Roberts to the Cubs again?

[davearm]

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

Veal/Cedeno/Barney/Huseby

I couldn't say yes fast enough if you offered that.

But Barney is another '07 kid.

[Stotle]

I couldn't say yes fast enough if you offered that.

But Barney is another '07 kid.

Damn re: Barney -- I need to brush up on my Cubs.

I like Huseby a lot, and there is more room down at Frederick than there is at AAA/ML.

[CrimsonTribe]

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.

I'm all for having a glut of talented players who can step in and get the job done. Hoping we could move Huff/Millar, I'd have the remaining one play 1B/DH, while Murton played DH/LF, spelling Scott on occasion. Not to mention that Murton/Scott could also be dangled in trade.

[Number5]

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.

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.

[Insomniac]

I'm all for having a glut of talented players who can step in and get the job done. Hoping we could move Huff/Millar, I'd have the remaining one play 1B/DH, while Murton played DH/LF, spelling Scott on occasion. Not to mention that Murton/Scott could also be dangled in trade.

Although I am not an AM basher, the timeline of the Bedard trade gives me pause for thought about acquiring players with the hope to flip them later. I'd rather get our projected-to-compete-in-2010 prospects now, if at all possible.

[dkdc]

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.

You can never have too many prospects, especially pitching prospects. Yes, the Orioles have accumulated a decent pile of pitching prospects, but the attrition rate is going to be high. There is no such thing as a redundant pitching prospect.

In the unlikely event that the Orioles find themselves down the road with 6 young starting pitchers that are assets at the major league level, there's a very simple solution: trade one of them for positional talent. The Haren, Santana, and (hopefully) Bedard trades prove that other teams will always be looking for pitching.

[Stotle]

You can never have too many prospects, especially pitching prospects. Yes, the Orioles have accumulated a decent pile of pitching prospects, but the attrition rate is going to be high. There is no such thing as a redundant pitching prospect.

In the unlikely event that the Orioles find themselves down the road with 6 young starting pitchers that are assets at the major league level, there's a very simple solution: trade one of them for positional talent. The Haren, Santana, and (hopefully) Bedard trades prove that other teams will always be looking for pitching.

The fundamental issue, however, is that the 2b/SS hole is not addressed and there are few trade chips to net a solid fix for either of thos holes. Trading Roberts to CHN for Murton/Gallagher/Patterson/Cedeno doesn't give BAL a long term solution at SS (Cedeno is fine but is he someone I get excited about? No) and opens up another hole at 2b.

It just isn't a smart way to use Roberts, if you want to trade him.

[jerios55]

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.

Curiosity - would CUbs fans do this:

Roberts/Sherill for Pie/Gallagher/MiL not of the 40man or

Roberts/Sherill for Pie/Marshall/2 MiL not of the 40man??

2 for 2 40 man switch, O's get a little more talented on the low end of the minors.

[thundercleetz]

Curiosity - would CUbs fans do this:

Roberts/Sherill for Pie/Gallagher/MiL not of the 40man or

Roberts/Sherill for Pie/Marshall/2 MiL not of the 40man??

2 for 2 40 man switch, O's get a little more talented on the low end of the minors.

I'm not a Cubs fan, but I can tell you that the Cubs are not trading Pie. He is penciled in as there OD CFer and they have nothing viable behind him.

[CrimsonTribe]

Although I am not an AM basher, the timeline of the Bedard trade gives me pause for thought about acquiring players with the hope to flip them later. I'd rather get our projected-to-compete-in-2010 prospects now, if at all possible.

I'm not asserting that we could flip them right away, but rather at some point maybe down the line like the July deadline or next offseason. Personally though, I think we could find room for both of them in the lineup.

[davearm]

Curiosity - would CUbs fans do this:

Roberts/Sherill for Pie/Gallagher/MiL not of the 40man or

Roberts/Sherill for Pie/Marshall/2 MiL not of the 40man??

2 for 2 40 man switch, O's get a little more talented on the low end of the minors.

I agree with thundercleetz.

[FO2020]

Curiosity - would CUbs fans do this:

Roberts/Sherill for Pie/Gallagher/MiL not of the 40man or

Roberts/Sherill for Pie/Marshall/2 MiL not of the 40man??

2 for 2 40 man switch, O's get a little more talented on the low end of the minors.

In my personal opinion, I don't want to give up Pie. If it came down to give up Pie or walk away from Roberts, I walk away. This is not a knock on Roberts, I just think the first of all, Pie IS going to be very good. He's already an extremely good defensive CF, and he's hit everywhere he's been except the majors (to this point). I think he's going to find his stroke and be a stud CF. Secondly, I think that it's taking a step backwards for a contender to trade for a position where you have a solid regular already, and in the process creating a hole at another position.

[Ricky Bobby]

With Mc Quick at the helm could Roberts possibly be traded before ST?

[YardBirds13]

I don't get why everyone seems willing to take lesser prospects who are further away from the bigs just because they are worried about our 40 man situation.

Really?

Take a look at our 40 man roster and tell me there aren't AT LEAST 5 guys that you could just waive bye-bye too and never think about again. Let's get the best deals we can.

We can't get Murton because we have Scott in left. Uhh, DH is a position too. There is also the possibility of flipping people to other places. People are complaining about having too many good, young players?? Ugh.