Sweeney long for Oakland?

by cookierojas73 on Apr 22, 2008 6:34 PM EDT Comment 20 comments

Buster Olney writes that the A's are looking at signing Frank Thomas and speculates that such a move might be at the expense of Mike Sweeney's roster spot.

You'd have to think that it might be the end of the road for Sweeney if Oakland ended up releasing him, no? There could be a team willing to give him a few ABs in a pinch due to a injury, but right now I can't think of one...

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i would totally bring back sweeny....

....if he brought brian mcname with him

by Billybutlerformvp on Apr 22, 2008 6:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to be pretty annoyed if the A's get Thomas

and we don’t. Seriously, for league minimum, shove him in as DH, put Billy at first every day and send Gloady to the bench. if Thomas can smack 25 homers our team just got a lot better.

winning records follow good bullpens

by slayor on Apr 22, 2008 7:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bonds... Bonds... Bonds...

by djk royal on Apr 22, 2008 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

Blown Save

by BlownSave on Apr 22, 2008 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody is going to get Thomas for league minimum

And there is also his greatly diminished bat speed to take into account…and his age…and his injury history. It’s not like he’s a lock to hit well. He does turn 40 in a month.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be something

I have to admit that it would be a fascinating experiment for KC to bring in either Bonds or Thomas (particularly Bonds)...so un-Royals-like. Not saying either one would be the right move but it would be pretty interesting seeing what one of them could do over the course of this year vs. what we’ll get from Gload.

by cookierojas73 on Apr 22, 2008 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting is good.

The Royals have been un-interesting for far too long.

by djk royal on Apr 22, 2008 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention

if they’re willing to sign Nomo just for publicity, what’s stopping them from getting someone who can actually contribute?

Although Bonds would be the best player, in my not-so-informed opinion, given that the Royals aren’t in “win-now” mode, the Jays being on the hook for the bulk of Thomas’s salary make him the most attractive option. Not to mention his approach at the plate, which I mentioned elsewhere. I can’t help but think that would be a great influence on the potentially great young sluggers (particularly Butler, who, at least superficially, bears some resemblance to a young Thomas as a player) who seem to be, um, “aggressive.”

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 23, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, as I understand it...

If Thomas clears waivers, Toronto is on the hook for his salary. Anything his new team pays Thomas gets deducted from what Toronto’s on the hook for—so yeah, he probably will sign for the league minimum, just to screw Toronto.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Apr 22, 2008 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can't tell me this team its chances of winning decreased

By Bonds / Thomas at DH and butler in the field every day, as opposed to Butler DH and Gload in the field every day. No way, no how does our team NOT get better by adding one of those guys.

winning records follow good bullpens

by slayor on Apr 22, 2008 7:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

*has its

winning records follow good bullpens

by slayor on Apr 22, 2008 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would improve the team

Lots of win-now strategies would improve the team. But it wouldn’t get us into contention. So why spend those millions on a guy who might help us lock down third place?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 22, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fan interest and increased revenue...

besides. At 9-10 there’s a small chance we could compete for the division title.

by djk royal on Apr 22, 2008 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just curious i hear lot of talk about how we shouldent sign one of these sluggers because its a win now move? but if

nows not the time to win when is??? and if they dont give 10 million to bonds for a 1 yr deal it will go into the owners pocket. so why on earth not try and improve the team with a player like piazza or thomas or bonds when it wont hurt them down the road its not taking abs away from a rookie its freakin ross gload..and if piazza or bonds can help this team win a few more games we gain some respectability which might lead to free agents wanting to play here instead of having to gorssly overpay for mediocore talent.

by Billybutlerformvp on Apr 22, 2008 8:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i'm with you on this

I hate the talk about “we’re not in a win now mode”. That’s BS. We’re always in a win now mode. Why the fruitcake wouldn’t we be in a win now mode? It may not be win the World Series now mode, but the more games we win, the more people attend, the closer back to respectability the franchise gets, etc…

I say, “WIN THEM ALL AND RIGHT FREAKIN NOW!“

And after yesterday’s steaming pile of a “baseball game” I’d be half tempted to go out and get several players at this point. I understand it is just one game, but all of the just one games add up, and some years quickly. I think the next couple of games will be a showcase of this team’s mettle and what we have in Hillman. I’m not saying a singular win or loss tonight makes a big difference. I just want to see something positive tonight.

OK, overreaction over.

Don't Stop Believing!

by KC Chris on Apr 23, 2008 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs