by Richard Booroojian, EEEEEE! Contributing Editor
Gregg rarely starts a seasons notes column with a thread from the Giants newsgroup, and he also rarely glorifies a troll, but I am now going to do both in the hopes of pulling off a cool (albeit long, wordy and probably cheesy) literary trick. Wish me luck.
Trolls, trolls, trolls. We have had a few in the Giants newsgroup this offseason, and several were actually pretty memorable, such as frustrating Noah (gone, but still wrong) and wisecracking Chester. Now, we have a different type of entity in ricky-o, whom I present in all his unedited glory:
"my baseball knowledge and expertise is second to none.now then the giants will have a dismal and losing season in 99 they will be lucky if they win 65 games.the reason being the NL west is much stronger and the giants dont have what it takes to win.case in point weakest pitching staff in baseball a cry baby and selfish left field superstar? who thinks hes above anyone on this planet.secondly the rest of the team sucks.who will win the NL west it will be between LA and SD neck and neck i give the edge to the dodgers.
"now i know this might upset some of you giants fans but you need to accept fact and stop dreaming reality is very sobering.my name is ricky-o mets fan extradionare comments welcome visit the mets NG you will find me there.also if any of you need stats or knowledge feel free to call on me."
Gee, can I also call on you for spelling, punctuation and grammar lessons as well? What is it about trolls? So many of them are horrible writers, which ends up being embarrassing for everyone except, probably, the troll. I hope that when we Giant fans go slumming in the Dodger or Mets newsgroups, we do a little better than this.
Anyway, the Internet being what it is, Jeff was forced to note "Funny thing is, I never saw the original post. I guess my Bozo Bin is so educated it already knows who to put in the file before I can even do the mouse clicks."
Anson replied "I thought this was only happening to me. Often times I'd see a reply to a post but never saw the original post. I figured I must have the worst news server around."
[Really, we are building to something here. Hang with me.]
John G. was also puzzled about this. "This happens to me too, all the time. I don't know how to use a killfile, or even if my machine has the capabilities, so I've figured that someone else's killfile is having its effects on the messages I see. Is this possible?"
Jeff replied "As for someone else's killfile affecting what you're seeing, don't worry about it. There is nothing wrong with your machine. Do not attempt to adjust your settings. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the text. Make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next few minutes, sit quietly, and we will control all that you will see and read. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your machine. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to...Gregg Pearlman's EEEEEE! page."
There! Did you see that? Was that a great column introduction or what?
John G. replied (to Jeff, not to my self-congratulatory comment above), "Man! That was a cool experience. Now I see. I finally understand it all. For the first time, I've given myself up fully to the power that I always suspected was there, merged with it, and... it wasn't half bad. Thank you for opening this world to me."
Giants fandom is always an existential experience. Welcome aboard for another installment.
All of these words of wisdom more than offset the words of lesser wisdom expressed above by ricky-o.
Scum-of-the-Earth agent Scott "Satan" Boras had been quoted as saying that Brown really wanted to play closer to his home of Macon, Georgia, and that money would not necessarily be the biggest factor in Brown's decision. That, of course, made it inevitable that money would be the biggest factor in Brown's decision, which more or less made it inevitable that he would end up with the Dodgers. To take care of Brown's familial responsibilities, the Dodgers threw in 12 round-trip charter flights a year for his family to come visit him. (Geez, he is going to be pitching there for seven years. [In theory. -- GP] Why the hell doesn't he just move his damn family out here? I'm sure Fox would pick up the cost of moving van.) Ethan also mentioned that Brown got some serious Star Wars memorabilia, which I cannot confirm or deny but which would not surprise me in the least (the Dodgers being owned by Fox, which distributes the Star Wars movies). I wonder if Scott Boras gets 10% of that.
Well, all of this does suck, but life will go on, even for the Giants. While the Dodgers are probably now the clear favorite to win the division in 1999, that preseason status did not help them win anything in 1997 or 1998. Brown is clearly a pitcher at the top of his game, but he is 34 years old, and at some point this contract is going to become a large millstone around the Dodgers' neck. Since most Giants fans had already figured the Dodgers were going to try to buy the division in 1999, we can only hope that they have piled on so much baggage for subsequent years that their dynasty (if one indeed does ensue) will be short-lived at best.
And, in the meantime, this raises an interesting question. Brown won the World Series with the Marlins in 1997, and made it to the Series with the Padres last year. Certainly the Dodgers expect no less this year, but has any player even made it to the World Series three consecutive years with three different teams? (Sadly, it won't be me who does the research on this one.) Let's hope that, no matter what the answer, Brown does not attain that status in 1999.
Brown's signing is the first shot from the 1998 GM winter meetings, which had not been held since 1993 because, supposedly, Bud Selig didn't like all the big free agent signings that occurred that year. However, the publicity from last year's expansion draft (with all the resulting trades, including the one that landed Robb Nen for the Giants) changed the Budster's mind. So, of course, the biggest news of these meetings is going to be the Brown signing. Go figure.
Well, having had my say, here is a big sampling of what went on in the Giants newsgroup in response to this news. Reaction was generally (though not completely) negative and almost fatalistic, with the main issues being what this does to the Giants chances in the NL West and what it means about the balance of power in baseball overall.
Eric led us off when he noted "Well, the Dodgers just bought themselves their best shot at the Division -- Kevin Brown. Probably the last place Giants fans wanted to see him end up. The amount of money and years is absolutely staggering, and there is no way I see Brown being as dominant in five years, let alone seven, as he has been recently. But in the short term the news is pretty bad for the Giants."
Gregg concurred. "He'll probably only go 15-0 against the Giants during that time, leaving a few games with 0-0 scores. Probably only beat 'em twice in that seventh year."
Eric continued "I guess we can only hope that [Todd] Hundley is a bust, [Devon] White continues to decline, [Eric] Karros and [Gary] Sheffield languish, and the general sense of disunity and infighting persist under [manager Davey] Johnson.... The good news, I guess, is that the Padres will now free-fall towards the cellar, the Rockies won't be any better, and the Diamondbacks are still at least two or three serious bats away from making a run at it."
Gregg countered "See, this is what's so awful: that the Giants really can only aspire to be the wild-card team."
Ron M. agreed with this assessment when he said "Maybe -- maybe -- he'll catch the Dodger (lack of) Heart Disease, but, unfortunately, he seems like the kind of player who could turn their other head cases around. No NL West championship for us next year."
Gregg has been worrying about this openly since the Dodgers were sold to Murdoch. "My concern is that you could replace 'next year' with 'ever again'. I realize how Chicken-Little-sounding that is, but I say it simply because the Dodgers are owned by Rupert Murdoch, and the Giants are owned by Some Owner."
I'm sure Mrs. Some Owner will really appreciate this comment.
[Nothing personal, Pete. -- GP] Gregg continued "I'm aware that Murdoch didn't get to be obscenely rich by making idiotic decisions, but he can sure take way more risks than Peter Magowan can, and the fact is, if the two teams ever go after the same player/manager/GM/other kind of personnel, it'll simply boil down to money, and it's not the Giants who're gonna be offering the more lucrative deal... unless the Dodgers don't really want the guy they're pursuing.
"I keep saying that soon enough, the Dodgers will be fielding the NL All-Star Team annually, and I've seen nothing yet that changes my mind. What I'm saying is, by purchasing the Dodgers, Murdoch has turned them into Goliath. The Giants are David. Nice if they could hurl that rock and bop the Dodgers on the noggin... but Rupe can afford to buy Goliath a state-of-the-art, rock-repelling helmet."
This is something that all of Steve Sax's first basemen could have used.
Tim I. had a cheerful thought about the Dodgers. "They've been touted to win the West for almost forever, and recently they've barely been a .500 team. Eventually, given sufficient payroll, even underachievers will win 106 games."
Anson suggested that Kevin Brown simply hates the Giants and asked "is there any surprise he signed with LA? In 1997 the Giants finally won a division title in, like, forever, then Brown's team knocked us out in three games. Then, last year, he figured that wasn't enough; he believed he could do better by playing in the same division and take the division title from the Giants. And now he says: 'I can do even better! I can spend the rest of my career with the team the Giants hate the most and screw the Giants 'til I retire!'
"I've managed not to hate Brown the past two years. I even kinda rooted for him in the recent playoff. But this is about to change in a hurry. His team will score so little runs for him that he'll want to bean his own teammates with 90 mph fastballs. He'll see sooooo many grounders through his infielders' legs that even if he shoves all his $15 million under their legs it won't be enough to fill the holes. He'll wish he never became a Dodger pitcher!"
Somehow, with all that dough, I suspect he will be able to find ways to overcome those disappointments.
Finally, we have Billy, who was openly rooting for his Braves to land Brown. "This blows. This is so fucking depressing I can't even muster up an 'e'."
Let alone an E. (By the way, this was my EEEEEE! Replay for the week.)
However, Giants fans being what they are (sometimes seemingly punch drunk, frankly, and I say that as someone who often wanders the streets mumbling during the baseball season), many quickly started trying to find a silver lining in this for the Giants. For instance, Jon R. said "Now that the Dodgers have Kevin Brown, Giants fans can hope that the Dodger dynamic continues... the squandering of talent due to ineptness and lack of team chemistry. It may be unlikely now that they have a good manager (Davey Johnson) but at least we can hope that a) LA continues to be chronic underachievers while b) the Giants continue making the most out of what they have."
Ron M. asked, "How many pitchers in the history of the game would it have been a good investment to make them one of the highest paid players when they are 38-40? [One] answer that I can think of: Nolan Ryan (and even he had serious leg problems his final years). Brown, it is reported, has a no-trade clause. The Dodgers are stuck with him, injury or not."
Rob Neyer of ESPN.com noted that in the last 30 years, the only starting pitchers (besides Ryan) who were effective into their forties were Tom Seaver and Phil Niekro, both Hall of Famers. Brown is not really in that category of talent (his performances against the Giants notwithstanding).
Dave carried this sentiment to the next level, saying "To put it in perspective, if Brown makes 32 starts, that's about $469,000 per start. If he throws 120 pitches in each of those starts, that's about $3,900 per pitch. It's pretty doubtful he'll throw that many pitches seven years from now."
Scrotti was also not too worried about the trade. "Brown will not have offensive support like he did in Florida and San Diego. The Dodgers' number-one problem last year was hitting and scoring runs, and they did not really address that problem. They have got a big question mark with Hundley behind the plate, an old center fielder (White) on his last leg, a good field, and a third baseman ([Adrian] Beltre) that is years away (even if he was any good). What are they gonna do at shortstop?"
Well, they still have the Vizzer.
"$105 million for a guy who will appear in only 32 games a year is not too wise. He went 51-26 the last three years. Does that justify $105 million and a Jet? Naw."
Hey, I didn't know Vinny Testaverde was a part of this deal! Isn't all the Star Wars stuff bad enough?
Ron M. had possibly the happiest thought on this subject. "I would not have been happy had the Giants signed Brown to that long a contract. Pitchers can explode in a hurry. Will Murdoch be willing to sink money into the Dogs five years from now, when he's got $15 million committed to a pitcher who probably won't be particularly good anymore? There's always a possibility Murdoch will pull a Huizenga: after paying too much for too many free agents (and driving up the whole salary structure of the game in the process) decide he's had enough and dump everyone so he can sell the team."
As for this, we can only hope.
Billy has been more upbeat about the Giants than most Giant fans have been (but then, he hasn't had it beaten out of him over the last thirty years). "I still think the division belongs to SF. The Dogs still have no one who gets on base except Sheffield (Hundley's a question mark). The Dodgers may have better starting pitching, but is it enough to make up the difference in offense? I don't think so. Brown makes it closer but I still think it's the Giants. Plus... I'd take Nen over Shaw any day, and I think your pen is deeper too."
My favorite upbeat post, though, came from Ethan. "Have the Dodgers been favorites before? They are almost every year, and it was always a glorious occasion to watch them fail to fulfill the hype. Now, once again, the expectations ride high. Will Brown make them a lock for the division crown? Certainly not! But, in contrast to previous Giants fans' postings, I do believe they've got an offensive presence [Well, the Dodgers are an offensive presence. (That was too easy.) -- GP], and with Johnson as their skipper, they were doing fairly well before Brown. We aren't doing so bad ourselves, though.
"What Brown does is, if not evident before, add a clear, concise sense of Good vs. Evil to our storied rivalry, which although well publicized, wasn't a very heated one last year. It will make our fans that much more raucous when we face them. It will add true purpose to our fight, and my perspective is that having him in our division gives us that many more chances to finally nail him"
Well, somehow this was not a benefit last year. However, I do agree that if he is around in the division for seven more years, we ought to be able to nail him at least once over that time.
Ethan continued "You see, my comrades, I've got visions of Bonds slamming a three-run homer off him, and Benard lining one into the right-field corner, scoring Snow, Mirabelli, and Estes while Brown hangs his head and shivers in the cold Candlestick night. We'll have our day against Kevin Brown, and we'll all go to sleep giddy that night."
Of course, writing this prediction now mandates that it will never happen, but the sentiment is appreciated.
"This is a much more enticing thought than a line drive to his cranium," Ethan concluded. "Since our two arch-nemeses are now so clearly aligned, with corporate cash as their binding force, the fruits our success will be that much sweeter in bringing them down! And their failure will be that much more invigorating."
In many ways, Ethan is clearly right. More than ever, the Giants-Dodger rivalry has become a clear dichotomy between wrong and right. The Dodgers are big and bullying and soulless. The Giants are the little engine that has (at least recently) tried very hard. It is very hard to see how anyone could truly root for the Dodgers unless they were an indoctrinated fan, because in addition to their long-standing organizational arrogance, they have now added a strongly mercenary element to the mix. That was not something that was as noticeably there during most of the O'Malley years.
Of course, there is always the Dodger fan's perspective. "First let me say something," said Mike. "I'm a Dodger fan and I hate the Giants. And for the most part, the Giants' fans. That being said; after the Dodgers signed Brown, I thought I'd get a good laugh by coming over to the Giants newsgroup and listening to you all bitch and moan, and believe me, at first, I wasn't disappointed!"
Glad we could make your day. As if it weren't already sunny enough.
"But after lurking in here a couple of days, I was suddenly struck by how desperate-sounding some (I had written 'all', but that's not true -- an extremely small percentage of you have at least an average intelligence level) of your posts have become and I almost began to feel a little sorry for you."
Uh, thanks. I guess.
"It may be somewhat therapeutic for some of you to be able to talk to each other about your mutual jealousy (i.e., fear, respect) of the Dodgers, but for your own good, get it out of your systems now before things really start turning ugly for your team in the next 10 years or so, as the Dodgers dominate.
"Call me a troll if you want, but I feel better now."
Troll (although at least a reasonably eloquent one). And it will never be respect or fear that we feel towards the Dodgers. More like repugnance.
Another Dodger visitor was Ricky (as opposed to ricky-o). In response to Jon's comment that "Now that the Dodgers have Kevin Brown Giants fans can hope that the Dodger dynamic continues... the squandering of talent due to ineptness and lack of team chemistry," Ricky replied, "This has never really been the problem. Our talent was just overrated. Luckily for you, Eric Karros remains under contract! Look forward to an exciting season. I'm serious. Brown is well and good; our offense still kind of blows. As a Dodger fan, I'm not counting you guys out yet. In fact, it's just tonight that I'm really counting us in."
Well, here's hoping that Ricky is right and that the weight of the Dodger's prior incompetence continues to dog them in the seasons ahead. I'm not necessarily counting on it, but we must not give up. It's our job, you know.
It goes without saying that there was quite a bit of discussion about the economics of baseball mingled in amongst the above discussions. It's important. It's topical. It's something that people clearly felt passionate about.
So please forgive me if I cut this part somewhat short. It's not that there weren't good points made very eloquently. It's just that when I spend too much time thinking about those facets of the game, I get so frustrated that my enjoyment of the overall concept of baseball is too greatly diminished. Part of the appeal of baseball is the fantasy that, "next year," somehow, your team will surely be able to win. Even after all of these years and in the face of all evidence to the contrary, I still believe deep in my heart that each new year will finally be the Giants' year. When I read so many logical statements about why that is not going to be the case, it interferes with the fantasy, and who needs that? Plus, behind every one of these compelling arguments, I see Bud Selig's (now finally apoplectic but previously complicit) face, and that really is something to avoid if possible.
Tim summarized the overall feelings of most pretty well when he said "I don't blame players for taking these contracts, and I can't blame rich owners who want to improve their team. This isn't about one huge contract or one wealthy team. It's about a structural flaw in the game which keeps getting larger with each offseason.
"It was once a crack; now it's the second coming of the Grand Canyon.
"I'd have no problem with deals like this if all the teams had an equal capability to make them, and if the bad (read as 'small market,' because more and more they're becoming synonymous) teams had a realistically equal chance of signing the top talent. Alas, that's not the case nor is it even close.
"I believe that all the other problems baseball has ever faced pales in comparison to this one, at least potentially. Neither the strikes nor the Black Sox discouraged teams market by market on a widespread scale. (I guess the '81 strike discouraged Reds fans and the '94 strike screwed Expos fans, but I digress.) This 'wealth gap' is only going to get worse before it gets better, and my fear is that The Powers That Be in baseball are going to wait until it's too late, until the 119-23 Dodgers pound the crap out of the 27-115 Pirates and the 29-113 Expos for the four-zillionth time."
Woody agreed. "True, though it's really about a social mindset that says any amount of remuneration, no matter how unspeakably grotesque, is merited and credible if you can convince someone to pay it. It's been said that Mafiosi are the greatest threat to western civilization -- much worse than communism was -- because Mafiosi are essentially businessmen so intent on success that they dispense with the rules that legitimate businesses respect. Baseball, I think, is essentially a self-regulated Mafia as is now stands."
Gregg said "This is a disgusting thing to say, but I swear, the only way I see for competitive balance to exist (which means 'the Giants to ever win the division again,' which matters way more to me than actual competitive balance) is for the major leagues to adopt a salary cap."
And we all just know that Donald Fehr is ready to do anything he can to help that idea along.
Brian countered with "I still think the solution to all this is for the smaller teams to gang up on the larger and remove the geographic protection that allows Steinbrenner and Doubleday to have the New York market, Murdoch to own LA, and the Giants and Oakland to share the Bay Area. Add a couple more teams to New York City and see how big-market they are.... Let Oakland move to New Jersey. And Pittsburgh. And Milwaukee. The New York area could support more than two teams. Then see who is best at running a team."
Well, Disney (which owns the Angels) is also in the LA market, but this point makes some sense to me.
Woody evaluated the issue from a higher level when he wrote, "I am wondering if the debate over what players deserve based on the profits their labor generates hasn't become so focused on percentages that it's lost sight of the decency issue. I am a nonbeliever (in anything, in case you hadn't noticed...), but were Christ to descend upon Earth today, ready to perform, say, 50 lifesaving miracles per year (as many as 70 if he weren't miracle-ing for average), what kind of money do you think he'd pull in? What would the prolongation of 50-70 human lives, and the impact on humanity (small-h or capital H humanity) that these would have, be worth in salary terms? My guess is (barring him concentrating such magic on the families of CEOs) not that much -- maybe a few million. Indeed, many doctors save this many lives year in and out, and they won't make in a lifetime what Brown will over the next half-decade."
Hell, using the numbers Dave computed above, most wouldn't earn in a year what Brown earns in a start. I would think many worthy people won't earn in a month what Brown will earn with each pitch. It doesn't really matter whether we think this is fair or not, but it is still a staggering thing to contemplate.
Now, there were clearly some voices in opposition to all of this sentiment (or at least not worried that the sky is falling right this second). Billy pointed out repeatedly that baseball has had a system of haves and have-nots since the 19th century. He also noted that many of the current doomsayers in the industry were the same ones wetting themselves with glee over the game's supposed renaissance during the 1998 season.
Ben H. was even more pointed in his impatience with this whole line of thinking. "All right, enough pathetic whining about being out spent by Rupert Fucking Murdoch! You were expecting, maybe, a Christmas card from LA?"
Well, I was hoping for something more in the order of a bonus check, but since I don't work in the Fox empire, I suppose the odds of it were somewhat long.
Ben continued "A team with a $45 million payroll can be more than competitive with teams with $80M -- if they are smart and spend their money wisely. The fact is, the Giants have about $15 million tied up in guys who are easily replaceable, starting with Snow, Hayes, Javier."
More than a few people were very upset with Brown himself for a variety of reasons, including the size of the contract, the seeming hypocrisy of his saying that he wanted to play closer to home and then signing with a team on the other side of the country, even the pettiness of getting all those free plane rides when his salary is $15 million per year. I suspect, though, that the two biggest sins Brown committed were being represented by Scott Boras, whom we all rightly dislike, and becoming a hated Dodger. Oh, and the fact that he has kicked the Giants' butts repeatedly over the last few years.
Jerry was upset at the nature of the contract itself. "I have generally supported the players in all sports being able to earn a high-than-normal wage for themselves because of the short careers of pro athletes. And I stood idly by and watched salaries get way out of hand. I remember when Bonds got signed for $43 million, I damn near dropped my breakfast the next morning. And this is my favorite team....
"I look at it this way: Merely having a player play for your team for a contract worth more than half the worth of the team is ridiculous. I'd like to see a contract like Brown's include the following provisions: seven-year deal for 105 million? OK... how about four Cy Young awards? How about 15 wins a season, minimum? An ERA under 2.50 for every season? How about some accountability for the money? (I know nobody would sign that deal... I just want to see a) salaries get back down to a level not comparable to the national debt, and b) performance 'incentives' should be built into the contract and not as a bonus)."
Anson also questioned Brown's motivations. "Any thought that the salaries in sports are not getting out of hand is beyond me. And Dan M. (in another post) pointed out that Brown played for five teams in six years, which sounds like nothing but greed to me. Either that or he's doing a lousy job of figuring out which team is closer to his home."
But, as Gregg pointed out "I know I don't like the way things are with baseball right now, but I don't know how to fix them. I agree... that the dollar figures are ludicrous, and I sort of waffle when trying to figure out who to blame. At this moment in time, I don't blame the players for accepting these offers as much as I blame the owners for making them. On the other hand, I do realize that it's not as though the owners come up with these deals spontaneously -- i.e., without 'helpful suggestions' from the players.
"Another thing is, as much as I try to put things in perspective in terms of baseball, I really have trouble with the money entertainers make in comparison with people in other occupations, mostly education and medicine. I really have trouble with the idea of, say, someone making twenty grand getting really upset because his favorite player is making $10 million, but some other player who's not quite as good is making $13 million."
And then there was Billy, who said "I know how bad this sucks, but you can't blame the man for not turning down this deal. The financial security of all his future generations is now assured. They gave him everything shy of free sexual favors with Tori Spelling."
To which Greg L. replied "The good news for him is now he can afford whatever her going rate is."
[Memo to Tori Spelling's attorney: This is a joke. Not slander. First amendment and all that. Not to mention that there might possibly be some germ of truth in it.
And, if you insist on a lawsuit, the editor's name is spelled G-r-e-g-g-P-e-a-r-l-m-a-n. -- RB]
[That's with three G's. -- GP]
If baseball is to just become another type of business, then Jason locked in on the inevitable ultimate result: "When are the Dodgers and Braves going to merge? I bet it leads to 50% layoffs.
"Ted Turner: 'In order to remain competitive in the global baseball market, Rupert and I have put aside our differences and merged our two franchises. We find that our particular strengths complement each other and position us for the new millennium.'"
Billy responded "Hah! The merger of the Dodgers and Braves would be like those matter/antimatter engines on the Enterprise which operate via massive explosions...
"... That wouldn't have been your point, would it?"
And then, after a moment of reflection, he added "Well, just so we don't end up with the lame-ass soccer team."
Seth noted "Well, that's a lot of dead weight more or less officially dropped right now. I would've entertained the thought of Hershiser coming back for a significantly reduced salary, but -- unless Sabean has some other old retread in mind -- it seems like they might actually go with a little more youth in the rotation. Imagine that.... Although it seems kind of wrong for Orel to end his career in a Devil Rays uniform, them's the breaks. And I ain't complainin'."
So ends the Orel Hershiser era with the Giants, just one year after he declared that he wanted to finish his career with the Giants and retire to live in the Bay Area. Now granted, it was the Giants' decision not to pick up his $3 million option for 1999, but once they did not, apparently Orel never responded to any of the subsequent offers the team made to try to bring him back and has now decided he wants to end his career closer to his family in Florida.
That's okay, both for him and for the Giants. I think Orel had an okay season last year, and the team was not noticeably worse off for having had him in the rotation. However, I have no problem with the Giants looking elsewhere for the fifth starter (with Shawn Estes, Kirk Rueter, Mark Gardner, and Russell Ortiz holding down the first four slots). Or better yet, as Grant suggested in response to the notion of looking for a fifth starter, "I'd settle for a first starter."
Sorry, Grant. Only the Dodgers and the Diamondbacks (with Randy Johnson) get to have one of those out West this year.
Woody was a little muted in his feelings on Orel. "I do not view the prospect of a 1999 season sans dysfunctional nad in the rotation (and you know who you are, Orel) as a horrid thing. Damned near slap-happy, I am."
Well, Woody's happiness is very near and dear to all of our hearts, so perhaps this is a very good move in that regard. However, as Ron M. noted, there still is the little matter of the hole in our rotation. "For all the talk of us winning 90 games or so next year, the departure of Orel leaves a big hole. No, no one was thrilled with his late-season numbers, but there was a month or two when he was unhittable. Right now our rotation is Estes (hurt last year), Gardner (old), Ortiz (inexperienced) and Rueter (solid, but can't carry a rotation). Not to sound alarmist or anything, but, first, that's a man short, assuming everybody stays healthy (which isn't a given) and second, well, what are the odds of everyone staying healthy? Darwin and Hershiser ate up a lot of innings last year. Who's going to cover those innings?"
Carlos added "I looked, and you're right, 350 innings. That's almost 39 complete games."
Well, some innings are better than others. I am not too worried about covering the Darwin innings, very few of which really made my heart sing.
Grant suggested "Chris Brock had good strikeout-to-walk and strikeouts-per-nine-innings ratios in [AAA] Fresno. He should be as productive as a May-less Hershiser, at least."
Ron M. continued "[Jason] Grilli may be ready by midseason, but experience tells us it's a bad idea to expect a rookie to carry major innings for a team. Sure, sometimes it works out, but sometimes it doesn't, especially in a pennant race. Personally, I'd like to see Grilli broken in slowly, without the pressure of having to start and win every fifth day to keep the team on pace for the playoffs."
I guess this is right, but part of me thinks that the young pitchers of the Giants don't necessarily come around any faster when they are brought up carefully. Ortiz was thrown into the fire last year, and it didn't seem to hurt him, but for all that he didn't necessarily help the team all that much in the race. I say there comes a point when you need to let the young fellows take a shot at it and see what they've got. Having said all that, I would still give Brock a long look, just because he may have enough to be a decent starter and he is there right now.
With the winter meetings in session, trade rumors and proposals are in full force, and certainly the Giants' pitching situation generates a lot of speculation. Ethan suggested that the Giants look to trade for Arizona's Omar Daal. "He was great last year, in his first as a starter, and with an ERA below 3.00 was victimized by a terrible Arizona offense which forced his record to 8-12. They're looking to trade either him or [Bryan] Anderson.
"Brock deserves a serious shot, but a trade for a good #5 (Daal) would benefit us even more by allowing us to move Brock to middle relief to either complement or replace Tavarez."
Well, the Giants have been actively trading with the Diamondbacks for relief pitchers (first Alan Embree and now Felix Rodriguez, whom we will discuss in a moment). Daal last year was indeed 8-12 with a 2.88 ERA, 132 strikeouts, 51 walks and 3 complete games over 162-2/3 innings. Anderson was 12-13 with a 4.33 ERA, 95 strikeouts, 24 walks and 2 complete games over 208.0 innings. Either would be interesting, but certainly neither would be a real stud to add to the rotation.
Jesse offered another suggestion. "Allen Watson was designated for assignment by the Angels today. Is he someone worth bringing into camp as a possible fifth starter or even as a long reliever?"
Grant demurred. "I do believe he has burned all of his bridges in San Francisco. He threatened Dusty, albeit somewhat in a rhetorical manner, and is generally regarded as Juden-lite.
"I wouldn't be too good at relating the quote word for word, but it was during a radio interview, right before the Anaheim series. It was something like, 'Yeah, I'm gonna get Dusty, and all those guys. Dusty's gonna pay....' He sounded as if he had taken a bong hit after chasing a Valium down with Jaegermeister."
I thought Allen Watson was useless and irritating his the first time around here. I have no desire to see his tired act again. But the final word on this one comes from Alex T., who said "An Angel fan here -- don't waste your time -- he is toast!" Works for me.
One Giant player rumored to be on the trading block is Stan Javier. Randy reported that "The Seattle PI reported... that the Mariners have inquired into trading for Stan Javier. Any thought on who the Giants might want for him? I was thinking that trading him for a couple of prospects would be good. The Mariners really don't have anyone that they probably are willing to give up that I would want. The players they are looking to deal are: Russ Davis, Bobby Ayala, David Segui (for a price), and a couple of their pitching prospects (not Ryan Anderson though), and Ken Cloude. I would not mind Ayala actually as I think getting out of Seattle would help him; he has the stuff to be a decent bullpen setup man."
I guess I could see this happening, mostly because Brian Sabean seems to be intent on tinkering with the bullpen this year to the exclusion of all else. John G. had a different take, though. "Just the thought that Seattle might be interested in trading for one of our backups has me salivating. Seattle is the charitable organization that gave us Estes for Torres, and also gave us Wilson Delgado [in the same trade]. Make up your wish list, Gigantes, and scan the Seattle farm system for their next underrated prospect. Maybe we can have a nice Christmas courtesy of the Mariners. All for the cost of a streaky-hitting, good-fielding spare outfielder."
Grant said "The Seattle farm system is in a bad way, so I don't know what we could unearth there. Ayala would probably be the best option, as we need another problem righty to round out the pen. I like Javier, and would prefer to keep him, but Ayala plus a low-level prospect would be a good deal."
Randy noted "The M's have said that Ayala will never pitch in a Mariner uniform again. He is due to make $1.3 mill though. I like the idea of trading Javier for Ayala or for a couple of their pitching prospects (contrary to most beliefs the M's do have four or five good pitching prospects, but two are untouchable: Meche and Anderson)."
But Mike (a different Mike than our Dodger friend above, I should note) holds Ayala in very low regard. "Ayala ain't nothin' more than Jose Mesa Jr., so get used to the idea of a number of games ending with bases-loaded walks. A packaging of Javier for one of the Mariners starters (Jamie Moyer perhaps) would be much more preferable... realistically speaking."
One other rumor of note involves Charlie Hayes. Eric pointed out that "it is now reported that Boston wants Charlie Hayes. Any ideas on who they might be able to offer? Clearly if Hayes goes then Javier stays, either way saving some bucks. Prefer to keep Hayes, but Boston is hurting for some power and a first baseman, so maybe Sabes can get a steal on this one."
Andy replied "I'd say that we might be able to get a young pitcher kinda-prospect from the BoSox, as they seem to have quite a few. Off of the top of my head: [Brian] Rose, [Derek] Lowe, [Robinson] Checo and probably some others. I'd trade Javier and Hayes for Lowe and a minor leaguer."
Perhaps the most interesting idea to solve the fifth starter problem came from Carlos. "Since we have all these arms lying around, I'd like to try a 'Frankenstein' fifth starter, where relievers go two to three innings a piece on the fifth day. Just for fun, mind you."
Jason added "That's not too different from something LaRussa tried for about ten minutes in Oakland. How did it go? He wanted three pitchers to pitch the first through third, fourth through sixth, and seventh through ninth innings, or something?"
As I recall, this failed in some respects because the A's didn't even have three good pitchers to throw back to back to back.
Gregg weighed in with these thoughts. "I've often thought over the years that a pitching staff consisting entirely of relievers would be, at least, an interesting experiment. I would envision a rotation in which some pitchers would have set days to throw -- maybe on two or three days' rest -- and others would be used as needed.
"What LaRussa tried -- well, I thought it was intriguing, and I'm convinced that it didn't work not because it was stupid, but because players come to expect to be treated a certain way -- namely, starters expect not to be removed after, say, four innings of shutout ball, because they want to get that W... contract negotiations, you know."
This is absolutely right. Scott Boras simply could not allow this to happen, as it might cut down on his agent commissions. Of course, in some ways, the idea of having three relievers work every fifth day as proposed by Carlos is not all that different from the way Dusty does things now, except that Dusty usually uses five or six relievers instead of three.
Well, all of this speculation is fun, but the guess here is the Giants will not land another starter and will try to make do from within. If nobody pans out in spring training, they will try to pick up someone from the waiver wire (as they did with Gardner a few years back).
Unless, of course, they do something else. If it involved landing Roger Clemens or the like, I certainly wouldn't complain.
"Didn't he get the Diamondbacks' first ever save?" asked Ben F. "Against our Giants? I hate him already."
Carlos confirmed this fact and provided us with some additional information. "He got that save against us last year, which led to the Diamondbacks' first win in history, so maybe that's why we got him. I heard he lost his 'closer edge' and melted down as the season went on. Here are his 1998 numbers:
G GS IP H R ER HR BB SO W L S ERA 43 0 44.0 44 31 30 5 29 36 0 2 5 6.14"Don't show much to be proud of. His base on balls are bad, but if he screws his head back on, he may be a decent acquisition. I think he was a 'power' pitcher from what I remember. Felix is a cool name, though." [Just ask my sister-in-law's husband, Felix. -- GP]
Grant mused "Hmm, almost a walk per inning... sounds like a good fit. I know he was originally supposed to be the Diamondbacks' closer last year, so he probably has a higher ceiling than your average journeyman righty. I'm a little concerned about the clumps of Arizona's bullpen finding their way over to our team, but as long as Sabean doesn't give up a real prospect for Felix, this is a low risk/high reward move.
"I'd think of him as Mel Rojas without the salary."
Andy was more upbeat about the move. "I've gotta say that I'm pretty happy with this. From what I remember, he came from another organization (Marlins) before going to the Diamondbacks and had a ton of potential this time two years ago. Maybe we can straighten him out like Estes and get him to reach his peak. If not, no big deal. Most teams have one reliever that is a risk during spring training, and I'll take our chances with someone that is young and could be very good."
Henry Schulman in the San Francisco Chronicle had the following observations: "[Giants' pitching coach Ron] Perranoski believes Rodriguez is a great acquisition. Perranoski was the Dodgers' pitching coach when they converted Rodriguez from a catcher to a pitcher because of an arm that can fire the ball upward of 100 mph.
"'I love that arm. He can flat explode the ball,' Perranoski said. 'I know exactly what his problem is. He drops his arm and the ball flies all over the place. That also flattens out his breaking ball. That's what we'll work on in spring training. The question is, can he make the adjustments?'
"Rodriguez will enter a battle for the Giants' right-handed setup job. He is the second Diamondbacks reliever traded to the Giants this winter, joining left-hander Alan Embree, who also had pitching problems in Arizona. Last week, the Giants signed right-hander Greg Hansell, who has bounced among five organizations in four years, and Bronswell Patrick, who pitched in the minors for 10 years before the Brewers finally gave him a shot last season."
Well, the sum of all of these guys doesn't sound like it would replace one Steve Reed, but at least Dusty has a lot of arms to play with in the bullpen now. Lord knows he will use them all and then some.
I received the following e-mail from Jonathan. "I'm having difficulty posting, so I have to let you know through mail, but I wanted to make sure you knew about: Kansas Royals -- Signed free agent infielder Rey Sanchez, who had been with the San Francisco Giants, to a one-year contract."
Gregg also posted the same news to the Giants newsgroup under the heading "Richard: You may now wet yourself with joy."
First, my reaction, which is: Yes, there is a God! Of course, it is now preordained that the Royals will win the Series this year on the strength of a Rey Sanchez home run, but, since he would never have done it with the Giants, that is really of small concern to me. In the meantime, I don't have to watch him play anymore, and which was of much bigger concern. (For the record, though, I did remain dry. Got it, Gregg?)
Both of the above messages did give me pause to consider how my reputation these days has become somewhat wrapped up with my dislike for Rey Sanchez the ballplayer (which I feel, for the record, mostly because he seemed to do more stupid things with the bat and on the bases than any player I have seen in a Giants' uniform in recent years). I have expressed my feelings about him in vivid enough terms that two different people, one of whom I have only met once and the other just a handful of times, both thought of me when this news came down.
Now, I'm not writing this so I can talk about myself (which I would, mind you, if there were anything interesting to say), but rather because it is an interesting example about how participants in a group like this become familiar with each other over time. I suppose each person who ends up spending time in a group like the Giants newsgroup eventually comes to define him- or herself in some fashion by what he or she chooses to expound. For me, it has come down to Rey Sanchez, at least to Gregg and Jonathan. (Others, I suppose, still look at me as someone who writes goofy jokes instead of actually talking about baseball.) In any case, though, someone who I have never or rarely met in person has an opinion of me, simply based on the words I have written. It is kind of a sobering thought.
Now, this goes both ways, especially with some of the newsgroup regulars who have been at it for awhile. I still usually think of Jonathan whenever I see Glenallen Hill's name, for no other reason than he used a "Release Glenallen Hill now" signature file during most of 1997. Grant comes to mind whenever my family goes to an Outback Steakhouse (seriously) because for a time he put their advertising slogan in his sig. file. Maybe the craziest association I have is of Greg L. to the words "oh please"; I don't even think he invented the phrase, but once I wrote about him typing it 27 million times during a pennant race and now the two are permanently locked together in my mind.
(And how strange is it that I remember that "Sam's" name is really Carlos, but that he uses Sam because his middle name is Francisco and Sam Francisco sounds like... well, you know? [The main alien character on Alien Nation? -- GP)
All of this means nothing, of course, except perhaps to distract us from the Kevin Brown news, but I suppose there is a lesson in there somewhere about perceptions and all that. People remember what you have to say. So, if you plan to run for president someday, you may want to think a little more about what you type in here. And learn to spell. Got it, ricky-o?
And, of course, he did not include the Giants.
John W. thus posted the following excellent addendum, which I will quote in full with pleasure.
"Just for fun, I have liberally edited Rob Neyer's Franchise Excellence Points (FEP) column about the Cardinals on ESPN.com to include the Giants, and I was surprised they fared so well. Of course, I realize the Giants have been very quiet since the '60s and have won zero titles in San Francisco (and only five overall -- they were destined to lose to the Yanks every year in the World Series) but I wanted to play the game. I even limited the Giants to one 'immortal' (Willie Mays)."
[From here on, he is paraphrasing Neyer's column, just for the record. -- RB]
"First, there's winning. Let's assign one 'Franchise Excellence Point' (FEP) for each percentage point over .500.
"The Giants, for example, are 9,403-8,050 since their inception, which works out to a .539 winning percentage. So that's 38 FEPs for the Giants. [Well, 39, really. -- GP] Here are all the teams:
Team W L Pct FEP Yankees 8394 6426 .566 66 Giants 9403 8050 .539 39 Dodgers 8693 7915 .523 23 Cardinals 8251 8118 .504 4 Athletics 7212 7868 .478 -22"Great franchises also win pennants, which of course is related to winning in the regular season. Let's award two FEPs for every league or division title. World Series are important, too, so we'll give one additional FEP for each World Championship. The Giants have 16 League titles, five World Series titles, and three division titles without a NL pennant (1971, 1987, 1997):
Team W L FEP Yankees 34 23 91 Dodgers 22 6 50 Athletics 19 9 47 Giants 19 5 43 Cardinals 17 9 43"There's more to baseball than winning, of course. Baseball is built on a foundation of legend, so we should take the game's legendary figures into account, too. How about looking at Hall of Famers, defined here as players, managers, or executives who spent most of their career with one of the teams in question? And some Hall of Famers, the true legends, should get extra credit. We'll assign one FEP for each Hall of Famer, plus two more FEPs for each 'immortal' boasted by the clubs:
Team W L FEP Yankees 22 5 32 Giants 27 1 29 Cardinals 14 3 20 Athletics 13 4 21 Dodgers 13 3 19"In case you're curious, the immortal Yankees are Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Casey Stengel, and Mickey Mantle. The immortal Cardinals are Branch Rickey, Dizzy Dean, and Stan Musial. The immortal Athletics are Eddie Collins, Lefty Grove, Jimmie Foxx, and Connie Mack. And the immortal Dodgers are Branch Rickey (again), Jackie Robinson, and Sandy Koufax. The immortal Giant is Willie Mays.
"You probably know where all this is heading, but here are the totals:
Franchise Pts
Yankees 189
Giants 111
Dodgers 92
Cardinals 67
Athletics 46
"After a number of quiet decades, the Giants are the second Most Excellent Franchise."
Carlos enthused "What a wonderful post. Time to go out and do some chest puffing!"
John W. responded "On the subject of chest puffing, I should point also out that the Giants have the most wins by a franchise (the Cubs pretend they have the most, but they qualify it by mentioning 'one-city' franchises), and the most Hall of Famers (48)."
Dan M. seconded the praise and added "Great post! I humbly submit that the Giants have other immortals; conservatively I would add John McGraw and Christy Mathewson. Wouldn't catch the Yankees of course, but would put more distance between us and the dreaded Dodgers."
It is indeed frustrating that Rob Neyer didn't even think about the Giants in performing this exercise, but after John apparently sent this whole thing to him as well, Neyer responded "Excellent analysis, I shouldn't have neglected the Giants.
"Before I go in and change the piece to reflect your thoughts, I need to check the Hall of Famers for myself (unless you want to give me your list). I only count guys as Hall of Famers for a team if they spent the majority of their career with that team.
"On a happier note, you showed admirable restraint in picking immortals. Another correspondent listed Mel Ott, Willie McCovey, and Juan Marichal, none of whom qualify, in my humble opinion. However, that correspondent did have one you neglected, unfairly I think -- Christy Mathewson."
I might add Carl Hubbell, if for no other reason than his historic All-Star game performance in 1934, to go along with McGraw.
This is why I think Neyer is such a good baseball columnist, by the way. Not only did he come up with an original and interesting topic for discussion, but does anybody think Peter Gammons would consider rewriting a piece after a reader responded with detailed facts to support a counter argument? For that matter, does anybody think Gammons would have come up with an interesting analysis like this in the first place?
[Note -- as of December 15, the Cardinal article on ESPN.com was revised to include the Giants, with slightly different results from John W.'s work above. -- RB]
A sampling of the results:
Chris weighed in with "1998 PRC/465 outs (a full season's worth): Clark 119/Snow 83. There's three wins. 1997 PRC: Clark 132/Snow 132. And Snow had a monster season for himself. I'll take Clark."
Jesse countered "I would question this analysis. Clark hasn't been consistently healthy in a hell of a long time, and while I'm hardly a big J.T. fan, he's far, far better on defense than Clark."
For what it's worth, I enjoyed Clark's style when he was here, and I think he can still hit. I would have gone with him for this year at least.
And then there was Steven R., who said "I'd have wanted [Roberto] Petagine at $0.8 million."
Now that Petagine has signed to play in Japan, this one, at least, is not going to happen.
"Baseball Weekly has a wonderful feature on a leadoff hitter who plays center field, and the Giants could sure use him, it seems like. He's wowing the Puerto Rican league, leading the league in hits, doubles, and stolen bases. Who is it? Why, Alex Diaz, of course. Here are some quotes from the feature:
"'Bothered by a sore ankle, Diaz complained to the (Giants) that his offensive struggles -- he hit just .129 in 34 games with the Giants and .179 during his month with Fresno -- were caused by his inability to generate torque because of the injury.'"
More likely, the real issue was his inability to generate any torque between his ears.
Grant continued with this quote from the article "'... he doesn't feel he's received (a fair shot) since earning a job as Seattle's fourth outfielder in 1995, filling in admirably when Ken Griffey Jr. was lost for two months to injury...'
"Filling in admirably = .619 OPS
"'"I just want to show everyone the complete package, the defense, the hustle, the occasional power and versatility."'
"Repeat after me: 766 career at-bats, 30 career walks. 766 career at-bats, 30 career walks. 766 career at-bats, 30 career walks."
Alex Diaz is a complete package, all right, but I think I may be using a different definition of the word "package" in making that statement.
Grant continued: "And from the I Didn't Think There Was a Way Jeff Kent's Injury Could Have Been Worse File: '"(Bobby Valentine) also had Mayaguez using me at second base (in 1997), so I would be more versatile. But then spring training came, I got just 14 at-bats and was sent down to work on my defense -- and that's supposed to be the best part of my game."'"
Thank God Dusty never heard about this. It was hard enough getting rid of Diaz as it was.
Grant concluded "The whole article portrays Diaz as Roberto Petagine, Part II; a good player who just hasn't had the chance. Blecch. I've already sent a copy to Kevin Malone."
Dan M. summed it up nicely: "Too much whine from a guy who couldn't hit the hard cheese. Double blecch!"
This is the type of idiocy-filled claptrap that convinced me not to extend my Baseball Weekly subscription once the free issues stopped coming and I actually had to pay for it. A paragon of deep baseball thinking, it is not.
Copyright ©1998 by Richard Booroojian
Last updated 12/16/98 Gregg Pearlman, gregg@EEEEEEgp.com