Jump to content

Number5

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    6,390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Number5

  1. Payton may well be included in the Roberts trade. I agree with you, though, that Murton is hard to carry. LF is his only position, other than DH. His right-handed bat would be very helpful, though. I know it is a bitter pill to swallow, but it really looks like eating Gibbons salary and letting him go is the best thing for the team, IMO. A 4-man bench of Quiroz, Bynum, Moore, and Murton(?) is not bad at all. Moore and Murton could rotate in at DH with Huff and Millar. If we keep Gibbons, we can't realistically trade for Murton, IMO.
  2. That's 5 guys on the 40-man. We would have to DfA 3 guys to do the trade you suggest. Ceda and Veal are not on the 40-man roster.
  3. Agree that Marshall is favorable to Marquis, however, I don't agree that he should be a target in a Roberts trade. Marshall is a serviceable #5 SP or long man/spot starter. That is no knock, as there are certainly spots in the majors for guys of his talents, but I just don't think he's a guy we trade BRob for. Aren't we looking for quality in this trade? It would be great if we could get both Ceda and Veal in the package, but failing that I'd rather have Murton or EPat in the package than Marshall. Gallagher, Cedeno, Ceda, and EPat/Murton is a winner for me. If the Cubs won't part with Ceda, then Veal and a lower ranked prospect would do instead.
  4. I'm on board with you on any of the three.
  5. The 5 for 2 came from a Chicago radio personality. http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1233998&postcount=475 If Marquis is one of the five, I'd just as soon keep Roberts or talk to Cleveland. Marquis has reportedly been a clubhouse problem everywhere he's been. That's the last thing we need, not to mention his $16 million contract.
  6. Due to 40-man considerations, I really don't think we can be getting 5 40-man guys back. Seems like Veal would almost have to be in the deal, doesn't it?
  7. Trading Mora is very unlikely. He has a full no trade clause and has said he would only consider waiving it for a trade to a contending team on the east coast. Philly was the only realistic possibility, and they just signed Feliz. He is signed thru '09 and I think we can pretty much count on him being here.
  8. To me, the last thing we want to be doing in a trade involving Roberts is to be taking on another team's dead weight, We have way more dead weight than we need already. Names like Cliff Lee and Marte from Cleveland or Marquis from Chicago just should not be part of any package we are trading Brian Roberts for IMO. One of our objectives in any such trade should be to try to include some of our excess baggage in the deal, not to be adding more.
  9. If we added Marte, we'd have to trade at least 2 now, not at the deadline. If we could trade Gibbons, we would have already. We have 4 bench spots. One is our back up catcher. Both Moore and Costanzo would have to go down if we kept Marte and we'd still be strapped on the bench. We do not have room for Marte, and I wouldn't want him even if we did. The players the Cubs are rumored to be offering are preferable to Marte, IMO.
  10. I really think that you are overlooking that he has no options left. We don't have room on our 25-man roster for him. We have too many corner/DH guys as it is to consider taking on a reclamation project like Marte.
  11. Because it would not have a realistic chance of being accepted. If that were their final offer, I don't believe that Belkast would have referred to the offer as "fair." Just my opinion.
  12. I understand Miller has injury risk with him. That is the very reason that I think we may be able to get him. If he were clearly 100% healthy, it couldn't happen. Rumor has it that we could trade Payton to the White Sox for Uribe, who would be a good temporary answer at shortstop for us. LH has options left and could go to AAA. Gutierrez would be a fine #4 OF and, in fact could play a lot of LF, with Scott at DH. 40-man wise and 25-man wise Miller, Barfield, and Gutierrez for Roberts would make a lot of sense for us, especially if the Uribe - Payton deal can be done.
  13. I would leave it. Marte has no options left and would only add to our corner infield/DH logjam. Besides, his numbers have been headed south big time. Lee is a question mark and is owed $9.5 million for 2 years. I doubt if that is the rumored offer being considered.
  14. Everything I've read indicates that Cleveland has no interest in trading Peralta. Do you have some reason to think otherwise? Looks like they may put him at 3B now, even if they make no trade, and put Blake in the outfield. All indications are that they want Cabrera at SS and Peralta at 3B, and want an upgrade at 2B. Marte has no options left, plays corner infield (not a position of need for us now), and his numbers are diving. His OPS in winter ball was .573, with zero homers and a .198 batting average. His shine has worn off, IMO. Why would you want him? Since you seem to think that there is no way that Cleveland would offer Miller, Barfield, and Gutierrez, does that mean that you would be very happy with that deal if it was offered? I don't share your view that such an offer is an impossibility.
  15. I agree with this post. I don't think Peralta would be in any Indians offer. He is their 3B of the future, IMO. I'm guessing if Cleveland has made an offer it would be something like Miller, Barfield and Gutierrez.
  16. The $16 million for 2 years and his perhaps league average or less results are troublesome, but his record of being a clubhouse problem in Atlanta, St. Louis, and Chicago make Marquis someone I don't want within 100 miles of our young pitchers. Bringing Marquis in here would be the exact opposite of the reason you would want to bring in a veteran pitcher, IMO. If the Cubs paid 100% of his salary, I still wouldn't want him in here. Lou let the cat out of the bag. He tried to reseal the bag this morning with an "apology" but his true feelings had already come out, IMO. Please, Mr. McPhail, no Marquis, no way.
  17. It is hard for me to imagine any offer including Marquis that I would be in favor of. I would not want AM to accept the above offer, even if you hadn't added DCab. Eliminate DCab and Marquis, and I think I'm OK with it. Marquis is a huge subtraction from anything else that is being offered IMO.
  18. I really hope we aren't even considering Marquis. How helpful is he going to be with our young pitchers? He has been a problem in the clubhouse in Atlanta, St. Louis, and now Chicago. He is signed at $16 million for the next 2 years. Why would we want him? Here is a thread on Cards Clubhouse about him: http://www.cardsclubhouse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20368 It seems to me that getting Marquis would be "subtraction by addition."
  19. Sounds like there is no fit for a trade with St. Louis.
  20. A guy like Marquis is the last guy I'd want around our young pitchers. The whole idea of bringing in another veteran SP is to provide stability, leadership, and serve as almost a 2nd pitching coach for the young guys, isn't it? Marquis has not shown any of those qualities, IMO. If the Cubs say that they won't take Payton unless we take Marquis, then I'd rather keep Payton. At least he's only signed for this year, and for less money. In fact, rumor has it that we could trade Payton to the White Sox for Uribe, who could be our temporary answer at shortsop.
  21. Please, No! $16 million for the next 2 years. Was a clubhouse problem in St. Louis, and now in Chicago. Why would we want Marquis?
  22. Thanks, Sonny! Does this means that there is another offer that your contact thinks is better than the Cubs' offer?
  23. What kind of statement is that? I never said that would be the trade. In fact, this is now the fifth time that I have said that it is my opinion that this will definitely not be the trade. The Cubs are clearly not in position to make a trade like that. Who is calling who a troll?
  24. Attention Cub fans: I did not bring up these names. I was responding to a Cub fan's post. Fire83, you have accused me of trolling. I responded to a Cub fan's claims that Hill is worth more than Roberts. I never said one single derogatory word about Hill. I simply posted his record. Does the anger stem from the fact that Hill's numbers do not support claims that he is a more valuable player than Roberts? I cannot help you with that. His numbers are his numbers. Accurately quoting statistics in response to unsupported statements is not trolling. BTW, your last paragraph is clearly your opinion, and should probably be framed as such.
×
×
  • Create New...