Pinch of this, pinch of that

The Giants' series against the Indians this week was rather enjoyable, even if we were denied the sweep last night. It was nice to see Zito bring some good mojo in the first game of the series. That Cliff Lee kicks some major ass. I cannot hold the Giants' loss to him against them. And nice debut by Sergio Romo! Suck it, Vinnie Chulk. (Side note: are the Phillies interested in Chulk? LOL at the Phillies.)

But I do continue to be saddened by Omar Vizquel's decline at the plate. His average is down to .165. Whether it's his knee or just the inevitable result of age, he doesn't have much left offensively. Now that the sentimental Cleveland series is over, perhaps we'll be seeing more of Burriss at short. It's time to begin preparing for the future.

I want the Giants to win the series against the A's starting tonight at NetAss Stadium (that is what it's called, isn't it?). I'm tired of the A's pwnage of the Giants over the last few years. Let's get 'em!

Now, to catch up on some interesting Giants stuff around the intertubes:

The Cubs have scouted Fred Lewis, but they don't seem to be too serious at this point. I wonder who the Giants would get in return in such a scenario?

Big topic of late: Barry Bonds. The homerun god still sits at home in Beverly Hills, waiting for a job. His agent says he'll play for the league minimum. But still no takers.

I'm not sure I buy the collusion argument - owners are too concerned with making money to let someone go unsigned if they think he can help. I think it's a combination of the fact that Bonds was made the poster boy of PED abuse (even though we now know that many of the game's "stalwarts" were just as juiced) and his prickly demeanor. I don't think either reason should keep him at home, though. I'd expect he can still swing the bat a bit. With that in mind, there are a couple of opinions out there on who could benefit from the big guy:

Joe Posnanski (I love the way this guy writes) thinks that the KC Royals should sign Barry. After pointing out the obvious plus of getting him for the league minimum, he points out that

. . . as far as I know, Barry Bonds didn’t kill anybody. He didn’t assault anybody. He didn’t throw any games. He didn’t bet on any games. He didn’t get caught drinking and driving. He didn’t have any false gods, didn’t make any idols, didn’t covet any neighbors donkeys, didn’t steal, didn’t do much of anything that more or less half the other ballplayers in the game are doing. No team OWES Barry Bonds a shot, but I also think of America as a place that takes chances on people. I certainly do not see why a team couldn’t GIVE Barry Bonds a shot.

And as I've mentioned, the steroid issue isn't unique to Barry. Posnanski says "The steroid stain? Come on, there are heavy steroid users playing everywhere in baseball, and just because we don’t “know” who they are doesn’t mean anything. It’s like the old 1960s Mafia types — maybe you couldn’t convict them in court, but you sure knew they were around."

Overall, Posnanski's reasons why the Royals should sign Barry can be applied to most other teams, too.

Over on sabernomics.com, JC Bradbury makes the case is made for why the Braves should sign Bonds. Bradbury addresses the steroid issue simply - Bonds has been a good player since PED testing was instituted, and is a good player without PEDs. Can't argue with that.

For me, I thought at the time that it was the right decision for the Giants to let Barry go after last season. It was time to start building a post-Barry team. But now that management has bungled that task ("Come out and see the kids (as they ride the bench)!"), maybe the Giants should take a look at what benefit Barry might provide. He may even be good with the young guys - he was starting to do some mentoring last year. That wouldn't hurt.

Whaddya think?