Looks like Kearns would like to be a Cub.

[wekse]

was Kearns called up to be traded????

 

Article

Ken Griffey Jr. was kidding Adam Dunn about tossing a baseball to a Cubs fan and Dunn said, "I only had about a one in 10 chance of hitting a Reds fan. It was all blue out there. They put all those Cubs fan in left field and, man, they were worse than the fans in Wrigley Field. They were all over me.

That's great.

 

I already posted that in this thread and no one said it was great then. :(

 

nobody likes you rocket, sorry

[UMFan83]

was Kearns called up to be traded????

 

Article

Ken Griffey Jr. was kidding Adam Dunn about tossing a baseball to a Cubs fan and Dunn said, "I only had about a one in 10 chance of hitting a Reds fan. It was all blue out there. They put all those Cubs fan in left field and, man, they were worse than the fans in Wrigley Field. They were all over me.

That's great.

 

I already posted that in this thread and no one said it was great then. :(

 

 

nobody likes you rocket, sorry

 

It's true man sorry :(. But if it makes you feel any better I stated that the Reds brought up Austin Kearns to be traded in this very thread and no one replied

[UMFan83]

Besides I like this quote too:

 

On Wednesday, a rumor permeated the pressbox: Adam Dunn to the Cubs for outfielder Corey Patterson, pitcher Sergio Mitre and Rich Hill, arguably the top pitching prospect in minor-league ball.

 

How did Rich Hill become the top pitching prospect in the minors? Shouldn't players like Felix Hernandez be a bit worried about this?

 

Edit: Not that I mind things like this being thrown around, it can only help. Rich Hill for Albert Pujols plz

[E.J.]

So has anyone seen Kearns or Dunn getting on a plane for St. Louis? At least we won't have to worry about seeing Graves this time.

[justlikethecubs]

So has anyone seen Kearns or Dunn getting on a plane for St. Louis? At least we won't have to worry about seeing Graves this time.

 

I heard they were going to fly to chicago and then drive to St Louis so no one would be suspicious.

[Brian]

So has anyone seen Kearns or Dunn getting on a plane for St. Louis? At least we won't have to worry about seeing Graves this time.

 

I heard they were going to fly to chicago and then drive to St Louis so no one would be suspicious.

 

My friends sister, said that she heard on a Ohio radio station that some guy called in and said that he picked up Adam Dunn hitch hiking his way to st. Louis. HMMMMMMMMMM

[YearofDaCubs]

Why bring Kearns up if he was to be traded though? That doesn't make sense to me since they had to designate some people to assignment to do it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Why bring Kearns up if he was to be traded though? That doesn't make sense to me since they had to designate some people to assignment to do it.

 

Maybe they are getting more than one player for Kearns and needed the 40-man space.

[mjued926]

Why bring Kearns up if he was to be traded though? That doesn't make sense to me since they had to designate some people to assignment to do it.

 

The reds did it just for fun. I just heard on the radio that st. louis agreed to send Carpenter and Pujols to the Cubs for Macias, but when they found out we don't have Enrique Wilson anymore that killed the deal. Iknew Enrique was gonna be good for something later on...

[rickrolled]

After reading this, I'm pretty certain we'll end up with Kearns, most likely. But unfortunately, I don't see us getting Dunn. :cry:

[nolanwood]

After reading this, I'm pretty certain we'll end up with Kearns, most likely. But unfortunately, I don't see us getting Dunn. :cry:

 

 

I would be happy with kearns as well - but for some reason I just dont see us dealing with the Reds.

[Roast]

After reading this, I'm pretty certain we'll end up with Kearns, most likely. But unfortunately, I don't see us getting Dunn. :cry:

 

I really dont like the idea of getting Kearns.

 

I mean, He had a Great 2003. If we could get 2003 Keans, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But, he has underacheived ever since. He, to me, is a HUGE risk. Especially when someone better (DUNN) could be had.

 

I'd rather just have Murton play every day, rather then kearns, personally. But, I guess if it comes down to it, I wouldnt mind him.

[rickrolled]

After reading this, I'm pretty certain we'll end up with Kearns, most likely. But unfortunately, I don't see us getting Dunn. :cry:

 

I really dont like the idea of getting Kearns.

 

I mean, He had a Great 2003. If we could get 2003 Keans, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But, he has underacheived ever since. He, to me, is a HUGE risk. Especially when someone better (DUNN) could be had.

 

I'd rather just have Murton play every day, rather then kearns, personally. But, I guess if it comes down to it, I wouldnt mind him.

 

Kearns can POTENTIALLY be a very good acquisition...but it's risky, like you said. He was pretty damn good in 2002-03, but since then he's really struggled. Perhaps he could be like Hendry's acquistion of ARam and Barrett, and really blossom in Chicago. I wish we could just get Dunn though.

[muntjack]

After reading this, I'm pretty certain we'll end up with Kearns, most likely. But unfortunately, I don't see us getting Dunn. :cry:

 

I really dont like the idea of getting Kearns.

 

I mean, He had a Great 2003. If we could get 2003 Keans, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But, he has underacheived ever since. He, to me, is a HUGE risk. Especially when someone better (DUNN) could be had.

 

I'd rather just have Murton play every day, rather then kearns, personally. But, I guess if it comes down to it, I wouldnt mind him.

 

Boy, you could have said almost EXACTLY the same thing about Aramis Ramirez circa 2003.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

After reading this, I'm pretty certain we'll end up with Kearns, most likely. But unfortunately, I don't see us getting Dunn. :cry:

 

I really dont like the idea of getting Kearns.

 

I mean, He had a Great 2003. If we could get 2003 Keans, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But, he has underacheived ever since. He, to me, is a HUGE risk. Especially when someone better (DUNN) could be had.

 

I'd rather just have Murton play every day, rather then kearns, personally. But, I guess if it comes down to it, I wouldnt mind him.

 

Boy, you could have said almost EXACTLY the same thing about Aramis Ramirez circa 2003.

 

The fundamental difference though is that Ramirez's success was actually theoretically sustainable. Kearns' 2002 was not (.370+ BABIP). What's happened since for Kearns is partially the natural re-alignment of his numbers given his true ability, and on top of that you've then got the serious decline in his peripherals, a few injuries and a complete lack of confidence. Certainly, it's possible that the injuries have contributed to "underperformance" as you dubiously call it, and that that has contributed to a lack of confidence and a vicious cycle, and that may all be reversable, though I suspect it will take time, as it did with Ramirez. But none of that changes the fact that Kearns was never that good in the first place (and the same didn't apply to Ramirez). The sooner people get over Kearns' AVG/OBP/SLG line from 2002, the better, because it's irrelevant to assessments of him as a player.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Why was Kearns' production not sustainable? Maybe he really is that good and injuries + platooning killed his stats.

 

A .370 BABIP is sustainable. It puts him in the top 20% in that category, but it is sustainable. DLee's BABIP was at .430 in late June (not sure about now) and was definitely an outlier. The next highest BABIP was .395 (in June).

[muntjack]

After reading this, I'm pretty certain we'll end up with Kearns, most likely. But unfortunately, I don't see us getting Dunn. :cry:

 

I really dont like the idea of getting Kearns.

 

I mean, He had a Great 2003. If we could get 2003 Keans, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But, he has underacheived ever since. He, to me, is a HUGE risk. Especially when someone better (DUNN) could be had.

 

I'd rather just have Murton play every day, rather then kearns, personally. But, I guess if it comes down to it, I wouldnt mind him.

 

Boy, you could have said almost EXACTLY the same thing about Aramis Ramirez circa 2003.

 

The fundamental difference though is that Ramirez's success was actually theoretically sustainable. Kearns' 2002 was not (.370+ BABIP). What's happened since for Kearns is partially the natural re-alignment of his numbers given his true ability, and on top of that you've then got the serious decline in his peripherals, a few injuries and a complete lack of confidence. Certainly, it's possible that the injuries have contributed to "underperformance" as you dubiously call it, and that that has contributed to a lack of confidence and a vicious cycle, and that may all be reversable, though I suspect it will take time, as it did with Ramirez. But none of that changes the fact that Kearns was never that good in the first place (and the same didn't apply to Ramirez). The sooner people get over Kearns' AVG/OBP/SLG line from 2002, the better, because it's irrelevant to assessments of him as a player.

 

 

 

Perhaps you can help me with a question. How is BABIP a fair statistic. Aren't hitters who square up the ball and hit rockets more likely to have a high BABIP than, say, Rey Ordonez?

[NorthsideAvenger]

I love the opportunity to get Kearns. I really do. Ppl want to fantasize about Dunn's power at Wrigley, but it is Kearns who is the MORE complete hitter of the two. IIRC, a couple of yrs ago, the Reds were higher on Kearns then Dunn, even tho Dunn has "mythical power." Kearns, IF given the opportunity to succeed, he will. As much as alot of people are comparing his situation to that of Ramirez, there is a presedence.

 

Hendry LOVES the low-risk/high reward type moves. Kearns is the kid that Hendry loves to bet his reputation on. I would be more willing to move Hill for Kearns then I would for Dunn. With that said, I'm willing to bet the Cubs could get Kearns without giving up Hill, unless they Cubs got Ryan Wagner as part of the deal.

 

I, for one, am on board the Kearns bandwagon. I believe he is a superior player over BOTH Dunn and Pena, he just hasn't been given a substantial enough of time, to prove it.

 

Go get Kearns, Hendry.

Edited July 23, 2005 by NorthsideAvenger

[Transmogrified Tiger]

After reading this, I'm pretty certain we'll end up with Kearns, most likely. But unfortunately, I don't see us getting Dunn. :cry:

 

I really dont like the idea of getting Kearns.

 

I mean, He had a Great 2003. If we could get 2003 Keans, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But, he has underacheived ever since. He, to me, is a HUGE risk. Especially when someone better (DUNN) could be had.

 

I'd rather just have Murton play every day, rather then kearns, personally. But, I guess if it comes down to it, I wouldnt mind him.

 

Boy, you could have said almost EXACTLY the same thing about Aramis Ramirez circa 2003.

 

The fundamental difference though is that Ramirez's success was actually theoretically sustainable. Kearns' 2002 was not (.370+ BABIP). What's happened since for Kearns is partially the natural re-alignment of his numbers given his true ability, and on top of that you've then got the serious decline in his peripherals, a few injuries and a complete lack of confidence. Certainly, it's possible that the injuries have contributed to "underperformance" as you dubiously call it, and that that has contributed to a lack of confidence and a vicious cycle, and that may all be reversable, though I suspect it will take time, as it did with Ramirez. But none of that changes the fact that Kearns was never that good in the first place (and the same didn't apply to Ramirez). The sooner people get over Kearns' AVG/OBP/SLG line from 2002, the better, because it's irrelevant to assessments of him as a player.

 

 

 

Perhaps you can help me with a question. How is BABIP a fair statistic. Aren't hitters who square up the ball and hit rockets more likely to have a high BABIP than, say, Rey Ordonez?

 

There's a way to measure what a player's BABIP should be, or expected BABIP. A crude way to do that is to take the player's Line Drive percentage and add a constant, .110. I don't have the Line Drive numbers for Kearns' good season, but last year he only had a 12.3 LD%, with a .299 BABIP. That means that for as disappointing as Kearns was last year, he was actually quite lucky. In order for Kearns not to be in the least lucky his good season, he would need more than a quarter of the balls he puts in play to be line drives, which is a very very high percentage. Could Kearns put up numbers closer to that? Possibly, but in all likelihood he won't. Add in the fact that his production has decreased while he hasn't lost any power or patience, it leads me to believe he is regressing back to his true level.

[MadDog07]

Why was Kearns' production not sustainable? Maybe he really is that good and injuries + platooning killed his stats.

 

A .370 BABIP is sustainable. It puts him in the top 20% in that category, but it is sustainable. DLee's BABIP was at .430 in late June (not sure about now) and was definitely an outlier. The next highest BABIP was .395 (in June).

 

BABIP

Batting Average on Balls in Play. This is a measure of the number of batted balls that safely fall in for a hit (not including home runs). The exact formula we use is (H-HR)/(AB-K-HR) This is similar to DER, but from the batter's perspective.

 

 

You're going to use this stat to decide whether or not you want this guy? That's digging deep...I agree Kearns will be cheaper, but him and Dunn are both 25, and Kearns strikes out a lot, has a so-so BA, doesn't hit the HR's that Dunn can, has a good OBP but nothing to covet, and can't bat leadoff or anything. These are the stats that I'll focus on. I just don't see the attraction in him, he looks like another Holla to me that can platoon with him in left field. It almost seems like Gerut is a more accomplished player than Kearns too...don't we want a player that's going to give us a playoff push? Another platoon man isn't going to do that...

 

If he's going to be a great player with this Cubs I want him on my team, so I want to know what it is that'll make him that good of a player.

[MadDog07]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#babip

 

You can find a lot of these other deep stats at this webpage; I figure it'd be good to cite my sources.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Why was Kearns' production not sustainable? Maybe he really is that good and injuries + platooning killed his stats.

 

A .370 BABIP is sustainable. It puts him in the top 20% in that category, but it is sustainable. DLee's BABIP was at .430 in late June (not sure about now) and was definitely an outlier. The next highest BABIP was .395 (in June).

 

BABIP

Batting Average on Balls in Play. This is a measure of the number of batted balls that safely fall in for a hit (not including home runs). The exact formula we use is (H-HR)/(AB-K-HR) This is similar to DER, but from the batter's perspective.

 

 

You're going to use this stat to decide whether or not you want this guy? That's digging deep...I agree Kearns will be cheaper, but him and Dunn are both 25, and Kearns strikes out a lot, has a so-so BA, doesn't hit the HR's that Dunn can, has a good OBP but nothing to covet, and can't bat leadoff or anything. These are the stats that I'll focus on. I just don't see the attraction in him, he looks like another Holla to me that can platoon with him in left field. It almost seems like Gerut is a more accomplished player than Kearns too...don't we want a player that's going to give us a playoff push? Another platoon man isn't going to do that...

 

If he's going to be a great player with this Cubs I want him on my team, so I want to know what it is that'll make him that good of a player.

 

I know what BABIP is and I wasn't the poster who used it in his argument as to why we should/shouldn't get Kearns. I was just saying that i don't agree with the argument that Kearns's career high in BABIP was unsustainable just b/c Kearns's BABIP was in the upper 20% of major league players. The decline in BABIP could have been due to injury or decreased production due to platooning with the other 4 OF Cinci was playing at the time.

 

As to why get Kearns over Dunn...Dunn has so many holes in his game, it's ridiculous. He is proof positive that you can just sit at the plate and wait for a pitch in a certain zone and be successful. that approach doesn't lend itself to clutch hitting or fundamental baseball, which are two qualities we need to be looking for in any new acquisitions.

 

Kearns is everything Dunn is not: a decent fielder, rocket arm, nice average hitter (when healthy), and fairly clutch (as he showed us in Cinci in this last series).

 

Kearns is also cheaper than Dunn...by millions of dollars. Ask GMs like John Schuerholz about Kearns. He loves the kid. Scouts love Kearns.

 

We are so OBP starved (from the 1st half of this year) that we'll take a player like Dunn with his sizable contract and obvious flaws. It's not going to help us. We don't need power. We need well rounded ballplayers.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Meat&PotatoesMan

[treebird]

There's a way to measure what a player's BABIP should be, or expected BABIP. A crude way to do that is to take the player's Line Drive percentage and add a constant, .110. I don't have the Line Drive numbers for Kearns' good season, but last year he only had a 12.3 LD%, with a .299 BABIP. That means that for as disappointing as Kearns was last year, he was actually quite lucky. In order for Kearns not to be in the least lucky his good season, he would need more than a quarter of the balls he puts in play to be line drives, which is a very very high percentage. Could Kearns put up numbers closer to that? Possibly, but in all likelihood he won't. Add in the fact that his production has decreased while he hasn't lost any power or patience, it leads me to believe he is regressing back to his true level.

 

i just wanted to quote this and say it was really good and that i read it, since it looks like no one else did.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

There's a way to measure what a player's BABIP should be, or expected BABIP. A crude way to do that is to take the player's Line Drive percentage and add a constant, .110. I don't have the Line Drive numbers for Kearns' good season, but last year he only had a 12.3 LD%, with a .299 BABIP. That means that for as disappointing as Kearns was last year, he was actually quite lucky. In order for Kearns not to be in the least lucky his good season, he would need more than a quarter of the balls he puts in play to be line drives, which is a very very high percentage. Could Kearns put up numbers closer to that? Possibly, but in all likelihood he won't. Add in the fact that his production has decreased while he hasn't lost any power or patience, it leads me to believe he is regressing back to his true level.

 

i just wanted to quote this and say it was really good and that i read it, since it looks like no one else did.

 

um, ok. i guess you should read my posts, b/c it looks like you didn't. i did say that injuries could have caused the regression. we don't really know as Kearns hasn't been 100% or has been platooning. too few data points means you can make any argument you want about Kearn's BABIP.

[MadDog07]

Why was Kearns' production not sustainable? Maybe he really is that good and injuries + platooning killed his stats.

 

A .370 BABIP is sustainable. It puts him in the top 20% in that category, but it is sustainable. DLee's BABIP was at .430 in late June (not sure about now) and was definitely an outlier. The next highest BABIP was .395 (in June).

 

BABIP

Batting Average on Balls in Play. This is a measure of the number of batted balls that safely fall in for a hit (not including home runs). The exact formula we use is (H-HR)/(AB-K-HR) This is similar to DER, but from the batter's perspective.

 

 

You're going to use this stat to decide whether or not you want this guy? That's digging deep...I agree Kearns will be cheaper, but him and Dunn are both 25, and Kearns strikes out a lot, has a so-so BA, doesn't hit the HR's that Dunn can, has a good OBP but nothing to covet, and can't bat leadoff or anything. These are the stats that I'll focus on. I just don't see the attraction in him, he looks like another Holla to me that can platoon with him in left field. It almost seems like Gerut is a more accomplished player than Kearns too...don't we want a player that's going to give us a playoff push? Another platoon man isn't going to do that...

 

If he's going to be a great player with this Cubs I want him on my team, so I want to know what it is that'll make him that good of a player.

 

I know what BABIP is and I wasn't the poster who used it in his argument as to why we should/shouldn't get Kearns. I was just saying that i don't agree with the argument that Kearns's career high in BABIP was unsustainable just b/c Kearns's BABIP was in the upper 20% of major league players.

 

As to why get Kearns over Dunn...Dunn has so many holes in his game, it's ridiculous. He is proof positive that you can just sit at the plate and wait for a pitch in a certain zone and be successful. that approach doesn't lend itself to clutch hitting or fundamental baseball, which are two qualities we need to be looking for in any new acquisitions.

 

Kearns is everything Dunn is not: a decent fielder, rocket arm, nice average hitter (when healthy), and fairly clutch (as he showed us in Cinci in this last series).

 

Kearns is also cheaper than Dunn...by millions of dollars. Ask GMs like John Schuerholz about Kearns. He loves the kid. Scouts love Kearns.

 

We are so OBP starved (from the 1st half of this year) that we'll take a player like Dunn with his sizable contract and obvious flaws. It's not going to help us. We don't need power. We need well rounded ballplayers.

 

 

I'm not blaming you, I just think that, fundamental or not, Dunn will get 100 rbi's and runs, and the fact that he gets the job done is something to be regarded more than how he gets the job done. I believe in clutch, but I don't see a .260/15/65 player being so much more clutch than a .220/45/100 player. Whether or not a GM loves him or not...Hendry loved Patterson, and that didn't turn out for the best. I'm sure scouts love the numbers that Dunn puts up there too. The Cubs aren't the Yankees by any regard, but they don't have to worry about money, especially if they're going to get rid of Patterson or Holla or whoever else. Like I said before, I'd be happy with either player, I just don't see how Kearns is going to help the organization.