Coco's future

[Gom]

He's an average offensive player. He's a superlative defensive player. Overall, he's a good starting CF.

 

FWIW, I checked his PECOTA-projected VORP for 2008 vs. all other MLB CF. There are seven other teams where he's expected to be a better hitter than their starting CF, and the modest ten-runs-above-average that his defense gives him would bring him above roughly half of the CFs listed above him based upon just hitting, not defense.

 

 

 

I know what the mean SLG for AL CF in 2007 was. Do you?

Lets see...out of the 14 CF's who qualified in the AL [based on plate appearances]...Crisp finished...wait for it....still waiting....ok...13th out of 14th. Only David Dejesus of KC finished worse. Wait..there's more...if you include the National League, which is considered to be the inferior offensive league..he should do better right? Only two players finished worse. Dejesus and Juan Pierre. The reason why you probably didn't quote it is because you already knew that...right? So being 19th out of 21 is average in your book? Right? Cool..glad we cleared THAT up.

Yo...Jayhawk Bill OWNS people. Brilliant.

Go back to sleep.

[ksushi]

I went and looked.

 

June: .897 OPS

July: .817 OPS

 

EVERY OTHER MONTH....UNDER HE WAS IN THE .600's. My goodness, if you're going to quote numbers, at least check them first. ORS, teach these noobs a thing or two. Geez.

 

P.S. My face looks sexy.

 

Lawl, ok.

[TheKilo]

The mean OPS for AL CFers was .742. Crisp was at .712.

 

Gom, have you completely ignored defensive value?

[Gom]

The mean OPS for AL CFers was .742. Crisp was at .712.

 

Gom, have you completely ignored defensive value?

As a starting CF, he should be better than the backups. He ranked 13th. No, I'm not ignoring defensive value. I just don't put a lot of stock in defense. That's why I'm not high on Melky, or down on Jeter/Manny. I'll take what they do with a bat any day. I'd take Damon over Crisp if Damon has another 2006 [or 2005]. I just think he's a subpar CF. For that reason, that's why I think that if Ellsbury doesn't beat him out, your FO overvalued Ellsbury and should have traded him for Santana. That's all I'm saying.

 

Same goes with the Yankees with Hughes/Kennedy.

 

Kilo, you're pretty sharp on this board. You don't overvalue your players like most people do. No one rips Melky Cabrera more than I do, or advocated trading Hughes or Kennedy for Santana more than I did. It just shows a lack of objectivity when people say he's an average player when he ranked 13th out of 14 in OPS. Granted, his defense is as good as it gets [i wonder who's really better defensively, him or Granderson....], but offensively, I'm about as good a hitter. I'm also 35, 15 pounds overweight, and haven't seen a 90 mph fastball in about two years. I can still probably hit as well as he can.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Lets see...out of the 14 CF's who qualified in the AL [based on plate appearances]...Crisp finished...wait for it....still waiting....ok...13th out of 14th. Only David Dejesus of KC finished worse.

 

You've apparently included people who aren't exclusively center fielders. You probably included Nick Swisher, who played fewer than half of his innings on defense in CF, and you probably included both Johnny Damon and Melky Cabrera as qualifying center fielders from the same team.

 

That system has a two-step process:

 

1) Did the player have enough PA to qualify for post-season awards?

 

2) Where did he play a plurality (not even a majority) of his innings?

 

Center field gets populated by corner outfielders moved to the middle part-time to cover injuries and such the way you may have done it.

 

ESPN would give a potentially better list, composed only of players who were in CF at least two-thirds of their team's games. They list just ten CF as qualifying in the AL by that fairly liberal standard.

 

But wait...what about the innings in CF not played by those ten center fielders? See, that's the rub: there were a whole slug of innings not included. What is the actual SLG of all AL players batting while playing CF?

 

Answer: .414

 

You want to throw the NL into the mix, but players' offense jumps significantly--about ten percent--when going AL to NL. The AL CF had lower SLG in the AL but would've been better than NL CF in the NL--we'll stick with AL stats.

 

Back to Coco Crisp. Coco slugged .382, 32 points below the AL mean. That's 19 bases over his entire season...2 HR, 2 triples, 2 doubles, and a single...not that far off average. Furthermore, Coco Crisp was the best baserunner in the AL last year, worth 8.60 runs (not bases, full runs) more than the average player because of his ability to steal bases without getting caught, to take extra bases on hits, and to advance on outs and such.

 

Your quote was, Gom, "Anyone who slugs .382 in CF is a poor offensive player." There was no consideration for any other aspect of offense: SLG of .382 was sufficient. I'd disagree: if you actually look at who plays the CF position, how they actually hit, and the totality of the offensive package, a CF may slug .382 and still be a roughly average offensive player.

 

A roughly average offensive player who's 27 runs above-average on defense (per BP) is a very fine CF. While I recognize that you will not see this, most rational readers will.

 

***

 

Enjoy rooting for the Yankees again this year, Gom.

[BSN07]

You've apparently included people who aren't exclusively center fielders. You probably included Nick Swisher, who played fewer than half of his innings on defense in CF, and you probably included both Johnny Damon and Melky Cabrera as qualifying center fielders from the same team.

 

That system has a two-step process:

 

1) Did the player have enough PA to qualify for post-season awards?

 

2) Where did he play a plurality (not even a majority) of his innings?

 

Center field gets populated by corner outfielders moved to the middle part-time to cover injuries and such the way you may have done it.

 

ESPN would give a potentially better list, composed only of players who were in CF at least two-thirds of their team's games. They list just ten CF as qualifying in the AL by that fairly liberal standard.

 

But wait...what about the innings in CF not played by those ten center fielders? See, that's the rub: there were a whole slug of innings not included. What is the actual SLG of all AL players batting while playing CF?

 

Answer: .414

 

You want to throw the NL into the mix, but players' offense jumps significantly--about ten percent--when going AL to NL. The AL CF had lower SLG in the AL but would've been better than NL CF in the NL--we'll stick with AL stats.

 

Back to Coco Crisp. Coco slugged .382, 32 points below the AL mean. That's 19 bases over his entire season...2 HR, 2 triples, 2 doubles, and a single...not that far off average. Furthermore, Coco Crisp was the best baserunner in the AL last year, worth 8.60 runs (not bases, full runs) more than the average player because of his ability to steal bases without getting caught, to take extra bases on hits, and to advance on outs and such.

 

Your quote was, Gom, "Anyone who slugs .382 in CF is a poor offensive player." There was no consideration for any other aspect of offense: SLG of .382 was sufficient. I'd disagree: if you actually look at who plays the CF position, how they actually hit, and the totality of the offensive package, a CF may slug .382 and still be a roughly average offensive player.

 

A roughly average offensive player who's 27 runs above-average on defense (per BP) is a very fine CF. While I recognize that you will not see this, most rational readers will.

 

***

 

Enjoy rooting for the Yankees again this year, Gom.

 

Damn dude, nice post. I have to admit when you first came here I'd see a post by you and think, " fahk that s*** is just too long to read ". After getting past my initial lazyness, I started to read your post through to the end. Your statistical gathering is top knotch, even tho sometime I disagree. But not always:thumbsup:

 

Along with others you make coming and checking these boards an interesting read. I just thought I'd point this out to others, not saying anyone Bill has a dialouge going back and forth is wrong or not intitled to show there opinion, But the quality of Bill's posts. Keep it up man:thumbsup:

[Gom]

Enjoy rooting for the Yankees again this year, Gom.

I will. No one hopes more than I do that Crisp beats out Ellsbury. He's so good, according to you, he's a lock to make it in CF over anyone you have. Sure will make your FO look smart for not trading a guy who would have been the centerpiece for the best pitcher in baseball when he's sitting in the minors after being beaten out by the immortal Crisp.

 

Another thing you don't see is that he brings the average down. Not including him increases the average. Simple math. Would I take Nick Swisher over Crisp? Of course. Also, I don't think that Swisher became a better hitter on the days he played LF or CF. It's negligible.

 

The best baserunner? Are you serious? Do you even think about what you write or do you just keep typing until all the words are out of your head? Just because someone comes up with a stat, it doesn't mean s*** to me if it doesn't make sense. He's a better baserunner than Ichiro? Ichiro was 37/8 in SB/CS. Crisp was 28/6. Would you still take Crisp? Fine...how about against Johnny Damon who was 27/3? Or Curtis Granderson who was 26/1? You're telling me that you would take Crisp going from first to third over Ichiro or Granderson? You have stats to "prove" it? Nice try. Those 8.6 whatever runs are a joke. So is the 27 runs saved on defense.

 

Crisp is a subpar CF overall. He has been for his entire career. If the best offensive prospect your team has can't beat him out, your FO goofed in not trading him for the best pitcher in baseball. On our team, if Austin Jackson can't beat out Melky, he's been touted for nothing.

 

If you want to delude yourself that Crisp is an above-average OF, be my guest. The difference between you and I is that if you dress up chickenshit in my team's uniform, I realize it's still chickenshit, just in my team's uniform. You don't.

[Jayhawk Bill]

The best baserunner? Are you serious?

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6845

 

Do you even think about what you write?

 

Yes.

 

Just because someone comes up with a stat, it doesn't mean s*** to me...

 

:dunno:

 

You have stats to "prove" it?

 

Already linked.

 

Nice try. Those 8.6 whatever runs are a joke. So is the 27 runs saved on defense.

 

Your perspective was forecast when I wrote, "While I recognize that you will not see this, most rational readers will."

 

The difference between you and I is that if you dress up chickenshit in my team's uniform, I realize it's still chickenshit, just in my team's uniform. You don't.

 

See, it's funny how opinions vary. I would've first thought that the biggest difference might be that you're a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ESFJ and that I'm not. Isn't it remarkable how perspectives can differ?

[Gom]

You choose to believe everything you read. I don't. I refuse to believe is a better baserunner than Granderson or Ichiro. I don't have access to BP, so I can't read it. If what you're saying is true, than it's a waste of your money. Anyone who knows what Myers-Briggs has to have some sort of intelligence. Stop and think. Is what you're saying, this report in specific....does it make sense? Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

Case in point...Jeremy Brown was taken by the A's. Touted to be the best hitter in the draft in Moneyball. Retired last week. Never made it in the pros. Don't believe everything you read.

[ORS]

I think you can spare us the independent thought tripe. This has nothing to do with being a free thinker. You haven't taken the time to investigate the basis behind any modern stats, and it shows in your lack of understanding them. Subsequently, you frequently reject their validity based not on a criticism of the methodology but on the fact that they don't agree with your preconceived opinion. Kind of sad, really.

[VandaleIndustries]

There's a major problem with trading Coco Crisp right now-- not many teams need a CF.

 

Well, the Rangers could use him down here, this Milton Bradley experiment ought to be interesting at the very least.... hahaha BUT, you don't want to trade with the Rangers, they don't have anything that could help us, aside from Kinsler, but give me Pedroia. I'll take my chances with our kid over theirs any day. Plays with a heart of gold, brings his lunch pail to work every day, all hustle!!! hahaha.

 

In all honesty, let's cue the Benny Hill music for CoCo's career. He's going to bounce around from team to team, I have a feeling. Gotta love him for the defense, but you HAVE to get better production from an outfielder, and I think his bat is about as good as it's going to get. This last season wasn't a fluke. I don't see him duplicating the horrid post-season numbers he had, but if it looks like a rat, and smells like a rat.....

[Gom]

I think you can spare us the independent thought tripe. This has nothing to do with being a free thinker. You haven't taken the time to investigate the basis behind any modern stats' date=' and it shows in your lack of understanding them. Subsequently, you frequently reject their validity based not on a criticism of the methodology but on the fact that they don't agree with your preconceived opinion. Kind of sad, really.[/quote']

Modern doesn't necessarily mean better or worse. Just modern. What's really sad is how everyone jumps on a bandwagon. My favorite was balls in play batting average. Now it seems like some pitchers do have a consistently lower BABIP than others, rendering the major argument pretty meaningless. To me, this was plainly obvious. Now, BABIP is a decent stat, and I believe it shows trends, especially in young pitchers. However, regardless of the league average, if a pitcher has been in the league for ten years, I'd take his average and not the league average in determining how he'd likely do. It is precisely BABIP that lead me to think that that Yankee fans are in for a rude shock when it comes to Joba, since he is a strikeout/flyball pitcher who had a very low BABIP of .246 last year. Since he hasn't been in the league that long, it makes sense that he'd come to league averages and his BABIP would increase. However, if he had been in the league for seven years, and he had a career .246 BABIP, I'd say he had an average year for him. I take all stats with a grain of salt until it shows that it makes sense. Now, admittedly, I don't have access to BP, so I can't see their formulas. However, if you take a player and say that he's a better baserunner who's been caught six times out of thirty-four attempts than another player who was caught only once in twenty seven attempts, your math is faulty, your logic is faulty, and you're an idiot if you buy into it. This wasn't 80 steals versus 10 caught with player A and 25-1 with player two. Coco gained 22 bases total, but cost his team 6 outs. Granderson gained 26 bases and cost his team only one out. Granderson gained more bases AND cost his team less outs in the process. SB/CS is a quantifiable number. Going from first to third is nowhere near as easily quantifiable.

 

Let me give your small brain a chance to understand. Coco, in the rare time he actually gets on, has Manny at the plate. Manny hits a high flyball that will obviously hit high off the Green Monster if it isn't a homerun. Coco sees this, and races to third. Therefore, according to your stats, he has a higher percentage of going first to third. It had little to do with how good a baserunner he is, it was a ballpark factor. This is one example that makes a hard statistical analysis difficult to quantify since there are many factors involved in taking an extra base. The score. The weather. The arm of the outfielder. The park. The number of outs. Stealing a base has much less factors, and is therefore easier to quantify. When you try to steal, you are safe or out. The more factors involved, the greater the amount of statistical error/variation/deviation. A true student of the game will put more emphasis on the reports that have a lower degree of statistical variability. You don't. I do. I question what I see, and then make a decision. I don't play follow the leader, especially if he's heading off a cliff.

 

The essence of science is to question, not blindly follow.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Well, the Rangers could use him down here, this Milton Bradley experiment ought to be interesting at the very least.... hahaha BUT, you don't want to trade with the Rangers, they don't have anything that could help us, aside from Kinsler, but give me Pedroia. I'll take my chances with our kid over theirs any day. Plays with a heart of gold, brings his lunch pail to work every day, all hustle!!! hahaha.

 

In all honesty, let's cue the Benny Hill music for CoCo's career. He's going to bounce around from team to team, I have a feeling. Gotta love him for the defense, but you HAVE to get better production from an outfielder, and I think his bat is about as good as it's going to get. This last season wasn't a fluke. I don't see him duplicating the horrid post-season numbers he had, but if it looks like a rat, and smells like a rat.....

 

VI, two great first posts. Welcome to TalkSox!

 

You can make a case that defense is an undercompensated skill (that salary tracks more closely hitting than defense). If the new Coco Crisp is the 2007 Coco Crisp, he might do less well than he deserves.

 

PECOTA expects that +27 fielding runs to drop back to +10, but it expects his hitting to rebound to above-average for a CF. If PECOTA's right, Coco will follow up his good arb-years contract with a moderately good two-to-four-year deal after he hits free agency.

 

Let's see how 2008 goes before we cue any old BBC themes.

[ORS]

I'm not against your questioning a statistic. What I take exception with is the basis of your criticism. You criticise it at face value without taking the time to understand its formulation. This information is freely available on the internet. You just lack the motivation to do the work, which is fine, but I'm not buying your haphazard analysis. I mean, look at your example of Crisp being driven to 3B by Manny. How many times did that happen with Crisp getting 335/526 ABs in the 7-9 spot? Just another example of how superficial your investigations are. Brilliant.

 

FYI, BP's glossary is open to the public.

 

http://baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?context=all&category=true

[Gom]

ORS, it matter little who hits behind him. The Green Monster gives that advantage. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Irrespective, wouldn't you agree that it would be a disappointment if Ellsbury didn't beat out Coco?

[jacksonianmarch]

Heres the deal on Coco. It makes no sense for the sox to put him on the bench directly. Is Ellsbury the better player right now, on the offensive side, yes but on the D end, no. And when you are talking about such an important defensive position, you could absorb the hit early. Also, showcasing Coco will be an important part of the process as well, AND when you have two bookends that like the DL as much as Manny and Drew do, then you might want to keep Coco around. Here is my prediction on Coco.

 

He starts the yr as the starting CFer. Drew goes down for a month with sandy vaginitis and Ellsbury gets into the lineup. Ellsbury outperforms Coco by the time Drew returns and by then a team will need a solid D CFer. By the deadline, Coco will be gone (my inkling is the A's make the move).

[YAZMAN]

Doc, why do you have to pipe in right in the middle of Gom getting owned? You could ruin a wet dream.

[BSN07]

Heres the deal on Coco. It makes no sense for the sox to put him on the bench directly. Is Ellsbury the better player right now, on the offensive side, yes but on the D end, no. And when you are talking about such an important defensive position, you could absorb the hit early. Also, showcasing Coco will be an important part of the process as well, AND when you have two bookends that like the DL as much as Manny and Drew do, then you might want to keep Coco around. Here is my prediction on Coco.

 

He starts the yr as the starting CFer. Drew goes down for a month with sandy vaginitis and Ellsbury gets into the lineup. Ellsbury outperforms Coco by the time Drew returns and by then a team will need a solid D CFer. By the deadline, Coco will be gone (my inkling is the A's make the move).

 

Jacko I almost agree with you 100%. I think Coco starts the year in CF, barring injury. Which Gom sees as the "End of all days" for Jacoby if he doesn't beat out Coco. I Don't agree with Drew going down, but hey it could happen. Whoever the 4th OF is, will see a decent amount of playing time, whether it be late inning sub, injury sub, something of this nature.

 

I then think a little later in the season, a team will need a CF, and I'm sure the Sox will need something by then. So the Sox will trade Coco somewhere, and aquire another 4th OF to replace him. Or if Kielty is still around or someone like Moss.

 

If there is a SP injury/ineffectivness during Spring Traning or the Sox decide they would really rather start Buchholz in AAA (to save him for later in the season), then Coco might be dealt sooner.

 

I also think Oakland is a strong canidate, especially if the Sox want Blanton. Texas is another strong possibility. If Bradley flops in CF, they will be interested in Coco.

[Gom]

There is a microscopically low chance that Drew gets sent down. That's like Abreu getting sent down. Not happening.

Doc' date=' why do you have to pipe in right in the middle of Gom getting owned? You could ruin a wet dream.[/quote']

Must be fun to live in your little world. No pressure with such a small brain.

 

I don't think it's the "End of Days". I just think that if either team doesn't make the playoffs, or if the Mets win the World Series, you can point your finger at one deal that cost them. Santana. Do you know how Cashman looks if Kennedy doesn't pan out? Same with Ellsbury.

 

I don't care what people think about Hank, I like him. He's come out and said if the Yankees don't succeed this year, Cashman will be held accountable. Good. The guy has had too long of a honeymoon. The guy gets paid millions of dollars a year to make trades [among other things]. You want to look at overpaid? Cashman is the most overpaid person in the game.

 

I digress. Basically, it's not even about Ellsbury. If Ellsbury, Lester, Hughes, or Kennedy don't pan out, and Santana goes on to have a great career with the Mets, not pulling the trigger on the deal looks horrible for you/us/both.

[Paradisecity]

You like Hank Steinbrenner. You want the Yankees to sign Barry Bonds.

 

I shall spend tonight praying that Hank fires Cashman and hires you. It will be a great day for Boston baseball.

[YAZMAN]

Must be fun to live in your little world. No pressure with such a small brain.

 

Listen carefully, Jayhawk Bill owned you so bad in this thread that he could have been Timberland and still would have run out of boots to stomp you with.

[Gom]

Funny quote, but just more proof that you're not that sharp. His strong points were Coco was an average player. Yup...11th out of 14th in qualified players makes you average in OPS. I guess that means that Mike Mussina is a top tier pitcher. By this comparison, Farnsworth is better than Papelbon. It holds about the same amount of water.

 

Let's not forget coming up with being a better baserunner [sic] than Curtis Granderson. Curtis was 26 for 27 in SB, while Crisp was 28 for 34. This has to be one of my favorite quotes. If you buy this, I NEVER want to hear how Jeter's Gold Gloves aren't deserved. Ever. I mean it. Ever. I'm the first one to rip Jeter's defense, but his Gold Gloves are closer to the truth than this other statement. Ok..maybe not, but close. Ok, maybe not even close, but you get the idea.

 

Remember...when a cop stops you and unzips his pants...it's not a breathalyzer test. Please don't say I never tried to help.

[Gom]

You like Hank Steinbrenner. You want the Yankees to sign Barry Bonds.

 

I shall spend tonight praying that Hank fires Cashman and hires you. It will be a great day for Boston baseball.

Yes. I liked George, and I like Hank. I like owners who try to win, and don't manage their teams from a profit and loss sheet.

 

Trust me, you're much better off. You'd be fighting for the wildcard if I was the GM this season.

 

Check this post out, dated October 9th. http://www.talksox.com/forum/damn-yankees/9835-goms-plan-fix-yankees.html

 

I goofed on Carlos Pena, I had thought he was a free agent. That being excused, lets see the following:

 

1) Hire Girardi. Holy s***, that was done. Pretty much everyone now likes the idea.

2) Sign Arod to an extension. I think I remember reading somewhere that it was also done.

3) I'll quote this one:

"3a) Ask the Twins for Santana's price. Dangle Cabrera and Kennedy. While I doubt that will be all it will take, it may be a start. Cabrera is integral to any deal for Santana, and it may take Alan Horne in addition or Hughes or Chamberlain for him. However, if you can get Santana without giving up Hughes or Chamberlain, I'd have to jump at it. However, a deal for Santana that includes Cabrera, Kennedy, and Alan Horne for Santana might just get it done. [i admit, I'm biased...how does that sound?]

Wow...considering that when all was said and done, the Twins asked the Yankees for Kennedy, Cabrera, and Marquez, a LESSER prospect than Horne, and that idiot Cashman said no...

3b) Trade Giambi. Easier said than done, but if you get Bonds, no reason to keep him. Unless he can play first.

4) Carlos Pena. Admitted error, and was the precursor to getting rid of Giambi.

5) Bring back Abreu at a discount. Brought back, not at a discount. Same difference.

6) Sign Bonds. STILL WAITING.

7) Trade Matsui. Going to the Giants for one of their pitchers, maybe the Mariners or Mets would have been interested...would have been valid, and still would be.

8) Resign Posada and Rivera. Cashman overpaid, but I wouldn't have, and they would have come back anyways. Admittedly, I would have given them the same money if it meant them staying.

 

So, if I was GM, you'd be playing for the wild card. Bonds would be hitting in front of Arod, and the Yankee rotation would be Santana, Pettitte, Wang, Hughes, and Mussina. He gets paid millions, and I would have done a better job. Remember, I posted that October 9th.

[rician blast]

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts......

[Gom]

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts......

Amen brother. To tell you the truth, I'm surprised at how close I came on Santana. Guess I know my baseball.

 

What I don't understand is that Bonds swings the balance of power. I'm getting tired of all this managing the clubhouse s***. GM's should manage more on paper, and let the manager deal with personalities. The Yankees were dysfunctional. The 2004 Red Sox were idiots. The 2002 Angels were too young. So were the 2003 Marlins. Enough already. Put the best collection of talent on a team, and let them fly.

[Paradisecity]

Guess I know my baseball.

 

 

 

 

You want the Yankees to sign Barry Bonds.

 

 

 

Just keep repeating that to yourself. Eventually one of the two above comments will have to change, since they are in direct conflict with each other.

[ORS]

Guess I know my baseball.

Come on, Gom. Throw enough crap against the wall and something is going to stick. Note that your premise in October was how to "improve" the Yankees. Just because they have done some of the things you suggested doesn't mean they are, you know, better. Not yet at least. Besides, the three things that will actually improve them and have happened, Girardi/Arod/Abreu, require no thought nor were surprising to anyone.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Let's not forget coming up with being a better baserunner [sic] than Curtis Granderson. Curtis was 26 for 27 in SB' date=' while Crisp was 28 for 34.[/quote']

 

[table]Name | EqGAR | EqSBR | EqAAR | EqHAR | EqOAR | EqRuns

Coco Crisp | 1.11 | 1.95 | 2.48 | 1.64 | 1.41 | 8.60

Curtis Granderson | 0.58 | 4.07 | -0.05 | 2.22 | -0.56 | 6.26[/table]

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6845

 

(Previously linked)

 

This has to be one of my favorite quotes. If you buy this, I NEVER want to hear how Jeter's Gold Gloves aren't deserved. Ever. I mean it. Ever. I'm the first one to rip Jeter's defense, but his Gold Gloves are closer to the truth than this other statement. Ok..maybe not, but close. Ok, maybe not even close, but you get the idea.

 

Gom, we ALL get the idea. Carry on.

[Gom]

Gom, we ALL get the idea. Carry on.

LOL! Fair enough. However, I don't buy Crisp being a better runner than Granderson. The formula isn't fool-proof, and you guys know it. Stealing your quote of Sheehan, Jayhawk...

Originally Posted by Joe Sheehan

Barry Bonds is a championship-caliber baseball player, better, at age 43, at getting on base and hitting for power than all but a few hitters in the game. The things he doesn’t do well as a player, such as running the bases, throwing and covering ground in left field, lessen his value, but do not come close to negating it. He could be a 120-game left fielder for a National League team, and be one of the 40 most productive players in the league in doing so. With an AL team, his playing time would rise and his productivity with it. The non-baseball reasons to not sign Bonds are as much a creation of the media as anything else, the latest version of the stale storylines that have accompanied him for a decade. Teams have behaved as if winning is what matters in their dealings with bad guys—count the spousal abuse charges—and PED cases throughout the industry; drawing a line at Bonds is absurd when you consider what he brings to a team’s record.

 

Sign Barry Bonds. Win more games. Make more money. Embarrass your peers.

You want the Yankees to sign Barry Bonds.

Just keep repeating that to yourself. Eventually one of the two above comments will have to change, since they are in direct conflict with each other.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I care more about winning than I do steroids. Look, I'm convinced a lot of these bulked up superstars have taken steroids, supplements, etc. It doesn't bother me, at least not anymore.

 

Regardless of your personal feelings on Bonds [i for one, don't care for him, and would be upset if he EVER got in the HOF], looking at his cost, he's actually one of the biggest bargains. He's one of the top hitters in the game. He would take a one year contract. He would come at a very cheap price due to the steroid/perjury problems. He wouldn't even cost you a draft pick.

 

Put him on the Yankees behind Jeter and Damon with that short RF porch, and he may hit 40 homers [30-35 is more realistic]. Put him in front of Arod, and he won't get the walks he did, but his average/HR/RBI will probably go up. I think it would be a safe bet to say that he'd post a .400 OBP. If he gives the Yankees the same BA/HR/RBI as last year, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

 

The negative? A circus? Like New York isn't already a circus. Steroid controversy? We already have that.

 

At this point, his pro's outweigh his con's significantly.

 

The Yankees aren't a young team packed with rookies. They are a veteran team with many stars. Bonds won't faze them. Don't kid yourself, there are as many cheats in Boston as there are in New York. They just didn't get caught. The guy wants to win. He's still among the top ten hitters in the game. So yes, I'd take him in a heartbeat.

[schillingouttheks]

If Bonds wasn't facing federal perjury charges, I would be able to see why you'd want him.