Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3239
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:52 am Post subject: Levski one step closer to his Pat Burrell dreams?
Quote:
Gillick hints he wants to move Burrell
By MARCUS HAYES
With free agency looming in 2 weeks the Phillies have begun to compile their wish list. It appears to be headed by possible free agents Alfonso Soriano and Aramis Ramirez, big righthanded bats who could replace Pat Burrell in the order and hit behind lefty MVP candidate Ryan Howard.
General manager Pat Gillick indicated that the Phillies would look to move Burrell, perhaps eating some of his remaining $27 million over the next 2 years, as long as he would waive his no-trade clause.
"We're going to have to continue to look for a little more offense. We know we're probably... Pat has had a really difficult time protecting Howard," Gillick said.
He noted the Tigers' run to the American League pennant was driven by pitching. "We have to improve our pitching. We have to continue to work on our bullpen, and we have to continue to work on our starting pitching."
If Philly is looking for more offense and think they will get more offense by moving Burrell... why would we want him???
He might be an upgrade over byrnes / hairston /davanon offensively... but factor in $, Defense, and then the cost of acquiring him (whoever we trade)...
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Levski one step closer to his Pat Burrell dreams?
shoewizard wrote:
Quote:
Gillick hints he wants to move Burrell
By MARCUS HAYES
Pat has had a really difficult time protecting Howard," Gillick said.
He noted the Tigers' run to the American League pennant was driven by pitching. "We have to improve our pitching. We have to continue to work on our bullpen, and we have to continue to work on our starting pitching."
that is one way to really up his value..........
why dont you just say he is strikes out to dam much! just look at the rest of the quote......im sure he will want a young arm.........can we afford that????
no thanks....cause i hate to see what they want back and im sure the $$$ will not be that much
_________________
Not many D-Back fans in NJ.....
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3239
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:03 am Post subject:
qudjy1 wrote:
There are some wierd ones on that list...
my eyes tell me Connor Jackson isnt as good a 1B as Pujols... or that Valentin is the best defensive 2B by far...
Baseball prospectus stats pretty much agree with Dials stats on Burrell as being average or slightly below average....and they also agree that Valentin was a terrific secondbaseman this season.
But BP has a huge gap in defense between Pujols and Jackson that more closely mirrors the popular perception.....Jackson -10 FRAA vs. Pujols +17 FRAA
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1748
Location: Researching my theory that a lime hat is more effective than tinfoil
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:53 pm Post subject:
I think I'd pass on Burrell. He makes $10M more than Byrnes should next year. Their career BA's are similar but Burrell should about 3 HR for every 2 that Byrnes hits and he also walks a ton. This is offset by twice as many K's as Byrnes. Byrnes can also steal bases well (he knows when he can make it and doesn't go otherwise) and should play much better defense.
Byrnes last year created (per BR) 84 runs while using 432 out. Burrell created 90 runs using 358 out. Give Pat the extra outs and I get 99 runs for PB.
Dial's numbers (these are not an endorsement, but they are linked so let's use them) show Byrnes as saving 12 runs over 150 games compared to the average cf. I don't know how to account for the position difference, but let's say 12 runs difference making the difference about 3 runs. Not worth giving anything up IMO.
Of course, last year was a career year for Byrnes and not a good one for Burrell. I still would not give up anything for Burrell.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3239
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject:
stu wrote:
Byrnes last year created (per BR) 84 runs while using 432 out. Burrell created 90 runs using 358 out. Give Pat the extra outs and I get 99 runs for PB.
Dial's numbers (these are not an endorsement, but they are linked so let's use them) show Byrnes as saving 12 runs over 150 games compared to the average cf. I don't know how to account for the position difference, but let's say 12 runs difference making the difference about 3 runs. Not worth giving anything up IMO.
Of course, last year was a career year for Byrnes and not a good one for Burrell. I still would not give up anything for Burrell.
Stu...not sure you are calculating that correctly.
Burrell had 90 R/C to his 358 outs, or 3.98 Outs per R/C. Give him 432 outs and you get to about 108.5 RC
Burrell RC/27 was 6.79 to Byrnes 5.25...again, a pretty big difference.
So I don't quite agree with your method of "narrowing the gap" on offense for the two.
And once you move Byrnes out of CF into left, his better defense becomes far less of an advantage than it would be in CF.
I am not proposing we go after Burrell, so I am not willing to "go to war" on this one......but as you yourself point out, Byrnes might have just had a career year, (although not in OPS+ terms) and Burrell had an average year for him. And Burrell is 10 months YOUNGER than Byrnes too.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1748
Location: Researching my theory that a lime hat is more effective than tinfoil
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject:
First of all, who cares about a 10 month age difference.
Second, yes, there is no doubt at all that Burrell will be a better offensive threat than Byrnes. Let's assume that we traded for Burrell, and the Phils kicked in $5 million. Therefore, he'd cost an average of $11M for two years plus whatever players we gave up. That is about $7M more than what Byrnes should cost. We have to ask ourselves is an extra 20-30 OPS+ points worth $7M when we only have about $10-15M overall to spend?
I was going to make a new thread about what we should expect if the team did get a bat for LF or 3B but I was having a hard time organizing the thread and making it readable. Basically, my arguement was that there aren't a lot of those guys with OPS+ over 120 consistantly and the ones out there are held onto pretty tightly. I don't see it as the best way to spend our money.
I think it would be best to forget about upgrading hte offense for the most part and focus on the pitching.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 660
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject:
When will Lev bury his Burrell bone? I actually played devil's advocate on Hunky Hunkerson as well. If they move Tracy & Byrnes and add Burrell and a pitcher, the lineup is looking kinda cool. You shore up the middle of the order and let the kids off the hook a little bit and let them grow at their own pace.
But the problem is this. How many holes on this team need to be filled right now, today, to make them a legit playoff team? Is it worth giving up on Tracy to add Burrell? Because I think that's who Philly would want. Is that where Byrnes should focus his off-season energy? Is it more beneficial to add a starter (for Estrada+) and just let 2007 start with a wait & see attitude about the kids? It's pretty clear when a team is just one player away from contending. This is not one of those teams.
I just got home. Long day at work. Saw this thread. I laughed, I cried, I got back in line.
I'll post more later
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
First off, I'm not sure why people think that Eric Byrnes is actually a good hitter. He is not. He's a career .261/.322/.449 hitter. That's not good.
That's passable in CF, since there are only so many Jim Edmondses and Andruw Joneses in baseball. In LF, it's pathetic. It's really bad. No matter how you twist it, AZ would be getting suboptimal LF production from him.
Second, despite what the papers are saying, this wasn't Byrnes's career year. It was actually his 3rd best season. Here's a look, by OPS+
Even if you throw out 2005, when he played for three teams, he's on the decline. 95+ OPS guy in CF is OK; 95+ OPS guy in LF is horrible. As in, really really bad. Especially if the guy will be making 5M next year.
If the Dbacks are going to be happy with 95 OPS + next year, they might as well trade Eric Byrnes for anything and let Hairston play in LF full time, with at bats for DaVanon. Trade Byrnes now. It's that simple
Third, Burrell is a significant (as in HUGE) offensive upgrade in LF. His OPS+ the last three years, which accounts for his park, has been
110, 125, 124. He's a good bet to put up OPS+ of 125 next year. His career line is .258/.362/.479. He basically suffers from the Adam Dunn syndrome... low BA, too many Ks... except that he walks a lot too and is actually much better in LF defensively than Dunn.
Speaking of defense, I don't think Burrell is as bad as people think, just like Byrnes isn't as good as people think. A poster on BTF has his defensive projections for next year, and Burrell was basically projected as league average in LF. About the same as Gonzo. Not much worse than Byrnes.
It should be noted that Burrell has an offseason foot surgery last year and spent a lot of this season regaining speed. With time and better conditioning, he'd probably be at least average in LF. Would the upgrade on offense be worth the lesser defense? Definitely so.
Now, in terms of how much Burrell is worth... Is Byrnes worth $5-6M next year, to play LF? He'll be below average offensively, above average on D. Believe it or not, he probably will be overpaid at $5m, even if he hits as well as he did in 2006... and here's 10 bucks that Byrnes will be worse offensively next year. Even at $5m, he'll be overpaid.
Say the Phillies kick in enough cash to make Burrell's salary around 8-9m year. Would he be worth his salary? In abstract terms, probably not. But he'd be a lot closer to justifying his contract than Byrnes will...
Just some food for thought, btw.
Burrell, age 30: 117 career OPS+, last 3 years, 110, 125, 124 OPS+
Player B, age 30: 113 career OPS+, last 3 years, 123, 110, 125
Player C, age 30: 115 career OPS+, last 3 years, 98, 110, 132
Here's a bet that players B and C get 15M/year for 5 years to play LF.
Now, the thinking here is that Burrell will be acquired cheaply in terms of talent, say Estrada plus a pitcher (I'd throw Enrique if the Phillies want him, I'd throw in Cruz for extra cash) and the Phillies would kick in enough cash to make Burrell's salary around $8-9M/year.
The thinking is also that Eric Byrnes will be traded for starting pitching. The reality is, Estrada's perceived trade value isn't nearly as high as Byrnes's; trading Byrnes to a team that would play him in CF would make him attractive, not to mention that he's coming off a "career year".
I'm not sure why Oden thought we'd be giving up Tracy. He stays at 3B.
Finally, Josh Byrnes has said a couple of times that he wants to add an impact bat to the lineup next year. Unless he can trade Tracy for Ensberg, for example, the only place where he can upgrade, and should upgrade, is LF.
At C, we're set. Ditto for 1b, 2b, and ss. Ditto for RF and CF. That leaves 3B, and I'm not sure Tracy is going anywhere, and LF. You have GOT to upgrade in LF. It's that simple.
Burrell's "perceived" trade value is really low. Byrnes's "perceived" trade value is really high. AZ potentially has the pieces (in Estrada, maybe Enrique, maybe Cruz) to get Burrell AND bolus of cash back. AZ should be looking to trade Byrnes for a solid starter (i.e., Jason Jennings).
I am really not sure why fans here are so enamored with Byrnes. And so blind to the significant upgrade that Burrell will represent next year. Oh, and Burrell would be signed for 2 years at a fairly attractive contract. He's a good bet to be very productive in 2008 as well, when the rest of the youngsters would be hitting in full cylinders. We're making a push for the WS in 2008, remember? After 2008, he can step aside for Carlos Gonzalez. It's easy, see...
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
Even if you throw out 2005, when he played for three teams, he's on the decline. 95+ OPS guy in CF is OK; 95+ OPS guy in LF is horrible. As in, really really bad. Especially if the guy will be making 5M next year.
If the Dbacks are going to be happy with 95 OPS + next year, they might as well trade Eric Byrnes for anything and let Hairston play in LF full time, with at bats for DaVanon. Trade Byrnes now. It's that simple
LF seems to have been designated as Arizona's FACE-OF-THE-FRANCHISE POSITION for outfielders with declining skills.
Eric's OPS+ may be on the downward side of his bell curve, but his hustle-routine has PR appeal to the casual fanbase. You know this is part of the conversation when player personnel moves are discussed.
TAP, you didN'T offer your guess on players B & C? I'm disappointed...
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
And let me tell you, Carlos Lee isn't better defensively in LF than Burrell...
[edit]
Oh, and because Burrell lives in AZ, the Dbacks are probably one of the few teams he'd agree to be traded to. That's a huge plus in AZ's favor, as the Phillies can't send him out for the best offer... rather, if they do want to dump him, they have to take the best offer from a team that appeals to Burrell...
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
And Tony Pena cuts in line...
Last edited by levski on Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
TAP, you didN'T offer your guess on players B & C? I'm disappointed...
Is J.D. Drew one of them?
Nah, MG, Drew is a much better hitter than any of them... and a much better defender too. But he's made of glass...
http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/drewj.01.shtml
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1870
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject:
Not that levski needs any props from me...
But I find a lot of his arguments in favor of Burrell instead of Byrnes have a lot of merit.
As for the "pigpen"/"hustle" element whereby the casual fan would be in favor of keeping Byrnes, I think that the ability to say, "well, we got a big bat to play LF, so he's expendable, and we got a good pitcher for him," might mollify many of the potential complainers following a trade...
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2404
Location: Gold Canyon
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject:
levski wrote:
Yes, player C is Soriano. Player B is Carlos Lee.
Holy cow Lev, by the time I saw your response and went to post my reply, you already gave the answer. What would my prizes have been for correctly guessing Soriano and Lee?
Holy cow Lev, by the time I saw your response and went to post my reply, you already gave the answer. What would my prizes have been for correctly guessing Soriano and Lee?
A romantic dinner with Eric Byrnes at Friday's Front Row.
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
just look at the rest of the quote......im sure he will want a young arm.........can we afford that????
