The Movie I Wish I'd Never Seen
Do you have a movie in your past that you wish you'd never seen? I don't mean just some bad movie that was a waste of your time, I mean something that you truly regret watching and forever etching the memories of said film onto your grey matter.
I love movies, so I generally wouldn't think there could be one with that sort of parasitic hold on me. A few years ago, I reviewed movies on the Internet and saw my fair share of crap. Daredevil comes to mind, a film so bad in so many ways that it was physically painful to watch. But still, I'm not overcome with a burning need to vomit when I think about it. In fact, it led to my writing one of my favorite reviews of all time, so all told that horrific waste of celluloid leaves an almost nostalgically positive imprint on my memory.
But there is a film that does, in fact, induce in me a vibrant need to spew chunks whenever I think about it. I try not to think about it much, forgetting it for months at a time, while filling my head with the latest and greatest pop culture icons on the screen. But eventually, without fail, something will remind me of that one, fatal film and I'll be overcome with thoughts and images and nausea, becoming almost sick to my stomach.
I've discussed this in the past with friends. It's a good conversation starter. "Is there any film you honestly wish you'd never seen?" Some answers from others have included Faces of Death, 2,000 Maniacs, and Caligula. Each, in their own way, extremely disturbing. I myself have issues with the opening sequence in Cube, which is otherwise not a very disturbing film. However, the film which haunts me to this day is a little-known independent film called Frankenhooker.
Perhaps you've heard of this film, perhaps not. First, it's not porn or anything, it's rated R. Nor is it straight horror, not by any means. It's a very dark comedy. Basically, a guy's girlfriend is dismembered in a lawnmower accident and he decides to rebuild her body using all the best parts he can find from various hookers. He lures all the hookers into a room and haves them smoke special crack that makes them explode. Then he gathers the body parts, goes home, and rebuilds his girlfriend.
There ya go. A keeper.
I don't know why I agreed to see this film way back when (it was released in 1990). I certainly didn't suggest it, but it must have been someone else's turn to pick a film. So for some reason, they picked this one. And I went. And have regretted it ever since.
Why does this film disturb me so? I'm not sure. But I get two different scenes flashing into my mind when the film springs into my brain. The first is when all the hookers are exploding. The last one knows she's going to explode, and she's pissed, so she straddles the guy on the bed, leering at him, taunting him, dressed in skimpy lingerie. And then she explodes all over him.
For some reason, the harpy-like look on her face just before she explodes has always been, for me, the epitome of evil. That faces haunts my nightmares.
The second flash of imagery that gets me every time is the fully-completed, rebuilt girlfriend. It's ridiculously slapstick, every limb and body part stitched together in the worst homage to Frankenstien. The crowning glory is her head with a huge, zipper-like stitch all the way around it, where he's sown it to the torso with the biggest boobs he could find.
I see that in my mind and want to puke.
I really have no idea why I get such a visceral reaction to the memory of a film I saw 17 years ago. I've seen hundreds of films since then, most much better. There are plenty of those of which I have no recollections at all. I'd be surprised to learn I'd ever seen them. But this one, this one sticks with me. Popping up every few months for no reason other than I haven't been internally horrified enough lately.
Not sure if there's any way to cleanse the images from my mind. I could find a copy of the film and burn it in effigy, hoping to symbolically purge it from memory. I could watch it a thousand times until I either move past it or fall into a catatonic trance. Either one would work.
But that's all fantasy. The truth is, Frankenhooker is with me to stay. For the rest of my days. My own personal motion picture Demon which cannot be exercised, will not be forgotten.
It is the movie I wish I'd never seen.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Self-Made Critic reviews Daredevil
(Circe 2003)
Now they're just getting sloppy.
(Circe 2003)
Now they're just getting sloppy.
I enjoy a bad movie as much as anyone. I'll happily sit through an abomination such as Dungeons & Dragons or Supernova and revel in the excruciatingly painful level of suck while the poor folk I pay to be my friends squirm in their seats in utter agony.
What makes these private Hells tolerable is the knowledge that everyone knows the movie is bad. Dungeons & Dragons stunk to high heaven and everyone from Alaskan hermits who hadn't stepped foot outside their igloo in decades to the potted fern in the lobby of the local Hilton knew it, and stayed away in droves. D & D made all of $50 and its creators are now serving you decaf lattes in a Starbucks near you. (Or at least, they should be.)
But when an equally bad film approaches the $100 million mark, it's time to head for the hills. The sad, sad, sad success of the truly horrible film, Daredevil puts us one more step on the path to the end of civilization as we know it. Money talks. A bad movie making $100 million means studios will be inclined to make more bad movies. When those bad movies fail to make $100 million, they'll blame the marketing and make more bad movies. This hellish cycle will continue until the end of time, and we may well have Ben Affleck to blame for the downfall of human existence.
Why is Daredevil so very, very bad? Have a seat, this could take a while.
It's a comic book film, so you have to give it some leeway. But one thing every film, everywhere, MUST do is stick to its own rules. In DareDevil, our hero is blind, therefore all of his other senses are extraordinarily heightened. He can hear everything in the world at any moment, he can smell colors, his sense of touch manifests itself in his amazing balance, agility and strength, and of course, his heightened sense of taste allows him to.. I dunno, enjoy a Happy Meal like no one's business.
His weakness? (All superheros have a special weakness, it's part of the deal, along with the tights and the snazzy catch-phrase.) Really loud noises. Since he can hear so very, very well, loud bursts of noise cause him great discomfort. This is repeated time and again during the film. So then, would someone care to explain why, during the requisite montage of "Look How Cool I Am Getting Up in the Morning," he walks by his stereo and turns the volume dial up way past eleven? Is there some rule that loud noise doesn't effect him when it's serious heavy metal?
That's what I'm talking about. Follow your own rules.
Also, I hate any movie that creates drama by not having the hero defend himself against incorrect accusations.
"You killed my father!"
"You're in a bad mood, so I'm going to run away like a coward and look guilty."
And now we have conflict, because the two characters who really like each other are kept apart by this mistaken assumption. When what the guy should have said was:
"You killed my father!"
"No, I didn't. That guy did. Over there. The bad guy."
"Oh. I didn't see him. OK. My bad. Let's go get him."
"Aces!"
If Daredevil were only sloppy in these story-related areas, I could begin to forgive and forget. But Dudes!!! When Colin Farrell reaches down to his left in the wide shot and then you cut to the close-up and he's reaching down to his right, I have to draw a line.
It's called EDITING! And I should NEVER, EVER notice it in a film. I've seen home movies of newborn babies with fewer continuity mistakes than this thing. Stop being sloppy! Take a damn film class next time you're given the keys to a multi-million dollar blockbuster. Have some pride in your work. Please! We beg of you!!!
I'm not even going to bother to go into detail of the story of Daredevil. Blind guy fights freaks. End of story. Ben Affleck is wholly useless as Daredevil. Jeniffer Garner is slightly less useless, though very, very pretty as Elektra. Michael Clarke Duncan is a mistake as whatever the Hell he was and Colin Farrell is surprisingly ugly as Bullseye. As one of the women I paid to be my friend said "They made both Ben Affleck and Colin Farrell ugly. That's hard to do."
In case you haven't guessed by now, don't go see this movie. Don't even rent it. Don't even watch it for free on cable next year. Instead, pick up your shovel and torch and storm the Fox lot asking for a refund, or the director's head on a stick.
Daredevil gets 1/3 of a Babylon. Why not 0? Because I watched the whole thing, and Jennifer Garner IS pretty. You don't have to be blind to figure that one out.
------------------------------------------------------
Daredevil
Rated: PG-13
Directed By: Mark Steven Johnson
Starring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau, Joe Pantoliano and, according to IMDB, Coolio, in scenes which were deleted. You wonder just how bad Coolio's scenes had to be to get deleted from a movie as bad as this. What, did they cut out a dance number or something?
Get Your Damn Hands Off My Pumpkins!
I have a bunch of friggin' gnomes mucking up my Halloween decorations.
Last weekend, 4-year old Daughter helped me carve some pumpkins. We did a happy face (two eyes, nose, smiling mouth), a scary face (two eyes, nose, frowning mouth with sharp teeth), and a silly face (one eye, no nose, mouth open in a delirious grin you'd likely find on a mental patient who's just been given his daily dose of Mirtazapine).
We carried them down to the end of our driveway and set them up in a loving Halloween nativity scene, threw in an uncarved pumpkin to even the display out, and left it at that.
They are gone. Not taken, mind you. Decimated. The happy and scary faces (which were the largest two pumpkins) are a mass of splattered pumpkin gore, as if Gallagher held a comeback tour in my driveway. The silly face remains intact, though shoved to the side, not worthy of the Gnomes' time or effort. It still smiles blankly, though now that it has stared death in the face and witnessed acts of brutal pumpkin horror, it is forever scarred, its gaze a glassy-eyed stare through which no reality can penetrate.
I'm pissed.
I don't know the names of these pumpkin-killing gnomes. I suppose it could be deer. The local herd likes to nibble from time to time at just about anything that isn't wrapped in chicken wire, but the carnage of the crime scene points towards a tool-using animal. Perhaps the same ones that bolted for safety in the glare of my oncoming headlights the other night, leaving behind a plastic bag filled with pears from my pear tree. I don't think deer use plastic bags. I could be wrong, but that's a guess.
Why have these truant gnomes decided to take out their angst on my pumpkins? I'm not sure. I have noticed that ours were the first, and so far only, Jack-O-Lanterns on display in the neighborhood. It's our first Halloween here, so perhaps there is some curse on the street that afflicts those who dare carve a face in the Holy Gourd on All Hallow's Eve. Everyone else is aware of the curse, nobody bothered to fill in the new family. It's the perfect recipe for a Clive Barker story. Don't put out the Jack-O-Lantern, you'll only attract the Demons from Beyond the Grave.
More likely, a bunch of damn kids are going around smashing pumpkins and their parents have given up trying to stop them.
I could go to the authorities. I suppose random acts of vegetable violence could be cause for a community task force. But the truth is, this is a private matter, and I need to take care of it myself. Plus, they'll probably just say something like, "Oh, you live up there? Well, there's that curse and all. Sorry, you're on your own."
The Gandhi option is to sit down with my pumpkins, wait for the vagrants to come by, and explain to them the errors of their ways. Jack-O-Lanterns are God's creatures, and they live a short but fruitful life. I can try to convince these hoodlums that it is in their soul's best interests to leave these smiling and frowning and drugged-out faces be, and to wander away from temptation.
But that avenue will probably lead to me getting beaten senseless by a bunch of High School Musical wannabes. Screw that.
I'm not going down without a fight.
I don't mean to turn into Old Man Withers, but I have every intention of shoving justice into the faces of these damn, meddlesome kids. I have a plan.
This weekend, we're carving more pumpkins. I'll let Daughter choose the faces, but we'll probably end up with another round of happy, scary, and silly. Though this time, I think the silly face is gonna have three eyes and a mouth open in surprise like on a blow-up doll.
Next, we'll place them in the same area, baiting the trap. I'll probably spray them with hairspray to help preserve them from the weather. You know, take care of my pumpkins. They're my babies. I love them.
Next, I'll install a series of semi-automatic turret guns that'll pop out of the ground and start blasting when anyone triggers the motion sensors. I may have to warn the mailman.
Then I just sit back and wait.
If I kill a deer or two, my bad. If these four-footed herbivores are the true culprits, I will feel a sense of shame wash over me, and I will lower my head in sorrow at their passing.
But if I come down the next morning to the broken bodies of a couple of punks with a mallet, I'm dancing a jig, chopping off their heads, and propping them up on stakes behind my display to ward off further interlopers.
Don't mess with Old Man Withers.
I have a bunch of friggin' gnomes mucking up my Halloween decorations.
Last weekend, 4-year old Daughter helped me carve some pumpkins. We did a happy face (two eyes, nose, smiling mouth), a scary face (two eyes, nose, frowning mouth with sharp teeth), and a silly face (one eye, no nose, mouth open in a delirious grin you'd likely find on a mental patient who's just been given his daily dose of Mirtazapine).
We carried them down to the end of our driveway and set them up in a loving Halloween nativity scene, threw in an uncarved pumpkin to even the display out, and left it at that.
They are gone. Not taken, mind you. Decimated. The happy and scary faces (which were the largest two pumpkins) are a mass of splattered pumpkin gore, as if Gallagher held a comeback tour in my driveway. The silly face remains intact, though shoved to the side, not worthy of the Gnomes' time or effort. It still smiles blankly, though now that it has stared death in the face and witnessed acts of brutal pumpkin horror, it is forever scarred, its gaze a glassy-eyed stare through which no reality can penetrate.
I'm pissed.
I don't know the names of these pumpkin-killing gnomes. I suppose it could be deer. The local herd likes to nibble from time to time at just about anything that isn't wrapped in chicken wire, but the carnage of the crime scene points towards a tool-using animal. Perhaps the same ones that bolted for safety in the glare of my oncoming headlights the other night, leaving behind a plastic bag filled with pears from my pear tree. I don't think deer use plastic bags. I could be wrong, but that's a guess.
Why have these truant gnomes decided to take out their angst on my pumpkins? I'm not sure. I have noticed that ours were the first, and so far only, Jack-O-Lanterns on display in the neighborhood. It's our first Halloween here, so perhaps there is some curse on the street that afflicts those who dare carve a face in the Holy Gourd on All Hallow's Eve. Everyone else is aware of the curse, nobody bothered to fill in the new family. It's the perfect recipe for a Clive Barker story. Don't put out the Jack-O-Lantern, you'll only attract the Demons from Beyond the Grave.
More likely, a bunch of damn kids are going around smashing pumpkins and their parents have given up trying to stop them.
I could go to the authorities. I suppose random acts of vegetable violence could be cause for a community task force. But the truth is, this is a private matter, and I need to take care of it myself. Plus, they'll probably just say something like, "Oh, you live up there? Well, there's that curse and all. Sorry, you're on your own."
The Gandhi option is to sit down with my pumpkins, wait for the vagrants to come by, and explain to them the errors of their ways. Jack-O-Lanterns are God's creatures, and they live a short but fruitful life. I can try to convince these hoodlums that it is in their soul's best interests to leave these smiling and frowning and drugged-out faces be, and to wander away from temptation.
But that avenue will probably lead to me getting beaten senseless by a bunch of High School Musical wannabes. Screw that.
I'm not going down without a fight.
I don't mean to turn into Old Man Withers, but I have every intention of shoving justice into the faces of these damn, meddlesome kids. I have a plan.
This weekend, we're carving more pumpkins. I'll let Daughter choose the faces, but we'll probably end up with another round of happy, scary, and silly. Though this time, I think the silly face is gonna have three eyes and a mouth open in surprise like on a blow-up doll.
Next, we'll place them in the same area, baiting the trap. I'll probably spray them with hairspray to help preserve them from the weather. You know, take care of my pumpkins. They're my babies. I love them.
Next, I'll install a series of semi-automatic turret guns that'll pop out of the ground and start blasting when anyone triggers the motion sensors. I may have to warn the mailman.
Then I just sit back and wait.
If I kill a deer or two, my bad. If these four-footed herbivores are the true culprits, I will feel a sense of shame wash over me, and I will lower my head in sorrow at their passing.
But if I come down the next morning to the broken bodies of a couple of punks with a mallet, I'm dancing a jig, chopping off their heads, and propping them up on stakes behind my display to ward off further interlopers.
Don't mess with Old Man Withers.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Mike Gravel is Not Running for President
Outside of Ron Paul, and maybe Dennis Kucinich, the hottest presidential candidate for either party these days seems to be, on the Web at least, Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel.
Which is weird, because near as I can tell, he's not actually running for president.
As an aside, what does it say about the Internet that the most enthusiasm is found for candidates who poll just slightly above a lamp post?
Anyway.
As an open minded American voter (well, mostly open-minded. A pack of wild, rabid, leprous Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't get me to vote for Fred Thompson: Male Prostitute. No offense to any Jehovah's Witnesses out there.), I decided to learn all I could about this unheralded phenomenon. Who is Mike Gravel? And should I be rooting for him to steal the jeweled crown of the Democratic Nomination out from under the National Media Approved Three-headed Clintobamadwards behemoth?
So I went to his web site to find out where he stands on the issues.
That was my first hint that he wasn't actually running for president.
See, when you go to Mike Gravel's official web site, you get a chance to sign up for Mike Gravel's email newsletter, a chance to donate money to Mike Gravel, a chance to volunteer to help Mike Gravel, and a chance to "learn more" about Mike Gravel.
Learning more about Mike Gravel means you can read his bio- which includes high praise from Ralph Nader, or join Mike Gravel's YouTube Channel. Or interact with Mike Gravel's friends at MySpace. Or meet other Mike Gravel supporters at Meetup.com. Or talk about Mike Gravel at Google Groups. Or check out Mike Gravel on Facebook, virb, or Second Life.
Curious what his position on SCHIP? Look elsewhere. Curious as to his views on all the FISA hullabaloo? Out of luck. Wonder if he would support raising taxes on beef products in order to fund a massive Thunderdome-like facility that would serve as the final destination of all Death Row inmates? No clue.
But wouldn't that be really cool?
The point is, there's not an ounce of information on Mike Grave's website that tells you what he'd like to do as President.
Because he's not running.
But he has an official campaign website, you say. That's proof enough, right?
You know who else has an official campaign website? Stephen Colbert. And Christopher Walken. And McGyver. And, naturally, General Zod. Are they running for President? Like, with aspirations of winning? But they have official campaign websites!!!
Ah, but running a campaign is more than just slapping up a fancy website. You need ads. Mike Gravel has ads. No really, he does. You can see them on YouTube. In fact, two of his ads have caused quite a stir.
In "Rock" Mike Gravel stares silently at the camera for a few moments, then picks up a rock and tosses it into a pond. In "Twigs" he walks through woods, picking up branches. Then he makes a fire. Then the camera stays on the fire for seven minutes.
Are you ready to cast your vote yet?
When asked about his enigmatic spots, Mike Gravel explained that they were a metaphor. The ripples of the water represent the ripples that a small group of dedicated people can have on the larger world. The branches and twigs he collects represents wisdom, accumulated over a lifetime, and with the wisdom, he builds a fire of "light, heat, warmth. It's the sustenance of life."
Now he may have a beautifully poetic point to make, but in an interview with MSNBC, he admitted that his campaign didn't generate the idea for these spots. Two young teachers approached him and asked to shoot the commercials. He didn't even understand what they were doing, or what the point of the spots were when he shot them. For all he knew, these two teachers thought Mike Gravel's candidacy was about helping pedophiles find new targets. I mean maybe throwing a rock into a pond is a secret pedophile symbol for sex with young boys. He had no idea, he just went along with it and let them shoot him. He didn't care.
Because he's not running for President.
In fact, a vast majority of his "campaigning" has been on the Internet. It's hip. It's now. It's getting the attention of the Under-30 crowd. If he were doing this in addition to regular campaigning, it would be a brilliant way to expand his base and reach new voters. But this is it. He can corner the market on the Under-30 bracket, but even he knows that won't win him anything.
Taking the long-range look at the situation, one could say he's building momentum for a later bid. John Edwards ran in 2004 partly to build his name recognition so that now that he's running in 2008, we know who he is. Al Gore ran for President long before Clinton tapped him to be his VP. Politicians do it all the time. Run and lose now with the hopes of running and winning later.
Except Mike Gravel's 77. Maybe he builds an audience this year, then someone else wins, possibly wins re-election, and then 8 years from now, Gravel's ready to jump back in the show, now with extra name recognition. And he's 85. You're gonna vote for an 85-year old man to lead America? Heck, we all thought Cardinal Ratzinger was pretty dang old for a Pope, and he was only 78. And he just has to sit in the Popemobile and wave. President of the United States at 85? I don't think so. 2008 is Mike Gravel's last hurrah. And at this point, he really doesn't have a snowball's chance in Baja California to win.
But that's OK. He's not trying to win anything.
So what's he doing?
I think he's building a movement.
It's similar to the way the Deaniacs have gone on to upend and alter the Democratic party, even though their guy lost (and truth be told, I think he was actually trying to win). Mike Gravel is an old, old man who represented Alaska in the Senate for 12 years. Think about that. A Democrat was elected Senator in Alaska. Not all that long ago. Today, that seems absurd. Alaska is a Republican state, one of the strongest, various scandals not withstanding. Yet he was a 2-term Democratic Senator.
So he's taking one last trip into the spotlight to build up a movement of ideas that he can leave to an heir apparent, or maybe just help energize a generation to his way of thinking.
I have nothing to say pro or con about what he stands for. For me, this isn't the point. The point is, we should recognize what he's doing. It's not running for President. It's trying to shape the electorate. This is the long haul. It took Republicans 20 years to hone their brand down to the success they had in the 90's. It may take even longer for them to recover from the damage of the Bush years.
But every journey starts with a single step.
Or a single stone thrown into the water.
Outside of Ron Paul, and maybe Dennis Kucinich, the hottest presidential candidate for either party these days seems to be, on the Web at least, Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel.
Which is weird, because near as I can tell, he's not actually running for president.
As an aside, what does it say about the Internet that the most enthusiasm is found for candidates who poll just slightly above a lamp post?
Anyway.
As an open minded American voter (well, mostly open-minded. A pack of wild, rabid, leprous Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't get me to vote for Fred Thompson: Male Prostitute. No offense to any Jehovah's Witnesses out there.), I decided to learn all I could about this unheralded phenomenon. Who is Mike Gravel? And should I be rooting for him to steal the jeweled crown of the Democratic Nomination out from under the National Media Approved Three-headed Clintobamadwards behemoth?
So I went to his web site to find out where he stands on the issues.
That was my first hint that he wasn't actually running for president.
See, when you go to Mike Gravel's official web site, you get a chance to sign up for Mike Gravel's email newsletter, a chance to donate money to Mike Gravel, a chance to volunteer to help Mike Gravel, and a chance to "learn more" about Mike Gravel.
Learning more about Mike Gravel means you can read his bio- which includes high praise from Ralph Nader, or join Mike Gravel's YouTube Channel. Or interact with Mike Gravel's friends at MySpace. Or meet other Mike Gravel supporters at Meetup.com. Or talk about Mike Gravel at Google Groups. Or check out Mike Gravel on Facebook, virb, or Second Life.
Curious what his position on SCHIP? Look elsewhere. Curious as to his views on all the FISA hullabaloo? Out of luck. Wonder if he would support raising taxes on beef products in order to fund a massive Thunderdome-like facility that would serve as the final destination of all Death Row inmates? No clue.
But wouldn't that be really cool?
The point is, there's not an ounce of information on Mike Grave's website that tells you what he'd like to do as President.
Because he's not running.
But he has an official campaign website, you say. That's proof enough, right?
You know who else has an official campaign website? Stephen Colbert. And Christopher Walken. And McGyver. And, naturally, General Zod. Are they running for President? Like, with aspirations of winning? But they have official campaign websites!!!
Ah, but running a campaign is more than just slapping up a fancy website. You need ads. Mike Gravel has ads. No really, he does. You can see them on YouTube. In fact, two of his ads have caused quite a stir.
In "Rock" Mike Gravel stares silently at the camera for a few moments, then picks up a rock and tosses it into a pond. In "Twigs" he walks through woods, picking up branches. Then he makes a fire. Then the camera stays on the fire for seven minutes.
Are you ready to cast your vote yet?
When asked about his enigmatic spots, Mike Gravel explained that they were a metaphor. The ripples of the water represent the ripples that a small group of dedicated people can have on the larger world. The branches and twigs he collects represents wisdom, accumulated over a lifetime, and with the wisdom, he builds a fire of "light, heat, warmth. It's the sustenance of life."
Now he may have a beautifully poetic point to make, but in an interview with MSNBC, he admitted that his campaign didn't generate the idea for these spots. Two young teachers approached him and asked to shoot the commercials. He didn't even understand what they were doing, or what the point of the spots were when he shot them. For all he knew, these two teachers thought Mike Gravel's candidacy was about helping pedophiles find new targets. I mean maybe throwing a rock into a pond is a secret pedophile symbol for sex with young boys. He had no idea, he just went along with it and let them shoot him. He didn't care.
Because he's not running for President.
In fact, a vast majority of his "campaigning" has been on the Internet. It's hip. It's now. It's getting the attention of the Under-30 crowd. If he were doing this in addition to regular campaigning, it would be a brilliant way to expand his base and reach new voters. But this is it. He can corner the market on the Under-30 bracket, but even he knows that won't win him anything.
Taking the long-range look at the situation, one could say he's building momentum for a later bid. John Edwards ran in 2004 partly to build his name recognition so that now that he's running in 2008, we know who he is. Al Gore ran for President long before Clinton tapped him to be his VP. Politicians do it all the time. Run and lose now with the hopes of running and winning later.
Except Mike Gravel's 77. Maybe he builds an audience this year, then someone else wins, possibly wins re-election, and then 8 years from now, Gravel's ready to jump back in the show, now with extra name recognition. And he's 85. You're gonna vote for an 85-year old man to lead America? Heck, we all thought Cardinal Ratzinger was pretty dang old for a Pope, and he was only 78. And he just has to sit in the Popemobile and wave. President of the United States at 85? I don't think so. 2008 is Mike Gravel's last hurrah. And at this point, he really doesn't have a snowball's chance in Baja California to win.
But that's OK. He's not trying to win anything.
So what's he doing?
I think he's building a movement.
It's similar to the way the Deaniacs have gone on to upend and alter the Democratic party, even though their guy lost (and truth be told, I think he was actually trying to win). Mike Gravel is an old, old man who represented Alaska in the Senate for 12 years. Think about that. A Democrat was elected Senator in Alaska. Not all that long ago. Today, that seems absurd. Alaska is a Republican state, one of the strongest, various scandals not withstanding. Yet he was a 2-term Democratic Senator.
So he's taking one last trip into the spotlight to build up a movement of ideas that he can leave to an heir apparent, or maybe just help energize a generation to his way of thinking.
I have nothing to say pro or con about what he stands for. For me, this isn't the point. The point is, we should recognize what he's doing. It's not running for President. It's trying to shape the electorate. This is the long haul. It took Republicans 20 years to hone their brand down to the success they had in the 90's. It may take even longer for them to recover from the damage of the Bush years.
But every journey starts with a single step.
Or a single stone thrown into the water.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
What's so Funny About Peace, Love, and Anabolic Steroids
Everybody and their mother have been knocking down my door demanding to get my take on all this Steroids hub-bub. It's as if the world can't move on to important matters until I've sounded off and impacted the prevailing wisdom.
I'm that important.
OK. What we all know. Giambi said in private, confidential testimony, that he stabbed his butt a bunch of times and injected Horse Urine into his body, or something like that. I think it was made from Elmo's umbilical cord or something. Oh, and he says it didn't help him.
Bonds said, also in private, confidential testimony, that he rubbed K-Y jelly on his body but thought it was extract of mother's love and apple pie.
We don't know what Randy Velarde said, but we mock him for even being involved.
My first response goes out to whoever leaked this private, confidential testimony. I hope you're found out and sent to prison, where you can only WISH the only thing being jammed into your backside is a needle. These e players were promised anonymity, and that has been ruined. And this isn't a case of me whining about Bonds' and Giambi's privates. I'm thinking of the larger picture.
You think BALCO is the ONLY company providing athletes with naughty substances made out of Satan's Left Boob? Open your eyes. Remember when Caminitti said 50% of baseball was using something? He may not have been that far off. Right now, there are a lot of players thinking "Thank God I don't play in San Francisco or Oakland. The New York (or Milwaukee, or Toronto, or Atlanta) office of Steroids Inc. is still secret."
And let's be honest, the criminals in this case are the SUPPLIERS. The people we want behind bars are the ones MAKING this stuff and peddling it off to Desperate Athletes (Wednesdays at 9 on ABC) around the globe.
So OK, we've toppled the big bad BALCO. And when we move in on CALCO (Chicago Area Lab and Concoctions Organization), you think we'll get a SINGLE witness to testify? Not anymore. Why testify if your "secret" testimony comes out and ruins your LIFE? You think Giambi is ever going to have a pleasant experience playing Baseball ever again in his LIFE? Bonds? (Well, maybe Bonds, but he's really weird)
So that's my first thought. Whoever leaked this has seriously harmed MLB's (and NBA's and NFL's and everyone else's) chances of cleaning up professional sports.
Thanks a lot. Dork.
As for the players. Why bother? How upset was everyone in '98 when Big Mac was caught using a perfectly legal steroid? Fact is, if Bonds used the cream or the clear or the Credence Clearwater Revival, it wasn't against the rules in 2001. Or 2002. He's tested positive since then. Maybe he still uses and we can't detect. Maybe not. Maybe Cody Ransom used them and it made his hands too big to accurately field that damn ground ball in the 9th in game 161. Who knows? Athletes shouldn't use performance enhancers? What's surgery? Tommy John Surgery is a sick, sick thing. Totally unnatural. Anyone notice how lots of folk who have TJS become better pitchers? Anybody crying home to mother about it?
It's one thing to say drugs are bad, M'Kay? But what's a drug? Where does the line get drawn? Some shout out "It's illegal!" Well sure, steroids are illegal... unless you can get a doctor to prescribe them. So let's say a doctor prescribes them to Yorvit and he starts hitting 50 HRs a year. They were prescribed, so they're not illegal. Now what?
"They're against MLB policy." OK. But even as they are now going to bring da hammer to steroids under threat of public admonishment, how far can they go? If they ban specific substances, what about the next brand new thing that's created and isn't on the list? Ban all steroids? OK. But "the squeaky clean" wasn't a steroid, it was a Human Growth Hormone. Ban all foreign substances that can alter the playing field? What about cortisone shots? What about aspirin?
Where do you draw the line?
I don't really have an answer, maybe someone out there does. Am I happy with the knowledge that Bonds probably hit 73 homers with a little help? Not really. Does that mean if a steroid-induced Bonds had been a part of a 2002 team that didn't blow game 6 I'd have been repulsed? Heck no, I want my Championship. I've been waiting my whole life for a SF Giants championship, and if we'd gotten 5 more outs in 2002, I'd have it, and I wouldn't retroactively care if I found out all 25 players were juiced to the gills.
Here's what I think will happen. Steroids abuse will decline. A few more players will look surprisingly Giambi-esque in the next few months. Balls will not be hit as far on such a regular basis. Fastballs will not top 100 MPH so frequently (forgot that the pitchers are using too, didn't you?). Life will go on.
Until the next drug scandal breaks.
From booze to greenies to coke to 'roids. Players will always search for the next thing to give them an advantage. It's the nature of the beast.
Everybody and their mother have been knocking down my door demanding to get my take on all this Steroids hub-bub. It's as if the world can't move on to important matters until I've sounded off and impacted the prevailing wisdom.
I'm that important.
OK. What we all know. Giambi said in private, confidential testimony, that he stabbed his butt a bunch of times and injected Horse Urine into his body, or something like that. I think it was made from Elmo's umbilical cord or something. Oh, and he says it didn't help him.
Bonds said, also in private, confidential testimony, that he rubbed K-Y jelly on his body but thought it was extract of mother's love and apple pie.
We don't know what Randy Velarde said, but we mock him for even being involved.
My first response goes out to whoever leaked this private, confidential testimony. I hope you're found out and sent to prison, where you can only WISH the only thing being jammed into your backside is a needle. These e players were promised anonymity, and that has been ruined. And this isn't a case of me whining about Bonds' and Giambi's privates. I'm thinking of the larger picture.
You think BALCO is the ONLY company providing athletes with naughty substances made out of Satan's Left Boob? Open your eyes. Remember when Caminitti said 50% of baseball was using something? He may not have been that far off. Right now, there are a lot of players thinking "Thank God I don't play in San Francisco or Oakland. The New York (or Milwaukee, or Toronto, or Atlanta) office of Steroids Inc. is still secret."
And let's be honest, the criminals in this case are the SUPPLIERS. The people we want behind bars are the ones MAKING this stuff and peddling it off to Desperate Athletes (Wednesdays at 9 on ABC) around the globe.
So OK, we've toppled the big bad BALCO. And when we move in on CALCO (Chicago Area Lab and Concoctions Organization), you think we'll get a SINGLE witness to testify? Not anymore. Why testify if your "secret" testimony comes out and ruins your LIFE? You think Giambi is ever going to have a pleasant experience playing Baseball ever again in his LIFE? Bonds? (Well, maybe Bonds, but he's really weird)
So that's my first thought. Whoever leaked this has seriously harmed MLB's (and NBA's and NFL's and everyone else's) chances of cleaning up professional sports.
Thanks a lot. Dork.
As for the players. Why bother? How upset was everyone in '98 when Big Mac was caught using a perfectly legal steroid? Fact is, if Bonds used the cream or the clear or the Credence Clearwater Revival, it wasn't against the rules in 2001. Or 2002. He's tested positive since then. Maybe he still uses and we can't detect. Maybe not. Maybe Cody Ransom used them and it made his hands too big to accurately field that damn ground ball in the 9th in game 161. Who knows? Athletes shouldn't use performance enhancers? What's surgery? Tommy John Surgery is a sick, sick thing. Totally unnatural. Anyone notice how lots of folk who have TJS become better pitchers? Anybody crying home to mother about it?
It's one thing to say drugs are bad, M'Kay? But what's a drug? Where does the line get drawn? Some shout out "It's illegal!" Well sure, steroids are illegal... unless you can get a doctor to prescribe them. So let's say a doctor prescribes them to Yorvit and he starts hitting 50 HRs a year. They were prescribed, so they're not illegal. Now what?
"They're against MLB policy." OK. But even as they are now going to bring da hammer to steroids under threat of public admonishment, how far can they go? If they ban specific substances, what about the next brand new thing that's created and isn't on the list? Ban all steroids? OK. But "the squeaky clean" wasn't a steroid, it was a Human Growth Hormone. Ban all foreign substances that can alter the playing field? What about cortisone shots? What about aspirin?
Where do you draw the line?
I don't really have an answer, maybe someone out there does. Am I happy with the knowledge that Bonds probably hit 73 homers with a little help? Not really. Does that mean if a steroid-induced Bonds had been a part of a 2002 team that didn't blow game 6 I'd have been repulsed? Heck no, I want my Championship. I've been waiting my whole life for a SF Giants championship, and if we'd gotten 5 more outs in 2002, I'd have it, and I wouldn't retroactively care if I found out all 25 players were juiced to the gills.
Here's what I think will happen. Steroids abuse will decline. A few more players will look surprisingly Giambi-esque in the next few months. Balls will not be hit as far on such a regular basis. Fastballs will not top 100 MPH so frequently (forgot that the pitchers are using too, didn't you?). Life will go on.
Until the next drug scandal breaks.
From booze to greenies to coke to 'roids. Players will always search for the next thing to give them an advantage. It's the nature of the beast.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Why? God, Why?
So the Giants offered arbitration to Jason Christiansen and declined arbitration for Hermanson, Nen, Burba, and Ledee.
On the surface, this isn't horrible. Nen can still sign that minor league deal he's so fond of and pitch for us in May. Hermanson is going to get "closer money" from someone, which is more than he's worth. Burba was a throwaway deal and no loss. And since Christiansen has apparently agreed not to actually take us to arbitration, then we either sign him at a deal we like, or he goes away and we get a draft pick.
Speaking of which..
WHY DIDN'T WE OFFER ARBITRATION TO LEDEE???
Not that we want him. We don't. But he's ALREADY SIGNED WITH THE DODGERS!!! Doesn't that mean that if we go through the motions of offering him arbitration, then we retroactively get a Dodger draft pick? I may be off-base here, we may already have gotten that draft pick since LA signed him. If so, please tell me. Otherwise, what the Hell is wrong with us? We're already giving away 2 draft picks for Omar and Armando. Can't we at least get one back? Or are we banking on our first pick in the draft bring in the 18th round?
If there is someone smarter than me out there, help this ignorant fool understand.
Until then, I'm gonna go hang my head in shame.
So the Giants offered arbitration to Jason Christiansen and declined arbitration for Hermanson, Nen, Burba, and Ledee.
On the surface, this isn't horrible. Nen can still sign that minor league deal he's so fond of and pitch for us in May. Hermanson is going to get "closer money" from someone, which is more than he's worth. Burba was a throwaway deal and no loss. And since Christiansen has apparently agreed not to actually take us to arbitration, then we either sign him at a deal we like, or he goes away and we get a draft pick.
Speaking of which..
WHY DIDN'T WE OFFER ARBITRATION TO LEDEE???
Not that we want him. We don't. But he's ALREADY SIGNED WITH THE DODGERS!!! Doesn't that mean that if we go through the motions of offering him arbitration, then we retroactively get a Dodger draft pick? I may be off-base here, we may already have gotten that draft pick since LA signed him. If so, please tell me. Otherwise, what the Hell is wrong with us? We're already giving away 2 draft picks for Omar and Armando. Can't we at least get one back? Or are we banking on our first pick in the draft bring in the 18th round?
If there is someone smarter than me out there, help this ignorant fool understand.
Until then, I'm gonna go hang my head in shame.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Are we actually spending money?
Word on the Street is that we're signing Armando Benitez. You may have heard of him. He got 47 saves last year with a 1.29 ERA. He's pretty good.
No details, but we've supposedly shelled out $21 mil for 3 years. That's a heck of a lot of money, and could well become another albatross. But if it gets us a ring this year, do we care?
Rumblings and grumblings from The Lunatic Fringe aside, I take this as a sign that Magowen and Sabean are going for it in 2005. You just know they're gonna get themselves a big, fat Outfielder, and you know there is NO WAY D.P. Pierzynski is a Giant in 2005. They have to save money somewhere, and he's their best candidate to begin the blood-letting. I also ponder the fate of Feliz, who may be traded (along with his expected $3 mil+ salary) for some bullpen help/payroll savings. Unless they manage to unload Alfonzo, but that may be asking too much.
Speaking of which, the Kendall trade has got me thinking. Oakland picked up one bloated contract to get a bonafide good player and fill a desperate need, while unloading two bloated contracts they didn't need, dealing from strength. Sound good to me. Let's deal bloated contracts from our strength and pick up one bloated contract we do need.
What's our strength? Well, we have a lot of starting pitchers, and we have an extra corner infielder...
How about packaging Rueter and Alfonzo for an overpaid-but-viable outfielder? I'm sure there's one out there. Maybe his name is Ken Griffey Jr.? Think the Reds would like a solid lefty in their rotation? And Alfonzo to nail down 3rd and turn the Brandon Larson experiment into a trading chip? I dunno, maybe I'm off-base, but this begins to make sense to me.
Someone give Sabean a call, we may be on to something.
Word on the Street is that we're signing Armando Benitez. You may have heard of him. He got 47 saves last year with a 1.29 ERA. He's pretty good.
No details, but we've supposedly shelled out $21 mil for 3 years. That's a heck of a lot of money, and could well become another albatross. But if it gets us a ring this year, do we care?
Rumblings and grumblings from The Lunatic Fringe aside, I take this as a sign that Magowen and Sabean are going for it in 2005. You just know they're gonna get themselves a big, fat Outfielder, and you know there is NO WAY D.P. Pierzynski is a Giant in 2005. They have to save money somewhere, and he's their best candidate to begin the blood-letting. I also ponder the fate of Feliz, who may be traded (along with his expected $3 mil+ salary) for some bullpen help/payroll savings. Unless they manage to unload Alfonzo, but that may be asking too much.
Speaking of which, the Kendall trade has got me thinking. Oakland picked up one bloated contract to get a bonafide good player and fill a desperate need, while unloading two bloated contracts they didn't need, dealing from strength. Sound good to me. Let's deal bloated contracts from our strength and pick up one bloated contract we do need.
What's our strength? Well, we have a lot of starting pitchers, and we have an extra corner infielder...
How about packaging Rueter and Alfonzo for an overpaid-but-viable outfielder? I'm sure there's one out there. Maybe his name is Ken Griffey Jr.? Think the Reds would like a solid lefty in their rotation? And Alfonzo to nail down 3rd and turn the Brandon Larson experiment into a trading chip? I dunno, maybe I'm off-base, but this begins to make sense to me.
Someone give Sabean a call, we may be on to something.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Starved for News...
So I'm Leap-frogging around the Giants BlogSphere annoyed that nobody's updated today. Then, of course, I realize that I haven't updated myself and I wonder if anyone is periodically hopping into my neck of the woods only to growl with discontent at the lack of my own updates.
I can dream.
Of course, the main reason nobody is blogging is that there isn't anything to blog about. We signed Omar. Old news. Barry won the MVP. Old and obvious news. What else is there to talk about in the off-season?
We are starving for news. Something. Anything that will get us to March. Oh sure, we were mildly interested in the happenings of the AFL, but aside from a decent (not fantastic, just decent) showing by Aardsma, there wasn't much of interest to chat about.
It must be hard for those who actually PLAY the game. They need their time off, they want to get away. But we fans- we few, we happy few- want the latest every moment of every day. Even during the season, I sometimes feel that it's not enough.
"What? We lost today? Are we playing again tonight? What!!! I have to wait until tomorrow? And it's gonna be a night game tomorrow? That's more than 24 hours without Giants' Baseball!"
And don't even talk to me about the All-Star break.
Why are we so addicted to this game? To the team, the players, the stats, the results? What drives this inner fire?
Me? I like being a part of something greater than me. I married into a family of die-hard Red Sox fans. So I spent this last post-season living vicariously through them. From the lows to the ultimate high. When the Sox won it, my father-in-law and brothers-in-law were a part of a euphoria that can't be described in words. And I want to be a part of that.
but if it's all about winning, why don't I just become a Yankees' fan and be done with it? Don't know.
But it probably has something to do with going to games at Candlestick with my Dad at the age of 11 or 12. Watching Milt May crouch behind the plate. Living through the Randy Kutcher month. Getting Dan Gladden's autograph in Arizona when you could still walk up morning of and get a good ticket in Scottsdale.
We all have those moments. I was there in '82 when Joe Morgan hit the homerun. I really was. Just as I was there in 1997 when Florida whooped our butts and the sell-out crowd left the stadium dejected, but for some reason chanting "Druckenmiller! Druckenmiller!" I got married on October 7th, 200, a date made easier to remember because that was when Estes made his bone-headed baserunning play against the Mets.
The Giants are a part of my life. And I never want to be without them. And now, in the off-season, I am starving for my fix.
How about you?
So I'm Leap-frogging around the Giants BlogSphere annoyed that nobody's updated today. Then, of course, I realize that I haven't updated myself and I wonder if anyone is periodically hopping into my neck of the woods only to growl with discontent at the lack of my own updates.
I can dream.
Of course, the main reason nobody is blogging is that there isn't anything to blog about. We signed Omar. Old news. Barry won the MVP. Old and obvious news. What else is there to talk about in the off-season?
We are starving for news. Something. Anything that will get us to March. Oh sure, we were mildly interested in the happenings of the AFL, but aside from a decent (not fantastic, just decent) showing by Aardsma, there wasn't much of interest to chat about.
It must be hard for those who actually PLAY the game. They need their time off, they want to get away. But we fans- we few, we happy few- want the latest every moment of every day. Even during the season, I sometimes feel that it's not enough.
"What? We lost today? Are we playing again tonight? What!!! I have to wait until tomorrow? And it's gonna be a night game tomorrow? That's more than 24 hours without Giants' Baseball!"
And don't even talk to me about the All-Star break.
Why are we so addicted to this game? To the team, the players, the stats, the results? What drives this inner fire?
Me? I like being a part of something greater than me. I married into a family of die-hard Red Sox fans. So I spent this last post-season living vicariously through them. From the lows to the ultimate high. When the Sox won it, my father-in-law and brothers-in-law were a part of a euphoria that can't be described in words. And I want to be a part of that.
but if it's all about winning, why don't I just become a Yankees' fan and be done with it? Don't know.
But it probably has something to do with going to games at Candlestick with my Dad at the age of 11 or 12. Watching Milt May crouch behind the plate. Living through the Randy Kutcher month. Getting Dan Gladden's autograph in Arizona when you could still walk up morning of and get a good ticket in Scottsdale.
We all have those moments. I was there in '82 when Joe Morgan hit the homerun. I really was. Just as I was there in 1997 when Florida whooped our butts and the sell-out crowd left the stadium dejected, but for some reason chanting "Druckenmiller! Druckenmiller!" I got married on October 7th, 200, a date made easier to remember because that was when Estes made his bone-headed baserunning play against the Mets.
The Giants are a part of my life. And I never want to be without them. And now, in the off-season, I am starving for my fix.
How about you?
Friday, November 19, 2004
Ch-ch-ch-Changes and a Thought
First, the more I look around at other blogs, the more I don't like what mine looks like. It just strikes me as "Blogging for Beginners" which is fine but I've been online for closing in on 8 years and know enough HTML to make the site a bit more to my tastes.
Hope this don't ruffle nobody's feathers. Either of you.
A new (to me) Giants blog On The Waterfront posts that he's worried about our starting rotation. Hmmm. Let's discuss, shall we?
Giant's current probably 2005 Starting Rotation:
Schmidt
Tomko
Williams
Lowry
Rueter
(Foppert waiting patiently for someone- read "Kirk Rueter"- to stumble)
I like this group. Especially once Rueter is a multi-million dollar long man out of the bullpen.
I see no reason to spend our hard-earned free agent money on the one position we seem to have covered. Honestly, we need a bat, we need a bullpen. FOCUS PEOPLE!
The best of all possible worlds would be to trade Rueter, put Foppert in the rotation, and keep Valdez and Cain in AAA waiting patiently for their turn. But then, anyone know a gullible GM who wants to toss money down a drain and take Rueter off our hands? Jim Bowden?
For better or worse, we have our Shortstop (In the air). For better or worse, we've given up our 1st round pick (worse) once again. For better or worse, I'm betting Sabean waits until players are / are not offered arbitration before getting his next piece (better). Unless, of course, it's Hermanson, who will force us to give a pick to ourselves, which I'm OK with.
After that. The onus is on Sabean. Get us the outfielder we want, jettison some players we don't want, shore up the bullpen. Or face the wrath of the Lunatic Fringe once again.
Tall order.
First, the more I look around at other blogs, the more I don't like what mine looks like. It just strikes me as "Blogging for Beginners" which is fine but I've been online for closing in on 8 years and know enough HTML to make the site a bit more to my tastes.
Hope this don't ruffle nobody's feathers. Either of you.
A new (to me) Giants blog On The Waterfront posts that he's worried about our starting rotation. Hmmm. Let's discuss, shall we?
Giant's current probably 2005 Starting Rotation:
Schmidt
Tomko
Williams
Lowry
Rueter
(Foppert waiting patiently for someone- read "Kirk Rueter"- to stumble)
I like this group. Especially once Rueter is a multi-million dollar long man out of the bullpen.
I see no reason to spend our hard-earned free agent money on the one position we seem to have covered. Honestly, we need a bat, we need a bullpen. FOCUS PEOPLE!
The best of all possible worlds would be to trade Rueter, put Foppert in the rotation, and keep Valdez and Cain in AAA waiting patiently for their turn. But then, anyone know a gullible GM who wants to toss money down a drain and take Rueter off our hands? Jim Bowden?
For better or worse, we have our Shortstop (In the air). For better or worse, we've given up our 1st round pick (worse) once again. For better or worse, I'm betting Sabean waits until players are / are not offered arbitration before getting his next piece (better). Unless, of course, it's Hermanson, who will force us to give a pick to ourselves, which I'm OK with.
After that. The onus is on Sabean. Get us the outfielder we want, jettison some players we don't want, shore up the bullpen. Or face the wrath of the Lunatic Fringe once again.
Tall order.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Could we GET any older?
Numerous reports say the Giants are seriously looking to nab Steve Finley to play CF.
He's 40.
I know I just praised the possible acquisition of a 38 year-old, but now that our SS is 38, I'm starting to think age doesn't equal beauty here.
I'm 33, and the idea that the Giants may come close to a starting 8 who are all older than me baffles me to no end. Alfonzo is younger than me. Durham by about 2 months. Whoever our catcher is will probably be younger than me. That's it. Snow. Vizquel. Bonds. Grissom. Tucker. All older than me. Add Finley. Older. I thought the idea was to get guys in the prime years, between 26-29? We have NONE of those outside of catcher.
Really, I don't get it. We all made those jokes about the Arizona geezers, but we're knock-knock-knocking on their door. Maybe they can lend us their canes and walkers and we, too, can lose 111 games. Wouldn't that be fun!
Here's what I say. If you get Finley for one year, say $4 million. Fine. But that'll never happen. He's gonna get 3 years for $20 million. So here we go paying out gobs of money in 2006 and 2007 to stiffs, just when we get out from under the Alfonzo and Durham contracts.
Sometimes I think Sabean's a genius, sometimes I want to wring his neck.
What do you think? Are we too old? Can a team be too old? Will we ever get younger?
come to think of it, isn't Julio Franco available? Sounds like he'd fit right in over here.
Numerous reports say the Giants are seriously looking to nab Steve Finley to play CF.
He's 40.
I know I just praised the possible acquisition of a 38 year-old, but now that our SS is 38, I'm starting to think age doesn't equal beauty here.
I'm 33, and the idea that the Giants may come close to a starting 8 who are all older than me baffles me to no end. Alfonzo is younger than me. Durham by about 2 months. Whoever our catcher is will probably be younger than me. That's it. Snow. Vizquel. Bonds. Grissom. Tucker. All older than me. Add Finley. Older. I thought the idea was to get guys in the prime years, between 26-29? We have NONE of those outside of catcher.
Really, I don't get it. We all made those jokes about the Arizona geezers, but we're knock-knock-knocking on their door. Maybe they can lend us their canes and walkers and we, too, can lose 111 games. Wouldn't that be fun!
Here's what I say. If you get Finley for one year, say $4 million. Fine. But that'll never happen. He's gonna get 3 years for $20 million. So here we go paying out gobs of money in 2006 and 2007 to stiffs, just when we get out from under the Alfonzo and Durham contracts.
Sometimes I think Sabean's a genius, sometimes I want to wring his neck.
What do you think? Are we too old? Can a team be too old? Will we ever get younger?
come to think of it, isn't Julio Franco available? Sounds like he'd fit right in over here.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
What Do You Do With A Problem Like Pierzynski
That headline, of course, needs to be sung to the tune of the Maria song from Sound of Music, just so you know.
Marty Cortinas of Across the Seams (a great Giants blog that you probably already know about, got to have an intimate 1 on 250 chat with Sabean and Magowan. (Do they invite random bloggers? Can I sign up for the next one?) They say a lot of things that you're better off reading first-hand.
A couple of items of note. It sure as heck sounds like D.P. Pierzynski is headed for the greener pastures of the untendered. While this may mean the Yorvit era has officially begun, it may also herald the search for another catcher.
Meanwhile, Sabean laments that they needs to find a position for Feliz to get regular playing time.
Dude! Solve two birds with one stone! Can Pedro catch?
Also, it sounds like Sabean accepts blame for, basically, making a bad trade when he tossed Nathan. Nice to hear the man take responsibility for his actions. Not that it makes it an y easier to watch Nathan become an all-star closer while our bullpen costs us a Post-Season spot, but one hopes he learns from his mistakes.
Of course, he did just sign a 37 (almost 38) year-old shortstop...
That headline, of course, needs to be sung to the tune of the Maria song from Sound of Music, just so you know.
Marty Cortinas of Across the Seams (a great Giants blog that you probably already know about, got to have an intimate 1 on 250 chat with Sabean and Magowan. (Do they invite random bloggers? Can I sign up for the next one?) They say a lot of things that you're better off reading first-hand.
A couple of items of note. It sure as heck sounds like D.P. Pierzynski is headed for the greener pastures of the untendered. While this may mean the Yorvit era has officially begun, it may also herald the search for another catcher.
Meanwhile, Sabean laments that they needs to find a position for Feliz to get regular playing time.
Dude! Solve two birds with one stone! Can Pedro catch?
Also, it sounds like Sabean accepts blame for, basically, making a bad trade when he tossed Nathan. Nice to hear the man take responsibility for his actions. Not that it makes it an y easier to watch Nathan become an all-star closer while our bullpen costs us a Post-Season spot, but one hopes he learns from his mistakes.
Of course, he did just sign a 37 (almost 38) year-old shortstop...
Monday, November 15, 2004
Omar of the Hill People
Well we've landed a Shortstop. He's 37. We signed him for 3 years.
Huh.
New Sabean goal: get an entire lineup of 35+ year-olds.
I mean hey, Bonds is a stud at 40, so obviously, the older a player, the better he is, right?
Isolated, this may not be the disaster it at first appears. The terms of Omar's deal.
2005 2.5 mil
2006 4 mil
2007 4 mil
2008 1 mil deferred
2009 .75 mil deferred
So OK, we're paying 2.5 million this year for a defensive whiz who has a knack of getting on base from time to time. (Career OBP of around.340)
That's not bad.
The big question is ging to be: is he just gonna get old? If the answer is no, then this is a fine deal. Sure, we're all suffering from sticker shock, but would you rather be the Cubs, who inked Neifi for an other tour of duty? (Even as a back-up)
At least we know, now, that Sabean was being totally honest when he said he wanted to improve on our defense. This does just that. It also ensures Code-E Ransom will not see the light of Pac Bell any time soon.
So now there's every indication that we're gonna resign Hermanson to be our closer. That can't be THAT expensive, not like a Percival or Benitez would be.
So maybe, just maybe, we have some money to spend for that outfielder we're hoping for. Or maybe we pull a Yankee and spend some money to get some reliable bullpen help outside of Hermanson (Kline?).
Basically, if this is the sum total of our off-season moves, we're sunk. If it's the beginning of the movement, this might be a decent off-season after all.
We can dream, right?
Well we've landed a Shortstop. He's 37. We signed him for 3 years.
Huh.
New Sabean goal: get an entire lineup of 35+ year-olds.
I mean hey, Bonds is a stud at 40, so obviously, the older a player, the better he is, right?
Isolated, this may not be the disaster it at first appears. The terms of Omar's deal.
2005 2.5 mil
2006 4 mil
2007 4 mil
2008 1 mil deferred
2009 .75 mil deferred
So OK, we're paying 2.5 million this year for a defensive whiz who has a knack of getting on base from time to time. (Career OBP of around.340)
That's not bad.
The big question is ging to be: is he just gonna get old? If the answer is no, then this is a fine deal. Sure, we're all suffering from sticker shock, but would you rather be the Cubs, who inked Neifi for an other tour of duty? (Even as a back-up)
At least we know, now, that Sabean was being totally honest when he said he wanted to improve on our defense. This does just that. It also ensures Code-E Ransom will not see the light of Pac Bell any time soon.
So now there's every indication that we're gonna resign Hermanson to be our closer. That can't be THAT expensive, not like a Percival or Benitez would be.
So maybe, just maybe, we have some money to spend for that outfielder we're hoping for. Or maybe we pull a Yankee and spend some money to get some reliable bullpen help outside of Hermanson (Kline?).
Basically, if this is the sum total of our off-season moves, we're sunk. If it's the beginning of the movement, this might be a decent off-season after all.
We can dream, right?
Thursday, November 11, 2004
More Moises
I've gotten some feedback on my less-than-subtle on-my-knees begging for Moises Alou to join Daddy and smack the ball around Pac Bell.
My first reaction is one of surprise. I honestly had no idea anyone ever read this thing. I should start spell-checking it.
But my second was to look at the over-arching comments and see if they're right, I'm right, or we're all right, so let's just get along.
The main knock against Mr. Moises that came out was the idea that he makes a lot of outs. I'm not so sure this is as true, at least on paper, as it may seem. In 2004, he had a .361 OBP, slightly below his career average of .367. However, it's been 4 years and 2 teams since he's matched his career average. Still, his lowest OBP in the last decade was .337., and that was three years ago in his first tour of Cubbie duty. Looking closer at that year, it looks to be an aberration in his career. Here are his OPS totals for the last 11 years:
.823, .989, .801, .796, .866, .981, .1.039, .950, .756, .819, .918
His .756 stands out as his lowest by over 50 points in the last seven years. Also, he's IMPROVED for three straight years.
Meanwhile, even were Alou to match his worst season in the past 11 years and manage a .337 OBP, that's better than the 2004 OBP posted by:
Grissom
Feliz
A.J.
Deivi Cruz
Neifi (duh over 300 at bats for a .276 OBP!)
Yorvit
And if he does what he did last year? A below career-average .361? Add these names to the list:
Alfonzo
Tucker
In fact, of the 2004 Giants to get 100 at bats, only four beat him. Bonds, of course. Snow. Mohr. And Durham (but only barely, at .364)
So while a number of Cubs fans are saying how Alou makes so many outs. All I can say is.. sounds like a perfect fit!
I've gotten some feedback on my less-than-subtle on-my-knees begging for Moises Alou to join Daddy and smack the ball around Pac Bell.
My first reaction is one of surprise. I honestly had no idea anyone ever read this thing. I should start spell-checking it.
But my second was to look at the over-arching comments and see if they're right, I'm right, or we're all right, so let's just get along.
The main knock against Mr. Moises that came out was the idea that he makes a lot of outs. I'm not so sure this is as true, at least on paper, as it may seem. In 2004, he had a .361 OBP, slightly below his career average of .367. However, it's been 4 years and 2 teams since he's matched his career average. Still, his lowest OBP in the last decade was .337., and that was three years ago in his first tour of Cubbie duty. Looking closer at that year, it looks to be an aberration in his career. Here are his OPS totals for the last 11 years:
.823, .989, .801, .796, .866, .981, .1.039, .950, .756, .819, .918
His .756 stands out as his lowest by over 50 points in the last seven years. Also, he's IMPROVED for three straight years.
Meanwhile, even were Alou to match his worst season in the past 11 years and manage a .337 OBP, that's better than the 2004 OBP posted by:
Grissom
Feliz
A.J.
Deivi Cruz
Neifi (duh over 300 at bats for a .276 OBP!)
Yorvit
And if he does what he did last year? A below career-average .361? Add these names to the list:
Alfonzo
Tucker
In fact, of the 2004 Giants to get 100 at bats, only four beat him. Bonds, of course. Snow. Mohr. And Durham (but only barely, at .364)
So while a number of Cubs fans are saying how Alou makes so many outs. All I can say is.. sounds like a perfect fit!
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Oh Please, oh please, oh please...
According to MLB.com, Moises Alou wants to be a Giant.
Make no mistake about this, he WANTS to come here. If he were offered identical contracts from every team, he'd pick SF.
Do we want him?
Well he's old. 38. So he fits right in. An outfield of Bonds, Grissom, and Alou may well be one of the oldest outfields ever.
HOWEVER
Last year he hit .291 and smacked 39 HRs for an OPS of .919. .919!!! If he can even come close to his career average of .880, how much of a lift is that over The Tuckernator?
I know what you're saying. We don't need offence. We need pitching.
Well actually, we need a Bullpen. Our rotation is fine. I'm perfectly happy with Schmidt/Tomko/Williams/Lowry/Rueter(Foppert). That's a good group. But come on, do we want to overpay for Percival? How much would Benitez cost?
But the offence... Add Alou. Here's your line-up.
Durham
Snow
Grissom
Bonds
Alou
Grisson
Cruz
Random Catcher (Yorvit, A.J., whatever)
Suddenly, we can score some serious runs. Suddenly, we have that 2nd real threat we've lacked since El Truck Washer left town.
This is not a pipe dream... HE WANTS TO COME HERE!
Who's with me?
According to MLB.com, Moises Alou wants to be a Giant.
Make no mistake about this, he WANTS to come here. If he were offered identical contracts from every team, he'd pick SF.
Do we want him?
Well he's old. 38. So he fits right in. An outfield of Bonds, Grissom, and Alou may well be one of the oldest outfields ever.
HOWEVER
Last year he hit .291 and smacked 39 HRs for an OPS of .919. .919!!! If he can even come close to his career average of .880, how much of a lift is that over The Tuckernator?
I know what you're saying. We don't need offence. We need pitching.
Well actually, we need a Bullpen. Our rotation is fine. I'm perfectly happy with Schmidt/Tomko/Williams/Lowry/Rueter(Foppert). That's a good group. But come on, do we want to overpay for Percival? How much would Benitez cost?
But the offence... Add Alou. Here's your line-up.
Durham
Snow
Grissom
Bonds
Alou
Grisson
Cruz
Random Catcher (Yorvit, A.J., whatever)
Suddenly, we can score some serious runs. Suddenly, we have that 2nd real threat we've lacked since El Truck Washer left town.
This is not a pipe dream... HE WANTS TO COME HERE!
Who's with me?
Monday, October 11, 2004
The End of the Season
I haven't written in quite a while, and I'm sure both of you are furious with me.
No excuse, got caught up in the possible end-0f-the-season miracle. You know, the one we blew away in the span of 8 batters on a fateful Saturday in Los Angeles?
Truth? I was at the game.
I'm still recovering.
My father-in-law (Red Sox fan) was in town so the two of us headed out last minute, got pretty bad seats way up the 1B line, and watched history unfold.
Soon as we sit down, he tells me that, based on a lifetime of seat-jumping at Fenway, we'll be able to move up to better seats by the 4th or 5th. It is a surprising testimony to Dodger fans that we never moved as much as one row closer. There were no seats to be had.
Sweetest moment? Bottom the 8th. 2 on, 2 out. Beltre up. The entire place chanting "MVP! MVP!" Beltre grounds out. I stand up and chant "MVP! MVP!" I still can't believe I did something like that, but enough people appreciated the irony of it, that I wasn't hated.
Luckily for Giants fans everywhere, baseball is an 8-inning game. Can you imagine if we had to try to go out there and get another 3 outs? We wouldn't be where we are now, headed back to Atlanta for game 5, with Lowry going to the mound to continue his rookie miracle season...
Humor me. I live in denial.
91 wins sounds like a lot. And it is. Unless it takes 92 to make the playoffs. Then you go through the 71 losses and pick a handful that we plum blew. Turns out there are lots of culprits, aside from the heartbreaker in BlueLand.
Whenever the Giants blow an April or May game that they should have won, it irks me to know end to hear players, managers, anyone talk about how "It's OK, it's only peril. The game doesn't mean as much..."
Dudes!! It's a loss! One less "Oops, did we lose that game?" in April would have given us 92 wins and then who knows. How about getting swept at home by Pittsburgh? How about 4 straight 1-run losses at home to LA? How about games where we blew 5-run leads against Colorado? Boston? Anyone?
Uhg.
So now I root for Boston. Partly because I have to, by the laws of marriage. But also partly so there will be one less team that has waited as long as we have for a championship. Kids, it's been 50 years. If the Red Sox win, then it's down to us and the Cubs and maybe a couple others I'm not thinking of at the moment. (White Sox?)
Eventually, even the Cubs will win, and then it'll just be the Giants. Suffering for 50+ years. With some of the best players ever to suit up. (Mays. McCovey. Bonds. Marichal.) And no championships. That's my dream.
On the other hand, 2005 might just be our year.
You think?
I haven't written in quite a while, and I'm sure both of you are furious with me.
No excuse, got caught up in the possible end-0f-the-season miracle. You know, the one we blew away in the span of 8 batters on a fateful Saturday in Los Angeles?
Truth? I was at the game.
I'm still recovering.
My father-in-law (Red Sox fan) was in town so the two of us headed out last minute, got pretty bad seats way up the 1B line, and watched history unfold.
Soon as we sit down, he tells me that, based on a lifetime of seat-jumping at Fenway, we'll be able to move up to better seats by the 4th or 5th. It is a surprising testimony to Dodger fans that we never moved as much as one row closer. There were no seats to be had.
Sweetest moment? Bottom the 8th. 2 on, 2 out. Beltre up. The entire place chanting "MVP! MVP!" Beltre grounds out. I stand up and chant "MVP! MVP!" I still can't believe I did something like that, but enough people appreciated the irony of it, that I wasn't hated.
Luckily for Giants fans everywhere, baseball is an 8-inning game. Can you imagine if we had to try to go out there and get another 3 outs? We wouldn't be where we are now, headed back to Atlanta for game 5, with Lowry going to the mound to continue his rookie miracle season...
Humor me. I live in denial.
91 wins sounds like a lot. And it is. Unless it takes 92 to make the playoffs. Then you go through the 71 losses and pick a handful that we plum blew. Turns out there are lots of culprits, aside from the heartbreaker in BlueLand.
Whenever the Giants blow an April or May game that they should have won, it irks me to know end to hear players, managers, anyone talk about how "It's OK, it's only peril. The game doesn't mean as much..."
Dudes!! It's a loss! One less "Oops, did we lose that game?" in April would have given us 92 wins and then who knows. How about getting swept at home by Pittsburgh? How about 4 straight 1-run losses at home to LA? How about games where we blew 5-run leads against Colorado? Boston? Anyone?
Uhg.
So now I root for Boston. Partly because I have to, by the laws of marriage. But also partly so there will be one less team that has waited as long as we have for a championship. Kids, it's been 50 years. If the Red Sox win, then it's down to us and the Cubs and maybe a couple others I'm not thinking of at the moment. (White Sox?)
Eventually, even the Cubs will win, and then it'll just be the Giants. Suffering for 50+ years. With some of the best players ever to suit up. (Mays. McCovey. Bonds. Marichal.) And no championships. That's my dream.
On the other hand, 2005 might just be our year.
You think?
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
String Him Up
Another Off-Monday means the Giants are quiet as they get ready for a must-sweep series against the Brewers.
Doesn't mean baseball was quiet.
Across the pond from Pac Bell, a very ugly incident took place. Anyone here bothering to read this knows what I'm talking about. And my personal take is pretty much what most are saying. Frank Francisco needs to be dealt with harshly. VERY harshly. If he pitches again in 2004, it's a travesty. He probably shouldn't pitch in 2005 either.
Look, you're a professional ballplayer. Sports is an emotional world. People love their teams, some of them get drunk (less than you'd think, but it only takes one...). They're gonna say some horrible things. But I don't care if the fans are saying your three year-old daughter is having sex with their dog, your job is to ignore them. They are drunk. They are louts. You make a lot more money than they ever will.
Francisco couldn't handle it. He threw a chair into the stands.
He should go to jail.
It's that simple. The chair flew into the stands, apparently hit it's intended target on the head, then bounced and hit an unintended female target in the face, breaking her nose.
Francisco should go to jail.
Not just suspended, which ought to be obvious, but jailed. Behind bars. And sued. Trust me, he will be sued. But we need to keep our anger in check. The woman with the broken nose will sue. She should. But she should only sue Francisco. Not the Oakland As. Not the Texas Rangers. Not MLB. Francisco. Not as deep a pocket, but he threw the chair, so he should pay the price.
This is where we hold our breath and look to see if the fine line of decency is crossed and what starts out as an ugly incident turns into a frivolous lawsuit by an ambulance chaser. Francisco threw a chair at her and broke her nose. He should pay her, I don't know, maybe a few hundred thousand dollars. A year's salary. My fear is her lawyer will want her to become a millionaire over this, and that crosses the line.
We'll see.
Another Off-Monday means the Giants are quiet as they get ready for a must-sweep series against the Brewers.
Doesn't mean baseball was quiet.
Across the pond from Pac Bell, a very ugly incident took place. Anyone here bothering to read this knows what I'm talking about. And my personal take is pretty much what most are saying. Frank Francisco needs to be dealt with harshly. VERY harshly. If he pitches again in 2004, it's a travesty. He probably shouldn't pitch in 2005 either.
Look, you're a professional ballplayer. Sports is an emotional world. People love their teams, some of them get drunk (less than you'd think, but it only takes one...). They're gonna say some horrible things. But I don't care if the fans are saying your three year-old daughter is having sex with their dog, your job is to ignore them. They are drunk. They are louts. You make a lot more money than they ever will.
Francisco couldn't handle it. He threw a chair into the stands.
He should go to jail.
It's that simple. The chair flew into the stands, apparently hit it's intended target on the head, then bounced and hit an unintended female target in the face, breaking her nose.
Francisco should go to jail.
Not just suspended, which ought to be obvious, but jailed. Behind bars. And sued. Trust me, he will be sued. But we need to keep our anger in check. The woman with the broken nose will sue. She should. But she should only sue Francisco. Not the Oakland As. Not the Texas Rangers. Not MLB. Francisco. Not as deep a pocket, but he threw the chair, so he should pay the price.
This is where we hold our breath and look to see if the fine line of decency is crossed and what starts out as an ugly incident turns into a frivolous lawsuit by an ambulance chaser. Francisco threw a chair at her and broke her nose. He should pay her, I don't know, maybe a few hundred thousand dollars. A year's salary. My fear is her lawyer will want her to become a millionaire over this, and that crosses the line.
We'll see.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Argh! (and other 4-letter words)
Jason Schmidt can just give back the Cy Young award he won about a month ago. Is there ANYONE who thinks he's fully healthy after his groin pull? He's been shelled 3 straight times!
The only reason the Giants are even alive for a playoff spot is that they have beaten up on weaker competition from time to time, though not, of course, on the Rockies.
2004 is over. It just is. It's over for the Giants, it's probably over for the Cubs. The wild card looks to be Houston or Florida, two teams who were left for dead a few weeks ago, but pretty much expected to be in it this year. They are living proof that it's not how you get out of the gate, but how you stay aloft for the long haul. Getting hot at the right time will do wonders.
Meanwhile, what to do with the Giants? I'm going to pretend I'm Brian Sabean and that I can cut whomever I want for 2005. Should be fun.
Outfield:
Bonds, Mohr, Tucker, + 2. One of those two should be a young, bold, PROSPECT. Liek Linden, or speedster Ellison. Grissom? Go. Go far away. Leave us be. Ledee? Are you kidding me?
Infiled:
Snow, Durham, Alfonzo, Cruz. TRADE PEDRO FELIZ NOW! While people see the power and ignore everything else. Yes, he somehow backed into a 9th inning walk last night and was not the reason we lost. But in my world, to be on my team, you have to have an OBP of AT LEAST .300! You've got your starting 4. You need backups. DON'T PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR THEM! Dallimore, Ransom, and others will do just fine in these rolls, and cost a lot less than a "proven veteran."
Catcher:
Trade A.J. Pick up a servicable back-up Catcher. Yorvit can start. A.J. may be worth something from someone who wants the eternal promise of a .300 hitter. Admit that trading Nathan away was a HUGE mistake.
Notice I'm not being overly down on the offence. Nor all that realistic. Why? Because the offence isn't the problem.
Rotation:
Schmidt- but let him heal.
Lowry- but let him be the #3 guy.
Tomko- but let him be the #4 guy.
Bring up Cain or another young gun and let him be the #5.
Gee... that leaves the #2 slot. And... Rueter? Nope. This is where Sabean needs to work the market. Get us the #2 guy we need. Pick him up, he's out there, available. Go get him. Please. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.
Bullpen:
Brower
Hermanson
..
..
I have no idea.
OK. I guess pitching is what's going to decide Sabean's off-season. It's no secret we need quality pitching. It's no secret it's out there. So keep an eye on what Sabean does to our pitching. Don't fret too much when we fail to sign Garciaparra or Delgado or J.D. Drew. But scour the newslines looking for the pitching.
This offence can win it all in 2005. This pitching staff can't.
Jason Schmidt can just give back the Cy Young award he won about a month ago. Is there ANYONE who thinks he's fully healthy after his groin pull? He's been shelled 3 straight times!
The only reason the Giants are even alive for a playoff spot is that they have beaten up on weaker competition from time to time, though not, of course, on the Rockies.
2004 is over. It just is. It's over for the Giants, it's probably over for the Cubs. The wild card looks to be Houston or Florida, two teams who were left for dead a few weeks ago, but pretty much expected to be in it this year. They are living proof that it's not how you get out of the gate, but how you stay aloft for the long haul. Getting hot at the right time will do wonders.
Meanwhile, what to do with the Giants? I'm going to pretend I'm Brian Sabean and that I can cut whomever I want for 2005. Should be fun.
Outfield:
Bonds, Mohr, Tucker, + 2. One of those two should be a young, bold, PROSPECT. Liek Linden, or speedster Ellison. Grissom? Go. Go far away. Leave us be. Ledee? Are you kidding me?
Infiled:
Snow, Durham, Alfonzo, Cruz. TRADE PEDRO FELIZ NOW! While people see the power and ignore everything else. Yes, he somehow backed into a 9th inning walk last night and was not the reason we lost. But in my world, to be on my team, you have to have an OBP of AT LEAST .300! You've got your starting 4. You need backups. DON'T PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR THEM! Dallimore, Ransom, and others will do just fine in these rolls, and cost a lot less than a "proven veteran."
Catcher:
Trade A.J. Pick up a servicable back-up Catcher. Yorvit can start. A.J. may be worth something from someone who wants the eternal promise of a .300 hitter. Admit that trading Nathan away was a HUGE mistake.
Notice I'm not being overly down on the offence. Nor all that realistic. Why? Because the offence isn't the problem.
Rotation:
Schmidt- but let him heal.
Lowry- but let him be the #3 guy.
Tomko- but let him be the #4 guy.
Bring up Cain or another young gun and let him be the #5.
Gee... that leaves the #2 slot. And... Rueter? Nope. This is where Sabean needs to work the market. Get us the #2 guy we need. Pick him up, he's out there, available. Go get him. Please. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.
Bullpen:
Brower
Hermanson
..
..
I have no idea.
OK. I guess pitching is what's going to decide Sabean's off-season. It's no secret we need quality pitching. It's no secret it's out there. So keep an eye on what Sabean does to our pitching. Don't fret too much when we fail to sign Garciaparra or Delgado or J.D. Drew. But scour the newslines looking for the pitching.
This offence can win it all in 2005. This pitching staff can't.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
It's only the D-Backs
On one hand, I want to be excited about a 3-game sweep. ANY 3-game sweep. I want to explain away Lowry's bad outing to strep throat and a 100 degree fever and revel in Tomko's resurgence. On the other hand... IT'S ONY THE DIAMONDBACKS. This is the WORST team in the majors.
Still, we beat Randy Johnson, no easy task. Sure he's 12-13 now, but his ERA is better than any Giant's starter.( Including Schmidt, who's over 3 now) and he's FREAKIN' RANDY JOHNSON! We scored 4 off Randy. Not bad, kids. Not bad at all.
And now we go to Colorado. Will we continue this mini-uprising? Only 3 1/2 behind LA, can we make it up? Will Chicago choke on a series of double-headers? How do they reschedule an enitre series? How do these double-headers work? Do they play one team in the morning, then the Marlins fly in from Pittsburgh and play an evening game, then go back to Pitt. for game 2?
So many questions. That's the point of the 2004 Giants. All questions, no answers. The season is over when they lose to Colorado, then back alive after sweeping from the worst team in the majors? I don't think so.
This is a flawed team trying to make it on flash and sizzle.
Still, there's only 3 actual teams in the NL this year, ayet 4 need to go to the playoffs.
Why not us?
On one hand, I want to be excited about a 3-game sweep. ANY 3-game sweep. I want to explain away Lowry's bad outing to strep throat and a 100 degree fever and revel in Tomko's resurgence. On the other hand... IT'S ONY THE DIAMONDBACKS. This is the WORST team in the majors.
Still, we beat Randy Johnson, no easy task. Sure he's 12-13 now, but his ERA is better than any Giant's starter.( Including Schmidt, who's over 3 now) and he's FREAKIN' RANDY JOHNSON! We scored 4 off Randy. Not bad, kids. Not bad at all.
And now we go to Colorado. Will we continue this mini-uprising? Only 3 1/2 behind LA, can we make it up? Will Chicago choke on a series of double-headers? How do they reschedule an enitre series? How do these double-headers work? Do they play one team in the morning, then the Marlins fly in from Pittsburgh and play an evening game, then go back to Pitt. for game 2?
So many questions. That's the point of the 2004 Giants. All questions, no answers. The season is over when they lose to Colorado, then back alive after sweeping from the worst team in the majors? I don't think so.
This is a flawed team trying to make it on flash and sizzle.
Still, there's only 3 actual teams in the NL this year, ayet 4 need to go to the playoffs.
Why not us?
Friday, September 03, 2004
The Day The Season Died
Let me take you back.
Tuesday, August 17th. That was the day the Giants' season ended. We won. But in all reality, we lost, big time.
Jason Schmidt leads Montreal 4-2 after 8 innings. He comes out to pitch the 9th, throws three warm-up tosses, and leaves. Hermanson blows the save, but scavanges the win.
We haven't been the same team since.
You think Jason's fully healthy? He's been shelled twice in a row since coming back from his minor groin pull. I'm no doctor, but I'm a guy and I don't think there's anything remotely close to a MINOR groin pull.
That's like saying we currently have a MINOR budget deficit. Without The Schimdterator, we're a decent offense behind a AAA rotation. Oh sure, we're only 1 1/2 behind the Cubs for the Wild Card, but if I'm Chicago, I'm more worried about Florida and Houston than SF and SD. Time to pack it in? Of course not. Miracles happen. We've won 10 in a row this season, we can do it again. One never knows. But in al reality, we need to look ahead to 2005 and MAKE A REAL PUSH FOR A TITLE.
The offence, much maligned, is actually in decent shape. Install Mohr full time, let Grissom go. That's an upgrade. Would we like a bopper? Sure thing. But more than that.. we need a HUGE starting pitcher. Steal Pedro from Boston. Or something. There are some Starters on the market this winter. We NEED to get one. And I don't mean make a last second curtesy bid to Greg Maddox only to be spurned, I mean make the first move, signalling to other free agents that 2005 is the Giants' year.
We wiping Nen's $9 mil off the books this year. Don't have to pay F-Rod's $3.5 mi. Niefi won't be eating up $2 mil. The money is there. USE IT!
Or forever rest in peace.
Let me take you back.
Tuesday, August 17th. That was the day the Giants' season ended. We won. But in all reality, we lost, big time.
Jason Schmidt leads Montreal 4-2 after 8 innings. He comes out to pitch the 9th, throws three warm-up tosses, and leaves. Hermanson blows the save, but scavanges the win.
We haven't been the same team since.
You think Jason's fully healthy? He's been shelled twice in a row since coming back from his minor groin pull. I'm no doctor, but I'm a guy and I don't think there's anything remotely close to a MINOR groin pull.
That's like saying we currently have a MINOR budget deficit. Without The Schimdterator, we're a decent offense behind a AAA rotation. Oh sure, we're only 1 1/2 behind the Cubs for the Wild Card, but if I'm Chicago, I'm more worried about Florida and Houston than SF and SD. Time to pack it in? Of course not. Miracles happen. We've won 10 in a row this season, we can do it again. One never knows. But in al reality, we need to look ahead to 2005 and MAKE A REAL PUSH FOR A TITLE.
The offence, much maligned, is actually in decent shape. Install Mohr full time, let Grissom go. That's an upgrade. Would we like a bopper? Sure thing. But more than that.. we need a HUGE starting pitcher. Steal Pedro from Boston. Or something. There are some Starters on the market this winter. We NEED to get one. And I don't mean make a last second curtesy bid to Greg Maddox only to be spurned, I mean make the first move, signalling to other free agents that 2005 is the Giants' year.
We wiping Nen's $9 mil off the books this year. Don't have to pay F-Rod's $3.5 mi. Niefi won't be eating up $2 mil. The money is there. USE IT!
Or forever rest in peace.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Group Therapy II
"So....."
"Go ahead Kirk, let it out."
"So I lost again."
"Go on."
"Gave up 2 Earned runs in 5 innings. Then another Earned run in 1/3 of an inning."
"Ah."
"WHY DO THEY KEEP BRINGING ME OUT FOR THE 6TH???"
"Now, now Kirk. Let's be honest. You gave up 2 runs in the 5th. Nothing stellar about that."
"Don't change the subject on me! I can't pitch the 6th! I can't! God help me, I can't!"
"Kirk, I'm feeling hostility. Not everybody can pitch the 6th inning, you know. It's OK."
"Doc, let's face it. I'm a freak of nature. Coming into the season with one of the best records for a left-hander currently pitching. I've never been a good pitcher but I've always won! Now I'm not winning! What's wrong with me?"
"Well, you said it yourself. You're not a good pitcher. Let's work with that."
"Screw it. I don't care anymore. I'm making a ton of money. I'm just going to go out there and let the losses pile up. What are they gonna do? Put me in the bullpen?"
"Interesting idea..."
"So....."
"Go ahead Kirk, let it out."
"So I lost again."
"Go on."
"Gave up 2 Earned runs in 5 innings. Then another Earned run in 1/3 of an inning."
"Ah."
"WHY DO THEY KEEP BRINGING ME OUT FOR THE 6TH???"
"Now, now Kirk. Let's be honest. You gave up 2 runs in the 5th. Nothing stellar about that."
"Don't change the subject on me! I can't pitch the 6th! I can't! God help me, I can't!"
"Kirk, I'm feeling hostility. Not everybody can pitch the 6th inning, you know. It's OK."
"Doc, let's face it. I'm a freak of nature. Coming into the season with one of the best records for a left-hander currently pitching. I've never been a good pitcher but I've always won! Now I'm not winning! What's wrong with me?"
"Well, you said it yourself. You're not a good pitcher. Let's work with that."
"Screw it. I don't care anymore. I'm making a ton of money. I'm just going to go out there and let the losses pile up. What are they gonna do? Put me in the bullpen?"
"Interesting idea..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)