Marlon Byrd

by chase1971 on Sep 3, 2007 10:50 PM CDT

He came into the game today hitting .249/.286/.395 in the second half with 185 at bats. He also has one of the lowest range factor and zone ratings for a center fielder in the league if those stats even mean anything.

And the hunt for a center fielder continues for us

Tweet Comment 43 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The hunt

was never over, Byrd was never going to be a long-term answer, but at least we have some stopgaps lined up for a decent platoon the next couple of years.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 3, 2007 11:04 PM CDT reply actions

byrd

Byrd has had a cult following and has been a great player to have in the line-up. He brings fans and gets them into the game every time he goes to bat. It doesn't matter what he does if we can get another centerfielder we will. Anyone getting excited to see some over the wall catches next year?

by HugeRangersFan on Sep 4, 2007 8:22 AM CDT reply actions

Options....?

I fall in-line with others on this board in not wanting to sign aging, declining, over-paid players like Hunter and Jones. Rowand after the year he's had will likely command at least what GMJ got. What other options are out there? retreads like Patterson, etc and Byrd. Gimme Byrd next year, I guess.

by Topgun22 on Sep 4, 2007 10:09 AM CDT reply actions

I'd be OK with...

Mike Cameron but eh... You're right. There isn't anything out there that really interests me for next year.

I believe Byrd will be back, but I don't think he should be the starting CFer.

by chase1971 on Sep 4, 2007 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions

Would

Mike Cameron really interest you?

Marlon Byrd 2007: 109 OPS +

Mike Cameron:

106 OPS +
104 OPS +
113 OPS +
119 OPS +
110 OPS +

Byrd / Murphy platoon or Murphy / Boggs platoon for '08 and '09.

Mike Cameron is not significantly better enough, granted it's just a one year track record for Byrd, but I don't think Cameron warrants a two-year FA deal. Fukudome, maybe.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions

I think the difference

is that Cameron is viewed as a legitimate defensive CF and Byrd isn't. Cameron is no great shakes, but he is probably around league average, anyway.

by DJCahill on Sep 4, 2007 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions

Fair enough

but consider that Cameron will be 35 in January, with 12 years of tread already on his tires. A guy in that stage of his career with a sub .800 OPS is not that appealing to me, regardless if he remains a legitimate defensive CF or not.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Well...

He's playing in possibly the most pitcher-friendly park in baseball. He's got an 834 OPS on the road, and he's still a very good defensive CF'er, which Byrd isn't.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions

I'm aware of the park

that he plays his home games in, that's why I used OPS + to adjust for that. An 834 OPS on the road is encouraging, but again, there are other mitigating factors in play.

"and he's still a very good defensive CF'er"

I haven't watched Mike Cameron play recently so I can't really challenge that. But it seems more of a subjective opinion statement, unless you've seen him play a decent amount. I'm not gonna pull out zone rating and those flawed fielding stats. Nevertheless, if he were to sign while not being much of a hitting upgrade, I would expect very good defense from him to justify it.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions

If the league average

is considered to be 100 OPS +, you are essentially getting an average hitter entering an age where skills begin to decline, when you already have an average hitter who is younger and cheaper. The defense would have to be overwhelmingly better to justify an FA signing, which would likely prevent Murphy from getting an adequate sample of AB's and it would create a crappy logjam platoon at COF, at a time when several players desperately need an evaluation.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions

You are assuming...

...that Byrd will hit as well in 2008 as he has in 2007...

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes

I am. 332 AB's is enough to convince me that he'd be a nice, cheap, platoon option along with Murphy. I'd rather take a chance on him than bring in a 35 year old, entering decline, more expensive player who is not part of the future, and who would also take away AB's from younger players. You are assuming that Cameron's defense hasn't and won't decline at age 35, and 36.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Yea

but the fact that he's declining as the year goes on, doesn't lead you to believe that he's going to revert back to the old Byrd with reagular playing time next year?

Byrd this season:

June: 1.020 OPS
July: .764 OPS
August: .693 OPS
Sept.: .714 OPS

He was unconscious for a month, not much since. I know it doesn't help that he's hitting cleanup most of the time, but that's another argument.

I really hope that he's not being counted on as a regular next year. Love having him around though

by badradiorules on Sep 4, 2007 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions

While we're splitting hairs

Cameron this season:

April: .507
May: .905
June: .932
July: .662
August: .925
September: .648 (small 12 AB sample)

3 Great .900+ OPS months mixed in with 2 awful sub .700 OPS months, with September starting off on the wrong foot -- in the midst of a playoff run.

All I'm saying is that Byrd should at least be considered for the platoon, he doesn't have to be a regular.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Sorry

read some of the earlier comments and didn't read your's thoroughly.

No, I'd be fine with him as a part timer, just not an everyday guy.

by badradiorules on Sep 4, 2007 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Is he really very good?

I view him as roughly a sidegrade or a mild upgrade from Kenny Lofton.

From the last few times I have seen him as a Met or a Padre, it appears to me his defensive glory days with the Mariners are long gone.

Then again, as with all defensive players, I dont trust the stats, and I certainly haven't seen Cameron enough times to really know.

by DJCahill on Sep 4, 2007 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions

Are you sure Cameron

is the same stud he used to be? I've only seen him a half dozen times or so in the last few years, but he no longer looks like a top notch defensive CF. Certainly, if the other option is Byrd, he is a major upgrade, but I don't think he is an elite defensive CF like he was with the Mariners.

by DJCahill on Sep 4, 2007 1:33 PM CDT reply actions

if he were top notch...

I'm sure he'd get a lot more than a 1 or 2 year consideration from quite a few teams. He's still a 20/20 player that will hit around .250 and yes, strike out a ton of times...not alltogether bad for your starting centerfielder, and I imagine if his defense has regressed 30% or so, he's still by far the best defensive centerfielder in our organization and worth a 1 or 2 year investment.

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Sep 4, 2007 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions

So, then

what were your plans for the Byrd-Cruz-Botts-Cat-Diaz-Murphy-Boggs situation while Mike Cameron is "holding steady" in center for a couple of years? Or is that irrelevant, because Mike Cameron allows us to exhale re: the outfield?

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Well...

I don't see how adding Cameron effects 7 people.... and yes most of which are irrelevant.

by chase1971 on Sep 4, 2007 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Opportunity cost

of adding Cameron is the inability to platoon two players in center (Murphy and Byrd / Boggs, for instance), but it's good to see that the rest of the outfield picture is irrelevant, because Mike Cameron solves all.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Irrelevant because...

they don't play CF or aren't good. Byrd would be one of those irrelevant players since he isn't good offensively and isn't good defensively.

What's the point of platooning Murphy and Byrd when Cameron would possibly be better than them (which I think he would be)? Byrd doesn't even hit lefties that well.

No one is saying Cameron is solves everything I'm not sure why you felt the need to say that.

by chase1971 on Sep 4, 2007 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions

Cameron

isn't and was never really that great offensively, judging by all the numbers posted in this thread, and we've yet to have anyone address him in depth defensively. CJ says that he thinks hes a defensive whiz, but I wish CJ would specify if he's seen him play recently or watched him on tv or whatever. It sounds like Cameron might not be as great defensively as he was with the Mariners, maybe we should consult the Padres' SB Nation site to ask them if he's still better than average defensively.

You don't think Byrd is of any value, whatsoever, in a platoon or bench role over the next couple of years? Should he be DFA'd, then?

What's the point of signing Cameron for two years if there's a slim chance of realistically competing for the division? Selling tickets, maybe, but not every personnel decision should be based on that. Winning sells more.

You still haven't offered your opinion of what the outfield situation should be if we went ahead and signed Cameron, that's why I made that comment.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Cameron..

in this ballpark I would expect about a .780-.800 OPS based on his past history. I don't know if his defensive skills have declined or not and that would be important to know considering thats the main reason I would have to sign him.

If we signed Cameron, then I don't really care what we do with Byrd to be honest.

The point of signing Cameron is to get an established defensive center fielder and hopefully improve our pitching staff. I think Cameron improves our chances to win (thus selling more tickets) over any platoon we could currently run out there. Cameron isn't the greatest option but he's better than any other options we might have save for a trade.

As for our outfield next year, its probably going to be terrible. I really dont know what to think of Cruz at this point. I'm crossing my fingers that Dunn becomes a FA but if he doesn't then I guess Cruz would be our RFer. Cat would be in left and Murphy would play all 3 outfield positions with CFer either being Byrd/Murphy or Cameron.

It's possible Byrd would be the 4th outfielder next year with Murphy going down to AAA because Cat would need someone to play for him against lefties. I don't know. The OF is a mess and it depresses me to think about it.

by chase1971 on Sep 4, 2007 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions

My suggestion

Botts at DH next year.

Platoon in LF, with Cat and Byrd, or Cat and Diaz.

Cameron in CF

Cruz in RF

Murphy as the 4th outfielder

I don't see anyone who isn't getting enough playing time there.

If anything, you can argue that Cruz doesn't deserve to be back, and Botts is on a short leash next year anyway.

Boggs has spent a half-season above A-ball, and was good, not great, in his stint in AA.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions

In other words

Murphy doesn't get a look, which isn't the end of the world for me, but 2008 is a good year for auditions from within, so I'd prefer to see him in a more regular platoon situation.

It's only 43 AB's, but he's getting on base, showing some pop, and playing adequate defense. I don't know if Cameron is worth stifling that, because I don't think a 4th outfielder role would reveal that much to us about Murphy.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Injuries...

I'm sure with injuries and what not like we always have in the OF, whoever is the 4th outfielder will get plenty of at bats.

Personally I'd like to see Murphy play everyday from this point at Byrd's expense.

by chase1971 on Sep 4, 2007 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Well

You could put Murphy in RF instead of Cruz, if you really wanted, since Cruz hasn't hit. However, you'd still probably want a platoon partner for Murphy, since he's never hit lefties well.

I just don't see that making David Murphy an everyday player is something would should be striving for. As a fallback plan, if you can't get anyone better, okay...but not signing a quality centerfielder so that you can make Murphy a regular doesn't make a ton of sense, to me.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions

Murphy

was drafted 17th overall in 2003, so I'd like to think he could possibly be a late blooming talent, before we rule him out. And I'd like to confirm that he can't be an everyday player, even though his minor league numbers suggest that he won't be, in a platoon situation, simply because we don't have much to lose in the 1st full year of rebuilding. Murphy / Boggs in RF might be a stretch, but not too far-fetched considering the way Boggs smashes lefties, so why not?

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions

I guess...

...I have a hard time with the idea of taking a guy whose minor league performance suggests that he's not going to be a good regular, and sticking him in the major league lineup every day on the hopes that maybe he'll be good.

Sort of like why I don't see the fascination some people have with Nate Gold.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions

So

what's wrong with the Murphy / Boggs platoon in RF? Would you do that if Nelly doesn't finish "strong"?

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Two things

I don't think you want to bring Boggs up at this point to be the short part of a platoon.

And I don't know that Boggs is really ready to be in the major leagues just yet.

I'd rather see him spend a season in AAA playing every day.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Ok

so you're sold with Cruz in RF in '08, regardless of September. Now which is it with the LF platoon: Cat / Diaz or Cat / Byrd? Where is the odd man out assigned -- Diaz to AAA, or Byrd to bench / DFA?

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 8:04 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes...

One of those two options.

by chase1971 on Sep 4, 2007 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Well

I'm not sold on Cruz at RF. I was just pointing out that Boggs isn't someone who should be starting 2008 in the majors, and bringing Mike Cameron in wouldn't create a problem as far as playing time goes.

I'd like to see them try to get Fukudome for RF next year. Barring that, Cruz I guess I could live with, for the short-term, or Victor Diaz.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Cameron

"bringing Mike Cameron in wouldn't create a problem as far as playing time goes"

That's your opinion because Murphy doesn't deserve regular playing time, in your judgment, even though he might change your mind in the final month. But at the same time, Mike Cameron is nothing more than an average hitter, and when you're presupposing that a CFer's defense is going to stay at the same level as it was during his prime (2001 is when Cameron peaked offensively with the Mariners, posting a 124 OPS+), it doesn't make the most sense. Again it's hard to quantify how good Cameron is defensively right now, but if his offense peaked in '01, I wouldn't expect his defense to be spectacular at age 35 -- which, an investment like him would require, when other average hitters are cheaply available.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by inactive lsb user on Sep 4, 2007 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Murphy

I doubt there's much Murphy would do the rest of the way that would convince me he should be a starter in 2008.

However, if you want to make him the starter, you can run a Cat/Byrd platoon in LF, Cameron in CF, Murphy in RF, and Botts at DH, with Cruz as your 4th (or 5th) OF.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Yikes

Murphy's bat, at best, only plays in center, right?

If he's a regular it has to be in center, right?

I don't know a ton about him, but I've gotten the idea that BPS, he's a plus defender/slap hitter type.

Is that off base.

by badradiorules on Sep 4, 2007 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Offensive State of Mind

Byrd and Cat can platoon left field and Cat can back up DH and 1B as well; Cameron could man Center, Cruz in RF and if one of Byrd, Cat or Cameron gets hurt or fails bring in Murphy for the 4th outfielder. If Cruz fails, bring Victor Diaz back up - but he needs more seasoning at AAA for one final run at our OF.

This assumes Salty is our everyday C, Wilkerson is our 1B, Botts is our DH, Sosa is off the team and we have the rest of our infield set with Hank at 3rd, Young at SS, Kinsler at SS and Vazquez/Metcalf as the backup infielder. Hopefully, Quiroz/Stewart can handle backup catching duties and if not, maybe we rush Teagarden up...or bring up Manriquez?

so the only real questions in this scenario are how hot can this offense start off/maintain and what are we going to get in return for Laird

with a starting 5 of Millwood, McCarthy, Padilla, Gabbard and Volquez and our rock-steady bullpen (adding Loe and Rheinecker to Otsuka, CJ, Littleton, AJ Murray, Jack Benny) I think we've got enough of a team to contend for 2nd place in the AL West and enough of a future with Teagarden, Chris Davis, German Duran, Arias, Boggs on offense and Hurley, Galarraga, Rupe and hopefully Diamond at some point in pitching to turn this ship around and contend for 1st and into the postseason

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Sep 4, 2007 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions

The more I think about it

The more I don't mind giving AJ a look. He's still not too old and has the power that you'd like out of a COF if/when he slides. And he still looks like a defensive whiz to me. But the $$$ will be the factor there for sure.

by bushe on Sep 4, 2007 3:18 PM CDT reply actions

interesting...

"you guys don't really understand how much impact a good defensive centerfielder has...
if a shortstop or a second baseman lacks range- the balls he lets through are singles. if a centerfielder lacks range- the balls are doubles and triples."

So, C.J., would you argue then that the best fielding CF of all-time (and I don't know who that would be...Ashburn, Blair, Mays, Speaker, Hunter, Andruw...heck I don't know, take your pick) would have more defensive value to his team than the best fielding SS of all-time - Ozzie Smith?

You may be right but it seems to me that over the course of a season, a SS will have a bunch more close opportunities - i.e. balls that could be either singles or outs based on the SS's defensive ability - than a CF will have close opportunites on fly balls that could be either doubles or outs based on the CF's defensive ability.

Put it this way: As a pitcher, would you rather have Richie Ashburn in CF and an average SS behind you, or an average CF and Ozzie Smith behind you?

by Brian Hayes on Sep 4, 2007 7:38 PM CDT reply actions

How about a...

Cat/Wilkerson platoon for next year?

by chase1971 on Sep 4, 2007 9:02 PM CDT reply actions

Cat/Wilk

That would make for a passable 1B I think, but it won't ever happen. Regardless of Wilkerson's reverse splits, I doubt if there's ever been a left-handed hitter who's ever been used in a strict platoon with another left-handed hitter and I wouldn't expect Wilkerson to be the first.

by Brian Hayes on Sep 4, 2007 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions