Do we dare? Bonds for DH in 2008??
by Zonis on Sep 21, 2007 5:08 PM PDT
220 comments
Giants announced that they will not be bringing back Bonds for 2008. This, I presume, also means that they will not be offering him Arbitration, because they know he will accept it. That means that the A's could bring in Bonds with out losing a draft pick.
I know its a less than desirable idea with A's fans to bring in Bonds, but we can all agree that he'd allow us to win us some ballgames, something which we could use right about now.
We have a lot of money to play with in 2008, and Bonds might just let us get to the playoff sand beyond. Assuming that Beane figures out what has been killing the team, and removes the plague infested rats that are sneaking over from the Raiders' clubhouse, we could potentially have an awesome team for '08.
Everyone knows I am not a Bonds fan. But I root for the front of the Jersey, not the back. I want to win. And if I have to put up with Bonds for a season in order to do so, I will. Say that the A's sign Bonds on a 1 year, $10 million contract to be the DH, here is how I see our roster turning out in 2008.
- CF Travis Buck
- 1B Daric Barton
- DH Barry Bonds
- RF Nick Swisher
- LF Jack Cust
- 3B Eric Chavez
- 2B Mark Ellis
- C1 Kurt Suzuki
- SS Bobby Crosby
- C2 Jeremey Brown
- 3B Jack Hanahan
- CF Chris Denorfia
- OF Chris Snelling
- SS Donnie Murphy
- SP Dan Haren
- SP Rich Harden
- SP Joe Blanton
- SP Chad Gaudin
- SP Lenny DiNardo
- RP Huston Street
- RP Justin Duchscherer
- RP Alan Embree
- RP Andrew Brown
- RP Santiago Casilla
- RP Jerry Blevins
0 recs |
220 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Did you hear we signed Jack Cust?
by andeux on Sep 21, 2007 5:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
cause Jack Cust is reason enough
to ignore an opportunity to sign one of the top 10 hitters in baseball.
by black beane and rice on Sep 21, 2007 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we have Cust for so cheap
and we're fairly ok in the corner outfield/DH market, spending $15 mil on Bonds won't return at a very high rate. That $15 mil could give us higher returns elsewhere (i.e. draft, SS, CF, pitching ... with a high focus on the draft due to a weak FA class).
Of course it could lead to more ticket sales ...
by Bleeding the Green and Gold on Sep 21, 2007 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we know cust will put up a .900 OPS next year?
by black beane and rice on Sep 22, 2007 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's very likely
Bonds will probably outperform Cust, but the marginal gain there isn't as big as, say, finding a CF or SS who can hit a little.
by MrIncognito on Sep 22, 2007 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the only "big bat" at a position we need ...
... in this year's FA market is A-Rod. And that's if he's willing/able to switch back to SS. (Although I'd be fine with letting him play third. Heck, I'd let him pitch and do pxp with a wireless mic from the field if he wants.)
"Saving" the $10M-$15M from not signing Bonds in order to spend it on someone else (unless it's A-Rod) doesn't do us a lick of good.
by monkeyball on Sep 22, 2007 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no telling how big his bat is anymore
I understand the rationale for taking a 1-year flyer on Druw, but ... he could easily dupe '07. Yurk.
by monkeyball on Sep 22, 2007 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'd rather have bonds for one year
as far as SS goes, there isn't much out there. i'd be more willing to wait til after next season when Furcal becomes a FA
by black beane and rice on Sep 22, 2007 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i hope for both CF and SS
by xbhaskarx on Sep 22, 2007 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if extraticket sales &or media revenue =salary
then why not.
dont think it will though, we would still be a mediocer team though and bonds probably wants the ring and oakland wont be a favorite.
by Anarch on Sep 22, 2007 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dammit
There goes another diary I was working on!
It'll take more than $10 million to land Bonds but I think it would be a wise move to sign the guy.
And I can't stand the SOB.
by grover on Sep 21, 2007 5:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed on all counts
It doesn't matter if you don't like the guy. You put Bonds in an A's lineup that is healthy and things are looking pretty damend sweet for 2008 folks.
I really think Beane is gonna make a run at him this year, for reals this time. Why would you not want one of the best pure hitters left in the game on your team/lineup?
Talk about someone who could really take "patience at the plate A's style" to the next level.
I'm all for it1
by mrod on Sep 21, 2007 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll say this.
If the A's sign Bonds, I start following the Mariners.
I'll sell all my A's gear on eBay. It'll be the end of my involvement with this team.
Period.
I consider this a classy outfit that plays ball the right way, on and off the field. If they were to drink from that foul well, I'd be realizing that my earlier assumptions about class were wrong.
And I suspect there's a lot like me out there.
Go find a hard-hitting outfielder, not a steroid-injecting, journalist-abusing, needs-his-own-wing-of-the-locker-room, soon-to-be-indicted criminal.
by Ozzz on Sep 22, 2007 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be a shame to lose you Oz
But ya gotta do what you gotta do.
by grover on Sep 22, 2007 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
because we have NEVER had steroid-injecting
(Canseco(father of steroids in baseball?), Mcgwire, Giambi, Tejada? & probably 10/20+ more guys that played within those years)players in THIS classy outfit. Does the 89' series get an astrick?
the A's have also never, ever had journalist-abusin(Kingman) need-this -own wing (Henderson) soon to be indicted crimianl(no A's in the sixties and seventys broke any laws pertaining to greenies did they?)
the well is already way past foul my freind. and Oakland's been drinking plenty
by Anarch on Sep 22, 2007 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly why the well needs to be kept clean now
by iglew on Sep 23, 2007 3:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When the A's were fielding a team of roiders...
Only when they punted them did I figure this was a team worth calling my own.
by Ozzz on Sep 23, 2007 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'd break my months-long silence
and boo him as well. and stop following the a's until he left.
by Jjjsixsix on Sep 24, 2007 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and i replied to the wrong thread.
awesome. two months of not using an, and this is what i get.
by Jjjsixsix on Sep 24, 2007 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd boo him.
And that comes from someone fully aware of Oakland's own past when it comes to players and steroids.
by Flashfire on Sep 21, 2007 5:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd join you in booing
by kaweahkaweah on Sep 22, 2007 5:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments:
- Snelling is dead.
- No way the A's carry only 11 pitchers and no long man.
- Rob Bowen can actually hit, it turns out, and he's pretty much a lock for the #2 catcher spot next season.
- There's no way the A's cut Dan Meyer just to open up a roster spot for Jerry Blevins.
...oh, you wanted comments about Barry?
Well, if he signs, he'll probably be a 50/50 DH/LF split, with Cust taking the rest of the starts. Cust is, even now, a worse outfielder than Bonds; the only reason he takes some of the starts is to rest Barry.
Lineup looks like this:
Buck
Barton
Bonds
Swisher
Cust
Chavez
Ellis
Suzuki
Crosby/Murphy/whoever
Pretty good lineup, but a little lefty-heavy for my taste. 5 lefties and a left-throwing switch hitter? Not for the first time, I wish Hannahan hit right-handed so he could platoon with Chavez.
Corey Brown and Daniel Hamblin can't get to the majors fast enough, if you ask me.
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2007 5:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If Bonds was signed...
he would NOT spend time in the field.
by Zonis on Sep 21, 2007 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He barely spends time there now.
by Ozzz on Sep 22, 2007 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is better with the glove
than Cust ...
He'd play a lot of dh for health reasons, but the A's would field their strongest team with him in the field.
by devo on Sep 22, 2007 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blevins is going to make the 2008 team ...
he's a stud. Meyer will more than likely make the team -- whether as a starter or the long man, probably at the expense of Snelling (based on the guys on his list).
by devo on Sep 22, 2007 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
torn
I want to say no because I just can't stand the guy...but damn, might he have something left...and something left to prove as well?
I am definitely for rooting on the front of the uni as opposed to the back, so in that respect if we were to sign, I'd have to suck it up and cheer for him.
Besides, Giant's fans would HATE seeing him retire in Oakland (much in the same way Niner fans reacted when Jerry Rice crossed over). Surely there's some satisfaction in that.
Speaking of getting one over on SF, on my few (very few) trips to Pac Bell (or whatever they call it these days), I have always made it a point to ask one of the ushers where the Giant's World Series tropy room is. Especially when they open their mouth to answer, and then realize...and then I walk away chuckling. Is that evil?
I don't remember if I've answered the initial question. Rough week...at work. Decisions, decisions. Sure, bring him on for one last go.
(Just don't tell my Dad I said so).
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 21, 2007 5:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jerry Rice retired in Seattle
Let's hope Barry doesn't do the same, or they might actually be good next year.
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2007 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
technicallly
he signed a one-day contract with the Niners
but I agreee with you, Paul. I don't want to see him on the Mariners (or Angels...or Rangers)
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 21, 2007 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
psssssssst...
wasn't he in denver?
by str8tarrow on Sep 22, 2007 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would lovwe to see Barry
as an A. He wants those hits and he has power. Sharing DH duties with Cust seeems like a good fit if the price tag isn't too big.
by IM4Oakgal on Sep 21, 2007 5:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So character doesn't matter, huh?
Sure, let's go get Carl Everett and Gary Sheffield while we're at it.
I hear Pacman Jones might be free.
by Ozzz on Sep 22, 2007 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to have Sheff on my team
Carl Everett no, cause he sucks. If you don't care about winning baseball that's fine, but don't come up with other excuses as to why you wouldn't want Bonds on this team.
by Dusty Baker on Sep 22, 2007 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, it's about winning, is it?
by Ozzz on Sep 23, 2007 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you seriously that obtuse?
Bonds has been worth 6-7 wins above replacement the past few years, and that's partially because of his negative defense. It may even be higher next year. To say that the Giants are losing because of Bonds is, to put it nicely, moronic.
by Dusty Baker on Sep 23, 2007 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly I am that obtuse.
How many losses has his contract been worth?
How many losses has his failure to run out flyballs been worth?
How many losses has his awful awful awful D been worth (and would Daric Barton's awful defense at 1B if he couldn't DH be worth)
How many losses would an indictment on tax avoidance charges be worth?
By all means, pluck a stat out of the air and point to it as a holy indicator of greatness, but there are intangibles that 'wins' don't count, with Bonds more than anyone.
by Ozzz on Sep 24, 2007 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Answers
0
his contract has been ++++++++++$ for the Giants, so I'd say a negative bajillion losses
.01 losses probably at most as it doesn't happen that often.
His D has been worth at most 2 losses a year, probably closer to 1, 1 1/2. More than made up for by his 7-8 wins he's worth offensively.
0 as it would be built into his contract that he would be cut if it happened.
by Dusty Baker on Sep 24, 2007 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been against this in the past
but it just makes too much sense not to do. That lineup looks above average.
by jeepers on Sep 21, 2007 5:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, why don't we just inject them all with HGH?
Then they'd be all big and they could hit home runs a lot, and they wouldn't cost what Bonds will cost.
Sure, we'd be cheating, but that doesn't seem to matter to people all of a sudden, just as long as we win, right?
And here I was thinking the Giants fans were short-sighted assholes... seems like maybe it's baseball fans that fit that category, not Giants fans.
by Ozzz on Sep 22, 2007 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank You
The guy puts up big offensive numbers, but a big part of that is because he flippin' cheats.
by Bleeding the Green and Gold on Sep 22, 2007 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hank Aaron,
amphetamines; cheater.
by rfloh on Sep 22, 2007 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if anyone tries to sign him, I'll say no.
by Ozzz on Sep 23, 2007 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wanted bonds last year
and i still want him.
put cust in LF and bonds at DH, i'm not really concerned about our defense.
by xbhaskarx on Sep 21, 2007 6:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Assuming Barton is up
it would put Buck or Swisher in CF. We know Swisher sucks in CF, and Buck has played all of 2-3 games there. That would be a terrible outfield, possibly the worst in baseball. Certainly that team > status quo, but if we're going to spend 1yr/15mil I think we'd be better off trying to get Andruw Jones or Fukudome (not 1yr.)
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2007 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
buck in CF
bonds is a better option than jones, fukudome or any other free agent CF because it's only a one year thing.
but if anyone of them are crazy enough to agree to a 1yr/15mil deal, sure.
by xbhaskarx on Sep 21, 2007 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Story the other day said
Jones will look for a 1-yr deal to increase his value because he struggled this year. I definitely would not sign him to a multi-year deal.
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2007 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i did not know that
in that case i'd prefer jones for one year. but there's only one andruw jones, and we may not get him, and if we don't bonds would be a good option.
by xbhaskarx on Sep 21, 2007 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you think
pretty much every team is wishcasting Andruw Jones $15M /1?
by rfloh on Sep 22, 2007 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
<chastised>
If it's true that he's looking for a 1 yr deal, that's in the neighborhood of what he'll get (but it seems like he should get more than 15). But there'll be 5-10 suitors willing to pay a price in that range (a wishcast for 4-9 of them), and there's no particular reason he'd come to Oakland.
Bonds, on the other hand, might have reason to take a somewhat reduced price to come to Oakland, as compared to Jones. I'd still rather have Jones at 1/18mil than Bonds at 1/12mil, which is just to say that having Jones next year would be better than having Bonds even assuming significant extra cost for Jones.
But I don't think either is particularly likely, and given that Jones will be more sought-after, Bonds might be somewhat more likely (though still not likely) just in virtue of staying in the BA.
by mikeA on Sep 22, 2007 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't sign Andruw Jones to...
1/18mil or 1/15mil or even 1/10mil. Adimittedly, he'd be an upgrade over Kotsay (who Zonis keeps DFA'ing from his 25 man rosters). But, Jones is no longer a good center fielder. He's got the 2nd lowest Zone Rating of any qualified NL centerfielder. And, this year, his OPS is only slightly higher than Damon and below Melky Cabrera and David DeJesus.
The guy is on the decline if not done and any team that signs him will probably regret it. Buck is a better centerfield option IMHO.
by FoolshGame22 on Sep 22, 2007 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
UZR had him at +3
in the middle of the year, which is worse than I would have thought, but I don't think it's as bad as you say. He's also only 30 so age-decline shouldn't be that big of a deal. On the other hand, it seems like something might be wrong with him given the huge dropoff this year (I have no idea), so I may just be talking out of my ass.
by mikeA on Sep 22, 2007 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By THT's Zone rating
Andruw was ranked 1st in the NL with a 922 rating. Beltran was 2nd. Jones was also 1st in out of zone plays with with 78.
He would also be tied for Curtis Granderson for 1st in MLB in ZR. He would be number 1 in out of zone plays.
by rfloh on Sep 22, 2007 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
bonds
that would probably leave the a's and 2-3 other teams, maybe not even that many. will the angels want him after the gary matthews jr thing? would bonds to to the rangers after how the owner publicly assured the fans they wouldn't sign him this year?
by xbhaskarx on Sep 22, 2007 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
we are a pretty logical candidate. I think the "WS quest" thing is probably genuine, and it's not clear if he thinks the A's are the team for that, but the other candidates don't make a lot of sense.
Angels make the most sense, but I agree the GMJ thing might sour them (plus they're big on "family friendliness" and that sort of thing). Twins would make a lot of sense, but I can't imagine him wanting to play in Minnesota. Same thing with Detroit. I'd say the Yankees are most likely. They still have Giambi who they like to DH, but then again we have Cust.
by mikeA on Sep 22, 2007 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's what i was trying to say above
by xbhaskarx on Sep 22, 2007 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
I don't that outfield is that terrible either. Cust is terrible, but Swisher is a pretty good corner outfielder, and Buck has the tools, if not the experience, to play center.
Overall, it would still probably be below average, but I'd rather have the bats.
by jeepers on Sep 22, 2007 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cust would kill the A's as a regular OF
by athleticsBB4life on Sep 21, 2007 7:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Quit putting Cust's fielding down!
I saw him catch a ball...once.
by IM4Oakgal on Sep 21, 2007 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really? I guess I need to get there when the
players are warming up
by Bleeding the Green and Gold on Sep 21, 2007 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FYI...Jeremy Brown won't be the back-up C
by athleticsBB4life on Sep 21, 2007 7:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Do It. and ..
go get Aaron Rowand. ditch Cust
drop some coin!!
LF Buck
RF Swisher
1B Barton
DH Bonds
CF Rowand
3B Chavez
2B Ellis
C Suzuki
SS Crosby
by Hawk on Sep 21, 2007 7:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Grab some pine......meat!
by JediLeroy on Sep 21, 2007 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ditch Cust
LOL you don't understand how baseball works much do you?
by Dusty Baker on Sep 21, 2007 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great!
Lets ditch our best hitter, and grab a slightly above average hitting, injury prone CF, who's played all his games in hitters parks, who is on the wrong side of 30 for a 4-5 year contract!
by Zonis on Sep 21, 2007 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our best hitter who costs almost nothing
and is under team control for the next 4+ years
by Dusty Baker on Sep 21, 2007 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not
our BEST hitter. Maybe our best power hitter. But not bet all around hitter. You have to agree to that. I believe Buck, (healthy) would rank above him
by Hawk on Sep 21, 2007 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh no
Jack Cust 07 EQA: .317 OPS+: 147
Travis Buck 07 EQA: .295 OPS+: 127
And its not even close. (This is hitter, not all around player, but you made it pretty clear you understood that)
by Dusty Baker on Sep 21, 2007 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Health
Buck played with bone chips in his elbow all year
by Hawk on Sep 21, 2007 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OPS+ is not a counting based stat
So Buck's health doesn't affect it (unless you're saying that Buck is playing way under his normal level, which then says that you have no idea what Buck's normal level is seeing as this is his only year, which brings us back again to not knowing what hitting is).
by Dusty Baker on Sep 21, 2007 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
there's that money thing again
shoot.
but good point, Dusty.
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 21, 2007 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because we don't have injury prone players now??
Lets run Kotsay out there next year. Hey I never said go get Rowand for 4-5 yrs.
by Hawk on Sep 21, 2007 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you'd have to get Rowand for 4-5 years
to get Rowand.
I see Rowand as something like Kotsay. He might be good for a year or two, but he will likely drop off a cliff just like Kotsay and leave us with a deadweight.
by Zonis on Sep 21, 2007 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Phillies
have a pissant ballpark. If we pay him based on his Phillie numbers I bet we'd regret it in our more pitcher oriented ballpark. On the other hand he is a great fielder. So maybe he'd be a fit.
by IM4Oakgal on Sep 21, 2007 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would we have to hang chickens from the OF wall?
by Hawk on Sep 21, 2007 7:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
<mikeA's mental Bonds-signing upside>:
<Poppy distracted from Cust h8>
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2007 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
bwaha!
NOOOOOOO, because if I had to, I'd be okay with having Cust as a full-time DH. But Bonds being here would make me truly hate Cust, because it'd make his (Cust's) presence on defense more permanent.
by Poppy on Sep 21, 2007 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cust
gave SaMaEl a lovely unicorn-themed flower arrangement when Briggs was born.
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2007 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, Cust can't win me over on the basis of
you fabricating Niceness points for him... ;)
by Poppy on Sep 22, 2007 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone who saw ...
... The Jack Cust Outfield Adventure's unfortunate pirouette/evasive maneuver on a Hafner's fly ball last evening canNOT be serious about having him out there for any reason other than he lost his way on a home run trot.
I am a great fan of his offense, and see utterly no reason to neutralize its effect by letting him put on a glove.
EVer.
by The Dogfather on Sep 23, 2007 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
need to find the Ron Washington of outfield...
coaches
by Cutthemullet on Sep 24, 2007 1:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we could go with
8 in the field and two DH's. Ellis would just kinda rove around behind second base.
by scromulus on Sep 21, 2007 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Works in Softball
....so it could work here
by Lafayette Scotsman on Sep 22, 2007 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cust
isnt terrible in the outfield. you guys make it sound like he cant catch ANYTHING!!! how many balls has he dropped, rele? like what 2 or 3? thats not bad at all for a guy that was a DH most of his time in the bigs before he came to the A's.
by jackcustismyhero32 on Sep 21, 2007 7:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's not the dropped balls
so much as the abysmal range.
(I love Cust)
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2007 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he has made
some amazing diving catches. sure he doesnt make ALL the long range plays, but what more could you expect from him?
by jackcustismyhero32 on Sep 21, 2007 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His
"amazing diving catches" (of which there have been several, and they were indeed impressive), would be completely routine plays for the vast majority of OFers. Those OFers would just jog over to the ball and make the catch (exaggeration, but still).
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2007 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok
i think the one thing we can all agree is that he'll probly go and have SOME sort of outfield training in the offseason. so, assuming that goes well, he might just be an ever (and i DO mean ever) so slightly above average outfielder, seeing as how he's not terrible now. to have him in our outfield wouldnt kill us...
by jackcustismyhero32 on Sep 21, 2007 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but he is terrible now ...
and all of the practice in the world isn't going to teach him how to run faster.
He has a zone rating of .854 -- that would be the lowest in the majors (among RF) if he played enough in the field to qualify.
by devo on Sep 22, 2007 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he is still..
Better in the OF than Canseco was. My god I never seen a worse outfielder than Canseco. But everyone overlooked his lack of defensive abilities due to his hitting. What about Ben Grieve!! He was the freakin tin man. Cust is not great, but he is not that bad.
by billyball1981 on Sep 23, 2007 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps not ...
but he's well past his defensive prime (age~wise) and while he may figure out how not to drop balls, his range is more likely to get worse than better. He may not be historically bad, but he's unlikely to ever be anything but bad.
by devo on Sep 23, 2007 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
You expect him to run all the way to the foul line AND make a catch?
by alox on Sep 21, 2007 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we've seen him do it before
is all im sayin.
by jackcustismyhero32 on Sep 21, 2007 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Way
I'd rather the A's finish 40 games out. Bonds is the first class jerk of the game, the man Jim Rice and Albert Belle wanted to be. No no no no no.
by solotar on Sep 21, 2007 7:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
damn it
i'm already changing my mind...
we can't have HIM on our team...
but...
ok, just for one year...
but I will forever deny cheering for him
and, please. no blasted chickens.
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 21, 2007 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know...
I don't really care about any of the personality/steroid business,
But:
If anyone brought those rubber chickens into the Coliseum, it would be a deal-breaker for me.
I hate those chickens.
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2007 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
apples, oranges, bananas
Rice was merely surly to the media, and expressed more openly than most players what was acknowledged to be true about Boston fans and media.
Belle (and I'm a huge Belle fan) was a near-sociopath with major anger/rage issues.
Bonds is perhaps the most self-centered man ever to play in MLB, but I'd argue that's a necessity to achieve what he's done < cough > Chavez <cough>.
But, hm, what's the one thing all three of those guys do have in common?
by monkeyball on Sep 22, 2007 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of them are Mexican enough?
by alox on Sep 22, 2007 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i completely agree
they're all fruits?
by xbhaskarx on Sep 22, 2007 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming they are healthy
That lineup makes me very happy...except for Crosby.
by muffinpryde on Sep 21, 2007 8:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
OK, how about this
If Barry signs, he has to wear- at the press conference- one of those shirts that say "0 Splash Hits, 4 World Titles".
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 21, 2007 8:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
o and
as for signing bonds, i say go for it. you can assume cust will do some sort of outfield training in the offseason, im mean its not like he wouldnt want to improve on his fielding skills. so putting him in the outfield wouldnt b as bad as you guys make it sound. as for bonds, i think he'd b a perfect fit for our power-lacking lineup.
by jackcustismyhero32 on Sep 21, 2007 8:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A PERFECT FIT?
What are you people, high? Bonds would be a perfect fit in PRISON. He'd be a perfect fit in BarryBondsistan, a nation devoted to him and only him, populated by servants and lackeys who would go to prison rather than talk about what he injects.
Do you REALLY want to spend $15m+ to sign a clubhouse cancer who roids, has a posse of dealers around him, would let friends go to prison so he doesn't have to talk, will want his own corner of the locker room with his own fucking recliner and big screen TV, AND will only hit marginally better than the DH we have for pocket change for the next however many years?
Why recreate what we have? We HAVE a good DH already. For an extra 4 home runs and a bucket of walks, you want all that crap that comes with it?
Man, this blows my freakin' mind.
by Ozzz on Sep 22, 2007 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm really enjoying ...
... watching your dudgeon rise higher and higher scrolling down the diary.
I hope you've eliminated salt from your diet, Oz.
by monkeyball on Sep 22, 2007 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm still making my way down this diary
by xbhaskarx on Sep 22, 2007 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nay.
by Ozzz on Sep 23, 2007 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hafta say, HOz, I'm having a little difficulty...
... squaring these sermonettes with the laissez-faire, market-based diatribes in the Heckling thread.
by The Dogfather on Sep 23, 2007 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see how you find them to be inequitable.
Ditto here - you wanna bring Milton Bradley aboard and look past his immaturity in return for a low priced contract? I'm okay with that.
But pay $10m+ to a cancer like Bonds so he can continue pissing on baseball history while wearing our uniform? To hell with that.
I despise Giants fans for refusing to admit what they're cheering for. And I expect OUR fans to be better than that.
Pretty simple.
by Ozzz on Sep 24, 2007 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You've got a sharp sense of humor.
And "try to forget the low ebb of morality..." is probably one of the funniest comments you've ever made here, whether or not you intended it to be.
by Poppy on Sep 24, 2007 6:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A case in point.
by Ozzz on Sep 24, 2007 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two things about Bonds.
He's a world class prick. Not that it would bother me in the least to see him in the Green and Gold. It wouldn't. As far as I can tell, he's after one thing, maybe two. He wants to pad his stats for posterity. I think he wants to to hold the distinction of being the only player (or first) in the 800 club. As a secondary goal, I think he may actually want one of those rings. At any rate, his motives and the A's best interests seem to coincide....IF he's not too greedy. The Coli would serve his self interests well.
But one thing has been overlooked. The Angels. Will they make a move for him? He's expressed interest before, and the team is close to his Beverly Hills home.
by alox on Sep 21, 2007 8:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you have to admit..
on paper, the Angels are a more attractive option than the A's for Barry in the ring-chasing category.
that's a fair assessment, no?
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 21, 2007 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They might
And it's all the more reason we should enter the Bonds sweepstakes. At worst, we make the Angels spend a whole lot more money for him.
To my mind, there are three places Bonds will play next year--Anaheim, Seattle, or Oakland. I think he has no desire to play for the Yankees, who could conceivably ignore their investment in Giambi if they really wanted him.
by jeepers on Sep 22, 2007 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Nate Silver a tool or what?
From BP:
My main point is that the Padres are a way underrated fit. They have no problem picking up players with some baggage, they’re on the West Coast in a low-key media environment, they have a smart GM who understands Bonds’ value, they’ll need a left fielder if Milton Bradley departs to free agency, and they’re a good team that will give Bonds the opportunity to go out a winner.
by IM4Oakgal on Sep 21, 2007 8:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
He says they're a way underrated fit. Doesn't say anything about the A's not being a good fit (don't have BP haven't seen whole article)
by Dusty Baker on Sep 21, 2007 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, now I see its just an odds post
And the A's are the 2nd team on the list at 5-1 (Pads at 4-1). I don't see how this is toolish at all.
by Dusty Baker on Sep 21, 2007 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has the PADS
as the odds faves. I think that is way off base.
by IM4Oakgal on Sep 21, 2007 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Padres are out of it, IMO
They wouldn't play Cust when they had him for free, I doubt they'd go after Bonds, who would be even worse in Petco.
by Zonis on Sep 21, 2007 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barry Bonds > Cust
in hitting for sure, and probably fielding as well. I wouldn't use Cust (a career minor leaguer at that point) as a reason they wouldn't go after Bonds.
by Dusty Baker on Sep 21, 2007 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to ESPN
Cust has better Zone Rating and Range Factor than Bonds.
by Zonis on Sep 21, 2007 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THT's Revised Zone Rating
has Bonds at 830 zone rating with 29 out of zone plays.
Cust at 831, with 6 out of zone plays in RF, 867 with 1 out of zone play in LF.
by rfloh on Sep 22, 2007 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OF defense is more important to SD
than any other team because of their gigantic outfield. I would assume that's a big reason they didn't play Cust. Their offense is pretty bad (especially given how good a team they are), so he would improve their team, just like he would improve the A's (or any team), but he would cost them a ton of runs on defense. Thus, he'd be a much better fit for various AL teams.
Don't understand how any of this makes Nate Silver a tool....
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2007 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
SD's offense isn't bad,
it's just bad at home.
They're 4th in road OPS in the NL, last in home OPS. PETCO just inflicts a lot of pain on offenses, period.
by 74mk on Sep 22, 2007 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To put the lineup in perspective...
here's that lineup with their 2008 MLB totals (Barton's a little skewed, though).
AVG/OBP/SLG/EQA
.288/.377/.474 - CF Travis Buck [.295]
.326/.407/.522 - 1B Daric Barton [.304]
.279/.483/.570 - DH Barry Bonds [.356]
.264/.390/.464 - RF Nick Swisher [.298]
.261/.413/.518 - LF Jack Cust [.317]
.240/.306/.446 - 3B Eric Chavez [.258]
.272/.333/.435 - 2B Mark Ellis [.268]
.255/.335/.432 - C1 Kurt Suzuki [.270]
.226/.278/.341 - SS Bobby Crosby [.219]
by Zonis on Sep 21, 2007 9:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
I just realized that with that lineup, every player except Crosby has an EQA above league average (assuming Chavez plays just a tad bit better than he did this year).
I'm just not sure you can have an order of
L
L
L
S
L
L
R
R
R
That would make it way too easy for opposing managers bullpen management against us....but imagine inserting a ~.500 OBP guy in front of Cust and Swish.
We would probably have to split up the lefties and put Ellis second. Or maybe crosses fingers Crosby or Suzuki will develop into decent enough hitters to be a number two down the line.
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Sep 21, 2007 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem, though, is that none of our righties
are good enough to be at the top of the lineup, and the Organization drafts a LOT of left handed hitters.
BTW: the lineup by 2007 numbers (oh yeah, I made a typo and wrote 2008 instead of 2007, so sue me), looks even better if you replace Eric Chavez with Jack Hanahan, who has an EQA at about .300. But he's still left handed.
But on the flip side, Buck has hit LHP better than RHP, Swisher as well, Barton, if I remember correctly, doesn't have that big of a split, and Bonds is Bonds.
by Zonis on Sep 21, 2007 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah you're right
Buck and Barton can hold their own against lefties.
I wouldn't consider Hanahan's EQA bona fide though. He's got the small sample size goin' on. For some reason I can't find his baseball-cube.com stats right now, but I remember looking them up awhile ago and they weren't that great. Definitely Chavez (who if healthy will likely put up an OBP of .350+, and not that .306 garbage he put up this year) is better than Hanahan. Especially defensively.
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Sep 21, 2007 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Hanahan's minor league stats
I remember he had a continual upward trend in his production though, which gives hope.
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Sep 21, 2007 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Duh
I spelled his name wrong. Hannahan. hahaha
Minor league totals for him:
.273/.363/.394 for a .757 OPS.
Not that good.
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Sep 21, 2007 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He had a breakout season this year
after scuffling around the Tigers' AA club for most of three seasons. It's possible that that park may be hard on hitters; I don't really know.
Honestly, if I was projecting Hannahan out, I'd figure him at around .260/.330/.400; I don't know how that looks in EQA terms, but it's not good enough to be a regular starter at third base. Plenty good enough to be a quality backup/platoon player/pinch hitter, though. He'll find his niche.
by PaulThomas on Sep 23, 2007 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pretty sure he finally got his life straightened
...out...he had issues with alcoholism
by Cutthemullet on Sep 23, 2007 2:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it would be worth $15m....
to turn Bonds around and make him bat right handed :)
by str8tarrow on Sep 22, 2007 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cust
What about Cust? You have to keep Lamar Bonds happy. Lamar will run the show if he plays for the A's. Lamar will demand respect if he plays for the A's. I don't think Geren would be able to get along with the guy.
I have ripped Cust in the past, but some people on the board act like Cust is the next Babe Ruth. A lot of people on this board want to look past the strikeouts for Cust. The whole strikeout situation with Cust reminds me of a grade point average. As long as he gets a 3.0. that's all that matters. I am tired of seeing Jack Cust look at strike 3. Your a FNG, your not going to get the calls. Swing the f-ing bat.
by jayberwanger on Sep 21, 2007 9:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Strikeouts
Aren't quite as bad as they sound. (Quoting what I've read a million times on FJM.com) Strikeouts usually indicate better isolated power numbers.
And a 9 pitch strikeout is better than a one pitch ground out (except for certain situations obviously).
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Sep 21, 2007 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what I am hoping for next year
is for Cust to start swinging at more pitches, to eliminate those called strike 3's, but also for him to start getting those calls going his way. I've seen a huge amount of strike calls go against Cust this year.
by Zonis on Sep 21, 2007 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Poor guy. He knows the strike zone better than the umpires do.
Couple that with being basically an unrespected rookie, and he's gotten shafted disturbingly often. I've been very irritated with the umpiring this year, and several really noticeable (like, instantly obvious from TV without even looking at Gameday, even from the horrible off-center TV angle) bad calls have been Cust at-bats.
by PaulThomas on Sep 23, 2007 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man, does this look prescient now
It's reached ridiculous proportions. There's actually no reason to throw a strike to Cust anymore. Just throw three pitches six inches off the outside corner and you've got a guaranteed out.
by PaulThomas on Sep 23, 2007 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you maybe tell Chavy about those 9 pitches?
And Crosby.
And DJ.
by Ozzz on Sep 22, 2007 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm....
one thing that doesn't get mentioned here much is entertainment value. i've found the A's to be a bit lacking in that department of late. i think this is a different issue than how good the team is. currently, what is fun about the A's is watching some young guys (buck, barton, suzuki, gaudin) and some underdog types (cust, dinardo, hannahannahan..) develop and play. but there's nobody who makes you decide to keep the TV on for another inning just so that you can watch them bat. the ones who do that are usually your freaky power hitters. reggie jackson when i was a kid, canseco, giambi, frank thomas last year (though i also love watch ichiro hit). neither chavy or swish generate that kind of feeling. bonds is still that guy, although i wonder when father time will finally overtake him. for me and many other not so serious fans, it's not just about winning, but about big characters, cartoon like guys like goose gossage and reggie and canseco and even rod beck, and the fun they bring. (strange, but i never was that thrilled to watch mark mcguire and i think i'm not even spelling his name right).
bonds may be a prick alot of the time, i've also heard interviews where he shows his good side, but who cares about that or about 'roids. i watch baseball to have fun, and i find him fun to watch. what a great swing.
so forgive me if i don't hate him or the giants or if it's not the best baseball move, i say bring him on.
by danh on Sep 21, 2007 10:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not a chance in hell.
Quite honestly, this post has to be some type of attempt at humor. Repeat after me - the Oakland A's will never sign Barry Bonds. No way, no chance, no how.
by NewPosterMojo on Sep 22, 2007 12:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They've expressed interest
each of the last two years. Were they just kidding? It's a more attractive investment now, too, because you're not buying the attendant media circus from the home run chase, either.
by jeepers on Sep 22, 2007 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They express interest in a lot of guys.
The price then goes up, and the Angels pay more for said guys.
by Ozzz on Sep 22, 2007 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you bite the bullet
Bonds and the A's just make too much sense. He'll want to stay in the Bay Area; we desperately need hitting; our rivals in marketing are giving him up; our rivals in our division want him; Oakland has normally been known as one of the best clubhouses in the league able to swallow a cancer, though I'm not sure it is anymore. Barry will help so much that I think he could make us WS contenders (think how many more fastballs Swish will see batting in front of him).
If somehow we could sign ARod as well as Bonds we would be WS front-runners, fix our top two holes (CF by virtue of moving Swish or Buck and SS) and have the protection for Bonds he's never gotten. We would destroy the market for the Giants and we would sell many more tickets and merchandise. Of course, our defense would be pitiful, but our offense would outnumber the losses on defense; think how bad our defense was in the early 2000s.
If my top two dreams for the A's came true, I really think the A's would be the best team in the majors. Of course, right now, both are dreams. I'll believe it when I see it.
Lew, open up the pocketbook and become the Bay Area's team and baseball's best. You know what, you might as well sign Fukudome and Andruw as well.
by vignette17 on Sep 22, 2007 12:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Are you sure he wants to stay in the bay?
He does have a home in Beverly Hills so he may be looking at one of the So-Cal teams. A lineup of Bonds, Guerrero and Anderson in LA is just plain scary but can we really outbid a team like the Angels for his services? Especially since they too would want to keep him from going to a division rival.
by alamedagirl on Sep 22, 2007 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One of those 3 is really not like the other 2.
by Dusty Baker on Sep 22, 2007 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arod + Bonds...
...would mean that we have like 40 million dollars a year saved up. That's unlikely. Too bad we didn't have the revenue from the new stadium to put towards this year. :(
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Sep 22, 2007 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having him retire a A not a Giant good enough
keeping him away from the Angles, Yankee's good enough. if we cant win or have our HofFamers retire with us at least we can keep other teams we dislike from having it too.
by Anarch on Sep 22, 2007 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm repeating myself,
but so is everyone else.
The majority opinion on this thread seems to be "I hate Bonds, but we should sign him anyway." I'm just the opposite. I don't hate him, but I think he'd be bad for the team.
Obviously winning is good for the team, and a good hitter helps you win. But some guys just aren't worth the price. Signing Bonds would wreck the team, both in chemistry and in reputation.
Here is why we shouldn't sign Bonds:
Fair or not, Bonds is the number-one pop-culture symbol of steroids use. Even though none of them is wearing green and gold, two of the guys in that picture are associated with the Oakland A's. Do you really want to have all three? I sure don't.
We're all fans here, and we think of the A's as our lovable muppets. Around the country, especially among people who don't play close attention to baseball, the A's are the "steroids team". It's taken years for that bad reputation to fade. (And Baltimore has made a run at taking the title from us.) Sign Bonds even for one year and we immediately become the steroids team again, and the reputation will stick for another ten years after.
You're looking at sullying the team's name for a long time to come, just because one bad season has made you hungry for a good hitter. That's short-sighted. He's not worth the price.
by iglew on Sep 22, 2007 3:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
should we *really* care?
i don't. but i also don't think it will hurt our reputation. mcgwire, giambi are not only long gone, but people tend to associate them with the cards aand yanks. we'll become the steroids team because of one year of bonds who will forever be associated with the giants?
by xbhaskarx on Sep 22, 2007 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if we get him
at a fair price, then why not? if he's hitting jacks and filling up the seats, i'm all for it.
by ConditionOakland on Sep 22, 2007 3:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We have a DH at fair price who hits jacks.
by Ozzz on Sep 22, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
heck
He IS Jack.
by Athletics fan and runner on Sep 22, 2007 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
of course!
by ConditionOakland on Sep 22, 2007 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard he won't wear white shoes
So do we have to change them? Hell no.
Although most of us think the A's can compete next year, I bet Barry is thinking the A's are more in a re-tooling mode than going for it all next year. I see him going to the Angels.
by WiscoFan on Sep 22, 2007 8:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You forgot about Kotsay
Everyone seems to forgetting that in 08 we will have two center fielders. Kotsay and Denorfia. Beane won't just let Kotsay go and he paid way too much to just not play Denorfia next year. That would leave Buck and Swisher for the corner outfield spots and Barton as the starting 1st baseman. Are we really going to keep both Bonda and Cust on our team? The only reason both Piazza and Cust are there now is because of all the players on the DL this year.
I think if Beane goes for Bonds, and it would be a big power boost as well as an attraction, then either a backup infielder or Cust would have to go.
by Eastbayjim on Sep 22, 2007 9:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Denofira was a 4th OF to begin with
And I'd hardly consider a AAA reliever way too much. Those are about as fungible players as you can find.
Also Piazza /= Bonds in terms of ability to play in the field. Nowhere close to it.
Cust is going nowhere, I don't see why anyone thinks he is. It makes no sense whatsoever.
by Dusty Baker on Sep 22, 2007 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grrrr...
My Chris Denorfia insult radar picks up this post.
He was a 4th outfielder last year because Cincy had an irrational woody for Ryan Freel and huge money tied up in Adam Dunn and Griffey, not because he wasn't capable of starting.
by PaulThomas on Sep 23, 2007 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
more like a 6th OF...
for that team, which probably has the best OF in the MLB with Dunn, Griffey, and Hamilton...then you have Freel (hurt), and guys who emerged like Norris Hopper and Jeff Keppinger...Denorfia come close to cracking that outfield.
by Cutthemullet on Sep 23, 2007 2:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hamilton wasn't on the team last year
I can't speak to the others, but they might not have gotten called up if CD was healthy.
by PaulThomas on Sep 23, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kotsay is worse than everyone on that roster
with the exception of Murphy and Crosby, and Kotsay can't play Short.
Kotsay is expensive, a bad hitter, and is slipping on defense. He's no longer a + to the team.
by Zonis on Sep 22, 2007 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, Kotsay and Cust are here for 2008
I agree that Kotsay is no longer, or at least this year hasn't been the player he was before. But, he also can come back next year with a full year of rehab behind him in better shape. But in either case..we still have him and Beane is not going to just let him go.
I also agree that Beane will probably not even think ago getting rid of Cust, so, If we get Bonds, who will go?
Remember that every team, including the A's, passed on Bonds last year. What makes you think the Angels or A's or Padres will want him this year?
by Eastbayjim on Sep 22, 2007 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
" every team passed on Bonds last year"
Some proof please? Just because Bonds chose to play in SF after a lot of negotiations doesn't mean that no other team wanted him. Just a hunch but I'm guessing Bonds would never have signed with the Royals or Drays.
by Dusty Baker on Sep 22, 2007 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if Kotsay bombs again?
While we're giving another chance to Kotsay, why not give another chance to Crosby too? After all, he won ROY. He's a talented professional. How about Harden then?
by rfloh on Sep 22, 2007 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i would love it if we DIDNT give Crosby another
chance. in 4+ years in Oakland his CAREER stats are: 48 HR, 173 RBI, .240 avg, .310 OBP, .701 OPS
Harden's 4+ years: 31-18, .633 winning percentage, 3.60 ERA, almost a 1/1 strikeouts to innings pitched ratio, .226 batting avg against.
Let some other team see what Crosby can do the next four years for them, lets us see what Harden can do the next four years for us.
As for Kostay, let us develope are future CF in 08' rather than waste time on seeing wheather he can do better or not. Good year or Bad it puts the orginization behind a year if he gets much playing time.
by Anarch on Sep 22, 2007 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mark Prior
in 5 years: 42-29, 592 winning percentage, 3.51 ERA, better than a 1/1 strikeouts to innings pitched ratio, 235 batting avg against.
by rfloh on Sep 22, 2007 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your point?
Both Harden and Prior, when healthy, get every chance to pitch, obviously.
by Cutthemullet on Sep 23, 2007 2:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point
"when healthy"
by rfloh on Sep 23, 2007 4:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
comparing Harden and Prior to someone like Kotsay based on the fact that all three are injury-prone is nonsensical. Prior, at this point, may be damaged beyond repair. Harden, though, will be healthy entering 2008. By all means, there needs to be a backup plan who's at least the caliber of a DiNardo, but you don't...stop giving chances to guys who get hurt (but don't seem to be declining from their previous high level of play, at least not significantly, because of those injuries)...whereas you seem to be implying that it's not worth wasting time on a huge talent like Harden. When you can pay Rich Harden whatever small amount of money he's being paid, even if the odds are stacked against him reaching, say, a 100 IP benchmark, it's still a worthwhile gamble. Someone like Kotsay, who's expensive and bad, is a completely different matter altogether.
by Cutthemullet on Sep 24, 2007 1:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harden will be healthy entering 2008?
Given that I'm more or less convinced he has an underlying shoulder injury a la Jason Schmidt, I find this statement... less than obviously true.
Also: it's not a small amount of money. Harden will make $4.5 million next season.
Sometimes these things are going to happen when you sign guys to arbitration-buyout contracts. It's just part of the hidden cost of doing business. Certainly the A's should try to extract whatever value they can out of Harden's '08 season, but there's no way they can rely on him in any sense.
by PaulThomas on Sep 24, 2007 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care about Denorfia or Kotsay.
Neither is good enough to be a difference maker on next year's team. They can waive both, for all I care.
by jeepers on Sep 22, 2007 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Denorfia is better than we...
...give him credit for. He put up pretty good OPS's in his last two large-sample-sized AAA seasons: 896, 893.
But he seems to be another doubles hitter like Barton and Buck. At least he's right handed though.
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Sep 22, 2007 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not a power hitter
Buck and Barton are still young enough that some of the balls which are doubles right now will turn into home runs in 3 or 4 years. Denorfia is never going to hit 25 home runs in a season, while either of them might well do so.
Denorfia's main value is his OBP, which should be excellent for a center fielder if he plays to his potential.
by PaulThomas on Sep 23, 2007 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this year has demonstrated that ...
... Beane is perfectly willing to act on sunk costs (Bradley, Loaiza, Kendall).
I'm guessing that if Kotsay doesn't retire, he'll be waived by July 31.
by monkeyball on Sep 22, 2007 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
let me finish, self
those weren't sunk costs...those contracts were NOT already paid in their entirety, or going to be paid by the A's regardless of what action we took with the players...if Loaiza was a sunk cost, then we would be on the hook for his 2008 salary, and we would've waived him just to free up a roster spot...even notsellingjeans wouldn't argue that a spot on the 40-man is worth $7-$8 million dollars.
by Cutthemullet on Sep 23, 2007 2:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please not the Angels....
Just imagine all the extra BS media attention they would get, their fans would love it, and oh yeah they would be awesome. They have hardly utilized the DH position over the last 5 years it seems like.
by SwisherSweet on Sep 22, 2007 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The lineup in 08 if we pick up Bonds
Looking at the lineup in this post I would make a couple changes, if we added Bonds. Also, I do agree that Blevins will on the team sometime during 2008.
Swisher would also benefit from Bonds as he did when Frank Thomas was here and also playing one position would help him a great deal.
CF Travis Buck
1B Daric Barton
DH & LF Barry Bonds
RF Nick Swisher
LF Jack Cust
3B Eric Chavez
2B Mark Ellis
C1 Kurt Suzuki
SS Bobby Crosby
C2 (Jeremey Brown)replace with Rob Bowen
3B Jack Hanahan
CF Chris Denorfia
OF (Chris Snelling)replace with Mark Kotsay
SS (Donnie Murphy) or Marco Scutaro
SP Dan Haren
SP Rich Harden
SP Joe Blanton
SP Chad Gaudin
SP Lenny DiNardo
RP Huston Street
RP Justin Duchscherer
RP Alan Embree
RP Andrew Brown
RP Santiago Casilla
RP Jerry Blevins
by Eastbayjim on Sep 22, 2007 10:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Scutaro
I don't think we'll keep Scutaro next year. I agree Bowen > Brown.
Also, since we're taking Piazza and his 8 million off the books, wouldn't we only have to cough up a few million for Bonds? I'm guessing Bonds will get like 10-12 million a year?
Well, I thought he would get 10-12 million this year, and he got 16...
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Sep 22, 2007 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably somewhere between 10-15 mil.
by jeepers on Sep 22, 2007 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it will be that high.
Last year Bonds was chasing the HR record. This year he has no such leverage. His value was most acutely felt by the Giants, so they ended up paying the price. Not so much this year. He's an aging outfielder with an extensively documented penchant for self centered emotional outbursts. His defensive skills have long since eroded which will most likely eliminate any interest by NL teams. The only AL teams that are going to be interested are those that feel they can contend for the playoffs by signing him. We can write off the AL east because they just don't need him and his baggage. The perpetual bottom feeders in the central and west aren't going to be enthralled with signing him nor is he likely to consider signing with one of them. If Bonds is going to continue playing, he's not going to be doing it for money. He'll be pursing his own stats primarily and a WS ring as a secondary goal. Not many teams left in that case. Angels, A's, Tigers, Indians, Twins, and perhaps the White Sox. I see the Angels as his first choice, followed closely by the A's. I say he gets one year at 8-10 M unless he can get two divisional rivals to engage in a bidding war for his services.
by alox on Sep 22, 2007 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And despite all that
he still is one of the best players offensively in baseball.
Even if you assume his defense is 20 runs below average bad, in totality, he still comes to about +30 runs above average, 3 wins above average, 5 wins above replacement. UZR had him at minus 14 / 150 as of July. THT's revised Zone Rating had him at minus 3 as of late August.
For comparison, Cust is about +30 runs offensively this season. Without taking into account defense.
Taking into account defense, Carlos Lee is about 0 runs above average. At $100 million.
by rfloh on Sep 22, 2007 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His entire career he HAS...
cared about money. He will go to the highest bidder IMO.
But if we can get him on the A's Yippee!!! He'd bring in revenue and our team would get some publicity. Yeah...some of it negative but still..you know what they say about publicity.
And he is still a guy who hits and when he doesn't hit he still gets on.
As for the steroid stuff...get real. MLB winked at players who used. They didn't give a dang. Bonds gets the most attention for using because he broke a sacred record in baseball. And because of BALCO. His attitude towards the media sucks but he's mellowing towards the fans in these last years. SIGN BARRY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
by IM4Oakgal on Sep 22, 2007 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds has always been interested in money.
This is true, but it's not because he has a need for more money. His paycheck is a reflection of his skill in comparison to other players. Good players get paid well. Great players get paid extremely well. Bonds is well aware that his talent and abilities, chemically enhanced or no, are superior to those of his peers. He is more concerned with the appearance of being slighted than he is with actual dollar amounts. To him, it's a matter of respect. If it was merely a matter of money he would have long ago altered his media personality and made a fortune in endorsements. I'd imagine that over the course of his career the money he could have made in endorsement deals would make the sums he has accumulated playing baseball look paltry. At any rate, his negotiating position is not all that strong anymore. He's got no upside. The best he will manage is one or two year deals. He knows the second his offensive skills appear to have eroded significantly, he's done. Assuming he plays, he'll be playing for personnel prestige...and he knows it. Everybody in baseball knows it. He'll get a respectable amount for a one year contract. But he'll be looking to sign with whoever offers him the best chance to further his own agenda, even if another team offers him more. That's fine as long as his interests and the A's interests are mutual.
by alox on Sep 22, 2007 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants team OBP is 319 this year
Can you imagine what it will look like next season without Bonds?? Yikes.
by pinkfloyd on Sep 22, 2007 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
leading the giants with
a robust 297 obp, pedrooo felizzzzzz!
by Backspin on Sep 22, 2007 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Feliz will never OBP .297
by doctorK on Sep 22, 2007 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds
I would not only sign Barry Lamar Bonds, but I would inject HGH into butt and rub the cream on his massive dome. As far some ANers taking the moral high ground, the A's would have to hire a valet for Andruw Jones to keep him away from all the adult entertainment estaslishments in the Bay Area.
by Memphis Bleek on Sep 22, 2007 4:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why $10mil+?
Just because he says so? Is he in that great of a demand? I don't see how he's in the driver's seat next year when it comes to contract negotiating. I'd sign him for far less... maybe $5mil max, or tell him to go pound salt somewhere else.
by UncleLeo on Sep 22, 2007 5:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Its going to be a 1 year deal
Who cares what it costs really (within reason obv, not going to be 20+ mil)
by Dusty Baker on Sep 22, 2007 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're claiming to be the dad...
of the dude who's been a fan since 1968? And you spelled it "Fanz?" I think you're actually his grandson.
by Cutthemullet on Sep 23, 2007 3:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
here he is
http://www.athleticsnation.com/?op=s...
You used to "curse at Billy Martin", huh?
by Cutthemullet on Sep 23, 2007 3:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty indifferent to Bonds
and all the moral questions. I just don't see where he fits with the A's. Do you want to discard Jack Cust? Or do you actually think playing one of them in the OF 150 times is a viable option?
by Nico on Sep 22, 2007 10:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cust is bad.
There's no denying it. But how bad is he? I agree that if the choice becomes one of Jack Cust or Barry Bonds, I'll opt for Cust. I think we can live with Cust in the outfield. It won't be pretty, but it will be moderately acceptable. It would help immensely if we have a mobile CF who can pick up some of his slack.
by alox on Sep 22, 2007 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cust is not bad.
Hey look! There is denying it.
by iglew on Sep 23, 2007 3:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's played Jeremy Giambi in LF
Cust has the better bat.
by grover on Sep 23, 2007 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For all...
who are talking about Bonds playing in the field, whether it be for an NL team, us, or any other AL team...this includes Nate Silver, who thinks SD is his most likely destination...according to ESPN, Bonds has said that he's done playing the field after this year, and will only DH.
This situation has the A's written all over it.
by Cutthemullet on Sep 23, 2007 2:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jumping in late
but NO. We don't dare. And it's not for my personal reasons of not being able to figure out what to do when he comes to the plate (my best solution so far is to root for a walk/replace by pinch runner every time), but I think he'd be a bad fit with management. Superstars who have come in tend to do so at their humblest moments, which works with the way the club works, whether that's Frank taking Swish under his wing, Justice coming in and providing wisdom, or Piazza being the total team player. These guys have been humble during their time with the A's, largely because of their position in their careers. Bonds is not and will not be that humble leader.
by oblique on Sep 23, 2007 8:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd go to see him play
As a disclaimer I'm a lifelong Giants fan from the days of Mays and McCovey, and I hate the A's. Still, for what it's worth, the A's signing Barry would get me to buy a few tickets to see him play. I'd show up in my Giants hat and root for Barry and whomever the A's were playing, but I'd show up.
by Sayhey on Sep 23, 2007 8:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I choose to ignore the moral aspect
of the debate. If one thinks that it would be wrong to sign Barry because of the steroid issue, that's fine, but baseball wise, there is no reason not to sign him if he can come at an affordable price (10-12 mill).
I see a lot of worrying about Cust in the OF and Kotsay's contract in this thread, but when you have the chance to sign the best hitter in the game (steroids or not), you should jump on it. Put Cust in right and make Kotsay an expensive 4th OF, for all I care. Bonds had a .450 OBP last year, the addition of which to our lineup far outweighs any concerns of Cust playing RF.
My point is, fuck Kotsay and the defense if you can get one of the most valuable hitters in the game in our lineup at a (relatively) cheap price. I don't worry about the clubhouse issues because winning, which would happen with Bonds here, would solve those problems.
In reality, I hope they don't sign Bonds because I don't know if I could root for the A's if he played for them, but looking at this from a purely baseball perspective, this would be a clear addition to our team.
by Roscoe Parrish on Sep 23, 2007 10:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"So, Mrs. Lincoln, ignoring the other ...
... unpleasantness associated with your theater choice that evening, was it a good play?"
I also think Bonds solves winning better than winning solves Bonds.
by The Dogfather on Sep 23, 2007 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and...
that's what we're after here, right, a solution to win? But it's not just winning...it would be winning with an organization that hasn't had a malcontent in years. This would be Barry's last go-round; I [like to] think he'd be looking to cherish it.
by Cutthemullet on Sep 24, 2007 1:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like it's official
Bye-bye Barry: Giants tell Bonds he won't be back in '08
Do we have the pitching to handle the worst fielding outfield in the league? On the other hand, we need to keep him away from the Angels. Overall I think it's worth it. Let Buck spend some time playing CF in AAA until Kots does well enough for us to trade him.
by Bambi on Sep 23, 2007 2:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
no AAA for Buck unless it's injury rehab
He's here, starting somewhere in the OF, in 2008
by Cutthemullet on Sep 24, 2007 1:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something to consider
Cust has played quite a bit of outfield in the second half of the season. Beane even offered some praise of the "he's not killing us" variety in his interview with Blez.
Perhaps keeping the DH option open for Bonds?
by EastCoastA on Sep 24, 2007 9:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Bonds will be an Angel in '08
Their fans don't care who is on the team and half of them wont even remember he was on the team they played in their glory year. They get more cheers for a monkey inserted into a movie or tv show clip than for a grand slam. Give Bonds to fans that don't care/know enough to chastise him, and a team that will pay his bloated salary take his cancerous attitude and not give a crap.
I say he is an Angel in '08 for sure.
by marco magic on Sep 24, 2007 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
