Cubs Acquire Juan Pierre

[waffle]

I'm fine with this trade. It fills so many needs. We didn't have a well balanced offense last year and Pierre fits in nicely. We got a true leadoff hitter and a decent center fielder for scraps.

 

I HATED playing against Pierre. Every time he came up you got worried. He seemed to have a knack for getting on base when it was needed and then causing havoc once there.

 

Now if we can land a big bat in the OF I think we now start to look like an actual baseball team, as opposed to a random collection of mismatched pieces managed by a poor situational manager.

 

This is a good trade, if we overpayed, it was only marginally.

[goonys evil twin]

- We'll also get two draft picks in 2007 as compensation for Pierre leaving as a FA (assuming they don't change the draft rules by then)

 

I don't see any team signing Pierre prior to arbitration deadline next year, and I don't see any reason why you would want to offer him arbitration

[JonnyRed]

I'm waking up a happy Cub fan this morning....We finally made a deal! And I like it. Pierre will bring an element to our offense that hasn't been seen around Wrigley in quite a while. Sure, Lofton had some speed, but not Pierre-type speed. To those who are worried about giving up 3 pitching prospects, don't be, because they are just that...unproven. I've waited 3 years for guys like Guzman to make it to Wrigley, but most never reach the bigs. Give me a proven MLBer instead. And let's werry about whether he is a rental player until after this year. Everyone thought Nomar was as good as gone too.....Now, let's go get a slugger for RF (Arbeu, Manny, Huff).

[USSoccer]

- We'll also get two draft picks in 2007 as compensation for Pierre leaving as a FA (assuming they don't change the draft rules by then)

 

I don't see any team signing Pierre prior to arbitration deadline next year, and I don't see any reason why you would want to offer him arbitration

 

You're assuming he doesn't rebound. If he rebounds, don't they look at 3 year averages to determine FA type?

 

Also, with next year's FA crop you could probably offer him arbitration and he'd likely decline. With any sort of good year he'd command a decent price on the open market.

 

Also, isn't the CBA up next december?

[goonys evil twin]

I HATED playing against Pierre. Every time he came up you got worried. He seemed to have a knack for getting on base when it was needed and then causing havoc once there.

 

Seemed is a dangerous word. I didn't get worried facing him because he's not a good baseball player. Unfortunately a lot of the havoc he causes is ruining a potential inning by getting thrown out trying to steal when he does actually reach base.

[soapy]

This is probably a stupid question, but could the Cubs be considering holding onto Patterson now and making him the fourth OFer? I'd assume he'll be part of a deal to get someone in RF, but if he isn't, it will be interesting. I'm not really sure how I'd feel about that. $3 million for a fourth outfielder/defensive replacement is too high. On the other hand, if he turns things around, you have the potential to have a great fourth OFer or you can trade him in July if/when his value is higher.

[BigbadB]

I was never enamored with Pierre. But, he's a Cub. It's done. He is in his free agent year, so we should hope he puts up free agent year numbers.

 

I'm fine with the players included in the trade. With several teams knocking on the door, the Cubs were going to have to offer a lot to get their man.

 

It's not the direction I would have gone with this team, but Hendry and Baker have gotten their wish on a true lead off hitter.

 

The biggest relief will be that Hendry and Baker can stop making goo-goo eyes at Pierre from across the US of A. They can do it behind closed doors where none of the rest of us have to continue watching. :pukel:

 

He will be an improvement to the OBP at the top of the order. That was a priority this offseason.

[Diffusion]

Does no one understand the concepts of marginal value and opportunity cost?

 

I do. But don't explain it please. I am trying to make the best of this trade.

 

Why? It's a flat out awful trade, and you know it.

 

The only thing that makes it awful is if Pinto and Nolasco could have been used to get Wilkerson or Michaels, or even as part of a larger package for Abreu.

 

And you know that that's not the case how? You've heard the Nationals and Phillies don't like pitching prospects?

 

What the Cubs have done here is they've overpaid for mediocrity, and because that mediocrity happens to be better than the terrible that they got from the position last year, they're justifying it on the basis of it being an upgrade.

 

The truth of the matter is that the Cubs should be chasing the best available solutions. Wilkerson and Abreu are both available, by all reports, and they're the best options. The Cubs should only be considering lesser options when it's become entirely clear that these players are essentially unattainable at an acceptable price.

 

Yes, the Cubs have plenty of prospects, many of them with reputations that are probably out of line with what can reasonably be expected from them in the majors in the future, and as such selling high is a good idea.

 

But at least make sure that when you sell high on your prospects you get more than a mediocrity in return. Don't even consider selling high on prospects when you're getting nothing more than one year of a mediocrity in return.

 

Overpay for the best option out there, if you really must overpay. If the Cubs had given up Pinto, Nolasco and Mitre for Wilkerson I wouldn't be that happy. That's still overpaying. But at least I could live with the fact that the Cubs got the best option out there.

 

Besides Milton Bradley perhaps, but that's debatable. He's better defensively, he's pretty damn good with the bat, but he's also not healthy and he has problems controlling himself, though I don't believe he's a bad guy by any stretch of the imagination.

 

The Nats probably wanted a ML player for Wilkerson, as they are building a fan base there.

 

Patterson. They've long been interested in him. Throw in a pitching prospect. Grant Johnson say, a second rounder from 2004. What's the problem?

 

Philly might have bit for Michaels, but I think they asked for Wang, which would have been like them asking us for Williams. Those 2 teams might not have seen as much value in prospects.

 

They also asked for Prior in return from Abreu. It's called aiming high. You aim high in your response. You then compromise and find something in the middle ground.

 

Pierre should perform at a decent clip. I don't expect sick OBP numbers, but I do expect a rebound from 2005.

 

So do I expect a rebound, but that's besides the point. The fact he should perform at about the level of a major league average CF is also besides the point. He's not what this team needs. For a leadoff man, he doesn't get on base and stay on base enough, his defence in CF is below average, and he's due to earn about $5m in 2005, and then he'll hit free agency. God forbid the guy loses a step or two due to an unforeseeable leg injury, because speed is about 75% of his game.

 

Pinto and Nolasco were not going to help the Cubs in the next 2-3 years unless it was through a trade.

 

Not a reason to make a bad trade involving them.

[BigbadB]

This is probably a stupid question, but could the Cubs be considering holding onto Patterson now and making him the fourth OFer? I'd assume he'll be part of a deal to get someone in RF, but if he isn't, it will be interesting. I'm not really sure how I'd feel about that. $3 million for a fourth outfielder/defensive replacement is too high. On the other hand, if he turns things around, you have the potential to have a great fourth OFer or you can trade him in July if/when his value is higher.

 

3m for a 4th outfielder sounds like it's right in Hendry's ballpark. He's paying Neifi 2.5m to "supposedly" be a back up middle infielder.

[goonys evil twin]

- We'll also get two draft picks in 2007 as compensation for Pierre leaving as a FA (assuming they don't change the draft rules by then)

 

I don't see any team signing Pierre prior to arbitration deadline next year, and I don't see any reason why you would want to offer him arbitration

 

You're assuming he doesn't rebound. If he rebounds, don't they look at 3 year averages to determine FA type?

 

Also, with next year's FA crop you could probably offer him arbitration and he'd likely decline. With any sort of good year he'd command a decent price on the open market.

 

Also, isn't the CBA up next december?

 

I thought it was 2 years, and 2004 was the fluke year. 2005 was in-line with his career norms (career OPS+ of 87, 2005 was 84).

 

They better get a stud RF, or all is for not. But I see a guy like Jones coming here to make up for Pierre's lack of glove.

[goonys evil twin]

This is probably a stupid question, but could the Cubs be considering holding onto Patterson now and making him the fourth OFer? I'd assume he'll be part of a deal to get someone in RF, but if he isn't, it will be interesting. I'm not really sure how I'd feel about that. $3 million for a fourth outfielder/defensive replacement is too high. On the other hand, if he turns things around, you have the potential to have a great fourth OFer or you can trade him in July if/when his value is higher.

 

3m for a 4th outfielder sounds like it's right in Hendry's ballpark. He's paying Neifi 2.5m to "supposedly" be a back up middle infielder.

 

$3m for a backup OF isn't bad at all. If you're Pittsburgh you don't want to do it, but with a $100m payroll it's not bad. The problem is how good that 4th OF is. If they get Mench, I could see Corey used as a partial platoon player for Murton or Mench.

[soapy]

This is probably a stupid question, but could the Cubs be considering holding onto Patterson now and making him the fourth OFer? I'd assume he'll be part of a deal to get someone in RF, but if he isn't, it will be interesting. I'm not really sure how I'd feel about that. $3 million for a fourth outfielder/defensive replacement is too high. On the other hand, if he turns things around, you have the potential to have a great fourth OFer or you can trade him in July if/when his value is higher.

 

3m for a 4th outfielder sounds like it's right in Hendry's ballpark. He's paying Neifi 2.5m to "supposedly" be a back up middle infielder.

 

It's overpaying, no doubt. But maybe, just maybe, he rebounds and you can sell high (if you want to).

 

I'm not advocating it by any means. But its an interesting idea to me.

[USSoccer]

Diffusion-

 

The nats and Phillies aren't really rebuilding, so I'm assuming they'd value these guys less than Florida did.

[katway]

While it is probably true that the players traded for Pierre could have been packaged with additional players for a better player, isn't that true of any trade where you didn't get the absolute best player on the market?

 

Could they have gotten Abreu for more. Perhaps, but they would have had to assume Abreu's salary. That kind of salary hit would have made it more difficult to make other moves down the road.

 

With respect to Jason Michaels, several of my coworkers are Philly fans and they aren't very positive on the guy and hope someone takes him off their hands. He's older than Pierre with less major league experience, he strikes out a lot for someone without much power, has little speed, and not much of a fielder.

 

Overall, I don't think this is an awesome move by any means, but it appears to be a fair trade that does improve our team. Pierre in front of D Lee and Aramis is a whole lot better than Niefi or Macias batting in front of them.

[soapy]

This is probably a stupid question, but could the Cubs be considering holding onto Patterson now and making him the fourth OFer? I'd assume he'll be part of a deal to get someone in RF, but if he isn't, it will be interesting. I'm not really sure how I'd feel about that. $3 million for a fourth outfielder/defensive replacement is too high. On the other hand, if he turns things around, you have the potential to have a great fourth OFer or you can trade him in July if/when his value is higher.

 

3m for a 4th outfielder sounds like it's right in Hendry's ballpark. He's paying Neifi 2.5m to "supposedly" be a back up middle infielder.

 

$3m for a backup OF isn't bad at all. If you're Pittsburgh you don't want to do it, but with a $100m payroll it's not bad. The problem is how good that 4th OF is. If they get Mench, I could see Corey used as a partial platoon player for Murton or Mench.

 

That's kind of what I'm thinking. If the Cubs are going to settle for the likes of Mench and Murton in the corners, having Patterson as another potential OFer who could step up isn't necessarily a bad option. He's really not going to lower his value any more than he already has IMO.

 

It's really not the kind of risk a $100+ million payroll team should have to take, but I guess it's an option.

[E.J.]

If the Bradley rumors come to fruition and we trade Patterson for him, would you be content with the outfield of Murton, Pierre, Bradley? How about trading Murton and Hill to the Reds for Dunn?

[Banedon]

I'm not all that upset about this deal. I'm not giddy about it either. Just kinda...meh. But then...I don't see a lot of possiblities out there for me to get too excited about right now....

[Diffusion]

Does no one understand the concepts of marginal value and opportunity cost?

 

I do too. I'm trying to look at this in a positive way, as well. I can see some positives in it, and some negatives. I'm choosing to believe the positives.

 

These positives being?

 

-Prevents Hendry from being tempted to rush Pierre to the majors at some point in 2006. No matter how talented Felix is, he needs to improve his plate discipline if he's going to be the player we hope. This gives the Cubs the luxury of patience.

 

You could stick any CF not called Pie out there next year and fulfill this criteria. Like Corey Patterson. You could even stick an infielder out there, and still fulfill this criteria. Like Jerry Hairston.

 

-Clears out some space for future 40 man additions

 

Well why didn't we throw in another five or six prospects then? I mean, we'd have more 40-man roster space. Small matter that most of the reason we don't have much 40-man roster space is because Hendry doesn't appear to have much of a clue as to how to put a 40-man roster together.

 

-Prevents Baker from ever batting Neifi 1st, and might help to stabalize the lineup. Wilkerson might have been miscast as a 6 hole hitter by Baker, a la Bellhorn.

 

If Dusty's that big a problem, fire him and appoint someone that'll run the club properly.

 

-Does give us at least the outline of a running game on the bases. The SB% needs to be higher, though.

 

How about an OBP and SLG game?

 

-Settles Hendry's lust for a "leadoff" hitter, hopefully aloowing him to move on to the equally improtant black hole in RF.

 

He's lusting after the wrong thing. And if such misjudged lustings compromise his ability to get anything else at all done, like RF, he's obviously not the right man for the job either.

 

-Probably guarantees Murton's spot starting in LF next year.

 

Should have been guaranteed anyway.

 

-Pierre will likely rebound from 2005.

 

You'd at least hope so, wouldn't you?

 

-Gives us a type A draft pick if/when he walks next year.

 

Actually, two draft picks, probably. One of them in the 16-30 range, and one in the 30-45ish range. This though assumes that the Cubs dare offer Pierre arbitration, which isn't a given. And I'll take actual prospects over draft picks any day.

[Hector Villanuevas Pants]

Geez, I love how easy it is to label proven major league talent "not very good," yet place our mid-level minor league talent on such a high pedestal. Juan Pierre may not be the next coming of Ricky Henderson, but he's not that bad. He has posted an OBP over .360 two of the last three years. He's a proven lead-off man who played on a world series winning team. Most importantly, he fits the mold of what Dusty considers the ideal lead-off guy. Thus Dusty will bat him there. Consistancy at the top of the line-up is huge.

 

Marginal cost? You assume comparable players were available for lesser cost or better players for equal cost. I don't know that to be the case. What about marginal benefit? How much will Pierre help us in the next couple seasons vesus Pinto/Nolasco/Mitre? What about replacement cost? Who is more difficult and costly to replace, a proven major leage lead-off guy or three middling prospects that, in the unlikely event that they max out would be #3/4 starters at best, but who likely would have trouble cracking the rotation anyway? Opportunity cost? What was the opportunity cost of not trading a whole host of prospects in the past 3-4 years when they actually had value? What was the opportunity cost of not trading Juan Cruz earlier? By acquiring Juan Pierre the Cubs do not necessarily miss out on acquiring other NSBB favorites like Bradley or Wilkerson. These guys can still play RF.

[soapy]

If the Bradley rumors come to fruition and we trade Patterson for him, would you be content with the outfield of Murton, Pierre, Bradley? How about trading Murton and Hill to the Reds for Dunn?

 

Content? Probably not. If they held onto Walker, maybe. Bradley has so much more value in CF. That leaves you with this lineup:

 

Pierre

Walker

Lee

Ramirez

Bradley

Murton

Barrett

Cedeno/Neifi

 

It's an improvement over 2005, but not as much as I'd hoped. I would probably trade Murton and Hill to the Reds for Dunn. I don't think Hendry would though.

[wilk]

Odds are he will be at best, he'll be only partially better than Corey this year.

 

As for the negatives, the Cubs have a bad leadoff man right now, who isn't any good with the glove.

 

LOL. What a load of crap. I'm far from Pierre's biggest supporter, in fact until I saw what entirely asinine exaggerations were being tossed around, I even figured I was a detractor. Odds are he will be at best only partially better than a .215 BA and a .254 OBP? Funny, because considering that his WORST year is significantly better, I'm going to have to question your ability to decide "odds." In fact... Pierre even edged out Corey's apparently-essential SLG this last year. Isn't any good with the glove? Actually he's very good with the glove. He has a ton of range and he catches the ball. He just has a pathetic arm (and we're talking about the arm without the glove) though. A BAD leadoff man? No... in fact 85% of the time he's one of baseball's best leadoff men. I don't want Pierre in a corner outfield spot, I didn't want Pierre batting #2 or down if we had a leadoff hitter and I don't overvalue his speed like apparently the Cubs do (meaning I'd prefer the plate discipline and baserunning instincts to slap and speed) but what's the fascination with such ridiculous polar exaggerations for players people do and do not like?

[CuseCubFan69]

Could the Cubs flip Pierre to the Yanks after the Cubs get Bradley and/or Lugo?

[soapy]

Could the Cubs flip Pierre to the Yanks after the Cubs get Bradley and/or Lugo?

 

I don't think so. I think Hendry really likes Pierre.

[Diffusion]

Positives:

1. The Cubs acquire a CF and lead-off man that has had success in the role.

 

Career high OBP of .341 outside of Coors Field when you take into account all the caught stealings. That's a strange idea you have there of success in the leadoff role.

 

2. Pierre will be a significant upgrade over what we had in the position last season.

 

Neifi Perez outhit Cub centre fielders last year. So, regarding the fact that there's an upgrade involved, big deal, frankly.

 

3. We made the trade without giving up Jerome Williams or Rich Hill or Todd Walker.

 

The fact that we could have made a worse trade doesn't make a bad trade any better.

[Derwood]

Could the Cubs flip Pierre to the Yanks after the Cubs get Bradley and/or Lugo?

 

for A-Rod