Barry Zito projects to have the third best ERA among the Giants' starters in 2007?

Harsh.

755 exactly...fun....

That's a wide range on Cain. Guess that happens with young pitchers. Zito's not looking so hot here, but you don't sign him for his ZIPS projections, you sign him because you think he's uniquely qualified to beat them.

Kinda behind the 8ball, aren't we, catomi01?

Er... is this on?

and matt anderson...got the chance to see him in person this year in the atlantic league...still throw ridiculously hard...

Oops - for the second time, I posted Zito's projection that I did for someone who wanted to see his Yankee projection.

Barry Zito projects to have the third best ERA among the Giants' starters in 2007?

4th, unless you're expecting a trade of Morris, Cain or Lowry. Doesn't bode well for customer satisfaction.

OK, fixed (the projection I had for the Zito entry was the correct one).

So he won't be run out of town now? That's good.

Also, interesting that Zito has a better W/L record with the Giants than the Yankees.

How many left fielder/PH types does one organization need?

How many left fielder/PH types does one organization need?

Enough to cause a tear in space-time, hurtling the roster five years into the past, and making the Giants instant World Series favorites.

Enough to cause a tear in space-time, hurtling the roster five years into the past, and making the Giants instant World Series favorites.

With 17-year-old Cain, and 21-year-old Correia and Lowry heading the rotation? I've got my doubts. :-)

The Benitez-Kline-Worrell bullpen looks pretty good though. (I thought Kline was like 44 by now).

That might be fun Dan -- run the ZIPS for this roster for 2002. Bonds and Klesko would project better. Aurilia would be coming off his monster season, so he'd project nicely. But not only is this roster old, I'm not sure they were all that good 5 years ago.

And Morris was good five years ago, too. It wouldn't be that bad of a team five years ago. Jeff Fassero was already bad then, though.

With 17-year-old Cain, and 21-year-old Correia and Lowry heading the rotation? I've got my doubts. :-)

I hear the Giants are kicking the tires on both David Wells and Russ Ortiz.

Durham and Bonds the only guys on this team with a 800+ OPS. Yikes!

I do like Kevin Correria's projection. I think he will end up with more IP as he will start at some point.

Lincecum's projection seems high.

Thanks for htese projections. I love 'em! And keep 'em coming--my Diamond Mind keeper draft is Saturday! I need to see how good Lind projects with the Blue Jays! And Adam Jones with the Mariners! (Gaelan, pretend you didn't read those last two sentences.)

As for the Giants, I'd bet a good number of the old timers out perform their projections as well as some of the young pitchers and the Giants are in it all year. It's not a very good team, but it's a good team. They could desperately use an infusion of young talent and, though all the rumors about Milledge have him going to Oakland, it would make sense for the Giants to see if they can swap an arm or two to get him for themselves. Or Elijah Dukes from Tampa Bay. What they don't need to do is trade any of their young pitching for any more ####### veterans.

Dan,
Thanks again for all the work you do. Speaking of drafts, when do you send out the first build of a composite MLB Zips projections? My draft is a couple of months away, but I like to prepare a little at a time. I have had success using a hybrid of Zips and Shandler's Baseball Forecaster the last couple of years.

ZiPS has Jones at 243/292/398. Remember, he's still really young. I still haven't touched Toronto or Washington, but I just did Lind and he's at 297/349/468.

I usually send out the first build sometime between MLK's birthday and the Super Bowl. Should be on the early side this year, maybe the 10th or so.

ZiPS has Jones at 243/292/398. Remember, he's still really young. I still haven't touched Toronto or Washington, but I just did Lind and he's at 297/349/468.

Thank you much. Of course, there's no way Jones wrestles playing time away from Willie Bloomquist anyway. How depressing must that be for young Mr. Jones.

It's not a very good team, but it's a good team.

I wouldn't go that far. I'd put it more like this: it's not a good team, but it isn't a very bad team.

They probably won't lose 95 games, as many naysayers are predicting. But everything would have to go just right to have them lose fewer than 80. Still, in this division they could find themselves in the playoff hunt. As a fan, of course I'll root for that outside chance.

But if the more likely scenario unfolds, that by mid-July it's clear they're out of it and the only thing left to care about in '07 is will-he-or-won't-he-get-to-756, I do hope Sabean plays seller in the trade market. Quite a few of these veterans might be attractive role players for a contending team, and they don't have problematic contracts for contenders: Vizquel, Durham, Roberts, Aurilia, Klesko. The Giants could conceivably snag a few of the prospects they so desperately lack in deadline deals.

Not the best scenario for a fan to look forward to, I'll grant you.

A mid-season fire sale would look bad and more likely push the Giants toward 90 losses than toward 80. So, I have my doubts as to whether Sabean will do it, given his reluctance to blow it up and rebuild in the past few years.

I would not be shocked if the Giants lose 95 games in 2007. Zito will help, but that team really has no offense other than Bonds and Ray Durham.

This would be especially likely if the Dodgers or Padres have a nice little stretch that puts the Giants completely out of the race; like Steve says, the Giants have a bunch of players that aren't terrible that other teams would want for the playoffs. But if the Giants trade Durham midseason and Bonds misses more than half the season, this team is really going to struggle to put up runs. They haven't replaced Alou's bat.

I would not be shocked if the Giants lose 95 games in 2007. Zito will help, but that team really has no offense other than Bonds and Ray Durham.

Of course it's possible they'll lose 95. But they probably won't be that bad.

I think you're overstating how meek this offense will be. Yes, they haven't replaced Alou's bat, but he only had 378 PA's in 2006; he didn't have an enormous impact.

And in every other regard, their hitters are either returning, or being replaced by slightly better hitters in 2007:

- Bonds, Durham, Vizquel, Feliz, and Winn are all back. Durham probably won't be as good as he was in '06, but Winn will probably be better.

- Roberts in CF replaces Finley, and will almost certainly be an improvement.

- Klesko/Aurilia at 1B will almost certainly be better than Sweeney/Niekro/Hillenbrand were in '06.

- Molina at C will probably be better than Alfonzo/Matheny were in '06.

The '06 offense delivered a 95 OPS+; not good obviously but not terrible either. The most likely scenario is they'll deliver something close to that in '07. That combined with what looks to be a good rotation adds up to not a good team, but not a 95-game loser either.

Of course there are scenarios in which they could lose 95, but we shouldn't expect that.

It seems like I've been hearing, "The Giants need to keep a veteran team around to give them one more shot while Bonds is still playing" for five or six years now. They put together very good teams for a couple years after their World Series loss, but their direction has been clear for some time now.

The irony, of course, is that it is 2007 now, and Bonds is still with the team. (Or will be as soon as his deal is finalized.) If the Giants had rebuilt smartly, they could have been strong again by now. I don't know if the results would have been any better than they have actually turned out, but it's possible.

If the Giants' second best hitter is an .800 guy and their third best hitter is a powerless first baseman, they are in trouble.

I don't expect 95 losses. I think this is a 75 win team, give or take a few wins. But if things break badly, I could see them being that bad. And with an old team, things are more likely to break really badly.

Alou had practically 2/3rds of a season; I would consider that to be a pretty significant impact. He was the 2nd best hitter on the team.

It looks like a dropoff is coming in a few places. Durham comes to mind with his career high SLG, but Vizquel put up his best OBP since 2000 last year and his power should also drop a tad, and Pedro Feliz looks like he's establishing a new level of suckitude.

That 95 OPS+ is with a top three of .454/.545, .352/.571, and .360/.538. Bonds is the only player reasonably predictable for an OBP over .370 OR a SLG over .500.

I don't expect Bonds to miss a ton of time next year (he did play in 130 games in 2006), but if he misses serious time, the Giants might struggle to score 700 runs in 2007.

That 95 OPS+ is with a top three of .454/.545, .352/.571, and .360/.538. Bonds is the only player reasonably predictable for an OBP over .370 OR a SLG over .500.

Sure, but team OPS+ is team OPS+. What matters isn't the best performance, but the aggregate. Most likely it will be a lineup without any stars, but also without any sinkholes.

Sure, but team OPS+ is team OPS+. What matters isn't the best performance, but the aggregate. Most likely it will be a lineup without any stars, but also without any sinkholes.

I don't disagree, but I think the Giants are losing a good portion of the spikes at the top that help pull the whole thing up. It is going to take a lot of improvment at the margins to overcome losing Alou's 2006 offense and having Durham drop down to earth.

I'd also say Feliz is pretty likely to be a sinkhole and 1B might very well be one too.

I'd also say Feliz is pretty likely to be a sinkhole and 1B might very well be one too.

Possible, of course. But more likely Feliz will rebound to something around a 90 OPS+ -- not good obviously, but not a sinkhole -- and Klesko/Aurilia will patch together something that's while again not good, not the bottomless pit of Sweeney/Niekro/Hillenbrand in '06 (83/71/74).

I completely agree that Alou's bat is a loss. But when you add up everything that's most likely to occur, the result is an offense along the same lines as last year's: not good, but not terrible.

74 RBI leads the team....ouch

Am I the only one who wants to see Jack McKeon manage this team?

Durham and Bonds the only guys on this team with a 800+ OPS. Yikes!

And Bonds is the only guy on this team with a +800 OPS. Double Yikes!

ZiPS has Jones at 243/292/398. Remember, he's still really young.

|Beware of this low projection.

Shandler has Adam Jones at .769 and STATS at .751. His MLE OPS for the past two seasons are .777 and .798. I can't really figure out why ZIPS is so negative, other than his 74 unimpressive major league at bats at age 20.

ZiPS has Jones at 243/292/398. Remember, he's still really young.

|Beware of this low projection.

Shandler has Adam Jones at .769 and STATS at .751. His MLE OPS for the past two seasons are .777 and .798. I can't really figure out why ZIPS is so negative, other than his 74 unimpressive major league at bats at age 20.