Pierre Extension possibilty....?

[RynoRules]

What's up with the Pierre hate? He's played solid D and has picked it up of late (raised his BA about 68 points in 7 games). His SB% is 100.

 

Pierre up to 4/15/06: .214 / .250 / .286 (3 SB)

 

Pierre up to 4/23/06: .282 / .301 / .352 (7 SB)

 

 

I hear the argument "it's early" for all of the board favorites (Cedeno, Murton, Ramirez). Somehow it's not so applicable when it's a guy like Pierre. Puzzling.

 

No one is talking about long term extensions for Cedeno, Murton, and Ramirez. Where has anyone been unreasonable about Pierre in this thread?

 

That's not the point. You said he has been "terrible"; then I guess some of your more favored guys have been terrible too, eh? We all favor ARam, and for a guy making over 10-mill year, he's been putrid. Ready to give up on him yet?

[Warpticon]

What's up with the Pierre hate? He's played solid D and has picked it up of late (raised his BA about 68 points in 7 games). His SB% is 100.

 

Pierre up to 4/15/06: .214 / .250 / .286 (3 SB)

 

Pierre up to 4/23/06: .282 / .301 / .352 (7 SB)

 

 

I hear the argument "it's early" for all of the board favorites (Cedeno, Murton, Ramirez). Somehow it's not so applicable when it's a guy like Pierre. Puzzling.

 

No one is talking about long term extensions for Cedeno, Murton, and Ramirez. Where has anyone been unreasonable about Pierre in this thread?

 

That's not the point. You said he has been "terrible"; then I guess some of your more favored guys have been terrible too, eh? We all favor ARam, and for a guy making over 10-mill year, he's been putrid. Ready to give up on him yet?

 

Um, that's exactly the point. Or did you not notice the thread title?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

What's up with the Pierre hate? He's played solid D and has picked it up of late (raised his BA about 68 points in 7 games). His SB% is 100.

 

Pierre up to 4/15/06: .214 / .250 / .286 (3 SB)

 

Pierre up to 4/23/06: .282 / .301 / .352 (7 SB)

 

 

I hear the argument "it's early" for all of the board favorites (Cedeno, Murton, Ramirez). Somehow it's not so applicable when it's a guy like Pierre. Puzzling.

 

No one is talking about long term extensions for Cedeno, Murton, and Ramirez. Where has anyone been unreasonable about Pierre in this thread?

 

That's not the point. You said he has been "terrible"; then I guess some of your more favored guys have been terrible too, eh? We all favor ARam, and for a guy making over 10-mill year, he's been putrid. Ready to give up on him yet?

 

Um, that's exactly the point. Or did you not notice the thread title?

 

You're commenting on the guy's performance. Do those comments not stand by themselves as arguments? If they don't, then how are you supporting not giving Pierre an extension?

[Warpticon]

What's up with the Pierre hate? He's played solid D and has picked it up of late (raised his BA about 68 points in 7 games). His SB% is 100.

 

Pierre up to 4/15/06: .214 / .250 / .286 (3 SB)

 

Pierre up to 4/23/06: .282 / .301 / .352 (7 SB)

 

 

I hear the argument "it's early" for all of the board favorites (Cedeno, Murton, Ramirez). Somehow it's not so applicable when it's a guy like Pierre. Puzzling.

 

.301 is still a terrible OBP, especially for a leadoff man. He needs to continue to pick it up to be worth considering giving an extension to, seeing as he's coming off a not-so-hot year.

 

historically his obp will be 50-60 points above his BA. he'll be just fine. does he need to pick it up? of course and he has been doing so for the last week, if you've been watching. some people start out the season in slumps (Ramirez, cough, cough).

 

it's early. why are you using .301 as the indicator of his abilities?

 

Look, if you're going involve yourself in a discussion, you need to at least read what's being said before commenting, and avoid putting words into other people's mouths. Otherwise, kindly point out where I said that .301 was the indicator of his abilities. I used .301 because you used .301. See the stats at the top of the quote chain? Yeah, that was you talking, and that's what I was responding to. I said he needs to continue to step it up in order to be worth extending. In other words, .301 is not going to get it. You can't possibly disagree with that, can you? So what are you arguing about?

[RynoRules]

What's up with the Pierre hate? He's played solid D and has picked it up of late (raised his BA about 68 points in 7 games). His SB% is 100.

 

Pierre up to 4/15/06: .214 / .250 / .286 (3 SB)

 

Pierre up to 4/23/06: .282 / .301 / .352 (7 SB)

 

 

I hear the argument "it's early" for all of the board favorites (Cedeno, Murton, Ramirez). Somehow it's not so applicable when it's a guy like Pierre. Puzzling.

 

No one is talking about long term extensions for Cedeno, Murton, and Ramirez. Where has anyone been unreasonable about Pierre in this thread?

 

That's not the point. You said he has been "terrible"; then I guess some of your more favored guys have been terrible too, eh? We all favor ARam, and for a guy making over 10-mill year, he's been putrid. Ready to give up on him yet?

 

Um, that's exactly the point. Or did you not notice the thread title?

 

Yeah, I got it, thanks. But you can't talk extension without talking performance, and the above assessment of Pierre's performance thus far lacks in what you might call "credibility"; it deserved to be called out. He's been bad or below-par, not terrible.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Pierre has been terrible so far as a Cub.

 

That's an overstatement. He has been bad, not terrible.

 

Semantics anyway, but his .282/.301/.352/.653 line is terrible. Not a single qualified player put up a worse OPS last year, and he's currently near the bottom of that list this year(around 160th of 195).

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

What's up with the Pierre hate? He's played solid D and has picked it up of late (raised his BA about 68 points in 7 games). His SB% is 100.

 

Pierre up to 4/15/06: .214 / .250 / .286 (3 SB)

 

Pierre up to 4/23/06: .282 / .301 / .352 (7 SB)

 

 

I hear the argument "it's early" for all of the board favorites (Cedeno, Murton, Ramirez). Somehow it's not so applicable when it's a guy like Pierre. Puzzling.

 

.301 is still a terrible OBP, especially for a leadoff man. He needs to continue to pick it up to be worth considering giving an extension to, seeing as he's coming off a not-so-hot year.

 

historically his obp will be 50-60 points above his BA. he'll be just fine. does he need to pick it up? of course and he has been doing so for the last week, if you've been watching. some people start out the season in slumps (Ramirez, cough, cough).

 

it's early. why are you using .301 as the indicator of his abilities?

 

Look, if you're going involve yourself in a discussion, you need to at least read what's being said before commenting, and avoid putting words into other people's mouths. Otherwise, kindly point out where I said that .301 was the indicator of his abilities. I used .301 because you used .301. See the stats at the top of the quote chain? Yeah, that was you talking, and that's what I was responding to. I said he needs to continue to step it up in order to be worth extending. In other words, .301 is not going to get it. You can't possibly disagree with that, can you? So what are you arguing about?

 

I didn't put words in your mouth. I'm sorry that you think so. Feel free to be offended.

 

What can I be arguing about - the same point I made in the post you obviously read (w/ Pierre's stats). It's early. historically Pierre hasn't been anywhere near .301 over 162 games (especially not when completely healthy).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Is this really that difficult a point to understand? Pierre was bad last year, he had a poor OBP(especially for a leadoff hitter), and he didn't hit for any power(which is the norm for him). Some say he was bothered by injuries that kept down his performance, or that it was a fluke down season(like Pat Burrell). That's fine, and it very well may be true. This year to date, he's been even worse, although it's not nearly as many at bats. All anyone has said is that it's premature to talk about giving him a contract extension when he's coming off a down year and has continued in that downward direction to start this year. No one's saying that he'll continue to be this bad.

[Warpticon]

What's up with the Pierre hate? He's played solid D and has picked it up of late (raised his BA about 68 points in 7 games). His SB% is 100.

 

Pierre up to 4/15/06: .214 / .250 / .286 (3 SB)

 

Pierre up to 4/23/06: .282 / .301 / .352 (7 SB)

 

 

I hear the argument "it's early" for all of the board favorites (Cedeno, Murton, Ramirez). Somehow it's not so applicable when it's a guy like Pierre. Puzzling.

 

.301 is still a terrible OBP, especially for a leadoff man. He needs to continue to pick it up to be worth considering giving an extension to, seeing as he's coming off a not-so-hot year.

 

historically his obp will be 50-60 points above his BA. he'll be just fine. does he need to pick it up? of course and he has been doing so for the last week, if you've been watching. some people start out the season in slumps (Ramirez, cough, cough).

 

it's early. why are you using .301 as the indicator of his abilities?

 

Look, if you're going involve yourself in a discussion, you need to at least read what's being said before commenting, and avoid putting words into other people's mouths. Otherwise, kindly point out where I said that .301 was the indicator of his abilities. I used .301 because you used .301. See the stats at the top of the quote chain? Yeah, that was you talking, and that's what I was responding to. I said he needs to continue to step it up in order to be worth extending. In other words, .301 is not going to get it. You can't possibly disagree with that, can you? So what are you arguing about?

 

I didn't put words in your mouth. I'm sorry that you think so. Feel free to be offended.

 

What can I be arguing about - the same point I made in the post you obviously read (w/ Pierre's stats). It's early. historically Pierre hasn't been anywhere near .301 over 162 games (especially not when completely healthy).

 

Telling me I'm using .301 as the indicator of his abilities is absolutely putting words in my mouth, because I neither believed nor indicated any such thing.

 

The point I'm making is that there is no way I extend Pierre for the level of production he's currently providing. If he shows that he is better than he's shown so far (considerably better--2005 Pierre isn't worth extending, either, and .301 is a lot closer to .326 than it is to the .365-.380 range of his prime), then it's worth considering. If he doesn't, then he's not. Ramirez's slow start has nothing to do with whether Pierre should be extended or not.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Is this really that difficult a point to understand? Pierre was bad last year, he had a poor OBP(especially for a leadoff hitter), and he didn't hit for any power(which is the norm for him). Some say he was bothered by injuries that kept down his performance, or that it was a fluke down season(like Pat Burrell). That's fine, and it very well may be true. This year to date, he's been even worse, although it's not nearly as many at bats. All anyone has said is that it's premature to talk about giving him a contract extension when he's coming off a down year and has continued in that downward direction to start this year. No one's saying that he'll continue to be this bad.

 

I wouldn't give him an extension either. I was against getting him for the price we paid. However, statements like "Pierre has been terrible as a cub" and saying pierre's D has been crappy are statements that comment on a guy's performance (and I argue are false statements). Those claims stand alone. How do you undermine the main argument (extending Pierre)? Take out the supporting ones. I fail to see why you guys are having such an issue with this.

 

Is Pierre an offensive stud OPS-wise? Of course not. Prototypical leadoff hitters usually aren't, but that's the old school vs. the new school clash. I don't agree with it, but it's the methodology this organization is going to follow. It makes more sense to me to stick Youkilis in the leadoff spot than Pierre, but JH didn't ask me. We have to do the best we can with the mindset the front office has - and that's Pierre.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Is this really that difficult a point to understand? Pierre was bad last year, he had a poor OBP(especially for a leadoff hitter), and he didn't hit for any power(which is the norm for him). Some say he was bothered by injuries that kept down his performance, or that it was a fluke down season(like Pat Burrell). That's fine, and it very well may be true. This year to date, he's been even worse, although it's not nearly as many at bats. All anyone has said is that it's premature to talk about giving him a contract extension when he's coming off a down year and has continued in that downward direction to start this year. No one's saying that he'll continue to be this bad.

 

I wouldn't give him an extension either. I was against getting him for the price we paid. However, statements like "Pierre has been terrible as a cub" and saying pierre's D has been crappy are statements that comment on a guy's performance (and I argue are false statements). Those claims stand alone. How do you undermine the main argument (extending Pierre)? Take out the supporting ones. I fail to see why you guys are having such an issue with this.

 

Is Pierre an offensive stud OPS-wise? Of course not. Prototypical leadoff hitters usually aren't, but that's the old school vs. the new school clash. I don't agree with it, but it's the methodology this organization is going to follow. It makes more sense to me to stick Youkilis in the leadoff spot than Pierre, but JH didn't ask me. We have to do the best we can with the mindset the front office has - and that's Pierre.

 

Pierre has been terrible as a Cub. Don't even use OPS, he has been awful at getting on base. He's always been considered a below average defender(I'm not the one who made the original statement about this year, I haven't noticed much good or bad besides his little league arm).

[RynoRules]

Is this really that difficult a point to understand? Pierre was bad last year, he had a poor OBP(especially for a leadoff hitter), and he didn't hit for any power(which is the norm for him). Some say he was bothered by injuries that kept down his performance, or that it was a fluke down season(like Pat Burrell). That's fine, and it very well may be true. This year to date, he's been even worse, although it's not nearly as many at bats. All anyone has said is that it's premature to talk about giving him a contract extension when he's coming off a down year and has continued in that downward direction to start this year. No one's saying that he'll continue to be this bad.

 

Fine, but when you lead off with "he's terrible", a general,sweeping, and incindeary statement, you should know that people are going to take umbrage. IMO, he's been bad at the plate in general, but very good on the field and on the bases.

[erik316wttn]

If/when we get rid of Jones, then I'd be all for an extension. But not until.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Is this really that difficult a point to understand? Pierre was bad last year, he had a poor OBP(especially for a leadoff hitter), and he didn't hit for any power(which is the norm for him). Some say he was bothered by injuries that kept down his performance, or that it was a fluke down season(like Pat Burrell). That's fine, and it very well may be true. This year to date, he's been even worse, although it's not nearly as many at bats. All anyone has said is that it's premature to talk about giving him a contract extension when he's coming off a down year and has continued in that downward direction to start this year. No one's saying that he'll continue to be this bad.

 

I wouldn't give him an extension either. I was against getting him for the price we paid. However, statements like "Pierre has been terrible as a cub" and saying pierre's D has been crappy are statements that comment on a guy's performance (and I argue are false statements). Those claims stand alone. How do you undermine the main argument (extending Pierre)? Take out the supporting ones. I fail to see why you guys are having such an issue with this.

 

Is Pierre an offensive stud OPS-wise? Of course not. Prototypical leadoff hitters usually aren't, but that's the old school vs. the new school clash. I don't agree with it, but it's the methodology this organization is going to follow. It makes more sense to me to stick Youkilis in the leadoff spot than Pierre, but JH didn't ask me. We have to do the best we can with the mindset the front office has - and that's Pierre.

 

Pierre has been terrible as a Cub. Don't even use OPS, he has been awful at getting on base. He's always been considered a below average defender(I'm not the one who made the original statement about this year, I haven't noticed much good or bad besides his little league arm).

 

:lol: He does have a noodle arm.

 

What's the difference between starting out slow and "being terrible as a Cub?" Pierre's track record seems to indicate that he'll get on base at a decent clip and swipe a respectable number of bags. His range looks pretty good in CF. I've seen him take a couple bad reads, but he's managed to catch up to the ball each time that's happened. No harm, no foul.

 

Pierre hasn't always been considered a below average defender. Where do you get this? Listening to guys like BB and JH, Pierre is a very competent defender, even though he has a weak arm.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

:lol: He does have a noodle arm.

 

What's the difference between starting out slow and "being terrible as a Cub?"

 

Nothing, I've already said it was in the context of the talks for him to get an extension. I'd like to see him show 2005 was a fluke, and thus far he hasn't done anything to ease my concerns.

 

Pierre hasn't always been considered a below average defender. Where do you get this? Listening to guys like BB and JH, Pierre is a very competent defender, even though he has a weak arm.

 

I don't have any links off hand, but Pierre isn't a very good at tracking balls in addition to his T-Rex throws. His speed helps compensate for that some, but he's still below average.

 

Numerically, Pierre has a career 97 rate from BP(hasn't been over 95 since his Colorado days), and PMR has him ever so slightly above or below average depending on the differences in the model.

[badger1679666666]

 

What's the difference between starting out slow and "being terrible as a Cub?"

 

You use the first when you like the player, and you use the second when you don't.

[CubinNY]

 

What's the difference between starting out slow and "being terrible as a Cub?"

 

You use the first when you like the player, and you use the second when you don't.

 

No, you use the second when a new guy is with the ballclub and he has performed poorly, as in, "Jacque Jones and Juan Peirre have been terrible as Cubs" becuase they have. The statement makes no prognostications about the future. It is only a statement about the present.

[Mark_R]

 

What's the difference between starting out slow and "being terrible as a Cub?"

 

You use the first when you like the player, and you use the second when you don't.

 

No, you use the second when a new guy is with the ballclub and he has performed poorly, as in, "Jacque Jones and Juan Peirre have been terrible as Cubs" becuase they have. The statement makes no prognostications about the future. It is only a statement about the present.

 

What? If it makes a statement about the present and ONLY the present, how does that only encompass "new" players to the team?

[CubinNY]

 

What's the difference between starting out slow and "being terrible as a Cub?"

 

You use the first when you like the player, and you use the second when you don't.

 

No, you use the second when a new guy is with the ballclub and he has performed poorly, as in, "Jacque Jones and Juan Peirre have been terrible as Cubs" becuase they have. The statement makes no prognostications about the future. It is only a statement about the present.

 

What? If it makes a statement about the present and ONLY the present, how does that only encompass "new" players to the team?

 

Because they have no past with the Cubs.

[Mark_R]

I guess we can leave it at that, because the whole issue is rather useless anyway.

[cubfan1955]

I like Pierre...but I like Pie better. :D

 

Seriously I think the Cubs and Pierre have taken the best approach. The Cubs don't want to invest prematurely with Pie on the horizon and Pierre doesn't want to sign while his value is at it's lowest after the year he had last year.

 

And I don't think he's been terrible. He's been far from stellar but someone that is terrible is someone that doesn't contribute...and he has contributed quite a bit to a good percentage of the Cubs wins.

[bhogg]

If Pierre is what the Cubs need, which I think he is; I don't see any correlation between Pierre and Pie (other than CF).

 

If Pie is the all-world player that he's put up to be, playing RF might be okay for him.

 

I contend that with Jones, we have a guy who we can conceivably get rid of via trade (if needed). His contract is not so outrageous that if a deal is close, we could eat some contract.

 

 

It's already been established that Pie is not a lead off hitter, so if Pierre leaves and Pie is called up as a replacement, who is a likely lead off candidate? Sadly it is Pie and we're looking another CPatt situation square in the eye.

[da bears]

If Pierre is what the Cubs need, which I think he is; I don't see any correlation between Pierre and Pie (other than CF).

 

If Pie is the all-world player that he's put up to be, playing RF might be okay for him.

 

I contend that with Jones, we have a guy who we can conceivably get rid of via trade (if needed). His contract is not so outrageous that if a deal is close, we could eat some contract.

 

 

It's already been established that Pie is not a lead off hitter, so if Pierre leaves and Pie is called up as a replacement, who is a likely lead off candidate? Sadly it is Pie and we're looking another CPatt situation square in the eye.

 

I agree. I would personally like to see if Pie could play rightfield if the Cubs do resign Pierre. And Pierre hasn't been awesome but he's been doing thus far than anyone last year.

[Guest]

And Pierre hasn't been awesome but he's been doing thus far than anyone last year.

If that's the limit of your standards, I think they're too low.

[cubfan1955]

If Pierre is what the Cubs need, which I think he is; I don't see any correlation between Pierre and Pie (other than CF).

 

If Pie is the all-world player that he's put up to be, playing RF might be okay for him.

 

I contend that with Jones, we have a guy who we can conceivably get rid of via trade (if needed). His contract is not so outrageous that if a deal is close, we could eat some contract.

 

 

It's already been established that Pie is not a lead off hitter, so if Pierre leaves and Pie is called up as a replacement, who is a likely lead off candidate? Sadly it is Pie and we're looking another CPatt situation square in the eye.

Oh...I would have no problem keeping Pierre and getting rid of Jones. Even if Pierre doesn't get back to his pre 2005 he's got more upside than Jones.