Buying Bonds and Getting Hurt
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 21, 2008 11:43 AM PDT
Email
PrintSo I'm sitting here watching the Red Sox and Rangers and listening to Ken Macha do the color for the broadcast because Jerry Remy, the Sox usual color guy, is out ill. Let me just tell you, Ken Macha is one uninteresting guy. Holy mackerel.
Any way, Scott Ostler of the Chronicle published a column suggesting that the A's could and probably should be interested in, get this, signing Frank Thomas AND Barry Bonds. Hell, that would be one powerful middle of the lineup, but there's one major flaw in his plan, which Ostler doesn't even mention. Both of these guys are basically designated hitters at this point in their careers. And unless Charlie Finley is coming back to talk Selig into having a NEW designated hitter rule for them to hit for an alternate position like second base or catcher or something, there isn't really a place for both of them.
Yeah, well we currently have Jack Cust running out to left field on a semi-regular basis right now. Bonds is probably an improvement over Cust there. The A's would essentially have to let go of both Cust and Mike Sweeney in order to fit both of these guys into their plans. At the same time, Beane would ultimately have to be convinced of two things. First, that the A's are actually going to be good all season long and will remain in the running for the AL West. Second, that having both of these guys would actually HELP all your young talent coming up rather than teach them to be clubhouse cancers. Frank Thomas showed that he could be a good influence before in 2006 and he was one of the most enjoyable A's at the plate we've seen since the days of the Bash Brothers and Rickey. Bonds...well, I'm not so sure.
Although there is this from that same article:
However, both Thomas and Bonds are hungry to play, and as one A's insider said, "Bonds has already been humbled by being out of a job."
The A's apparently seem to think he's already been humbled, but humbled enough to help a young team compete for a division title in 2008?
And then there's the question about whether or not Billy Beane really WANTS the team to be competitive in 2008. I mean, of course he would ideally want the A's to win the World Series, but he didn't put this team together for this year. He wants to have a good team on the field, but he also wants to look ahead and if the team hangs up by the Angels at the top of the division for a long time, it becomes harder to justify trading away a Joe Blanton or Mark Ellis to a contending team for a bunch of help-us-later talent.
I don't think there's any question that the A's would get a lot better with both Bonds and Frank Thomas hitting third and fourth in this lineup. It's just that there is a lot more of a consideration to the season than making like Nike and just doing it.
I know there's been a ton of discussion about Frank Thomas coming back to the green and gold, but what do you guys think? I know Ostler was just throwing crap against a wall seeing what stuck, but it is an intriguing idea, especially for a team that's been pretty damn good so far without hitting really any home runs.
328 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm not in favor of bringing Bonds cancerous
attitude to our clubhouse. However, I could see us getting
Thomas back on the cheap. Of course that would mean making a decision on parting with Cust or Sweeney. I’d rather they
got rid of Cust.
Mike O'Dowd
You would rather give up 4 years of a cheap DH
than 1 year of a guy who is suffering from chronic back issues and hasn’t hit the ball hard all season?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
what's more, with his leg problems, MSweeney really clogs up the bases
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Anyone remember when Bonds
clubhouse-cancered the Giants to the 2002 World Series?
"Looks like you brought two too many."
Those tumors could hit!
"Good pitching will always stop good hitting and vice-versa."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 21, 2008 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Out of all those years in the post-season...
...wasn’t that the only year they made it past the first round?
Some read stats. Fans actually watch the games.
{cough}pot/kettle{cough}
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
How long do you wait for Cust to come around?
If he does not improve by the end of May, I think you make a move. But, I would give him one more month. Is he out of options?
Hoboy
Is Cust ever out of options.
By my count, he expended his last option in 2004. Since then he has signed as a minor league free agent 3 times, been designated for assignment, waived and outrighted to the minors twice, and been called up twice.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
“After three years as a pro, a player must be protected on a team’s 40-man roster, or he is eligible for the Rule 5 draft (more on that later). Once he’s served those three years, and assuming he is added to the 40-man roster, his club then has what are called “options” on him.
When a player is on the 40-man roster but not on the 25-man Major League roster, he is on “optional assignment.” One common misconception about the rules is that a player may only be “optioned out” three times. Actually, each player has three option years, and he can be sent up and down as many times as the club chooses within those three seasons.
When you hear that a player is “out of options,” that means he’s been on the 40-man roster during three different seasons, beginning with his fourth as a pro, and to be sent down again he’ll have to clear waivers (more on those below).”
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
One of them is a possibility
Not both.
The A’s can, should and will keep Cust around because he’s cheap. At some point in the future, he will become expendable a la Matt Stairs, but that point is 2 to 3 years from now when Chris Carter and/or Sean Doolittle are knocking on the door.
It would make some sense to swap Sweeney for an upgrade in Thomas (or Bonds). It would make no sense at all to throw away a piece for next year in an attempt to win this year with both of them.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
ostler
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I loved Thomas in 2006
but this is 2008, he’s two years older, and the A’s are a different team.
So…no
I say stay the course, go young
Let’s look at the rotation. We’ve got Blanton, Gaudin, Eveland, Smith and DiNardo.
Blanton’s pretty much a known commodity, Gaudin not so much. Eveland is a 1st year player who missed most of last year to a hand injury, the combination of inexperience and questionable stamina could mean a rough 2nd half. Keep in mind that Eveland has never thrown more then 141 innings in a season. Smith has moxie, it would be nice if his stuff was a notch better.
Let’s replace DiNardo with Duke. Duke hasn’t been in a rotation since 2003, there is a very good chance he will fatigue in the 2nd half just like Braden Looper did last year with the Cards.
Harden is Harden, you’re insane if you plan around him.
I’ll be optimistic and give the A’s two dependable SP in Blanton and Gaudin but Duke, Eveland and Smith all carry major question marks and you’d need at least 2 of the 3 to come out in your favor. Behind them you’ve got DiNardo, Braden and then another rookie in either Gio Gonzalez or Andrew Bailey.
The rotation alone is reason enough to not push for the playoffs this year.
Meanwhile the line-up is dependent on Buck to produce as expected, Barton to produce as expected, Crosby to stay healthy and competent and maybe, hopefully Chavez can come back in July.
Now I’ve got no problem with dropping Mike Sweeney for Bonds or Thomas, the presence of one of those vets would help relieve the pressure off the young guys. But you’re right Blez, the A’s would have to add both just to get their offense to a place where they could contend.
Of course, adding Bonds and Thomas does nothing to strengthen the starting rotation, which if it struggles or tires in the 2nd half it’s game over because it’s doubtful that the A’s will be able to stem the tide with Gonzalez or another rookie pitcher.
Think about the Plan B that comes with a playoff push. You need Harden to be healthy and effective or you need a rookie pitcher to emerge in the heat of a pennant race or you need to trade some of your new prospects to get a vet arm!
And I will look to hurt someone if the A’s trade prospects for rental help this July!
Beane traded away his best SP and one of his best hitters because he knew the odds were against him if he stood pat. Making those deals made the odds even worse. Adding Thomas and Bonds and trying to find playing time for both might push the odds back to where they were in December when Beane decided to fold.
The odds didn’t look good then, why would the same odds look better now.
The monster at the end of this blog.
So the only problem with signing Thomas/Bonds
is that maybe the team will play well which might cause them to trade some prospects (very doubtful)? Sounds good to me! Signing Thomas/Bonds has nothing at all to do with going young, as M. Sweeney (cut) and Brown figure to be the pt losers.
The A's colors are green and gold.
exactly, cust can stay around as backup dh / corner of
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Why keep Cust?
Jack Cust is still in the experimental stages, he hasn’t shown a sificiant body of work to convince that he’s for real. You want to bench him for a year and then count on him in 2009? I think it’s more important to figure out who’s actually going to contribute down the road and any plan to bring in Thomas AND Bonds stops that from happening. Thomas wasn’t willing to be a part time player in Toronto, he’s suddenly going to change his mind in Oakland? Bonds has always been a starter, think he’s going to dig a part time role?
Beane signed Mike Sweeney and Emil Brown to be stop gaps and if he gets real lucky maybe they’ll end up being useful trade chips. Dumping them for two different stop gaps who won’t have trade value (because there’s no way Thomas or Bonds comes to Oakland without some kind of crippling no-trade protection) is short sighted. It’s all about winning more games in 2008.
Which isn’t a bad thing in the abstract but you gotta admit Beane kinda fucked that plan up when he traded Haren and Swisher in the first place!
The monster at the end of this blog.
And what happens when
Colorado or someone else comes calling for FA-to-be Ellis? Do you deal him, further undercutting your play-off chances or do you hold on to him and accept that you’ll get a Sup 1 pick at best as compensation? What is the primary goal, winning or building for the future? You can try and do both but one must take precident. If it’s winning the pennant then you hold on to Ellis. If it’s building then you trade him.
I think winning is a long shot at best, which is why Beane traded Haren and Swisher to begin with. If you’re building, then it makes no sense to sign both vets because they’d only cut into the playing time of the guys you’re counting on in the future.
If you half-ass this you set yourself up for failure regardless of the direction you choose.
The monster at the end of this blog.
and then you are the giants
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
I don't really think we should sign both...
Signing one of them helps with winning and doesn’t have anything to do with building for the future. Why not improve the team. If someone makes a great offer for Ellis, then sure! (I’d like to see him resigned, though.) Signing one of them does not cut into anyone’s playing time that we are counting on in the future. I don’t think they have such a great chance even if they got Bonds, but it’s worth a shot.
Basically, your argument is: winning is bad because it might be tempting. I trust them to make good decisions…
The A's colors are green and gold.
Go back and read my first post
See, I’ve got this problem with quoting myself, it makes me feel egotistical.
My arguement was against signing BOTH players. I’m perfectly fine with signing one.
The monster at the end of this blog.
i'm not really serious about signing both
i’ll take either one over sweeney, but i’d prefer bonds because frank thomas has not looked so great recently.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Big Frank
It took Frank some time to warm up when he was with the A’s 2 years ago. I still think he has one season left in him.
by Colorado Fan on Apr 21, 2008 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm thinking a slow start Big Frank
is better than a Bonds with zero spring training and no games played this year.
Green Hulk Fists
by oaklandSMASH on Apr 22, 2008 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly.
No Thomas. No Bonds. Are the A’s championship level yet? I don’t want “competitive.” I want “Kick Your Ass Without Conscience” championship studliness.
Stick to the plan. Even if they have the best record in the American League, the A’s should trade Blanton, Street, and Harden (if he’s alive) in July and keep loading up with every great prospect they can get their hands on. They should hope Crosby has a superb year and Chavez comes back strong, then trade BOTH OF THEM in the offseason for MORE great prospects.
Then find the studs, play them every day until they’re great, and kick hell out of the damn Yankees, Tigers, Red Sox, Angels and whomever the National League puts into the World Series!
I feel better now.
"How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?" -Satchel Paige
Ah, Mr. Barnum
I was about to quote you earlier on the reason why people with more than enough money to live on insist on putting it into absurdly risky investments.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
BTW, this reminds me of a joke
Why do Zen monks root for the A’s?
Because they want to be free from bonds.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
/rimshot
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
I laughed at that joke
granted it is pretty late at night.
Still, I got a chuckle.
Green Hulk Fists
by oaklandSMASH on Apr 22, 2008 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions
clubhouse cancer is BS
“Second, that having both of these guys would actually HELP all your young talent coming up rather than teach them to be clubhouse cancers. Frank Thomas showed that he could be a good influence before in 2006 and he was one of the most enjoyable A’s at the plate we’ve seen since the days of the Bash Brothers and Rickey. Bonds…well, I’m not so sure.”
What’s Bonds gonna do that’s cancerous to a young player, teach him to take pitches until he gets one he can drives? Teach a pitcher a trick or two? As a Giant he rarely complained about contract status and I never heard him blame teammates. What do you want.
As far as Frank goes, let a guy have a few years like Frank to earn the right to not be gruntled.
What will he teach the young guys?
“Here, Travis, let me find that vein for you…”
“Hey, Jack, you need an HGH supplier? I know a guy…”
“Seriously, Denorfia, what’s with that whole ‘running out the flyball’ thing? And how come you don’t watch your hits before you run to first?”
As for Thomas, he’s been bitching publicly that he thinks the Jays are sitting him because they don’t want to pay his bonuses for plate appearances… screw him.
Notes From The Nat has a new home: http://www.natnotes.com
Screw him, for expecting the Jays to uphold their end of his contract?
Yeah, perish the thought that someone should actually take the CBA seriously.
Like Bush said of the Constitution, it’s just a piece of paper.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
What does contract say?
My understanding is that it says if they use him for ~350 plate appearances then that triggers the option for 2009. But as far as I know there’s nothing requiring them to give him those PAs. So how are they not upholding their end of the contract?
When you sign a contract with a clause that gives the team a disincentive to play you, you have to accept responsibility for providing enough incentive to counter it. If Frank were hitting .300 and slugging .550 - heck, even if he were hitting .270 and slugging .450 - they’d still be giving him plate appearances.
He knew what he was signing. (Or if he didn’t, his agent should have explained it.) Unless he got the contract to include some requirement that the team give him PAs, then there’s no breach here.
(P.S. Boo on the gratuitous political reference. To prevent little unnecessary jabs like that is exactly why we have the community guidelines.)
formerly known as mdl
Even though he was struggling,
benching him for clearly inferior player(s) certainly violates the spirit of the contract, if that’s indeed what the Jays were doing. He started off just as poorly in 06 and 07. It sure doesn’t look like a baseball decision.
The A's colors are green and gold.
I don't think that contract's have spirit
because it would imply that agents and lawyers have souls.
And that’s not true.
The monster at the end of this blog.
does that mean it's OK to eat them?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Only on Fridays
when we can’t have “real meat”
Florida ain't no place for a self-respecting A's fan.
by Leopold Bloom on Apr 22, 2008 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Mrs. Ostler? Is that you?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
whoa. AN 3.0 put this in a weird place
mikeA, I am not, in fact, under the impression that you’re Scott Ostler’s mom.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Baseball decision
Option A = play a guy who isn’t hitting well
Option B = play a different guy who isn’t hitting well and save $10 million dollars next year.
Sounds like a baseball decision to me.
I still don’t see how it violates the spirit of the contract. Are you saying every contract has an unspoken agreement to “give the guy a chance”? If so, what about Rod Barajas’s contract, doesn’t it have the same spirit?
formerly known as mdl
What I mean by "baseball decision" is
playing guys who give you the best chance to win, which in this case means Frank Thomas. It is not even a remotely close call between him and Barajas. If Barajas had an incentive-based contract and they benched him in favor os some .500 OPS catcher, that would also violate the spirit of the contract, yes. Benching him so they don’t have to pay him next year is a “non-baseball decision.” I don’t really have much of a problem with them doing that, but we should call it what it is, and certainly I wouldn’t be pleased if I were Frank Thomas…
The A's colors are green and gold.
It's specifically against the CBA
to bench players to avoid triggering contract incentives.
If it wasn’t, players would never sign them.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I looked for that and couldn't find it.
I’ve got a PDF of the CBA, but it’s a zillion pages long. Can you tell me what section it’s in, or better yet the page number, so I can read it?
formerly known as mdl
Bitter! Bitter! Bitter!
I still have that bitter taste in my mouth after Thomas, who we took a chance on and revived his career, left us for a whole bunch of money. Hadn’t he made enough money after 40 years (or its least it seems like 40) years in the big leagues? Didn’t he owe us a little bit of loyalty, or is that my naivete showing. The hell with both of them--we are winning ballgames OUR way-and we don’t need no stinkin’ ingrates/cancers messing up the exuberance of the college team ambience we have on this team. Maybe we won’t go all the way—but so far it’s been fun.
"It's a cookbook!"---The Twilight Zone
no he had not made enough money
first, there’s no such thing as enough money, and even if there was, it’s not up to you to decide for him.
second, didn’t kenny williams say he had to borrow money from the white sox a few years ago?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Must respectfully disagree
There is such a thing as enough money! And I’m not trying to decide for him. But anyone who plays as long as he has, and during the big-money 90s to boot, it going to have made heavy coin. We gave the guy a job, he almost explictly said we gave him back his manhood, and he went for the money. Cust is not hitting and may not for the forseeable future--a guy with such a big swing is going to go downhill fast if his bat has slowed down. Buck? Don’t know what the problem is with him—he seems to be lurching at the ball. Even so, I think Hannahan is bringing up his average, I think Gonzalez will be brought up pretty soon if he continues to hit…..I like the excitement around this team. A foolish hope? Perhaps.
"It's a cookbook!"---The Twilight Zone
There is a story somewhere
and I can’t really find it, but it basically says that Thomas was essentially broke because he made a series of bad real estate moves and invested in some shady business dealings, which is why the guy essentially needed to get as much as humanly possible.
I don’t have time to look for it right now, but I’ll try and find it later (I’m at an Apple store trying to get my Mac fixed – Macs are sooooo overrated).
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 21, 2008 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I have to say
it continues to boggle my mind that people who have enough money to retire by sticking it all in Treasury bonds somehow manage to lose it by investing it in shady “business” opportunities.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well all people
are not as smart as you PaulThomas
"I Will Not Relent, I Am Driven"... Clutch
Bring Back The Bash!!!
Seriously
Raining frogs? WTF was that all about?
Florida ain't no place for a self-respecting A's fan.
by Leopold Bloom on Apr 22, 2008 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Please continue doing this
so that I can continue to flag your posts and eventually get you tossed from the site.
I promise the 5 minutes of martyrdom will be worth it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
another article referred to alimony problems
from his first marriage.
whatever the reason, the up front bonus money offered by Toronto seems to have been the reason Thomas took that over the A’s offer.
it's a poor workman who blames his tools.
blez, go ahead and trade that mac in for one of those fine fine vista machines.
dollars for donuts, you’ll regret it.
that being said, macs have fallen off in quality of parts as they are trying to compete against the windoze market. such is the rub of market share.
that being said, i am going anti-green and developing a coal fired laptop that runs pong.
by greendatitiz on Apr 21, 2008 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Well
Can you blame me for a full hard drive failing? And something else is going awry now as well. And it’s just over a year old. Meanwhile my wife has a three and a half year old Dell that is still going strong and hasn’t had one issue.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 21, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I dunno,
I have 2 HP notebooks. One is about 5 years old and has never had one issue. The other is over a year old and has had numerous issues: the fan died, the network card died, the DVD drive died, the HD crashed.
You might just be unlucky.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
It's probably just bad luck
but this is my first experience with Apple and it hasn’t been good. And all you’ve got to go with in the electronics space is the small sample size :-)
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 22, 2008 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions
My
Commodore 64 is all I’ve ever really needed…now, where did I put Zork? I’m likely to be eaten by a grue at this rate…
Florida ain't no place for a self-respecting A's fan.
by Leopold Bloom on Apr 22, 2008 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
There is a problem with the Seagate 7200 RPM
drives and MacBook Pros. Spin down takes an extra 8 seconds after lid close. Moving it too soon for a year will make your drive die a slow death. So your Dell comparison is fair. I still prefer the Mac for a variety of other reasons and just deal with hard drive problems.
"We're Menudo," -BB
Has anyone actually verified--
beyond the standard cliches, that is—that the A’s actually have a good “clubhouse atmosphere”?
It seems like the standard reasoning goes as follows:
The A’s are winning.
Winning teams have good clubhouses.
Thomas/Bonds will be surly and cause the clubhouse atmosphere to become bad.
Losing teams have bad clubhouses.
Therefore Thomas/Bonds will cause the team to lose.
which is a logical chain that’s shot through with all kinds of unproven assumptions and fallacies.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
+1
The A’s are a moneyball team and don’t have the flexibility to be uptight about nebulous things such as “clubhouse atmosphere”. Thomas and Bonds’ being FA’s are an example of baseball talents that are being undervalued by the market right now (questionable “clubhouse atmoshphere”/really really REALLY good hitting).
Hey, who's to say that Bonds wouldn't blend right in and be a "team guy"
Everybody talks about the negative effect Bonds has on clubhouses, right?
What about the positive effect the A’s Clubhouse has on players? Hell, even Milton Bradley was pretty much a good guy while he was here, and I’m pretty sure Bonds isn’t as crazy as that dude is.
bradley is a firecracker on the field...
...but generally liked by his teammates not named Jeff Kent. Bonds is a genuine asshole. That said, grown-up baseball players should grow up and just leave genuine assholes alone and let them hit. And learn a thing or two from watching them. Even if they hurt your feelings by ignoring you, or being 40 or 43 and wanting to practice on his own schedule.
beane has stated repeatedly that he believes winning games creats a good clubhouse atmosphere
and bonds and thomas would help the a’s win games…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
So, you think Bonds wouldn't have been such an asshole
if the Giants didn’t suck so much? Doubt that.
Can we keep small-sample-size Bobby Crosby? Please? -Joey C.
When Thomas left the WS,
Kenny Williams childishly revealed that Jerry Reinsdorf had lent Thomas money, from COTS, $1M.
It appears that Thomas has had some money issue. And if you look at the contracts he signed with the WS, he did not earn as much you would expect a player of his abilities to earn, about $54M total.
As for loyalty, try reversing the viewpoint. How about the A’s loyalty to Thomas? He took a small incentive based contract to play for the A’s, produced a great year of value far beyond the monetary value of his contract. Should the A’s not have shown some loyalty and adequately rewarded and compensated him?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
i like your reversed viewpoint,
but i think Thomas’s reward and compensation was the Toronoto deal. The A’s gave the opportunity for an injured guy to prove himself, and he did.
i mean, i feel like i owe him as a fan, and clearly the love ANers give Frank shows that most feel the same way.
but the front office still has to behave like a business.
Yeah, I agree actually
What I’m trying to say is that both sides, player and team, try to behave like business.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
gotcha.
... and as they should.
i had the same issue when people were coming down on Arod when he was going through his fiasco of finding a deal. Why hate players for behaving like a business when teams do the same thing?
Cmon...
No one would turn down the deal Thomas got. No one.
Bring back Hammer.
by OaktownPower on Apr 21, 2008 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
agreed
what’s wrong with getting as much money as he could? he took hometown discounts with the white sox, and never made as much money as lesser players (albert belle, etc)
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
Welllll, I don't entirely agree
I’d like to think that there exists a player or two who might say, “Self, I’ve got plenty of money - more than I’ll ever spend - I appreciate what the Comets did when signing me and giving me a chance to play last year when no one else showed any interest … I could make a few million more by playing for Antarctica, but I think I’ll stay here …”
Likely? Probably not … but not ridiculous, either. The question is … did Thomas make sound financial decisions in the past? If he was hurtin’ for money, then I don’t “blame him.” If he was flush, then I can be a little pissed off ….
I mean, let’s face it … seriously … is there something you can buy for 50 million that I can’t buy for 30 million? Now, don’t get me wrong, a person can play anywhere he likes for whatever money they pay him … this is America after all … but please don’t imply that it’s “stupid” not to take more money each time. I don’t agree with that.
VacaAsFan
well like mentioned above
thomas had to borrow money from kenny williams. it was going to be his last multi-year contract, so in that case, i think almost anyone would have made that call by accepting the most money in the last contract you’re going to get.
that said, i wouldn’t have minded him coming back at all, he was magic that season.
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
What's wrong with trying to win?
Especially when all it costs is money and dropping Mike Sweeney? He’s not part of the long-term plan anyway. Not to mention he’s not hitting. If that’s all it costs to sign Bonds, what’s the problem?
by Jeff in Seattle on Apr 21, 2008 12:28 PM PDT reply actions
Why not drop Sweeney and Emil Brown
Instead of Sweeney and Cust if signing Thomas AND Bonds is actually a possibility.
I think it’s pretty well given that Brown isn’t any sort of long term solution, and Cust is at least cheap and under control for the next 4 years.
No secret view of clubhouse.....
....but the comments by Crosby and, especially, Barton, reveal an admiration for “team baseball.” You don’t use that terminology if you don’ believe in the other guys on your team. So, by extension, I think there probably is a good clubhouse atmosphere for our A’s.
"It's a cookbook!"---The Twilight Zone
+1 to this idea:
Bonds’ agent, Jeff Borris, told the Los Angeles Times, “I haven’t had any offers (for Bonds) from any team at any time, which seems highly unusual for a player of his caliber.”Commissioner Bud Selig doesn’t want any collusion lawsuits, so he might be on the horn to Beane right now, touting Bonds.
a’s sign bonds as a favor to bud selig!
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
And MLB pseudo-subsidizes the money the A's paid Barry.
Win-win.
"Looks like you brought two too many."
genius...
Oh how the tides have turned MacGowan!
No Harden and No Chavez make the A's go, something something...
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Not sure what that thing is pointed at
But it sure is pretty!
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagines such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Apr 21, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Now THAT'S thinking about Bonds...
...with long term in mind!
"[Moneyball] is huge [in Japan], I guess, so I'm like a David Hasselhoff type or something..." -- Billy Beane
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Apr 21, 2008 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Who is the odd man out
Thomas
Bonds
Sweeney
Cust
It is not the first 3
Why on earth would you keep Sweeney over Cust?
He’s older, he’s not hitting the ball, he can’t play the field (granted Cust is a butcher in the field himself), and he’s probably done playing baseball after this season.
Thomas
Bonds
Cust
Sweeney
Emil Brown
pick three, and I take the first 3 every single time.
Speaking of Sweeney
This guy appears to get on great with all and is a positive influence on the younger guys.
He has the same mumber of at bats as Cust and has struck out once compared to a million by Cust.
Like I said, I loved seeing Cust hit all those bombs last year but it appears he has not made the adjustment to the junk they throw at him. He cannot at this point in time hit off speed stuff.
Not by much
Sweeney makes contact
agreed, he has not shown power yet but I will take the contact over all the K’s. Sweeney can hit into more DP’s but he can also move runners and make productive outs.
Cust either walks or makes unproductive outs. Yeah, a walk is productive but against really good pitchers who are in the zone, he K’s or gets the very occasional hit.
He needs to work 24 hours a day on hitting breaking stuff
an out is an out is an out
sorry
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
Actually, this isn't true
Sweeney’s unsustainably low K rate means that his batting average is bound to regress downward.
Considering how little value he’s providing other than that average, that’s a frightening prospect.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
PrOPS rears it's head again
Predicted OPS, based on things like Line Drive%, GB%, FB%, k%, BB%, etc:
Cust – .866
MSweeney – .750
Brown – .739
The fact that Cust has been monumentally unlucky so far this season while Sweeney and Brown have been fortunate is a poor basis for making future decisions.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=props&;linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=props&direction=DESC&qual_filter=ignore&season_filter%5B%5D=2008&team_filter%5B%5D=OAK&pos_filter%5B%5D=All&Submit=Submit
It's not surpising that PrOPS likes Cust
PrOPS has a tendency to overrate guys like Cust, ie slow, hard hitting players, And conversely underrate guys like Ichiro who just slap and jab at the ball.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Because he can't hit.
There’s a reason Toronto is sitting him.
Notes From The Nat has a new home: http://www.natnotes.com
$10M vesting option.
And Rod Barajas can’t hit either.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Yeah because in his last 35 ABs he has 4 hits
lets ignore 18 years of a .300 avg
witty remark
by dtownmbrown on Apr 21, 2008 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions
BA/RISP is .471
Good enough job for me so far, small sample size and all.
I am Ray Fosse's man crushes for Clay Wood and Jason Kendall.
by franks a lot on Apr 21, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Disregard the Emil Brown Hate.
There are some true haters of Emil Brown, Yet everytime I look, E. Brown is doing something to help this team win. We’re a .500 team w/o Emil Brown. Good Defense. Bad Baserunning. Good Hitter w/ RISP. Very Good vs. Left-Handed Pitching. Nice Platoon Outfielder who is helping out the team.
by Colorado Fan on Apr 21, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't get it, either.
The numbers may not be gaudy, but it seems that virtually every game he’s doing something positive to help the team.
Some read stats. Fans actually watch the games.
Has anyone ever realized...
...that Barry Bonds gets a bad image because the media created it?
He simply didn’t want to play their game, and American media destroyed him.
I personally would love to see Barry at DH. I met him as a child, and he was a hell of a lot nicer than Mark McGwire ever was.
Sacramento A's?
agreed 100%
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
I met Ronald McDonald and Rickey Henderson as a child,
and Rickey said Rickey is nicer.
"Good pitching will always stop good hitting and vice-versa."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on Apr 21, 2008 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions
You can not play the media's "game"...
...and not be surly about it…
"[Moneyball] is huge [in Japan], I guess, so I'm like a David Hasselhoff type or something..." -- Billy Beane
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Apr 21, 2008 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Drop Cust. Add Bonds.
Seems like a no brainer to me. Cust can’t even dream of making contact with anything but a fastball. It doesn’t really matter if the team is going to compete this year either. Cust won’t be around in 2 years if thats when this team is supposed to be contending. If they can contend this year, then a healthy Bonds is a huge upgrade over Cust anyway. I don’t see how this is complicated. Bonds is one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game, regardless of steroids or not. He could be a huge asset in teaching our hitters too. If he is sociable enough, I’m sure he knows more about hitting that Van Burkleo or any of the other hitting coaches in the league. Cust, not so much. Put Chavy ahead of bonds in a lineup…
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
I was wondering the same thing...
But if he is, maybe we can expect him to produce like he did back in 01-03 now that he is finally healthy.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
Can I borrow your time machine?
I’m assuming that’s what you used to discover that Cust won’t be around in two years.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Sowhat if Brown has a low OBP
He hits well with RISP
He has quite a few RBI
That is more important than OBP, I would think
Brown is batting .471 with RISP
12 of his 14 RBI are with RISP
Cust is .143 or 3 for 21.
I rest my case
OBP
Does this really matter as much as it used to with the A’s??? This team is not full of guys that drive the ball out of the park and rip doubles and HR’s left and right like the teams of 99 and early 00’s. In the long run I think Brown, and his base hits and RBI’s are going to be a heck of a lot more useful than a slow Cust and his inflated OBP from walks. A walk does not move runners a long, and is not going to do us any good coming from a player who can barely make it home from second on a base hit.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
A walk is not an out.
Cust has come to the plate 68 times this year, and made 43 outs.
Brown has come to the plate 68 times this year, and made 47 outs.
Over the course of an entire season, it’s probably safe to say that the guy who makes less outs is going to end up helping the team more.
So what if it's an out.
Any NL manager will tell you, sacrificing an out isn’t the end of the world if it leads to runs.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
since when do the a's care about what "any NL manager will tell you"??
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
It is a true statement
that many NL managers will tell you this.
It is also a true statement that many NL managers are fools.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
manny acta probably wouldn't say it
maybe 2-3 others…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I said "many"...
not “all”...
I suspect you’re right about Acta. I think Bobby Cox would say the same (iirc, he hates sacrifices). That’s pretty much the list of NL managers who I actually respect as baseball tacticians.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
i know, he said "any"
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Good point
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
In a low run environment,
yes, sacrificing an out for a run becomes more acceptable, as the value of a run increases.
The modern game is not that low run environment, regardless of whatever personal aesthetic preferences one might have.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
This is total bulls***
If the guy “making less outs” is never driving anybody in and scoring runs, I’ll take the guy making more outs all … day .... long.
So, no mikev, it’s not “probably safe to say,” not “probably” at all.
VacaAsFan
If the guy "making less outs" isn't scoring runs
it’s time to look at all those guys around him who are making the outs.
If the guy "making less outs" isn't driving in runs
it’s time to look at all those guys around him who are making the outs.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
So, you're assuming that Cust is going to continue his current level of production?
17 games has shown that he’s going to be a .157 hitter this year. He’s NOT going to get any better, regardless of the fact that he had a .900 OPS last season. It’s not a slow start, he doesn’t need to make adjustment, He. Just. Sucks.
Then, at the same time, you know that Emil Brown (I call him Clutchy. Clutchy Brown) is going to continue to hit .194 with nobody on base, but when he’s got RISP he’s gonna Clutch It Up and turn into a combination of A-Rod, Jeter, Babe Ruth, and Paul Bunyan, and continue to hit .471, because dammit he’s CLUTCH and he knows when it’s time to kick it up a notch!
In that case, I’m good. Let’s keep Brown, and just pinch hit him whenever we get a guy to second base. Guaranteed runs!!!
It sounds like a bad day at the Coli restrooms...
Green Hulk Fists
by oaklandSMASH on Apr 22, 2008 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not a Cust basher
I don’t think it’s time to jump ship on him at all … however, I don’t think it impossible that Brown does, in fact, turn it up a bit with RISP. Seems to me the burden of proof ought to be on the people who seem to think this is a ridiculous idea … could it not be possible that some players hit better in this situation?! There is a human element to this game after all … some players play better (or worse) in certain situations … can it be proven? I don’t know … but I’ve played a little bit, and I KNOW I played differently depending on what was going on in the game. Why is that such an insane idea to the stat geeks??!! (Affectionately speaking :-)
VacaAsFan
Certainly the burden of proof is on them
The thing you persistently keep ignoring is that they’ve already proved it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
emil brown should be benched for not giving 100% in non-RISP situations...
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I'm not a Brown-basher
But here’s your proof from a really cool website I found called “Baseball-Reference”. Emil Brown career stats for all sorts of clutchtastic situations, followed by his career total. Go ahead and draw a line through that scatter plot if you want.
Sorry for the craparific formatting—it looks awesome in textpad.
BA OBP SLG OPS
2 outs, RISP .222 .331 .376 .707
Late& Close .239 .318 .356 .675
Tied Game.. .263 .339 .415 .754
Within 1Run .254 .323 .382 .705
Within 2Run .254 .327 .392 .719
Within 3Run .262 .335 .405 .740
Within 4Run .264 .333 .404 .736
Margin >4R .259 .309 .390 .699
Career Stats .263 .328 .401 .729
In this case, I only post stats
But, if you’re a believer, then he steps DOWN his game when it’s late & close, and when within 1 run. Not a Gamer! And I think ‘score within 3 or 4 runs’ is pretty far from clutch.
I think that if the numbers at the TOP row were highest, and there were a steady progression downwards, with the bottom row being somewhere in between, we might have an argument for clutchiness. That’s not what happens—there’s no trend, it’s not correlated in any way.
FWIW, linky
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=brownem01#situa-clutc
which shows the small sample sets from which some of these stats are derived.
no
You feel you played differently depending on what was going on in the game.
As does everyone who plays any sort of competitive sport, at any level.
Heck, grover and devo probably feel that they step up their argumentative game when they go at each other on tangents that no one else but mikeA cares about.
But that feeling of intensity does not mean that anyone’s measurable performance improved. (In fact, I’d argue, pace the Devo Conundrum, that the loss of precision from that very intensity of feeling could explain a dropoff in performance - i.e., “unclutch” - as a result not of “choking,” but of “feelin’ it” while neglecting one’s form/focus/training.)
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Even if this was true, which it isn't,
Brown is not around for “the long run.”
Whereas Cust might be.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Once again, this isn't the same A's team as the early 00's.
OBP isn’t the be all end all stat it used to be for us. It doesn’t have the same value when you don’t have a roster where 5 of the 9 starters are hitting over 20 HR’s like in 2000 or when you have 3 guys with over 30 HR’s like in 2001.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
Frankly, I don't feel our A's hitters are making outs often enough.
"Looks like you brought two too many."
2006 Twins?
Hell, 2007 Angels?
You think those teams were crammed full of power hitters? They scored runs by putting a lot of runners on base and cashing in often enough.
OBP is always the most important core stat available. The A’s aren’t even close to the point at which sacrificing OBP for batting average makes sense. You would practically need a lineup of 9 Jason Bartletts to get to that level.
Not to mention, you still haven’t answered my main objection, which is that Cust is clearly better than “nothing at all,” which is what cutting him would leave the A’s with next season.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
okay, don't know how that wound up there...seeking reference
on the “80% of baseball is luck” comment below.
Honestly, I don't remember where the number came from offhand
I remember there was an excellent discussion about the extent to which various games are luck-based over at insidethebook.com, however.
Turns out that football is the most skill-based on a game-by-game basis, but basketball is by FAR the most skill-based on an entire-season basis.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
It's not really a matter of the A's
It’s a matter of MLB. As long as MLB is a fairly high run scoring environment, not making outs, ie OBP is going to be very very important.
Just because an NL manager might talk out sacrificing an out to get a run does not mean he is correct, or that other NL managers agree. TLR, Acta, Yost to name 3 NL managers have gone on the record stating the importance of OBP.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
You’re really arguing that when you have a roster with less power, OBP becomes less important?
So, following up on your arguments above, what we need is players with lower OBPs so that we can bunt and sac-fly without men on base?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
I think you guys are missing the point here.
Beane started looking at OBP because it was undervalued statistic. The A’s preached patience and took a lot of walks. They were able to do this because the team was loaded with guys who hit for power. Now looking around the league all the top guys in the OBP stat are all good hitters, most with a .300 avg to go along with it, but on the flip side there are a lot of average hitters with a high OBP that is just inflated by walks. Case in point, Jack Cust. A .256 hitter who ranks one spot behind Chase Utley and one spot ahead of Matt Holliday. Cust has double the strikeouts as Utley, and half the hits of Holliday. He is not making a ton of productive outs, or making a ton of contact. You guys whine and complain so much about the A’s not making productive outs, not hitting that ball to the right side of the infield with a runner on third, hitting a foul ball pop up with the bases loaded and one out, and constantly stranding runners. That obsession with OBP is the reason for it.
A team loaded with high OBP guys helped the A’s in the past was because there were plenty of big hitters who hit an abundance of extra base hits. The current team isn’t the same, a walk is not going to have the same value to this current team as it did in the past, where every player is capable of hitting a home run in any count. It’s not about the OBP stat not being as good as before, but IT MUST FIT YOUR PERSONNEL. For the current Red Sox it works very well, for the current A’s not so much.
A high OBP is great, but all the walks that inflate it aren’t any good if you aren’t getting a high number of extra base hits to drive those guys in. This team has no legit power threat that can consistently do that. The closest thing is Cust, and in his best year it was only good enough for 26HR and less than 100 RBI’s. Cust is nothing special, and personally I think his lack of productive outs makes him replaceable by almost anyone. Frankly, I don’t even see why we still have them, if this team is rebuilding get rid of him like the 4 other teams before us and give CarGon, Linden, Swiney, or Denorfia time to see if they deserve to be in the majors.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
You’re really arguing that when you have a roster with less power, OBP becomes less important?
So, following up on your arguments above, what we need is players with lower OBPs so that we can bunt and sac-fly without men on base?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
maybe he's saying
It’s time to trade some OBP for SLG. Which might make sense, if SLG were undervalued, or less-valued than OBP.
I think all agree that, 5 years ago, OBP was undervalued. And, I believe, SLG was overvalued (or at least properly-valued). I would be surprised to learn that SLG is undervalued today, though. So it would be tough for a small-market team to make that sort of tradeoff.
I don't care about relative values
... and he’s not arguing that, anyway.
You and I both know this, but: You. Need. Men. On. Base. In. Order. To. Score. Runs.
Regardless of the market value of OPS (or of its value relative to SLG), there’s an absolute value to it.
KMo is arguing that the A’s have no power hitters, therefore we should get rid of the guys who can consistently get on base (the best of whom is, not incidentally, the best power hitter on the roster) in favor of … Todd Linden and some guy named Swiney.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Yeah, I was trying to make some sense of the argument
perhaps for no other reason than to get this thread down to 8-char columns.
It is mildly interesting to think about relative values, and the case where it’s a good idea to lower your OPS to increase your SLG. I seriously doubt the A’s are in that position.
I see a little to both sides of this discussion
But I feel like one obvious , less analytic way to look at it is:
When there are multiple power threats in a lineup, OBP can be lower, and success can still be had through solo HRs.
In the 08 A’s lineup (7 Hrs total through 20 Games) OBP must be higher, because a single with a runner on second replaces the solo HRs that are not happening.
SIDE NOTE: I’ve been pleased with all the runs we’ve scored from first base on XBH’s.
witty remark
by dtownmbrown on Apr 21, 2008 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
sure, if by "less analytic," you mean "more wrong"
1. If someone hits a HR … they have made it on base without making an out; that counts as a positive for OBP
2. Generally, you don’t find many hitters who hits lots of HRs but have both low AVG and few BBs (and most of them are on the Angels); “Multiple power threats in a lineup” generally equals good OBP lineup
3. Solo HRs with low OBP? Hey, yeah: last year’s White Sox! Woo-hoo!
4. Everyone needs to stop coming up with interpretations of what KMo meant, because you’re reading in all sorts of arguments s/he didn’t make
5. The fundamental argument that KMo did make, and to which I objected, was that since the A’s don’t have much power, they need to stop getting on base so much
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Lots of HR but low AVG and few BBs?
Unless you have an outfield of Jermaine Dye, Andruw Jones and Adam Dunn, Richie Sexson playing first base and Frank Thomas as the DH, it’s safe to say that your lineup will not be “homerun-centric.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
It's unlikely that SLG will ever be undervalued
see for example the Carlos Lee contract, the Michael Young contract.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
I've been lurking here a while
and I very, very seldom see people whining and complaining about lack of productive outs.
productive outs = NACHO RUNS!
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Maybe I'm not making this clear enough
I’m not suggesting to trade away for lower OBP guys. I’m saying OBP isn’t the be all end all stat some of you guys have it all cracked up to be. Hell Jorge Posada had a higher OBP than A-Rod last year. Like I said for most of the top players OBP goes hand in hand with a high average, and being an overall good hitter. For certain players it can be deceiving though. If you guys want to judge Cust solely on his OBP that is just dumb and ignorant. Cust lead Holliday, Vlad, Miguel Cabrera, Derreck Lee, Teixeira, Ichiro, Fielder, and MAN RAM in OBP last year. Those guys are all much better hitters than Cust. You would have to be crazy to want Cust at the plate with RISP in favor of Manny for the sole fact he has a higher OBP.
Every stat has some detractors, thats why there are so many. I think A’s fans outsmart themselves some times getting way to in depth with the stuff and miss very obvious points. Cust, much like Swisher did before him, costs the team outs in valuable situations. Heck, look at the AL SO numbers last year, 4 teams have 2 players in the top ten, The A’s, Indians, Rays, Tigers, and Detroit. The only playoff team being the Indians, thanks to their pitching.
If this A’s team is going to succeed it’s going to have play a little more small ball than in the past. You can’t play station to station when you have no power, and very little capability for extra base hits. I don’t see why you guys are so allergic to a stolen base here and there, or practicing bunting so that when there is 1st and 2nd with no outs, one of our batters can actually advance the runners instead of hitting a foul ball pop out, or double play, or K’s. If you don’t think this team is going to succeed this year and are waiting till 09-10, then the only hope is that CarGon, Barton, Suzuki/Powell, Crosby, or Sweeney develop into legit power hitters, or we have an absolutely stellar pitching shaft.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
Firstly,
“Cust, much like Swisher did before him, costs the team outs in valuable situations. “
Yeah, the WS are really regretting trading for Swisher and his OBP. They regret it so much that they have him hit leadoff and start in CF.
Secondly, where has anyone claimed that OBP is the ONLY stat to look at?
“Like I said for most of the top players OBP goes hand in hand with a high average, and being an overall good hitter.”
Jim Thome does not have a high average. Adam Dunn does not have a high average. Carlos Beltran does not have a high average.
“You would have to be crazy to want Cust at the plate with RISP in favor of Manny for the sole fact he has a higher OBP.”
Not for most of last year. Manny struggled with injuries for most of last year, and only turned it around towards the end of the season. Cust had more power last year. Manny was not being Manny for most of 2007
“don’t see why you guys are so allergic to a stolen base here and there, or practicing bunting so that when there is 1st and 2nd with no outs, one of our batters can actually advance the runners instead of hitting a foul ball pop out, or double play, or K’s.”
I’m not allergic to running more. I have no problem if the A’s end up leading the league in SBs. I’m allergic to the idea of deliberately trading OBP for SBs. And what you’re proposing WOULD require having an absolutely stellar pitching staff. That you want to bunt with men on 1st and 2nd AND NO OUTS, implies the team is hopeless at scoring runs. “Small ball” works best in low run scoring environments. Since MLB is not such an environment right now, you’d need a stellar pitching staff.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
wanna play with fire, Scarecrow?
Sweet fancy Moses, you’re expending a lot of time and energy building strawmen.
Name one single person at AN who has argued that OBP is the “be-all and end-all stat.” One.
Or one AN’er who argues in favor of judging Cust solely on OBP.
Or one soul who thinks that Cust is a superior hitter to the entire list you gave.
Or, for that matter, a Cust supporter who hasn’t, in fact, argued (as I and mikeA and others have) that in certain RISP situations, Cust isn’t, in fact, the ideal hitter to be at the plate (and why Emil is sometimes in fact preferable to Cust, given the situation).
Or someone who’s 100% opposed to ever H&R’ing or stealing.
(And that’s not even getting into the many fallacies in your “argument.”)
Making shit up, ascribing arguments to people that they haven’t made, misinterpreting what people do say (willfully or not), ignoring what other people have said, refusing to respond to questions: that’s dumb and ignorant.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
My name is oakinboston
and I believe that OBP is the be-all and end-all stat.
that and scrappiness+.
by oakinboston on Apr 22, 2008 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I hate HR's
They take away excellent opportunities to sacrifice.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
emil brown doesn't get more of those important hits than other players
What exactly are you suggesting? Baseball is a lot like craps, where you are just trying to keep rolling the dice and not crap out and hit 7. Making outs is like crapping out and hitting 7. Emil Brown has been getting lucky and hitting the point a lot, but he has been making a lot of outs also. In the long run, Cust will be a more valuable player than Brown, because even if he doesn’t hit the point as often as Brown, he’ll hit a lot of numbers that aren’t the point (i.e. getting more bases on balls) and won’t cause the A’s big innings to crap out.
The RBI might be exciting, and it might be nice to give credit to guys like Emil Brown, but you are missing the point that Cust is keeping the innings alive for other, lesser guys (and heck, even for Emil Brown) by not making outs. You are always better off with Jack Hannahan batting and Jack Cust on base than you are with Emil Brown batting with the bases empty. Similarly you are better off with Jack Cust batting with runners on 2nd and 3rd and Jack Hannahan batting behind him, than you are with just Emil Brown batting because Cust will make outs less often, and load the bases for the guy behind him.
By all measures, the amount of runs you score is more closely related to the frequency you make outs, not the frequency you get hits, and you don’t seem to be answering that.
Also, the Beane/Moneyball analogy says to go after skills that are undervalued by the market. I can grant you that first part of that argument, and still say go after Bonds and Thomas because they are undervalued by the market.
Crapping out = NACHO RUNS!
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Brief snicker
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
And here I was wondering
where the Skivvy Bar was…
"God doesn't pay attention to your cute little hypotheticals." -- Jeff from LL
I wonder what Cust's stats would have looked like if he had actually played the entire season
Well above 26 homers and well above 100 rbi
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
Or else they'd have figured out
how to throw him offspeed pitches in mid-August after…what does it seem to take…26 HRs?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Seems like he needs one too.
It’s like he figures if he studies them enough – say, maybe, take the first 2,000-3,000 – then he’ll really understand the off-speed pitch enough to hit it, or at least swing the big piece of wood he’s holding at one.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
you're basically saying
you want star hitters.
Yes, a high OBP and a high SLG is going to give you a great offense. Manny Ramirez is a great hitter.
Everyone knows this. How do you acquire such hitters?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Simple: by getting rid of Cust!
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
hitting well with RISP
is not a career skill. it varies year-to-year (or 20 game to 20 game chunk) based on luck. Believe it or not, Alex Rodriguez hits much better with RISP than Emil Brown.
+1
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
So far this year we are Hitting .321 with RISP
That will not last but it is the main reason we are winning along with the good pitching.
Having a great OBP means nothing if they cannot be driven in.
I will take RBI’s over OBP anytime. Anyone would I am sure.
Making a comment like replacing Billy Beane with me is well, not worth an answer
yes
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
I will take RBI’s over OBP anytime
How are you going to get RBI’s if you want to reduce the number of people we get on base?????
Juan Pierre: 44 Million Dollars, Juan Pierre's 3.2 WARP3: Priceless
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Apr 21, 2008 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Last year we hit .246 with RISP
and had a team OBP of .338.
Did we score enough runs? NO
This year in a very small sample size we have the same OBP of .338 but are currently hitting 65 points higher.
Yeah, the higher OBP the more chance you should have to drive them in. I want someone who does both or at least who drives in runs when he has a chance to.
I don’t see Cust driving in many yet. I want someone at the plate who makes contact in this situation and not strike out. IMO that makes Cust the odd man out
Jesus
The reply button.
It exists.
Use it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
you can supplicate all you want ...
... but Jesus is not going to reply to any of your posts.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
He's too busy traveling.
From what I understand, he just left Chicago, and is headed down to New Orleans.
So it goes.
Well, crap
I was hoping I had invented an entirely new form of prayer.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Jesus blogs, but his comments are deactivated
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
He'd never blog here.
He’d get crucified.
And he’s a Padre fan.
Notes From The Nat has a new home: http://www.natnotes.com
He's all about the intangibles
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
actually, that was the original Evil Empire
Back in the day, ESPN’s predecessor SPQR was 24/7 Evil Empire programming.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
And on Gaslamp Ball
I killfiled him but his comments keep showing up.
"God doesn't pay attention to your cute little hypotheticals." -- Jeff from LL
... but only after 3 days
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
OBP is more important than SLG.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Ah, but luck (viz, BA with RISP) is more important than OBP!
Better lucky than good!
Right?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Luck is definitely more important than OBP
Unfortunately, it’s not a repeatable skill.
formerly known as mdl
This is actually quite true
Roughly speaking, 80% of the determining factors in any given baseball game are luck-related.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
No to either
But if I had to choose one, I take Thomas. The A’s could use another right-handed bat, and he’d be super-cheap. Theoretically, at least.
While Cust is admittedly lagging, and power has come at a premium this season, the OF is playing fairly well. I’d rather see what the kids can do than watch a DL-ified season from a couple of lumbering dinosaurs.
Nah.
I’d rather call up Carlos Gonzalez. Right now, though, we don’t need to sign anybody, unless Bonds can play third.
So it goes.
re
I would be very in favor of signing Bonds (to DH only). Thomas, not as much, but he’s an upgrade over Sweeney and probably Cust.
Why not Barry?
He can still rake it. No matter what your stance on the off field situation, a chemical doesn’t hit 762 home runs.
Sacramento A's?
Sign and Trade
Sign both and dump Cust and Sweeney. Remember Chavez should be coming back also. If we make a run great. If the team tails off and Bonds and Thomas play respectable, trade them at the deadline for top prospects. Dont think that the Yankees, Angels, and possibly the Indians wouldnt be looking for players at the deadline. I think you take the gamble. Plus it would put people in the seats.
...or you could sign one,
keep Cust, and NOT have to pay a metric ass-ton of money for Craig Monroe next year when you’re trying to build a competitive team and realize that you have no power hitters.
I’m thinking I like that plan better.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Easy Rank Order for Me
1. Neither—for all the reasons others have cited. If somehow they do stay in contention deep into the summer, well then BB can cross a bridge about whether he wants to mortgage anything for this season or, more likely, keep players he might have otherwise dealt—which is a bit of mortgage anyway, isn’t it;
2. Bonds. He is a force—he changes the way pitchers approach the lineup—his OBP will approach .500—he could easily hit 20HRS even in a 100 game season;
3. Thomas. Too much risk—not enough gain. The risk may not be a clubhouse cancer risk—and i really don’t believe Bonds would be all that bad—he needs to demonstrate something this year—but the risk is that he hits .225 and takes PAs away from Cust or a superior defensive outfielder (because Cust must play LF).
Talk about a 2000 A's OF right there on D if we signed both...
LF Bonds/Cust
RF Buck/Cust/Brown
CF Sweeney/Dorf/CarGon
Yikes.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
Don't like Bonds
but don’t like seeing only 12,000 fans per game at the Coliseum, either. If Bonds is really humble enough to work cheap, his signing might be an investment that brings enormous return to the club, on the field and at the box office.
"If you make up your mind not to be happy, there's no reason why you shouldn't have a fairly good time." -Edith Wharton (The Last Asset)
by Oakville Athletic on Apr 21, 2008 2:18 PM PDT reply actions
What about cost?
Bonds will still cost more than Thomas because Toronto’s on the hook for Frank’s $$$. Plus, another right-handed bat means Brown or Sweeney would be expendable- keep Cust as a LH bat off the bench and to DH 1-2 times per week.
I kinda like the idea of signing Bonds and Frank and
trading Brown and Sweeney. Then if they can swap Gonzalez and Chavez for Hannahan and Sweeney they’d have a heckuva lineup. Cust would back up both Bonds and Thomas, and play quite a bit doing so. Denorfia and Brown are sort of redundant anyway.
Since no one is blocked it doesn’t interfere with the rebuilding plan, especially since Thomas makes the minimum and Bonds would pay for himself through attendance increases.
I also disagree that the Haren deal made the team worse this year. They’ve filled two rotation slots and upgraded CF. Swisher is probably better than Bonds, but not by that much.
Me.
Salary. Stats. Neither support Thomas being someone we should want on our roster.
Notes From The Nat has a new home: http://www.natnotes.com
.167 with 3 HRs and 11 RBIs in 60 at-bats.
A 4-for-35 slump?
Maybe you like to pay for the performance of your employees two years ago. I prefer to pay for what I’m getting tomorrow.
As for minimum salary… only if you’re the only team in the game who wants him.
Notes From The Nat has a new home: http://www.natnotes.com
Last year he hit .277...
7 points higher than two years ago. He also had 26HRs and 95 RBI and 30 doubles- 19 more than two years ago.
Who’s currently on the roster that has put up those kind of numbers?
I'm thinking of a phrase
It’s often used around here.
I don’t want to say it, because many have complained that it’s being overused. But to help everyone else out, I’ll give you all a hint. It’s three words and they all begin with “s.”
Thomas’s 2006-2008 totality is a far better picture of his abilities than 60 at-bats this season.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Why is everyone so quick to condemn MSweeney as having lost it for starting so
slowly, but saying Thomas is just starting slow?
by theblackpearl on Apr 21, 2008 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
He hasn't been good since 2005, he's been injured every single year since 2002
and even in his prime, he only had 1 year as good as Frank’s 2006. And he doesn’t appear capable of hitting a HR.
The A's colors are green and gold.
By that logic...
...Since 2004, Thomas has also had only one year as good as 2006.
Notes From The Nat has a new home: http://www.natnotes.com
By that logic,
Since 2004, Sweeney has only had 1 year as good as Thomas’ 2006 AND Thomas’ 2007, in 2005.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
It has to do with hitting a baseball
OPS for the last 3 years:
MSweeney: .808
Thomas: .891
I like Sweeney, but......
if it’s Sweeney vs. Thomas or Sweeney vs. Bonds, I’d choose the other guy every time. Unfortunately, the A’s FO had the latter option in the offseason and made their decision. But who would not love this lineup, defense be damned:
Barton
Ellis
Bonds LF
Thomas DH
Cust RF
Crosby
Buck CF
Suzuki
Hannahan (Murphy against all LHers)
If all it takes is money, cutting Mike Sweeney and Emil Brown, and a willingness to relive days by an OF worse than Jeremy, TLong and Byrnesie, I do it. Plus we have the depth for quality PHers and can rest our old guys often. I would be much more comfortable playing a team like this and not itching for CarGo. Ryan Sweeney and Denorfia have both been unimpressive but with how old that lineup is and with all the guys struggling, they’d still be bound to play. I may be in the minority as I’m willing to sacrifice defense and possibly clubhouse atmosphere, neither of which has stats you can say are as good as the offensive stats that lineup would produce.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Bonds
Perhaps Bonds was already approached, and he and the A’s couldn’t reach a deal. There’s at least a little chance, considering Slusser’s offseason scoop which appeared to be untrue.
Bonds
I think they were negotiating then Bonds was indicted which created too much uncertainty regarding his availability. Now it’s a virtual certainty that no trial would begin before the end of the season, anyone who says otherwise is either unfamiliar with the legal system or dishonest. Same couldn’t be said in November.
Contention
Assuming adding Bonds and/or Thomas puts the A’s atop the AL West, do they really contend to win the WS? Crapshoot, shmapshoot—I just don’t see it.
So I think the case to bring either onboard is very weak—just to win a weakened division. I’d rather see the team focus on rebuilding so they can really contend in a couple of years.
How does replacing Mike Sweeney and Emil Brown with Bond and Thomas take away the rebuilding focus?
It’s exchanging one pair of 1 year rentals for another, better pair.
That's really
the most persuasive argument I’ve heard so far. I still don’t want to sign them because I like the other guys more, but I’m not being objective.
Can we keep small-sample-size Bobby Crosby? Please? -Joey C.
Not necessarily
Who’s to say that Bonds and Frank aren’t looking for multi-year commitments, even under their current circumstances?
I think it’s likely that either would take a remainder-of-’08 contract—but maybe not.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Wooster and Jeeves?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Call and response?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Peaches and Herb?
Hall and Oates?
Florida ain't no place for a self-respecting A's fan.
by Leopold Bloom on Apr 22, 2008 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
D&C?
S&M?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
Like this
The point right now is to play young unproven guys with potential upside so they get big league experience. In this scenario, Brown/McSweeney are hole-fillers—young guys get as much play as possible. (This is not necessarily how things are going right now: cue the “why are we playing Brown so much” chorus).
If Thomas and Bonds are signed, it’s unlikely they’d be used in the same way, so young guys get less playing time.
So … I’ll give you this: if Thomas/Bonds are as cheap as McSweeney/Brown, and they’re happy to sit out often, in my mind it doesn’t forestall the rebuilding.
My point still stands though.
The young guys – Barton, Buck, Suzuki, Bad Sweeney – ARE playing, and having a couple old guys in the lineup with them isn’t going to hurt.
If anything, it will help. They’ll be around better players, future HOFers, and they’ll learn how to win. [/JoeMorgan]
don't get all joe morgan on me!
I’d rather have eckstein than bonds, because he was WS MVP!
I’ll give you this: if Thomas/Bonds are as cheap as McSweeney/Brown, and they’re happy to sit out often, in my mind it doesn’t forestall the rebuilding.
Also, I think it goes beyond the guys you mentioned—at some point they’ll want to call up CarGon, and what about Denorfia, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the second coming of Linden.
there's also this
Brown doesn’t serve any purpose on this team. We have plenty of average-ish hitting OFs with good defense in the corners who can also play center in RSweeney and Denorfia. We don’t have any future HOF sluggers.