Here's a question for everyone...

Is the problem Barry Bonds, or is the problem steroids?

Forgive me, I get confused. Whenever someone brings up Bonds in a steroid-related conversation, I tend to shrug it off -- see, I believe that there are folks working on this (heck, some are even making a career off of this) and that the truth will come to some degree of light sooner or later. There are a couple other reason I shrug it off, too, and neither of them are because Bonds plays for the San Francisco Giants.

But I digress.

After shrugging it off, I usually attempt to open up a can of worms that has been staying determinedly closed for a while now -- what have we been missing in this whole scandal? Or, put another way, who have we been missing in this whole scandal?

Some of you may bring up a Rafael Palmeiro, counter with a Jason Giambi or a Mark McGwire, but honestly I give a rat's posterior about any of them. Two reasons for that: 1) apparently, the rest of the nation doesn't give a damn about any of them, either, and 2) because they've all managed to find the eye of the hurricane.

Think about those players' role in this -- honestly, just as big of a role as Bonds', expect that they had the good fortune or common sense to not threaten Babe Ruth's or Hank Aaron's home run marks. That's the only difference between them -- Bonds has more talent, it manifested itself in the form of more home runs, and thus he's the focus.

The focus has wavered from Bonds for only short periods of time: McGwire's evasion in the Congressional hearings, Palmeiro's failed drug test, Giambi's admission -- those things brought us a week or three of Bonds' playing 1st and half fiddle (as opposed to 2nd fiddle). That's it, really. After that...SNAP! back to Bonds in a hurry, and another month or two of focus solely on him.

But to reiterate, I give a rat's ass about those other players, because my musings tend to go off on this tangent -- who else has ever taken steroids, or any other performance-enhancing drug, and gotten away with it?

Furthermore, what did they do during their playing days?

To be sure, not much -- at least, not much anymore. We don't know exactly who they are, or what they did, which tends to make most of us disregard the problem. If it can't be investigated, if the truth can't be found, why look?

Or, why bother, when we can just find Bonds guilty and be satisfied?

That's what this is coming to. People aren't really interested in broad, sweeping justice -- if they were, they wouldn't focus on Bonds. Bonds is a huge, huge fish in the pond, to be certain, but thinking he's the only catch is ignoring the real problem -- steroids.

Right? Steroids, remember? Other people have taken them in their careers, used them to enhance their performance, and done...what?

Did they use the drugs to help them have a career year (Brady Anderson, anyone)? Did they use them in Spring Training to help them win a job on some team's 40-man roster? Or...

Did they use them to help them hit a game-winning homer in April of 1990-something to beat such-and-such team? Perhaps a couple of those performance-enhanced players got hot in August and September, and used their man-made physique's to help propel their squad into a pennant race, or a wild-card spot, or...

...maybe even a few of those guys hit important, playoff series home runs, or...gulp...important World Series home runs.

Do you see the point? How can we know? We can't, really, but not being able to know isn't an excuse to ignore, which is what the vast majority of America is doing. They're ignoring all other possibilities in favor of getting Bonds, because that will satisfy them that all is right with baseball. If Bonds can't break the record, or, if he breaks the record but gets his accomplishments erased from history, then everything else will just fall into place.

Wrong. Everything else won't fall into place, it'll just fall into some dark corner of history that will never see any light.

Kirk Gibson is a hero, because he took some cortisone which allowed him to ignore the pain in his legs long enough to hit a World Series-altering home run. What would Gibson had done if he hadn't taken any cortisone? He wouldn't have hit at all...heck, he wouldn't even have come out of the trainer's room. What is cortisone? A drug, right? A drug that allowed Gibson to do something he couldn't have done otherwise...

...you see where this is going. If you aren't interested in where it leads, then you aren't interested in true justice -- you just want to get Bonds. That's fine, of course, but just be adult enough to admit it. You think the problem is Bonds, not steroids.

And that means you and I disagree.

Who's THIS guy?

Hi, Brian Wilson.

A sure-fire way to impress me in your first big league action is to come into a game throwing in the 89-95 mph range, staying almost completely in or around the strike zone and getting a bunch of swingthroughs and strikeouts in two innings of work.

Consider me impressed.

I'm also impressed that Rockies manager Clint Hurdle is pitching to Barry Bonds in the 9th inning of a tie game with a man on base. 'Course, this could feed into the bit of the buzz around the league that Bonds is no longer Bonds -- dangerous hitter, sure, but not superhuman.

Bonds struck out, inning over. Could be something to that buzz.

The game is currently resting on the arm of Jeff Fassero, who thankfully is going clean-shaven today (his three-day unshaven look has that ol' alcoholism look, to me).

UPDATE: Losing two of four games in a series on the road isn't a bad thing, but losing those two games in the 9th inning and extra innings, respectively, really bites sweaty jockstrap. The fact that this game was lost on the pitch directly after the third strike and last out of the inning was not called by the home plate umpire, and it stings just a wee bit more.

The umps' handprints were all over this game, though, and it was one of those rare games where it was almost as much about their judgement than the game between the lines. The umps threw out two pitchers who likely didn't deserve it in Matt Morris and Ray King (although it's difficult to fault them too much after Jose Mesa set the tone yesterday with the beaning of Omar Vizquel), then the questionable no-call at the end of the game.

Offensive Goodness

Well.

Pedro Feliz is having himself a game -- three hits, three at-bats, two home runs, four RBI. The first one was very nice, as he simply took a get-it-in-there fastball over the plate in a 2-1 count over the fence in left-center field. Working the count in your favor cannot help but put you in positions for these things, I think.

The second was Feliz turning on a pitch on the inside, ending up in a line-hugger that had some good distance on it. Both homers were of the two-run variety. Neat.

Jason Schmidt, however, is looking like just another dude out there on the mound...his fastballs have to be well located nowadays, what with his velocity usually settling into the 91-93 range and them looking as hittable as they do. The breaking ball is working well tonight, but he isn't really throwing it much. He's thrown his changeup even less.

UPDATE: Didn't I tell you all Father Alou ain't never scurred? Bases loaded, on out in the 9th inning up by two runs, and Felipe calls on just-activated Armando Benitez.

The skipper's got those big brave balls, I tell ya.

UPDATE, VERSION 2.0: Benitez gets a guy to fly out, scoring one run on a tag-up, then promptly allowed an oppo base hit in an 0-2 count to allow the tying run to score. Very next hitter, 0-2 count again, and 'Mando again allows a base hit, this time to let the winning run to score.

Armando, what the fuck are you doing around the plate in an 0-2 count?

Nevermind.

Felipe, put those big brave balls away for a game or two, and next time don't bring in your fresh-off-the-DL guy right into a high-pressure situation. Really, it's stupid.

A certain, je ne sais quoi

It.

Some have it, some don't. Bad teams don't have it, and neither do very good teams, strange as that might sound.

The teams that have it, or "it", if you prefer, are a special breed of team. They are the team that "finds a way" to win, that just "gets the job done". Joe Morgan is good at spotting teams like that, but then, he's also good at confusing me four or fives times during a broadcast (thank God for Jon Miller).

What all that cliche crap usually translates to is, nobody can figure out how they're winning, but acknowledge the fact that yes, somehow, the team is doing just that.

Personally, I hate "it". There isn't a stat for it, and there isn't any way to figure out when it'll show up. There are a lot of teams that sometimes look like they'll have "it" for a while, only to be exposed later on after truth rears its ugly head. The Giants are 9-6 in 1st place in the NL West, and I'm trying to figure out how.

They're still being outscored by their opponents by a significant margin -- for those that may not like my belaboring of this point, take a look at the standings and find me another team that has a winning record while being outscored. I can save you the trouble...there isn't one. In fact, even of all the teams with .500 records, there's only one, the Angels, that has been outscored -- though only by four runs. The Giants have been outscored by 14.

Houston and Cincinatti both have been pretty lucky with a +2 over their expected win/loss record, partly due to their knack for one-run wins (Houston is 5-0 and Cincinnatti is 4-1 in one run contests). The Giants are 3-0 in one run games, and are +3 over their Pythagorean standings at this point (given the Giants runs scored/runs allowed, one would normally expect them to be about 6-9 instead of 9-6).

In essence, nobody has been as lucky as the Giants so far, but we can't expect it to continue. When 1/3 of the teams' wins have come off the pitching performance of their #5 starter, well, my hats off to Jamey Wright (is this just Mike Matheny, 2005, or what? Talk bad about the guy for all of the normally correct reasons, then he comes out and does better than everybody expected. Sheesh.), but forgive me if I don't exactly buy into a back-of-the-rotation guy as the team's best starter.

The Giants line offensively is .252/.340/.381, and the opposing teams are hitting .276/.367/.453. Being outhit is one thing, but the Giants have been outpowered -- that difference in SLG is almost totally due to being outhomered 19-10. The most obvious culprit, of course, is Barry Bonds. Steroids shmeroids, none of us expected him to be homerless after about 10% of the games had been played.

We'll see what a trip to Coors Field can do -- we can certainly hope that Ray Durham and Pedro Feliz turned a bit of a corner after last night's game, with Durham having a 2-5 night at the plate, and Feliz hitting a very important double late in the game. It'd be nice to see their OPS climb above .500.

Felipe ain't never scurred

Watching the Diamondbacks pound on the Giants like a sledgehammer in the 6th inning, I'm starting to wonder when enough is enough.

Jack Tashner has pitched more like Jack Black. His ERA entering tonight's action was 40.50.

Is that even an ERA anymore by the time it gets to that number?

Yet Father Alou keeps throwin' 'em in the fire, heedless of the consequences. Tashner, sure enough, burned the team yet again. And guess who comes in the very next inning? Tyler Walker, he of the 24.30 ERA coming into tonight.

Never let it be said that Felipe lacks cahones.

Mmmm...runs

My powers of prediction and projection are puissant.

Of course, on Sunday when I mused that the Giants would likely see an improvement in their offensive fortunes in Arizona and/or Colorado, I didn't necessarily think that musing would manifest itself in the form of a ten run outburst in their first game against the Diamondbacks, but it is not for nothing that in certain portions of the world I am known as Danieldamus.

Well, in truth the longer version of the name is used just a bit more: the Loud, Obnoxious, Shaved-Headed American Who Likes His Vodka Too Much and Often Makes Predictions About Things We Care Nothing About. But the shortened version is starting to catch on, I think.

It wouldn't be me without worry, though, and that worry manifests itself thusly:

• Dunno 'bout you, but for reasons of superior ability, youth, and the lack of Scary Facial Hair, I'd much rather see Kevin Correia start than Jeff Fassero.
• In that same vein, I'd rather see this guy pitch than Tyler Walker or Jack Taschner right now:

As Lefty and Grant have theorized, the Giants have indeed been lucky thus far, but now they are at a point where we can surmise they can win a few on their own merits. Today they face Russ Ortiz, and I'd be lying if I said I don't chuckle every time I see this guy toe the rubber for another team. He wasn't too bad of a Giant, but his control issues are scary (although Kruk interpreted that as meaning Ortiz was a "grinder").

Perhaps you guys can chime in with an opinion on this -- while it is still early, do any of you see any evidence this division is any better than last season? Or, do you see it as being just as poor as 2005, and maybe even a bit worse? Excluding the Giants, the rest of the NL West is currently 11-15 outside their division, and while the Rockies do sport a winning record as of today, they are doing on the strength of a 6-4 record against divisional opponents -- so it's possible they haven't played anyone that's any good yet.

Sidenote: It is an interesting feeling to be able to give up on a team in mid-April, but that's just the feeling my other team, the Kansas City Royals, have engendered in me. It seems a safe bet to assume they are the worst at everything, having managed to already accomplisht the 1-2 punch of scoring the least amount of runs in the majors while allowing the most. Their opponents are running a .946 OPS against their pitching, while their offense is at .667. They don't even have anyone enjoying a hot start -- the highest individual OPS on the team is Shane Costa (whom I've met, by the way, and found to be cool) at .806.

Sad doesn't even begin to describe it. Betcha Reggie Sanders is pissed at his decision to sign there right about now.

Should we be worried about the offense?

The Giants are winning again as I'm watching, to my everlasting delight. But I can't but think -- two runs through eight innings isn't exactly lighting it up. Heck, nevermind lighting it up, because that's hardly even plugging it in the electrical socket.

In their first 10 games, the Giants have been limited to three runs or less half the time, with two of those times being held to a single run and once being shut out. Tonight, assuming they don't score again, will make it six of 11 games scoring three or less.

Is it time to worry yet?

Looking at this objectively, they've faced a few capable pitchers in and amongst these games. These have been the starters in those games: Jake Peavy, Shawn Estes, Roy Oswalt, Brad Penny, Odalis Perez, and tonight it was Jae Seo.

Three very good pitchers, one decent pitcher, and two mediocre pitchers. All in all, it's understandable to struggle from time to time, but you'd hope to be able to get to a very good pitcher sometimes if you want to be a very good team.

Well, they've beat up on Tim Hudson, and was able to touch up John Smoltz early in his start against them, so I'm thinking that qualifies to some degree.

What I'm saying is (again), is that it's still a bit early to panic. I want the offense to break out as much as anyone, but with Barry Bonds still missing a few games, Moises Alou being in and out of the lineup, and with what looks to be some early-season slumps from a couple of players we all know can hit better, I think we should exercise a bit more patience with the offense.

The next two series will be played in Arizone and Colorado, so not only will they get to play in two ballparks which usually help offense, but they'll be hitting against two pitching staffs which cannot be considered elite by any means. There will be the opportunity to show what the offense is capable of over the next seven games, and they'll do it in first place with a 7-4 record after shutting down the Dodgers 2-0 tonight.

It's nice to have a host of team deficiences to address, yet win at a 63.6% clip while you do so.

Oh, and welcome back Brad Hennessey. Not really dominant, but he kept the Dodgers off balance long enough for his team to score behind him, and the bullpen finished up nicely (Scott Munter's pitching style has just been weird so far this year, but I'll take it).

Lemme guess...

This'll be another weird season. I can feeeel it in my bones, I can.

...wait, nevermind. That's my osteo kicking in. Drat these inflexible joints of mine!

As far as weirdness in this young season thus far, I'll give the briefest nod to what's becoming a plain and simple fiasco around Barry Bonds, but quickly move past it -- yes, it's weird, too. Let's consider the path to their current record of 6-3, though:

• Rainouts. Here in the Bay Area, yes, but let's remember that one cancelled game and yesterday's rain-delayed game were in Southern California, not Northern.
• The Giants have been outscored 48-41 despite sporting the winning record.
• The only three Giants who have hit any are Moises Alou, Randy Winn, and Omar Vizquel. Well, Todd Greene, too, but he's only had nine at-bats. Almost everyone else has been atrocious, and while Bonds has drawn some walks and hit a few balls hard, he hasn't produced anything tangible.
• Continuing in the same vein as the previous comment, the Giants offense has been horrible.
• Noah Lowry went on the DL after not even lasting two innings in his first start of the season.
• For the most part, the bullpen has been awful.
• Jamey Wright has pitched much better than either Matt Cain or Jason Schmidt through two starts.

While I'm sure a few people might think I'm trying to see the dark lining around the silver cloud, I assure you I'm not -- I'm just seeing this little run as a house of cards, and there's some guy staring at it and looking an awful lot like he wants to sneeze.

Everything wrong about the team right now is fixable, though, so I'm hoping some of those issues work themselves out before the Giants luck does.

Still, 6-3 beats a kick in the ass anyday, and twice on Sundays. But it's a weird 6-3.

Things to look for: 4/12 vs. ....the weather

I make valiant attempts to not be a moron, yet seem to do it with alarming regularity.

Writing any previews about Giants home games right now are just plain silly, as the constant rain in the Bay Area that simply will not cease for any appreciable length of time is rendering it all moot.

So far this year, we've had more rain here than the Pacific Northwest, and we've smashed the 100 year year-to-date record for rainfall from 1904. I can see why the Northwest has a higher suicide rate than than the rest of the country. Makes you want to scream at the sky.

As the rain is slated to continue towards the end of the week, my speculation on what the Giants might or might not do are even more useless than they normally are.

If you're thinking the rain is depressing me, you're wrong. If you think the rain stopping baseball from being played is depressing me, you're right.

Ah well.

Things to look for: 4/11 vs. the Astros

Call me crazy, but I think the Giants stand a great chance of sweeping the Astros if they manage to score more runs than Houston in each of the three games in this series. If they can't do that, it might be difficult.

Stuff I'd like to see:

1. A little separation in Matt Morris' k/bb ratio. While his last start was pretty good, striking out and walking hitters at a rate of about four per nine innings won't cut it for too long. Also, I'm hoping he's a little more efficient -- he left his last start at the 104 pitch mark while only getting through six and 1/3 of an inning.
2. A bit of offensive consistency. Guess the significance of the following numbers: 513, 590, 255, 284, and 455. If you guessed those were the OPS's of Pedro Feliz, Randy Winn, Ray Durham, Mike Matheny, and Mark Sweeney, then you deserve a prize. You won't get one, of course, at least not from me, but you deserve one nevertheless. I'll keep my fingers crossed...for the Giants offense, not your prize. Go find someone else's fingers to cross for that. Or cross your own. Lazy bum.
3. The bullpen, if they are used, to be mediocre. Because mediocre would be an improvement. Once we get to mediocre, then we can worry about them being decent, or serviceable.
4. $500 in my wallet. Hm. Didn't work this time, either.

The offense will have to come against Taylor Buchholz, whose name sounds an awful lot like this one pitcher for the Astros I've never heard of named Taylor Buchholz. Must be a coincidence.

Play like Roy Rogers and sllllooooww down...

While many whose blood pressure is high and patience low might want to read something into the Giants 4-2 start, I am not one of those (my blood pressure is high and my patience very low, but the last part of that statement is like, totally not me).

By way of explanation:

• The Giants are 4-2 having been outscored by their opposition 34-36
• The Yankees are 2-4 while outscoring their opposition 35-23.
• Milwaukee's 5-1 while barely outscoring their opposition 23-21.
• The Marlins are 1-4 despite being even in runs scored and allowed, 21-21.

While the Pythagorean standings tend to mean something with a large enough sample size (this formula measures a team's expected record given their runs scored and runs allowed in comparison to their actual record), in any given five to ten game stretch, it's meaningless. There are those who want to be optimistic because of the 4-2 start vs. two teams who are generally viewed as contenders in Atlanta and San Diego, while there are those who want to shoot that optimism down because the Giants haven't been dominant.

Hey! It's only been six games, people. Simmer down thar!

In the same vein, all of the whispers about Barry Bonds' apparent lack of prowess are just premature...ejaculation. Sorry, had to say it -- we all know most folks out there want to see Bonds fail in some way, shape, or form, be it failing a drug test, failing health, or failing at the plate.

Not that it isn't possible he could be in the process of limping Over the Hill on that gimpy knee (everyone, supporters and haters alike, seem to only occasionally remember that at 41 years of age he's just old for baseball) , but let's all wait for a few more than 17 plate appearances, alright?

Other things I've prematurely noticed:

• Lance Niekro has more walks (3) than strikeouts (2). Don't give him anymore at bats! I want to bask in the glow of fleeting plate discipline...
• Jim Thome certainly is trying to dispel any doubts about his remaining prowess, eh? Four homers already, at a clip of a homer every 7.5 plate appearances. No, he won't hold that pace, of course, but playing at the NASA launch pad disguised as U.S. Cellular One Field won't exactly hurt, either.
• The Braves have allowed the most runs in the majors, with their opponents scoring 7.5 runs per game on their pitching staff. It's just great fun to say that, even if I know it won't last.

Oh, and I just wanted to admit my error in assuming the Giants wouldn't bring up Kevin Correia in response to possibly putting Noah Lowry on the DL. I was right in figuring that if Lowry was going to miss more than a start or two that it would be a callup, but just assumed the Giants wouldn't give Correia a chance despite his strong Spring.

Don't mind being wrong in this case, and at least the team showed some consistency in their approach -- Jamey Wright won the 5th starter's spot because of his Spring showing, and Correia has gotten the callup for the same reason. It looks like Correia's first start will be against the Dodgers on Tax Day in Los Angeles.

Beauty, thy name is Baseball...

Some observations from early in the Giants/Braves game, now in the 2nd inning:

• Lance Niekro's at-bat vs. John Smoltz was marvelous. In a two strike count against a nasty right-handed pitcher, Niekro lined a single to right-center field to plate Barry Bonds, who can still run just a tad...but being watched very closely. Couldn't help but notice a little gimp-hop at the very end of Bonds run from 2nd base, which gives me the freaking willies. It's going to be like that all year until he gets hurt, I imagine.
• After another old guy in Moises Alou showed that he can still run a bit after scoring on a wild pitch, Pedro Feliz did something we'd all wish he'd do more -- go with the outside located pitch to the opposite field instead of trying to pull. It ended up an out, but it was well-hit, and it scored Niekro for a sac fly.
• Two outs, Jason Schmidt up, end of inning, right? Nah. Schmidt flashed the one offensive talent that he has: a skoche of power. Double to deep left-center, and after Randy Winn battles nicely, Schmidt scores on the ensuing double from Winn.

This is the first game I will see in its entirety this year -- caught the end of the win vs. the Padres, but that's been it so far (and thus the reason I haven't yet picked up the amount of posts on O&B as of yet).

Seeing Schmidt hit the mid-90's on the gun is nice as well, although to my eye it still doesn't seem like it's the old Schmidt velocity -- a couple of years ago he had one of the very few mid-90's fastballs that looked like a high-90's fastball. Overall, though, it looks like that he's settling in from the 92-94 range as opposed to the 94-97 range he had before last season.

Early worries...

Injuries at this point in the season tend to put a damper on my hopes that the Giants will crush all opposition standing in the way of their rightful 2006 World Series Title.

Of course, most of us know the Giants aren't built to do too much crushing, anyway. But Noah Lowry's back strain certainly doesn't help matters.

It will be of some interest, however, should this cause Lowry to miss a start or three, as to what the Giants do to fill his spot in the rotation. Should they go the spot-starter route, then Jeff Fassero is the likely pick there since he's done it before and presumably is part of the reason why he's on the team in the first place. Perhaps derailing that train of thought is Fassero's line in his outing in relief of Lowry: 3.2 innings pitched, 3 runs allowed, 2 home runs allowed.

One poor outing shouldn't change the team's philosophy on things, though, so even if I rolled my eyes at bringing Fassero back for 2006, I admit that letting him have a start or two wouldn't be a horrible idea at this point. Calling up someone from Fresno just to make a start or two this early in the season would be a bit irresponsible, I think.

Some of it may depend on the nature of Lowry's injury as well -- if the Giants want to be careful with Lowry (and I have absolutely no doubt that they will), then letting him miss a couple of starts is the way I expect them to handle it. Anything more serious will bring call-ups back into the equation, at which point I'll begin to wonder whether Brad Hennessey or Kevin Corriea would be the pitcher of choice.

All conjecture, of course, since Lowry's going to be re-evaluated today, and I suppose it is possible that they clear him for his next start. But back injuries being as sensitive as they are, I tend to think we won't see Lowry for at least one start, and that makes me worry.

Almost there...

Looking at the Giants April schedule, specifically the first 13 games, I believe we'll be finding out something about this team pretty early on.

In those first 13 games, they'll face both the Padres and the Dodgers on the road, while facing tough competition at home in the forms of the Braves and Astros.

Now, this ain't to put no more importance on the first 13 games then the last 13 games, or even any particular 13-game stretch in any other portion of the season. The Giants got as close as within two games of the Padres late last season, but faded before completing the comeback. It's very easy to say that they just couldn't get the job done, but I'm sure we could all point to several silly losses someplace in May, June, or August that would've made the well-nigh impossible comeback just a little more possible.

That being said, I think a healthy jump out of the gate against those types of teams would do wonders for this team.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by going into great detail as to why this is, because you already know:

1. Last season's poor showing largely without Barry Bonds.
2. Expectations this year assuming Bonds plays a majority of the season.
3. Oh yeah...steroids.
4. Steroids.
5. Steroids.
6. Peanut Butter...just seeing if you were still with me.
7. Yes. Steroids.

The media crush will be intense enough for Bonds with Bud Selig's probe, and thus will be intense for the other members of the team, as well. But let's imagine that crush, and throw a little extra scrutiny onto the performance of Bonds and the team, especially in the early going. I've heard many people talk about the whole East Coast bias before, with the Yankees and Red Sox getting so much more coverage than most teams. Well, it'll be a San Francisco Bias for a while now.

Personally, I think it's close to imperative that the Giants get off to a good start to alleviate some of this pressure. Throwing in a poor team start or a poor Bonds start will set things up for avalanche-type conditions, and the season could become a disaster in a hurry.

But you know what? Damn it all to hell, I'll just be happy to see some baseball.

Sidenote: Nice to see the good ol' preemptive strike in effect. The Giants lock up Noah Lowry for four years. Neat.

I'm just trying to get to the end of the week -- I went ahead and gave myself a four day weekend, Friday through Monday off.

Baseball and a four day weekend. If there's anything better, you just let me know. Well, besides winning 100 million plus, or sex with an attractive, talented woman. But just you try to think of anything else! I dare ya!

When is Wright wrong?

Well, right now.

However, I must congratulate Jamey Wright for having such a strong Spring and making the Giants team as the 5th starter. I mean, if the job was up for grabs (and apparently, it was), then he earned it.

But should it have been up for grabs? Yes. No. Maybe.

I believe the job should have been Brad Hennessey's to lose, which he may have done with a Spring ERA of 7.02. However, when I mean the job should have been his to lose, I mean the during the regular season, not Spring Training.

This seems like another one of those cases where Brian Sabean was just looking for an excuse to take an older veteran over the younger player. Nevermind that Wright has never pitched exceptionally well wherever he's been, and nevermind that although his time spent in Coors Field for the Rockies could have skewed Wright's numbers some, his road numbers weren't much good, either.

And what about Kevin Correia, who's Spring has been just as strong as Wright's?

C'mon now, he was never really in the running. Nevermind that the main two issues he needed to fix to become a much better pitcher (giving up gopher balls and cutting down on the walks) have both been addressed in his Spring outings -- he would have needed both Wright and Hennessey to pitch horribly to have a shot.

So, once again, Sabean pisses on the Giants future by going with a present that isn't any better, just older. I'm going to begin the Wright Watch, which will wonder weekly whether Wright will pitch well.

WORLD CLASSIC, ANYONE?

Daniel runs a tight Giants ship over here, even though we get to occasionally see photos of him drunk on wine. So, to keep on topic, I'll mention that I watched with pleasure as Moises Alou played for the DR in today's kinda sorta interesting match between the Dominican Republic and Cuba.

What I really want to talk about is how much fun the World Classic has been. No, I haven't been to any games, but I've filled the lonely hours late at night streaming Classic games. As I write this, the final showdown between Japan and Korea is stalled by rain in the 8th, with Japan, well, shaming Korea 6-0, 5 of those from the top of the 7th. During this stall, I learned that Japan's manager, Sadaharu Oh, the world home-run leader, happily admits that if he had played in the major leagues, he wouldn't have hit nearly as many homers. Someone suggested that he'd have been in the 600+ club, with an outside chance in a 20-year career of nearly touching 700. Thank you World Classic for making information like that available to ignorant shmos like me. Makes me love baseball even more.

Daniel, have you followed the games much?

I loved Stephen Colbert's rant last week about team USA's wince-inducing defeat at the hands of Canada. Funny stuff. Is anyone else as irritated as I am by MLB's promotion of this as some sort of patriotic expression? Before you love your team, you love your country. Sure, yeah, whatever, dude. Does this mean that if I don't love "my" team, I can't vote in the next election?

Is spring training over yet? [tapping foot impatiently]

A #4, Super-Sized with a 2003 Cabernet, please

I never showed you all any pics from the wine bus I partooketh of a couple of weeks ago, so...

Here are the highlights. I absolve myself of any responsibility for any drunkeness that is displayed in the following pictures.


Yes, you too can be a Mac Daddy, if you get them drunk enough.


And God shall call the Grapes of Wrath upon thee!


Yes ma'am, I'll need to look very closely to make sure there aren't any lumps...


Cooler smoke has never been blown.


Trust me, I was a lot drunker than I looked here.


Hotties. No coldies.


Lucky Luis, puttin' down game to all the fly cuties, as usual.


Yes, more hotties. Wine bus trips tend to attract them by the twos, apparently.


Felix and Jay being cool and easy, and Ed...wait, what the heck IS Ed doing, anyway?


What, did you think we WOULDN'T play poker afterwards?

So there you have it. Some pictures have been left out to protect the innocent (or was that the intoxicated?).

Musings...

Well, that's out of the way, finally.

Now that Barry Bonds has hit his first home run of 2006, we here at O&B (all three of us: me, myself, and I) were wondering if people think that Bonds is currently on steroids.

Past juicing we'll gloss over, and assume that he was doing it for some length of time.

How 'bout now?

It'd be tantamount to an award for All-Time Stupidity if he was, I'm sure we'll all admit. And being that "stupid" has never been an adjective applied to Bonds in any print media I can remember, I'd like to put forward the assumption that he isn't currently juicing.

So, what happens if he hits another, say, 45 home runs this year?

Would we all assume, then, that he continued to use steroids in the face of drug testing? If he is tested and passes, would we assume that whatever steroid he was using is undetectable?

Lemme know what you think.

A little Dub-B-C

Well, that was an exciting game.

I will have to admit, the World Baseball Classic is making a valiant attempt to be just that -- a classic tournament of world baseball.

Before today, I've only been able to catch most of the game between Korea and China (which was a laugher), and there is an obvious divide between the haves and have-nots (winless in their first three games were South Africa, Australia, Panama, and China -- and Chinese Taipei's only win was vs. the most hapless China team).

But, all that aside, when you get down to the baseball being played between Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Cuba, the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Domincan Republic (and Venezuela isn't bad, either), there really isn't a way around it -- it's good baseball.

The first game I watched in full was today's controversial victory by the United States over Japan, 4-3.

Firstly, the U.S. obviously should have been down at least one run. The botched tag-up call will loom large in the discussion around this game, and the fact that the game was played here in the U.S. will obviously spark some bad feelings in Japan (and probably other places with anti-U.S. sentiments).

However, I will say this -- the U.S. showed some moxie in this game after going down 3-0 early, with Chipper Jones and Derrick Lee connecting on big flies to bring them back even. The gap between talent levels has obviously been bridged, for the most part, between here and Japan.

I'm going to go ahead and watch the Puerto Rico/Dominican matchup tonight, and I'm expecting some good baseball there, too, as there's a bevy of major leaguers in that game. Interesting sidenote: the stadium capacity for this game was 20,000 -- that sold out the very 1st day. The attendance for the U.S./Japan game was 35,000 -- my estimate was that the crowd there was 30% Japanese.

Shocking...or, absolutely expected

There's been a book written that goes into detail about alleged steroid use by Barry Bonds from 1998, and for at least five years afterward.

Those who are paid to say things about these types of events are saying that it is now harder than ever for Bonds to deny steroid use (see Ken Rosenthal's response to the book).

Those who are not paid to say things about these types of events, like me, say...that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Why is it harder? Nothing has changed. It's simply another accusation, and it's not even really a new one -- the two gentleman who wrote the book are San Francisco Chronicle reporters. Yes, reporters of the same newspaper that leaked Bonds' grand jury testimony, and the same newspaper that has been finding bits of circumstantial evidence for years now.

So, again, why is it harder?

I suppose it could get even harder to deny if some guy from Idaho comes out and testifies that on April 28th, 2002, he saw Bonds using the cream and the clear while sucking on a lollipop and playing Super Mario Bros. on the Gameboy in downtown Sausalito. I mean, that's about as much new proof as this book provides, coming from the source that it does -- which, essentially, is the San Francicsco Chronicle.

The story will sweep the nation, just as it shouldn't. There isn't anything new here -- most of the nation believes he took steroids, so is this book supposed to make those people believe even more than they already do?

No, I bet that many think this book might sway people like myself, who suspect Bonds of steroid use, but simply refuse to raise allegations on something that I cannot verify for myself. And, furthermore, people who would rather see concrete proof (like say, a failed drug test or some DNA samples) before grabbing my torch and noose.

And now, Bonds will have 10 times the steroids questions and probes to deal with, though all those asking the questions and doing the probing should know that he'll keep denying it. He hasn't a choice, now, whether he's lying or not, so why ask? Why not wait for concrete proof, which I guarantee that gobs of people are working to get?

But no, instead we'll have this farce continue -- Bonds being tried in a court of public opinion that has already deemed him guilty, yet doesn't seem to get tired of "new" allegations and "proof" that Bonds has done something that most folks are sure he's done anyway.

The merry-go-round goes 'round, and we just keep hopping on thinking it'll take us somewhere new and interesting.

Mr. Rosenthal says he "can't wait" to hear what Bonds will say. Personally, I can't wait to hear people like Rosenthal say exactly what I know they'll say after they hear exactly what they should know Bonds will say. Nothing more entertaining than getting exactly what you think you'll get. It's the spice of life, I tell ya.

Sigh.

Wish me luck...

Got tickets to the Korn concert tonight in San Jose. Dunno if it's the best situation -- the other two bands playing are guys I've never heard of in Mudvein and 10 Years, but one can hope they aren't too bad (I hear Mudvein is pretty heavy, though).

This'll be back to back nights watching bands, as I and a few of my cohorts, Lucky Luis, Dave, and Craig were in Livermore watching Lavish Green rock out. Tried to mosh a little last night, but figured I had to conserve some energy for tonight.

Should I even be moshing at my age? I keep making this joke that upon trying to get into the moshpit, security's going to check my ID at the edge and say, "Aren't you a little old to be in the moshpit, sir? You might get hurt in there at your age."

It's kind of like Chris Rock said in Bigger and Blacker:

(paraphrasing) You don't wanna be the old guy at the club. You know who I'm talking about. He really ain't old, just a little too old to be in the club.

Ah, screw it. You only live once.

I'll get that Hennessey for you Wright away, sir. And some other clever phrase utilizing Correia.

Not knowing sucks.

Wouldn't we all like to know if Barry Bonds will stay healthy? Wouldn't be nice to know that Armando Benitez will pull his...considerable...weight this upcoming season? Wouldn't it be wonderful to know that Rogain worked?

...nevermind. I'm just fine with my shaved head.

In any case, we'd all like to know whether or not Brad Hennessey will be able to cut it as the Giants 5th starter in 2006, but that's difficult. The main thing that Hennessey's 2006 campaign showed is that we still don't know, even after 21 starts of data.

Personally, I'm optimistic he can at least match last season's production, and perhaps improve upon it to some degree -- I like that his stuff matches the kind of pitcher he is (his stuff isn't spectacular and is sometimes very hittable, but that fact that he's a groundball pitcher negates that some), and we cannot ignore that in 14 of his 21 starts, Hennessey was able to pitch into the seventh inning and beyond, with 12 of the 14 being at or near the "quality start" level. That's plenty good enough for a 5th starter.

Of course, he also had four starts where he didn't even make it past the 3rd inning, so...

This sounds like a situation ripe for the ol' insurance policy. But, should Hennessey fail or become injured, which insurance policy is better -- Kevin Correia or Jamey Wright?

Wright is a fairly known quantity, with the possiblity of being better than his statline reads.

Career: 5.13 ERA, 4.84 k's/9 (strikeouts per 9 innings), 1.07 k/bb ratio (strikeout to walk ratio), 1.92 g/f ratio (ground ball to fly ball ratio), .822 OPS against.

That...isn't good. A low strikeout rate, a poor strikeout to walk ratio, and a high OPS against indicative of a journeyman pitcher who's been released by five teams during his career. The two things in Wright's favor are: 1) his great groundball to flyball ratio, and 2) six of the 10 years he's pitched in the majors have been with the Rockies.

So, perhaps we'll give him a break. Let's slide on by those numbers pitching in Coors Field, and let's compile Wright's road numbers from the past two seasons:

4.52 ERA, 5.87 k's/9, 5.07 bb/9, 1.15 k/bb ratio (127.1 innings pitched over 2004 and 2005)

Well, there's more pitcher there, obviously, but those still aren't numbers to...Wright...home about (I can hear you groaning, but I choose to ignore you). With that, we'll throw up Correia:

Career: 4.86 ERA, 6.63 k's/9, 4.53 bb/9, 1.46 k/bb ratio, 0.80 g/f ratio, .863 OPS against.

Forgive me if I look at Correia as the better option. Correia, despite control problems last year, still walks less hitters over a nine-inning stretch than Wright's superior road numbers, and strikes out another batter and a half more per nine over Wright's road totals from the past two seasons. Correia's biggest problem seems to be keeping the ball inside the ballpark -- he gave up close to two homers per nine innings last season (1.85/9), but given the type of stuff he has, I think that's fixable.

In summary, while I don't think picking up Wright as an insurance policy was a bad idea, using him as anything but an insurance policy would be a mistake, in my mind. He hasn't shown a definitive ability to do anything particularly well in his career other than induce ground balls, and he hasn't shown that he's appreciably better than Hennessey or Correia. Long relief/spot starter is the role that best fits Wright.

Can I have change for a dollar? Yes, two 20's and a 10 would be fine...

In honor of pitcher's and catcher's reporting today, I went out and smelled some grass.

Take that how you will.

In other news, Randy Winn was selected to represent the U.S. in the World Baseball Classic. The article spends most of it's time talking about Winn's scorching September last year.

Hm. Could that be because the rest of Winn's career isn't all that much to look at, and that his selection shows how few choices they must have had? I mean, I like Winn, like his hustle, loved his couple of months with the Giants last year, and hope he repeats that performance in 2006, but...

World Baseball Classic? Randy Winn, representing the U.S.? There wasn't anyone better? But yeah, you gotta love that September of 2005 Winn had...boy, that was some September. Did you know he was Player of the Month in the NL last September?

I've had a few months before where I've helped out some people with counseling, loaning money, doing favors -- you name it, I was there for people.

Was I cheated out of my Nobel Peace Prize, or what?

I really shouldn't be that bothered by this, but I hate adding two and two and coming up with 516,238.

Take that how you will.

Happy Chinese New Year! Uh, Parade!

I'm working tomorrow, but I'll be able to almost witness something cool firsthand: the Chinese New Year Parade. It takes place in downtown San Francisco, going down Market Street and around Union Square where I work.

I say almost witness because I'm getting the heck out of there before the thing starts. I'd love to watch, but it's one of those things that I'd only feel like watching if I was off work on the day it took place and the day after. I'm wierd like that. And speaking of wierd...

...why is it that the darned parade takes place two weeks after the actual start of the Chinese New Year? It's been like this for a while, I'm told, but why? Wouldn't it be a little odd to you if you were invited to a party to celebrate New Year's on January 14th?

One good thing, though, is that it looks like this will be the first Chinese New Year parade in years that won't be rained on. Perhaps it is a good omen for those born in the Year of the Dog (I'm a Year of the Tiger guy, myself).

In any case, go on San Francisco...get your parade on.

Surfin', surfin', USA

Bear with me, folks.

I'm off work today, and I'm bored. This combination usually leads to things involving ladders, a rodent, old car batteries, and a parachute, but today I've decided to surf popular baseball sites for stuff...and of course pass on the surfin' goodness onto you all. Thank me later. Oh, and the better stuff is on the bottom, really...but bear with me, folks.

Phil Rogers has a fluff article on ESPN.com about which players he thinks is poised for a Derrick Lee-type breakout season. I guess it kills some time, reading this, but Rogers doesn't seem to provide lots of concrete reasons as to why he believes these particular players will break out, other than: a) He's good, and he's capable of being better, b) He's improved for a few years straight, and c) the time honored reason, "Just 'cuz". It's articles like these which make me believe, if only for a few, reality-suspended seconds, that I could be a professional writer. The article just has the feel of, "Oh, man, my deadline is coming up, and I gotta put together something."

Baseball Prospectus has the Week In Quotes article up, and as usual, there's some fun stuff in there. My favorite is a quote from Royals 1st baseman (and cool guy) Mike Sweeney, where he states, "From top to bottom, we’ve got a great lineup. Or at least a better lineup, definitely."

I'm thinking I would find it difficult to downshift from 5th gear to 2nd, but apparently Sweeney is more skilled than I.

Rich Draper over at the Official Giants Site (MLB.com) writes about the Giants outfield, managing to not tell us a single thing we didn't already know -- the season revolves around the health of Barry Bonds, and that there are also injury concerns for Moises Alou and Steve Finley. I'm gathering it's tough to write consistently interesting and informative stuff throughout the offseason.

Well, wasn't that fun? Wow, I can't wait to do that again. Now, onto the real stuff: blogs.

Grant at McCovey Chronicles has put up the most recent of his projection pieces, this one on Matt Cain. He notices Cain's fluky low hit rate, and I noticed the same about him last September in a comparison between him and Noah Lowry's first season:

Lowry, with a much larger sample size, had a higher strikeout rate and a lower walk rate, which are good signs. Cain is somehow doing a marvelous job of simply not allowing hits (to the tune of a .133 BABIP), but that is something which can't and won't last over the course of a full season. For perspective, the ERA leader in the NL, Roger Clemens, has a BABIP of .236.

See how cool that is? See how much cooler blogs are? See how much cool could a cool-chuck chuck if a cool-chuck could chuck cool?

John over at Give 'Em Some Stankeye (nice to see you writing again, John) doesn't eff around -- he tells us, straight up, he's just going to provide links to hot Jessica Alba pics, and baseball be damned. Well, for at least a day. Again, blogs cooler than other sites. We can do these types of things, whenever we please. For instance, just because I feel like it, I'm going to provide a link to a picture of Kate Beckinsale (Note: that used to be a link to a Kate Beckinsale pic, but the site I linked to yesterday that worked yesterday, apparently didn't work today and led to a site that tried to download a virus...I apologize profusely for this, but at the time I put the link up, it led to exactly what I said it led to -- a nice pic of Kate Beckinsale.)

Joe over at Giants Cove gives us a humourous account of why writing sucks. Yes, Joe, it does, when compared to say, sex, but otherwise it isn't too bad. Of course, this coming from a guy who writes better than I do anyway, but I'll forgive him his faults.

Alright, so there you go -- enough reading fodder to relieve the boredom of just about anyone...except me. I'm still bored.

99 most desirable women...well, kinda

AskMen.com has put up its list of the top 99 most desirable women.

...you know, this is just one of those lists that just begs to be argued against at various points, but I agree with their #1 pick -- Jessica Alba. The funny thing about these lists is, she was #78 last year...did she undergo some sort of genetic enhancement that I am as yet unaware of? If she's numero uno this year, that means she was #1 last year and they just ranked her incorrectly.

Number Two is a mystifying Sienna Miller. If you're going, "Sienna Who?", then you understand my mystification. She's not bad looking, sure (although not my type), but she: 1) isn't a bombshell by any means, 2) doesn't have a voluptuous body to make up for the lack of looks, and 3) is probably best known as Jude Law's fiancee (according to the site), who apparently didn't think she was all that hot himself because he's already had an affair before they've even gotten married. Great job there, fellas. Spot on with your number two pick -- she actually rose more ranks than Alba did, going from #86 to #2.

Just for perspective, good ol' Anna Kournikova is barely hanging on, coming in at No. 99. Did her last birthday bring her to 70 years old or something? No, she's 24, and she's also 187.564 times hotter than Sienna Miller, period, no matter how little or how much spotlight either of them get.

You know, there's a little more commentary that I would throw up on this, only the...uh, men... at AskMen.com are morons. The only way to surf their list if you, say, don't have all the rankings memorized, is one...by...one. There's no master list, no way to search out a particular name to find out a woman's respective ranking more quickly. You can skip 10 at a time, but it brings you to a particular woman's page (at ranking #10, 20, 30...you get the idea), and the other nine ranked women on the page are just the numbers representing the ranks -- no names attached, so you can see the number five for the fifth ranking, but you haven't any idea who it is unless you click on the link.

Sure, it keeps the drama bubbling for a second or two, but then it just becomes tedious. I went through the whole ranking once, kind of semi-noting my favorites (Eva Longoria, Salma Hayek, Leeann Tweeden, Kate Beckinsale), but when I go to write a word or three about the list, I find I'd have to randomly search around the ranking number that I think a particular woman was at to find the page again.

Great job at either being stupid, or being lazy.

We need backups for our backups

I've been pretty silent -- that is, absolutely silent -- on the issue of catching for the Giants in 2006 thus far. The reasoning is simple. If I dwell on it, I'll scream.

There are some roles on a team that I believe you can get away with having some dude in a uniform: backup 1st baseman, pinch-hitter, and 5th outfielder all come to mind. But backup catcher isn't one of them.

Brian Sabean's non-move in regards to filling this spot is a bit mystifying to me. After all, this is a guy who seems to love making moves, even ones that seem unneccesary. I was reminiscing the other day about Reggie Sanders, who had a solid season offensively and a good season defensively for the Giants in 2002 playing right field, but was not brought back in 2003. In comes Jose Cruz, Jr., who was palatable offensively and stellar defensively in 2003, but also was not brought back for 2004. The two-headed monster of Michael Tucker and Dustan Mohr handled the right field duties in 2004, and both were effective in their roles...but again, were let go before 2005.

By the time we get to Moises Alou, folks, that's four roster moves made where one would have sufficed (simply re-signing Sanders). Not exactly a model of efficiency.

Another example is Dustin Hermanson, Tim Worrell, and Joe Nathan. While Sabean has hung onto the likes of Jason Christiansen and Matt Herges, both of whom were mediocre at their best during their tenure with the club, Sabes sometimes treats good relievers like hot potatoes. Worrell, Hermanson, and Nathan were good enough to keep (Worrell and Nathan after the 2003 season, and Hermanson after the 2004 season), and all were better than others who were allowed to stick around.

While I do see that all three might have cost more money than Sabean was willing to spend, let's look at two moves that were made for 2005 and think; LaTroy Hawkins and Armando Benitez. Didn't have much problem taking on payroll there, did he?

Wouldn't it have been worlds easier to just pay those players (all three of whom probably would have made close to the same salary combined as Benitez makes by himself) than go through all of this musical reliever crap? Not even to mention Sabean is doing it again with Scott Eyre, letting him go in the exact same fashion as Worrell and Nathan -- right after their career years.

Sabes, you can trade relievers after their career years, because their value is at the highest and you'll get something in return. But just letting them go because you don't want to pay them money that you end up spending on other relievers anyway? Just doesn't make sense.

Sabean, to me, seems to believe that the only thing that validates his presence as General Manager is moving players in and out, fitting pieces to a puzzle that ends up making a picture strikingly similar to the puzzle he dismantled the year before.

So, why the complacency with backup catcher? While I don't agree with many of the things Sabean's done, the only stupid move he's made was Alex Sanchez (although that was stupid enough for three or four other stupid moves of the normal variety). I'm not about to think he's going to let Justin Knoedler be the backup for a 35-year old Mike Matheny all season long, is he?

Both Knoedler and Yamid Haad amassed negative VORP's last year (Value Over Replacement Player), but I can see how one might pass over Knoedler's numbers given that he only had 10 at-bats to show anything.

But riddle me this -- if the organization believed Haad was the #1 guy behind Yorvit Torrealba, and believed it enough that they were willing to send Torry on his way and bring Haad in, what do they project for Knoedler after their #1 guy was so horrible? No, Knoedler cannot be any worse, true, but...

...is this over-confidence in Knoedler, or over-confidence in Mike Matheny's ability to play the vast majority of the season at a high level?

I think it's the latter, and I cannot help but think there's a very good chance that this could easily hurt the Giants in 2006. We all should already know that Matheny's offensive output last year was above his normal levels (and, by the way, notice how those numbers came back to the mean by the end of the season?), and there is. not. any. way. that. he. will. hit. for. that. high. of. an. average. with. runners. in. scoring. position. again.

So, anybody with some sense should realize the only direction for Matheny's offensive production to go is down, especially given his age of 35. Which brings us to another point -- games played. Matheny played 134 games last year, and a la Benito Santiago, saw his offensive numbers fall deeper into the season when his legs were no longer fresh. Does Sabes now propose to have Matheny play more games next season after seeing this phenomenon of old catchers getting tired late in the season for four of the last five seasons?

I guess that's the case, because otherwise he's trying to say that Knoedler can start about 30 games next year and be productive -- and that's 30 games if the 35 year-old catcher they currently have doesn't get hurt.

Seems an incredible stretch of common sense to me.

UPDATE: Thanks to Adam for this update, which apparently just happened a bit after I made this entry -- Todd Greene has signed a minor-league contract with the Giants within the last hour or two. Greene is 34, and has had some decent offensive production at times, although notably his best offensive years have been with the Rockies and Rangers, respectively.

Things make a lot more sense now than they did...oh, about three hours ago. Greene seems capable enough for a backup role, although officially he's to compete for the job.

Speaking of Mays Field...

Good ol' Aneel over at Trapped in L.A. urges us to sign the petition started by the folks at MaysField.org, which happened to be such a good idea that I not only signed the petition, but then put up a large link on that thar sidebar for all of you all to click on and sign as well.

The petition goes as follows:

While we wholeheartedly support the sponsorship and financial commitment SBC/AT&T has provided to the San Francisco Giants, we believe the time has come to honor one of the most beloved ball players of all time whose name has been synonymous with the San Francisco Giants franchise for nearly half a century.

We propose re-branding SBC Park as “Willie Mays Field at AT&T Park” effective immediately.

This new name will continually remind the rest of the world of our rich baseball heritage and honor possibly the greatest player in baseball history. At the same time, the new name provides stability and class for one of the most beautiful ball parks in the nation and allows SBC/AT&T to continue their sponsorship while increasing their visibility. For this reason we believe this is a win-win situation for the San Francisco Giants, Major League Baseball, its fans, and the new combined SBC/AT&T Company.

I couldn't have said it better myself, which is why I didn't say it myself, opting instead to let the much more eloquent (and much less lazy) Mays Field peoples take care of things for me. They're so nice that way...

So, why are you still reading this? Go. Sign. Makes so much sense that even George W. could grasp the concept (ba dump! crash!).

I saw the sign...

AT&T Park, eh?

...

..............

....................... .. . ... ......... .. ...

I agree with Lefty. Whatever.

Mays Field.

Steve Finley vs. Jason Ellison

Here we go again.

Last year after the Giants acquired Randy Winn from the Seattle Mariners at the end of July, I was a little peeved.

Brian Sabean had traded away a good backup catcher and a younger, although questionable, pitcher in Yorvit Torrealba and Jesse Foppert to get an outfielder whose statistics were hardly better than the outfielders that had been playing to that point...and added a few million to the Giants payroll in the process. It wasn't that the Giants didn't need outfield help -- it was difficult to believe that Jason Ellison was the answer in CF, no matter how much effort the guy put out. So yes, help was needed, but Winn's statistical pedigree suggested he would have minimal impact.

Instead, Winn came in and posted a 1.071 OPS over 231 at-bats during August and September, was the sparkplug for just about all of the offense that the Giants managed to scrape together for those two months, and played a decent centerfield despite having a history of playing a questionable centerfield and playing one of the most difficult centerfields in all of the majors.

Yeah, well see, that would've been my 2nd guess.

The situation the Giants have created for themselves this offseason by picking up Steve Finley for Edgardo Alfonzo in the Trade of the Unwanteds has quite a few striking similarities to Winn's acquisition.

For one, the writing is again on the wall for Ellison. Last year, the writing said, "You're not good enough to start in our outfield", which wasn't a bad thing -- I loved the guy's hustle and effort, and he came out of the gate strong last year when the Giants were figuring out that Marquis Grissom wouldn't do them any good anymore, but he isn't a starting centerfielder, to be sure. Now, though, the writing says, "You're not good enough to be our 4th outfielder". Is that true?

(sigh) Yes, it is, but only if you have a better option. Is Finley a better option? Yes, no, maybe.

Stats are tough to compare for these two, because of two extreme circumstances for both players: Ellison has really only half a season's worth of big league at-bats to speak to what kind of numbers he's capable of putting up, and while Finley has a host of statistical data to analyze, he'll be 41 years of age by the time the 2006 season begins. But I'm a glutton for futile efforts, so...

Ellison: 352 at-bats, .264/.316/.361, 24 BB/44 SO (.55 bb/k ratio), 14 steals in 20 chances, 3.10 p/pa (pitches per plate appearance...say that 10 times fast), 1.67 g/f ratio (ground ball to fly ball)

Finley: 406 at-bats, .222/.271/.374, 26 BB/71 SO (.37 bb/k ratio), 8 steals in 12 chances, 3.84 p/pa, 0.92 g/f ratio

I would throw in Todd Linden, too, but my oracle told me that Dan Ortmeier and Adam Shabala have a better shot to make the team than Linden. Linden's career path seems destined to follow that of Pedro Feliz. He'll get a real shot when he's about 29 years old.

I won't bother with any career analysis for either Ellison or Finley, because it seems irrelevant. Ellison's inexperience and Finley's advanced age dictate we take things one year at a time.

But how does that one year comparison look? Horrible, really. Both players were terrible, but Finley costs a lot more to be terrible. Ellison strikes out at a lower rate (one per eight AB's, while Finley is at one per every 5.7 AB's), but doesn't do anything else significantly better. Finley sees almost a full pitch more in a plate appearance than Elly on average, which is good, and also has a much more palatable g/f ratio. He also has a much better ISO power number than Elly (152 vs. 97). Stolen base % and their walk rates are even enough to call it a wash.

Defensively, Finley has the edge if one look at Range Factor and Zone Ratings, which I really don't -- Finley Range Factor is much better then Elly at 2.72 to 2.00. But Finley also had a better fielding percentage, which is something I do glance at: .985 to .974.

What does this all boil down to? Finley, statistically, was a slightly worse player than Ellison last year, but they were both poor enough that it hardly matters. It really comes down to whether one believes Finley's age caught up with him last year and he's incapable of performing significantly better, or that he's got another year left in him to put up numbers that at least approach his 2003/2004 seasons with Arizona. One could also muse as to whether or not Ellison is talented enough to improve, but since we all know that Finley will be the only one to get enough plate appearances to show anything good or bad, it's a moot point.

In any case, it doesn't look good. Recalling a few other names of outfielders still playing at 40 doesn't exactly inspire confidence: Willie Mays, Rickey Henderson, B.J. Surhoff, Jose Cruz, Barry Bonds (oh, wait, nevermind that one). Heck, the Giants can do an in-depth study on the aging process of older outfielders all by themselves -- Grissom broke down a little shy of 40, while Moises Alou is almost there. I suppose it's hard not to believe Finley might have a little gas left in his tank with the 40-ish examples of Bonds and Alou right in front of you.

Life as a Moron must be difficult...

I've been a moron on several occasions throughout the span of my life. Doubtless I will stray into that unique level of incompetence again, and probably within the next hour or so.

I do, however, strenuously avoid being a career moron. A lifer. Gene Wojciechowski apparently doesn't share the same level of concern as I do.

He threw out an article here explaining the finer points of why he would not let either Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa into the Hall of Fame.

Not a new argument, to be sure, and this article breaks absolutely no new ground in the discussions surrounding any of the convicted/suspected steroids users from the last 10 years or so. So, why read it? Because it's great fun to see people hang themselves with their own rope.

This is the part that really got me:

There are hitters in the Hall of Fame who likely used corked bats on occasion to add to their numbers. There are pitchers in the Hall of Fame who almost certainly loaded up the ball once or twice (or more) during their careers. But prescription baseball is a level of cheating so obscene, so arrogant in nature (and yet, conveniently ignored by MLB and the players union during glorious 1998), that it prompted a congressional hearing.

So, Mr. Wojciechowski is perfectly fine knowing there are other players in the Hall who cheated in other ways to unknown effect, yet draws the line at McGwire's and Sosa's potential drug use. Cheating is okay as long as you use guile, but not with drugs.

Excuse me. What the fuck?

This line of reasoning is so asinine I literally shudder to think there may be others who think this way. Truly, cheating is a black and white thing. Cheating bad, not cheating good. I don't care the form, and neither should he. Cheating is morally reprehensible, period, but now the steroid jargon has gotten so out of control that we have people saying that corking a bat to hit better or scuffing up a ball to gain an unfair advantage isn't THAT bad when compared to drug use...drug use that, by the way, wasn't even banned.

I refer to something I wrote in the infancy of this blog right about a year ago -- while steroid use is wrong and should be banned, and punishments for breaking that ban should be harsh, is it really that different than what us working shmucks do every day to get by?

Energy drinks. Coffee. Pain pills. We put things into our bodies everyday that just aren't meant to be there, and four out of five times we're doing it in a work-related capacity. Feel better, more alert, have more energy, all in an effort to perform at a higher capacity than we would have had we not ingested any taurine, caffeine, or B-12.

It seems to all be a matter of degree for Mr. Wojciechowski. Drug use is such a large commitment with such far-reaching effects that it apparently crosses a line with him, while marking a baseball to make it move in ways it wouldn't normally is a small, one-time commitment. Nevermind that anyone using drugs ~still has to work extremely hard to net anything positive from the drug use~, while a guy who scuffs a baseball doesn't have to do a damned thing except find something with a rough surface, hide it in his glove, and rub the baseball for a few seconds.

Sure. That makes sense. Let's be glad Mr. Wojciechowski doesn't have a vote for the Hall, and let's hope he never gets one. Besides, he's too busy being a moron, and that's a difficult thing to maintain on a daily basis.

Happy New Year!

If you think you detect a note of sarcasm in my writing the title of this entry 11 days after the actual event took place, you are wrong. You do not detect a note of sarcasm...

...say, rather, you detect a symphony of sarcasm.

The Forces of Darkness (to be referred to hereafter as, "work") are about to find their efforts to keep me from writing thoroughly thwarted (and yes, thoroughly is a completely useless adjective when used with a word like thwarted, because something cannot be thwarted by degrees -- it either is thwarted, or it isn't. But I don't care, really. I'm finally writing something again. So there. I'm even breaking an unwritten grammar rule by taking entirely too long to close off these parenthesis and get on with the entry. But again, care, me, don't.)

I haven't the slightest clue as to what's going on with the Giants, or sports in general, save that my prediction of a Carolina Panthers/New England Patriots Superbowl matchup is looking pretty good at the moment.

Well, that isn't totally true. I hear the San Diego Padres have signed Shawn Estes (insert laughing synonym here), and that the Giants are interested in Josh Fogg. Usually I'd jump for joy hearing that the Giants are interested in a pitcher like Fogg...at least, I would until I realized that Fogg isn't any good...which, honestly, I did as soon as I read the blurb, thereby curtailing any possibility of the aforementioned jumping for joy. Ahem.

Note to Brian Sabean: Sabes, really, it's okay to let Brad Hennessey and Kevin Correia battle it out for the 5th spot in the rotation. Hennessey has the singular distinctive ability to become a totally non-descript pitcher -- which is what 5th starters usually are. He'll also make league minimum next year, something Fogg won't do to be just as poor/mediocre as Hennessey will be. At least we've seen a number of quality starts out of Hennessey -- bringing in somebody like Fogg would be absolutely superfluous.

Correia has the possibility of developing into...er, something other than a starting pitcher, I think. He never shows the "flash" often enough; that combination of control, velocity, and stuff that people seem to think he's capable of if given a chance to pitch regularly. I doubt it, personally, but I don't think there'd be much harm in letting Correia have the 5th spot if Hennessey can't seem to cut it, because I think there's a good enough chance Kevin could show that "flash" about once every three or four starts, which'd be good enough for a 5th spot in a rotation.

So no, Sabes, while a pitcher named Fogg pitching in a place like San Francisco would reap untold amounts of cool points for the franchise, there isn't any reason to bring the guy in.

Oh, and J.T. Snow signed with the Red Sox. Doesn't that just fit? They got Doug Meintkiewicz (did I just spell that guy's name right on the fly?), who is the poor man's J.T. -- no power, all glove, lefty hitting 1st baseman -- but perhaps felt cheated after he played fairly crappy for them during his short tenure there, only to grab the last out ball from their historic World Series win 2 years ago and fight with them for it. J.T., of course, is the real deal No-Power-All-Glove-Lefty-Hitting-First-Baseman, so I'm sure the Red Sox's NPAGLHFB fetish is satisfied, and of course Snow will give any World Series last out ball back to the team and the city, because that's the kind of guy he is. J.T.'s got more class than a prep school.

Anyways, I should be bulking up the entries now that I actually have two days off in a week, and of course Spring Training is sneaking up on us like a naked ninja wearing socks (which would mean he wasn't really naked, but nevermind).

Yeah, that'd be about right...

So, Brian Sabean managed to find a way to dump Edgardo Alfonzo, not save any money by doing so, and managed to make the team older, all in one fell swoop?

Yeah, that'd be about right.

I like saying "Steve Finley, 4th outfielder" about as much as I like saying, "Edgardo Alfonzo, 3rd baseman". Which is to say, not at all. But oddly enough, I feel better. I mean, if Sabes wants to pay his 4th outfielder more than his starting centerfielder and his starting right fielder, more power to the guy.

Hey, does anyone think that he even looks at any free agents under the age of 30? Sorry, rhetorical question.

It'll take me a bit to digest all this, at which point I'll try to address the issue of whether or not the Giants are significantly better with all the moves they've made this offseason. Offhand I think they're better, but significantly better is the part that worries me. I mean, if you just put the names side by side...

Brett Tomko/Matt Morris
Scott Eyre/Tim Worrell
LaTroy Hawkins/Steve Kline
Edgardo Alfonzo/Steve Finley
J.T. Snow/Mark Sweeney

Let's really think about that. If you want to say the names on the right constitute a significant upgrade, I'm fine with that -- but I'll talk about you behind the front of your back when you're not looking in a mirror. Or something.

Hm. That list is just beggin' for some good ol' fashioned new-fangled statistical a-nalysis, which I just ain't got the time to do at the moment. But, I'm guessing if y'all didn't feel like waiting, you could mosey on over to that thar sidebar and find some folks who might have an extra minute or three to have done it.

Otherwise, gimme 7-10 business days.

Egads, that's a lot of money

I suppose I could make an attempt at a quasi-gloat, seeing as how the Giants signed the exact pitcher that I was thinking they would and should back in October.

Instead, I'll go for a wince. Of consternation. And a little hand-wringing, too.

Three years is the length of the contract given to former St. Louis Cardinals starter Matt Morris, which is a length I fully expected.

Twenty-seven million dollars is the value of the guaranteed portion of the contract given to Mr. Morris, which is a number I would've thought possible over a three-year span, but also would've thought silly.

I wanted Morris in the starting rotation, but methinks that salary figure is just too much. Did the Giants and Brian Sabean have much choice? Probably not, but we've seen how much Sabean covets proven veterans, "winners", and their ilk. He simply overpays veterans whenever possible, although whether that's because of a lack of negotiating skills, market pressures, or other circumstances is beyond my feeble ability to ascertain.

But while Morris was the "best of the rest" of the starters on the market not named Kevin Millwood or A.J. Burnett (which reminds me...Toronto!? What the heck is Burnett doing going to...nevermind), he just isn't worth nine million per year. His contract is valued at about three and a half times the annual salary Brett Tomko made last season, yet Morris isn't anywhere close to three and a half times as good. Better, yes, but is he going to give the Giants an extra 6.5 million worth of pitching over Tomko? No, not unless he duplicates his 2001 Cy Young, which saw him run up 7.7 k's per nine innings, a 2.01 g/f ratio, and a .685 OPS against, all of which are fantastic numbers, and none of which are numbers he came close to duplicating in his last two seasons pitched.

But, will he help? Yes, I don't think there's much doubt he adds stability to the rotation, which could run into potential issues with the youth and inexperience of Noah Lowry and Matt Cain, a possible skills decline in Jason Schmidt, and a fifth spot that has yet to be determined. I can see Morris being a rock of consistency in the rotation at the third spot. I can also see him experiencing a bit of a resurgence in SBC/Mays Field, as the left-handed lineups many opposing managers will throw at him should have trouble taking him deep -- most of Morris' pitching history has seen him give up few long balls (with the notable exception of 2004), and with him now in a park that kills most left-handed hitters chances of hitting home runs, I expect to see him continue that habit.

Interesting to note that as the Giants part ways with J.T. Snow and his Gold-Glove defense at 1st base, they bring in a pitcher who will end up having a lot of ground balls head to the right side of the infield. Not to say this was a good enough reason to bring Snow back, but...well, the platoon combo of Lance Niekro and Mark Sweeney had better hit enough to make up for the loss in defense, at the least.

So, with this large contract done, one can't help but think the Giants are all but done making any kind of major changes in their roster. I'm assuming they don't really have any money left after signing Morris, so big names are out. I'm expecting perhaps one more relief pitcher's name to pop up (who I'm assuming will be over 35 years old), and a 4th outfielder of some sort. I don't rule out another starter to take the 5th spot, but I tend to think that the job will end up falling to Brad Hennessey in some way, shape or form.

Take care, all.

Busy, not dead

Working six days a week sucks. Another ground-breaking revelation I've had is that it is very dark at night.

Wisdom just oozes from my very pores, I tell you.

My new job is going fine, but the commute I've picked up along with it is free-time prohibitive, to say the least. My eight-to-ten hour workdays have been puncuated on either end by an hour and a half worth of travel by truck, bus, and BART train (and about two blocks worth of walking, too).

Working in downtown San Francisco has its perks and is a nice experience, but I cannot wait until January when I will be working in a different location. If my commute was something like 30 minutes each way, I'd be fine with it. As it stands now...

...yech.

All of this means, of course, that the precious little free time I've had has not been spent here or on my Warriors site (which was a decent enough idea, but ended up being poorly timed). But, not gone, and not considering stopping writing, but I am for all intents and purposes simply too busy at the moment to do more than one entry per week.

So for those who still are visiting, thanks, and bear with me through the next month or so.

The Biggest, Little Boring City in the World

Reno. Boring.

Was there for four days, and the most exciting time I spent up there was the time training for my new job -- looking at instructional videos, taking little mini-quizzes on the training modules I studied, and getting to know some of the products we sell.

What about gambling, you ask? Well, I gamble down here enough, thanks. Slots have always bored me to tears, and I've never been into roulette, craps, Pai Gow, Let it Ride, Keno, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, being pretty much broke could have influenced my feelings about gambling on this little trip. I would've at least played some blackjack, but I know better than that.

No, just waking up, going to work/training, eating lunch, finishing work/training, going back to the hotel, eating dinner, and going back to the room to read a book or study.

In any case, that's a large part of the reason posting has been non-existent this past week, so hopefully that ought to change a bit in the next day or three. I'll throw in my two cents on Ned Colletti's hiring by the Dodgers in a couple/few days, although I will tell you that his defection doesn't exactly evoke strong emotions in me on way or another.

'Til then...

Cover the eyes of the children...

This can't be anything but bad news.

Tino Martinez is a free agent, and the sinking in my gut is paralleling Martinez' rise to the top of the Giants free agent 1st baseman list, I think.

Hey, you might call guessing, but I call it divination.

He's hits lefty. He has some power. He won't be expensive. He's old. He's won World Championships. He's from New York.

He's a veteran. He's savvy. He's salty. He's crafty. He's handsome. He was a Yankee.

And there is no way on God's green Earth that you could convince me that Brian Sabean won't covet him on some level.

Don't get me wrong -- it wouldn't be the worst move Sabean could make. If Martinez was guaranteed to put out the same production as last season (.249/.328/.439 with 17 homers, 49 RBI in 303 at-bats) in a platoon role with Lance Neikro, then I really don't think it'd be too bad. I'd rather have those Tampa Bay numbers from 2004, but then, I'd also like to win the lottery, too.

But he is 37, going on 38 within a month. While I realize Sabean has faith in the Fountain of Youth that has apparently been renamed McCovey Cove, I don't share the same faith, and I bite my nails whenever he signs anyone north of 35 years old.

(sigh) As long as he was cheap, I guess. Oh, yes, cheap. Think baby chickens. Cheap. The Yanks declined a three million dollar option they had on Tino, and the Giants should decline to pay him that much, too.

Two million, do I hear two? Sold! To the native East Coaster with the perpetual goatee!

You heard it here first, never forget.

Feedback

For all of you that visit regularly, let me know what you think of the tweaks I made in the coloring scheme today -- trying to make this site a bit more "Orange & Black" than it was before. Finally hunted down a graphic illustration of HTML color codes, and I promptly put it to use.

Oh, and it's very nice being right. The Cubs and Neifi Perez agreed on a two-year, five million dollar deal on Tuesday, proving that every now and then, I'm spot-on (I made note of the timing of Neifi's improved play earlier this year -- just as opportunity presents itself, Neifi starts playing better ball until he hits a payday and is exposed). Neifi's pattern of pay-and-play is eerie. Let's follow along:

• Starts in Colorado, where he seemingly hits well in a big-time hitter's park. Before the year of his highest yearly salary to that point (4.1 million), he's traded to the Royals, who played in a pitcher's park. Neifi sucked, his numbers dropped, and he was waived.
• Picked up off waivers by the Giants, Neifi put up some decent offensive numbers (at least, for him) for a while right as Rich Aurilia was going through some injury troubles and the Giants had no real 2nd baseman. Nevermind that his numbers didn't end up good at all -- he had made himself useful and started off hot with the bat, impressing Giants GM Brian Sabean enough to...
• Give Neifi more money. Going from a four-year low of 1.5 million in 2003, Neifi parlayed his spurt of hitting and usefullness into a one-year, 2.75 million dollar deal. After almost doubling his salary, Neifi sucked, his numbers dropped, and he was released.
• Picked up as a free agent by the Cubs, Neifi put some decent offensive numbers (at least, for him) at the end of 2004 and for a while in 2005 right after Nomar Garciaparra was going through injury troubles and the Cubs had no real SS. Nevermind that his numbers didn't end up good at all -- he had made himself useful and started off hot with the bat, impressing Cubs GM Jim Hendry enough to...
• Give Neifi more money. Going from a six-year low of one million in 2005, Neifi parlayed his spurt of hitting and usefullness into a two-year, five million dollar deal. After more than doubling his salary...is there an echo in here?
• (we'll leave this bullet-point for 2006)

But, c'mon folks. Isn't that...eerie? The guy keeps saving himself by hitting a little at the exact right times -- when his new team needs it most. He hits a bit, makes himself useful defensively, and gets a raise, after which his promptly starts sucking again.

And the Cubs fell for it.

Breaking Barriers

Wow. To say this shocks me is an understatement.

The Los Angeles Dodgers interviewed their first candidate for the vacant GM position yesterday. Let's break down some facts about this candidate, along with my shock level:

1. The candidate isn't White. (shock level of 5.1)
2. The candidate is Vietnamese. (shock level of 7.9)
3. The candidate is a woman. (shock level of 12...must...release...pressure...argh!)

The story behind Kim Ng's interview is here, and you'd better believe it's required reading. There will be a quiz later.

None of those three points above should be taken to mean I am against any of those three things in a MLB GM. Far from it. They are simply to illustrate my utter and complete surprise that all three of those things were true about one candidate at the same time.

It isn't as if she's come out of the blue -- she was Vice President and Assistant General Manager of the Yankees from 1998-2001, apparently, although this tidbit of interesting information must have somehow slipped by my network of informants. I've never heard of her before yesterday.

All of this causes me to root against her ever so slightly, however. Why? Because if she gets the job, I'll find it extremely difficult to root against her. I would want her to succeed. Thus, she can't get this job, but another one would be just fine and dandy -- outside of the NL West, please. This is the Dodgers we're talking about, you know. Wishing for the success of their GM would pose philosophical and moral conflicts within my being that I would be hard-pressed to overcome without risking my sanity.

At this time, the realist in me cannot see this as more than a PR move on the part of the Dodgers, what with bigger, more experienced names out there. However, the fact that she has been interviewed could be a gateway further down the line for either her or another woman to try for this type of position. It's only a single drop of water in the lake, but the ripple-effect is going to reach out and affect other things -- at least, one would hope.

Good job, Miss Ng.

Update: For those who might wonder what Miss Ng looks like, as well as wondering if there are other women in the pipeline to possibly become a GM down the road, go to this article, which was written at the time of Ng's hiring in Los Angeles. I now know there are two other women could become candidates in the near future.

Eye Candy

It's illegal in about 45 states to look this good.

Since I'm spending most of my blog-time currently over at my other site, Way of the Warriors, I'm obviously not spending as much time here.

But I don't want to neglect this site, so...Jessica Alba. Jessica Alba looking good. Enjoy!

I like gooooooooooollllllllllld!!!

Mike Matheny and Omar Vizquel are, once again, Goldmembers.

Wait a minute, that didn't sound right...

Up and Running

Alright, for all those who are ready for the Warriors Opener tonight against the Atlanta Hawks, you can read a bit of commentary by yours truly on the team and specifically, on the new contract of forward Mike Dunleavy that was signed on Halloween.

Check it out, Way of the Warriors is another place I'll be doing some sports writing. And since it's brand new, please feel free to use the comments section to let me know what you think about how it looks -- and, of course, any comments about anything I've written. I've put up direct links to player stat pages for a little extra convenience, and plan to eventually link to all mainstream Warriors info, so that after reading an article there you can jump to any point to delve further into the team or check on something Warriors-related.

See ya there!

Generally Managing to screw up

Something that a couple of other bloggers have touched on was the recent firing of Dodgers' GM Paul DePodesta. I made no comment because...well, they beat me to the punch. By a week.

But I did not know about Red Sox GM Theo Epstein resigning.

I'll touch on the former first. Firing a GM nowadays can't be seen as that big of a deal, especially after losing 90 or so games in a season. But this is the epitome of not only impatience, but has a hint of betrayal, too. What owner hires a guy, watches the guy build a division winner, then fires him after the very next season, disappointing as it may have been?

Sure, DePo made a lot of acquisitions that may have been head scratchers. But the Dodgers poor play this past season was not simply a function of having the wrong team -- rather, it was a function of not having the team DePodesta put together on the field together for long enough. Consider:

• J.D. Drew playing all of 72 games. Now, Drew's durability is something many of us (including myself) wondered about, but as far as the player himself goes, Drew put up the numbers he was supposed to. But it's hard to overcome the team's best overall hitter missing 80 games, right? Giants fans know a skoche about missing their best hitter for a while.
• Milton Bradley missing most of the season. Another player that was hitting well, but could do it for enough games to help the ballclub. Behind Drew and Jeff Kent, Bradley was the next best hitter -- and he missed about as many games as Drew did.
• Cezar Izturis missing time. While I'm not about to say this was a season-changing occurence in any way, Izturis too missed a large chunk of the season, and I'm sure that wasn't in DePodesta's plan.
• Eric Gagne making 14 appearances. I mean, are you starting to get the picture? While I'm not one of those who says a closer can make or break an entire season, Gagne is one of the best relievers around, period, and is one of the few who actually makes a significant contribution in terms of wins out of the bullpen. Well, at least he could've, if he was healthy.
• Odalis Perez both being injured and regressing. He missed 10+ starts, and wasn't the same pitcher as last season.

I could go on, but isn't that enough? While nary a tear has ever been shed by yours truly on behalf of the Dodgers, I'll give the DePodesta situation a confused headshake. One year removed from a division title, and with all of those huge injuries from their top players to contend with, there simply is no way he should've been fired. Couple this move with the firing of manager Jim Tracy only a couple weeks earlier, and there isn't any doubt that man at the helm of the Dodgers, owner Frank McCourt, has decided that he'd rather have the winds of fate guide his team than anyone with a plan. For any of us who've ever thought Giants ownership was poor in this or that situation, heh, complain no longer. At least we don't have that guy.

Epstein's situation is baffling as well. He walked away himself one year removed from putting together the team that won the World Series, and after a season that saw them reach the postseason to defend their title. Why?

Epstein and the Red Sox were in the middle of negotiations for a contract extension, apparently, but due to negotiation problems and other issues between the Red Sox front office and Epstein, couldn't come to an agreement.

I can't help but think that this is not only bad news for the Red Sox, but very bad timing, as well. They've got some flaws on their team to fix, a new trade-me-now rumour going around about Manny Ramirez, and now they're without a man to spearhead the efforts to solve those problems right as the offseason is starting to kick into gear.

The former Red Sox GM won't have the slightest of problems finding a new gig, I'm sure. Even if he doesn't take a job this season, I think it likely there will be another two or three vacant GM spots after the 2006 season.

Let's all hope the Dodgers don't pick up Epstein. That'd be...ewwww. Not good.