Suntimes: Cubs seek righty bat

[anabiono]

Cedeño, Murton or Soto, plz.

 

I agree.

 

Murton, Cedeno, or Soto (in that order).

 

man, you know the awesome thing about those kids?

 

they can all be called up! and...with the benefit of dumping...

 

jones, izturis, and eyre!

 

rawk!

 

too bad this will never happen

[NewUserName]

Cedeño, Murton or Soto, plz.

 

I agree.

 

Murton, Cedeno, or Soto (in that order).

 

man, you know the awesome thing about those kids?

 

they can all be called up! and...with the benefit of dumping...

 

jones, izturis, and eyre!

 

rawk!

 

too bad this will never happen

 

 

Do you want a better team or a more cost efficient team?

[NCCubFan]

Cedeño, Murton or Soto, plz.

 

I agree.

 

Murton, Cedeno, or Soto (in that order).

 

man, you know the awesome thing about those kids?

 

they can all be called up! and...with the benefit of dumping...

 

jones, izturis, and eyre!

 

rawk!

 

too bad this will never happen

 

 

Do you want a better team or a more cost efficient team?

Actually, the relevant question is whether the Trib wants a better team or a more cost efficient team. I think there's no question that almost everybody who posts here wants a better team.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

The Cubs' first preference will be to stay in house, i.e., somebody from the system.

 

They realize Murton is sitting in AAA right now, right? But you're not likely to get great numbers from anyone that doesn't get consistent playing time.

Exactly. I want to feel excited about the possibility of Murton (and maybe Soto or Cedeno) getting the call, but honestly we all know what'll happen if they do. Arrive at Wrigley, wait 3 days before getting a start, going 0/4 with 2 Ks, banished to the bench for spot duty for a 2-3 week period before being sent down again.

[bukie]

Cedeño, Murton or Soto, plz.

 

I agree.

 

Murton, Cedeno, or Soto (in that order).

 

man, you know the awesome thing about those kids?

 

they can all be called up! and...with the benefit of dumping...

 

jones, izturis, and eyre!

 

rawk!

 

too bad this will never happen

 

 

Do you want a better team or a more cost efficient team?

 

If a move will do at worst one without affecting the other, and at best both, I say do it. Can't see how Murton would be any worse against lefties than JJ, or how Cedeno would be any more useless than Izturis.

[Derwood]

it's not like our top 4 run producers are right handed or anything

[Tracer Bullet]

it's not like our top 4 run producers are right handed or anything

 

Yes, obviously the biggest problem isn't which hand our hitters hit with, it's the fact that too many of them are not good. I mean, against LHP, our lineup features Pagan, a bad-hitting C, a P, and Izturis or Theriot. Maybe DeRosa in RF, otherwise, Floyd in there too.

 

You're not going to score a bunch of runs when 4 or 5 of your hitters aren't good.

[Bruno7481]

The Cubs' first preference will be to stay in house, i.e., somebody from the system.

 

They realize Murton is sitting in AAA right now, right? But you're not likely to get great numbers from anyone that doesn't get consistent playing time.

Exactly. I want to feel excited about the possibility of Murton (and maybe Soto or Cedeno) getting the call, but honestly we all know what'll happen if they do. Arrive at Wrigley, wait 3 days before getting a start, going 0/4 with 2 Ks, banished to the bench for spot duty for a 2-3 week period before being sent down again.

 

Newsflash, Baker isn't here anymore.

 

I think Lou has been good about playing guys that have just been brought up. Also, I think he has shown the willingness to play those who produce, or who have earned more playing time.

[CubinNY]

The Cubs' first preference will be to stay in house, i.e., somebody from the system.

 

They realize Murton is sitting in AAA right now, right? But you're not likely to get great numbers from anyone that doesn't get consistent playing time.

Exactly. I want to feel excited about the possibility of Murton (and maybe Soto or Cedeno) getting the call, but honestly we all know what'll happen if they do. Arrive at Wrigley, wait 3 days before getting a start, going 0/4 with 2 Ks, banished to the bench for spot duty for a 2-3 week period before being sent down again.

 

Newsflash, Baker isn't here anymore.

 

I think Lou has been good about playing guys that have just been brought up. Also, I think he has shown the willingness to play those who produce, or who have earned more playing time.

 

You are free to think what you like. It's America.

 

I love the idea of earning playing time as if there should be a 1:1 correspondence from each AB to the amount of time one gets to play.

[Bruno7481]

The Cubs' first preference will be to stay in house, i.e., somebody from the system.

 

They realize Murton is sitting in AAA right now, right? But you're not likely to get great numbers from anyone that doesn't get consistent playing time.

Exactly. I want to feel excited about the possibility of Murton (and maybe Soto or Cedeno) getting the call, but honestly we all know what'll happen if they do. Arrive at Wrigley, wait 3 days before getting a start, going 0/4 with 2 Ks, banished to the bench for spot duty for a 2-3 week period before being sent down again.

 

Newsflash, Baker isn't here anymore.

 

I think Lou has been good about playing guys that have just been brought up. Also, I think he has shown the willingness to play those who produce, or who have earned more playing time.

 

You are free to think what you like. It's America.

 

I love the idea of earning playing time as if there should be a 1:1 correspondence from each AB to the amount of time one gets to play.

 

Huh?

 

I'm just trying to compare what I've seen between Lou and Dusty. I don't think you would have seen Fontenot get a chance to succeed under Dusty. Lou put him out there and was even willing to try him out of position in order to get him in the lineup.

[Banedon]

The Cubs' first preference will be to stay in house, i.e., somebody from the system.

 

They realize Murton is sitting in AAA right now, right? But you're not likely to get great numbers from anyone that doesn't get consistent playing time.

Exactly. I want to feel excited about the possibility of Murton (and maybe Soto or Cedeno) getting the call, but honestly we all know what'll happen if they do. Arrive at Wrigley, wait 3 days before getting a start, going 0/4 with 2 Ks, banished to the bench for spot duty for a 2-3 week period before being sent down again.

 

Newsflash, Baker isn't here anymore.

 

I think Lou has been good about playing guys that have just been brought up. Also, I think he has shown the willingness to play those who produce, or who have earned more playing time.

 

You are free to think what you like. It's America.

 

I love the idea of earning playing time as if there should be a 1:1 correspondence from each AB to the amount of time one gets to play.

 

Huh?

 

I'm just trying to compare what I've seen between Lou and Dusty. I don't think you would have seen Fontenot get a chance to succeed under Dusty. Lou put him out there and was even willing to try him out of position in order to get him in the lineup.

 

That's fine and all, but Murton, a guy who had already had some major league success never got the benefit of the doubt from Lou. He was jerked around with Floyd and JJ. The infielders (Theriot and Fontenot) got shots because Izturis was terrible, and Aramis was out for a while. They managed to perform well quickly. Now that they're coming back down to earth, they have already established themselves and earned Lou's respect. Meanwhile Pie is called up, it's said that he will be up for the long haul and get his chance in CF, he struggles some, and rides the bench with Angel Pagan getting his playing time. I think Lou is open to the idea of young guys, as long as they perform QUICKLY. I think Murton and Pie may take some time and patience.

 

Yes, Lou is better than Dusty. But lets not act like Lou is some epiphany. He's just not as dense as Dusty.

[inari]

Bruce, if you're there, is there a realistic shot that Soto gets a call up at some time soon or is that just a pipe dream?

[sporrer17]

I don't see this being about Cedeno or Soto (because either of them could be brought up to start at any given time by DFA'ing Hill or Izturis)...Murton and possibly Jake Fox are probably the options in-house. I'd prefer Murton, if for no other reason than he's had big league success already against both LHs and RHs, and he's about the same age as Fox anyways.

 

Fox K's more, walks less, and will likely have a lower average as well. He does offer a bit of pop (17 HRs, .500 SLG) and more versatility (1b/OF/C/3b). Bottom line, if Fox was an option at catcher, he'd be up already, but in the OF I think Murton's the better choice.

[UBlink]

Let me beat Tim to it: Jake Fox as an extreme dark horse.

 

AA might be the place to look for a dark horse - Fox is your man if you want HR power:

 

.281/.318/.500/.818 and 17 HR, against LHP .331/.343/.591/.934

 

If you want OBP there's Craig:

 

.318/.400/.498/.898 and 8 HR, against LHP .364/.467/.558/1.026

 

For perspective, Fox and Craig rank 7th and 8th in the SL in slugging %.

 

Soto's the only RH Iowa Cub in the top 20 in slugging, and his splits show he does better against RHP.

 

Remember, Murton was called up direct from AA and Pie was going to be before he got injured.

 

Of course, Fox has a position (OF) while Craig (1B and 3B) would be strictly a bench player.

Edited July 9, 2007 by UBlink

[A New Era]

Cedeño, Murton or Soto, plz.

 

I agree.

 

Murton, Cedeno, or Soto (in that order).

 

How about Murton, Cedeno, AND Soto. j/k :wink:

 

Really though Soto would be a no doubt about it upgrade. Murton could help, and Cedeno could really shine. I want to upgrade our catcher first and foremost.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd make a play for Burrell.

 

Contract dollars are rough estimates.

 

He's owed roughly 20 million over the next two seasons.

 

I'd offer Jacque Jones (7 million owed over next 2 years), Izturis (2.3 owed if option declined) and (5.5 owed over 2 years).

 

That's 14.5 in bad contracts for 20 million in one bad contract.

 

The Phillies could then either add another player to the deal or add some

cash (approx 3-4 million) for next year.

 

We could then platoon Floyd and Burrell for the remainder of the season. (Preferably moving Soriano to RF with Floyd/Burrell in left...but whatever they do would be ok.)

 

The Cubs could then call up Cedeno to replace Izturis and add a decent bullpen arm in Eyre's spot.

Why would the Phillies do that deal?

 

Cause they irrationally hate Pat Burrell even more than they irrationally hated Bobby Abreu. I'm not a huge fan of picking up Burrell as long as Soriano's gonna stay in LF, but Burrell is essentially the Phillies's Jacque Jones, he's gonna get dealt for virtually nothing and the Phils are gonna pick up most of his salary.

[OleMissCub]

Too bad the Bucs have stopped sucking long enough that they are likely to keep Xavier Nady. He'd be perfect. I know people are extraordinarily loathe to trade within their division, but he'd be perfect.

[Backtobanks]

I'd make a play for Burrell.

 

Contract dollars are rough estimates.

 

He's owed roughly 20 million over the next two seasons.

 

I'd offer Jacque Jones (7 million owed over next 2 years), Izturis (2.3 owed if option declined) and (5.5 owed over 2 years).

 

That's 14.5 in bad contracts for 20 million in one bad contract.

 

The Phillies could then either add another player to the deal or add some

cash (approx 3-4 million) for next year.

 

We could then platoon Floyd and Burrell for the remainder of the season. (Preferably moving Soriano to RF with Floyd/Burrell in left...but whatever they do would be ok.)

 

The Cubs could then call up Cedeno to replace Izturis and add a decent bullpen arm in Eyre's spot.

Why would the Phillies do that deal?

 

Cause they irrationally hate Pat Burrell even more than they irrationally hated Bobby Abreu. I'm not a huge fan of picking up Burrell as long as Soriano's gonna stay in LF, but Burrell is essentially the Phillies's Jacque Jones, he's gonna get dealt for virtually nothing and the Phils are gonna pick up most of his salary.

 

The deal mentioned would be the only way I would want Burrell. Burrell is Dave Kingman with a bat and Jose Conseco with the glove.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd make a play for Burrell.

 

Contract dollars are rough estimates.

 

He's owed roughly 20 million over the next two seasons.

 

I'd offer Jacque Jones (7 million owed over next 2 years), Izturis (2.3 owed if option declined) and (5.5 owed over 2 years).

 

That's 14.5 in bad contracts for 20 million in one bad contract.

 

The Phillies could then either add another player to the deal or add some

cash (approx 3-4 million) for next year.

 

We could then platoon Floyd and Burrell for the remainder of the season. (Preferably moving Soriano to RF with Floyd/Burrell in left...but whatever they do would be ok.)

 

The Cubs could then call up Cedeno to replace Izturis and add a decent bullpen arm in Eyre's spot.

Why would the Phillies do that deal?

 

Cause they irrationally hate Pat Burrell even more than they irrationally hated Bobby Abreu. I'm not a huge fan of picking up Burrell as long as Soriano's gonna stay in LF, but Burrell is essentially the Phillies's Jacque Jones, he's gonna get dealt for virtually nothing and the Phils are gonna pick up most of his salary.

 

The deal mentioned would be the only way I would want Burrell. Burrell is Dave Kingman with a bat and Jose Conseco with the glove.

 

Isn't that just Dave Kingman then?

[craig]

On Murton:

1. I think he got quite a bit of playing time this year. Buthe didn't get many hits, so his playing time decreased.

2. there are some indications that he may be starting to get rolling again in Iowa. Most of the team at Iowa has hit .300, so compared to the team his numbers are pretty average. But he may be heating up.

3. There was a reference in one of the papers that Lou thought that Murton isn't swinging the way he did in the past, when he'd been successful. Murton said he wasn't doing anything different. One of the posters seems to suggest that Lou was wrong and that now he's taking it out on Murton. I find that somewhat doubtful. I have no idea whether Lou saw something specific different and Murton wasn't willing to try to make a change. But I find it a bit hard to take Murton's side on that. The previous two years, he got hits regularly, and hit the ball hard regularly. This year he hasn't gotten very many hits, and IMO his outs were a lot weaker as well. His stats show an extreme groundball orientation this year. That has been true before, especially when he wasn't going good. But, bottom line to me is that he hasn't been producing. Does he think he's been hitting the ball with the same authority and success as he did late last year and in 2005? The results haven't been the same, that's for sure; so perhaps there is something mechanical that hasn't been the same either?

4. Murton didn't play every day when he came up with Dusty, but he hit, and earned more time. It's not like when he's going good, that he can't hit as a platoon guy. So I think his problems this year to me indicate that for whatever reason, he wasn't hitting well this year, not that he's inherently incapable of hitting in a platoon role. Or that putting him in a platoon role made him incapable of hitting. He was able to hit in a platoon role in 2005, so the fact that he couldn't hit in a platoon role this spring suggests there was something more wrong with his swing than with the platoon role itself. Hopefully he'll get his stroke fixed, and become a good platoon player again. Maybe so good that he'll earn his way back into an effective larger-than-platoon role.

[jersey cubs fan]

On Murton:

1. I think he got quite a bit of playing time this year.

 

I think you're crazy if you actually believe that.

[craig]

On Murton:

1. I think he got quite a bit of playing time this year.

 

I think you're crazy if you actually believe that.

 

Apparently.

 

In April and May, Murton had over 100 AB's. So if he'd kept getting the April/May playing time he did receive, he'd have ended up with well over 300 at-bats on the season. A guy who's getting 300-360 AB, in my book that's quite a bit of playing time.

 

And that's plenty to maintain a good stroke, if you've got a good stroke going.

 

If you think it's crazy to consider a 300-350 AB pace to be "quite a bit" of playing time", how many AB's would you think a guy needs before it's not crazy to consider it "quite a bit of playing time"?

Edited July 9, 2007 by craig

[seanimal]

If 350 AB isn't "quite a bit" of playing time, I don't know what you'd consider significant playing time. 500?

 

Quite a bit? I think you're using semantics to your disadvantage. 350 AB's is just over a half a season of starting pretty much everyday. That is not 'regular' playing time. 500 AB's would be.

[jersey cubs fan]

On Murton:

1. I think he got quite a bit of playing time this year.

 

I think you're crazy if you actually believe that.

 

Apparently.

 

In April and May, Murton had over 100 AB's. So if he'd kept getting the April/May playing time he did receive, he'd have ended up with well over 300 at-bats on the season. A guy who's getting 300-360 AB, in my book that's quite a bit of playing time.

 

And that's plenty to maintain a good stroke, if you've got a good stroke going.

 

If you think it's crazy to consider a 300-350 AB pace to be "quite a bit" of playing time", how many AB's would you think a guy needs before it's not crazy to consider it "quite a bit of playing time"?

 

A), It's absurd to judge his playing time based on the theoretical proration of what may have happened if he was up all year.

 

B) 300 at bats is not a lot. 500+ is a good amount.

[craig]

Well, whatever, it's semantics. Obviously 350 isn't 500, 350 isn't full-time and isn't really even "regular".

 

But in my opinion 300+ is "quite a bit". The proration shows that relative to the games in April and May, he was playing at least half of the time.

 

There are several angles on this. 1) No man can produce at all as a hitter unless he is playing full-time, or "regular", or "a lot", and half-time isn't enough. 2) A guy can be playing half the time and maintain a good hitting stroke.

 

I'm obviously suggesting the latter perspective, and you guys the former.

 

I'm concerned about your perspective, if it's true. Because I don't think Murton is likely to be brought back up to the Cubs and instantly be given full-time regular every-day-starter status. He's going to have to prove himself again, just like he did in 2005. If he can't hit until he's gettng 90% of the starts, if that's true than he'll likely never hit for the Cubs. Which I'd find very disappointing.

 

But if I'm right, and he can hit in less than every-day mode when he's got his stroke in shape, then he's got a chance to hit for the Cubs. He can get his stroke fixed in Iowa, get called up, and get the frequency of AB's that he got in April and June. I think that if he's sharp when he comes in, that those will be enough AB's to stay sharp, and to stay productive.

 

If he's productive in the window of opportunity that is provided for him, then his opportunities will increase and that window will expand. I think that's entirely possible. But only if the guy has the ability to sustain productivity even if he doesn't have the luxury of starting every day, at least at the beginning.

 

If he produces in the chances that he gets, he may in due time earn his way back to regular status. But barring an injury to Soriano or Floyd, that isn't going to happen instantly. He's going to have to do something when he gets the chance.

 

You guys are more pessimistic, so maybe you're right and Murton can't do anything but stink if he can't start every day or almost. But I'm hoping that he can produce even if he isn't starting every day. And that someday he might work his way back into a position where he is an every-day starter, or somewhat close, and we'll be happy about it.

 

But, even if that never happens, I still think that he could become a valuable Cub if he can show up and become a .300-hitting, .360-OBP, .800-OPS 300-AB platoon guy and 4th outfielder.

 

One other note: Murton hasn't really kicked it in and sustained excellence at Iowa for an extended period. Over his last ten games, he's hitting .256, despite 4 of them being at hitter-friendly Albuquerque. So it's not like the regular Iowa AB have instantly given him the regularity that he needs to hit like vintage Brian Giles. He's had some good games, but then not been able to sustain excellent there.

 

But, I'm hoping that may be changing. After going 2-19 (both singles) with 1 walk and 6 K's over the previous 5 games, over his last five games he's gone 8-20 with only 1 K and with 5 XBH. I think this 5-game streak is his longest hitting streak since going down, and I think maybe the first time he's had multi-hit games back-to-back. Of his 13 XBH, 5 have come in the last five games. May just be an on-again-off-again fluke, and he'll hit nothing but groundouts for the rest of the week. But there's a chance that maybe he's rediscovering his stroke, and being able to drive the ball again, on line instead of so many groundballs. Will be interesting to watch over the next few games if he can keep his recent little run going.

 

If so, I'd be more interested in calling him back up than I've been at any time since he got sent down.