Dare we hope...
Ah yes. The offseason, and so shortly into it we're already talking about prospects. Which, for a Giants fan, is always a dicey proposition. With 2004 stats and some 2003 books in hand, I'll look at a couple of Giants farmhands every time I do this. We'll see if we have any legitimate basis for optimism.
Boring, I suppose, but I think any conversation about Giants minor-league players has to start with Matt Cain, even though I don't believe he'll make it to the majors this year. That the Giants' best prospect is a 19-year-old pitcher is, of course, depressing, but he's a pretty impressive 19-year-old pitcher.
Cain was drafted in the first round of the 2002 draft right out of high school. His 2003 season in the Sally league was a terrific success in terms of performance, but of course was also marred with an elbow injury. He made just 14 starts, but averaged almost 7 strikeouts per start. So that's nice. 2004 was a good year for Cain, one in which he certainly solidified his prospect status. For one thing, he began the season at single-A San Jose as a 19-year-old, which is not outrageous but still a stretch for a guy his age. He was pretty dominant at San Jose.
He made 13 starts for San Jose, averaging about 5 1/2 innings per start. I don't have his pitch counts in front of me, but I'm at least hopeful that this indicates a level of care with his arm that is utterly crucial at his age. His numbers at San Jose were eye-catching:
72.2 IP; 1.86 ERA; 58 hits; 17 BBs; 89 Ks
Let's pause for a second here, only because I so enjoy looking at that stat line. This pitcher is 19 and only walked about 2 batters per 9 innings while striking out 11. A 5.5-1 K-BB ratio. At age 19. I don't care that it's in the California league. Most pitchers with incredible stuff can't throw it for strikes initially. Cain can. And so the Giants front office, seeing a level of success this tremendous (more strikeouts than baserunners), send the fast-tracked Cain up the latter to AA Norwich for the second half of the season. And Cain more than held his own. He made 15 starts for Norwich, totalling 86 innings, or about 5.7 IP/start. He totaled 158.2 innings this year. I think that's probably 15 too many, but it's a quibble (I hope). Cain was a very good pitcher at AA, putting up the following numbers:
86 IP; 3.35 ERA; 73 hits; 40 BBs; 72 Ks
Clearly this is not the same level of performance he enjoyed at San Jose. Duh. But he still struck out nearly twice as many as he walked. My guess is that as a 19-year-old at AA he didn't quite trust his stuff as much after getting hit hard initially. So what can we expect from Cain? Well, the fast track that he's on would suggest that he starts the year back at AA. If he succeeds he could see a promotion midseason to AAA Fresno and then could compete for a job in 2006. In a strange parallel universe, Cain makes the San Francisco Giants as a short reliever out of the bullpen - sort of the Johan Santana approach. Use him as what would likely be a highly effective reliever on the big club for a year or two and then make him a starter in 2006. The Giants don't typically work this way, so I consider this extremely unlikely. But I think a couple of years of throwing 80 innings instead of 160 would be good for his exceedingly valuable arm.
I guess we'll also look at last year's darling, Merkin Valdez. After a similarly dominating 2003 for Hagerstown in the Sally League, 2004 was an off-year for the Magician, although not as bad as some might think. He pitched a total of 84 innings this year at four different levels, from San Jose all the way to San Francisco. Predictably, the tougher the competition was, the worse Valdez pitched. The numbers sum it up better than I can:
San Jose: 35.2 IP (7 starts); 2.52 ERA; 30 hits; 5 BBs; 40 Ks
Norwich: 41.2 IP (7 starts, 3 relief appearances); 4.32 ERA; 35 hits; 15 BBs; 15 Ks
Fresno: 5 IP (1 start); 7.20 ERA; 6 hits; 4 BBs; 5 Ks
San Francisco: 1.2 IP (2 relief appearances); 27.00 ERA; 4 hits; 3 BBs; 2 Ks
And what did we really expect? Rick Ankiel in 2000? This is the Giants and Valdez had pitched in LOW-A in 2003. So while they were hoping to have K-Rod on their hands, I'd characterize 2004 as an experiment in ultra fasttracking gone wrong. Valdez is 22 (we think) and while it was reasonable to hope for a meteoric rise from the Sally League to the Pacific Cloast League, we shouldn't be terribly surprised that it didn't happen. I'd toss out the tiny sample numbers from AAA and MLB (while noting that even though he got knocked around over that 6.2 inning period, he still struck out 7) and look at the 77.1 IP he threw between A and AA. If I told you that his season following his prospect-status breakout in 2003 was marred by injury but that he threw 77.1 IP (14 starts) of 3.49 / 1.10 / 75-22 BB ball, I think we'd all agree that this represented a pretty decent step forward for a guy with minimal minor-league experience.
So what can we expert from Merkin in 2005? Looked at through a lens that doesn't account for the San Francisco Giants' bullpen woes that resulted in him getting called up in August and his one bad start at Fresno, the guy pitched extremely well for San Jose and then held his own at Norwich. He may some day wind up as the Giants closer (I hope not - if he can add a third pitch and build arm strength, he's much more valuable as a starter, and besides - that's what Aardsma's for), but for now he should be starting for Norwich, with with a promotion to Fresno if he can get his ERA into the mid 3s and keep his K/BB ratio where it was in San Jose this past year. Bringing him into San Francisco's bullpen as a reliever (similar to Cain above) is also an option, but he's almost 4 years older than Cain, so I'm not sure this is as compelling, particularly given the need to enhance his pitch repertoire, something he's not likely to do as a reliever in the majors.
And since we talked about two guys with dominating stuff, let's talk about someone without it. Let's talk a little bit about Brad Hennessey. I really like this guy, even though I never wanted to see him on the 2004 Giants. He's a story. He missed almost two years to cancer and came back in 2003 to pitch for Hagerstown. He wasn't great there (walked too many for a guy with his stuff) but what did anyone expect? 2004 was probably going to determine if Hennessey had a future, and I think he proved enough to stick around, barely. Hennessey threw a total of 171 innings this year at 3 levels - AA, AAA and MLB. Looked at individually:
AA - 101 IP (18 starts); 3.56 ERA; 106 hits; 34 BBs; 55 Ks
AAA - 35.2 IP (5 starts); 2.02 ERA; 26 hits; 15 BBs; 16 Ks
MLB - 34.1 IP (7 starts); 4.98 ERA; 42 hits; 15 BBs; 25 Ks
Looked at in terms of a season:
171 IP (30 starts, or 5.7 IP); 3.52 ERA; 174 hits; 64 BBs; 96 Ks
Unfortunately, the 5 starts at Fresno look like the fluke here. The numbers for the Giants are about what you'd expect based on his performance at Norwich. Hennessey walks too many for the amount of strikeouts he gets and doesn't look like an innings-eater. If he can refine his control, he's got a shot to be a good #4 starter or long reliever, but I think that's about what we're looking at from a guy who'll turn 25 during the offseason. My guess is that he'll start at Fresno and will only make it out of Fresno if the Giants need help.
One more, since we have to at least pretend the Giants have position players in their system.
I've never seen Mike Cervenak play, and don't know a lot about him. He hasn't made any of my books (Although I'm guessing he will this year after his year at Norwich) but at least based on 2004 he has more promise than just about any other Giants position player in the minors. Cervenak is a third baseman who played most of the year at Norwich and enjoyed a brief trial at Fresno. At AA he looked like the type of player who doesn't typically get drafted by the Giants:
410 ABs; .337 / .414 / .583 / 21 home runs / 53 Ks
Of course, it will surprise no one that the .337 batting average actually scares me, but the guy drew 52 walks in 400 ABs, which is (barely) acceptable for a genuine hitting prospect. In his time at Fresno he continued to show his power, but predictably his average fell:
44 ABs; .250 / .267 / .614 / 5 home runs / 7 Ks
In those 44 Abs, Cervenak didn't draw one walk. The "isolated patience" was actually just a hit-by-pitch. This worries me, as I don't want another Pedro Feliz on the team. Cervenak's not a prospect (he's 28) but I wonder if he can take enough pitches to put Edgardo Alfonzo's numbers for one twentieth the price.
We'll look at a few more later. It's time for football now.
A perfect fit (and a pipe dream)
I have no doubt that I will talk about this right up until the day he signs with another team, but there is an available free agent player could potentially put the Giants over the top, in a way that's not flashy or massively expensive, but would require some work and medium amounts of money.
2004 was very good for this player, which is unfortunate from my perspective, since I'd still want him even if he'd had a more typical year. Here's what 2004 looked like:
219.2 IP; 3.48 ERA; 1.16 WHIP; 143 Ks; 26 BBs; 23 HR allowed
There's no question that in 2004 this was a very very good pitcher, especially when you consider that he pitched in 2004 for a team in a very friendly hitting environment. Anyone who knows me (which is everyone who reads this) already knows who this is, but I'll talk a little bit more about him in the abstract, so humor me.
This is a pitcher whose skill is clearly control. His strikeout rate is acceptable, but his walk rate is astronomically low. David Wells low. He allows contact, but his unwillingness to put extra guys on base makes this manageable. Now, compare 2004 to his last couple of years.
2003: 212.1 IP; 4.49 ERA; 1.27 WHIP; 120 Ks, 28 BBs, 32 HR allowed
2002: 118.1 IP; 4.72 ERA; 1.22 WHIP; 62 Ks, 20 BBs; 12 HR allowed
2001: 226 IP; 3.94 ERA; 1.15 WHIP; 137 Ks, 26 BBs; 24 HR allowed
2000: 226.2 UP; 4.45 ERA; 1.38 WHIP; 141 Ks; 51 BBs; 27 HR allowed
Let's throw out 2002 simply because it involved injuries and will skew the counting numbers. The three-year average of 2000, 2001 and 2003 look like this :
221.2 IP; 4.29 ERA; 1.29 WHIP; 133 Ks; 33 BBs; 28 HR allowed
Brad Radke, I hereby dub thee - SBC Park pitcher.
Brad Radke, age 32. Brad Radke, pitched his whole career in the AL, facing DH'ed lineups. Brad Radke, played his whole career for the Twins in the Metrodome. Brad Radke - only one year in the majors where he's thrown fewer than 210 innings. Brad Radke, who has pinpoint control. Brad Radke, who has one flaw in his game - allowing the long ball.
Think about it - this is a guy whose ERA is regularly in the mid-4's while his WHIP is in the 1.25 range. Pitchers with a discrepency of this kind are typically those who have trouble keeping the ball in the park. The Giants have a ballpark that helps pitchers like this tremendously.
Of course, as always, there's a problem. Well, a couple of problems. First off, Radke just finished the last year of his contract, a contract that was clearly from the previous era. In 2004 he made $10.75M, and earned it. His previous deal was a 4-year, $36M deal. Unfortunately, with the 2004 year he just had, and in his pitching prime, he is likely to get a deal not terribly dissimilar to this. He was considered by most to be the third-best pitcher in the AL this past year, after Johan Santana and Curt Schilling. Schilling, clearly a significantly better pitcher than Radke, but also quite a bit older, earned $12M at age 38 from the Red Sox this year, as part of a contract signed recently. My guess is that Radke is looking at something around 3 or 4 years at $8M a year.
And he'd be worth that and then some to the Giants.
Without going through and actually running numbers on park effects and a league-switch, I'd very roughly project the following numbers for 2005 if Radke pitched for the Giants (note that these numbers assume that his 2004 breakout was real but probably also represents something of a career season):
220 IP; 3.25 ERA; 1.18 WHIP; 165 K; 28 BB; 18 HR allowed
I believe this projection is conservative, and represents several factors.
1. The switch from the AL to the NL and away from the DH is good for a decrease in offense allowed and in increase in strikeouts, both because of facing hitters for the first time and by facing opposing pitchers.
2. The switch from the Metrodome to SBC park is likely to suppress home runs allowed, probably meaningfully.
3. I believe that at 32 Radke is in his pitching prime.
So for their $8M (or a little more), the Giants get a workhorse pitcher who doesn't give up free passes and whose one weakness is likely to be muted significantly by his pitching environment. I leave you with a comparison:
1. Jose Lima - park effects
1998-9 (Astrodome - yearly averages): 239.2 IP; 3.64 ERA; 178 K; 38 BB; 32 HR allowed
2000 (Enron/ Minute Maid): 196.1 IP; 6.65 ERA; 124 K; 68 BB; 48 HR allowed
2004 (Dodger Stadium): 170.1 IP (24 starts); 4.07 ERA; 93 K; 34 BB; 33 HR allowed
Now Lima's psycho and even more prone to the long ball than Radke, but I'm just saying...
Postscript
Pedro Feliz; San Francisco Giants
3B/1B Age: 29
.276 / .305 / .485 / 72 / 84 (503 ABs)
Is it too early to start praying that Sabean can sell this ".276 / 22 HR / 84 RBI run-producer" to an old-school GM for something more valuable? His power is real, as I've consistently stated, but the guy just can't get on base. It's astonishing to me that he gets any pitches to hit with his lack of strike-zone judgment (45 unintentional walks in 1,111 career ABs).
At least he's cheap(ish).
Damon Minor; Fresno Grizzlies
1B Age: 30
.302 / .399 / .538 / 48 / 56 (338 ABs)
I'm just saying...
Of Curses, the New School and a bit of Giants baseball
Yes, it's been a very long time since I've been inspired to put up anything in this space, but frankly I was totally uninspired by the nominal subject of this blog, and even now am not going to spend much time writing about my beloved Giants, as they are not worthy of too many words right now.
However after seeing such a series of historical baseball events these last two weeks, I feel compelled to put down a few thoughts, not so much of the Curt Schilling / Bunch of Idiots mythos that fills the mainstream press, but rather a few observations that, by virtue of being less romantic and quite a bit more ornery than what I read elsewhere, probably won't get mentioned.
First off, let it be known that I was rooting for the Red Sox. Rooting pretty hard, truth be told. This isn't because I'm a Red Sox fan - in fact, I was rather seriously anti-Sox up until a couple of years ago. My position on the Red Sox then was similar to my position on the Cubs now - that they were a big-payroll team that tried to recharacterize incompetence as loveability. I had no patience for a team that spent $100M+ on payroll and then complained about being underdogs all the time. Yes, their fans had suffered through many heartbreaking losses, and care about their team in a way that I found appealing, but as is probably quite foreseeable to anyone that knows me, my opinion on any non-Giants team is usually an opinion of the front office or of an individual player or two. In the Red Sox' case, their ownership and front office were pathetic bumblers who spent like crazy and still couldn't get anything done. Their players seemed to fade at crucial moments and I had no use for them.
All that changed when they decided to hire a guy my age to run the team. The day I read up on Theo Epstein was the day I decided to adopt the Red Sox as my unofficial AL team. Those who got my baseball rant emails from those days might remember that for weeks I would speculate as to what I thought Theo might do, only to find out a few days later that he'd been working on such a deal already. Sign a defensively-superior contact-hitting third baseman with a great eye who will come cheap because of his two years of knee injuries? Done. Claim a productive outfielder / first baseman who'd done nothing but hit well above league average and was on his way to Japan? Done. Claim a power-hitting Mo Vaughn-clone who was disfavored by his AL Central team because he doesn't fit their slap-hitting athletic mold? Done. Move after move I watched Theo Epstein make and just kept nodding my head. People complained that he was doing his job as if he was building a fantasy baseball team. He picked up guys who were cheap and who could hit. He picked up relievers who struck guys out and didn't walk too many. What others saw as building a fantasy team (I'm still not sure what that meant, btw), I saw as a guy simply using the large resources provided him to build a great 25-man roster (as opposed to a great starting lineup and a cruddy group of reserves as Brian Cashman did with the Yankees). I was superbly impressed.
I bet on the Red Sox last year. I thought they had a great team. And as Red Sox teams have done so many times, they lost to the Yankees in the post-season. I thought the Sox had a better team last year. If not for Grady Little, the 2003 Red Sox would have done at least part of what the 2004 Red Sox accomplished. Old-school baseball idiots wrote in defense of Grady Little, saying that he was smart and wise to stick with Pedro through 137 pitches. I'm not going to bother rehashing that, but needless to say I strongly believe that a combination of Mike Timlin and Alan Embree could have closed out Game 7 last year.
Regardless, after that loss Theo went back to work, and because the Red Sox are financially unlimited for all intents and purposes, he went out and signed two of the five best pitchers in the American league. He traded for Curt Schilling (as a side note, giving up on Casey Fossum at just the right time, after refusing to trade him to acquire Javier Vazquez the previous year), probably the second-best pitcher in the AL this year (after the deity that is Johan Santana) and signed Keith Foulke, recently of the also-Sabremetric Athletics, who has been really just amazing for 6 years and strangely no one seems to realize just how good. This is how good [warning: stats tangent coming]:
Over the 6-year period between 1999-2004 (all of which he spent as a reliever) Foulke averaged 87 innings per year. Just for reference, Mariano Rivera, widely and correctly recognized as the best closer in baseball over that span, averaged 70 innings per year. Foulke posted the following numbers over that six-year period:
512.2 IP
2.23 ERA
380 hits allowed
113 walks allowed
0.96 baserunners per inning
514 strikeouts
I bring this all up not because it's all that relevant, but because Foulke is currently the best player in the major leagues who was drafted by the San Francisco Giants, so I just wanted to point out that this guy is an absolutely top-notch, dominant closer, and should be part of the discussion every time the top closers are discussed. And because he gave the Red Sox something else they didn't have in 2003 - a shutdown closer. So the 2004 edition went into spring training with (at the time, arguably) the two best pitchers in the American League and a newly-added top-flight closer to what was already a dominant bullpen.
The point of all this being two things - first off, I root for pretty much any team that has a GM who does things that I think make sense, and secondly, I thought the Red Sox had the best team in the AL. And so I'm happy that they won the World Series. Just not for the same reasons as a lot of other people.
Reason #1 - this is a huge victory for "new-school" baseball analysis. One of the things that allowed the Joe Morgans and Tim McCarvers of the world to continue to stay things like "yeah, all that Moneyball stuff works great in the regular season, but what really matters in the postseason is making sure you bunt a lot and steal a lot of bases" was that none of the new-school GMs (Beane, Epstein, Riccardi, DePodesta) had ever won a World Series. Never mind that Beane runs one of the cheapest teams in baseball and Epstein, Riccardi and DePodesta are all new on the job - none of them had won anything. The A's especially provided fodder for this with their running streak of first-round exits from the postseason.
That's all changed now. The Red Sox played arguably the ultimate Moneyball postseason. With the exception of Dave Roberts' crucial steal against Mariano Rivera in game 4 of the ALCS, the Sox played the most prototypical "big ball" I've ever watched. They won with dominant starting pitching, walks and home runs. It was beautiful. When the leadoff man got on board, they didn't bunt. When Trot Nixon was up 3-0 with the bases loaded Francona gave him the sign to swing away. This was the anti-Angels of 2002 (well, even the Angels of 2002 weren't really what they were portrayed to be, but that's another topic). The Red Sox made lots of errors in the field, stole (to my recollection) zero bases in the world series and swept the thing. McCarver spent the entire series hoping for more bunts, but the only one he got was from Tony LaRussa, bizaarely bunting with Larry Walker with no outs (he later claimed LARRY WALKER was trying to bunt for a hit). It felt, to me as a very biased observer, like watching a generation of outdated baseball thinking pathetically trying to reassert itself against the newer, more effective generation.
Reason #2 - Red Sox fans don't get to whine anymore. This is something I alluded to above. This is a big-money team (#2 overall in payroll after the Yankees) that has largely been the victim of its own incompetence these past decades. As a fan of a genuinely mid-market team (or at least, mid-payroll... grr....), I got tired of hearing Red Sox fans bitch about the teams they were running out, teams that every year picked up new, expensive free agents while I watched my Giants pick up Neifi Perez or Doug Henry. After 2004, the Red Sox are just like the Dodgers - if they suck, it's because they suck, not because they're cursed, and Red Sox fans will just have to deal with it.
Reason #3 - Now people will focus more on the futility of the Cubs who, partially because they have Dusty Baker as their manager, are likely to remain futile.
And that's probably enough for anyone that bothered to read this, but I have to vent a tiny bit about the Giants.
Clearly I was mistaken, at least quantitatively, about the 2004 Giants. Anyone who read my blog could see that I figured them to finish near the bottom of the NL West and have a horrible season, and that didn't happen. They missed the wild card in the NL by a game and played yet another season of competitive baseball.
And this is almost worse than if they had just been awful and had rebuilt. Because it forces me to look at just how easy it would have been to win the NL West. So let's look at a couple of things. First off, how did the Giants outperform my projections by such a vast margin?
1. Barry Bonds had, at age 40, his best season as a pro. Bonds put up an OPS of 1.421, the highest in major-league history. He won another batting title (.362). He set the all-time major-league records for OBP (.609), walks (232) and intentional walks (120 - get your mind wrapped around THAT!). With a player like the 2004 Bonds in the lineup, it's damn difficult not to score runs, and the Giants did score them in bunches. In fact, the Giants had the best offense in the national league, scoring just 5 fewer runs in a far tougher park than St. Louis.
2. JT Snow came back from the dead. After six seasons of failing to top an OPS of .850, JT turned in his best season at the plate at age 36. His .429 / .529 season was arguably more impressive than David Ortiz' .380 / .609 season if you factor in the relative importance of getting on base versus hitting for power and just how difficult it is to hit for power as a lefty playing half one's games at SBC Park. And Ortiz is legitimately considered an MVP candidate.
3. Deivi Cruz. DEIVI CRUZ. When I saw that the Giants had signed him to a minor-league contract, I almost retched. And yet he wound up becoming a productive member of the Giants offense this year. While I wouldn't oversell a .297 / .322 / .431 season, the contrast between this above-average (especially considering ballpark effects) hitting performance and what he replaced (Neifi Perez), Sabean clearly hit a home run by picking up Cruz and then cutting Perez. As I mentioned many times in this space, replacing Perez with even a league-average player is like adding a middle-of-the-lineup hitter to a team. And Cruz was above average.
4. The emergence of Noah Lowry. When you have the top offense in the league, all you need from your pitchers is solidity. And Lowry was quite solid for the Giants this year. In 14 starts, he averaged about 6 innings per start and had an ERA under 4.00 - something the Giants desperately needed, and didn't get from other starters besides Jason Schmidt. When the rotation all but fell apart midseason, Lowry was an enormously important band-aid.
Mostly, they just scored a lot of runs. Mostly, that was because of Barry. If they'd just built a league-average team around him, they'd have won 95 games easily and taken the NL West without breaking a sweat. There are a couple of obvious things they could have done that would have been worth at least the one more win they needed to force a one-game playoff with Houston:
1. Don't trade for AJ Pierzynski. This was something that the "Lunatic Fringe" said all along - Catcher wasn't one of the Giants' glaring weaknesses. Pierzynski was considered a strong player - 27 years old, hit .300, blah blah blah. What I saw was a defensively mediocre catcher who hit a relatively empty .300, was switching leagues, and was facing a huge increase in ballpark difficulty. And sure enough, he went from .360 / .464 his last (career?) season in Minnesota to .319 / .410 with the Giants. Almost all of that decrease was the result of a batting average that went from .312 to .279. Part of that is switching leagues, part is ballpark, part is probably a fluky good 2003. But what killed the Giants were the players they gave away. Joe Nathan, who presumably would have either started the season closing for the Giants or who would have assumed that job when Herges proved (again) that he can't close effectively, was unbelievable this year. Foulke-esque, you might say. It hurts me to look at these numbers, but Nathan blew 3 of 47 save chances this year, had an ERA of 1.62 and struck out 89 batters in 72 innings. Putting him atop the Giants bullpen depth chart and pushing everyone down a rung would have been far, far more than sufficient to give the Giants a playoff spot this year. The Giants would have been forced to see if Yorvit Torrealba could be a full-time starter. I'll be honest - I'm not a huge Yorvit fan. He doesn't hit much (.302 / .407 this year, .322 / .402 for his career). But the difference between full-time Yorvit and AJ is worth at WORST 1-2 wins on the season, and I actually think Yorvit's demonstrably superior defense probably makes the effect neutral or even a win in Yorvit's favor. Just to pour lemon juice in the wound, the Giants traded away two minor-league pitchers along with Nathan - Boof Bonser and Francisco Liriano. Bonser is a bust, a typical Sabean pitching prospect. Liriano had been considered untouchable in 2003 (as Nathan had in 2001) because his upside was so high. He's a lefty who throws 97 mph, but had missed almost the entire 2003 season due to elbow problems. Well, he got right in 2004. Liriano pitched
117 innings (21 starts) for Single-A Fort Myers before being promoted to AA New Britain for 40 innings (7 starts). He actually performed better at AA than he had at A ball. Over the course of 156.2 innings in 2004, Liriano sported an ERA of 3.79 and struck out 174 hitters to 60 walks. Liriano turned 21 two days ago. If he stays healthy, he probably makes the majors in 2006. His upside is, theoretically, Johan Santana.
2. Don't trade for Ricky Ledee. No one has explained this to me yet. Felix Rodriguez is no longer what he was a few years ago, but he was the best reliever in a very bad bullpen and Sabean traded him away for yet another 4th outfielder (we didn't already have enough of those?). For a team that was scoring runs and blowing a lot of saves, this move was totally inexplicable. Felix was only decent this year (3.27 / 1.37 / 59 K's in 65.2 IP) but decent would have been a hell of an improvement over Matt Herges and Dustin Hermanson. Continuing to hold Felix is probably worth the one win needed for a tie, and likely the two needed for an outright win of the wild card / tie with the Dodgers.
3. Re-sign Tim Worrell. I'm sorry, but the cheapskate shit is really getting old. Worrell wasn't expensive and signed with the Phillies to be a setup man for setup man money. Worrell made $2.75M for Philly this year, and put up a workmanlike 3.68 / 1.23 season for them, with 64 Ks in 78 innings. Adjust for ballpark and defense and you're probably looking at something similar to what he got for the Giants in 2003. He'd have been perfectly adequate closing for the Giants in 2004 just like he'd been in 2003. Nothing special, but adequate. He converted 38 of 45 save chances in 2003. Herges, by contrast, converted 23 of 31 before being removed.
There are plenty of others (sign Vlad, trade for Carlos Beltran, etc...) but these three were easy and required almost nothing. And any one of them would have been sufficient to put the Giants in the playoffs. Do I think they'd have done much? Who knows. The playoffs are pretty random. Anyone can get hot at any time. The way Tomko was pitching I actually liked the Giants' 3-man rotation if they'd gone with one with Schmidt, Tomko and Jerome Williams, which allows Lowry to become an effective lefty and long reliever out of the bullpen and pushes Christianson off the roster. But that's all water under the bridge now. We'll never know how Barry might have done against Schilling and Pedro in the Series.
The 2005 Giants look to be more of the same. Sabean has already started the "we came close so why make major changes?" talk, and is probably already steaming at the lunatic fringe's requests that we not allow Bonds to get 200 intentional walks next year. He says that Goliath couldn't protect Bonds. That's fine - then let's sign a Goliath and watch him drive in 200 runs. It's not a matter of just getting Barry pitches to hit. It's a matter of scoring him if they're going to walk him. The Giants did a halfway decent job of this in 2004. He scored 129 runs this year, tied for the most of his career. Of course, he got on base 375 times. You wonder just how many times even a Paul Konerko or Carlos Lee could drive him in, to say nothing of a Beltran or Vlad.
But that's all talk for the upcoming offseason. For now, congratulations to the 2004 Red Sox, a great team put together by a great GM with great resources who performed at a high level and dispelled the notion of curses for, hopefully, another 86 years.
