For What it's worth.....

[RShack]

The Indians should be the most desperate in the deal one would think, moreso than the Cubs.

I don't know who is more desperate, but I think it definitely should be the Cubs. The last time they won a WS was in hundred years ago. Nobody else has lost for 100 years. The Phillies are the all-time losing-est club, with more than 10,000 losses, but the Phillies only went 97 years without a ring.

Everybody got excited when the Red Sox finally one a WS in 2004. Their streak was 85 years. But they didn't go very long between shots at it. The Red Sox went to the WS with some regularity, almost once per decade, and they *always* got to Game 7. The big problem with the Red Sox was that they just could not win Game 7. The Cubs haven't even been to a WS since 1945, and that's a WWII year, so most of the real ML'ers were in the military. The last real time they went to the WS was 1938 and they didn't win a single game. That's 70 years ago, since they just got into one. Except for the semi-fake WW2 season, the last time the Cubs won even one measly WS game was October 6, 1935.

The last time they won a whole WS was 1908. That year is:

• Just 5 years after the Wright brothers invented the airplane.
• Just 5 years after the WS got shrunk from a best-of-9 series to best-of-7.
• 6 years *before* World War One started.
• When the 20-year production run of Model-T Fords began.
• The election that Taft defeated Williams Jennings Bryan for President.
• When Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were killed.
• A long freaking time ago.

It's the 100th anniversary, and I don't see how anybody should be more desperate than the Cubs. If there's ever a year for a team to be desperate, this is it. This year, there is cosmic baseball significance involved if the Cubs can take their pretty-good-but-not-great team and somehow make it good enough to win the World Series. There's no doubt in my mind that BRob would help them bigtime, and if they don't do it (or something else to push them over the top), well, I think that's just inexcusable. I don't want to see BRob go, and I'm not really a Cubs fan, but if they don't pull out all the stops to do it, I'll be really disappointed in them. If they fall short, it shouldn't be for lack of trying. Some people will try to rationalize it, but I think it's complete and utter BS if the Cubbies don't go for broke. They *should* be desperate, it's only right.

[cindyluvsbrady]

Hi Cindy can the Cubs just borrow Roberts for 2 years win a World Series and then you can have him back please.

NOOOO!:002_scry:

[hoosiers]

Have you actually tried to do this? It's not a very honest comparison since Murton went to college and had his first pro at-bat at 21 while Gutierrez was 18 when pro.

Didn't I just post that last year the two had similar at-bats (about 250) in 2007 with Gutierrez posting a higher OPS+ at a younger age? Gutierrez is also consider a better defender. Finally, Gutierrez's development has been slowed in two different seasons by injury.

Murton shows more plate patience currently, but I'd take Gutierrez over Murton. It's a real reach to say Murton is the better player.

[owl]

Didn't I just post that last year the two had similar at-bats (about 250) in 2007 with Gutierrez posting a higher OPS+ at a younger age? Gutierrez is also consider a better defender. Finally, Gutierrez's development has been slowed in two different seasons by injury.

Murton shows more plate patience currently, but I'd take Gutierrez over Murton. It's a real reach to say Murton is the better player.

I responded to an earlier post and was more detailed than just 2007. In that post you said to compare their numbers to developments at that point. Anyway, Gutierrez has a 91 OPS+ in 150 ML games and Murton has a 108 OPS+ in 289 ML games. If the only thing you're using to judge the difference is 3 OPS+ points from 2007 (and while Gutierrez had a .326 BABIP to Murton's .306) then it's a little misguided. For one, they had the same OPS but you're banking entirely on league and park adjustments and essentially choosing power/slugging over discipline/on-base. That's fine and all but it's quite different than the point I first responded to. Also, Murton has been very solid defensively in left. While you can't really trust defensive metrics over one season, Murton ranks very well in all of them while playing left - so you have that and the opinion of people who watched him.

[fire83]

I certainly hope the FO of each team is more reasonable then the fan base of both the O's and the Cubs. You cannot go anywhere and have an "realistic, intelligent" conversation regarding a deal between the Cubs and the Orioles. On all Cubs boards their fans think it is ridiculous to deal as much as Veal, Gallagher and Cedeno for Roberts. On this site O's fans think those three PLUS Colvin MIGHT BE ENOUGH. Some want Patterson too.

Both set of fans are going to be upset when this deal comes down. And IMO it will come down. I do not believe there is talk between the O's and the Indians. I also do not believe the O's can get anywhere near what O's fans are saying they want from the Indians. I am not bashing, nor am a trolling for an arguement. I am just stating the fact that there is a huge discrepency in what people feel Roberts is worth. Personally I think it will end up Gallagher, Veal, Cedeno and Fontenot for Roberts and Payton.

If that happens I am sure Cubs and O's fans alike will be disappointed.

[AgentOrange]

I think realistically you are looking at Gallagher, Cedeno and 2 non 40 roster prospects. MAybe one of them is Veal, but he had some family issues last year and at the end of the season, I am not sure the Cubs would deal him. I know it is a business, but they might hold on to him.

I wouldn't be suprised if it was someone of his calibur and a lower level prospect.

That seems realistic to me and consistant to what the Orioles are looking for from the newspaper reports.

Now if we get offered that from the Cubs is a different thing.

I wouldn't mind keeping Roberts if the deal isn't what was stated above.

[theobird]

Would you rather have the deal above or a cleveland deal as follows;

BRob and Fahey

for

Peralta and Barfield

Wow! To me that isn't even close. The Cubs deal is so much better, even if you drop off a player or two. Barfields value is pretty low, and Peralta comes with defensive issues. I don't think the O's want another offense first SS. I think they would like to have a SS who can contribute at the plate and play great defense.

[zff4]

Just picked up the 2008 BP. We've done the Cubs to death, you know who they are. BP's take on a few of the Tribe we've mentioned?

Asdrubal Cabrera 22

...what we saw during his big-league debut was very real. Cabrera is the best defensive SS on the Indians;....Cabrera will be starting somewhere in the mid infield, and he'll be damn good

Josh Barfield 25

...Barfield never got his bat going and was usurped by Asdrubal Cabrera, who now seems to be the better answer at 2B in the minds of Cleveland officials. That puts Barfield in limbo, as there is little room on a major league bench for an infielder who can't play on the left side. ....if Cleveland deals him now, they'l be selling low.

Andy Marte 24

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. ....As it turns out, he just isn't that good. Since coming to Cleveland, he's gotten a little bit bigger, a little bit stiffer, and a whole lot worse.

Jhonny Peralta 26

...it seems like a foregone conclusion that he'll eventually have to move to second or third... Still, as a middle infielder with patience and good power, Peralta's a valuable part of the team.

BP isn't gospel and player descriptions often seem like shallow one-offs just to provide filler. But occasionally they've got some decent insights and I love starting the year with their publication. For all you BP junkies, it's available now.

[Dr. FLK]

"near future"?

"quickly"?

If only I had my English-to-Orioles dictionary handy

(Thanks Sir Belkast)

I have mine handy, I'll translate.

near fu*ture [neer fyoo-cher] - noun

1. an arbitrary length of time used in references to make the improbable appear probable

2. an eternity

Although dinosaurs are extinct, some scientists claim they will walk the Earth in the near future.

quick*ly [kwik-lee] - adverb

1. without speed or direction; with no intention of reaching a specified goal

2. moving in an arbitrary speed away from one's desired destination

The one-legged giraffe moved quickly towards the tree.

[33rdst]

I have mine handy, I'll translate.

near fu*ture [neer fyoo-cher] - noun

1. an arbitrary length of time used in references to make the improbable appear probable

2. an eternity

Although dinosaurs are extinct, some scientists claim they will walk the Earth in the near future.

quick*ly [kwik-lee] - adverb

1. without speed or direction; with no intention of reaching a specified goal

2. moving in an arbitrary speed away from one's desired destination

The one-legged giraffe moved quickly towards the tree.

OK, you'll get props in the near future:p . This is very funny.

[Dr. FLK]

OK, you'll get props in the near future:p . This is very funny.

Why thank you. I needed something to do while drinking my morning coffee...

[Cubsfan]

Interesting how the names like Peralta, Marte, Barfield, Miller, and Gutierrez are mentioned and yet there is no "real" offer posted or hinted at anywhere online. I still think the reason the Cubs' deal is still on is because it is the only "real" offer that has been made.

[Fairfax Bird]

Delmon Young and Brian Roberts don't compare. Young is still learning and is a project, and has been involved in a number of incidences which hastened his departure from Tampa Bay for less than he was worth.

Brian Roberts comes with no baggage, and is an established all-star. Roberts would require more than just Miller.

I wouldn't have traded Miller for Young either.

You can't compare apples to oranges.

You wouldn't trade Miller with all his injuries and uncertainty for a guy who was the top prospect in baseball and could become a superstar in a short period of time. I thought the Rays were dumb to trade him.

[Bloopandablast]

I have mine handy, I'll translate.

near fu*ture [neer fyoo-cher] - noun

1. an arbitrary length of time used in references to make the improbable appear probable

2. an eternity

Although dinosaurs are extinct, some scientists claim they will walk the Earth in the near future.

quick*ly [kwik-lee] - adverb

1. without speed or direction; with no intention of reaching a specified goal

2. moving in an arbitrary speed away from one's desired destination

The one-legged giraffe moved quickly towards the tree.

I have now just spit coffee onto my tax workpapers. Thanks for that. Rep to you and well....coffee stains to the IRS.

[Cubsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cubsfan

Originally Posted by Sports Guy

Peralta, Barfield and Marte would be awesome.

If that deal falls through, you could trade him to the Marlins for Hanley Ramirez, Dan Uggla, and Jeremy Hermidia.

Congratulations for making the dumbest statement ever on the Hangout!

It's called sarcasm. Dumb is some of the ridiculous Roberts' trade suggestions that I've seen posted.