Diamondbacks Bullpen

TAP

Jack Magruder says AZ is targeting Eric Byrnes and Orlando Hudson for long-term contracts, but Josh Byrnes' only comments when asked about whether multi-year contracts were being considered for these two were, "Absolutely. We’re open to it. Both had good years for us. Length and dollars, we haven’t gotten into."

According to Magruder, both Byrnes and Hudson could reasonably expect to earn between $3.5 million and $4 million on a one-year deal via arbitration this winter. Magruder believes that since Byrnes can be a free agent after the 2007 season, he'll likely receive a two or three-year offer from AZ.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

moviegeekjn · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:34 am Post subject:

During the Q & A that JB had near the end of the season, he mentioned both Byrnes and Hudson as "team leaders" in the clubhouse, so it wouldn't be a total surprise... but would think they'd be more likely to extend Hudson than Byrnes. Of course, that wouldn't prevent the Dbacks from trading either... and "could" make either more desirable trade bait (assuming that JB won't be giving out NTC contracts like Halloween candy)

shoewizard · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:46 am Post subject:

Based on what I've heard, I think a multi year deal for Hudson is almost certain, while Eric Byrnes is a little more up in the air, (I hope).

As we have discussed before, I also am in agreement that a multi year deal for Hudson won't hurt his trade value should they decide to go that route later in the deal. Him being locked up, fixed cost, etc, are all advantages.

Clearly giving Eric Byrnes a multi year deal is much more risky. Unless you sign him to a cheap two year deal and then trade him immediately, which I don't think they will do.

He is a high "collapse rate" candidate, IMO. He is basically an easy out. Not only does he have a lousy OBP, but when you look at how he makes his outs, there is no challenge there for the defense. He either popped it up or struck out close to 40% of the time.

His HR per Fly ball rate had never been over 9% in his career before, and last year it was 12.1%

Take just 5 homers away from Byrnes and his offensive value completely craters, and he is going to be a corner outfielder?????

Not good. Not good at all.

McCray · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:24 am Post subject:

so... breaking stuff, low and away, high fastballs? the more i watch of byrnes (i tape a lot of games, and with the offseason here, i'm rewatching them in slow motion speed to see pitcher deliveries and hitter's swings) the more i'm amazed he hit so well when he's so easily attacked and exploited as a hitter.

if i were running this team, i'd sign him to a 2 year deal, and maybe put him in CF for half a season, young in left? then trade before his value craters?

i don't like playing young out of his best position, but if it lets us get something for byrnes, then i'm jiggy wid it.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

matt · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:34 am Post subject:

Shit, I'd rather non-tender Byrnes than play Young out of position.

NJ-DBACKS-FAN · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:37 am Post subject:

McCray · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:47 am Post subject:

Hank · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject:

I think that if Upton ever gets here, he is more likely to shift to left than Young. It seems doubtful to me that Upton will ever have the glove that Young has, and Upton is a big guy getting bigger, and he is probably profiled to be much better offensively than Young, so Upton may be a perfect left fielder in the longer term.

shoewizard · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject:

Young is going to be the best Centerfielder you ever saw play in Chase field.

He should not, nor will he, be moved for anyone from CF within the next 10 years unless injury robs him of his speed

matt · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject:

So basically, everyone will forget about that Finley guy?

shoewizard · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject:

matt · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject:

Good because that magic crystal necklace of his was really flakey.

moviegeekjn · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject:

McCray · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject:

okay, here's my thinking:

1. byrnes sucks as a LFer. he doesn't have the bat for it.

2. byrnes is above avg as a CFer. he has an avg to above avg bat for that.

3. byrnes is not part of the future of this team. it would probably be best for the team if he were to be traded.

4. the only way byrnes has trade value is in CF -- not in LF.

so, the way i see it, either we move byrnes to CF and trade his ass after a half a season, opening it up for young, or... we keep byrnes in LF even though he sucks? by keeping him in LF, it seems like we're shooting ourselves in the foot -- we're dereasing his value and making him nowhere near as tradeable.

and unless he can get us a good return, it's going to be a PR nightmare to trade him -- he's the new face, right? and the only way he gets us a good return is by playing in CF.

i don't like playing young out of position for a couple months, but i like having byrnes on this team even less.

but i guess az is really going to keep byrnes. god that sucks.

and yeah, i agree, young will rock. but dammit, i want byrnes traded...
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

Would a multi-year Byrnes deal signal a possibility of trading one of our other fielders?

matt · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

McCray,

When you refer to Byrnes sucking as a LF but being above avg as a CF, you are referring to offense, correct? We can agree that defensively Y (CF) + B (LF) >> Y (LF) + B (CF), right?

If we can trade Byrnes for something good in the offseason, great. However, if we can't then I don't want to fuck with the OF defense just so that we can get a little more for him in a midseason trade. If anything, continuing to play him in CF might hurt his value because it allows him more time to expose himself as someone who can't field well enough for his position.

It is certainly defensible to say "Yeah, he can play CF but we have Chris Fucking Young in CF and we are sticking with that." This is confirmed by us making the change during the offseason. If we start him in CF and then decide that we NEED Young in CF then we are moving him because he can't play the position.

shoewizard · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject:

Don't forget whenever Jeff Davanon plays, Bo mel will bench Young or Quentin and play Byrnes instead. Evil or Very Mad

dirtygary · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject:

We definitely should have kept Byrnes in CF, if for no other reason than to protect his trade value.

Shoe is right about Byrnes being a collapse candidate, whereas I expect Hudson to play solid D and be around .290 for the next couple years.

We could absolutely get one of our targeted pitchers with Hairston, Montero, and the prospects that Estrada and Byrnes will bring.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 560

If Byrnes is really worth plus 20 runs on defense in left, then his hitting does not have to be that good. However, while I think Byrnes played very well in center this year (although he tailed off at the end), I think that was the best he is going to play. I'd like to think that the Dbacks can get more O out of the lf position.

They may view Byrnes as a fail safe for Young in center. If Young doesn't cut it, then they have Byrnes to play center. I don't like this as it may mean Young is going to be on a short leash. However, as a practical matter that plus Byrnes popularity with fans other than at this site makes him a temptation that should be resisted.

McCray · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject:

matt, thanks for the response. that's exactly what i was looking for as far as an answer.

i guess what worries me is that by moving byrnes to LF, we're settling for worse offense (on a team that's starting the offseason with a lower than average offense), and it seems like we're making it more likely that byrnes stays on the team.

i just really don't want byrnes on this team. he's weak in obp, weak in slg, pops up EVERYTHING, can't hit worth a lick after the asb, takes stupid routes, has a shitty arm, and has a ton of holes in his swing. and by moving him to left, i really get the feeling we're stuck with him not just for 07, but probably 08.

ugh. why, josh byrnes, why?! Crying or Very sad

_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

TAP · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject:

kris · September Call-Up Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Posts: 76

We all know that Josh Byrnes is going to extend both Hudson and Eric Byrnes contracts. We like hudson, but Byrnes offensive output is a question here.

We would like to keep hairston and trade Byrnes.
The fact that Josh is extending Eric Byrnes contract is telling us that Quentin is on the trading block for a top pitcher.

We cannot get a top pitcher for Hairston.
We can get top pitcher for Young, but he is untouchable, because there is no replacement for Young in the minors, not even in couple of years.

Eric Byrnes and Hairston look like a stop gap players until carlos gonzalez and Justin Upton replaces Byrnes and Hairston respectively. Upton is playing center field now, but he is still learning. I think he will move to Corner Outfield position soon. That will be better him, as he need not cover too much ground.

So 2009 lineup might look like this (Carlos Gonzalez, Young, Justin Upton) in the outfield.

This might be the reason why Josh is extending Eric Byrnes contract.
Just a guess.

EvilJuan · Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject:

I know the conventional wisdom is that the "joe average" fans have chosen Eric "Flipper" Byrnes as the new "face of the franchise"; and, as such, it would be disastrous (in terms of fan relations) to trade him at this point.

Kris has suggested that Quentin is on the block for a pitcher; and that the anticipated contract extension for Byrnes is related to this as well. (Oh, Kris, how I hope that is not the case... Shocked

)

I'd like to believe that the "FotF" connection is not solidified; and that there are as many people out there who would be as upset if Quentin was traded and Byrnes kept, as would be if Q is kept and "Pigpen" is dealt.

Am I deluding myself?
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet? Sad

McCray · Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:52 pm Post subject:

yes.

eric byrnes is the FotF, sad as that may be. quentin is just an unproven rookie in most fans' eyes.

that said, jbyrnes is smart. he can identify talent, and he's aware of talent and the relationship to contract status to determine value.

there is no way, IMO, that jbyrnes is moving quentin for a pitcher. jackson i could see, hell, montero i could see. but not quentin.

think about it: if jackson gets moved, we have clark (ugh) and carter as backups. not great, but serviceable.

if montero is moved, we have snyder.

but if quentin is moved, who plays RF? byrnes can't -- no arm. young is too good in CF to move, and even then, young's arm is his only weakness. RF exposes that and minimizes his strengths. haiston? if the team won't trust LF to him, there's no chance they trust RF to him.

jbyrnes went through too much this season to give RF to quentin. he isn't on the trade block.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

I agree, I don't see Q leaving town this year. Next year or the year after it might get a little crowded in the OF if Byrnes is signed to a multi-year plan. By then, however we'll likely be DFAing him or trading him short to the Mets.