Sorry, Uncle - Michael Bourn signs with Indians

[coachpipe]

The Indians are really trying to make some moves. If Bourn, Stubbs and Reynolds are all in the lineup together...Thats a lot of strikeouts. But they do have a pretty solid outfield which will surely help their pitching. They seem to be giving every player who has lost their way another chance...Signing Giambi to a minor league deal, Ben Fransisco, Ryan Raburn, Matt Capps, Brett Myers as well as Scott Kazmir and Daisuke Matsuzaka

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Only as a DH.

No, while both players are bad, if you gave me the choice of ...

A. Mark Reynolds is your everyday 3B or 1B.

Or ...

B. Drew Stubbs is your everyday CF.

Give me "A" every time. Over the course of a season, both will frustrate the hell out of you and you'll wonder how each of them could possibly be starters at the MLB level. But at least one of those two might mash you 40 bombs. Also, while Stubbs is clearly a much-better defensive player than Reynolds (who is awful defensively) Stubbs is overrated IMO as a centerfielder. I'm basing that opinion off of watching hundreds of his games as a Red (no small sample size). I'm not a fan of defensive metrics. They're fine if you've never seen a guy play and you want a general idea of what kind of defensive player he is. But I trust my own judgment/my own eyes when it comes to defense and I'm a firm believer that Stubbs is vastly overrated defensively. He's very fast. That's pretty much it. He's horrible at playing balls hit in front of him. He always takes the safe approach and pulls up on them. OK, that's a hard play to make, I get that. The point? Great defensive centerfielders make that play occasionally. The line drive hit right at you -- a few steps in front of you. It's a really tough play. Stubbs never makes it. Stubbs also struggles with balls on the warning track/near the wall. He's a "good" defensive CF, certainly not a "great" one.

Back to hitting for a moment. I'm a big OPS guy. Stubbs' career OPS: .698. Reynolds' career OPS: .807. Huge difference.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by GAC

That news is really gonna pee off my buddy who is an ATL fan. LOL

Why, they were never going to resign him, and they get the same draft choice compensation?

[M2]

Stubbs might platoon with Brantley in LF. I remember reading a few takes out in the wide, wide world after the Choo trade that Stubbs be some sort of boost for Cleveland (want to say Keith Law had that take). The Indians did what any rational team would do if Stubbs was listed as its everyday OF - it went out and upgraded.

[traderumor]

Bourn was a league average offensive player, 99 OPS+ bref method, a 3 WAR player.

Choo was .815, 131 OPS+. They are same age. Obviously Bourn playing high caliber defensive CF is a plus for him, but I don't think it balances out his value of Choo in right and leaving Brantley in CF.

I think the Indians might have been better off to pay Choo and set aside any of the personal stuff that made them want to deal him, because they just signed a lesser offensive player for what I assume would be similar dollars. Their moves just keep on looking like so much wheel spinning, and I think they are getting deeper in the mud.

[bucksfan2]

I don't quite understand this off season for the Indians. They are making moves, spending some money, to be a middle of the pack team. If your an Indians fan, would you rather have had Borne or Choo? You probably could have extended Choo for around the same amount that you signed Borne for.

The question you have to ask for the Indians is, do these moves make them better the Tigers, White Sox and even Royals? If the answer is no then why? Then compound that with them giving up 2 of their first three draft picks. IMO smart organizations resist making these moves. I could see signing Borne if you had the guys in the rotation to compete. IMO the Indians do not.

[Captain13]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Mark Reynolds > Drew Stubbs.

At the plate, yes. Anywhere on the field, no.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I think the Indians might have been better off to pay Choo and set aside any of the personal stuff that made them want to deal him, because they just signed a lesser offensive player for what I assume would be similar dollars. Their moves just keep on looking like so much wheel spinning, and I think they are getting deeper in the mud.

I think Choo was determined to test the open market, and he was asking for a lot more than the money Bourn got. Plus, there was some talk that Swisher wanted Choo traded before he agreed to sign (understandable).
So basically the Indians got Swisher, Bourn, Bauer, and Stubbs for Choo and a lot of money. Since they have 3 guys that can play CF, they also have some more trade bait. It's not a bad rebuilding move, assuming Bourn and Swisher play well during their contracts. IMO, they've improved their team, even though Choo is probably the best player of the bunch.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I could see signing Borne if you had the guys in the rotation to compete. IMO the Indians do not.

I guess I disagree. Bourn is going to be around 4-5 years.
Choo was gone at the end of the year. The Tribe did try hard to sign him. If he was willing to take 4/48, I'm sure Choo would've been extended.

I don't get this binary idea of team building..( either you completely suck and play all kids or you go "all in").. The Indians obviously had the money to sign Swisher and Bourn. Those may end up being the first two key pieces when they are relevant later. Bauer is a nice arm to add as well.
Good teams add talent by every avenue possible. The Indians have added considerable talent. So Cleveland loses their 2nd and 3rd draft picks? No big deal.. Not many 2/3 picks end up as talented as Bourn. Most don't even make the majors. Plus, don't forget about Bauer.. Wouldn't you trade a 2nd round draft pick to get Bauer? I would..

[The Operator]

Originally Posted by Captain13

At the plate, yes. Anywhere on the field, no.

I've always thought that Reynolds was a decent fielder, but inflicted with a rag arm that made his value at 3B less than optimal.

Wouldn't moving him to 1B effectively eliminate most of that problem?

[LegallyMinded]

Originally Posted by The Operator

I've always thought that Reynolds was a decent fielder, but inflicted with a rag arm that made his value at 3B less than optimal.

Wouldn't moving him to 1B effectively eliminate most of that problem?

UZR and DRS both think Reynolds is well below average at both third and first, although DRS seems to find him slightly "less bad" at first.

Regarding his arm: I find it interesting that the most recent Fan Scouting Report at fangraphs gives Reynolds a score of "1" on "arm accuracy." That's on a scale of 1 to 100, and no one else in the league had a score less than 20.

[757690]

Originally Posted by mth123

I'd pass. Makes too much money and really isn't the defender he's made out to be. The best thing about his game is his speed on the bases and he's good against LHP. I guess if the tribe would take Masset off our hands to make the swap salary neutral, he'd be OK, or if they'd take Ondrusek and send a couple a million bucks with him, otherwise, I'd pass.

Stubbs turned the corner last year defensively, both according to my eyes and and advanced states. He got over his fear of the wall, and learned how to get better reads off of the bat. He had an 8.6 UZR/150 last season. That's outstanding for a CF.

The only reason why I'd be interested in him is the glaring need for a defensive minded CF for the Reds. They really don't have a true CF as an option right now, and considering how much this team is built on pitching and defense, that's an important weakness, imo.

Call me crazy... again, but I'd trade Heisey for him straight up. He fills the Reds needs better.

[TRF]

In 2010, Stubbs hit 19 HR's hitting in the lower half of the order. When he bats 1st or second, he hasn't been as productive, and i blame this mostly on coaching, and some on Stubbs inability to adapt. Bat him 7th, and I believe he is strong enough to hit 30 bombs.

He just isn't suited for the top of the order. In that context, I take him over Reynolds simply because Stubbs defense rates as excellent, and at a key position.

So, if it were me, I'd put Stubbs in RF, DH Swisher or Reynolds with the other playing 1B, and I'd bat Stubbs 7th or 8th.

I'm no great fan of Stubbs, but I think the Reds development staff, and the coaching at the major league level have done him a disservice. Speed doesn't mean leadoff hitter.

[blumj]

Originally Posted by LegallyMinded

UZR and DRS both think Reynolds is well below average at both third and first, although DRS seems to find him slightly "less bad" at first.

Regarding his arm: I find it interesting that the most recent Fan Scouting Report at fangraphs gives Reynolds a score of "1" on "arm accuracy." That's on a scale of 1 to 100, and no one else in the league had a score less than 20.

He hasn't looked awful at 1st when I've seen him, maybe below average but not noticeably so, unlike Fielder, who immediately makes you wonder why he's not DHing.

[Reds/Flyers Fan]

Originally Posted by VR

Has to be tough for Drew to see someone with Bourn's skillset get such a contract like this...especially when it's moving him down the depth chart.

If Drew would have learned how to bunt and embrace that aspect of the game, he wouldn't be in this situation. He was too stubborn (STUBBorn) to change his approach. Now he finds himself off a World Series contender and his new also-ran team isn't even sure of him.