BP Tidbit on Reds, Griffey, and Cubs

[mdwilla]

 

Maybe he gets to feeling burned out. He's been a Red his whole career - never a serious contender at this point in the year. Imagine being dropped into the middle of your first playoff hunt, playing half your games in front of ecstatic Cubs fans. Not guaranteeing that there's a significant statistical reasoning behind this, but I'd say he would feel quite invigorated if he made it to Chicago. Just my two cents.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking last season, as I had noted his dismal Septembers around the ASB. I wondered if it would be different this time since the Reds were technically in contention. He responded with his worst numbers yet, I'm afraid. Though he did draw 20 walks in September and no one else on the team was hitting. It's possible he simply wasn't getting anything to hit but still pressed to try to make something happen. I'd love to see what he'd do in a Cubs lineup as more of a complementary player, but if it doesn't happen it may be just as well.

 

yeah, I'd forgotten about last year as I wrote that.

 

maybe I'm biased, but I just like to think that coming to the Chicago Cubs in a playoff race would bring out the best in a player... except maybe Jason Kendall. :(

 

Let's not also Forget Griffey would be back playing for his favorite manager in a very good lineup

 

Fonsie

Theriot/DeRosa/Fontenot

Lee

Ramirez

Griffey

Derosa

Kendall

Pie

[JC]

I highly doubt anyone makes big acquisitions based on 3 lone games.

 

Is there such a thing as 3 multiple games?

[David]

I was actually calling the fact that you'd base your decision on whether or not the Cubs should get one of them (I'd prefer Griffey, FWIW), on what they did this weekend a joke. The mere suggestion that anyone should no longer discuss or consider (or hope for) the possibility of one of them coming to the Cubs based on what they did in this series is completely and utterly laughable.

 

Thanks for playing.

Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm).

 

What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games?

 

You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain."

 

Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too?

 

If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say.

You're evading the question (perhaps wisely).

 

What I'm asking is, what is your explanation for why MLB teams base player acquisition decisions upon what scouts observe over 3 games?

 

Is it your position that the MLB teams that engage in this activity (which seems to be all 30) are "beyond idiotic?"

 

I think that, for the most part, the use of scouts is vastly overrated and a lot less necessary than it's made out to be and is a remnant of antiquated and archaic baseball philosophies...but that's a whole separate argument and has little to do with what I said earlier.

 

The counterargument to yours comparing what dkwg said to advanced scouting has already been handled pretty well by TT and others.

[davearm]

I don't understand why you're trying to steer every point made regarding Dunn to "he sucks in August in September".

Seriously?

 

You don't understand why I'm focusing on "he sucks in August in September" issue?

 

It's because the proposal is that we obtain the guy for August and September.

 

Not hard to understand whatsoever.

 

You said people should take Dunn's 0-fers as some sort of sign or reason not to get him.

People are taking that statement far too literally. I didn't mean that the fact that his boxscore reads 0-12 is the reason to shy away. The reason to shy away is that the guy had unimpressive ABs all weekend, and from a scouting/skillset perspective did basically nothing positive.

 

You said he wasn't consistent.

Because he's not. As proof of his inconsistency, I cited the August and September swoons.

 

The seasonlong statistics you posted didn't demonstrate consistency. If anything, they demonstrated a downward trend.

[Rob]

People are taking that statement far too literally. I didn't mean that the fact that his boxscore reads 0-12 is the reason to shy away. The reason to shy away is that the guy had unimpressive ABs all weekend, and from a scouting/skillset perspective did basically nothing positive.

 

Did he do anything positive during his 12 game hitting streak heading into the series with the Cubs?

[rickrolled]

People are taking that statement far too literally. I didn't mean that the fact that his boxscore reads 0-12 is the reason to shy away. The reason to shy away is that the guy had unimpressive ABs all weekend, and from a scouting/skillset perspective did basically nothing positive.

 

But again, that's only 3 games...

[Butterscup1679666578]

I don't understand why you're trying to steer every point made regarding Dunn to "he sucks in August in September".

 

You said people should take Dunn's 0-fers as some sort of sign or reason not to get him.

People are taking that statement far too literally. I didn't mean that the fact that his boxscore reads 0-12 is the reason to shy away. The reason to shy away is that the guy had unimpressive ABs all weekend, and from a scouting/skillset perspective did basically nothing positive.

 

You are treating Dunn like he's a prospect. People know what they are getting with Dunn. He's going to K a lot, he's going to hit a lot of homers, and he's going to get on base. Just because he looks bad one series doesn't change that. The "book" is out on Dunn, and one weekend doesn't change the type of player he is.

[davearm]

I think that, for the most part, the use of scouts is vastly overrated and a lot less necessary than it's made out to be and is a remnant of antiquated and archaic baseball philosophies...but that's a whole separate argument and has little to do with what I said earlier.

 

The counterargument to yours comparing what dkwg said to advanced scouting has already been handled pretty well by TT and others.

Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no.

 

Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games?

[A New Era]

Can I just say this again? . . . . . . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When's Griffey getting here? :wink:

[Rob]

I think that, for the most part, the use of scouts is vastly overrated and a lot less necessary than it's made out to be and is a remnant of antiquated and archaic baseball philosophies...but that's a whole separate argument and has little to do with what I said earlier.

 

The counterargument to yours comparing what dkwg said to advanced scouting has already been handled pretty well by TT and others.

Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no.

 

Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games?

 

Cutting a complicated question down to a simple yes or no doesn't help the conversation much.

 

Case in point, yes or no, are you still beating your wife?

[David]

I think that, for the most part, the use of scouts is vastly overrated and a lot less necessary than it's made out to be and is a remnant of antiquated and archaic baseball philosophies...but that's a whole separate argument and has little to do with what I said earlier.

 

The counterargument to yours comparing what dkwg said to advanced scouting has already been handled pretty well by TT and others.

Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no.

 

Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games?

 

If a team did that, and used 3 games as any sort of significant deciding factor, then yes, absolutely.

 

I didn't think I needed to be any clearer.

 

The only exception might be to confirm a player's health after an injury, but I'm not sure 3 games is even enough to determine that for sure.

[davearm]

I think that, for the most part, the use of scouts is vastly overrated and a lot less necessary than it's made out to be and is a remnant of antiquated and archaic baseball philosophies...but that's a whole separate argument and has little to do with what I said earlier.

 

The counterargument to yours comparing what dkwg said to advanced scouting has already been handled pretty well by TT and others.

Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no.

 

Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games?

 

Cutting a complicated question down to a simple yes or no doesn't help the conversation much.

 

Case in point, yes or no, are you still beating your wife?

What's complicated?

 

It's incontrovertable fact that a) teams commonly go and scout the players they're interested in acquiring; b) the scouting spans only a handful of games; and c) the final go/no-go decision is influenced by the scouting report.

 

Is this practice "beyond idiotic?" Yes or no?

[Rob]

I think that, for the most part, the use of scouts is vastly overrated and a lot less necessary than it's made out to be and is a remnant of antiquated and archaic baseball philosophies...but that's a whole separate argument and has little to do with what I said earlier.

 

The counterargument to yours comparing what dkwg said to advanced scouting has already been handled pretty well by TT and others.

Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no.

 

Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games?

 

Cutting a complicated question down to a simple yes or no doesn't help the conversation much.

 

Case in point, yes or no, are you still beating your wife?

What's complicated?

 

It's incontrovertable fact that a) teams commonly go and scout the players they're interested in acquiring; b) the scouting spans only a handful of games; and c) the final go/no-go decision is influenced by the scouting report.

 

Is this practice "beyond idiotic?" Yes or no?

 

It's complicated because it's all a matter of degree. Would it be beyond idiotic to allow the scouting reports to be 100% of your decision? No doubt. What about 50%? Still, almost certainly. 5%? Most likely not.

 

The question isn't really whether or not scouting can be a valuable tool. Nobody is debating that. The question is whether you are able to place the scouting report in the proper context. A scout sent to see Dunn in the 12 games before the last three would have a radically different report than one based on the last three. Without having other thing drastically influencing your decisions, scouting reports aren't going to help you much, if at all.

[davearm]

I think that, for the most part, the use of scouts is vastly overrated and a lot less necessary than it's made out to be and is a remnant of antiquated and archaic baseball philosophies...but that's a whole separate argument and has little to do with what I said earlier.

 

The counterargument to yours comparing what dkwg said to advanced scouting has already been handled pretty well by TT and others.

Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no.

 

Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games?

 

If a team did that, and used 3 games as any sort of significant deciding factor, then yes, absolutely.

 

I didn't think I needed to be any clearer.

 

The only exception might be to confirm a player's health after an injury, but I'm not sure 3 games is even enough to determine that for sure.

That was a straightforward answer, and I appreciate it.

 

FWIW, never once did I say, or imply, that Dunn's poor weekend should be a "significant deciding factor" in this whole thing. That notion came from folks jumping to conclusions and inferring things that aren't implied.

 

That said, Dunn's weekend is not something to ignore, either. It's just another piece of evidence to slot into the "con" column of the ledger, and it's enough to knock down your willingness to pay a bit.

 

And that alone might be enough to tilt a borderline deal into the "no" range.

[craig]

No, it's not idiotic for two reasons.

 

1. A guy's health impacts his future value. You can check if the guy is healthy or not during a 3-game observation. You don't want to trade for a guy only to find that his arm is shot, or something. Just common sense to make sure his health is as expected.

 

2. There are many pickups that are extremely short-term in purpose. Dunn, that wouldn't be the case. But in dealing with a Gary Gaetti or Jason Kendall type pickup, or many of the end-of-contract pitchers you might be considering, it makes sense to get a feel for whether they look to be hot or look all messed up. You may get a feel for that in a 3-game scout.

 

I think it's common to have watched a guy over his career, and then to have seen him look different during a slump period. (Eyre this year? Jacque in April/May? Kendall in April/May?) If you know his stats have rebounded from the slump, and you watch him for a couple of days and he looks like the career guy again, not the slump guy, maybe you're more likely to gamble a fringe prospect to pick the guy up?

[davearm]

I think that, for the most part, the use of scouts is vastly overrated and a lot less necessary than it's made out to be and is a remnant of antiquated and archaic baseball philosophies...but that's a whole separate argument and has little to do with what I said earlier.

 

The counterargument to yours comparing what dkwg said to advanced scouting has already been handled pretty well by TT and others.

Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no.

 

Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games?

 

Cutting a complicated question down to a simple yes or no doesn't help the conversation much.

 

Case in point, yes or no, are you still beating your wife?

What's complicated?

 

It's incontrovertable fact that a) teams commonly go and scout the players they're interested in acquiring; b) the scouting spans only a handful of games; and c) the final go/no-go decision is influenced by the scouting report.

 

Is this practice "beyond idiotic?" Yes or no?

 

It's complicated because it's all a matter of degree. Would it be beyond idiotic to allow the scouting reports to be 100% of your decision? No doubt. What about 50%? Still, almost certainly. 5%? Most likely not.

 

The question isn't really whether or not scouting can be a valuable tool. Nobody is debating that. The question is whether you are able to place the scouting report in the proper context. A scout sent to see Dunn in the 12 games before the last three would have a radically different report than one based on the last three. Without having other thing drastically influencing your decisions, scouting reports aren't going to help you much, if at all.

The point I'm making, and you seem to agree, is that observing Dunn for the last few days should impact how the Cubs view the guy, and what they'd be willing to pay for him.

 

The degree to which this all matters is uncertain, but whatever change has occurred since Thursday has been to decrease his value.

 

Hence the original statement pages ago, "hopefully the Dunn fanatics took notice of Dunn's 3 consecutive o-fers this weekend," because his value took (or at least should have taken) a hit because of it.

[gflore34]

About the Seattle rumor: I may be mistaken but, doesn't Griffey Jr. have a no-trade clause? And, didn't state something to the extent that he'd only approve trades to Atlanta or Chicago?

[reds44]

About the Seattle rumor: I may be mistaken but, doesn't Griffey Jr. have a no-trade clause? And, didn't state something to the extent that he'd only approve trades to Atlanta or Chicago?

Yes and no.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

About the Seattle rumor: I may be mistaken but, doesn't Griffey Jr. have a no-trade clause? And, didn't state something to the extent that he'd only approve trades to Atlanta or Chicago?

 

There was a report that he only wanted to go to Atlanta or Chicago, but Griffey hasn't said anything of that sort either way.

[gflore34]

About the Seattle rumor: I may be mistaken but, doesn't Griffey Jr. have a no-trade clause? And, didn't state something to the extent that he'd only approve trades to Atlanta or Chicago?

 

There was a report that he only wanted to go to Atlanta or Chicago, but Griffey hasn't said anything of that sort either way.

 

Thanks

[gflore34]

About the Seattle rumor: I may be mistaken but, doesn't Griffey Jr. have a no-trade clause? And, didn't state something to the extent that he'd only approve trades to Atlanta or Chicago?

Yes and no.

 

Thanks

[soccer10k]

About the Seattle rumor: I may be mistaken but, doesn't Griffey Jr. have a no-trade clause? And, didn't state something to the extent that he'd only approve trades to Atlanta or Chicago?

 

There was a report that he only wanted to go to Atlanta or Chicago, but Griffey hasn't said anything of that sort either way.

 

I would think with the Tex to Atlanta deal that there is no chance for Griffey to go there as well. What else would the Braves offer the Reds now that Salty is gone?

[seanimal]

The last I heard was that Seattle was also on his list for teams that he would go to. It's all speculation, but it makes sense.