Cust v. Bonds
by maffew @ Athletics Nation on Oct 23, 2007 11:59 AM PDT
Email
PrintSo in answer to the rumors that Bonds will go to the A's, I've decided to dedicate a post to our DH v. Bonds as a DH. Also, I'd like to say that it makes no sense for Bonds to DH for the A's since we're already set with Cust, Swish, and Dan Johnson already filling that position. Anyway...
Bonds' 2007 line:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB GDP
126 340 75 94 14 0 28 66 5 0 132 54 .276 .480 .565 170 192 0 2 43 13
Cust's 2007 Line:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB GDP
124 395 61 101 18 1 26 82 0 2 105 164 .256 .408 .504 147 199 0 6 2 6
Also Bond's RC/27 is 10.2...Cust's RC/27 is 7.8
What pops out at me is how similar each players line is. The big difference of course is that of the strikeouts. Where Bonds is striking out almost once for every three walks, Cust strikes out one-and-a-half times for every walk. While this does add value to Bonds over Cust, most likely the difference in the RC/27 department, Cust's salary is much much cheaper and comes with a lot less baggage. Therefore, it seems to me that if the A's were to sign Bonds, it would be a huge mistake for the organization. Not only are you blocking other quality players, but you're tainting your organization. However, I do think that Bonds' is still one of the best players in the game and super productive. That being said, hopefully the Yankees pick him up and he proceeds to crash and burn.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"but you're tainting your organization."
Lawl.
This is the same organization that has produced Jason Giambi, Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco. I think its pretty obvious that the org could care less about tainting and is much more concerned about production, which is what Bonds would definitely bring.
Its never been (or at least shouldn't be) Bonds vs Cust. Its Bonds and Cust vs Cust and someone else. And unless that someone else is Arod, you can't ask for much better than Barry Bonds.
by awesomer @ Athletics Nation on Oct 23, 2007 11:57 AM PDT reply actions
Where are you going to play
both of them?
I'm genuinely curious. Would you play Bonds / Cust in LF and Buck / Swisher in CF?
Also might move Buck/Swish/Barton
perhaps for a longterm CF/SS solution ...
I still think they should convert Buck
to shortstop...
It would solve all of their lineup problems, as well as cure cancer and the common cold.
Unfortunately, as the esteemed Lou Wolff tells us, some people in California would be opposed even to a cure for cancer. So I guess we won't be seeing Buck in the infield anytime soon.
Is that plausible?
How easy is it to convert an OF to SS? I have no idea really...what about signing a cheap Corey Koskie and converting him to SS...couldn't be worse than Crosby and could backup Chavvy
by maffew @ Athletics Nation on Oct 23, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions
No, not really
It's not easy, although it was famously done by the 1968 Tigers (when they replaced Ray Oyler and some other dim lights with Mickey Stanley, their regular center fielder, for the last 20-odd games of the season including the World Series). According to the theory of the "defensive spectrum," most players will be better outfielders than shortstops.
It's just that in Buck's case, the specific qualities that make him an unspectacular outfielder (particularly his poor routes to balls) are irrelevant for shortstops, while his athleticism and diving abilities would still be important there.
IIRC, he was an IF at ASU. True?
by The Dogfather on Oct 23, 2007 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
True, but he wasn't very good at it
What is the theory of "defensive spectrum"?
The farther you are from home, the easier it is to catch the ball?
Buck was moved away from 3b in college ...
because he didn't have the defensive cops ... 3b isn't an option.
This was also
back in the day when steroids weren't in the national media and there was no Mitchell investigation. These players weren't connected to steroids at the time, and there was less public outrage at it. Plus, Bonds' is such a jackass in the clubhouse, it seems like it would go against the grain of the A's funloving ways. I really don't know if team chemistry contributes all that much to wins, but it doesn't seem like the right move for the A's to do.
by maffew @ Athletics Nation on Oct 23, 2007 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
It's actually Bonds 2008 v Cust 2008,
and I suspect that Bonds will have a much rosier 2008 projection in all departments aside from games played.
I doubt Bonds...
is going to get any better considering he's 43, but at least Cust is young enough that he may be better off after having a full year under his belt. Also, Cust is a major league player, I think he's capable of putting up something similar in '08 to what he did this year
by maffew @ Athletics Nation on Oct 23, 2007 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
This could definitely happen
And Bonds would still have 100+ pts in OPS advantage.
by awesomer @ Athletics Nation on Oct 23, 2007 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions
He's just as likely to be indicted by April.
Perhaps more likely.
You want proof of 'perhaps'?
Whuzzah?
You make a pretty bold assertion that its just as likely (or even more so) that Bonds will not out OPS Cust by 100+ pts (which he's been doing all his career) as Bonds being indicted.
I want you to provide proof for that statement, because from what I've seen so far they have been trying to indict Bonds for years now and have done nothing, while Bonds has been OPSing > 1.000 for the past 15 years (save one .999 season).
See I was able to back up my statement with facts and reason. Please do the same kthxbye.
by awesomer @ Athletics Nation on Oct 25, 2007 2:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I can't prove someone 'will' do something.
You can only prove something that has happened before, not something that has yet to happen.
Unless, of course, the fix is in somehow, which I'd hardly find surprising where Bonds is concerned.
Federal investigations are always slow ...
they usually take years from the beginning of the investigation to indictment.
People have been saying this
Since like the beginning of 2006. Bonds is in home free.
by walk off bunt on Oct 24, 2007 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Cust has some eye-popping on contact numbers
He's hitting 437 BA, 861 SLG on contact, this year.
For comparison, Jim Thome, 401 BA, 805 SLG, on contact career.
Mark McGwire, 354 BA, 791 SLG on contact career.
Sammy Sosa, 379 BA, 722 SLG on contact career.
Bonds, 353 BA, 719 on contact career.
Unless Cust strikes out less, and puts the ball in play more, he's unlikely to improve and be more productive.
Zackly.
Cust will put up a cheap 800-850 OPS and will disappoint most of AN next year.
What's the practical upper bound on line drive %?
And also on HR/FB?
Now, I'm not advocating that the A's sign Bonds
but if you consider Dan Johnson as anything more than a place holder, your team is likely to be not good. Dan Johnson shouldn't be preventing the A's from acquiring hitters. Unless you consider a slightly below player who plays 1b / dh a quality player, DJ is not a quality player. His primary value is that he is cheap.
his defense at DH is also top notch ...
But, seriously, DJ is a backup until he gives us reason to believe otherwise ...
Can't they just flip him to the Giants
for a prospect, or something?
Nothing ridiculous, just a single-A guy with potential.
are you trying...
to imply that there's potential in the Giants' farm system?
Of the pitching variety yes
by awesomer @ Athletics Nation on Oct 23, 2007 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure
It's all at the lower levels though. (Except for Nate Schierholtz, but he's not getting flipped for Dan Johnson.)
It really is.
The Giants don't promote. That's why their short season team is unbeatable. They leave everyone where they are until they hit .375
Another way of saying that is
it makes no sense to have two DHs.
I don't like any of the ideas where we acquire another DH/1B/corner OF, but Bonds would be the best option if we go down that road.
Yeah. 'Tain't a good idea, for lotsa taints.
by The Dogfather on Oct 23, 2007 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Cust will get better. Bonds will get worse.
Cust is mondo cheap. Bonds is mondo pricey.
Cust will play. Bonds will retire the moment he hits his 3000th hit, or be indicted for tax fraud - whatever comes first.
Cust will be happy to be here. Bonds will want a sundeck built over his locker, with a dance floor and a chemistry lab, from which he can concoct evil potions that will cripple children and melt puppies.
Fuck Bonds.
Bonds a good idea
I think signing Bonds is a great idea if the A's are planning to contend in '08. He's the only impact free agent on the market we can realistically sign. Finding a spot for him is easy, you just have to be willing to bite the bullet on certain facts:
- Mark Kotsay looks done. His contract and the lack of an attractive in house option makes him the starter by default. He is basically untradeable. He is a sunk cost whether he plays or not.
- These are no longer the average offense/great defense/awesome pitching A's. Gone are Hudson, Mulder, Zito, and pretty much Harden. As it stands, our rotation is Haren, Blanton, Gaudin, DiNardo, (insert 5th starter here). We wont win with a defense behind those pitchers.
Our only hope is to sacrifice some defense and put some runs on the board. The acquisition of Bonds takes a huge step in that direction.
RF T. Buck
1B D. Barton
CF N. Swisher
LF B. Bonds
DH J. Cust
3B E. Chavez
2B M. Ellis
C K. Suzuki
SS B. Crosby
That's a helluva lotta OBP 1-5, and decent power 3-6. This also allows us to rest Bonds by playing Kotsay in center two days a week. It helps Kotsay's back, Bonds' knees, and keeps Cust out of the field as much as possible.
Granted, Chavez and Harden need to be healthy for us to be true contenders, but that was the case anyways. It's the only way we're a playoff team in the AL.
In a crowded, crappy free agent market and with almost no real prospects to trade, the only realistic option to get back into contention is Barry Lamar Bonds.
by nothinlikethetown on Oct 24, 2007 4:52 AM PDT reply actions
Thats a good idea
I think you're right about the pitching, and you may be right about Kotsay. Thats quite an interesting idea. I think the problem is that when you're trying not to rely on all our injury prone players, signing Bonds isn't a sure thing either. Bonds is 43, can't play night/day games, hasn't been healthy for the most of the last few years, and once he gets his 3000th hit, who knows what will happen.
by maffew @ Athletics Nation on Oct 24, 2007 6:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Harden will not be healthy
I'm absolutely convinced that there's an underlying issue in his shoulder. It's not just pain. His velocity dropped like a rock the last time he pitched.
I'd be shocked-- I mean, genuinely astounded-- if he makes it through spring training. I'm just praying the A's find a way to pawn him off on the Yankees for a plausibly decent prospect, because he's not going to be healthy within the lifespan of his current contract.
Not sure if I want Bonds -- or if he really fits
on the team, but one nice aspect that makes him more attractive then other free agents is that it will not cost us a draft pick to sign him. SF cannot offer him arbitration, or he would simply accept it and get a really big one year pay out.
I still think if we sign Bonds, and go with a very subpar defensive outfield, that Buck should be the guy in CF. We saw Swisher there last year, and it was not pretty. Buck may not be pretty either, but I at least feel he has a chance to improve his CF play a bit because of his speed where with Swisher we have already seen his best and it is not good enough to be in CF everyday.
There's no question that Bonds is a better hitter
But plunking down big money to replace our best player doesn't make that much sense.
If we're going to spend $15 million, let's get Mike Cameron or someone who will shore up a weakness.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
