Jump to content

Number5

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    6,269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Number5

  1. Apparently, other teams do, in fact, have a very good appreciation of Roberts' market value. It would seem that other teams realize that the Orioles will not trade Brian Roberts for spare parts. They are apparently trying to see if their other less expensive options might work in ST before deciding to make a serious run at Roberts. If and when the Giles experiment at 2B in Colorado doesn't pan out, I think the Rockies will be after Roberts in a big way. If the Angels start out hot, or the Mariners start cold, the Mariners could be giving AM a call early in the season about Roberts as well. I like the odds of one or both of these things happening, and both of those teams match up very well with the Orioles in that they have available young players in the positions we need. The Indians are weighing what role they see Peralta in, if any, in their future. The Cubs are not offering any players that figure to play any major role for them and, therefore, their offer, if not a better one, is probably still going to be on the table at the deadline. In the meantime, keeping Roberts would have many benefits to the Orioles in trying to bring their young players along. If we end up keeping him all year, or beyond, that is not a bad consequence, either. It seems to me that the only bad move to make here would be to sell Roberts short. McPhail seems to agree, and it appears very unlikely to me that Roberts will be a Cub any time soon without an upgraded offer from Hendry. Both Roberts and his teammates understand what is going on. The fact that you question what psychological impact this has on Roberts stems from your not having seen Roberts in action, both on and off the field, as we have. The man is a real pro. Time appears to be on the Orioles' side here. There is no reason that I see to accept the kind of offer the Cubs are offering now. It is the Cubs, not the Orioles, that would appear to have every reason to try to seal the deal now. That is why their reluctance to offer a package that is likely to be accepted is self-defeating, IMO.
  2. I am not privy to what has gone on between Hendry and McPhail, nor do I have knowledge of whether or not any or all of the GMs in MLB have any hesitancy to do business with Hendry or McPhail. Neither, I suspect, do you. My guess is that no GM would hesitate to do his job, even if that included having a conversation with McPhail or Hendry. I'd also be interested in knowing how you know that no other team has interest in Roberts. Can you provide us a link to that information? You have no source, that I've seen, other than a vague reference to a mysterious article written by a reporter that you don't know the name of. You haven't even given a timeline for this "article." Could it have been prior to the trade when some Mariner fans were just as indignant regarding AM as you seem to be now? Once the facts were known, after the trade, such criticisms of AM's deliberation pretty much stopped. Your "reporter" may actually be a Seattle blogger, such as Churchill, who has shown no hesitancy to spout his opinion as if it were fact. All indications are that both Hendry and McPhail know what the other would accept in a deal. Neither appears likely to yield, unless something happens to change his stance. Both see a potential benefit of working a trade with the other team, so the lines of communications have remained open. I would guess that whether or not you and a few other fans are frustrated by this seeming impasse is of no concern to either McPhail or Hendry. Both men are charged with making, or not making, player transactions in the best interest of their respective ball clubs. How can you blame one or the other as being at fault? There is no blame to be cast here, IMO, as both men are doing their jobs.
  3. Here's hoping that DT would have our best available pinch-hitter in the on-deck circle to increase the chances of Scott seeing strikes! Also, here's hoping that DT won't be batting Scott eighth!
  4. I agree with Bloop here. Murton would still be a Cub in this case, so Payton wouldn't really be of any use to the Cubs, IMO, even if we were to eat the bulk of his salary. They'd be more likely to try to get a pitching prospect for Cedeno in this case than a guy like Payton, IMO.
  5. Yes, I do. I simply disagree with it. He is saying that, as the fourth piece of a theoretical trade for Roberts, Patterson would be costing the Orioles something like 10% of Roberts. I completely understand what he is saying. It is, however, just not accurate, IMO. My point is that Roberts cannot be subdivided. The Orioles' cost in the trade would be Roberts, not pieces of Roberts. McPhail and Hendry have been hammering at each other for two months in an effort to determine who the players coming back from the Cubs are. The importance of each piece has been proven to be "make or break" for the deal, and none are mere throw-ins that can be obtained for "next to nothing." It is a fallacy to say that any of the pieces coming back are being obtained for "next to nothing."
  6. I think that we can safely bet that Hendry would not trade Cedeno to us in a non-Roberts deal unless and until either we have traded Roberts elsewhere or the Cubs have made a deal with another team that removes their interest in Roberts. Why would he trade one of the chips that the Orioles have interest in if said trade would cost him any realistic shot at getting Roberts?
  7. No, that would actually be applying Dave's logic, not mine. There is only one Roberts, and none of the pieces in Dave's pie come to the Orioles unless that one Roberts is in the deal.
  8. Please see post #458 above. These "negotiations" have carried on for two months because both GMs consider each piece of the pie to be vitally important. The cost to the Orioles of any such trade is Roberts, not 10% of Roberts. If Roberts is not included in the trade, Patterson will not be included.
  9. My point will remain that our cost is Roberts, whether we receive one player back or ten. If the Cubs were to sell us EPat for $500K, then you could say that our cost was next to nothing, IMO. If our cost is a player like Roberts, however, I cannot agree with you. There is, after all, no way that we can trade a portion of Roberts.
  10. How do you mean, Dave? You are talking about a deal for Roberts, aren't you?
  11. If Hendry would replace Murton with Colvin, making it Gallagher, Cedeno, EPat, and Colvin, I think that be something that might work. Especially if Hendry could work a trade of Murton to Cleveland, San Diego, or Texas. Just a thought.
  12. I can see this trade as doable, except for the 40-man issues it would cause that I mentioned in post 394. I really think that is why AM is pushing for Colvin or Ceda over EPat. Just my opinion, though.
  13. The trouble with this is you can't make the secondary trades after the Roberts trade due to 40-man roster requirements. I believe Patterson is on the 40-man roster, as well as the other 3 you mention, so the Orioles would have to DfA three guys off of their 40-man to do the Roberts trade you suggest. The Orioles are very unlikely to DfA Mora and/or Millar.
  14. Well written, Dave. I think you have laid out the situation perfectly. Everything I've read and heard also indicates that the Orioles will not accept a package that does not include one of the "untouchables," and the Cubs will not offer a package that does. Both GMs have seen enough potential benefit to their team from a deal between these two teams to keep a dialog open, but neither has given any indication of backing off their stance concerning the "untouchables." Hence, the long impasse. Unless and until something happens to move one of the the teams off of their stance, it seems very unlikely that anything will happen IMO.
  15. Played in a softball tournament in Las Vegas in October. Our third baseman made a good play on a ball down the line and threw the guy out. The guys on the other team (from California) called him "Brooks." Not Clete or Craig.
  16. Well, I'm not sure you'd find too many guys my age that think Brooks didn't deserve the awards. You can't imagine how spoiled we in Baltimore were that any ground ball to the left side was an out, with Brooks and Aparicio, then Belanger. No matter how hard hit. He turned doubles down the line into double plays - often. The only reason I said to see a cd of the 1970 Series is because you may be able to find one. A cd of any group of games, regular season or otherwise, from 1960 through 1974 or so would be just as entertaining. The Orioles' pitchers all loved it, that's for sure. Best 3B of all-time? No, I'd say that is Mike Schmidt because he had that awesome power and was a great defensive 3B. But Brooks was the best with the glove that I ever saw. No contest. And, for heavens sake, are people really trying to claim that a Yankee was deprived of deserved recognition because of the hype a player in Baltimore got? Are you kidding me? Think about that, people.
  17. Brooks was a first-ballot Hall of Fame inductee. It wasn't because of his offense. Great clutch hitter. He was the guy you wanted up with runners on and 2 outs in the 9th, but his hitting numbers wouldn't get him in the Hall without that glove. Clete Boyer was a good fielder, but was never a serious consideration for the Hall of Fame. His brother, Ken, is a guy that I think deserved more consideration for the Hall than he received, however. Ken was NL MVP in 1964, the same year that Brooks won the AL MVP. Cubs' Ron Santo is another 3B from that era that deserves Hall of Fame consideration. I really don't get why he's not in.
  18. Maybe in a Bronx bar room. I never heard such a debate. Check the Gold Glove recipients list. That will answer your question. If you never saw Brooks play, see if you can get a CD of the 1970 World Series.
  19. Thanks, Belkast! That is good to hear. Any chance on a certain pitcher from Cleveland along with a middle infielder?
  20. Thank you, but where did you pull the quotes from into your post? Is that particular piece from the book posted somewhere on OH or elsewhere on the internet?
  21. There are several items in this article which are questionable. I have rarely disagreed with any Bill James statistical analysis, but if he did indeed say these things, this would be an exception. It appears that by "seasons the Orioles won," only the seasons in which Baltimore finished first are being counted. Most define a "winning season" as being a season above .500, of which there were many more than five in Belanger's tenure. The Orioles had a winning record in every single season in which Mark Belanger was the starting shortstop. In fact, 1967 was the only season in which Mark Belanger was on the team that the Orioles had a losing record, and Luis Aparicio was the starting shortstop that year. The ".206" season referred to was 1977, when the Orioles finished second with 97 wins. The article would lead one to believe that the Orioles had a losing record when Belanger hit .206. I'm not sure that many would agree that 97-64 is a bad season. The ".186" season was 1972, when the Orioles finished third. Belanger wasn't the true starting SS that year. Bobby Grich played a lot of SS and, in fact, was the American League's starting SS in the 1972 All-Star Game. Belanger had 285 at bats that year. Although the Blade's .287 season in 1969 pulls up his "average" to the quoted .246 in the five first-place seasons, he was below .230 in three of those five first place seasons. A review of his record makes it very clear that the 1969 season was an anomaly, certainly not the norm. As you mentioned, Belanger hit .218 with a .562 OPS in 1970. He also hit .226 (.564 OPS) in 1973, and .225 (.598 OPS) in 1974. In the remaining first place season, 1971, Belanger hit .266 with a .585 OPS. Even in the five first place seasons, Belanger achieved an OPS above .600 only once, in his career-best 1969 season (.696 OPS.) This article seems to be "cherry-picking" certain statistics to try to prove a point that doesn't really hold up at all under even the briefest of reviews. For some reason, James seems to be jumping out of character for this one article and basing this entire statistical analysis on "batting average." The article, as quoted, is misleading. Doesn't sound like Bill James. Perhaps the entire article might resolve these discrepancies. James really surprises me with this. Can you provide a link? As to your reference about Belanger not playing good defense... ? He won Gold Gloves in four of the five first-place seasons mentioned, and a total of eight times in his career.
  22. CT, again, my only point was that a good defense, no offense guy can play SS in the majors. The fact that the Orioles won with Belanger accented that point. In no way did I say that the Orioles would compete with LH at SS this year. It is an extremely long stretch for you to say that I did. I believe you know better. If you read the thread, you will see that I have quite plainly stated that LH is not the permanent solution at SS.
×
×
  • Create New...