We can talk about Cust specifically if anyone wants. Do you see it as just another way of making an out, or as evidence that yr guy cant do crap with the bat besides try for the seats?

 

Obviously the latter is what most people tend to side with... but then again all over the field you have different guys trying to provide different services to a team. One is power. And in our park it may be worth some Ks to get it.

Edited December 13, 200916 yr by Princess Dye

They're fine, as long as they're placed in the right spots in the lineup. If we got Cust to add power he'd hit 5th probably. You can bet that moving to USCF would at least boost his HR totals, but I can see the Yankees taking a chance on him since that place is like a powder keg for lefties.

 

 

Power hitters strike out, they need to be able to walk to account for the avg drop received for not putting as many balls in play.

Would this move be for DH or OF?

People here hated Thome. Thome is better than Cust and at least he won't hurt you in the field.

People here hated Thome. Thome is better than Cust and at least he won't hurt you in the field.

Did we really?

Just so we're clear here, there is categorically no way Cust should be brought aboard as anything other than DH.

 

 

To me, nothing is more frustrating than a strikeout with runners on (with a failed bunt coming in as a close second). It completely ruins the moment of the inning. It takes away the chance for an error or a runner advancing. I really like Thome and thought he did a lot for us, but I always cringed when he came up with runners on during an inning when we needed to get something going.

It depends on the make up of a team. When you have other guys who can generate runs, it is OK. For a team like the Sox that live by the longball, it is a killer.

I wouldnt hate Cust if we gave him a contract with an option for a 2nd year, it wouldnt cost much and leaves us available to spend some money on a 3rd OF in f/a or trade.

To me, nothing is more frustrating than a strikeout with runners on (with a failed bunt coming in as a close second). It completely ruins the moment of the inning. It takes away the chance for an error or a runner advancing.

 

A double play is much worse IMO. (Konerko's consistent DP were always rally killers for years)

I wouldnt hate Cust if we gave him a contract with an option for a 2nd year, it wouldnt cost much and leaves us available to spend some money on a 3rd OF in f/a or trade.

 

 

I'm on board for this. If you can assume you get two regular players worth of production out of Andruw/Kotsay/Cust/Pods......... and it retains your flexibility for next year...

 

...it's at least something to think about when you compare the odds of that with the odds of Matsui having a bad two years.

 

Only because while Matsui sucking is less likely...it's more destructive to our 2011 FA dreams if it does happen. Depending on what Matsui gets paid now.

Edited December 13, 200916 yr by Princess Dye

If its a hitter like say Adam Dunn...K's don't mean as much...

Thome is better than Cust and at least he won't hurt you in the field.

 

This statement is pure genius.

 

 

As long as the OBP is high, K's are fine.

This statement is pure genius.

 

 

I love it too. To paraphrase: An inability to be versatile is an attribute.

I love it too. To paraphrase: An inability to be versatile is an attribute.

It actually makes a bit of sense because versatility can be a bad thing if said player's defense is that bad

It actually makes a bit of sense because versatility can be a bad thing if said player's defense is that bad

If the player's defense is at a point to where it is that much of a detriment, I don't think we can consider them versatile.

Thome is better and will be signed over Cust, but who knows with KW anymore.

Ugh, neither of these 2 fit on my 2010 team.

K's really dont do anything C's couldn't already.

I care less if the player draws walks at a very high rate, provides plus defense at a premium position, or has exceptional power. If they strikeout a lot and do none of the above (Teahen), it could be concerning

For the most part, a strikeout is the worst out you can have since it does not put a ball in play. But then again, balls in play can lead to more outs if there are men on base because of the possibility of a double play.

 

Although more often than not, you'd take a ball in play over a strikeout. So you'd rather have a hitter that strikes out less. However, with Cust, his OBP and power should make up whatever he lacks in.

 

I'd be okay with getting Cust, but I think we can do better.

It depends.

 

I'm okay with a swinging K.

 

A "standing there like a moron and looking at" strike three, I'm not okay with.

It depends.

 

I'm okay with a swinging K.

 

A "standing there like a moron and looking at" strike three, I'm not okay with.

 

So you weren't a big Scotty Pods fan huh?