Ummmm, yeah. Did he just throw A-Rod's name out there? Wow. Someone tell me how that's a possibility.

Gammons on "Mike and Mike" this morning was asked to analize the draft and who did well. The first team he mentioned was the Giants saying the two arms they picked could be great and when matched with Cain/Timmy could provide real upside in the future.

If you can cut and paste this there's some video from mlb:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2007/drafttracker.jsp?p=0&s=30&sc=pick_number&so=&st=number&ft=TM&fv=sf

>> Sabean deserves a shot to prove he can rebuild the Giants

That's one way to put it. Another is that he deserves a reality check to see how good he actually is without having Barry Bonds to lean on.

If we see this season for what it really is -- year one of a stealth rebuilding phase -- one could argue that Sabean's already doing a fine job. He has one of the league's best rotations and is a pitcher or two from having a good if not dominating bullpen.

Phase 2 is fixing the offense. Perhaps not a one-year turnaround, but at least Lewis, Ort, and Frandsen are getting extended time to show what they can do and whether they deserve to be in the Post-Barry mix.

A-Rod's name has been out there for a while. No one really thinks he wants to remain in NYC. If he opts out, he'll probably get six or seven years at $20 M per year, minimum. I don't see why the Giants shouldn't try to sign him. He can slide back to short for a few years, then as his defensive skills decline, he can play third or first.

The Fox article was great, thanks for sharing. I personally flip flop on this issue all the time, whether Sabean deserves a shot at rebuilding the Giants. The difficult part is not knowing where Magowan stops and Sabean starts in the decision-making process. Magowan is too concerned about PR. Do what's best for the long-term interests of the club first, then worry about PR. Winning is the best PR. The Zito signing had Magowan written all over it--a PR signing if there ever was one. Complaining to KNBR about the attention the Warriors were getting in the first round of the NBA playoffs during the G's winning streak was absolutely classless. I think the baseball gods frowned on that one.

Also, I am deeply troubled by the seeming willingness to pursue Rodriguez. Is it not apparent to everyone that A-Rod is a schmuck of tremendous proportions? Haven't we had enough bad chemistry to last a lifetime with Bonds? Has a Scott Boras FA deal ever worked out well for anyone other than Boras and his client? If this franchise is going to win a championship, it's going to do it through the draft, and I just haven't seen any indication--even a glimpse--that current management knows how to do that. Maybe Sabean without one hand tied to Bonds will be able to do it. It's hard to say.

Lefty, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Giants make a run at A-Rod. 1) I expect Bonds back next year, reduced role, reduced price; 2) that means, basically, the OF is set w/ some combination of Bonds, Roberts (signed), Winn (signed), Schierholtz, Ort, Lewis; 3) Aurilia.Klesko 1b platoon; 4)Durham signed for 2b; Benji signed for C. ie the only positions more or less open are SS, 3b.
While Feliz may be playing himself into the 3b job, Omar may be playing himself out of the teams plans for 08. Having A-Rod there is definitely not out of the question as those seem to be the only 2 positions open to bring in significant production.

Braves were pretty happy with Maddux while he was there. :^) I-Rod/Marlins. I-Rod/Tigers?

But yeah, the exceptions to the rule, eh? Brown, Dreifort, Chan Ho Park, and that's just the Dodgers. That's one project I had thought of tackling, writing down every Boras client that signed a big contract and see what happened afterward. I wonder where I can get a list, I assume his website will have current clients, but how about retired guys?

About A-Rod, there was a report that the Giants inquired with the Yankees about trading for him (and I'm sure the discussion ended in Sabean's mind once they said "Cain"), so the Giants are probably interested enough in him to get into the bidding. I've heard that the Angels have a hard-on for him like they did for Vlad, and will go all in for him too.

How is Feliz playing himself into the 3B job? He's improved - he actually has 8 walks and only 10 K's since May started, 128 AB - but I wouldn't say that he played himself into the job yet, this is going to be a full season deal, he will need to continue what he's been doing lately into the late season, when he historically has faded off steeply after a relatively better first half.

My favorite pick is Wendell Fairley, taking a risk on talent. It hasn't really worked out for them before, but at least they selected a position player with a big potential in the first round, some compare him with Carl Crawford, even if there are a lot of hurdles to get over.

Not that I think he's better than Bumgarner or Alderson, but at least they got a position player in the first round, and he has a lot of potential, hopefully they can help him blossom.

FYI, Klesko isn't signed for '08.

Not to burst your bubble there OGC, but here's what the guys at Rotowire had to say about the Fairley pick:

"One of the best athletes in the class, Fairely is raw as a hitter and will need plenty of time to develop. The Giants do not have a good track record with similar prospects. He's got great tools but doesn't have a sound feel for hitting at this point."

Key in on the Giants not having a good track record comment for hitters. I would be more enthused had they picked Heyward.

Compare what their comment about him was:

"With the 14th overall pick in the '07 draft, the Braves selected Georgia high school outfielder Heyward. This is a possible steal. Heyward has enormous power, good strike zone judgment and the tools to play right field. Braves officials were reportedly surprised, but ecstatic, that he fell to them. "

To me it smacks of not picking the right guy.

I'm scratching my head a little bit at your comment, Boof. First, you're telling us to key in on the fact that the Giants don't have a good track record with hitters (which is undeniably true), but then you say you wished they would've used a higher pick on a hitter. Granted, Heyward is almost certainly a better hitting prospect than Fairley, seeing as he was said to have "slipped" to #14, which is still 15 picks higher than Fairley. The real question is, would Heyward have been a better pick for them at #10 than Bumgarner was. Personally, I don't feel properly informed to say one way or the other.

I hoped they could nab a hitter who could quickly ascent to the bigs, Timmy-style. But I know those kinds of bats are very hard to find, and trying to draft for immediate need in baseball is foolhardy, so I wasn't too disappointed to see them go with their strength. If there is one thing I trust this team's management to do, it's develop pitching, especially first-rounders.

It's not that hard to understand. Heyward is the more accomplished hitter and will take less work than the project that was drafted, Fairley. If your track record on developing hitters is not that good, you go for the more accomplished hitter, not the one that is going to take a lot of coaching. This is especially true if the project will end up not being a power hitter like Fairley projects to be.

I have no issues with the Giants continuing to focus heavily on pitchers. They have the core of a very solid rotation with Cain, Lincecum and Zito for the next four years. With Lowry, Sanchez and others, they have a few guys they can trade for bats that have proven themselves at the AAA level. The reason the Giants don't have good young bats is that they haven't done what they have needed to do to get them, like trading Schmidt at the deadline one of the past two years, or trading Lowry now.

They should definitely take a hard look at the minor league system and get some real hitting instructors down there, but if they can develop pitchers and trade for closer to finished products, that could be just as effective. The key is ending this search for lightning in a bottle from 35yr+ free agents. If any of Durham, Feliz, Aurilia or Klesko gets hot, jettison them at the deadline for a good young hitter.

Must read column. Bruce Jenkins absolutely nails it.

Oops, the URL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/09/SPGPDQCJD81.DTL

Getting better hitting instructors in the minors is not the root of the problem (although good instructors are certainly necessary, I don't know how we could know how good the current ones are). The problem is waiting until the 5th round to even attempt drafting a hitter.

Rather, since the Giants have shown some skill in drafting pitchers, I think they should have concentrated on hitters with the early picks. That's not to say you ignore the pitchers - heck, I think we should have taken Michael Main when he was still available. But you can't ignore half of the game of baseball and expect to do well at it. This was the perfect draft setup for the Giants to focus on hitting. The fact that they didn't tells me volumes: they believe they have no skill at identifying hitting talent. A look at their recent trades and FA signings would bear that out. The conclusion they draw: stick to pitchers. The conclusion I draw: get a different group of people to run the Giants draft.

This draft was the final straw. I'm totally disgusted with Sabean; he's set the franchise back at least a decade.

This is laughable. How did Sabean "set the franchise back at least a decade"? Certainly you don't mean by failing to pick hitting prospects in the first two wlots in the draft. Taht would b e two guys who would each have between a 5% to 10% chance of even appearing in the bigs. Hardly catastrophic.