LOL Matt Cain and Brian Sabean, hell the Giants in general

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
So Bonds was responsible for all those signings and such?

Wow.

I have new respect for the roid monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you are so retarded. The Giants had the best player, and possibly the most valuable player of all time for nearly 15 years and only made the playoffs 4 times, and the WS once. These are not positives for Giants management.

[prohornblower]

[ QUOTE ]
So Bonds was responsible for all those signings and such?

Wow.

I have new respect for the roid monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Bonds personally chose to sign Benito Santiago to protect him in the lineup.

[MrFeelNothin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Giants may be in worse shape now than any other team in the league in terms of the future...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sabean obviously sucks, but it's hard to believe the future is that bleak with Lincecum, Cain, Lowry and Sanchez.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is when this is your lineup signed for next year:

C: Benjie Molina
1B: Rich Aurilia
2B: Ray Durham
SS: ? David Eckstein probably?
3B: ? Pedro Feliz again?
LF: ? Freddy Lewis maybe?
CF: Dave Roberts
RF: Randy Winn

PS: Lowry runs real good and is really overrated by most Giants fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, If you have a staff you can patch together a lineup and be competitive, especially in the NL west.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it opposite day today?

If your lineup sucks that bad, it doesnt matter your staff, you have no chance. Especially in the NL West.

[hauchen]

God damn ... I've been a Giants fan for a while but I'm reconsidering my loyalty until they fire Sabean's dumb ass. This is getting ridiculous.

[onlinebeginner]

but according to mike and the mad dog sabean is one of the best, he jus messed up on that twins trade

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
God damn ... I've been a Giants fan for a while but I'm reconsidering my loyalty until they fire Sabean's dumb ass. This is getting ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he's got two weeks to work some magic and get something for all his bad contracts (minus Bonds and Zito) without touching Cain, Lincecum, & Sanchez.

This roster might be worse than last years.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
but according to mike and the mad dog sabean is one of the best, he jus messed up on that twins trade

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you imagine how good the Giants would be if they hadn't made that trade? Their entire pitching staff would be ++ and cheap. They would have been able to spend the Zito money on two or three + position players. They would be contending for the division every year for a long time.

[rwperu34]

Here is the deal. The Pierzynski deal has turned out to be one of the worst of all time, but I don't remember anybody saying it would be at the time. In fact, I believe the sentiment was that the Giants "won" the deal. This quote about sums it up;

[ QUOTE ]
It's not often you can send a right-handed reliever and two unproven prospects for a front-line, All-Star catcher

[/ QUOTE ]

Pierzynski WAS an all star catcher at that point. His WARP from 2001-2003 was 3.6, 5.4, and 7.4. Usuing Sporting Events favorite 3,2,1 projection scale, he projected to 6.1 wins in 2004 and was under control for three more seasons.

Nathan was a pretty good reliever in 2003, but let's not act like anybody though a guy who had his first good major league season at the age of 28 would continue to improve for not one, not two, but THREE straight years.

Neither Liriano or Bonser was ranked in BA's top 100 prospects going into 1994. Bonser's highest rating was #29 in 2002, so it was two years in a row he was out. Liriano's highest rating was #83 in 2003. Liriano wouldn't be ranked again until 2006 and Bonser would NEVER make the top 100 again. These were two very boderline prospects and hardly added any value to the deal.

I don't EVER want to hear ANYONE with HALF of a brain say that based on the projections and the state of the Giants that they would not have pulled the trigger on this deal. If you argue that you wouldn't you are either lying to yourself or a complete IDIOT!!

There are several reasons why this deal was a complete failure for the Giants. First, Pierzynski, a guy who was supposed to be their arb-eligible underpaid six win catcher turned out to be TERRIBLE. He was so bad and got along so poorly with the Giants, they didn't even keep him for his final two arb years. They cut him outright.

Second, Nathan followed a career path that is somewhat common, if you count like 1% as common. He was a guy with a 117:109 carrer BB:K going into 2003. He broke out with an 83:23 that season. At this point, were're not asking ourselves, "Hey, can this guy imporve three straight years and get to 95:16 by 2006?" No! We are asking ourselves, "Can we count on this guy to give us 70 solid innings in 2004 without regressing too far from his 83:23?"

The third problem with this deal was Liriano. As rare as the career path of Nathan was, Liriano is even more bizarre. He was never rated high by BA, which is a tools first rating system and he had TJ surgury at a young age. The chances of him making the majors was probably 25:1 at this point. Instead he becomes a top flight pitching prospect and has one of the best rookie years for a pitcher ever? Come on. Nobody saw that coming.

Boof Bonser is the only guy that progressed as expected. It took him three seasons to make the majors as a minor contributor. Even though he looks good now, don't forget, the bust rate is very high with guys like Bonser.

One more thing needs to be looked at here. Minnesota is one of, if not the very best organization at developing pitchers. There's no gaurantee that these guys develop on the same path if they stay with the Giants, and in fact, it's very unlikely that any of them end up as good as they did with Minnesota.

Ultimately, we cannot judge Brian Sabean until we see what he can do post Bonds. As much of an advantage Bonds was, he had his shortcomings. It's not like Bonds was violently underpaid, other than 2001-2004. The Giants have typically had a normal payroll and they play in one of the most competitve divisions around. It wouldn't suprise me if both the D'Backs and Dodgers had higher payrolls than the Giants at some time during the Bonds era. You also have to take into account that this is a team that has been in "win now" mode since 1993. That's 14 straight seasons of trading away prospects at the deadline and looking for immidiate veteran help in free agency.

All in all, it's most likely that Sabean is somewhere between slightly below average and slightly above average as a GM. We know for a damn fact he's not one of the best, but I also find it hard to believe he's one of the worst. We are just going to have to wait until the post Bonds era to determine how good or bad of a GM Brian Sabean is, if he even gets his chance.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Bonds was responsible for all those signings and such?

Wow.

I have new respect for the roid monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you are so retarded. The Giants had the best player, and possibly the most valuable player of all time for nearly 15 years and only made the playoffs 4 times, and the WS once. These are not positives for Giants management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fact check. Sabean took over in 1997 and the Giants made the playoffs in four of the next eight years averaging over 92 wins per.

After looking closer at the facts, I'm leaning very strongly towards Sabean being an above average GM.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Bonds was responsible for all those signings and such?

Wow.

I have new respect for the roid monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sabean mangled the vast majority of Bonds' prime years with old, mediocre players as he made mediocre trades giving up young for more old and mediocre players. How many competent GMs miss the playoffs TWICE (01 and 04) with the greatest player in baseball history having two of the greatest seasons in baseball history?

[/ QUOTE ]

The New York Yankees finished in third place in Babe Ruth's very best season.

In 2001 the Giants had more wins than NL east division winner Atlanta.