Pat Burrell Has Cleared Waivers...

[Banedon]

I hope this gets as much media play as the Podsednik thing did.

[RammyFanny]

Please don't kill me for my lack of waiver knowledge (since this ws probably answered somewhere), but if he cleared waivers, then that means no one claimed him right? If no one bothered to claim him, doesn't that mean no one is really interested?

[hawkeyecub]

I hope this gets as much media play as the Podsednik thing did.

 

The Podsednik situation got more attention because we actually put a claim in on him and he plays across town. We obviously didn't put a claim in on Pat the Bat.

[hawkeyecub]

Please don't kill me for my lack of waiver knowledge (since this ws probably answered somewhere), but if he cleared waivers, then that means no one claimed him right? If no one bothered to claim him, doesn't that mean no one is really interested?

 

Not necessarily. Teams may want him but not at his full price tag. Say someone like the Twins is interested. With the way the Phillies have tried to dump him the past 3 years, there is at least a slight chance that they may have let the Twins have him and the $18M he's owed through next year.

 

They know they can't afford that so they don't want to take the risk. But now that he's cleared waivers, they're free to negotiate a deal where they can get the Phillies to eat a good chunk of money in exchange for some prospects.

[Magnetic Curses]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

[killthegoat06]

Why didn't we claim him?

[dew1679666265]

Why didn't we claim him?

 

Probably couldn't (or didn't want to) take the risk the Phillies let him go to us and we get on the hook for his entire contract.

[hawkeyecub]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

[Magnetic Curses]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

[Soul]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

 

Indeed, but if you needed proof that the Cubs are in 'no spend' mode because of the sale, you are seeing a fairly solid piece of evidence to that effect right here.

[nilodnayr]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

 

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

 

Indeed, but if you needed proof that the Cubs are in 'no spend' mode because of the sale, you are seeing a fairly solid piece of evidence to that effect right here.

 

Well not necessarily, Hendry might just not like him.

[hawkeyecub]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

 

You're right, defense isn't our problem. But awful defense changes a player's worth. I think there's a very reasonable chance that we can come up with an in-house option(s) that provides an .800 OPS for a low cost. Is Burrell going to be able to produce enough offensively to make up that $10-$13M AND the defensive drop off?

[Rob]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

 

You're right, defense isn't our problem. But awful defense changes a player's worth. I think there's a very reasonable chance that we can come up with an in-house option(s) that provides an .800 OPS for a low cost. Is Burrell going to be able to produce enough offensively to make up that $10-$13M AND the defensive drop off?

 

The marginal wins between 86-90 (IIRC) are worth more than any others. If Burrell could help us win a net of two games from here on out, the 10-13 mil would be greatly reduced.

[BigbadB]

Is Burrell going to be able to produce enough offensively to make up that $10-$13M AND the defensive drop off?

 

I suppose that depends on how much you value a trip to the World Series. Any move made at this time should be with the playoffs in mind.

 

Something needs to be done to put this team in a position to get there. Right now, they aren't good enough.

 

I doubt that Burrell is actually available right now, but things can change in the next two weeks. Victorino and Bourn could be back, which Phily is probably not in a hurry to move him because of those injuries.

 

Just because the Cubs traded for Burrell for the remainder of this season doesn't necessarily mean they would be on the hook for him all of next year, because they could potentially trade him in the offseason.

 

And I'm shocked that Soriano isn't already in RF (at least when he was healthy and playing everyday). This has been the biggest no brainer that hasn't happened yet. He has the speed and arm to play there.

[Magnetic Curses]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

 

You're right, defense isn't our problem. But awful defense changes a player's worth. I think there's a very reasonable chance that we can come up with an in-house option(s) that provides an .800 OPS for a low cost. Is Burrell going to be able to produce enough offensively to make up that $10-$13M AND the defensive drop off?

 

yes, because +.800 ops right fielders odn't grow on trees, and burrell is good.

[Guest]

And I'm shocked that Soriano isn't already in RF (at least when he was healthy and playing everyday). This has been the biggest no brainer that hasn't happened yet. He has the speed and arm to play there.

I've heard through some correspondents that the org doesn't like the idea of a sidearm throwing right hander playing RF. The belief is that he wouldn't be able to make the throw to third base at all when he has to go to his left to make a catch.

 

ETA - these correspondents were not connected to the org, so I don't know for certain if that's the opinion of the org of the guys I'm talking to.

[Backtobanks]

And I'm shocked that Soriano isn't already in RF (at least when he was healthy and playing everyday). This has been the biggest no brainer that hasn't happened yet. He has the speed and arm to play there.

I've heard through some correspondents that the org doesn't like the idea of a sidearm throwing right hander playing RF. The belief is that he wouldn't be able to make the throw to third base at all when he has to go to his left to make a catch.

 

ETA - these correspondents were not connected to the org, so I don't know for certain if that's the opinion of the org of the guys I'm talking to.

 

Wasn't that one of the arguments against resigning Nomar to play RF.

[Roast]

And I'm shocked that Soriano isn't already in RF (at least when he was healthy and playing everyday). This has been the biggest no brainer that hasn't happened yet. He has the speed and arm to play there.

I've heard through some correspondents that the org doesn't like the idea of a sidearm throwing right hander playing RF. The belief is that he wouldn't be able to make the throw to third base at all when he has to go to his left to make a catch.

 

ETA - these correspondents were not connected to the org, so I don't know for certain if that's the opinion of the org of the guys I'm talking to.

 

Wasn't that one of the arguments against resigning Nomar to play RF.

 

Offtopic:

 

Soriano is the Dominican Nomar. They both have surprising power for their body size and they both do that annoying-ass hop when they make catches/throws.

 

Oh, and they bot had solid careers then came to the cubs and got injured.

[frostwyrm]

Z is going to get 5/90, and Burrell is owed $14M in 2008. It would be tough to pay both guys next year unless Z gets a hugely backloaded deal, which wouldn't bother Jimbo, but I'm suspecting the Trib is getting fed up with the excessive backloading in the payroll. Trying to fit in Z and Burrell now would make it ridiculously expensive to assemble a complete baseball team in 2009. 2010 would be pretty bad too. Potential buyers are no doubt aware of this stuff.

[Prior4CyYoung]

Z is going to get 5/90, and Burrell is owed $14M in 2008. It would be tough to pay both guys next year unless Z gets a hugely backloaded deal, which wouldn't bother Jimbo, but I'm suspecting the Trib is getting fed up with the excessive backloading in the payroll. Trying to fit in Z and Burrell now would make it ridiculously expensive to assemble a complete baseball team in 2009. 2010 would be pretty bad too. Potential buyers are no doubt aware of this stuff.

 

Why would the tribune care about excess backloading payrolls? They wont own the team next year so they should careless.

[Warren Brusstar]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

 

You're right, defense isn't our problem. But awful defense changes a player's worth. I think there's a very reasonable chance that we can come up with an in-house option(s) that provides an .800 OPS for a low cost. Is Burrell going to be able to produce enough offensively to make up that $10-$13M AND the defensive drop off?

 

yes, because +.800 ops right fielders odn't grow on trees, and burrell is good.

 

You're right.

 

Jacque Jones' career OPS v. RHP = .827

[frostwyrm]

Z is going to get 5/90, and Burrell is owed $14M in 2008. It would be tough to pay both guys next year unless Z gets a hugely backloaded deal, which wouldn't bother Jimbo, but I'm suspecting the Trib is getting fed up with the excessive backloading in the payroll. Trying to fit in Z and Burrell now would make it ridiculously expensive to assemble a complete baseball team in 2009. 2010 would be pretty bad too. Potential buyers are no doubt aware of this stuff.

 

Why would the tribune care about excess backloading payrolls? They wont own the team next year so they should careless.

 

It makes it harder to get a good price for the team. In 2009 and 2010 the Cubs are going to be awful unless they have one of the biggest payrolls in baseball. That's not an attractive selling point for a team.

[hawkeyecub]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

 

You're right, defense isn't our problem. But awful defense changes a player's worth. I think there's a very reasonable chance that we can come up with an in-house option(s) that provides an .800 OPS for a low cost. Is Burrell going to be able to produce enough offensively to make up that $10-$13M AND the defensive drop off?

 

yes, because +.800 ops right fielders odn't grow on trees, and burrell is good.

 

They aren't rare or elite either. There are 17 qualified outfielders in the NL alone with an .800+ OPS. 21 in the NL have an .800+ OPS in 300 plate appearances. The number increases to 25 when PA's are reduced to 250 currently which is more than a straight platoon.

 

I don't really think it's much of a leap to think that we can get an .800 OPS out of in-house options next year in RF and definitely get better defense out of them. Maybe not highly probable, but a good enough chance that I'd rather save the $10-12M and invest that on Z or an unlikely push for A-Rod.

[Magnetic Curses]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

 

You're right, defense isn't our problem. But awful defense changes a player's worth. I think there's a very reasonable chance that we can come up with an in-house option(s) that provides an .800 OPS for a low cost. Is Burrell going to be able to produce enough offensively to make up that $10-$13M AND the defensive drop off?

 

yes, because +.800 ops right fielders odn't grow on trees, and burrell is good.

 

They aren't rare or elite either. There are 17 qualified outfielders in the NL alone with an .800+ OPS. 21 in the NL have an .800+ OPS in 300 plate appearances. The number increases to 25 when PA's are reduced to 250 currently which is more than a straight platoon.

 

I don't really think it's much of a leap to think that we can get an .800 OPS out of in-house options next year in RF and definitely get better defense out of them. Maybe not highly probable, but a good enough chance that I'd rather save the $10-12M and invest that on Z or an unlikely push for A-Rod.

 

in the NL:

 

1.bonds

2.holliday

3.hawpe

4.dunn

5.griffey

6.rowand

7.c lee

8.burrell

 

the closest cub, soriano trails burrell by over 40 points.

 

in either league, there are 13 current everyday of'ers that qualify who have better OPS's than burrell--that's not that many. he'd be worth the money, even with his less than stellar defense--which, and i repeat for the thousandth time, is not our problem.

 

we've tried driving in runs with the glove in the past, and it just doesn't work as well as with a bat. mo OPS plz.

[hawkeyecub]

It's not as simple as some of you are making it.

 

Yes he is absolutely awful in the outfield. He misplays balls routinely, takes terrible routes, he has amazing trouble ever picking up a ball cleanly off the ground and his arm and where he throws the ball is very inconsistent. Basically all of the bad attributes we've seen from Pagan, Jones, Floyd and Murton exist in Pat.

He may not be a terrible downgrade from what we have this year with Floyd, but do we want to be committed to that next year also?

 

He can be extremely inconsistent and disappear for a month or two or more at a time. He hit .215/.378/.408 for a .786 OPS in the first half. He's hit an absurd .404/.526/.697 since the break. Even at age 31, it just scares me that there seems like a decent chance he can revert to '04 or close to '03 numbers.

 

Would I love his bat from the last 3 years in this lineup? Without a doubt. But I'm not so sure I want to commit $14M to him (plus decent prospects) considering his awful defense and the fact that I'm not sure he'll be much of a better overall value than Murton.

 

if the worst case scenario has him putting up a .786 ops during a slump, where do i sign up?

 

Combined with being one of the worst regular OF's in the game? I guess I have higher standards for $14M. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him under any circumstances and he is a pretty good bet to get you around an .850 OPS. However there are things that make me hesitant and I would want them to eat some of that money.

 

If not, I'd rather go with Murton (and Jones if necessary) and allocate that $10-$13M to Z and a possible shot at A-Rod.

 

again, defense is not our problem, our problem is OPS. burrell provides that. i'd take him in a second.

 

You're right, defense isn't our problem. But awful defense changes a player's worth. I think there's a very reasonable chance that we can come up with an in-house option(s) that provides an .800 OPS for a low cost. Is Burrell going to be able to produce enough offensively to make up that $10-$13M AND the defensive drop off?

 

yes, because +.800 ops right fielders odn't grow on trees, and burrell is good.

 

They aren't rare or elite either. There are 17 qualified outfielders in the NL alone with an .800+ OPS. 21 in the NL have an .800+ OPS in 300 plate appearances. The number increases to 25 when PA's are reduced to 250 currently which is more than a straight platoon.

 

I don't really think it's much of a leap to think that we can get an .800 OPS out of in-house options next year in RF and definitely get better defense out of them. Maybe not highly probable, but a good enough chance that I'd rather save the $10-12M and invest that on Z or an unlikely push for A-Rod.

 

in the NL:

 

1.bonds

2.holliday

3.hawpe

4.dunn

5.griffey

6.rowand

7.c lee

8.burrell

 

the closest cub, soriano trails burrell by over 40 points.

 

in either league, there are 13 current everyday of'ers that qualify who have better OPS's than burrell--that's not that many. he'd be worth the money, even with his less than stellar defense--which, and i repeat for the thousandth time, is not our problem.

 

we've tried driving in runs with the glove in the past, and it just doesn't work as well as with a bat. mo OPS plz.

 

I think you're missing what I'm trying to say.

 

It's not that I dislike Burrell completely or don't think he has value.

First of all I get so tired of the "driving in runs with the glove" remark or people saying defense isn't our problem. You're right it's not. But it changes what a player is worth.

We're going to be on a budget next year. I think we can get an .800 OPS out of what we have for next year. They won't be as good as Burrell offensively and I concede that. But I don't think the difference in OPS is enough to offset paying $10M and taking a major hit defensively. 50 points of OPS just isn't worth that much money in my opinion when it also comes with a downgrade in the field.