BBTF's Transaction Oracle Discussion :: Rays

Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Rays - Signed Burrell

Tampa Bay Rays - Signed LF Pat Burrell to a 2-year, $16 million contract.

Once again, the Oracle, in violation of laws both state and federal, has risked life and limb to seize secret documents. The Oracle, disguised cleverly as a man standing next to a mailbox with a crowbar, brings you the real story.

2009 ZiPS Projection - Pat Burrell
—————————————————————————————————————-

              AB   R   H  2B  3B  HR  RBI  BB   SO  SB   BA  OBP  SLG  OPS+
—————————————————————————————————————-

2009         499  72 125  28   2  27   84 101  131   0 .251 .376 .477  118  

—————————————————————————————————————-

ODDIBE

Offense %

STAR    39

AVG     71

REP LV  95

OPS+    %       OBP     %       3B      %       Hits    %

>160    1       >.400   23      >10     0       >200    0

>140    12      >.375   56      >5      2       >150    2

>130    28      >.350   85

>120    48      >.325   98      2B      %

>110    69      >.300   100     >45     0

>100    85                      >30     33

>90     94

>80     98

>60     100

BA      %       SLG     %       HR      %       SB      %

>.350   0       >.550   8       >50     0       >70     0

>.325   0       >.500   35      >40     2       >50     0

>.300   1       >.450   68      >30     42      >30     0

>.275   13      >.400   92      >20     85      >10     0

>.250   45      >.350   98      >10     98

Top Comps:  Ralph Kiner, Gorman Thomas, Bob Bailey, Jay Buhner, Greg Luzinski

Dan Szymborski Posted: January 06, 2009 at 03:02 AM | 34 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Related News:

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. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 06, 2009 at 03:24 AM (#3044109)

Best analysis ever

2. RJ in TO Posted: January 06, 2009 at 03:44 AM (#3044117)

Not that I disagree with you about this being a great signing for the Rays, but over the last three years, Ibanez has put up OPS+ of 125, 121, 124, over 2000 total PA in the allegedly superior AL, while Burrell has 122, 127, 125 over 1800 total PA in the NL. While Burrell is likely to be a better offensive player going forward, the two of them have been almost identical in terms of rate value with the bat over the last three years.

Now, if we're talking about D, after viewing the Ibanez highlights from this season, I can't imagine how Burrell could possibly be worse.

3. Walt Davis Posted: January 06, 2009 at 06:30 AM (#3044223)

It's the aging curve. Mr ZiPS does not think highly of Raul's future.

But Dan, you don't realize the clever aspect of the Phils losing those draft picks. The money they save on signing bonuses should just about make up the difference between the Burrell and Ibanez contracts! :-)

4. zenbitz Posted: January 06, 2009 at 07:11 AM (#3044241)

Randy Johnson signing?

5. NBarnes Posted: January 06, 2009 at 08:23 AM (#3044251)

Ryan: Ibanez is going from the AL, a league with the DH, to the NL, a team where he will have to play the field. Burrell, who is not a good fielder, though better than Ibanez, is going from the NL, where he was forced to play the field, to the AL, where he'll be able to rotate into the Rays' DH slot when they have a flyball pitcher on the mound, or against lefty-heavy lineups.

You'd almost think the Rays planned it this way.

6. Mattbert Posted: January 06, 2009 at 01:30 PM (#3044284)

How does this compare to expectations of what he'd get? I was thinking he'd do a bit better in both years and AAV; closer to, if not exceeding, the 3/$30M Bradley's getting(?) from the Cubs.

7. Matt Chico's Bail Bonds (Dan Lee) Posted: January 06, 2009 at 01:43 PM (#3044285)

Burrell allegedly turned down a 2/$22 offer from the Phillies a few months ago, so I'm thinking this is way less than expectation.

8. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 06, 2009 at 02:40 PM (#3044296)

I think Burrell was thinking that the floor was probably around $10M/yr and that he'd be looking at deals of 4-5 years in length.

If Burrell's rationale was to sign a short-term deal to get another chance at FA after (hopefully) an economic recovery, I'm not sure that Tampa Bay offers him the best opportunity. His chances of putting together better numbers would have been greater in the NL in a division where he could face weak pitching. Playing in a tougher league and having to face Halladay, Sabathia, etc. several times a year will hurt him, especially on BA.

I'm really curious to see what Adam Dunn winds up getting as he's still competing against Manny Ramirez for LF/DH. IIRC, he rejected a contract extension around this time last year from the Reds that could very well prove to have been more lucrative than whatever he winds up signing.

9. Mike Green Posted: January 06, 2009 at 03:22 PM (#3044318)

"Delphic Dan" strikes again!

10. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: January 06, 2009 at 03:30 PM (#3044325)

"Delphic Dan" strikes again!

\

He certainly has a way with moves involving Rays position players. The Reggie Taylor writeup poons all though.

11. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 06, 2009 at 03:42 PM (#3044335)

Was this really because of the market or did he reject better offers from losing teams to play for a contender? I can't imagine this was the best offer, and if it was, I am angry.

12. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

Posted: January 06, 2009 at 03:45 PM (#3044338)

Dan, I'd be laughing if it wasn't the only logical explanation. Your letter ranks right up there with Baron von Awesome's Pirate Mediocracy Conspiracy.

Mr. Amaro is one more bad move away from earning the nickname "Rube" from me. The only break I'll give Amaro is that Burrell wouldn't hear about a pay cut from the Phils but accepted a depressed market once other clubs made him understand that his view of the salary situation was not in line. Kind of like kids learning life's lessons from experience, not from what their parents tell them.

13. DKDC Posted: January 06, 2009 at 03:48 PM (#3044341)

I hope his parents learned a lesson, too.

14. Sammy's Corked Whine Posted: January 06, 2009 at 03:57 PM (#3044347)

Terrific post in and of itself. Still, I'd have been okay with this being half as funny if it meant that Dan had time to cover the DeRosa deal, the Fuentes signing, etc. Bradley's signing and the Marquis deal aren't official yet, I guess, but the other two are weeks old now.

Honestly, I value his insight/projections enough that I would love to see some coverage of even the smaller deals like Miles, Vargas, Turnbow, Hendrickson, etc.

15. RJ in TO Posted: January 06, 2009 at 04:01 PM (#3044351)

Honestly, I value his insight/projections enough that I would love to see some coverage of even the smaller deals like Miles, Vargas, Turnbow, Hendrickson, etc.

Hendrickson is 6'9". There's nothing small about his deal.

16. Sammy's Corked Whine Posted: January 06, 2009 at 04:06 PM (#3044355)

Hendrickson is 6'9". There's nothing small about his deal.

Ba-doom-CHING!

Nice.

17. Paul The Paranoid Android Posted: January 06, 2009 at 05:12 PM (#3044421)

Most of the other transactions should be coming today - I usually get backed up during the holidays.

Eat more fiber.

18. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 06, 2009 at 05:19 PM (#3044435)

"IIRC, he rejected a contract extension around this time last year from the Reds that could very well prove to have been more lucrative than whatever he winds up signing."

I think he'd play for free if it meant not having to put up with Marty anymore.

19. zonk Posted: January 06, 2009 at 05:28 PM (#3044447)

Why does the Oracle have such an anti-Cubs bias?

Still nothing on the DeRosa trade?

20. Bad Doctor Posted: January 06, 2009 at 06:07 PM (#3044489)

If anyone is looking to put down serious money at 50 to 1 that Pat will hit 6 or more triples next year, I'll take that action.

21. FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! Posted: January 06, 2009 at 06:08 PM (#3044491)

Still nothing on the DeRosa trade?

Or the Marquis trade. (That one DID go down as reported, didn't it?)

22. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: January 06, 2009 at 06:26 PM (#3044520)

The Marquis trade has not yet been made official.

23. The District Attorney Posted: January 06, 2009 at 06:29 PM (#3044525)

Why does the Oracle have such an anti-Cubs bias?

Reality has a well-known anti-Cubs bias.

24. villageidiom Posted: January 06, 2009 at 06:36 PM (#3044537)

Best analysis ever

This is good, but it isn't even the best TO analysis for this team. The Roberto Alomar analysis is still tops.

25. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 06, 2009 at 06:47 PM (#3044551)

Thanks for the link in #25. I love reading old posts of mine that I have absolutely no recollection of ever writing.

26. *BaseClogger* Posted: January 07, 2009 at 02:25 AM (#3045002)

This Oracle is my personal favorite...

27. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: January 09, 2009 at 01:27 AM (#3047102)

See, I don't care for Dan's wisassery. It's so Kahrl Farbman like. If he thinks he's so smart, why doesn't he buy a team?

28. jingoist Posted: January 10, 2009 at 10:12 AM (#3048252)

Please excuse the ignorance, but who is Kahrl Farbman?

And Dan, what MLB club were you thinking you might buy for a measly $300Mil?

29. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 10, 2009 at 01:57 PM (#3048263)

That's how much the Orioles will be worth in another few years.

30. Teufel's Graveyard Posted: January 10, 2009 at 03:13 PM (#3048274)

And Dan, what MLB club were you thinking you might buy for a measly $300Mil?

Well, Forbes valued the Marlins at $256M last year. He could buy that team and have enough left over to buy the jet that Marbury is looking at.

31. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: January 22, 2009 at 03:06 PM (#3057819)

Dan, how does Burrell in 2008-09 compare to Carlos Lee in 2006-07? They seem like clones to me, consistent 125 OPS+ defensively challenged LF...the difference between 6/90 and 2/16 is quite stunning.

32. The Essex Snead Posted: January 22, 2009 at 04:13 PM (#3057877)

the difference between 6/90 and 2/16 is quite stunning

The difference between the Astros FO & the Rays FO, not so much.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Rays - Signed Burrell

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate