Last night I was watching the MLB Channel's Hot Stove program.....yes, I know that was my first mistake......and they had a panel of Harold Reynolds, Mitch Williams & Ken Rosenthal listing the top 5 teams in baseball. Of the 3 panelists, only Reynolds listed the Giants in the Top 5 at #3. The other 2 guys did not have them on the list at all. Are you serious?

Hello, McFly........didn't the Giants just win the World Series? Wouldn't that imply that they should at least be on the list? I've really got to stop watching these East Coast biased media bullshit.

I think we all know the answer to that question............no, he's not. Sabean went out a traded for him anyway. There is little chance that he is going to admit his mistake of moving Alderson for this injury-riddled quasi-bum. Sabean intimated in his press conference that if he can't get a multi-year deal done with Sanchez, he would exercise the $8M option to bring him back. Good job, Brian. Way to undercut your negotiating leverage there.

Anyway, the pont of this is not to point out the obvious stupidity of our G, but rather to pose the question: IF you're going to spend $8M on a 2nd Baseman, why wouldn't you do it with this guy?

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/10/discussion-dan-uggla.html

According to Ken Rosenthal, Renteria has signed for 2 years, $18.5M.

Rosenthal article re Renteria

I guess this means that:

a) Sabean has given up on the speed & defense mantra. We will have minus defenders at all infield positions and at CF, especially if the rumored Cantu-for-Sanchez deal happens. Look for the pitchers ERAs to take a jump upwards.

b) the Giants are probably out of the Teixera market (not that they were ever in it).

c) the Giants are probably out of the CC market (unless he's willing to accept less than the $140M that the Yankees have offered, but more than the $100M that the Brewers have offered.) Even at those numbers, not sure if the Giants can afford him.

At the risk of getting hijacked.......if you were the Giants GM what 3 moves would you make this offseason to get the Giants more competitive?

Personally, I would start with:

1) Eat the contract of Dave Roberts and tell him to consider being a coach. He might be useful schooling our youngsters in baserunning, but it fairly obvious that he should not be occupying a roster spot.

2) Try to trade Jonathan Sanchez to the Brewers for either JJ Hardy or Prince Fielder. We'd probably have to give something else in Fielder's case, maybe not in Hardy's. Hardy makes sense for us because he is young, has some pop and is a decent SS, a position we desperately need to upgrade. Fielder obviously has a lot of pop, which we desperately need, and is also young. We should have plenty of room in the salary budget to fit either of these guys.

3)Try to move Molina for some type of solution to 3B. Sandoval is obviously the immediate future and, despite Molina's whining, Bengie is not. Bengie will not bring us the eventual solution, but you'd have to think he bring back something better than the crap we've run out there this year.

....just why the flaming hell is Tyler Walker still doing on the team? Not only is he still on the team, but Boulderhead insists on bringing him in to situations where the game is still in the balance. Perhaps he's trying to just get it over with and concede the game when he brings Walker in....I don't know.

If Joe Castle was DFA'd, there really is any reason why that big tub of gelatinous goo shouldn't join him in DFA land.

Talk amongst yourselves. It's therapeutic.

Giants claimed Jose Castillo off waivers from the Marlins, Rotoworld is reporting. The Marlins are not going to pull him back. Looks like we have a new 3B.....a guy who couldn't win the job in FLorida over Jore Cantu.

Ugghhh!

I wrote to the Hall of Fame a while back expressing my dissatisfaction with their participaton in Ecko's defacement of the #756 ball (copy of my message below):

Department:
info@baseballhalloffame.org

Subject:
Home Run Ball #756

Question and/or Comment:
I am very perturbed that the Baseball Hall of Fame is participating in the very public "attention grabbing" situation with Mr. Ecko. As a museum, it should be about preserving pieces of baseball history as memorabilia. Participating in Mr. Ecko's scheme to deface the ball in question for the sole purpose of making attention grabbing headlines and making a statement about his feelings about Mr. Bonds is very distasteful on the museum's part. The right thing to do by the Hall of Fame would've been to inform Mr. Ecko that you would accept the ball as long as it was intact and not defaced. It is shameful for the museum to be involved in this publicity stunt. The Board of Directors of this museum should apologize to the public for getting involved in this.
==================

Below is the Hall of Fame's response:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your letter regarding Barry Bonds' 756th home run baseball which is being donated to the museum.  Thank you for taking the time to express your views and we apologize for the delay in returning a reply.

We understand your consternation in the Museum accepting this donation, but we strongly believe it is a relevant and important artifact that belongs in Cooperstown.   As an American history museum, our core mission is to tell the story of baseball history, both in the context of how it unfolds on the field, and also as it relates to American culture.  

As you know, the baseball from Bonds' 756th home run is being donated with an asterisk affixed to it. We do not condone defacing artifacts and would have preferred the baseball be donated in its natural state.  We were willing to look beyond that in this instance, because of the historical relevance connected to the baseball.  We will explain why it is defaced and what led to it being donated to the Museum in that condition.

In our opinion, the baseball speaks to many significant parallels between baseball and culture in 2007, some of which include: a representation of baseball fans' sentiments about the home record, for a one-week period in September 2007; a symbol of the adversity Barry Bonds had to endure in passing Hank Aaron to become the all-time home run champion, and; the passion baseball fans have for baseball history, as evidenced by the popularity of the online poll, in which 10 million votes were cast during a one-week period.

When this artifact is eventually donated and placed on display in the Museum, the entire story -- from when the baseball left Barry Bonds' bat and ended up in Cooperstown -- will be presented fairly and balanced with facts and not supposition: We share baseball history through exhibits and let our visitors interpret their own feelings.

Additionally, please know we have several other artifacts graciously donated by Barry Bonds from his career, including his historic 755th and 756th home runs.

We hope this sheds some light into our thinking.  Thanks again for sharing your opinion, which we value.

If you had the opportunity to acquire Miguel Cabrera but the price tag included Cain or Lincecum, would you pull the trigger?

It would seem to me, given the state of the Giants current farm system, that you'd have to make the deal. The Giants have other pitching prospects (although none in their class) that might be able to fill the void of Cain or Timmy departing. There is no one in the Giants farm system that projects remotely close to Cabrera's ability. You also have the factor that pitchers are much more likely to be injured than position players.

Thoughts?

OGC put out a poll with the following introduction:

"His statement, quote, was "Most everyone seems to recognize that the rebuilding of this team is going to take a long time. It's a process that should've started in earnest after the 2002 season."

Do people really believe that? That would mean that you are rebuilding:

1. the season after going to the World Series,
2. one season after signing Bonds to a huge contract, and
3. after two of the best seasons ever by a ballplayer, Boof either relegates Bonds to a rebuilding program that will most likely last to the end of his contract OR trade Bonds as part of the rebuilding program."

However, the way he summarized the "rebuild" is not the way it meant. The original point was not to tear the team apart following the 2002 season nor to trade Bonds, but rather look at the accumulated age of the 2002 team and beginning the process of accumulating young position player talent in the minor leagues so that it would be ready for the ML today and in the near future to replace the aging set of veterans that we now have.

Now that you know what was really meant by "starting the rebuilding process in earnest after the 2002 season", how would you vote now?

Poll

Should the "rebuild" - as I defined it - begun in earnest after the 2002 season?

48%

YES

12 votes

52%

NO

13 votes

25 votes | Poll has closed