Why trade Roberts?

[davearm]

And my point is, BRob is obviously looked at in much higher regard than those guys are and therefore, he should get more in a trade than those and past trades don't really matter.

How is this obvious? One team showed serious interest in the guy, when it was abundantly clear he was available.

More objective statistical evidence like WARP3 (after normalizing for PAs) doesn't support your contention either. Roberts is clearly in the upper half of the names I mentioned, but he's not at the top.

[jonny2fngrs]

I disagree with this. I think that a certain aspect of his trade value goes down. Namely the time his new team would be able to hold on to him reduces the longer he is with the O's. In that I agree. However part of his trade value, applying basic economics theory, is in how many teams are interested in Roberts. At this time that is one team, so there is no competition in the market.

I think competition in the market (raising trade value) will far outwiegh the time the new team has Roberts (decreasing trade value) in the long run. If two or more teams become interested in Roberts come the trade deadline which I think is very possible then I am confident AM can drive his trade value up.

What it sounds like to me is that you are saying you have a 20k car and one person is offering 25k for it. Rather than accept that bid, you would rather hold out until more bidders show up in hopes of getting 30k.

While I think it is possible that this could happen, I also think it needs to be put into perspective. First off if Florida lose Uggla for the year are they going to make a ridiculous offer for Roberts? No. And that is probably true for a lot of other teams as well. What if a team does lose their leadoff hitter but have a great 2nd baseman? It just seems that things would have to fall just perfect for BRob's value to go up. This also doesn't take into consideration who else will be available at the deadline as well, which could be adequate replacements for half the price.

Without saying anything in regards to the Cubs rumored offer, I still think it is quite a gamble to wait until July expecting his value to be more.

[Sports Guy]

How is this obvious? One team showed serious interest in the guy, when it was abundantly clear he was available.More objective statistical evidence like WARP3 (after normalizing for PAs) doesn't support your contention either. Roberts is clearly in the upper half of the names I mentioned, but he's not at the top.

And that one team, basically bidding against itself, put a deal on the table that dwarfs the other teams paid for the other guys.

And that isn't even discussing anything else that may have been offered that we don't know about.

BRob, being a lead off hitter, also carries more weight....And while that isn't a "position", it is still looked at as one and one that is very important.

Look, the Orioles should have made the deal...It was foolish not to IMO and i agree that his value is much more likely to go down than up or even stay the same...My issue is with you on a crusade trying to find a similar trade.

That doesn't mean anything....Had BRob been dealt, there wasn't much of a precedent for a 4-1 deal for a second baseman either.

[Methodology]

In terms of value, Renteria and Roberts are indeed useful comps.

And the O's no longer have a need for Roberts since they won't be competitive during the life of his contract.

The situations are very similar, actually.

So as you've shown, according to Sickels the Braves got 2 B- prospects for Renteria, #s 4 and 5 in the Tigers' system.

The reported Cubs' offer is for #s 3 (Gallagher), 4 (Patterson, although could be Cedeno instead), 7 (Veal), and 9 (Ceda), with grades of B, B, B- and B-.

So a quick-and-dirty assessment shows the Cubs are offering more than twice the value of the Tigers' package! 2 B- grade guys, PLUS two B grade guys!

And I am looking at the deal from the O's side:

* The O's have got strong motivation to find a deal, because Roberts' value has a limited shelflife.

* MacPhail has shown a clear preference for pitching, and this deal is rich in it.

* The O's also need at least one MI, and the Cubs have several ML-ready ones to choose from.

* If OF depth is a need, then Matt Murton is a perfect fit.

I've seen folks claim the match here is not good, but that's simply not true. The Cubs have exactly what the O's need/want, UNLESS what you want is a bunch of studs, and quite frankly, that's not coming from anyone. Just look at the several trades I've shown if you're not convinced of this.

The Braves were moving Renteria for monetary purposes and wanted Cabrera to start so they could evaluate if he would be the shortstop of the future or if they would have to try Lillibridge.

The Orioles DO NOT need to trade Roberts although it seems like it should be a move they make. You make it sound like if the Orioles do not trade him that the team will evaporate into thin air. No one knows what type of year Roberts will have this year, although there is a pretty good idea what type of year to expect, and if he has a career year and a contending team really wants Roberts then a trade could be completed.

[davearm]

The Braves were moving Renteria for monetary purposes and wanted Cabrera to start so they could evaluate if he would be the shortstop of the future or if they would have to try Lillibridge.

The Orioles DO NOT need to trade Roberts although it seems like it should be a move they make. You make it sound like if the Orioles do not trade him that the team will evaporate into thin air. No one knows what type of year Roberts will have this year, although there is a pretty good idea what type of year to expect, and if he has a career year and a contending team really wants Roberts then a trade could be completed.

Look the O's have strong motivation to move Roberts, just like the Braves had strong motivation to move Renteria.

The specific underlying reasons why are largely irrelevant. You can split those hairs if you must, but there's really no point in it, because both situations lead to the same conclusion -- dealing the player is preferrable to keeping the player.

[Cubsfan]

Not that I think it is a particularly good argument, from you or Owatcher, but look at the details.

Longoria and Bruce are the two top offense prospects in all of baseball. Neither one has hit the majors yet. Longoria, could be in the majors right now, but the Rays want him to get about another months worth of seasoning in the minors, as well as limiting his service clock, which isnt a bad thing. The Reds went out and got Corey Patterson to fill in for CF until Bruce is ready to step in. He showed in ST that he needed a little more time in the minors. When they come up they are here to stay in the majors.

Now, for Murton, Marshall, Gallagher, and Patterson. Each one of them has snipped the big leagues, but none of them have been good enough to force there way on to the team. The Cubs loaded up on veteran pitching, forcing Gallagher and Marshall back to the minors, after the failed attempt at trying to move them to short relief on short notice.

Patterson and Murton also havent forced their way onto the team. But that isnt entirely their fault, because some of the contracts of the veterans makes it impossible for them to push their way on the team.

For me, it comes back to Scott Moore forcing his way on the team in place of Jay Gibbons. Before long, we could see Nolan Reimold forcing his way on to the team at the expense of Jay Payton and Kevin Millar.

You can't make comparisons of young players forcing their way onto the roster of lousy teams with young players forcing their way onto the roster of contending teams. Patterson, Cedeno, Marshall, and Murton would all be starting (not just on the roster) for the O's right now. Those same 4 players wouldn't make the major league roster of the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, Tigers, etc. Longoria and Bruce haven't hit in the majors yet and there's a possibility (slight) they might not ever hit in the majors. The Reds signing Patterson to play CF over Bruce has to be a total embarrassment to Bruce. Finally, you stated that when they come up they're here to stay is ridiculous. You have no way of knowing whether they will stay in the majors or not, especially if one or both of them goes into a 2-month-long slump.

[NCRaven]

You can't make comparisons of young players forcing their way onto the roster of lousy teams with young players forcing their way onto the roster of contending teams. Patterson, Cedeno, Marshall, and Murton would all be starting (not just on the roster) for the O's right now.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but Patterson could only start on this team if we didn't have Roberts, otherwise he'd be blocked here, too; Murton would probably not start in front of either Scott in LF or Huff at DH; Marshall is better than Burress, how?; Cedeno is the only one that would start for us right now and saying he can beat out Luis Hernandez isn't exactly a bold statement. I don't think any of these guys are impact players (ala Jones and Tillman for Bedard) and I think we want, and should hold out for, at least one impact position player in any Roberts trade.

[Cubsfan]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but Patterson could only start on this team if we didn't have Roberts, otherwise he'd be blocked here, too; Murton would probably not start in front of either Scott in LF or Huff at DH; Marshall is better than Burress, how?; Cedeno is the only one that would start for us right now and saying he can beat out Luis Hernandez isn't exactly a bold statement. I don't think any of these guys are impact players (ala Jones and Tillman for Bedard) and I think we want, and should hold out for, at least one impact position player in any Roberts trade.

Well, I was assuming that you would only have Patterson by trading us Roberts. Murton is a better hitter than Scott and his projections for 2008 are above the major league averages for LFs and RFs. Without a doubt, Marshall would be in your starting rotation right now. As for holding out for an "impact" player, just how much of an impact have Jones and Tillman had on the O's? The answer to that is zero until they prove themselves at this level. #1 prospects mean nothing until they prove it in the majors.

[Fairfax Bird]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but Patterson could only start on this team if we didn't have Roberts, otherwise he'd be blocked here, too; Murton would probably not start in front of either Scott in LF or Huff at DH; Marshall is better than Burress, how?; Cedeno is the only one that would start for us right now and saying he can beat out Luis Hernandez isn't exactly a bold statement. I don't think any of these guys are impact players (ala Jones and Tillman for Bedard) and I think we want, and should hold out for, at least one impact position player in any Roberts trade.

Wrong, if we have Murton, Huff should go to the bench or at the very least split at-bats.

[Fairfax Bird]

Well, I was assuming that you would only have Patterson by trading us Roberts. Murton is a better hitter than Scott and his projections for 2008 are above the major league averages for LFs and RFs. Without a doubt, Marshall would be in your starting rotation right now. As for holding out for an "impact" player, just how much of an impact have Jones and Tillman had on the O's? The answer to that is zero until they prove themselves at this level. #1 prospects mean nothing until they prove it in the majors.

Why? Has he outproduced Scott? No. Then why is he a better hitter? He's not. Wow, answering my own question was easier than I thought it was.

[Cubsfan]

Why? Has he outproduced Scott? No. Then why is he a better hitter? He's not. Wow, answering my own question was easier than I thought it was.

Scott has hit for more power than Murton, but Murton has a higher BA. Murton's power may still be developing at 27 years old, while Scott is 30 years old. Scott has played the equivalent of less than 2 full years in the majors at 30, showing that he's basically a platoon player.

[Sports Guy]

Scott has hit for more power than Murton, but Murton has a higher BA. Murton's power may still be developing at 27 years old, while Scott is 30 years old. Scott has played the equivalent of less than 2 full years in the majors at 30, showing that he's basically a platoon player.

You need to get your stories straight...Perhaps doing something crazy like looking at stats.

Scott has been TREATED like a platoon player but that doesn't mean he IS a platoon player...He hits lefties pretty well.

[Fairfax Bird]

Scott has hit for more power than Murton, but Murton has a higher BA. Murton's power may still be developing at 27 years old, while Scott is 30 years old. Scott has played the equivalent of less than 2 full years in the majors at 30, showing that he's basically a platoon player.

While Murton has reached the age of 27 and was sent to AAA. So Scott is misused by the organization that he was with and Murton is misused by the organization that he is with. But, Scott consistently has a higher OPS than Murton at the ML level and each has sufficient at-bats (both have had cherry-picked at bats against lefties and righties) to say that Scott is right now a better hitter than Murton. The facts say you are wrong. Your opinion may prove right, but as of now, you are wrong.

[Dipper9]

I think the whole trade Roberts thing is much simpler than most make it out. The O's don't have a replacement in the system that in the next couple of years that would project even as a league average second baseman. I think most of us believe at worst Roberts would be that even in his mid thirties. We already need a shortstop. How much harder will it be to find two middle infielders.

This is with the assumption that we can sign him. I would wait till this off season to see how the Texiera thing plays out. If he signs in Baltimore, Roberts could probably be convinced to do the same. If we don't sign Texiera, even though the value may be less, can still try to move him next off season.

This thing can turnn around quickly with Roberts and Tex on the right side of the infield. If next year neither of them are on the right side we may be a long way off from fielding a competitive team

I agree with everything here. There is no reason to just unload Roberts. The Cubs deal sucked. You wanna know how I know this? Because MacPhail did not take the deal. If it was even close to what he wanted, he would have done it. At this point, barring a Cano injury or something similar, you hold onto Roberts until the Tex thing plays out in the offseason. Once Tex signs, either here or elsewhere, you make your move with Roberts.

[DrungoHazewood]

Scott has hit for more power than Murton, but Murton has a higher BA. Murton's power may still be developing at 27 years old, while Scott is 30 years old. Scott has played the equivalent of less than 2 full years in the majors at 30, showing that he's basically a platoon player.

Scott is what Murton might be when he grows up.