Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Gonfalon Cubs > Discussion
Gonfalon Cubs
— Cubs Baseball for Thinking Fans

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:01 PM (#1775469)
Jones' career platoon split is extreme: .616 OPS against LHP, .830 against RHP. He also has a strong reverse home/road split of .742/.822. As I've said elsewhere, it's dangerous to bank on unusual platoon splits, but these are based on large sample sizes, and I have no problem coming to the conclusion that he would make a good lefty half of a platoon, as long as you never let him near LHP.
   2. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:07 PM (#1775480)
The White Sox could use Jacque Jones, but that'll never happen.
   3. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:10 PM (#1775487)
Are the Phillies actually shopping Michaels? And if so who would they ask in return?
   4. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:11 PM (#1775488)
a thoughtful employment of Jones could be a net benefit, and, at worst, Jeromy Burnitz redux

I think it *is* Jeromy Burnitz redux, and I fully expect it to happen. My question is whether Dusty will want Hendry to get another OF -- in addition to Jones -- so that he can have Jones platoon with Murton.
   5. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:14 PM (#1775494)
My question is whether Dusty will want Hendry to get another OF -- in addition to Jones -- so that he can have Jones platoon with Murton.

That is my biggest fear, I guess. I could see the Cubs finally realizing the platoon issue, but solving it non-optimally.

I think ESPN says the Royals have offerred Jones 3/$15, but he wants to play for a contender.
   6. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:16 PM (#1775498)
I think it *is* Jeromy Burnitz redux, and I fully expect it to happen. My question is whether Dusty will want Hendry to get another OF -- in addition to Jones -- so that he can have Jones platoon with Murton.

There's John F. Mabry, and I expect this to happen.

Still, I would expect another OF to be acquired, a right-handed corner OF. Whether he would take PA away from Jones against LHP, I have no idea. I assume Patterson is going away.
   7. Johnny Zen Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:22 PM (#1775504)
The Phillies are shopping Michaels, and have been looking for pitching all offseason. They'd probably want a decent reliever or prospect back.
   8. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:33 PM (#1775518)
Why not just take Michaels? His OPS against righties isn't that much worse than Jones', and it'll avoid having to give a contract to Jones.

A better option would be to go for Abreu, but that will probably cost us Zambrano or Prior.
   9. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:41 PM (#1775532)
ESPN says the Royals have offerred Jones 3/$15, but he wants to play for a contender.

Well that rules the Cubs out.

Actually, even though I'd be discouraged about Murton's role, a Jones-Murton platoon in LF would be pretty productive, but a lot would depend on what they do in RF. If it's someone like Mench, I'm unimpressed.

As for Michaels, I'd be pretty surprised if the Cubs made a deal for him -- I don't see him having the panache of a Hendry pick-up. Jones is almost perfect in that regard, though.
   10. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:42 PM (#1775536)
I assume Patterson is going away.

Only a week (December 20) until the non-tender date, when I win a beer from Moses.
   11. Johnny Zen Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:46 PM (#1775546)
We've been down the Abreu-for-stud-pitcher road - it's not happening. But I'm curious what the Cubbies would give up for Michaels. I have to say, I have a rather high opinion of this Ricky Nolasco fellow.
   12. Luke Jasenosky Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:47 PM (#1775547)
I would agree Dan - however, I can't see either Hendry or Baker being satisfied with Michaels as the starting RF - Jones has "starter" mojo and obviously Hendry has expressed interest in him for quite a while. A Jones/Michaels platoon is a more expensive option than Michaels alone, and probably about as good on the field, but it would provide some great depth and a lot of options. Jones without a platoon partner will be a disaster. I also have concerns about a possible Murton/Jones platoon with some other bat in RF - it is a distinct possibility. It would be a silly move and a waste of what could be the best outfield bat in Murton.
   13. Dusty's Least Favorite Base-Clogger (Roy Hobbs) Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:50 PM (#1775553)
Anyone know what the Pirates are planning to do with Craig Wilson at the nontender deadline? I can see a Patterson for Wilson deal making some sense and Wilson crushes lefties.
   14. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:56 PM (#1775561)
Anyone know what the Pirates are planning to do with Craig Wilson at the nontender deadline? I can see a Patterson for Wilson deal making some sense and Wilson crushes lefties.

Wilson could be a good acquisition, but I don't think the Pirates would move him for the only slightly cheaper Patterson. Besides, I think they like Chris Duffy.
   15. Weeks T. Olive Posted: December 13, 2005 at 07:59 PM (#1775570)
Actually, even though I'd be discouraged about Murton's role, a Jones-Murton platoon in LF would be pretty productive, but a lot would depend on what they do in RF. If it's someone like Mench, I'm unimpressed.

Speaking of Mench, he'd make a pretty decent platoon partner for Jones. He's got a pretty pronounced career split: .945 OPS against LHP, .767 RHP (only 429 AB against LHP, though).

I have to say, I have a rather high opinion of this Ricky Nolasco fellow.

I don't think the Marlins are planning on giving him to the Phillies just to help out the Cubs.
   16. Johnny Zen Posted: December 13, 2005 at 08:03 PM (#1775578)
Right, Pierre trade. Forgot about that.
   17. The Buddy Biancalana Hit Counter Posted: December 13, 2005 at 08:06 PM (#1775580)
I think ESPN says the Royals have offerred Jones 3/$15, but he wants to play for a contender.

For Royals fans, there's the initial sadness at the list of Baird's free agent targets. Once you work past that, you find the potential happiness and hilarity of being out-bid for Kenny Rogers, Jacque Jones, Reggie Sanders, and Grudzielanek.

One down, three to go.
   18. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 13, 2005 at 09:03 PM (#1775684)
I don't think the Marlins are planning on giving him to the Phillies just to help out the Cubs.

Which just raises the next issue -- now that the Cubs have already dealt Nolasco and Pinto, when you hear all the talk about how the Cubs have pitching depth in the farm system, the two "prospects" they have with the most trade value at the moment are a guy who may not see 200 IP for the rest of his career (Guzman) and a guy who runs the risk of being little more than a good LOOGY (Hill).

(They do have potential guys below them (Pawalek, Marshall), but I'm looking at guys close to the majors.)
   19. Johnny Zen Posted: December 13, 2005 at 09:29 PM (#1775738)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Cubs have the pieces to deal for Michaels, once you count out the "untouchables." Is anyone on the block? The Rangers might bite on Jerome Williams, desperate as they are for pitching, but that would probably lead more to Laynce Nix than Kevin Mench.
   20. Old Matt Posted: December 13, 2005 at 09:34 PM (#1775745)
For Royals fans, there's the initial sadness at the list of Baird's free agent targets. Once you work past that, you find the potential happiness and hilarity of being out-bid for Kenny Rogers, Jacque Jones, Reggie Sanders, and Grudzielanek.

One down, three to go.


Actually, it looks like Allard has found his next target.
   21. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: December 13, 2005 at 09:44 PM (#1775759)
My question is whether Dusty will want Hendry to get another OF -- in addition to Jones -- so that he can have Jones platoon with Murton.

My first thought exactly. If they make a big move on another OF (like the rumored Milton Bradley deal), Murton's going to be on the bench and I'll have lost one of the only things that was keeping me even remotely interested in the 2006 Cubs.

The whole "contender" thing is funny. The Cubs are no more a contender than Kansas City is at this point - it doesn't really matter whether you'll finish 10 back or 50 back, you're still not in it.
   22. AROM Posted: December 13, 2005 at 09:48 PM (#1775766)
Speaking of Mench, he'd make a pretty decent platoon partner for Jones.

Aren't there a lot of teams trying to get the Mench? I don't see him as a platoon partner for anybody. Mench will likely cost a team enough that if they are willing to meet the price, they'll play him every day.

I'm fairly confidant that there are not 60 corner outfielders out there better than Mench.

Why not just get Mench, give him RF, and forget about Jones?
   23. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 13, 2005 at 09:55 PM (#1775771)
The Rangers might bite on Jerome Williams, desperate as they are for pitching, but that would probably lead more to Laynce Nix than Kevin Mench.

That would be fine with me.
   24. VG Posted: December 13, 2005 at 10:02 PM (#1775780)
Actually, it looks like Allard has found his next target.

The good thing is, KC won't have to worry about Doug Misspelling walking off with the ball from any important last outs.
   25. Weeks T. Olive Posted: December 13, 2005 at 10:20 PM (#1775805)
Why not just get Mench, give him RF, and forget about Jones?

Factoring in defense, Mench and Jones will provide close to equal production. Considering the player(s) it would take to get Mench, as opposed to only cash to get Jones, I don't see Mench as being preferable to Jones.

You are correct that Mench is unlikely to be a platoon partner for anybody, but he would be close to ideal for that role on the Cubs.
   26. The Buddy Biancalana Hit Counter Posted: December 13, 2005 at 10:21 PM (#1775811)
The good thing is, KC won't have to worry about Doug Misspelling walking off with the ball from any important last outs.

Glass could try and swap the Royals for the ball. Straight up.
   27. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: December 13, 2005 at 11:47 PM (#1776009)
Looks like we can scratch Bradley off the wishlist.

I find it hard to believe the Cubs couldn't have topped this offer.
   28. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 13, 2005 at 11:48 PM (#1776013)
What about Payton now?
   29. 100 Years is Nothing Posted: December 14, 2005 at 12:01 AM (#1776050)
Payton Manning would be a great addition to the
Bears! Jay Payton, not so much use to the Cubs.
   30. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 14, 2005 at 12:17 AM (#1776086)
Andere, what's it going to take to convince you Mabry won't be an left handed platoon partner? Mr. open competition himself said Mabry was a bench guy. This is the same guy that handed a job to Todd Hollandsworth, and he's gone on record saying Mabry isn't the answer to a starting spot.
   31. Giantandre Posted: December 14, 2005 at 12:25 AM (#1776101)
Milton Bradley and Antonio Perez to A's for Texas league player of the year Andre Ethier (an OF) looks like Billy pulled off another one....cheap labor for a good prospect....Anyone in the Cub organization have any imagination
   32. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 14, 2005 at 12:36 AM (#1776118)
What about Payton now?

The A's might give him up for next to nothing just to be free of his salary.

Also of note is the fact that Jay Payton is not very good. A 33 year old with a .261 EQA in a corner outfield spot? Jeromy Burnitz redux. He might have been a good acquisition to play CF but that's no longer an issue.
   33. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 14, 2005 at 12:38 AM (#1776124)
While we're at it, Todd Walker might be a better option in right field if he has an arm that the Cubs will live with.
   34. Giantandre Posted: December 14, 2005 at 01:01 AM (#1776157)
Me thinks Correy may be our everyday RF .....
   35. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 14, 2005 at 01:06 AM (#1776162)
There's no way in hell Corey is the everyday RF. There's almost zero chance he'll be on the team next season period.

Only a week (December 20) until the non-tender date, when I win a beer from Moses.

Someone's rather confident.

The A's might give him up for next to nothing just to be free of his salary.

I'm not saying I want him, but I expect him to be considered an option now.
   36. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: December 14, 2005 at 01:19 AM (#1776185)
methinks its time to save up and buy an AR-15 for opening day....this is just one horrible off season thank god notre dame is going to a bowl game and the bears have pulled a season out of their asses or id be going nuts, wellt hat and the fact i had basic to destract me from the worst post season ever.
   37. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 14, 2005 at 01:26 AM (#1776196)
Actually, it looks like Allard has found his next target.

The really scary thing is that I thought it was going to be a link to another Madeline Albright pic.
   38. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 14, 2005 at 01:28 AM (#1776198)
It could be worse, Meat - we could be Marlins fans.
   39. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 14, 2005 at 01:51 AM (#1776216)
How's that worse? We'd have 2 trophies to admire and a clear plan (gutting and rebuilding is a clear plan). I'd take that any day.
   40. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:34 AM (#1776257)
But we may not have a team in a few years.

Then again, what's the difference?
   41. 100 Years is Nothing Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:48 AM (#1776268)
Looks as though Jones will be the answer, but I am not sure what the question is. Cincy still needs pitching, so what would they want for Kearns? JH has ogled him for years now.
   42. H. Vaughn Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:57 AM (#1776276)
Also of note is the fact that Jay Payton is not very good. A 33 year old with a .261 EQA in a corner outfield spot? Jeromy Burnitz redux. He might have been a good acquisition to play CF but that's no longer an issue.

Hendry likes Kotsay a lot. He had a pretty poor year due to injuries and even in a good one, would be stretched offensively as a corner OF. I'm not sure if the farm system has anything that would appeal to Beane. Oakland doesn't really seem to have any needs, just surplus CFs.

Jacques Jones is très horrible and has been for two years.
   43. greenback calls it soccer Posted: December 14, 2005 at 03:50 AM (#1776312)
Someone's rather confident.

Double or nothing?

Jacques Jones is très horrible and has been for two years.

We've got a mini-Konerko going on, with Cardinals fans hoping <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051108&c>one set of Jacque Jones rumors</a> is false and Cubs fans hoping the other set is false. I'd guess Jones's agent is trying to play the two off one another, but Hendry and Jocketty are laughing at him.
   44. Giantandre Posted: December 14, 2005 at 04:19 AM (#1776363)
If the Dodgers are smart enough to get something for Milton Bradley can't the Cubs be smart enough to Get anthing for Corey
   45. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 14, 2005 at 04:22 AM (#1776367)
Andere, what's it going to take to convince you Mabry won't be an left handed platoon partner? Mr. open competition himself said Mabry was a bench guy. This is the same guy that handed a job to Todd Hollandsworth, and he's gone on record saying Mabry isn't the answer to a starting spot.

This is also the same guy who handed Jason Dubois a starting job. All it's going to take is for Murton to struggle a bit early, and he probably will, for the door to open up for Mabry, or whoever.
   46. sunnyday2 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 04:29 AM (#1776373)
Royals offer Jones 3 years/$15 mil but he wants to play for a contender....

Any team that offers Jones 3 years/$15 mil is not and will not be a contender.
   47. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 14, 2005 at 04:34 AM (#1776376)
Andere is just a platoon-is-half-empty kind of guy.

I would be more afeared if Mabry hadn't been a career backup. Only Dusty will tell.
   48. zonk Posted: December 14, 2005 at 04:44 AM (#1776388)
How's that worse? We'd have 2 trophies to admire and a clear plan (gutting and rebuilding is a clear plan). I'd take that any day.

So would I - rebuilding doesn't bother me; neither fish nor fowl 85 win chasing ennui bothers me.

Also -

this was one of the funnier lines I've seen in a while:


Royals offer Jones 3 years/$15 mil but he wants to play for a contender....

Any team that offers Jones 3 years/$15 mil is not and will not be a contender.
   49. MM1f Posted: December 14, 2005 at 05:27 AM (#1776423)
Funny but I dont know how true. Id put Jacque as equal to or a little above what Rondell White and Reggie Sanders were 2 years ago and they got 2/8 and the market has seemingly exploded since then. 3/15 might be a little bit of an overpay but i dont think its that much at all.
   50. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:06 AM (#1776439)
This is also the same guy who handed Jason Dubois a starting job. All it's going to take is for Murton to struggle a bit early, and he probably will, for the door to open up for Mabry, or whoever.

Well, there's also the slight problem that Dusty never said Dubois was the starter. Even when Dubois was getting more starts, he was spotting him. Dusty has said Murton is the starter. I think it's a huge difference. Dusty was pretty clear in saying he liked Holly starting.

Now, if he struggles (and he will at some point), that's completely different.
   51. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:28 AM (#1776461)
This is also the same guy who handed Jason Dubois a starting job. All it's going to take is for Murton to struggle a bit early, and he probably will, for the door to open up for Mabry, or whoever.

No it's the same guy that wouldn't stop slurping Dubois's competition last year even as he finally relented and let Dubois play for a week. There has been no such slurping of Mabry. Mr. Player's manager has actually come out saying he isn't an answer as a starter and is a strict bench guy.
   52. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:33 PM (#1776643)
I would be more afeared if Mabry hadn't been a career backup. Only Dusty will tell.

It doesn't have to be Mabry. I expect the Cubs to pick up two more OF, not to mention Jerry Hairston. A team always has a few guys who can play LF.

No it's the same guy that wouldn't stop slurping Dubois's competition last year even as he finally relented and let Dubois play for a week. There has been no such slurping of Mabry. Mr. Player's manager has actually come out saying he isn't an answer as a starter and is a strict bench guy.

I'm not so interested in what he says as in what he does. I'd love to be wrong about this, but this is a team that finds ways to marginalize young position players.
   53. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:38 PM (#1776645)
It doesn't have to be Mabry. I expect the Cubs to pick up two more OF,

That's my point. Baker did convince me that he doesn't look at Mabry to get as much playing time as Holly did last year.

He did not convince me, however, that he's giving the job outright to Murton or that he isn't looking for two OFers if he can get them. As I see it, the Cubs will pick up at least one OF. If it's only one, Murton has a job; if they can find a second OF, Murton will platoon.
   54. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 14, 2005 at 03:31 PM (#1776694)
He did not convince me, however, that he's giving the job outright to Murton or that he isn't looking for two OFers if he can get them. As I see it, the Cubs will pick up at least one OF. If it's only one, Murton has a job; if they can find a second OF, Murton will platoon.

I think it has to be two, particularly assuming that Patterson is gone, which I do, and at least one has to be right-handed. Are the Cubs going to have a 25-man roster with only Hairston, Cedeno and Blanco on the bench as right-handed hitters, and only Mabry/Murton/Pierre/Jones (or whoever) as their OF?
   55. gyros Posted: December 14, 2005 at 05:30 PM (#1776888)
Another team linked to Mench. Seems like half of baseball is trying to get him. I'm surprised more teams aren't moving on to Craig Monroe after talking to the Rangers. Adjusting for home environment they're roughly the same player.

I'd be happy with the Patterson/Williams package that Texas supposedly turned down for Mench. I don't know if Dombrowski would feel the same.
   56. VG Posted: December 14, 2005 at 05:36 PM (#1776904)
the worst post season ever

Oh, how sweet it is!
   57. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 14, 2005 at 11:24 PM (#1777622)
Only a week (December 20) until the non-tender date, when I win a beer from Moses.

Actually, Arizona Phil on TCR raised an interesting hypothetical -- what if the Cubs non-tendered Corey, allowing him to be a FA, then signed him at a lowball contract that they could not otherwise offer?

Assuming they can do this (and I'm not convinced they can), what does that mean for our wager?
   58. greenback calls it soccer Posted: December 14, 2005 at 11:29 PM (#1777629)
lowball contract

With Boras as his agent, I wouldn't worry about this too long.
   59. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 14, 2005 at 11:54 PM (#1777666)

Assuming they can do this (and I'm not convinced they can), what does that mean for our wager?


Interesting. Never thought of that. I don't see it happenning, if only from a pride perspective from Corey. If he's non-tendered, you win, whether or not they re-sign him.
   60. paytonrules Posted: December 15, 2005 at 12:07 AM (#1777687)
Is it just me or does the Cubs system pretty much suck at this point. The top prospects are all traded away for the shot at 83 games this year. We've got Pie - who has a lot of questions about plate discipline - Guzman which is spanish for "Kerry Wood" only more injury prone - umm....who else is even remotely ready. 1 pitch Hill? Dopirak and Harvey are not ready and Dopriak might just suck.

It seems like we've gone from a team on the rise in 2003 with a ton of talent in the minor league system to a team past it's prime that won't win in 2006, 7, or 8. The farm system is really depleted.
   61. Neil M Posted: December 15, 2005 at 07:18 AM (#1778145)
From the Trib:

After Pierre's introductory news conference Wednesday at Wrigley Field, general manager Jim Hendry disclosed he would offer Patterson arbitration next week and might give him the right-field job in 2006.
   62. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 15, 2005 at 01:25 PM (#1778249)
After Pierre's introductory news conference Wednesday at Wrigley Field, general manager Jim Hendry disclosed he would offer Patterson arbitration next week and might give him the right-field job in 2006.

Hendry isn't going to get anything for Patterson if he makes it sound like he's only good enough to be Yosh Kiwano's assistant towel boy.
   63. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 15, 2005 at 04:03 PM (#1778356)
The Daily Herald agrees:

The Cubs will try to trade Patterson, but one thing they won’t do is fail to tender him a contract by the Dec. 20 deadline for doing so. If the Cubs were to “non-tender” Patterson, he would become a free agent.

Going to arbitration with Corey will be tough because they have to offer at least $2.24mm -- if they do deal him, they would presumably have to eat a portion of this.
   64. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 15, 2005 at 04:07 PM (#1778362)
The Cubs will try to trade Patterson, but one thing they won’t do is fail to tender him a contract by the Dec. 20 deadline for doing so. If the Cubs were to “non-tender” Patterson, he would become a free agent.

Mmmmm....free beer.
   65. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 15, 2005 at 04:12 PM (#1778368)
Never thought of that. I don't see it happenning, if only from a pride perspective from Corey.

Of course, if Corey gets a contract, it will be from a pride perspective from the Cubs.
   66. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 15, 2005 at 04:51 PM (#1778434)
Of course, if Corey gets a contract, it will be from a pride perspective from the Cubs.

Sure, but that still means beer for Moses.
   67. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 15, 2005 at 07:22 PM (#1778698)
Ironically, without beer there would be much less pride.
   68. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 15, 2005 at 07:30 PM (#1778711)
Sex would probably decline just a bit as well.
   69. Spahn Insane Posted: December 15, 2005 at 08:04 PM (#1778783)
Ironically, without beer there would be much less pride.

I don't know about that, but there'd almost certainly be much less shame.
   70. Spahn Insane Posted: December 15, 2005 at 08:11 PM (#1778797)
As to the Corey stuff--y'know, given what's left on the market, I'm almost inclined to see what kind of bounceback they get out of Corey. Whether one sees it as bold, desperate, stupid, intrepid, or a combination thereof is a matter of preference. Put it this way--I'd rather see a starting OF of Murton/Pierre/Patterson than see them let Corey go while ponying up big money for Jacque Jones.
   71. Spahn Insane Posted: December 15, 2005 at 08:13 PM (#1778803)
Or to put it another way--I've said before that it wouldn't shock me if Patterson's better than Pierre next year, and it wouldn't bother me to get a chance to find out, with both of them in Cub uniforms. Whether having Corey's bat in RF is a good thing is still a long shot.
   72. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 15, 2005 at 08:21 PM (#1778821)
I've said before that it wouldn't shock me if Patterson's better than Pierre next year,

I believe there is a good chance of this (maybe 40%?), though we probably won't find out if Patterson is wearing a Cub uniform.
   73. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 15, 2005 at 08:30 PM (#1778855)
Or to put it another way--I've said before that it wouldn't shock me if Patterson's better than Pierre next year, and it wouldn't bother me to get a chance to find out, with both of them in Cub uniforms. Whether having Corey's bat in RF is a good thing is still a long shot.

It wouldn't shock me at all to see Patterson do better, but the chances of Patterson being a plus player in RF seem pretty slim, even if his defense were great.
   74. Sweet Posted: December 15, 2005 at 09:01 PM (#1778933)
the chances of Patterson being a plus player in RF seem pretty slim

Seems to me like Patterson's absolute ceiling next year is something like .300/.330/.500 (his 2003 numbers), which -- with his baserunning and defense -- would definitely make him a plus player in RF. There's, what, a 5-10% chance he puts up those numbers? More likely is a .265/.300/.425 line (a little worse than his 2004 numbers), which isn't good even for a fast, slick-fielding corner, although it would be acceptable in CF. And, of course, a .230/.260/.350 (a little better than his 2005 numbers) line isn't entirely out of the question.

Corey is a centerfielder. Once that spot has been taken, I think the next-best option is fourth OF, which is how I think the Cubs should use him if his trade value is as low as everyone around here seems to believe.
   75. Sweet Posted: December 15, 2005 at 09:20 PM (#1778968)
By the way, of Patterson's top 10 B-R comps through age 25 --

Ruppert Jones (962)
Chili Davis (951)
Rick Monday (948)
Jimmy Wynn (947)
Oddibe McDowell (947)
Paul Blair (945)
Dwight Evans (940)
Sammy Sosa (938)
Augie Galan (935)
George Hendrick (935)

-- nine of them made at least one All-Star game. That's a pretty darn good group of players, actually, and all reasonably close matches. When it comes down to it, players who held their own against major-league pitching at age 22 and excelled against it at age 23 have a pretty good long-term track record.

For what it's worth, here's Patterson's list of B-R comps after 2004:

Reggie Smith (961)
Ruppert Jones (961)
Chili Davis (960)
Dwight Evans (957)
Rick Monday (954)
Jimmy Wynn (954)
Sixto Lezcano (952)
Dave Winfield (950) *
Andre Dawson (950)
Jose Guillen (950)

Better quality and closer matches, to be sure, but the difference between the two lists really isn't that great.

Not being in Chicago, I wasn't regularly exposed either to the constant vitriol spat Patterson's way last year or to whatever of his behavior (apart from his stat line) may have prompted it. But I do hope his public crucifixion doesn't lead to a suboptimal usage of or return on his talents.
   76. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 15, 2005 at 09:32 PM (#1779010)
But I do hope his public crucifixion doesn't lead to a suboptimal usage of or return on his talents.

I think it already has, at least for much of last year.
   77. Giantandre Posted: December 15, 2005 at 10:37 PM (#1779165)
Totally off topic (because the off season is making me sick) --- Jim Rome just dropped a Ron Mexico shout on Rome is buring on ESPN.......good times
   78. Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate Posted: December 15, 2005 at 10:56 PM (#1779194)
Surely there's someone out there who: a) can play RF b) mashes lefties c) does not hit well enough against RHP to merit full-time pay (or playing time) and d) would not cost much in free agency or via trade.

Get him, sign Jones, and tell Dusty that the first day he starts Jones against a lefty, he need not show up tomorrow, and you've got the potential for halfway decent production in RF, no?

I know, naive, right.
   79. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 15, 2005 at 11:13 PM (#1779220)
Better yet, sign Jones to a one-year deal and platoon him with Murton in LF, then go and get a full-time RF.
   80. Sweet Posted: December 16, 2005 at 12:04 AM (#1779302)
Jacque Jones still has some name cache, and I seriously doubt he'd take a one-year deal or go to a team where he knows he'll be platooned. (I think he's likely to end up a Dodger.) But if Hendry signs him to a two-or three-year deal, then either Juan Pierre is a one-year rental or Pie doesn't play in Wrigley in 2007. Both of these scenarios might be fine -- who knows how this year will play out? -- but I could understand any reluctance on Hendry's part to make a long-term committment to a right fielder.

Better yet, sign Jones to a one-year deal and platoon him with Murton in LF, then go and get a full-time RF.

Um, who? Unless you're talking Prior-for-Abreu, there doesn't seem to be anyone available. Giles made too much sense, apparently, so now Hendry will have to cobble something together. I just hope Hairston's not the right-handed-half of it.
   81. Neil M Posted: December 16, 2005 at 12:34 AM (#1779351)
I don't for a moment think that Corey will be the Cubs' RF next year. If he's still around, I expect to see him platooning in LF to the detriment of Murton.

If Corey is back, the Cubs need him either to have turned from a caterpillar into a butterfly through this winter or, at least, to have enough of a dead-cat bounce to acquire a little trade value. Either way, he'll have to get some playing time. In Dusty's eyes a platoon with the rookie will probably be the good option.

The question will be one of how long Corey will be allowed to suck, if he does, while Murton is starved of playing time?
   82. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: December 16, 2005 at 12:53 AM (#1779373)
Get him, sign Jones, and tell Dusty that the first day he starts Jones against a lefty, he need not show up tomorrow, and you've got the potential for halfway decent production in RF, no?

You're obviously forgetting last year's "no one puts Baby in a corner" Dusty nonsense when it was suggested that someone in the front office might tell him to do something other than stick Neifi Perez at the top of the lineup every #### day. No one tells him who to play or what to do, no one ever has and no one ever will.

Better yet, sign Jones to a one-year deal and platoon him with Murton in LF, then go and get a full-time RF.

I'm not convinced Murton can't outperform Jones next year. Until I am, I'd really hate to see this happen.

I'm on pins and needles with all of these rumors, just waiting for the Cubs to make the move that shoves Murton to the bench. I know it's just a matter of time, and I'm going to end up screaming at my computer, TV, radio, and anything else telling me it happened.

I try to be optimistic, but after 3 years in the Dustyverse my optimism is all but shot.
   83. dcsmyth1 Posted: December 16, 2005 at 01:17 AM (#1779396)
This Jones stuff is pretty silly, as is the Patterson RF stuff.

2006 B James projections
Jones, .270/.327/.455
Burnitz, .250/.331/.452
Patterson, .250/.295/.422

You guys can talk about "what ifs", such as Patterson hitting like he did in a half-season a couple years ago (before the pitchers adjusted?), but the only logical way to approach it is thru the best projections which can be generated. And that approach suggests that Patterson, hitting like that in RF, even with good defense (watered down because RF have fewer chances than CF), will be one of the worst regulars in baseball.

And as far as J Jones, is there even a dime's worth of difference between his projection and that of Burnitz? And Burnitz has a pretty decent glove, and can be signed for a reasonable 1 yr contract. Meanwhile, are the Cubs competing for Jones with some team that wants to sign him to 3 yrs and 15 mil?

This Jones thing seems to be a case of Hendry wanting to change names for no real gain--except to make the fans and sportswriters think he is making moves and trying to improve.
   84. Sweet Posted: December 16, 2005 at 02:33 AM (#1779470)
DD,

I largely agree with you, but if we went by Bill James's projections we'd be starting Felix Pie in left, center, and right fields:

.294/.336/.538

Uh-huh.
   85. dcsmyth1 Posted: December 16, 2005 at 03:57 AM (#1779565)
So because James' projection for Pie might be suspect, we should ignore his very reasonable projections for established major lg players? OK, then use someone else's projections. I'll look up the ZIPS when I get a chance.
   86. jolietconvict Posted: December 16, 2005 at 06:26 AM (#1779748)
Seems to me like Patterson's absolute ceiling next year is something like .300/.330/.500 (his 2003 numbers)


Except I looked at his month by month stats earlier today for 2003. He had a crazy May. Other than that it was craptacular numbers in line with the rest of his busted-ass career. If he hadn't gotten hurt I doubt his 2003 line would've looked any better than his 2004 line.
   87. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 16, 2005 at 03:36 PM (#1779969)
Better yet, sign Jones to a one-year deal and platoon him with Murton in LF, then go and get a full-time RF.

--Um, who? Unless you're talking Prior-for-Abreu, there doesn't seem to be anyone available. Giles made too much sense, apparently, so now Hendry will have to cobble something together.


Precisely, which is one reason I'm so exasperated at Hendry. I don't know who is available in the trade market, but it's imperative for Hendry to be both proactive and creative, and I don't think these are his strong suits, the Nomar trade being the exception that gives some hope.
   88. jolietconvict Posted: December 16, 2005 at 06:44 PM (#1780307)
the Nomar trade being the exception that gives some hope.


Except by Hendry's own admission he didn't put that trade together. He wanted Orlando Cabrera.
   89. Sweet Posted: December 16, 2005 at 07:16 PM (#1780372)
I'll look up the ZIPS when I get a chance.

ZIPS and James are eye-to-eye on Patterson. But ZIPS likes the other two significantly less than does James:

Jones, .261/.319/.433
Burnitz, .238/.309/.421
Patterson, .252/.298/.418

To me, these projections suggest a couple of things. First, that none of these guys is a good option in right field (at least as an everyday player). Second, that given his defense and potential -- however attenuated -- for a breakout year, Patterson is a better choice than the other two, particularly at 1 year, $2.5 million. Jones will be at least 2 years at $5 million per; you might get Burnitz for one year, but I doubt it will be for less than $3-5 million.

Except I looked at his month by month stats earlier today for 2003. He had a crazy May. Other than that it was craptacular numbers in line with the rest of his busted-ass career. If he hadn't gotten hurt I doubt his 2003 line would've looked any better than his 2004 line.

But I'd gladly take his 2004 line. 92 OPS+ with superb defense? That's basically Devon White, who was good for about 5 wins per year over a replacement player, which is what Corey was in 2004. (As a centerfielder, of course, where his defense is put to best use.)

I'm one of the biggest Patterson apologists around, and even I can see his considerable shortcomings, but I maintain that he still has significant upside that the Cubs need to capture, probably via the value that he can return in a trade.
   90. Weeks T. Olive Posted: December 16, 2005 at 07:30 PM (#1780407)
Except I looked at his month by month stats earlier today for 2003. He had a crazy May. Other than that it was craptacular numbers in line with the rest of his busted-ass career.

He also had a fine March/April in '03 and his June (.771 OPS - the same as his 2004) was not 'craptacular'. Those 17 AB he got in July were pretty terrible, though.
   91. dcsmyth1 Posted: December 16, 2005 at 11:15 PM (#1780855)
---" First, that none of these guys is a good option in right field (at least as an everyday player."

If you use the ZIPS projections, they are all at or below replacement level for RF, I believe. Patterson may have a better upside, as you suggest, but the only place it makes sense is in CF. And the Cubs now have Pierre. So I think (hope) that Hendry was only trying to bluff less desperation to the other GMs to get rid of Patterson (gee, we can put him in RF!). I can't believe Hendry would be so dumb as to actually do it....
   92. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: December 17, 2005 at 06:02 PM (#1781750)
all i can say is that we suck. UCCF what does life have in store for you this comming year?
   93. Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate Posted: December 19, 2005 at 06:25 PM (#1784427)
Here's what most depresses me about the Cubs' front office as presently constituted:

I think that Jacque Jones (if signed to a reasonable contract) platooning with, say, Matt Diaz (who is pretty much freely available talent) would be an entirely acceptable solution in RF: not ideal, but reasonable.

I think that Hendry has considered this (or something like it) as a possible solution, too.

But the FO's decisions have been so PR-driven that I think that they'd turn away from the deal just because they don't want newspaper columnists writing stories saying "We got a guy off the Kansas City waiver wire?"
   94. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 19, 2005 at 06:38 PM (#1784473)
But the FO's decisions have been so PR-driven that I think that they'd turn away from the deal just because they don't want newspaper columnists writing stories saying "We got a guy off the Kansas City waiver wire?"

That's a good point. The other problem is Dusty.
   95. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: December 19, 2005 at 06:39 PM (#1784478)
And I should add, the FO doesn't consider Dusty a problem. If Hendry gave him a platoon, would he stick to it?

But then again, I don't want the Cubs paying $5mil a year for half of a platoon (even if it's the more active half).
   96. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 19, 2005 at 10:38 PM (#1785167)
It seems like we've gone from a team on the rise in 2003 with a ton of talent in the minor league system to a team past it's prime that won't win in 2006, 7, or 8. The farm system is really depleted.

Want to see a depleted farm system? Look at the Cardinals.

Except by Hendry's own admission he didn't put that trade together. He wanted Orlando Cabrera.

Except that given what happened, Cabrera was the right player to try and get.
   97. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: December 20, 2005 at 12:37 AM (#1785394)
Want to see a depleted farm system? Look at the Cardinals.

That's true. Of course, the Cardinals farm system was similarly depleted in 2002-03. Go figure.
   98. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 21, 2005 at 02:34 AM (#1787428)
I hate the Cubs.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

First Half Summary and Trade Rumor Thread
(309 - 4:18pm, Sep 06)
Last: McCoy

Month 1 in Review
(207 - 3:01pm, Jun 25)
Last: Spahn Insane

Season Preview 2012
(160 - 2:15pm, Apr 30)
Last: SouthSideRyan

I Am Fine with This
(56 - 12:36pm, Jan 22)
Last: McCoy

GM Candidates
(84 - 4:15pm, Oct 24)
Last: SouthSideRyan

Fearless Predictions for the 2011 Cubs Season
(31 - 7:19pm, Aug 25)
Last: McCoy

Predicting the Opening Day 25 Man Roster
(17 - 12:03am, Feb 28)
Last: The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow)

Some Offseason Cubs Linkage...
(21 - 10:32pm, Feb 14)
Last: SouthSideRyan

Premature Postmortem
(18 - 2:48pm, Sep 27)
Last: Cabbage

Ugh, July
(26 - 4:29pm, Sep 04)
Last: McCoy

Lou to retire at the end of the year
(41 - 8:09pm, Jul 22)
Last: Brian C

June, the month of doom
(55 - 11:27pm, Jul 10)
Last: McCoy

25 Fearless Predictions for the 2010 Cubs Season
(52 - 11:59pm, Jul 03)
Last: RollingWave

Should I Stay or Should I Go?
(29 - 8:50pm, Jun 29)
Last: The Original SJ

The Silva Situation
(24 - 4:40pm, Jun 13)
Last: McCoy

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6868 seconds
61 querie(s) executed