Sun: Cubs Offer Ceden, Gallagher, Veal and maybe a 4th player - For Roberts

[RShack]

I'm using the RZNJ projection. The guy had a .738 OPS in AA in 2006. It seems like half of the Iowa team had an OPS over .900 last year, including Ronny Cedeno. PECOTA might be fooled, but I'm not.

I wish we'd get the Iowa hitting coach in the deal. (I'm not kidding either.)

[davearm]

So, let me see if I understand what you're saying. Your stance is that DeRosa is a good enough player that Patterson doesn't deserve the chance to start at second base and that is why the Cubs are shopping Patterson. Yet the Cubs are shopping Patterson and others for Roberts who will play second. So, DeRosa is good enough to keep Patterson off second, but not good enough to keep Roberts off second. In that scenario, DeRosa moves to utility guy.

If Patterson is even marginal defensively, why wouldn't the Cubs just start Patterson at second, use DeRosa as the utility guy, and keep Gallagher, Veal, and Cedeno? It seems to me that you can't really sell what you're trying to sell from a logical standpoint UNLESS you are admitting that the Cubs are being foolish by not using some version of Patterson at second and DeRosa as a utility guy (who also gets some starts at second).

It is pretty clear that the Cubs don't believe that Patterson, Cedeno, or Murton have much of a future with them. One of them is being blocked by a very marginal player (Theriot). One of them is being blocked by a decent-to-good player who could be moved to a super utility role w/o losing much total production from him. And one of them is so valuable that the Cubs have broken the bank on Soriano and Fukudome the last two years.

Now, I don't really know why the Cubs are playing it this way, but they clearly don't believe these three are starters now or are likely future starters for the current team.

Several posters have already answered this as well or better than I could have.

The Cubs' commitment to several other rookies, coupled with their their positioning themselves as a contender makes it abundantly clear why DeRosa > Patterson. The O's, by contrast, present an ideal situation for Patterson to sink or swim, so to speak. And if he swims, right away the 3rd or 4th guy in the deal matches (or comes close to matching) Roberts' production -- all the rest is gravy.

And the Cubs' reasoning behind valuing Roberts > DeRosa has been discussed ad nauseum.

I've discussed many times how Murton came to be in his current situation, despite the Cubs liking him and believing he will be a solid everyday LF.

On Cedeno, most everyone agrees he should be given every opportunity to be the Cubs' everyday SS.

[hoosiers]

Several posters have already answered this as well or better than I could have.

The Cubs' commitment to several other rookies, coupled with their their positioning themselves as a contender makes it abundantly clear why DeRosa > Patterson. The O's, by contrast, present an ideal situation for Patterson to sink or swim, so to speak. And if he swims, right away the 3rd or 4th guy in the deal matches (or comes close to matching) Roberts' production -- all the rest is gravy.

And the Cubs' reasoning behind valuing Roberts > DeRosa has been discussed ad nauseum.

I've discussed many times how Murton came to be in his current situation, despite the Cubs liking him and believing he will be a solid everyday LF.

On Cedeno, most everyone agrees he should be given every opportunity to be the Cubs' everyday SS.

Does anyone else on here believe EPat has some all-star games in him? He's not even starting this year at his age and we're being told he'll match BRob.

Maybe we could deal Riemold for Soriano.

[davearm]

Does anyone else on here believe EPat has some all-star games in him? He's not even starting this year at his age and we're being told he'll match BRob.

Maybe we could deal Riemold for Soriano.

Roberts had an .809 OPS last season.

If you're asking me if I think Patterson has the potential to match that, then my answer is an unequivocal yes.

Now whether or not that garners an all-star invite, I couldn't care less, as that's a wholly irrelevant consideration.

[hatepaste]

Roberts had an .809 OPS last season.

If you're asking me if I think Patterson has the potential to match that, then my answer is an unequivocal yes.

Now whether or not that garners an all-star invite, I couldn't care less, as that's a wholly irrelevant consideration.

OPS-schmOPS. He still was able to score 100+ runs this year with 50 SB's to boot.

[hoosiers]

Roberts had an .809 OPS last season.

If you're asking me if I think Patterson has the potential to match that, then my answer is an unequivocal yes.

Now whether or not that garners an all-star invite, I couldn't care less, as that's a wholly irrelevant consideration.

You can continue to use nominal stats all you want.

They won't get you a very good baseball team.

[davearm]

You can continue to use nominal stats all you want.

They won't get you a very good baseball team.

This coming from the guy fixated on all-star appearances sends the unintentional comedy level off the chart.

[JohnD]

Roberts had an .809 OPS last season.

If you're asking me if I think Patterson has the potential to match that, then my answer is an unequivocal yes.

Now whether or not that garners an all-star invite, I couldn't care less, as that's a wholly irrelevant consideration.

The guy had a ~.370 OBP last year, and 50 stolen bases. He's a leadoff hitter and you're trying to hold it against him that he's not a power hitter.

[hoosiers]

This coming from the guy fixated on all-star appearances sends the unintentional comedy level off the chart.

Thanks for staying on point, Dave.

In the absence of real support in a discussion, take some personal shots. Classy.

[dkdc]

Roberts had an .809 OPS last season.

If you're asking me if I think Patterson has the potential to match that, then my answer is an unequivocal yes.

Now whether or not that garners an all-star invite, I couldn't care less, as that's a wholly irrelevant consideration.

Context is overrated.

Patterson had an .817 OPS in the PCL last year, so he was clearly a better hitter than Roberts.

[davearm]

The guy had a ~.370 OBP last year, and 50 stolen bases. He's a leadoff hitter and you're trying to hold it against him that he's not a power hitter.

Patterson has the same profile as Roberts. He's a speedly leadoff guy too.

[The Rick]

Patterson has the same profile as Roberts. He's a speedly leadoff guy too.

Does the word PROVEN mean anything to you?

[JohnD]

Patterson has the same profile as Roberts. He's a speedly leadoff guy too.

So why are the Cubs trying so hard to get Roberts instead?

[davearm]

Context is overrated.

Patterson had an .817 OPS in the PCL last year, so he was clearly a better hitter than Roberts.

At the same age as Patterson was this past year (24), Roberts put up a .734 OPS in AAA.

So yeah, you're right. Patterson was clearly a better hitter than Roberts was at age 24.

And at 23 also (Patterson .758 splitting between AA and AAA; Roberts .728 splitting between AA and AAA).

And at 22 as well (Patterson, .917 splitting between A and AA; Roberts .813 splitting between rookie ball and A).

[davearm]

Does the word PROVEN mean anything to you?

Of course, although that's irrelevant to this discussion.

I made the statement that Patterson has the POTENTIAL to put up the same sort of offensive statline as Roberts does. I was challenged on that, so I have since illustrated how that at similar ages (22, 23, and 24), Patterson was in fact better than Roberts.

Given the fact that Patterson was the better minor leaguer, it doesn't strike me as much of a stretch to think Patterson can be as good as Roberts in the bigleagues.

Go back and re-read post #192 if you're still confused.