Rumored trade proposal (Pierre to Cubs for Hill/Patterson)

[BigbadB]

It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one.

 

You're totally missing the point of his post...

 

because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis.

 

But CPatt isn't comparing a part-time player to a player that has put up good numbers consistently (because Juan Pierre hasn't put up good numbers consistently).

 

.355 career OBP doesn't meet your criteria of good numbers? #-o

 

.355 is good. However, last year it was .326. The Cubs will probably go after a guy after a down season. They seem to like making deals for guys when their value is at its lowest.

[David]

He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy.

 

What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre.

 

How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers.

 

WHY the lifetime stats??? :x :x :x :x

[USSoccer]

It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one.

 

You're totally missing the point of his post...

 

because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis.

 

But CPatt isn't comparing a part-time player to a player that has put up good numbers consistently (because Juan Pierre hasn't put up good numbers consistently).

 

.355 career OBP doesn't meet your criteria of good numbers? #-o

 

.355 is good. However, last year it was .326. The Cubs will probably go after a guy after a down season. They seem to like making deals for guys when their value is at its lowest.

 

Sort of like their philosiphy on trading prospects.

[CUBZ99]

He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy.

 

What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre.

 

How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers.

 

WHY the lifetime stats??? :x :x :x :x

 

Hairston's numbers last year were right on par with his lifetime stats. It is more likely than not that next years will fall right in line. I just don't see how a .334 OBP solves the leadoff problem.

[CUBZ99]

For the Don Baylor followers Juan Pierre's daytime OBP was .374 last year. :D :wink:

[CaliforniaRaisin]

It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one.

 

You're totally missing the point of his post...

 

because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis.

 

But CPatt isn't comparing a part-time player to a player that has put up good numbers consistently (because Juan Pierre hasn't put up good numbers consistently).

 

.355 career OBP doesn't meet your criteria of good numbers? #-o

 

You said consistently. Last year, he had a .326 OBP - not very consistent with his career OBP, is it? Hey, last year, his SLG was below his career OBP.

[imb]

He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy.

 

What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre.

 

How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers.

 

WHY the lifetime stats??? :x :x :x :x

 

Hairston's numbers last year were right on par with his lifetime stats. It is more likely than not that next years will fall right in line. I just don't see how a .334 OBP solves the leadoff problem.

 

Neither does a .326, both players suck.

[David]

He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy.

 

What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre.

 

How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers.

 

WHY the lifetime stats??? :x :x :x :x

 

Hairston's numbers last year were right on par with his lifetime stats. It is more likely than not that next years will fall right in line. I just don't see how a .334 OBP solves the leadoff problem.

 

I guess if we're basing it on last year, and not, say, a significant last 3 or 4 years sample, Pierre's .326 OBP won't be of much help either.

[CUBZ99]

It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one.

 

You're totally missing the point of his post...

 

because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis.

 

But CPatt isn't comparing a part-time player to a player that has put up good numbers consistently (because Juan Pierre hasn't put up good numbers consistently).

 

.355 career OBP doesn't meet your criteria of good numbers? #-o

 

You said consistently. Last year, he had a .326 OBP - not very consistent with his career OBP, is it? Hey, last year, his SLG was below his career OBP.

 

I would rather take a chance on a guy that has been better on a consistent basis and chalk it off to 1 bad year, than go with a guy that has a consistent .334 OBP, with a history of injuries.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one.

 

You're totally missing the point of his post...

 

because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis.

 

But CPatt isn't comparing a part-time player to a player that has put up good numbers consistently (because Juan Pierre hasn't put up good numbers consistently).

 

.355 career OBP doesn't meet your criteria of good numbers? #-o

 

You said consistently. Last year, he had a .326 OBP - not very consistent with his career OBP, is it? Hey, last year, his SLG was below his career OBP.

 

I would rather take a chance on a guy that has been better on a consistent basis and chalk it off to 1 bad year, than go with a guy that has a consistent .334 OBP, with a history of injuries.

 

I would rather go with neither. Why must the Cubs settle for guys who posted OBPs of .326 and .334 to solve the leadoff position when there are better candidates available?

[CubfaninCA]

Debunked how so?? Cause Bill James says so?? How many major league fastballs has he swung at? Go look at how Furcal has helped Marcus Giles from 2002 to 2005.

 

No, I actually researched it myself rather than blindly following someone else's thoughts. How about Pierre himself? Hasn't seemed to help Mr. Castillo very much.

 

Reposted from another thread from late July:

 

Pierre hitting #1

 

2003: .302/.359/.370/.729 (667 PA's)

2004: .336/.382/.422/.804 (632 PA's)

2005: .272/.319/.357/.676 (385 PA's)

 

Luis Castillo hitting #2

 

2003: .325/.389/.406/.794 (590 PA's)

2004: .285/.372/.332/.704 (488 PA's)

2005: .333/.423/.415/.838 (271 PA's)

 

Their OPS's are almost perfect proportions. When one goes up the other goes down.

 

Can't see how you can disregard production. You're basically saying that Hairston for Pierre and Kerry Wood for Tim Hudson are good trade proposals. Throw out game's played and their numbers are pretty close.

 

I'm not saying that at all. People would say that Wood and Hudson are pretty comparable when Wood is healthy, and that's generally true. Why doesn't anyone say the same about Hairston and Pierre? For the nth time I'll ask: Why does no one think Hairston is a good leadoff hitter if he could just stay healthy? It's been said about Nomar, Wood, Prior, etc., but when it comes to someone who's been Pierre's double when healthy, not at all.

 

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

[imb]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

[CubfaninCA]

It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one.

 

You're totally missing the point of his post...

 

because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis.

 

Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance.

 

and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy.

 

He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy.

 

What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre.

 

There's 3 reasons why he wouldn't solve it.

1) He's very unreliable. Huge point.

2) His career obp is .334, not .355. Pierre's has some good years where he actually played the entire season. Has Hairston ever had a good year where he played nearly every game??

3) He doesn't steal nearly as many bases as Pierre.

 

Add that all up and Pierre >>> Hairston.

[CubfaninCA]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

 

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

[imb]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

 

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

 

So if you believe that, prove it.

[E.J.]

Come on. Pierre is a slap hitter who doesn't have a good OBP and gets thrown out way too much trying to steal when he actually does get on base. Not worth it.

[CubfaninCA]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

[CubfaninCA]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

 

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

 

So if you believe that, prove it.

 

Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005.

 

Also, I put more faith into 100 years of managers putting speed at the top of the order.

Edited October 24, 2005 by CubfaninCA

[imb]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

 

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

 

So if you believe that, prove it.

 

Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005.

 

I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense.

[MPrior]

It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one.

 

You're totally missing the point of his post...

 

because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis.

 

Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance.

 

and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy.

 

He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy.

 

What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre.

 

There's 3 reasons why he wouldn't solve it.

1) He's very unreliable. Huge point.

2) His career obp is .334, not .355. Pierre's has some good years where he actually played the entire season. Has Hairston ever had a good year where he played nearly every game??

3) He doesn't steal nearly as many bases as Pierre.

 

Add that all up and Pierre >>> Hairston.

 

Okay. You're hugely missing the point here. Let's take a look at what you just said:

 

1) He's very unreliable. Huge point. No one said he was. In fact, they've been saying he isn't.

2) His career obp is .334, not .355. Pierre's has some good years where he actually played the entire season. Has Hairston ever had a good year where he played nearly every game?? A couple things: one, you're entirely ignoring the argument that his last three-four years is a more accurate way to predict his 2006 production. Secondly, no one said Hairston has had a good year when he played every game.

3) He doesn't steal nearly as many bases as Pierre. No one has even suggested that he does. They have suggested that Pierre's base-stealing efficiency is not all that great, though, which is true.

 

But most importantly...

 

There's 3 reasons why he wouldn't solve it. NO ONE SAID THAT HE WOULD SOLVE IT. I don't think anyone thinks that he would. In fact, the WHOLE POINT is that he WOULDN'T solve it. Hairston, if healthy, would not solve the Cubs' problems at leadoff. Pierre has been remarkably similar to Hairston over the last four years. So the question is WHY do people think that Pierre WOULD solve the problem?

 

Make sense now?

 

 

 

 

Sorry for all the capital letters. I'm not sure that was strictly necessary.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one.

 

You're totally missing the point of his post...

 

because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis.

 

Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance.

 

and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy.

 

He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy.

 

What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre.

 

There's 3 reasons why he wouldn't solve it.

1) He's very unreliable. Huge point.

2) His career obp is .334, not .355. Pierre's has some good years where he actually played the entire season. Has Hairston ever had a good year where he played nearly every game??

3) He doesn't steal nearly as many bases as Pierre.

 

Add that all up and Pierre >>> Hairston.

 

That doesn't mean Pierre is actually good.

[David]

So throw out 100 years of managers putting their fastest players at the top of the order cause Luis Castillo doesn't tear it up when Pierre's on base??

 

As for your question, haven't we gotten burned enough w/ injury prone players? This team is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda, if only, players, and we shouldn't be surprised when they finish under .500.

 

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof?

 

And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

 

Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point.

 

No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one?

 

Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

Edited October 24, 2005 by David

[CubfaninCA]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

 

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

 

So if you believe that, prove it.

 

Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005.

 

I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense.

 

When I get the Marlins job I'll bat Cabrera 2nd and prove my point.

[imb]

are you dense on purpose? He isnt saying that we need to make Hairston the leadoff hitter, he's saying that their rate stats are similar, and no one is calling Hairston a worldbeater when he's healthy.

 

And you're the one that said that Pierre distracts the pitcher.

 

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo.

 

So if you believe that, prove it.

 

Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005.

 

I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense.

 

When I get the Marlins job I'll bat Cabrera 2nd and prove my point.

 

so, in other words, you have nothing to back up what you were saying. It's ok, I dont think anyone thought you did.