Newhan to Mets

[CubinNY]

Maybe the Cubs could get Drew on a one year 18 million deal and he hits free agency again next season.

 

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA.

I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it.

 

To Giles Bros.,

 

I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly.

 

The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time.

 

Not according to Bruce Miles.

 

Can you point me to where he said it? I didn't think he said that, but I certainly could be wrong (and probably am, if you remember him saying it)-do you know if it was in the paper, or what thread it was in?

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=37701&start=20

 

"Share time" is a platoon by any ohter name.

[CubColtPacer]

Maybe the Cubs could get Drew on a one year 18 million deal and he hits free agency again next season.

 

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA.

I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it.

 

To Giles Bros.,

 

I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly.

 

The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time.

 

Not according to Bruce Miles.

 

Can you point me to where he said it? I didn't think he said that, but I certainly could be wrong (and probably am, if you remember him saying it)-do you know if it was in the paper, or what thread it was in?

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=37701&start=20

 

"Share time" is a platoon by any ohter name.

 

I guess I just don't believe that if Murton gets 70-75 percent of the at-bats over a guy like Cliff Floyd it proves that the organization doesn't value Murton. It is more of a case that they want a left-handed guy with pop for the bench. To get somebody really good, they have to promise him some starts. Right now, Murton is really the only candidate to give away some of those starts, unless that person can play CF (which is unlikely). Will a guy like Floyd's presence help the team next year? Almost definitely. Will it hurt Murton's development? Maybe-but it really depends on how much of the playing time Murton gets, and if he gets 70-75 percent I don't think it will impair his development much at all.

 

If the roster stays as it is right now, I can't see Murton not getting just about all of the at-bats, unless they determine Pie is ready and give Jones some of Murton's AB's.

[CubinNY]

Maybe the Cubs could get Drew on a one year 18 million deal and he hits free agency again next season.

 

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA.

I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it.

 

To Giles Bros.,

 

I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly.

 

The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time.

 

Not according to Bruce Miles.

 

Can you point me to where he said it? I didn't think he said that, but I certainly could be wrong (and probably am, if you remember him saying it)-do you know if it was in the paper, or what thread it was in?

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=37701&start=20

 

"Share time" is a platoon by any ohter name.

 

I guess I just don't believe that if Murton gets 70-75 percent of the at-bats over a guy like Cliff Floyd it proves that the organization doesn't value Murton. It is more of a case that they want a left-handed guy with pop for the bench. To get somebody really good, they have to promise him some starts. Right now, Murton is really the only candidate to give away some of those starts, unless that person can play CF (which is unlikely). Will a guy like Floyd's presence help the team next year? Almost definitely. Will it hurt Murton's development? Maybe-but it really depends on how much of the playing time Murton gets, and if he gets 70-75 percent I don't think it will impair his development much at all.

 

If the roster stays as it is right now, I can't see Murton not getting just about all of the at-bats, unless they determine Pie is ready and give Jones some of Murton's AB's.

 

Platooning Murton makes little sense. If they bring in a someone to "share time" with him, Murton will get less than 450 PAs.

 

If they want to platoon someone they should find a mate for JJ. However, JJ will likely not be on the team.

 

I really have no idea what the Cubs are going to do. The outfield has been a mess since Sosa was ran out of town.

[Illini Iceman]

Maybe the Cubs could get Drew on a one year 18 million deal and he hits free agency again next season.

 

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA.

I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it.

 

To Giles Bros.,

 

I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly.

 

The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time.

 

Not according to Bruce Miles.

 

Can you point me to where he said it? I didn't think he said that, but I certainly could be wrong (and probably am, if you remember him saying it)-do you know if it was in the paper, or what thread it was in?

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=37701&start=20

 

"Share time" is a platoon by any ohter name.

 

I guess I just don't believe that if Murton gets 70-75 percent of the at-bats over a guy like Cliff Floyd it proves that the organization doesn't value Murton. It is more of a case that they want a left-handed guy with pop for the bench. To get somebody really good, they have to promise him some starts. Right now, Murton is really the only candidate to give away some of those starts, unless that person can play CF (which is unlikely). Will a guy like Floyd's presence help the team next year? Almost definitely. Will it hurt Murton's development? Maybe-but it really depends on how much of the playing time Murton gets, and if he gets 70-75 percent I don't think it will impair his development much at all.

 

If the roster stays as it is right now, I can't see Murton not getting just about all of the at-bats, unless they determine Pie is ready and give Jones some of Murton's AB's.

 

Platooning Murton makes little sense. If they bring in a someone to "share time" with him, Murton will get less than 450 PAs.

 

If they want to platoon someone they should find a mate for JJ. However, JJ will likely not be on the team.

 

I really have no idea what the Cubs are going to do. The outfield has been a mess since Sosa was ran out of town.

 

Is the implication it would have been any different if he was not "run out of town"? I don't think his numbers that next year were any better than Burnitz so I don't see how keeping Sosa or not keeping Sosa has any significance.

 

I also find it strange that you are quoting Bruce Miles as your source that the Cubs will platoon Murton in a post where he specifically represents the situation next year as "not necessarily a platoon". If you believe it will be a platoon then fine, you may be right, but don't attribute that to a source that did not say that.

[wilk]

Platooning Murton makes little sense. If they bring in a someone to "share time" with him, Murton will get less than 450 PAs.

 

I wish someone was willing to put money on this. :wink: You point to Bruce Miles' comments as reference but he specifically says it's not a platoon situation. The Cubs are looking for a strong lefty 4th OF bat for some tough righties and pinch hit duties and insurance for skids and whatnot but Murton isn't going to sit 50 games on the bench.

[CubinNY]

 

Is the implication it would have been any different if he was not "run out of town"? I don't think his numbers that next year were any better than Burnitz so I don't see how keeping Sosa or not keeping Sosa has any significance.

 

I also find it strange that you are quoting Bruce Miles as your source that the Cubs will platoon Murton in a post where he specifically represents the situation next year as "not necessarily a platoon". If you believe it will be a platoon then fine, you may be right, but don't attribute that to a source that did not say that.

 

The implication is that if Sosa was going to be ran out of town they better have a plan to replace him. They could have be proactive and gone after Beltran or done any number of different things then replace him with Burnitz. It wasn't an either or.

 

Saying "sharing time" and "platoon" is only different on a sematic level. If he's sharing time with someone it will be a platoon. How much? I've already stated I think Murton would get less than 450 PAs. How much less? I can't say. Regardless, Murton doesn't need a platoon/time share partner.

[Illini Iceman]

 

Is the implication it would have been any different if he was not "run out of town"? I don't think his numbers that next year were any better than Burnitz so I don't see how keeping Sosa or not keeping Sosa has any significance.

 

I also find it strange that you are quoting Bruce Miles as your source that the Cubs will platoon Murton in a post where he specifically represents the situation next year as "not necessarily a platoon". If you believe it will be a platoon then fine, you may be right, but don't attribute that to a source that did not say that.

 

The implication is that if Sosa was going to be ran out of town they better have a plan to replace him. They could have be proactive and gone after Beltran or done any number of different things then replace him with Burnitz. It wasn't an either or.

 

Saying "sharing time" and "platoon" is only different on a sematic level. If he's sharing time with someone it will be a platoon. How much? I've already stated I think Murton would get less than 450 PAs. How much less? I can say. Regardless, Murton doesn't need a platoon/time share partner.

 

It seems a bit simplistic to say the Cubs should have had a better plan to replace Sosa and should have been proactive and gone after Beltran. Sosa had an albatross contract with a clause the gave him a guaranteed option year if traded. It was very hard to move without eating a lot of money and/or getting him to waive the option. He was coming off a year that did not exactly make him a hot commodity. This was the MacPhail era, so the Cubs were not going to be signing Beltran without at least clearing the Sosa money off the books.

 

Also, IMO platoon means one guy against righties and another against lefties. Giving a guy most of the starts with occassional relief versus especially tough righties is not a platoon, it is sharing time. Therefore, more than a semantic difference and I believe that was also the intended point of the post you are using as your support that it will be a platoon.

[CubinNY]

 

Is the implication it would have been any different if he was not "run out of town"? I don't think his numbers that next year were any better than Burnitz so I don't see how keeping Sosa or not keeping Sosa has any significance.

 

I also find it strange that you are quoting Bruce Miles as your source that the Cubs will platoon Murton in a post where he specifically represents the situation next year as "not necessarily a platoon". If you believe it will be a platoon then fine, you may be right, but don't attribute that to a source that did not say that.

 

The implication is that if Sosa was going to be ran out of town they better have a plan to replace him. They could have be proactive and gone after Beltran or done any number of different things then replace him with Burnitz. It wasn't an either or.

 

Saying "sharing time" and "platoon" is only different on a sematic level. If he's sharing time with someone it will be a platoon. How much? I've already stated I think Murton would get less than 450 PAs. How much less? I can say. Regardless, Murton doesn't need a platoon/time share partner.

 

It seems a bit simplistic to say the Cubs should have had a better plan to replace Sosa and should have been proactive and gone after Beltran. Sosa had an albatross contract with a clause the gave him a guaranteed option year if traded. It was very hard to move without eating a lot of money and/or getting him to waive the option. He was coming off a year that did not exactly make him a hot commodity. This was the MacPhail era, so the Cubs were not going to be signing Beltran without at least clearing the Sosa money off the books.

 

Also, IMO platoon means one guy against righties and another against lefties. Giving a guy most of the starts with occassional relief versus especially tough righties is not a platoon, it is sharing time. Therefore, more than a semantic difference and I believe that was also the intended point of the post you are using as your support that it will be a platoon.

 

It seems a bit simplistic to say that the Cubs had to trade Sosa and not have a plan.

 

About the platoon, whatever. It is so Cubs like to waste rescources in one spot it is not needed while leaving CF wide open. The Cubs have put all their eggs in the Pie baskett.

[wilk]

Giving a guy most of the starts with occassional relief versus especially tough righties is not a platoon, it is sharing time.

 

Otherwise, anyone who doesn't play 162 games is apparently in a platoon. "Platoon" and "share time" might be semantics on a layman's level but they are certainly different intentions when it comes to managing a club. The funny thing is we're debating whether "share time" actually means "platoon" when the person who used the phrase clarified he didn't mean a platoon. The concept of a platoon essentially is allocating the position amongst multiple players around a predetermined variable - speed vs power, RHP vs. LHP, etc. Signing a backup for the position is not assigning a platoon and so far every indication from the club, and those close to it, are that Murton is the primary LF.

[CubinNY]

Giving a guy most of the starts with occassional relief versus especially tough righties is not a platoon, it is sharing time.

 

Otherwise, anyone who doesn't play 162 games is apparently in a platoon. "Platoon" and "share time" might be semantics on a layman's level but they are certainly different intentions when it comes to managing a club. The funny thing is we're debating whether "share time" actually means "platoon" when the person who used the phrase clarified he didn't mean a platoon. The concept of a platoon essentially is allocating the position amongst multiple players around a predetermined variable - speed vs power, RHP vs. LHP, etc. Signing a backup for the position is not assigning a platoon and so far every indication from the club, and those close to it, are that Murton is the primary LF.

 

Are they planning on getting a time share partner for Lee or Aramis or Izturis or Soriano? I believe all of them will have someone who can back them up.

 

Bruce didn't clairify anything. He saind "not necessarily a platoon". He did not say "not a platoon partner".

 

Every indication is that the Cubs once again don't have a clue as to how to allocate resources.

[wilk]

Are they planning on getting a time share partner for Lee or Aramis or Izturis or Soriano? I believe all of them will have someone who can back them up.

 

Bruce didn't clairify anything. He saind "not necessarily a platoon". He did not say "not a platoon partner".

 

Every indication is that the Cubs once again don't have a clue as to how to allocate resources.

 

You're right, they'll have people to share and back up also. The fact that Bruce differentiated between "sharing" and "platoon" shows that he didn't intend for them to be interchangeable terms as you are assuming they should be. This "sharing" concept came from statements of his to begin with and within it he noted a difference between the two.

 

A reporter says "sharing, [which is not the same as a platoon]" and you say "it is the same as a platoon and the same as meaning he's going to get less than 400 appearances." Sounds more like hyperbole than "every indication" to me. Especially since "other" indications such as the manager and GM have pointed to Murton being the primary outfielder.

 

It'd be rather clueless, and an absolute mistake, to deprive the team of depth simply to force a popular sophomore to get every at-bat. He'll get the majority of them and nothing has indicated otherwise.

[Wes Mantooth]

Last year they handed shortstop to Cedeno without any real backup if he failed. This year it sounds like they are giving Murton left field, but with a back up plan ready. I have to think Murton's play will decide if it becomes a platoon.

[Yeti]

Always the bridesmaid...

 

The club hopes Newhan, 33, adds another left-handed bat and provides additional versatility.

MLB.com

 

Newhan, 33, adds another left-handed bat and provides additional versatility.

New York Times

 

"David is a versatile player who can help us in so many spots on the field," Mets general manager Omar Minaya said. "We couldn't be more pleased to have him in our organization."

FoxSports.com

 

Damnit Jimbo, you're slipping. Now who are the Cubs going to get to fill the versatility gap? (And no, DeRosa doesn't count since he'll be starting.)

 

There's always room for Macias.

bite your tongue...and by the way is this you?http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f350/yetiman1210/dump.jpg

[BigbadB]

Last year they handed shortstop to Cedeno without any real backup if he failed. This year it sounds like they are giving Murton left field, but with a back up plan ready. I have to think Murton's play will decide if it becomes a platoon.

 

I'm staying out of this platoon argument, but depending on how you define "real", I'd say that the Cubs did not go into last year with no "real" back up behind Cedeno. Neifi Perez was given a 2 year contract last year for real money, and in the eyes of those that signed him, I would suggest they felt they signed a "real" back up at SS.

 

And I might also add that Neifi Perez might actually be a better "real" option at SS than either Cedeno or Izturis in 2007, but that won't be happening. And it's pretty sad state of affairs within the Cubs organization that I'm actually saying that Neifi might be a better option than anyone we currently employ at the SS position.

 

As much as Neifi was overpaid last year, Izturis will make almost twice as much as Neifi in 2007. And it only took trading Greg Maddux to get him. Just wow.

[Bull]

It really depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[CubinNY]

It really depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

The point I am trying to make, perhaps not so wel is this:

 

If the Cubs actually find a time share partner for Murton I think it is a poor use of recources. People can call it what they like, I don't really care.

 

To me the big question is, what are the Cubs going to do about CF if JJ is traded?

 

I don't think Pie is ready, and hope is not a plan.

Edited January 8, 2007 by CubinNY

[CuseCubFan69]

Always the bridesmaid...

 

The club hopes Newhan, 33, adds another left-handed bat and provides additional versatility.

MLB.com

 

Newhan, 33, adds another left-handed bat and provides additional versatility.

New York Times

 

"David is a versatile player who can help us in so many spots on the field," Mets general manager Omar Minaya said. "We couldn't be more pleased to have him in our organization."

FoxSports.com

 

Damnit Jimbo, you're slipping. Now who are the Cubs going to get to fill the versatility gap? (And no, DeRosa doesn't count since he'll be starting.)

 

There's always room for Macias.

bite your tongue...and by the way is this you?http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f350/yetiman1210/dump.jpg[/i

mg]

 

Just more proof that Macias is quite the player!

[CuseCubFan69]

It really depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

The point I am trying to make, perhaps not so wel is this:

 

If the Cubs actually find a time share partner for Murton I think it is a poor use of recources. People can call it what they like, I don't really care.

 

To me the big question is, what are the Cubs going to do about CF if JJ is traded?

 

I don't think Pie is ready.

 

I think it would depend on who JJ was traded for.

[dew1679666265]

It really depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

The point I am trying to make, perhaps not so wel is this:

 

If the Cubs actually find a time share partner for Murton I think it is a poor use of recources. People can call it what they like, I don't really care.

 

To me the big question is, what are the Cubs going to do about CF if JJ is traded?

 

I don't think Pie is ready, and hope is not a plan.

 

Whether or not it is a good allocation of resources depends on what the intent is behind the signing.

If we sign Floyd with the intent of giving him significant starting time, then we will pay him more money for a job Murton could do on his own.

But, if we sign Floyd (or someone else) primarily as a bench option and reserve in case of injuries and plan on only starting him once in a while over Murton, then his pay will be quite lower and we'll have a solid bat off the bench.

The first case is a bad allocation of resources, paying more money for just a little more production than we could get from the current player. But, if we pay bench player's money for a player who could, arguably, be starter quality and actually use him in the latter role, it's a very good allocation of funds.

Again, it all depends on the intent behind the signing and, relatedly, how much Floyd (et al) cost.

[dew1679666265]

It really depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

The point I am trying to make, perhaps not so wel is this:

 

If the Cubs actually find a time share partner for Murton I think it is a poor use of recources. People can call it what they like, I don't really care.

 

To me the big question is, what are the Cubs going to do about CF if JJ is traded?

 

I don't think Pie is ready.

 

I think it would depend on who JJ was traded for.

 

Exactly. If Jones is traded for a Church/Baldelli/A. Jones (shot in the dark, I know) type then CF is a non-issue. If we dump him for garbage, then we have two OF issues.