Righetti has been questioned on this site and on others.  Heck, earlier today someone put up a diary questioning Righetti.

I'm not sure two seasons of 75 wins calls for the scorched earth policy, but I'm sure you'll see a lot of turnover in the offseason.

building around the greatest offensive player in modern baseball history has been the millstone around Sabean's neck for a long time.

Your list of pitchers as examples of why Rhighetti is flawed.  For example, if you're going to imply that Hermanson only got better because he was no longer a Giant, than you might as well say he wouldn't have hurt his back if he was no longer a Giant.  You ignore that his performance with SF was pretty much the same as his previous eight years (mid 4 ERA).  Players get better, players get worse.  These samples don't show a trend.

throw out the old playbook of finding vets to surround or compliment Bonds.  That era is over.  Thank you Bonds.  Grab your watch on the way out.

Start the housecleaning with a new organizational philosophy of procuring talent globally.  Heck I would even go as far to say go find some 16 yr old talent.  Don't be afraid to negogiate with Boras (as long as Boras demands are reasonable).  Playing home grown talent is ok, please look at Linden, Lewis and Frandsen and give them an opportunity.  Don't spend all $$$ on FAs.  Don't be afraid to make trades but please get youthful talented players in return.  No they do not have to be MLB players but MLB ready talents - Teahen, LaRoche, Loney, Fields etc

Keep F. Alou around as consultant and hire a steady solid mangager who can teach young players how to play the game correctly and handle themselves properly.

I know there are far too many positions to fill thru FA and trades so continue to keep ears open and continue to procure talent throughout the season.  Thru trades, promotions and waiver wire I'm sure the opening day roster for 2007 will be upgraded throughout the season.

imagine where we'd be without Bonds

Boof Bonser is stepping up at the right time: He's 3-0 with a 2.42 ERA in September.

Worst. Trade. Ever.

I posted a comment about the Righetti question on another diary so I'll follow the same format here.

Ponson:  did not suck when he got here, he pitched about as well as he did when he was with the Orioles.  And he pitched a heck of a lot worse after leaving here than he had pitched while here.  I think that's what's called pissing away $21M.

Morris:  until his recent stretch of poor pitching, where I think it's pretty obvious that he's gassed, he was pitching as well as he was in 2005, better by other measures (like PQS).  He's had a bad luck year, look at his FIP, look at his PQS.

Moss:  One year wonder.  He had that one good year at Atlanta when nothing much went wrong then crashed when with us.  And he actually pitched well for us for a while there in the middle of his time with us too.  Won't be the first player to ever have one good year then disappear, won't be the last.

Benitez:  the only way you can lay Benitez's problems at Righetti's feet is if you believe that Righetti somehow caused Benitez' tendons to snap like they did.  Else I don't see how you can.

Nathan:  where did he immediately improve after leaving us?  Here's most of his stat line for 2003 (SF) and 2004( Minn), except for ER, which varies greatly when you are a reliever and depending on your following relievers :

Team - GP - IP - H - HR - BB - K - WHIP - BAA
2003 - 78 - 79 - 51 - 7 - 33 - 83 - 1.06 - .186
2004 - 73 - 72 - 48 - 3 - 23 - 89 - 0.98 - .187

Damn near identical.  Certainly closer than I would have guessed, but I remembered that Nathan had a great year before he left us so I knew that he didn't quite have the breakout year that you pictured.  

Hermanson:  I won't deny that he got better after he left the Giants but do you even know his career arc?  His career basically did not have a pulse when the Giants got him, the Giants gave him his third jolt to restart his career, which was close to ending.  He could not even stay with St. Louis, which was desperately looking for pitchers (the question is, for $500, when does a team have Brett Tomko on their pitching staff), so much so that they kept Brett and dumped Dustin.  He was 4 years removed from when he was a good starting pitcher and still had not learned how to become a reliever nor accepted being a reliever when he came to the Giants - he actually still wanted to start while with the Giants - when the Giants out of deperation put him in as closer.  

The reason he got so good after leaving here was because he finally made the mental adjustment, finally accepted that he was a reliever.  Tim Worrell had the same problem, he always insisted that he was a starter, refused to think of himself as a reliever and he said in an interview that once he finally accepted that, that's when he started doing well as a reliever.

As I noted also in the other thread, I don't know exactly how to judge a pitching coach, but based on the examples given, I would not indict Righetti either.

As far as blowing up the team, sure, you can shout Florida Marlins until you are blue in the face, but then I would then put down my full-house:  Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Montreal, Colorado, and Atlanta.  The first four I think people will understand why they are there, they blew up their teams for the sake of blowing them up, and they haven't recovered since then.  Do you really want to risk being a Pittsburgh?

Why did I put Atlanta on the list?  Because their superior run of division titles came at a big cost:  they went through 6 years of unmitigated hell and last place finishes beforehand, and that doesn't even count Ted Turner as owner in the equation (he once took over as manager for one game until he learned that it was against the rules of the game).  Sure, now in hindsight, you can say that it built up the team they had all those years, but during those 6 years, I don't think there were many fans saying, "but yeah, just wait, we're going to dominate for over a dozen years, you wait and see."  Bobby Cox blew up the team, had them scrapping by for 6 seasons, and when his draft picks matured enough, he took over as manager.

And as my ace in the hole, how about the A's?  The first time the A's blew up their roster in 1915, it took them 7 years of last place finishes and 10 years before they reached respectibility again.  After Connie Mack blew up the team in 1933, Mack never made it to the next time the A's finishing first, and only had one first division finish (top 4) in his final 17 seasons as manager.

Then it was ANOTHER 20 seasons and two cities before the team saw first place again, with the Swinging A's in 1971.  When Charlie O. finally blew up that team after the 1976 season, besides the Billy Martin anomaly, the A's went through 12 seasons before they truly recovered to be a good team in 1988.  And after blowing up the team in 1993, the team was lousy once more until 1999 and didn't reach first until 2000, for another ugly stretch of 6 seasons.  So there is a price to pay for blowing up your team and a long wait for a return to respectibility and even more for first place.

All this goes to show that it is not all sunshine and lollipops when you just go and blow up the team, sometimes you get what you wished for, not what you wanted.