Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

Bourn to Indians

Posted: 2/11/2013 7:42 PM

Bourn to Indians 


4 years 48 Million
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/11/2013 10:33 PM

Re: Bourn to Indians 


good deal for the tribe
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/12/2013 7:58 AM

RE: Bourn to Indians 


Swisher and Bourn.....not making a lot of sense to me...I thought that the Indians would start over.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/12/2013 9:43 AM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



msqboxer2011 wrote: Swisher and Bourn.....not making a lot of sense to me...I thought that the Indians would start over.
How often can you start over? What killed them is that they swung and missed on the CC and Cliff Lee deals. Those prospects absolutely fizzled out.....
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/12/2013 9:45 AM

RE: Bourn to Indians 


As for the deal, good deal for the Indians. Happy it isn't the Cubs.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/12/2013 10:26 AM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



PorkChopExpress12 wrote: As for the deal, good deal for the Indians. Happy it isn't the Cubs.
yep, what would the Cubs want with a GG, premiere leadoff, CF?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/12/2013 10:45 AM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



absolutebadger wrote: yep, what would the Cubs want with a GG, premiere leadoff, CF?

1. Bourn is already 30 and the deal is for four years. That deal IMO is going to look really bad by the end.
2. He has a life OBP of .339.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7828

I know Theo isn't a 100% Moneyball guy but for him to pay $52 million for a leadoff hitter, I think he want someone that has over a .340 OBP lifetime.
3. For a punch and judy hitter, he whiffs quite a bit.
4. The Cubs unlike the Indians are pretty stocked with blue chip prospects in the outfield.
Therefore the Cubs don't need to overspend in FA right now since there isn't a gapping hole in talent throughout the system. By contrast, the Cubs system needed a fuse of SP talent hence the Edwin Jackson deal.

Last edited 2/12/2013 10:49 AM by PorkChopExpress12

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/12/2013 11:01 AM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



PorkChopExpress12 wrote:
absolutebadger wrote: yep, what would the Cubs want with a GG, premiere leadoff, CF?

1. Bourn is already 30 and the deal is for four years. That deal IMO is going to look really bad by the end.
You still have him for his peak years of 30, 31 & 32 - Age 33 is typically the time you start to see decline
2. He has a life OBP of .339.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7828

I know Theo isn't a 100% Moneyball guy but for him to pay $52 million for a leadoff hitter, I think he want someone that has over a .340 OBP lifetime.
It is 48 million - at 12 million per year - you are getting a very good value deal for the WAR he has been producing the past few seasons
3. For a punch and judy hitter, he whiffs quite a bit.
4. The Cubs unlike the Indians are pretty stocked with blue chip prospects in the outfield.
If development goes well  - projections for Soler are 2015 and Almora is 2016
Therefore the Cubs don't need to overspend in FA right now since there isn't a gapping hole in talent throughout the system. By contrast, the Cubs system needed a fuse of SP talent hence the Edwin Jackson deal.
Quote from Hoyer - “We do have to address our outfield and we will look to do that,”said GM Jed Hoyer. “We like our prospects, but when they are as far away as some of those guys are you can’t think about those guys. You have to think about your team now ...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/12/2013 1:36 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



PorkChopExpress12 wrote:
absolutebadger wrote: yep, what would the Cubs want with a GG, premiere leadoff, CF?

1. Bourn is already 30 and the deal is for four years. That deal IMO is going to look really bad by the end.
2. He has a life OBP of .339.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7828

I know Theo isn't a 100% Moneyball guy but for him to pay $52 million for a leadoff hitter, I think he want someone that has over a .340 OBP lifetime.
3. For a punch and judy hitter, he whiffs quite a bit.
4. The Cubs unlike the Indians are pretty stocked with blue chip prospects in the outfield.
Therefore the Cubs don't need to overspend in FA right now since there isn't a gapping hole in talent throughout the system. By contrast, the Cubs system needed a fuse of SP talent hence the Edwin Jackson deal.
Last 4 years he is .350+ and has averaged 50 SB. I don't mind the K's- means he sees a bunch of pitches and that's what you want from a lead-off hitter. Patience, speed, good OBP, and one of the better defenders in CF. 4/48 was a good deal. Has averaged 5 WAR over the last 4 years (BR). Th Cubs don't have an abundance of OF for the next 2-3 years. All of the current guys on the 25 man will be gone in 2 years and none of them are as valuable as Bourn. 4 Years for a guy that just turned 30 is not a long deal.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/12/2013 1:56 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



absolutebadger wrote:
PorkChopExpress12 wrote:
absolutebadger wrote: yep, what would the Cubs want with a GG, premiere leadoff, CF?

1. Bourn is already 30 and the deal is for four years. That deal IMO is going to look really bad by the end.
2. He has a life OBP of .339.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7828

I know Theo isn't a 100% Moneyball guy but for him to pay $52 million for a leadoff hitter, I think he want someone that has over a .340 OBP lifetime.
3. For a punch and judy hitter, he whiffs quite a bit.
4. The Cubs unlike the Indians are pretty stocked with blue chip prospects in the outfield.
Therefore the Cubs don't need to overspend in FA right now since there isn't a gapping hole in talent throughout the system. By contrast, the Cubs system needed a fuse of SP talent hence the Edwin Jackson deal.
Last 4 years he is .350+ and has averaged 50 SB. I don't mind the K's- means he sees a bunch of pitches and that's what you want from a lead-off hitter. Patience, speed, good OBP, and one of the better defenders in CF. 4/48 was a good deal. Has averaged 5 WAR over the last 4 years (BR). Th Cubs don't have an abundance of OF for the next 2-3 years. All of the current guys on the 25 man will be gone in 2 years and none of them are as valuable as Bourn. 4 Years for a guy that just turned 30 is not a long deal.

Or it just means he strikes out a lot especially since he doesn't walk a ton. And do you really think the next 2 years matters outside of continuing to bring in talent and develop prospects? It really doesn't. Like Phil Rogers said, the Cubs can lose 20 less games this year and really see it as a step backwards unless something out of the blue happens and they magically grab a playoff slot. And like I said, the outfield talent throughout the organization is starting to get really strong. They need to figure out what they have first there before they start giving $50+ million to a leadoff hitter. I am not saying I be upset if they got Bourn for 4/48 but I am not going to get upset over not getting him either. He just a guy to me, kinda like Jackson. Good player but not a difference maker. To me, big ticket FA pickups need to be real difference makers for the Cubs right now. Jackson I think was an exception again because on how bad the Cubs farm system SP is overall. Had they had more SP prospects ready to make the jump and be good pitchers.

Also I think Bourn is really a luxury for contending team. Or put it another way. If this were 2004, I be really exicted for Michael Bourn because on "paper", the one thing that team was missing is a CF who could leadoff (Corey Patterson obviously wasn't the answer). But this isn't, so I think the Cubs were wise to pass. Plus, I hope the Cubs can do better then him in a few years. biggrin

Last edited 2/12/2013 2:09 PM by PorkChopExpress12

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/12/2013 2:16 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



PorkChopExpress12 wrote:
absolutebadger wrote:
PorkChopExpress12 wrote:
absolutebadger wrote: yep, what would the Cubs want with a GG, premiere leadoff, CF?

1. Bourn is already 30 and the deal is for four years. That deal IMO is going to look really bad by the end.
2. He has a life OBP of .339.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7828

I know Theo isn't a 100% Moneyball guy but for him to pay $52 million for a leadoff hitter, I think he want someone that has over a .340 OBP lifetime.
3. For a punch and judy hitter, he whiffs quite a bit.
4. The Cubs unlike the Indians are pretty stocked with blue chip prospects in the outfield.
Therefore the Cubs don't need to overspend in FA right now since there isn't a gapping hole in talent throughout the system. By contrast, the Cubs system needed a fuse of SP talent hence the Edwin Jackson deal.
Last 4 years he is .350+ and has averaged 50 SB. I don't mind the K's- means he sees a bunch of pitches and that's what you want from a lead-off hitter. Patience, speed, good OBP, and one of the better defenders in CF. 4/48 was a good deal. Has averaged 5 WAR over the last 4 years (BR). Th Cubs don't have an abundance of OF for the next 2-3 years. All of the current guys on the 25 man will be gone in 2 years and none of them are as valuable as Bourn. 4 Years for a guy that just turned 30 is not a long deal.

Or it just means he strikes out a lot especially since he doesn't walk a ton. And do you really think the next 2 years matters outside of continuing to bring in talent and develop prospects? It really doesn't. Like Phil Rogers said, the Cubs can lose 20 less games this year and really see it as a step backwards unless something out of the blue happens and they magically grab a playoff slot. And like I said, the outfield talent throughout the organization is starting to get really strong. They need to figure out what they have first there before they start giving $50+ million to a leadoff hitter. I am not saying I be upset if they got Bourn for 4/48 but I am not going to get upset over not getting him either. He just a guy to me, kinda like Jackson. Good player but not a difference maker. To me, big ticket FA pickups need to be real difference makers for the Cubs right now. Jackson I think was an exception again because on how bad the Cubs farm system SP is overall. Had they had more SP prospects ready to make the jump and be good pitchers.

Also I think Bourn is really a luxury for contending team. Or put it another way. If this were 2004, I be really exicted for Michael Bourn because on "paper", the one thing that team was missing is a CF who could leadoff (Corey Patterson obviously wasn't the answer). But this isn't, so I think the Cubs were wise to pass. Plus, I hope the Cubs can do better then him in a few years. biggrin

not to mention, doesn't he cost a 2nd round pick?
#23 OF CHICAGO SPORTS:
         23 - SANDBERG
         23 - JORDAN
         23 - HESTER
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/12/2013 2:35 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



cubsfanforlife22 wrote:
PorkChopExpress12 wrote:
Last 4 years he is .350+ and has averaged 50 SB. I don't mind the K's- means he sees a bunch of pitches and that's what you want from a lead-off hitter. Patience, speed, good OBP, and one of the better defenders in CF. 4/48 was a good deal. Has averaged 5 WAR over the last 4 years (BR). Th Cubs don't have an abundance of OF for the next 2-3 years. All of the current guys on the 25 man will be gone in 2 years and none of them are as valuable as Bourn. 4 Years for a guy that just turned 30 is not a long deal.

Or it just means he strikes out a lot especially since he doesn't walk a ton. And do you really think the next 2 years matters outside of continuing to bring in talent and develop prospects? It really doesn't. Like Phil Rogers said, the Cubs can lose 20 less games this year and really see it as a step backwards unless something out of the blue happens and they magically grab a playoff slot. And like I said, the outfield talent throughout the organization is starting to get really strong. They need to figure out what they have first there before they start giving $50+ million to a leadoff hitter. I am not saying I be upset if they got Bourn for 4/48 but I am not going to get upset over not getting him either. He just a guy to me, kinda like Jackson. Good player but not a difference maker. To me, big ticket FA pickups need to be real difference makers for the Cubs right now. Jackson I think was an exception again because on how bad the Cubs farm system SP is overall. Had they had more SP prospects ready to make the jump and be good pitchers.

Also I think Bourn is really a luxury for contending team. Or put it another way. If this were 2004, I be really exicted for Michael Bourn because on "paper", the one thing that team was missing is a CF who could leadoff (Corey Patterson obviously wasn't the answer). But this isn't, so I think the Cubs were wise to pass. Plus, I hope the Cubs can do better then him in a few years. biggrin

not to mention, doesn't he cost a 2nd round pick?
I think you may be under rating Bourn and over rating a 2nd round pick. His annual 12 million per year is fair based on taking 5 million x WAR and he provides good value thoughout his contract.

He may be the best defensive CF in baseball. This would help the pitching staff and is a point of emphasis with the front office. He also would not block any prospects that are 2-3 years away.

Fangraphs - 2012 6.4, 2011 4.1, 2010 4.7, 2009 4.9
Baseball Reference - 2012 6, 2011 3, 2010 5.3, 2009 4.7

Scrub

0-1 WAR

Role Player

1-2 WAR

Solid Starter

2-3 WAR

Good Player

3-4 WAR

All-Star

4-5 WAR

Superstar

5-6 WAR

MVP

6+ WAR

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/12/2013 2:53 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



cubs2007 wrote:
cubsfanforlife22 wrote:
PorkChopExpress12 wrote:
Last 4 years he is .350+ and has averaged 50 SB. I don't mind the K's- means he sees a bunch of pitches and that's what you want from a lead-off hitter. Patience, speed, good OBP, and one of the better defenders in CF. 4/48 was a good deal. Has averaged 5 WAR over the last 4 years (BR). Th Cubs don't have an abundance of OF for the next 2-3 years. All of the current guys on the 25 man will be gone in 2 years and none of them are as valuable as Bourn. 4 Years for a guy that just turned 30 is not a long deal.

Or it just means he strikes out a lot especially since he doesn't walk a ton. And do you really think the next 2 years matters outside of continuing to bring in talent and develop prospects? It really doesn't. Like Phil Rogers said, the Cubs can lose 20 less games this year and really see it as a step backwards unless something out of the blue happens and they magically grab a playoff slot. And like I said, the outfield talent throughout the organization is starting to get really strong. They need to figure out what they have first there before they start giving $50+ million to a leadoff hitter. I am not saying I be upset if they got Bourn for 4/48 but I am not going to get upset over not getting him either. He just a guy to me, kinda like Jackson. Good player but not a difference maker. To me, big ticket FA pickups need to be real difference makers for the Cubs right now. Jackson I think was an exception again because on how bad the Cubs farm system SP is overall. Had they had more SP prospects ready to make the jump and be good pitchers.

Also I think Bourn is really a luxury for contending team. Or put it another way. If this were 2004, I be really exicted for Michael Bourn because on "paper", the one thing that team was missing is a CF who could leadoff (Corey Patterson obviously wasn't the answer). But this isn't, so I think the Cubs were wise to pass. Plus, I hope the Cubs can do better then him in a few years. biggrin

not to mention, doesn't he cost a 2nd round pick?
I think you may be under rating Bourn and over rating a 2nd round pick. His annual 12 million per year is fair based on taking 5 million x WAR and he provides good value thoughout his contract.

He may be the best defensive CF in baseball. This would help the pitching staff and is a point of emphasis with the front office. He also would not block any prospects that are 2-3 years away.

Fangraphs - 2012 6.4, 2011 4.1, 2010 4.7, 2009 4.9
Baseball Reference - 2012 6, 2011 3, 2010 5.3, 2009 4.7

Scrub

0-1 WAR

Role Player

1-2 WAR

Solid Starter

2-3 WAR

Good Player

3-4 WAR

All-Star

4-5 WAR

Superstar

5-6 WAR

MVP

6+ WAR

i dont need the chart to tell me he's an all-star.  however, what fangraphs says to me is that when he's on a bad team his WAR was declining, but on a good team it spiked up. what does that say?

perhaps theo&co value a (high) 2nd round pick higher than a 30-34 year old. and while i agree that he doesnt block prospects and his D is a point of interest for the cubs 'way', his high SO rate and low BB rate don't seem to be points they wish to emphasize.

can't say i would've been thrilled or disappointed if we did/didn't sign him, but def understand why we wouldnt..
#23 OF CHICAGO SPORTS:
         23 - SANDBERG
         23 - JORDAN
         23 - HESTER
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/12/2013 3:26 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 


I wouldn't have had a problem with signing Bourn, but I don't have a problem not signing him either. He's one of those guys that makes it real easy to get bogged down in a stat debate, but I don't think it needs to be that complicated. He's a decent leadoff hitter, very good center fielder, and very good baserunner. Different organizations and different individuals are going to place different values on a player with those credentials. I don't think he can be boiled down to a simple WAR argument.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/12/2013 3:31 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 


Well now you have an idea how much Jacoby Ellsbury will cost next year, when Theo starts throwing money at him.....and don't think he won't be.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/12/2013 3:32 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



DoubleDown11 wrote: I wouldn't have had a problem with signing Bourn, but I don't have a problem not signing him either. He's one of those guys that makes it real easy to get bogged down in a stat debate, but I don't think it needs to be that complicated. He's a decent leadoff hitter, very good center fielder, and very good baserunner. Different organizations and different individuals are going to place different values on a player with those credentials. I don't think he can be boiled down to a simple WAR argument.
I think it comes down to would he make the team better and provide value thoughout the length of his contract. He would have filled a need and improved the team. He is one of those players that was available and was not a high priced free agent that would not have restricted future acquisitions and could have been a trade chip down the road.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/12/2013 3:33 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



DoubleDown11 wrote: I wouldn't have had a problem with signing Bourn, but I don't have a problem not signing him either. He's one of those guys that makes it real easy to get bogged down in a stat debate, but I don't think it needs to be that complicated. He's a decent leadoff hitter, very good center fielder, and very good baserunner. Different organizations and different individuals are going to place different values on a player with those credentials. I don't think he can be boiled down to a simple WAR argument.
yup.
#23 OF CHICAGO SPORTS:
         23 - SANDBERG
         23 - JORDAN
         23 - HESTER
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/12/2013 3:48 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



cubsfanforlife22 wrote:
DoubleDown11 wrote: I wouldn't have had a problem with signing Bourn, but I don't have a problem not signing him either. He's one of those guys that makes it real easy to get bogged down in a stat debate, but I don't think it needs to be that complicated. He's a decent leadoff hitter, very good center fielder, and very good baserunner. Different organizations and different individuals are going to place different values on a player with those credentials. I don't think he can be boiled down to a simple WAR argument.
yup.
Just file this one under who could the Cubs have signed when the question comes up later in the year and the Cubs are struggling and the OF platoons aren't producing.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/12/2013 4:11 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



cubs2007 wrote:
cubsfanforlife22 wrote:
DoubleDown11 wrote: I wouldn't have had a problem with signing Bourn, but I don't have a problem not signing him either. He's one of those guys that makes it real easy to get bogged down in a stat debate, but I don't think it needs to be that complicated. He's a decent leadoff hitter, very good center fielder, and very good baserunner. Different organizations and different individuals are going to place different values on a player with those credentials. I don't think he can be boiled down to a simple WAR argument.
yup.
Just file this one under who could the Cubs have signed when the question comes up later in the year and the Cubs are struggling and the OF platoons aren't producing.
sure
#23 OF CHICAGO SPORTS:
         23 - SANDBERG
         23 - JORDAN
         23 - HESTER
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/12/2013 4:16 PM

RE: Bourn to Indians 



msqboxer2011 wrote: Swisher and Bourn.....not making a lot of sense to me...I thought that the Indians would start over.

They also added Brett Myers and Mark Reynolds. They traded for top pitching prospect Trevor Bauer and Drew Stubbs.  They hired manager Terry Francona.

Why start over when you can make improvements ?

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >