Talks stall on trade for Roberts-Suntimes

[Fairfax Bird]

He has exactly what it takes to be an ace pitcher? OKAYYYYYYYY. Other than the fact that you admit he doesn't handle adversity particularly well. Other than the fact that his HR rate has been high for three straight years save for that one AAA stretch you seem to be banking on being the rule rather than the exception.

As far as Hill being Bedard, except for the flyball tendencies, that is a major difference and there is a lot more difference than that. Lots of Hill's fly balls turn into home runs and they basically always have.

                Minors      MajorsBedard HR/9      0.24         0.79Hill HR/9        0.74       1.30

Bedard was in the majors for good or close to it in 2002 at age 23 when he had to undergo Tommy John surgery. That set him back a year plus. He basically relearned his craft at the ML level in 2004. Bedard was a beast basically from day one in the minors, but an injury pushed him back and is most of the reason why people are able to say things like "he has had 1.5 good years ever and he is 28". As you wrote previously, Hill had zero control and basically was on his way out of baseball before the light suddenly went on in 2005. Hill is the type of guy that gives Oriole fans hope for Daniel Cabrera.

Hill is a good pitcher and it is possible that he may become a great pitcher, but you're prognosis that it is likely and impending is more than a bit optimistic IMHO. I like the Cubs so I hope you're right. We'll see.

IMO Hill is exactly a year behind Bedard, which is exactly why the Cubs won't trade him. He will be much more dominant this year.

[Fairfax Bird]

So, you don't think it matters that Hill's homer rate for the last three years is higher than any period of Bedard's career? Hill didn't just start having homer trouble despite what those who blame it on an "emerging" change up want to believe. He has consistently given up a lot of home runs. It is hard for me to imagine him becoming totally dominant with a HR/9 rate over 1 and it is very hard to project him to get below that rate based on his history. I'd love to have Hill if I was the Cubs, but I can't project him to do what Bedard did last year. Of course, I couldn't project it for Bedard either (though I'd say his peripherals made it more likely).

I can't say that I am even looking at the HR/9. I look at them both as late-bloomers, with decling ERAs each year and rising K/9 and K/BBs. I just see him following a similar path. I don't think he tops out as the same type of pitcher as Bedard, however, I do think he will wind up being a 15 win, 3.50 ERA type guy for several years. I think Bedard has the higher ceiling (3.25 ERA for next 3-4 years), but I am more concerned about his ability to pitch 200 innings.

[Sports Guy]

Hill is a FB pitcher and that will hurt him more in OPACY and in the AL East than it has in the NL.

Now, he can still be effective because he has improved his BB rate and maybe many of those homers will be solo shots.

Suffice it to say, I don't think he is as good in the AL as he has been in the NL but I do think he can be a 2/3 starter in the AL and at his price tag, he is very valuable.

[Mark Carver]

I believe you are confused, my friend. If the trade happens January 20, the player must be named by June 20. However, the PTBNL, if a 2007 draftee can't be named until one year from (not sure on this part) either the day of the draft of the day he signed (pretty sure it's this one). In that case, he couldn't be officially be dealt until August 16, which would make it impossible for him to be a PTBNL on January 20. Got it? Anyone correct me if I got it wrong.

Wrong, according to the link that I provided Cot's Baseball Contracts... under Player To Be Named Later -

Clubs may include a player to be named later in a trade if a player is not eligible to be traded. For example, once a draft pick signs a professional contract, he may not be traded until an entire year has elapsed (the Pete Incaviglia Rule). Additionally, a player on a minor-league reserve list may not be traded between November 20 and the Rule 5 draft in December, so trades during that window may include a PTBNL.

So a 2007 draftee could be named as a PTBNL, just as long as the date that will be used to finalize the trade is 1 year after he signed and within 6-months.

[Fairfax Bird]

Hill is a FB pitcher and that will hurt him more in OPACY and in the AL East than it has in the NL.

Now, he can still be effective because he has improved his BB rate and maybe many of those homers will be solo shots.

Suffice it to say, I don't think he is as good in the AL as he has been in the NL but I do think he can be a 2/3 starter in the AL and at his price tag, he is very valuable.

I agree with that. I am not saying that I think he is going to be the exact same pitcher as Bedard, but I do think he is going to be a solid #2 and come close to the production of Bedard, which is why the Cubs won't trade him.

[Sports Guy]

I agree with that. I am not saying that I think he is going to be the exact same pitcher as Bedard, but I do think he is going to be a solid #2 and come close to the production of Bedard, which is why the Cubs won't trade him.

Yea, it would be dumb for the Cubs to trade Hill in a Bedard trade.

[FatRalph]

There was no trade shot down. Hendry denied it also. No reason for him to say any other.

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/

[theobird]

Hill is a FB pitcher and that will hurt him more in OPACY and in the AL East than it has in the NL.

Now, he can still be effective because he has improved his BB rate and maybe many of those homers will be solo shots.

Suffice it to say, I don't think he is as good in the AL as he has been in the NL but I do think he can be a 2/3 starter in the AL and at his price tag, he is very valuable.

I agree, but what should be noted is this: Wrigley is not the HR haven some people think it is. The wind is frequently blowing in from LF, knocking a lot of balls down. I would be concerned that Hill would surrender a lot more HR's in OPACY than he has in Wrigley.

Where you and I disagree SG is in the cubs ability to put together an acceptable package for Bedard and Roberts. I think they can, without even sending Hill back to us. In fact I don't want Hill. I want Vitters. And I am starting to think the big delay is to wait another 2 weeks so we could take him back as a PTBNL an consumate the deal within the 6 month window. I know, I am dreaming, but this is my deal: The O's send Bedard, BRob and Payton to the Cubs. The O's get Pie, Murton, Cedeno, EPat, Gallagher, Marshall and the all important PTBNL. I like that deal for us. Sure, it comes with some risks. But there are two guys in that haul with HUGE upside. Pie and Vitters. Three more with considerable potential in Cedeno, Gallgher and EPat. And two in Murton and Marshall that are sure things to contribute right now. Marshall as a back of the rotation pitcher who can throw strikes, and Murton as a RH bat that will supply .800 OPS or better. All of the players will be under team control for a long time, so they will be here when this team is ready to compete.

[Sports Guy]

I agree, but what should be noted is this: Wrigley is not the HR haven some people think it is. The wind is frequently blowing in from LF, knocking a lot of balls down. I would be concerned that Hill would surrender a lot more HR's in OPACY than he has in Wrigley.

Where you and I disagree SG is in the cubs ability to put together an acceptable package for Bedard and Roberts. I think they can, without even sending Hill back to us. In fact I don't want Hill. I want Vitters. And I am starting to think the big delay is to wait another 2 weeks so we could take him back as a PTBNL an consumate the deal within the 6 month window. I know, I am dreaming, but this is my deal: The O's send Bedard, BRob and Payton to the Cubs. The O's get Pie, Murton, Cedeno, EPat, Gallagher, Marshall and the all important PTBNL. I like that deal for us. Sure, it comes with some risks. But there are two guys in that haul with HUGE upside. Pie and Vitters. Three more with considerable potential in Cedeno, Gallgher and EPat. And two in Murton and Marshall that are sure things to contribute right now. Marshall as a back of the rotation pitcher who can throw strikes, and Murton as a RH bat that will supply .800 OPS or better. All of the players will be under team control for a long time, so they will be here when this team is ready to compete.

There is no chance Vitters would be included...Way too much can go wrong between now and August without him being under our watch.

The idea of Vitters really needs to go away.

I mean, MacPhail is as conservative as you can be...Do you really think he is going to make the second best player in a Bedard and BRob trade be a guy he can't even get his hands on until August??? No chance.

[Greg Pappas]

Wrong, according to the link that I provided Cot's Baseball Contracts... under Player To Be Named Later -

So a 2007 draftee could be named as a PTBNL, just as long as the date that will be used to finalize the trade is 1 year after he signed and within 6-months.

That is my understanding as well. So it seems we must wait until Feb. 16th to finalize the highly unlikely and hypothetical acquisition of Vitters. One in which I aspire to.

[theobird]

There is no chance Vitters would be included...Way too much can go wrong between now and August without him being under our watch.

The idea of Vitters really needs to go away.

I mean, MacPhail is as conservative as you can be...Do you really think he is going to make the second best player in a Bedard and BRob trade be a guy he can't even get his hands on until August??? No chance.

Yeah, but you know that AM can protect himself here by making the PTBNL a choice between one of three or four players. It really isn't that hard for me to believe that it could happen. And I would not characterize it as No Chance.

[rammyfanny]

Meant to reply to theobird in the thread that got locked, but i'll do it here.

Personally, I still feel a deal will be worked out. Bruce Miles, who is as good as they come with info, says that while we're not imminent on trading for Roberts, he still remains our #1 option.

BTW, here are a couple of quotes from the Cubs convention yesterday:

At a different conference Ron Santo mentioned that the Cubs were going to make two more moves. He seemed to know some kind of inside information as he said, "...and you will like these moves, believe me."

And Hendry, after being asked if he'd trade top prospects for that "right guy" who could put the Cubs over the top, said he would. So I would anticipate he'll be busy the next three weeks.

To say anything's "dead" would be foolish.

[Baltimore_Bob]

interesting

[Mark Carver]

That's basically what I said (or meant). He couldn't be traded today, because the six months would run out before he could be named (anniversary of signing). No?

As I stated earlier...

So if Vitters signed August 16th, he can't be traded until February 16th, give or take a few days.

Vitters could be traded on February 16th (as a PTBNL), and have the deal finalized on August 16th. Which is 1 year after he signed, and within 6 months.

He'd still be in the Cubs system until August 16th.

[Rob H]

The argument is pointless. It simply is not going to happen. I'll make any bet.