Shannon Stewart Claimed by Cubs...
.... according to ESPN 1000. This story is a couple of hours old, so I'm surprised it hasn't been posted yet. The 48-hour clock is now ticking for the Cubs to work out a deal, the A's to pull Stewart back, or the A's to simply say "he's all yours."
Stewart is currently batting .298 with 9 HRs and 35 RBI, 35 BBs, .761 OPS.
Have at.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
78 comments
Comments
Oh boy
by CubFaninCA on Aug 8, 2007 7:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
As usual
by tharr on Aug 8, 2007 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
funny how
by CubFaninCA on Aug 8, 2007 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because your mommy
by tharr on Aug 8, 2007 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Five years ago...
Now, it's just "OK". Stewart has been Oakland's regular LF most of this year, but has hit only one HR since July 1 (SLG since then: .355). The Cubs need power, and Stewart used to have a little pop. He's hitting .289/.358/.397 vs. LHP so far this year. Maybe he can platoon in RF, although he's played very little RF in his career.
If you could get him cheap, it's probably worth it.
by Al on Aug 8, 2007 7:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You told me
by jazzypete on Aug 9, 2007 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this legit??
by writerinwrigley on Aug 8, 2007 8:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
the only
http://maiermanagement.com/women/images/shann25-3a.jpg
by CZ38 on Aug 8, 2007 10:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
She could certainly help this team
by section229beer on Aug 8, 2007 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This would be a good move
Shannon Stewart and Jaque Jones played on a Twins team together that fought to get into the playoffs. I imagine they are close so if having Stewart around picks up Jones' spirit, all the better. The A's are only paying him $1 million this year (with $1.5 in incentives) so it's not like he would cost alot and he's not someone we need to plan around if he pans out.
This team could use some more veteran playoff expierence. Depending on who/what we trade, I love it.
by IllinoisCubs on Aug 8, 2007 11:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
He Hits .300?
Stewart would be the kiss of death for this team as it would take more AB's away from players more likely to be productive.
by frustratedfan on Aug 9, 2007 8:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ditto
by wild bill on Aug 9, 2007 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm baffled
The man is a career 4A player.
That's all he is.
Stewart is an upgrade in EVERY facet of the game.
You are comparing a major league ballplayer to a 4a player.
by jdoolsiu on Aug 9, 2007 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
Murton's career line: .296/.365/.444
Stewart's line over the same period: .281/.338/.372
Stewarts career line: .299/.363/.436
Murton, OPS+:
- 135
- 103
- 84
Stewart, OPS+:
- 88
- 88
- 104
Stolen Bases:
Murton: 8 for 11
Stewart: 20 for 27
Runs created/9 (2005, 2006, 2007):
Murton: 7.53, 5.78, 4.46 (3 year span: 5.86)
Stewart: 4.35, 4.50, 5.21 (3 year span: 5.30)
While Stewart may be better defensively, and is slightly better at stealing bases, I am baffled how you could say that Stewart is an "upgrade in EVERY facet of the game." That is simply false. Murton has been better in almost every hitting statistic.
by big_lowitzki on Aug 9, 2007 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its no surprise this post hasnt been responded to
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty much
by sue369 on Aug 9, 2007 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm at work
Shannon Stewart has MANY more MLB at-bats to go over as opposed to Matt Murton's.
Defense and speed are tough to quantify.
Matt Murton. Is not. A good baseball player, in the Year of our Lord, 2007.
He just isn't.
Hopefully, he starts going crazy, and hitting like nuts.
BUT, as of right now, you're talking about a LARGELY unproven MLB player. Shannon Stewart is a proven player. You know what you're going to get with Shannon moreso than with Matt.
That's truth.
by jdoolsiu on Aug 9, 2007 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
something else
.297
.266
Murton's BA over the last three years.
.386
.365
.342
Murton's OBP over the last three
.521
.444
.367
Murton's power...
Don't worry folks..it's not the Titanic sinking. It's just Murton slowly sucking.
by jdoolsiu on Aug 9, 2007 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and another bit of info..
He provides little power, little speed, and little defense.
I guess I'm still missing the love.
by jdoolsiu on Aug 9, 2007 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's all well and good
by MPH73 on Aug 10, 2007 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was hilarious
"A player who was better than league average -- several years before -- who is now in the decline stage of his career and now has a low ceiling but also an established floor -- rather than playing a young player or players with much higher ceilings, but also no established floor."
Did you not read the part about Stewart being under a one year contract? If this doesn't work, he's gone at the end of the year.
"Stewart would be the kiss of death for this team as it would take more AB's away from players more likely to be productive."
These younger OF players like Murton and Pie are NOT as likely to produce as much as Stewart in the next two weeks. Murton is batting .256 and Pie is batting .214. We don't have time for Pie and Murton to find their batting stroke. Stewart is hitting almost .300 right now and knows what it takes to make it to the MLB playoffs.
This is not a typical Cubs move because we aren't typically in the hunt. If we were 10 games under .500, 15 games back from first, then yes play the kids, but this is the final stretch and the kids aren't cutting it.
Don't ignore the Jones effect either. I think that could be a boost all around.
by IllinoisCubs on Aug 9, 2007 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Low Ceiling
But hey, if you want to see the Cubs continue to lose, lets wash, rinse and repeat the same path to failure that the Cubs have followed for decades.
by frustratedfan on Aug 9, 2007 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
just curious
what do you see in stewart that you dont see in murton?
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
similar power
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
Even this year, when Murton was struggling either due to being figured out or due to lack of playing time, he's 4 singles short of matching Stewart's production (relative to their respective AB).
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or if you take away
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure...
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More stats
Stewart with RISP: .315/.351/.435
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stewart has
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really...
Runs scored are a stat driven largely by spot in the batting order (and who hits behind you). Given that the two have very similar OBP and OPS, one would expect that if Murton hit #1 or #2 like Stewart, he'd score more runs too.
And there's no evidence that he's actually a better defensive player. He certainly has no better an arm.
And he has not put up significantly better numbers this year. He has a .759 OPS. If Murton got 4 more singles, he'd have a .763 OPS. That is not significantly different.
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if Murton
Stewart has 9 HR's in 393 AB's while Murton has 2 HR's in 139 AB's. As I said, Stewart has more power.
And as I said, Stewart is the better baserunner and scores more runs. I'm sure in a hypothetical universe where Murton has more hits and the sky is pink that's not true, but on this planet it is.
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're confusing...
You don't seem to realize (or acknowledge that you realize) my point that results can be highly variable. Hence saying "significantly better" is not accurate. He's had slightly better results, given 3 times the AB. But it's not significant.
But again, this comes back to the same tired debate that you don't think Murton is a good hitter and thus ignore his good past, and I think Murton is a good hitter and thus rationalize his early-season struggles.
From this point forward this season, based on past history, I don't think Stewart would outperform Murton given similar playing time.
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Murton
Walton had a great first year too.
by cubstoseriesby100 on Aug 9, 2007 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about the disparity
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its a valid point
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you going to keep being a dick?
And my point was that moving forward, based on past history, I think Murton will put up similar numbers to those of Stewart the rest of the way overall. Obviously that can't be proven with anything but time.
Since you see his struggles early this year as evidence of being figured out and I see it as evidence of not getting regular playing time, I don't think either side is going to convince the other of anything.
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I apologize for that last subject...
If you'd stuck with the "in the clutch" argument, you have a pretty defendable argument. Any other aspect of their offensive games is speculative at best, and can be argued against pretty reasonable.
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No problem
I don't believe I've said anything untrue. You seemed to quibble with the word "significant", which is a subjective term. But even you can't deny Stewart's numbers are better this season.
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you understand my stance...
Stewart has more power
Stewart is a better defender
Stewart has been significantly better this year
As for my stance, I've never said Stewart hasn't put up better numbers so far this year. I'm saying that they aren't significantly better. And thus, considering (1) the relative closeness of their overall offensive performance this year and (2) their results the past two seasons, I would expect Murton to put up similar (very possibly better) numbers than Stewart over the next two months.
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And to avoid cycling through our
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No problem
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand you perfectly
Just because you don't think Stewart's hitting home runs at a higher rate doesn't indicate Stewart has more power doesn't mean it's not true.
You've never really disputed my opinion that Stewart is the better defensive player. And that is subjective anyway, so I don't see how you can characterize it as untrue. You may disagree with it, but it doesn't make what I said untrue.
I further said Stewart had significantly better numbers than Murton. (I never actually said he was significantly better this year.) As I pointed out, you can quibble about the word "significantly", but you must admit Stewart's numbers are better. Again, nothing I said here is untrue.
You keep repeating your projections of Murton going forward, then you say the debate about these projections is tired. I agree. But you're the one who keeps bringing it up. You know I completely disagree with you about Murton magically turning into a good player so stop bringing it up.
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not true...
Hitting HR at a higher rate THIS YEAR does not mean more power. It just means he's happened to hit HR at a higher rate this year. Over a much larger sample, both players have exhibited similar power. That's why I said it isn't true that Stewart has more power. You can believe he has more power if you want, but it's at best speculative, and EASILY argued against. It's in no way a truth.
As for the significant thing, that is simply untrue. He has put up better numbers, but not significantly better numbers. Take away "significantly" and it's a true statement. Put it in, and it's just not true.
And you've never provided any evidence to support your claim that he's a better defensive player, therefore I've not debated it. Until you can provide support for this opinion, it's not a fact. You personally believe that Stewart is better defensively, but there's nothing factual to support that belief.
So yes, you in fact said things that were not true in each of these cases.
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never claimed anything
You seem to be changing the definition of the word "untrue". By your definition everything you're saying is untrue also since it can easily be argued against. But of course that's not a proper definition of the word. Please look it up.
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
definition of "untrue"
you said "Stewart has more power"
the facts are this,
HR/AB Stewart: 1/47
HR/AB Murton: 1/33
your statement is "not according to the facts" and therefore it is "untrue."
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But if you look at this season
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha, no it is not
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To the idiotmobile!!!
(I know that was a bit of an insult and I'm sorry but I couldn't resist.)
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
i think this convos over.
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, actually that's not correct...
For example, Pagan has as many HR and more extra base hits than Floyd in way fewer AB. Does that mean he has more power than Floyd? Remember that you scoffed at somebody who suggested this argument a week or so ago. But it's the same exact argument you're suggesting here.
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the above stats
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are they true?
Again, as I said in a previous post, I chose a poor word for what I meant. For that I apologize. But it doesn't change anything about what I'm saying.
You seemed to present those three statements as facts. They are not in any way factual. That's why I responded. You seemed to get contentious after that, with the whole "if the sky is pink" thing, which led to my unfortunate choice of words.
It all comes back to the fact that we look at the same stats differently. I don't think either viewpoint is unreasonable. We'll see who's right with time.
by SouthernCub on Aug 9, 2007 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Read above...
Read above... I dealt with the silly assertion that Stewart has/had better offensive numbers than Murton.
by big_lowitzki on Aug 9, 2007 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you just pointed out
And please stop with the name calling. I expect that from a lot of people around here, but I'm pretty surprised that you'd sink to that level.
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
tonites game
by BigZ 4 Cy on Aug 9, 2007 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One more thing
by cubsbak on Aug 9, 2007 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about
I love Matt don't get me wrong but this love affair with him has gone too far.
by cubstoseriesby100 on Aug 9, 2007 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its not a love affair
now cubsbak did bring up some good poitns about the risp, and you cant argue with that. but at the same time, is stewart going to hit in a position to drive in runs? i dont htink he is, as far as number 2 hitters go, i would say murton would be just as good hitting behind theriot as stewart would.
by kylejo on Aug 9, 2007 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ARGH!
by FrankSereno on Aug 9, 2007 1:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
murton
by NOMAR on Aug 9, 2007 6:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
get him
by Kinky Reggae on Aug 9, 2007 8:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I've got no problem with this deal...
by Damen Jackson on Aug 9, 2007 9:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Do we need more outfielders?
by Arbusto on Aug 9, 2007 9:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hendry likes to spread the wealth
Anyway, he needs to do something, and Stewart looks like the best thing you are going to get off the waivers. Who knows, maybe he catches fire and plays out of his ass.
by MPH73 on Aug 9, 2007 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hendry
by cubbyblue137 on Aug 9, 2007 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But then what to do with the other 80?
by Arbusto on Aug 9, 2007 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do what he always does
by cubbyblue137 on Aug 9, 2007 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stewart
Are the Cubs a better team with this addition? Yes. How much better remains to be seen.
by cubstoseriesby100 on Aug 9, 2007 12:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This has nothing to do with Murton
Is Stewart > Felix Pie today? Yes
Is Stewart > Ronny Cedeno today? Yes
Last time I looked, all three of these guys are on the 25-man roster. One will go back down when Ward comes back. That still leaves two guys for whom Shannon Stewart right now as a rental for the next two weeks is a better option.
Even if he's only going to be your 5th OF, if you can rent Stewart for a B/B- prospect, you do it.
If you're worried about backing up Jones in CF, keep Patterson up as he can stand at 2B about as well as Soriano could, and send Cedeno and Pie both back to Iowa until 8/31 (when you might bring them up early to be on the 25-man playoff roster as you will not need 12 pitchers in a 7-game series).
by Invalid User on Aug 10, 2007 1:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



















