Part of

« Daily rumor thread: Eye on minor league FAs | Main | Sheffield off the table, traded to Detroit Tigers »

Thursday, November 09, 2006


"my cousin" lou collier...nice!

oh, and by the way i sadly remember the jose santiago era.

how about finding my homeboy wes chamberlain.

"Nothing says Italy quite like a Native American."

Brilliant! Absolutely hilarious!

from "Regardless of whether they land Soriano, the Phillies will continue to shop left fielder Pat Burrell, and they remain willing to absorb a good portion of the $27 million he's owed over the next two seasons. If Burrell is traded and the Phillies don't land Soriano, they can turn to incumbent Jeff Conine, attempt to lure David Dellucci back or move Aaron Rowand or Shane Victorino to left, with Conine playing right."

wow now that's a horrible outfield- rowand, vic, dell, and conine won't get it done. not to mention the phils are already paying 7 mil for thome next season, add about the same for burrell and you're looking at a $14 mil player that doesn't even wear a phils uni...piss poor!

by the way, heard more rumblings of carlos lee rumors.

as ridiculous as burrell's contract seems, take minute to consider the following.

1. jd drew just opted out of his final 3 years of 33 mil contract...he must expect to get more than 11 mil a season...not even close to worth it!

2. jim edmonds is about to re-up with the cards for 2 years 20 mil...are you kidding?

3. craig biggio just agreed to a 1 year pact to stay an astro in the neighborhood of 5 mil....246 avg.

I agree Carson, could we honestly have a lineup that looks like this:


Two years ago, we had the 7-8 "black hole" but this would be the 5-8 "black galaxy"! I see only two guys who could put up OBP above .350.

That ain't gettin it done. And to think, we would actually have to PAY a team $7M to accomplish this.

It is clear that the Phillies have an RSB-like stance on Burrell...they just don't like him, think his numbers are a lie, and want to be rid of him, regardless of what it costs. I think this is completely incorrect, but I'm preparing myself already for a terrible terrible move.

Seriously, did Burrell insult the Gillick family or something. The guy finished SEVENTH in MVP voting two years ago and is now viewed as some insanely overpaid player. Given his health issues, Burrell is probably worth 8-9M per year. If he has surgery (shouldn't he be doing this by the way), he is basically in the class of Dye/Lee type players and worth the $13M.

Some fun with VORP:

Rowand/Vic/Conine(w/Phillies): 1014 PA, 21.2 VORP

Burrell: 567 PA, 27.5 VORP

If Burrell and Dellucci are gone (and 2/3 of an Abreu season) and Soriano is not signed, the drop in production from the outfield from '06 to '07 would be astounding...basically it would be like the Phillies replacing Utley with Danny Sandoval.

I dont know how many times we have to cover this ground. The issue is not whether Burrell offers other teams a viable alternative to more expensive free agent bats. The issue is his no-trade clause. It gives the Phillies zero leverage and the other team license to make unseemly demands. This is the truly destructive aspect of Wade's legacy, and it is why Gillick must stick to his guns this offseason, even if it costs us a major acquisition.

I'm not saying we should give Burrell away necessarily, just that we have to be realistic about the landscape if we end up trading him.

What "ground" are you talking about Maverick? No one is claiming that Gillick should get something great for Burrell, that's why you don't trade him. Who is being unrealistic?

why haven't we heard anything about burrell surgeries? is he really go to play another season with one arm and one leg without trying surgery?

Im just talking about the common lament that we'll "give away" Burrell, as if there werent complications.

You know what would be interesting? Burrell leading off. His OBP is leagues ahead of Jimmy's and last year only four players in all of baseball saw more pitches per plate appearance (points if you guess who they were - I had to look them up). But of course that would never happen, because of the baseball law that Every Leadoff Hitter Must Steal Bases.

As much as I want to see Burrell gone, even I'll concede that it's fairly senseless if they don't bring in someone markedly better to replace him. Carlos Lee is not my idea of better. That is a lateral move at best. Jeff Conine isn't going to scare anyone, and frankly I don't even think they should be expressing interest in Dellucci. Gillick needs to have his bases covered here. I dislike Burrell so much that I am tempted to say *anything* is better than having to watch his sorry ass bail out on fastballs over the inside corner for another season. But I know it's not entirely true.

I agree with Conlin's "SoriaNO" column, but it'd have been nice if he had any other suggestions as to what direction the Phillies could go in adding balance to the lineup.

in are-you-kidding-me? Matsuzaka news, Buster Olney reports the Red Sox may have won rights to negotiate with him by offering a posting fee between $38M and $45M.

There is a reason why Manuel chose to go with Conine and Dellucci over Burrell all September. And what good is a 13 million dollar a year slugger if you have to pinch hit for him in the 7th inning on with Joe "sweet swingin" Thurston and David Dellucci? "OK Pat, we'll let you play, only it has to be when we're up by a lot or down by a lot, and it has to be before the 7th inning because you can't play defense."

His stats are nice, but put down the Bill James Handbook and watch a game one time. He's an example of sabermetrics gone wrong.

number of times David Dellucci pinch-hit for Pat Burrell in September = 0.

but then I'm guessing that's one of those examples of stats "gone wrong." everyone knows we'd be better off with Conine in the lineup than, you know, a guy who can actually hit.

You have a point about the worth of Burrell, Tony, but the fact is that Conine and Dellucci were hardly much better options down the stretch. Conine looked like he might be an answer for a couple of games, only to put on an LOB clinic thereafter.

I didn't say Dellucci pinch hit for Burrell. And I didn't say I'dd rather have Conine.

Pinch hitting Joe Thurston for Pat Burrell told me everything I needed to know about him. In September, in the middle of a pennant race, with the game on the line, you have your big basher Pat the Bat up there. And what did Charlie do? That's right, pinch hit Joe f'ing Thurston. Give me a break.

If the choice is really keep Burrel, or start Conine/Dellucci, christ, I'll dress up as one of Burrell's Gurls, and buy the first round.

Dellucci is a butcher in the field and has a noodle arm. At least Burrell has a decent arm, and can hit bot righties and lefties.

Tony, I will quote you directly: "And what good is a 13 million dollar a year slugger if you have to pinch hit for him in the 7th inning on with Joe "sweet swingin" Thurston and David Dellucci?" yes, I'm pretty sure you did just say that Dellucci pinch-hit for Burrell.

as far as Thurston pinch-hitting for Burrell, I have a hard time seeing that as a strike against Burrell. it's a strike against Manuel and his poor tactical grasp of the game. I don't think you'll find a lot of people anywhere except the Manuel household who think Charlie is a good tactician, and having him on your side isn't exactly a plus in this case. the fact is Manuel made a bizarre move. give me a break if you want to use that as Exhibit A why we should dump Burrell.

Sheffield just acquired by Tigers for 3 pitchers!!!! Let them deal with him!!

Initial reaction: What a steal for Cashman. Humberto Sanchez was one of the Tigers premier pitching prospects, posting over a K per inning between AA and AAA last season. He's tweaked his arm, which I guess reduced his value, but still. Claggett and Whelan are former College hurlers who both tore up A ball last season and could probably jump to AAA this year. Add that to Clippard and Hughes and you've got an infusion of pitching at the high levels.

And in return, he sent over a piece that he A) already had a replacement for and B) had become a clubhouse malcontent. AND the Tigers had to extend him through 2009. That's right - the Tigers will be paying Sheff when he's 41.

I know he's playing with a loaded deck (i.e. the near-infinite resources fronted by the boss) but after the last few deals I think Cashman really needs to start getting more credit. Maybe not enough to banish the ghosts of Jaret Wright and Carl Pavano, but credit nonetheless.

I think that's a pretty nice fit for the Tigers. and I bet Leyland has the right kind of attitude to keep Sheffield in line.

hmm...after looking at the prospects and reading about this extension, I like that less if I'm a Tigers fan. very glad the Phils didn't put up an offer like that.

Best non-move that Gillick has made yet. I couldn't be happier. I just wish that Burrell didn't have the no-trade. There's a good chance that we could have somehow got the pitching prospects (Lord knows Detroit is one of a very few teams that doesn't NEED them).

Skeptic that I am, I still have to believe this increases Burrell's value. If Sheff = 3 B/B+ prospects, what does Burrell =? Before this I would've said a bag of peanuts, but ...

Just as well, I didn't want Sheffield here. We do however need to find a way of getting A-Ram or Crede to Philly. And yes, Soriano would be nice, but I'd rather fill the bigger void at third base and address the needs of the pitching staff.

remember, this is not just one year of Sheffield, which would be much more valuable. this is three years/$39M (assuming the extension leaves contract value the same) for a 37-year-old who had 166 PA last year and posted a .891 OPS two years ago.

biggest difference between Sheffield and Burrell? Yankees management hasn't been relentlessly talking Sheffield down for the last month.

Well, I would say the biggest difference between them is that Sheff doesn't have a blanket no-trade clause, meaning management didn't have to do any talking ...

Biggest difference between Sheffield and Burrell?
...and Burrell has a no-trade clause, Sheffield didn't!

Matt Smith 2006 (A+/AAA/MLB): 57.2 IP, 1.57 ERA
CJ Henry 2006 (A): 102 G, 366 AB, .243/.326/.366
Carlos Monasterios 2006 (Rk): 34.3 IP, 4.20 ERA
Jesus Sanchez 2006 (Rk): 32 G, 119 AB, .252/.323/.311


Humberto Sanchez 2006 (AA/AAA): 122.3 IP, 2.58 ERA
Kevin Whelan 2006 (A+): 54 IP, 2.67 ERA
Anthony Claggett 2006 (A): 59.1 IP, 0.91 ERA

Technically, you can't be certain Abreu would accept a trade to Detroit.

how does management trashing Burrell in the Daily News every couple days *improve* his trade value? okay, maybe it makes him more willing to be traded, but if doing so reduces his value on the market to virtually nil, that's not much of a benefit.

(although I'm not going to argue that the FNTC isn't a factor, it was kind of stupid of me to even suggest that.)

Jason - you're right, it is sort of apples to oranges. but that doesn't mean I can't look at my apples and wish that I had traded for oranges instead.

Apples and oranges, but still fruit nonetheless. Both hitters are expensive power right-handed outfielders, with some measure of doubt circulating their career.

RSB, I couldn't disagree more on Carlos Lee. I'd take 1/2 a Carlos Lee for Burrell. They're both mediocre defensively but not even close offensively. Lee has always hit in the clutch, puts up consistant numbers every year, does not have a major hole in his swing, and runs the bases well for a big man. The guy even gets you 10 SBs a year. Are we talking the same Carlos Lee?

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel