Spring Training progresses, and the questions begin to pour out. Two players that have been on my mind are Mike Sweeney and Barry BOnds. Both players are old sluggers who were the face of franchises for many years, yet Major League Baseball doesn't know what to do with them. Mike Sweeney is carrying on a monstrous spring training, with a .500 average going into Thursday as a non-roster invitee to the A's. Bonds meanwhile still doesn't have a job. The question here is: who provides better "upside," an aging great or a young up-and-comer?
Younger fellas have the promise of not hitting their full potential--theoretically they could break out and show everyone more talent then ever before. The three guys here are Jack Cust, Dan Johnson, and Daric Barton (aged 29, 29, and 23 respectively.) Jack Cust is a LF/DH type (like Bonds), Barton a 1B, and Johnson a 1B/DH (like Sweeney.) In all likelihood, Cust will serve as the starting DH, Barton at 1st, and Johnson as a pinch-hitting specialist. The A's community looks to these guys for the future, as evidenced by them being on the roster. Younger players look to have higher upside because they haven't hit a proverbial ceiling. If Baseball Prospectus is to be believed, then Cust and Johnson are peaking right about now, and Barton still has a few years before he hits his maximum. Logic here would dictate that, if you're going to take a gamble on someone, it might as well be a young spark plug who may break out. With young players, you get unreliability in the form of an unknown ceiling, which could very well be low as likely as it is high. This is different from Old Player's unreliability, yet lately seems preferable.
Mike Sweeney and Barry Bonds have the upside of regaining their former glory--which is better than anything the youngsters have proven themselves of. Jack Cust is supposedly on a warpath. Reports say he is determined to prove that last year wasn't a fluke, and he's here to stay. If Cust could somehow harness his amazing talent, he could hit 40 home runs. That sounds great, right? If Barry Bonds could regain his former glory he could hit 71, yet he remains out of a job. If Mike Sweeney could get back to 2000, he'd be hitting .330 with 30 Goodbyes, which nowadays is MVP candidate worthy. Why isn't this preferable to young spark plugs?
Most of the time the issues here are money and longevity. Barry doesn't have a job because he probably wants more benefits and money than teams are prepared to offer. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported that Tony LaRussa wanted Bonds, but it looks like he wants too much money. I imagine there are similar stories around the league. You can get a young'un for the league minimum. Jack Cust was a huge story last yearm partly because he was acquired for next to nothing. Meanwhile, Mike Piazza types may require millions of dollars to rein in. The other issue is longevity. While Sweeney may perform well now, he can't keep it up for seven years--Kid Firestarter can though. If Barton breaks out and has a 30 home run/300+Batting Average season, he's still got 15 some odd years before something bad may happen.
Where does this leave us? I think Mike Sweeney was a good pick up because we didn't have to spend anything to get him (at least in camp.) Barry Bonds actually wants money, but we've got Jack Cust who is probably just as likely to do what Barry would do, and he's cheap. Thus we go with the young'uns, and Barry wonders if his home runs will count in Japan.
4 comments:
I like the Mike Sweeney thing. I don't see any reason why he can't be this year's Frank Thomas. Mike Piazza was filling that role nicely until his freak shoulder injury and had he stayed healthy he would have had a big impact for the Green-n-Gold. Free-up Sweeney from the weight of having to carry the Franchise as he did in KC and he could have a lot of fun doing what he has always done best...hit. He is perfectly capable of 30/100 and his influence on guys like Barton and Gonzales could be invaluable. I say keep him and play him. Alot.
I agree--I like Mike Sweeney in a leadership role, and I like him in that role instead of the very streaky Dan Johnson. The A's could use a guy like him to play 1st base when Barton needs a day off (the A's won't want to chance his health when he's this young,) and let's not forget that Cust can play the Outfield (poorly, but it's not the worst idea.) If we need two big sticks in the lineup, then we can play Cust in left, Sweeney in the DH, and then we've got a nice middle of the order there.
Sweeney when healthy is a good performer. The issue has been the fact that he has been so injury prone. Do steroids raise a red flag? The Athletics have had some success with the professional hitter who knows how to take a walk and can sock the rock. This is a good idea provided it's a low risk investment. He could provide some reward. He could provide a lot of reward IF he's healthy.
And Sweeney is low risk--he's only signed to a Minor League contract anyway. If he ends up sucking, then we didn't give him anything. If he works out, then Cust plays a little more in Left, and Sweeney makes a spot for himself.
Post a Comment