Milestones within Bonds' reach

On Sep 21, 8:16 pm, Jonathan Bernstein <j....TakeThisOut@socrates.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> noogied....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote in news:1190427410.347616.177360
>
> > I don't blame this on Bonds one bit, but the Giants need to look to
> > the future and rebuild a team that is based on winning games, not
> > accumulating stats. This will take both time and money. Getting rid
> > of Bonds helps on both counts.
>
> How?
>
> JHB

How not?
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

On Sep 21, 8:23 pm, radiomd <radi....RemoveThis@outthere.net> wrote:
> In article <Xns99B2E29463906jhbsocratesberkel....RemoveThis@207.115.17.102>,
> Jonathan Bernstein <j....RemoveThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > noogied....RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote in news:1190427410.347616.177360
>
> > > I don't blame this on Bonds one bit, but the Giants need to look to
> > > the future and rebuild a team that is based on winning games, not
> > > accumulating stats. This will take both time and money. Getting rid
> > > of Bonds helps on both counts.
>
> > How?
>
>


Well, the Giants will score even fewer runs, so that will save time.


If the Giants can't figure out how to score more runs with 20 million
and younger players, they have bigger problems. Unfortunately this
may prove to be the case in 2008, but it still doesn't justify
bringing Bonds back. He's not the problem for this organization, but
at 43 years of age, he's not the solution either.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

On Sep 21, 9:05 pm, Jonathan Bernstein <j... DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> noogied... DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote innews:1190433306.068128.245060@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> > > I don't blame this on Bonds one bit, but the Giants need to look
> >> > > to the future and rebuild a team that is based on winning games,
> >> > > not accumulating stats. This will take both time and money.
> >> > > Getting rid of Bonds helps on both counts.
>
> >> > How?
>
> > Well, the Giants will score even fewer runs, so that will save time.
>
> I like that one.
>
> > If the Giants can't figure out how to score more runs with 20 million
> > and younger players, they have bigger problems.
>
> We already know that the Giants can't do that, and that they *do* have
> bigger problems. They spent plenty of money on Molina, Roberts, Durham,
> Feliz, etc. If they were saying "no more Feliz", I'd see the point; no
> more Bonds isn't going to help the team.
>
> At any rate. they didn't "spend" $20M on Bonds this year. They invested
> that money, and made a healthy profit on it.
>
> It would be different if Bonds were blocking someone, but he's not, and
> FWIW he won't be in 2008 either.
>
> > Unfortunately this
> > may prove to be the case in 2008, but it still doesn't justify
> > bringing Bonds back. He's not the problem for this organization, but
> > at 43 years of age, he's not the solution either.
>
> Now, that's true. But letting him go isn't going to help anything. I'm
> not exactly against letting him go, but as Bill James said long ago it's
> a trademark of bad teams and bad organizations to blame things on their
> best player.
>
> JHB

I don't think they're blaming it on their best player, but just
admitting that building a team around a single player doesn't work in
baseball. Bonds is no longer productive in LF, and cannot maintain
the number of plate appearances that are necessary to help the Giants
remain competitive. The Giants need to rebuild sooner rather than
later, and holding on to Bonds isn't helping that effort. The Giants
will never win a World Series with Bonds at this point, so what else
can be considered a good reason for keeping him?
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

On Sep 21, 9:21 pm, radiomd <radi... RemoveThis @outthere.net> wrote:
> In article <1190433306.068128.245... RemoveThis @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> noogied... RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> > If the Giants can't figure out how to score more runs with 20 million
> > and younger players, they have bigger problems.
>
> Sabean made it clear today that he thinks they can compete with pitching
> and defense. He also said that they might make a move for a closer with
> a recent track record, whatever that means, if one becomes available.
>
> So I'm not expecting very many of those 20 million dollars to be used to
> sign a masher. Up-the-middle guys and relievers is what our Sabes will
> be shopping for.


"Sabean made it clear today that he thinks they can compete with
pitching
and defense. He also said that they might make a move for a closer
with
a recent track record, whatever that means, if one becomes available."


Ugghhhhh. Their OPS is a cellar dwelling .704. Without Bonds it's
0.673. SD and AZ can get by on their pitching since their offense
does at least 50 points better than this garbage. The G's need
offense in a much bigger way than any team in the mlb right now. What
is Sabean thinking????
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

In article <1190433306.068128.245060.RemoveThis@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
noogiedunn.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:

> If the Giants can't figure out how to score more runs with 20 million
> and younger players, they have bigger problems.

Sabean made it clear today that he thinks they can compete with pitching
and defense. He also said that they might make a move for a closer with
a recent track record, whatever that means, if one becomes available.

So I'm not expecting very many of those 20 million dollars to be used to
sign a masher. Up-the-middle guys and relievers is what our Sabes will
be shopping for.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

In article <1190437024.142290.189210.DeleteThis@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
noogiedunn.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:

> What is Sabean thinking????

If he wasn't just blowing smoke today he clearly thinks that the Giants
can compete with Arizona and San Diego without a big offensive upgrade.
His assessment of the differences between the Giants and either of those
two clubs is that they have better all-around defense and a better
ability to close out games. Ergo...
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

On Sep 21, 10:20 pm, radiomd <radi... RemoveThis @outthere.net> wrote:
> In article <1190437024.142290.189... RemoveThis @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> noogied... RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> > What is Sabean thinking????
>
> If he wasn't just blowing smoke today he clearly thinks that the Giants
> can compete with Arizona and San Diego without a big offensive upgrade.
> His assessment of the differences between the Giants and either of those
> two clubs is that they have better all-around defense and a better
> ability to close out games. Ergo...

Oh my. He clearly has lost it.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

noogiedunn.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote in news:1190427410.347616.177360

> I don't blame this on Bonds one bit, but the Giants need to look to
> the future and rebuild a team that is based on winning games, not
> accumulating stats. This will take both time and money. Getting rid
> of Bonds helps on both counts.

How?

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

In article <Xns99B2E29463906jhbsocratesberkeleye.RemoveThis@207.115.17.102>,
Jonathan Bernstein <jhb.RemoveThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> noogiedunn.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote in news:1190427410.347616.177360
>
> > I don't blame this on Bonds one bit, but the Giants need to look to
> > the future and rebuild a team that is based on winning games, not
> > accumulating stats. This will take both time and money. Getting rid
> > of Bonds helps on both counts.
>
> How?

Well, the Giants will score even fewer runs, so that will save time.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

noogiedunn RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote in
news:1190433306.068128.245060@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > > I don't blame this on Bonds one bit, but the Giants need to look
>> > > to the future and rebuild a team that is based on winning games,
>> > > not accumulating stats. This will take both time and money.
>> > > Getting rid of Bonds helps on both counts.
>>
>> > How?
>
> Well, the Giants will score even fewer runs, so that will save time.

I like that one.

> If the Giants can't figure out how to score more runs with 20 million
> and younger players, they have bigger problems.

We already know that the Giants can't do that, and that they *do* have
bigger problems. They spent plenty of money on Molina, Roberts, Durham,
Feliz, etc. If they were saying "no more Feliz", I'd see the point; no
more Bonds isn't going to help the team.

At any rate. they didn't "spend" $20M on Bonds this year. They invested
that money, and made a healthy profit on it.

It would be different if Bonds were blocking someone, but he's not, and
FWIW he won't be in 2008 either.

> Unfortunately this
> may prove to be the case in 2008, but it still doesn't justify
> bringing Bonds back. He's not the problem for this organization, but
> at 43 years of age, he's not the solution either.

Now, that's true. But letting him go isn't going to help anything. I'm
not exactly against letting him go, but as Bill James said long ago it's
a trademark of bad teams and bad organizations to blame things on their
best player.

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

noogiedunn.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote in

> I don't think they're blaming it on their best player, but just
> admitting that building a team around a single player doesn't work in
> baseball. Bonds is no longer productive in LF, and cannot maintain
> the number of plate appearances that are necessary to help the Giants
> remain competitive. The Giants need to rebuild sooner rather than
> later, and holding on to Bonds isn't helping that effort. The Giants
> will never win a World Series with Bonds at this point, so what else
> can be considered a good reason for keeping him?

I don't know what "building a team around a single player doesn't work
in baseball" means.

I absolutely agree that the Giants shouldn't build around Bonds next
year, and they shouldn't have done it this year or last year, either.
But the Giants are going to have several players next year who will not
be plus players on the next good Giants team...as long as he's not
blocking anyone at his position, I don't really see how keeping Bonds
around as one of those guys hurts.

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

In article <1190437024.142290.189210.RemoveThis@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
noogiedunn.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:

> Ugghhhhh. Their OPS is a cellar dwelling .704. Without Bonds it's
> 0.673. SD and AZ can get by on their pitching since their offense
> does at least 50 points better than this garbage. The G's need
> offense in a much bigger way than any team in the mlb right now. What
> is Sabean thinking????

That if you bring Bonds back, you get, in addition to mediocre defense,
40 games of replacement-level play in LF. As good as I think Barry will
be with the bat next year (not quite as good as he was this year),
you've got to remember who you have out there when he's not playing.

The Giants are going to be bad next year, and they need a lot more
roster turnover than just Barry. But his high OPS number is a little
misleading when discussing his contribution to this team, since you
expect about 400 PAs from him next year, as opposed to the nearly 700
you'd get from a full-timer player.

-Ron
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

radiomd wrote:

>
> Sabean made it clear today that he thinks they can compete with pitching
> and defense.

If I remember correctly, the old Orioles formula was "pitching, defense
and three-run homers". Sabean seems to be missing one of the elements.
Can you tell which one?

1-0 losses are still count the same in the standings as 3-1 losses.

Smith
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach