Jump to content

Number5

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    6,269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Number5

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. I'm thinking that Hart would be there in place of Murton or EPat, not in place of Colvin/Ceda/Veal.
  5. 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?
  6. ...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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. It is hilarious to me how Chicago media and fans repeatedly say that the holdup is on the Orioles' side. They act as if accepting the Cubs' offer is a foregone conclusion and the Orioles are just deciding to sit around for a few more weeks before accepting it just for yuks. The teams are at an impasse. The Cubs will not pay what is being asked and the Orioles will not accept what is being offered. Neither side is "holding up" the deal. Something must happen to move one team or the other off of their current stance. Thankfully, DeRosa's health issues are not considered serious enough in nature to be something that would so move the Cubs. In any case, the seller not accepting the buyer's latest offer is in no way "holding up" anything.
  13. Please see post #106, which you have not responded to. You have stated here that you ignore stats because you go with what you have seen. You then also admit to not having seen much of Scott. Your sole basis for your projection that Scott will suddenly hit far worse than he ever has is that he is switching leagues, a factor that has meant little since the 1960's and even less since the AL and NL umpires were combined. You have continued this for many hours on 2 threads. Can't you just admit that you have no real reason for your feeling that Scott won't produce for us, but you just have a gut feeling? Then we can all discuss the Orioles.
  14. The National League is not a minor league.
  15. I've been reading this thread and I just have to jump in here. Back in the 50's and 60's there was a real adjustment between leagues. Most players spent their whole career in one league or the other, and did not know the players in the other league. Starting with free agency, in the 70's, that has changed. To the point now that the DH rule is the only major difference between the leagues. From one year to the next, one league or the other may have more ace pitchers, but that will fluctuate. Very few players stay with the same team long nowadays, or even in the same league. There is interleague play. Umpires are no longer AL or NL umpires, they are MLB umpires. The strike zone differences are gone. There is no real "adjustment" between leagues any more, excepting the fact that a pitcher traded from an AL team to an NL team has to take BP and learn to bunt. Sorry, but to base a projection that Luke Scott will suddenly hit worse, by a wide margin, than he ever has in his life simply because he is switching from the NL to the AL is not realistic in today's game.
  16. Yeah, I saw this Saturday when I was looking at some Seattle blogs to see if anyone out there was suggesting the Mariners look at a Roberts trade. I laughed it off as just more nonsense from Churchill. "The most likely trio of talents heading to Baltimore at this point, according to this NL Central rep, includes infielder Ronny Cedeno and right-handers Sean Gallagher and Kevin Hart. But for the deal to get done, it sound like the Cubs will likely have to replace Hart or Cedeno with one two outfielders, Felix Pie or Tyler Colvin. It is also believed that while the O’s prefer to get a potential shortstop in the deal, Cedeno, they are much more convinced that second baseman Eric Patterson will perform offensively in the majors." These three sentences contradict each other. If the first three names are the "most likely" then why would Pie or Colvin "likely" replace one of them? Wouldn't that make Pie or Colvin more "likely" than "most likely?" Then in the third sentence he says then that the O's prefer Patterson to Cedeno. Wouldn't that make Patterson triple "likely?" Which of the three sentences is the truth? Which shell is the pea under, Mr. Churchill? Cedeno, Gallagher, Hart becomes Patterson, Gallagher, Pie and Churchill would say he was right. Ridiculous. If you boil it down, his "insider" is saying that Gallagher is the only name agreed to, which is news to nobody. Consider the source. I've learned that Churchill is rarely right. He has shown no hesitation to tout his opinion as being fact and his "quotes" from supposed "inside contacts" have been outrageously unbelievable at times. He deletes these columns from his site once they are shown to be way off base. He shouts down anyone on his blog that disagrees with him. I don't think he knows any more about it than you or I do.
  17. Agree on Byrd, but he looks like he serves a need for the Cubs. Marshall is a role-filler, as well. He is a serviceable ML #5 SP or spot-starter/long man. That is not a knock on him. It just seems to be what his spot is. Byrd for Marshall would seem to be a good trade for both teams, so it surprises me to hear that Hendry turned that down. I had read that Texas turned down Murton for Byrd and wanted Murton *plus* a SP. This is the first I've read or heard anywhere that the Cubs turned down a Texas offer of Byrd for Marshall.
  18. I agree that you can't be convinced, Dave. Your evaluation of the Cubs players rumored to have been offered is simply higher than most Oriole fans' evaluations of those players, from what I've seen. This is the case regardless of whose opinion might be closer to the opinions of most professional baseball people. There is no right or wrong here. In view of this basic difference of opinion, such convincing is a virtual impossibility. The only example I can give you that Roberts is worth more than what's been offered is the fact that the offers have not been accepted. There are other indications that the Orioles and their fans are not alone in their views, such as the Texas rejection of the Murton-for-Byrd deal, but again, that is a difference of opinion.
  19. You have made the only guaranty. You are the only one I've seen in recent posts that claims to know for certain what will happen. Please stop telling me what I do or don't understand. I have never, not once, said that Roberts' value will go up. I have said that I think that it is very likely that the Orioles will receive at least one offer between now and the deadline that will be worth Roberts' value. I have also said that accepting an offer below his worth now appears to me to be the worst choice that McPhail could make. Thus far, every indication is that McPhail sees it that way, too. Please cease these attempts to put words in my mouth. Thank you.
  20. Nothing in life is guaranteed. Of course, McPhail has to make his decisions based on what he believes to be most likely. It is clear that the possibilities I listed are real possibilities. None are certainties. If you happen to feel that no team in baseball will have a need for a second baseman or a lead-off man of Roberts' capabilities at any time between now and the end of July, that is your choice. McPhail has to factor that possibility in as well, and decide if the possibilty of having Roberts on the team all year is so terrible a turn of events as to justify accepting a low-ball offer now. Thus far, his answer has been no. As I've stated, if the Orioles are offered a super offer now for Roberts, they should take it. They have no urgent need to accept just any offer, however.
  21. That's some guaranty that you are making there. Of course, every decision that a GM makes to make or not make any player move bears risk. In this case, the risk of accepting a low-ball offer seems much worse than the risk that Roberts won't either draw a better offer later or continue to play as he has and perhaps make keeping him all year and/or beyond a good option. I think McPhail is considering all of these possibilities and seems prepared to keep Roberts for now, rather than accepting a low-ball offer. I'm not really sure I understand what "other sides" that you are looking at, however. I do see the risk that the Cubs are running in opting to not step up with an offer that McPhail would accept.
  22. Roberts won't be worth any more at the deadline, IMO. I believe, however, that one or more teams will be willing to pay what he is worth between now and then.
  23. Dave, I'm unaware of any secret plots, sarcastically or otherwise. I do believe that each of the four possibilities you listed at second base for Colorado look like longshots to me, as is most often the case when a team lists four possibilities for a position. Apparently you feel confident that one of their four stabs in the dark at second base will work for the Rockies. OK, fine. I don't happen to agree. If you are right, they won't be in the market for a second baseman. If I am right, they will. Either way, the odds of one or more teams being in the market for Roberts between now and July look excellent to me, and accepting a low-ball offer now does not seem prudent. I just happen to think that both Colorado and Seattle show excellent possibilities of being in that market, the Indians have at least a good chance to be, and the Cubs are very likely to still be in search of a lead-off man, IMO. None of your arguments to date have changed those odds in my view. If a strong offer comes our way for Roberts now, then I think we should take it, given our rebuilding mode. We should not, however, trade Roberts just to be trading him. The value needs to be there or no deal, IMO.
  24. The Rockies were so confident in Nix being ML ready, Stewart converting from third to second, and Baker converting from 1B/OF to second that they went out and signed Giles. Time will tell. Me, I like the odds of their being in the market for a 2B long before the deadline. Sure, one of the other possibilities with longer odds could happen, but I think the Rockies liked being in the World Series and would like to do what they can to get back.
×
×
  • Create New...