Cubs/Angels Rumor - Patterson for Finley

[JD42K]

I hope he makes that trade. finley for a year and a prospect for patterson. heck yeah...finley hits well in a contract year and there's no reason hendry can't get bradley too when he gets non-tendered.

[CuseCubFan69]

I don't want Brady Anderson....I mean Steve Finley unless it's a top prospect.

[JD42K]

I hope he makes that trade. finley for a year and a prospect for patterson. heck yeah...finley hits well in a contract year and there's no reason hendry can't get bradley too when he gets non-tendered.

[radarluv1]

doesnt "contract year" imply he's expecting to play in 2007? how many 41 yo outfielders are out there? no thanks

[Jehrico]

Patterson getting traded is a foregone conclusion, I think. I'd rather see him traded to the AL where he won't terrorize us like former Cubs always seem to do. If we can't get Bradley, and the other alternative is Pierre, I could live with CPatt for Findley and a prospect. Maybe we can get another prospect like that other guy that was a throw in for the last aging superstar that was in a contract year that played a premium defensive position that we traded for?

[Sabermetrician]

I would do Patterson for Finley without the prospect if the Angels throw in the money to make the salaries even. I'll take my chances that Finley is better than Patterson next season.

 

But, I think there are better options than Finley.

[RockTheIvy]

Finley really scares me. In fact I'd be happier with Hairston in CF next year. I think Corey, despite his many shortcomings, still interests some teams and, while this might sound greedy, I think we could do better. Sorry Steve, it's not you it's me! Okay fine, it's you.

[rawaction]

So for CF, it looks like:

 

Pierre for 3 prospects (at least 1 a pretty good prospect)

Finley for Patterson

Bradley for Walker

 

1 year of a Slappy, 1 year of Keith Richards, or 2 years of a psycho.

[USSoccer]

So for CF, it looks like:

 

Pierre for 3 prospects (at least 1 a pretty good prospect)

Finley for Patterson

Bradley for Walker

 

1 year of a Slappy, 1 year of Keith Richards, or 2 years of a psycho.

 

Then it must be up to whether or not we can sign Furcal, since only one of them is a leadoff hitter.

[E.J.]

So for CF, it looks like:

 

Pierre for 3 prospects (at least 1 a pretty good prospect)

Finley for Patterson

Bradley for Walker

 

1 year of a Slappy, 1 year of Keith Richards, or 2 years of a psycho.

 

Gotta love the options, huh? :x

[abuck1220]

Patterson getting traded is a foregone conclusion, I think. I'd rather see him traded to the AL where he won't terrorize us like former Cubs always seem to do. If we can't get Bradley, and the other alternative is Pierre, I could live with CPatt for Findley and a prospect. Maybe we can get another prospect like that other guy that was a throw in for the last aging superstar that was in a contract year that played a premium defensive position that we traded for?

 

please tell me you're not a) calling finley a superstar and b) comparing finley (career .781 OPS) to nomar (career .911 OPS) and c) saying that finley, age 41, is bound for a good year because he's in his contract...er...retirement year.

[Rob]

Sounds great to me if the prospect is either Kendry Morales or Brandon Wood.

 

Otherwise, I'd rather hold on to the player that might still be in the league in 3 years.

[Jehrico]

Patterson getting traded is a foregone conclusion, I think. I'd rather see him traded to the AL where he won't terrorize us like former Cubs always seem to do. If we can't get Bradley, and the other alternative is Pierre, I could live with CPatt for Findley and a prospect. Maybe we can get another prospect like that other guy that was a throw in for the last aging superstar that was in a contract year that played a premium defensive position that we traded for?

 

please tell me you're not a) calling finley a superstar and b) comparing finley (career .781 OPS) to nomar (career .911 OPS) and c) saying that finley, age 41, is bound for a good year because he's in his contract...er...retirement year.

 

No, no, no, no, no. I was hoping that Jim could get another throw-in prospect equivalent to Murton, like he did in the Nomar deal. And the Superstar reference, while used extremely loosely above, was referring to Finley in his best years, which were pretty good (although not as good as Nomar's best though).

[jmajew]

Patterson getting traded is a foregone conclusion, I think. I'd rather see him traded to the AL where he won't terrorize us like former Cubs always seem to do. If we can't get Bradley, and the other alternative is Pierre, I could live with CPatt for Findley and a prospect. Maybe we can get another prospect like that other guy that was a throw in for the last aging superstar that was in a contract year that played a premium defensive position that we traded for?

 

please tell me you're not a) calling finley a superstar and b) comparing finley (career .781 OPS) to nomar (career .911 OPS) and c) saying that finley, age 41, is bound for a good year because he's in his contract...er...retirement year.

 

No, no, no, no, no. I was hoping that Jim could get another throw-in prospect equivalent to Murton, like he did in the Nomar deal. And the Superstar reference, while used extremely loosely above, was referring to Finley in his best years, which were pretty good (although not as good as Nomar's best though).

 

Murton wasn't a throw in. Hendry said he would not make that deal unless Murton was in it. We would have gotten Cabrera for the same thing we gave up for Nomar and Murton.

[Sabermetrician]

Here is another thought...

 

Would the Angels do it for Erstad? Would you?

 

He makes $8.25M but he's entering the final year of his deal.

 

I know we've talked about Erstad before and the majority thinks "he sucks," but he's a gold glover anywhere he plays and he will most likely get on base at a .320-.330 clip...which is just slighty below average, but if he were batting #8 would he really be all that bad?

 

Our lineup could be:

 

SS Furcal

2B Walker

1B Lee

3B Ramirez

RF

C Barrett

LF Murton

CF Erstad

 

And if that RF is someone like Bradley or Wilkerson, that's not a bad lineup at all. It's not great but it's not awful either...

 

Not saying I would do it, just something to consider.

 

I think I value "expiring contracts" (NBA term) a lot more than other people, I think they're all low risk high reward because if they don't work out you can just use that money to sign someone else the next year.

[USSoccer]

Erstad. Sucks.

 

I want no part of him. If you want a CF that can put up a .330 OBP, Hairston can do that for you at less cost, and with more overall value.

 

There are better ways to ditch Corey than by taking on some crap contract for a old, bad baseball player.

[Jehrico]

Patterson getting traded is a foregone conclusion, I think. I'd rather see him traded to the AL where he won't terrorize us like former Cubs always seem to do. If we can't get Bradley, and the other alternative is Pierre, I could live with CPatt for Findley and a prospect. Maybe we can get another prospect like that other guy that was a throw in for the last aging superstar that was in a contract year that played a premium defensive position that we traded for?

 

please tell me you're not a) calling finley a superstar and b) comparing finley (career .781 OPS) to nomar (career .911 OPS) and c) saying that finley, age 41, is bound for a good year because he's in his contract...er...retirement year.

 

No, no, no, no, no. I was hoping that Jim could get another throw-in prospect equivalent to Murton, like he did in the Nomar deal. And the Superstar reference, while used extremely loosely above, was referring to Finley in his best years, which were pretty good (although not as good as Nomar's best though).

 

Murton wasn't a throw in. Hendry said he would not make that deal unless Murton was in it. We would have gotten Cabrera for the same thing we gave up for Nomar and Murton.

 

He was a throw-in in the sense that the highlight of the deal was by far and away Nomar. Hendry knew who he wanted, no doubt, but that doesn't change the fact that he got Boston to throw him in to complete the deal.

[erik316wttn]

The target: Steve Finley, who is coming off an equally disastrous season, but has 1 year left at $7M, and some feel could easily get re-vitalized in Wrigley, a park he has recently hit extremely well in.

 

Yeah, he hits well at Wrigley.. AGAINST the Cubs.

 

I have a gut feeling this isnt a good idea. I'd rather keep Patterson. He isnt 40, and I dont want another one of our players we see digress in another uniform because we werent patient.

 

I've never been a fan of the whole "He hits well in our park, so lets sign him" theory.

 

He may hit well in your park, but it's always against your pitching staff.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm not a fan of acquiring a guy that will cost players to acquire, has a pretty hefty salary, and isn't very young, for the purpose of hitting 8th. Edited December 2, 2005 by Transmogrified Tiger

[CheeseHead Cubs Fan]

I'll tell ya something, I can't say I'm a fan of acquiring a guy that will cost players to acquire, has a pretty hefty salary, and isn't very young, for the purpose of hitting 8th.

[erik316wttn]

I'll tell ya something, I can't say I'm a fan of acquiring a guy that will cost players to acquire, has a pretty hefty salary, and isn't very young, for the purpose of hitting 8th.

 

I wonder if anyone else feels the same way.

 

CPatt, we kid because we love.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm not a fan of getting Finley unless that's a very good prospect coming in return. There's no need to "dump" Patterson for a bad contract. Patterson can just be non-tendered.

 

I'd rather sign Lofton to a one-year 3 million dollar deal to platoon with Hairston than to pay Finley 7 million for the same function.

 

Just say no to Finley.

[Bgbird68]

I'm not a fan of getting Finley unless that's a very good prospect coming in return. There's no need to "dump" Patterson for a bad contract. Patterson can just be non-tendered.

 

I'd rather sign Lofton to a one-year 3 million dollar deal to platoon with Hairston than to pay Finley 7 million for the same function.

 

Just say no to Finley.

 

Agreed. I don't want Finley.

[Bull]

nm, only 14

 

ahh, the dreaded quatrodecuple post.

[HoopsCubs]

This rumor was sent to me by a contact of mine in SoCal. Not one of my best sources, but I have known him for sometime.

 

If the Cubs sign Rafael Furcal to be their SS and lead-off man, Jim Hendry will turn away from Juan Pierre, and instead focus his efforts on dumping CF Corey Patterson onto an AL team in return for a bad, albeit short term contract, and a prospect.

 

Prime candidate: Los Angels Angels of Anaheim.

 

The target: Steve Finley, who is coming off an equally disastrous season, but has 1 year left at $7M, and some feel could easily get re-vitalized in Wrigley, a park he has recently hit extremely well in.

 

And while he may be 40 years old, he figures to be in great shape, with a great arm and hits left-handed, and is just one year removed from hitting 36 home runs as a member of the LA Dodgers and Arizona D-Backs in 2004.

 

He could play CF or RF for one season depending on Hendry's other OF moves. He would be on the bench in favor of Jerry Hairston when facing a left-hander.

 

Hendry may be considering this as a high risk/high return move.

 

Take it with a grain of salt. Haven't heard much about Corey lately, so my ears perked up a bit when I heard this.

 

My SoCal contact just sent me an email telling me that Hendry and Stoneman spoke after the Pierre trade was official. Stoneman is willing to trade Finley ($7M in 2006) and $4m in cash to the Cubs for Patterson - one prospect from each team would also be involved in the deal. Stoneman was trying to sell Hendry on Finley's good health and good arm for RF. My contact said Hendry didn't say yes or no, but would think about it as he was working on other OF opportunities. My contact speculated that Hendry might be thinking of acquiring Mench for Walker, and could then envision a Finley/Mench platoon in RF.

 

Again, take it for what it is. Rumor mill stuff.