Cubs offer to FLA for Pierre is....

[USSoccer]

CPatt-

 

Isn't a better slugging player best used lower in the order to drive in runs?

 

Ideally we'd be able to put that in every spot, but considering that we aren't low on players that can slug(Lee, ARam, Barrett), I'll take more slugging from the guy on our team that will get the most PA's.

 

So why not hit him 2nd? That would be a better balance. After all, as the argument goes, a leadoff hitter is only once per game.

 

If it were me, I'd put Walker and Murton 2nd or 6th.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Please give me the stats Todd Walker had batting leadoff.

 

Compare those to Pierre.

 

 

Even if Walker is marginally better, I'd rather have Pierre batting first.

 

No, because there's several better options still out there that very likely cost significantly less than what it will apparently cost to get Pierre.

 

What players are you speaking of, on the trade block, that'll bite at an offer of Nolasco/Pinto?

 

Wilkerson and Bradley.

 

Walker career leadoff: .291/.349/.443/.792

Pierre career leadoff: 304/.354/.375/.729

 

Walker's better, it's pretty clear.

 

 

How many AB's does Walker have in the leadoff spot, and were they all done in Boston? I only ask, because Pierre has been putting up those numbers for awhile now, not to mention he had an off year in 05.

 

Walker has 1271 PA's at the leadoff spot. I don't know the team breakdown, but he had several hundred as a Cub in '04.

[imb]

CPatt-

 

Isn't a better slugging player best used lower in the order to drive in runs?

 

Ideally we'd be able to put that in every spot, but considering that we aren't low on players that can slug(Lee, ARam, Barrett), I'll take more slugging from the guy on our team that will get the most PA's.

 

So why not hit him 2nd? That would be a better balance. After all, as the argument goes, a leadoff hitter is only once per game.

 

If it were me, I'd put Walker and Murton 2nd or 6th.

 

but then who hits first?

[abuck1220]

Getting Pierre keeps Neifi out of the leadoff spot. I won't be mad if his obp is .370 either.

 

And what if it's .326 like it was last year?

 

That's the chances you have to take. At least it's about .200 points better than Patterson right? ;)

 

why is that a chance you have to take? that makes no sense.

 

He's posted .378, .374, and .361 too.

 

and a .332. what's your point?

 

yeah, he could be a decent leadoff guy, but there are only a few one year rentals that i give up the top 3 minor league arms for -- and slappy mcgee ain't one of them.

 

and unless you're finding a way to get dunn, abreu or manny (w/o your top minor league arms, who you traded for your dreamboat, once in a lifetime, 'prototypical leadoff guy, mind you), this team isn't going anywhere next year anyway. so what's the point in giving up the farm for a guy that can help you win 81 games instead of 79?

 

Sorry you can't comprehend my point (taking chances). Pretty simple concept.

 

This team isn't going anywhere next year?? That's a great attitude.

 

gee, i hope the cubs can fight through my bad attitude to win the world series next year.

 

i don't get your point because you don't have one. all you said, was, 'you have to take chances'. and i say, no you don't. you don't hav anything to back up your 'gotta take chances' claim.

 

should the cubs trade hill, pinto, paw, pie, nolasco and everybody in the system for alex gonzalez? no? well, you gotta take chances, and that's the extent of my argument. i win.

[CubfaninCA]

Please give me the stats Todd Walker had batting leadoff.

 

Compare those to Pierre.

 

 

Even if Walker is marginally better, I'd rather have Pierre batting first.

 

No, because there's several better options still out there that very likely cost significantly less than what it will apparently cost to get Pierre.

 

What players are you speaking of, on the trade block, that'll bite at an offer of Nolasco/Pinto?

 

Wilkerson and Bradley.

 

Walker career leadoff: .291/.349/.443/.792

Pierre career leadoff: 304/.354/.375/.729

 

Walker's better, it's pretty clear.

 

If Baker was going to leadoff Walker, he would have led off last year. It's not going to happen. Give it up.

[UK1679666180]

Please give me the stats Todd Walker had batting leadoff.

 

Compare those to Pierre.

 

 

Even if Walker is marginally better, I'd rather have Pierre batting first.

 

No, because there's several better options still out there that very likely cost significantly less than what it will apparently cost to get Pierre.

 

What players are you speaking of, on the trade block, that'll bite at an offer of Nolasco/Pinto?

Give that offer to Philly and you'll likely have Jason Michaels. Yes, Michaels is better than Pierre.

I've seen Michaels' numbers and they are impressive but he hasn't played full time as far as I can remember. Truthfully I don't know much about the guy.

 

Philly platooned him with Lofton last year and they platoon him while Marlon Byrd became a bust based on huge potential.

 

He keeps chugging along and producing.

 

Give him 145 starts and he'll probably be the best leadoff hitter in the NL.

[USSoccer]

CPatt-

 

Isn't a better slugging player best used lower in the order to drive in runs?

 

I think yes, if there is an abundance of slugging. In Walker's case, he doesnt really have enough to be a serious run producer, but he has enough to consistently get himself into scoring position.

 

Hes not going to steal bases, but he has doubles power, so he can get himself to second base that way.

 

Or you can look at it like since he has doubles power, you could hit him 2nd or 6th and drive in your better OBP options out of the 1, 3 and 4 holes.

[imb]

CPatt-

 

Isn't a better slugging player best used lower in the order to drive in runs?

 

I think yes, if there is an abundance of slugging. In Walker's case, he doesnt really have enough to be a serious run producer, but he has enough to consistently get himself into scoring position.

 

Hes not going to steal bases, but he has doubles power, so he can get himself to second base that way.

 

Or you can look at it like since he has doubles power, you could hit him 2nd or 6th and drive in your better OBP options out of the 1, 3 and 4 holes.

 

who are the better obp options?

[YearofDaCubs]

Please give me the stats Todd Walker had batting leadoff.

 

Compare those to Pierre.

 

 

Even if Walker is marginally better, I'd rather have Pierre batting first.

 

No, because there's several better options still out there that very likely cost significantly less than what it will apparently cost to get Pierre.

 

What players are you speaking of, on the trade block, that'll bite at an offer of Nolasco/Pinto?

Give that offer to Philly and you'll likely have Jason Michaels. Yes, Michaels is better than Pierre.

I've seen Michaels' numbers and they are impressive but he hasn't played full time as far as I can remember. Truthfully I don't know much about the guy.

 

Philly platooned him with Lofton last year and they platoon him while Marlon Byrd became a bust based on huge potential.

 

He keeps chugging along and producing.

 

Give him 145 starts and he'll probably be the best leadoff hitter in the NL.

Sounds very interesting.

[USSoccer]

CPatt-

 

Isn't a better slugging player best used lower in the order to drive in runs?

 

Ideally we'd be able to put that in every spot, but considering that we aren't low on players that can slug(Lee, ARam, Barrett), I'll take more slugging from the guy on our team that will get the most PA's.

 

So why not hit him 2nd? That would be a better balance. After all, as the argument goes, a leadoff hitter is only once per game.

 

If it were me, I'd put Walker and Murton 2nd or 6th.

 

but then who hits first?

 

I was operating on the assumption that we land Pierre. If things end up as they are now, the best possible lineup would have Walker and Murton 1-2, but I think we'll end up with one of the 4 "leadoff" guys that are out there.

[Careless]

Please give me the stats Todd Walker had batting leadoff.

 

Compare those to Pierre.

 

 

Even if Walker is marginally better, I'd rather have Pierre batting first.

 

No, because there's several better options still out there that very likely cost significantly less than what it will apparently cost to get Pierre.

 

What players are you speaking of, on the trade block, that'll bite at an offer of Nolasco/Pinto?

 

Wilkerson and Bradley.

 

Walker career leadoff: .291/.349/.443/.792

Pierre career leadoff: 304/.354/.375/.729

 

Walker's better, it's pretty clear.

 

If Baker was going to leadoff Walker, he would have led off last year. It's not going to happen. Give it up.

You mean like baker had him leading off in 2004?

[abuck1220]

Nightmarish.

 

If Pierre returns to a .360 OBP next year and steals at a 75 percent success rate -- is that acceptable?

 

I'm not saying he will ... just wondering what you'd think about those numbers.

 

say he does put up those #'s. it won't matter anyway because w/o good prospects to trade w/, the cubs are going to have jones, burnitz, wilson in rf, and the team will struggle to win 85 games. then pierre bolts for 7 year deal from the yankees and the cubs have nothing to show for trading 2-3 very good prospects. so no, that wouldn't be acceptable.

 

Wait a second, if we give up Nolasco and Pinto, we won't have "good prospects" to trade for Bradley, Wilkerson (not necessarily that I want those two in RF, but it's very possible) Kearns or another RF?

 

I guess I didn't realize Nolasco and Pinto were our only trading chips.

 

they're not, but i don't know if pierre + kearns is going to be good enough to win the division.

 

if you get pierre, you have to get an elite rf, in my opinion.

[Mizzou]

Please give me the stats Todd Walker had batting leadoff.

 

Compare those to Pierre.

 

 

Even if Walker is marginally better, I'd rather have Pierre batting first.

 

No, because there's several better options still out there that very likely cost significantly less than what it will apparently cost to get Pierre.

 

What players are you speaking of, on the trade block, that'll bite at an offer of Nolasco/Pinto?

 

Wilkerson and Bradley.

 

Walker career leadoff: .291/.349/.443/.792

Pierre career leadoff: 304/.354/.375/.729

 

Walker's better, it's pretty clear.

 

If Baker was going to leadoff Walker, he would have led off last year. It's not going to happen. Give it up.

You mean like baker had him leading off in 2004?

 

That's not fair... Dusty didn't have the option of Neifi for the better part of that year.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I think it's a strech to say these 2 guys could bring Michaels but they might bring Bradley (who knows?).

 

I would be more annoyed about the money then the prospects.

[USSoccer]

CPatt-

 

Isn't a better slugging player best used lower in the order to drive in runs?

 

I think yes, if there is an abundance of slugging. In Walker's case, he doesnt really have enough to be a serious run producer, but he has enough to consistently get himself into scoring position.

 

Hes not going to steal bases, but he has doubles power, so he can get himself to second base that way.

 

Or you can look at it like since he has doubles power, you could hit him 2nd or 6th and drive in your better OBP options out of the 1, 3 and 4 holes.

 

who are the better obp options?

 

Assuming we end up with one of the "leadoff" guys, he'd be 1st, and then Lee and Ramirez 3 and 4 have very good OBP's.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Everyone here SO overrates our prospects. Understandable, but not being objective. You need to look at these guys from OTHER team's perspectives for once.

 

Nolasco--low Top 10 Cub prospect. Ceiling is as a projected #4 starter. Two plus pitches, but nothing dominating. Failed miserably his first time at AAA. Good control, but if he doesn't pinpoint his spots, he can get hit hard.

 

Pinto--borderline Top 10 Cub prospect. Electric stuff, lefty and young. But extremely wild, and has made little progress in harnessing his control. Hit very hard his first time in AAA, has not looked good in winter ball this year. Ceiling is as a projected #3 starter, but if the control doesn't improve soon, the bullpen may be his eventual home.

 

I have no problems giving up these two for a guy that can help your big league team right now, at a time of extreme duress, at a position they desperately need filled.

[imb]

CPatt-

 

Isn't a better slugging player best used lower in the order to drive in runs?

 

Ideally we'd be able to put that in every spot, but considering that we aren't low on players that can slug(Lee, ARam, Barrett), I'll take more slugging from the guy on our team that will get the most PA's.

 

So why not hit him 2nd? That would be a better balance. After all, as the argument goes, a leadoff hitter is only once per game.

 

If it were me, I'd put Walker and Murton 2nd or 6th.

 

but then who hits first?

 

I was operating on the assumption that we land Pierre. If things end up as they are now, the best possible lineup would have Walker and Murton 1-2, but I think we'll end up with one of the 4 "leadoff" guys that are out there.

 

oh, i assumed that we were arguing about walker's leadoff merits because we were seeing if he was a better leadoff option than Pierre. If Pierre is on the team, I guess you hit him first and Walker second. Though, if things play out like last season, id rather do Walker first, Murton second and Pierre 8th.

[UK1679666180]

FTR, the Phillies have supposedly asked for Wang for the Yankees. That'll give you somewhat of an idea.

[USSoccer]

CPatt-

 

Isn't a better slugging player best used lower in the order to drive in runs?

 

Ideally we'd be able to put that in every spot, but considering that we aren't low on players that can slug(Lee, ARam, Barrett), I'll take more slugging from the guy on our team that will get the most PA's.

 

So why not hit him 2nd? That would be a better balance. After all, as the argument goes, a leadoff hitter is only once per game.

 

If it were me, I'd put Walker and Murton 2nd or 6th.

 

but then who hits first?

 

I was operating on the assumption that we land Pierre. If things end up as they are now, the best possible lineup would have Walker and Murton 1-2, but I think we'll end up with one of the 4 "leadoff" guys that are out there.

 

oh, i assumed that we were arguing about walker's leadoff merits because we were seeing if he was a better leadoff option than Pierre. If Pierre is on the team, I guess you hit him first and Walker second. Though, if things play out like last season, id rather do Walker first, Murton second and Pierre 8th.

 

I tend to think Pierre will have a year closer to his career norms than last season. Probably in the neighborhood of a .350-.360 OBP.

Edited December 7, 2005 by USSoccer

[CubfaninCA]

Getting Pierre keeps Neifi out of the leadoff spot. I won't be mad if his obp is .370 either.

 

And what if it's .326 like it was last year?

 

That's the chances you have to take. At least it's about .200 points better than Patterson right? ;)

 

why is that a chance you have to take? that makes no sense.

 

He's posted .378, .374, and .361 too.

 

and a .332. what's your point?

 

yeah, he could be a decent leadoff guy, but there are only a few one year rentals that i give up the top 3 minor league arms for -- and slappy mcgee ain't one of them.

 

and unless you're finding a way to get dunn, abreu or manny (w/o your top minor league arms, who you traded for your dreamboat, once in a lifetime, 'prototypical leadoff guy, mind you), this team isn't going anywhere next year anyway. so what's the point in giving up the farm for a guy that can help you win 81 games instead of 79?

 

Sorry you can't comprehend my point (taking chances). Pretty simple concept.

 

This team isn't going anywhere next year?? That's a great attitude.

 

gee, i hope the cubs can fight through my bad attitude to win the world series next year.

 

i don't get your point because you don't have one. all you said, was, 'you have to take chances'. and i say, no you don't. you don't hav anything to back up your 'gotta take chances' claim.

 

should the cubs trade hill, pinto, paw, pie, nolasco and everybody in the system for alex gonzalez? no? well, you gotta take chances, and that's the extent of my argument. i win.

 

When did AGonz post an obp of .378 or .374? Do I have to draw you a picture? The guy could have another really good year. He's in his prime.

[badger1679666666]

Getting Pierre keeps Neifi out of the leadoff spot. I won't be mad if his obp is .370 either.

 

And what if it's .326 like it was last year?

 

That's the chances you have to take. At least it's about .200 points better than Patterson right? ;)

 

why is that a chance you have to take? that makes no sense.

 

He's posted .378, .374, and .361 too.

 

and a .332. what's your point?

 

yeah, he could be a decent leadoff guy, but there are only a few one year rentals that i give up the top 3 minor league arms for -- and slappy mcgee ain't one of them.

 

and unless you're finding a way to get dunn, abreu or manny (w/o your top minor league arms, who you traded for your dreamboat, once in a lifetime, 'prototypical leadoff guy, mind you), this team isn't going anywhere next year anyway. so what's the point in giving up the farm for a guy that can help you win 81 games instead of 79?

 

Sorry you can't comprehend my point (taking chances). Pretty simple concept.

 

This team isn't going anywhere next year?? That's a great attitude.

 

gee, i hope the cubs can fight through my bad attitude to win the world series next year.

 

i don't get your point because you don't have one. all you said, was, 'you have to take chances'. and i say, no you don't. you don't hav anything to back up your 'gotta take chances' claim.

 

should the cubs trade hill, pinto, paw, pie, nolasco and everybody in the system for alex gonzalez? no? well, you gotta take chances, and that's the extent of my argument. i win.

 

For Christsakes that's not what hes saying. Really convenient to twist it like that. He's saying taking a chance on Pierre isn't bad because he's had at least 3 .370 OBP years. Some people and their ridiculous arguments. :roll:

 

If I checked last Agone has never given you a glimpse at a .370 OBP so that would be a foolhardy chance taken. Pierre has done it several times.

 

Now if you just don't like Pierrre, you just don't like him, but I can't stand seeing people twist others arguments that blatently.

[cubbyvirus00]

Everyone here SO overrates our prospects. Understandable, but not being objective. You need to look at these guys from OTHER team's perspectives for once.

 

Nolasco--low Top 10 Cub prospect. Ceiling is as a projected #4 starter. Two plus pitches, but nothing dominating. Failed miserably his first time at AAA. Good control, but if he doesn't pinpoint his spots, he can get hit hard.

 

Pinto--borderline Top 10 Cub prospect. Electric stuff, lefty and young. But extremely wild, and has made little progress in harnessing his control. Hit very hard his first time in AAA, has not looked good in winter ball this year. Ceiling is as a projected #3 starter, but if the control doesn't improve soon, the bullpen may be his eventual home.

 

I have no problems giving up these two for a guy that can help your big league team right now, at a time of extreme duress, at a position they desperately need filled.

 

 

Good post. I definitely agree. We can't keep everybody in the minors, and we're getting proven talent, in a proven winner.

[Blueheart05]

good lord, no.

 

possibly our top three minor league arms for one year of a .680 OPS? if true, i have no faith in hendry. none.

 

I don't care about Pierre's SLG% as much as other do, but if his OPB is below .360 next year then we overpaid.

 

That's a tough call for a guy with a career .355 OBP

Although, he's eclipsed that mark 3 times in his career, including 2003. :twisted:

[Mizzou]

CPatt-

 

Isn't a better slugging player best used lower in the order to drive in runs?

 

Ideally we'd be able to put that in every spot, but considering that we aren't low on players that can slug(Lee, ARam, Barrett), I'll take more slugging from the guy on our team that will get the most PA's.

 

So why not hit him 2nd? That would be a better balance. After all, as the argument goes, a leadoff hitter is only once per game.

 

If it were me, I'd put Walker and Murton 2nd or 6th.

 

but then who hits first?

 

I was operating on the assumption that we land Pierre. If things end up as they are now, the best possible lineup would have Walker and Murton 1-2, but I think we'll end up with one of the 4 "leadoff" guys that are out there.

 

oh, i assumed that we were arguing about walker's leadoff merits because we were seeing if he was a better leadoff option than Pierre. If Pierre is on the team, I guess you hit him first and Walker second. Though, if things play out like last season, id rather do Walker first, Murton second and Pierre 8th.

 

No way Dusty has two lefties at the top of the order.

[USSoccer]

good lord, no.

 

possibly our top three minor league arms for one year of a .680 OPS? if true, i have no faith in hendry. none.

 

I don't care about Pierre's SLG% as much as other do, but if his OPB is below .360 next year then we overpaid.

 

That's a tough call for a guy with a career .355 OBP

Although, he's eclipsed that mark 3 times in his career, including 2003. :twisted:

 

Fine, .350. But you get my point :D . He should rebound somewhat from 2005, so it depends on how high the rebound will be, and what effect the Wrigley grass will have on his game.