Ratto wonders if Swisher trade means Bonds IS coming
by rubin sierra on Jan 5, 2008 6:41 PM PST
44 comments
So somewhere in the 609-comment Swisher thread, there's a link to a strangely-abbreviated Ray Ratto column. However, while AN did get the chance to weigh in on RR's latest bold prediction, I think we all missed Ratto's latest ponderous musings: Until now.
This is about how Billy Beane has traded his way into needing a drawing card just to make the 90 losses seem more palatable, and how his ongoing fascination with Bonds may just get the better of him at last.
So, feel free to use this thread to discuss the desirability of Bonds. Or hell, use it as a link dump, since that's what it was in its original rendition, which went more or less as follows:
Presumably because he's jealous of his fellow snark-peddler's higher salary, monkeyball linked to the column in manner that I'd say was sarcastically dismissive of the author.Ray Ratto's legions of fans were outraged.
Ratto's SF Gate column essentially exists only to make a prediction similar to Ratto's infamous 63-win prediction of 2004--probably just to get a rise out of AN.
However, his CBS Sportsline column flew right under the radar here: it is a discussion of how the Swisher trade might make a Bonds acquisition more likely.
Yes, Ratto did argue essentially the opposite one month ago. So, you know, off with his head. Down with Ratto! Huzzah!
0 recs |
44 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Swisher trade making a bit more sense for CWS
Sox and Angels discussing a Konerko trade that could net them Howie Kendrick or Chone Figgins and Ervin Santana or Joe Saunders.
If they can pull that off, kudos to the WhiteSox, who can then move Swisher or Dye to First Base, and keep the other in Right Field, and have someone else (Owens? Figgins) take Centerfield duty.
If they did that, it would make the Swisher trade make a LOT more sense, as it would fulfull the "We're going for it in 08" (while not actually going anywhere) line yet still build for the future.
by Zonis on Jan 5, 2008 6:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That would be such a fuckin' A trade for CWS
that it would make the Ray Durham trade look like a minor donation to Oakland's cause.
Konerko is not that good, and he'll block off Kotchman. This is worse than it looks at first, because Kotchman is a Gold Glove caliber 1B, and Konerko is playing there only because he's slightly less of a stiff than Thome.
I would not be happy about being an Angels pitcher playing in front of an infield of that sort. Wood/Aybar/(Kendrick/Figgins)/Konerko would be challenging the Marlins and D-Rays for worst defensive infield in baseball.
Then again, the Angels have had a curiously indifferent attitude (for an old-school team) toward defense for years, as their MLB-errors-leading '06 team proved. So maybe they'll do it. We can only hope...
by PaulThomas on Jan 5, 2008 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?
by PaulThomas on Jan 6, 2008 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Konerko is not that good?
Just because he had a down 07? Down still being 31 bombs. This guy was .313-35-113in 06 and freaking 40-100 the year before. He aint David Ortiz...but "not that good"? Wow...Dont see that at all.
by OaktownPower on Jan 6, 2008 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
touche, RS
You are absolutely correct: I am indeed jealous of the fact that Ratto does pretty much exactly what I do -- fling incoherent poo -- but with less rhyming, and gets paid (presumably, handsomely; ok, this is Ratto -- homelyly) for it.
But could Ratto (over-)punctuate that sentence as elegantly?
by monkeyball on Jan 5, 2008 6:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I would think
by rubin sierra on Jan 5, 2008 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And there but for the grace of an editor go thou
You might be selling Ratto short. In the space of his last three sentences I count a dash, a slash, a "needlessly" bequotemarked word, and six commas. And if that damn editor hadn't stopped him I'm sure a couple parenthetics were in the first draft.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 5, 2008 7:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus he nearly mentioned Colon
by Nico on Jan 5, 2008 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Back in AN's Bonds fervor a few months back
I made the case that a Bonds pickup would not necessarily mean Billy was going for in it '08. Of real interest would be whether Bonds would have any sort of no-trade clause. Because if not, it's easy to see the attraction for Beane to sign Barry to a lowball deal, then flip him for value in July.
A Bonds-driven attendance bump would have its most meaningful impact in April and May, when the A's traditionally draw poorly, so in that sense I could see it. Except that I've yet to be convinced the A's care enough about seat butts to layout 5-6 million for that cause alone. And Ray doesn't explain why they'd care either.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 5, 2008 7:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I despise Bonds and all...
...but the 'buy low, sell later' theory is one I hadn't considered, and actually makes sense - as long as Bonds gets through his court case without a slap on his outrageously large and still growing wrist.
I'd still boycott the team, however. Same if Sosa showed up.
by Ozzz on Jan 5, 2008 11:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you root for the team then
when it has Cust on the roster?
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 5, 2008 11:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because Cust isn't 10% of the ass that Bonds is.
But do I really need to explain that to you?
by Ozzz on Jan 8, 2008 2:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Such indignation!
Wow! I questioned your view! If you post something on a public blog don't act so surprised when it's questioned.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 8, 2008 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You confuse surprise
I just honestly can't conceive of how you couldn't see a difference between Bonds' and Cust's crimes.
It's like saying, "You wanted to put Capone in prison for life, so why not Martha Stewart too, since she also broke the law..."
by Ozzz on Jan 9, 2008 11:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see the world in black and white
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 11, 2008 12:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His biggest crime was perjury?
As for my decision to hinge my fandom on whether the team sells out common decency by signing someone who, by rights, is a cheat, a liar, and a felon, I'll just say I respect fans who make conscious decisions to support their team because they deserve that support, a lot more than I respect those who support a team no matter how low they go.
If I'm going to be a sheep, I might as well make it easier to get to games and just be a Mariners fan.
I'm an A's fan because they do things the right way - now - and if they go back to the 'then' of the Bash Brothers era, I'm not interested in being associated with it.
by Ozzz on Jan 11, 2008 1:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem
As for the kid thing? I love kids but to hold Bonds personally responsible? Come on now.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 11, 2008 11:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing you're not a parent?
Bonds knows this. Bonds doesn't care.
Pity most of baseball fandom doesn't get it either.
by Ozzz on Jan 12, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't want Bonds before...
...and I sure as hell don't want him now that the A's aren't going to be contending. It's pointless.
by Flashfire on Jan 5, 2008 8:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i will be pissed if we get bonds now
i didn't want him BEFORE haren and swish were traded but i would have accepted it because having bonds might have helped the A's be competitive this season.
but now that we traded haren and swish (and probably others), what do we need bonds for if we are rebuilding?
by gotgreen on Jan 5, 2008 8:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That might serve both parties.
We get a few fannies in the early season per FSU's post above*, and then prospects for cheap at the trading deadline. Barry gets to play early, for the only team that'll have him, and then gets traded to a contender for the remainder of the season, in his quest of that illusive Ring.
I dislike Bonds with the passion of a jilted former apologist, but this starts to make some sense.
- * albeit 5K(?) new fannies, at $12.50/cheek is still only $125K/game, but maybe tv/ad revenues get better, too**?
** He might be more of a drawing card when the A's go on the road -- come out and boo Barry! -- but not sure how that helps the A's***.
*** can't help it.
by The Dogfather on Jan 6, 2008 8:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather spend the money on draft picks
paying over slot or on international signings. Bonds takes AB away from Cust, DJ, Denorfia and Sweeney, which is bad. I'd rather have Colon who wouldn't be blocking anyone of importance. Lenny? Meyer?
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 5, 2008 9:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I like a non-blocking colon.
Where's the beef?
by Ozzz on Jan 5, 2008 11:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since when have the A's shown
a willingness to pay over slot, or throw money at the Angel Villalonas, the Carlos Triunfels, the Fernando Martinez' of Latin America?
They have practically ignored the international market.
by rfloh on Jan 6, 2008 12:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Never. But things are different now.
When they were trying to contend "this year" they didn't focus on spending big bucks on the farm system, preferring to spend on the major league team. Yeah, yeah, I know...small market and all that. Now that the priority is the farm they can change their approach.
They've never been inflexible...remember they switched from the softball strategy to the pitching and defense strategy. They switched from drafting all college all the time to drafting high school pitchers early.
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 6, 2008 4:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Paying over-slot? Not so much
However, I was reading an article on Scout.com (I think it was Scout...) that was talking to one of the A's player development personell and he said the mandate had come down to boost funding for scouting and signing Latin American prospects. He made a specific referrence to the A's starting to target the high-end (read: expensive) players that the big money teams usually go after.
No link 'cause I obviously don't have it so you'll have to decide if I'm honest.
by grover on Jan 6, 2008 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe you
Why should I not?
Let's hope scout.com is correct.
by rfloh on Jan 6, 2008 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some people just don't trust blue muppets
Sad but true.
by grover on Jan 6, 2008 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
we're a red muppet/blue muppet country
by monkeyball on Jan 6, 2008 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not easy
being green...err, blue. whatever.
On the most sensational!
Inspirational!
Celebrational!
Muppetational!
This is what we call the Muppet Shoooooow!
by ChickenStanley on Jan 6, 2008 6:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As I recall,
it was an interview with Farhan Z.
by mikeA on Jan 6, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
zaidi
but isn't he a liar (jeepers) or a quisling (fsu)?
by xbhaskarx on Jan 6, 2008 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if he's not
then he has no business being in the A's front office...or that of any big league team, really.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 6, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
my point is
if he's a liar or a quisling, why are the people above so ready to believe him?
personally, if someone is either a liar or a traitor collaborating with an enemy occupying force (nazi or otherwise), i'd be a little more skeptical of whatever he has to say...
by xbhaskarx on Jan 6, 2008 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I Don't Understand...
a fan base that WANTS its team to lose 120 games.
Whether Beane trades Street and/or Blanton for more prospects, it still makes sense to put out a competitive team in 2008. None of the new guys are ready and one-year acquisitions will not keep them from advancing when they are ready.
This is an entertainment venue. While it's all well and good to shoot for playoff contention and a World Series every year, it's also important to put an entertaining team on the field, one which has a shot --- even if only a shot --- at winning every game. I have no interest in going to 30 or so games a year, paying a lot of bucks, to see a crappy, boring, sucky team every time out. I did that in the mid '90s, and did it in the late '70s too.
Yes, I know the 2008 A's will most likely not be a good team, but that doesn't mean the team should offer every contender a free winning streak.
So yeah, sign Bonds. Beane should use some bucks saved from Piazza and Stewart and Swish and get a couple of one year deals with folks who can help the team in 2008.
by richwol on Jan 6, 2008 1:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I see it as Bonds vs Blanton & Ellis extension
Lets say we get Bonds for a low number like $10 million/year for two years. (I don't think he would sign for that amount). What is the upgrade between a 43 year old Bonds vs Jack Cust?
Who has the edge in various categories:
Health: Cust
Potential to do improve their performance over the next few years: Cust
Attitude: Cust
Defense: Cust (talk about on the horns of a dilemna)
Post Steroid Power: pick em
OBP: Bonds
Average: Bonds
I think given a full season that Cust could have an OBP of around .400 and a SLG of around .500, with no hassles.
Bonds could beat that, but then he could get hurt and only play 70 to 120 games, too, (with Cust as the backup).
If we sign Bonds, we put Cust in the outfield, which slows down the long term outfielder evaluation process.
Bonds is an asshole, and could have a negative effect on the rookies.
Finally, and I think most importantly, the difference between reasonable contracts for Blanton and Ellis (Blanton for four years, Ellis for three years) is probably covered by what we would have to pay for Bonds, I'd rather use the money to keep those two guys longer term, don't forget if we sign them to good, long term contracts we add value in case of a future trade.
by connie mack on Jan 6, 2008 1:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Outfield Evaluation Process?
I disagree. Who is going into the outfield to be evaluated in 2008? Denorfia? He'll get his at bats. Sweeney and Gonzalez should both start the season in AAA, the former to get his power stroke, the latter for seasoning.
My guess is that if the A's don't sign Bonds and assuming Kotsay doesn't return to his glory years, you'll see Cust in the outfield, and a rotation of players as DH.
So in essence Bonds will probably be taking DH time away from Murphy and Hannahan, two guys who don't really figure into anyone's future.
As for spending money on Ellis and Blanton long-term, that's future money, not what's currently in the budget. The team isn't about to save money this year so they can spend it next year or the year after.
by richwol on Jan 6, 2008 1:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
not so much evaluation
of those young outfielders, but what about getting DJ and kotsay at bats. as much as i'd want bonds on the team, he would take away at bats from both, reducing the chances they are traded for something useful. of course what are the chances kotsay or DJ actually don't suck for a couple months, probably not very high...
by xbhaskarx on Jan 6, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
More Time for DJ and Kotsay?????
Dan Johnson has batted .234 and .236 the past two seasons. Do you honestly think that giving him more at bats will somehow prove he can hit in the majors? The guy has some power, to be sure, and a decent eye. But more at bats won't make him more desirable in the eyes of another team. Two of this three years he came out hot, then went cold. The third year, he stayed cold. He's the epitome of an AAAA player.
As for Kotsay, either he plays well or he doesn't. If he plays well, then he can rotate with Denorfia (if HE plays well), Buck and Cust until Beane can arrange a salary dump --- at which point Sweeney or Gonzalez can come to the majors.
The truth is that by bringing Bonds in, once again, the only players who will lose at bats are Hannahan and Murphy, and frankly, who cares?
by richwol on Jan 6, 2008 5:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe
he'll keep improving and hit .238 this year!!
by buddahead9 on Jan 7, 2008 9:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yo no comprendo
How does Bonds coming in cost Hannahan and Murphy AB's?
The A's have (in effect) three separate positional rotations. The catcher spot, the three non-1B infield spots, and 1B/DH/OF. If it's not quite "never the twain shall meet," it's awfully darn close to it. None of the middle infielders or catchers are DH candidates.
Bonds causes the A's to have 6 (7 if you count DJ) guys for 5 spots. It's inevitable that this is going to take at-bats away from the other 5 guys. (Viz.: Barton, Cust, Buck, Denorfia and Kotsay).
by PaulThomas on Jan 7, 2008 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that was my thinking
currently there are 6 (barton, cust, buck, denorfia, kotsay, dj) for 5 spots. all but kotsay and dj are part of the long term plans, so the last spot would be kotsay/dj or someone from aaa like sweeney.
by xbhaskarx on Jan 7, 2008 10:16 PM PST up 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.
