Jump to content

Is this a fair deal for the O's AND Cubs?

ChaosLex

By ChaosLex
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Fairfax Bird Major Leaguer Rising Star

Fairfax Bird

Posted
Posted
I like Fontenot too. But since MacPhail is going to bring in a veteran anyway wouldn't you take Marquis over Fogg?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/marquja01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/foggjo01.shtml

Marquis/Fogg, it doesn't matter to me. I would rather let the kids go at it and give them a chance anyway. If we are going to do it, lets go Florida Marlins with it and let all the kids go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
33rdst All-Star

33rdst

Posted
Posted
Marquis/Fogg, it doesn't matter to me. I would rather let the kids go at it and give them a chance anyway. If we are going to do it, lets go Florida Marlins with it and let all the kids go.

Agreed, that would be my first preference too. But listening to MacPhail at yesterday's press conference he seemed pretty set on getting a veteran "innings" eater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cborgans1 AAA

cborgans1

Posted
Posted
Marquis/Fogg, it doesn't matter to me. I would rather let the kids go at it and give them a chance anyway. If we are going to do it, lets go Florida Marlins with it and let all the kids go.

I agree with this but it just wont happen- the FO wants a veteran innings eater-if we don't trade Roberts to the Cubs I wonder if a Jay Payton Jason Marquis deal would still be possible? Money would likely be an issue but I see Marquis as a better option to most of the remaining Free agents and getting rid of Payton is a must for this team not only because he is no good but more importantly, he is a cancer who would start trouble right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
allstar1579 Hangout Grand Counsel

allstar1579

Posted
Posted
If you're talking about how the O's could handle the 40 man roster with a net increase of 2 MLB players, then Ray does not count. You cannot put players on the 60 day DL until March.

You can put players on the long term DL the day pitchers and catchers report, which for us is the 13th. Ray and Baez will both be there, but they will prolong that move to see if any of the young guys not on the 40 earn a spot.

Marquis makes 2.5 MORE per year than Payton, why do that when you can sign one of the like 15 pitchers still out there for half of that? Trachsel, Lohse, Fogg...etc. (not that I want them, but from an accounting perspective).

Payton is still good enough to be a 4th OF on a contending ballclub, making 4.5 a year, but he's not making 7 per year which means he does still have a bit of value, and the fact he can play all 3 OF spots with avg to above avg Defense makes him worth it as a late inn. sub for teams like BOS that have horrid lf defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
33rdst All-Star

33rdst

Posted
Posted
I would really appreciate it if BB could pop back into this thread and confirm that the four-for-one that everyone is now quoting was definitely on the table? This is going to take on a life of its own so lets try to have as much clarity as possible.

My questions are simple:

Has Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno, Veal for Roberts been put on the table by the Cubs? or is that what we asked for? or has it just been discussed?

If the Cubs have officially made that offer, do you believe the FO is going to turn that down?

I'm not as high on trading Roberts as I am on trading Tejada because he fills a spot we need, isn't likely to crash and burn over the next couple years, has all the intangibles, etc.... However, I tend to believe that we would need to let him go if the Cubs offered those four guys for him. Truthfully though, when I study these guys I see serious flaws/questions with all of them. The most sure bet of the three is Murton, but he doesn't really supply enough power to become an everyday corner outfielder in the AL. Truthfully, I wouldn't be upset if we turned that deal down. It all hinges on Gallagher and his stats frighten me a bit.

My post in this thread quotes BB directly. He clearly said "he was told" this was the offer that was on the table. I haven't read any of BBs recent threads so he may have qulaified it later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
33rdst All-Star

33rdst

Posted
Posted
Don't get me wrong. I'm not assaulting anyone's take in this thread. I agree with what you wrote. I'm just trying to be 100% sure this was truly offered by the Cubs, rather than just discussed. No worries.

I'm not actually sure I'd even take that offer. There is a lot of risk in that offer the more I think about it. I'm on the fence.

No problem, I was just trying to answer your question in case you missed my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theobird All-Star

theobird

Posted
Posted
Marquis makes too much for me.

I concur. The only way I take Marquis ridiculous contract is if the Cubs give up Pie, Cedeno, Fontenot and Gallagher with him. And that isn't going to happen. Paytons contract is not out of order. It is a fair contract, maybe slightly high. Marquis has one of baseball's most laughable contracts. Not as bad as Gibbons, but close. No way I take Marquis unless the Cubs let me empty there system with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChaosLex Hangout Grand Counsel

ChaosLex

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I would really appreciate it if BB could pop back into this thread and confirm that the four-for-one that everyone is now quoting was definitely on the table? This is going to take on a life of its own so lets try to have as much clarity as possible.

My questions are simple:

Has Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno, Veal for Roberts been put on the table by the Cubs? or is that what we asked for? or has it just been discussed?

If the Cubs have officially made that offer, do you believe the FO is going to turn that down?

I'm not as high on trading Roberts as I am on trading Tejada because he fills a spot we need, isn't likely to crash and burn over the next couple years, has all the intangibles, etc.... However, I tend to believe that we would need to let him go if the Cubs offered those four guys for him. Truthfully though, when I study these guys I see serious flaws/questions with all of them. The most sure bet of the three is Murton, but he doesn't really supply enough power to become an everyday corner outfielder in the AL. Truthfully, I wouldn't be upset if we turned that deal down. It all hinges on Gallagher and his stats frighten me a bit.

I wouldn't mind if Roberts is on our Opening Day roster. He's the best leadoff hitter in the game, a fine second baseman, and a decent human being.

That being said, I don't think MacPhail would pass up on a package of Murton, Cedeno, Gallagher and Veal, if it were on the table. There's just too much talent (and upside) there to pass up on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roll Tide Hangout Grand Counsel

Roll Tide

Posted
Posted
My questions are simple:

Has Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno, Veal for Roberts been put on the table by the Cubs? or is that what we asked for? or has it just been discussed?

I believe the deal on the table ie by the Cubs!

Beaz goes to the 60dayas well right???

I think we could live will Marquis added to the above deal. Also if they could deal Millar,Bynum, Huff , or Gibbons. Or any two of them! The roster spots wont be a problem!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigbird Major Leaguer

bigbird

Posted
Posted
Don't get me wrong. I'm not assaulting anyone's take in this thread. I agree with what you wrote. I'm just trying to be 100% sure this was truly offered by the Cubs, rather than just discussed. No worries.

I'm not actually sure I'd even take that offer. There is a lot of risk in that offer the more I think about it. I'm on the fence.

That's what I was told and PEace said he's heard the same. We may want Colvin instead of Veal though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...