What can we get for Murton?

by cubs0505 on Jan 31, 2008 9:44 PM CST

Obviously Matt Murton's time in Chicago is coming to an end. Multiple reports, most recently by SI.com's Jon Heyman, have the Padres and Rangers showing intrest in Murton. A Murton for Byrd swap has been bandied about, with variations on that trade. My question: What's his value? Who should the Cubs try to get in a Murton trade?

Personally, I'd hate to see Murton for Byrd. I think Sam Fuld/Daryle Ward can adequately do anything Byrd can do. What about packaging Murton in some way for Khalil Greene? It's been rumored that he wants out of San Diego.

Thoughts?

Poll

Who do you want the Cubs to get in a Murton trade?

Marlon Byrd

9 votes

Khalil Greene

80 votes

Other

18 votes

Mark Prior and Michael Barret

17 votes

124 votes | Poll has closed

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.

Tweet Comment 67 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Kaplan Tonight Said...

... that if the Cubs cannot get Byrd, then he will get someone that will be like Byrd. I am paraphrasing what my father told me about an hour ago.

That said, someone else will be coming on board - as mentioned before by Hendry, that someone will be right handed and can play all three OF positions. The issue with Murton is that he cannot play center, and right field is suspect. Seeing that there's only room for two outfield bench spots, and that Fuld is likely the 5th outfielder, there's no room for Murton.

I'll pass on talking about Greene.

This is the Cubs new #1!

by initram on Jan 31, 2008 9:54 PM CST reply actions

"he"...

...in the first sentence was a reference to Hendry, not Kaplan!

This is the Cubs new #1!

by initram on Jan 31, 2008 9:55 PM CST up reply actions

I still don't understand the Greene talk

Why would San Diego trade their starting shortstop less than a month before spring training with no backup? It's a lot easier to fill left field. They could sign Luis Gonzalez for a year instead of creating a huge SS hole.

by rlpete on Jan 31, 2008 10:00 PM CST reply actions

That would violate his contract with the Marlins.

n/t

I has a blog.

by cwyers on Jan 31, 2008 10:01 PM CST up reply actions

Damn

I can't keep up with every signing. I did see Wilkerson also signed today with Seattle.

by rlpete on Jan 31, 2008 10:09 PM CST up reply actions

Because he wants a bigger contract.

He is up in two years. He also wants to be closer to the east coast where he can be closer to his family because he is having family problems.

I would love the Cubs to get him. I think his numbers would go up, especially his power numbers because he is not in the gigantic ball park anymore. Also that is a very powerful lineup if you think about it your number 7 hitter giving you about 30 HR and 100 RBI... yes plaease. (he had 27 and 97 last year)

If we were to get Roberts and then swing to SD to get Greene we would possibly have the best infield in the NL, I would say at worst right behind Philly.

In my eyes thats the play we need to make if we get both of those we have all our field players through atleast next year and I'm sure the cubs could give him the money he would want to stay longer. You can afford not to have O up the middle as long as you have D. Roberts, Greene and Pie are about as good as it gets for D up the middle.

by dus22 on Feb 1, 2008 7:57 AM CST up reply actions

But what does SD want?

They still view themselves as contenders. Trading their starting SS in January with no backup doesn't look like a contender move.

Greene may want to head east but he is still under contract.

by rlpete on Feb 1, 2008 9:11 AM CST up reply actions

Agreed

San Diego doesn't appear to have any motivation at this point to move one of their better offensive players. They need to add, not take away from offense. Murton would be a descent addition for them but not at the cost of what little they have already established. It's possible they might move Greene but there would have to be a ready made replacement in the deal and/or equal to better offense going back to them. A Murton/Cedano type package doesn't get that done.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Feb 1, 2008 9:43 AM CST up reply actions

I also agree...

Do you think sending Theriot over also would do it though? I mean I really like Theriot but Greene played over 150 games last year. We still have Cedeno and Fontenot could back up at 2nd. Even with that though there is DeRo and a possible Roberts.

I really see no need for him. Greene and Theriot are the same age (Theriot is 2 months older) and Greene is a MUCH better shortstop. So really it would be like were losing Murton (which will happen anyway) and getting a better starter in Greene over Theriot. Right?

I also feel Theriot's trade value won't get much higher I mean everyone around the league loved him last year until his late season collapse. Maybe its just be but I think it would be a smart move.

I would still rather get Greene instead of Roberts and then just put Dome at 2. With that we could throw them Marshall possibly and keep all our other high end prospects. Marshall could be their 5 seeing at Prior probably won't be ready.

by dus22 on Feb 1, 2008 10:02 AM CST up reply actions

By himself

I just don't see Murton bringing much. He is a below average fielder, below average running the bases to go along with being a decent hitter. IMO, Murton is a right handed version of Todd Walker.

The other factor is this; the fact that he has never broke the everyday lineup for the Cubs does not help his perceived value. Besides other teams scouting him, they also take notice that the Cubs don't fell he is a good enouph player to toss out there everyday.

If he goes, it will be packaged together with a couple of other guys, not by himself.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Jan 31, 2008 10:14 PM CST reply actions

Hit it on the head

I'm pretty sure that MLB GM's don't value Murton like Cubbie fans do, as Murton for Byrd straight up was turned down, will attest.

Murton in a package with say, Sean Marshall on the other hand, might bring back something decent.But by decent, I don't mean a starting SS.

Then the question becomes, if what the Cubs would most likely get in return for those 2 in a package isn't up to your standards, why trade them?

FWIW, I would've been fine with a Murton for Byrd deal straight up, but Murton + prospect is insane. If Roberts is a Cub in a couple weeks, Murton becomes expendable as Derosa could give Fuku days off. But the Cubs most glaring hole on this roster as of right now, is no RH CF.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. ` Adam Savage Mythbusters

by lemon20pie on Jan 31, 2008 11:14 PM CST up reply actions

murton's value

you can cite the rangers GM's perspective and say that Murton's value is low because he reportedly won't be interested in trading Byrd straight up for him

you could say Kevin Towers (one of the best GMs in the game) wanting to acquire Murton shows that his value is high

the truth is his value is a shell of what it should be because the Cubs have gone out of there way to lower his value by making it known they're willing to move him and by constantly bringing in platoon mates for him or relegating him to a bench role

The one season Murton was allowed to play he posted an OPS+ of 104, nothing ground breaking but shows he's a viable everday OF candidate.

To say that MLB GM's value him less than Cubs fans is taking ONE example and extrapolating it

Plus the statement tends to try to exaggerate what most Murton-supporters actually think of him. This has been bantered about long enough around this site but the majority of Murton supporters don't think he's going to be an all star caliber player, they think he's going to be a solid above replacement level corner OF

a player like that who is cost controlled for 3 more years does have some value and i'd say his value is probably on par with Sean Marshall's

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 1, 2008 7:43 AM CST up reply actions

The Pads are looking at him

for one important reason; he is cheap for a couple more years because the Pads have a tight budget.

What you don't know is what the Pads would be willing to give up for just him, and I would guess it ain't much.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 10:06 AM CST up reply actions

Normally

a guy like murton may not have too much value.....but take a look at the market for outfielders right now? The brewers signed GAB KAPLER out of retirement because the market is so bare. Teams that still need an outfielder maybe have to overpay this year to get an average guy like murton.

by cubsmania on Feb 1, 2008 10:09 AM CST up reply actions

that's one of many reasons

they're looking at him

because they have a tight budget and because he's pretty good AND most importantly because the team that has him doesn't value him very highly

this presents a tremendous buying opportunity for other teams

which is why we're getting low-ball offers. Everyone knows the Cubs have no place for Murton and have no interest in making a place for him

if you want to argue that his trade value is low because the Cubs in general have destroyed it i'll agree

but if you're arguing that his trade value is low because he's not a good baseball player, i think you're mistaken (which is why i wrote the post above)

Kevin Towers is among the best GMs in all of baseball and if he's interested in acquiring Matt Murton publicly there's a couple good reasons behind it

one is that he fits into their budget as a perfect cost effective/average corner OF

if he was cost effective but terrible, Towers wouldn't want him

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 1, 2008 10:11 AM CST up reply actions

Trading a player

is like selling your house. Worth is not driven by what you think you should get, it's driven by what someone is willing to pay.

IMO, over an entire season, Murton would give the Pads; .280-.290, 10-12 homers, below average defense, and below average baserunning (you saw how many times he got picked off).

I would wager, scouting reports on Murton would look a tad different than how many Cub fans evaluate him on this board - as a 20+ homer guy. He is a gap type hitter who is vulnerable to hard stuff on the middle of the plate in (which Murton has yet to show he can adjust to).

Again, I see him as a RH version of Todd Walker.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 10:25 AM CST up reply actions

Lies

Okay, how many times did Murton get picked off last year? Tell us. Getting picked off is treated as a "caught stealing". And last year he was "caught stealing" a whole whopping zero times. Sort of like the other lie that you love to pass on that he has a large number of GIDP (he had four last year...)

We all know that you hate Murton. Great. And certainly there are problems that can be pointed out, but quit lying.

by frustratedfan on Feb 1, 2008 11:30 AM CST up reply actions

I don't hate Murton at all

in fact, I think he is one of the more likeable guys on the team.

I did err in saying getting picked off. What I meant was getting doubled off in circumstances an alert baserunner should have been able to recognize. I can't tell you the specific games, but I recall Lou getting a little purturbed at Murton and a couple other guys for poor fielding and baserunning.

I'm just trying to be objective, which I tend to think many folks aren't in regards to how other teams view him.

Bottom line; if other teams viewed Murton as highly as many on this board, someone would have taken him off the Cubs hands by now. People were all over Baker for not playing him more, but last year you had another manager who also felt Murton was not good enouph to play everyday.

Overall, I just don't think the majority of people are objective in regards to the value of Murton and Cub prospects. In the end, the other clubs actions will tell you what the perceived value is, so let's wait and see.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 11:56 AM CST up reply actions

No

You got caught in another of your lies. We all know you have strong views about players. But you "do an OJ" on them and make your ultimate argument weaker by mis-stating the evidence - even in those cases where you really don't need the extra evidence.

by frustratedfan on Feb 1, 2008 2:51 PM CST up reply actions

I do have strong opinions

about players, especially the ones I have seen quite a bit. You are certainly free to disagree whenever you please.

To say I lie to further my case is a bit of a stretch. I simply confused Murton getting picked off with being doubled off. I don't think that's a major sin, but you may.

Our memories may differ, but I recall Piniella being frustrated with both Murton's defense and baserunning during 07. Besides Piniella's displeasure, my eyes told me the same thing. If Murton was as good a player as many profess, why wouldn't Piniella be willing to play him more often? You can't use he only likes veterans as an excuse, because he trotted out Theriot, Marmol, Pie and Fontenot during 07, and only yanked them when they were not getting the job done. Piniella is all about giving his team the best chance to win, and he picks the players that give him just that.

Regarding statistics; they can be helpful, but they don't tell you everything or even close to it. There are numerous important interactions that happen on a basebal field, that simply elude detection through statistics. I know there are some that feel otherwise, but I don't subscribe to that theory.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 6:40 PM CST up reply actions

Pineilla played Kendall

over Soto for an extended period of time

Soto is clearly the better player and clearly gave us the better chance to win

Pineilla isn't an almighty power, he makes mistakes at times... and maybe one of them is the refusal to play Matt Murton more than he did.

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 2, 2008 9:50 AM CST up reply actions

You could be right

but I can understand not throwing a rookie catcher in too quickly during a pennant race. Regarding Murton, I just don't think Piniella liked his total game and that is why he didn't play him more.

When Murton gets the chance to play with another team, I'll guess we'll get to see what he can do on an everyday basis.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 2, 2008 9:58 AM CST up reply actions

Kendall

There are a lot of players who are clearly better in general, but not the right players to play at a particular time. I don't think anyone with the Cubs doubted that Soto was generally better than Kendall. Yet, in the month of August, Kendall hit .349/.438/.482. Why in the world should Lou have sat that to start a rookie whose batting average in the majors to that point was under .200? Lou let Soto prove he should play and as he proved it, Soto did play. I don't believe Lou is infallible, but who sits a catcher with an OPS over .900, like Kendall had?

Dunn, Duncan, Lee, Bay, and now Braun... I hope the Cubs are practicing hitting to LF!

by DGU on Feb 2, 2008 11:21 AM CST up reply actions

and...

what about the .227/.271/.273 July that Kendall got 10 starts during

or the entire 1st half of the season which should've made it clear we shouldn't have even traded him...

or the september .183/.279/.233 in which he got SEVENTEEN STARTS

was Kendall hot in August, yes.. but there was an overwhelming amount of evidence (pretty much the entire rest of the year) that showed Kendall wasn't very good

Kendall's August was fueled largely by a .373 BABIP... which basically is saying he was about as lucky as he's ever been in a month

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 2, 2008 9:49 PM CST up reply actions

I'm not saying that his August is predictive;

I'm saying that Kendall's August was nice to have in the moment.

If I recall correctly, Kendall came over in mid-July and for those first two weeks, Lou "played whomever was hot" which was nobody, so he kept going back and forth between Kendall and Hill.

And yes, it took Lou some time to decide Kendall was cold and Soto was hot - but a manager shouldn't be making decisions on trends that are only 7 days old anyway.

We may just plain disagree on this, and that's fine, but the silver lining is that the Cubs didn't think twice about Soto over Kendall for '08 and we even got a draft pick for Kendall from the less enlightened Brewers.

Dunn, Duncan, Lee, Bay, and now Braun... I hope the Cubs are practicing hitting to LF!

by DGU on Feb 3, 2008 6:16 AM CST up reply actions

that just makes no sense

that murton would only have 10-12 homers in an entire season of playing. thats like saying aramis ramirez should have 17 homers in a full season of play.

140 ab, 7 hr (20/hr)
455 ab, 13 hr (35/ab)
235 ab, 8 hr (29.375)

lets say the 29 is the likely ab/hr if he gets a full season and 585 at bats that gives him 20 homers. how you can project half of that makes no sense.

Bill James Felix Pie 2008 Projection: .283/.333/.456 16 HR 21 SB

by kylejo on Feb 1, 2008 12:12 PM CST up reply actions

Those AB's are in Wrigley

and I was was projecting for Petco.

Look at Murton's HR ratio in Wrigley. He would have ended up around 18 or so if he got 550 AB's. Of course, you have to assume that he would be able to maintain the same ratio with greater exposure to advanced scouts (which many players don't).

Playing in Petco, I think it is fair to say a 18 homer per year guy (in Wrigley) becomes about a 12 homer hitter because of the vast differences in homerun conditions. I also think his poor routes in the outfield would be exposed even further in a larger outfield.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 12:21 PM CST up reply actions

Also

I don't know that I completely agree with you but along with the differences between Wrigley and Petco you have to factor in that he'd be playing more games at Dodger Stadium and the Phone Co. stadium in San Francisco, which aren't exactly friendly to right handers. Without looking I'd say both of those parks, as well as Petco are tougher on right handers than any in the Central. Of course he'd have more games at Coors field, which isn't as friendly as it used to be, but he'd also have fewer at Minutemaid in Houston. In all Murton probably wouldn't have nearly the same power in San Diego that he has in Chicago. Or, to be more precise, he would still have the same power but not the same results. Fewer home runs.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Feb 1, 2008 7:05 PM CST up reply actions

I understand

but I think the important thing to consider is this;

Despite putting up pretty good offensive numbers, he has yet to become an everyday player and is not even on the radar (at least the Cubs) to be one in 08. Also, despite being cheap and having decent offensive numbers, it doesn't appear other teams are knocking the Cubs door down to trade for him. I don't think the Cubs would ask for the world, because he clearly is not part of their plan for 08.

All in all, that tells me major league talent evaluators (including the Cubs) dont' feel his total skill set (hitting, fielding, baserunning) is very compelling.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 7:18 PM CST up reply actions

Murton

has been "caught stealing" 3 times in 3 years....

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 1, 2008 12:32 PM CST up reply actions

Murton's defense

http://www.fieldingbible.com/

check out who comes in at #5 in all of baseball for LF's

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 1, 2008 2:16 PM CST up reply actions

Excellent example

of why stats can't measure everything (important)that happens on a baseball field (accurately).

Sometimes it's good to rely on your eyes for judgment.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 2:54 PM CST up reply actions

sure...

i guess the stats werent able to measure all those times he was picked off either

i'm pretty sure your eyes got that one correct too

by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 1, 2008 3:11 PM CST up reply actions

I don't know

but is there one that shows who was doubled off because they misjudged at batted ball?

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 4:50 PM CST up reply actions

There is...

...but you have to work at it. I did pretty much the same thing in reverse when I wanted to see how good Soriano's arm was for the article I wrote for Al's book.

If I get bored I may look it up tomorrow when I'm at home, but I don't anticipate being bored.

I has a blog.

by cwyers on Feb 1, 2008 4:52 PM CST up reply actions

Defending Murtons Defense is where I draw the line

I don't care what numbers you can come up with, if you think Murton is a good defender, you don't watch him play Defense. It's that simple. He's not absolutely terrible like Dunn, but he's another player that has that deer in the headlights look, on a lot of plays that good Defenders make with their instincts as opposed to Murton, when in a lot of situations you can see the doubt creep in and he'll caught in between many plays. I have no idea if that shows up in your numbers, but he lacks the instincts of a good Defender and the confidence of a good defender.

That you can see with your own eyes.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. ` Adam Savage Mythbusters

by lemon20pie on Feb 1, 2008 7:11 PM CST up reply actions

I don't quite see it that way

but I know what you're talking about. To me he plays conservatively, like he's trying not to mess up rather than trying to make a play naturally. I think if he had more playing time and had a chance to get more of a swagger that would go away, if he didn't have to worry about whether he was going to have a job he could relax and play. He's got the skills but he needs to be in a situation where he can utilize them without doubting and worrying about it. It happens to me when I play softball in a league sometimes, when you get in a game things are different, but once you get comfortable it just naturally flows better. That's how I see Murton.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Feb 1, 2008 7:19 PM CST up reply actions

I don't know

playing the outfield (especially left) is one of the easier positions on a baseball field. I do agree with the other poster, that Murton has very poor instincts (doesn't read the ball off the bat well) and he should have that down by now.

I know at least one poster thinks I have it out for the guy, but he is one of the more likeable guys on the team. Being likeable and having certain skills are two different things.

Besides the above, I just don't see Murton as a quick thinker who has good instincts (same thing with Cedeno). Unfortuanately, that is something that is difficult, if not impossible to teach.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 7:28 PM CST up reply actions

Can't agree with you there page

Especially the part that it's due to not enough playing time.

That just sounds like a big excuse to me. The guy is a MLB ballplayer who plays a corner OF. I'm 34 and still play baseball in organized leagues, and we play once a week. I play shortstop, a position that, I think is a much harder position to play than Left or Right field and it doesn't take more than 20 minutes of infield practice for me to get comftorable there.

Sure, I don't do it in front of 30,000 drunken fans but It's still baseball when stripped down.Nor do I practice everyday. He might not play the position everyday, but he certainly is shagging fly balls everyday, so I'm not buying that excuse.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. ` Adam Savage Mythbusters

by lemon20pie on Feb 1, 2008 7:40 PM CST up reply actions

Just want to go ahead and say here...

...that if your beer league team was to go ahead and face off against any of the teams in the Sally League you would probably get utterly destroyed, and you would die a poor man if you tried selling razors and shaving cream to the players in the Sally League.

You want us statheads to get our heads out of our spreadsheets? Fine. Stop thinking that pro baseball is like your beer league. Let's meet halfway here.

I has a blog.

by cwyers on Feb 1, 2008 7:55 PM CST up reply actions

We have a winner

I know some dolt would overreact and miss my point and spew nonsense about me comparing my "beer league" to playing ball in the Majors.ANd you CW, are the winner.

My comment was in regards to the lame excuse that Matt Murton isn't a good defender because he "doesn't play everyday". My point was, I'm a 34 year old man who plays once a week and it doesn't take long for me to shake off the rust. Hence, I see no reason why a MLB player in his prime who plays a corner OF spot and who practices every single day, can't field his position adequately enough, because he "doesn't play everyday".

Now if you want to make the excuse that Murton could be a better hitter if he faced live pitching everyday, that's one thing. That's a completely different argument and one I would tend to agree with. But don't pull out that excuse card about not playing everyday and correlate it with playing defense and shagging balls.

If you weren't so bent on jumping on my jock, you would've understood that.

You stick to backing up your opinions with numbers CW and I'll stick to my opinions of actually having played the game.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. ` Adam Savage Mythbusters

by lemon20pie on Feb 2, 2008 12:41 AM CST up reply actions

By shaking off the rust

I mean defensively, hence the context I put it in.

In regards to hitting and only playing once a week and not having enough time to hit the cages as much, you never shake off the rust, even if it is only facing fastballs that peak at 85.

Don't take things out of context CW. Not with me anyway.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. ` Adam Savage Mythbusters

by lemon20pie on Feb 2, 2008 12:44 AM CST up reply actions

Please do

I'd be interested to see how Murton comes out. I believe that he's probably underrated as far as defense and baserunning goes but in this case I'm willing to change my opinion if the numbers say otherwise. At the least I would expect him to be adequate in both regards but I don't have any doubt that my perception of him has colored that opinion, just like everyone else is doing.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Feb 1, 2008 7:13 PM CST up reply actions

I imagine why Murtons value isn't

as high with GM's, is his lack of Power. In over 930 ab's, he's only got 28 HR's. Not terrible, unless you put it in perspective: He's a corner OF who plays the majority of his games at Wrigley Field. In that context, not that attractive to many GM's, then you add in his at best average Defense.

He'd be a perfect fit actually for the Padres, where power isn't as valued, because Petco is where a lot of power dies. I can see why the Padres probably value him more than most teams.

and Dartmouth..How do you know that the Cubs don't "value" him? Maybe they value him too much in that they're asking for too much in return. How do we not know that to be the case?

If your opinion of whether or not the Cubs value him because they haven't handed him the job, then that's fine by me. I'd rather have Soriano and Fukudome any day. Murton is a very good 4th OF. That's more than likely what he'd be in SD too.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. ` Adam Savage Mythbusters

by lemon20pie on Feb 1, 2008 7:24 PM CST up reply actions

I think your right

on the power angle. Who knows how much the Cubs truely value him, but it may not be high considering Piniella didn't give him more playing time.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Feb 1, 2008 7:31 PM CST up reply actions

Murton

I guess I've been watching a different Matt Murton than some of you. I don't see all this future wondrous run production value. Coupled with his lack of versatility and maybe it isn't surprising that Hendry has yet to find any takers. I don't get San Diego's interest in Murton. Especially in that cavernous ballpark where I think he will struggle offensively and defensively.

by MDBNIU on Feb 1, 2008 10:03 PM CST up reply actions

Murtons line

We've already seen Murton play practically a full season as a regular in 2006, and his numbers, as I posted in the Byrd/Murton diary were severely hurt by his June numbers. Every other month was very consistent and had June met his avg performance of the other months, he would have had a .900+OPS. His career HR rate would put him at 17 HR in 500 AB so he's shown a little more power than what you listed and just listing BA plus HR doesn't tell a lot about a player. He has a good OBA and Ok SLG for an .820 OPS but he's been all over the place in his 3 seasons so I'd expect, but of course can't guarantee, that 2006 would be his most likely level of play. That's a good offensive line, but not great. I personally got frustrated with their play of him when we had very few OBA guys and he was sitting, but last year we did better in that area, although I would rather have given him more AB and less to Floyd. There are some pretty strong offensive players in his comparables, Kirk Gibson stands out, as does Jason Giambi but that comparison will end later as it's based on Giambi's career at 3 years. I know he doesn't fit with the Cubs ultimate desire for a flexible OF, but at only 26, I'd rather keep him than trade him for a 23/24 roster spot player and watch hum develop elsewhere.

by jtiet on Feb 1, 2008 7:49 PM CST up reply actions

It would be a mistake I think

To trade murton. What if Soriano's hammy acts up again? Or his quad? I don't want to toss Fuld or Ward out there everyday. That won't work. Murton has his faults, and he's overvalued by Cub nation. That being said, he is undervalued by the Cubs. Throw out his BA. He gets on a pace at a very reasonable clip, and has good power the opposite way. He's only adequately defensively, but if he were filling in that's fine. He's a perfect #2 hitter, and good 4th outfield option.

Also the names rumored to be coming in return for him are just crap. Yes, byrd is right handed and can play all 3 OF positions. That's all he can do. He can't hit, and he doesn't get on base. Neither does Greene, though he can at least pick it. But so can Cedeno. Again, Hendry refuses to weigh OBP heavily.

by SamFels on Jan 31, 2008 10:42 PM CST reply actions

edit

That's on base, not on pace. I don't want to comment on how he might get on the bus in the suburbs.

by SamFels on Jan 31, 2008 10:43 PM CST up reply actions

To be honest...

... if Soriano goes down, Daryle Ward is the perfect guy to put in LF.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 31, 2008 10:55 PM CST up reply actions

Seriously?

On an everyday basis? I can see Ward in the outfield on an occasional basis, but not replacing an injured player for, say, two or three weeks straight.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Feb 1, 2008 6:47 AM CST up reply actions

Depends...

... on where the Cubs are playing. But playing LF in Wrigley and most other ballparks, Ward is fine. We've seen worse out of starters. I'd be fine having Ward start and bringing someone like Fuld in late in games... but maybe thats just me.

DmL

by dmlichte on Feb 1, 2008 9:25 AM CST up reply actions

at worst

if we traded murton and didn't get a replacement, which i think is highly unlikely, the worst situation if soriano went down would be fontenot would play second and derosa would move to left.

by cubsmania on Feb 1, 2008 10:07 AM CST up reply actions

...am I the only person who thinks that's bad?

And that is NOT the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is something like "Sam Fuld, left fielder!"

I has a blog.

by cwyers on Feb 1, 2008 10:12 AM CST up reply actions

murton

I think that is the worst case, because if murton goes...ive got to think that hendry has his eyes on an outfielder somewhere to come in and be the 4th outfielder...someone who can play all spots. I don't believe that fuld will be the 4th outfielder.

by cubsmania on Feb 1, 2008 1:23 PM CST up reply actions

Article in USA Today on Cubs

Not sure if it was posted here or not, if it was I didn't see it, but Here's a nice article about the Cubs.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. ` Adam Savage Mythbusters

by lemon20pie on Jan 31, 2008 11:21 PM CST reply actions

If Murton has to go

I'd trade him for the best pitching prospect you can get for him, then turn around and include that prospect in a deal for Erik Bedard, or some other highly qualified starting pitcher. It's pretty obvious that the Orioles don't want Murton, so the idea would be to turn Murton into something that the O's do want.

I'm sorry for mentioning Mr. Bedard, I wouldn't have except that I couldn't think of any other really good pitcher that's available.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Feb 1, 2008 8:50 AM CST reply actions

Last year's PECOTA...

had the following values projected for Murton:

2008 $9.75M
2009 $9.73M
2010 $9.40M
2011 $8.95M

He will be a free agent after 2011. Murton had a worse 2007 than PECOTA expected, so I anticipate those values will be lower when this year's PECOTA is released. Also, he's clearly not worth that type of money unless he's getting close to 500 PA. Still, Murton has definite value to a budget-conscious GM as decent starting LF or a solid 4th OF.

A straight-up trade for Marlon Byrd would be a bad move by the Cubs - Byrd hasn't shown the ability to play a league-average CF any more than Murton has, and he's certainly not as good of a hitter as Murton.

Matt is entering his age-26 season, so he should just now be coming into his prime. He's already got an .810 career OPS, and I think he can do better than that over the next 3-4 seasons. I really hope the Cubs hold onto him as a 4th OF and start him in RF against LHP (maybe move Fukudome to CF on those days?).

by mportsch on Feb 1, 2008 10:28 AM CST reply actions

Screwed up my math...

Murton actually has an .820 career OPS.

by mportsch on Feb 1, 2008 10:29 AM CST up reply actions

Real quick here.

The Marcels forecast has Murton as a solidly above-average hitter, so 2.5 Wins above replacement there. Minus half a win because he's a left fielder, and call him even on defense (most zone metrics love Murton's defense in left, most fans hate it, so even strikes me as workable here, even though I'm still apt to get flamed for it.) So Murton is +2 WAR or 0 WAA, an average baseball player.

Tango Tiger has a salary chart here. Looking at the chart, Murton is worth $24.3 over the next four seasons. He's shy of two years service time, so you get five more years of club control and one more season after this before he starts arbitration.

He's worth about $9 million in salary for next season, and you can pay him $390,000. That's why the Padres would want Matt Murton.

I has a blog.

by cwyers on Feb 1, 2008 11:17 AM CST up reply actions

Byrd

What's irritating to me about Byrd, is that I don't see what he offers over Nook Logan who can just be signed without trading anyone. But if the Cubs were interested in Logan, they would have signed him by now, so if it's not Byrd, then who? Maybe, maybe the Cubs could find a way to get Melky Cabrera now that he's not going to the Twins.

Dunn, Duncan, Lee, Bay, and now Braun... I hope the Cubs are practicing hitting to LF!

by DGU on Feb 1, 2008 12:03 PM CST up reply actions

Quentin for Carter is your comp

The D'backs had a player like Matt Murton who they had blocked from starting in Carlos Quentin. Quentin has a higher ceiling, but also has injury concerns and has yet to show anything in the majors. I think they two are very comparable as RH corner OFs who get on base but don't hit a ton of HRs.

They got Chris Carter from the White Sox, a guy who is somewhere between the 90th and 125th best prospect in baseball.

But - the White Sox have two 1B under contract for a while and were willing to sell prospects. So, a comparable prospect to Carter would be Kyle Blanks, a rh-slugging 1B, not as good as Carter. But the Cubs may not want a 1B prospect and the Padres may not want to give him up.

I think a Greene trade is conceivable, but the Padres will have to have soured on Greene's low OBP and also like Cedeno for that to work, and even then, it would be Murton+Cedeno+Something.

One important question - is there anyone besides the Padres who might want Murton? That's something I'd have to look into.

One other thing - don't forget Murton can go back to Iowa thus year.

Dunn, Duncan, Lee, Bay, and now Braun... I hope the Cubs are practicing hitting to LF!

by DGU on Feb 1, 2008 10:47 AM CST reply actions

At one time

Quentin was a very highly rated prospect. However as you mentioned his star had dulled by the time the Sox deal was made. I liked the Sox deal for him as the ceiling is still pretty high. To your point, the comp isn't bad and probably shows something comparable that Murton might get on his own.

by rlpete on Feb 1, 2008 11:03 AM CST up reply actions

yeah

Quentin was a top 30 prospect, if I recall, correctly, but even then I don't think people thought his slugging was likely to get higher than some projection systems have thought Murton might get. If I was a losing team, I'd want Quentin, but if I was a contending team, I might prefer the relative certainty that Matt Murton brings.

Dunn, Duncan, Lee, Bay, and now Braun... I hope the Cubs are practicing hitting to LF!

by DGU on Feb 1, 2008 12:06 PM CST up reply actions

Murton

Matt Murton lacks versatility and no longer has a role on the Cubs. He's limited to left field and struggled doing pinch hitting chores in 2007. The need in the outfield is for somebody who bats from the right-side and is versatile enough to play center field in tandem with lefties Felix Pie and Sam Fuld. Marlon Byrd fits the bill. Others? I don't know.

by MDBNIU on Feb 1, 2008 2:27 PM CST reply actions

Byrd/Murton

Ok. some hyperbole here, forgive me, but while Byrd may play CF, compared to Murton offensively, all Bryd does is stand on the right side of home plate during AB's while Murton does actually hit. Discounting his 35 AB 1st year, Byrd has had 5 seasons and 3 of them were way below what Murton did in 2007, his worst year. In fact, Byrd's best year, last year, was just at Murton's career OPS, and was probably helped by Texas stadium. What will he do in Wrigley?
The Cubs may not want Murton, but I can't see that Byrd does anything positive for the offense. Having a guy you're going to give AB to just because he can play CF but hurts the offense doesn't seem like a step foward to me.

Say No to Byrd.

by jtiet on Feb 1, 2008 8:07 PM CST up reply actions

murton

we wont get much for murton at all.he,s a good player just not very versatile.anyone needing a leftfielder would be smart to grab him.he,ll put up decent numbers

by NOMAR on Feb 2, 2008 6:14 AM CST reply actions