For What it's worth.....

[BaltimoreTerp]

I have a simple question. Every report says that the O's are sending another scout and will be there this weekend.

Have they never heard of airplanes? Why would it take a week to send someone, unless he's driving or taking Greyhound?

Because scouts have things to do

[WebLink21]

I have a simple question. Every report says that the O's are sending another scout and will be there this weekend.

Have they never heard of airplanes? Why would it take a week to send someone, unless he's driving or taking Greyhound?

We always like to do things as quickly as possible!!

[Number5]

I like Marshall. I think there's a DIPS bias against him. He doesn't strike out enough people and therefore is not highly regarded. As we all know there have been a lot of very successful pitchers in this game who didn't pile up the Ks.

I'd much rather have Marshall then Marquis or Fogg.

Agree that Marshall is favorable to Marquis, however, I don't agree that he should be a target in a Roberts trade. Marshall is a serviceable #5 SP or long man/spot starter. That is no knock, as there are certainly spots in the majors for guys of his talents, but I just don't think he's a guy we trade BRob for. Aren't we looking for quality in this trade?

It would be great if we could get both Ceda and Veal in the package, but failing that I'd rather have Murton or EPat in the package than Marshall. Gallagher, Cedeno, Ceda, and EPat/Murton is a winner for me. If the Cubs won't part with Ceda, then Veal and a lower ranked prospect would do instead.

[theobird]

Agree that Marshall is favorable to Marquis, however, I don't agree that he should be a target in a Roberts trade. Marshall is a serviceable #5 SP or long man/spot starter. That is no knock, as there are certainly spots in the majors for guys of his talents, but I just don't think he's a guy we trade BRob for. Aren't we looking for quality in this trade?

It would be great if we could get both Ceda and Veal in the package, but failing that I'd rather have Murton or EPat in the package than Marshall. Gallagher, Cedeno, Ceda, and EPat/Murton is a winner for me. If the Cubs won't part with Ceda, then Veal and a lower ranked prospect would do instead.

I think I would let go of the need for Ceda or Veal if I could have Murton and Epat in the deal. I'd like to see BRob/Payton for Gallagher/Marshall/Cedeno/Epat and Murton. Then trade Millar to the Mets for a low level prospect with upside so that Murton could get Millar's AB's. I have never wavered on my desire to have Murton coming over in the BRob trade. To me he is the lone can't misser in this trade. Guy can hit. Period.

[Number5]

I think I would let go of the need for Ceda or Veal if I could have Murton and Epat in the deal. I'd like to see BRob/Payton for Gallagher/Marshall/Cedeno/Epat and Murton. Then trade Millar to the Mets for a low level prospect with upside so that Murton could get Millar's AB's. I have never wavered on my desire to have Murton coming over in the BRob trade. To me he is the lone can't misser in this trade. Guy can hit. Period.

That's 5 guys on the 40-man. We would have to DfA 3 guys to do the trade you suggest. Ceda and Veal are not on the 40-man roster.

[odogs101]

It'd be excellent if names like Lillibridge, Wood, Andrus, etc., are in the mix.

As much as I would love to get a great, young M.I. I don't see it happening.

More realistic(not saying I think they are the right ones) targets would be Ellis, Furcal, Barfield, Russ Adams, Chen/Lopez from the M's, Gutay/Hernandez from the Mets, Jack Wilson, or Uribe.

These are guys that for the most part fall into one of a two groups.

Wilson,Uribe, Ellis, Furcal

Guys that teams are looking to unload for one reason or another.

The rest are guys that are starting to lose what luster they may have once had and are stuck behind or blocking someone better.

As much as I would like to see Wood or Lillibridge here, their teams think enough of them to ask for most likely too much.

Furcal or Ellis would be interesting as long as we had plans to fill that spot long term at the trading deadline.

Both are F.A.'s at the end of the year so we could also snag a couple draft picks out of the deal.

[theobird]

That's 5 guys on the 40-man. We would have to DfA 3 guys to do the trade you suggest. Ceda and Veal are not on the 40-man roster.

Well I am proposing sending Millar to NY for a non 40 man guy. that means we need to DFA 2 guys. I think I can name a couple pretty good candidates for that honor.

[odogs101]

My guess for the deal if it happens.

Roberts and Payton for

Gallagher, Cedeno, Patterson, Veal, and Huseby.

[theobird]

My guess for the deal if it happens.

Roberts and Payton for

Gallagher, Cedeno, Patterson, Veal, and Huseby.

And that may be a fair trade. But IMO, you have to get back Murton. If they are taking Payton, they need to move Murton. Now they could do that in a seperate deal, but to me Murton just makes sense for us. How would you feel about your trade if we switched Murton for Patterson?

[ChaosLex]

Gallagher, Cedeno, Veal, Murton and Marshall or Patterson for BRob and Payton (plus cash)

Heilman for Millar

Lillibridge for Olson or Liz

[Methodology]

And that may be a fair trade. But IMO, you have to get back Murton. If they are taking Payton, they need to move Murton. Now they could do that in a seperate deal, but to me Murton just makes sense for us. How would you feel about your trade if we switched Murton for Patterson?

Why do we need to take Murton back?

I heard on the radio today that Boston rejected a deal from the Cubs of Murton for Crisp. That now makes 2 so-so CF that their respected clubs have rejected a straight up deal for Murton. The Cubs keep trying to pawn him off to teams because he does not have a place on their roster and no one seems to be interested in biting.

Yet most Cubs fans hold Murton on such a high pedestal that they overvalue him greatly, so it seems.

Id be happy with:

Roberts & Payton

for

Gallagher, Veal, Cedeno, EPatt, lower level prospect

[HarryReasonable]

OK, with all the pitchers we a getting are we going to flip some of them sooner rather than later?

I'm sure if enough of our pitchers pan out AND we find ourselves in a situation where we have an abundance of major-league proven pitchers, they will be dealt.

Right now, while I agree that we are stockpiling arms, we still odn't know which ones will pan out and , except for the ones that we are REALLY high on, none of the others carry a tremendous amount of value until they prove they can do it in the majors.

Patience, my friend.....

[HarryReasonable]

Apparently Heyman was on Marks this afternoon, but I missed it. Anyone hear it? If this is the deal, the O's must be content with LH or Fahey at 2b.

As much as it disappoints a lot of people on this board, the O's want "defense up the middle", and LH qualifies to make that happen until there is a better alternative. And to the O's, Eric Ptterson IS NOT a better alternative when you are building defense, no matter how well he hits.

[RShack]

As much as it disappoints a lot of people on this board, the O's want "defense up the middle", and LH qualifies to make that happen until there is a better alternative. And to the O's, Eric Ptterson IS NOT a better alternative when you are building defense, no matter how well he hits.

Makes sense to me.

You can't fix everything at once...

[HarryReasonable]

I won't be all that happy if we end up with 3 more pitching prospects for BRob...We need some positional talent.

AM wants pitching. What "positional talent" can we get from the Cubs that will be "real solutions" to our needs?

We already have 4 outfielders and nobody is going to take Payton off our hands. Pie is not going to be traded, Murton becomes "another" outfielder/DH o a team that has too many of them. Eric Patterson can hit, but is not "positional talent" by any stretch of the imagination. Mike Fontenot is not a long term answer by any stretch of the imagination, at least as far as we can tell. I hear people saying that Murton can DH then, but we already have Gibbons and Huff who can not be unloaded and will most likely not be cut.

I would agree that we need better positional players in some areas, but our roster is top-heavy with dead wood, so there are only so many players we can take on. I say take the pitching in quantity and see what we can develop to trade for QUALITY solutions at the positions that are weak.