Why trade Roberts?

[Sports Guy]

But isnt that how approached the Tejada and Bedard deals?

Well, i am not sure he got "too much" in those deals....The Astros deal wasn't overwhelming and while the Bedard deal was very good, there is really only 2 sure things in that deal and one of them, Sherrill, has to prove he is more than a LOOGY.

Ceda, Veal, Gallagher and Cedeno is a very good offer(if indeed it was the offer). It is better than what we got for Miggy IMO.

[Peace21]

Well, i am not sure he got "too much" in those deals....The Astros deal wasn't overwhelming and while the Bedard deal was very good, there is really only 2 sure things in that deal and one of them, Sherrill, has to prove he is more than a LOOGY.

Ceda, Veal, Gallagher and Cedeno is a very good offer(if indeed it was the offer). It is better than what we got for Miggy IMO.

I love that Cubs deal. But Im thinking AM wants some offense in the deal.

[Sports Guy]

I love that Cubs deal. But Im thinking AM wants some offense in the deal.

Yea...as the 5th guy.

If he wants offense, he should have replaced one of the pitchers in the deal and gotten a bat or maybe 2 bats(Epat and Murton?)

But to think he should get 5 players is too much.

Now, don't get me wrong, maybe he eventually gets the 5th guy but its not worth the risk.

Also, he would have had enough pitching to trade for a bat or 2.

[allstar1579]

The Tejada deal was ok, but Patton was a throw in because he was injured, it is more of an alright deal with a chance to be great if he comes back ok.

The Bedard deal got us our blue-chipper, a stud pitching prospect, a good bullpen arm, and 2 prospects, a good deal all around.

With Roberts, he needs to be looking for offense, or we are going to end up with starters pitching down a level because of a jam in the rotation at upper levels. If we had Patton healthy, we would be looking at Tillman or Mickolio pitching at A again, instead of AA like they should. If you add more starters to that group, say 2 of them, then you have to bump down guys from AAA to AA, and on down the line. Guys like Spoone who should be starting at AA would be moved back to A and not help their development.

Getting some positional guys to thicken up the race at AA and AAA would be what we need. Middle INF is our weakest area in the organization, and OF is always a plus.

[ChaosLex]

I love that Cubs deal. But Im thinking AM wants some offense in the deal.

That'd be my guess. While I admit the Cubs deal is very, very fair, the control issues for Veal and Ceda are worriesome. I'm not trying to say they don't have tremendous upside, because they certainly do. I just think we have enough pitchers with control problems on hand already. Haha.

[Sports Guy]

That'd be my guess. While I admit the Cubs deal is very, very fair, the control issues for Veal and Ceda are worriesome. I'm not trying to say they don't have tremendous upside, because they certainly do. I just think we have enough pitchers with control problems on hand already. Haha.

Then you deal them in other deals to get what you need position wise.

[allstar1579]

Yea...as the 5th guy.

If he wants offense, he should have replaced one of the pitchers in the deal and gotten a bat or maybe 2 bats(Epat and Murton?)

But to think he should get 5 players is too much.

Now, don't get me wrong, maybe he eventually gets the 5th guy but its not worth the risk.

Also, he would have had enough pitching to trade for a bat or 2.

I think if the players were different, (3 positional, 1 pitcher) he would be ok with a 4 player deal, but what 3 positional prospects do you feel are fair value?

Murton displaces Scott or gets buried. EPat is Corey Jr. and would be stuck behind Jones. Colvin has potential but would be behind Reimold, and maybe Tripp.

[Fan4Life]

Targeting pitching isn't necessarily a bad thing if we can spin it off into better postion prospects than what the Cubs have to offer.

[allstar1579]

Targeting pitching isn't necessarily a bad thing if we can spin it off into better postion prospects than what the Cubs have to offer.

That is a big IF though. When dealing with prospects, you don't have the sure thing that will always net you the return you need. It's the established players you need to deal for the parts you need, and use the prospects you have to replace the established guys in house.

[Fan4Life]

That is a big IF though. When dealing with prospects, you don't have the sure thing that will always net you the return you need. It's the established players you need to deal for the parts you need, and use the prospects you have to replace the established guys in house.

True, but a good GM is thinking 2-3 moves ahead... he should already have a verbal agreement in place before he acquires the players to spin..

[Sports Guy]

I think if the players were different, (3 positional, 1 pitcher) he would be ok with a 4 player deal, but what 3 positional prospects do you feel are fair value?

Murton displaces Scott or gets buried. EPat is Corey Jr. and would be stuck behind Jones. Colvin has potential but would be behind Reimold, and maybe Tripp.

The thing is, AM is obviously ok with the 4 players that have been offered...He just thinks he should get another guy tacked on.

And btw, your assessment of the position guys is off.

[jonny2fngrs]

I think if the players were different, (3 positional, 1 pitcher) he would be ok with a 4 player deal, but what 3 positional prospects do you feel are fair value?

Murton displaces Scott or gets buried. EPat is Corey Jr. and would be stuck behind Jones. Colvin has potential but would be behind Reimold, and maybe Tripp.

EPat is not Corey Jr. EPat can flat out hit and although he is no BRob, I do think he is in the same ballpark with the bat.

[allstar1579]

The thing is, AM is obviously ok with the 4 players that have been offered...He just thinks he should get another guy tacked on.

And btw, your assessment of the position guys is off.

If he was ok with those players, a deal would have been done. This has drug on for entirely too long for it to be one player holding things up. How do you restructure our entire minor league pitching lineup if you add Gallagher, Veal and Ceda to the mix? Who do you push back a year of development? Are you helping or hurting by sending guys who have done well enough to move up back down a level?

Murton was almost cut last week. Everyone is enamored with EPat on here, but the only reason is because he is one of the best of what we had to pick from. Put him up against some other mid-level OF from other teams and tell me who you would take.

Compare him to:

F. Martinez - Mets

F. Gutierrez - Cle

W. Balentien - Sea

J. Tabata - NYY

Tell me who you would take then.

[Cubsfan]

You don't know that AM asked for all that, and if he had asked for it, he would have taken the deal. Look at the overall view of the franchise and the one thing we are more than deep on are pitching prospects. If we do acquire all of those pitchers, then it stunts the development of the ones we already have. If we didn't have some injuries pop up, we would have a problem of too many as it is. It is a case where sometimes the best addition is a subtraction.

If Murton was so great, he wouldn't be teetering on being released. Fontenot is a great kid, but nothing more than a throw-in. Patterson has been reduced to an OF because his defense is so bad, we've already had one run in with that family. If Hendry was willing to give up Pie, Colvin, and a pitcher, we might be looking at a done deal, but if those are the players he's not looking to move, then we don't match up, just like we don't match up with the Dodgers without them moving Either, Kemp, Hu or Laroche.

My post stated that the rumored deal that everyone seems to be reporting (Gallagher, Cedeno, Veal, Ceda) was assumed true. It doesn't take too big a leap of faith to assume that after 4 months of negotiating that McPhail asked for the named players. I'm sure Hendry didn't force McPhail to accept those 4 players. Since McPhail knows the Cubs system so well, I'm sure he could have emphasized that he wanted position players instead of pitchers. Contrary to your opinion, McPhail is smart enough to know that stockpiling good, young pitching is the quickest way to rebuild a team. There's no such thing as having too much pitching, especially to use as trade bait when you climb back into contention.

Your comment about Murton is completely wrong, he will probably be traded (the rumors are for young pitching). The 2008 projections for Murton are above the Major League averages for LF and RF.

As for your comments about Fontenot and Patterson, the answer is that both would start right now for the O's along with Murton. The problem is that some of you want some guarantee that some of these players are going to be all-stars to replace your all-star.

Finally, "if Hendry was willing to give up Pie, Colvin, and a pitcher" we might have a done deal, but Hendry would be laughed out of baseball. There might have been a way to include someone like Colvin if McPhail would have backed off on some other players, but not by continually adding more names.

[ChaosLex]

Then you deal them in other deals to get what you need position wise.

You trust that MacPhail will make timely deals?