Do we need Jermaine Dye?

[yoshii8]

Whats going on w/ Jermiane Dye this year? Last 2 years he has been unbelievable, and this year he has been horrible, mostly due to some nagging injuries.

 

I can't help but wonder if he would be the guy we need to trade for at the deadline. Everytime I think of Jermaine Dye, I think clutch hitter. Do you think a change of scenery might bring the Dye of the last 2 years back? I think w/ his average plummeting, now would be the time to get him as cheaply as were going to.

 

My proposal is Escobar, Jackson and Mench for JD(probably not enough). Let him get the majority of AB's in LF, and let Jenks be the 4th OF, giving plenty of breaks to all Hall, Hart and Dye to keep them fresh for the playoffs.

 

I think this is the move we need to make, along w/ picking up another solid reliever.

[KCBrewerfan34]

I think Williams would take the draft picks instead of those trinkets, that's the problem now, for the most part in trades you'll have to intice the opposing GM that the package we're giving is better than 2 high draft picks. Unfortunately, that means Inman, Jeffress or Parra has to be in a deal where we're getting something of substance, UNLESS we find a team dumping salary and there doesn't seem to be a bunch of those teams anymore because of the rebound in major league baseball.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Dye has been terrible this year, and I wouldn't want to bank my playoff hopes on him bouncing back to form in the last 2 months.

 

Jenks/Mench has been better than Dye for the most part, and I see no reason to give up even marginal prospects for a guy like Dye at this point.

[endaround]

Dye was unbelievable last year, but historically he isn't much better than Mench.

[kmcasper23]

NO

[Weirdos19]

Dye is on fire. The guy hit another one tonight (8/3).

 

I think we will regret not trading for him. Moving Hall to second, Hart to center, and puting Dye in right would have been huge.

 

Heard they wanted Turnbow. With the acquisition of Linebrink, I think that would've been a no-brainer.

[endaround]

Yep Melvin would have no brain if he made that deal. I'm not sure who people think Dye is, but he's been worse than Jenkins over his career. He had an MVP level season last year but thats as far away from his career average as this season is.

[saget]

What I can't believe is that there's still people that want to put Hall back in the infield.

[Weirdos19]

I can't believe you guys actually think Jenkins and Dye are even close to equal.

 

Dye won an MVP two years ago. Jenks was being roundly booed on this site and in Miller Park during that whole time. Now they are equals? Gimme a break.

 

A gold glove right fielder. An OPS over 1.000 since July 1st. Would have been a huge spark.

 

Prince has not had an effective bat behind him in the lineup all year. Why not let him see a few decent pitches?

 

And don't gimme the whole career stats arguement. The last three years is a much more accurate comparison. Jenks supporters don't want to see that comparison.

 

Jenkins: OPS vs Lefties (2004-2006) .675 OPS vs. RHP .877

Dye: .941 .858

[BillScottCanRake]

A gold glove right fielder. An OPS over 1.000 since July 1st. Would have been a huge spark.

 

On July 1, Dye was hitting .230/.286/.422 with an OPS of 708.

 

In 2004, Dye put up a .265/.329/.464/.793 season, and followed that up in 2005 with a .274/.333/.512/.845 season.

 

So, while Dye was very good in 2006, he had what amounted to a career year in 2006. Add to that the fact that he is 33 and was playing very poorly this year, who could have really predicted his July and August so far? Yes, it seemed likely he'd rebound, but to what level? His 2004 level, or maybe 2005? Could the Brewers have counted on him returning to his 2006 level of play? I think the answer to that is no, that while possible, it couldn't be counted on.

 

So, yes, it might be nice to have Dye, in hindsight. Just like the acquisition of Linebrink might well turn out great beyond our wildest dreams. But, looking at things as they were at the time and I think those results are far less certain.

[gregmag]

And don't gimme the whole career stats arguement. The last three years is a much more accurate comparison.

 

Why? Do you have any basis for that statement, other than the fact that it supports the point you want to make? I can see the argument that what Dye and Jenkins did at 25 has receded in predictive value. I can't really see why what they did at 31 is so much more worth knowing than what they did at 28. The trick is to know where they are on their decline curves -- how quickly they're sliding away from their peaks -- and I don't think we know that. Given that career stats put their peak years (and especially Dye's seeming outlier year) in more context, on balance I'd rather go with the career stats than a three-year window.

 

Greg.