Bye Bye Burrell

by Alex Falzone on Nov 3, 2006 9:07 AM EST Comment 11 comments

It's becoming more and more apparent as each day passes that Pat Burrell will most likely no longer be a member of the Phils in 2007. The latest news, courtesy of Marcus Hayes:

To this point, Burrell has indicated that he would waive the clause only in deals that would send him to New York or Boston.

The Phillies can add San Francisco to that list.

...In trade, the Giants might want the Phillies, who are looking for bullpen help, to take closer Armando Benitez, who comes with plenty of baggage: a $7.6 million salary for this season, the last on his contract; his bad knees, which limited him to 41 games this season; and a poor reputation as a teammate.

Let's hope the last paragraph is just something Hayes made up. If the team is going to move Burrell because management and the fans want him to be something he's not, then fine. Trade him for the salary relief and try to pick up some young guys. Don't compound the problem by moving him and then wasting 7.5 million dollars on another old, injured relief pitcher. Good god, you'd think this team would learn something by watching the playoffs the last few years: the Angels in '02, Jenks last year, the Cards' bullpen this year. You don't need to drop a lot of coin on the 'pen to be successful.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree

I'm all for getting rid of Burrell for whatever we can... but Armando Benitez? Jeez.. The Giants would have to take every cent of Burrell's deal and at least send a young player back too.

This would be a purely money saving move and it would have to be coupled with a free agent signing. Otherwise it's not worth it. Benitez is just terrible.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Nov 3, 2006 11:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

no, he's not

I entirely agree with Alex's premise, that you don't need to spend big dollars on the bullpen to win. But it's simply not correct to dismiss Benitez as "terrible." His ERAs over the last five seasons are:

2.27, 2.96, 1.29, 4.50, 3.52

And he'll pitch all next season at age 34. (In fact, today is his birthday.) And here are his "similarity scores" through age 33 (from baseball-reference.com):

1. John Wetteland (937)
2. Trevor Hoffman (933)
3. Rod Beck (933)
4. Troy Percival (929)
5. Randy Myers (929)
6. Jeff Reardon (929)
7. Gregg Olson (928)
8. Lee Smith (924)
9. Bruce Sutter (914) *
10. Jeff Montgomery (914)

That's a damn good list, with one Hall of Famer, another likely inductee (Hoffman), and a bunch of guys who dotted all-star teams in the '80s and '90s.

Admittedly, Benitez has had bad peripheral numbers the last two seasons--too many HR allowed and many more walks than I'd like to see. But this could be a reason to get him: if we're arguing that reliever stats are generally meaningless from one season to the next (and we are), then a guy who's shown that he can perform at a high level and is healthy--which is really the key here--should be more attractive after some relative under-performance.

I wouldn't be overjoyed about a Burrell-for-Benitez deal, but I wouldn't be terribly upset about it either.

by dajafi on Nov 3, 2006 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Relievers

I thought it was reliever ERA, rather than peripherals, that was a crapshoot to predict year-to-year.

by phatj on Nov 3, 2006 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You have to look past Benitez's numbers...

Ask any Met fan you know. Benitez has blown any big game he's ever pitched in. That's my problem with him. He's maybe the worst big game closer I've ever seen.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Nov 3, 2006 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I live in NY

Trust me, I "know" that Benitez is crap in big games--at least insomuch as I've seen it. Then again, the fact that he's gotten so many saves suggests that at least some of them had to be in close ones.

But I think he's solid as a setup man for Gordon, and I like him closing if/when Gordon goes down at least as much as anyone else in-house.

All that said, mlbtraderumors thinks that even a straight-up Burrell-for-Benitez deal with no money going to the Giants would be a win for SF. As mentioned, I wouldn't be delighted with this--but then again, I'd rather just keep Burrell.

A commenter in that same thread suggests a Burrell-for-Mike Lowell trade, an idea I really like.

by dajafi on Nov 3, 2006 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Big games

Benitez blowing big games is just like Burrell always striking out looking with man on base -- it's certainly happened, even repeatively, and it's quite memorable, but it's not the whole picture. Benitez has had plenty of times where he's shut down the competition effectively, but those times don't stick out.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of Burrell for Benitez, but if the Giants take all of Pat's salary, I coudl accept it (even then, I'd want the Giants to thrown in a young arm to make it more even).

More concerning would be replacing Burrell in RF. Getting someone who is more productive but cheaper than Pat (say, Barry Bonds...) would make this a good move. Getting someone who is no real improvement for more money (I'm looking at you Soriano) would be a waste and pointless.

by Laaaaazzz on Nov 3, 2006 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There's no doubt

that when he's healthy, Benitez has been very good in the regular season. Especially early on.

It's just those big games... He's legendary, in the bad way.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Nov 3, 2006 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We'd need power to replace Burrell

We can't go into a year with no power at all in the outfield...

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Nov 3, 2006 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With the way the media and FO is going about it

not to meantion Burrell himself, this is so going to be Abreu part 2, and if that's the case they are so much better off keeping Burrell.

The Phillies have something like 60M commited next year, they SHOULD be able to go up to 90M if not beyond, there's no reason why they can't sign a Soriano or trade a Sheffield while still keeping Burrell. if they are going to trade Burrell they need real talents in return, but with the way the media and FO is trying to run him out of town while he himself is being very picky, the chances of him being traded for significant talent is slim to none at the moment.

by RollingWave on Nov 10, 2006 2:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

completely agree

The most likely scenario now seems to me that they'll trade him for a Ricardo Rodriguez type... and pay half his salary so Pat can hit 30 homers for some other team. Not smart.

by dajafi on Nov 10, 2006 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs