Commenting on comments

I find it rather humorous that I could get under someone's skin.

An anonymous reader took me up on my offer to comment the other day, and my emotions were conflicted when I read his/her thoughts. I was pleased because it means I'm not just whistling in the wind -- someone is actually reading. I was also diappointed because this poor soul seemed to think I was a complete dweeb while simultaneously making my point for me.

I guess it should be expected. People who post on sites like this do so primarily because they're ticked off: ticked at the Giants, at me, at the price of gas, or even the inordiante amount of air time given to Ryan Seacrest. This isn't the place where you hear much "Love your blog, Dude!" I gotta admit, I started this enterprise because Giants management made me so angry on such a regular basis that I needed a mechanism to vent, and this blog is my way of avoiding the need to scale a clock tower with a deer rifle.

It's not my intent to answer every Pollyanna Giants fan who doesn't understand why the addition of DeRosa and Huff won't lead to a 162-0 mark. But the comments of this poor, lost soul actually forced me to sit down and review my position. Am I being too harsh on the Giants. Is my ire at the direction of this team misplaced?

Uh, not even close.

It's hard to take too seriously someone who immediately launches into the theory that you can't make a decent argument while attempting to be, at least somewhat, amusing. The hosts and crews of both "P.T.I." and "Around the Horn" would be rolling drunks for nickels were that the case. Although, I'll admit, Tony Kornheiser really isn't funny.

But here's what got to me. From my new BFF:

"The Giants are better off this year than last. What the Giant fan needs to remember is, this is a franchise that built a ballpark that is pitcher friendly. Thus they have drafted primetime pitchers and rely on free agents to fill out the lineup."

And that's worked out how, exactly?  The reader made my point. Look at the system, and look what that system has brought forth.

The primetime pitchers they drafted are Lincecum, Cain, and Wilson. Sanchez is a work in progress. No one else is proven. But if you evaluate pitching then you have to look at the whole picture. Yes, Timmy and Matt are keepers. But this is a staff that has also "featured" guys like Randy Johnson, Matt Morris, Brett Tomko, Dustin Hermanson, Armando Benitez, Mike Stanton and Jeff Fassero from the FA pile in recent years. Stellar draftees include future HOFers like Kevin Correia, Brad Henessey and Jack Taschner. Pardon me if I fail to genuflect. While the Giants have a handfull of good or promising arms right now, the full accounting of Sabean's tenure is checkered at best.

And those FAs that "fill out the line-up"? Repeat after me: Ryan Klesko, Todd Greene, Steve Finley, Edgardo Alfonzo...and now Edgar Renteria, Aaron Rowand, Mark DeRosa, Aubrey Huff. Holy pennant, Batman! Puh-leeze.

"True Sabean is not the sharpest GM on the planet and he has made some bad moves. He has also made some great moves. Making him an average GM."

After 13 years, average ain't cutting it. No GM in baseball has been allowed that long a tenture with so little to show for it. But let's be fair, that's exactly what Sabean is shooting for. It's all about being "competitive", which has translated to fielding a team that's just good enough to keep fans coming through the turnstiles until Labor Day while not spending too much jack.

I compare Sabean to Fresno State football coach Pat Hill, who just got a contract extension despite a full decade on the job without so much as a single conference championship. Essentially what the powers that be are saying is that "average" is good enough. Bosie State and Nevada will always clean your clock, you'll get an invite to a third-tier bowl game (and lose), and that's just peachy.

If that's good enough for you, fine. Strap on a Timex, pour a class of Two Buck Chuck, call up your favorite squeeze (she's a "5" on a 1-10 scale), and speed off to dinner at Tahoe Joe's in your 2003 Taurus. I'm no longer willing to settle. Give me the Rolex, some Cristal, a new BMW, reservations at Spago and a supermodel girlfriend...and she'd better be willing to put out. I've paid my dues.

It's a valid point that the Giants play in a pitcher's park. That doesn't mean you ignore the offense. The object of the game is still to score runs, and the best pitching staff on the globe won't win you a 0-0 game. This is a team more in need of balance that Karl Wallenda, and Plan B free agents ain't the answer.

My admirer's ultimate point is that the 2010 Giants are better than the 2009 version, and the NL West is winnable. Maybe so, but this can't be about making a one-season run in a weak division. The Giants were "in contention" last year, but they didn't do a very good job of setting themsleves up for the long haul -- which is why we're back here again this year. Same stuff, different year.

Making marginal improvements to a flawed team does little when the organization is in need of major changes. In the Giants' case, they need not only to change personnel but philosophy.

I go back to Einstein's comment about insanity. The Giants have a system that clearly hasn't worked, at least not since 1954. Saying that the key to making something that doesn't work finally do so is just giving it one more shot is the height of stupidity. It's time to try something else.