Jump to content

Cubs trade DeRosa to Indians; Does this mean Pie for Olson back on??

section36

By section36
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

bigbird Major Leaguer

bigbird

Posted
Posted
There's no way that the Cubs are trading DeRosa just for these 3 prospects and keeping them. They are shedding the payroll to go get Peavy. Before all these moves the Cubs had 10 million to spend. They needed a RF and a SP. Milton Bradley was that $10 million player they could spend on. But they wanted Peavy as well, who will cost about $10 more million. So now they traded Marquis and DeRosa which saves them about $10 million. See how this all adds up?? Now for their infield they have Theriot, Fonteot, Miles, and Cedeno. Not all of them will be on the team. And they also have these 3 pitching prospects that they have no use for. Those 3 pitchers, along with Cedeno, and Vitters, Hart, and maybe Pie (Olson), will all go to SD for Peavy. Cubs win in every facet of their trades. They go from DeRosa and Marquis to Bradley and Peavy and it only costs them 10 million. While adding Miles and Vizcaino.

Someone who actually gets it... Nice post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 450
  • Created
  • Last Reply
bigbird Major Leaguer

bigbird

Posted
Posted
I agree with you here, more needs to be done.

However, there aren't really a ton of assets he has at his disposal that will net us more talent. Roberts obviously is the trade chip right now. You could argue he'll have more value at the deadline than now. Either way, I don't see him bringing back a great Bedard- or Tejada-like package. If we get one good prospect and a second useful one, I'll be pleased.

Scott and Sherrill are guys that I think will be more valuable midseason, largely because teams could simply spend some cash and get similar players through FA rather than trade away talent.

I really don't think we'll get any offers for Huff that are better than two 2010 draft picks. At least not right now, maybe at the deadline if he has another big first half.

Guthrie is the one guy that could really bring back some serious talent, either right now or later. However, I think its very unlikely he's traded, and I'd probably wait until the deadline anyways as I think his value will be higher then than now. I do think it'd be wise to trade him sometime before the 2010 season, but before the 2009 season may not be the best time, I can see it going either way.

So, you can make a pretty decent argument that there really isn't much he should do right now. A few guys could be moved now, or they could have higher value easily at the deadline. I agree he should be working on seeing what value these guys have to other teams right now. Beyond that, the only things he could really do right now are search for diamonds in the rough like Guthrie a few years ago.

Why can't we trade prospects? Other teams do all the time. Not the Orioles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcroemer Major Leaguer

jcroemer

Posted
Posted
Why can't we trade prospects? Other teams do all the time. Not the Orioles.

Why would you start trading prospects away when you are trying to collect them and rebuild the farm system? Pal, we ain't winning in 2009. You trade prospects for the final pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
Sorry to do this to you again, but Johnny said "moves to improve the club" not "sign big names".

I think this is indicative of the commotion here lately. Posters aren't taking the time to read each other's words carefully and then we all get in a tizzy. There is so much generalization going on, not you in this instance Lucky Jim, that I barely can keep track of who is on what side, let alone any nuances.

You didn't do anything to me. Also, you're off-point.

His quote:

I know I am responding to this late ...But I couldn't resist.... Havent you guys figured out the obviuos. If the front office made some substantial move to improve the club they would be rewarded by improved attendance.

Once a game is played with emtpy seats the revenue is lost and can never be recovered. The More empty seats the higher the lost revenue.

Money spent on a Sheets,Dunn, (still possible) or Tex,Burnett would've helped the team fill a good portion of those seats that almost certainly will be empty.

Hardly anyone here will run out & buy tickets because of the addition of Freel,Izturis, Hendrickson, or even Zaun if it happens.

He said "substantial move" and offered as an example the signing of Sheets, Dunn, Tex or Burnett".

He then dowplayed the signing of Izturis.

Now, we know that the signing of Izturis did improve the club. So, obviously it's not just a "better club" that he thinks will bring in fans.

And he's asking for a "substantial move" of a single FA. Now, to me, that smacks of "marquee names."

Further, I addressed the actual wins-added by those FA signings, and made my point that, based on the slight improvement in performance, no attendance increase would occur.

So, in effect, I was on point. He was wrong. And you are too.

Hah! I'm just giving you a hard time.

But, seriously, I read his post carefully. And I responded to it directly. It appears I read it more carefully than you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...