Roberts to the Cubs again?

[davearm]

Well, if you can't get a premiere package from anybody, which I think may be the case, then the package from the Cubs (Murton, Gallagher, Patterson and/or Cedeno) is still a very good one.

I understand the knocks on Patterson and Cedeno, but the people bashing Murton and Gallagher are way off base, IMO. They (Murton especially) may be blocked in Chicago, but that doesn't mean that they don't have value, or would be better over the next 4-6 years than Roberts will be over the next 2. Patterson and/or Cedeno are icing on a good, but not great cake, IMO.

Outstanding post Mack.

The Cubs' package doesn't have to be "premiere" or "blow you away" or whatever. It just has to be better than anything else that's out there, and better than what you think might be out there in the future. Naturally that's for MacPhail to decide, but it's not at all farfetched to believe that is exactly the case here.

And being blocked doesn't make a guy less valuable, simply more available.

[Rolotomassie]

This is exactly right. BAL would be trading with CHN because it's convenient (not a good idea) and taking Patterson/Murton because CHN has no need for them (4th OF/fringe back-up 2b).

The Cubs make little to no sense as a trade partner for Roberts. I screams "making a move just to make a move".

QUALIFIER -- I realize there may be a bigger picture, secondary moves, etc. This is based solely on the perameters of the proposed BRob deal with CHN.

Thank you for being sensible.

The weird thing is that even though we tend to overvalue our prospects versus established major leaguers, we also seem to overvalue OTHER teams' prospects versus ours. Here's the truth of it:

Eric Patterson now = Willie Harris in 2002

Maybe he's shown more power, but he also has been hitting in the hitting-friendly PCL.

Murton now = righty version of Frank Catalanotto circa 2000

We could use a righty bat, I'm just not sure he is it.

Ronny Cedeno = Ricky Gutierrez in 1994

I like Gallagher, and Murton makes some sense, and Cedeno is better than any SS we have now, but overall it isn't enough for Roberts.

[Insomniac]

IMO, Murton has little value to the rebuilding Os, as he is basically the same player as Scott, Gibbons, and Huff. Murton is a nice player, but he can be replicated any year that AM decides we need someone with Murton's type of skill set.

If we trade Roberts to the Cubs, the return has to include several good prospects that may have admitted risk but that also have decent ceilings. IMO, the return should at least include Gallagher, Colvin, Veal, and Tony Thomas. Do they all have question marks? Yes (especially the last 3), and more than one of them may turn out to be a bust. That's the risk to take in exchange for the possibility that two or three of them actually reaches their ceiling in 2010 when it will matter to us most.

We already have our Cedeno (Luis Hernandez), and IMO Patterson will never stick at 2b in the bigs. We need projectable prospects, not yesterday's prospects that have already swung and missed at their first shot at the bigs.

I would not turn either Cedeno or Patterson down as filler in a trade, but if they are one of the main pieces of the return, then I would rather hold on to Roberts to see if a better offer is down the road.

[FO2020]

I think the Brewers are the team to beat in the Central

I don't think so.

[davearm]

I still think the Cubs are a great fit for Roberts.

After taking league difficulty, age and baserunning into account, the gap between Roberts and DeRosa is significant (about 2 wins), and sliding DeRosa over to a utility spot is probably worth another half win.

With the rosters as they are right now, I think the Brewers are the team to beat in the Central, and I don't see the Wild Card coming out of the Central this year.

All in all, I think adding Roberts will significantly improve the Cubs' odds of making the playoffs. That's not a luxury.

Except for the Brewers snippet , this is pretty spot on. A 2 or 3 win boost is significant, and that's about what Roberts should be expected to provide.

As I like to remind my Cub buddies, the Cubs have been in or out of the playoffs by 2 wins or less in three of the past five seasons (03 just in, 04 just out, 07 just in).

Given that context, it's not too hard to see why Hendry is pursuing this aggressively.

[Rolotomassie]

Well, if you can't get a premiere package from anybody, which I think may be the case, then the package from the Cubs (Murton, Gallagher, Patterson and/or Cedeno) is still a very good one.

I understand the knocks on Patterson and Cedeno, but the people bashing Murton and Gallagher are way off base, IMO. They (Murton especially) may be blocked in Chicago, but that doesn't mean that they don't have value, or would be better over the next 4-6 years than Roberts will be over the next 2. Patterson and/or Cedeno are icing on a good, but not great cake, IMO.

This is the Syd Thrift approach, i.e. "it may not be a great package but it's the best we could get." Terrible idea. If you can't get a good return for Brian right now, you don't trade him right now.

Also, LOL at all the speculation of Sherrill being a trade chip. The Orioles/Trembley have said over and over they wanted another power lefty in the pen. Sometimes things are as simple as that. MacPhail went out and got him. He's not going anywhere until at least July, and I'll bet my house on it.

[Stotle]

Outstanding post Mack.

The Cubs' package doesn't have to be "premiere" or "blow you away" or whatever. (1) It just has to be better than anything else that's out there, and better than what you think might be out there in the future. Naturally that's for MacPhail to decide, but it's not at all farfetched to believe that is exactly the case here.

And (2) being blocked doesn't make a guy less valuable, simply more available.

1. I agree. I simply don't think this package is impressive enough to trump potential future packages. It doesn't address needs -- that's my big concern.

2. I agree. Again, I don't think (outside of Cedeno) that the CHN package adds anything to the BAL organization that is not already in place. More importantly it's four 40-man players. So now BAL is dropping three more players for parts that, while solid, are not necessarily better than anything else already in place. That seems like a waste of a trade.

[CrimsonTribe]

Outstanding post Mack.

The Cubs' package doesn't have to be "premiere" or "blow you away" or whatever. It just has to be better than anything else that's out there, and better than what you think might be out there in the future. Naturally that's for MacPhail to decide, but it's not at all farfetched to believe that is exactly the case here.

And being blocked doesn't make a guy less valuable, simply more available.

This is a key point. Just b/c the Cubs haven't utilized Murton as an everyday player (rightly or wrongly), doesn't mean he isn't one.

Further, I think a lot of people don't realize, or forget, how valuable league average production actually is. Sometimes we get caught up trying to acquire "stars" and "difference makers," while we overlook perfectly valuable pieces.

[Stotle]

Except for the Brewers snippet , this is pretty spot on. A 2 or 3 win boost is significant, and that's about what Roberts should be expected to provide.

As I like to remind my Cub buddies, the Cubs have been in or out of the playoffs by 2 wins or less in three of the past five seasons (03 just in, 04 just out, 07 just in).

Given that context, it's not too hard to see why Hendry is pursuing this aggressively.

I defer to you with regards to NL knowledge. If Hendry is truly keen on acquiring Roberts, could AM land Thomas/Samardzija/Cedeno? That seems like a package that works out better for BAL and CHN, since the Cubs get to hold onto Gallagher and can move Murton for another piece later on.

[davearm]

IMO, Murton has little value to the rebuilding Os, as he is basically the same player as Scott, Gibbons, and Huff. Murton is a nice player, but he can be replicated any year that AM decides we need someone with Murton's type of skill set.

If we trade Roberts to the Cubs, the return has to include several good prospects that may have admitted risk but that also have decent ceilings. IMO, the return should at least include Gallagher, Colvin, Veal, and Tony Thomas. Do they all have question marks? Yes (especially the last 3), and more than one of them may turn out to be a bust. That's the risk to take in exchange for the possibility that two or three of them actually reaches their ceiling in 2010 when it will matter to us most.

We already have our Cedeno (Luis Hernandez), and IMO Patterson will never stick at 2b in the bigs. We need projectable prospects, not yesterday's prospects that have already swung and missed at their first shot at the bigs.

I would not turn either Cedeno or Patterson down as filler in a trade, but if they are one of the main pieces of the return, then I would rather hold on to Roberts to see if a better offer is down the road.

Getting a bunch of high-ceiling, non-roster prospects that are a year or more away is certainly a viable alternative here.

Take Gallagher, Cedeno, Murton, Patterson off the table, and replace them with the likes of Veal, Huseby, Ceda, Maestri, Hernandez; Covin, Burke, Castillo, Fox. The Cubs would be onboard with that.

[Stotle]

This is a key point. Just b/c the Cubs haven't utilized Murton as an everyday player (rightly or wrongly), doesn't mean he isn't one.

Further, I think a lot of people don't realize, or forget, how valuable league average production actually is. Sometimes we get caught up trying to acquire "stars" and "difference makers," while we overlook perfectly valuable pieces.

This is certainly true. However, we already have potential league-average production available in LF with Scott/Huff this year and BAL can add Reimold to the mix in '09 and potentially Rowell thereafter. I just don't see where Murton fits into a long term plan.

[Rob H]

I defer to you with regards to NL knowledge. If Hendry is truly keen on acquiring Roberts, could AM land Thomas/Samardzija/Cedeno? That seems like a package that works out better for BAL and CHN, since the Cubs get to hold onto Gallagher and can move Murton for another piece later on.

Thomas is an 07 draftee. He isn't going anywhere. Samardzija isn't going anywhere either. After paying as much for him as Hendry has, and watching the middling but sometimes tantalizing returns... this is a legacy move for Hendry. Samardzija is a Cub until he hits the bigs or he drops baseball to go back to football.

[davearm]

I defer to you with regards to NL knowledge. If Hendry is truly keen on acquiring Roberts, could AM land Thomas/Samardzija/Cedeno? That seems like a package that works out better for BAL and CHN, since the Cubs get to hold onto Gallagher and can move Murton for another piece later on.

Thomas is an '07 draftee, so he can't be traded until later in the year.

Samardzija has a ML deal with a NTC. (Not that he's got any trade value with his large contract anyway.)

[Mackus]

This is the Syd Thrift approach, i.e. "it may not be a great package but it's the best we could get." Terrible idea. If you can't get a good return for Brian right now, you don't trade him right now.

You certainly do if you think that the return you can get now is better than anything you will get in the future.

I'm not sure thats the case, but you certainly can't be sure its not either. Its a tough decision, but its MacPhail's to make.

[Stotle]

Thomas is an '07 draftee, so he can't be traded until later in the year.

Samardzija has a ML deal with a NTC. (Not that he's got any trade value with his large contract anyway.)

Forgot Thomas was '07. Fair point with Samardzija. I respectfully submit the following for your consideration:

Veal/Cedeno/Barney/Huseby