If we're going to judge these on hindsight how is the Mike Stanton trade bad?  We ended up getting a supplemental first round pick for a prospect who projects as a 4 or 5 starter at best.

As an aside, it is also clear to me that you way overvalue strikeouts.  I don't give a damm how a pitcher gets his outs and I don't buy the BS that hit rates can't help but be higher for low strikeout pitchers.  There are exceptions to this and Morris (and for that matter Zito and Lowry too) fit into this exception.

I don't like Sabean's "quanity" over "quality" philosophy any more then you do.  I did not like signing a bunch of at best average to slightly above average players instead of Vlad in the 2003/2004 offseason.  

I don't like Sabean's failure to properly valuate Nathan or Accardo and therefore giving them both up for at best slightly above average bats that we didn't like enough to keep for more then one year.  

I don't like Sabean's poker skills.  I have no doubt he could have waited out Atlanta in the 2002/2003 Offseason and gotten them to take Hernandez allowing us to keep Ortiz.  I have no doubt he could have waited out the Twins in the 2003/2004 Offseason to get some time to negoiate with AJ and to not have to include the so called "throw ins" of Liriano and Bonser.  He should of also make sure Worrell was coming back before he even considered letting Nathan go.  

The thing I don't like about Sabean the most is that he burns bridges.  The public pissing contests with Kent during Spring Training of 2002 and with AJ prior to arbitration in the 2003/2004 Offseason were just plan childish, unprofessional, and very counterproductive.  To me this is the one offense that warrents the firing of Sabean.  The AJ trade wouldn't look so bad if we had been able to keep him and have him be happy to be here.  I don't think he would have come accross as a bad teammate if management hand not mistreated him from day one as a Giant.  The WhiteSox sure don't see him as a bad teammate and the Twins never did either.  The Alfonzo panic signing and the failure to sign Vlad whould not have mattered if we had been able to keep Kent.

But you left out the worst part of the Winn signing: It was an extension. Winn was still under contract for another year! When you consider the dollar amount, the no-trade clause, and the fact that Sabean was committing himself to a multiyear deal when he didn't have to, this move is every bit as dunderheaded and inexplicable as anything out of the Bavasi factory.

Why can't we classify them as bad deals?  Together those two guys make about as much per season as Carlos Lee.  Do you think the Astros would trade Lee for the two of them, or do you think they ask for Matt Cain to be added?

"If they regress to last year's levels they will be bad, but if both players continue at this level throughout the rest of their deals, these will both be classified as very good moves."

Say what?  I agree both Morris and Winn as experiencing revivals this season, but IMO Matt is about to tumble in a manner that will resemble a slow-motion version of Barry Zito's crash last night.  And even with his .319 batting average, Winn's OPS is only .809, which isn't especially good for a right fielder.  When Randy falls back closer to his career averages, he will have a sub-par bat for a corner outfielder.  Of course if the Giants hadn't signed Dave Roberts, perhaps he wouldn't NEED to be a corner outfielder, but that is another story.

"By this logic, if Barry Zito gives the Giants six great years followed by a poor performance or injury in year 7, we can look forward to him declaring the deal a bust in that final year."

IMO the Zito deal was highly questionable the day it was signed.  I know I certainly questioned it -- heavily, much as I had questioned the signings of Neifi Perez and Jose Vizcaino.  But they were small change compared to Barry's deal. If Barry gives the Giants six great years followed even by MISSING the entirety of the seventh, I will be ecstatic with the signing -- at least compared to how I felt about it when it was announced.

My guess is that those who felt the signing was a good one thought that with his move to the NL, Barry's ERA would fall below 3.50 this season.  If his ERA is 3.00 over the rest of the year, it will STILL be above 3.50 for the whole season.

I just LOVED the reasoning of those who supported the Zito signing.  Yes, they said, he is a risk over the last three or four years of the deal, but with his move to the NL he should be a very good pitcher for the first three or four years -- for two, at least.

That would probably make sense if the first three seasons were at $18 million each and the last four were at say $5 million.  But with all seven years averaging $18 million per, even Barry's supporters were worried about the back half of the contract.

Perhaps Sabean figured he would be gone by then anyway.  :)

You know I respect your opinions, Mark, but could you please share the details of your reasoning that the 2007 team will ultimately be a lot better than many fans think?  They certainly haven't demonstrated it so far.

Bonds, Cain and Lincecum meet the test.  Durham is the type of complementary starter a team needs.  What else IS there?

Oh, and don't be looking to the minors.  Mostly replacement-level players -- or less.

Give me some hope here, Mark!   :)

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally if Matt and Randy perform over the entire season as they have thus far, I will feel that the Giants got value from them -- especially Matt.  But look for their performances to drop off -- especially Matt's.

I don't know anything about the Angels, but I would trade Pedro Feliz in a FLASH for the Dodgers third base solution.  Andy La Roche has a higher OPS than your heralded Randy Winn.

I doubt the Dodgers would take every position prospect in the Giants organization for Andy, let alone any single prospect.

Isn't that a bit like saying the ocean's rise can't reasonably be laid on global warming?  When one signs older players, he accepts along with the rest of the package a higher injury risk.

The only reason I can think of why the Giants injuries can't be laid at Brian's door is that I don't where it is.

But yet again, I have to defend the Winn deal.

I hear over and over that Sabean gave Winn his contract based on the end of 2005.  That just isn't true.  Whatever any of us think of Sabean, he just wouldn't be a 10-year GM in baseball if he thought that Randy Winn was suddenly going to hit .359/.391/.680 based on 247 PA in 2005.  Not one GM in baseball - not Bavasi, not Bowden, not Flanagan - is going to look at a veteran like Winn and think that he will go completely out of his mind and outhit his career numbers to that extent.  Even the most optimistic GM in baseball isn't going to expect that.

What most people don't seem to get is that Winn's deal was perfectly reasonable at the time, even if Winn had only hit to his career averages at the end of 2005.

Sabean gave Winn a 3 year, $23.25m contract, an average of $7.75m per year.  For $7.75m per year, Sabean locked up a guy who had put up a 117, 105, and 107 OPS+ from 2002-2004, and with a 126 OPS+ for the entirety of 2006 (not just his Giants time), he showed no signs of being in real decline.  Winn wasn't young at 31 in 2005, but he wasn't 35+ like so many other Giants.  In addition, Winn was an above-average CFer.

So basically, while Winn isn't a superstar, he is a quality, above-average hitting and fielding CFer, Sabean got him at $7.75m per year, and he was only signed through his age-35 season, before he should be falling off the cliff.  How can anyone complain about that?  That is one of the smartest deals we have seen from Sabean, and to top it off, he gave up nothing to get him in the first place.  People complain like hell about the full no-trade clause, but that only goes through this year!  For 2008-2009, Winn has a limited no-trade clause, as he is able to block deals to 10 teams.  And, as we have seen many times, that usually only serves as a slight barrier anyway.

Also, what indication did Sabean have that Winn wouldn't hit in 2006?  NOT that Winn wouldn't hit like he had in 2005, but that Winn wouldn't even come close to his career averages?  There had to be something wrong with Winn last year.  Maybe it was adjusting to the new league.  Maybe it was an injury.  But Sabean could not possibly have foreseen that.

Now, to be fair, I am right with anyone who wants to complain about Winn being put in RF.  I complained about it at the time.  I complained about signing Roberts because Winn needs to play CF to have real value.  That has to be considered separately from the deal itself, though, because that didn't happen until Sabean wasn't able to score a corner OFer during the last offseason.

As for the icing on the cake, who was going to play CF for the Giants?  Ellison?  Linden?  The rotting carcass of Marquis Grissom?  Remember, kids:  Trading for Winn was good.  Signing Winn was good.  We want Sabean to make deals like that.