Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Number5

  1. Heck, it would probably be cheaper to cut Gibbons and pay him his $11M and sign Lohse than to take Marquis back in a Cubs trade. A trade for Marquis just can't happen, IMO.
  2. I sure hope not! Marquis is owed over $16M for '08 and '09. That's a lot more than Payton's $5M for '08 only. I really hope that is not at all in AM's thoughts. I'm guessing that Lohse can be had for a lot less right than Marquis' contract right now, so it would make no sense to do that when we could have a decent player or prospect instead from the Cubs and sign Lohse.
  3. Hey, if PA agrees to this,fine by me. It isn't my money! Gibbons gets over $11M over the next two years. That is a lot to eat. I just don't know that we can realistically expect that to happen.
  4. Don't hate Murton. Just facing facts as to the limitations of where you can play him. If we didn't already get Scott, I'd be all over him. I think the guy is a good hitter.
  5. I don't think anybody's crowing about it, Dave. Being saddled with contracts like Gibbons' hurts us in so many ways. It is just a fact that it is hard for us to do a deal that has Murton coming back when we have Gibbons, Huff, Mora, and Millar. Even with Payton going to the Cubs, it would be hard to get Scott and Murton their at bats when we are trying to get the other four enough at bats to possibly get some teams interested in them. Tough spot. Who knows, maybe PA will decide to bite the bullet and cut Gibbons, but I would doubt it.
  6. I'm not so sure. Murton is a good hitter, but his inflexibility in the field makes it hard for teams to carry him. His only position is left field. All outfielders can play left field. As a 4th or 5th outfielder, most teams want someone that can play all 3 spots reasonably well, or at least both corners or first base. Remember, since nearly all teams carry 12 pitchers, there are only 5 bench spots (4 plus the DH in the AL.) Typically the mix is something like 2 OF's, 2 UT inf, and a C. Even in the AL, teams like for their primary DH to have some fielding capability and flexibility, unless they happen to have an Ortiz-type stud. This was evidenced by Texas deciding to pass on a Murton-for-Byrd offer from the Cubs. Texas figures to have a Catalanotto/Nelson Cruz platoon in LF as of now, and there aren't many teams that would figure to possibly be more interested in a Murton than the Rangers. Yet they said no. His marketability is pretty much limited to teams for whom he would be the clear-cut starter at LF or DH. Even then, a team may have salary issues that make cutting or trading the player blocking Murton problematic (like Huff or Gibbons with the Orioles.) EPat faces this type of issue, as well. From what I've read, he is rated too far below ML average at 2B to be viable there, and lacks the arm for CF or RF. His bat, his speed, and the fact that he can fill in at 2B and possibly CF in an emergency, mitigates this concern slightly in his case, but it is still an issue.
  7. We have hit the century mark. Don't forget about 1988. Once is enough, though!
  8. Losing is like a disease... as contagious as syphilis. Pretend you are on a ship at sea... rocking, rocking, gently rocking.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. I'm thinking that Hart would be there in place of Murton or EPat, not in place of Colvin/Ceda/Veal.
  13. 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?
  14. ...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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. The National League is not a minor league.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  • Create New...