What about Geoff Jenkins?

[rawaction]

Jenkins=Burnitz

 

Jenkins 05: 292/375/513

Burnitz 05: 258/322/435

 

Plus Jenkins is 5 years younger.

 

I really doubt the brewers trade him unless they are blown away prospect wise or it's a midseason salary dump.

 

Burnitz 04: 283/356/559. career- 255/348/485

Jenkins 04: 264/325/473. career- 281/349/508

 

BURNITZ=JENKINS

 

Burnitz 04- in Colorado, Career- on a severe downswing. Hasn't approached his career numbers since 2001 in a normal home park.

 

Jenkins 04- admittedly horrible, career- on an upswing, 03 and 05 are his best seasons, and nearly identical.

 

While I agree that their careers look similar so far, and they are remarkably similar types of players....there is no comparison going forward. Burnitz career numbers will keep dropping. Jenkins will at least be maintained for a couple more years.

 

So, yeah for historical purposes Jenkins= Burnitz, but for the purposes of getting production in RF for the 2006 Cubs and beyond....it's not even close.

[TrueBlueCubFan]

Jenkins=Burnitz

 

Jenkins 05: 292/375/513

Burnitz 05: 258/322/435

 

Plus Jenkins is 5 years younger.

 

I really doubt the brewers trade him unless they are blown away prospect wise or it's a midseason salary dump.

 

Burnitz 04: 283/356/559. career- 255/348/485

Jenkins 04: 264/325/473. career- 281/349/508

 

BURNITZ=JENKINS

 

Burnitz 04- in Colorado, Career- on a severe downswing. Hasn't approached his career numbers since 2001 in a normal home park.

 

Jenkins 04- admittedly horrible, career- on an upswing, 03 and 05 are his best seasons, and nearly identical.

 

While I agree that their careers look similar so far, and they are remarkably similar types of players....there is no comparison going forward. Burnitz career numbers will keep dropping. Jenkins will at least be maintained for a couple more years.

 

So, yeah for historical purposes Jenkins= Burnitz, but for the purposes of getting production in RF for the 2006 Cubs and beyond....it's not even close.

Excellent breakdown & analysis.

[TrueBlueCubFan]

Jenkins will make 7.5M. in 06', 7M in 07' & has an option of 9M for 08' with a $500,000 buyout.

 

Burnitz was on the verge of making 7M for the Cubs in 06', but the option was declined, so I doubt the Cubs have any interest in Jenkins, even if he was available.

[UK1679666180]

I don't think the reason they declined Burnitz's option was financially based. If he had a more productive '05, it would've been a much tougher decision whether or not accept the option. His medicore '05 season just sealed the deal.

 

If Hendry held Jenkins' value at a higher rate than Burnitz, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility. But, I haven't heard anything in regards to him being avail. or the Cubs being interested

[Shawon12]

One important matchup

Yost>Baker

[snoodmonger]

You really think Sheets is better than Zambrano? Zambrano has better numbers over his career and has proven to be a horse. Sheets has not, and thats why I gave the advantage to Zambrano. Capuano's ERA was pretty bad in 2003 and 2004 and last year he posted a 3.99 ERA with a 1.38 WHIP and Maddux's was 4.24 ERA with a 1.22 WHIP. If Capuano is better it isn't by all that much. Bush was alright last year (4.49 ERA) but I'd say a combination of a healthy Wood and Rusch when Wood is hurt will outproduce Dave Bush.

 

I admit I haven't seen much of Turnbow and he did put up solid numbers last year, but so did Dempster in the closer role. They both have a lot to prove in my eyes and thats why I said they are about the same.

 

Ahh, the Brewers - everyone's sexy sleeper pick!

 

Although Zambrano is more durable Sheets has been the better pitcher the last two years with WHIP of 0.98 and 1.07 compared to Z's 1.22 and 1.15. I'm not knocking Z - he's awesome but Sheets has been better IMO.

 

 

Not sure why whip is the only stat you're including. A closer look at the stats shows that Sheets has better control. Thus, the better WHIP. But that's it in favor of Sheets.

 

Let's look at their careers.

 

Big Z: 1.27/.228/3.26

Sheets: 1.22/.258/3.83

 

That's career WHIP/BAA/ERA. Aside from the nearly idenitcal WHIP, Z has the advantage, and it's a fairly healthy one.

 

Other pertinent stats:

 

Big Z: 7.73 K/9 • 1.97 k/BB • .341 SLG • .656 OPS

Sheets: 7.57K/9 • 3.79 k/BB • .417 SLG • .717 OPS

 

Nothing surprising here. Z has the better numbers except for a lopsided advantage for Sheets in K/BB. But Z's OPS against is over .050 better, primarily because when people hit Sheets, they hit Sheets much harder.

 

Factor in the age (24 vs. 27) and the durability, and it seems to me the Z is a prett clear cut winner. Sheets gets hit more often and harder than Z. He gives up more runs and Ks less people, too. Don't get me wrong, he's a great pitcher, but it seems like the only thing he's got on Z is control.

[Illini Iceman]

You really think Sheets is better than Zambrano? Zambrano has better numbers over his career and has proven to be a horse. Sheets has not, and thats why I gave the advantage to Zambrano. Capuano's ERA was pretty bad in 2003 and 2004 and last year he posted a 3.99 ERA with a 1.38 WHIP and Maddux's was 4.24 ERA with a 1.22 WHIP. If Capuano is better it isn't by all that much. Bush was alright last year (4.49 ERA) but I'd say a combination of a healthy Wood and Rusch when Wood is hurt will outproduce Dave Bush.

 

I admit I haven't seen much of Turnbow and he did put up solid numbers last year, but so did Dempster in the closer role. They both have a lot to prove in my eyes and thats why I said they are about the same.

 

Ahh, the Brewers - everyone's sexy sleeper pick!

 

Although Zambrano is more durable Sheets has been the better pitcher the last two years with WHIP of 0.98 and 1.07 compared to Z's 1.22 and 1.15. I'm not knocking Z - he's awesome but Sheets has been better IMO.

 

 

Not sure why whip is the only stat you're including. A closer look at the stats shows that Sheets has better control. Thus, the better WHIP. But that's it in favor of Sheets.

 

Let's look at their careers.

 

Big Z: 1.27/.228/3.26

Sheets: 1.22/.258/3.83

 

That's career WHIP/BAA/ERA. Aside from the nearly idenitcal WHIP, Z has the advantage, and it's a fairly healthy one.

 

Other pertinent stats:

 

Big Z: 7.73 K/9 • 1.97 k/BB • .341 SLG • .656 OPS

Sheets: 7.57K/9 • 3.79 k/BB • .417 SLG • .717 OPS

 

Nothing surprising here. Z has the better numbers except for a lopsided advantage for Sheets in K/BB. But Z's OPS against is over .050 better, primarily because when people hit Sheets, they hit Sheets much harder.

 

Factor in the age (24 vs. 27) and the durability, and it seems to me the Z is a prett clear cut winner. Sheets gets hit more often and harder than Z. He gives up more runs and Ks less people, too. Don't get me wrong, he's a great pitcher, but it seems like the only thing he's got on Z is control.

 

I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would trade Zambrano straight up for Sheets. IMO Zambrano is going to keep getting better and unless he has some injury issues may very well wind up being the dominant SP in baseball over the next few seasons.

[8-8-88]

stats, stats, stats, too many stats are thrown around on this board.

 

As far as the Brewers, they are still 2 years away from hitting their stride. They still need a few pieces, but they aren't the doormat in the division anymore.

[abuck1220]

I agree that the Brewers are starting to get really overrated. I think they win about 77 games next year. '07's their year to contend.

 

so a full year of sheets, weeks, turnbow is going to equal a four win subtraction? turnbow and weeks should only get better, and i don't think prince is going to be a big dropoff from overbay. they should trade for blalock and sign weaver...they could be a real contender if they made those moves.

[abuck1220]

stats, stats, stats, too many stats are thrown around on this board.

 

As far as the Brewers, they are still 2 years away from hitting their stride. They still need a few pieces, but they aren't the doormat in the division anymore.

 

yeah, you just sayin' stuff is much more persuasive than stats.

[8-8-88]

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm just giving my opinion. My point is that you can get stats to prove anything you want. Not only that, but everyone seems to have their own point of view on what stats matter and which ones don't. I just think too many people rely too much on statistics.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm just giving my opinion. My point is that you can get stats to prove anything you want. Not only that, but everyone seems to have their own point of view on what stats matter and which ones don't. I just think too many people rely too much on statistics.

 

And what would you prefer we use to support our opinions? Since it's impossible for each person to watch 162 games of all 30 mlb teams, looking at the stats is the best way to give an objective view of what is happening.

[BigbadB]

stats, stats, stats, too many stats are thrown around on this board.

 

As far as the Brewers, they are still 2 years away from hitting their stride. They still need a few pieces, but they aren't the doormat in the division anymore.

 

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm just giving my opinion. My point is that you can get stats to prove anything you want. Not only that, but everyone seems to have their own point of view on what stats matter and which ones don't. I just think too many people rely too much on statistics.

 

So, basically what you are saying is stats are worthless and your opinion is the true indicator of what should hold weight around here?

[SAMMYWHO]

stats, stats, stats, too many stats are thrown around on this board.

 

As far as the Brewers, they are still 2 years away from hitting their stride. They still need a few pieces, but they aren't the doormat in the division anymore.

 

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm just giving my opinion. My point is that you can get stats to prove anything you want. Not only that, but everyone seems to have their own point of view on what stats matter and which ones don't. I just think too many people rely too much on statistics.

 

So, basically what you are saying is stats are worthless and your opinion is the true indicator of what should hold weight around here?

 

Sounds like an old school scout. Jim is that you?

[8-8-88]

stats, stats, stats, too many stats are thrown around on this board.

 

As far as the Brewers, they are still 2 years away from hitting their stride. They still need a few pieces, but they aren't the doormat in the division anymore.

 

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm just giving my opinion. My point is that you can get stats to prove anything you want. Not only that, but everyone seems to have their own point of view on what stats matter and which ones don't. I just think too many people rely too much on statistics.

 

So, basically what you are saying is stats are worthless and your opinion is the true indicator of what should hold weight around here?

 

There is a middle ground. Everything doesn't have to be cut and dry with only using numbers for support.

[BigbadB]

Who is saying their opinion is cut and dry? Using stats to support your opinion just gives that opinion a little more credence.

 

Corey Patterson is lousy! It's an opinion, and anyone can argue that opinion.

 

Corey Patterson is lousy because his SLG wasn't even as high as Walker's OBP, is an opinion supported by stats, which anyone can still argue that opinion.

 

Are you asking that we all quit using stats to support our argument?

 

*I was only using Corey as an example to prove my point. In no way am I declaring one way or another that Corey is lousy, even if the stats support that theory.

[8-8-88]

I hear ya. I think that at times people tend to get a little too wrapped up in the stats and start throwing them out there to prove minute aspects of players abilities. And in no way shape or form singled out any particular poster on this board. I get too wrapped up in the stats myself at times.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

You really think Sheets is better than Zambrano? Zambrano has better numbers over his career and has proven to be a horse. Sheets has not, and thats why I gave the advantage to Zambrano. Capuano's ERA was pretty bad in 2003 and 2004 and last year he posted a 3.99 ERA with a 1.38 WHIP and Maddux's was 4.24 ERA with a 1.22 WHIP. If Capuano is better it isn't by all that much. Bush was alright last year (4.49 ERA) but I'd say a combination of a healthy Wood and Rusch when Wood is hurt will outproduce Dave Bush.

 

I admit I haven't seen much of Turnbow and he did put up solid numbers last year, but so did Dempster in the closer role. They both have a lot to prove in my eyes and thats why I said they are about the same.

 

Ahh, the Brewers - everyone's sexy sleeper pick!

 

Although Zambrano is more durable Sheets has been the better pitcher the last two years with WHIP of 0.98 and 1.07 compared to Z's 1.22 and 1.15. I'm not knocking Z - he's awesome but Sheets has been better IMO.

 

 

Not sure why whip is the only stat you're including. A closer look at the stats shows that Sheets has better control. Thus, the better WHIP. But that's it in favor of Sheets.

 

Let's look at their careers.

 

Big Z: 1.27/.228/3.26

Sheets: 1.22/.258/3.83

 

That's career WHIP/BAA/ERA. Aside from the nearly idenitcal WHIP, Z has the advantage, and it's a fairly healthy one.

 

Other pertinent stats:

 

Big Z: 7.73 K/9 • 1.97 k/BB • .341 SLG • .656 OPS

Sheets: 7.57K/9 • 3.79 k/BB • .417 SLG • .717 OPS

 

Nothing surprising here. Z has the better numbers except for a lopsided advantage for Sheets in K/BB. But Z's OPS against is over .050 better, primarily because when people hit Sheets, they hit Sheets much harder.

 

Factor in the age (24 vs. 27) and the durability, and it seems to me the Z is a prett clear cut winner. Sheets gets hit more often and harder than Z. He gives up more runs and Ks less people, too. Don't get me wrong, he's a great pitcher, but it seems like the only thing he's got on Z is control.

 

You're using career stats however Sheets has made a huge step forward in the last 2 years. If Sheets puts up a full year of baseball next year I think it's probable he puts up better numbers than Z. My post "I'm not knocking Z - he's awesome but Sheets has been better IMO." was misleading.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You really think Sheets is better than Zambrano? Zambrano has better numbers over his career and has proven to be a horse. Sheets has not, and thats why I gave the advantage to Zambrano. Capuano's ERA was pretty bad in 2003 and 2004 and last year he posted a 3.99 ERA with a 1.38 WHIP and Maddux's was 4.24 ERA with a 1.22 WHIP. If Capuano is better it isn't by all that much. Bush was alright last year (4.49 ERA) but I'd say a combination of a healthy Wood and Rusch when Wood is hurt will outproduce Dave Bush.

 

I admit I haven't seen much of Turnbow and he did put up solid numbers last year, but so did Dempster in the closer role. They both have a lot to prove in my eyes and thats why I said they are about the same.

 

Ahh, the Brewers - everyone's sexy sleeper pick!

 

Although Zambrano is more durable Sheets has been the better pitcher the last two years with WHIP of 0.98 and 1.07 compared to Z's 1.22 and 1.15. I'm not knocking Z - he's awesome but Sheets has been better IMO.

 

 

Not sure why whip is the only stat you're including. A closer look at the stats shows that Sheets has better control. Thus, the better WHIP. But that's it in favor of Sheets.

 

Let's look at their careers.

 

Big Z: 1.27/.228/3.26

Sheets: 1.22/.258/3.83

 

That's career WHIP/BAA/ERA. Aside from the nearly idenitcal WHIP, Z has the advantage, and it's a fairly healthy one.

 

Other pertinent stats:

 

Big Z: 7.73 K/9 • 1.97 k/BB • .341 SLG • .656 OPS

Sheets: 7.57K/9 • 3.79 k/BB • .417 SLG • .717 OPS

 

Nothing surprising here. Z has the better numbers except for a lopsided advantage for Sheets in K/BB. But Z's OPS against is over .050 better, primarily because when people hit Sheets, they hit Sheets much harder.

 

Factor in the age (24 vs. 27) and the durability, and it seems to me the Z is a prett clear cut winner. Sheets gets hit more often and harder than Z. He gives up more runs and Ks less people, too. Don't get me wrong, he's a great pitcher, but it seems like the only thing he's got on Z is control.

 

You're using career stats however Sheets has made a huge step forward in the last 2 years. If Sheets puts up a full year of baseball next year I think it's probable he puts up better numbers than Z. My post "I'm not knocking Z - he's awesome but Sheets has been better IMO." was misleading.

 

Isn't that unfair to Z since he's several years younger and still has those years to "step forward"? He's outperformed Sheets to date at a younger age, that means he's been better.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

You really think Sheets is better than Zambrano? Zambrano has better numbers over his career and has proven to be a horse. Sheets has not, and thats why I gave the advantage to Zambrano. Capuano's ERA was pretty bad in 2003 and 2004 and last year he posted a 3.99 ERA with a 1.38 WHIP and Maddux's was 4.24 ERA with a 1.22 WHIP. If Capuano is better it isn't by all that much. Bush was alright last year (4.49 ERA) but I'd say a combination of a healthy Wood and Rusch when Wood is hurt will outproduce Dave Bush.

 

I admit I haven't seen much of Turnbow and he did put up solid numbers last year, but so did Dempster in the closer role. They both have a lot to prove in my eyes and thats why I said they are about the same.

 

Ahh, the Brewers - everyone's sexy sleeper pick!

 

Although Zambrano is more durable Sheets has been the better pitcher the last two years with WHIP of 0.98 and 1.07 compared to Z's 1.22 and 1.15. I'm not knocking Z - he's awesome but Sheets has been better IMO.

 

 

Not sure why whip is the only stat you're including. A closer look at the stats shows that Sheets has better control. Thus, the better WHIP. But that's it in favor of Sheets.

 

Let's look at their careers.

 

Big Z: 1.27/.228/3.26

Sheets: 1.22/.258/3.83

 

That's career WHIP/BAA/ERA. Aside from the nearly idenitcal WHIP, Z has the advantage, and it's a fairly healthy one.

 

Other pertinent stats:

 

Big Z: 7.73 K/9 • 1.97 k/BB • .341 SLG • .656 OPS

Sheets: 7.57K/9 • 3.79 k/BB • .417 SLG • .717 OPS

 

Nothing surprising here. Z has the better numbers except for a lopsided advantage for Sheets in K/BB. But Z's OPS against is over .050 better, primarily because when people hit Sheets, they hit Sheets much harder.

 

Factor in the age (24 vs. 27) and the durability, and it seems to me the Z is a prett clear cut winner. Sheets gets hit more often and harder than Z. He gives up more runs and Ks less people, too. Don't get me wrong, he's a great pitcher, but it seems like the only thing he's got on Z is control.

 

You're using career stats however Sheets has made a huge step forward in the last 2 years. If Sheets puts up a full year of baseball next year I think it's probable he puts up better numbers than Z. My post "I'm not knocking Z - he's awesome but Sheets has been better IMO." was misleading.

 

Isn't that unfair to Z since he's several years younger and still has those years to "step forward"? He's outperformed Sheets to date at a younger age, that means he's been better.

 

Not really since the original post was in regards to next years production. If both guys make 32 starts next year Z might be better but I doubt it.

 

edit - If you are wondering about total value please see my post before...

 

"If you could add either Z or Sheets to the Cards right now, who would you pick?"

 

Great question, from a pure baseball standpoint Z because of age and durability. However with money concerns Sheets would because tempting because he seems willing to take sign friendly contracts while Z has Boras and WILL test the FA market. Z is going to get freaky money.