Milestones within Bonds' reach

On Sep 22, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Bernstein <j....TakeThisOut@socrates.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> noogied....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote in news:1190440923.805895.236530
>
> > On Sep 21, 10:19 pm, Jonathan Bernstein <j....TakeThisOut@socrates.berkeley.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > "I don't really see how keeping Bonds around as one of those guys
> > hurts. "
>
> > 15 - 20 million dollars per year.
>
> Which he easily generates in ticket sales. IOW, he's a lot cheaper -- a
> *lot* cheaper -- Durham, Vizquel, Feliz, etc.
>
> > Worst defensive left fielder in the NL.
>
> Unlikely -- the numbers don't say he is -- but if so, so what? He's
> overall one of the best players in the league, even with the playing
> time issues and the defense.
>
> > An inordinate amount of negative media attention for his illegal PED
> > usage and a record he should not hold.
>
> All of which seems to have no ill effects on the team, but probably does
> generate revenue. Call it a wash.
>
> > Inconsistent play on a month by month basis.
>
> Feh. No more than anyone else.
>
> > Can't play day games after night games.
>
> Covered already.
>
> > Is a horrible teammate.
>
> Almost certainly untrue. His teammates say he's a good teammate;
> there's evidence that he works with some of the young hitters to help
> them; and he certainly is a terrific example, other than in press
> relations.
>
> > Is rapidly dropping plate appearances when they count the most.
>
> Huh? He's mostly tailed off after the Giants were out of it.
>
> JHB

Guess you *proved me wrong* on all accounts.

At least we don't have to have this discussion any longer.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

On Sep 22, 12:26 pm, Brian Perry <bperry1....RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > In article <1190437024.142290.189....RemoveThis@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > noogied....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
>
> How many teams have 3 700 PA OF'ers? Bonds would go from being one of
> those to one of the other guys who doesn't get that many. He'd be
> essentially a 4 or 5th OF'er. Can you think of anyone better than Bonds
> for that role? (remembering that the Giants traditionally overpay for
> those spots).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Can you think of anyone better than Bonds
for that role?"

Can you think of any role better for Bonds than DH?
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

"radiomd" <radiomd.TakeThisOut@outthere.net> wrote in message
news:radiomd-DEF90A.11515322092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

>> 1-0 losses still count the same
>
> That's an experience I expect we'll have several opportunities to enjoy.

Why would the bullpen only give up one run?
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

noogiedunn.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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?
>


You just know a Brown Cow is forthcoming.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
> noogiedunn.TakeThisOut@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.

What's scary is that next year they'll spend that $20MM on 4 Pedro
Felix's and waste the whole $20MM.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

In article <LRfJi.32$P21.11@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
<JVV4sm DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> "radiomd" <radiomd DeleteThis @outthere.net> wrote in message
> news:radiomd-DEF90A.11515322092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >> 1-0 losses still count the same
> >
> > That's an experience I expect we'll have several opportunities to enjoy.
>
> Why would the bullpen only give up one run?

Strict team policy: you get 0, you give up 1. You get 8, you give up 9.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

noogiedunn.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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?

He's better at whatever price he gets than the other options available?
The money they save on Bond's isn't going into a few good players or
developing more home grown kids, it going into the pockets of the owners.

Don't be looking for lower prices because of the savings either. They
already know you'll pay the current rate and so have no incentive to
lower it. I suspect it'll even go up 5% or so. Bonds would at least give
you something to watch half the time.

This is going to be a god-awful team next year.

The wise move would be to sign him for a much lower salary (assuming he
really wants to stay) with the promise of trading him to a contender in
July so he has a shot at his ring. He gets his milestones as a Giant and
then moves on.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

Ron wrote:
> 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


How many teams have 3 700 PA OF'ers? Bonds would go from being one of
those to one of the other guys who doesn't get that many. He'd be
essentially a 4 or 5th OF'er. Can you think of anyone better than Bonds
for that role? (remembering that the Giants traditionally overpay for
those spots).
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

JVV4sm.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:

> "radiomd" <radiomd.TakeThisOut@outthere.net> wrote in message
> news:radiomd-DEF90A.11515322092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>>>1-0 losses still count the same
>>
>>That's an experience I expect we'll have several opportunities to enjoy.
>
>
> Why would the bullpen only give up one run?

Same reason as they would now: to spite me.

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

noogiedunn DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote in news:1190440923.805895.236530
> On Sep 21, 10:19 pm, Jonathan Bernstein <j... DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> "I don't really see how keeping Bonds around as one of those guys
> hurts. "
>
> 15 - 20 million dollars per year.

Which he easily generates in ticket sales. IOW, he's a lot cheaper -- a
*lot* cheaper -- Durham, Vizquel, Feliz, etc.

> Worst defensive left fielder in the NL.

Unlikely -- the numbers don't say he is -- but if so, so what? He's
overall one of the best players in the league, even with the playing
time issues and the defense.

> An inordinate amount of negative media attention for his illegal PED
> usage and a record he should not hold.

All of which seems to have no ill effects on the team, but probably does
generate revenue. Call it a wash.

> Inconsistent play on a month by month basis.

Feh. No more than anyone else.

> Can't play day games after night games.

Covered already.

> Is a horrible teammate.

Almost certainly untrue. His teammates say he's a good teammate;
there's evidence that he works with some of the young hitters to help
them; and he certainly is a terrific example, other than in press
relations.

> Is rapidly dropping plate appearances when they count the most.

Huh? He's mostly tailed off after the Giants were out of it.


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

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:21:55 -0400, Brian Perry <bperry1397 DeleteThis @earthlink.net>
wrote:

>noogiedunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 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?
>
>He's better at whatever price he gets than the other options available?
>The money they save on Bond's isn't going into a few good players or
>developing more home grown kids, it going into the pockets of the owners.
>
>Don't be looking for lower prices because of the savings either. They
>already know you'll pay the current rate and so have no incentive to
>lower it. I suspect it'll even go up 5% or so. Bonds would at least give
>you something to watch half the time.

They may think that, but with no All Star Game, no HR record chase, and a
bad team for next year, I bet you see a lot fewer season ticket holders
next year.
--
Greg Lentz
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

noogiedunn.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sep 22, 12:26 pm, Brian Perry <bperry1....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Ron wrote:
>>> In article <1190437024.142290.189....DeleteThis@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>> noogied....DeleteThis@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
>> How many teams have 3 700 PA OF'ers? Bonds would go from being one of
>> those to one of the other guys who doesn't get that many. He'd be
>> essentially a 4 or 5th OF'er. Can you think of anyone better than Bonds
>> for that role? (remembering that the Giants traditionally overpay for
>> those spots).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> "Can you think of anyone better than Bonds
> for that role?"
>
> Can you think of any role better for Bonds than DH?

Yours is a totally unrelated question. Sure he'll be a good DH, but that
doesn't impact the Giants since they don't play with one.

Bonds can be a far above overage 4th OF'er so why not keep him as such.
Unless you can identify a better option. This year that option has been
Ellison and Linden or worse.
 >> Stay informed about: Milestones within Bonds' reach 

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:12:47 GMT, Jonathan Bernstein
<jhb.DeleteThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>Greg Lentz <nodamnspam.DeleteThis@speakeasy.net> wrote in
>news:jphbf350os1717nhbirvpo7sbaddbcbulq@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:26:32 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone.DeleteThis@nowhere.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>noogiedunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>
>> Bonds hasn't generated revenue since he broke the record. That part
>> of his career is over. He's just another guy now, except on road
>> trips where he might draw fans in to boo him.
>
>Wow, I really disagree with that. If I was deciding on whether to go
>see this miserable team, I'd be *much* more likely to go if Bonds was
>in the lineup. At least I think so...I know that I've been missing a
>lot more of the games on the radio when he's not around this past week.

Since the record-breaking HR, I've had a very hard time getting anyone
to go to a game with me. The only game anyone has shown an interest in
for the last homestand is Wednesday, for the possible Barry
celebration. My guess is, people figure they've got years to watch the
likes of Lincecum and Cain, so there's no urgency involved, and absent
the young pitchers, what's left? I don't know many people beyond
hardcore fans like us here in asbsfg who needs to see another game
with Vizquel and Feliz on the left side of the infield. (Please don't
let those two be here in 2008.)

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