Outfield search continues: Marcus Thames?

by Vlad on Mar 25, 2009 12:36 PM EDT Comment 18 comments

Ed Price from AOL Fanhouse is reporting that the Pirates have talked with the Detroit Tigers about Marcus Thames:

Detroit Tigers general manager Dave Dombrowski said this is the time of spring when trade talks intensify, as the Detroit Free Press reported today . The Free Press speculated that Marcus Thames might be made available by the Tigers, and a major-league source has confirmed to FanHouse that Detroit is indeed seeing what it might be able to get for Thames.

Michigan has been hurt severely by the economic downturn, but the Tigers aren't (yet) looking just to dump salary. The Pittsburgh Pirates and Cincinnati Reds have shown some interest, the source said, and Detroit would like back a prospect who would be ready for the majors in the next year or two. - AOL Fanhouse

Thames, a 32-year-old right-handed batter, is a corner outfielder who also has a small amount of experience at first base (stats here ). He has very good power, with a career ISO of .257, but is a fairly weak defender, and his career OBP is a well-below-average .302. He is under contract for $2.275M this year, and will be eligible for arbitration for the third and final time this offseason. If acquired, Thames would probably displace Craig Monroe, one of his teammates in Detroit for several years, from our projected roster. Also, Thames's middle name is "Markley", which is kind of neat because it reminds me of the dog from Sesame Street . I loved that dog.

Combined with yesterday's news report about Jeff Baker, it seems clear that Huntington is not satisfied with the state of our outfield (with good reason, IMO). I would guess that he's probably also kicking the tires on several other righty outfielders whose names haven't turned up in the news yet. Watch the wire - a move is coming before the end of spring training.

The note about Detroit's economic situation is also somewhat interesting. They're set to carry a fairly hefty payroll in 2009, and much of that money (Sheffield, Willis, Bonderman, Guillen, Robertson) would be difficult to unload in the current environment. They may not strictly need to cut payroll this minute, but I bet they wouldn't mind moving a guy like Thames right now if it meant reducing the risk of having to dump someone like Polanco or Cabrera at fire-sale prices in three or four months.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

romulo sanchez for mediocre right-handed outfield bench bat ______

neal huntington will fill in the blank for us later. just a wild guess but you heard it here first.

by johnnycuff on Mar 25, 2009 2:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

err...

you heard it here second i guess. i didn’t realize azibuck already suggested mr. sanchez as part of a deal.

by johnnycuff on Mar 26, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pass On Thames

by thegunner on Mar 25, 2009 5:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I'm inclined to agree here

I’m not sure why the Pirates should be pursuing guys like Baker or Thames. The Pirates are going to be sub-.500 team with or without Baker or Thames. Not quite sure why we should give anyone up for them.

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Mar 25, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

Why would the PBC give up “a prospect who would be ready for the majors in the next year or two” for someone who may or may not even be on the team 2 years from now? None of these guys look any better than Monroe, Jones or Salazar. Start Hinske in LF and if Moss isn’t ready use Monroe, Jones or Salazar.

PBC should just stick to the waiver wire, or live with a combination of the guys currently in camp (but not Nyjer Morgan) until they’re ready to promote ACutch.

2009 is a lost cause. Don’t spoil the future to shore up a temporary very weak corner OF situation. Just cut Morgan and it’s addition through subtraction.

P.S. Anyone notice that Chris Duffy is putting up a .941 OPS in Milwaukee in about 55 PA this spring? LOL.

by WstCstBucco on Mar 25, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not better than Jones or Monroe? Hogwash.

Monroe hasn’t had an OPS+ over 100 since 2005. Jones is a career .259/.317/.457 hitter in AAA. Thames has a career ML SLG of .498, and he hit 25 HR in only 316 AB last year.

If you don’t want to trade for another OF because you want to hoard prospects for the future, that’s fine, but your case is strong enough on the facts. You don’t need to make stuff up out of whole cloth to try and make it seem stronger than it is.

by Vlad on Mar 25, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me be clear here

I was referring to “these guys” and not Thames in particular. Like Jeff Baker too.

The idea that PBC needs a stopgap in a corner OF position for 2009 seems based on 3 facts — (1) Morgan’s inability to surmount the Mendoza Line, (2) uncertainty due to the injury to Moss (who’s 2/3 with a double so far tonite), and (3) an unwillingness to start ACutch’s free agency clock by letting him make the team out of spring training. Maybe 4 things if you add in Hinske’s injury but he seems recovered.

My point is that these are all transitory. If the PBC is lucky and just a bit smart, the 2009 opening day starting OF can be Hinske, McLouth and Moss. In a couple months ACutch can be in the lineup without having his clock started — his OPS this spring is over .800 and he’s playing super defense.

If the team is just plain unlucky then Moss (and maybe even Hinske) ain’t going to be 100% on opening day, though they are both playing right now. In that case, to me the question becomes ‘does the PBC need a Thames or Baker (or someone I haven’t heard about yet) or not.’ Since the injuries don’t look that serious and since ACutch could be recalled anytime the PBC wants, I do think filling in with Jones, Monroe and Salazar for this small interim period would be just as good as getting a 32 YO who could be gone as a free agent in 2 years and would cost the team a real prospect. And that’s because 2009 is not important.

So I’m not saying if I was GM of an expansion team I would draft Jones, Monroe or Salazar ahead of Thames. I am saying that given the gap the PBC has to fill, which may be zero, and given that it’s claimed the PBC would have to give up a real prospect, Thames and Baker (who probably won’t even be in Pittsburgh when the PBC is ready to compete) “don’t look any better than Monroe, Jones or Salazar.”

by WstCstBucco on Mar 25, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt COL expects or will get a "real" prospect

A Baker/Hinske or Thames/Hinske platoon would be righteous. Baker and Thames are just way, way better than Monroe. If they want to take a flyer on a bullpen guy who could be semi-useful, instead of just waiving Baker, I’d gladly part with, say Burnett. A look at a flawed reliever is probably about what they’ll get, so yeah, I’m on board with moving someone for Baker.

by azibuck on Mar 25, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You got me!

I’d do the trade in a heartbeat for Burnett, who looks like a cut to me.

I guess I take these teams at their word, particularly when you see the stuff about the Rocks overvaluing their talent and the Tigers not treating this like a salary dump.

But if all it takes is a Burnett or Romulo, trade away.

P.S. It’s hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that Thames makes more than Garret Anderson, who I predict will have a hell of a season in Atlanta playing in the weaker NL and doing some platooning.

by WstCstBucco on Mar 25, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Anderson is just about done.

He might have one last hurrah left, I guess, but I think 2007 was it.

Thames was the better player last year. Both are minus defenders in a corner, but not hugely so. Anderson is a little better at getting on base, but Thames had 10 more HR in 200 fewer AB, which is a pretty huge gap as far as the bat is concerned.

by Vlad on Mar 26, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Give up 1 minor leaguer to get 2 or a better one.

I agree that 1 more outfielder, at least one the Pirates can get, will not make a big difference this year. But having said that, what if this 1 more outfielder has a great first half of the year, ala Nady or Bay, then I think PBC could turn him over for a couple of prospects, two that are better than the one they gave up. Again, addition through subtration. This doesn’t have to be a 2 year stint for this player and it probably would not be with Cutch coming along in the near future.

by long4willie on Mar 26, 2009 12:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I am going to be perfectly honest

I would love it if we got Thames and he got significant playing time with us this year. He is an exciting player, with unbelievable power from what i personally have seen. He can hit 30 homers with at bats. Give this guy a shot, especially if it means giving up a Romulo Sanchez.

I GOT MY STREET BUZZ BEFORE I GOT MY PEACH FUZZ

by omar moreno on Mar 26, 2009 12:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Branding

Not AOL FanHouse! Just FanHouse!

/corporate drone

Thames would be interesting, mainly depending on what “A prospect that would be ready for the Majors in the next year or two” means. I mean, Brian Bixler kind of meets that criteria. So does Jesse Chavez or any of those semi-ready bullpen arms. I can’t imagine the Tigers would want more than that, and if that’s the case I think it’s probably worth looking in to.

http://www.whygavs.com
http://mlb.fanhouse.com

by whygavs on Mar 26, 2009 9:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

I nearly credited the story to you when I wrote the item, BTW. Oops.

Detroit would probably really like Bixler, now that I think about it. As we learned during the Jack Wilson negotiations, they have virtually nothing at shortstop in the system.

by Vlad on Mar 26, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about

Wily Mo Pena? The Nats just waived him, so he would cost the minimum.

by Robinson Checo on Mar 28, 2009 9:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The problem with claiming Pena:

If we did, we’d have to carry his whole deal. Which is kind of scary, as bad as he looked last year.

I think he can be a useful OF, but with the nature of his swing, he needs to play pretty much every day so his mechanics don’t get out of synch. If we picked him up, it’d need to be for that kind of role, or it’d be doomed from the start.

by Vlad on Mar 28, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs