« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds  (Read 7351 times)

Phil_in_CS

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1511
    • View Profile
Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« on: November 17, 2005, 09:16:12 am »
Logged

Jacksonian

  • Contributor
  • Double Super Secret Pope
  • Posts: 12893
  • Anonymous Source
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2005, 10:54:46 am »
Quote:

The Link



And, the 40-man roster is now down to 29.
Logged
Goin' for a bus ride.

Froback

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2005, 11:08:07 am »
Makes you wonder what they are going to do with the 40-man...  I thought Burns decent bullpen guy... but I guess I was wrong.
Logged

VirtualBob

  • Pope
  • Posts: 5630
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2005, 11:31:56 am »
Quote:

Makes you wonder what they are going to do with the 40-man...  I thought Burns decent bullpen guy... but I guess I was wrong.



Yeah ... I was very surprised as well.  I don't think he's the next coming of Lidge, but I do think he will be a solid member of somebody's bullpen for quite some time.
Logged
Up in the Air

Tralfaz

  • Fantasy Team Owner
  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 2223
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2005, 01:22:26 pm »
Damn.  Burns and Self.  Gipson too, but not quite the head scratcher as the former.  Burns was solid with the Express.  Self really never got it back together after his cup of coffee, but looked to have a bright future.  Maybe an injury issue?  Someone please explain why these losses are good for the organization.
Logged
RO RASROS!

Kent's Moustache

  • Prime Time Player
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2005, 01:31:01 pm »
Quote:

Damn.  Burns and Self.  Gipson too, but not quite the head scratcher as the former.  Burns was solid with the Express.  Self really never got it back together after his cup of coffee, but looked to have a bright future.  Maybe an injury issue?  Someone please explain why these losses are good for the organization.


Don't forget the loss of RHP D.J. Houlton in the 2004 Rule V Draft to the Dodgers.  Didn't he win almost 10 games for LA in '05?

Also, don't be surprised if the Astros lose 2B Brooks Conrad in the 2005 Rule V Draft.
Logged
"Go play intramurals, brother.  Go play intramurals..."

Bench

  • Illuminati
  • Posts: 16476
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2005, 01:39:52 pm »
Who'd a thunk today would be such a big news day?
Logged
"Holy shit, Mozart. Get me off this fucking thing."

Jacksonian

  • Contributor
  • Double Super Secret Pope
  • Posts: 12893
  • Anonymous Source
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2005, 01:42:27 pm »
Quote:

Quote:

Damn.  Burns and Self.  Gipson too, but not quite the head scratcher as the former.  Burns was solid with the Express.  Self really never got it back together after his cup of coffee, but looked to have a bright future.  Maybe an injury issue?  Someone please explain why these losses are good for the organization.


Don't forget the loss of RHP D.J. Houlton in the 2004 Rule V Draft to the Dodgers.  Didn't he win almost 10 games for LA in '05?

Also, don't be surprised if the Astros lose 2B Brooks Conrad in the 2005 Rule V Draft.



Houlton was 6-9 with a 5.16 ERA.  I'm not lamenting the loss.

Conrad was eligible last year and wasn't taken.  If the Astros don't add him to the 40-man this year I can't imagine they see him in an Astros uni.
Logged
Goin' for a bus ride.

HudsonHawk

  • Administrator
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 42689
  • Gentleman About Town
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2005, 01:52:26 pm »
Quote:


Also, don't be surprised if the Astros lose 2B Brooks Conrad in the 2005 Rule V Draft.



I can't imagine Conrad not being added to the 40-man this year, if they think he has any future at all.
Logged
The rules of distinction were thrown out with the baseball cap.  It does not lend itself to protocol.  It is found today on youth in homes, classrooms, even in fine restaurants.  Regardless of its other consequences, this is a breach against civility.  A civilized man should avoid this mania.

Taras Bulba

  • Contributor
  • Key Member of the Conspiracy
  • Posts: 3988
    • View Profile
    • Wing Attack Plan R
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2005, 01:58:32 pm »
Quote:

Damn.  Burns and Self.  Gipson too, but not quite the head scratcher as the former.  Burns was solid with the Express.  Self really never got it back together after his cup of coffee, but looked to have a bright future.  Maybe an injury issue?  Someone please explain why these losses are good for the organization.



I think what the Astros are saying is that all of these players are very replacable.  Burns is okay but not stellar.  Gipson is fairly long in the tooth and not an offensive powerhouse.  Self has shown limited power for a guy whose "natural" position is first base.  I'm sure all are well liked and that in a perfect world the Astros would like to retain their services, but sometimes it's a bit of a cattle call when it comes to personnel decisions.  They got cut out of the herd.
Logged
Purity of Essence

JimR

  • Contributor
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 29345
    • View Profile
    • McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, LLP
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2005, 02:07:34 pm »
right. ok is how i would describe him also.
Logged
Often wrong, but never in doubt.

the KEG

  • Disappointing Rookie
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2005, 02:23:34 pm »
Yeah from what I've heard about him, Houlton is your basic righty junkballer.
Logged

lc_db

  • Prime Time Player
  • Posts: 522
    • View Profile
    • I_dont_need_no_stinkin_homepage.com
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2005, 02:38:01 pm »
Quote:

Yeah from what I've heard about him, Houlton is your basic righty junkballer.



A lefty in a right-hander's body?
Logged

Fredia

  • Pope
  • Posts: 6896
  • Looking forward
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2005, 02:47:22 pm »
time to stop subtracting and do some major adding.. now is when the rumors will start to fly ..man i love this time of year
Logged
forever is composed entirely of nows

Kent's Moustache

  • Prime Time Player
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2005, 02:56:57 pm »
Quote:

Houlton was 6-9 with a 5.16 ERA. I'm not lamenting the loss.


That's somehow less preferable than the rookie numbers put up by Wandy and Zeke in their starts?

Quote:

Yeah from what I've heard about him, Houlton is your basic righty junkballer.


Depends on how you define "basic righty junkballer."  If, by that term, you mean a pitcher who gets batters out without a 93+ mph fastball, then perhaps.

The point, however, is that Houlton showed a remarkable track record on the Astros' farm for getting batters out.  Now, he's pitching for the Dodgers, and the Astros have nothing to show for it.

Deciding that a player like Houlton, Burns, Self, etc. is replaceable is one thing; devoting years of money, energy, and roster spots to that player's development, only to let him get away for nothing, is a-whole-nother.
Logged
"Go play intramurals, brother.  Go play intramurals..."

pravata

  • Guest
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2005, 03:03:21 pm »
Quote:

Quote:

Houlton was 6-9 with a 5.16 ERA. I'm not lamenting the loss.


That's somehow less preferable than the rookie numbers put up by Wandy and Zeke in their starts?

Quote:

Yeah from what I've heard about him, Houlton is your basic righty junkballer.


Depends on how you define "basic righty junkballer."  If, by that term, you mean a pitcher who gets batters out without a 93+ mph fastball, then perhaps.

The point, however, is that Houlton showed a remarkable track record on the Astros' farm for getting batters out.  Now, he's pitching for the Dodgers, and the Astros have nothing to show for it.

Deciding that a player like Houlton, Burns, Self, etc. is replaceable is one thing; devoting years of money, energy, and roster spots to that player's development, only to let him get away for nothing, is a-whole-nother.



What percentage of minor leaguers, from any team, do you believe, play in the majors for more than 3 years?
Logged

JimR

  • Contributor
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 29345
    • View Profile
    • McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, LLP
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2005, 04:52:00 pm »
as far as i am concerned, there is no one the Astros have released recently who was a mistake. if they do well elsewhere, good for them, but all were very ordinary.
Logged
Often wrong, but never in doubt.

pravata

  • Guest
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2005, 05:00:44 pm »
Quote:

as far as i am concerned, there is no one the Astros have released recently who was a mistake. if they do well elsewhere, good for them, but all were very ordinary.



Every time the Astros let a player go, and the guy is picked up by another team, somebody pitches a fit.  Not everybody can be traded, a small percentage of players make it to the majors.  Even so, the amount spent on the minor league system to develop these few players, is worth the cost.  In baseball terms.  The money spent on the players that are let go is not "for nothing".
Logged

Kent's Moustache

  • Prime Time Player
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2005, 05:02:35 pm »
Quote:

What percentage of minor leaguers, from any team, do you believe, play in the majors for more than 3 years?


By "minor leaguers from any team," I'm not sure if you mean all of a club's farmhands for a given season (which would include draftees, FA signees, trade acquisitions, etc.) or some subset thereof.

I note the distinction, here, because, notably, Houlton, Burns, Self, and Conrad were all Astros draftees, from the 2000 and 2001 drafts.  Additionally, all played the first 4 seasons of their careers as Astros farmhands, all distinguished themselves as players in the lower levels of the system, and all have risen (past many higher-drafted teammates, I might add) at least as high as AAA.

In any event, I have not seen any statistics reflecting the figure you raise, but will speculate that the number is less than 10%, perhaps even less than 5%.
Logged
"Go play intramurals, brother.  Go play intramurals..."

Kent's Moustache

  • Prime Time Player
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2005, 05:08:54 pm »
Quote:

Every time the Astros let a player go, and the guy is picked up by another team, somebody pitches a fit.


Who the hell is "pitching a fit"?  The transactions have simply been noted and discussed.

Pardon me, Dick Cheney, if asking a question about the prudence of a handful of 40-man roster moves threatens the viability of your Administration.  Guess I ain't a "patriot," huh?
Logged
"Go play intramurals, brother.  Go play intramurals..."

pravata

  • Guest
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2005, 05:09:47 pm »
Quote:

Quote:

What percentage of minor leaguers, from any team, do you believe, play in the majors for more than 3 years?


By "minor leaguers from any team," I'm not sure if you mean all of a club's farmhands for a given season (which would include draftees, FA signees, trade acquisitions, etc.) or some subset thereof.

I note the distinction, here, because, notably, Houlton, Burns, Self, and Conrad were all Astros draftees, from the 2000 and 2001 drafts.  Additionally, all played the first 4 seasons of their careers as Astros farmhands, all distinguished themselves as players in the lower levels of the system, and all have risen ((past many higher-drafted teammates, I might add) at least as high as AAA.

In any event, I have not seen any statistics reflecting the figure you raise, but will speculate that the number is lesser than 10%, perhaps even lesser than 5%.

Even if that is the case, though, it doesn't justify waiving a player--whom you drafted and who subsequently flourished in your minor league system--without getting any consideration in return.

Lastly, lest anyone suspect that I am advocating on behalf of the above-identified players, note that I am talking about the organization's perspective, here.  Hell, for all I know, Houlton (Dodgers), Burns (Reds), and Self (Mets) are probably thankful for the opportunities afforded by their new teams.

The Astros may have done them a favor by opening the door to those opportunities, but their loss still leaves questions about the club's scouting, player development, and personnel work.



The number is around 30%. Houlton was lost to Rule 5 so his situation is different than those others. The cost of the entire minor league system is calculated to make the development of a few players who make it to the majors cost effective.  Unless you're the Yankees, then the minors are a total waste.  While you're calculating the development costs; calculate the cost it would take to scout, negotiate, and make a trade for every single marginal player the team cuts and then think about the similarly marginal player they're likely to receive in return.
Logged

Taras Bulba

  • Contributor
  • Key Member of the Conspiracy
  • Posts: 3988
    • View Profile
    • Wing Attack Plan R
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2005, 05:10:51 pm »
i clearly recall pitching a fit over the loss of Abreu many years ago.  Since then, my intelligence has not increased, however, i have learned that no franchise can get optimum return or anything close to it relating to players on the edge of roster consideration.  They would obviously like to get something for Burns but people were not exactly knocking down the door to make a deal for him.  Same for Self and Gipson.  What it shows is how lacking the Reds staff is in comparison to that of Houston.  Give Cincy credit for being there to pick him off, but it's not going to have much affect at all on 2006 season prospects for Houston.  They think they have as good or better talent in their system right now.
Logged
Purity of Essence

SeanBergmanRules

  • Disappointing Rookie
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2005, 05:28:08 pm »
Quote:


That's somehow less preferable than the rookie numbers put up by Wandy and Zeke in their starts?




Yeah, it is.  Let Wandy and Zeke pitch half their games in the ballpark that made Chan Ho Park look good, and we'll see how they do.  Zeke had a habit of giving up the long ball, and if he got to pitch at Chavez Ravine, that would no longer be a problem.  Houlton had a 6.37 ERA on the road.
Logged

pravata

  • Guest
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2005, 05:36:18 pm »
Quote:

i clearly recall pitching a fit over the loss of Abreu many years ago.  Since then, my intelligence has not increased, however, i have learned that no franchise can get optimum return or anything close to it relating to players on the edge of roster consideration.  They would obviously like to get something for Burns but people were not exactly knocking down the door to make a deal for him.  Same for Self and Gipson.  What it shows is how lacking the Reds staff is in comparison to that of Houston.  Give Cincy credit for being there to pick him off, but it's not going to have much affect at all on 2006 season prospects for Houston.  They think they have as good or better talent in their system right now.



Burns is a decent pitcher, he throws strikes.  As for Abreu, the Phillies are making noises about trading him.  Why? Attitude, same thing that caused the Astros to leave him unprotected.  Quick, who has more post season abs, Jason Lane or Bobby Abreu?  (On the other hand, who has more World Series wins, Roy Oswalt or Freddy Garcia?)
Logged

NeilT

  • Fantasy Team Owner
  • Double Super Secret Pope
  • Posts: 11670
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2005, 05:54:03 pm »
Quote:

Quote:

What percentage of minor leaguers, from any team, do you believe, play in the majors for more than 3 years?


By "minor leaguers from any team," I'm not sure if you mean all of a club's farmhands for a given season (which would include draftees, FA signees, trade acquisitions, etc.) or some subset thereof.

I note the distinction, here, because, notably, Houlton, Burns, Self, and Conrad were all Astros draftees, from the 2000 and 2001 drafts.  Additionally, all played the first 4 seasons of their careers as Astros farmhands, all distinguished themselves as players in the lower levels of the system, and all have risen (past many higher-drafted teammates, I might add) at least as high as AAA.

In any event, I have not seen any statistics reflecting the figure you raise, but will speculate that the number is less than 10%, perhaps even less than 5%.



Here's a quote from Schuerholz that suggests something around 4% ever make it to a roster, with less than that ever making it into a game.  The Link
Logged
"I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing... as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”  Charles Grassley

Froback

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2005, 06:09:46 pm »
   The thing that has me scratching my head is not the removing of Burns from the 40-man, but the fact that we now have 11 spot open on it...
   You have to figure 5 are for the roster openings on the 25 man, but what are the other 6 for?  I was not aware of the Astros having that many eligible for the Rule V draft this year... so that we lead me to believe those spots must be for Rule V acquisitions or trade additions where we get more back than we give up....
   I guess we might have some guys added to the 40 man who are not Rule V eligible, but I can only see that if there is a chance for them to play in 06 (IMO).
Logged

geezerdonk

  • Key Member of the Conspiracy
  • Posts: 3342
  • a long tradition of existence
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2005, 06:17:33 pm »
Quote:

Pardon me, Dick Cheney, if asking a question about the prudence of a handful of 40-man roster moves threatens the viability of your Administration.  Guess I ain't a "patriot," huh?



A nascent HD?
Off season is a great time for paranoid comic relief.
Logged
E come vivo? Vivo.

homer

  • Pope
  • Posts: 6509
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2005, 06:54:04 pm »
 
Quote:

Quick, who has more post season abs, Jason Lane or Bobby Abreu? (On the other hand, who has more World Series wins, Roy Oswalt or Freddy Garcia?)  




What does that have to do with anything?
Logged
Oye. Vamos, vamos.

BudGirl

  • Contributor
  • Illuminati
  • Posts: 17776
  • Brad Ausmus' Slave
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2005, 06:56:43 pm »
You know, maybe the Astros see some players they want to draft off the Rule V.  Just a thought.
Logged
''I just did an interview with someone I like more than you. I used a lot of big words on him. I don't have anything left for you.'' --Brad Ausmus

Well behaved women rarely make history.

pravata

  • Guest
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2005, 07:09:37 pm »
Quote:

Quote:

Quick, who has more post season abs, Jason Lane or Bobby Abreu? (On the other hand, who has more World Series wins, Roy Oswalt or Freddy Garcia?)  




What does that have to do with anything?



A. The post that it was replying to. B.  The complaint that the Astros supposedly reduced their chances of winning by losing Abreu, Santana, and now D.J.Houlton to Rule 5.  Not to mention all these other guys that they've just frittered away from their minor league system.
Logged

homer

  • Pope
  • Posts: 6509
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2005, 07:40:45 pm »
Quote:

B.  The complaint that the Astros supposedly reduced their chances of winning by losing Abreu, Santana, and now D.J.Houlton to Rule 5.  Not to mention all these other guys that they've just frittered away from their minor league system.



What does the number of Jason Lane postseason ABs or the number of Garcia wins have to do with any of this? I still don't see a connection.
Logged
Oye. Vamos, vamos.

JimR

  • Contributor
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 29345
    • View Profile
    • McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, LLP
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2005, 07:51:13 pm »
you see two are players we kept, and the other two are players who got away.
Logged
Often wrong, but never in doubt.

Arky Vaughan

  • Administrator
  • Pope
  • Posts: 6335
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2005, 08:02:36 pm »
Quote:

You know, maybe the Astros see some players they want to draft off the Rule V.  Just a thought.



Ding! Ding! Ding!

It's not like the players the Astros lose through Rule V just vanish, with nothing to replace them.  Just as other teams take those players, other teams also leave players in their systems unprotected.  It's a constant flow of hundreds of players down there, and the Astros are just as free to pick some up as they are to lose some.

Look at it this way: there are 30 franchises with 40 spots out there, so 1,200 players can be protected. But with 30 major-league clubs, each with hundreds of players in its system, only a fraction can be secured.

People have too little else to worry about if they are getting anxious about Mike Burns or Todd Self.
Logged

At Ease

  • Veteran Role Player
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2005, 09:11:00 pm »
Quote:

Quote:

B.  The complaint that the Astros supposedly reduced their chances of winning by losing Abreu, Santana, and now D.J.Houlton to Rule 5.  Not to mention all these other guys that they've just frittered away from their minor league system.



What does the number of Jason Lane postseason ABs or the number of Garcia wins have to do with any of this? I still don't see a connection.



Some people aren't aware reduced and eliminated aren't synonyms.
Logged

Jacksonian

  • Contributor
  • Double Super Secret Pope
  • Posts: 12893
  • Anonymous Source
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2005, 10:49:22 am »
Quote:

  The thing that has me scratching my head is not the removing of Burns from the 40-man, but the fact that we now have 11 spot open on it...
   You have to figure 5 are for the roster openings on the 25 man, but what are the other 6 for?  I was not aware of the Astros having that many eligible for the Rule V draft this year... so that we lead me to believe those spots must be for Rule V acquisitions or trade additions where we get more back than we give up....
   I guess we might have some guys added to the 40 man who are not Rule V eligible, but I can only see that if there is a chance for them to play in 06 (IMO).



Actually the Astros have a history of adding guys to the 40-man before their time limit is up.  It's a reward for hard work and good play.  It doesn't happen often, but you can imagine what it does for the guys who get it.
Logged
Goin' for a bus ride.

S.P. Rodriguez

  • Key Member of the Conspiracy
  • Posts: 2932
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2005, 11:03:28 am »
Quote:

Actually the Astros have a history of adding guys to the 40-man before their time limit is up.  It's a reward for hard work and good play.  It doesn't happen often, but you can imagine what it does for the guys who get it.



Not to mention the message it sends to those players coasting on talent and not putting in the work.
Logged
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man. "

-Mark Twain

David in Jackson

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 2465
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2005, 11:12:51 am »
Quote:

Quote:

i clearly recall pitching a fit over the loss of Abreu many years ago.  Since then, my intelligence has not increased, however, i have learned that no franchise can get optimum return or anything close to it relating to players on the edge of roster consideration.  They would obviously like to get something for Burns but people were not exactly knocking down the door to make a deal for him.  Same for Self and Gipson.  What it shows is how lacking the Reds staff is in comparison to that of Houston.  Give Cincy credit for being there to pick him off, but it's not going to have much affect at all on 2006 season prospects for Houston.  They think they have as good or better talent in their system right now.



Burns is a decent pitcher, he throws strikes.  As for Abreu, the Phillies are making noises about trading him.  Why? Attitude, same thing that caused the Astros to leave him unprotected.  Quick, who has more post season abs, Jason Lane or Bobby Abreu?  (On the other hand, who has more World Series wins, Roy Oswalt or Freddy Garcia?)



Of course, Geoff Blum has more WS home runs than Andre Dawson and Ernie Banks and Jeff Bagwell combined.
Logged
"I literally love Justin Verlander." -- Jose Altuve

VirtualBob

  • Pope
  • Posts: 5630
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2005, 12:28:50 pm »
Quote:

i clearly recall pitching a fit over the loss of Abreu many years ago.  Since then, my intelligence has not increased, however, i have learned that no franchise can get optimum return or anything close to it relating to players on the edge of roster consideration.  They would obviously like to get something for Burns but people were not exactly knocking down the door to make a deal for him.  Same for Self and Gipson.  What it shows is how lacking the Reds staff is in comparison to that of Houston.  Give Cincy credit for being there to pick him off, but it's not going to have much affect at all on 2006 season prospects for Houston.  They think they have as good or better talent in their system right now.



And for comparison (other than Abreu), think back a couple of years.  Eric Ireland came to RR in 2000 as the acknowledged ace of the staff, having actually thrown a no-no the previous year while tearing up Kissimme and ending the season in Jackson.  He was hot and cold during the year, not quite living up to the hype, but eating innings and being a key member of the championship team.  Then he was waived, claimed by the cubs and traded to Oakland, where he pitched for a year at Sacramento before being released.  I suspect that his career trajectory is much more common than Abreu's.  And this also serves as further confirmation that the people who actually run this business day to day have some insight into who is really likely to make a difference at the MLB level.

Like Jim, I do not see any of the recent losses as bad baseball moves.  I liked Burns & Self, and I suspect that Burns (at least) will end up in somebody's bullpen for quite a while, but I doubt seriously that we have lost a future star in any of these moves.
Logged
Up in the Air

JimR

  • Contributor
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 29345
    • View Profile
    • McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, LLP
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2005, 12:34:03 pm »
i was hugely disappointed the first time i saw Ireland pitch in RR. he had mediocrity written all over him.
Logged
Often wrong, but never in doubt.

bigred

  • Clark
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2005, 12:51:14 pm »
could you speculate on whom may be added to the 40-man? i assume it would be players like Talbot, Albers, Douglass,...???? any guesses?
Logged

hostros7

  • Pope
  • Posts: 7929
    • View Profile
Re: Mike Burns claimed by the Reds
« Reply #40 on: November 20, 2005, 07:27:16 pm »
i played ball with albers in high school.  the guys got nasty stuff; he just needs to harness it a bit
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »