O's May Get Cubs Patterson

by therobotian on Jan 6, 2006 9:45 AM EST

Source: Baltimore Sun & ChicagoSports.com & Chicago Tribune

From The Sun

According to one industry source, the Orioles are "closing in" on a deal that would send a minor leaguer to the Chicago Cubs for center fielder Corey Patterson.

Club officials would not confirm specifics of the proposed trade, but one source suggested the minor leaguer would not be one of the team's "top five or so prospects."

...

If acquired, Patterson likely would compete with incumbent Luis Matos and prized prospect Nick Markakis for the Orioles' starting center-field job.

Patterson previously had been mentioned as a potential component in any Cubs deal involving Tejada. The Cubs, among others, remain interested in the Orioles' star shortstop, but nothing is imminent, team vice president Jim Duquette reiterated.

FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If we can get

Patterson for this cheap, I'll take it. He is, for lack of a better term, a 5 tool player. There is nothing he can't do, when his game is on.

That said, it isn't always on, so how well he performs is a big question... Regardless, I'd be willing to trade a minor leaguer for him, provided it isn't one of our gems.

by therobotian on Jan 6, 2006 9:47 AM EST reply actions

re:

There is nothing he can't do, when his game is on.

I thought of one: Take a walk.

I thought of a second: Play center field.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by Scott Christ on Jan 6, 2006 10:28 AM EST up reply actions

Ever the optimist, aren't we...

by therobotian on Jan 6, 2006 10:30 AM EST up reply actions

re:

I can see the uses of giving him the shot to play left field this year and as long as it's not Markakis or something silly like that I'm not really complaining. But Patterson has problems that are never going to go away and he just had a tremendously awful season.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by Scott Christ on Jan 6, 2006 10:32 AM EST up reply actions

Patterson

Why should we be optimistic about aquiring an outfielder who hit 215 last year? He might be an upgrade over David Newhan, but he is not as good as Matos and he is not going to improve this team in any meaningful way. There is a reason the Cubs appear willing to deal him for a non-prospect minor leauger.

by rebop on Jan 6, 2006 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

re:

He not only hit .215, but his OBP was .254.

Anyway I don't mean to sound so negative all the time, but, well...

Don't blame ME. I'M not the one acquiring these players.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by Scott Christ on Jan 6, 2006 10:45 AM EST up reply actions

and last season

he hit .266, and the year before that .298.

All that I am saying is that he got off to a rough start last year and never recovered from it. Even with his low OBP and AVG he scored and drove in a comparable number of runs to Newhan and Matos (despite Matos' deceptively high average, he wasn't exactly a run scoring machine). I guess my point is that this is a low risk, high potential reward move for the FO, and I like it.

by therobotian on Jan 6, 2006 10:50 AM EST up reply actions

re:

In a discussion of Corey Patterson I simply feel it is worthwhile to point out his very worrisome faults. I don't mind the move either, provided (again) that it's not one of our few good prospects.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by Scott Christ on Jan 6, 2006 11:11 AM EST up reply actions

just curious....

what happened to patterson in the middle of the year?

according to his situational stats at sportsline, he had a decent april and may (batted .280 with 10 HR, 27 Runs scored and 19 RBI), then stunk it up the rest of the year.

did he get injured? or maybe he was juiced and then had to come off the juice when mlb got tough.

if there was a way to get those april/may numbers out of him again, i'd be psyched to have him.

by zknower on Jan 6, 2006 3:37 PM EST up reply actions

Can You say Ortiz?

David Ortiz was a free swinger in Min. batting on ave .260/.350/.470 +- a few. He goes to Boston and learns how to take pitches and WOW a star is born batting on ave .295.380/.600 +/- a few. If someone works with Patterson long enough and he's willing to listen he will be a very good hitter with some pop.

PLay like you want it, Live like you need it

by merdon1332000 on Jan 8, 2006 8:25 AM EST up reply actions

The problem has been

that Patterson ISN'T willing to listen. He wouldn't go play winter ball this offseason to work on his game, being demoted to AAA didn't wake him up.

Here are two things he does really well though: Swing at face high fastballs and everything away and in the dirt.

by Whitebacon on Jan 8, 2006 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

I like it

Assuming the price is reasonable, this makes a lot of sense. Patterson's on the verge of being a "failed prospect," but he's still got enough talent that he might come through, and I really like the idea of lessening the pressure to rush Markakis.

by Joltin Joe Orsulak on Jan 6, 2006 10:02 AM EST reply actions

I agree

particularly about Markakis. There is still a chance he could make the roster, but if we add Patterson it really lessons the pressure. Having Matos stay in center and Patterson in left doesn't seem out of the question either... Patterson isn't in a position to make too many demands at this point in his career, and I am sure he'd be a fine LF.

And as far as the failed prospect thing goes, I am not so sure. On the one hand his average was horrible last year. On the other, he far outslugged Matos and Newhan (the guys he'd be competing with). Maybe his 2005 numbers were a product of some mental issues and irregular playing time (or lack of confidence from the management). Changing leagues, clubs, and maybe even positions could have a strong, positive impact. Or not. That's the risk.

by therobotian on Jan 6, 2006 10:13 AM EST up reply actions

Remember the Cubs

Don't like holding onto risk and they have bad judgement sometimes (Greg Maddux)

PLay like you want it, Live like you need it

by merdon1332000 on Jan 8, 2006 8:28 AM EST up reply actions

also!

I would rather have Corey Patterson than Richard Hidalgo. I can say that.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by Scott Christ on Jan 6, 2006 10:37 AM EST reply actions

That's the spirit

See, there's a bright side to everything!

by Joltin Joe Orsulak on Jan 6, 2006 10:50 AM EST up reply actions

and there is always

the "a change of scenery might rejuvenuate him" argument! I wouldn't mind a Patterson trade. Like someone said earlier, it's a low risk move. At the very least, he plays an excellent defense so he could be useful bench player.

by birdman on Jan 6, 2006 2:21 PM EST up reply actions

stupid

this deal is idiotic, but what else is new? i wouldn't give up ANY minor leaguers for corey patterson, not even a 38 year old minor league set-up guy. it's not that i don't want to lose the prospect, it's that i don't want to see a guy waste 400 at bats out there before we finally put him on the bench for good. he's terrible and he's always going to be terrible. seriously, does anyone think that this stiff would outperform a guy like chris gomez if they both got the same number of at bats and went head to head all year? i think we have a few "5 tool" guys bouncing around in our minor leagues anyway... keith reed, darnell mcdonald... those guys are still in the organization, right? i'll take a guy like david ortiz and you can't keep your "5 tool" guys that can't actually do anything really well. does anyone want to organize an anti-angelos demonstration outside of fanfest?

by joet on Jan 6, 2006 12:08 PM EST reply actions

no problem

I don't have a problem with this trade. The potential reward is far greater than the risk... but that is pending the prospect we would be giving up. If Patterson has a year close to 2004 (or if we are lucky, maybe 2003) than the trade would be worth it.

by dtran2k3 @ Camden Chat on Jan 6, 2006 12:56 PM EST reply actions

We can only hope

that he doesn't do a Sammy Sosa and roll over and die. Of course, he's not nearly as expensive or old as Sosa. Or retarded. I'd rather have Hairston back than Patterson, even if he was a tool.

by BleedingOrange on Jan 6, 2006 1:12 PM EST up reply actions

We're forgetting...

At the last minute, the cubs are going to ask for Loewen as a throw in.

by jprevas on Jan 6, 2006 12:58 PM EST reply actions

Patterson

Even though offensively his numbers were hidious last year he still managed more HR's and RBI's than Matos. His career shows steady progress until last year when he crahed and burned. How does that mean he washed up forever and has no value. Who knows what went on with him last year. What inside info do you have? And what are the indications that he's a poor defender; I've heard he's pretty good. If we're not giving up much how could it hurt to give Matos and some competition and take some presure off Markakas.

by el gordo on Jan 6, 2006 2:10 PM EST reply actions

re:

Even though offensively his numbers were hidious last year he still managed more HR's and RBI's than Matos.

Comparing him to a below average player isn't much of a case.

His career shows steady progress until last year when he crahed and burned.

Well, no. He played half a good season at age 23 when he was killing the ball, had a decent 24, and then went right into the can at 25. Patterson was one of the worst hitters in baseball last year. If that's not troubling to you then I don't know what would be. He was seriously awful.

And what are the indications that he's a poor defender; I've heard he's pretty good.

His consistently below average range factors. He is a poor center fielder.

Now, again, I would do the deal. I prefer trying Patterson than Burnitz for two years or anything with Hidalgo, and for a mid-level minor leaguer it's cool with me. I just don't expect very much and I think it's quite rational to have that perspective.

Look, I can see Corey Patterson hitting .280/.320 with 20 homers and 30 steals and being quite a fine left fielder and a nice little steal for us, but I can also see him hitting .215/.250 again and being a completely maddening waste of at-bats. I get the risk-reward factor, but to focus only on what would be the reward in my opinion is not properly preparing for the fact that the Cubs are giving up on him for a reason.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by Scott Christ on Jan 6, 2006 3:46 PM EST up reply actions

I think

that everyone sees the possibility that Patterson could royally bomb. I guess this debate boils down to whether you're the glass is half empty or hall full person.

by birdman on Jan 6, 2006 4:02 PM EST up reply actions

Patterson?

I'm not expecting all that much. My question is how can you completly dismiss a guy becuase of one season where he starts stong and then tanks What makes you so certain that he is finished. Was it a Sosa 'roids thing? I wouldn't have included him in a trade for Tejada, but unless there is some serious injury etc. he is too young to be finished IMO.

by el gordo on Jan 6, 2006 4:05 PM EST reply actions