Zuri Berry: Who will be worse, Giants or Athletics?

All I feel inside is disgust and a deep sense of loathe for the two baseball meccas in Northern California.

We're in week three and I'm pretty sure the season is already in the tubes for my esteemed San Francisco Giants while the Oakland A's aren't too far away from toilet fodder either.

This weekend, while braving a two-hour journey through traffic to the Bay Area, I went to go watch the lesser of two feebles as the A's took on the Cleveland Indians - all while celebrating a friend and devout A's fan's birthday.

It was a chance for me to hang out with old friends while getting an up close look at what Billy Ball can produce in the depths of the American League West.

In my mind, it's truly comical what the A's are doing to their fans. Team favorite Nick Swisher: Gone. Loveable bonehead Marco Scutaro: Gone. Team pitching: Downgraded. Team defense: Downgraded.

For the first time in my life, I wonder if Billy Beane is imitating Brian Sabean.

Surely the atrocities of the offseason will not equate into a bottom dweller status for the best ball club in the Bay since 2002.

Or will it?

I ask these honest questions as a fledgling Giants fan after becoming supremely confident that my team is a willing participant in the draining of its fan base.

But I digress.

On Sunday, when I was supposed to be just having fun and enjoying the game, my analytical sports eye was in sharp focus on the players on the field and the general coaching decisions being administered by skipper Bob Geren.

(Funny thing is, I can never turn the "eye" off. I'm always thinking how I'd write that gamer up and shove it in the public's mouth in less than 20 minutes - in 30 tops if I'm really feeling myself.)

The Indians edged the A's 2-1 and there were three phenomenal footnotes of negativity evident: 10 of the first 12 batters were retired handily by injury-riddled Cliff Lee. That's a sure sign there's a couple of holes in the lineup.

Secondly, and much more superficial, A's fans were still looking for familiar faces throughout the day. There was good ol' Eric Chavez and formerly underappreciated Travis Buck, but not a wink or a nod for any of the other returnees or new guys. (Is it possible to go into a season without an unquestionable star?)

Finally, they lost. In a series they were on the cusp of sweeping, the Oaklanders lost their mojo in sight of a solid weekend against the ALCS runner-ups, proving they can compete but not complete the job.

Mission, unaccomplished.

However easily these observations can be dismissed, take this into account: There is no clear vision, in contrast to prior seasons, for where the Athletics can define themselves as a team. If we are to believe that the young and cheap is good, then we have to know (more than we already do) how good the cheap is in the tradeoff.

So when the A's gave the Chicago White Sox a dollar (Swisher), I'm valuing the A's return at 50 cents (Gio Gonzales, Fautino de los Santos, Ryan Sweeney).

Similarly, when the Giants didn't re-sign He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, the tradeoff was allegedly better chemistry, a younger lineup and more focus on small ball.

In both cases, the ends have yet to justify the actions.

Now, when Giants fans like myself, curse their names and tell everybody who's willing to listen that 110 losses is possible, I guess it's a fair tradeoff for lying about a prospective season. Now, A's fans can join in on my fun by throwing out their own random numbers.

Who's got 80? 90? 100 losses?

Stomper and the gang won't be as bad as the Giants will be, but it's for sure that they aren't going to deliver on their professed goals.

And all it took was one Sunday and a skeptical eye to figure it out.

<em>Zuri Berry is a sports writer at The Union. His column appears Wednesdays. Contact him via e-mail at zberry@theunion.com or by phone at 477-4244. You can also read his blog online at TheUnion.com.</em>