Abreu Wants At Least Three Years

How can anyone say strikeouts don't matter?

It does if you have a team thats not balanced and has other players that strike out.

Here's a perfect example how 2 players can have the same stat yet have two totally different stories to tell:

Abreu and Giambi both have an obp of .371 and .373.

Both struck out about 111 times (109 vs 11).

Abreu hit 50 points higher than Giambi, had more hits, dbls, less hrs but slightly more rbis.

Abreu is a more valuable hitter than Giambi.

a guy with a good obp but can't hit above .250 and strikes out over 100x is of little use to me, especially on a team where your #1,2,3, 4 and 5 hitters all struck out over 85x. We need more hitters who can put the bat on the ball and hit for a higher avg. Cano can, has and will hit for a higher avg than Giambi.

Forget about age and position.
Would you trade Cano for Cust straight up?

I never once said that OBP was the only stat to use. In fact, I have used:

OBP
OPS
GIDP
Sac Fly
WS
VORP

These aren't some random stats. I guarantee that every GM worth his salt knows exactly what WS's and VORP calculate.

Also, I didn't comment directly to you. If you search for McLouth you will see 2 other people said that there was virtually no difference between Cabrera and McLouth. That's who I was responding to. What YOU did say was that Melky is "at worst" a decent option. How can a rating of -4 in VORP be considered decent? He is AAAA outfielder. He is awful.

I did take slight umbrage at your use of the term "top prospect" when mentioning Ian Kennedy. That ship has set sail a long time ago. That is unless you still consider Felix Pie, Lastings Millege and Homer Bailey top prospects.

There's a reason teams send out scouts. all those numbers are nice but theyre not as valuable as seeing the player for yourself.

VORP is only worthy when comparing players of the same position. I think it has no value when comparing players from different positions.

All things considered ... assuming PA's were the same - Abreu and Giambi had very similar offensive years.

RBI's, Runs, are by-products of opportunities. You can't use them as isolated metrics to determine a players value.

Abreu had a total of 63 XBH to Giambi's 52. Abreu had 25% more AB's. Giambi's probability of hitting an XBH was slightly higher than Abreu's. So, tell me again how Abreu was a superior offensive player to Giambi in 08?

Strikeouts don't matter? WOW.

I said in an earlier email that Cano and Giambi basically have the same total of hits + walks (189 G/188 Cano). That means that bottom line they both have been on base about the same amount of times. Does it really matter if Cano walks or hits his way on? Well when Cano hits his way on he's creating more opportunity for his team. He's either getting on base for the next guy, advancing a runner or driving someone in. So whether it's by a hit or walk is somewhat irrelevant right?

The difference is when Cano puts the ball in play he's MAKINE the defense make a play. When Giambi strikes out then all a catcher has to do is hold on to the ball. If Cano puts the ball in play many things can happen. He creates movement. A runner could be advanced or a ball can be mishandled resulting in an error. When Giambi strikes out then thats it. he's not allowed for anything to come into play. How is that productive and how can that be so easily dismissed?

how high do you think theyre willing to go to get CC? is there even a limit?

"I said in an earlier email that Cano and Giambi basically have the same total of hits + walks (189 G/188 Cano). That means that bottom line they both have been on base about the same amount of times."

Giambi did that in 69 fewer plate appearances. Just stop. Giambi was more valuable offensively. Nothing you say will change this fact. Not the fact that he struck out more, and not the fact that Cano hit .342 in 2006.

Let's see Abreu vs Giambi:

Abreu who had fewer hrs than Giambi had more total bases, which means that he provided more opportunities for his teammates to record an rbi.

He had a total of 253 on base appearances compared to Giambi who only had 189. Abreu gave his team 64 more chances to drive him in.

He scored more runs as a result of being on base more often 100 runs scored compared to 68 by Giambi.

Any more questions?

Who would you choose between 2 players with the same obp and walks the one that can also hit a higher clip and therefore creates more opportunities or the one that can barely hit .250?

And when I speak of on base appearances which to me is a much better stat than obp you add the number of hits + walks that a player gets.

bjguess:

i can't beleive that you make the comment about the human factor but rely so heavily on ONE STATISTIC like obp to value a players worth.

I don't know if Bill james will ever make it an official stat but adding a players hits + walks makes for a better stat than does obp. OBP doesn't take into account "an unproductive out". Cust is a horrible hitter who strikes out 197x and you view him as a better hitter than a guy who hits .300 but doesn't walk as much?

In truth how much better is 125 hits and 100 walks vs 180 hits and 45 walks?

But YankeesFan ... you are forgetting that Cano had significantly more chances to get on base. Around 150 or so extra AB's.

Cano was significantly less efficient with getting on base than Giambi. That's what OBP measures. Conversely, Cano made significantly more outs than Giambi (both absolute and relative to his AB's).

One more thought about putting pressure on a defense. The difference between a butcher in the field (let's take Giambi) vs a GG 1B (let's take Tex during his time in LA) is 990 vs 994. That means out of every 1000 chances Tex has to field or throw the ball he will make 4 less mistakes than Giambi. 4 OUT OF 1000. Putting pressure on the defense is soooo overrated.

Granted FPCT is a very imperfect way of looking at how good someone is at fielding their position. That said, it's decent enough to use for our purposes. Until you can show me that Cano actually did put pressure on a defense and forced errors I don't buy this argument.

In my opinion that's not really a good arguement relative to MVP voting. I don't think you can have a hard and steady rule for the voting, or at least nothing in terms of a "formula".

Pujols gave his team more opportunities but Howard DID drive in 150 runners, with a lot of them coming down the stretch as they moved into 1st place and overcame the Mets.

I think stats are great for evaluating a persons "worth" but need to be looked at in the proper context to realize their value.

I think Pujols had a better overall year stat wise but Howard will probably win the MVP. it's debatable.

By the way Chipper Jones led the NL in OBP. Does that make him your MVP bjguess?

"I think Pujols had a better overall year stat wise but Howard will probably win the MVP. it's debatable."

Its not even close to being debatable. Pujols was close to 3 times better than Howard this year. Jones was better than Howard too. Howard wasn't the MVP of his own team.

How is Howard not the MVP?

bs:

Giambi had 458 at bats in 145 games. Don't exageratte.

"Giambi had 458 at bats in 145 games. Don't exageratte."

Not sure what you are referring too.

"How is Howard not the MVP?"

Seriously?

Yeah - Chipper absolutely needs to be in the discussion for MVP. Like BS - I have him 2nd to Pujols as the best hitter in the NL. His AB's hurt him though. Berkman is a very close 3rd (and possibly higher than Chipper due to his extra 120 AB's).

Of course, this always comes down to how you define the MVP. I'm not a huge fan of the current method - finding someone on a playoff team that had a great couple last few months.

I happen to believe that playing well in May is as valuable as playing well in August. Last check, wins counted the same regardless of the month they were accrued.

"Gatling:

Cano hit .297 his rookie year, .342 his second year and .306 his third. Even with a poor 4th year hitting .271 he still has a lifetime .306 avg. How is he not a legitimate .300 hitter if that's what he's done over a 4 year period?

Subtract a horrible April where he hit .151 and his avg for last year (08) would've been .297

Those are not numbers I made up."

Ok, here we go. As was mentioned before, BABIP(batting average on balls in play) is a good stat to use. It's especially good for you because you're so hung on up on the fact that Cano doesn't K that much, and that because of that he's such a valuable guy. Now, I'm not saying that strikeouts are good, because they're not. As bjsguess showed earlier, strikeouts are very bad with less than two outs and runners on. So no, you don't want guys striking out a ton. Anyway, for balls put in play, something that Cano does so well, let's look into his numbers a bit. In 2006, the year he hit .342, which I have gone on record as saying is an outlier, a fluke season. Basic rule of thumb says that a player's BABIP should be his line drive %(LD%) plus 12. That basically is the average, some hitters can go either way on it, but that's the standard way to approximate a lucky or unlucky season. So....Cano's LD% in 2006 was 20%, a solid number, about average really for big league hitters. That would mean his BABIP should be about .320. What was his BABIP that year you ask? Three. Sixty. Three. That's 43 points higher than you should expect it to be. That means that Cano a very lucky year at the plate, and isn't likely to repeat that kind of number. Now, in 2007 when he hit .306, his LD% was 19%, again right around average. His BABIP should have been around .310, it was .334 not nearly as big of a discrepancy there, but again Robbie had a little bit of luck that year. This year, he hit .271, a bit of an outlier perhaps, but in actuality it's closer to both his 2005 and 2007 average than the 2006 numbers comes to any other season. Anyway, his LD% is again 20%(see a pattern yet?), so his BABIP should be .320(again). His BABIP was .286, so Robbie was unlucky this year.

So what does all of this tell us? Well, it tells us that Robbie isn't a guy that will hit .342 probably ever again, and it also tells us that he's not a .271 hitter either. The data I see tells me that it takes some luck for Cano to be a .300 hitter for his career, so he's probably a guy that will hit .280-.290, luck adjusted anyway(both directions here, lucky and unlucky). I think that's the numbers I threw out there before. Now, maybe he's more of a .285-.295 guy, I'm fine with saying that. But what I'm not fine with saying is that Cano is for sure a .300 hitter, because if we take his 2006 season, and substitute in his career average of .303 for that year, all of a sudden, his career batting average drops to....are you ready for this.....his average drops to .294. I know, hard to believe huh, since he's a legitimate .300 hitter. You're not making it up. Niether am I, the numbers don't lie. He's not a .300 hitter. That doesn't make him a bad hitter. Just not the hitter you keep claiming he is.

I cant control the # of at bats Giambi gets.

Ok let's ccompare comparable years:

In 03 Giambi had 535 at bats with a .412 obp. He had 134 hits and 129 walks for a total of 253 on base appearances. Giambi hit .250 bavg.

In 99 Abreu had 546 at bats with a .393 obp. I went out of my way to choose a year where he had a lower obp but about the same amount of at bats. Abreu had 183 hits and 109 walks. He had 297 on base appearances, 44 more than Giambi. Abreu hit .335

Giambi had a higher obp but who was more VALUABLE to his team? You would have to say Abreu because he provided his team with 44 more chances to score a run.

This is pissing me off - BS is a faster typist than I am :)

i agree with you bjs without Albert the cards dont even sniff the wild card like they did. but i think history has shown that 50-150 and putting the team on your back in sept = MVP

"In truth how much better is 125 hits and 100 walks vs 180 hits and 45 walks?"

The value difference there lies in what kind of hits we're talking about. Let's go back to 2006 and compare two guys who almost exactly meet your above mentioned scenario. Player A has 113 hits and 110 walks, for 223 total on base appearances. Player B had 204 hits and 32 walks, for 236 total on base appearances. So, which player is more valuable? By your metric I guess you'd say Player B right? Well, Player A hit 25 doubles and 37 homeruns as part of his 113 hits. Player B hit 32 doubles, 13 triples, and 3 homeruns in his 204 hits. Even with Player B having 13 more on base appearances, he could not have been more valuable than Player A.

In case you're wondering, Player B, the guy you think would be the better guy based on you "on base appearance" stat, is Juan Pierre. Player B, the guy is more valuable, is none other than Jason Giambi. Pierre hit .292 that year, Giambi .253, and yet Giambi was more valuable. Makes you wonder if "on base appearances" is a stat you should ever thing about again, huh?

christ its 3 AM, i'm out

Wow, I must be getting tired. That should read "Makes you wonder if "on base appearances" is a stat you should ever THINK about again, huh?"

But isnt what Howard did "coming through for the team when they needed him the most?"

BJ Upton has the 7th best obp in the AL. If you just use OBP as a criteria to determine how good a hitter is then you're saying that Upton is better than a lot of GREAT AL hitters.

So no. I won't totally abandon a stat like on base appearance but at the same time you have to know how and when to use it and whom to compare the stats with. Same goes for OBP. That ALONE does not make Giambi or Cust a great or valuable hitter.

And that fact that Cust struck out 197 times but you still consider him a more valuable player than a .300 hitter who drives the ball is laughable.

good night all. my girl says its past my bedtime. out!!

If we have to compare Giambi and Abreu, the playing field has to be level. We'll use this year's numbers, but Giambi's have to be normalized for the same number of plate appearances that Abreu had, since Abreu had 117 more plate appearances than Giambi. So, with 686 plate appearances, Abreu had 253 on base appearances. Giambi would have 227, determined by taking his walks divided by his plate appearances, times 686 and his hits divided by his plate appearances, times 686. So...Abreu has 26 more on base appearances. But Abreu hit 39 doubles and 20 homeruns while Giambi would have 23 doubles and 38 homeruns(maintaining his home run and double rate from his 569 PA's). Now, does the 2B/HR difference negate Abreu being on base 26 more times? I can't really say for sure. But since Abreu has the edge here and Giambi an 8 point advantage in OPS+, I'm gonna have to say that they were probably pretty close to equal in value. Now, I'm more inclined to lean towards Giambi being more valuable, since OPS+ is a widely used stat and not one created by a member of this website.

Oh, and for the Giambi/Pierre comparison, I didn't point out that it took Pierre 171 more plate appearances than Giambi to total up those 13 more on base appearances he had. I figured I didn't need to prove my point, which I didn't, but I wanted you to know about it.

"Forget about age and position.
Would you trade Cano for Cust straight up?"

Forget about age and looks, would you rather date Jessica Biel or Whoopie Goldberg?

"SO you would rather have Bradley over Miguel Cabrera?"

It is not a matter of who you would rather have. Bradley was better this season.

If the Yankees can't getManny Ramirez or Matt Holliday or Ichiro or someone of that caliber to play the outfield....Offer him arbirtration..hopefully he accepts and resign him

Also, get Teixeira and AJ Burnett & mabye try for crawford

LF Damon
SS Jeter
RF Abreu *
3B A-Rod
1B Teixeira *
DH Matsui
C Posada
2B Cano
CF Gardner

CF Ichiro *
LF Damon
SS Jeter
3B A-Rod
1B Teixeira *
RF Abreu *
DH Matsui
C Posada
2B Cano

"And that fact that Cust struck out 197 times but you still consider him a more valuable player than a .300 hitter who drives the ball is laughable."

No, this statement is laughable. Using BA and SO to determine a player's worth may work if you are a Baseball Tonight analyst, but when looking at numbers that determine VALUE, it clearly shows that Cust is more valuable of a HITTER than someone like Pierre, who is a singles hitter who will hit .300 consistently, or someone like Cano. Defense can't be ignored, and Cust is kinda brutal from what I have heard, so that hurts his overall value. Just hitting though, he is far more valuable than someone like Pierre, eventhough he hit 70 points lower. It was stated earlier, but you can't win with 9 Pierres, and you can't win with 9 Custs, but Cust is a more valuable hitter.

Gatling, I do agree with you... but everything can be skewed... with x factors, which is why there is no single stat that is used to determine a players worth. Is OBP, OPS, BA, RBI, XBH%, HR, etc good stats? Yes, but none can determine who is worth more by using a single stat... it's a compilement that you have to use...

but Rbi's can't be fully discounted...

As far as Arod.. he had a solidly statistical year, which is why we cannot use stats... but he had a bad year... He never looked comfortable once..and he padded his stats mostly in blowouts... but when your team has bases loaded with Arod and Giambi up and they don't score runs -- that's horrific as a fan; and how many times had that happened last year? Any Yankee fan can tell you... Arod had what, a handful of RBI's after the 7th inning this year, after leading the world in 9th inning batting last year...

And people are starting to overuse stats like OBP. It's a useful stat but can't be used as THEE only criteria to determine who's the better hitter and that's exactly the claim that several posters have made previously.

bs:

I never used Pierre as an example..YOU DID.

Cano is a much better hitter than Pierre. Again , this shows that stats can be used to make any point that you want to make. Use common sense.

My arguement was that Cust was not a better overall hitter than Cano. And if you think Cust is a better hitter than what is he exceptionaly good at? Drawing walks? That's the only way he's getting on base because he can't hit the ball (.231 bavg and 197 strike outs) if the pitcher were throwing a beach ball. He has good power numbers but his 33 hrs only equaled 77 rbis. Cano had 71 rbis w/ fewer hrs and while batting in the #7 and #8 spot.

Casper:

In Arod defense the whole arguement of when a player drives in a run or gets a hit (in terms of what inning) doesn't tell an entire story.

If Arod hit's a 2 run hr in the 1st inning that his team ahead 2-0 is more valuable than if he hits a hr in the 9th inning when the Yanks are up 10-3. So while stats are useful you always have to look at them and understand what it is they say or don't say.

WHile I wish Arod was more of a clutch hitter I'll also take the 2out HR he hits with a runner on 1st that puts us up 2-0 because he helped put us into a position to win a game just the same.

PLEASE NO AROD SUCKS COMMENTS. I'M NOT DEFENDING HIS LACK CLUTCH OF HITTING.

OBP can be very subjective still. In baseball there's a human element, anything can happen.

Cust had 592 plate appearances: 482 off atbats plus 111 walks

Cano had 623 plate appearances: 597 off atbats and 26 walks.

Cano made more outs (+75) but look at the type of outs compared to Cust.

Cust struck out 197 x compred to Cano who struck out 65 x. Cust struck out 132 more times than Cano. When Cano puts the bat on the ball he's creating an opportunity for himself and his team for something to happen. A bloop hit, a sac fly and error. There's movement and your putting pressure on the opponent to make a perfect play. When Cust strikes out it's an empty at bat. Nothing happens.

We argue back and forth if you would rather have a guy who strikes out 200 times then by all means take him. I'll take a contact hitter who can hit for avg. And while I KNOW Cano had an "off" year he's shown a history of being better than the .271 hitter that he was this year (lifetime .306 bavg).

Wow

Gatling said:

"The only counting stat that has real value is homeruns, not something like RBI".

In 1985 Tommy Herr hit:

.302 8hrs and 110 rbis

The same year Cal Ripken hit:

.282 26hrs and 110 rbis.

How are Ripke's hrs more valuable when they both had the same rbi's?

Does it matter how the rbi's are scored? If one player hits 30 hrs and 20 dbls but his teammate hits 50 dbls, 10 triples and 15 hrs does that make the other guy who's the hr hitter a better player?

As long a the game is determined by who scores more runs rather than who hit the most hrs then I would disagree that hrs are a more important stat than rbis.

All stats need to be tempered with common sense and analytical skills.

"OBP can be very subjective still. In baseball there's a human element, anything can happen.

Cust had 592 plate appearances: 482 off atbats plus 111 walks

Cano had 623 plate appearances: 597 off atbats and 26 walks.

Cano made more outs (+75) but look at the type of outs compared to Cust.

Cust struck out 197 x compred to Cano who struck out 65 x. Cust struck out 132 more times than Cano. When Cano puts the bat on the ball he's creating an opportunity for himself and his team for something to happen. A bloop hit, a sac fly and error. There's movement and your putting pressure on the opponent to make a perfect play. When Cust strikes out it's an empty at bat. Nothing happens.

We argue back and forth if you would rather have a guy who strikes out 200 times then by all means take him. I'll take a contact hitter who can hit for avg. And while I KNOW Cano had an "off" year he's shown a history of being better than the .271 hitter that he was this year (lifetime .306 bavg)."

Ok, let's look a little deeper at the numbers. You're claiming that Cust is less valuable because he struck out 197 times, and strike outs aren't productive outs. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, strikeouts are only unproductive outs when runners are in scoring position, or even just with runners on. So....out of Cust's 197 strikeouts, 103 came with no one base. That means those outs are no more or less productive than any other out. That leaves 94 strikeouts that were unproductive. Cano had 33 strikeouts with runners on, making those unproductive. So that means that Cust had 61 more outs that were more unproductive right? Well, not quite. Cano had one more sac fly than Cust, so it's 62 more unproductive outs for Cust. But wait, there's more. Cano grounded into 11 more double plays than Cust. So total, it's 51 more unproductive outs for Cust. But Cano made 75 more total outs than Cust did. So I'd say while Cust had those more unproductive outs, the fact that he made 75 fewer outs overall in 25 fewer plate appearances again shows why he was the more valuable offensive player.(Notice I didn't say hitter, because that seems to be your hangup)

"And while I KNOW Cano had an "off" year he's shown a history of being better than the .271 hitter that he was this year (lifetime .306 bavg)."

Hey guess what, Juan Pierre is a lifetime .300 hitter with a lifetime OPS+ of 83. 83!!!!!

"How are Ripke's hrs more valuable when they both had the same rbi's?"

You must have overlooked the RBI discussion before. RBI is a horrible stat to use to compare players, because they are so dependent on the players batting ahead of you. If guys don't get on base ahead of you, you can't drive them in. Pretty simple right. Homeruns are very important, because there are the only play that scores a run no matter what. No other single play can a score a run every time it's executed. None.

I will have to go back and look and see if I can find the number of times that Ripken and Herr came to the plate with runners in scoring position. It's highly possible that Herr had more RBI chances, leading him having as many RBI. That's where you common sense comes in man.

Righttttt...OBP rocks dude!!

Todd Helton is #5 all-time in OBP. That means he's a more valuable player than every other hitter in the history of the game except for Williams, Ruth, Bonds and Gehrig. Wow....I think I have some of his rookie cards around here somewhere. When they get around to choosing the all-time greats do you think Helton's name will come up in the conversation? It must right? He has the 5th best OBP in the history of the game.

Stats are great. Use them carefully. If you say that Cust is a better hitter because he has a much better OBP then that rule must be able to stand true in ALL arguements.

And if you don't agree that Helton's not the 5th beest hitter in baseball then that means you take in consideration other criteria to determine a hitters "worth" or "value". And if that's true then you don't use just obp to measure a player like Cust against a player like Cano. Thanks. I'm done with this issue. Beleive what you will. I'll make my all-time team my way, you do it yours.

I speculated ealier what "bs" stood for earlier. I'm pretty sure it stands for "blows sheep". I wasn't sure but I'm sooooooo positive about it now. But it's been great debating with you. GO OBP...."You down with OBP? Yeah you know me". LOL.

Ok, YanksFanSince78, so far in this entire discussion bs has used OPS+, EqA, and VORP that I could see just right off to compare players. That pretty well proves that he doesn't just use OBP to determine a player's value.

But like every other post you've made, you keeping saying that everyone is trying to use OBP only to evaluate players, but no one is doing that. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so man. You've lost this debate from more angles than I want to count, so instead of admitting defeat you first say you're done, then you come back and make your ridiculous OBP only statement again, then you resort to insulting someone because you can't win an argument against them. Very classy.

Gatling.. I know you didn't I was just responding to the 100 some odd posts that are on here...

Yanksfan... in response to Arod... he did almost nothing when the game was in reach. There were times he did like you said go deep in the first to give them an early lead.. or, get a basehit to score an early run; but most of the runs scored, runs knocked in, homeruns, etc. were in games they had already won, or already lost so to speak...

Arod in a fantastic talent, and i'll think he'll rebound (he seems to have fantastic years every other year, so he's due) but while he had a statistically solid year in 2007, he really did have a bad year...

No seriously..I have pics of him blowing sheep.

Just kidding. I'm frustrated because stats alone do not prove a players worth.

I just can't imagine how someone can view Cust as a "valuable" hitter just because he walks 111x. And what's funny is that they want to focus on his walks and obp but ignore the 197 strike outs when a strikeout is perhaps the worst thing a hitter can do. Even a ground out dp can offer some what of a benefit depending on whether there's a runner on base.

So I agree to disagree. I use OBP along with bavg, hrs, rbis and runs scored. If you want to use:

VORP-Value Over Replacement Player. The number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player at the same position would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances. VORP scores do not consider the quality of a player's defense.

or

EqA-Equivalent Average. A measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning, but not the value of a position player's defense. The EqA adjusted for all-time also has a correction for league difficulty. The scale is deliberately set to approximate that of batting average. League average EqA is always equal to .260. EqA is derived from Raw EqA, which is (H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB). REqA is then normalized to account for league difficulty and scale to create EqA.

Then go ahead. Bill James may have created a means for bean counters to argue over salary arbitration but I don't think it does as good of a job as evaluating a player on the field and the situation challenges that happen in "real time". Just my opinion.

And if I offended anyone by implying that 'bs' name stand for "blows sheep" then I sincerly appologize to all sheep across this great nation of ours.

*CF- Kosuke Fukudome

Ok...Cust is better than Cano. I'm done with the discussion. I personally disagree but I'm using a different criteria in my assessment. Let's move one. YOU WIN....WEEEEEEEEEEYYYY...

Back to the original topic: Bobby Abreu.

I like this guy a lot aside from his defense. I think he's a better overall player for the Yanks instead of Giambi. If we can sign him to a reasonable deal BUT fail to sign a 1B like Tex then what would you guys think of moving Nady to 1B?

I've heard people suggest we stick Damon, Matsui and Posada there but Nady has actually played 1B during his career and is much more athletic than Matsui and Posada.

Nady has played 82 games at 1b since 05. If they were unable so sign Tex and felt as if Miranda wasn't a viable option then they could have a line up as such:

1b-Nady
2b-Cano
SS-Jeter
3b-Arod
C-Posada
Lf-Damon
CF-Melky/Gardner
Rf-Abreu
DH-Matsui

In 09 we let Damon and Matsui walk. Nady can slide back to LF, or we can move Abreu to DH and slide Nady over to RF and were back to looking for a 1B.

PS-In 09 LaRoche (1B), Holliday, Bay and Crawford (LF) and Coco Crisp (CF) could all be FA's.

What do you guys think?