WSCR Rumor?

[SouthSideRyan]

Also, interestingly enough, the contract has a provision forcing Toronto to pay for eight round-trips per season between Toronto and Burnett's home in Maryland... by limousine. I guess it's for his wife.

 

So if we acquired him, we'd have to fly his wife out to Toronto 8 times a year?

[Wrigley Rat]

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Dempster have 2 years left at about 5 million/year. Marquis has something like 2 years at about 8/year.

 

Did Burnett sign like a 5 year 55million deal?

 

Dempster has 1 year, $5.5 million left on his contract.

 

Marquis has $6.375M and $9.875M remaining.

Although what I read could be wrong, but a couple weeks ago I read that Dempster met some incentives that makes his contract for 2008 worth $7,000,000. Take that for what it's worth - I'm not willing to look for the link!

[craig]

So where is this rumor coming from? Levine said that we're interested in getting a pitcher? And somebody else said we asked about Burnett?

 

Sounds like Cub-side stuff. I heard we'd like Burnett, and asked about trading Marquis for him. there's probably dozens of pitchers we'd like to trade Marquis for. But where is the rumor that Toronto would have any interest in it?

 

One note: assuming Burnett did well on his $12/1 contract and then declared FA and got a mongo contract, the losing team could get two high draft picks in return. So from Toronto's end, to trade might require that they'd prefer prospects in trade to prospect of two good draft prospects later. From Cub end, you might justify including some prospects if you know that you'll get a couple good prospects back even if you do lose the guy. It's one of the advantages of going after *good* players instead of marginal guys.

[soonercub]

Also, interestingly enough, the contract has a provision forcing Toronto to pay for eight round-trips per season between Toronto and Burnett's home in Maryland... by limousine. I guess it's for his wife.

 

So if we acquired him, we'd have to fly his wife out to Toronto 8 times a year?

 

 

Do you think we could set up a car pool with A-Rods blonde stripper?

[Roast]

So where is this rumor coming from? Levine said that we're interested in getting a pitcher? And somebody else said we asked about Burnett?

 

Sounds like Cub-side stuff. I heard we'd like Burnett, and asked about trading Marquis for him. there's probably dozens of pitchers we'd like to trade Marquis for. But where is the rumor that Toronto would have any interest in it?

 

One note: assuming Burnett did well on his $12/1 contract and then declared FA and got a mongo contract, the losing team could get two high draft picks in return. So from Toronto's end, to trade might require that they'd prefer prospects in trade to prospect of two good draft prospects later. From Cub end, you might justify including some prospects if you know that you'll get a couple good prospects back even if you do lose the guy. It's one of the advantages of going after *good* players instead of marginal guys.

 

Wow...what a concept!

 

The Cubs should try this more often!

[St.Paul Cub]

 

I watch about, 60-80 Jays games a year, he won't ever be healthy. Therefore; I want Burnett about as much as I want Gonorrhea.

 

I've never seen Gonorrhea pitch. What's his WHIP?

[ctcf]

Any comments from Bruce on the likelihood of a trade for a pitcher?

[SoonerCubFan]

i cannot be the only one that would rather have HILL than BEDARD.

 

ok this is nsbb... i konw that is false. HILL is the man, not worth Bedard.

 

I'm in there with you. Rich Hill and Erik Bedard are the same guy stat-wise (w/Hill actually a bit better) through age 27. Hill probably won't match Bedard's age 28 season, but then he may pitch after August as well. Hill is a year younger, has a healthier history with no past abuse, has two more seasons under the Cubs' control, and may end up just as good or better the next 3-4 years.

 

I'd be all for getting Bedard, but using Hill to do it would be a step backward.

[C.C.]

i cannot be the only one that would rather have HILL than BEDARD.

 

ok this is nsbb... i konw that is false. HILL is the man, not worth Bedard.

 

I'm in there with you. Rich Hill and Erik Bedard are the same guy stat-wise (w/Hill actually a bit better) through age 27. Hill probably won't match Bedard's age 28 season, but then he may pitch after August as well. Hill is a year younger, has a healthier history with no past abuse, has two more seasons under the Cubs' control, and may end up just as good or better the next 3-4 years.

 

I'd be all for getting Bedard, but using Hill to do it would be a step backward.

 

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like Bedard trumps Hill in every category last year, and Bedard is pitching in the harder league. I don't get why dealing Hill for Bedard would be a step backward?

[Hosak8]

i cannot be the only one that would rather have HILL than BEDARD.

 

ok this is nsbb... i konw that is false. HILL is the man, not worth Bedard.

 

I'm in there with you. Rich Hill and Erik Bedard are the same guy stat-wise (w/Hill actually a bit better) through age 27. Hill probably won't match Bedard's age 28 season, but then he may pitch after August as well. Hill is a year younger, has a healthier history with no past abuse, has two more seasons under the Cubs' control, and may end up just as good or better the next 3-4 years.

 

I'd be all for getting Bedard, but using Hill to do it would be a step backward.

 

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like Bedard trumps Hill in every category last year, and Bedard is pitching in the harder league. I don't get why dealing Hill for Bedard would be a step backward?

 

The answer, my friend is bolded. We have a pretty significant history of grossly overvaluing our own prospects. Oh, yes, I've been there. Kelton, Choi, Bobby Hill, Brendan Harris, Todd Wellemeyer, CPatt, Jackson Melian, Matt Bruback... they were all, at one time or another, the next big thing.

 

Truth is, Hill is a solid prospect. But, is trading him for a guy who had better numbers in the much tougher league really a step backward? I don't quite think so. Of course, I am pretty nearly always in the minority here.

[Hosak8]

25 starts by Burnett and 7 by Hart would produce more quality starts then 32 Marquis starts. Plus it would save my liver from the Ibuprofin induced toxicity. But, if the Cubs and Jays were involved in a deal, I put money on Dempster in the deal not Marquis. I remember reading something that Toronto ownership would like to have a couple Canadians on the roster, plus Dempster gives the Jays more financial flexibility.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Dempster have 2 years left at about 5 million/year. Marquis has something like 2 years at about 8/year.

 

Did Burnett sign like a 5 year 55million deal?

 

Glad you said it, so I wouldn't have to.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

i cannot be the only one that would rather have HILL than BEDARD.

 

ok this is nsbb... i konw that is false. HILL is the man, not worth Bedard.

 

I'm in there with you. Rich Hill and Erik Bedard are the same guy stat-wise (w/Hill actually a bit better) through age 27. Hill probably won't match Bedard's age 28 season, but then he may pitch after August as well. Hill is a year younger, has a healthier history with no past abuse, has two more seasons under the Cubs' control, and may end up just as good or better the next 3-4 years.

 

I'd be all for getting Bedard, but using Hill to do it would be a step backward.

 

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like Bedard trumps Hill in every category last year, and Bedard is pitching in the harder league. I don't get why dealing Hill for Bedard would be a step backward?

 

The answer, my friend is bolded. We have a pretty significant history of grossly overvaluing our own prospects. Oh, yes, I've been there. Kelton, Choi, Bobby Hill, Brendan Harris, Todd Wellemeyer, CPatt, Jackson Melian, Matt Bruback... they were all, at one time or another, the next big thing.

 

Truth is, Hill is a solid prospect. But, is trading him for a guy who had better numbers in the much tougher league really a step backward? I don't quite think so. Of course, I am pretty nearly always in the minority here.

 

Hill(2007) and Bedard(2006) at age 27:

 

3.76 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 7.84 K/9, 2.48 K/BB, 121 ERA+

 

v.

 

3.92 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 8.45 K/9, 2.90 K/BB, 119 ERA+

[Hosak8]

i cannot be the only one that would rather have HILL than BEDARD.

 

ok this is nsbb... i konw that is false. HILL is the man, not worth Bedard.

 

I'm in there with you. Rich Hill and Erik Bedard are the same guy stat-wise (w/Hill actually a bit better) through age 27. Hill probably won't match Bedard's age 28 season, but then he may pitch after August as well. Hill is a year younger, has a healthier history with no past abuse, has two more seasons under the Cubs' control, and may end up just as good or better the next 3-4 years.

 

I'd be all for getting Bedard, but using Hill to do it would be a step backward.

 

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like Bedard trumps Hill in every category last year, and Bedard is pitching in the harder league. I don't get why dealing Hill for Bedard would be a step backward?

 

The answer, my friend is bolded. We have a pretty significant history of grossly overvaluing our own prospects. Oh, yes, I've been there. Kelton, Choi, Bobby Hill, Brendan Harris, Todd Wellemeyer, CPatt, Jackson Melian, Matt Bruback... they were all, at one time or another, the next big thing.

 

Truth is, Hill is a solid prospect. But, is trading him for a guy who had better numbers in the much tougher league really a step backward? I don't quite think so. Of course, I am pretty nearly always in the minority here.

 

Hill(2007) and Bedard(2006) at age 27:

 

3.76 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 7.84 K/9, 2.48 K/BB, 121 ERA+

 

v.

 

3.92 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 8.45 K/9, 2.90 K/BB, 119 ERA+

 

If the upper line is Hill's, and the lower is Bedard's, then you've actually proved my point. And Bedard did that facing MUCH better hitters. The only advantage that Hill enjoys is an ERA advantage, and that is to be expected from a pitcher in the worst division in baseball versus one in the best.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The answer, my friend is bolded. We have a pretty significant history of grossly overvaluing our own prospects. Oh, yes, I've been there. Kelton, Choi, Bobby Hill, Brendan Harris, Todd Wellemeyer, CPatt, Jackson Melian, Matt Bruback... they were all, at one time or another, the next big thing.

 

Truth is, Hill is a solid prospect. But, is trading him for a guy who had better numbers in the much tougher league really a step backward? I don't quite think so. Of course, I am pretty nearly always in the minority here.

 

Hill(2007) and Bedard(2006) at age 27:

 

3.76 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 7.84 K/9, 2.48 K/BB, 121 ERA+

 

v.

 

3.92 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 8.45 K/9, 2.90 K/BB, 119 ERA+

 

If the upper line is Hill's, and the lower is Bedard's, then you've actually proved my point. And Bedard did that facing MUCH better hitters. The only advantage that Hill enjoys is an ERA advantage, and that is to be expected from a pitcher in the worst division in baseball versus one in the best.

 

The upper line is Bedard, the lower line is Hill. Either way, they're remarkably similar at the same age. Considering Hill's contract and injury history relative to Bedard's, it'd make sense that he's the more valuable commodity.

[ottawacubbie]

 

If the upper line is Hill's, and the lower is Bedard's, then you've actually proved my point. And Bedard did that facing MUCH better hitters. The only advantage that Hill enjoys is an ERA advantage, and that is to be expected from a pitcher in the worst division in baseball versus one in the best.

 

Interesting, because I would rather have Hill than Bedard, but then again last year I took Ted Lilly's stats and took away the NYY and BOS starts and predicted a 14-6 year with a 3.91 ERA to a friend. I may try that with Bedard.

[Rob]

Bedard and Hill are pretty much the same pitcher, with Hill perhaps having the potential to strike out a few more, and Bedard being able to induce more grounders. All things being equal, Bedard is probably a little bit better... but not significantly enough to justify giving up all the extra years we'll have Hill under contract.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Trading Hill for Bedard isn't a step backward; it's simply not necessarily a step forward. While I don't think it's particularly likely that Hill's age 28 season resembles Bedard's, Hill is still a likely bet to improve and is far cheaper than Bedard. Bedard's also only had one season on the level of his 2007; not a guarantee that he replicates it. Basically, giving up Hill + prospects for Bedard seems kinda silly. We're probably better off just keeping Hill and taking whatever it is he gives us.

[RammyFanny]

So where is this rumor coming from? Levine said that we're interested in getting a pitcher? And somebody else said we asked about Burnett?

 

Sounds like Cub-side stuff. I heard we'd like Burnett, and asked about trading Marquis for him. there's probably dozens of pitchers we'd like to trade Marquis for. But where is the rumor that Toronto would have any interest in it?

 

One note: assuming Burnett did well on his $12/1 contract and then declared FA and got a mongo contract, the losing team could get two high draft picks in return. So from Toronto's end, to trade might require that they'd prefer prospects in trade to prospect of two good draft prospects later. From Cub end, you might justify including some prospects if you know that you'll get a couple good prospects back even if you do lose the guy. It's one of the advantages of going after *good* players instead of marginal guys.

 

 

BTW, this started out as a Score report saying we are interested in a prominent AL pitcher. A few days ago on the PSD forums, a pretty well respected poster said he talked to a blue jays scout (named Kimball Crossley--who you can google if you want) and one of the different deals he said had been discussed was Derosa, Marquis (thank you Blue Jays if you take this offer), possibly Murton (depending possibly on if the Rios deal goes through), and another lesser pitching prospect for Burnett. This info also joved with the Score report that said we will consider trading DeRo.

 

And keep in mind, the Blue Jays GM said this offseason that he'd be stupid not to take offers for Burnett because of his optout clause.

[Hosak8]

The answer, my friend is bolded. We have a pretty significant history of grossly overvaluing our own prospects. Oh, yes, I've been there. Kelton, Choi, Bobby Hill, Brendan Harris, Todd Wellemeyer, CPatt, Jackson Melian, Matt Bruback... they were all, at one time or another, the next big thing.

 

Truth is, Hill is a solid prospect. But, is trading him for a guy who had better numbers in the much tougher league really a step backward? I don't quite think so. Of course, I am pretty nearly always in the minority here.

 

Hill(2007) and Bedard(2006) at age 27:

 

3.76 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 7.84 K/9, 2.48 K/BB, 121 ERA+

 

v.

 

3.92 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 8.45 K/9, 2.90 K/BB, 119 ERA+

 

If the upper line is Hill's, and the lower is Bedard's, then you've actually proved my point. And Bedard did that facing MUCH better hitters. The only advantage that Hill enjoys is an ERA advantage, and that is to be expected from a pitcher in the worst division in baseball versus one in the best.

 

The upper line is Bedard, the lower line is Hill. Either way, they're remarkably similar at the same age. Considering Hill's contract and injury history relative to Bedard's, it'd make sense that he's the more valuable commodity.

 

Oh, there is no question that there are some intriguing similarities between the two, and that relative value seems to favor Hill. However, if I am trying to win a World Series in 2008, and I am only judging players based on what I would expect them to do between the lines, I would prefer Bedard.

 

Bedard's numbers, again, are accumulated in the toughest division in baseball, and in the much tougher league, overall. Hill's have been accumulated in a very weak division. Bedard had 15 of his starts that season come against the Twins, Yankees, BoSox, Angels, and Tigers.

 

Bedard's 2007 numbers are much better than Hill's, as well. The stats at age 27 are a bit deceiving, since they are only a year apart. Comparing 2007's, you see that Bedard had a much better season than Hill.

 

Hill's splits also do not impress me much, as he was much better on the road than at home in 2007.

 

Again, not saying I would trade Hill for Bedard in the real world. In a vacuum, I would without hesitation. Besides, if we can land Blanton or Burnett without dealing Hill, that makes much more sense. Hill should be the centerpiece in a Santana deal.

[Tyrant]

Bedard and Hill are pretty much the same pitcher, with Hill perhaps having the potential to strike out a few more

 

How do you figure? Bedard struck out almost 40 more batters in 13 fewer innings last year, against much tougher hitters.

[wolf stansson]

Bedard and Hill are pretty much the same pitcher, with Hill perhaps having the potential to strike out a few more, and Bedard being able to induce more grounders.

Incorrect analysis.

[rawaction]

Bedard and Hill are pretty much the same pitcher, with Hill perhaps having the potential to strike out a few more

 

How do you figure? Bedard struck out almost 40 more batters in 13 fewer innings last year, against much tougher hitters.

 

How so?

 

AL hitters- .270/.338/.423

NL hitters- .266/.334/.422

[CuseCubFan69]

Bedard and Hill are pretty much the same pitcher, with Hill perhaps having the potential to strike out a few more

 

How do you figure? Bedard struck out almost 40 more batters in 13 fewer innings last year, against much tougher hitters.

 

How so?

 

AL hitters- .270/.338/.423

NL hitters- .266/.334/.422

 

Do they have a stat that has the combined batting averages and the rest of the stats that a pitcher faced during the year?

[C.C.]

Bedard and Hill are pretty much the same pitcher, with Hill perhaps having the potential to strike out a few more

 

How do you figure? Bedard struck out almost 40 more batters in 13 fewer innings last year, against much tougher hitters.

 

How so?

 

AL hitters- .270/.338/.423

NL hitters- .266/.334/.422

 

 

What about the East numbers Vs. the Central.

[Tyrant]

Bedard and Hill are pretty much the same pitcher, with Hill perhaps having the potential to strike out a few more

 

How do you figure? Bedard struck out almost 40 more batters in 13 fewer innings last year, against much tougher hitters.

 

How so?

 

AL hitters- .270/.338/.423

NL hitters- .266/.334/.422

 

He made two starts against Boston, two against Cleveland, three against the Yankees. That's a decent chunk of his innings. Hill pitched in the worst division in baseball.