New Names on Hendry's Radar According to Bruce Levine

[BigbadB]

Call me crazy, but I think I'd rather have Bynum. Watching Counsell's stance in the batters box makes me want to :pukel:

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I want Craig Counsil on the team for no reason other than making fun of my non-baseball-fan friend's bowling style, which I likened to his batting stance. (He holds the ball over his head before aproaching) Didn't make any sense to him, but he'll see Counsil some time if he comes to the Cubs, and will know how horrible he looks (and plays).

[soapy]

The question of this thread becomes-who do you want as your final bench player-Craig Counsell or Freddie Bynum?

If he's truly going to be used as the final bench player, I'll take Freddie and the extra million dollars, please.

They both suck.

 

You're killing me Smalls!! Honestly, as a cubs fan, how can you cry over one million dollars that isn't your money? I hope you're joking. Counsell sucks much, much, much less than Bynum - oh, and he's won a ring.

I'm not crying. And I don't really care that much about just one million dollars. I'm just saying, I think it's a waste. It's not a big deal to me. But honestly, Counsell really isn't any better than Bynum at this point and brings nothing to the team that can't come from Bynum, Theriot, or Izturis.

 

I don't give a crap about whether or not he's won a wring. Why does that matter? There are plenty of really awful players who have rings. Not to mention that Counsell isn't close to the player he was when he won that ring.

[goonys evil twin]

Call me crazy, but I think I'd rather have Bynum. Watching Counsell's stance in the batters box makes me want to :pukel:

 

The Cubs should be done with 36/37 year old bench players coming off terrible seasons in a series of terrible seasons.

[moorecg]

Gets on base a little more, doesn't strike out NEAR as much and is more likely to replace Isturiz and/or DeRosa in a double switch than Murton.

 

I hope I never have to hear those two words in connection with a Cubs managerial move ever again.

 

I'm not saying I like the idea, or even that I like Counsell...just that I like Counsell better than Bynum as a player...(there is an argument for Bynum that he's faster so if we need a base swiped, or a runner to advance on a sac fly, or score on a single from 2nd late in the game he'd be better, and he'll likely be cheaper, but that doesnt' seem to matter much anymore). That being said, I don't love either option.

 

Last year Bynum had an OPS+ of 90, Counsell was 69.

 

If we are counting on the slugging of either Counsell or Bynum to get us anywhere then we might as well just quit now.

 

We aren't "counting" on it, but the fact is Bynum was more productive last year. It doesn't make much sense to go out and pay more for less productive bench players.

 

I have no desire to get into a drawn out discussion of the relative merits of Freddy Bynum v. Craig Counsell, that being said, declaring that Bynum was more productive doesn't make it so.

Yes, his OPS+ was better than Counsell...wheee, while I'm not stat man, I'd guess the relative sample size is far from being representative.

 

Moreover, In what we'd ideally use him for (late inning, pinch hitter, last guy off the bench) I take Counsell, Why? Well, in almost 200 more atbats, Counsell struck out a total of 3 more times. I think we can all agree that, usually, it doesn't matter how you make outs (see ad nausem discussions of Brad Wilkerson and/or Adam Dunn) just whether you get on base, well, not only does Counsell get on base at a slightly higher rate...in the situations he'd be used, strike outs do matter a little bit more, at least to me...7th, 8th, and 9th innings, if there is a guy on 2nd, I'd rather have a ball in play than a K, Counsell gives you a better chance at that.

 

And no, this doesn't take in to account $$, I think I said somewhere above that it seems obvious that 500K +/- doesn't seem to matter this year, if I didn't, that does go into my equation. Basically what I'm saying is that if I'm on the playground and these are the last two guys standing, I pick Counsell.

[Soriano12]

Call me crazy, but I think I'd rather have Bynum. Watching Counsell's stance in the batters box makes me want to :pukel:

 

crazy

[Ding Dong Johnson]

One should never be forced to choose between Fast Freddie Bynum and anybody. Never.

[soapy]

I'd just like to point out how much I love this place. I mean, we are debating the productivity levels of Freddie Bynum and Craig Counsell, and I am totally into it.

 

Who else cares about this stuff?

 

I need to get a life (or actually get back to work).

[YearofDaCubs]

Call me crazy, but I think I'd rather have Bynum. Watching Counsell's stance in the batters box makes me want to :pukel:

Agreed.

[Omar]

I hate counsell's batting stance. No thanks.

[Warren Brusstar]

Is Hendry going to acquire every former Dunedin High School or Notre Dame player available?

[craig]

Wolf could be interesting.

 

Counsell, kind of depends on Theriot. I'd like for Theriot to be a guy who can play SS. Not sure if that's true or not. But his career as a utility dude would make a lot more sense if he could be the spunky low-power decent-OBP 2B/SS guy. Then your second infielder could be more of a bat, more of a 3B/1B hitter without SS responsibilities.

 

But, if the view is that Theriot can't play adequate SS, then you're stuck.

 

I think Cedeno should be out of the picture for this spring. He needs to go to Iowa and show he can hit and catch and hustle and concentrate. I don't think it makes any sense to keep him as a bench guy.

 

So, if Cedeno is in Iowa hopefully developing, and if Theriot can't play SS, then you need a reserve SS.

 

Counsell can play SS. Bynum can't. No-brainer, then, if the premise is that Theriot can't either. Counsell can also catch the ball at 2b. Bynum can't, or at least didn't seem able to last year. Counsell is also a better OBP guy. Less power, but Bynum went through periods where he seemed an auto-out.

 

My problem with Counsell is that it's another no-bat bench guy, were you to sign him. Blanco can't hit. Counsell has no punch. Theriot for whatever he offers, punch is not included. Pagan is a weak, no-power hitter. If you can only carry 5 bench players, now you're looking at just one player with any pinch-hitting power. I'd prefer two.

 

I'd like:

*Pagan, CF/speed light-hitting OF reserve

*Theriot, no-power middle infield reserve

*Blanco, defense-oriented no-punch catcher reserve

*Corner outfield bench with a bat and some power (Floyd could fit this profile)

*Corner infield bench with a bat and some power

[goonys evil twin]

Counsell is a worthless piece of crap 36 year old who should not be considered for a role on the Chicago Cubs, unless your goal is to win the 2000 World Series.

 

 

Counsell has value in nostalgia land, not reality.

[Mark_R]

Counsell is a worthless piece of crap 36 year old who should not be considered for a role on the Chicago Cubs, unless your goal is to win the 2000 World Series.

 

 

Counsell has value in nostalgia land, not reality.

 

I don't ever recall Counsell being a Yankee

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If we sign Counsell to replace Izturis, I'm on board. Craig is a much better hitter than Ceasar.

[moorecg]

Counsell is a worthless piece of crap 36 year old who should not be considered for a role on the Chicago Cubs, unless your goal is to win the 2000 World Series.

 

 

Counsell has value in nostalgia land, not reality.

 

Refreshing insight, but I don't think anyone is advocating "Man, we've got to get Counsell...he's the last piece to the Puzzle" I thought the discussion was "Counsell or Bynum." In that context, I think it is fair to "pick" Counsell...would we like someone better, hell yes, but as I understand it that wasn't the question.

[goonys evil twin]

Counsell is a worthless piece of crap 36 year old who should not be considered for a role on the Chicago Cubs, unless your goal is to win the 2000 World Series.

 

 

Counsell has value in nostalgia land, not reality.

 

I don't ever recall Counsell being a Yankee

 

That's right, AZ was 2001, Counsell's last good season.

 

He'll turn 37 next season.

 

The Cubs need to stop being the last stop on the retirement line for worthless players like this.

[goonys evil twin]

Counsell is a worthless piece of crap 36 year old who should not be considered for a role on the Chicago Cubs, unless your goal is to win the 2000 World Series.

 

 

Counsell has value in nostalgia land, not reality.

 

Refreshing insight, but I don't think anyone is advocating "Man, we've got to get Counsell...he's the last piece to the Puzzle" I thought the discussion was "Counsell or Bynum." In that context, I think it is fair to "pick" Counsell...would we like someone better, hell yes, but as I understand it that wasn't the question.

 

And yet Bynum, as bad as he is, was still better than Counsell last year, and younger and he's cheaper.

 

 

The discussion was that Counsell is supposedly on Hendry's radar, that's terrible news.

[moorecg]

Counsell is a worthless piece of crap 36 year old who should not be considered for a role on the Chicago Cubs, unless your goal is to win the 2000 World Series.

 

 

Counsell has value in nostalgia land, not reality.

 

Refreshing insight, but I don't think anyone is advocating "Man, we've got to get Counsell...he's the last piece to the Puzzle" I thought the discussion was "Counsell or Bynum." In that context, I think it is fair to "pick" Counsell...would we like someone better, hell yes, but as I understand it that wasn't the question.

 

And yet Bynum, as bad as he is, was still better than Counsell last year, and younger and he's cheaper.

 

 

The discussion was that Counsell is supposedly on Hendry's radar, that's terrible news.

 

Only when guaged by OPS...anyway, this discussion is nowhere near worth the time its taking...and pointless on several levels...

 

Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving.

[goonys evil twin]

Counsell is a worthless piece of crap 36 year old who should not be considered for a role on the Chicago Cubs, unless your goal is to win the 2000 World Series.

 

 

Counsell has value in nostalgia land, not reality.

 

Refreshing insight, but I don't think anyone is advocating "Man, we've got to get Counsell...he's the last piece to the Puzzle" I thought the discussion was "Counsell or Bynum." In that context, I think it is fair to "pick" Counsell...would we like someone better, hell yes, but as I understand it that wasn't the question.

 

And yet Bynum, as bad as he is, was still better than Counsell last year, and younger and he's cheaper.

 

 

The discussion was that Counsell is supposedly on Hendry's radar, that's terrible news.

 

Only when guaged by OPS...anyway, this discussion is nowhere near worth the time its taking...and pointless on several levels...

 

Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving.

 

Yes, only when using a measurement that actually attempts to value a player's overall production at the plate is it easy to see that Bynum was more productive at the plate than Counsell last year.

 

But Counsell puts that ball in play, Neifi style all the way baby.

[moorecg]

Counsell is a worthless piece of crap 36 year old who should not be considered for a role on the Chicago Cubs, unless your goal is to win the 2000 World Series.

 

 

Counsell has value in nostalgia land, not reality.

 

Refreshing insight, but I don't think anyone is advocating "Man, we've got to get Counsell...he's the last piece to the Puzzle" I thought the discussion was "Counsell or Bynum." In that context, I think it is fair to "pick" Counsell...would we like someone better, hell yes, but as I understand it that wasn't the question.

 

And yet Bynum, as bad as he is, was still better than Counsell last year, and younger and he's cheaper.

 

 

The discussion was that Counsell is supposedly on Hendry's radar, that's terrible news.

 

Only when guaged by OPS...anyway, this discussion is nowhere near worth the time its taking...and pointless on several levels...

 

Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving.

 

Yes, only when using a measurement that actually attempts to value a player's overall production at the plate is it easy to see that Bynum was more productive at the plate than Counsell last year.

 

But Counsell puts that ball in play, Neifi style all the way baby.

 

You win. No reasonable person could ever think Counsell and his higher OBP and fewer Ks would be a reasonable option over Bynum.

[soapy]

If we sign Counsell to replace Izturis, I'm on board. Craig is a much better hitter than Ceasar.

I'm not sure that will be the case next year.

[jjgman21]

 

And yet Bynum, as bad as he is, was still better than Counsell last year, and younger and he's cheaper.

 

 

The discussion was that Counsell is supposedly on Hendry's radar, that's terrible news.

 

I really have no opinion on whether the 25th man is Bynum or Counsell. I'd prefer neither.

 

but what I want to know is, when making this comparison, why don't we hear about "the OBP component is the more important part of OPS." why don't we hear "Bynum never displayed that kind of power in the minor before and probably will never display it in the majors again" out of your?

 

why when arguing one player v. another, do these things that you often say in other comparisons suddenly fall away? are you more interested in winning an argument or hashing out who is the better player?

[goonys evil twin]

 

And yet Bynum, as bad as he is, was still better than Counsell last year, and younger and he's cheaper.

 

 

The discussion was that Counsell is supposedly on Hendry's radar, that's terrible news.

 

I really have no opinion on whether the 25th man is Bynum or Counsell. I'd prefer neither.

 

but what I want to know is, when making this comparison, why don't we hear about "the OBP component is the more important part of OPS." why don't we hear "Bynum never displayed that kind of power in the minor before and probably will never display it in the majors again" out of your?

 

why when arguing one player v. another, do these things that you often say in other comparisons suddenly fall away? are you more interested in winning an argument or hashing out who is the better player?

 

The OBP difference wasn't that big last year. If you are going to claim that a guy who will turn 37 next year, coming off a terrible season, after a series of bad ones, is a better option that whatever dirt cheap unproductive player you already have, then I would think a 21 point difference in OPS+ the previous season would be meaningful. It's not like Counsell is some OBP savant. He's drawn more walks in his career than you might think possible for such a poor hitter, but he's living off a career year in a WS season 6 seasons ago. Somebody tried to hand the "better" title to Counsell over Bynum without any evidence to support such a claim. I'd like it much more if neither set foot in the home dugout at Wrigley next season. There's no reason why Theriot can't handle the backup SS duties, and Cedeno should be next in line on that question.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If we sign Counsell to replace Izturis, I'm on board. Craig is a much better hitter than Ceasar.

I'm not sure that will be the case next year.

 

I don't know. It's hard to be worse at the plate than Ceasar.