Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Number5

  1. This is amazing. I have accurately stated Rich Hill's numbers. Nothing more. I have said absolutely nothing untrue about him, and the only opinions I have put forth are that I like him and that I don't believe that he will be included in any trade for Roberts. The facts are apparently considered an insult by Cub fans. I can't help you with that. I have not suggested that a Hill & Marmol is possible. I have, in fact, stated three times that there is no way it will happen IMO. The anger and yelling is uncalled-for. If you can show me that I am incorrect in stating Hill's record, then do so. To attribute any future possibilities to Hill as if they have already occurred would, I suspect, be more indicative of having smoked something than a simple statement of the actual numbers he has achieved.
  2. Excuse me, but I asked for your source for saying that the orioles can't decide what to do, not for the fact that the Cubs were rumored to have made less-than-fantastic offers. That the Cubs, their media, and their fans are frustrated that their offers have been deemed insufficient is of no consequence to the Orioles, or their fans. You have stated that "the Orioles can't decide what to do." Prove it or withdraw the comment.
  3. Anger is not necessary. I have not suggested a Hill & Marmol for Roberts trade. I have stated very clearly that it will never happen, IMO. I am, however, saying that there is nothing ridiculous about such a trade. I have made no denigrating comment whatsoever about Hill or Marmol. Hill's lifetime record is 17-17, with a 4.387 ERA. This is a fact and is indisputable. Last year was his best year, with an 11-8 record. Again, a fact. You are arguing against the facts because you apparently believe that he will be better in the future. That is fine, and I don't fault you for that, but don't yell at me for stating the facts as they are. Your insinuation that Roberts is an all-star only because every team has to have one was totally uncalled-for.
  4. FWIW, the initial rumors that came out on this, back in December, were Roberts for Hill and Pie. The Cubs would never include Hill in a deal for Roberts, for the reasons I have stated, but you Cub fans are grossly overstating Hill's worth when you say he is more valuable than Brian Roberts. Hill is coming off a career year, 11-8. And please, this is not a knock on Hill, it is simply a statement of the facts. If you must argue with the facts, that should give you an idea of the strength of your argument. Marmol struggled in his attempts at being a SP, but found a real niche as a set-up man last year. He may even be a closer one day, but, from what I'm reading, both Howry and Wood have a better chance at closing this year. Step away from being a Cub fan, if you can, and look realistically at the three players. The trade would be fair. There is just no chance that it will happen, given the Cubs current roster.
  5. Worth it? Absolutely. You're talking about a #3SP with a 17-17 (4+ ERA) lifetime record and a set-up man. Roberts is certainly not worth it to the Cubs right now, however, given their current roster. Such a trade would leave the Cubs with more holes and a worse overall team than they have now. Talent-wise, without considering present team rosters and chemistry, a trade of Roberts for Hill and Marmol is not ridiculous. It is just simply not going to happen as things stand.
  6. Heck, it would probably be cheaper to cut Gibbons and pay him his $11M and sign Lohse than to take Marquis back in a Cubs trade. A trade for Marquis just can't happen, IMO.
  7. I sure hope not! Marquis is owed over $16M for '08 and '09. That's a lot more than Payton's $5M for '08 only. I really hope that is not at all in AM's thoughts. I'm guessing that Lohse can be had for a lot less right than Marquis' contract right now, so it would make no sense to do that when we could have a decent player or prospect instead from the Cubs and sign Lohse.
  8. Hey, if PA agrees to this,fine by me. It isn't my money! Gibbons gets over $11M over the next two years. That is a lot to eat. I just don't know that we can realistically expect that to happen.
  9. Don't hate Murton. Just facing facts as to the limitations of where you can play him. If we didn't already get Scott, I'd be all over him. I think the guy is a good hitter.
  10. I don't think anybody's crowing about it, Dave. Being saddled with contracts like Gibbons' hurts us in so many ways. It is just a fact that it is hard for us to do a deal that has Murton coming back when we have Gibbons, Huff, Mora, and Millar. Even with Payton going to the Cubs, it would be hard to get Scott and Murton their at bats when we are trying to get the other four enough at bats to possibly get some teams interested in them. Tough spot. Who knows, maybe PA will decide to bite the bullet and cut Gibbons, but I would doubt it.
  11. I'm not so sure. Murton is a good hitter, but his inflexibility in the field makes it hard for teams to carry him. His only position is left field. All outfielders can play left field. As a 4th or 5th outfielder, most teams want someone that can play all 3 spots reasonably well, or at least both corners or first base. Remember, since nearly all teams carry 12 pitchers, there are only 5 bench spots (4 plus the DH in the AL.) Typically the mix is something like 2 OF's, 2 UT inf, and a C. Even in the AL, teams like for their primary DH to have some fielding capability and flexibility, unless they happen to have an Ortiz-type stud. This was evidenced by Texas deciding to pass on a Murton-for-Byrd offer from the Cubs. Texas figures to have a Catalanotto/Nelson Cruz platoon in LF as of now, and there aren't many teams that would figure to possibly be more interested in a Murton than the Rangers. Yet they said no. His marketability is pretty much limited to teams for whom he would be the clear-cut starter at LF or DH. Even then, a team may have salary issues that make cutting or trading the player blocking Murton problematic (like Huff or Gibbons with the Orioles.) EPat faces this type of issue, as well. From what I've read, he is rated too far below ML average at 2B to be viable there, and lacks the arm for CF or RF. His bat, his speed, and the fact that he can fill in at 2B and possibly CF in an emergency, mitigates this concern slightly in his case, but it is still an issue.
  12. We have hit the century mark. Don't forget about 1988. Once is enough, though!
  13. Losing is like a disease... as contagious as syphilis. Pretend you are on a ship at sea... rocking, rocking, gently rocking.
  14. Ah, I only saw the second one, which is listed under "Minor League Contracts." Once I saw it there, I had no reason to think they would also have him listed above, with the 40-man guys. Again, I'm sorry.
  15. Sorry. I guess I'm going to have to stop relying on Cot's. They show Hart signed to a minor league contract. http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-cubs_112114177768677294.html Well, personally, I wouldn't make or break the deal over whether or not Payton is included, even if another player must be DfA if he is not included.
  16. I think if Murton or EPat are coming back, Payton would make sense to be included from both teams' perspective. If it is Hart instead, the Cubs would have no use for the additional outfielder and, with Hart not on the 40-man roster, the Orioles would not have the same 40-man issues. They would still only have to DfA one man. If the Cubs still wanted Payton included, however, I don't think the Orioles would have any problem obliging them with that. Just my opinion.
  17. I'm thinking that Hart would be there in place of Murton or EPat, not in place of Colvin/Ceda/Veal.
  18. Welcome B-Rob. Our in-house Cub fan, Davearm has told us that Veal has been through very trying times in his personal life and Hendry has a relationship with him that would make trading him unlikely now. If you think Ceda is out of the question, would Colvin work for you? It really does look like Colvin or Ceda seems to be the sticking point, doesn't it?
  19. ...not to mention the fact that they are trading for Roberts. If EPat is a talented lead-off man with speed, why trade him plus Gallagher, plus Cedeno/Murton, plus Veal/Colvin/Ceda/Hart/whoever for Roberts if EPat was viewed as anywhere near ML average at 2B? They could just keep all those guys and plug EPat in at 2B and lead him off. It just doesn't make any sense, does it? The Cubs are telling us loud and clear that they just don't see him working out at 2B, IMO. Yes, if he's the 4th piece in a package and he has options left, I can see including him, but we would still need Cedeno in the package, IMO. Not that I'm all that high on Cedeno, but we just plain need to have a serviceable middle infielder coming back in the deal, IMO. Gallagher, Colvin/Ceda, Cedeno, EPat would work for me. Either Murton or EPat in that spot works for me.
  20. Actually, with our young and inexperienced pitching staff, I think having a substandard fielder in our middle infield would be the last thing we could afford to do.
  21. Reports of Patterson's fielding problems at 2B scare me. The Cubs are planning on him being an outfielder. Patton's shoulder problem is not new. Also, what makes you think Gallagher is ML ready? He's had 8 games at AAA, and was hammered just as badly (slightly worse, actually) as Liz was in his brief ML call-up last year. I like Gallagher. I'm just not convinced he is a lock for a major league rotation to start the season. Perhaps a half-season in AAA might make sense.
  22. Perhaps not "right now," but, yes, I can definitely see Roberts extending with the Orioles. I disagree with your assertion that the future of the franchise is in doubt. It looks to me that, under AM's direction, the future of the franchise is finally looking pretty darn good. Once all this trade uncertainty is behind us, I believe Roberts will see that as well. In fact, I think, in retrospect, Roberts will feel pretty good about the Orioles, in that they were not anxious to get rid of him and refused to take less than they felt he was worth - and they obviously think he is worth a lot! If the Orioles do, in fact, decide to take a run at signing Tex, you can bet that Roberts would be very impressed with where the Orioles are going. I believe that signing one of those two guys next off-season may very well end up being the catalyst for signing the other one. Such a turn of events would bode very well in the Orioles quest to compete in 2010 and beyond, don't you think?
  23. It is true that teams in the above circumstances would have interest in Roberts, but they are not the only circumstances in which a team could have interest. You are overlooking the very reason that the Cubs are interested in Roberts, which is he is one of the top lead-off men in the game. Second base has little to do with the Cubs' interest.
  24. Who is "we?" Frankly, Dave, I don't see what you are after here. You have framed your question so as to load it in such a way that virtually any trade example someone shows you can be deemed "pointless" and "not what we're after" by you. The Marlins' fire sale is totally irrelevant to this situation. Roberts' salary is not the issue to the Orioles, and keeping Roberts is not at all a poor option. The Cubs are offering one prospect, Gallagher (BA #82), not three. Murton and Cedeno are not prospects, they are decent bench players. That Cedeno would most likely start for Baltimore, if traded for Roberts, is due only to the fact that the Orioles have no other option in the middle infield. Now, if you really must look at a trade that involved prospects, how about Pierzynski for Nathan, Bonser, and Liriano in 2003. I'd say that one worked out fairly well for Minnesota, wouldn't you?
  • Create New...