Trot Nixon

[USSoccer]

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.

 

If we keep Jones, isn't he going to be a CF? Nixon can't play CF. Any platoon that Nixon is in will be with Murton, which is uneccesary.

[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.

 

If we keep Jones, isn't he going to be a CF? Nixon can't play CF. Any platoon that Nixon is in will be with Murton, which is uneccesary.

 

Getting rid of Jones and acquiring nixon would push Sori to CF.

[CubinNY]

Getting rid of Jones and acquiring nixon would push Sori to CF.

Depending on who the Cubs could get for Jones, it would also make them an even worse offense.

 

Nixon is a sexy name but his best baseball is behind him.

 

Now, if the Cubs could get him as 4th outfielder/1st guy off the bench/spot Lee a game or two at 1st/ for around $1 m for 1 year. I would applaud Hendry.

[nilodnayr]

Getting rid of Jones and acquiring nixon would push Sori to CF.

Depending on who the Cubs could get for Jones, it would also make them an even worse offense.

 

Nixon is a sexy name but his best baseball is behind him.

 

Now, if the Cubs could get him as 4th outfielder/1st guy off the bench/spot Lee a game or two at 1st/ for around $1 m for 1 year. I would applaud Hendry.

 

I loveD Nixon, but I know he has regressed significantly. However, my point is not that Nixon>Jones, my point is that Nixon+platoon partner>Jones playing against righties and lefties.

[CubinNY]

Getting rid of Jones and acquiring nixon would push Sori to CF.

Depending on who the Cubs could get for Jones, it would also make them an even worse offense.

 

Nixon is a sexy name but his best baseball is behind him.

 

Now, if the Cubs could get him as 4th outfielder/1st guy off the bench/spot Lee a game or two at 1st/ for around $1 m for 1 year. I would applaud Hendry.

 

I loveD Nixon, but I know he has regressed significantly. However, my point is not that Nixon>Jones, my point is that Nixon+platoon partner>Jones playing against righties and lefties.

 

Who would be the platoon partner? I'm not a big fan of platoons, unless the partner is young and inexpensive. I just don't like having two guys on the roster for one position. IMO, in the NL platoons severly limit a teams flexibility. They make much more sense with a DH.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

How about moving Soriano to CF and signing both C. Wilson and Trot Nixon to form a RF platoon?

[nilodnayr]

Getting rid of Jones and acquiring nixon would push Sori to CF.

Depending on who the Cubs could get for Jones, it would also make them an even worse offense.

 

Nixon is a sexy name but his best baseball is behind him.

 

Now, if the Cubs could get him as 4th outfielder/1st guy off the bench/spot Lee a game or two at 1st/ for around $1 m for 1 year. I would applaud Hendry.

 

I loveD Nixon, but I know he has regressed significantly. However, my point is not that Nixon>Jones, my point is that Nixon+platoon partner>Jones playing against righties and lefties.

 

Who would be the platoon partner? I'm not a big fan of platoons, unless the partner is young and inexpensive. I just don't like having two guys on the roster for one position. IMO, in the NL platoons severly limit a teams flexibility. They make much more sense with a DH.

 

Vance mentioned Wilson, Michaels is another one that comes to mind. Its not hard to find a righty who can hit lefties effectively.

[AAApittsburgh]

How about moving Soriano to CF and signing both C. Wilson and Trot Nixon to form a RF platoon?

I like that idea, but I have a feeling Soriano won't be playing CF.

[nilodnayr]

How about moving Soriano to CF and signing both C. Wilson and Trot Nixon to form a RF platoon?

I like that idea, but I have a feeling Soriano won't be playing CF.

 

Unfortunately I have to agree, the cubs promised they wouldnt move him around. So the only way Sori sticks in CF is if Pie is moved to RF or traded. Although I don't necessarily think moving Pie to RF is that bad of an option. IMO its a harder position to play in Wrigley than CF.

[CubinNY]

Craig Wilson is a guy I wouldn't mind having off the bench.

 

I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher.

 

Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher.

 

Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

 

That doesn't make any sense.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

If you're moving Jones, I'd rather trade for Brian Giles if he really is available, put him in RF, and put Soriano in CF.

 

The Cubs' task would sure be a lot easier if Murton could play RF.

[CubinNY]

I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher.

 

Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

Why?

 

This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned.

 

I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place.

[goonys evil twin]

I really like the idea of Nixon. He'd be a very good LH bat off the bench, and part time starter. If the Cubs don't improve the offense anymore from where it is now, then they are going to have to seriously consider platooning Murton. Nixon would be very good for such a spot.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher.

 

Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

Why?

 

This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned.

 

I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place.

 

I don't really care about "signs" of weakness. That's meaningless. There are no opportunity cost problems. A platoon can be fantastic if you have people on board. It's the managers job to get guys to agree to such a scenario.

[nilodnayr]

I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher.

 

Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

Why?

 

This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned.

 

I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place.

 

If I'm better at putting and you are better at driving, then wouldnt it stand to reason that we would combine for a better scramble score than if we played separately?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I prefer Bonds to Nixon.

[CubinNY]

I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher.

 

Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

Why?

 

This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned.

 

I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place.

 

If I'm better at putting and you are better at driving, then wouldnt it stand to reason that we would combine for a better scramble score than if we played separately?

 

Yes, but this is baseball we are talking about and not golf.

 

Why would a team try and use a platoon if they didn't have too? Especially a team with a top five payroll? There are only 25 roster spots.

 

One guy is going to play 70 to 80% of the time and the guy who can't hit righties is almost usless.

[jjgman21]

I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher.

 

Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

Why?

 

This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned.

 

I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place.

 

I don't really care about "signs" of weakness. That's meaningless. There are no opportunity cost problems. A platoon can be fantastic if you have people on board. It's the managers job to get guys to agree to such a scenario.

 

a Saturday appearance by Goon? me agreeing with Goon?

 

dogs and cats, living together...chaos reigns.

[goonys evil twin]

Yes, but this is baseball we are talking about and not golf.

 

Why would a team try and use a platoon if they didn't have too? Especially a team with a top five payroll? There are only 25 roster spots.

 

One guy is going to play 70 to 80% of the time and the guy who can't hit righties is almost usless.

 

The problem is they might have to. You have 5-6 bench players. If one of them can start 50 games a year and provide substantial production over the guy he's replacing, I don't see why you wouldn't.

 

 

I'm really having a tough time understanding your argument. Ideally, you'd have 8 guys who hit very well vs both L and R and start 162 games. But that is not the case most of the time.

[jjgman21]

I have not problems with a platoon. it's all about dollars spent at a position. if you can get an .Y OPS out of a position for X dollars, I go with a platoon everytime over an everyday player because it strengthens your bench.

 

I also have a hard time reconciling the players don't like it statement NY. are you not someone who does not believe in chemistry? what the players want is essentially a chemistry argument. who cares what they want, as long as they produce.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher.

 

Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

Why?

 

This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned.

 

I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place.

 

I don't really care about "signs" of weakness. That's meaningless. There are no opportunity cost problems. A platoon can be fantastic if you have people on board. It's the managers job to get guys to agree to such a scenario.

 

a Saturday appearance by Goon? me agreeing with Goon?

 

dogs and cats, living together...chaos reigns.

 

The wife is napping and I'm bored. With winter meetings coming soon I needed a fix. I had been thinking about Nixon a couple days ago, and seeing Bruce Miles throw that out there really got my interest.

[CubinNY]

I don't really care about "signs" of weakness. That's meaningless. There are no opportunity cost problems. A platoon can be fantastic if you have people on board. It's the managers job to get guys to agree to such a scenario.

 

It is meaningless to pay two guys to play one postion and to pay one guy to sit on the bench @100 games a year?

 

The opportunity costs:

 

The platoon player is taking a roster spot that could otherwise be filled by someone better

 

You have one less player to use on your bench

 

How do you propose to get "people on board"?

[nilodnayr]

I don't want the Cubs to platoon anybody. If they are going to trade JJ, find a suitable replacement who can play against any pitcher.

 

Using a platoon is a weakness, not a strength.

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

Why?

 

This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned.

 

I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place.

 

If I'm better at putting and you are better at driving, then wouldnt it stand to reason that we would combine for a better scramble score than if we played separately?

 

Yes, but this is baseball we are talking about and not golf.

 

Why would a team try and use a platoon if they didn't have too? Especially a team with a top five payroll? There are only 25 roster spots.

 

One guy is going to play 70 to 80% of the time and the guy who can't hit righties is almost usless.

 

What I used is called an analogy. It shows that if a game is made up of multiple actions and one player is better at one action while another is petter at a second action, then why not let them specialize? Are you saying that during interleague games in AL parks, you'd rather let the pitcher hit? Obviously that is completely ridiculous. In the AL the rules allow for you to use a designated hitter specialist. Some one who is better at hitting than a pitcher. So if you can do that at other positions, why not?

[goonys evil twin]

I don't really care about "signs" of weakness. That's meaningless. There are no opportunity cost problems. A platoon can be fantastic if you have people on board. It's the managers job to get guys to agree to such a scenario.

 

It is meaningless to pay two guys to play one postion and to pay one guy to sit on the bench @100 games a year?

 

The opportunity costs:

 

The platoon player is taking a roster spot that could otherwise be filled by someone better

 

You have one less player to use on your bench

 

How do you propose to get "people on board"?

 

Assuming the guy is good enough to be worth platooning, odds are you aren't going to be finding many better bench players. With people like Nixon, who hasn't been a full-time player in several years, it should be pretty easy to convince him to participate in such a situation. Guys like Jones, who play most games but stink against one type of pitcher would probably put up a fight. But that's what managers are for, to do what's best for the team.

 

You don't have one less player to use on your bench. It's not like the guy who is not starting that day is ineligible to play. The first couple times through the lineup he's going to be facing the same pitcher, and you don't even have to think about pinch hitting. In many games I wouldn't even sub-in the platoon if they bring in a new pitcher. It doesn't have to be, and really, it can never be, a 100% strict platoon. But it doesn't have to be much of a problem either.