Sun-Times says O's want Cedeno, Gallagher, and 2 more prospects

[Elon Os Fan]

Roberts and Payton for Gallagher Ceda Cedeno and Murton.

Make it happen!

[Stotle]

Technically you can't have a contractual agreement to say so. It's essentially a loophole - you have 6 months to complete a PTBNL so it buys time while the guy you're after is conveniently sitting on the list of "choices" for when he's eligible. However, neither side would have very much motivation to do so and especially with the full 6 months to wait. Long story short, guys like Vitters, Donaldson and Thomas will not be agreed upon as any main piece of the trade.

One thing that hasn't really been tried, but I think would work, would be to list three first year players as PTBNL and choosing one after X amount of months. This way, the team losing the prospects would be incentivized to continue protecting and developing all three, since two will remain when all is said and done. I know this is done with non-1st year players, but it is generally lesser prospects. It isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction, I think.

[B-Rob 4 sale]

Hahaha.. Thanks! I couldn't think of any other names at the time, and seeing as you pretty much know why all cub fans are here at OH.. Well, it seemed pretty simple to me. :002_sbiggrin:

[B-Rob 4 sale]

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?

Thanks man.. I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to ya- wasn't able to log on last nite.

Anyways, I do think Colvin could prove to be expendable, simply because of the fact that he will basically be blocked from any outfield position if Pie earns the job. Seeing as Fuku and Soriano both have multiple years left on their contracts, I don't think there will be room for Colvin if they all play well.

He really is an intriguing prospect though- kind of reminds me of a Von Hayes-type from the 80's. I would certainly consider him in the mix for B-Rob.

[Owatcher]

Ok, then the Cubs will trade Roberts back to the O's for Adam Jones and one of the O's top pitching prospects. Deal?

DUH, OK!

The Prospect Insider article you guys were talking about the other day mentioned BRob for Gallagher, Cedeno & Hart with one of Cedeno or Hart possibly being replaced in the deal by Pie or Colvin. That'd be a 3 for 1 deal. I was just suggesting a 2 for 1 deal.

I'll take Gallagher, Cedeno & Pie though if you think a 2 for 1 isn't fair enough.

[owl]

One thing that hasn't really been tried, but I think would work, would be to list three first year players as PTBNL and choosing one after X amount of months. This way, the team losing the prospects would be incentivized to continue protecting and developing all three, since two will remain when all is said and done. I know this is done with non-1st year players, but it is generally lesser prospects. It isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction, I think.

One problem with this is that even after part of a season, there's a pretty wide gap between the first year players. What three players would you really group? I don't think the trading team needs any added incentive to develop the guys they just drafted months ago, but I get your point. It's just not practical to agree on either one or the best one of a group at this point though.

[Stotle]

One problem with this is that even after part of a season, there's a pretty wide gap between the first year players. What three players would you really group? I don't think the trading team needs any added incentive to develop the guys they just drafted months ago, but I get your point. It's just not practical to agree on either one or the best one of a group at this point though.

All three wouldn't have to be first year guys -- they'd just have to be comparable in talent.

With regards to the bolded comment, there would be an incentive to spend less time developing a player that will be out of your system in six months, no?

[Stotle]

More BA on Patterson:

Dale (Calvert City KY): John, answer a subscribers question here. What keeps Eric Patterson from being considered a top prospect?

John Manuel: Lack of power, lack of defensive position . . . lack of consistency. Like his brother, he needs more patience and less of a power-oriented approach at the plate. This is not news; he's been told this since he was at Ga. Tech. That's also part of the problem.

[owl]

All three wouldn't have to be first year guys -- they'd just have to be comparable in talent.

With regards to the bolded comment, there would be an incentive to spend less time developing a player that will be out of your system in six months, no?

I responding to your idea to "list three first year players as PTBNL and choosing one." If you're now saying put one of Donaldson or Thomas on with comparable value, I can't imagine who the teams would agree to. Outside the first few picks things would be more practical in that regard.

And no, I'd say there would definitely not be any incentive to spend less time. Firstly, you're saying add 3 guys to a list - so do they spend less time with all 3? Essentially ruining 2 that they'll keep? Besides, in the context of a PTBNL there are clauses and options. They could always elect cash or another player if something like that happened.

[Stotle]

I responding to your idea to (1) "list three first year players as PTBNL and choosing one." If you're now saying put one of Donaldson or Thomas on with comparable value, I can't imagine who the teams would agree to. Outside the first few picks things would be more practical in that regard.

And no, I'd say there would definitely not be any incentive to spend less time. (2) Firstly, you're saying add 3 guys to a list - so do they spend less time with all 3? Essentially ruining 2 that they'll keep? Besides, in the context of a PTBNL there are clauses and options. They could always elect cash or another player if something like that happened.

1. I didn't remember what I wrote. You're correct, it may be problematic to stack three from the same draft, though far from impossible.

2. Either I was writing too quickly or you read to quickly. My point was selecting three would prevent the team from neglecting any of the three. If it were one player (thomas) that the Cubs knew would be leaving in 6-mos., he likely would not get the same attention and the receiving team would be getting a prospect that had been, comparatively, neglected for the last 6 mos.

To be clear, I don't think these are viable options. I was just "thinking out loud" as to how you could try and arrange to make a first year player more available in trade talks.

[Mike B]

I am beginning to also agree that the Orioles don't want Murton.

Some writer recently said we want Eric Patterson...Maybe we are trying to put EPat in the deal and not Murton and want a high ceiling guy like Colvin?

I still think it the 4th player that is the hold up...Also, if we are trading Payton in the deal, i think the Cubs could be asking us to eat some money.

To me, Cedeno, a utility player for the Cubs, Gallagher a middle of the rotation prospect, EPat a decent prospect is not enough for BRob. Add Murton, still not enough, but add Pie (not likely) or Colvin and it is probably fair. I think you are right that 4th player is the key and the hold up. Hang Tough Andy. No gifts for the old team. If not the right deal hold on to Roberts.

[Mike B]

Gotcha. I know he had some family issues. I wasn't sure if that had any effect on him. I hope he can bounce back this year.

I do not know anything about family isues but I believe he does not have to be on the 40 until the end of the year.

[bigbird]

Veal may be the 3rd player agreed upon......on to #4

[Sports Guy]

Veal may be the 3rd player agreed upon......on to #4

Interesting....If player #4 was someone like EPat or Murton, i would think the deal would be done.

[ChaosLex]

Interesting....If player #4 was someone like EPat or Murton, i would think the deal would be done.

How about Hart? Or would that be another trade that's too pitching heavy?