>> pretty biased toward the high-SLG, low-OBP type of hitter. One might
>> think a trade would be in order, but there's no sense that the Giants
>> realize that this is a little goofy.
>>
>> There's a good chance the Giants will have the best #7 hitter in the league.
>>
>> JHB
>>
>>>>>
>Your comments go right to the heart of the matter. In my prior comments
>on this matter, I suggested that the Giants had too many low on-base pct
>guys in their lineup. It seems that some people have mistaken my comments
>to mean that SF has too many non-hitters, but I never said that.
>
>When you look at the career on-base percentages for the projected SF lineup,
>you have to be concerned about the potential lack of baserunners.
>
>I agree with your comment that a trade might be in order. It looks clear to
>me that SF has too many high-SLG and too few high-OBP hitters.
>
>By the way, local speculation in the bay area press has the SF batting
>Thompson in the 2nd spot, with Carreon 6th and Dunston 7th. This
>has been hinted in several local papers, but without comment from
>Dusty Baker.
>
>George Murphy
Yes I agree with both of you and only suggested Carreon at second spot
assuming that nothing else is done. I can not see a trade;however, the
only player I think that would fit in a trade would be Thompson, but who
would want his salary? Dunston is a possible mid-season trade candidate
if Aurilla plays strong again, but I don't think th eGiants signed
Dunston to trade him and I think he is a good fit in their 7th spot and
on the field. That leaves Carreon, but they would have to trade him for
another first base unless someone thinks the third time is a charm for
JR. I do not see another 1st base ouot there that is available and could
be a better 2nd place hitter than Carreon (Grace, Morris types or maybe
Mike Simms in Hou, Dave Martinez type??).
But if the Giants need anything, I think I would go after another
starting pitcher first (I think the Giants have made huge
strides in the pen, which was number one priority of offseason).
--
X3.
scur...@a.crl.com
Jonathan Bernstein
: >Carreon as a number two hitter???? No speed, no oba, decent slug. Can't see
: >him as a two hitter.
: Carreon had one fewer stolen bases than Thompson last year (1 to 0),
: Carreon has a higher oba, Carreon strikes out far less, and CArreon is
: better with the bat than thompson. Ideally I would rather see robby bat
: 2, but given his performance in the last two years, the Giants are going
: to have a hard time winning with him hitting like last year and hitting
: second.
: the alternatives to Carreon are: GA Hill or Dunston. Hill has
: the strikeout problem and is a natural fit behind Williams an dbonds.
: Dunston is a possibility, bu tneeds to be more patient.
First, since whoever is probably going to be hitting in front of Bonds