A Clue To The Hill PTBNL?

by Al Yellon on Feb 2, 2009 8:21 PM CST in Chicago Cubs News

In the article on the Orioles website on the Rich Hill trade, the following is buried far down the page:

photo via cache.daylife.com

Baltimore designated Brian Burres for assignment to make room for Hill on the 40-man roster, and the Orioles are still pursuing free agent Braden Looper to possibly fill one of the remaining rotation slots. It is believed that Looper wants a three-year contract and the Orioles are only offering a two-year deal, but MacPhail declined to discuss specifics.

Could Burres be the PTBNL? It's odd to DFA someone at this time of year, isn't it? Burres is a 27-year-old with middling talent who had a pretty bad year in 2008.

But there's one thing that might make him appealing to the Cubs. He's lefthanded.

I have no information on this and I'm just speculating here. Discuss.

Tweet Comment 42 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Eh, why not?

But I was just thinking, People were willing to give up Marshall last offseason because they thought Hill had a better ceiling. In hindsight, I’m glad we didn’t give Marshall up for Roberts!

Erm, well if we are going to call Milton Bradley nicknames, mine is Fischer Price: yes, you heard it here first..

by Chanman25 on Feb 2, 2009 8:24 PM CST reply actions

That doesnt really make any sense

if anything the fact that he was DFA’d should make it much less likely that he is the PTBNL.

by reprisal on Feb 2, 2009 8:29 PM CST reply actions

not to mention

DFAing a terrible pitcher to make space for someone you traded for makes sense.

by reprisal on Feb 2, 2009 8:39 PM CST up reply actions

But why would you DFA him in February?

Wouldn’t you just release him?

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

by Al Yellon on Feb 3, 2009 3:43 AM CST up reply actions

gambling to hide him on a minor league contract or forcing someone to bite

as a team higher up on the waiver wire to give up something.

Either way, it appears that the one who will be named will not be until Hill either makes the squad or does not.

Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."

by Ivy Walls on Feb 3, 2009 9:41 AM CST up reply actions

kinda early

to receive the PTBNL, aint it? If he is, should have been done straight up.

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 2, 2009 8:36 PM CST reply actions

That would be odd

not saying its not going to happen, but why trade one bad lefty pitcher for another?

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Feb 2, 2009 8:39 PM CST reply actions

Brian Burres, the proverbial PTBNL or better known as a used infield rake

Whoever we get for Rich Hill isn’t going to be somebody to write home about. Nothing more than Triple A roster filler. Same as what we netted for Michael Wuertz from Oakland today.

by BLou on Feb 2, 2009 8:48 PM CST reply actions

The Cubs have stacked the upper levels with lefties this offseason, enough that I’ll be surprised if they go after Burres. I imagine the PTBNL decision won’t be made until after ST at earliest, to see if Rich made the Orioles, and if so, in what role. It very well could be a PTBNL based on performance, meaning that it might not net a return until much later, although my guess is that it’ll likely be based on if he makes the roster out of spring.

by toonsterwu on Feb 2, 2009 9:14 PM CST reply actions

Odds of Rich Hill making the Orioles out of spring training are long

By the accounts I have seen Rich Hill continued to struggle mightily over the winter. It would seem to me he is starting at near ground zero in terms of rebuilding a pitching career. He’s not all of a sudden going to rediscover things during six weeks of spring training. I would think he will either start the season at Triple A or on some sort of extended rehabilitation stint.

I hope Rich Hill eventually makes it back. But the odds are not good.

by BLou on Feb 2, 2009 9:18 PM CST up reply actions

I think the odds are better than you think

The Orioles can afford to stash Hill as a long man if they need to. Short of it is, it doesn’t hurt them, in a rebuilding year, to stash Hill. It’s not a guarantee, but they’ll lose Rich Hill if they try to pass him through waivers, as some team is bound to claim him. This isn’t to say I think Rich Hill will rebound, but rather, the dynamics are good for him to make it out of spring in Baltimore, with the former Cubs leadership, with a team in a rebuilding mode and in a need for arms to prevent rushing up their top young studs. Add in that Kranitz and Dunn will likely let him go back to his old mechanics to let him feel comfortable for a bit.

by toonsterwu on Feb 2, 2009 9:28 PM CST up reply actions

Respectfully disagree

Rich Hill will clear waivers if by the conclusion of spring training the Orioles don’t take him north on their 25 man roster. I also disagree with the view that Baltimore has the luxury of stashing a 29 year old one-pitch reclamation project in their bullpen. Keep in mind also that Hill has been developed specifically as a starting pitcher. You don’t overnight transform from a starting pitcher into a relief pitcher at the big league level. Especially when you have fundamental problem getting the ball over the plate combined with apparent mental issues.

by BLou on Feb 2, 2009 9:40 PM CST up reply actions

I respectfully disagree...

I really don’t think you quite appreciate how bad the Orioles staff is. They can use him as the long man out there, and not lose a lick of sleep.

by Damen Jackson on Feb 3, 2009 12:50 AM CST up reply actions

I hope....

Kranitz can help Hill regain his 2007 form something Rothchild failed to do.

If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.

by Clutche on Feb 2, 2009 10:45 PM CST up reply actions

I'd have to disagree...

The odds of him breaking camp with the Orioles are excellent. Not only is he still out of options. but the Orioles starting staff consists of Jeremy Guthrie, and some guys named Who, The Hell, and Knows. Worst case, they use him in long relief till they figure out whether Liz and Albers will totally stink.

by Damen Jackson on Feb 3, 2009 12:47 AM CST up reply actions

Wait - wasn't it "Cares" in the 4th slot? ;-)

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 3, 2009 1:29 AM CST up reply actions

PTBNL

I was under the impression that the PTBNL was to be based on how Hill does. If he makes the club the Cubs get someone better than if he doesn’t. Burris, now that he’s been DFA’d, has to be moved or released within 10 days. There would be no reason at all to DFA Burris if he was going to be the PTBNL… the Orioles would have traded Burris to the Cubs straight up unless the Cubs just needed an extra roster spot for nine days. I suppose the O’s could announce Burris as the PTBNL in 9 days after the Cubs have, in theory, filled spot #40 on their roster, then made another move to clear a spot for Burris.

This seems very unlikely. And its not at all odd to DFA someone at this time of year. When you make a move to add a player, if your roster is already full, someone has to be moved. The DFA transaction just gives them 10 days to see if anyone thinks that he’s worth a sack of rolled oats.

by dmlichte on Feb 2, 2009 9:43 PM CST reply actions

Agreed, I thought the early reports made that pretty clear

by Wreckard on Feb 2, 2009 10:57 PM CST up reply actions

Probably true.

As I said, I was just speculating with no information or basis.

I just thought it was strange for a team to DFA someone at this time of year. I don’t think I recall hearing of a DFA being done in the offseason before.

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

by Al Yellon on Feb 3, 2009 3:44 AM CST up reply actions

I guess I'm just confused

as to why DFA’ing now versus during the season is of any difference? If they want to keep the guy, but have to clear a spot on the 40-man, they DFA him. They had to do it now, in the offseason, because now is when the Hill trade is going down.

Chicago Cubs Rumors and News

by Brett Taylor on Feb 3, 2009 6:18 AM CST up reply actions

The only reason to...

… DFA someone in February is if you’re going to trade him. They needed to clear the space, correct. But if they didn’t want Burres on the roster, why not just release him?

A DFA at this time of year can mean only one thing. They’re trying to trade him.

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

by Al Yellon on Feb 3, 2009 7:45 AM CST up reply actions

That's not the only reason...

As AceCubbie said, perhaps they’d like to keep him around but preferred giving Hill the spot on the 40-man roster. It says that Burres was DFAed to clear room on the 40-man. Perhaps they hope he’ll clear waivers and they can put him in their minor league organization.

If you intend to trade Burres, DFAing him actually makes LESS sense, because it gives you less leverage in making a deal. You can then only deal Burres to the team that claims him, rather than negotiating with multiple teams to get slightly more.

Granted, we’re talking about a guy who has little trade value. This is why I suspect that AceCubbie is correct.

by SouthernCub on Feb 3, 2009 7:58 AM CST up reply actions

If he has little trade value, then why not just release him?

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

by Al Yellon on Feb 3, 2009 8:16 AM CST up reply actions

As has been said already...

Because perhaps they actually want to KEEP him. DFAing gives them that opportunity AND clears space on the 40-man roster. Releasing him does not.

In order to get Hill, they had to clear space on the 40-man roster. If Burres is the 40th man and yet they’d still like to keep him around if possible, they DFA him.

by SouthernCub on Feb 3, 2009 9:34 AM CST up reply actions

Clearing waivers.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you need to clear waivers at this time of year. He wasn’t waived, he was DFA’d. There is a difference.

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

by Al Yellon on Feb 3, 2009 8:17 AM CST up reply actions

Waiving

You always need to clear waivers… it doesn’t matter the time of year. And there is a difference between DFAing and waiving, but waiving is one of the options in this case. If Burris is not traded within ten days of being designated, they will place him on waivers.

by dmlichte on Feb 3, 2009 9:24 AM CST up reply actions

one disagreement

I actually think that the DFA makes some sense in leading to a trade. Granted that MacPhail could call up every GM and see if one of them wants Burris but that doesn’t make a lot of sense in this case. DFAing him kind of sends a broadcast to the entire baseball world that this guy is available, offer what you wish. There is less leverage in making a deal if only one team wants him, but if the O’s get two teams with passing interest, they’ll get what something. Burris was never going to land the Orioles very much.

by dmlichte on Feb 3, 2009 9:27 AM CST up reply actions

Good point...

DFAing him could mean they want to trade him (for the reason you mentioned). Or, it could simply mean that they would rather keep him in the organization than release him, but wanted room on the 40-man roster.

Both are possibilites, and it certainly could be that they want to trade him. But given Burres’s lack of trade value, I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter. And in any case, there IS a legitimate reason to DFA him other than wanting to trade him.

As for why it happened now? Perhaps Hendry was pushing to get a deal done now (before spring training), and was willing to go to someone else (like the Mariners, for example) if the Orioles wouldn’t make it happen now.

by SouthernCub on Feb 3, 2009 9:40 AM CST up reply actions

Hill

The trade had to happen before spring training. Whomever wanted Hill was going to want to have him all spring to see if he was going to work out. They need the 6 weeks to see if they need to tweak his mechanics and what not. The DFA was necessary since they were, at the moment, not giving someone up for him.

I really think more is being made about the timing than necessary. This seems pretty straightforward.

by dmlichte on Feb 3, 2009 10:21 AM CST up reply actions

I agree wholeheartedly

by SouthernCub on Feb 3, 2009 4:19 PM CST up reply actions

Burres got picked up by the Blue Jays today.

according to mlb trade rumors.

There's nothing wrong with this team that more pitching, more fielding and more hitting couldn't help......"--Bill Buckner

by laidbackliam on Feb 4, 2009 4:43 PM CST up reply actions

Will be some mid-level

prospect. Don’t see a need for this guy.

SORIANO! YESSSSSSSS! JIMBO!!!

by CubFaninCA on Feb 2, 2009 10:01 PM CST reply actions

At least this chase for left handers makes sense

unlike the other, all consuming, obsession on the offensive side

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Feb 2, 2009 10:20 PM CST reply actions

Good!

We need to take a gamble on an upper-twenties-year-old left handed pitcherr who has some upside but struggled last year. I mean, after giving up the EXACT SAME THING in Rich Hill, you almost have to.

by Rev Gunia on Feb 3, 2009 7:38 AM CST reply actions

on a side note, burres has less upside than hill

decent fastball in the mid-80’s, slighty above average change, and average slider, if i recall the scouting report correctly. Some say he has “pitchability”, but Joe Borowski had “pitchability” and had a tick better stuff. He’s control is below average, and a guy with average stuff and below average control, even a lefty, doesn’t hold that much value. I mean, I like the guys we added this offseason (Jason Waddell, Bill White, and in particular, Matt Smith) as much, if not moreso, than I like Burres.

by toonsterwu on Feb 3, 2009 8:31 AM CST up reply actions

Who is going to be the left in the pen?

I’d hate to depend on Cotts. That leaves only Marshall, who would probably be best as a starter. Hendry has to have another move up his sleeve. No way would they go into spring training with only two lefties in the pen.

by Clark Addison on Feb 3, 2009 10:43 AM CST reply actions

They would and they will.

My position remains the Heilman has the inside track on the No. 5 starter spot. That makes Marshall swing man/Harden backup and Cotts the token lefty (because he’s not really a LOOGY). How many lefties is a bullpen supposed to have, anyway?

We are a fever ... we are a fever ... we ain't born typical.

by daver on Feb 3, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions