Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Prize of Phillies farm system excelling in Venezuela | Main | Tuesday: Active day sees Eyre stay, Williams go »

Monday, November 10, 2008

Comments

This is also interesting to me as I would have thought the A's would be interested in Burrell and his OBP prowess.

One team never mentioned in trade rumors for Matt Holliday: The Oakland A's

That just goes to show you how much stock should be put in many of these rumors.

I could see Beane trading Holliday before 09 is over

I'm willing to bet there's far less interest in Pat Burrell than we think.

CJ: I think I saw rumors a couple weeks ago about Oakland, but I'm not 100 percent certain.

Holliday would have been awesome in the Phils outfield, but not at the price of Victorino or Werth and a bunch of prospects and for what would only end up being probably once season of his services.

Jason: All the more reason why I think Burrell will be back in Philly at a reasonable price. Along with Jamie Moyer who will not be signing a multi-year deal with some random team.

Thephaithful: Exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if Beane had confidence that he could pay less for Holliday now than what someone else will pay him for Holliday in 3 months. That seems like walking a tightrope based on confidence in your own abiities. Should be interesting to see.

I'm more than OK with this. We need to fill a hole in LF, not open one in CF/RF AND lose our top pitching prospect. Especially for a one-year rental.

Jermaine Dye is also a free agent at the end of the year. What would you give up for him?

Jason: You're right.

I retract my suggestion that the A's were never in the rumor mill.

MLB Trade Rumors is saying Beane is not planning to flip Holliday in July.

Um...yeah... we'll see.

JW: I more excited to see what the rest of the World thinks of Pat Burrell than I am about anything else this offseason. I dont even have the slightest guess to what type of offers will be flying around for him.

Better bet that he flips him than re signs him. If they are in the playoff race they will keep him and take th picks at the end of the year. Of they are out they will flip him for something better than the 2 picks.

Depending on what he gave up, it makes sense. Doubt that they can compete though. THey would need some serious improvement from their young players.

"I'm willing to bet there's far less interest in Pat Burrell than we think."

I agree and I don't think a 3 year deal is necessary.

I forget what WS game it was, but the camera had him going from 2nd-3rd and rounding 3rd on a play and it really stood out to me how slow he is. Obviously, you don't sign him b/c you think he's fast, but in that one play, coupled with his 2nd half struggles and his stance that he doesn't want to DH, I bet a bunch of GM's saw the "Stay Away" sign flashing.

Some guy at Yahoo! has Burrell as the 11th best free agent, ahead of people like Dempster.

He has him as the 3rd best free agent OFer.

Hope GMs around the league don't agree.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-freeagenttracker111008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I don't think the Phillies should pursue Dye unless it's a total salary dump. don't really see him as adding anything to the lineup.

One thing about the AL West - it's easier to compete in a four team division than anything else. Simple math tells you that one only has to beat out 3 other teams to win the division. And Seattle is going to be terrible next year. So that leaves the Angels and Rangers. Texas's offense will be great, but pitching is still questionable. So the A's might be better than them, which basically guarantees second place - and only one team to beat out - and while the Angels are clearly better...a bunch of injuries and then it's 2006 all over again...

pretty shocking to see Oakland trade for Holliday, not to mention that they're now reportedly interested in Furcal as a FA. even if they were to add those two players, I'm not sure how they make the jump to even the wild card race.

(true, they could flip Holliday or take the picks, but unless they're getting him on the cheap that seems really inefficient to me.)

Jermaine Dye....
No thank you.

Dye hit .292 with 34 homers last year. I'd rather bring back Burrell for a couple years, but Dye is better.

I'd take dye if they take jenkins. we'd have to throw something in but we have some minor league pieces we could afford to lose. It wouldn't be much i'd suspect(marginal reliever). Wait until about feburary and we can probably have him for a contract swap.

He's not that bad, and I'd rather see him platooning than Jenkins. I really don't see what jenkins brings to the table.

Injury risk aside, Bradley really is the best option. He likely would get a similar deal to Burrell and would be far more valuable. Of course to consider Bradley without injuries factored in is to consider Eaton without talent/general likeability factored in.

I agree that Milton Bradly is the best option, but I think they'd rather sign Burrell for the same deal.

why are people dismissing Jermaine Dye so easily? He's a career .275 hitter and has been averaging 30HR/100RBI over his 10 year career. He's proven in both types of ballparks, both type of markets, and has been excelling late in his career - (.292/.344/.541 last year)

He's a upgrade over Burrell in the field and basepaths (who isnt?) and even has post season experience to throw in there, with good numbers too.

I understand if you're not a fan on the free agency solutions, but i mean, c'mon Dye is a great right handed hitter with really no baggage except for his age (34).

baxter: Bradley isn't likely to cost what Burrell will. So I don't think it's a question of one or the other for the same deal.

mm: Why on earth would the White Sox trade Dye for Geoff Jenkins?

If Huston Street goes to Colorado, that's one less option for the Mets' closer situation.

Milton Bradley has had a 1.000 ops for the last two seasons and is younger than Burrell. He's also less of a defensive liability. I think Milton Bradley will get more money and/or years than Burrell.

What's Junior Griffey's situation? He's a FA right? He can't be any less athletic in left field than PtB at this stage of his career can he? Or is the fact that he's a LH bat the showstopper here? Or is it just that he has zero gas left in the tank?

CJ - Actually Oakland has been mentioned on a couple of occasions this offseason with Holliday and Beane let it be known (to the SF media that largely completely ignores the A's) that they were looking to acquire a big bat to anchor their lineup given their dismal offensive output this team.

Curious to see what the A's actually gave up and if Beane pulled a fast one on O'Dowd. At worst, Beane can flip Holliday at the trade deadline for a king's ransom or collect the picks. If the A's had any offense this year to speak of, they would have bene a very interesting team.

By the way, Beane has kind of gotten off the OBP kick too. Just take a look at the players that have been in the Oakland lineup the past two years.

foot in mouth for me - Dye is under contract and his a partial no trade for 2009. Why do ppl keep mentioning his name?! I thought he was a free agent from the sounds of this messageboard

I would love for the Phils to get Dye to replace Burrell's bat in LF the issue is that it likely will require a decent asking price.

Trade just came in for Holliday with the A's. I have to say I am happy, the asking price was far too high for me personally and now he's in the American League where we won't have to see much of him.

espn radio reported that the Phillies are interested in Jermaine Dye. He'll be a free agent in 2010 and is scheduled to make $11.5 million this year.

the biggest problem I see with Dye is that he has average-to-below average OBP. he's only recorded an OBP over .350 three times in his entire 13-year career, and two of those three times were back when he still played in KC.

Dye doesn't take very many walks but still strikes out 100+ times a year. in 2008 Burrell struck out 1.33 times as often as he walked; Dye struck out more than twice as often.

at age 35, I think he's far more likely to post another 2007 (.254/.317/.486) than another 2008 (.292/.344/.541). (and of course if you're trading expecting to get 2006 MVP candidate Jermaine Dye you're just setting yourself up for severe disappointment.)

Reportedly Pitecher Greg Smith and OF'ders Ryan Sweeny and Carlos Gonzalez. I don't know if Houston Street is in the deal as reported initially. That's it.

baxter: Bradley made 5.25M last year. Burrell made 14M. Bradley has serious injury and mental issues. Burrell just happens to be slow.

Burrell makes more than Bradley next year.

I wouldn't mind Dye either. He's a good hitter and a better OF than Pat. I think that he would replace Pat's numbers very nicely.

DPatrone,
What are you hearing relating to Phils rumors?

DPatrone: all the other sources are including Street, Gonzalez and Greg Smith.

Sounds like Beane is getting hosed actually... 3 young mlb ready talent. Gonzalez is from Arizona for Haren or Swisher fom CWS?

While Bradley's "mental issues" aren't Elijah Dukes' "mental issues", they're pretty serious.

ae: Dye did have a poor 2007, but his numbers in 05' and 06' are more in line with his 08' output. Depending on the cost to acquire him, he is worth a look.

Looks like the 3 players are Huston Street, Carlos Gonzalez, and Greg Smith. That's a nice package. Gonzalez was touted as a "5-tool" guy and one of the crown jewels of the A's minor league system. Smith had excellent minor league numbers and a solid rookie year. And Street was an elite closer until last year and is still only 25.

Still, it's not quite the same as getting an established, well above average everyday player like Victorino or Ryan Ludwick. I'd say the Rockies ended up getting fair value for Holliday. The value they were hoping to get was well in excess of what Holliday is worth.

AE: the more the OBP the better, i know. But being the only righthanded power threat in the lineup, watchnig burrell take so many walks with RISP was so aggrivating. I would love to see a #5 hitter in the lineup come in and hit .275-.290 with a lower rate of walks than a .250 guy with a higher rate.

ae: I don't think anybody believes that Dye will replicate 06', but he has had 3 seasons out of 4 where he was a good hitter.

If Huston Street is the third player, then it's about an even deal on its face. If Ryan Sweeney is the third guy, as DPatrone says, then I'd say the A's got the better end of the deal. That would serve the Rockies right for seriously overplaying their hand.

In 2006 Dye was a legit MVP candidate:
.315avg 44hr 120rbi 1.007ops

Dye could easily be a Type A free agent next year, which would mean comp draft picks when he walks.

If we let Moyer and Burrell walk this year...
Then Myers and Dye next year...
Thats a lot of early draft picks.

Argh, Gio Gonzalez, Adrian Cardenas and Josh Outman would be a pretty fair haul...

*slaps self in face*

World Series Champs, baby!

thephaithful: I would like to see a more aggressive approach in the 5th spot also, but MG mentioned that Pat only had 9 BB with RISP last season. The bigger advantage would be that Dye wouldn't clog the bases in front of either Vic or Werth along with the higher BA.

Holliday's a good player no matter where he plays, but he's nowhere near the player that his bogus Coors Field stats suggest him to be. In Oakland Coliseum, with its vast foul territory, he'll hit about .280 with 22 homeruns. This trade will end up costing Holliday literally tens of millions of dollars on the 2009-2010 free agent market.

wow 9 BB with RISP? I didnt look it up, but that means I really dwelled on each and everyone of those 9 walks, i feel like i can remember about 20 off the top of my head.

BAP and Drew~

BAP~ I read the from ESPN.
Drew~ Not hearing a darn thing. I doubt I will be.

MLB Trade Rumors is saying Smith, Gonzalez and Street.

I'm a little shocked, by the way, that Holliday was dealt before Peavy.

Vonder: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=burrepa01&year=2008

27 walks with RISP, not 9. So yeah, more aggressiveness from your lone RHP power would be a bit moer desired. Im not making a point to say its all his fault, i'd rather a walk than striking out on bad pitches.. but you see where im getting at.

thephaithful: I stand corrected. I went back and looked at his post and I got the numbers wrong. My fault.

By the way, I'm in favor of Dye. I think he would give the lineup a different type of dynamic.

Gonzalez hasn't put up impressive numbers since low A.

Dye's not going to hit like 2006 ever again in his career because he's 35. power hitters get worse as they get older, not better.

it's true that he's a more aggressive hitter than Burrell, but that translates to a 50-point difference in OBP. that's a huge difference, and going from a .250 hitter to a .290 hitter isn't THAT valuable.

Dye had 171 PA with RISP last year and drove in 56 runs. Burrell had 162 PA with RISP and drove in 54. how about some more clutchiness: Dye had 67 PA with RISP/2 outs and drove in 14. Burrell had 71 PA with RISP/2 outs and drove in 22.

I mean, if Burrell simply isn't going to be resigned and Dye can be had cheaply--I would definitely not give up any of our top prospects (Happ, Carrasco, Donald, Marson, d'Arnaud, Brown, Taylor)--it wouldn't be a bad move. but I do not at all see him as a real improvement over Burrell

I vote "NO" on Dye!

Dye wouldn't clog the bases in front of Victorino/Werth because he wouldn't be on the bases in the first place.

the different dynamic he would give the lineup would consist of A) taking fewer pitches and B) getting on base less often.

50 point difference in OBP? Try 20 points last year.

Street is vastly overrated as a closer He might be adequate as a setup guy but if the Rockies are counting on him to replace Fuentes they are going to be in for a diasppointment.

Smith has a chance to give the Rockies the starter they need though and interesting to see if Gomez develops even though it seemed the A's for some reason didn't think quite as much of him the past year.

Hydrant, thanks for the Carrasco news in the last thread.

On Pat the Bat's value. I think he screwed the pooch in the WS with his slow foot spped and dismal plate performance and demeanor. I bet his value was cut by a large percentage when he was on the big stage.

yeah, I got a little overenthusiastic there. point still stands though. Burrell versus Dye: +22 in 2008, +83 in 2007, +3 in 2006, +56 in 2005, +36 in 2004.

ae: Dye also has a higher BA, OPS+ and SLG. Pat also struck out 136 times while Dye whiffed 104 times in 54 less AB. I could deal with 50 less walks.

I'm not implying that I want to clean out the farm to get him, but he is certainly worth more than a passing look.

Dye doesn't have a higher OPS+ than Burrell. he did last year (by one entire point, although it's worth noting that baseball-reference is not, I believe, using 2008 park factors yet), but he doesn't on his career (119 vs. 112) and over the last 5 years they're identical (122).

saying that 50 fewer walks is worth 50 (or whatever) fewer Ks is just crazy...a walk is worth much, much more than an out. a K is worth marginally (if at all) less than any other out.

The thing with Jermaine Dye is that he has been very inconsistent throughout his career. If you get the .290 hitting version of Dye, then you're getting a better offensive player than Burrell. If you get the .260 to .270 hitting version, then you're getting a worse hitter. Either way, I agree that he would be fine as a one-year stop-gap until (hopefully) Michael Taylor is ready. But would I give up a marquee prospect (i.e., Happ, Carrasco, Marson, Donald, Drabek, Taylor) to get an inconsistent one-year stop-gap? No way. And, contrary to what some people posited yesetrday, there's no way in the world the WhiteSox would take Ryan Madson as the key piece in a Jermaine Dye deal. Why would the WhiteSox trade a valuable one-year rental just to get another one-year rental?

look, like I said on the last page, if it is impossible to resign Burrell and Dye can be had without losing any of our better prospects, by all means pursue him. but if the choice is between resigning Burrell or letting Burrell walk and trading Carrasco+ or Donald+ or Marson+ for Dye, then Amaro shouldn't even consider it.

ae: I agree that 50 fewer strikeouts are not worth anywhere near 50 fewer walks. But .40 points of additional batting average, plus 50 fewer strikeouts, would more than make up for 50 fewer walks. However, I seriously question whether Dye can hit .290 again.

But .40 points of additional batting average...

.40(0) points of BA would indeed be very valuable...

:)

well the phils get the sunday night opener vs atlanta.....april 5...the world champs start the season!

The Matt Holliday/Magglio Ordonez/Jermaine Dye discussion really convinces me that there are only 2 viable solutions for left field. The best solution is to resign Burrell. The second best solution is to sign Milton Bradley. In a way, Bradley's baggage might be a plus because it will probably scare all 30 teams away from offering him more than a 2-year deal. On a 2-year deal, he's a risk worth taking.

Er . . . make that .040, although if Dye could hit .650 next year that would definitely make up for the loss of 50 walks.

BAP: Michael Taylor *or* Dominic Brown.

Dominic is putting up a .351/.479/.439 line right now in Hawaii Winter Baseball through 57 ABs. Taylor has been a little slower there than his regular season numbers. Both I think are very promising.

By the way, Drabek put up 6 innings with 1 H and 1 BB, striking out 3.

Some good things going on in HWB.

The A's only did this so they could overprice him for better prospects than they gave up to some team trying to make the playoffs at the '09 trading deadline. I'm glad the Phillies passed on Holliday. Let's re-sign Pat!

Wondering if Beane plans on flipping Holliday...sooner rather than later.

On Gonzalez (Carlos, not Gio) he played alright when he was brought up -- which was earlier than the A's had planned, but injuries necessitated the early call up.

He was sent back down to AAA prior to close of the season, and it was reported that he would not be playing winter ball because he was too fatigued from the daily grind of the majors.

Make of that what you will...

Hmmmmm...

MLB.com calls Milton Bradley a Type A Free Agent. That somewhat tempers my enthusiasm for him.

CJ, MLBTR (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/10/bradley-gets-ty.html) has Bradley as a Type B, via the Dallas Morning News. where are you seeing that on MLB.com?

ae: Here is the article.

Also, this guy does projections for Type A, B, etc. From that, Bradley also comes in as Type A.

Also, re: Jamie Moyer. If someone else did sign him as a free agent... those two first round draft picks would be a coup. Offer him a one year deal comparable to this year and that's it. If he retires, it's JA Happ time.

huh. that's weird.

ESPN has Bradley as a Type B here.

SI/CNN also has Bradley listed as Type B.

ae: Well... they seem to be pretty legitimate sources so I can't imagine both ESPN and SI/CNN to be wrong.

If Bradley is a Type B, I endorse persuing him if we're not bringing back Burrell.

A Type B Free Agent sounds like a disease like Hepatitis B!

Scott Eyre's coming back, Jimy Williams isn't.

The obvious best option continues to be resigning Burrell to a two year contract and seeing if Taylor/Brown/etc emerges in the next couple years. EXPECTING them to be ready to step in full time in 2010 is foolish long term planning.

Are the people that are bashing a proposed Jermaine Dye trade actually looking at Dye's stats? He's a pretty decent option for a 1 year stopgap. If they don't have to give up too too much for him, it'd be a perfect solution. I'm sure he has 1 more good season in him. He was the sox 2nd best hitter after Quentin last season. His OBP is a bit lower but his bat would be well suited to CBP.

NEPP: I think the question is how much it would take to get Dye. He's going to make 12.5M (assuming the buyout). That's not much less than Burrell will cost... although it's just for a year. Are we willing to part with a top prospect for that? I'm not.

Honestly, what is Billy Beane thinking? The A's won't compete most likely, not with that Angels in that division. He's usually pretty astute so I figure he has a plan but does anyone see them as a playoff team next year? If they aren't why sacrifice some pretty good players for a 1 year rental?

I'm not gonna bash Beane as he usually makes out like a bandit on trades but this one is out of left field. No one even had the A's even interested.

I wonder what the cost for Dye would be? He DOES have a 2010 mutual option on his contract so trading for him would be the equivalent of a 2 year deal if it works out. At worst he's playing for a new contract which is always nice. My hunch is that Burrell will resign for 3 years, 40 million though...that's just a hunch though. There doesn't seem to be a huge clamor for Burrell's services.

Great news about Eyre. He's coming back for 1 year for $2 million with performance bonuses. That means Lidge, Madson, Romero, Eyre and Durbin are all definitely back. That's the 7th, 8th and 9th inning. I, frankly, don't care who fills out the bullpen after that.

How does a mutual option work? Must both decide to pick it up or would one or the other be enough?

I wouldn't give a top prospect...I would give up Madson though...Madson and a B-list prospect would be fair. Or Madson and B-list for Dye and some throw in. Its not the year to year cost savings so much as the length of his deal/contract year phenomena which has shown itself to be quite real.

Hmmm, a team whose biggest offensive problem was too many strikeouts and a decline in walks from the prior season is interested in replacing their highest-walk guy with someone that rarely walks but strikes out a lot. Oh, and who's 2 years older than the high-walk guy.

Interesting.

A mutual option means both have to agree.

Scotty Eyre coming back was a fait accompli...I heard his post WS interview on XM and he was basically salivating at the chance to stay in Philly. It was probably the easiest negotiation ever.

And, of course, it goes without saying, Beerleaguers think this is a brilliant idea.

clout, it has to do with cost and length of deal. I'm not saying that Dye will be better than Burrell next year...but cost wise it might be a wash as we won't have to eat it on a overly long contract to Burrell. Besides you could argue that Dye had the better season than Burrell despite being hurt. He's got more range for one thing and he's a better fielder though not by much as Burrell does have a pretty good arm for a LF.

clout: 100% agree. Why trade good prospects or someone like Madson for (maybe) two years of Jermaine Dye when you can throw that money plus a little more at Burrell and not give up anything?

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG