Transmogrified Tiger

"Almost" is the key word. Trading Juan Cruz for slugs like Pratt and Lewis was pretty dismal and qualifies for "fleeced" status in my books. Especially when you consider that the Braves were able to use Cruz as part of a package to land Tim Hudson. I think it's a fair distinction that when Hendry is trading "to get someone", he does a pretty good job(Nomar, Ramirez, Barrett, Lee). When he is trading "to get rid of someone", that's when he screws up(Cruz, Sosa, Farnsworth; Hawkins is the exception).

After the 2005 season, sure. But after the 2003 season the sentiment was Hendry > Williams. I know Hendry has had a rough 2 yrs, but I rather him be the GM then Kenny Williams, who is a moron, who happen to find the ultimate "lightning in the bottle" experiment. Care to elaborate? I know many think he's an idiot because of the "small ball" garbage. But wasn't this a move that went against all people thought he was about. I still think it was good, considering there were rumors of Rowand for Pierre. And if Pierre and Podsednik would have been in the same lineup/outfield, I would've been tempted to become a Brewers fan. Even after the Thome deal, there are rumors about Pierre coming to the Sox.

Beckett's never thrown 180 or more innings in a season, and he never really pitched a full season in the minor leagues either.l

Look at the RC numbers for Patterson and Pierre for those two years. Pierre's complete lack of power took away from his advantage in OBP, they were very similar in overall production. I already said that Pierre is probably more likely to return to those numbers, but my point was that Pierre at his best isn't a world-beater, and that he(like Patterson) had a very bad '05. How is that biased for Patterson?

I kind of wonder how close Corey will ever get to what he did back in 2003. I think Corey's chances of rebounding from a truely god-awful 2005 are much lower than Pierre's. Probably. The point however is that people have written off Patterson for dead, mostly because of his terrible 2005. While that's certainly not unreasonable, I believe some of the same people advocating cutting bait with Patterson are strongly advocating getting Pierre, when he had a terrible 2005 as well(granted not as bad as Patterson), and is no guarantee to return to his previous form, which isn't fantastic to begin with.

Obviously? Obvious to anyone who followed 2005. And it's obvious to anyone who followed '04 that he didn't have a problem with him there. Certainly not "pure fantasy thinking".

Beckett is so much more valuable than Pierre, it's not even close. And again, Walker is a capable leadoff hitter, and we have him until we get someone like Furcal, who while overpriced, may be an unfortunate necessity like I outlined responding to USSoccer. He may be capable, but Baker won't lead him off. Dusty Baker making Walker leadoff man is just pure fantasy thinking. Walker had 228 AB's in the leadoff spot playing for Baker in '04(where he put up a .294/.370/.535/.905). More than every other spot in the order combined. How many leadoff AB's he have last year?? Baker obviously prefers him elsewhere. Obviously?

Corey '03 .298 .329 .511 '04 .266 .320 .452 Pierre Career .305 .355 .375 Or are you just judging Pierre on last years stats? Cuz I seem to remember a lot of people saying we can't only use the previous years stats, see Howry, Eyre. So which is it? Or can we just pick and choose what stats we want to use? EDIT- I'm not sure if you specifically said anything against Howry/Eyre, I'm juat using it as an example. Look at offensive metrics like WARP2 at BP, they show that Patterson and Pierre were near equals in '03-'04(note: not last year for either player). Perhaps you could explain WARP to me, because all the site really says is that it counts how many wins the contributed. Exactly how do you figure that out. I think Pierre at the 1 or 2 spot in front of Lee and Aram is gonna win us more games with CPatt there. If WARP's not your thing try Runs Created(there are a lot of different variations, but googling it should give you a basic idea). Since it's a cumulative stat, taking a ratio per AB shows that Patterson was right with Pierre in '04, and the same if not better in '03.

Beckett is so much more valuable than Pierre, it's not even close. And again, Walker is a capable leadoff hitter, and we have him until we get someone like Furcal, who while overpriced, may be an unfortunate necessity like I outlined responding to USSoccer. He may be capable, but Baker won't lead him off. Dusty Baker making Walker leadoff man is just pure fantasy thinking. Walker had 228 AB's in the leadoff spot playing for Baker in '04(where he put up a .294/.370/.535/.905). More than every other spot in the order combined.

Corey '03 .298 .329 .511 '04 .266 .320 .452 Pierre Career .305 .355 .375 Or are you just judging Pierre on last years stats? Cuz I seem to remember a lot of people saying we can't only use the previous years stats, see Howry, Eyre. So which is it? Or can we just pick and choose what stats we want to use? EDIT- I'm not sure if you specifically said anything against Howry/Eyre, I'm juat using it as an example. Look at offensive metrics like WARP2 at BP, they show that Patterson and Pierre were near equals in '03-'04(note: not last year for either player).

Beckett is so much more valuable than Pierre, it's not even close. And again, Walker is a capable leadoff hitter, and we have him until we get someone like Furcal, who while overpriced, may be an unfortunate necessity like I outlined responding to USSoccer. In what universe is Todd Walker a "capable leadoff hitter?" How many GMs and managers around baseball share your wisdom that they should have had Walker batting 1st all along? Because, the guy has been on a half-dozen teams and has played in the big leagues for years now, so there is ample data size to show that Todd Walker would be a great leadoff man. Oh wait, the evidence is completely lacking? Well, he is a 350-ish OBP in his good years, OK, that's sufficient evidence for me. Guess what spot in the order Todd Walker has the most major league at bats. Walker's career OBP is .348, he's had exactly one season below .349 since 1999. EDIT: Career stats hitting #1: Pierre: .304/.354/.375/.729 Walker: .291/.349/.443/.792

Beckett is so much more valuable than Pierre, it's not even close. And again, Walker is a capable leadoff hitter, and we have him until we get someone like Furcal, who while overpriced, may be an unfortunate necessity like I outlined responding to USSoccer.

The bullpen issue has been beaten to death in other threads, I'll just leave it at 3 years is entirely too long for middle relievers, and Eyre is no guarantee to be better than our current options. And if we're going to ignore 2005 performance, let's just keep Patterson, who was Pierre's equal offensively in '03-'04, is a far superior defender, and is cheaper in money and players. And before we go crazy saying that Patterson doesn't fill the leadoff role, we already have Todd Walker who can capably fill the role. If we deal him, it will likely be after Furcal is brought in, who also fills the role. I don't know how else to characterize your characterization of our prospects than ridiculous. Everyone has players that bust, just because we pay much closer attention to our system than others doesn't mean that ours fail more than others. And Pinto "failed miserably" in 30 innings at ages 22-23, hardly condemning. I'm not adverse to trading him, but let's make deals for players who make a difference please.

I normally agree with you that it's always better to spend money than prospects, bu as Diffusion pointed out, this is Pinto's last option year. The other 2 players are not likely to be of note, so it's not like giving up Pie, or Guzman circa 2003. Also, I'd disagree that Pierre is a step backwards. Our CF's last season were awful Pierre is not as good as people think, but I don't think he's as bad as 2005 would indicate, but even if the truth lies in between, Pierre is a giant step forward over any in-house option we have at CF right now. Also, look at the possible combinations. Would you rather have Furcal + Kearns or Mench (just examples) or Pierre + Abreu or Giles? Yeah, I framed that unfairly, but the point is, if we sign Furcal there goes our last type A FA this winter. It also locks up a huge amount of cash when, coupled with Lee and Aramis' contracts, and Z and Prior's raises, really locks down our payroll for the next couple years. Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending trading for Pierre. :!: Even though it's Pinto's last option year, it's still not worth it to trade him for Pierre, that's why I said none of the above at the beginning. The step backward I was referring to was philosophically, not production wise. Also, trading for Pierre takes away from what you can use to trade for an impact RF, making the combinations you mention less feasible. I think it's still up in the air whether we get 4 or 3 Type A's, and by signing Furcal you keep the chips to upgrade via trade. While Furcal is an investment, we're also not far from having Cedeno, Murton, and Pie all manning positions at a cheap price. Again though, Eyre and Howry's contracts screwed this up, which is why I don't want either particularly. But it's not terribly difficult to trade a talented player like Furcal if the need arises, and I'd rather take that chance than trade players for an inferior player.

I'd prefer losing Pinto over losing Marshall or Hill. I'd prefer not trading any of them for Pierre. In fact, I'd prefer not trading anyone for Pierre. Would you rather trade for Pierre at his salary for one year or overpay Furcal for multiple years? None of the above. But if I had to choose...... I'd probably overpay Furcal. Why? Both are overrated by Hendry and the rest of the league. Why not grab the one at the position you don't have a 2006 ML ready alternative, and that's at a lower cost? With Pierre and not Furcal, you're likely to have enough money to be a serious player for an impact RF (over the long term-their 2006 salaries will be fairly similar, but Pierre is a 1 yr expense only).. Now, let me qualify this by saying that that's the only way Pierre is the best fit-if we also get a really good RF. If it's Pierre and Jones, then it's a totally bad move. If trading Pinto and the other 2 players save us enough cash to make a play for Abreu, Giles or Manny, then it's worth it. Maybe we can eat salary to make up for our lack of ML ready players that Boston or Philly would want. Signing Furcal doesn't cost you any players of value, and is/has the capability of being a much better offensive player than Pierre while being a far superior defender at a more difficult position to fill. Trading for Pierre is a step backwards, signing Furcal might be a necessity(ideally I'd like Cedeno to back up middle IF next year). EDIT: That said, we've already screwed part of this up by signing Neifi, Eyre, and Howry.

I'd prefer losing Pinto over losing Marshall or Hill. I'd prefer not trading any of them for Pierre. In fact, I'd prefer not trading anyone for Pierre. Would you rather trade for Pierre at his salary for one year or overpay Furcal for multiple years? None of the above. But if I had to choose...... I'd probably overpay Furcal.

We have 5 starters right now plus Rusch and all the kids, it's not exactly a need. Technically, neither is SS with Cedeno, Walker, and the inNeiffable manning the middle infield. Burnitz was terrible for a RF, he's old and unlikely to be better, likely to be worse actually. I'd probably rather have Jacque Jones among a multitude of others out there for one year than Burnitz.

I'd prefer losing Pinto over losing Marshall or Hill. I'd prefer not trading any of them for Pierre. In fact, I'd prefer not trading anyone for Pierre.

No, he's already on the 40-man.

MSU fades down the stretch and blows a big lead to 'Zona, but wins in OT. I'll take 1-1 out of two top 10 teams in two days playing 5 halves of basketball between the two of them.

I'd also add that he has a greater likelihood of being really bad than really good, since his ceiling isn't that fantastic.

Word.

Howry is a good reliever, and last year he had a career year. Unless you have an absolutely dominating reliever(Howry is not, there aren't many), it makes very little sense to give them 3 years and 12 million dollars, given the unpredictability of relief pitching.

Pierre only made 3.5 million last year, and had a terrible year. I have a hard time seeing him making more than 4 million in arbitration. Well, that wouldn't be too bad, but have seen speculation on here from 5-8 million. If they can save a few bucks w/ Patterson in CF and a prospect, I can see it. Btw will Patterson take a pay cut in arbitration?? If anyone ever deserved one, it's him after last year. It's an interesting case. He deserves one(paycut), but I doubt it goes to arbitration because of Hendry's history. His history also has him being the "nice guy" to players so he may not want to slight Patterson with an offer below his previous salary. Ultimately though, Patterson may be gone before that decision needs to be made.

So why doesn't that hold true for hitters? Prospectus are the same people who believe that a strikeout for a hitter is the same as any other out, right? I'm not trying to be contrarian ... I just want to know what the difference is. Like I said earlier in the thread, the big benefit of K's is that the pitcher has control over what happens. When the ball is put in play, he has much much less control. Therefore, the pitcher will be better off the more control he has, or the more K's he gets. In the case of the batter, whether or not he puts the ball in play, he's the one making the result. The detriment to K'ing a lot is that it cuts down on the amount of balls in play, and makes it more difficult to achieve a higher batting average. However, that doesn't preclude a player from being productive. A batter that K's a lot and still produces at a high rate isn't less productive than one with the same numbers and lower K's(aside from the marginal detriment of productive outs).