Why trade Roberts?

[ChaosLex]

By that logic, the hometown thing won't mean anything either.

It might not, but it certainly won't hurt.

[allstar1579]

LOL, what guys with similar skillsets and age/cost/contract profiles have been traded for in the past is exactly what this is about.

Nobody's questioning that there will be demand for a leadoff hitter at some price. The entire issue is what that price is likely to be.

So if you think Roberts will be traded in July for something superior to what's being offered now by the Cubs, then show me an instance when it's happened before. That'd be a good way to prove your point.

We have said 100 times that we don't match up with the Cubs well, and I've tried to be nice about it, but that little homer streak you have is just nagging tonight. You guys don't have the positional prospects to make a deal. Yes, you have the 4 pitchers mentioned in the deal, but if they are not looking for pitching for Roberts, then you are lacking. Without dealing Pie, there just isn't enough there.

You can't historically compare trades then to trades now because trading prospects is a crap shoot. They are ranked differently from year to year, and 3 players dealt for Lofton one year may have been a team's top 3 prospects and non panned out. That being said they could all be 15-20 prospects that year and go on to become great players. Someone in July could decide that they want to deal Peralta who can't get off the bench, and Guttieriez who has been on the 15 day DL (this is all hypothetical) along with a low level guy and that is a better value than what the Cubs offer.

That being said, it's all subjective and no matter what the deal is, you are going to say the Cubs offer was better and we should have taken that, because you guys passionately love your team, and their prospects. But don't be all snarky because you think that we are crazy for not accepting what you all were so gracious to offer up if that isn't what we are looking for.

[allstar1579]

By that logic, the hometown thing won't mean a darn thing either.

In theory, but Tex has known for a few years now that coming back to the area and playing here was a possibility when he was a FA, he knew that when he signed with Boras, and Boras knows that he has the O's on his short list.

I can say with very much certainty that as of a little while ago, the O's, and Yanks were both very high up on the list, with only one or two more teams even in the running. The Braves are out, they can't afford him. He will sign for $20/year or more. The question is will PA pay that much for a new face of the franchise?

[geschinger]

By that logic, the hometown thing won't mean a darn thing either.

I think many people overestimate the hometown thing. IMO it isn't going to get him to consider Baltimore if the Orioles offer isn't the best out there. What it might do is get Boras to spend a little bit more time focusing on the Orioles trying to sell them on the marketing aspect to try and get them to bump their offer above anyone elses. At the end of the day whomever makes the best contract offer will end up with Tex. It won't matter if the team won 100 games or lost 100 games the year before.

[allstar1579]

I think many people overestimate the hometown thing. IMO it isn't going to get him to consider Baltimore if the Orioles offer isn't the best out there. What it might do is get Boras to spend a little bit more time focusing on the Orioles trying to sell them on the marketing aspect to try and get them to bump their offer above anyone elses. At the end of the day whomever makes the best contract offer will end up with Tex.

Tex has a list of teams he would like to play for already, and Boras has known this since he signed him, it was big in his decision to sign with him. The O's are on that list. His family is why. That doesn't mean he signs here no matter what by any means, but it does get them in the final decision if they offer a competitive salary.

[EddeeEddee]

Eat crow for what?

If Tex signs with the O's over the various other suitors I've listed, then that will simply indicate that winning isn't a high priority for him. I'm open to that possibility.

But if winning is a high priority, then the O's are pretty much dead in the water, because other teams have much more of that to offer.

Yes, and I suppose winning wasn't a high priority for Alex Rodriguez when he signed a $250 million contract with the Texas Rangers -- a team that still has never won a playoff game. Your argument is too "small picture" and too literal minded. Mike Mussina signed a big contract with the Yankees in 2001 and still has not won a World Series ring.

And the fact that Teixeira grew up less than half an hour from downtown Baltimore does make a huge difference. When he was a kid, he grew up watching the O's win. He grew up watching Cal. Remember, the Orioles last won the division only 10 years ago. It hasn't been that long since they were good, and it's possible they could be quite good in the next couple of years. The Yankees will not continue to dominate the division on free agents alone. Only getting back to producing in-house players like Jeter, Pettitte, Williams and Rivera will the Yankees rule the AL East again. Because free agency is lacking when it comes to constructing teams that do well every year, most any bad team is no more than a few years away from turning things completely around if they can develop (in the O's case, "redevelop") a good minor league system.

[blueberryale77]

If you thought there were too many "Will they trade Roberts?" threads this offseason, just wait until you see how many "Will they sign Teixeira?" threads there are next offseason. I can't wait!

[davearm]

We have said 100 times that we don't match up with the Cubs well, and I've tried to be nice about it, but that little homer streak you have is just nagging tonight. You guys don't have the positional prospects to make a deal. Yes, you have the 4 pitchers mentioned in the deal, but if they are not looking for pitching for Roberts, then you are lacking. Without dealing Pie, there just isn't enough there.

You can't historically compare trades then to trades now because trading prospects is a crap shoot. They are ranked differently from year to year, and 3 players dealt for Lofton one year may have been a team's top 3 prospects and non panned out. That being said they could all be 15-20 prospects that year and go on to become great players. Someone in July could decide that they want to deal Peralta who can't get off the bench, and Guttieriez who has been on the 15 day DL (this is all hypothetical) along with a low level guy and that is a better value than what the Cubs offer.

That being said, it's all subjective and no matter what the deal is, you are going to say the Cubs offer was better and we should have taken that, because you guys passionately love your team, and their prospects. But don't be all snarky because you think that we are crazy for not accepting what you all were so gracious to offer up if that isn't what we are looking for.

Of course we can compare trades made years ago with current offers. That's just ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Well I'm capable of doing so anyway.

Just to give one example, BaseballAmerica lists on its website its annual top 100 prospects going back to 1990. So right away we can do the legwork to see if Kenny Lofton has ever been traded for a prospect BA considered a top 100 guy at the time of the trade. There are other historical lists floating around too that facilitate this sort of analysis.

Anyway, back to Lofton.

The 1997 trade that sent him from Cleveland to Atlanta did not involve prospects. It was a veteran-for-veteran trade, so that's no help here. (It obviously wasn't a midseason deal, either.)

A July 2002 trade sent him from CWS to the Giants returned Felix Diaz and Ryan Meaux. No trace of either guy in BA's top 100 lists. Diaz showed some promise as a 21YO starter at the AA level, but Meaux was a 23YO reliever still stuck in the low-A Sally league.

In July 2003 Lofton went from Pittsburgh to the Cubs, but the big haul there was Aramis Ramirez. At any rate, for the two guys the Pirates got the Cubs' #5 prospect, and BA #48 overall, Bobby Hill, along with a junk veteran, the strikeout machine known as Jose Hernandez. The trade also included Matt Bruback, who lasted all of 4 AAA games before being waived less than a month after the trade.

In December 2004, Lofton was traded for Felix Rodriguez. Rodriguez was a 31YO journeyman reliever at the time.

This past July, Lofton was dealt for Max Ramirez. Ramirez is an interesting catching prospect, but a long way from the majors and nowhere on any top prospect lists.

Sickels ranked him #11 in the Indians' system for 2007, and his grade was B-.

See? There's plenty of information out there to compare historical trades to current ones.

[EddeeEddee]

So your theory is that at some later date, with less time remaining on Roberts' contract, some other team will emerge and be even more aggressive, more motivated, with an even bigger need, and more willing to overpay with young players than the Cubs have been this offseason?

Folks don't really seem to appreciate that the sort of aligning-of-stars that you're imagining is actually what's happened here. Expecting an even more ideal set of circumstances than these is really not very realistic.

I think the point is the O's would rather keep Roberts than trade him for non-essentials -- at least for now. If they are going to trade him for non-essentials, do it later. If the O's aren't going to get back a stud for him, then what's the rush? The O's have had a lot of non-studs as it is over the past several years. A good few of them were ex-Cubs.

[EddeeEddee]

By that logic, the hometown thing won't mean a darn thing either.

The combination of the money and the hometown thing is what would give them the leg up. The Orioles have the money. Baltimore is a poor city, but Maryland is the wealthiest state per capita in the whole country. That's why the Orioles are not considered a small market team, even now that the Nationals are in their backyard. Financially, the Orioles can compete, though not overtake.

The other main question is whether or not it really helps the Orioles to overpay to get Mark Teixeira. Or, if the O's did sign him, could the O's find them in an A-Rod situation where A-Rod did not help the Rangers get much if at all better? If the bidding for Teixeira gets really out of hand, then it may be wise for the O's to go with other options at first. As good as Teixeira is, he has not been in the Top 10 in home runs or RBI's the past 2 years in either league. 2006 was a slump year for him, and 2007 he battled injury. 2008 will go a long way to determining the value of Mark Teixeira.

[davearm]

The combination of the money and the hometown thing is what would give them the leg up. The Orioles have the money. Baltimore is a poor city, but Maryland is the wealthiest state per capita in the whole country. That's why the Orioles are not considered a small market team, even now that the Nationals are in their backyard. Financially, the Orioles can compete, though not overtake.

The other main question is whether or not it really helps the Orioles to overpay to get Mark Teixeira. Or, if the O's did sign him, could the O's find them in an A-Rod situation where A-Rod did not help the Rangers get much if at all better? If the bidding for Teixeira gets really out of hand, then it may be wise for the O's to go with other options at first. As good as Teixeira is, he has not been in the Top 10 in home runs or RBI's the past 2 years in either league. 2006 was a slump year for him, and 2007 he battled injury. 2008 will go a long way to determining the value of Mark Teixeira.

I think what you should've said is the combination of the money and the hometown thing is what could give them the leg up.

The combination of the money being roughly equal and the O's being way behind on the winning is what could put them a distant 4th or 5th.

[allstar1579]

Of course we can compare trades made years ago with current offers. That's just ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Well I'm capable of doing so anyway.

Just to give one example, BaseballAmerica lists on its website its annual top 100 prospects going back to 1990. So right away we can do the legwork to see if Kenny Lofton has ever been traded for a prospect BA considered a top 100 guy at the time of the trade. There are other historical lists floating around too that facilitate this sort of analysis.

Anyway, back to Lofton.

The 1997 trade that sent him from Cleveland to Atlanta did not involve prospects. It was a veteran-for-veteran trade, so that's no help here. (It obviously wasn't a midseason deal, either.)

A July 2002 trade sent him from CWS to the Giants returned Felix Diaz and Ryan Meaux. No trace of either guy in BA's top 100 lists. Diaz showed some promise as a 21YO starter at the AA level, but Meaux was a 23YO reliever still stuck in the low-A Sally league.

In July 2003 Lofton went from Pittsburgh to the Cubs, but the big haul there was Aramis Ramirez. At any rate, for the two guys the Pirates got the Cubs' #5 prospect, and BA #48 overall, Bobby Hill, along with a junk veteran, the strikeout machine known as Jose Hernandez. The trade also included Matt Bruback, who lasted all of 4 AAA games before being waived less than a month after the trade.

In December 2004, Lofton was traded for Felix Rodriguez. Rodriguez was a 31YO journeyman reliever at the time.

This past July, Lofton was dealt for Max Ramirez. Ramirez is an interesting catching prospect, but a long way from the majors and nowhere on any top prospect lists.

Sickels ranked him #11 in the Indians' system for 2007, and his grade was B-.

See? There's plenty of information out there to compare historical trades to current ones.

Yes, and I never doubted your journalistic skills, however the issue is "why trade Brian Roberts", the answer is simply to field a better team in 2010. If the Cubs can't offer the positional players to make that happen, then they should not be making the trade.

You conveniently left out that the only trade that we could really apply to this situation is that 1997 trade that was veterans for veterans, because that is when he was 30 years old as is Brian now. Given his track record over 5 years was better than Brian's since 2003, but that trade sent Lofton and Embree brought back Grissom and Justice and let CLE knock us out of the playoffs.

When Lofton was being traded for spare parts, he was 35 and not producing like he had been at 30, so in 5 years I will concede your point on this one, but apples for apples, you can't compare this one to this scenario.

[Cubsfan]

We have said 100 times that we don't match up with the Cubs well, and I've tried to be nice about it, but that little homer streak you have is just nagging tonight. You guys don't have the positional prospects to make a deal. Yes, you have the 4 pitchers mentioned in the deal, but if they are not looking for pitching for Roberts, then you are lacking. Without dealing Pie, there just isn't enough there.

You can't historically compare trades then to trades now because trading prospects is a crap shoot. They are ranked differently from year to year, and 3 players dealt for Lofton one year may have been a team's top 3 prospects and non panned out. That being said they could all be 15-20 prospects that year and go on to become great players. Someone in July could decide that they want to deal Peralta who can't get off the bench, and Guttieriez who has been on the 15 day DL (this is all hypothetical) along with a low level guy and that is a better value than what the Cubs offer.

That being said, it's all subjective and no matter what the deal is, you are going to say the Cubs offer was better and we should have taken that, because you guys passionately love your team, and their prospects. But don't be all snarky because you think that we are crazy for not accepting what you all were so gracious to offer up if that isn't what we are looking for.

Assuming that the rumored deal (Gallagher, Cedeno, Veal, Ceda) was correct, then I would think that McPhail asked for all of that pitching rather than focusing on positional players. I would think that a deal could have been worked out including Patterson, Fontenot, and/or Colvin if McPhail backed off of his demand for 4-5 players. Getting Patterson and Cedeno would certainly give you a shot at having at least one of them succeeding as a positional player. It looks like the deal fell through because McPhail got greedy and wanted pitching plus positional players. Also, I'm sure Murton was offered earlier in the negotiations, but rejected by the O's.

[Ballgame64]

The 2 offers aren't even remotely comparable so even bringing them up in the same sentence is foolish.

AM was wrong in not taking the offer IMO but please, don't even attempt tp compare what we got for Bedard with what you guys are offering for BRob.

SG - O's fans keep stating how the Cubs offer lacked "a stud prospect" like the Bedard deal. All I was doing was pointing out that no one can predict how the prospects will pan out. In reality, the O's traded a proven starting pitcher for a major league reliever and 4 question marks. Baseball history is full of stories how can't miss prospects like Jones never make it or never reach their full potential. You, me, AM or Jim Hendry can't predict how the players offered for Roberts would have performed if given the chance.

[davearm]

Yes, and I never doubted your journalistic skills, however the issue is "why trade Brian Roberts", the answer is simply to field a better team in 2010. If the Cubs can't offer the positional players to make that happen, then they should not be making the trade.

You conveniently left out that the only trade that we could really apply to this situation is that 1997 trade that was veterans for veterans, because that is when he was 30 years old as is Brian now. Given his track record over 5 years was better than Brian's since 2003, but that trade sent Lofton and Embree brought back Grissom and Justice and let CLE knock us out of the playoffs.

When Lofton was being traded for spare parts, he was 35 and not producing like he had been at 30, so in 5 years I will concede your point on this one, but apples for apples, you can't compare this one to this scenario.

All I'm asking is for you to give us a recent trade that is comparable, and supports your theory that a better package of prospects will be offered for Roberts this July.

Just find a valid comp that backs you up on this. That's not an unreasonable request, is it?

Don't come back and say it can't be done, like you did earlier. I've just shown it can.

And Lofton for two guys even older than he was (Grissom and Justice) in the offseason surely isn't what we're after. That one misses the mark on the July part, and on the prospects part too.