Trot Nixon

[Bruce Miles]

Anybody here like? He hits lefty and has a solid OBP. Just thought I'd ask.

[XZero771679666304]

Anybody here like? He hits lefty and has a solid OBP. Just thought I'd ask.

 

Doesn't he have pretty extreme splits vs. RHP and LHP? I like him, but if the Cubs acquired him, wouldn't Murton have to kiss most of his PT goodbye?

 

 

EDIT: Yup, his OPS vs RHP is over 200 points higher than vs. LHP. He sure wouldn't platoon with Jones, so murton would be the guy. That is unless Jones or Murton is dealt for pitching.

[Mushimus]

Anybody here like? He hits lefty and has a solid OBP. Just thought I'd ask.

 

I always liked his OBP & defense but how would he fit in outfield that has Murton, JJ, & Soriano??

[CubFanPhilly]

Anybody here like? He hits lefty and has a solid OBP. Just thought I'd ask.

 

As a platoon partner for Murton/4th outfielder? I like him a lot (much more than Floyd). Would he sign on for that role? What would he cost?

 

He'd fit the deep/flexible bench philosophy.

Edited December 2, 2006 by CubFanPhilly

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Is this your way of saying the Cubs are showing interest?

[Ken in DC]

Bruce

 

Is this a hint?

I would prefer Buck Coats and/or Lofton as a fourth outfielder

[E.J.]

I think I'd be more interested in Nixon as a 4th outfielder, bench guy than Floyd.

[cubweiser03]

He has really solid plate coverage and i like that for players who are getting older. He has improved that very nicely in the last 2-3 years and even before that he was damn good. They can use that ability to still get on base when there skills start the decline. Now he walks more than ks. So he might be actually getting better as a hitter.

 

He has suffered a power outage that last few years. I dont follow Boston enough but i am a little worried about that. He's got the skills so who knows if he can come back to the 25+HR a year.

 

Why doesnt Boston want him is the question i keep asking myself.

[E.J.]

This is like Hoops coming on and being cryptic with some of his posts. Does this mean we should expect a signing soon, Bruce? Or does it just mean the Cubs are interested?

[Bruce Miles]

Bruce

 

Is this a hint?

I would prefer Buck Coats and/or Lofton as a fourth outfielder

 

Absolutely nothing cryptic about it. I was just throwing it out there for the heck of it.

[Ivy Walls]

Nixon playing RF is a bona fide defender and above average offensive player against RHP'ers, (his split against LHP'ers is .204), what he provides is a solid OBP. Cubs would have to platoon him with Murton (if he remains) or another RHB (not Pagan his split is worse against LHP'ers).

 

This is not bad in that Piniella is on record believing a stronger platoon oriented team is the ticket for gaining a home field advantage in Wrigley.

 

Bruce et all, to me that also means that the best roster structure for the Cubs is a 11-man pitching staff, 5-starters who hurl 900+IP and a utility player who can catch adequently (cheap Javy Lopez who can play the OF and 1B?), a regular platoon in the middle infield (why DeRosa) where the 3 middle infielders do not play more than 120 games apiece and where catchers are also platooned 50/50 with a 3rd bench backup who can play in the field and pinch hit.

[Bruce Miles]

Nixon playing RF is a bona fide defender and above average offensive player against RHP'ers, (his split against LHP'ers is .204), what he provides is a solid OBP. Cubs would have to platoon him with Murton (if he remains) or another RHB (not Pagan his split is worse against LHP'ers).

 

This is not bad in that Piniella is on record believing a stronger platoon oriented team is the ticket for gaining a home field advantage in Wrigley.

 

Bruce et all, to me that also means that the best roster structure for the Cubs is a 11-man pitching staff, 5-starters who hurl 900+IP and a utility player who can catch adequently (cheap Javy Lopez who can play the OF and 1B?), a regular platoon in the middle infield (why DeRosa) where the 3 middle infielders do not play more than 120 games apiece and where catchers are also platooned 50/50 with a 3rd bench backup who can play in the field and pinch hit.

 

There's no question that an 11-man pitching staff would be preferable. You could have given Dusty 15 pitchers and that wouldn't have been enough for him.

[USSoccer]

If we were going into 2007 and Soriano was going to play CF, Nixon would be an upgrade over Jones, but both have pretty drastic splits. I don't see a fit here, although I like Nixon.

[AAApittsburgh]

I'd rather have Floyd.

[NewUserName]

If we do end up trading Jones for some pitching, adding Trot Nixon would be a good idea. If we are keeping Jones, I still wouldnt mind adding Nixon except that would reduce Murtons pt. Could we have an outfield of Murton, Jones and Nixon against rhers with Soriano at 2b? That would be awesome offensively but not much defensively plus you would be moving Soriano around quite abit.

 

 

At the end of the day I dont think adding Nixon is a bad idea in anyway. I also would much prefer to Floyd.

[rawaction]

I'm gonna make an assumption that Nixon would only be an option if the Cubs traded Jones and got a CF and Trot was platooning in LF with Murton......i.e. similar to the rumors we've heard about Floyd. Well then, my interest in Nixon would be similar to that of my interest in Floyd. I'd honestly rather have Jacque Jones back.

 

Jones is the youngest at 32 (Nixon 33, Floyd 34). Jones has a pretty friendly contract, and the way the offseason has been going, I don't see Floyd or Nixon signing for anything lower than equal to Jones' 5.5M. Also, Nixon and Floyd are coming off of seasons with OPS's of .767 and .731 respectively. Even if Jones reverts back to career norms, his career OPS is better than what Floyd and Nixon did in 2005. Both are huge injury risks, coming off of sub 120 game seasons (just 97 games out of Floyd). Jones is a safe bet to play 140. None of the 3 hit vs. LHPs, so you still have a platoon OF either way.

 

I'd much rather take my chances with Jones' friendly contract, ability to stay healthy, age and upside. I'm holding out hope that Perry can combine Jones' 2005 power breakout season with his 2004, where he walked at an acceptable rate.

[Kingmanarama]

He'll be 33 in April, he has a history of back/leg injuries, and he slugged .394 in 453 plate appearances last season. His power really seems to have disappeared. If it takes a multi-year deal to get him, I'm definitely not interested.

[Jazz]

I'm gonna make an assumption that Nixon would only be an option if the Cubs traded Jones and got a CF and Trot was platooning in LF with Murton......i.e. similar to the rumors we've heard about Floyd. Well then, my interest in Nixon would be similar to that of my interest in Floyd. I'd honestly rather have Jacque Jones back.

 

Jones is the youngest at 32 (Nixon 33, Floyd 34). Jones has a pretty friendly contract, and the way the offseason has been going, I don't see Floyd or Nixon signing for anything lower than equal to Jones' 5.5M. Also, Nixon and Floyd are coming off of seasons with OPS's of .767 and .731 respectively. Even if Jones reverts back to career norms, his career OPS is better than what Floyd and Nixon did in 2005. Both are huge injury risks, coming off of sub 120 game seasons (just 97 games out of Floyd). Jones is a safe bet to play 140. None of the 3 hit vs. LHPs, so you still have a platoon OF either way.

 

I'd much rather take my chances with Jones' friendly contract, ability to stay healthy, age and upside. I'm holding out hope that Perry can combine Jones' 2005 power breakout season with his 2004, where he walked at an acceptable rate.

 

That's exactly how I've been feeling about things. An OF of Murton, Jones, and Soriano has alot of upside to be one of the best in the NL. If Murton can improve and still be the patient batter we've all come to love, and Jones and Soriano can come close to their 2006 numbers, than thats a decent hitting outfield. The problem with the offense lies at SS. We cannot have Izturis batting there in this lineup. Please find a suitor for him Jim.

[Uber]

I'm gonna make an assumption that Nixon would only be an option if the Cubs traded Jones and got a CF and Trot was platooning in LF with Murton......i.e. similar to the rumors we've heard about Floyd. Well then, my interest in Nixon would be similar to that of my interest in Floyd. I'd honestly rather have Jacque Jones back.

 

Jones is the youngest at 32 (Nixon 33, Floyd 34). Jones has a pretty friendly contract, and the way the offseason has been going, I don't see Floyd or Nixon signing for anything lower than equal to Jones' 5.5M. Also, Nixon and Floyd are coming off of seasons with OPS's of .767 and .731 respectively. Even if Jones reverts back to career norms, his career OPS is better than what Floyd and Nixon did in 2005. Both are huge injury risks, coming off of sub 120 game seasons (just 97 games out of Floyd). Jones is a safe bet to play 140. None of the 3 hit vs. LHPs, so you still have a platoon OF either way.

 

I'd much rather take my chances with Jones' friendly contract, ability to stay healthy, age and upside. I'm holding out hope that Perry can combine Jones' 2005 power breakout season with his 2004, where he walked at an acceptable rate.

 

QFT.

[Backtobanks]

Nixon playing RF is a bona fide defender and above average offensive player against RHP'ers, (his split against LHP'ers is .204), what he provides is a solid OBP. Cubs would have to platoon him with Murton (if he remains) or another RHB (not Pagan his split is worse against LHP'ers).

 

This is not bad in that Piniella is on record believing a stronger platoon oriented team is the ticket for gaining a home field advantage in Wrigley.

 

Bruce et all, to me that also means that the best roster structure for the Cubs is a 11-man pitching staff, 5-starters who hurl 900+IP and a utility player who can catch adequently (cheap Javy Lopez who can play the OF and 1B?), a regular platoon in the middle infield (why DeRosa) where the 3 middle infielders do not play more than 120 games apiece and where catchers are also platooned 50/50 with a 3rd bench backup who can play in the field and pinch hit.

 

There's no question that an 11-man pitching staff would be preferable. You could have given Dusty 15 pitchers and that wouldn't have been enough for him.

 

With the rumors and the players available, we might have an 11-man starting staff. My only concerns about Nixon and/or Floyd are the cost (since they're both used to pretty big contracts) and cutting significantly into Murton's playing time.

[craig]

I'm not a big advocate of the 11-man pitching staff.

 

Miller, Prior, Wood will all have guaranteed contracts. If they are really hurt, you can get them off the roster for rehab/DL. But often when you have these post-injury guys, they are on the staff but not giving you tons of innings. You know, maybe wood is on roster, but isn't allowed to be used in back-to-back days. Or, Miller is on roster but doesn't pitch well enough to win rotation spot. Maybe in relief he can't pitch back-to-back days, or maybe he's in the pen but so lousy that the manager doesn't actually want to use him, but his contract prevents Hendry from releasing him. Or, Prior sooner or later does come up for his usual try-to-make-comeback deal, but he's on 80-pitch count at first and he's only good for 3-4 innings. Or, Miller is the #5 starter, but he's so wild and has to nibble around so much with his curveball that he's basically a 5-inning pitcher. Or, Cubs do end up snagging Lilly, who has usually averaged less than 6 innings. Or, maybe Mateo or Marmol or Marshall end up getting the #5 spot; none except maybe Marshall have given indications that they'd be likely to rack up innings quickly and work deep.

 

Point is: I think the rotation may work out great, but there are a variety of scenarios in which guys often shouldn't be going even 6 innings. (And, if they do they may be getting hit pretty hard and losing their stuff in that 6th inning...)

 

If the pen averages 3.5 innings per game, that sums to almost 600 innings for the year. If they average 3 innings per game, that's still almost 500 innings for the year.

 

If you have a 6-man pen, do you want all your relievers needing to eat 80-100 innings each? That's a lot of innings for some relievers. *Especially for a guy whose arm needs special care (Wood, and perhaps Miller).

*And, especially for a guy who may be used primarily as situational loogy (Ohman, perhaps Cotts, even though I'm not sure his splits demand anysuch usage.)

*Especially for a closer, who may be used almost only in one-inning stretches. (I don't expect the closers to score 80 saves this year...)

 

So, if you've got only 6 relievers, and you need them to cover 480 innings (3 inniings per game), then if several of them don't take 80 innings, that's all the more that the workhorse guys (Howry, Eyre, Wuertz) might get stuck with. In which case they might well be fried by September.

 

I think carrying a 7th reliever makes a lot of sense. That way somebody whose arm is tired can get a break. That way the manager isn't constantly tempted to extend Z to 125 pitches to get him through the 7th or maybe even the 8th, in order to protect the tired bullpen. That way you aren't tempted to try to squeeze another inning out of rehabbing Prior. Or Hill. Or a tiring-and-losing-his-effectiveness Lilly or Miller, etc..

 

And, if things go well, you might be roster squeezed to carry only an 11-man staff. What if it so happened that Miller was healthy enough to be on the roster? And, what if one of Wood or Prior was actually on the active roster, much less both? I know it's unlikely, but imagine a situation where Prior, Miller, and Wood were *all* active simultaneously. Wood and Miller could make the 11th and 12th pitchers on the staff and Wuertz the #13 man shipped to Iowa.

[/i]

[Brian]

haha, If I was Bruce I'd just start posts like. "What do you guys think about Johan Santana.... just asking ;)." and then come back in a day and see what happens.

 

Might just be my inner troll though.

[Rob]

Before the Soriano signing, I was of the mind that a Nixon/Craig Wilson platoon would give you very good production out of RF.

 

As is, I still could go for Nixon. I'd just rather him be the 4th outfielder who gives Murton a break against really tough righties than have him be in a strict platoon with Murton.

 

In other words, my manlove for Murton exceeds my manlove for Nixon. Just so long as having Nixon doesn't mean considerably less Murton, I'd love to have him on the squad.

[CubinNY]

 

In other words, my manlove for Murton exceeds my manlove for Nixon. Just so long as having Nixon doesn't mean considerably less Murton, I'd love to have him on the squad.

 

I don't really see the point of acquiring Nixon unless he is a 4th OFer.

 

Murton doesn't need a platoon partner.

 

Nixon doesn't fit the Cubs needs. Then again neither did Soriano at the position he will play. If the Cubs planned on playing him a 2nd he'd fit.

[nilodnayr]

Before the Soriano signing, I was of the mind that a Nixon/Craig Wilson platoon would give you very good production out of RF.

 

As is, I still could go for Nixon. I'd just rather him be the 4th outfielder who gives Murton a break against really tough righties than have him be in a strict platoon with Murton.

 

In other words, my manlove for Murton exceeds my manlove for Nixon. Just so long as having Nixon doesn't mean considerably less Murton, I'd love to have him on the squad.

 

Do we think Jones will be platooned? As of now, I'm leaning towards no. However, if we get rid of Jones and acquire Nixon, the positive will be that there is a much better chance he will be platooned, since he already has been used in that situation for a few years.