For What it's worth.....

[davearm]

I could see Gallagher, Colvin or Veal, Murton, Cedeno, Patterson and Dempster for Roberts and Payton. 6-2 is MacPhail style and the last 4 are all surplus players that the Cubs probably would love to get any kind of value for.

Good lord is that disgusting.

[CrimsonTribe]

I never thought I would be defending Jason Marquis. As I posted earlier, Marquis is overpaid and underperforming, but he is a first half pitcher and an innings eater. If the O's got him, I'm sure it would be to flip him at the trade deadline. Below are some stats for some #3, #4, and #5 starters over the last three years before the All Star game:

Marquis - 4.41 (ERA) 25-17 (W/L) 333 (IP) .250 (BAA)

Contreras (WS) 4.25 18-15 311 .249

Suppan (Brew.) 4.98 23-20 319 .297

WestBrook (Ind.) 4.74 14-19 279 .259

Williams (Astros) 4.45 13-16 244 .271

L. Hernandez (Twins) 4.59 23-16 363 .293

Maddux (Padres) 4.48 22-21 335 .283

O. Hernandez (Mets) 4.42 16-14 232 .258

Marquis is what he is, a #4 or #5 starter. If he performs at his career averages for the first half of the season, I would think there will be teams interested in him at the trade deadline.

But if we all know that Marquis always sucks after the All-Star game, don't you think the guys that are paid to know that stuff do too?

[JTrea81]

How will it be important in two years?

You have to be kidding? First of all who says Ortiz will be playing in two years.

If we are more concerned about Ortiz in two years than adding more prospects now we will continue to be a losing franchise.

Walker, Bradford and Sherrill all should frontrunners to get traded for young prospects. When we got Sherrill I understood it is as a player we would flip sooner than later for more young prospects.

Sherrill is only 30 and under team control for 4 more seasons for cheap including this one. Walker is 36 and Bradford is 33 and are both somewhat expensive and declining and only here for two more seasons including this one. The situations are completely different.

And if you aren't worrying about how you are going to leapfrog over these teams such as Boston and New York you have no business running a baseball franchise. Sherrill is a very valuable asset that we can build the pen around. At some point you have to have a dominant LHRP on your team if you want to compete. Just look at Boston and Okajima and closer to home, the 1996-1997 Orioles with Jessie Orosco. We are going to need Sherrill in 1-2 years, so we might as well keep him so we have him.

It's the same reason you go hard after Teixeira next offseason. You aren't adding him for a run in 2009 neccessarily, but to compete in 2010 and beyond. Rebuilding is great, but it doesn't have to take 3-4 years and you don't have to trade everyone over the age of 27 to get there.

[ChrisAF79]

I'll give you an example:

David Ortiz 2007

vs. LHP

.308 BA, .390 OBP, .462 SLG, .852 OPS

vs. RHP

.343 BA, .471 OBP, .700 SLG, 1.170 OPS

2006-2007 vs. George Sherrill

1-5 with a 2B and 2Ks, 0 R, 0 RBI

That's just one, but Ortiz is an Oriole killer. And facing Ortiz will be important in two years.

Dude, small sample size alert!! Of all the reasons to advocate keeping Sherrill, this is pretty poor.

[BedardisAce]

This is about the only realistic idea on here involving 5 (or more!) Cubs players coming to Baltimore.

If you get 5...

Gallagher and Cedeno are the first two, as always.

Marquis will almost certainly be one.

One will be a non-40 guy not named Veal or Colvin or Ceda.

And the 5th will be a guy like Patterson or Fontenot or something like that, or maybe another non-40 guy like Burke or Fox or perhaps another pitcher.

You guys thinking you will get 5 guys without taking either Marquis or a lesser player is just not realistic. 5 of the top 6 or 7 under discussion here is not happening.

*Maybe* the Cubs would do Gallagher, Cedeno, Ceda, Fontenot for your two, if the O's would prefer Ceda instead of two lesser prospects.

Good Lord, that is just as disgusting from our end. I'll take Roberts and Payton, thank you.

[Rocky1983]

I do not know why 2B Tony Thomas' name is not being mentioned. This guy can hit and is a good fielder.

TONY THOMAS, 2B

Proper Name: Anthony Thomas

Bats: R Throws: R

Individual Batting Stats

Club (League) Class AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS SH SF IBB HBP GIDP OBP SLG OPS

AZL Cubs (AZL) R .176 5 17 7 3 0 2 0 6 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 .286 .412 .697

Boise Hawks (NWL) SS .308 46 182 44 56 12 8 5 33 25 41 28 2 1 1 0 5 2 .404 .544 .948

MINOR LEAGUE TOTALS .296 51 199 51 59 12 10 5 39 27 46 28 2 1 2 0 6 3 .393 .533 .926

[SHAWN555]

And if you aren't worrying about how you are going to leapfrog over these teams such as Boston and New York you have no business running a baseball franchise. Sherrill is a very valuable asset that we can build the pen around. At some point you have to have a dominant LHRP on your team if you want to compete. Just look at Boston and Okajima and closer to home, the 1996-1997 Orioles with Jessie Orosco. We are going to need Sherrill in 1-2 years, so we might as well keep him so we have him.

With all the holes on the team a 30 year old reliever is not on my list of players we have to keep.

The fact that he is under control for four years is the reason that we can get some nice prospects to fill holes for us.

The reason Sherrill was added to the deal was to come here close for a few months raise his trade value and than look to move him to add more prospects.

And how sold are you that Sherrill is this great answer in the pen? He is already 30 years old and if we keep him instead of trading him for some young positional prospects it would be a huge mistake.

[davearm]

I do not know why 2B Tony Thomas' name is not being mentioned. This guy can hit and is a good fielder.

TONY THOMAS, 2B

Proper Name: Anthony Thomas

Bats: R Throws: R

Individual Batting Stats

Club (League) Class AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS SH SF IBB HBP GIDP OBP SLG OPS

AZL Cubs (AZL) R .176 5 17 7 3 0 2 0 6 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 .286 .412 .697

Boise Hawks (NWL) SS .308 46 182 44 56 12 8 5 33 25 41 28 2 1 1 0 5 2 .404 .544 .948

MINOR LEAGUE TOTALS .296 51 199 51 59 12 10 5 39 27 46 28 2 1 2 0 6 3 .393 .533 .926

Because he can't be traded. As has been outlined many times.

[SHAWN555]

Also Jtrea the two players you mentioned were both free agent signings when those teams were ready to compete.

[davearm]

Good Lord, that is just as disgusting from our end. I'll take Roberts and Payton, thank you.

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

[SrMeowMeow]

This is about the only realistic idea on here involving 5 (or more!) Cubs players coming to Baltimore.

If you get 5...

Gallagher and Cedeno are the first two, as always.

Marquis will almost certainly be one.

One will be a non-40 guy not named Veal or Colvin or Ceda.

And the 5th will be a guy like Patterson or Fontenot or something like that, or maybe another non-40 guy like Burke or Fox or perhaps another pitcher.

You guys thinking you will get 5 guys without taking either Marquis or a lesser player is just not realistic. 5 of the top 6 or 7 under discussion here is not happening.

*Maybe* the Cubs would do Gallagher, Cedeno, Ceda, Fontenot for your two, if the O's would prefer Ceda instead of two lesser prospects.

The bolded statement really irritates me. The 'top 6 or 7 under discussion' has been constantly changing as players are taken off the table or labeled untouchable. If we can't get the best of the limited players available, then the Cubs can really look elsewhere.

"Pie's untouchable, now Colvin is, Ceda probably is, we're high on Veal, oh, and of the guys remaining, you can have every even one in the rankings but not the top three. Unless it's Wednesday...Gallagher's untouchable on Wednesdays."

[Rocky1983]

Because he can't be traded. As has been outlined many times.

He could be PTBNL, correct?

[jerios55]

This is about the only realistic idea on here involving 5 (or more!) Cubs players coming to Baltimore.

If you get 5...

Gallagher and Cedeno are the first two, as always.

Marquis will almost certainly be one.

One will be a non-40 guy not named Veal or Colvin or Ceda.

And the 5th will be a guy like Patterson or Fontenot or something like that, or maybe another non-40 guy like Burke or Fox or perhaps another pitcher.

You guys thinking you will get 5 guys without taking either Marquis or a lesser player is just not realistic. 5 of the top 6 or 7 under discussion here is not happening.

*Maybe* the Cubs would do Gallagher, Cedeno, Ceda, Fontenot for your two, if the O's would prefer Ceda instead of two lesser prospects.

If you would do this, I don't see why Gallagher, Cedeno, Patterson, Ceda and Marquis wouldn't work.

There are various opinions on Fontenot and Patterson, most seem to favor Patterson slightly. I would think taking on the Marquis contract would be enough to bump to Patterson.

[ugadawg38]

This is about the only realistic idea on here involving 5 (or more!) Cubs players coming to Baltimore.

If you get 5...

Gallagher and Cedeno are the first two, as always.

Marquis will almost certainly be one.

One will be a non-40 guy not named Veal or Colvin or Ceda.

And the 5th will be a guy like Patterson or Fontenot or something like that, or maybe another non-40 guy like Burke or Fox or perhaps another pitcher.

You guys thinking you will get 5 guys without taking either Marquis or a lesser player is just not realistic. 5 of the top 6 or 7 under discussion here is not happening.

*Maybe* the Cubs would do Gallagher, Cedeno, Ceda, Fontenot for your two, if the O's would prefer Ceda instead of two lesser prospects.

jake fox is on the 40 man i believe after he got called up last year. Also i disagree with you dave i really dont see ceda going anywhere. Who knows though?

The most likely deal in my mind?

Gallagher, Marshall/Veal, Cedeno, and Paterson/Murton for Roberts +- Paytons expiring contract

[ugadawg38]

If you would do this, I don't see why Gallagher, Cedeno, Patterson, Ceda and Marquis wouldn't work.

There are various opinions on Fontenot and Patterson, most seem to favor Patterson slightly. I would think taking on the Marquis contract would be enough to bump to Patterson.

but adding ceda would offset that contractual difference