Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: Looking at the West, Giants
A few pick-ups during the offseason, higlighted by the Zito signing yesterday, still has me wondering if the Giants have what it takes to win the NLWest.
If I were Bochy, I would work my lineup card like this:
1. Dave Roberts, CF (.293, 49SB)
2. Omar Vizquel, SS
3. Randy Winn, RF
4. Bonds/Klesko, LF
5. Ray Durham, 2B
6. Rich Aurilia 1B (.300, 23HR, 70 RBI)
7. Pedro Feliz 3B
8. Bengie Molina, C (.284, 19HR, 57 RBI)
9. Zito, Cain, Lowry, Morris, Hennessey
*Probable (decent) Utility players: Mark Sweeney, Kevin Frandsen
This is a benchmark year for Cain, Lowry and Hennessey. If they don't produce every 5th day, they'll be gone next year.
Not going to mention the bullpen. I do know that the Giants are looking to deal Benitez and that would be great! He sucks...
Manager: I like Bochy. He will be missed in San Diego. He knows the NLWest already. Not a lot of make-up scouting to do.
My projected order of finish:
1. Dodgers
2. Giants
3. DBacks
4. Padres
5. Rockies
I appreciate the starting rotation for the DBacks. Looks very solid. Bullpen? Youth? Just wondering how well they will do throughout 162. Not doubting them, I just don't know.
Dodgers rotation looks very, very good.
I just like the Giants more than AZ but less than LA. The Padres are going to stumble and so are the Rockies.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 59
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:50 am Post subject:
Here's my take on the Giants for 2007:
With Zito, Cain, and Lowry, they're going to have a nice 1-3 (Morris is done, IMO). However, that bullpen is going to blow a lot of leads. Steve Kline? Armando Benitez? Jeff Fassero? Yikes!
Offensively, the corner infield positions -- normally counted upon for good production -- are manned by Pedro "I never saw an off-speed pitch I wouldn't swing at" Feliz (3B) and Rich "Still alive" Aurilia (1B). And your cleanup hitter is a defensive liability who will be lucky to play in 100 games.
Shoe is correct in that it's too early to try and predict the division standings, but as of today, on paper, I agree with TAP's assessment.
_________________
Ryan
D-Backs die-hard fan in enemy territory
From Joe Sheehan at BPro [it's premium content, but I'll post a piece]
Quote:
The fact that the Giants pulled in Zito was a surprise. I didn’t see starting pitching as a big hole for them, certainly not as opposed to, say, the right side of the field. Zito makes them better, although they’re not as equipped to support him in 2007, because of their poor defensive outfield, as the A’s have been. Even with him, I don’t think the Giants are as good as the Diamondbacks—yes, another year of me talking up the D’backs—and they may not be on par with the Dodgers or Padres. This is the rare free-agent contract that might be better for the team after the initial season.
I dont like that lineup at all.. its old and decrepid, and will be mediocre at best.
_________________
"Loyal? I’m the most loyal player money can buy." – Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's & Angels pitcher Don Sutton
Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 156
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:34 am Post subject:
Here's how Dayn Perry with FoxSports sees it.
Quote:
First, there's the status of the Giants. Last season, they were one of the oldest teams in the National League, and this winter, by re-signing or signing such dotards as Barry Bonds, Rich Aurilia, Dave Roberts and Ray Durham, they've managed to get even older. As well, the farm system at the moment is one of the worst in baseball, so there's precious little help on the way.
The Padres and Dodgers are far better poised to contend in the near term, and the Diamondbacks, graced with perhaps the best collection of pre-arbitration and minor league talent in baseball, should dominate in the long term. That leaves the Giants as a team of little consequence both now and going forward.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1976
Location: Gold Canyon
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject:
tmar wrote:
I think the Giants hinge so tightly on which Barry shows up that they could go either way, which makes them pretty difficult to estimate right now.
A source familiar with the talks said that significant issues remain between Bonds and the Giants, who want the 42-year-old slugger to act with more professionalism in what is expected to be his final season.
Bonds has agreed to a $15.8 million salary with incentives that could push the value to $20 million. He agreed to defer $5.8 million without interest until 2008. Any incentives he reaches would be paid out, with interest, in 2009.
Though the terms are done, Bonds' team keeps coming up with new business to put into writing. According to a source, one issue is clubhouse access for Bonds' personal staff -- perhaps even convicted steroid dealer Greg Anderson.
"There's a lot involved," Giants general manager Brian Sabean said. "You can go make your own conclusions. The language is wide-ranging, I'll give you that."
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1976
Location: Gold Canyon
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject:
Barry bashing catching on in SF.
Ann Killion / San Jose Mercury News today wrote:
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Barry Zito put on his black Giants cap and held up his cream No.75 jersey this week, but he might as well have donned coveralls and a respirator and held up a fumigator. Because Zito was hired as much to be the Orkin Man as he was to pitch baseball games.
Actually, even more so.
This Barry has been hired to rid the Giants of their infestation from the other Barry. The Giants finally, belatedly, get it. They may have finally figured out the damage they've done to their franchise, their brand name, their tradition.
"He will be representing the organization on a long-term basis in the way we want to be represented," General Manager Brian Sabean said last week of Zito.
As opposed to the other guy who - on a long-term basis - has caused the Giants to be the subject of national scorn and ridicule.
Signing a pitcher for seven years is a risk. But, as Sabean said last week, "It beats the alternative." The alternative was holding onto the decaying odor of Balco and coddling and yesterday's ideas. Zito's job is to clear all that out.
Of course, it is hard to effectively fumigate when you have pledged to be infested for at least another year. But signing the Orkin Man helps you get tough with the vermin. Which is probably why Bonds isn't yet under contract.
Here's an interesting question that has been tossed about: Would the Giants have agreed to sign Bonds if they had already signed Zito? Sure they would have because they needed a bat, and Zito isn't about to fulfill that gap with his .034 batting average. (By the way Barry Z., mentioning Brady Anderson - who you said was helping you with offense - was your only misstep. We've heard enough in Giantsland about guys like Suspicious Brady.)
A better question is: If the Giants hadn't signed Zito, would they have the gumption to make the contract language demands that are apparently delaying Bonds' contract? Suddenly, the Giants can see a future without Bonds - one with a likable, marketable star. They seem willing to play semi-hardball if Bonds objects to giving up his flunkies in the clubhouse or not being paid if he's in prison or being asked to pinch-hit when he's tired.
Is it possible that Bonds' contract won't ever get done?
"Until a player is signed anything can happen," said Sabean - who went on to describe himself as old-school cautious.
Bonds will almost certainly be signed, creating a fascinating dynamic between the Barrys. Bonds is no longer the Man. No longer the most highly compensated player in Giants history. When people say Barry, they might not even mean No.25.
Last week, when the Giants brass was talking about Barry Z. the subtext was always Barry B.
"We need a new face," Peter Magowan said of Zito, "and we have a very attractive one in Barry. There's so much he brings to the table. He's likable, intelligent, has a sense of humor, he's a nice guy, he cares about other people. He believes in community service. A lot of players are skilled but they don't want to do anything to lead younger players. He has the values that we put a value on."
Then why, one wonders, did the Giants put so much value for so long on a player who incorporates virtually none of those traits?
It has been amusing to hear the Giants - and their radio proxy - gushing over Zito, who has gotten more local love in the past two weeks than he did in the previous five years. Memo to the A's: Yes, they're watching you and, yes, they're jealous.
It was an embarrassing December for the orange-and-black. The Giants rewarded Bonds with his first post-Balco contract, for a ludicrous amount, and then made things worse when Magowan said they wanted to be sure not to "humiliate" Bonds. Gee, since he certainly has humiliated them at all over the years.
But the Giants seem to have awakened, thanks in large part to the outrage of their fans, who couldn't stomach the stale contaminated stench. They signed Zito for a mind-boggling amount because they needed to make peace.
Zito pitches only every five days and the Giants' projected starting lineup is five years removed from its prime. But Zito brings a fresh face, a quirky, embraceable personality to the team. He brings the possibility of a new start, a different paradigm.
"He's a real persona," Sabean said. "He's full of life. There's an exuberance to him. He's renowned as a teammate. It's what you're looking for."
Barry Bonds has been nothing short of a headache since 2000.
When the Giants made their move to their new stadium from Candlestick Park, the crowds grew. So too, did Barry! He was enamoured by the attention the the Giants were getting throughout the bay area.
Count me in as a fan who is tired of his act.
People ask me, because I like SF, about Bonds. I have always stated that it's about the team...NOT about his records. He is a disgrace to the Giants, regardless if he NEVER took steroids.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2679
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:21 am Post subject:
appreciate your candor. I can understand being frustrated by Barry's act.
Just curious though....why would he be a disgrace even if he never took steroids? I know he is somewhat of a jerk...maybe a huge jerk....but wold that still make him a disgrace? (in this hypothetical reality in which he didn't break the law, of course)
When I heard some the excerpts from that book about Bonds and there were instances where he was asked to do something for charity <like signing something> and he couldn't even respond with a "no" like most a-holes, but felt he should say "fuck you" instead made him a total monster.
There's a certain line of compassion that is expected of humans and Barry has know idea where that line is.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1535
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:28 am Post subject:
Giants' free agents not officially signed
Quote:
Though all the focus recently has been on Barry Bonds, the San Francisco Giants have not officially signed any of the nine free agents they came to agreements with this offseason.
Bonds, who reached an agreement in principle Dec. 7 to return to the Giants in 2007, is no closer to signing the one-year, $16 million deal today than he was a month ago. Part of the problem, mirroring all the other players, is a change in the standard guarantee language rewritten this offseason by San Francisco's department of baseball operations in each of the contracts, said Bobby Evans, an assistant general manager, who is handling the details of all these deals.
According to the article, the language in question involves prohibited activities (such as participation in team sports), and "specific references to legal problems." (Gee, I wonder what that's all about...)
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1976
Location: Gold Canyon
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:22 am Post subject:
Report: Bonds failed 2006 amphetamine test
Associated Press tonight wrote:
Barry Bonds failed a test for amphetamines last season and originally blamed it on a teammate, the Daily News reported Thursday.
When first informed of the positive test, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from teammate Mark Sweeney's locker, the New York City newspaper said, citing several unnamed sources.
"I have no comment on that," Bonds' agent Jeff Borris told the Daily News on Wednesday night.
"Mark was made aware of the fact that his name had been brought up," Sweeney's agent Barry Axelrod told the Daily News. "But he did not give Barry Bonds anything, and there was nothing he could have given Barry Bonds."
Bonds, who has always maintained he never has tested positive for illegal drug use, is already under investigation for lying about steroid use.
A federal grand jury is investigating whether the 42-year-old Bonds perjured himself when he testified in 2003 in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroid distribution case that he never knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs. The San Francisco Giants slugger told a 2003 federal grand jury that he believed his trainer Greg Anderson had provided him flaxseed oil and arthritic balm, not steroids.
Under baseball's amphetamines policy, which went into effect last season, players are not publicly identified for a first positive test. A second positive test for amphetamines results in a 25-game suspension. The first failed steroids test costs a player 50 games.
Bonds did not appeal the positive test, which made him subject to six drug tests by MLB over the next six months, according to the Daily News.
"We're not in a position to confirm or deny, obviously," MLB spokesman Rich Levin told the Daily News.
According to the newspaper, Sweeney learned of the Bonds' positive test from Gene Orza, chief operating officer of the Major League Baseball Players Association. Orza told Sweeney, the paper said, that he should remove any troublesome substances from his locker and should not share said substances. Sweeney said there was nothing of concern in his locker, according to the Daily News' sources.
An AP message for Sweeney was not immediately returned late Wednesday.
The Giants are still working to finalize complicated language in the slugger's $16 million, one-year contract for next season -- a process that has lasted almost a month since he agreed to the deal Dec. 7 on the last day of baseball's winter meetings.
The language still being negotiated concerns the left fielder's compliance with team rules, as well as what would happen if he were to be indicted or have other legal troubles.
Borris has declined to comment on the negotiations. He didn't immediately return a message from the AP on Wednesday night.
He's already used the "I got this substance from someone else, I assumed it was flaxseed oil" defense.
Imagine this... the media is constantly hounding you, you know the league might test you, and the only answer that you can offer in your own defense is "I've never tested positive for PED's." Now, would you just casuallly grab a bottle of pills from a teammate's locker and pop a few? If you had as much to risk as Bonds does, wouldn't you be absolutely 100% certain of anything you put in your body?
I guess Barry had a headache, and he found some stuff in Sweeney's locker and just figured it was Tylenol. Honest mistake, really. [/sarcasm]
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
