An Open Letter To Sabean

by Mordy From Monsey on Sep 7, 2008 5:04 PM PDT Comment 76 comments

Dear Sabean:

You have fecked us Giant fans over these last few years with nothing exciting to watch or talk about (Perhaps you thought aging ball dudes and Amy G would put us to sleep!! ) Now we finally have a core of exciting players who make the game interesting to watch again. Pablo,Nate,Ishi,Burris all add a dimension that this team has lacked in years and that is the ability to comeback from deficits!!

The Problem , Mr Sabean,is that we have a dumbass of a manager that will probably play the veterans over the coming series arguing that we have to put out a veteran lineup when we are playing teams in contention. The fact that Bochass feels that the vets give his team a better chance to win over the kids should be immediate grounds for dismissal!! I beg you, as a suffering Giants fan to call Bochass into your office and warn him that you want to see the above mentioned players in the lineup for every remaining game or else his sorry ass is outa here!!!

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 76 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sabean doesn't visit McCovey Chronicles

Good attempt though

by Matt Rox on Sep 7, 2008 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not so sure about that!!

"Buy High-Sell Low"--The Brian Sabean Method Of Trading

by Mordy From Monsey on Sep 7, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I bet someones gonna create a Brian Sabean name and respond to this post tommorow

Pac Bell, SBC, AT&T, 2010=???

by jt_7241 on Sep 7, 2008 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's been done.

"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."

by i did my job on Sep 7, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just watched the Sabean interview with Amy G. and watching it I got the impression that Sabean actually kind of agrees with Bochy’s philosophy. He seems to also place way too much emphasis on winning games and “finishing with a better record than last year.” Then again, I also think the show was taped awhile ago, because Sabean makes a comment about two more months being left in the season. By the way, I thought that Amy G. did a nice job. I was expecting pure fluff and much talking about the glory years, but she went after him, and although she didn’t knock him directly, she used the “some people say” line of him to good effect. She said that Magowan told her the Zito signing was a failure, and she got Sabean to admit he goofed by not keeping Jeff Kent and even got him to say the rebuilding process would be much further along if he had gotten rid of Barry Bonds earlier than he did. Good job by Amy.

Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment

by rxmeister on Sep 7, 2008 5:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I seriously doubt the rebuilding process would be further along if they hadn't kept Bonds

And if Sabean believes that, he’s a fool.

MLB-ready prospects are the lifeblood of a rebuilding process, and the Giants simply didn’t (and still don’t) have enough of them to complete a successful rebuild. Keeping Bonds around had nothing to do with the soory state of the farm system.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 7, 2008 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not so sure about then

Especially when you consider how much money he was getting. Some of which could have been diverted to player development.

by Hobbes2d on Sep 7, 2008 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

pshaw

They wasted way more money on washed up mediocrities than BB. And I sure don’t see them spending 18M/year on player development now

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Sep 7, 2008 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe not $18 mil, but they’ve spent a lot over the last year or so. Angel, Posey, Gillispe, Next Vlad (can’t remember to look it up), MadBum, Tim 2.0…that’s a lot of money in prospects right there.

by tyrannoman on Sep 8, 2008 7:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How much money did he earn the team?

Even on those last three seasons, I don’t believe for a second that investing in Bonds was a net loss for the Giants.

How many seasons ticker would have been canceled, or gone unused, without that one constant flicker of hope for an interesting game in left field?

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 7, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As a business decision...

…keeping Bonds was monetarily to the Giants’ advantage. Baseball-wise, his production inflated the team’s W-L percentage beyond what it otherwise it would have been, and thus prevented the Giants from drafting in the top half of each round (and thereby reinfusing the team with prime, inexpensive talent). Much like “finishing with a better record than last year,” we got a short-term gain at the expense of a long-term disaster.

Isn’t it generally attributed to Branch Rickey that one should “trade a player two years too early rather than one year too late”? Of course, hanging on to Bonds as long as we did gets into (1) owner’s nostalgia, (2) ticket sales, and (3) the wide-ranging effects of the steroid situation.

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen. - Bob Lemon, 1981

by Lyle on Sep 8, 2008 6:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds couldn't be traded

without his permission. 10 years of service time, 5 with the same team.

And really,

Baseball-wise, his production inflated the team’s W-L percentage beyond what it otherwise it would have been, and thus prevented the Giants from drafting in the top half of each round (and thereby reinfusing the team with prime, inexpensive talent).

if you believe this, then the fault isn’t just on having Bonds for being around. It’s on having any good player who helps the team win games around.

Also, what if losing all those games, and not having Bonds around, leads to dramatically reduced profits? Might ownership then decide to be cheap, and go the Pirates route of drafting guys based on signability, and be happy taking handouts from other teams?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Sep 8, 2008 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have a good point

I realize Bonds had the power to veto trades. I was trying to make a more abstract, I guess, argument against the concept of paying one player (no matter how good) such a high percentage of team payroll.

The boom/bust cycle of teams seems, to me, to be the natural order of things. And that’s why the draft is structured as it is – an attempt to help the “down” teams climb back towards the top by giving them the first choice at the best young players. SF’s refusal to realize that it was time to re-structure just delayed the inevitable. imho.

I've come to the conclusion that the two most important things in life are good friends and a good bullpen. - Bob Lemon, 1981

by Lyle on Sep 8, 2008 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds wasn't really getting paid THAT much...

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Sep 8, 2008 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The draft doesn't include LA players,

players from Japan, Taiwan, Korea. Being a contending didn’t mean that the Giants had to ignore the farm system.

The problem with realising that it is time to restructure, is that it’s not always obvious when is the time to blow up the team, or not. Case in point, the WS. After the disastrous 2007 season, many were screaming that it was time for the WS to blow up the roster, and rebuild completely. When KW did not do so, when he retained existing players like Dye, Buehrle, Pierzynsky, and brought in Swisher and Alexei Ramirez, he was heavily criticised by many many analysts, writers, and bloggers. He appeared in worst GM polls.There was much talk of when he would get fired. Fans of other (bad) teams were afraid that their teams would hire him, when their GMs got sacked.

Or the Cubs after their disastrous 2006 season when they finished last in the Central. Hendry retained Aramis Ramirez, and went out and brought in among others Alfonso Soriano to widespread criticism. There was also much talk of when he would be sacked.

Lastly, please look at Bonds salary and his baseball value, the amount of runs he produced relative to other players. The problem wasn’t Bonds salary. The problem was overpaying for crappy / mediocre players. If a guy is producing value that exceeds his salary, it doesn’t matter the proportion of team salary that his salary is. Focusing on that is the fastest way to become the next Pirates.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Sep 8, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes....but no

But having Bonds’ salary be so high allowed very little margin for error….and Sabean exceeded the margin by quite a bit. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible to construct a winning team that way, just very, very difficult. Our GM was unable to do so.

I don’t disagree that Bonds was worth what he was paid, when considered in a vacuum. If there were a competition to see who got the most bang for their buck, either a 2002 Bonds or a 2008 Lincecum could come out the winner. But with the Bonds scenario, you still have to construct a real-life roster around him, but with much less money (i.e., manueverability) available than in the Lincecum scenario.

When to blow up the team isn’t an exact science, of course. But when it gets to be 2004 or 2005, and your GM has your team on the same treadmill of (1) wake up feely lousy, (2) tie off an arm, and (3) inject a free agent, over and over, a real friend would tell you that it’s time you got help, ‘cause this ain’t leading anywhere good.

your 2008 SF Giants: this isn’t totally insane, just really stupid

by Lyle on Sep 8, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s only true if you’re arguing that Bonds’ on-field performance was worth less than his salary, and the team could have somehow found a more efficient way to spend that money.

On the alance, I disagrre with that assertion. In fact, I think that Bonds was one of the most underpaid post-FA player in baseball in the last decade, and virtually any other wa they spent that 20M would have resulted in fewer wins (probably alot fewer).

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 8, 2008 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I specifically Bonds was worth his money (mostly). But the larger issue of roster construction makes his situation less desirable than a Lincecum-type situation. Also, the deferred payments were ridiculous, and warped our perception of his true cost.

your 2008 SF Giants: this isn’t totally insane, just really stupid

by Lyle on Sep 9, 2008 5:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, deferred contracts favor the team

5M is worth less now than it was a couple years ago (thanxs inflation) and the team got two years worth of investment returns off the cash.

And the deferred money is hardly hurting the team now, they’ve trimmed alot more off the payroll than Bonds’ 5M.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 9, 2008 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Present dollars vs. future dollars

Actually, I think the main reason deferred money favors the team is not because of inflation as much as it’s due to the time value of money.

If the Giants delay paying Bonds $5MM, that capital presumably can do better things (like earning interest) until it comes due. In essence, the player gives the team an interest-free loan by letting the money defer. (Note: I’m not sure if it applies in Bonds’ case here, but often deferring salary has tax advanges for the employee in waiting until later to receive the money.)

Zooperstars, they quack me up!

by Goofus on Sep 9, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought I wrote that

Same reasons why teams are so eager to back load contracts.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 9, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think keeping Bonds held back the process by himself, i think it’s more a situation that with Bonds they tried to stay competitive for too long & if we’d not kept Bonds, we’d have started the rebuilding process earlier.

Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!

by GiantFan on Sep 8, 2008 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again

You need prospects to rebuild.

As much as I hate that the Giants kept bringing into over the hill veteran filler, the only reason they did so was because the farm system couldn’t even be relied upon to fill out the bench.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 8, 2008 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And who's fault would that be?

Could it be……..Satan? Nah, just Sabean.

your 2008 SF Giants: this isn’t totally insane, just really stupid

by Lyle on Sep 8, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course you do, and that’s an issue i’ve argued to others often, but signing the over the hill veteran filler can hold back the rebuilding in other ways than purely lack of playing time. For example, more funds can be put into drafting & international signings. Also, Signing veteran filler can cost draft picks (as in the case of Aurilia & Roberts) & re-signing veteran filler also costs draft picks they would have otherwise obtained (as in the case of Durham & Vizquel)

Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!

by GiantFan on Sep 9, 2008 3:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It can also mean you’re not diverting resources to signing draft picks. So instead of drafting the most talented players available, you’ll draft someone who is signable.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 9, 2008 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And then what do you put in the majors?

It’s not that the Giants couldn’t produce enough respectable major league starters, it’s that they couldn’t even produce enough respectable major league bench players. 162 games of Ransom, Torcato, and Niekro was NEVER an option. They were going to have to pay some veterans no matter what just to avoid turning into the Cleveland Spiders.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 9, 2008 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

So your argument is, go ahead and overpay veteran filler, because you can’t produce major league bench players. Then, after this strategy fails, continue to overpay veteran filler, draft for signability, and continue to not develop the minor leagues?

I’m sure I’m jumping to the wrong conclusion here, but it reads like you just argued against drafting the most talented players, opting instead for veteran filler.

Don’t get me wrong, veteran filler types have their place. But if you build a majority of your team by signing veteran filler, you get a massive fail at roster construction.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 9, 2008 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

My argument is that, as bad as the veteran filled was, it was infinitely better than throwing a bunch of non-prospects to the dogs. 110+ loss seasons aren’t solving anything.

I’m saying that there’s seems to be a bit of backwards reasoning going on in which the veteran filler cause the team to have no prospects and therefore delay rebuilding, when in reality it was the lack of prospects which made rebuilding impossible and forced the team to go with veteran filler. Either way, it’s still management’s fault.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 9, 2008 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have all bought

the Giants’ mgt line (not to mention hook and sinker).

During the “glory years’” (which I will point out ENDED 4 YEARS AGO), the Giants were running a payroll of >90M/year. Now, maybe 20% of that was going to Bonds, but he was also a huge Box office draw, and worth roughly 10 wins/year.

The problem is not that having Bonds forced them to “try to stay competitive” – it’s that they don’t know how to stay competitive without overspending on mediocre free agents. Who then become old and terrible (as well as overpaid).

As for losing = draft picks = winning, the Giants were not very good in the mid 90s… What did they do with those draft picks? Not much.

At the beginning of the year, I actually did some math on the “Sabean” years. If you spot him Bonds, he basically was an average GM (average no. of wins/$$ spent). However, he achieved this mediocrity at the expense of developing the farm system, PLUS he was incredibly lucky with the Schmidt and Kent trades.

So I suppose you can argue that he purposfully sacrificed the future (i.e, today) for the present (i.e, the past), but he didn’t even do a good job of it.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Sep 8, 2008 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can argue luck with the Kent trade, but not Schmidt. The Giants’ FO targeted him, then went out and got him. They seemed to know exactly what they were getting.

I think the point is that all available $$ was going to the MLB product, leaving little to spend on 17 year old Dominicans.

by tyrannoman on Sep 8, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My problem with the Schmidt trade

Is that everyone seems to forget that he was a three month rental, after which he hit the free agent market and the Giants signed him to a market value contract. It’s not like the Giants got him in some sort of massive ripoff steal.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 8, 2008 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They gave up Ryan Vogelsong and Armando Rios, and in return got a Cy Young caliber pitcher and a pinch hitter extraordinaire. If you don’t think that’s a massive ripoff steal, then your definition of massive ripoff steal is probably out of line with what a massive ripoff steal really is.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 8, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

John Vanderwahl as well.

by tyrannoman on Sep 8, 2008 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

They got 66 innings of 3.39 ERA. That’s good, it’s not Cy Young. The rest was paid for in cash money.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 8, 2008 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that is an interesting way to slant facts to dismiss the trade.

by tyrannoman on Sep 9, 2008 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So true

It looked almost like a done deal that Schmidt was going to Seattle when he hit free agency. We had a leg up on keeping him around because he just spent the last few months of the season as a Giant. He was comfortable and liked it here. I think it’s a safe bet we wouldn’t have had that advantage had we not traded for him.

And again, considering we traded two guys whose careers never amounted to diddly-poo, I’d say that’s a steal. I’ll take trading two non-entities for the numbers Schmidt provided that year, plus an advantage to sign him in Free Agency every time.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 9, 2008 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not a slant at all

The trade ended the day Schmidt hit free agency.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 9, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you’re going to say he was “lucky” with trades that worked out well, shouldn’t you say he was simply “unlucky” with moves that didn’t work out well?

Zooperstars, they quack me up!

by Goofus on Sep 8, 2008 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes

Like, for example, I do not fault Sabean for signing Elfasto Alfonzo.

Schmidt went from <7 K/9 with the Pirates to >1 K/9 with the Giants. If it wasn’t luck, then it was a miracle that the Giants staff managed to
a) have some talent for “fixing” pitchers
b) notice that this mojo would work on Jason Schmidt
c) actually trade a scooby snack for him.
d) be right, and have it work

I’m a little skeptical. The thing is – Rios for Schmidt was a good trade even if Jason stayed his pedestrian 3rd starter self. (Although who knows whither Rios if he doesn’t snap his leg off); it’s just the development of Schmidt into a bonafide ace that’s lucky. Same with Kent.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Sep 8, 2008 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In regards to Schmidt

I can believe that Giants scouts identified Schmidt as someone whose talent was not being completely utilized and could get better.

If we are talking about Kent, OTOH, I would side totally with luck.

Only 835 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Sep 8, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be more apt to accept that explaination if there were other examples of it

If the Giants’ scouts really had the ability to identify such players, they would be able to repeat Schmidt’s rejuvenation with other veterans (perhaps not so spectacularly, but at least some success). As it stands, they failed in attempts to rejuvenate Brett Tomko, Jamey Wright, and Russ Ortiz, then totally flubbed their assessments of Matt Morris and Barry Zito. In the sample, the sole unmitigated success stands out as an aberration, one which is best explained by either dumb luck of some kind of stupefying serum introduced in the ATT park drinking water after 2002 ( I wouldn’t put it past the Dodgers).

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 8, 2008 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure how much I would put on the Giants coaching being the cause of Schmidt’s success. I’m also not saying that Giants coaching had nothing to do with Schmidt’s success. What I am saying is that in cases such as Schmidt, the Giants were able to identify a potential breakout and they didn’t give up much for him. I could buy that they did the same for Tomko and Russ Ortiz (for whom they also did not give much up for). Just because they failed doesn’t mean it wasn’t worthwhile to go after them. Tomko even came close to fulfilling some of that potential.

A lot of the fulfillment of success with under-performing players is on the player himself, I believe. Coaching can only help so much. However, it’s still worthwhile to take a flier on those that one can identify as a potential breakout player. I can totally buy that the Giants identified Schmidt in such a way. Sure, there was luck involved in the success Schmidt had. But I don’t see why that should mean the Giants scouting should get no credit whatsoever.

Only 835 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Sep 8, 2008 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just saying

If you’re going to credit the Giants’ scouts for Schmidt, you also have to demerit them for Tomko, Wright, Ortiz, Morris, and Zito.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 8, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think that’s an entirely fair, as the situations are a bit different. There aren’t necessarily examples in the major leagues, but there others in drafting, etc, where the scouts have been able to find underappreciated arms.

With the examples you’ve mentioned, there’s 2 separate categorys as Wright/Ortiz are different to Morris/Zito. I don’t think the signings of Wright & Ortiz were done on the basis that we believed they would be great pitchers, more as case of low risk gambles. Obviously we believed they had something left in them, but generally those kinds of moves comes with a low probabilty & low risk, so it’s not really an indictment that they didn’t work out.

Morris & Zito were obviously signed to big deals & so it’s understandable & valid to be critical of their signings. One point i will raise, is how much scouting imput was their on those signings, especially the Zito one? If there was a lot of scouting imput, then that’s obviously a big indictment, but i suspect the decision was made in the vast majority due to his Stats (Shiny ERA, etc) & personality, as opposed to much scouting imput on behalf of the organisation,

Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!

by GiantFan on Sep 9, 2008 3:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, the comparisons seem a little odd...

Matt Morris and Barry Zito were declining pitchers. Ortiz was a sort of reclamation project. Wright was Wright… Not one of them was a comparable situation to Jason Schmidt who was acknowledged around baseball as being a premier arm just waiting for a breakout season, but was languishing on an awful team. He came to a competitive team, and he busts out. The question here is, who DIDN’T see that coming? As I recall from the time, everyone expected to see Schmidt find his way once he played for a competitive team, and that’s exactly what happened.

The Giants obviously screwed the pooch on Zito and Morris, but it’s not a comparable situation to Jason Schmidt at all.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 9, 2008 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I give the FO and coaches for getting more than we could have hoped for from guys like Herges, Fassero, Hermansen and Eyre. This year, Yubu is a good example of a pickup that worked out much better than I woud have thought.

Zooperstars, they quack me up!

by Goofus on Sep 9, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d also like to give them props for cutting ties with Schmidt at the exact right time. Even if they did then go out and overpay (by a LOT) for Zito. Dumb move, but at least they seemed to recognize what was coming for Schmidt.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 9, 2008 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How much credit can you really give them for Herges?

His success after the trade was dwarfed by his failure after re-signing.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 9, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think it really matters that the situation is different, at least from the POV of scouting. They look at the player, they make an evaluation.

Obviously, if you’re taking long shots on guys like Tomko and Wright, then you can’t give the scouts too much grief. You’re getting them cheaply precisely because even scouts think the chances of a turnaround are slim. I’m really just dropping their names to pooint out just how unlikely it is for longshots to pay off, and to show that the scouts don’t have a magic power to correctly identify Jason Schmist, all they can do is pre-sort the crap before you throw it against the wall. Morris and Zito, OTOH, are huge failures. Desperate or no, I can’t believe that the Giants would sign either players unless there was at least some consensus among their scouting braintrust that those players would be able to justify a large part of their contracts.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Sep 9, 2008 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bought what line exactly? I didn’t claim that having Bonds stopped them from being competitive (because of diverting funds elsewhere) or that having Bonds forced them to try & stay competitive. They weren’t able to stay competitive because as you say, they were reliant on mediocre, old, free-agents to make out the rest of the roster.

I wasn’t even claiming that having Bonds stopped us from rebuilding either, the point i made was that, the Giants management thought, incorrectly, that they could stay competitive because they had Bonds. On the back of this they made bad decisions to try & be competitive, when without Bonds they probably would have realised they weren’t going to be & rebuilt earlier.

In other words it’s not the decision to keep Bonds that caused problems, just that they let his presence cloud the situation we were in & lead them into make bad decisions.

Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!

by GiantFan on Sep 9, 2008 3:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

this is

the definition of bad management.
a) making bad decisions
b) not learning from them
c) blaming them on someone else (Bonds)

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Sep 9, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

When did i claim it wasn’t bad management? Of course it was, i wasn’t saying that they didn’t make mistakes, just that if Bonds had left earlier they might not have made the same decisions. That isn’t in any way the fault of Bonds, and they could well have made even worse mistakes if they hadn’t brought him back, but they may well have done things differently.

Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!

by GiantFan on Sep 10, 2008 3:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

your grammar, punctuation, and sentance structure...

pains me, sir.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Sep 7, 2008 5:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

As does your spelling of "sentence", kenshin

Muphry’s Law strikes again…

by bleacherbob on Sep 7, 2008 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you mean “Murphy’s Law.” :)

Proud adoptive parent of Tim Alderson.

by Anticon23 on Sep 7, 2008 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope, I mean Muphry's Law

“If you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written.”

See here

by bleacherbob on Sep 7, 2008 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Holy crap

I love it.

You learn something new every day . . .

Proud adoptive parent of Tim Alderson.

by Anticon23 on Sep 7, 2008 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you aren’t THE bleacherbob, are you?

Travis Denker can hit a little. That's why I drive his bus.

by oldjacket on Sep 7, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t know there was a “THE” bleacherbob… please enlighten me.

by bleacherbob on Sep 8, 2008 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take that with a grain of salt coming from someone who spells sentence with an "A"

"Buy High-Sell Low"--The Brian Sabean Method Of Trading

by Mordy From Monsey on Sep 7, 2008 5:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

crap...

Well played.

(please note that I did not fault your spelling, however ;-)

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Sep 7, 2008 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

your criticism of my writing skills has been well noted....Now can we just play the kids??

"Buy High-Sell Low"--The Brian Sabean Method Of Trading

by Mordy From Monsey on Sep 7, 2008 5:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Your reply skills are lacking as well….

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Sep 7, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not to mention imagination.

Adoptive Parent of Francisco Peguero. He can throw, he can run, he can hit(fastballs), and he's Dominican. What else do you need to know?

by haverecords on Sep 7, 2008 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yet if you check tonight’s lineup, the poster turned out to be right. You have Vizquel, Aurilia and Roberts in there instead of McClain, Velez and Schierholtz. If Bochy thinks those three actually give him a better chance of winning, he should be fired just for being stupid. Why don’t you comment on the content of the fanpost instead of concerning yourself with minutia?? Is this a baseball board or an English class??

Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment

by rxmeister on Sep 8, 2008 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Give them until tomorrow night before confirming this one. Vizquel and Roberts haven’t started for about a week, so it may be it’s just their turn to play a little. Besides, Pablo and Emmanuel are starting.

by tyrannoman on Sep 8, 2008 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was once reprimanded

By a poster named English Professor. Soooooo, it’s apparently a very fine line between English class and a baseball board.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 9, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Grrr… let’s please all refrain from confusing the academic study of English with grammar and style. The two are not explicitly concerned with each other after roughly the sixth grade.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Sep 9, 2008 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever, man!

The guy’s name was English Professor! If he’s such an English professor, then he’d have known the difference between grammar and English. So this is practically an English class!!! Extra exclamation points!!!

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Sep 9, 2008 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs