Judging Sosa Deal (New Baltimore-based article added p.5)

[badger1679666666]

Sammy Sosa     9 HR 27  RBI 28 BB 50 K .225/.305/.383/.689
Jeromy Burnitz 14 HR 46 RBI 34 BB 58 K .276/.342/.475/.817

 

+ What Hairston has done at the top of the lineup

 

=

 

Take the juice away from Sosa and Hendry made a great decision, regardless of the $$.

 

I was incredibly negative on the deal at the time, I can admit it. Who else was pissed when they signed Beernutz? We can all fess up here.

Edited July 19, 2005 by badger

[ThePenguin11]

I can honestly say I was ecstatic when Sammy was traded. I can also say that I was one of the few who didn't think Burnitz was a bad move.

[Fred Hornkohl]

This one may be a little easier to read......

 

07/07      AB   R   H  2B  3B  HR  TB RBI  BB  SO  SB  CS     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
Burnitz   318  50  89  19   2  14 154  47  32  55   4   3  0.280  0.343  0.484  0.827
Sosa      248  28  57  11   1   9  97  27  28  48   1   0  0.230  0.311  0.391  0.702

Edited July 11, 2005 by Fred Hornkohl

[imb]

"i dont mean to toot my own horn, but...beep beep"

[scs_paradise]

This one may be a little easier to read......

 

07/07      AB   R   H  2B  3B  HR  TB RBI  BB  SO  SB  CS     BA    OBP    SLG    OBP
Burnitz   318  50  89  19   2  14 154  47  32  55   4   3  0.280  0.343  0.484  0.827
Sosa      248  28  57  11   1   9  97  27  28  48   1   0  0.230  0.311  0.391  0.702

 

Fred, shouldn't that last column heading be OPS not OBP?

[Fred Hornkohl]

Fred, shouldn't that last column heading be OPS not OBP?

 

Yes, of course. Sorry 'bout that.

[katway]

I'm one who believes he Sosa trade was addition by subtraction. The Cubs could have gotten a box of Cracker Jack still benefited the team with the deal. Edited July 11, 2005 by katway

[Holy Cow]

Well, I might as well admit that I also was wrong. I was expecting a semi-rebound year for Sosa, and certainly did not expect anything near this production from Burntiz. The money is still a concern, however.

[Notorious]

Obviously Burnitz has performed admirably so far this year. I was very opposed to his signing, not so much b/c i was a Sosa fan, I thought he would suck.

 

He has shown hustle and is a good player, and I am glad he is on the team.

 

However, I don't know if I'd consider the transacation a complete success since he costs in reality like 20 million.

 

We could have done a lot worse.

[Soul]

There's no way the Sammy deal can be considered a good one.

 

We're still paying Sammy to be bad in Baltimore. What could Hendry have done with the $13million it is costing us to keep Sammy & his salsa boombox away from our clubhouse?

 

Plus, we could have signed Burnitz and STILL kept Sosa for the exact same money. So comparing Burnie & Sosa's numbers doesn't make any sense.

 

As for Hairston------nice bench-quality player. Baltimore would have sent him our way for a bag of peanuts, it didn't need to be in the Sosa deal.

[dalgreen]

I didn't like the Burnitz deal and I neither cried nor jumped for joy with the Sosa trade. But with Sosa's numbers, I honestly would rather pay his salary and not have him on the team than pay him and have had him DL'ed, booed by the fans, and not being productive. I know last year, he was the only ML player to have a three year drop off in HR, RBI, AVG, OBP and total bases. I wonder if he'll be the only one to have that in four straight years?

[ThePenguin11]

I'm one who believes he Sosa trade was addition by subtraction. The Cubs could have gotten a box of Cracker Jack still benefited the team with the deal.

 

I'm two.

[ThePenguin11]

There's no way the Sammy deal can be considered a good one.

 

We're still paying Sammy to be bad in Baltimore. What could Hendry have done with the $13million it is costing us to keep Sammy & his salsa boombox away from our clubhouse?

 

Plus, we could have signed Burnitz and STILL kept Sosa for the exact same money. So comparing Burnie & Sosa's numbers doesn't make any sense.

 

As for Hairston------nice bench-quality player. Baltimore would have sent him our way for a bag of peanuts, it didn't need to be in the Sosa deal.

 

At least we're not paying him to be bad for the Cubs.

[ZZ Thorn]

Let's say Sosa was on the Cubs squad this year and the Cubs were one game under .500 going into the all-star break - I shudder to think what the media around here would be like. I love Sammy, but I thought it was time for him to go.

 

Not a bad trade, not a great trade - just had to be done.

[Peoriaman]

addition by subtraction. We saved some money, got hairston and got rid of a player with a bad attitude and in serious decline.

[ThePenguin11]

Let's say Sosa was on the Cubs squad this year and the Cubs were one game under .500 going into the all-star break - I shudder to think what the media around here would be like. I love Sammy, but I thought it was time for him to go.

 

Not a bad trade, not a great trade - just had to be done.

 

Exactly, his relationship with his manager, GM and fans reached the point of no return.

[mhuber92211]

I just can't believe that Sosa has 1 triple this year :shock:

[Roast]

addition by subtraction. We saved some money, got hairston and got rid of a player with a bad attitude and in serious decline.

 

If your Idea of saving money is paying someone thirteen million dollars to play somewhere else, you sir, are insane.

[donobr]

Don't forget Fontenot,he may end good backup.

[Illini Iceman]

addition by subtraction. We saved some money, got hairston and got rid of a player with a bad attitude and in serious decline.

 

If your Idea of saving money is paying someone thirteen million dollars to play somewhere else, you sir, are insane.

 

IIRC the Cubs overall payroll went down as a result of the Sosa trade. They did have to eat a lot of the contract but did not have to pay as much as they would have to keep him. Since his production has been awful this year and he would have HAD to be starter if he was kept on the team I say that ANY money the Cubs saved on payroll was a bonus. If the Cubs have a better team without Sosa and have lower or even the same payroll then it is a good thing. For crying out load, Sosa's numbers are pretty comparable to Neifi's this year! One guy with those numbers is painful enough to see in the lineup every day.

[Roast]

addition by subtraction. We saved some money, got hairston and got rid of a player with a bad attitude and in serious decline.

 

If your Idea of saving money is paying someone thirteen million dollars to play somewhere else, you sir, are insane.

 

IIRC the Cubs overall payroll went down as a result of the Sosa trade. They did have to eat a lot of the contract but did not have to pay as much as they would have to keep him. Since his production has been awful this year and he would have HAD to be starter if he was kept on the team I say that ANY money the Cubs saved on payroll was a bonus. If the Cubs have a better team without Sosa and have lower or even the same payroll then it is a good thing. For crying out load, Sosa's numbers are pretty comparable to Neifi's this year! One guy with those numbers is painful enough to see in the lineup every day.

 

I realize this. What i have been saying all year long is that, that deal was horrible. If people beleive he had to leave, fine. So be it. He is doing badly this year, so its probably best we have someone else. However, hendry could've done so much better than that. The organization did a horrible job dealing with the whole sosa thing. If they could've kept their darn traps shut, and not went blabbing to the media, his stock probably woulda been higher, and we couldve gotten more, and/or paid less of his contract. This was a bad offseason all around in cubbie land.

[CubmanPi]

Sosaa's performance and relationship with fans, management, and front office made the trade a necessity, as stated earlier. His gargantuan of a contract couple with the severe decline made offloading him a necessity, and it pretty much guaranteed that we were going to accept the fact that we were going to be at a loss on some level. Dropping Sosa was like cutting losses on a doomed stock rather than riding it into the ground in hopes that it would rebound, and I think the numbers Fred posted make it pretty clear that Hendry's moves at least levelled out that downward nosedive. We still come out behind, but given the options, I'm pleased.

 

As for me, I was thrilled to see Sammy go, but at the time, I felt we could have done better than landing Burnitz. So far, he has performed much better than what I expected, and I really like his attitude and approach. I think that Sammy's contract puts the Cubs in a bad spot no matter how you cut it, but given the circumstances, they definitely could have done worse.

[dalgreen]

I realize this. What i have been saying all year long is that, that deal was horrible. If people beleive he had to leave, fine. So be it. He is doing badly this year, so its probably best we have someone else. However, hendry could've done so much better than that. The organization did a horrible job dealing with the whole sosa thing. If they could've kept their darn traps shut, and not went blabbing to the media, his stock probably woulda been higher, and we couldve gotten more, and/or paid less of his contract. This was a bad offseason all around in cubbie land.

 

 

Why do you believe his stock could've been higher? He was coming off of three straight years of declining numbers in hrs, OBP, avg, rbi's and total bases. I think slugging pct, too, but I'm not sure. I am sure of the other categories, though. I don't know what team would've overpaid an aging guy with those numbers.

[ltb]

i absolutely hated the burnitz signing, but i'm glad to see that he's been playing well.

 

hairston has been a pleasant surprise - hopefully he's allowed to continue hitting leadoff.

[biittner77]

I realize this. What i have been saying all year long is that, that deal was horrible. If people beleive he had to leave, fine. So be it. He is doing badly this year, so its probably best we have someone else. However, hendry could've done so much better than that. The organization did a horrible job dealing with the whole sosa thing. If they could've kept their darn traps shut, and not went blabbing to the media, his stock probably woulda been higher, and we couldve gotten more, and/or paid less of his contract. This was a bad offseason all around in cubbie land.

 

 

Why do you believe his stock could've been higher? He was coming off of three straight years of declining numbers in hrs, OBP, avg, rbi's and total bases. I think slugging pct, too, but I'm not sure. I am sure of the other categories, though. I don't know what team would've overpaid an aging guy with those numbers.

 

I suppose Sosa's value might have been higher if more teams wanted him. I doubt they could have gotten much more for him. However, had they gotten Cliff Floyd it might have made a substantial difference in the standings. His hot start coupled with Lee's could have been big.

 

But we have no way of knowing if the Mets-or anyone else- were even interested. I also reject the idea that the bad pub hurt his value. The Cubs publicly were shopping him because of clubhouse issues. That had to be better than trading him because he's no good anymore. Sosa having something to prove was enough to convince many people that he'd rebound. He still might put together a decent season.