User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
Ticket Nest sells Braves, Cubs, Padres, Indians, Marlins, Nuts, Pirates, Rangers, Patriots, Royals, Stars, Tides, Tigers, Twins, Phillies, Wings, Mets, Yankees, Angels, Dodgers tickets, and Dragons tickets. |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.5237 seconds
80 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
That's what I figured the story was referring to, once I figured out what the hell the headline was supposed to mean.
You'd think, but it hasn't stopped other cities from bending themselves over.
Watching, till the morning comes creeping.
Green door, what's that secret you're keeping?
Not Oakland! We're waving bye-bye to the A's. Of course, Oakland is still bent over and being ###### by Al Davis, so unless we're talking double-reverse anal, there's just no room.
Say what?
That was my first thought. That was a loooong time ago. Seems silly to reprimand him now, especially as others have pointed out, it didn't exactly start a trend of privately funded stadiums.
And Fremont is waving hello!
The A's did everything the opposite of the Giants - they put getting a publicly-financed stadium ahead of everything else - financial viability, revenue streams, and even stadium accessibility.
It's almost enough to make one wonder if the A's ownership has the fans' and general public's interests at heart.
Personally, I prefer the play where the running back swings around and takes the dick out of the quarterback's hands when he drops back to pass.
No wayyy!!!
Slight problem... there are those confirming... Damage control.
Team attendance, while still very good, looks to be on the decline, they're now saddled for years with what looks to be one of the worst contracts in the history of the game, and the team doesn't seem to have much hope of being winners for a while.
In other words, the future in China Basin looks bleak, and Magowan no doubt knows this just as much as all the rest of us.
You realize the Giants have a large interest in the Comcast Bay Area network, right? And you realize they have a pretty solid pitching staff, 1-12 (excl. Zito, to a degree; he may round into serviceable form); 2 ace-level young cost controlled pitchers, a solid and developing bullpen, including a stud closer; a few good young position players (Lewis, Bowker, Fransen, hopefully Velez); and a favorable slot in the upcoming draft. Not to mention the previous 2 drafts that have put the farm system on the right track. And the Zito contract, while awful, isn't an albatross; the Giants are now one of the top 4 or 5 revenue generating teams in all baseball, they're not the Pirates or Nationals.
As a seasonticket holder who goes to a ton of games, I'm actually quite pleased with the way the Giants have shaped up this year. And who knows, if they have a good draft & pick up a decent FA or two, they could be in great shape next year. Far better off than the Mets, that's for sure. Talk about a franchise with a clouded future; man, I'm glad I'm not stuck with that dog of a team.
You have a pretty loose definition of the word "good". Also "young".
Lewis: age 27, 286/355/464
Bowker: age 24, 281/305/472
How are these bad?
Velez, well we'll see. He's fast & exciting, but may not stick. But, there's upside, more than anybody gave them going into the year.
Bowker: age 24, 281/305/472
How are these bad?
Those numbers are't bad. But:
1. Lewis's yield a 114 OPS+, OK but not outstanding for a left fielder. And Bowker's yield an OPS+ of 101, not very good for a first baseman/corner outfielder.
2. The very limited ML track record of both players suggests that it's far from a sure thing that either or both will be able to sustain those rates of production. We're talking about 42 2008 games for Lewis, and 27 for Bowker, small sample sizes.
3. These cases, so-so as they are, represent the pinnacle of achievement by young SF position players in 2008. From this modest peak, in every other direction we look down.
4. Velez? Are you kidding me?
Yes, it's true the Giants have a very nice core of young pitching. But that is it, absolutely it. The position player talent developed under Sabean's tenure remains a bad joke, and while it will be terrific if the past couple of drafts end up yielding better results, we're a very long way from that being anything more than an "if."
Certainly there are worse organizations in MLB. But if that's the way we characterize a franchise sitting on a license to print money, it's awfully faint praise.
I'd like to think Velez has some value, but that hope is fading. I'd like to see a full year of Frandsen. Not saying any of these guys are gonna be All Stars, necessarily; rather, useful pieces to build around.
I agree re: player development, but apparently those concerns apparently have been addressed. If this is the cratered-out depths of a rebuilding movement, then it's not nearly as bad as most would've had it.
And honestly, I'm not saying anything like the G's are gonna win the Division or anything, just that they're far better off than anyone here gave them credit for.
They're 17-25. That's a pace to go about 66-96.
My preseason prediction for them on THT had them losing about 95 games. I don't know about others, but so far they're doing just about exactly as I expected. It's true that they haven't enacted their worst-case scenario at this point, but I don't see them as having surpassed any realistic expectations, either.
Really? They were branded as historic failures on every count before the season started. That hasn't been the case at all. In fact, they've been competitive against all comers, except Pittsburgh(which is really really annoying). By no means are they good offensively, but they're hardly the era-defining trainwreck seemingly everbody was so eager to brand them. So I'd have to say they've surpassed a fair number of expectations already. And, having gone to 60% of their home games already, they've managed to be way more interesting than I'd given them credit for, with signs that future improvement might not be that far off.
Uh-huh. I guess I must have missed all those prognostications. The ones I'm familiar with guessed that they'd probably feature really bad hitting (which they have) and so-so pitching (which they have), adding up to a bad-team-but-not-an-era-defining-trainwreck (which they've been).
The trainwreck scenario, of course, is what would likely take place if serious injuries were to befall Lincecum and/or Cain and/or some of the other young pitchers, which isn't probable but is hardly out of the question, either. But with the core of the young pitching intact, as it's been, there's been nothing in the least surprising about their overall performance.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main