El Lefty Malo

(Fourth in a series. Other positions: Second base. First base. Catcher.)

The incumbents

Deivi Cruz
Age: Turned 32 on Nov. 6
relevant stats
*2004 innings played: 800 (104 games)
*Career OPS: .682
*2004 OPS: .753 (7 HRs, 30 doubles, 17 BBs)
*2005 salary: $800,000, plus potential incentives

Free agent shortstops
Cabrera, Renteria, Garciaparra, Vizquel, Larkin, Reese, Valentin, Guzman, Chris Gomez, R. Martinez, Clayton, Vizcaino, Counsell, Aurilia, A. Gonzalez (the ex-Cub).

In the minors
Cody "Don't pay the" Ransom, "It just encourages more hostage-taking."

Comments

El Lefty:

Not long ago, Deivi Cruz was only mentionable in the same breath with Neifi Perez, usually when answering the question, "Which everyday players have the worst OPS in the majors?" N-F and D-V were often in the bottom five. But in 2004 he rose from the scrap heap to post what was nearly his best offensive year ever.

Be aware, though, that he only played about two-thirds of a season. You can read that in two ways: 1) with a larger sample size he would have sunk to his usual Deiviness of sub-.300 OBP and sub-.400 SLG; or 2) over a full season he would have posted career highs in home runs and walks.

His defense? Well, he makes the plays he gets to. But you know it's bad when Felipe Alou, who prefers not to air complaints through the media, admits to the press that Deivi's range is limited.

Now he's signed for next year, at a price that, if it bought a season's worth of his 2004 offensive numbers, would be a bargain indeed.

But no one's really counting on that. Giants' fans are expecting that one of the first few names from the free agent list above will soon be stitched onto a gray uniform with black and orange trim. Early sentiment seems to be leaning toward Cabrera, perhaps because of the aura of the Red Sox World Series victory and Cabrera's ties to Felipe via the Expos. He'll never be an offensive powerhouse, but he's capable of 15 HRs, a decent OBP, and lots of doubles. Add that to what's generally considered a fine glove, and you've got a shortstop likely to demand $7-8 million a year. (He made $6 million in 2004.) But with a lot of shortstops on the market this year, it's possible that Cabrera may not get what he asks for.

With all the free agent speculation at shortstop, no one's said much about trade possibilities. Looking at the list of everyone who played SS in 2004, I'll throw a couple names into the mix:

Jimmy Rollins: the Phils seem perpetually disappointed with J-Roll, especially as a leadoff hitter, but he seems to have put it back together this year with a Ray Durham-ish line of .289/.348/.455, including 14 HRs, 43 doubles, 12 triples and 30 of 39 stolen bases.

Michael Young: The Rangers certainly weren't disappointed with Young, who had a great year taking over for A-Rod at short. He's not as young as Rollins -- 28 compared to 25 -- so the question is whether 2004 was his high-water mark, and whether he's a cornerstone to build around. Because of his age, the Rangers' asking price may not be sky-high.

Either of these guys, or perhaps Russ Adams, only 24 and anointed the Blue Jays' starter next year, could probably be pried away for a blue-chip pitcher. The Rangers in particular can afford to part with Young, given all the other offense on that team. An offer of a potential top-of-rotation starter may be just what the Rangers need. Look for the Giants to trade Matt Cain or Merkin Valdez, if not for a shortstop then in some other unexpected deal, a la the Pierzynski trade last winter.

El Lefty recommends:

If the Giants go the free agent route, don't overpay. Garciaparra is an injury-riddled decline waiting to happen; Renteria is incredibly solid but not a $8-10 M a year guy, and Cabrera is a great supporting actor, not a starring role.

Instead, go get Jimmy Rollins. He's young, he's fast, he's from Oaktown, he's got some flash to his game, and he'd be the Giants shortstop and leadoff hitter for years to come. Trade Jerome Williams. The Phillies are likely to lose Eric Milton and Kevin Millwood, which leaves Randy Wolf, Vicente Padilla and Brett Myers as their rotation anchors. If they don't want Jerome, ask if they want Matt Cain or Merkin Valdez. (Hey, how about Brett Tomko!) Whatever the case, come up with a combo that they want.

Elbo adds:

Well whaddaya know – a quick peek at Deivi Cruz’s and Orlando Cabrera’s player cards at Baseball-Reference.com reveals that each is the most similar player to the other. How about that! (Second most similar to Cruz? Neifi Perez, of course.)

Deivi Cruz isn’t really anyone’s favorite Giant, but he got the job done this year. He did produce 30 doubles –- most of them down the left field line, as I recall -– but only 7 homers, after muscling 14 longballs for Baltimore in 2003. Those doubles kept his SLG out of the toilet, and contributed to his sort-of-respectable .322 OBP. But I doubt he was anyone’s favorite Oriole after posting an abysmal .269 OBP in ought-three, and the chances of him regressing to that territory are probably greater than or equal to his chances of repeating his modest successes in 2004.

I’d love to have Jimmy Rollins on the team, but it’s hard to imagine the Phillies dealing a 26-year-old shortstop for whom they have no replacement. I think the Rangers absolutely love Michael Young, and I really doubt they’ll move him.

As for O-Cab, will he really make $8 million this year? The Red Sox Mystique (!) notwithstanding, I think almost everyone thought he was overpaid at $6 million this year, despite being due a raise following his very solid 2003 campaign. Still, you’d have to commit to a multi-year deal to get him, and I’m afraid the risks are just a little too high for me to be comfortable with that.

Shortstop may be one position where the Giants elect to save, save, save their money, and stick with Cruz for less than $1 million. I can’t say I’d blame them if they did.



|

This is part two of a roundtable discussion about several top Giants' prospects. If you like to geek out on prospects, it gets no better than this. The participants: Tom and Rob (Fogball), Steve (Giants News Diary), Martin (Biased Giants Fanantic), Grant (McCovey Chronicles), Doug (Westwood Blues), and Alex (El Lefty Malo).

Part 1, a discussion of David Aardsma, can be found on Fogball.

Steve: Other than Merkin Valdez's two brief major league appearances last July, Hennessey and Aardsma are the Giants only two top-ten prospects, as ranked by Baseball America, who have major league experience. A brief review of the scouting report on Hennessey:

- an 89-91 mph fastball with sink.
- slider is his strikeout pitch
- sinking changeup
- gets ground balls

He is also described as having very good makeup. A statistical analysis of Hennessey is less flattering. His low K/IP and low K/BB, along with an unimpressive H/IP, meant to John Sickels that Hennessey is not even among the Giants top 20 prospects. Hennessey will begin the 2005 season in the Fresno rotation. Does anyone believe he will be an impact pitcher for the Giants, whether in relief or as a starter, by early August?

Alex: Steve's right about the wimpy K/BB rate. It certainly doesn't bode well. But there's something odd...in his seven starts with the big club last year, he had the best K-rate of his career by a wide margin. Yes, yes, small sample size, but can we learn anything from it? (Note also that in his big-league stint he had the highest BB/9 and hits/9 rates of his career.)

Breaking down his seven big-league starts in '04, his only excellent game was 7 shutout innings against a punch-n-judy Milwaukee squad. His other starts fit roughly into two categories:
1) Easy going the first time through the order, then the opposition started to figure him out (Cubs, Expos, Braves).
2) Didn't fool anyone (Phils, Dodgers, D-Backs). Granted, the Phils game wasn't all Hennessey's fault, as the defense put him in trouble early.

There was also the question of his stamina. 2004 was his first full season after recovering from the tumor surgery (surgeries?). Could it be that with another year removed from the long layoff, he'll be stronger, with more pop on his fastball and more bite on his slider? If I were in Fresno right now, that's what I would be watching for. Any eyewitness accounts?

As for his impact in '05, there's no reason Hennessey would be the first call-up to fill a temporary rotation slot given the way Foppert and Cain pitched this spring. It's possible that with a rotation injury, Foppert could become a starter and Hennessey called up to be the long man. But Hennessey's only 25, a young pitcher who needs time to practice his craft. Burying him in the big-league bullpen doesn't really make sense. Keep him in Fresno for a full year, let him work on his stuff. He needs to miss more bats.

Martin: I agree with Lefty's points on Hennessey. Look at his Norwich stats: the only decent one is his ERA - his H/9, HR/9, W/9, K/9, WHIP are either average or worse. So his ERA could be a fluke at Norwich. I agree he needs to miss more bats.

Hopefully he can continue his short string of success at Fresno, build confidence and arm strength, as '04 was his first full season and 171 IP probably taxed his arm. And he did have *two* surgeries, as the tumor recurred and necessitated the second surgery.

With the potential for an embarrassment of riches in starters -- Williams, Lowry, Cain, Foppert, Valdez, Hennessey, Misch, Schmidt -- Hennessey could be the one to go in a mid-season trade since he's probably the most developed pitcher in the next tier of pitchers below Cain, Foppert, Valdez, and I presume (hope) these three are pretty much untouchables.

Steve: Foppert, Hennessey, Misch, Cain, Valdez: I think any of those guys could capably fill in for a spot start on the big league level. It would mostly be just whose turn in the rotation is next. The only drawback for Cain or Misch in a spot start role is that they are not yet on the 40-man roster, and adding them to the roster might require removing another prospect from the 40-man roster and exposing him to waivers. Currently, the most likely candidates to lose their spot on the 40-man roster are Tyler Walker and Tony Torcato since they are out of options.

I am not sure the Giants quite have "an embarrassment of riches in starters." There's a decent chance that only two of the Fresno rotation would remain starters at the major league level. Rueter and Tomko become free agents at the end of the year. I believe that Eyre, Herges, Brower and possibly Christiansen (team option) will be free agents too. If you plug the above five Fresno pitchers and Aardsma into those holes, suddenly the store of riches is gone. The top Giants remaining minor league pitchers would then be prospects Alfredo Simon and Craig Whitaker, along with Kevin Correia. After them, you would be talking about "Grade C" prospects like Jeremy Accardo, Billy Sadler, Scott Munter, Erick Threets, Brian Burres, Garrett Broshuis, Justin Hedrick and Jonathan Sanchez. The Giants might even need to access the store before then for mid-season additions. I like the depth of the Giants' current bench with Tucker, Feliz, Cruz and Torrealba. Still, an injury or two could necessitate a trade for another position player mid-season. Hennessey and Misch might be the best trading chips. I would also be willing to trade Valdez for an impact bat.

I wonder if it is useful to break down Hennessey's minor league stats by month (approximately):
Apr: 20.1 IP, 27 H, 10 BB, 15 K, 3 HR, 3.98 ERA
May: 37.2 IP, 27 H, 14 BB, 22 K, 2 HR, 2.87 ERA
Jun: 29.0 IP, 39 H, 11 BB, 9 K, 1 HR, 4.66 ERA
Jul: 36.2 IP, 27 H, 10 BB, 20 K, 4 HR, 1.96 ERA
Aug: 13.0 IP, 12 H, 9 BB, 9 K, 0 HR, 2.77 ERA
Do these look like the stats of someone who will crack the Giants 2006 starting rotation?

Rob: Brower will not be a free agent until after the 2006 season.

Alex: A few weeks ago on my blog I went out on a limb and bet the Giants would make a trade for a position player by the end of May. We should know around then if Ellison can hit ML pitching, if any old guys look destined for a season of nagging injuries, and if one of the triple-A starters Steve just mentioned is ready for the bigs. Whatever happens (or doesn't) on the trade front will be a big factor in Hennessey's future with the Giants. As Steve says, if he does well in Fresno and the Giants need another bat, he's prime mid-season trade bait. If there's a hole in the rotation and he's lights out in Fresno, he could be the call-up.

Does anyone have his stats from Youngstown State? I couldn't find them on the Web. Is it worth looking at them to shed any light on his potential? By the way, my mom was born in Youngstown. She was not, however, a Youngstown State Penguin.

Grant: Hennessey doesn't impress me on paper, and he doesn't impress me in person, either. But how much of that is due to his extended layoff? Everything I've ever written about him is predicated on his post-injury stats and performance. Maybe this is the year he finds a couple of miles on his fastball, and all of my opinions are ill informed.

With that caveat out of the way, I see his best case comparison as Tim Worrell. In a remake of A Streetcar Named Desire, his fastball/slider combination screams "bullpen" over and over. His worst case comparison would be one of the gazillions of 1st rounders that never made it. He's definitely behind Foppert, Cain, and Misch on my personal list of emergency starters this year.

Martin: Clarification on my "embarrassment of riches" comment: I meant at the MLB level. I agree that should all of them move up (or out) as you noted, the farm system would be a bit barren. I think you would agree that most teams' farm systems would be barren if so many advanced or fell out.

If they do fill our rotation -- and I think the odds look good -- our rotation could be set for the next 3-4 years. Hence my thought that a starter could be traded, with Hennessey being the most developed of the ones I don't consider virtually untouchable. Misch could be a good chip if he continues to do well as he moves up to AAA. I just consider Hennessey the more desirable chip. I would prefer keeping Hennessey, if we can, just to have good backups should the inevitable occur and something happens to a starter. I would be OK trading Valdez for an impact bat as well.

I agree the depth on the bench is great -- basically we got three starters from last year on the bench. If we should lose anyone to injury short-term, they should fill in without skipping much of a beat (except for Bonds of course and probably Alou). I think a trade is necessary if we lose Bonds, Alou, or Durham (unless Alfonzo moves there) for the season -- the other positions have a good enough backup that we should be able to hit enough to match the lost starter close enough without losing a good prospect for a fill-in.

Doug: Martin, while I understand your excitement about the overall quality and depth of young arms in the Giants organization, I think it's both premature and a bit overly optimistic to be talking about a future embarrassment of riches at the ML level or that the odds are good that the youngsters will fill out the rotation for years to come. Cain, Hennessey, Valdez, Misch, and even Williams and Lowry have a lot prove before we can write them into rotation for the next few years.

Young pitchers are a very unpredictable lot. Between shoulder and elbow injuries, flameouts, trades, head cases, etc. the odds just aren't in their favor. My hope is that Giants have stockpiled enough young arms to improve the odds that one or maybe two of them could turn out to be healthy and productive hurlers for the Giants. Maybe three or more of them will pan out for the Giants. Who knows?

As for the Giants rotation being set for the next 3-4 years, even excluding the current farmhands, the rotation for the next 3-4 years is already seven deep -- Schmidt, Lowry, Ainsworth, Williams, Bonser, Hannaman, and Kevin Rogers. ;)

Steve: I want to follow up on several notes of this discussion. First, I agree with Doug. I remember entering the 2003 season thinking that the Giants had about 9 starting pitchers: Rueter, Schmidt, Moss, Ainsworth, Jensen, Livan, Foppert, Williams, Nathan. That depth evaporated fairly quickly. By mid-August, the Giants had called upon Kevin Correia and Dustin Hermanson to become part of their starting rotation.

Second, going back to the monthly stats, if I arbitrarily exclude the month of June, Hennessey's minor league stats are more impressive, at least as far as WHIP and ERA: 107.2 IP, 93 H, 43 BB, 66 K, 9 HR, 2.76 ERA. The K/IP and K/BB are still low. How much of this, though, might be because Hennessey understands at a young age how to get ground ball outs early in the count? Jerome Williams was a bit like this in the high minors -- although he maintained a K/BB above 2.0.

I also could not find stats for Hennessey's college career. I am not sure I would find much meaning in them, though, since he was converted to pitching late in college. I quote from the Baseball America 2002 Prospect Handbook: "Hennessey went from obscurity to the first round of the 2001 draft on the strength of his slider.... Hennessey was a No. 3 starter on his Toledo high school team and went to Youngstown State as a two-way player. He was the club's shortstop for most of 2000, earning a few innings as a reliever and posting a 7.75 ERA. He convinced coach Mike Florak to make him a starter last spring, and his stuff took off as he shared the Mid-Continent Conference pitcher of the year award."

I find it interesting that Grant mentions Tim Worrell as a possible comp for Hennessey. I was thinking about that before Grant's comment, and I made the same comparison, although in physical stature, Hennessey is more similar to Matt Herges than Tim Worrell. The BA 2005 Prospect Handbook affirms what Grant says about Hennessey as a reliever, "Hennessey's stuff fits the profile of a setup man if the Giants need him in that role."

However, it continues that Hennessey might be more than a reliever for the Giants: "... but they like his upside as a starter, particularly if he can get his fastball and changeup to sink consistently." I think it is Hennessey's upside as a starter that Baseball America rates him ahead of Aardsma. I don't disagree.

Grant also rates Misch ahead of Hennessey. I understand that feeling based on the stats from last year, particularly before Misch began to fade in late July. It was a surprise to me when Hennessey, not Misch, was the one promoted to Fresno. Hennessey made his Fresno debut on July 17th. That same night, Misch pitched a complete game shutout for Norwich, his third CG shutout of the season. At that point, Misch and Hennessey had each made 18 starts for Norwich. Here is a comparison of their stats:

Hennessey: 101.0 IP, 106 H, 34 BB, 55 K, 8 HR, 3.56 ERA
Pat Misch: 116.0 IP, 96 H, 20 BB, 92 K, 7 HR, 2.56 ERA

(Note: Comparing their workloads, Misch had nearly one more inning per start, but Hennessey faced more total batters.)

Misch made 8 more starts during the season with this less impressive stat line:

43.0 IP, 42 H, 15 BB, 31 K, 5 HR, 4.40 ERA

The decline in Misch's K/IP is small, but the BB/IP nearly doubles. The H/IP also increases, and his ERA ballooned. I think this comparison between Hennessey and Misch is an example that the Giants' scouts saw something that those of us looking at the stats did not see. At this point, I am more comfortable with Hennessey than with Misch getting the spot starts.

The Baseball Prospectus 2005 book says that Hennessey will get rocked as a major league starter. This is one area where the arrogance of this year's book rubs me the wrong way. Wouldn't it be better to say that Hennessey's poor peripherals "suggest," or "strongly suggest," that he will get rocked? Hennessey's peripherals were poor in '04, but I think there are other things at work here. To ignore those and conclude that Hennessey will be an ineffective major league pitcher seems narrow-minded.

Alex: Re. BP arrogance: Sure, it would be nice to tone it down, but how many people would bang their head if the Scorpions "suggested" that, "if weren't too much bother," they "might rock you like a hurricane"? Not me, buster.

Tom: A touch more on Hennessey. There are two fundamental stats I always look at first when evaluating a starting pitcher: K/9 and K/BB. If K/9 is below 5 consistently, I get REALLY worried. If K/BB is closer to 1 than it is to 2, then I get doubly worried. Based on his raw stuff and his peripheral stats I am extremely pessimistic about Hennessey. If he had any consistent time up in the Majors his ERA would be closer to 6.00 than 4.00.

And can I point out something no one has yet mentioned: Hennessey's 4.98 ML ERA in 7 starts was tremendously helped by five of his runs being counted as unearned. His RA was a monstrous 6.33. The BP writing style may be arrogant at times but the point is still valid here: Guys with peripherals like Hennessey's almost NEVER do well at the ML level.

From 1999-2004, who had seasons with a K/9 of less than 5.00 and a K/BB equal to or less than 1.5 AND an ERA under 5.00 (minimum 125 IP)?

The list is pretty ugly. Kirk Rueter did it 5 times in 5 years. Next on the list is Tom Glavine (2 season with those numbers). After that it's one season each for a bunch of guys like Albie Lopez, Nate Cornejo, Jon Garland, Scott Karl, Sidney Ponson, Pat Rapp, Armando Reynoso, Dennis Springer, Steve Trachsel, etc. Mike Hampton, Miguel Batista, and Roy Halladay are in there, too. Only 19 guys have done it in the last 5 years. It's spectacularly hard to have peripherals that bad and still be a successful starter.

ED. NOTE: Hennessey's first start at Fresno produced this line:

5 IP / 3 H / 3 ER / 4 BB / 5 K

Steve: I think I am more optimistic about Hennessey than anyone else. Let's turn the discussion towards Pat Misch. (Coming soon ...)
|

And not my Giant, either. Whew. Another bullet dodged. No pun intended.

Before we go farther into unintended punland, I'd like to mention that BP writer Nate Silver says this year's free-agent market is running at a 47% inflation rate over last year. The best three FA deals so far, according to Silver, are Adam Kennedy/STL, Dave Roberts/SF, and Craig Counsell/MIL. The three worst: Carlos Lee/HOU, Gil Meche/KC, and Adam Eaton/PHI. The Giants have actually saved $9.4 million over market rate.

Which brings me to this note from a disgruntled reader who chides me for being too gruntled:

El Lefty can't be happy about the state of the Giants either...Your post seems to be politically correct to me - Time to slam 'em! It's a disaster over there on King Street...Throw a bunch of dough at Zito.

Politically correct? I compared the Feliz signing to the Darfur genocide. Is monumental bad taste no longer enough?

[Ed. note: the new Blogger beta is wreaking havoc with my fonts. Please bear with me.]

Beyond Feliz, though, I can't really slam the Giants for any one particular move. Randy Winn is not a leadoff hitter; they needed a leadoff hitter. Roberts, as noted above, was a relative bargain. Mike Matheny is probably a permanent KO, so they needed a catcher pronto.

And complaints that the Giants have broken their promise of a new non-Bondscentric direction are premature. Let's parse:

The Giants never said 2007 would be Bonds-free. Just less Bonds-focused. His reported contract seems to belie that, but in this market, $16 million base (with reportedly much deferred) for one year of a premier slugger -- yes, he still is -- is not unreasonable. If we're to believe today's news, the deferred money will help make another acquisition.

No pitching prospects have been traded. So far.

No really stupid long-term FA contracts. Feliz hurts. But his contract won't cripple the team.

The only tack away from the New Direction is the apparent reassignment of Linden and Frandsen to the National Thumb-Twiddlers League. Not insignificant, but come on, the Giants aren't exactly forcing, say, David Wright and Rocco Baldelli to ride the end of the pine.

So, we turn to moves not (yet) made. I don't know anyone who will protest the Giants sitting on the sidelines as the Gil Meches and Adam Eatons of the world bellyflop, Scrooge McDuck-like, into swimming pools of lucre. Speak now, Ted Lilly fans, or forever hold your peace.

Jason Schmidt, however... No, sorry, I'm not going to slam the Giants here, either. This deal not done is a moot point: Schmidt wasn't going to sign with S.F. Period. That's certainly how it seems. The L.A. contract has been praised in certain circles as a wise overspend -- throw in a few more zlotys for a shorter time span. It's a decision the Giants probably never had to contemplate.

Now that the Giants haven't spent $47 million on a guy who wasn't going to take their money anyway, the big question is this: Would signing -- or trying to sign -- Barry Zito hew to the New Direction or move away from it? It would mean a swap of an older ace (Schmidt) for a younger, less dominating ace. It would mean overspending on a player whose decline in strikeouts is a bad sign. It would mean committing many, many years to a pitcher -- a very foolish proposition.

Though the initial splash would be cool, the idea of a nine-digit deal for Zito summons to mind Martin Landau playing Bela Lugosi in the movie Ed Wood: "Take care! Beware!" Or if you like, "This is the most uncomfortable coffin I've ever been in."

It was the former quote that kept me awake last night. I couldn't sleep between 1 and 3 a.m. because of it -- not to mention the sound of the rain pounding my bedroom window.

Also keeping me up: why a team would spend $24 million on Adam Eaton instead of $2 million on Jamey Wright with $22 million left over for really good relief pitching, to help on the days Wright exits by the fifth inning. I don't know.

The same could apply to Barry Zito. Why spend $17 million a year on one guy when you could use that money on, say, two hitters who will help outslug the opposition on the days Brad Hennessey and Jonathan Sanchez toss beanbags to happy batters?

I'll leave you with a quote from Omar Vizquel, in reaction to the Bonds contract: "I don't think it's a stupid contract,'' Vizquel said. "They didn't sign somebody for six years and $100 million. They'll have the chance to do more things later.''

As noted yesterday, we thought the Mark Sweeney deal last year was a sign that the Giants would do more things later. Those things never happened, unless you consider Shea Hillenbrand a thing.

***

EVENING UPDATE: After all this money talk, the following quote from Gabe Kapler, who just retired at 31 to take a minor-league manager job, is a breath of fresh air:

"I didn't want finances to play into it," he said. "I made that mistake already once when I went to Japan. ... Helping other people and being a part of other peoples' lives is much more rewarding than finances."

|

When the Giants traded Yorvit Torrealba and Jesse Foppert for Randy Winn, the general reaction among the blognoscenti was disappointment. Specific feedback ranged from Rage Against The Sabean to mild acceptance with a dash of let's-wait-and-see. But in my unscientific scan of posts and comments from late July, I'd say reaction was generally negative.

Now Winn is doing his best Albert Pujols impression, batting .345/.380/.667 with 32 extra base hits and 11 homers in 186 plate appearances with the Giants. Just for fun, in the same time span:

Vlad Guerrero, 23 XBH, 12 HR, 185 PAs
Albert Pujols, 22 XBH, 11 HR, 187 PAs
Andruw Jones, 23 XBH, 18 HR, 181 PAs
Alex Rodriguez, 24 XBH, 15 HR, 186 PAs

Let's look back at what was said at the time of the trade:

* "Sabean just picked up a replacement-level/4th outfielder when he's already got three of them on the team in Feliz, Ellison, and Tucker. Winn's defense is not better than Tucker's." (That was Daniel, echoing the sentiments of many. I also noted that Winn's career stats weren't that much different from Michael Tucker's.)

* "By trading Foppert, the Giants have thrown away another of their highly-touted pitching prospects after completely mismanaging the early stages of his career much the same way they handled Ainsworth, Williams, Nathan, Aardsma, etc...Throwing Torrealba into the mix is also indefensible. I can't believe the Giants considered a fast, defense-minded, 26-year old catcher a worthless commodity..." (That was from John at OBM.)

* "What happens if the 34-yr-old Matheny gets injured, which tends to happen to catchers of all ages? Haad, with all 1 major league at-bat's worth of experience back there, will be the starter. Brilliant." (That was me.)

* "Winn will stay in left field, according to Giants sources." (That was from Will Carroll's rumor mill.)

Carroll was instantly proven wrong. (Or his sources were.) As for the rest of us negatively-minded folk, is it time to acknowledge we were wrong, too? It's been nearly seven weeks, and Randy Winn has had undoubtedly the best stretch of his career.

He will not continue to hit .345/.380/.667 through 2006, although I won't mind if he does. But what if he hits .300/.350/.500 for one more year? Is the trade then worth it? What if Foppert slowly builds up to a great year in 2008, winning 20 games with 200 innings, 200 Ks, a 3.25 ERA...then flames out? Or if Foppert turns out to be Brett Tomko-ish, eating innings year after year but never anchoring a staff?

The three stages of trade evaluation:

1) Immediately post-trade. All we can do is compare career stats, look for trends, and assume the trends will continue, i.e., Jesse Foppert will continue to recover from Tommy John surgery and be at full strength in '06. Yorvit Torrealba will continue to be a backup catcher with excellent defensive skills with glimmers of offensive promise. Randy Winn will continue to be a speedy outfielder who becomes mediocre in CF and doesn't get on base enough to be a leadoff guy.

2) The short-term returns. Randy Winn is awesome! Thanks to him, the Giants can still dream about the playoffs. If Barry had come back a few weeks earlier, who knows...? Meanwhile, Foppert remained in the minors the rest of the year, and Torrealba, given a chance to play more, hasn't busted out, posting OPSes of .709 and .524 in August and September.

3) Years of hindsight. It's all speculation. Randy Winn comes back to earth. Randy Winn has a Jeff Kent-like mid-career revelation. Torrealba breaks through and become the next Bengie Molina -- who had his first good year at the age of 28. Foppert, well, go ahead and throw a dart blindfolded. It'll land anywhere from Kurt Ainsworth to Joe Nathan.

It seems to me the only decent way to evaluate a trade is to measure the value received from each player -- a stat like VORP is probably a good start -- then factor in dollars spent relative to payroll. In other words, at the end of '06, we can figure out how valuable Randy Winn was to the Giants for the roughly $6 million they paid him starting in August '05, compare that figure to Foppert and Torrealba, and do the same at the end of each year.

If the players involved move to other teams via free agency or trade, do you keep counting? If, say, the Mariners trade Foppert for Ryan Freel, who becomes the American League batting champ and propels the M's to the World Series, how do you factor that?

Some trades in hindsight are easy to grade: the Giants got a year's worth of A.J. Pierzynski and nothing more for Nathan and two prospects (one of whom is expected to be as good as Johan Santana). A roll of the dice immediately post-trade; a real bungle in short-term returns; an out-and-out disaster after two years of hindsight.

What do you think? If you hated the Winn trade, do you repent? If you still think it sucked, why? When will we be able to truly judge it?
|

Two Quotes Re. Steroids

Here are two quotes in an excerpt from the Washington Post's piece on the BALCO indictments, which include Barry Bonds' childhood friend and personal trainer Greg Anderson:

"Common sense tells you that if they've got Bonds' personal trainer," one baseball source said yesterday, "they're only one step away from having Bonds."

Bonds has consistently denied using steroids, and there is no indication he will be charged.

"I am saddened by the news of the indictment against my trainer and friend," Bonds said in a statement. "I don't know the state of the evidence and it would be inappropriate to comment on this matter."

I'm biased. I love Barry Bonds for what he does for the Giants and for allowing me to watch one of the greatest baseball players of all time. It's as if I've been sitting in the Fenway bleachers watching Ted Williams day after day. Or Stan Musial. Or Willie Mays. I know he's that great, and so does everyone else around me, which only adds to the sense of community and wonder. Like when I'm actually there on his 39th birthday and he throws out a Diamondback at the plate in the top of the 9th to preserve a tie, then first pitch, boop, home run off the lefty specialist Mike Myers. Get me rewrite? Hell, no, it's perfect.

Will my memories of that day, and so many other days, be diminished if Bonds, as the above anonymous "baseball source" says, is only one step away from getting busted for doping his body?

That's a tough question. I'm not even sure how to answer. I guess my estimation of him as a ballplayer will go down a big notch. He'll be proven a liar and a cheat. The 73 home runs will have an asterisk. (Just as Mark McGwire's 70 should have had, since he all but admitted he used andro.) Even with drugs, Bonds will still be one of the greatest of this era, but trying to defend him will be, at best, splitting hairs; at worst, an abdication of moral decency.

I've written this before on this blog, but I'll repeat it. Much of America and the press would love to see Bonds go down. He's arrogant, he's weird, he's private, he's childish, and he's black. He doesn't play the game. He doesn't let people love him, project themselves onto him. He doesn't give good quote. He's not good for business -- not like A-Rod and Air Jordan and Giambi.

I'm not saying sportswriters are racist (although I am saying that a lot of sports fans are racist); I'm saying that as mostly white guys, sportswriters don't understand him. If they were black, they might not, either. But at least they'd be on the same side of the cultural divide. (Ralph Wiley of ESPN last fall wrote a long piece on the complexities of race, culture, Bonds and other baseball superstars that's well worth reading in this context.)

So, about this latest Wash Post piece and the above quote from the "baseball source"... what follows won't sound objective, but trust me, I'm trying:

If I were the journalist, I'd be embarrassed to include such a trashy quote. "A baseball source" could be the guy who sweeps up garlic fries in the Pac Bell bleachers after night games, for Christ sake (although it's probably not). And is it really "common sense"? Not really. It's circumstantial evidence, at best. When a guy comes home with blood on his jacket 10 minutes after a jogger was found stabbed in the park, common sense tells you it's an angle that needs to be investigated, but it's not a presumption of guilt, which is basically what the anonymous source above is implying.

I won't be surprised if it turns out Bonds has been juicing. (Or Sosa, or Giambi, or Clemens, or anyone. I have no illusions.) But I also know that what seems obvious to practically everyone -- Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; George HW Bush is a shoe-in for reelection; the Soviets will crush the U.S. hockey team at Lake Placid -- can turn out to be the opposite of what we thought. That's why this country is built on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Bonds's quote is worth parsing, too. In his statement (which could well have been crafted by a flack or a lawyer), he makes no attempt to backpedal away from his relationship with Anderson, whom he calls "my trainer and friend." This could be a case of reverse spin -- ie, a lawyer saying, "Barry, if you backpedal now, everyone will smell a rat."

But think how often people pushed into corners try to spin their way out by backpedaling and obfuscation. (One year it's "weapons of mass destruction," the next it's "weapons of mass destruction-type-kinda-sorta-programs in theory." I guess it depends on how you define "is.") But Bonds' statement was simple. Instead of saying "I have no comment about my former associate," or "I will not comment on the investigation," Bonds re-asserted the connection: my trainer, my friend.

Whatever Bonds's conscience, or his past drug intake, you have to admit it's admirable. These days, common sense would tell you to run, hide and leave your ex-trainer and ex-friend to dangle in the wind.
|

Wait a second: how welcome is the imminent return of Armando Benitez? On the radio last night, Felipe Alou said he threw two innings in a minor-league game and looked just OK. Felipe was not turning verbal somersaults. His fastball was mostly 90-91, 92 tops, and his off-speed stuffwas inconsistent. He struck out three, but the opponents were the dregs of the Cubs minor league system.

Felipe has also said that when Benitez returns, which could be as soon as today, he won't immediately be the closer. Worrell will remain there for the time being. That's smart.

If Benitez's velocity is permanently down to the low 90s, something many observers suspected before he tore his hamstring from his -- argh, it hurts just to write this -- pelvic bone last April, it's not the kiss of death. The question becomes, how quickly can he learn to compensate? Almost all power pitchers lose a few MPH on their fastballs; only the really good ones adapt.

Jason Schmidt has been struggling for a year and a half with his new reality. Matt Morris used to throw a lot harder before various injuries; last night's bad inning notwithstanding, he seems to have the right makeup to evolve into a successful high-80s/low-90s pitcher with pinpoint control. Think Livan Hernandez or, if you really want to think big, Greg Maddux.

Often overlooked is that Benitez's repertoire includes a killer split-finger and decent slider. Those two pitches, plus a 90-92 MPH fastball that he knows how to sink, could be more than enough for him to remain an effective closer. The key to watch for: his splitter and slider. If he's hanging them, as he's often done in a Giants uniform, batters will wait for the fastball. If his off-speed stuff has bite and movement, it'll make his diminished fastball look a few MPH faster.

Short-term, I wouldn't be surprised to see Benitez struggle for at least a month or two. The game plan should be to let him pitch in low-leverage situations, preferably more than one inning at a time to stretch out his arm a bit. The Giants may not have that luxury, but if he blows a couple games right away, the boobirds will descend, the negativity may snowball and his season will spiral down the drain.

Who should be demoted? Jack Taschner's the obvious choice: he's not pitching well and he has a minor-league option. Let him get his game together in Fresno. According to today's Chron, Tyler Walker has no more options and would have to pass through waivers before a minor-league demotion. Walker seemed much better in last night's game after some reported one-on-one work with Righetti; if the Giants can nurse him back to decent-ness, he'll be valuable as an emergency closer.

Thanks to Worrell's fine run to start the season, we can honestly welcome back Armando with the hope he has the smarts to realize he's not going to blow batters away anymore.

***

Small print update: I just found ESPN's player salary charts. They don't quite jibe with the two salary pages I've linked to (Cot's and MLB4U); it looks like ESPN ignores deferred salary, prorates signing bonuses, and gets other stuff just plain wrong (Barry Bonds is listed at $20 M this year even though his option was $18 M and $5 M is deferred). But ESPN has a salary for Jamie Wright ($500,000), which I can't find anywhere else, so I'll use that for now.
|

Gee, M's

There hasn't been much room for hand-wringing or tooth-gnashing or general foreboding for Giants fans these days. Even Jimmy from Sacktown hasn't made any "Richie Macho" jabs in several weeks. It's quiet...too...quiet. Creeeaaaaak. Makes the hair on my back, I mean, on the back of my neck stand up. To relieve the tension and get some good healthy bitching out of the way, I turn to the subject of general managers and their methods of mystery.

First, a tale that really gets my panties in a bunch, and I'm not even from Seattle. In fact, I'm not even wearing panties. (At the moment, that is.)

It's called "The Sad Ballad of Stand Pat." To get a flavor of what the Mariners fans are feeling right now, here's a quick excerpt from an M's blog:

"As a public service announcement, I'd like to remind everyone that Pat Gillick will be making a public appearance today at the downtown R.E.I. He is going to give a one hour demonstration on how to properly fold up your tent and go home."

My heart cries out for those fans. It's a crime, I tell you. No, not a crime, a self-parody. The guy's nickname is Stand Pat, and when June comes along everyone's saying that, no, there's no way he'll do it again, the M's have to get better, it's so obvious, blah blah blah, and boom (or, more accurately, profound-lack-of-boom), he does it again. Rather, does nothing again. When Michael Lewis writes Moneyball II: Beane and Beaner, he'll have to credit half of the A's success not to sabermetrics or scouting-by-laptop or Harvard grads who like to smash furniture, but to Pat Gillick.

I can't imagine the Mariners players, let alone the fans, having any respect for a GM who won't (or can't? are his hands really tied by ownership?) upgrade at the trading deadline. He's got a rich farm system and the prospects with which to deal. He's got a captive audience that will pack the house during a pennant race and dutifully buy Ichiro-brand used Kleenex if they put it on the market. Pull the goddamn trigger, Pat!!.

I told you this gets me worked up.

This also relates to something I mused about a few days ago when Giants call-up Noah Lowry pitched a couple nice innings of September garbage time. Lowry, a lefty malo, posted some uncannily Woody-riffic numbers on the radar gun: curveball at 70 mph, changeup at 80, fastball that topped out at 86-87 but averaged 83-85. Steve Shelby of the Giants daily news roundup wrote me to say he noticed the same thing, and that, curiously, he saw Lowry pitch in May and throw 87-90 mph: "I can't figure out this drop in velocity. It seems too much to be that he has just become very good at subtracting from his fastball and changing speeds."

Well, it's deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra once said on a visit to Paris, Texas. This exact same thing happened when Jesse Foppert came up in April. We're all sitting on the edge of our sofas, waiting to see a mid-90s fastball that topped out at 99...and the kid barely cracks 90. Now that Foppert's torn his elbow ligament and is out til 2005, we might speculate that between the minor-league scouts watching him hit high-90s in 2002 and his call-up in early 2003, Foppert's elbow weakened and cost him several MPH on the gun.

But I think something else is going on.

As I mentioned before, some GMs can't pull the trigger on the big trade, and some can. Obviously it's not just a matter of having prospects -- the Mariners system is constantly churning out viable (Ryan Franklin), often excellent (Gil Meche, Rafael Soriano), major league pitching. Some of these guys are keepers. Others are trade bait. The trick is knowing which is which, and how to convince your trading partners (Chuck LaMar, come on down!) that the trade bait smells like fine, upstanding All-Star-in-a-Box.

Now let's look at the Giants: kinda strange, isn't it, how so much of the Giants trade bait, once in someone else's dugout, turns out to be just that: a bucket of squirming worms that get swallowed in the deep ponds of major league baseball? (I'm talking prospects here, not established big-leaguers like Russ Ortiz.)

To wit: Jason Grilli. Nate Bump. Michael Caruso. Bobby Howry. Lorenzo Barcelo. Joe Fontenot. Ryan Vogelsong. Armando Rios. Jim Stoops. (Darryl Hamilton and Jim Stoops for Ellis Burks: oh my.) What Giants' bait has gone on to a solid big-league career? Yes, Keith Foulke. Um...am I missing anyone?

Someone in Moneyball describes Brian Sabean as the "master of the dry hump." Translation: you think you're getting a lot, but you end up with a weird teenage longing for something more and maybe a stain on your jeans.

So how does this relate to Noah Lowry (whose uniform, as far as I could tell, was stain-free)? Is it possible that the Giants deliberately exaggerate the performance of their prospects, or somehow manipulate the reports coming from minor-league parks to boost their value in the eyes of potential trading partners? Is that even possible? After all, it's a free country. Any fat scout with a straw hat and zinc oxide on his nose can sit behind home plate with his own radar gun.

Another possibility: the Pac Bell gun is a few MPH on the light side. I don't think that's true, as I've seen it hit 99 with Robb Nen on the mound, the high-90s with Felix on the mound, etc.

Adding to my suspicion is the out-of-nowhere success of Kevin Correia. With so much focus on the Giants' farm pitchers, with everyone slobbering over Williams, Foppert and Ainsworth these past two years, how could Correia be so overlooked? Could it be that the Giants knew what they had and put strict orders on everyone not to let the cat out of the bag?

It all sounds mighty conspiratorial, but when you start wondering how the hell the Giants have sustained this run, and squeezed so much out of a farm system that has absolutely no positional talent to speak of, the conspiracies start to make a little sense.



|

Let's put aside this year's race for a moment and peek ahead to what the Giants may look like in 2005.

The following players will be free agents (with or without options): Perez, Grissom, Hermanson, Snow, Nen, Tomko, Christiansen, Cruz.

The following will be under contract or have player options: Alfonzo, Bonds, Brower, Durham, Eyre, Herges, Felix, Rueter, Schmidt, Tucker.

The following will be under the Giants control or subject to arbitration (minor leaguers who've had brief callups are not listed): Feliz, Foppert, Franklin, Mohr, Pierzynski, Ransom, Torrealba, Williams.

If the Giants had to fill next year's 25-man roster only with returning players, here's what it could look like:

C: Pierzynski
1B: Niekro
2B: Durham
SS: Feliz
3B: Alfonzo
LF: Bonds
CF: Mohr
RF: Tucker

C: Torrealba
Inf: Ransom
Inf: Torcato
Inf: Dallimore
OF: Ellison
OF: Linden

SP: Schmidt
SP: Williams
SP: Correia/Lowry
SP: Foppert
SP: Rueter

RP: Herges
RP: Brower
RP: Aardsma
RP: Eyre
RP: Franklin
RP: Rodriguez

Obviously that won't be the roster. There will be a huge amount of shakeup between now and April 2005, but just perusing that list, and knowing Cain and Valdez could well make the big league roster, makes me feel a little better about the next couple of years.

Let's try to construct a more realistic roster with some wild but educated guesses.

First, which of the potential free agents will return? Snow and Perez almost certainly won't. Cruz, perhaps, if he'll take a small salary. Christiansen has an expensive team option. Unless he accepts a buyout and a much lower salary, probably not. Hermanson is a good cheap 5th starter, but I hope he'll pitch like a man on fire for the rest of the season and price himself out of the Giants budget over the winter. Tomko? Let's assume he won't be back. Nen? If he can come back next year, bless his heart. Let's hope the Giants extend a minimum offer with incentives if there's even a slim chance. But count him as a no.

That leaves us with the toughest call. According to this site, Grissom can stay for a $2.5 M team option. If he keeps up his current production, he's worth it. No matter how much I bitch and moan, 20 homers and good outfield defense is hard to come by. Certainly no outfielder in the farm system seems to have 20-HR potential at the moment. If age catches up to Grip, or he's relegated to a platoon, the price tag looks a bit steeper. That's a fancy way of saying I don't know. But I'll go with yes.

As for those under contract for 2005, I assume trades will happen either this season or over the winter. But to try and guess who, what, when, and how is a fool's errand. So for now I'll just put Alfonzo, Bonds, Brower, Durham, Eyre, Herges, Felix, Rueter, Schmidt and Tucker on the 2005 opening day roster. (Felix has a player option for $3 m; he had the same for 2004 and exercised it, so let's assume he does the same for 2005.)

The next group, the youngsters and arb-eligibles, will also likely be affected by trades. I'll only go out on a limb with one guy: Pierzynski. He won a surprisingly large arbitration decision this year and will likely do it again unless he's either signed long term or dumped. My guess is the Giants will go with Torrealba, sacrificing A.J.'s offense for Yorvit's stellar defense, and spend the savings on lumber at other positions. Feliz also is due for an arbitrated raise, but given his versatility and his ability to hit lots of home runs and play a decent shortstop, I'll guess he stays.

So here's my sketch of the 2005 French-vanilla wearin' Giants on opening day, with "new" denoting where I think a free agent will be signed or someone traded for.

Starters:
C: Torrealba
1B: NEW (big bat here -- Delgado? Sexson?)
2B: Durham
SS: Feliz
3B: Alfonzo
LF: Bonds
CF: Grissom
RF: NEW*

Bench:
C: NEW (grizzled lefty-hitting veteran)
INF: Niekro
INF: Ransom
INF: Cruz
OF: Mohr
OF: Tucker

SP: Schmidt
SP: Williams
SP: Rueter
SP: NEW
SP: Cain/Valdez/Correia

RP: Herges
RP: Brower
RP: Felix
RP: Eyre
RP: Aardsma
RP: Lowry or NEW lefty

According to Dugout Dollars, the Giants have nearly $54 M committed to 10 players next year. It seems likely Sabean will try to move some of that either this month or over the winter. If Houston could get rid of Richard Hidalgo's contract and continue to contend, let's not put it past Sabean to clear Rueter's $7 M or the $15 M-plus owed to Alfonzo for 2005-2006.

*I've decided that the Giants' priority should be to get a boffo bat for the outfield. That would turn Tucker, Mohr and Grissom into a rotating three-headed center fielder and almost certainly make one of them trade bait. But instead of anticipating that, I'll assume all three plus the new guy to be on the opening day roster.
|

The contract details are out (thanks to Martin for passing along the link in yesterday's comments). Zito gets $10 M this year, $14.5 M in '08, $18.5 M from '09 to '11, then $19 M and $20 M in the final two years. In addition to the innings-pitched trigger, there are a passel of award bonuses and, other than green M&Ms, my favorite contract rider: "Zito also will stay in a suite for road trips."

Which begs the question: is there a limit to how many suites a team can contractually guarantee? What if they have five superstars and their hotel in Cincinnati only has four suites? Does the highest-paid star get to stay at a different hotel? Do the superstars compare suites and get jealous? Do you still have to obey curfew if you stay in a suite? Do sports teams really have curfews anymore, or are they reserved for football teams the night before the Super Bowl? Why does the new album by Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) only say "Yusuf" on the cover? Is there a wee marketing problem with his last name?

Enough of my non-sensical ramblings. Let's bring in someone else's. Hello? Bruce? You there, pal?

Like all of the coolest cats in the universe, Barry Zito isn't real big on hassles. He likes a warm breeze, smart conversation, a sensible guitar riff, the simple beauty of a 3-and-1 pitch to Vladimir Guerrero.

Señoras y señores, it's Bruce Jenkins of the Chronicle! Bruce likes Barry Zito because Barry Zito is cool. And he's a cat. Bruce also thinks a 3-and-1 pitch to Vlad has "simple beauty," which is the last phrase I would use to describe a pitch that has a 93% chance of a) being knocked over the outfield fence or b) being lined off the pitcher's skull.

One more thing: "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Joe Strummer, and I'm going to endeavor not to disappoint you with several sensible guitar riffs!"

You have to understand where Bruce is coming from. He also liked Neifi Perez because he wore his socks high.

The way it looks from here, Zito is under no pressure at all.

[Ed. note: "From here" = inside the velvet coffin of Jenkins's Chronicle cubicle, where he has so much seniority he'll never be fired.] Cool people don't feel pressure. Especially not when they're being force-fit into Bruce Jenkins's oversimplified hacked-up hairball of a universe in which reside Good Barry/Bad Barry. The Bad Barry is not cool, and the people who decided to bring him back (the same people who are overpaying for the coolness of Good Barry) have performed a colossal, monumental breach of coolness.

There will be a considerable amount of tension around the Giants this season,

Perhaps because they will suck. Please continue...

but it will fully surround Barry Bonds and the prideless executives, Peter Magowan and Larry Baer, who can't seem to live without the sordid swirl

One of my favorite flavors. You should try it.

of steroid associations, a broken-down ballplayer, a disgusted commissioner and the threat of a federal indictment...

If Barry Bonds is "broken-down," Scott Rolen is positively glue-factory and Nomar Garciaparra is a partially-decomposed zombie who roams the earth and feasts on succulent human flesh. Which means he's either a Dodger or a member of the New York media. Back to you, Bruce:

New York is the worldliest setting in America, but patience runs a bit thin in sporting circles. Struggling athletes come to dread taking the field, or even turning on the radio. Not to suggest that Zito could ever be Ed Whitson, but he'd call B.S. on the type of scrutiny that takes place in that town, day after day.

So what are you suggesting, Bruce?

Whatever; he would have won his 18 games there and survived just fine. But Shea Stadium isn't Mays Field (the only name that seems to fit), where ownership has made certain that Bonds is the story, every hour of every day.

Sorry, Bruce, I don't quite follow, though I dig the "Mays Field" shout-out. Zito would have done quite well in New York, but he chose San Francisco because it's cooler, except that it won't be because of Barry Bonds, except that's OK because Bonds will suck up everyone's attention and just let Zito do his dudular pitching thing? Does not compute. Maybe your final paragraph will clear things up:

Come spring training, Zito won't believe the coolness of his situation. Just pitch, man, that's it. It eventually might bother him that the team he left behind, Oakland, does everything better than the Giants except play in a suitable ballpark. He might find that the Mets are the team really bent on winning, and the Giants' barren farm system is a product of their lack of foresight and increasingly pitiful devotion to Bonds. He might discover that when a late-inning situation calls for a pinch-hitter, Bonds might not feel like leaving the clubhouse. Let's hope the reality doesn't strike too hard, because the Giants acquired one hell of a pitcher, and San Francisco is lucky to have him.

In all of this analysis -- and I'll give him props for the "barren farm system" comment -- Jenkins leaves out three factors: Barry Bonds will only be with the Giants one more year. Barry Zito will be with the Giants through 2013, at least. And Barry Zito has a much better chance of declining than improving over the life of the contract. (Jenkins could have looked at statistics beyond the win column, but no, he knows the high-sock, cool-cat mark of a winner when he sees it.)

Jenkins has it backwards. With the barren farm system and the "lack of foresight" and the Giants' general incompentence viz a viz Oakland, it's not the one year of surly steroidal swirling slugger but the half-decade to follow that Zito will come to regret. This year, a healthy and unindicted Bonds will help this team immensely, no matter how uncool he is.
|

The big takeaway from the weekend series with the Mets: there's something wrong with Jason Schmidt. Somewhere between Kris Benson's leadoff double in the third inning and Kris Benson's bases-loaded walk in the fifth inning, Mike Krukow stopped jimmy-jackin' around and pronounced what we've all been thinking about Schmidt since early April: "He's not right."

He couldn't put anyone away. He was missing his target by a foot or more. He refused to throw off-speed pitches.

In this morning's papers, Schmidt says he's finally come to terms with not throwing 95; that he needs to mix it up more; that despite the drop in velocity he feels fine. Well, he said he felt fine before going on the DL in May. And his pitching hasn't improved since his return. This feels to me like the run-up to an official Giants press release along these lines: Whoops, further tests have revealed (i.e., despite all our earlier protestations to the contrary), it looks like there is in fact some damage/tears/strain/fraying of the labrum/elbow/rotator cuff/etc, and that Schmidt needs to go under the knife.

It would puncture a final hole in the sagging balloon of 2005, but it would also be a relief. No more dissembling to the media, no more trying to get him back on the mound to salvage the season. Clear a space, give Matt Cain or Brad Hennessey the turn, and start thinking about Schmidt's option for 2006. (More on this in a second.)

However, the situation may not be so clear-cut. The human arm has only so many pitches in it unless it's attached to Nolan Ryan. The line for a pitcher between loss of stuff and discernable, repairable injury is often blurry.

Would an arthroscope, a scalpel and that magic Ting touch get Schmidt back to his dominant self in 2006 or 2007? Or has his body simply reached a point of no return: sorry, bubba, no more 96 MPH fastballs.

If the latter, then Schmidt has taken a tiny but important step. He admitted after yesterday's debacle he needs to become more of a pitcher:

"I'm trying to pitch with the style I've used the last three or four years," he said. "I'm trying to do the whole power-pitcher mentality. I just have to mix it up more and change things up. That's probably what I've got to do, resort to other pitches instead of being stubborn out there and walking into things. That's part of pitching. Just stop being stubborn and go ahead and do it, and wait until the other stuff comes."

It's not like he's out there naked; he still throws 90-92 MPH and has a great change-up. Those are tools most major-league pitchers would kill to have.

Now that he acknowledges he may never return to the halcyon days of blowing 95 at the letters past the likes of Jose Reyes, he can get on with the rest of his career -- if indeed there's no yet-to-be-revealed injury.

But if his problems are mostly mental, not physical, I'm optimistic. Schmidt's a nice guy with, it seems, minimal ego. He should be able to embrace this new image of himself hitting the corners at 91; he's already taken the first step by making these public statements. Putting health aside for a moment, the question centers on his breaking pitches. His slider and curveball are afterthoughts to his fastball and change-up. They are often lazy and hittable. Can he improve them? Because for the first time in his career, he's really going to need them.

Ah, and what of the contract? The Giants have an option to pay him $10.25 million in '06. If they decline, they owe him a $3.25 M buyout and he walks away a free agent. Whether his struggles this year are injury-related or not, it seems highly unlikely they'll pick up the option.

But they're going to pay him $3.25 M anyway -- they may as well work out some sort of deal to build on it. Say, a base of $3.5 M with lots of incentives and a team option for '07 with a minimal buyout. If it turns out he's injured and can't pitch in '06, they pay only what they would have paid in declining the option. If he's not hurt and needs to spend the rest of '05 figuring out his new approach (call it The Schmidt Second Act), then becomes a darn good pitcher in '06 -- think Pedro Martinez in his final Red Sox year -- the the Giants get only what they pay for. Or pay for only what they get.

If you were Brian Sabean, how would you deal with Schmidt's option? Would you pick it up? Would you negotiate a lower-cost, good-faith deal for '06 that shows appreciation for all he's done for the Giants? Or would you cut him loose after this year?
|

...I cannot kick a man when he's down, not for very long at least, unless his name is Neifi, and even then, come on, he is one of the top 1,000 or so baseball players in the world, let's give the guy a bit of a break especially now that he's not on our team. I'm even holding out a scintilla of hope that Pedro Feliz has learned to hit the ball to right field and not swing at the shadows of passing jumbo jets. Heck, I even sent Russ Davis a Chanukah card.

Where was I? Oh yes. Libra, am I. Fair. Balanced. Just.

So when one of my favorite media whipping boys, Bruce Jenkins, whom I have targeted with jokes -- completely unsubstantiated, mind you -- about the old silver flask tucked into his battered gray Chronicle-issue newsroom desk drawer and his disturbing love for men who wear their socks high, when Bruce gets something right, I give props.

Mad, major props. Pra-shizzle-ops, for all you young urban readers out there.

Reading his column in today's Chron, "Giants Need Fast Start," I found myself nodding, more or less, in agreement. Let's try to figure out why:

In a somewhat cruel twist of fate, just as the Giants start to build a respectable young pitching staff, the entire division is on a significant upswing.

Very true. Concisely said. An excellent nut graph, Sir Jenks.

Get out of the gate quickly -- say, 10 wins in the first 15 games -- and the Giants can re-establish a foundation of trust among their fans. If they fall substantially behind in the NL West, you won't find many people feeling good about the season or, more importantly, the future.

The 10-of-15-or-else scenario may be a bit hyperbolic, but I get the general point. This is more about marketing the team the rest of the year. A slow start may turn off the casual fan. This is generally true most years, and it's certainly true that when a team falls way behind, people tend to be pessimistic, but contrary to the standards that columnists generally hold dear, being obvious isn't as bad as being wrong.

Outside of his Cy Young season in 2002 (23-5, 2.75), Zito has never been Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez or Greg Maddux. He has been a clever, highly competent starter who more than holds up his end.

Again one could say obvious, except that a lot of people (not me, not you, but a lot of people) actually think Zito deserves such lofty comparisons. Good on ya, Bruce, for bursting their bubble.

To expect him to win 25 games, stifling the Mets or Cardinals with two-hit shutouts, simply isn't realistic.

I'd prefer a more sophisticated statistical breakdown, say, "To expect him to regain his dominant strikeout ratio while cutting down on walks, etc etc," but I'll take what I can get. Wins are generally meaningless, but to win 25 in a season, you either have to be the luckiest guy on earth or very very good.

Across the bay, the A's have lost so many great players due to budget constraints or injuries, it boggles the mind -- and they always survive. A single injury -- say, Zito, Cain or even Bonds -- could instantly destroy the Giants' season.

Well, more Bonds than anyone else. But yes, you're right, and without making a "thirtysomething" joke. This is perhaps the crux, the crunchy nugget, the Achilles heel of the Giants season. One injury, and blam. Perhaps no team is as dependent on "health luck" as the Giants.

Take an honest look at the NL West and try to find a category where the Giants have a clear-cut edge. It certainly isn't youth, farm system, speed, starting pitching, run production, defense or the bullpen.

It certainly isn't. Thank you, Bruce, for not including gamefaces or mental toughness or clubhouse chemistry or veteran savvy in that list.

Bonds, believe it or not, is the only man in the division with a full-fledged power reputation. The No. 2 guy would be Jeff Kent, followed by Todd Helton, and then it's pretty much over.

Hmm. Todd Helton, not full-fledged in the power department? His home run totals have dropped the last two years at least in part due to injury, but ahem, so have Barry Bonds's. Averaging 35 HRs a year for seven years seems mighty fledged to me. And did Bruce snooze through the Rockies games last year? I wouldn't blame him, but, hello? Matt Holliday? Garrett Atkins? These names ring a bell?

Colorado's strength won't ever be pitching, not in that ballpark...

Maybe, maybe not, but it would be nice if he acknowledged that the Rockies have a quietly effective closer in Brian Fuentes and their starters were surprisingly good last year. Also scoring at Coors Field, though still above league average, was the lowest last year that it's been all decade.

...But the Rockies are drawing heavy praise from some longtime Denver skeptics, largely due to Garrett Atkins, Matt Holliday, Brad Hawpe, Troy Tulowitzki and the other solid young hitting talents in camp.

Holliday isn't just a guy "in camp" -- he actually got some MVP votes last year. Again, I quibble.

Given that the Giants' offense contains only two legitimate cornerstones -- Roberts' speed and Bonds' power -- a few surprises need to occur. Ray Durham has to stay healthy all season. Pedro Feliz needs to develop more plate discipline and wear his socks higher.

OK, you got me, I added that last bit about the socks. I couldn't resist. I get so antsy when Jenkins makes so many legitimate points in a row.

The Giants would also appear to be at a severe disadvantage in short relief, at least when measured against the Dodgers' Takashi Saito and the Padres' Trevor Hoffman (with all-world setup).

Yup.

But there is hope for scrappy Brian Wilson, who really wants to take a stranglehold on the thing, and perhaps even Tim Lincecum, whose entire package screams "closer," at least for this year.

I won't argue for now with the idea of Wilson as closer, or even Lincecum, but I object to the image of Lincecum's package screaming "closer."

Jenkins hasn't paid much attention to the Rockies, and he ends by circling back to the obvious: start fast or people won't support the team as much. At least his point runs counter to the Giants' hand-waving and the blatant PR-ness of the Zito overspend. A little subversive sand in the vaseline, sprinkled with some surprisingly matter-of-fact assessment of the strength of the N.L. West: keep up the decent work, Bruce.
|

One million Elvis Costello fans can't be wrong: it's time to turn our slightly-less-than-middle-aged fancy to young Matt Cain.

The past couple weeks have brought a plethora of contract-related news items about arbitration-age players. For example: instead of signing a one-year deal or entering arbitration with Brett Myers, the Phils signed the pitcher this week to a 3-year, $25 million contract. Myers is 26 and entering his fifth full year as a major leaguer, which means the Phils bought out his final two arbitration years and one year of free agency.

Here's a list of the rest of the arbitration-eligible players this winter; the Giants had none.

If you know how arbitration works, skip the rest of this paragraph. For readers who need a refresher: players with zero, one and two years of major league service have to take what their teams offer, which is often the major-league minimum salary. Players with three, four, and five years of service are under their team's control, but if they don't like their teams' offer they can take their case for a raise to an arbitrator.

With Noah Lowry signed to a long-term deal through his arb-eligible years, the next big question mark is Matt Cain. He goes into '07 with just over a year of service time. Unless his call-up in '05 bumps him up a year -- I don't think it does -- the Giants can simply pay him the major-league minimum in 2007 and '08. I call this "The D-Train Strategy," for reasons we'll see in a moment.

From '09 through '11 Cain will be arbitration-eligible. They could negotiate with him year by year, but it's much more likely they'll go the Lowry route and try to go long-term.

What kind of contract might Cain demand? After only a year-plus of major league service, Noah Lowry got a 4-year, $9.25 million contract with a $6.25 million club option for the fifth year. You might say that's not a good place to start a comparison because Cain is much better than Lowry, but (how soon we forget!) Lowry's first full year, 2005, was slightly better (36.5 VORP, 6.7 WARP) than Cain's first full year in 2006 (34.9 VORP, 6.4 WARP).

Ah, but the age difference. Lowry was 24, Cain 21. And what a difference a year or two makes in terms of salary structure. Are there other young pitchers we can use as comparison points?

How about Dontrelle Willis? Like Cain, he pitched his first full season at 21 and like Cain gave his team about 6 wins more than replacement level. (Actually, D-Train did that in only 27 starts. Wow.) That was three years ago. The Marlins never signed him to a long-term contract, and Dontrelle's salary has gone like this: $350,000 in '04, $380,000 in '05, $4.35 M in '06 -- a record for a first-time arb-eligible pitcher -- and $6.45 M for '07.

He could win $15 M next year, his final before free agency. Outlandish? Ha. For his final arb year, Carlos Zambrano is asking for a raise from $6.6 M to $15.5 M. The Cubs are offering $11 M. Whatever Zambrano gets, Dontrelle will surpass.

The cheapskate Marlins kept D-Train at the minimum as long as they could. It's not recommended as a way to build goodwill with a star player, but it's certainly within their rights. With the Giants track record, it's unlikely they'll go the D-Train route with Cain.

So let's assume the Giants try to use Lowry as a baseline for Cain, and Cain's agents argue that Cain's youth and star potential merit at least a small bump. OK, say the Giants, but he's no Dontrelle, who's been at worst above-league-average and at best near-Cy-Young in his four years. For a contract that gets them to Cain's free agency, the Giants want to pay somewhere between Noah and D-Train, adjusting for inflation (conventional wisdom holds that baseball sees an average 10% salary inflation per year; I'll go with that for the time being).

Here are the two players' pay scales so far, based on experience. (All data from Cot's Contracts). Figures including Lowry's signing bonus but not potential performance bonuses:

Rookie
DT: $240 K (est.)/ NL: $322 K
Year 2
DT: $350 K / NL: $1.385 M
Year 3
DT: $380 K / NL: $1.115 M
Year 4
DT: $4.35 M / NL: $2.25 M
Year 5
DT: $6.45 M / NL: $4.5 M
Year 6
DT: $15 M (est.) / NL: $6.25 M (club option)

Excluding rookie year minimums, Dontrelle should earn around $26 M by the end of his sixth year; Lowry about $17 M. Let's assume Noah earns some of his bonus money and kick that up to $20 M. For Cain, split the difference, then add 10% annual inflation for three years, and you get nearly $26 M.

Matt Cain, $26 million for the next five years? Sounds good to me.
|

Eighty one up, eighty one down -- and that's just the number of minor-league transactions the Giants have made this year. Or so it seems. The Fresno-Norwich-San Fran shuttle should be absorbed into Strategic Air Command, which knows a thing or two about keeping a plane in the air at all times.

To mark the half-way point of the year, Woody Rueter decided to perform his interpretive dance entitled "Everything That's Wrong With Us/2005," an interactive piece marked by slow, lazy arcs that emanate from his fingertips, several sudden neck twists, and the participation of his teammates, who sprint across the green grass in various directions, their arms outstretched against the blue summer sky.

The Giants also flagged down a Fresno-bound twin-prop and threw Todd Linden's duffel bag aboard. He'll have to wait another year to build his mansion on the hill.

I thought he was up for the rest of the year. After a sizzling first half in Fresno, the Giants called him up and promised to play him every day. But 58 at-bats, two home runs, twenty strikeouts, some excruciating outfield defense, and one doofy headshot later, the Giants decided they'd rather have a 13th pitcher than a 5th outfielder. A rotation that can't seem to get past the 4th inning factored into the decision (see Modern Dance: Rueter, above), but Linden did everything he could to underwhelm the Giants and make us pine a wee bit for Marquis Grissom.

Did Linden redeem himself in any way, shape or form? As the theme of 2005 has quickly devolved into "OK, Kid, You Got Five Minutes," did Linden show anything to encourage us for '06? He can hit home runs, yes. He's got great speed -- that first-to-home dash vs. Arizona on Tucker's hit down the line was impressive. I never saw evidence, but he apparently has a great arm. I saw about 15 or 20 of his at-bats, and it looked like he was determined to just swing, baby. Lots of good morning, good afternoon, good night, three-pitch strikeouts.

Before his smashing run this year at Fresno, the Baseball Prospectus PECOTA projection system put Linden on track for a mediocre, Michael Tuckerish career. That will be revised upward if he returns to Fresno and picks up where he left off -- .322 /.446 /.692, 19 home runs and 47 BBs in 224 ABs. In that case, I'll be more willing to overlook this brief exercise in major-league frustration and remain cautiously optimistic for '06.

Since this year is all about the auditions, what have we learned about the other call-ups?

Scott Munter: great sinker. Brandon Webb, Kevin Brown, Julian Tavarez-type sinker. 90 to 94 MPH, and he can throw it to both sides of the plate. Of his outs, 59 are ground balls, 12 fly balls. Not many balls in the air, period: Only four extra base hits, no homers. He's 18th among rookie pitchers in VORP, but VORP is a cumulative stat. Of the top 20 pitchers, he's thrown the third-fewest innings. So he's piling up the value in a short amount of time.

A minus: Munter doesn't strike out many, so he's not the best guy in a man-on-third, infield-in situation. I haven't seen much of a second pitch except a lazy slider once in a while. Apparently he learned the sinker quickly, so there's no reason he can't develop an excellent second pitch, something off-speed to complement the sinker. Let's hope Felipe doesn't torch his arm this year, because he should help in the bullpen in '06.

Taschner and Accardo: They've barely wet their feet but both have shown flashes of promise. Taschner seems more composed than Accardo, who throws wicked hahd but seems to lose focus. These hard-throwing string-bean guys make me nervous. Think Jimmy Haynes. Or Kevin Correia. Taschner had a crummy outing yesterday, but so far generally so good. Pencil him in as a cheap LOOGY for next year; better yet, make Eyre and/or Christiansen trade bait and see if Taschner can be a set-up guy in the second half. He's 27 years old -- no sense in giving him more minor-league time. Accardo is only 23, so getting him regular work in Fresno should be the top priority.

Lance Niekro: Sticking with fancy stats, Lance was projected by BP's PECOTA to suck this year to the tune of negative VORP, meaning worse than a random warm body pulled out of the minor leagues. (More or less.) So far, Lance is proving PECOTA wrong. He's made himself useful by hitting lots of doubles and homers. There's a good chance he could be a Greg Colbrunn/Olemdo Saenz type: murder on lefties and not much else. His major league L/R splits in only 149 at-bats suggest as much, with large grains of salt for sample size. Note he's also hitting much better on the road. The splits bear watching, and his inability to take a walk may prove fatal once teams figure out his holes. The Giants would be foolish to anoint him the '06 starting first baseman without a lefty bat to platoon with.

Jason Ellison: If Brian Sabean can't get excited about Ellison, why should we? As noted earlier, Sabes has already questioned Ellison's ability to play every day. His current slump has brought his numbers down to mediocre, especially the .333 OBP for a guy who should be beating out grounders left and right. He also continues to look spastic, the aesthetic opposite of a sweet swinging Will Clark or smooth gliding Andruw Jones. As with Niekro, don't clear an '06 starting spot for him yet. He's not as bad as projected, but the world is full of half-year wonders who fizzle out faster than a warm can of Yoo-Hoo. Perhaps Ellison will learn to get on base more and not be such a dork in the outfield; perhaps the fizzle has already begun.

Hennessey, Foppert, Correia: Of the three young righty starters, Hennessey has caused the most buzz this year with a few impressive outings, including nearly seven innings and only two earned runs at Coors Field. Two bad starts, though, were enough to boot him back to Fresno. PECOTA's not impressed, although he's tough to project because of his prolonged absence in 2002-2003. Anyone who puts hope in Foppert and Correia is nuts. We simply don't know enough, thanks to injuries, wildness, and crazy shuffles between the rotation and the bullpen.

Adam Shabala, Brian Dallimore, etc: The rest of this year's call-ups look a lot like minor league lifers. Once in a while a team catches lightning in a bottle for a year, like the Orioles with David Newhan in 2004, or even a few years, a la Boston and Brian Daubach. Dallimore's lightning likely lasted all of one night, when he hit that grand slam last year against Dontrelle Willis.
|

Taking a page from one of my favorite snark-blogs, Fire Joe Morgan, I'm going to sit on my haughty Internet perch and with cruel deliberation tear off the wings and legs of the small annoying insect known as today's Bruce Jenkins column.

Jenkins' overall point is well-taken: Barry Bonds makes a huge difference in the NL West. But then he gets into specifics and I start to feel the burning yearning burning feeling inside me.

If Bonds plays a reasonable amount of games -- say, 120 -- the Giants make it to October. If his knees send him back to the netherworld of embarrassing news conferences and misleading information, the Giants will be too old to make a difference.

Giants - Bonds = too old. He may be right, but Jenkins conveniently neglects to mention that this team is considerably younger than last year's opening day team. (Winn, not Grissom; Niekro, not Snow; Feliz, not Alfonzo; Cain, not Rueter; Morris, not Tomko). Still, I acknowledge the concern: the Giants are prone to devastating injury, especially when key positions (LF, RF, 4th OF, SS, C) are manned by graybeards.

In the next paragraph, however, Jenkins starts to obtain cake for the dual purpose of having and eating, as we say in Kazakhstan:

The Giants remain extremely old and decidedly vulnerable. Clearly, though, this is a one-season deal. It seems likely that Bonds is playing his last season in San Francisco (let him DH his way to Henry Aaron if he doesn't catch up this year), and if blessed with good health, this is one classy lineup.

Old, vulnerable, but classy. Like William Powell and Myrna Loy, like FDR, like baseball players of yore who wore their socks high and maybe beat their wives but those were more civilized days when the press didn't write about that private crap. Lenny Dykstra? Not classy. Then the moment we've all been waiting for:

Veteran leadership abounds with catcher Mike Matheny, shortstop Omar Vizquel, right fielder Moises Alou, second baseman Ray Durham and especially Morris, far better equipped than Jason Schmidt to be the spiritual, butt-kicking czar of the starting rotation.

That's odd. I thought veterans were old and vulnerable. And classy. The Giants had plenty of classy veteran leadership last year, even with their team mentor, wise, gentle Barry Bonds, stuck at home with a tube in his knee, singing songs of loss and love.

If you poked Bruce Jenkins in his sleep and told him he was on deadline, he'd make typing motions with his hands, mumble "veteran leadership," "classy guy," "Jim Ray Hart," "Joe Montana," "Pebble Beach," "knows how to win," then he'd roll over and start snoring.

Wait -- did he just write "spiritual, butt-kicking czar"? Did I put the wrong kind of mushrooms in my omelette this morning? In what universe do such czars exist? Is Bruce channeling Tony Robbins? Maybe this is a motivational ploy on the Giants' part: Schmidt woke up this morning, read that he lags behind Morris in the B.K.C. department, and vows to throw 96 mph again. Wait, there's more:

"Schmidt always seems to have something wrong with him; Morris tends to pitch through untold discomfort without telling anyone."

Forget that three-year run of dominance. Do you hear us, Jason Schmidt, fragile little man-boy? What is this "groin" you complain about? Everyone knows real men don't have groins, we have loins -- ergo, you must not be a real man!

Nobody's going to adequately replace Scott Eyre in middle relief, and that should be made clear right now.

Yes, sir. Clear, sir. Mr. Jenkins, may I just call you The Great Santini, sir? I wouldn't dare question your authority. After all, Eyre had one excellent year after a career of replacement, er, I mean irreplaceable-level relief pitching. And he was always available for a quote when certain hacks, er, columnists were on deadline. Irreplaceable, especially when he's being replaced by...

Nobody ever seems to know what Worrell is thinking, especially the Phillies, who employed him last year. About two months into last season, the ex-Giant asked to be placed on the disabled list to deal with "personal problems."

I wonder what Tim Worrell is thinking about right now? Is he looking out the window at the trees, or the waves, or the neighbor across the street? As a season ticket holder, I want to know. What about drilling in the ANWAR? Or that hot chick behind the first-base dugout? And "personal problems"? Classy guys don't have "personal problems"! He might as well complain of having a groin. If that's not bad enough...

Kline is the ultimate wacko out of the bullpen: brash, cocky, ready for a scrap. Managers love those guys, although perhaps we should exclude the Cardinals' Tony La Russa, who Kline brazenly flipped off during a heated moment in 2004. Once described by Sports Illustrated as "28 going on 14," Kline lists bad-guy wrestlers as his boyhood heroes.

Imagine: an athlete who's got too much attitude, a child in a man's body. Well, I never! Look at me, I'm Sandra Dee, keep that testosterone away from me! Those brash, cocky guys usually spell disaster, right, Bruce? Unless they're spelled B-O-N-D-S. Or K-E-N-T. I press on, like a man with a dull machete hacking through rain forest:

Still, behold the handiwork. The once-depressing Dodger lineup is suddenly loaded with "gamers": Rafael Furcal, Bill Mueller, Nomar Garciaparra, Kenny Lofton.

Snore, zzz, snarf, "gamers," "veterans," zzz. I can't believe he actually put it into quotes. Who is he quoting? Himself? Since Furcal has two DUIs and tried to talk his way out of the second by saying "I play for the Braves, can you give me a chance," does that make him an unclassy gamer?

Do I have to go on? I keep hearing about looming cutbacks at the Chron. Someone please give Jenkins the golden parachute.
|

My favorite supermarket stockboy sent me a love letter last night. It arrived late in the evening, like all heartfelt love letters do, and with resoluteness and seriousness of purpose it spelled out all the reasons I should love him, too.

I, and thousands of other Giant season-ticket holders, that is. Apparently the collective We -- we who disgorge our wallets to feed our nonsensical childish amusement in watching grown men cavort in tight french-vanilla polyester when there are a multitude of entertainment alternatives begging for our dollars -- have finally grown restless.

In an odd move, Peter Magowan feels compelled to explain the Barry Bonds news to us. (For those who don't feel like clicking through, a summary of the deal awaits you at the end of this post.)

While keeping to a measured tone, for successful businessmen know no other way even in the throes of passion, P-Mag apologizes for -- sorry, explains -- the Giants' decision to re-sign Bonds despite the amphetamine test and the Sweeney-under-a-bus reportage. It seems the latest Bonds imbroglios were final straws for many diehard Giant fans:

"I understand that this has been a particularly controversial and difficult decision and that there are strong opinions on both sides of the issue. I received letters, emails, phone calls and had many conversations with many of our season ticket holders during our Fanfest. I truly appreciate your passion for the Giants as we work through these complex issues. At the end of the day, I believe we have put together an exciting team for the coming season."

Oh, and by the way:

"You may also be interested to know that even with the signing of the 42-year-old Bonds, the average age of the 2007 Giants will be 30.7 years versus 32.7 in 2006. So we have gotten younger and presumably healthier as we stated we would try to do when the 2006 season ended."

And look, we're still a baseball team, just like we promised! None of that hockey or cricket or jai-alai or, G_d forbid, Moneyball that other teams try to pass off as America's Past Pastime.

The Magowan letter also cites the "allegations against Barry" in the NY Daily News article, but it doesn't mention amphetamines or Mark Sweeney specifically. "All of the facts have not been accurately portrayed." Which facts, we don't know, but Magowan writes that "clubhouse chemistry" (no pun intended, we'll assume) won't be affected.

It's a fascinating document, full of forthrightness up to a point and, beyond that point, total corporate obfuscation. It stops well short of naked apology, but with obvious self-interest it pleads the Giants case in a context intended to placate long-term fans ("signing Barry to a one-year contract helped us pursue a long-term strategy toward getting the club back on track").

You may not like it, dear fans, but it's for your own good.

It also uses, word-for-word, a paragraph of text that was attributed to Brian Sabean in the official press release announcing the deal. If you had one shred of hope that this type of exercise wasn't highly vetted, processed and sterilized, please shred it. This doesn't mean such banalities aren't worth reading. On the contrary, like Kremlin tea leaves and Alan Greenspan's koans, it's always instructive to parse shades of non-meaning. The Giants didn't have to say anything, and that they did tells us a lot about the fan reaction in recent weeks.

Your 2007 San Francisco Giants: Savor the Grim Inevitability!

If you had to boil all this down to a couple sentences, it would be: "Sorry about this, but we really had no choice. Barry's here for one more year, but you, dear season ticket holder, are here forever. Right?"

***

Terms of the deal: One year, $15.8 million base salary, $5.8 M deferred until 2008. (I've recorded his '07 salary as $10 M on my roster list to the right.) $4.2 M in incentives deferred beyond 2008. No entourage on team payroll or allowed on the premises. If other provisions were included in the contract, they weren't revealed yesterday.
|