Jump to content

Number5

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    6,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Number5

  1. You say tomAto, I say tomAHto. I think we are arguing semantics here, Dave. Would you feel better if I said that Cedeno was given the opportunity to start at SS in the majors in two different seasons by the Cubs rather than saying he was given two chances to start? OK, consider it done. My points are that he was given his chances and has not succeeded and that, as of now, it does not appear likely that the Cubs are planning on giving him another chance. Whether we call it two chances or one two-season chance doesn't really matter, does it? None of us know what the future might bring, and Cedeno may yet someday put it all together in the majors, but I can't see making him one of the main pieces in a trade for someone the caliber of Brian Roberts.
  2. Johnny, I don't think most of us are totally against trading Roberts. What we are saying is that we should not trade him just for the sake of trading him. If we cannot get good value for him now, then wait. Why the desperation to trade him? You are almost certainly correct that the Orioles will not compete this year, but that is no reason to dump Roberts for low-impact players. We have time, and there will certainly be a team, either at the deadline or next off season, that will have a need for a guy like Roberts. It is the contending teams like the Cubs, Rockies, Indians, and Mariners that have every reason to act now, not the Orioles.
  3. I notice that you conveniently forgot to mention Gallagher's 2007 MLB line of 14.2 IP, 5 K, 12 BB, 8.591 ERA, and 2.114 WHIP. Using such stats when discussing prospects rarely tells the whole story, but to quote only the stats that support your assertion, while omitting those that do not, is to admit that you cannot support your argument.
  4. Agree. Plus they are considering signing Fogg, among others. The "you can never have enough pitching" saying does not mean that it is wise to trade an All-Star 2B that is one of the top lead-off men in the game to get your 19th potential sp. Trade Roberts if you get value players that suit our needs in return, but not just to be making a trade.
  5. Yes, you must have missed either the entire 2006 season or his being beaten out by Theriot early in 2007. From Roto Times: April 26, 2007 Ryan Theriot picked up his first start of the year at shortstop Wednesday, going 2-for-5 with two runs and two RBI. Theriot has shortstop experience from the minor leagues; he's already played the outfield, second base and third base for Chicago this season. "I've got to start playing people who are hitting and swinging the bat," manager Lou Piniella told the AP. Theriot's productive day raised his average to .339. Theriot was not intended to be the starting SS last year, Cedeno lost the job. He's had his chances and failed. The Cubs have made it clear that he is not in their plans. I don't see why the Orioles should think that the Cubs are wrong.
  6. AM's history with the Cubs is what concerns me. He has done very well in negotiations with Houston and Seattle, but I'm a little worried that he may see something that isn't really there in some of these Cubs players. I'd like to think he considers all options. Cedeno has proven that he is an excellent AAA player. He has been given two shots at starting in the Majors, and the Cubs are giving no indication that they are thinking of giving him another. He appears to be the classic 4-A player, and utility infielder looks like his future spot in MLB. The other players the Cubs are rumored to be offering just don't really fill any hole for the Orioles, while losing Roberts would be disastrous to an already terrible middle infield situation. Not to mention the questions of who will bat lead-off and what two additional players will we DfA. Having Roberts in our OD lineup looks like a better option than taking the rumored trade offer from the Cubs. What's wrong with having an All-Star 2B that is an excellent example and clubhouse presence here to provide invaluable leadership for the young guys? If Peralta and/or Miller are truly available, and Cleveland really is interested in Roberts, I hope AM is at least exploring that option. Additionally, keeping Roberts until the deadline may pay huge dividends, because Colorado looks like they are going to try to start the season with Giles at 2B. There is a very good chance that they will be aggressively seeking a better 2B option come July. The Cubs may also be feeling their acute need for a legitimate lead-off hitter by that time as well, and be willing to offer a package that fits into our needs and plans better than the one currently rumored to be offered. All in all, accepting a Gallagher-Cedeno-Murton/Marshall trade offer or the like from the Cubs just looks like the worst-case scenario of the options AM has IMO. Unless, of course, he has received offers that we don't know about, which is also quite likely.
  7. Oh, I don't think there is any question that Roberts is a great fit for the Cubs. The bad fit is that the Cubs players rumored to be offered do not match up well with what the Orioles are trying to do and the Cubs are rumored to be unwilling to trade the Cubs players that do match up well with what the Orioles are trying to do. By the way, I haven't seen anyone "bashing" Murton and Gallagher. I think most agree that they are the top two of the players the Cubs are rumored to be willing to trade. They simply are redundant when coupled with the other trades the Orioles have made, and they aren't top tier prospects (for whom position redundancy would not matter.) Gallagher would be yet another arm competing for a rotation spot. Even if he were chosen to be in the rotation over, say, Patton, how much of an upgrade would that really be? Enough to justify giving Roberts away? I don't think so. Long term, the Orioles have accumulated a lot of young pitching talent. Again, does adding one more potential #3 or #4 justify giving up Roberts? Murton would be the #4 outfielder on the Orioles. The Cubs have been very reluctant to give him much of a shot. I don't know why, but I can't see giving up Roberts, only to find the Cubs were right. Both are very good prospects, but clearly not difference-makers.
  8. OK, gotcha. I agree Marmol is definitely more valuable than Sherrill. I just don't agree with Johnny that that trade proposal works if you take out Sherrill and Marmol. To me, Marmol is the centerpiece of that deal from the Cubs side and Sherrill is there to mitigate part of the pain of losing Marmol for the Cubs.
  9. Yes, I'm sure that the Cubs would much rather keep all of their valuable players, but in trying to get something, you really need to be willing to give something. If either team is unwilling to give something that the other team wants or needs, then there can be no trade. We know that you are willing to trade some spare parts for an All-Star, but trades like that rarely happen. This has been a recurring theme in all of these "Roberts to the Cubs" threads. The players that the Cubs are rumored to be offering just don't match up with what the Orioles are trying to do, and the players that the Orioles are rumored to be willing to accept for Roberts are not players that the Cubs are willing to trade. Bad fit. It is not really a matter of either GM "caving," but rather whether one, or both, of them can find a way (perhaps through another trade) to make something work for both teams. Frankly, my concern in all of this is McPhail's ties to the Cubs and the possibility that he might overvalue some of the Cubs players being offered. I'd like to think that he would explore other possible trade partners, such as Cleveland, before agreeing to a Cubs offer.
  10. Why? They are clearly the cream of the names that the Cubs seem to be offering, but how will they help what the Orioles are tying to do? Acquiring Gallagher and Murton would seem to be redundant, considering the other moves we have made. We have quite a few guys in the mix for the 4-5 spots in the rotation, Gallagher would add one more name to that list. With Nick, Jones, and Scott, Murton becomes the #4 OF. With Huff and Millar, DH/1B is covered until one or both is traded. We are very weak throughout the system in middle infield and this trade would exacerbate that problem. Who would lead off? We would be creating huge holes offensively and defensively, and not really filling anything. If anything, such a trade would only reduce the PT for the other prospects we've acquired and force us to DfA two more players from our 40-man. Now, none of us know what McPhail has been discussing with various other GM's and perhaps he has a trade worked out sending one of the OF's and one of the SP's somewhere for a top SS or 2B prospect, or both; but on the surface the Cubs' rumored offers just don't seem to fit what we are tying to accomplish. Other teams seem to have a better fit as far as having major league ready prospects that appear to meet our needs. By the same token, maybe the Cubs are offering a Hill, Pie, or Marmol in the package for Roberts and Hendry may well have another trade worked out to plug whatever hole that creates for the Cubs. We just don't know what may be going on behind the scenes, but without another trade behind it, Roberts for Gallagher, Murton, plus one is not a deal McPhail should make IMO.
  11. For guys like Cedeno or Patterson to be part of a package makes sense, but there has to be a headliner to such a trade. Cedeno, Gallagher & Marshall, or other similar rumored offers from the Cubs just do not accomplish much in the way of rebuilding the Orioles, plus a trade like that would create even more 40-man problems. When I said that the Cubs were offering next to nothing, I didn't mean that the players had zero value, I meant that they just don't accomplish much for the Orioles in their rebuild. Trading Roberts just to trade him would be a mistake IMO. We need to have a plan in mind.
  12. I'm not sure that the Cubs agree with you. I think that they may view a true lead-off man as a need. Like I said, though, I think that they can compete and win in that division without one. The playoffs are a different story. Waiting for the deadline may be a good move for the Cubs. I think we are in agreement that a Cubs-Orioles trade makes no sense right now.
  13. No, I don't think that many Cub fans are willing to trade anyone of real value. The question is, are the Cubs (not the fans) willing to trade value for value to meet their needs? Frankly, if the Cubs think Roberts' value will really be lower at the deadline, they should wait until then. What's the rush? They should have no trouble hanging in that division race until then and they can then try to trade for a lead-off hitter for the stretch run and to have a chance to advance in the playoffs.
  14. Skiba, Roberts is a perfect fit for the Cubs. That is pretty clear, as is the Cubs' interest. Your many posts make it pretty clear to me that you'd like to see Roberts in a Cub uniform yourself. The Cubs have tried paying next to nothing for him. The Cubs have pretty much given up on Cedeno becoming a starting major leaguer. Why should the Orioles think any differently? Patterson's defense at 2B is very poor and the Cubs plan to try him at CF in the minors to see if they can find a position he can play. I've never quite understood why the Cubs are so down on Murton, but they are. The Scott and Jones acquisitions make Murton less valuable to the Orioles. Gallagher may be a good prospect, assuming he can get his command under control, but he is certainly no sure thing. Marshall is a journeyman. No combination of 3 of those guys makes any sense for Roberts. Why would the Orioles want such a package? There is just no headliner to the deal. As they used to say in the old commercials... "Where's the beef?" Even with Miller's health questions, a Miller-topped package from Cleveland is far more intriguing than what the Cubs have been rumored to be offering. Hill, Marmol, and Pie are the interesting Cubs. Without one of those names in the package, I'm not seeing McPhail trading Roberts to the Cubs. I can definitely see Seattle as a potential trade partner for Roberts as well. Maybe Lopez and Clement? I personally think that Colorado is a strong possibility to have interest in Roberts at the deadline after their other 2B options don't pan out. I've heard the White Sox are interested in Roberts, too, but I'm not sure that they can put a package together that would work. A lot of possibilities. But, really, keeping Roberts is a decent option for the Orioles. I believe that Roberts will be willing to negotiate a contract extension, wherever he ends up. Roberts is in the top handful of lead-off men in the big leagues and an above average defensive 2B. He commands a good return. A #4 outfielder, a 4-A infielder and a prospect pitcher just doesn't cut it.
  15. Whether his value is higher now or at the deadline doesn't really matter if the Cubs are not offering that value. Bottom line is what the Cubs have reportedly offered does not meet Roberts' value. Without a reasonable offer, it is best to keep Roberts. His example to the younger players is invaluable, not to mention his skill set. If offered a package that will help the Orioles in a rebuilding effort by the Cubs or another team, then yes, by all means pull the trigger. But lets not trade him for three non-impact players just to be doing a trade.
  16. I don't believe Angelos was angry with Jones. He was no doubt aggravated that Bavasi apparently did not tell the player not to talk about it to anyone before it was finalized. The young man knew no better. Angelos once got stuck with paying a large settlement to a player that failed a physical because the signing information was released to the press without the caveat that it was subject to the player passing a physical. Once burned, you can bet Angelos is not going to let something like that happen again. When Jones spoke to the press, he said he had been traded. Angelos then needed an agreement from the Mariners that the Orioles would not be bound to the trade should Jones or Sherrill happen to fail his physical, in view of the stated trade in the press. This necessitated delaying the physicals. I'm no Angelos fan, but in this case I just don't see that he's wrong to make sure he doesn't get burned again.
  17. The Mets and Twins were negotiating this trade during the winter meetings and negotiations continued after the meetings straight through until they were finally completed. The 72 hours was the time after the teams agreed to the trade that the Mets had to negotiate an extension with Santana. This was not a Mets stipulation in the trade, but rather the time that Santana had to exercise his no-trade clause, which he stated that he would do if he did not get an extension that satisfied him. The Mets had a pretty good idea what it would take to sign Santana and decided that they would pull the trigger. I'm not even sure that a team can stipulate that they have a window to negotiate a contract extension prior to a trade becoming final. Wouldn't that technically be considered tampering? I'm not sure that you are making a fair comparison. Bedard does not have a no-trade clause.
×
×
  • Create New...