« Ha | Main | Sabean Chat »

October 06, 2004



I would imagine the relative contract statuses of the two men had something to do with the decision. Neifi Perez's contract was a sunk cost. No way they were going to resign him at nearly the same pay scale. No way Neifi would want to resign for the minimum.

Ransom, on the other hand, is cheap. He's not even eligible for arbitration. So if you have to choose between two mediocre-to-poor players, keep the one who costs less in 2005.


How many times did Felipe say the pennant race is a ``time for veterans?'' Then he puts Ransom out there in the ninth.

Now, I'm not saying if that's Neifi charging Izturis' grounder the Dodgers win the division. But Ransom doesn't have the experience to be trusted in that spot. They held onto him because he could, COULD, be their starting SS next year.

Renteria almost certainly will re-sign. Cabrera will stay with Boston or will sign with the Mets (Minaya connection) or even the Washington Fillibusters. What does that leave us? Cristian Guzman?

I am massively concerned about SS for next season.


Wasn't the big reason why they kept Ransom instead of Neifi because Ransom was out of options? I agree about Neifi. If he only hit 8th, and was used as a back-up, I would've had no problem at all with him being on the team, although I kept waiting to see the amazing defense I had heard so much about. Ransom is not and most likely never will be ready for the majors...


FWIW, I have a friend of a friend that works in the Giants front office. From what I am hearing, they are resigned to the fact that Alfonzo's contract is not movable, so the plan for 2005 is to play Fonzi at 3B, Feliz at SS and Snow at 1B. Everyone seems to agree that Feliz needs to be in the lineup and thinks the above is the best way to make that happen. Plan, I assume, is for Feliz to play SS over the winter and all spring.

As to whether that addresses the question of improving the defense, ummmm, I think the answer is a resounding no (unless Feliz turns out much better than I expect at SS). But getting Feliz' offensive production from SS would be helpful, especially given the relative lack of production from the corner IFers (Snow's second-half deal with Satan notwithstanding). In fact, that 2005 infield would essentially be inverted from what is typical -- questionable defense but productive offense from the middle IFers, good defense and less productive offense from corner IFers). Not sure that's a recipe for success ... unless that saves $$ so Beltran is playing CF.

Will be interesting to see if any of this comes to pass or is just rumors in the wind ...

David Morgenstern

When I look back on this season -- or really as I looked at the season, ranting before, during and after each and every game -- I am struck by two issues: the terrible bullpen and the terrible defense. The poor defense made the bullpen problem much worse.

In the past, the Giants counted on defense to make up for their problem pitching. Often, they found a way out of situations where men had walked on base or made their way from some play. Still, I always felt that a double-play was coming -- and it would.

But not this year. Infield and outfield defense stank.

daviD m.


Eric - in his online chat with fans this morning, Sabean said that they plan to use Feliz at first, third, and possibly the outfield. He specifically said that SS "will probably not be in our plans for him."

FWIW, weighted UZR ranked Neifi as a mediocre defensive SS for the last three years.


Options weren't a concern with Ransom. He had none. Early in the year the Giants had to put him through waivers to send him to the minors, and all other teams passed.


That true, Marty. But I also remember Colletti saying they didn't think they could sneak Ransom through waivers again. (He was on a sustained hot streak at Fresno before coming back to SF, plus it was later in the year, thus more teams were out of it and would be in a position to claim him.)

Maybe he'll amount to something, but gosh, he'll be 29 in February. Time to write him off along with the likes of Carlos Valderrama and Francisco (Deivis) Santos.


By the way...

This is off-topic but of interest. It seems the Mercury News and CC Times will merge their beat writers. (Both papers are owned by the same company, and after five years, they just figured out they can save some coin.) They've already done it for NFL and will follow through with baseball starting this winter.

Word is the San Jose A's writer, Chris Haft, will move over to the Giants. The guy who covers the A's for CC Times (can't remember his name) probably will cover the A's for both papers.

Odd man out is Joe Roderick, who's been on the beat longer than anyone except Nick Peters in Sacramento.

Since Sacramento and Oakland travel sporadically, and Santa Rosa doesn't travel at all, that will leave the Giants with two regular, full-time beat writers. Not a good thing for newshounds like us.


If they take Roderick off the beat, that would be a shame. And what about Kiefer?

Mark in DC

Bad news about the Merc and CC Times merging their beat writers. Roderick used to get a lot of scoops from Magowan and Dusty (he broke the story that Dusty was set to leave after the 2000 season). Though Roderick didn't seem to break many stories this year, he was solid nevertheless. What's pathetic is the Boston Globe has four reporters -- four! -- covering the Sox for most games and five when they play the Yankees.

steve S

Too bad about CCT and SJMN merging their beatwriters.

Could Feliz really be any worse defensively at SS than Cruz was this year? To me, it seemed that Cruz had very little range.


Kiefer back to covering preps, I'd assume.


Giants depending on defense? Since when! This team went on a run with Aurilia, Kent and Benard up the middle. They're run depended on good hitting from the middle infield and good fielding from the corner infielders, it's nothing new. The only starters remotely deserving of a gold glove during this run were Shinjo, Bell and Snow (excluding pitchers).


And Jose Cruz Jr. in 2003, who actually won the thing.


Who? 2003? I'm sorry, I seem to have a blank spot in my memory.

The comments to this entry are closed.