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

[CubfaninCA]

First: If this rumor is true, I'm not surprise the Marlins would asked for Hill. They are trying to sneak another good arm (he is a good arm, just needs confidence) out from underneath the Cubs noses. I'm not saying Hill will instantly become the next Willis, but I would like to hold onto Hill, and see if he does become a very good starter, or a Neal Cotts type lefty out of the bullpen.

 

Second: I don't know who does that trade value for the Marlins, but in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, would Pierre warrant both Patterson and Hill. Maybe Patterson and Van Buren, or Weston/Hill, but not Patterson/Hill. (BTW: Have you notice the Cubs have gone from Corey Patterson/Bobby Hill to Eric Patterson/Rich Hill, in terms of value to the org? Has that meet the new boss, same as the old boss feel to it?) I would offer up Cliff Bartosh and Corey Patterson for Pierre, nothing more.

 

If it's Hill & Patterson who else would you want from Florida? I wouldn't mind @ all giving up Mitre or Wellemeyer along w/ Patterson.

[Diffusion]

.349 OBP .370 SLG

.346 OBP .378 SLG

 

For the record, those are the composite numbers for the last four years for Pierre and Hairston. But which is which?

 

Those two numbers, on-base and slugging, incidentally, are the two most significant when it comes to the creation of runs. I'd guess that for a position player, OBP and SLG make up about 60% of the game. And in that 60% or so, there is absolutely nothing between the two of them.

 

Of course, in the other 40% - AVG, speed, fielding etc. - Pierre has Hairston comfortably beat. And then there is the issue of Hairston's "health", which actually overlooks the fact that for as much of the time he "missed" he was benched behind Brian Roberts as opposed to injured.

[UK1679666180]

All this debate about Pierre and no one has even come close to making a case why the Cubs should go after Pierre if Michaels is equally available in the land of assumption.

[CUBZ99]

 

Not to be a smart ass (because I don't know), has James contributed to a World Champion team? I ask because I remember his theory on closer by committee, I think it was in Boston, and that didn't seem to work out as well as his research suggested.

 

Not terribly relevant. IIRC, James' theory on closer by committee was misapplied in Boston. The theory is dependent on having specific types of arms, which Boston did not have.

 

Right, and it just so happens that the other teams that tried it also didn't have the specific arms, like oh say a Closer?

[USSoccer]

 

Not to be a smart ass (because I don't know), has James contributed to a World Champion team? I ask because I remember his theory on closer by committee, I think it was in Boston, and that didn't seem to work out as well as his research suggested.

 

Not terribly relevant. IIRC, James' theory on closer by committee was misapplied in Boston. The theory is dependent on having specific types of arms, which Boston did not have.

 

Right, and it just so happens that the other teams that tried it also didn't have the specific arms, like oh say a Closer?

 

Whcih other teams have tried closer by committee? The only recent team I can think of that really has tried is the White Sox this year, sort of.

[Guest]

 

Not to be a smart ass (because I don't know), has James contributed to a World Champion team? I ask because I remember his theory on closer by committee, I think it was in Boston, and that didn't seem to work out as well as his research suggested.

 

Not terribly relevant. IIRC, James' theory on closer by committee was misapplied in Boston. The theory is dependent on having specific types of arms, which Boston did not have.

 

Right, and it just so happens that the other teams that tried it also didn't have the specific arms, like oh say a Closer?

 

Whcih other teams have tried closer by committee? The only recent team I can think of that really has tried is the White Sox this year, sort of.

The Braves of this season would almost qualify by having three players with at least 10 saves. Then again, that was mostly because of the natural shuffle that occurs from ineffectiveness/injury and not really a pre-planned situation. Still, I'd say the Braves did just fine without a consistent presence in the ninth inning.

[USSoccer]

 

Not to be a smart ass (because I don't know), has James contributed to a World Champion team? I ask because I remember his theory on closer by committee, I think it was in Boston, and that didn't seem to work out as well as his research suggested.

 

Not terribly relevant. IIRC, James' theory on closer by committee was misapplied in Boston. The theory is dependent on having specific types of arms, which Boston did not have.

 

Right, and it just so happens that the other teams that tried it also didn't have the specific arms, like oh say a Closer?

 

Whcih other teams have tried closer by committee? The only recent team I can think of that really has tried is the White Sox this year, sort of.

The Braves of this season would almost qualify by having three players with at least 10 saves. Then again, that was mostly because of the natural shuffle that occurs from ineffectiveness/injury and not really a pre-planned situation. Still, I'd say the Braves did just fine without a consistent presence in the ninth inning.

 

So then the jury probably is still out on the closer by committee issue, and the Red Sox experiment didn't doom it.

[Guest]

 

Not to be a smart ass (because I don't know), has James contributed to a World Champion team? I ask because I remember his theory on closer by committee, I think it was in Boston, and that didn't seem to work out as well as his research suggested.

 

Not terribly relevant. IIRC, James' theory on closer by committee was misapplied in Boston. The theory is dependent on having specific types of arms, which Boston did not have.

 

Right, and it just so happens that the other teams that tried it also didn't have the specific arms, like oh say a Closer?

 

Whcih other teams have tried closer by committee? The only recent team I can think of that really has tried is the White Sox this year, sort of.

The Braves of this season would almost qualify by having three players with at least 10 saves. Then again, that was mostly because of the natural shuffle that occurs from ineffectiveness/injury and not really a pre-planned situation. Still, I'd say the Braves did just fine without a consistent presence in the ninth inning.

 

So then the jury probably is still out on the closer by committee issue, and the Red Sox experiment didn't doom it.

Yes, I'd say it's fair to say that a single bad outcome is far from conclusive proof that an idea can't work.

[CubinNY]

The Braves of this season would almost qualify by having three players with at least 10 saves. Then again, that was mostly because of the natural shuffle that occurs from ineffectiveness/injury and not really a pre-planned situation. Still, I'd say the Braves did just fine without a consistent presence in the ninth inning.

 

Yes, I'd say it's fair to say that a single bad outcome is far from conclusive proof that an idea can't work.

 

Not only that but the theory has to be implimented with procedural fidelity. Boston certianly didn't do that. However, I think if an organization is going to do it they have to go all the way. That means from low A to the bigs. Players have to be conditioned to an operating system. The conditioning process is crucial. If the organization does not do that then the players may sabotage the thing. An organization would also have to cultivate the "right" type of free agents as well.

 

Nevertheless, the three hardest things to move are:

 

A cemetary

The educational establishment

a baseball organization

[fromthestretch]

My thoughts:

 

Would Pierre be an improvement over what the Cubs had in 2005? Most likely, yes.

 

Is ANYONE asking for Hairston to be the everyday leadoff man in 2006? No.

 

Is the difference between Pierre and Hairston over the last few years that significant that it's worth trading two players AND taking on some more salary to get Pierre? Probably not.

 

Some other points to consider:

 

1. Just because people don't want to include Hill in a deal with Patterson to get Pierre doesn't mean that people aren't open to the idea of dealing Hill at all. It just means that people think that Hill is worth more than that.

 

2. UK is right about Jason Michaels. He (Michaels, not UK...sorry UK) is a better leadoff option than just about anyone mentioned in this thread, and could most likely be acquired for less than Hill/Patterson, assuming the Phillies are open to the idea of trading him.

 

3. Could Giles ability to hit well behind Furcal be more of a result of his ability rather than having someone with speed on first? I think so.

[TheDude]

This would be good a solid deal.

 

I wish people would stop using only the 2005 stats for Pierre as a reason not to go after him. He just turned 28, so it's not like he won't return to 2003 form. Giles had an off year in 2004 (for him) and at his age I would expect 2004 to have marked his slow decline, but he bounced back.

 

People get on Hendry for not ever buying low. Here is a chance to buy low and fill a major offseason priority (leadoff hitter).

[HoopsCubs]

This would be good a solid deal.

 

I wish people would stop using only the 2005 stats for Pierre as a reason not to go after him. He just turned 28, so it's not like he won't return to 2003 form. Giles had an off year in 2004 (for him) and at his age I would expect 2004 to have marked his slow decline, but he bounced back.

 

People get on Hendry for not ever buying low. Here is a chance to buy low and fill a major offseason priority (leadoff hitter).

 

After seeing how well Dontrelle has pitched, I figure the last thing Hendry will do is trade Rich Hill until he is better vetted. As much as I dislike Patterson, I wouldn't trade him straight up for Pierre either. I still think signing Lofton or Jose Cruz to a 1-year deal is a better move. Milton Bradley is intriguing - I'm just afraid what it may cost the Cubs in players/prospects.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I still haven't seen one person offer a valid reason why the Cubs should trade Patterson and Hill for Pierre as long as Lofton is still available. The upgrade to Pierre from Lofton is not significant enough to warrant sending Hill to the Marlins. If Lofton signs elsewhere, then this is an idea that I think would warrant consideration. As it is, it is foolish to trade high ceiling players for a player whose equal you could get via free agency at a lower salary than the person you are trading for.

[SCCubbieFAN]

I still haven't seen one person offer a valid reason why the Cubs should trade Patterson and Hill for Pierre as long as Lofton is still available. The upgrade to Pierre from Lofton is not significant enough to warrant sending Hill to the Marlins. If Lofton signs elsewhere, then this is an idea that I think would warrant consideration. As it is, it is foolish to trade high ceiling players for a player whose equal you could get via free agency at a lower salary than the person you are trading for.

 

What Vance said. :D

[BigbadB]

If Walker and Murton return, there really isn't any reason to go after Pierre, period. I just like the idea of getting Lofton, because it gives you a third lead off candidate. All the money you have to spend can go on RF and SS, if they were to elect to go after Furcal instead of Nomar, which then gives them a 4th top of the order hitter option.

 

With Patterson, Hairston, Lofton (if signed) and Pie, CF is covered. SS, 2b and RF are what needs the most attention.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This would be good a solid deal.

 

I wish people would stop using only the 2005 stats for Pierre as a reason not to go after him. He just turned 28, so it's not like he won't return to 2003 form. Giles had an off year in 2004 (for him) and at his age I would expect 2004 to have marked his slow decline, but he bounced back.

 

People get on Hendry for not ever buying low. Here is a chance to buy low and fill a major offseason priority (leadoff hitter).

 

Well in that case let's just keep Patterson. His 2005 was terrible like Pierre's, and production wise they were pretty much equal in '04. Patterson held a slight edge in RC, Pierre had a slight edge in WARP2. Plus Patterson's a superior defender and doesn't cost you any players.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I still haven't seen one person offer a valid reason why the Cubs should trade Patterson and Hill for Pierre as long as Lofton is still available. The upgrade to Pierre from Lofton is not significant enough to warrant sending Hill to the Marlins. If Lofton signs elsewhere, then this is an idea that I think would warrant consideration. As it is, it is foolish to trade high ceiling players for a player whose equal you could get via free agency at a lower salary than the person you are trading for.

 

Well, Lofton's about to fall off a cliff production-wise, so I wouldn't go after him under any circumstance. There's way too much risk for not a ton of reward, especially considering Dusty. Of course that doesn't mean we should go after Pierre either.

[BigbadB]

I still haven't seen one person offer a valid reason why the Cubs should trade Patterson and Hill for Pierre as long as Lofton is still available. The upgrade to Pierre from Lofton is not significant enough to warrant sending Hill to the Marlins. If Lofton signs elsewhere, then this is an idea that I think would warrant consideration. As it is, it is foolish to trade high ceiling players for a player whose equal you could get via free agency at a lower salary than the person you are trading for.

 

Well, Lofton's about to fall off a cliff production-wise, so I wouldn't go after him under any circumstance. There's way too much risk for not a ton of reward, especially considering Dusty. Of course that doesn't mean we should go after Pierre either.

 

He didn't fall off a cliff last year production wise. He can be platooned again this year, and if Patterson figures out what his problem is, then Lofton becomes a nice bench option. They could sign Lofton for about the same amount they paid Neifi.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I still haven't seen one person offer a valid reason why the Cubs should trade Patterson and Hill for Pierre as long as Lofton is still available. The upgrade to Pierre from Lofton is not significant enough to warrant sending Hill to the Marlins. If Lofton signs elsewhere, then this is an idea that I think would warrant consideration. As it is, it is foolish to trade high ceiling players for a player whose equal you could get via free agency at a lower salary than the person you are trading for.

 

Well, Lofton's about to fall off a cliff production-wise, so I wouldn't go after him under any circumstance. There's way too much risk for not a ton of reward, especially considering Dusty. Of course that doesn't mean we should go after Pierre either.

 

He didn't fall off a cliff last year production wise. He can be platooned again this year, and if Patterson figures out what his problem is, then Lofton becomes a nice bench option. They could sign Lofton for about the same amount they paid Neifi.

 

That's because his BABIP went up 60 points.

[mg420]

If Walker and Murton return, there really isn't any reason to go after Pierre, period. I just like the idea of getting Lofton, because it gives you a third lead off candidate. All the money you have to spend can go on RF and SS, if they were to elect to go after Furcal instead of Nomar, which then gives them a 4th top of the order hitter option.

 

With Patterson, Hairston, Lofton (if signed) and Pie, CF is covered. SS, 2b and RF are what needs the most attention.

 

ss=cedeno, 2b = walker

[CuseCubFan69]

I've felt for a while that this trade would creep up if the Cubs don't sign Furcal but won't this bump Pie out for 2007 unless the Cubs think Pierre will move to LF or this is a one year trade?

[Guest]

I've felt for a while that this trade would creep up if the Cubs don't sign Furcal but won't this bump Pie out for 2007 unless the Cubs think Pierre will move to LF or this is a one year trade?

Putting Pierre in a corner OF spot is pure offensive poison. Pie's status is one of the biggest reasons I'm against trading anything of value for a CF, as hopefully any CF we get is just a year or two rental to keep the spot warm for Felix. I'd hate to give up anything worthwhile for that unless we get someone truly productive in return. (And Pierre isn't that someone.)

[CuseCubFan69]

I've felt for a while that this trade would creep up if the Cubs don't sign Furcal but won't this bump Pie out for 2007 unless the Cubs think Pierre will move to LF or this is a one year trade?

Putting Pierre in a corner OF spot is pure offensive poison. Pie's status is one of the biggest reasons I'm against trading anything of value for a CF, as hopefully any CF we get is just a year or two rental to keep the spot warm for Felix. I'd hate to give up anything worthwhile for that unless we get someone truly productive in return. (And Pierre isn't that someone.)

 

I agree BK and that's what is so puzzling to me. I still see this as a reaction to the failure to get Furcal and putting the Cubs into a worse place then they already are in 2007.

 

But...I'll wait until Hendry does his voodoo and react to what he does and not what he's rumored to do.

[RynoRules]

I think the only way it makes sense to give up CPatt and Hill to get Pierre is if Pie is the centerpiece of a deal for someone like Adam Dunn. Thus, you have an OF of Pierre, Dunn and Murton, which I could definitely live with.

 

Could you? Would you deal Pie to get Dunn, assuming the validity of the Pierre deal?

[CuseCubFan69]

I think the only way it makes sense to give up CPatt and Hill to get Pierre is if Pie is the centerpiece of a deal for someone like Adam Dunn. Thus, you have an OF of Pierre, Dunn and Murton, which I could definitely live with.

 

Could you? Would you deal Pie to get Dunn, assuming the validity of the Pierre deal?

 

I'm not up on what the Reds have but I thought they had a gluten of OF's and needed pitching.