Marquis Grissom?

by tville on Dec 30, 2005 2:22 PM CST Comment 89 comments

According to an article in the Denver Post, Grissom's agent is claiming his client will be signing with the Cubs.

If this is true, what on earth is Hendry doing? What possible purpose would Grissom serve with the Cubs?

Grissom will be 39 shortly after opening day and suffered from hammy issues last year. After being cut by the Giants in early August, no other team bothered to bring him in for the balance of the season.

Suspect he's the righty platoon for Jones, but this is getting more bizarre and desperate day by day.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, editor-in-chief (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 89 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

grissom

did hit lefties well in 2004 batting .315 with an OBP of .356 and SLG of .577..so yes he could very well be an option to platoon with jones in RF

"Slump ? I ain't in no slump. I just ain't hittin." --Yogi Berra

by nick3308 on Dec 30, 2005 2:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Just saw that as well...

here is the post if anyone cares to read it:

http://www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_3355344

Grissom had a bad year last year and is old but could be a decent 4th or 5th OF. He could be the RH platoon player we have all be asking for to spell Jones. He is not E Byrnes (who I would have preferred) but he is a former Giant so Dusty is probably planning to start him 100-110 games (note extreme Sarcasm intended).

by CA Cub Fan on Dec 30, 2005 2:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

no platoon

guys, if they didn't platoon jeromy last year, what makes you think they'll platoon jacque this year? point blank -- he makes too much money to be platooned with anyone. it's never going to happen. jones is going to play 150 games if he's healthy.

on a more positive note, this at least shows hendry has no place for patterson, even if he can't trade him.

by gaius marius on Dec 30, 2005 2:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well if Hendry...........

.........signs Grissom, the chances of even getting a bag of balls in exchange for Korey will be slim.

by tville on Dec 30, 2005 2:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

over

the past 3 years grissom has hit pretty well against lefties, hitting .322 with an opb of .359. that's not bad, and it would certainly be an improvement over Jones in that regard. He would cost little--he made under 3 million last year and given his age (i think he turns a million in february), and the poor showing he had last year, we could probably get him for 1 million with incentives up to 2 million total. that's a pretty affordable right field platoon.

he was hurt a lot last year, so i'd imagine they'd want to work him out first, again given his age.

by tomas21 on Dec 30, 2005 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but there's also the fact

that grissom doesn't really have the tools to play right. he doesn't have the arm for it.

i agree that he might -- if he hasn't lost it entirely at 39, which is a possibility considering his last season -- be able to hit lhp.

but if they stick grissom, who's played right for six games in the last ten years, out there to be sacrificed, it's all the more a condemnation of hendry's inability to build a quality roster. between pierre and grissom, they'll have pitchers and catchers taking third on balls hit to the rightfield gap.

by gaius marius on Dec 31, 2005 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

I have seen several people post that he will be paid too much to platoon but I don't get it. He only signed for 5 mil per year which at the current standards is not all that much. To put it in perspective Grissom made nearly 3 mil last year.

Also Burnitz did not platoon last season b/c there was no one to take his place. I personally would have liked to seen Murton out there some but he is not a RF nor were any of the other guys we had.

by CA Cub Fan on Dec 30, 2005 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you don't have anyone now

who could stand in vs lhp and play the position. grissom simply isn't a rightfielder. between his arm and pierre's, you'll literally have pitchers and catchers taking third on balls hit to the rightfield gap.

fwiw, even if you did platoon them, you would have a defensively-inferior rightfielder that's going to hit about 270/350/450 with 25 hr for $8mm.

a cynic might point out that brian giles could have gone 300/410/520 for $11mm.

by gaius marius on Dec 31, 2005 8:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if

giles was willing to play for the cubs, which he wasn't

by tomas21 on Dec 31, 2005 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

we might have asked him

before assuming that. after all, it's really quite amazing what a few million dollars can do.

by gaius marius on Jan 2, 2006 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it

didn't do much for toronto, who offered quite a bit more than "a few million dollars".
Giles is the exception to the rule that players go where the money is. i'm not sure why you keep bringing him up as an example of a Cubs "failure" this off-season.
You seem like you are looking for things to rip the Cubs about. Why do you try to make yourself unhappy. There are enough disappointments in life as is that there's no reason to seek out more.

by tomas21 on Jan 2, 2006 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

on giles

the jays offered him $30mm/3-year -- what he signed for in san diego was, in fact, the best deal he was offered at $33mm minimum deal -- $30mm/3-yr with a club option fourth year with a $3mm buyout. la supposedly offered $34mm/3-yr, but would not attach a fourth year and therefore lost out.

the padres were actually forced by giles and his agent joe bick to match the offer made by toronto and (supposedly) los angeles and the yankees in order to stay. sandy alderson himself debunked the notion of a "hometown discount" following bick's rejection of the padres' first offer.

in other words, giles followed the money. to say that he didn't simply denies the truth of the matter as reported.

you'll also notice that nowhere in any of those articles were the cubs mentioned among the many teams as a suitor.

You seem like you are looking for things to rip the Cubs about. Why do you try to make yourself unhappy. There are enough disappointments in life as is that there's no reason to seek out more.

please -- more projected fantasy. i criticize the cubs because i want them to be better than the perennial also-ran they are, and small things like denying myself season tickets and maintaining an analytical blog are what i perceive to be a duty of anyone who seriously wants the team to be any good (as opposed to a mere pleasant timewaste for the self-concerned).

there are certainly enough disappointments in life about which one can do nothing -- but the cubs needn't be one of them. unless you're a melancholy fatalist (as some of the so-called optimists here seem to be), there are things you can do.

by gaius marius on Jan 2, 2006 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow.

That would have been a LOT to pay for an aging left fielder.

I'm kinda glad we didn't pay for him.

Give Murton and Pie a chance! One of them has to pan out. Unless we have to trade one of them for Zito in which case yeah, I wish we had Giles.

by nickler on Jan 2, 2006 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sloooow down

Pie a chance

Let's not rush him to the majors, let him figure things out in minor ball and bring him up when the time is right.

As Al and a few others have said, Pie will not be in CF until at least 07.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Jan 2, 2006 4:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

be happy then

I'm kinda glad we didn't pay for him.

then be kinda glad when jacque jones is striking out all this year. because that's what "not overpaying" gets you.

by gaius marius on Jan 2, 2006 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ouch.

You know how to hurt a guy, Gaius Marius.

I am really hoping Jacque Jones can give us a boost out there. Come on, now. Remember the "Shawshank Redemption." If we don't have hope then what do we have?

by nickler on Jan 2, 2006 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry if it hurts a bit

but it's the truth.

have a measure of hope, nick -- but not destructive, blind, foolish hope.

by gaius marius on Jan 2, 2006 5:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You can't tell....

nickler that when you don't have a measure of hope. If you do, I can't measure it with my scale.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Jan 2, 2006 9:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess

... we all hope in our own different ways. For Mr. Gaius he needs to set his sights low so that he doesn't get disappointed.

I can't say I blame him after all we've gone through. But I honestly think we have a decent chance. We just need either a trade for Zito or for one of our young pitchers to come through for us.

Stranger things have happened.

by nickler on Jan 3, 2006 12:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

heh

Stranger things have happened.

:: Looks at the other side of the city ::

That's for damn sure.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Jan 3, 2006 1:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i must admit

that i have a lot less now, seeing the moves hendry has made, than i had on october 15. this team could have been good, and it isn't -- and it's really out of effective ways to get good, at this quite late stage in the game.

i'll start to get hopeful again maybe toward the end of 2006, if i can see a way for the cubs to keep lee, aram, pierre and find some pitching.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 9:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

NO

Toronto reportedly made a 5 year, 55 million dollar offer to Giles, which he turned down to sign a 3 year, 30 million dollar offer with the Pads. He didn't follow the money. He may have used the Jays to get a more fair offer from the Pads, but he didn't follow the money.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MLB/Toronto/2005/11/29/1328885-sun.html
The relevent quote from the above article is as follows: (hope this is a legal way to reference it.
"And now Ricciardi is looking for another high-ranking officer/free-agent, making a five-year, $55-million offer to outfielder Brian Giles"

And again, I make no fantasy projections about you. All my fantasies involve Elizabeth Hurley or Halle Berry. But the fact is, your ticket boycott only hurts yourself, and your blog is an attempt to perpetuate your own doomsday attitude. It won't work on me, I have enough persepctive to realize the Cubs and baseball are something meant to be enjoyed, not hyperanalyzed and the dictator of self-punishment. Someday you'll see the light.

by tomas21 on Jan 2, 2006 5:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

toronto gm ricciardi

shot down the rumors of a $55mm/5-yr as false:

Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi went on the radio yesterday in Toronto to deny reports that his team had offered outfielder Brian Giles a five-year contract for a reported $55 million. The likelihood, though Ricciardi did not say it, is that the offer was for four years, and probably for more than $10 million a year.

it was later found that toronto had in fact put up only a three-year offer.

I have enough persepctive to realize the Cubs and baseball are something meant to be enjoyed

then i also hope you have the perspective to realize that you care more about your own selfish pleasures than whether or not the cubs actually succeed.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 9:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

of

course he would deny it, after the fact. what kind of public relations blow would it be for a player to turn down a much bigger offer with your team to sign a smaller offer with another team? how would that make them look to other prospective free agents? come on gaius, you're smarter than that.

i can enjoy the cubs, even if they don't win the world series. that is the difference between you and me--you set yourself up to be unhappy. i just hope the controlling, misanthropic nature you display here is only applied to the Cubs, and not your personal life. I hope that for both your sake and your family's sake, because if you hold them to the same standards you hold Hendry et al, life will be quite unpleasant for both you and them.

by tomas21 on Jan 3, 2006 11:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

except that it wasn't

after the fact. that globe article was written the night before giles signed, reporting on the events of the day -- the same day the rumored offer was reported. ricciardi denied it on the radio the same day it came out (november 29), and before giles had signed anything.

now, you can speculate further if you like -- it's part of the fun. lord knows i try to read the tea leaves too. but that isn't much substantiation, even as trade rumors go.

you set yourself up to be unhappy

again with the fantasy projection! when will you stop? i am not permanently unhappy about the cubs -- seriously, why would i bother? i have a wonderful wife, a beautiful daughter, an unbelievable family, a great job and the kindest and funniest imaginable friends. tomas, do you actually think i walk around depressed every day simply because i'm trying to help the cubs win in what small way i can?

whether you realize it or not, friend, this fantasy construct you have rationalized for me is just totally, totally wrong. i'm one of the happier and more thankful people you could hope to meet -- really. an analytical mind is anything but a depressed one. indeed, effective criticism is not only a wonderful buffer against silly angst and loss but a vehicle to immense satisfaction. it's granted me that fortunate benefit all my life, in every facet.

a lot has been said about people who think thinking is depressing, and i won't go into that here. but i would ask you to reconsider your assessment of the possibilities of criticism -- if not for yourself, at least w/r/t me.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But

do you have to depress all of the rest of us?

How about shedding just a little "happy light" on all of us once in a while. Just humor us happy bottom feeders. Throw us a bone.

Geez.

by nickler on Jan 3, 2006 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

seriously

and i don't mean this (or anything) as a provocation, but do you think newton was seeking unhappiness when he theorized on what made an apple fall? do you think kepler was in need of prozac when he was working out the laws of planetary motion? do you think bell needed therapy when he invented the telephone?

the cubs are a 97-year-old problem that could use some solving. the application of some critical analysis by the fans is one of the few things can solve it. you've consistently as though it was treason or something. i'm compelled to ask: why?

no offense to al or anyone, but blissful optimism isn't a means to improving the team -- it's ultimately a rationalization, a mechanism for denying any personal responsibility for the situation of the team despite obvious active participation -- or, worse, an expression of deterministic fatalism. neither is honest nor admirable.

by gaius marius on Jan 2, 2006 5:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow.

Based on all that, I think I am ceasing to exist, because you have now shown that 1+1 = 3.

by nickler on Jan 2, 2006 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You mischaracterize me...

... as someone who has blinders on to any faults.

I recognize the flaws in this team, and the fact that some of them have not been addressed.

But I will also not go around criticizing for the sake of criticism, because:

it is self-defeating;
it is a conceit if you think it will bring about any change;
baseball to me is more than just dollars and cents.

If it's not that to you, fine -- but you have absolutely no right to criticize the nature of anyone else's fan support, or approach to the game.

by Al on Jan 2, 2006 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

in other words

it is a conceit if you think it will bring about any change

so you are a deterministic fatalist, one who thinks that people cannot influence events by the applicaiton of free will?

perhaps you'd care to take that up with kant, locke, st. augustine or st. paul.

it is self-defeating

how?

baseball to me is more than just dollars and cents.

and to me. but i don't choose to ignore the actual power of economics in the sport because i wish its influence were not so great.

you have absolutely no right to criticize the nature of anyone else's fan support, or approach to the game.

to the contrary, i not only have the right but the responsibility.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

be responsible then. But I'm a lost cause.

It is self-defeating because like I wrote in another post, I love the Cubs. Criticizing them makes me feel bad. And I like to be happy and be able to sparkle! :)

I want the Cubs to prove you wrong sooo bad.

This is how I think I influence the Cubs. I support them and cheer them on. I encourage them to do awesome. It's what my parents do for me and what I do for so many people. So let's say I like to have a positive influence in a positive way.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Jan 3, 2006 4:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

may my

4 year old daughter grow up with your attitude on life.

Good for you!

by socalbob on Jan 3, 2006 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wish Sparkles

could talk to Corey Patterson.

by nickler on Jan 3, 2006 5:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But then

I wouldn't want to ruin her outlook on life :)

by nickler on Jan 3, 2006 5:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nickler....

You don't know how many times I wished I could've talked to Corey. Just to tell him that I believed in him and that I supported him even when so many people booed him. I think I would just make him say thanks and smile.

But I'm not sure I could help him stop striking out. I would love to try though. :)

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Jan 3, 2006 5:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully she will! :)

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Jan 3, 2006 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Newton...

wasn't seeking unhappiness. He was seeking OTHERS unhappiness. Mine included because I hate physics, and calculus is hard.

I have Cubbie blue colored glasses, and I love them. But I'm not blind. I have 20/20 vision.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Jan 2, 2006 9:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And remember, everyone.

The White Sox were projected to finish 2nd or 3rd in the AL Central last year.

The 2003 Marlins were expected to be a joke.

The 2005 Bears? Nobody thought they'd be any good.

But the young players came through. John Garland, Juan Pierre, Miguel Cabrera, Josh Beckett, Dontrelle Willis... they made the difference.

We have some pretty fine prospects who I am hoping can really turn out to be something special and take us over that hump. Which is why I cringe every time people mention trading all of our prospects, unless it's for Zito who is I think 26 years old.

by nickler on Jan 2, 2006 11:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My point being...

... you can always have hope no matter how bleak it seems. Anything can happen. That's what makes this exciting and fun.

by nickler on Jan 2, 2006 11:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

even i have some hope

it's just not nearly what it was on october 15, and not nearly enough to meaningfully entertain fantasies of winning anything in 2006.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

since..

macias is gone, dusty's options for pinch hitters are down to hairston, mabry, grissom, and perez. 3 of those 4 can fill in the outfield and give murton and jones breaks on occasion and mabry could also play a little third base here or there..just in case Aram's leg starts bothering him again. id feel a lot safer with grissom being our 4th or 5th than mabry

"Slump ? I ain't in no slump. I just ain't hittin." --Yogi Berra

by nick3308 on Dec 30, 2005 3:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ughh...

Grissom's going to make me feel old if he comes here.

Let's just pass.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes. Time to sPaRkLe Jimmy!

by sparkles721 on Dec 30, 2005 3:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Oh For Heaven's Sake.....

....there's nothing wrong with bringing Grissom in as a reserve outfielder. Look at his career. He's been in 11 different playoff series, three World Series among them, he's a lifetime .272 hitter, has hit over 20 homers five times in his career, the last being 2004, he averages 17 homers a year, and can play at least two of the three outfield positions. Who do the Cubs have right now in their outfield that can say that? No one. He'll be a good battle tested veteran to have on the bench.

by BeerCub on Dec 30, 2005 3:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Good insurance

Grissom would be good insurance in the outfield. Hendry may have a recurring nightmare of that series in Shea last year where the Mets were scoring from first on singles.

by greggie44 on Dec 30, 2005 3:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

BeerCub...

I guess you forgot he is 39 and had a miserable 2005 season. Maybe he is just old and can't even think about putting up any of those stats you mentioned.

This is the problem with hendry and the Cubs. They go out and sign mediocre players and hope they can put together a creer year. Ins tead of going out and getting top guys and actually paying for them.

With potential signings like Burnitz, Jones, Grisson, Wilson, Holladsworth, etc. I wonder why teh Cubs haven't won in 98 years.

by mannytrillo on Dec 30, 2005 4:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Nope, Didn't Forget

Please note I said reserve outfielder, that it would be nice to have a battele tested veteran ON THE BENCH.

by BeerCub on Dec 31, 2005 9:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If the Cubs sign Grissom.......

he could quite possibly become my least favorite cub since Jeff Blauser or even worse yet Calvin Schiraldi.

THE CUBS WILL BE IN THE PLAYOFF MIX, IN 2006

by CubbieJake on Dec 30, 2005 4:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I can't imagine...

.... why any of you would want Grissom. Good heavens, as noted above, he's going to be 39 next April, had a miserable 2005, and the last season he had that was even CLOSE to good was 1996.

Steer clear. WAY clear.

by Al on Dec 30, 2005 6:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Minor league contract?

If he could be signed for peanuts and released by the end of spring training is he is done, what is the loss in giving him a shot? If he still has legs, he will provide insurance in centerfield and another bench bat.

by greggie44 on Dec 31, 2005 12:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i

think i would agree. while i wouldn't want to bank the season on grissom, he'd probably be an upgrade over jones against lefties, if he still has the legs to cover right field.

by tomas21 on Dec 31, 2005 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Al, Al, Al....

...Since 1996? How can you say that? Did you see his ststs for 2003, not to mention 2004, for that matter? Forget all the moneyball wahoo, just look at the basics-

1996- 671 ABs, 207 hits, 23 HRs, 74 RBIs, .308 BA.

2003- 587 ABS, 176 hits, 20 HRs, 79 RBIs, .300 BA.

And then I'd suggest 2004, while a slight dropoff, roughly holds up-

2004- 562 ABs, 157 hits, 22 HRs, 90 RBIs, .279 BA

Yeah, he had wheels last year and at his age he could be done, but he's worth a flyer, IMO. AS A RESERVE, not a regular, as I've stated.

by BeerCub on Dec 31, 2005 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You can't forget the "Moneyball wahoo"

... because Grissom is 39 years old, and has lost most of the speed that contained most of his value as a player.

I'm going to make a post on the main page about this.

by Al on Dec 31, 2005 10:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Grissom why not Henderson?

47 year old Rickey Henderson is considering playing another season. If we are going to sign an old dude we might as well sign the old dude of all.
This came from S.F. Chronicle Dec. 7th
-Later on Tuesday, Henderson's agent, Jeff Borris of the Beverly Hills Sports Council, said someone in his office had spoken with Henderson earlier in the day.

"Reports of his retiring are unfounded," Borris said at the winter meetings in Dallas. "He still plans to play. If no one gives him a job (in the majors), he plans to return to the San Diego Surf Dawgs as a player."

For the rest of the story click
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/07/SPGALG46E51.DTL&feed=rss.athletics

THE CUBS WILL BE IN THE PLAYOFF MIX, IN 2006

by CubbieJake on Dec 30, 2005 8:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN....

Why we would sign Grissolm when we already have Corey Patterson. I mean, if we can't trade Patterson I think he IS good enough to be 5TH OUTFIELDER. He's bad but not THAT BAD.

And if he IS that bad, then why are we paying him > $2 mill per year??

Why on earth would we sign Grissolm when Eric Byrnes is sitting there, waiting to be taken up for about the same price??

I am sure that I am just stupid, but if someone could explain this to a poor hopeless sap like me I would be forever grateful.

by nickler on Dec 31, 2005 11:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Because it is you,........

........Nickler, a lost, distraught soul, with no hope of a clue about baseball even in 2006, I'll drag my drunken bones to the keyboard to provide you with a response.

Please, no comments about typos given my present condition..........

Frankly, Korey is better than Marquis at this stage in life, HOWEVER........

Korey, as many have pointed out already, is a marked man in Chicago. He can't go on under these circumstances.

Also, he's likely to be useless off the bench, a role that Grissom might be able to handle. Plus Grissom will likely make fewer boneheaded plays on the basepaths and in the field, and he'll probably hit righty's as well as Korey.

Please understand I'm not a fan of getting Marquis on board, Nickler, but just responding to your remarks.

By the way, Byrnes has already signed. You must have been busy making PBJ's for your upcoming Boy Scout sleepover and missed this info.......

Yes, your 2005 record would affirm your "stupid" comment, but what the hell am I? It's just after the New Year in Chicago and I'm responding to your message. Hide the sharp objects, please, and by morning I'll have changed my user ID to avoid future abuse.......

Lastly, I didn't know you were homeless, and even though I likely have space for you, I couldn't take your endless comments of confusion. Suggest you trade in the wireless card and laptop (how else could a homeless guy work this site so frequently?) for a months lodging. Check the Sunday Trib for a job and hope the "Greeter at WalMart" decided to retire in 2005.........

Merry New Year, Nickler, and keep in mind, Marquis Grissom is likely better than Rondell White!!

by tville on Jan 1, 2006 1:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm...

I said I was "hopeless" not "homeless."

Boy, you are pretty drunk.

Anyhow, given everything that you mentioned, though, then why did we sign Corey to an extension? He's not that cheap (I think 2.8 mill). I mean, there are absolutely no takers, and here we are paying a lot of dough for a guy who's not good enough to be a 5th outfielder??

Again, pardon my ignorance. I simply do not understand the details of these dealings.

by nickler on Jan 1, 2006 1:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yet

he still comments on a drunk man's grammatical errors, unbelievable.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Jan 1, 2006 8:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol tville

dude that was pretty coherent, granted I'm hanging like a mother right now I gotta say I'm impressed.

At 1:30 I was....ok it clearly violates community standards so I'm not going to go there, but if I weren't as busy as I were there would've been no flippin way I would've been able to type like that.

Nickler, there is no garuntee Grissom will even see the majors next year, it could be nothing more than a spring invite.

...or he plays on the bench, either way.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Jan 1, 2006 8:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, OK...

First off, priopwnz... don't kill me for this...
I think you meant "gurantee" instead of "garuntee"

Secondly, I am only trying to understand here. People got pissed at Hendry for signing Neifi to a deal where he makes about $2 mill/year and he's not great but a reasonable backup option. As I understand it, Todd Walker makes $2.5 mil/year.

Now people are saying that Grissom would be a "deal" since it would "only" cost 1-2 mil/year.

My question is: Is that really a deal for a bench player who isn't even the backup but the backup to the backup... especially when we have Corey? I don't like Corey, but we are paying him a fair amount and this is after he generated no interest in other teams.

So if he isn't good enough to even be the 5th outfielder, why are we paying him?

I don't want to make any negative comments about outfielders like the ones I made about RF that were clearly not legitimate before. But we are talking about at 39 year old guy as a 2nd backup.

I mean, if I'm the Chicago Bears and I have Kyle Orton who I think may have some potential and is under contract, and if I get a free agent QB next year, I'm going to keep Orton as my 2nd backup even though I'm not crazy about him. I'm paying him anyhow and we're talking about the backup to the backup.

So if we're paying Corey, why can't he be the 2nd backup? Am I so far off here??

Again, not to be contentious or argumentative, I simply do not understand. I get it that Grissom would come off the bench. I don't get why we would just waste $$ on him right now. Is there news out there that I don't know regarding a Corey trade??

by nickler on Jan 1, 2006 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

whoops

I really am an idiot.

I meant "guarantee"

by nickler on Jan 1, 2006 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Patterson...

... was not "signed to an extension".

He was offered arbitration. Likely, the Cubs will come to an agreement with him on a one-year deal at close to the maximum allowed 20% cut.

This does NOT mean that he will play for the Cubs in 2006. I guarantee you, Jim Hendry is doing everything he can to deal him.

by Al on Jan 1, 2006 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

?? But Al...

The Cubs didn't HAVE to offer him arbitration, right? I mean, they could have just let him go, the way Eric Byrnes or Wade Miller were released.

So if nobody wants the guy in a trade, then why even offer him the opportunity to cost the Cubs 2.8 mill even if it's only for a year?

Or is it that Hendry thinks somebody may be willing to give us something worth value for Corey so he didn't want to let him walk for nothing?

Any ideas of who might want the guy??

by nickler on Jan 1, 2006 4:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's exactly right...

... I think Hendry believes he has some value, so he didn't want to let him go for nothing.

It's even possible he'll still be on the club as spring training begins, and get a LOT of playing time in front of scouts, so as to increase his value.

by Al on Jan 1, 2006 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh.

Kind of an expensive risk to take, huh? Hope it works out for us.

by nickler on Jan 1, 2006 7:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

which is one reason why

I think Hendry believes he has some value

hendry should be fired. arbitration probably killed what little value patterson might have had as a cheap project player.

i think he's so enamored of the klown's overhyped "potential" that he's refused to acknowledge the reality of what he is -- oddibe mcdowell. he couldn't cut the cord, and that says a lot about his capacity for the job.

and please, al -- a few dozen spring at-bats in arizona are not going to nullify 2000 at-bats of major-league failure for anyone.

if hendry actually finds a way to deal him, i'll bet he'll have to send cash or equivalent talent to cover the money he so foolishly guaranteed him.

by gaius marius on Jan 2, 2006 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i

think you're overstating how bad corey patterson is, and understating how much value he would have to another team.

He hasn't had 2000 at-bats of failure. Last season was abysmal, no question. But it was so bad that you can't include it in his career stats if you're going to try to assess him.

If you take his 2003 stats (when in all likelihood he would have made the all-star game had he not been injured) and his 2004 stats, which amount to about 1000 at-bats, you'll find a center-fielder with above-average power (OPS greater than all MLB CFs save for Edmonds, Beltran and Andrew Jones, above-average speed (on pace for as many steals as any CF except Pierre and Sanchez), and relatively good defense who strikes out a lot. The strike-outs are burdensome, but not ruinsome.

I think he is more than tools, and some team will see if their batting coach can get through to him and convince him to make some adjustments in his approach. Thus far he has been resistent to change, but that doesn't mean he NEVER will. He's got more pure talent than most teams have in center field. That alone will be worth a flier for most teams.

And if we have to pay a portion or even all of his contract in order to get talent from another team, isn't that worth it? as you say, we've got plenty of money, so why not use that spending power to get something for Corey.

by tomas21 on Jan 2, 2006 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i just don't know

what to say to someone who views 2176 ab of .293 obp as not "ruinsome", much less containing some value worth talking about, much less dealing for.

by gaius marius on Jan 2, 2006 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You overestimate, then....

... what a scout might say to a GM after seeing Corey play for a couple of weeks in Arizona. If he shows even the slightest sign of hitting the way he did in the first half of 2003, you can bet the Cubs will get offers.

That doesn't negate the 2000 AB, no. But there's always someone out there who's going to say, "We can fix that," even if that statement is in reality pure BS.

by Al on Jan 2, 2006 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

there is always that hope

But there's always someone out there who's going to say, "We can fix that," even if that statement is in reality pure BS.

but it isn't significant, imo -- and surely not significant enough to have offered him arbitration, which will remain an idiotic business decision even if hendry is lucky enough to be bailed out by the greater fool.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 10:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

his

career numbers are poisoned by last years horrendous numbers, including an OBP of .254. In 2003 and 2004 is was more like .325. Obviously still not anything to bet the franchise on, but good enough considering his other talents for a team to take a chance on. That would make him Soriano with better defense and a handful less steals/HRs.

I'm glad you're not the GM of my team, you'd see everything how you want to see it, in the most contrarian, pessismistic, argumentative terms.

by tomas21 on Jan 3, 2006 7:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you don't get to pretend

poisoned by last years horrendous numbers

that 2005 didn't happen. it did. it's there, indeliable, forever.

and it's not jsut last year. the kid has five years in which he got more than 100 ab, and in three of them he failed to reach .300 obp. he has struck out 552 times in 2176 ab, against just 111 walks -- a 5:1 career k:bb ratio.

i think it's hard to understand, if you haven't spent a lot of time poring over statistics, just exactly how devastatingly awful that is. he's literally one of the worst 20 offensive outfielders of the lively ball era to accumulate 2000 ab (most with his track record are cut off long before they get that far).

That would make him Soriano

soriano, bad as he is, has significantly more power than korey. soriano's career slugging mark is .500. patterson's career slugging percentage is a lofty .414 -- less than todd hollandsworth or matt lawton. soriano isn't very good, but comapring him to patterson is an insult to the man.

as another example: preston wilson, bad as he is, has had only one year in which his obp was as low as .329 -- which is patterson's BEST year. pw's career slugging mark: .478.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and i'd like to point out

that i said nothing in that post that isn't a statistical truth.

it isn't a matter of being pessimistic. it's a matter of respecting empirical reality.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ok

how bout we compare Soriano and Patterson's 2003-2004 seasons.

BA/OBP/OPS SB HR

Patterson
03
.298/.329/.511 16(32) 13(26) (extrapolated)
04
.266/.320/.452 24 32

Soriano
.290/.338/.525 38 35
.280/.324/.484 28 18

I'm not sure how you could say they are not comparable. Not identical, but Patterson's defensive superiority I would say makes up for any offensive shortcomings in these two years.

You are choosing what reality to believe. Statistics can be misleading, especially when not taken into context. Nobody is saying Corey Patterson should be in the all-star game this year. He had a terrible, terrible season last year. So bad, in fact, that it becomes irresponsible to look at his career totals without examining the story within a story. He was rushed to the majors, misused since Baker got here, and refused to adjust. However, he has tons of talent, and has shown the ability to have success at he major league level.

He has also shown faults, no doubt, such as a horrendous strikeout rate and an unwillingness to adjust, at least to this point. But I offer up Soriano as a similar player to Corey in 2003-2004. For the right price, a GM will take a chance on him and give value in return. If not, we can try to make him change ourselves, now that he isn't under the pressure of being a full-time starter or being squeezed into a role he's clearly ill-suited for.

by tomas21 on Jan 3, 2006 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

basic data analysis

I'm not sure how you could say they are not comparable.

because i can also compare their 2005s:

soriano 268/309/821 30 36

patterson 215/254/602 15 13

tomas, one of the primary rules of effective data analysis is never to reject data without an iron-clad reason. simply saying that korey was awful in 2005, awful data doesn't support your thesis and that data should therefore be rejected is an avenue only to self-delusion.

korey wasn't hurt. he wasn't facing different talent. he wasn't playing a different game. what reason do you present as a valid cause to dismiss 2005 data as irrelevant? this dramatic creation?

So bad, in fact, that it becomes irresponsible to look at his career totals without examining the story within a story. He was rushed to the majors, misused since Baker got here, and refused to adjust. However, he has tons of talent, and has shown the ability to have success at he major league level.

pardon me, but that's not data analysis -- that's rationalization of a desired end.

wadr, tomas, without a valid reason to be doing so, biased data selection remains the most common and effective means of

choosing what reality to believe.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

did

you even read my response? there's no getting through to you, you believe what you want to believe. i give up.

by tomas21 on Jan 3, 2006 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

every word

did you? ;)

but seriously: you took patterson's best sample and extrapolated it without cause to compare it with soriano's average (for him) output over the same span.

you then threw out the rest of the data on both soriano and patterson and added some unevidenced claims about defense so that you could make the specious claim that they are somehow comparable despite the yawning chasm between their actual career outputs.

you then articulated some conjured "story within a story" that is supposed, i take it, to nullify the value of statistical measurement altogether in this case -- tacking on, for good measure, totally unevidenced claims about his mystical "talent" and "ability" (lines which might have come straight from the cub pr department of two years ago, i might note).

in conclusion, a disclaimer that amounts to "nobody's perfect" (i agree there) and a reiteration of the shopworn hopes that patterson is 1) valuable to someone somewhere and 2) redeemable, if only we are forgiving enough -- again, both unevidenced.

color me unconvinced.

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 2:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i

looked at all of his stats, but chose to comment on roughly half of them. not just the two or three stats applicable to my point, but half.

The 2003 season was where he started to make strides as a professional. You can include his 2000-2002 stats if you like, but that is not really helpful, which is the case for pretty much any player who is introduced to the league at an early/too early age.

His 2003-2004 stats ARE comparable to Soriano's, again, especially when you factor in Patterson's superior defense (pretty difficult to statistically compare the two since they play different positions, but i think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't feel that patterson is a better defender at his position than soriano is at his). Not identical, but comparable. To think otherwise is to look at this with Patterson-sucks blinders on.

In 2005, Patterson regressed, severely. Again, he regressed so severely that to look at his averag numbers is irresponsible statistically. The career averages, which you demand to only look at, are worthless, when there are such huge variations is data points used to calculate those averages. Its like saying you got 100% on one test, and a zero on the next, and saying that person is a 50% student, and will likely get 50s on their tests on average from here on out. Wouldn't you like to know a little more about what went right when the aced the test, and what went wrong when they bombed? i would, and i think anyone with any amount of statistical analysis training would as well.

Corey Patterson was awful last year, noone would suggest otherwise. But he was so awful that if you just look at his career totals en masse, you would miss that he showed some promise in 03-04. He wasn't perfect by any means, but he showed enough talent to have someone think to could return to form. Maybe the fact that he was forced into a role he was ill-suited for, that he was booed mercilessly, and that he had coaches coming at him from 50 different directions had something to do with it. its not an excuse, but it could be the reason. and that is something the COULD possibly be corrected.

by tomas21 on Jan 3, 2006 8:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

for example

being squeezed into a role he's clearly ill-suited for.

major league baseball player. ;)

by gaius marius on Jan 3, 2006 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

HAH

major league baseball player. ;)

BURN!

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Jan 3, 2006 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

does

it matter? I didn't know BCB was supposed to be a spelling contest. Quit correcting me.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Jan 1, 2006 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, it doesn't...

but I still am having a hard time grasping the whole 5th outfielder concept thing (see above question to Al).

by nickler on Jan 1, 2006 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way...

did Patterson actually agree to play winter ball or did he chicken out?

by nickler on Jan 1, 2006 7:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

All Corey needs...

is a memo sent to him that a homerun isn't the only positive outcome of an at-bat.
Also, I recommend a "Clockwork Orange" like negative reinforcement training for him. He would ingest a pain inflicting drug and be forced to watch a film montage of himself missing every high fastball that he has seen since coming to the majors. Then, in spring training he will experience a shot of pain instead of flailing at high heaters on his way back to the dugout.

by greggie44 on Jan 1, 2006 8:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

So...

I take it that he hasn't been playing in the winter leagues.

I used to love this guy. What a disappointment. How can you be so lazy as not to try harder when you just went through a season batting under 220??

by nickler on Jan 2, 2006 7:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

because

since he was a high pick, and the "prize" position player of the cubs system and everything was handed to him, he suffers from "my-$xxt-dont-stink-itis" and hence thinks winterball is below him

by geetarnwhiskey on Jan 2, 2006 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's exactly right...

... he seems to have a bad case of "#1-Draft-Pick-Itis", and I have first-hand accounts of his behavior in public that confirm this.

by Al on Jan 2, 2006 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Indulge me

with a Corey story. Is he as obtuse as he appears? My dream is have him playing at Iowa on the day his brother gets called up to Chicago and he has to watch his brother's 1st game at Wrigley from the Des Moines locker room.

by ThadBosley27 on Jan 2, 2006 3:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, Thad.

That is pretty harsh.

Even I don't hate the guy that much. Ouch.

by nickler on Jan 2, 2006 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The weird thing is

he seems like a pretty nice guy.

I just don't get it.

Was he worried that if he screwed up in winter ball that he may not have been offered arbitration? I think that was probably it. In which case Hendry should have assured him that he would indeed be offered arbitration regardless and helped Corey gain the courage to go to South America for the practice he so desperately needs.

He always seemed like a pretty decent guy. Doesn't get into DUI's like Fucal who I'm still glad we didn't wind up with. Doesn't tell his teammates they are racists like Milton Bradley. He seems to be a good character.

I really hope he can revive his career. A team like the Royals really ought to take a chance on the guy instead of investing in frigging Reggie Sanders. He should be exactly what they are looking for.

Or the Orioles for that matter.

by nickler on Jan 2, 2006 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs