A's vs Giants?

Talk about any other sports here.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32


Starting Lineup
Posts: 985
» Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:44 am
Who will be better this year, record wise of course. A's or Giants........ And what do you feel about the additions of both teams?
» Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:10 pm
oooooh, good question!

i think the giants should have a better record, but it'll be really close. the giants are old and fragile, so if one of their key players goes down, and there is a good chance they will, it'll be 2005 all over again.

the a's pitching staff is SOLID. but i'm not sold on milton bradley. and chavez is the only power bat they have left. very young team, very fun to watch, but they're about a year away.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 1266
» Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:26 pm
The A's should have the better record. I seriously doubt that the Geriatric Giants will stay healthy for more than a week. How old are those guys, 50? Frank Thomas would be considered a rookie on that geezer squad.

The cheap shots can keep coming, but in all honesty I really do think that the Giants will falter. The A's may not win the division this year, but they have a much better chance than the Giants. They are a young team that got a year of experience and the Giants are an old team that just got older.

Role Player
Posts: 274
» Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:13 pm
altho i live in SF and love the giants, the As will have the better year. this is the do or die year for us if we dont win it all this year, we wont for a while.
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13746
» Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:08 am
what? wrote:this is the do or die year for us if we dont win it all this year, we wont for a while.

If you're talking about the Giants, I wouldn't hold my breath...

I'm a fellow G's fan, but I don't think we've had a clear shot at the World Series since Jeff Kent left (not that he was that great a player... it's just, that year was our final hurray). Our team was comprised of one-near star (Rich Aurillia), one semi-star (Jeff Kent), and the biggest star in baseball (Barry Bonds). Other than that, we had a mediocre team. Loften was an average player at the team, JT Snow was a defensive wizard (but couldn't hit a damn thing), and Reggie Sanders was having a very off-year. Combine that with a pitching staff that was average (at best), and it really shows you how far Bonds truly carried that squad. Barry Bonds is the Giants, and has been for the past 10 years. San Fransisco's ball club was built around him. When Bonds goes, so do the Giants. If this is his final season (like he's said), expect the worse team in the Bay (currently held by the '9ers) to change...
» Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:20 pm
jeff kent was a great player!
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13746
» Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:53 pm
I completely agree; Jeff Kent was an amazing player (I liked him more than Barry Bonds when he was with us). He was a NL MVP while on our team. I wasn't trying to downplay him or anything...

By saying "not that Jeff Kent was that great a player", I was simply trying to say that Kent leaving our lineup wasn't the sole (or even main) reason we fell off so badly.

All Star
Posts: 1128
» Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:32 pm
i would say the giants have a better chance of winning their division than the a's. the giants are old but have more depth than i can remember them ever having. i honestly think they can win 100 games. R.O.Y = matt cain, M.V.P = barry bonds, comeback player = steve finley
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13746
» Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:12 pm
ChronicallyInclined wrote:i honestly think they can win 100 games.

Love your spirit, but (from where I'm sitting) that sounds more like wishful thinking than anything...

ChronicallyInclined wrote:R.O.Y = matt cain

Sure hope so... I'll miss JT's glove badly.

ChronicallyInclined wrote:M.V.P = barry bonds

Yeah, if he can play a full season.

Starting Lineup
Posts: 985
» Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:32 am
How bout Bonds being comeback & MVP? ----------------------------------------------------------- **** 030 **** ---------------------------------------

Role Player
Posts: 274
» Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:03 am
its be another trophy to his collection.
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13746
» Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:31 am
If Barry can play over 100 games, he's the MVP. It's not a matter of HOW he plays, it's a matter of IF he plays.

Barry Bond is the most patient hitter since Tony Gwynn. He just saunters up to the plate, straps on his elbow protector, and sits there. Either you're gonna walk him or he's hitting it out of the park. Barry Bonds is content to just stand at the plate, patiently, and lull a pitcher to sleep. If they get cocky, slip, screw up, fall asleep, or throw the wrong pitch, Bonds cracks it into the uprights.

The man had a slugging percentage of 86% when he hit 73. That's higher than anybody ever. Not only does Barry hit a lot of homeruns, but he hits a high percentage of them. He knows how to hit. He's doing to hitting what Bill Russell did to shot-blocking, where he has it down to an exact science. That's why I can't stand when ESPN sh*theads drone on about "Bonds and steroids"... Barry's ALWAYS been a big guy and he's just a damn good hitter. His %'s show what a great hitter he is! The whole steroid argument is a joke.

Let's compare:

MCGWIRE: major growth since rookie year, hella acne, neck bigger than head, hits a lot of homeruns...

Nobody says a word...

BONDS: hits a lot of homeruns...

STEROIDS!!!!! :roll:

Starting Lineup
Posts: 985
» Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:10 am
I just ran thru my card collection ( they've been in storage for a minute ) and that whole steriods thing is kinda dumb. If ya look @ bonds career, he's always been patient @ the plate. Yes he got a little bulky when he got here, but he was already an allstar. THE #' THIS MAN PUT UP ARE ASTOUNDING..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13746
» Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:15 am
zero3zero wrote:I just ran thru my card collection ( they've been in storage for a minute ) and that whole steriods thing is kinda dumb. If ya look @ bonds career, he's always been patient @ the plate. Yes he got a little bulky when he got here, but he was already an allstar. THE #' THIS MAN PUT UP ARE ASTOUNDING..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

My thoughts EXACTLY.
User avatar

Role Player
Posts: 357
» Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:44 pm
I think the A's have the potential to have a better record, and not make the playoff,while the Giant's could have a worse record, and still win the division. I mean, we're talkin about the NL west here. If the Giants can stay relatively healthy, (which is of course a large if) I think the have a chance to at least make it past the first round of the playoffs. I mean, they're a vteran team, and all of the old guys have been there. If Finley can have a relative bounce-back, Barry stays healthy, Alou plays at his level from last year and Winn keeps playing like a monster, that's a pretty scary outfield. If they all play well, it won't matter if one needs to sit out a few games because of wear and tear. The outfield is basically where all the geezers are (other than durham and vizquel, the latter of which doesn't seem to have durability issues) so if they can all play well, they won't be needind to kill themselves playing every day. I know it could all go to **** real quick, and I'm being an optimistic ffan of course, but I think there is some reason to have hope that the Giants will have a really good season...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest