Michael Bourn

[siQ_innovation]

Yeah, some I'm going to intervene on wildbill and AllDay by saying that I drafted this guy at the beginning of the season w/ the confidence he'd get me some stolen bases and to that point, he has accomplished that feat. He's stolen 17 bases and hasn't be caught doing it once. This guy is easily project to steal 60+ bases as long as he can get on, whether its singles, bunt singles, walks, HBP, whatever but the fact of the matter is this guy is running and getting SBs. And about his terrible average, it has been rising so I think people should just learn to cope w/ it. the Fantasy season is a marathon, not a sprint. Treat it like that.

[AllDay]

I don't have anything against the 'Stro's, Ed Wade, or Michael Bourn - and I think it is silly to promote the theory that a player is destined for failure simply because some GM has given him cooties.

Dude, seriously, you need to stop posting when you've come back from the bar so drunk you're ready to pass out because you just aren't making any sense. I don't think anyone is going to think you dislike Ed Wade. If anything you sound like you're ready to bear Ed Wade's love child.

At any rate like I said Ed Wade's record with trades while he was the Phillies GM was extremely poor. It seems foolish to think that will suddenly change just because he's the GM of a new club. Also the reason the Phillies traded Bourn is they, and most people familiar with him at the time, only saw Bourn as a 4th OF. Basically I'm saying given those facts, the deck is stacked against Bourn becoming the superstar you seem to think he is. Might he surprise everyone an perform far better then expected? Anything is possible, but it's not the most likely scenario.

Did I say MIchael Bourn was a superstar? Maybe you should put your crack pipe down for a few seconds and let your head clear a little before you jump on the internet. Your evaluation of the player is overshadowed by your desire to play 7 degrees of Ed Wade. If that is how you evaluate players, fine - but others shouldn't use your misguided Ed Wade rants to make their own roster decisions.

If you need some steals he is an excellent source of steals. He hit for a decent average last year in limited AB's so there's hope there as well.

[wildbill]

Did I say MIchael Bourn was a superstar?

Say those exact words? No. Strongly imply he's going to be considerably better then most predictions? Yes. Superstar...It's called exaggerating to make a point.

Maybe you should put your crack pipe down for a few seconds and let your head clear a little before you jump on the internet.

You know you're the one who started with the personal insults, and I was stupid enough to join in on your incredibly childish games. To everyone else I'm sorry for that. As for you, well if engaging in personal insults is the only way you feel you can win an argument then you have my sympathy.

Your evaluation of the player is overshadowed by your desire to play 7 degrees of Ed Wade.

Again with the making no sense.

If that is how you evaluate players, fine - but others shouldn't use your misguided Ed Wade rants to make their own roster decisions.

So you don't think there's any validity in considering the track record of the person who evaluated and traded for Bourn? Seriously? Here we have a GM who in the past has frequently failed miserably at evaluating and trading for talent, but that doesn't matter in this case? Suddenly he's become a genius at evaluating talent for trades? Don't you realize the flaw in that logic? Like I said I'm sure Wade's gotten lucky with trades a few times, but his track poor track record is absolutely valid when you consider all the players he mis evaluated.

If you need some steals he is an excellent source of steals.

I'm not arguing that point, but that alone doesn't make him better then a 4th OF if that's all he does. It also doesn't make Bourn more then a 4th OF on a good team, which is how most people viewed him. I seem to recall reading a lot of that kind of talk around the time the trade was made. It was one of the factors in why the Phillies traded him. I've made mention of some of that in my last post so that you'd know my argument isn't based soley on Ed Wade's track record. I've added a little more to it. I don't have the time or desire to go researching articles from months ago for someone who very likely is just going to spew more childish insults my way, but I can say with certainly I remember reading them.

Ok this is the part where you say something about my mother.

[Morel Orel]

Michael Bourn = SB's

If you need to win the SB's CAT for the week then start him, otherwise, he's 100% bench material.

[SlightlyStoopid]

wildbill and Allday, great job of making this thread two pages of pointless bickering. I'm sure you could get it to the third page if you try.

To the few of you who provided real insite and opinions on Michael Bourn, thank you.

[sigriffey]

Back to Bourn ... I have been benching him, but good golly he is PAINFUL to watch right now.

He's too valuable to drop, but I am suffering right now with a bench of Weeks, Bourn, and Bruce (two guys batting .183 and a guy in the minors).

What do those like me do in such a situation. Hang onto Bourn here? Is he projected to even hit .250-.260?

[SimbaPenn]

killing me too. I'm surprised he hasn't been benched in favor of Erstad yet, personally. Matsui would be more than a serviceable leadoff man. I wonder if Cooper just doesn't want to mess with the lineup because Berkman and Tejada are hitting like gangbusters.