Boras: It's my season now. NL, you suck!

by The Cheat on Oct 29, 2007 12:31 AM CDT in Rumors

Only Scott Boras, Scott Boras representing Alex Rodriguez, could be so self-important as to feel the need to make the foregone conclusion of the A-Rod opt-out official with an announcement fed to the press during game four of the World Series. Nobody is surprised that another Boras client is looking for his two-in-the-bush. I fail to see the need for an announcement. During the World Series. Even if it was the least exciting post-season in history. Those two deserve each other.

* * * * *

Another move which has seemingly been written on the wall for a couple weeks appears to be all-but-official in St. Louis. While it won't get nearly the press that A-Rod gets, the Antonelli move will probably have more of an effect (albeit an indirect one) on the White Sox. Rick Hahn should remain as Kenny's #2, and the Indians lose their #2, their second front office departure of the off-season.

* * * * *

As first brought up by Jim at SoxMachine, Phil Rogers seems to say that there are whispers surrounding the White Sox and Coco Crisp, which would seem to be a good fit. I'm on board the get Coco bandwagon, as long as we're just shipping off spare parts and/or lower-level prospects (Shelby and Masset/Aardsma/Oneli/Russell, for example). It's obvious that Boston is going to get rid of him to make room for Ellsbury. There's no reason to give up anything of substantial value in the process.

* * * * *

Flipping channels tonight, I caught a glimpse of The Legend at an NHRA event. Well, I didn't see all of him, just his disembodied head floating in one of those over-the-shoulder pop-ups you see on the evening news. In case you were wondering what he had to say, "Schilling doesn't throw 300MPH." Did anyone else see this? Was he wearing a 2005 World Series Champs hat? I couldn't tell since it was on backwards.

***** And in other news: Kenny busts a move on the dance floor! (wiz)

0 recs | Comment 94 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

boy am i glad

this seasons finally over

by Jbasic89 on Oct 29, 2007 12:52 AM CDT 0 recs

Where exactly is A-Rod going to go?

There aren't that many teams able/willing to pony up 25-30M/yr are there? Both LA teams, Cubs, Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, and maybe Detroit. And maybe I missed one. And other than the Mets, I don't think any of those teams would have a hard time finding a spot for him in the infield. And even then, he could play left or right capably anyway.

It's got to be the Angels, right? No pressure, laid back fans, nice weather, and an already competitive team on which A-Rod would likely put over the top. I suppose the Red Sox might realize the extent to which the signing would solidify their attempt to dynastize (that is now a word), but would that really make a whole lot of financial success? The cost of buying wins past a certain point becomes marginal, doesn't it?

Eh, maybe expending these words on a matter I'm largely indifferent to is a waste of time.

I am excited to see what KW does this off-season though. Let's start throwin' some dough around, baby!

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 3:23 AM CDT 0 recs

There's a couple large market possibilities

...they'd be surprises, but no bigger than when he signed with the Rangers.

The Phillies could make some headlines by getting him to play third-base. They have a new ballpark, just came off a division title, and the signing would probably have more initial impact than getting Thome did. On the other hand, when the media and fans eventually turn on Rodriguez, it will be even uglier than what the tabloids did in New York.

It sounds crazy, but I can see the Nationals making a bid. They'd have to shift either Rodriguez or Zimmerman to shortstop, but they have a low payroll, more revenue coming from the new ballpark, and Rodriguez could be the centerpiece of a marketing campaign and efforts to get a better TV deal down the road.

What about the Giants? A lot of payroll is coming off the books in San Francisco, and he'd fill both the production and marketing gap left by Bonds's departure.

by asinwreck on Oct 29, 2007 10:18 AM CDT up 0 recs

The Nationals

would only make sense, imo, if they had a core of young talent coming up. They really really don't. They have an abysmal system wrt position players. Worse than us, judging from the numbers.

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 12:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

This assumes Rodriguez cares about contending

Money's going to be the prime consideration, and Washington has plenty to spend. I bet if Lerner, Kasten, and Bowden throw $300 million at Rodriguez, he'd take it. You could make the case that he chose the Rangers after 2000 due to all the young offensive talent developing, but the team's pitching was dire, and was never equipped to challenge for a championship during Rodriguez's stay there. Who knew Chan Ho Park wasn't the final piece of the puzzle?

by asinwreck on Oct 29, 2007 2:22 PM CDT up 0 recs

yes, money is paramount

but the question is whether some team is really going to blow everyone else away with their offer. i doubt it.

and i'm not sure i buy that Arod doesn't care about contending. heck, one could very easily interpret his move to opt out as indicating that he wants to contend somewhere. boras supposedly wouldn't even talk to the yankees over the last week - even as rumors swirled that they'd be willing to pony up some serious cash to retain him. i understand that a lot of this can cut both ways - and those who have it in for Arod or know boras' MO will certainly take it one way. but Arod has an ego, too. if he doesn't ever get a ring we all know what his reputation will be - great player (the greatest?) in the regular season; choker in the playoffs. at any rate, the teams that need him the most are ones who will contend - even if he's making an ungodly dollar figure.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 2:29 PM CDT up 0 recs

I meant make sense for The Nationals.

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 3:12 PM CDT up 0 recs

In a two-team market

...that would give them a large, marketable star to hold over Angelos's head. Combine that with the interest generated in the new park, and the Nationals could marginalize the Orioles in DC.

A Rodriguez signing would not make the Nationals a contender, but it could boost the franchise's value. That might be enough to cause Lerner to throw down $300 million.

by asinwreck on Oct 29, 2007 7:55 PM CDT up 0 recs

Not the Mets

Mets don't have the positional need; Detroit doesn't have the $$$; Yankees have already said no thanks. And why would the Red Sox spend $30M when they are going to win the division going away, and what they need A-Rod for (postseason) isn't exactly something he's known for?

That leaves the Angels (75%+ chance), Dodgers and Cubs. Even despite the Dodgers shift in organizational mentality towards veterans, I don't think they'd be in the market. Which leaves the Cubs as a strong dark horse candidate. It would be a good fit -- big market, best team in a weak division (compare that with the Dodgers, who are probably the third or fourth best team in the strongest division in the NL), manager he came up with.

by BridgeportJoe on Oct 29, 2007 10:27 AM CDT up 0 recs

cubs won't be able to do the deal

with their ownership situation up in the air and likely to remain so throughout the signing period, they're not going to be able to make a deal like that. unfortunate for cubs fans that the tribune hasn't gotten their shit together on this one because i would have installed them as a strong second option.

it's going to be the angels. the red sox may make a play but they don't need to. the giants have the cash but i don't see that being the fit Arod wants - i think he'll want to go to a team that could contend and, unless the money is way higher somewhere that isn't going to contend (which i doubt), he'll be able to make that choice. i disagree with detroit not having the money - they've got deep pockets now. i'm sure some dark horses will pop up but i'd put money on the angels. they've got the cash and they've certainly got the need.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 11:25 AM CDT up 0 recs

The Mets

For a guy like A-Rod, if you're willing to commit the dough, you sign him to play anywhere but CF or 2B until Delgado comes off the books. His bat is just that good. If he'd be willing to sign and play wherever, you do it. Hell, he might be able to man 2B for all I know.

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 12:40 PM CDT up 0 recs

Mysterious Comparison Time!

Player A: .267/.324/.312; RZR: .920 in CF
Player B: .268/.330/.384; RZR: .909 in CF

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 3:56 AM CDT 0 recs

The point is well taken,

but Player B (Crisp) brings a nice glove to center field, has a great name (Coco), does it without wearing batting gloves and comes relatively cheap compared to what Toriiiii and The Legend would cost. Obviously, one would be hoping for a retun of his 2004 and 2005 numbers, which aren't spectacular, but pretty darn good at the price. I also like the fact that he has a little pop in his bat, unlike Player A (Owens). Like Cheat said, depending on the price, it might be worth it.

by palehose67 on Oct 29, 2007 8:11 AM CDT up 0 recs

I included the Revised Zone Rating (RZR)

to show that it's possible that Owens made up those 70 points of SLG in the field. Also, it's important to note that Owens' last two months were played significantly above the noted level of play: .282/.347/.332. I'm loathe to defend Owens, who's replacement level offensively, but I don't see Crisp as offering a lot else that Owens doesn't have. Combine that with the fact that in the hypothetical he costs John Shelby and is in actuality owed 5M/year or so (cheap, really, but not so much as Owens).

Honestly, my reaction is probably just in losing a contributor to this imaginary '10 team, and we'll probably pick up 10 points of VORP just playing Crisp instead of the terrible trio from last year. But he was 12th in the AL in VORP for CF. That's not average.

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 9:43 AM CDT up 0 recs

Owens last two months

complicate everything, don't they (but in a good way)? I was content to see Owens as our 4th outfielder in 2008, but if he maintained an OBP around .350 why shouldn't he start, especially considering what it would cost to get a veteran center fielder? But then again, Uribe looked good at the end of the season too.

by palehose67 on Oct 29, 2007 10:57 AM CDT up 0 recs

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly it.

Personally, I'd like to see what a Ryan Sweeney/Brian Anderson platoon could do in center. Sweeney has been very competent throughout his career against righties and BA's defense would be enough if he only started every third or fourth game. I've given up on both of them enough to not care what a platoon might do to their development, but not enough to give neither another chance.

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 12:20 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'm not a big fan of Crisp

He's always been a low OBP player with a little pop and some speed. I don't think his offensive game is a good fit for the Sox who desperately need OBP at 1 & 2 in the lineup. Before last season, he wasn't a particularly good CF. Even if he's turned the corner there into a GG defender, I'd still be wary of trading for him.

My opinion would be:

He's better than signing Rowand or Hunter because they would cost way too much in time/money.
They still shouldn't trade for Crisp because his value added won't be worth the cost.

I wouldn't want to trade Shelby for him. A couple of pen arms like Masset and Sisco whom the Sox have to do something with anyway would be fine. But I doubt the Red Sox do that -- they'll want the Sox to cough more than Shelby even I think. It's a good test for KW. If he trades FDL or Carter or Egbert in a package for Crisp, I'll know I can stop paying attention for a while.

by hitlesswonder on Oct 29, 2007 11:12 AM CDT up 0 recs

Can't agree with that

First of all, RZR taken alone is an incomplete stat. At THT they also list plays out of zone (OOZ). Crisp's OOZ rate is higher than Owens and I'm sure makes up most if not all of the small difference in RZR. Also the best fielding metric out there (UZR) says Coco was the 4th best CF in MLB in 2007 (behind only Sizemore, Granderson, Rowand). I'm pretty sure Owens isn't that good.

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/best_and_worst_of_2007_uzr/

Even if he was slightly better there's no way that makes up 70 points of slugging. Crisp is also only a year older than Owens and at 28 is an excellent bounce-back candidate. I'll be interested to see his ZIPS/PECOTA projections, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a .740-.750 OPS projection. Needless to say a .750 OPS, top 5 fielding CF would be worth 2-3 wins (20-30 runs) over Owens.

I actually like Owens as a 4th/5th OF. Good pinch-runner, competent fielder at all 3 positions, cheap. But if he's our starting CF we're in bad shape. And I also wouldn't trade shelby for Crisp. But if all he costs is Adam Russell/David Aardsma then I'm all for it.

by bhoov on Oct 29, 2007 11:40 AM CDT up 0 recs

Ever so ofen, I like to point out

why I come to this website. I come to read replies like that, bhoov. That was a terrific, quick analysis. I'd love to see KW get creative with the center filed position, but I suppose depending on the level of creativity, that could be dangerous.

by palehose67 on Oct 29, 2007 11:48 AM CDT up 0 recs

indeed

analysis like that should have a paycheck attached to it.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 11:54 AM CDT up 0 recs

coco is a great fielder

so there's that. i think if you've got JD in right and fields in left you're going to need someone quite good in center. owens isn't that.

coco has always been a PECOTA favorite so i'd expect him to be projected favorably again. i don't know if i buy that, though. of course, i'd say he's certainly worth 2-3 wins over owens - i may even stretch that to 4. i'd do a deal that included some of our kanny bad boys - but i'd want the sox to be taking some of our shit higher level pitchers, too.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 11:52 AM CDT up 0 recs

maurice gartrell it is

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 12:36 PM CDT up 0 recs

Argh.

I thought RZR was the complete one and the UZR was the one that needed assistance. Still though, Coco was 27 this year and failed to rebound at all. If you check out his stat graphs, I think they all say "peaked" to me. Granted, he's still <30, but I think it might be appropriate to apply a different model. His power dwindled rapidly, that says peaked physical performance to me. I'm not sure if he's leveled off, or if he's going to keep going down. His power, marginal though it is, is basically the only thing that makes him a better hitter than Owens at this point. Check out PECOTA's projection on him this year. Missed badly, to the tune of 25th percentile, iirc. What excuses did he really have this year?

As for Owens, I hate his swing, but I wonder if his last two months don't mean I missed something. There are plenty of major leaguers with gross swings that are physically gifted enough to work with them. Luis Castillo and Johnny Damon come to mind, both of similar athleticism to Owens. If all Jerry managed was a 2-3 VORP and played slightly better defense, I think that's worth the 4M saved, right?

You know what really brings JO's line down though? His platoon splits. He hit .294 against righties for the last two months, but still sucked totally against southpaws. He hit .274 against righties for the year. It's weird to say, but he started taking walks toward the end of the season and if he put those things together he could get that 2 VORP. Not saying that's great shakes, but he'd basically be a poor man's Coco.
The real problem is that we need real talent in the OF, not a 3B, a 1B and a 4th OF.

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 12:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

I thought the same thing re: A-Rod/Boras

announcement - great if you are a Yankee fan, lousy if you are a baseball fan. I also thought Fox could've sat on it for a bit rather than breathlessly announce the Most Important Piece of Information Ever, thereby crapping all over the remainder of the Series.

Not enamoured of Coco, but we've trod these fields earlier this season, IIRC. Cheap contract makes him a bit more attractive, and at least we'd get on Web Gems for the right reasons for our CF play.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Oct 29, 2007 8:37 AM CDT 0 recs

Why is it..

"great if you are a Yankee fan?" They're about to lose one of the ten greatest players of all time. I'd be uber-pissed if I was a Yankee fan.

by CWSKeith on Oct 29, 2007 10:48 AM CDT up 0 recs

well

i think WU means that, even though this isn't great news for the yankees, the yanks somehow managed to get the attention placed on them during the last innings of a final game in the world series. which was about to be won by their arch rivals. a little bit of a poke in the eye, don't ya think? of course, red sox fans may have been thinking they were double winners from the announcement and the game. and if they decide to go after Arod...

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 11:14 AM CDT up 0 recs

Raining on the Boston parade,

for one. For two, they have a lot more to be pissed about than losing A-Rod - like having to start over (letting Mo and possibly Posada go, A-Rod/Torre gone, etc). I see them facing similar issues as us - age has caught up, their young guys aren't quite ready (though their farm is much deeper than ours).

And with all that $ they've paid A-
Rod, they have zero championships, right? You gonna pony up $30MM for 7-10 years for the right to keep a guy who has not won one yet? (Unfair, perhaps, but I'm thinking bang for my buck here.)

So let them be uber-pissed. I agree with the move.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Oct 29, 2007 11:18 AM CDT up 0 recs

"great if you are a Yankee fan"

Did you mean "Boston fan"? I suspect that without ARod, Seattle would've made the playoffs instead of the Yanks.

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Oct 29, 2007 11:19 AM CDT up 0 recs

And Seattle would've beaten Boston?

Is that the inference? I don't agree.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Oct 29, 2007 11:34 AM CDT up 0 recs

Didn't say that.

The only point was that the Yanks wouldn't have made it at all (probably).

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Oct 29, 2007 11:39 AM CDT up 0 recs

If you are a Yankee fan

do you care that you made the playoffs and were bounced right away? I would think they are getting as tired of not moving on and winning it all as Braves fans (and Schuerholz). Meaning wee bit of complacency with regular season results, and anger with playoff results, have set in.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Oct 29, 2007 11:44 AM CDT up 0 recs

bringing girardi on board

will certainly rectify all that. no question. for the sake of their young arms, i hope that man learned something in florida.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 11:47 AM CDT up 0 recs

What I don't get is that their

pitching staff is about to get really really cheap. Why wouldn't they just resign A-Rod and take on the excess salary? Or is A-Rod opting out equivalent to breaking up?

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 12:53 PM CDT up 0 recs

i think it's the equivalent

of cashman being in charge. i think there's a very good argument to make that Arod ain't going to be worth the money for ten years - even if you're the yankees. this will hurt them short-term but, if i were them, i'd be looking at the juggernaut that is the red sox and be worried about long term competitiveness with boston. cashman has always tried to take a bit more longterm approach than the boss.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 1:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

if they lose him on this opt-out

they get the draft picks right? that's a good start. they can probably get a couple of fast-moving high floor/low ceiling college guys with their three picks, one of whom at least would work out. what they'll really need is power from the corners though. Betemit-Jeter-Cano is a pretty good 4-6. that trade for Betemit was a good one. they should really play him at short and jeter at third, but that'll never happen. in any case, they have even fewer position prospects than we do. they have Austin Jackson, who isn't a superstar according to KG and Tabata, who took a hit this year in his prospect-dom I thought I read...and tons and tons of chirping crickets.

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 29, 2007 1:34 PM CDT up 0 recs

seen this one?

Crede to the Yankees....

MLB Rumors

"I like the Crede idea (interesting that he's a Boras client). He had back surgery in June and hopes to be ready for the start of the season. He'll be earning around $5MM in a contract year. How about some sort of Crede for Johnny Damon swap?"

by Air Raid Siren Stan on Oct 29, 2007 12:04 PM CDT 0 recs

good god. no.

johnny can't play center anymore. he is entering his serious decline phase. and he makes like $13 million. if we want a CF and are going to pay that we may as well just sign rowand.

christ, can you imagine an outfield of fields, damon, and dye? we'd easily give up the most XBH in the league. and it wouldn't the fault of the pitchers.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 12:10 PM CDT up 0 recs

i guess if crede was traded

fields may be at third (though that seems debatable). at any rate, it would still be the worst fielding outfield even if we had JC in left.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 12:15 PM CDT up 0 recs

Damon

Can he still play an average CF defensively? I know the Yanks moved him to left -- was that because he was that bad out there or because Melky was that good out there?

Also, Damon has only two years left on his contract, right? If he could still play an average CF defensively, only has two years left on his deal and the Yanks are willing to eat some (much) of the cash difference, I'd be interested in that deal.

But I'm not sure any of my three 'stipulations' are realistic, so...

by CWSKeith on Oct 29, 2007 12:12 PM CDT up 0 recs

Crede for Damon sounds good!

But would Hughes or Cabrera come along with Damon? Because otherwise, why would the White Sox WANT Johnny Damon's contract for two more years? At least Crede is gone after this year, and he can be traded at the deadline if he has a decent comeback year.

by BridgeportJoe on Oct 29, 2007 12:17 PM CDT up 0 recs

this guy says crede is a target

link, I imagine the source is a bronx drycleaner...

by The Wizard on Oct 29, 2007 1:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

So...

is there any chance -- any chance at all -- that the Sox are players for A-Rod? I have to admit that I thought about it a little last night, and the Sox were reasonably high to the top of the list (Angels, Dodgers, Red Sox, Giants were/are teams I put ahead of the Palehose).

by CWSKeith on Oct 29, 2007 12:51 PM CDT 0 recs

A better question might be

do we want the Sox to be players for A-Rod? I'm generally not a fan of one guy on the team making upwards of 20% of the team's total payroll, but if JR decided the benefits down the road (A-Rod's chase for 600, 700, 762 and eventually 800) were worth it and decided to submit a bid of 10/$275, I can't say that I would be very angry at all.

by CWSKeith on Oct 29, 2007 1:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

Keith, you seem to be an A-Rod fan.

I'd have taken his contract in 2000, not now. If we had young talent to burn and just needed a veteran thumper/presence MAYBE, but I really can't see where paying him that kind of jack makes sense. You pay a hedge fund manager, maybe even a CEO, that kind of money because he/she has a direct impact on performance. Baseball has too many variables to hitch your wagon damn near completely to one star.

As far as the sideshow of 800 HR, I'd recommend watching the hit parade that was B. Bonds and see if even the heartiest Giant fan thought that it wasd worth it financially to have Bonds on the payroll this year (or do we start referring to it as "last year" already?). Buy a ticket to the circus if you want a sideshow. I'd rather invest in the farm.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Oct 29, 2007 1:34 PM CDT up 0 recs

the giants

would have been absolutely putrid without bonds. and their gate would have been awful without bonds. i think the smartest of giants fans would be asking whether it was worth it financially to have ray durham, matt morris, omar vizquel, barry zito, armando benitez, and dave roberts long before they'd get to barry.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 1:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

Geez, they were putrid anyway!

Would that $ have been better invested in younger players? Would they have been better off blowing up the team rather than investing in the Bonds Goodbye Tour? (And, boy, the goodwill they bought, eh? Bonds is already playing Big Frank in his "I wuz fired" routine.) Tough to say, but I guess a buck today is worth more than a buck tomorrow if I were looking at the short run. I'm sure McGowan made lemons out of lemonade. He had to ride that pony until it died. We don't have such an albatross, and I wouldn't want to create one (speaking strictly of flexibility rather than personalities).

I'm not sure we have the $ to buy A-Rod and put enough talent around him to make us a serious threat vs. Cleve/Det. (KC?) This smells too much like Joey Belle becoming a Sox. .500 and 2nd or 3rd place, numerous games behind, watching a guy get paid a humungous amount of $ for mediocrity is a team I'd have a hard time getting behind.

Now, pirhanas, that's the ticket. The old Orlando Magic "Heart and Hustle" .500 record is much more palatable to me.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Oct 29, 2007 2:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

what younger players?

they've invested quite a bit already. i'm having difficulty figuring out what it is you think they would have done with this money otherwise. like i said, if someone were to complain about money spent, there are far bigger culprits.

at any rate, don't buy the idiotic media blathering about how the giants were retaining all these old players because bonds was there. that's flat-out stupid. they pretty much did what they should have been doing and something that is probably the envy of franchises throughout the sports world - went through a rebuilding process (or at least most of one) without losing attendance.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 2:57 PM CDT up 0 recs

Just saying there may have been

a better use of proceeds, though it seems like you don't mind the end (retained attendance while rebuilding) justifying the means (paying Mr. Sputnik-Head). Maybe you are correct and they are the envy of the sports world. I just have no idea what goes on in the heads of San Fransiscoans - I hope to Christ we are more discerning and less tolerant of hucksterism.

Toonder, have you deciphered the code yet?

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Oct 29, 2007 3:13 PM CDT up 0 recs

Few complaints

As someone who resides in the "Gay Area", as WU likes to call it, I've only heard a couple of Giants fans complain about who I agree are the real money suckers on the Giants, ie Durham, Morris, et al. Most seemed not to catch on to what was happening with paying a bunch of veterans to crap all over the field as Bonds continued to march to glory because they were all about the march to glory and didn't mind paying to see it.

I agree with the sentiment that keeping Bonds was their best move in order to keep the fan base happy, considering most of their fan base seems unable to name Giants players not named Barry (ie Zito and Bonds). In my opinion, WU, they fell for hucksterism and are much more like Cubs fans than many might realize.

I'm not sure I understand larry's comment regarding rebuilding, since I tend to think of rebuilding as a bunch of young studs that come up to the big leagues and get smacked around for a few years before they mature and end up in the playoffs. I see the Marlins of 2005 to present as rebuilding, not the Giants of the last few years, because, as I understand things, the Giants don't have many prospects in their farm system or young studs on their roster. I know they have a few good, young pitchers (Lowry and what's his name), but then why did they sign Zito? I guess what I'm getting at is that they may have been turning their roster over these last few years, but they don't seem like they are ready to compete and, thus, seem to still be rebuilding. I think they are fortunate that even Giants fans seem to have gotten sick of Bonds, so they may not have as great a drop in attendance now that he's gone.

I'm resigned to admitting that the media's argument made sense to me, but acknowledge that I should have been skeptical. In my own defense, I haven't been committing much brain power to thinking critically about front office philosophies lately. So, larry, could you lend a guy a pair of glasses?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

by rhythm on Oct 29, 2007 4:38 PM CDT up 0 recs

oh

they're not done rebuilding by a long shot. but they sure got three years of near sell-outs out of a team that averaged, what, 73 wins? other than the cubs and the packers, i don't think there are many teams in any sport that could do that. they're still almost entirely devoid of positional prospects, at least at the upper levels of the system. this was a seriously fucked organization; but they've got pitching now. i will certainly admit that some of their free agent signings have been curious but they have (generally) done a good job of rebuilding their minor league system (i really liked the angel villalona signing) while maintaining attendance. it's a tough trick and they've done it just about as well as one could. they're going to have to deal now with not having the bonds attraction.

by larry on Oct 29, 2007 5:13 PM CDT up 0 recs

Gotcha

In that context, your comments make a lot more sense to me.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

by rhythm on Oct 29, 2007 5:24 PM CDT up 0 recs

Financially...

I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty sure the Giants made quite extra off of keeping Bonds these past couple of seasons than they would have if they spent that $15 million differently -- unless they were able to spend that $15 million on players who would've made them a playoff contender, which I somehow doubt.

I don't necessarily have a hard and set stance on A-Rod. I'm not going to say I want the Sox to pull out everything to go after him -- I'm just saying it wouldn't make me angry if the Sox said "fuck it, this is a franchise changing move and we're going to go for it."

The next question, of course, would be if the Sox would be able to put a legit core around A-Rod to make this team good enough to compete with Cleveland and Detroit. I tend to think they could, although it would take some maneuvering on Kenny's part, mainly trading Garland and/or Konerko and receiving good value in return.

by CWSKeith on Oct 29, 2007 2:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

I don't think...

that 10/$275 gets it done.

Whether or not it would be a good idea for the Sox to sign Rodriguez would depend on how much it hampers their ability to do other things. If they pull a Tom Hicks and spend the next half-decade whining about how Rodriguez's contract is such an anchor, then no, it's probably not a good signing.

But I highly, highly doubt it happens. Rodriguez likely ends up on the Angels.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 29, 2007 2:26 PM CDT up 0 recs

this guy says yes

kat o'brien:

Potential destinations include the Angels, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Tigers and White Sox.

I'm more with WU on the subject...

by The Wizard on Oct 29, 2007 1:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

brewers to decline geoff jenkins option

link, bas-ref

by The Wizard on Oct 29, 2007 1:42 PM CDT 0 recs

shelby for crisp

so we're trading someone with a chance to be good in 2 years for someone with a chance to be good (probably a little less good than shelby?) next year?

and crisp will be ours for 2 years with an 8 mil option for a 3rd?

I'll pass...

by The Wizard on Oct 29, 2007 2:25 PM CDT 0 recs