Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Number5

  1. You don't successfully rebuild a franchise by trading your all-stars for players that can't start for other teams. That Cedeno would start for a team with zero proven ML middle infielders is hardly a ringing endorsement. Even if Murton would start for the Orioles, of which I'm not convinced, the Orioles are not looking just for guys to plug holes. Winning 66 games instead of 63 this year is not the goal. They are looking for prospects in which there is reasonable expectation they will develop into meaningful assets in the future. It was posted here today that the Cubs say they are going to give Cedeno a chance to compete at SS in ST. Well, of course they said that. What else are they going to say? I'm sure they are telling Gallagher, too, that he will be competing for a spot in the rotation. None of us really buy into that, do we? They can't try to tell Murton that he has a chance to start, given the contracts of Soriano and Fukudome because he knows better than that. No, if they stay with the Cubs, Gallagher and Cedeno are likely headed back to Iowa, unless they decide to keep Cedeno as a utility guy. Murton looks to be a back-up corner outfielder and a right-handed pinch hitter. For perspective, Texas refused to consider a Marlon Byrd for Murton trade, and they start Frank Catalanotto in LF over Byrd.
  2. You've hit the nail on the head there. The Cubs apparently aren't willing to give up anyone that is in their plans. Kinda makes ya wonder if they know something about Gallagher that we don't know. doesn't it? I've read that he has weight issues - maybe there is more to that than meets the eye. To review, the Cubs are rumored to have offered various combinations of Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno, Marshall, and Patterson. They think so "highly" of Murton that they have gone out and signed an expensive free agent corner outfielder each of the last two off-seasons. They gave Cedeno ample opportunity to prove he can start at the ML level and he did not meet the challenge. The Cubs do not appear to be considering him in their future. Marshall has proven himself to be a #5 SP or a spot-starter/long man. No team trades for a guy like that - they can sign one of those easily every year. Patterson has shown that he cannot field the 2B position adequately enough for the majors. Now they will try him in the outfield, where he is clearly blocked in Chicago. Why is Gallagher on this list? They certainly have indicated that they will not trade any other players that look to be of real value to them, either now or in the future. Food for thought. I'm thinking more and more that this may be one of those times that "the move you didn't make" may be the right way to go.
  3. For clarification, when I said "Who knows why," I meant that I don't know why.
  4. Figgins may be a better fit for the Cubs.
  5. Here is quote from my post in this thread at 2:29: "Dave has stated that Soriano's two seasons in Texas represent the bulk of his at bats in the middle of the lineup. There have been countless cases of a player performing worse for one team than he has for others. One that we Oriole fans can readily recall is Eric Byrnes. Who knows why? There are any number of variables. Personal or financial problems that particular year, housing issues, team chemistry, relationship with management, health issues, ballpark issues, where he is positioned in the field, etcetera. Personally, I'm not ready to agree that it is definitely because of position in the batting order." If you still don't know why I don't buy it, sorry, I can't help you.
  6. You have a very short memory, Dave. Rob went into pages and pages on this very subject. Sorry, Dave, no offense, but you telling me your opinion is not fact, no matter how many times or how loudly you tell me. I have read and understood you every single time. I simply disagree and choose to base my take on what is happening on the facts of the situation. For the Cubs to so aggressively seek to pay such a high price for Roberts for any reason other than to bat him lead-off and take advantage of Soriano's slugging elsewhere in the lineup doesn't seem likely to me. I did read, and posted in a previous Roberts thread the excerpt from the Tribune of January 18, quoting both Piniella and Soriano on this very subject. Soriano made it very clear that he is willing to hit anywhere in the lineup, specifically mentioning both third and fifth. Piniella said quite clearly that he was not going to try to change Soriano's style of hitting and that if the Cubs want a more prototypical lead-off hitter, they will go out and get one. Both men were clear with no ambiguity. They were fielding many questions about this from the Chicago press at the Cubs Convention. The Cubs are going after Roberts. When I posted the article, you stopped your posts abruptly, as I recall. Perhaps you had just signed off and never read it. Many Cub fans and media types in Chicago do not agree with you. Whether Soriano should bat in the middle of the order has been a running debate there, as you are well aware, since last year. Maybe you should tell everyone in Chicago, rather than me.
  7. Dave has stated that Soriano's two seasons in Texas represent the bulk of his at bats in the middle of the lineup. There have been countless cases of a player performing worse for one team than he has for others. One that we Oriole fans can readily recall is Eric Byrnes. Who knows why? There are any number of variables. Personal or financial problems that particular year, housing issues, team chemistry, relationship with management, health issues, ballpark issues, where he is positioned in the field, etcetera. Personally, I'm not ready to agree that it is definitely because of position in the batting order. Even if it were, I submit that in this case, runs produced may be a more telling number to look at that OPS. The man hit the cover off the ball, yet did not drive in or score runs at the level his OPS would suggest. Coincidence? The idea that an excellent on-base guy should bat lead-off and a slugger should bat in the middle of the order may not be new. (Preconceived, as Dave would say.) That does not make it wrong. Not all new theories are right. Not all old ones are wrong. As I said in my original post, I realize that some Cub fans espouse the idea that on-base percentage is unimportant to a lead-off hitter. Not only am I unconvinced, it is doubtful that I ever will be. I've tried to be clear that I am not knocking Soriano. The guy's a beast. Everything about his numbers last year screams out to me that he needs to be elsewhere in the lineup. The very fact that Hendry is working so hard to get Roberts is sending a very strong message to me that he may agree. I don't know Hendry, and have never spoken with him. I'm just looking at the facts and drawing a conclusion for myself. If, in fact, he just wants to replace DeRosa at 2B, and wants to so badly that he is willing to give up Gallagher, Murton and Cedeno and/or others to do so, then I'm wrong.
  8. Dave, we've been down this road several times and are obviously at a stalemate as to to value of the prototypical lead-off man. Whether my notion that a lead-off man that gets on base and into scoring position for the power hitters coming up after him is valuable is preconceived or not is immaterial. To me, Soriano's run scored and runs batted in, given his OPS, provides ample evidence that some preconceived notions are spot on. His low RBI total, in view of his slugging percentage, home run total, and number of at bats, is historic, from my experience. I confess to not knowing if such a combination of numbers has ever been achieved before, but I would be surprised if they had. The only possibility that comes to mind might be Dave Kingman, hardly a player comparable to Soriano. You evidently look at the same numbers as being either immaterial or coincidental. So be it. We disagree.
  9. I think that it is fair to say that Soriano would have scored more runs had he played all 162 games and had he been running at full speed. He did, however, get 579 at bats. I'm not sure that we can assume that he will play 162 games this year, either. My point is that, given the lineup the Cubs have behind him, it is reasonable to expect a lead-off man to score at a better rate than did Soriano in 2007. This is certainly no knock on Soriano. I just feel his .337 OBP and .560 slugging would be better served elsewhere in the lineup. The fact that the Cubs are aggressively seeking Roberts would seem to indicate that they may agree with me, as I don't think that this exercise is due to a dissatisfaction with DeRosa. My opinion on DeRosa's value in the super-utility role is unchanged. I've stated my reasons. I've seen numerous Cub fans post that Murton is less effective if not playing every day. If true, his utility value would not seem to be greater than DeRosa's to me.
  10. I don't think the Cubs are looking at Roberts because they are dissatisfied with DeRosa. They want Roberts to lead off IMO. I know some of our Cub fan friends espouse the view that having a prototypical lead-off hitter is not necessary, but I believe that the Cubs do not share the view of those fans. Roberts does represent an offensive and defensive upgrade over DeRosa, but not so significant as to warrant the cost. It is his ability to get on base, get in scoring position, and score that is the attraction to Hendry and Piniella, more so than defensive alignment, IMO. Having Roberts in the lineup would enable the Cubs to move Soriano to a spot in the order where his slugging can be more effective. Soriano drove in 70 runs last year with 33 home runs. That is very hard to do. Lead-off is the worst possible spot for a guy with a .560 slugging percentage IMO. This is especially true in the National League, where he follows the pitcher. The true effectiveness of his slugging is severely reduced in that spot, as his mere 37 teammates driven in in 2007 attests. That's not a typo: Soriano slugged .560 in 579 at bats and only drove in 37 of his teammates. If that has ever happened before, I'm not aware of it. On top of that, Soriano scored 97 runs, 33 of which were on his own homers. For the lead-off man on a club with a lineup like the Cubs have to be driven in only 64 times by teammates, despite 579 at bats, is hard to swallow. Here's a guy with a .897 OPS that is neither scoring nor driving in runs effectively. He is simply in the wrong spot in the order, IMO. Some Cub fans point to his splits indicating he has a higher OPS lifetime hitting lead-off than in the middle of the order. Personally, I think there may have been other factors involved causing his struggles in Texas than just where he hit in the order, but even if, somehow, he has some unusual mental quirk that causes him to hit worse in the middle of the lineup than leading off, his weak run production in the lead-off spot negates his OPS, IMO. As it happens, making such a move would realign DeRosa to the super-utility role that he excels in. He is one of the best in the game, and is likely worth a win or two in that role. He'd likely be the first guy in to replace most of the non-catching starting position players in the lineup and would probably garner nearly as many at bats as a starting player. The Cubs inability to set the table for their middle-of-the-lineup guys was really driven home in the playoffs last season. It was this lineup ineffectiveness, magnified in the playoffs, that spurred the Cubs to make a run at Roberts, IMO. Roberts is probably about a 2 to 3 win upgrade over DeRosa at 2B, but I submit that the net gain for the Cubs in such a trade is greater, given DeRosa's upgrade over other utility options and the increased value of Soriano's slugging in the middle of the order. Yes, the Cubs have proven that they can compete and win in their division as things stand now, but advancing deep into the playoffs is problematic. That is the turning point that Hendry and the Cubs are at. Do they want to make a push to win the pennant now, when they are this close? Is refusing to include Colvin, if he indeed is the stumbling block, in a package with three other players (Gallagher, Murton, and Cedeno) that, barring injury, don't figure to make a big impact this year worth potentially missing out on the brass ring? Whatever he decides, Hendry will undoubtedly be eaten alive by Cub fans if it doesn't work.
  11. You make it sound like there has to be a trade. There doesn't. Hendry may be frustrated that McPhail won't accept what he has offered. Too bad. You Cub fans act like it is the Orioles fault that we have taken so long not accepting the same old offers. Make an offer worth accepting and it will be considered. Until then, well, complain all you want. Rest assured, Hendry has been informed what it would take. He has, instead, continued to make lesser offers. To me, it is Hendry that has drug this thing out. If he is unwilling to offer what he's been told it will take, then move on. If you asked me how much would I take for my house and I said $450,000 and you said "I'll give you $275,000" and I said no, $450,000, would you think that calling me back next week with an offer of $276,000 would make me say yes? Would you call me every week with an offer $1,000 higher when we are $175,000 apart and expect that within a couple weeks I would say yes? No, if you are not ever going to pay anywhere near $450,000, you would tell me so and move on. Why Hendry hasn't moved on is anybody's guess, but I suspect that, in reality, he is willing to pay the price needed, but he wants to keep pecking away in hopes that he can get the price down. Why else would he still be going at this?
  12. http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1209053&postcount=34 This is Peace's post you are talking about from the Fogg thread.
  13. Wow. I wouldn't have guessed that. I'm sure they are on a lot of pitchers' no-trade lists, but not to many hitters.
  14. I hear ya El Gordo! I think the Rockies are a great fit,too. I think they have pretty much decided to start the season with Giles at 2B, but if he has a poor ST or struggles early in the season, I think Roberts would be very attractive to them.
  15. I think the reason that these Roberts-to-the-Cubs threads tend to be a bit more contentious than others is the fact that neither team absolutely needs to make the trade. Starting the season with Roberts at 2B is certainly not an unthinkable option for the Orioles and there are other teams that could conceivably have an interest in trading for Roberts, either now or later. The Cubs offers that have been rumored have certainly not been "no-brainers" that knock your socks off. That isn't to say that they have not been good offers, they just haven't been the type of offers that would make the Orioles drop everything and say "lets do this." Not getting Roberts is not the end of the world for the Cubs, either. They made the playoffs without him last year, after all. In DeRosa, they have a decent 2B now who is very popular with the fans. The Cubs are reluctant to part with any pieces that they view as important to them when they don't have an emergency need for Roberts. This makes for long-winded debates among fans. I think we all just need to recognize that there is not the best of fits here and try not to take things so personally. Lets all just take a deep breath and bury the hatchet. No matter how worked up we get, we aren't going to decide what happens.
  16. Skiba, please understand when you refer to us as inflating Roberts value and you has being right and trying to bring us to reasonable levels, that is condescending. We apparently disagree on Roberts value, just like we disagree on Hill and Pie's value. It is natural for every fan to think his team's favorite players are worth more than someone else might think. I understand your views and I disagree with them. That doesn't make me right or my views more reasonable than yours or vice versa. When you make comments like the last two sentences above, you are going to strike a nerve. Please just think about that.
  17. Again, regardless of your intent, it was poor phrasing to say the least. His comment of Scott helping us for the next four years did not call for your comment that we can't hope to compete in four years. His comment was not an attack on you or the Cubs. Read your post again. That comment was definitely raw, Skiba. I think you can see why it would rub us the wrong way. I enjoy our discussions for the most part. I have no problem with disagreement. I can't speak for others, but I enjoy having you here for the most part. It would be nice if you would just take a second to think of how what you are saying will be received before sending it.
  18. Skiba, Read this post: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1209320&postcount=193 It is hard to see that as not "talking down" from where we sit, whether you intended to be talking down or not. I don't see that anything was said to you deserving this response. Did I miss something? All we are asking is maybe temper the way you say things just a little.
  19. Guys, I know that a discussion involving Murton is related to a potential Roberts trade, but there is another thread running right now specifically about Scott and Murton and this is the Roberts trade rumor thread. Could you guys please consider continuing the Scott/ Murton discussion in the Scott/Murton thread? I'm not trying to be the police here, but I had a question about Bigbird's and Peace's posts regarding a Roberts trade that kinda got lost in your discussion 3 pages back and I was hoping to get some opinions on that. Like I said, I know Murton is related to the Roberts trade thread, so if you want to just keep the discussion here that's OK, but I'm asking you to please consider the other thread. Thanks.
  20. I'd love to get Greene, JTrea, but I'm not sure about trading for him next off season. He's a free agent after 2009 and you can't negotiate an extension with him prior to trading for him. I'm pretty sure that would be tampering. Might be better to wait until he's a free agent and try to sign him than to risk what it would take to get him in a trade, only to have him walk after one year IMO.
  21. Come on Skiba, a Cub fan above any other should not try to take away a fan's hopes and dreams. Suffice it to say, the Orioles have a plan to be competing by 2010 if possible. We'd love to be there in 2009, but we won't be upset if we aren't IMO.
  22. Yes, the plan is to be competing by then. It is hard to plan much farther out than that, don't you think?
  23. Guys, both Scott and Murton are good outfielders. Either one can be an everyday player. It is hard to pick one over the other. Scott has perhaps more power and Murton is younger. You both have made good cases in support of the player you favor. Neither one is what I would call a "platoon player." Lets face it, neither has been in the ideal situation to get playing time. I'd be happy to have either one or, even better, both. Trembley will find a way for both of them to get their at bats if we had them both. Or maybe the plan is to trade one of them for a middle infielder if we get Murton from the Cubs. San Diego?
  24. Just trying to piece things together. BigBird made the post you quoted in this thread at 12:36 (#73) saying that a trade with the Cubs is not really a good fit and looking less likely, and Peace made this post at 3:49 in the Fogg thread: [http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1209053&postcount=34 I agree with you and BigBird that the Cubs are not really a good fit for a trade with us, but I wonder if something happened in the three hours between BigBird's post and Peace's post saying that it was 100% that Roberts would be traded. Maybe the Cubs decided to give up Colvin along with Gallagher, Murton, and Cedeno? Or do you think something unexpected like a trade with the Rockies or Indians may be in the works, since Peace's source did not say 100% with the Cubs? Hard to keep up!
  • Create New...