Saturday open thread: Phils battle Bucs tonight at 7

Powered by big nights from Pat Burrell and Michael Bourn, the Phillies pounded the Pirates 8-1 in a rain-shortened, seven-inning victory. Weather permitting, J.D. Durbin and Shane Youman square off tonight.

Eye-opening night for Bourn: Although Jamie Moyer pitched in a solid game, and Burrell kept up his hot hitting, last night's head-turner, for me, was the clinic Bourn put on in the lead-off spot. Bourn went four-for-four with a stolen base and scored twice. This was only his second start as a lead-off man.

On a team with two pretty darn good base stealers in Jimmy Rollins and Shane Victorino, Bourn has emerged as the team's most dangerous pound-for-pound speed threat. His 17 stolen bases is tied with Rollins despite taking 377 less plate appearances, although it should be pointed out that many of his thefts came from pinch-run-for-Burrell situations. He's successful over 94 percent of the time; he was caught for the first time just the other night.

Have you looked at his rookie numbers lately? Here they are: .303/.384/.404. He's creating 7.9 runs-per-game according to Hardball Times. That's based on a 116 plate-appearance count - a low sample - but it's still third best on the team.

You can't deny this kid is instant damage if he gets on base, and he's doing it at an impressive clip. He's also been a capable situational hitter, moving runners along nicely and getting the job done.

Bourn is the most common name mentioned in trade discussions for obvious reasons. He's attractive to so many young clubs, like Florida, where they haven't had a center fielder/lead-off man since Juan Pierre.

Are the Phillies better off keeping him? Should they trade someone else instead? Hell, should Bourn become a starter instead of, say, Victorino?

Comments

[Malcolm]

Why not have Bourn spell all the outfielders? Have him start three times a week and sit each guy at least once. I don't think it's a great idea to sit Vic, but it is worth it to get Bourn into more games.

[JZ]

When Rowand comes back, yes. Vic is a solid player, but if Bourn is real, well, keep playing him as long as he provides that spark.

I really hope they don't trade him.

Again, it's the Pirates, but man, 4-4 a day after Utley goes down is just about 1,000 times more than anyone would wish.

[clout]

Let me see if I can get the ball rolling by repeating my post from the last thread. Bourn's 17 steals in 112 plate appearances projects to 85 steals in 560 PAs, which is slightly less than an everyday player would get. His OB has always been good and he can easily maintain a .350 OB in The Show. Do the Phillies need a leadoff hitter with a .350 OB who can lead the league in steals? You be the judge.

The irony is he's the first real leadoff man the Phillies have had in many years and they're looking to trade him. But if they get equal value and it puts them in the playoffs, so be it. Here is the OPS of the Phillies top 4 outfielders:
OF #1: .922
OF #2: .867
OF #3: .808
OF #4: .778

If outfielders #3 and #4 are equally good on defense, who should get more playing time? Which one would you keep and which one would you trade?

[plunts]

Only way Bourn goes is if it for someone who is lock to help us this year. Not some retread like Trachsel. And to me, there are a few really big reason why Bourn does not get dealt and shockingly, they revolve around economics.

If Bourn gets dealt, the Phils are then forced to either sign Rowand or some other FA outfielder to a lucrative contract. (Nobody in the minors is ready and what are you going to trade for a serviceable OF?) Rowand's agent should start at the ridiculous contract given to Gary Matthews. If he doesn't, he's a moron. No way the Phils outlay that kind of cash for Rowand.

So if you deal Bourn, who plays the next to Pat and Vic next year? More than likely, somebody very expensive.

And that's not to mention that Bourn appears to be very talented and could easily be as good if not better than Juan Pierre, the guy people like to compare him to. Bourn is better defensively (has a MUCH better arm, hell, I have a better arm than Pierre) and he also seems to have a better eye than Pierre.

So,A)I don't think it'll happen and B) I don't think it should unless we get absolutely blown away with an offer.

[ae]

I'm definitely in the don't trade Bourn unless you're getting a good, young, non-rental player we need back. clout's point is well-taken, but the fact remains that Bourn is extremely cheap for a long time, and even as a 4th OF/pinch runner, he's got a lot of value to this team.

I don't get the feeling from Gillick or Amaro's comments that they're desperate to dump Bourn, so I have the feeling they'll end up doing the right thing with him.

going back to the Iguchi trade, I think Williams' insistence that there was no market for him is ridiculous. you're telling me the Mets wouldn't have easily matched or outbid our offer? I have a hard time believing Minaya's okay with Gotay/Easley for the rest of the year. think it's far more likely that this was the Garcia reimbursement.

[plunts]

Ae, totally agree, no doubt in my mind that the Iguchi trade was a partial make up for the Garcia disaster. Almost like a professional courtesy. I just hope the Muts don't get Loretta.

[joe]

bourn and happ/segovia for dontrelle? that's about the only thing that would do it fo me.

[ae]

plunts: I'm much more worried about Atlanta getting Teixeira + a reliever.

[Steve Jeltz]

"Instant Damage" would be great nickname. Of course Sarge would screw it up and start calling him things like "Insert Damage" or "Instant Dalmation."

And, yeah, I'm in the camp that they should only trade him if they get someone really good in return; not some Trachsel-level rental arm.

[Mike H.]

ae, The Angels need bats all of a sudden because of injuries and are right in the thick of things with getting Teixiera. They also have tradable commodities to deal. There's also a lot of fan/media pressure to deal for a big bat.

Willis and Willis only if we have to trade Bourn. Any subtraction of the offense can only be done for vastly improved pitching.

[Alby]

If you're looking for vastly improved pitching, why would you want Dontrelle Willis? For the season, which is nearly 2/3rds over, he has given up 1.65 WHIP and sports an ERA+ of 80 (100 is average). Bourn for Noah Lowry, yes. For Dontrelle Willis, no. And given the slim odds of retaining Rowand, I don't trade Bourn at all.

[fuzzycopper]

I agree with the comments above that say Bourn stays in small part because he has shown some talent but even moreso because he's a cheap in-house replacement for Rowand after this year.

As for the Instant Damage nickname... meh. Seems more suited to a masher than a guy whose "damage" is equivalent to death from a thousand paper cuts.

[curt]

With Rowand gone in 2 months, and PtBB gone in a year, it would be extremely shortsighted to move Bourn for anyone who isn't going to be contributing for 5 years.

The goal should be to build a team that can actual win something while the big 5 are under contract, not slapping together these perpetual slightly-above-average teams.

[GM-Carson]

Dubee has finally done something right...his wife! Thanks for the trade bait buddy.

Clout- I know you're not a big fan of Victorino, and the main reason is you're an OPS guy. I love OPS too because it's one of the best offensive stats at summarizing a player's ability. However, speed and defense need to be brought into the equation. Now this is where it gets murky, because Bourn is faster the Vic, but Vic's defense is better (you can't deny that cannon for an arm). Vic has done a great job in my opinion in the 2 hole as a first year full-time starter. He has more pop in his bat than Bourn too.

Bourn's future is as a leadoff hitter for this club next season. Right now Bourn is successful in the role he's playing which is 4th outfielder. Rowand, Vic, and now Burrell are all good and should be starting for the Phils based on different skill sets they bring individually.

I'd hate to see Bourn traded, as I truly believe he could be an awesome sparkplug at the top of the order with Rollins finally slotting into the 2, 3, or 5 hole next season.

Only way I move Bourn if it's for a package of Woody Williams and Brad Lidge, but doubt Houston would do that.

[Brian G]

I'm in the Bourn for Noah Lowry only camp. I'd throw another pitching prospect on top of that. Doesn't make a lot of sense for the Giants to trade a guy like that, but they do have lots of good young pitching but no offense.

I have ZERO interest in Dontrelle if it will take a legit guy like Bourn to get him.. and it will.

[GM-Carson]

I see two people above list D-Train Willis for Bourn. Willis has sucked this season. A name I have heard around is Noah Lowry who I'd rather have than Willis.

[curt]

Willis is pitching hurt. As soon a the Fish officially throw in the towel, I expect he'll be shut down (if he's not pitching in NY or LA by next week, that is).

[Dave X]

While obviously you don't want to trade away something for nothing, given his single-digit HR power Bourn probably only gives you really positive value in CF. On the corners, he's probably borderline. We already have Vic for this. If you can trade either Bourn or Vic for decent pitching, you do it. While I agree they shouldn't trade him for a Lohse or someone, thats more because they shouldn't be trading for a Lohse at all... but Bourn is not going to be the savior, here.

[bay_area_phan]

It's funny how Michael Bourn has one good game & all of a sudden we get 20 posts saying that the Phillies would be idiots to trade him. I believe it was just yesterday morning that we had an equal number of posts insisting that he had to be traded for pitching help.

[Brian G]

But that value in CF includes Andruw Jones in his prime like range.

[curt]

bay - Quite typical. Another example: one win over a bad Pirate team and everyone has forgotten an ugly Nats series and is back in playoff mode.

[curt]

Brian - Most folks around here do not value things like that - it can't easily be reduced to a stat, so it doesn't affect your fantasy baseball teram.

[GM-Carson]

Bay Area Phan- I've been saying keep ahold of Bourn all along unless an outstanding deal can be struck (ala Noah Lowry). Bourn is still young and he's fast as hell, hate to see us ship him off for pitching filler that won't really help and then will be gone shortly.

[joe]

curt - anas "ugly" as the nats series was, they still won 2 of 3. 4/7 on the west coast, and 3-1 at home.

i'll take a 7-4 run any time of the year.

[Dave X]

Brian - I was keeping that in mind, which is why I said he would have positive value in CF, but not necessarily on the corners. I don't mean positive in absolute terms, but rather relative to the league average.

[bay_area_phan]

Carson: My post definitely wasn't a reference to you or, for that matter, to any specific poster. Just a general trend that I noticed. It may be that the "Trade Bourn" and "Don't Trade Bourn" camps are each comprised of the same people today as they were yesterday. But, if that's the case, then the people in the "Don't Trade Him" camp have sure been speaking up a lot more today than they were yesterday.

[clout]

curt: Yes it was ugly. But they don't count ugly in the standings.

[clout]

Carson: So you'd keep the .778 OPS and trade the .808 OPS. Interesting.

[curt]

Joe - good instinct. If they continue that 7-4 run (.636) for the remaining 60 games they would just edge the Mets if the Mets continue to play at their .559 pace.

[clout]

Brian Sabean is not an idiot. He has said the Giants are rebuilding. Now, why in the world would you think a rebuilding team would look to move Lowry? There's a lot of bad rumors out there.

[bay_area_phan]

Clout: You also need to take into consideration the sample sizes on the players' data. The OBP part of Bourn's OPS is driven largely by his batting avergage -- which just went up some .30 pts last night because of one great game against some horrendous pitchers.

Victorino has proven that, in addition to playing great defense, he can put up pretty respectable offensive numbers over a full season. Whether or not Bourn can do so is a major question mark. Assuming the right deal came along (a big if), there's no question in my mind that Bourn, not Victorino, is the guy to trade.

[THe Dude]

dont go too overboard on the Bourne bandwagon now guys....he did raise his average 50 points in one nite on July 27th which means he has very few ABS. His big thing has always been whether or note he will be able to hit enough to warrant being any everyday player or just an extra platoon OF guy like he's being used now. I really don't think the phils or any other team has a good enough read (even after last nite) to answer that question. THe only way to find out is to play him everyday and give him a shot. With the Phils as currently consituted I cannot see how they could give him a fair shot to play everyday right now or even next year. So while he may eventually become a very exciting player in the major leagues chances are it will not be with a contending team that will have enough patience to find out. It might be in the best interest of Bourn's career to be dealt to a team out of the hunt who can afford to allow him to get 200 ABs for the rest of the season and 500 next year. All that being said i'm not in favor of trading him at this point. All of this is subject to change like the wind currents in Citizens Bank Park though!

[curt]

clout - For the reading-challenged, bay's point, which I echoed, was that 1 good game can dramatically change the tenor of the posts here.

You're the first person to suggest that ugly counted in the standings, and please don't bother addressing such lame observations to me.

[clout]

BAP & Dude: Agree 100%. We have no way of knowing if Bourn can maintain that OPS. But he clearly has shown some skills that Vic doesn't have. The more I see of him the more I think he'll be the superior player in the long run.

Vic and Burrell are the opposite sides of the Beerleaguer coin. Vic could hit .215 and he'd be loved by everyone on Beerleaguer. Pat could have an MVP season and most here would still call him a bum. It makes for interesting times when emotion trumps logic.

[clout]

curt: You didn't write this, "Another example: one win over a bad Pirate team and everyone has forgotten an ugly Nats series and is back in playoff mode."

Is someone stealing your screen name?

[clout]

curt: Or did you forget who won the Nats series?

[John From the NE]

ummm Curt i guess you didn't take Statistics 101 in college. We all know that you have to have a much larger sample than 11 games to project over a 60 game span. What makes you think that just because the phils have played .636 ball in the LAST 11 games that they could keep that up? C'Mon man the phils are what they are, a barely over or under .500 team. They are 4 games over now but by the end of next week they could be one game under .500 like they were out about a week and half ago. IMO this team will fall a few games short just like they always do and we can thank the faceless owners and Monty for that.

[curt]

Sorry clout, no time today for your little games.

John - let's just say you're arguing with the wrong guy.

[clout]

curt: Don't blame you. When you have no defense, the wisest course is to withdraw.

[iRa]

The Phillies are in the market for a pitcher, but they've had trouble matching up. One source said that they might end up being a good third team in a deal, and there have been a couple of three-way discussions over the past 24 hours. How do the Phillies get into those? Because they have Michael Bourn to deal, and would reluctantly also discuss Shane Victorino and Ryan Madson.

from http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6511

[Joe F]

If Bourn does happen to be traded, and Rowand walks after the season, wouldn't Victorino be in center next year? His defense is great, and offense is more typical for CF than RF anyway. So of course the next question would be, who plays right? Werth? A FA?

[Tray]

Bourn's a rookie though, and I think offensively he's only going to get better, not worse - which isn't to say next year I'd expect him to hit .310. He's not really a .303 hitter, he just had a good game which boosted his numbers a whole lot and I'd expect those to dip. However, he has a lot of upside - Victorino doesn't. What you see with him is most likely what you're going to continue to get. Bourn does look like he could be a Juan Pierre who gets on base a whole lot more... Victorino's a mediocre offensive player who can run and has a great arm. Also, he's likely to bring back more in trades because he's the proven commodity. So I'd lean towards trading him.

[RSB]

Clout - you're astute about most things, but I don't know why you would believe any trade involving Bourn at the deadline would involve 'equal value'. Trade deadline deals have *nothing* to do with equal value - they're all about exploitation. Off-season trades often have a far greater chance to revolve around equal value, but even then in most cases, most trades are financially driven. You seem almost naive about what goes into the consummation of a baseball trade.

Also - I will never understand the insistence on trying to simplify a player's entire value into OPS. Frankly, I'm sick of it. It's lame, it's lazy, and it's invalid. What a player can do on the bases and in the field is in no way measured by this tidy little number, and I'm tired of arguments being made about players with no attention given to anything other than what they do as hitters. Victorino represents FAR more value to the Phillies than Pat Burrell because of his overall dynamics. How many runs does he prevent in the field, how many does he create with his speed, and how many are denied by Burrell's nonexistent range and foot speed? Stop pretending that it all boils down to the magic "OPS" number, because it doesn't.

[RSB]

Gillick's comment about the lack of corner OF power disturbs me, because ideally next season, Bourn should be starting in the outfield. It would be my preference that the OF look like this: Bourn, Rowand, Victorino. If they can't/won't re-sign Rowand, then fine, hang onto Burrell. But if Rowand is back, then Burrell should be the one who goes, not Bourn. You want power, you've got it all over the infield. Bourn will help win this team more games over a full season than Burrell.

[clout]

RSB: I agree that there's more to a player's value than OPS. OPS is simply the best way to measure a player's offense. You have to balance that with what a player brings on defense. For example, the shortstop has more chances than any player on the field outside of the firstbaseman, thus his defense is a major factor in his value. Teams are willing to give up something on offense at SS if the player's defensive skills in preventing runs offsets that.

In making the statement that you have, saying that Victorino represents FAR more value than Burrell, you would have to prove that Victorino's defense in a corner OF position prevents FAR more runs than the run-creating gap on offense between him and Burrell. You can't do that, of course, because he doesn't. Another case of emotion trumping facts. The fact is, while it's nice to have great defense in the corner OF spots, it's the least important place on the field for defense, especially in a little bandbox like CBP.

[clout]

RSB: Actually there have been good trades made at the deadline, although not by this team. I do agree that odds are against it and, as I posted above, if they can't get equal value for Bourn, they shouldn't make the move.

[RSB]

Clout: how many 'good' trades made at the deadline for *both* sides? Very, very few, if any. You're usually talking about two teams who are headed in different directions, so it makes sense that the trades would exist to serve different ends.

When taking into account the built-in advantages Victorino has over someone like Burrell - not only on defense (and last time I looked, the Phillies also play 81 games away from CBP, where OF defense supposedly doesn't matter), but as you failed to address, on the bases as well - this is much more than a case of me being 'emotional'. Burrell can walk 120 times, but how many extra bases will he take, how many runs will he score? Is the object of the game to get on base, or is it moreover to around the bases and score runs? Burrell has been on base 150 times this year and he's scored 39 runs. Take away the homers, and he's been on base 137 times and scored *26* runs. Yes, in some cases his walks have prolonged innings and moved other runners along, but I can't imagine they've led to all that many more runs considering that the bottom of the order is directly beneath him.

[ae]

OPS is an objective value. a player's OPS is his OPS; everybody doesn't get to assign their own OPS to a player. it is neither the best statistic nor the worst statistic as far as offense goes. it is, however, a convenient and easy-to-understand way to compare players without getting into EQA, or VORP, or Win Shares, or other far more complicated measurements.

subjective valuations of a player's skills, on the other hand, are equally convenient but not remotely useful. RSB thinks Victorino is more valuable than Burrell because he's more dynamic. of course, dynamism is unmeasurable, so if RSB thinks Victorino is dynamic then he's dynamic. it shortcuts the debate, prevents anyone else from offering a counterargument, and is therefore basically a useless way to judge players.

of course that doesn't mean that when you're evaluating Victorino as a player you should ignore the fact that he can steal bases, or the fact that he is an excellent baserunner. but saying "Victorino is dynamic; Burrell is not; therefore Victorino > Burrell" is a waste of time.

in any case, comparing Victorino and Burrell has another problem - they have completely different skill sets. Victorino is a far better leadoff hitter than Burrell is. Burrell is a far better middle-of-the-lineup hitter than Victorino is. you couldn't make a whole team of Burrells any more than you could make a whole team of Victorinos.

[ae]

RSB: considering how often Burrell is lifted for a pinch runner, that measurement is obviously flawed.

[ae]

also: "I can't imagine they've led to all that many more runs considering that the bottom of the order is directly beneath him."

that is not Burrell's fault. that is Manuel's fault for leveraging a guy who gets on base 40% of the time poorly.