Any interest in Reggie Sanders?

[Derwood]

He seems to produce wherever he goes. I don't care that he's old, but I don't think he'll do a 1-year deal.

[BigbadB]

Not interested. However, if it comes down to Jones or Sanders, I'd rather have Sanders.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Not interested. However, if it comes down to Jones or a ham sandwich, I'd rather have a ham sandwich.

 

fixed

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Mmm... Ham sandwich...

[goonys evil twin]

Not interested. However, if it comes down to Jones or Sanders, I'd rather have Sanders.

 

I'd rather platoon 'em both, except for the fact it would would most likely mean they'd both play and Murton would sit.

[BigbadB]

Not interested. However, if it comes down to Jones or Sanders, I'd rather have Sanders.

 

I'd rather platoon 'em both, except for the fact it would would most likely mean they'd both play and Murton would sit.

 

Both will require at minimum a 2 year deal.

[coolpoppa]

Please, God no. I don't want Jones and I don't want Sanders, but if I had to choose, it would be Jones. It's the lesser of two evils. We don't need an older, oft injured bag of bones patrolling the outfield. No thanks.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Jacque Jones-

2005: 249/319/438

2004: 254/315/427

2005: 304/333/464

 

Reggie Sanders-

2005: 271/340/546

2004: 260/315/482

2003: 285/345/567

 

Even at his advance age, Sanders is a more productive hitter than Jones.

[JeffH]

In the unfortunate circumstance of the Cubs acquiring Jacque Jones, he needs to be kept away from all LHP. I mean like fewer than 10 PA versus LHP all season.

[peoriachiefs]

can i say no

[Wheelimus]

Over "nearly every other option"? No

 

Over Jacque Jones? Yes

 

Over this inanimate stick of wood? No

[Warpticon]

I wouldn't mind Sanders on a one year deal, or maybe a cheap two-year. He's still pretty productive.

 

I hate to harp, but I just cannot fathom that Jones could be our starting RF, or how that could be considered in any way good.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think this pretty much rules out Reggie Sanders.

 

Sanders is now seeking a three-year deal because multiple clubs have matched the Royals’ two-year offer. The Royals are unwilling to commit three years to a player who is 38.

 

 

Three years to an oft injured 38-yr old? Let me be the first to say, "HEeeellllllll No!"

[WindyCity]

Not interested. However, if it comes down to Jones or a ham sandwich, I'd rather have a ham sandwich.

 

fixed

 

Not Funny Vance!

http://www.kermitage.com/graphics/collectibles/Paper%20Stuff/Fan%20Club/Miss%20Piggy%20Fan%20Club%20Photo.jpg

[indifferent]

I'd take Sanders over Jones too, unfortunately we already made that decision. Sanders, IMO, is reasonably priced due to age and will be less expensive than Jones for that same reason. Although it was reported on Rotoworld today that Sanders is now seeking a three yr. deal. I can't see how any team could do that.

[CubbieSouthpaw]

can i say no

 

YES

[abuck1220]

Jacque Jones-

2005: 249/319/438

2004: 254/315/427

2005: 304/333/464

 

Reggie Sanders-

2005: 271/340/546

2004: 260/315/482

2003: 285/345/567

 

Even at his advance age, Sanders is a more productive hitter than Jones.

 

geez, jacque jones sucks. sucks.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Jacque Jones-

2005: 249/319/438

2004: 254/315/427

2005: 304/333/464

 

Reggie Sanders-

2005: 271/340/546

2004: 260/315/482

2003: 285/345/567

 

Even at his advance age, Sanders is a more productive hitter than Jones.

 

geez, jacque jones sucks. sucks.

 

Yep.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

To be fair, if Jones never saw a LHP, then he'd be good for an .800-.815 OPS and great defense in RF. That wouldn't be an abomination if we had a great platoon partner for him, say Craig Wilson. Then you'd be getting around an .840 OPS from RF with very good defense on the whole. Could be worse I guess, but it's definitely not what we should aim for.

[indifferent]

This might be a dumb question, but has any team recently signed and/or traded for players in the same offseason with the purpose of platooning? I would think it'd be pretty expensive for teams to do. It seems to occur when a team is stuck with the last years of a players contract or trying to break in a cheap, young guy.

[soapy]

To be fair, if Jones never saw a LHP, then he'd be good for an .800-.815 OPS and great defense in RF. That wouldn't be an abomination if we had a great platoon partner for him, say Craig Wilson. Then you'd be getting around an .840 OPS from RF with very good defense on the whole. Could be worse I guess, but it's definitely not what we should aim for.

 

Mench could be a nice platoon partner for him.

 

 

 

 

I can't believe I just said (typed) that. I'm going to go vomit now.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

To be fair, if Jones never saw a LHP, then he'd be good for an .800-.815 OPS and great defense in RF. That wouldn't be an abomination if we had a great platoon partner for him, say Craig Wilson. Then you'd be getting around an .840 OPS from RF with very good defense on the whole. Could be worse I guess, but it's definitely not what we should aim for.

 

Mench could be a nice platoon partner for him.

 

 

 

 

I can't believe I just said (typed) that. I'm going to go vomit now.

 

I like Mench more than most. I'd use him as more than a platoon player. If I already had him in the fold, I'd certainly wouldn't get Jaqcue Jones to platoon with him. Of course, one might say the same thing about Wilson, but he's not a very good defender, and hasn't been a full-time player, so depth may be better in that instance.

[soapy]

To be fair, if Jones never saw a LHP, then he'd be good for an .800-.815 OPS and great defense in RF. That wouldn't be an abomination if we had a great platoon partner for him, say Craig Wilson. Then you'd be getting around an .840 OPS from RF with very good defense on the whole. Could be worse I guess, but it's definitely not what we should aim for.

 

Mench could be a nice platoon partner for him.

 

 

 

 

I can't believe I just said (typed) that. I'm going to go vomit now.

 

I like Mench more than most. I'd use him as more than a platoon player. If I already had him in the fold, I'd certainly wouldn't get Jaqcue Jones to platoon with him. Of course, one might say the same thing about Wilson, but he's not a very good defender, and hasn't been a full-time player, so depth may be better in that instance.

 

It would give you some depth in the OF (assuming for a moment that Dusty would platoon them properly and not just bench Murton outright in favor of Jones/Mench).

 

Having said that, I just can't see Dusty putting J. Jones into a platoon at all.

[Wheelimus]

jeeze, I didn't realize how lopsided his splits were.

 

2005 splits

 

RH - .268/.348/.466/.812

LH - .201/.247/.370/.617

 

Why the hell did the Twins let him get 154 AB's against lefties?

 

Of course, if you want to split hairs...

 

Jereomy Burnitz 2005 splits

 

RH - .267/.345/.430/.775

LH - .236/.268/.445/.713

 

Heh, so why the hell did the Cubs let him get 182 AB's against lefties?

 

:lol:

[PieOnMyHands]

To be fair, if Jones never saw a LHP, then he'd be good for an .800-.815 OPS and great defense in RF. That wouldn't be an abomination if we had a great platoon partner for him, say Craig Wilson. Then you'd be getting around an .840 OPS from RF with very good defense on the whole. Could be worse I guess, but it's definitely not what we should aim for.

 

I was thinking the same thing when there was talk of St. Louis signing Jacque Jones.

 

And then I remembered he wants $7 million a year. Probably not the best idea to sign a platoon to player to that much. 8)

 

Reggie Sanders was incredible in St. Louis... he's not a patient hitter, but he at least hits for great power. He was on pace for nearly a 30/30 year before he went down with that fluke injury collision in left-center...

 

If you look at his career stats, though, he seems to alternate good year / bad year / good year / bad year... it's really strange. Now I guess that "good" and "bad" are arbitrary, but just have a look:

 

2005: .886 OPS

2004: .797 OPS

2003: .912 OPS

2002: .779 OPS

2001: .886 OPS

2000: .705 OPS

1999: .903 OPS

1998: .764 OPS

1997: .857 OPS

1996: .816 OPS

1995: .976 OPS

1994: .812 OPS

 

:shock: