BRob potential deals to the Cubs

[RShack]

These arguments are so off base it's not even funny. You are the same kind of person that likely said Vlad was a luxury since we had Gibbons.

Actually, my arguments are very on-base, unless you happen to believe that we're supposed to count on unproven "can't miss talent" who somehow can't quite do it, so we can then "flip" other guys who actually can do it.

As for what "kind of person" I am, as it turns out I'm the "kind of person" who doesn't confuse Vlad with these guys.

I'm also the "kind of person" who watched Nick hit .182 for a while, and decided they needed to take Gibbons out of RF and give the job to Nick for 10 years. (You can look it up.)

The O's the past decade have looked to have a starting 9, 5, and pen and not given a rats ass about the rest of the team or system, and have not looked further than the coming year when analyzing the future of the team.

Apparently that logic has crept into your head because it's ridiculous for a team in our position not to go after a guy like Pie and/or Hill.

Oh, I'm looking well beyond this season. I've been doing that for the last 25 years of mostly crapitude.

Which is why I hope (and expect) that AM won't do dumb things like this.

[crawdad]

Last year, Mark Ellis had an OPS of under 700 and his OPS+ was 90.

Now, as I showed, Tom Tango says if you play GG caliber defense and have an OPS+ of 68 at second base, you are league average.

I do not think Cedeno is GG caliber but I do think he is above average. So, what does that mean his OPS needs to be at to be a league average player?

CHONE projects Cedeno to have a 744 OPS next year..Bill James is at 717 and MARCEL is at 687...Let's throw CHONE out the windown and take the average of the other 2..That is a 702 OPS...If he can do that and play above average defense, I would guess that he would either be league average or close to league average.

Cedeno is no world beater and really, I agree with Crawdad that he is likely to be a UTI guy BUT I think it is also important to acknowledge that on a bad team, giving a player like him 500 at bats makes a lot of sense and hey, maybe we end up with a cheap second baseman for the next 3-4 years while we wait on a guy like Hoes or someone like that.

But where does Cedeno get us? He would be fine at second base for us this year. I do not argue that. You have read my work on aging. Cedeno goes into his age 26 year . . . his defense will probably be the best it will be next year and then decrease. He probably can probably save 10 runs next year there. His bat would have to be about a 700ops. He will be average next year. In three or four years, his defense will be in decline. His bat looks circumspect. We will have traded for a league average 2B who probably has no worth in terms of compensation or trade value when he is done. That is throwing money away. We would be trading for him just to have someone there. If we just want a filler . . . put Donnie Murphey there or Ryan Freel. Why do we need to trade for an average 2B who will not be average when we are ready to compete. This just seems like throwing money away in the same vein as extending Roberts though with less total cash involved.

[SHAWN555]

But where does Cedeno get us? He would be fine at second base for us this year. I do not argue that. You have read my work on aging. Cedeno goes into his age 26 year . . . his defense will probably be the best it will be next year and then decrease. He probably can probably save 10 runs next year there. His bat would have to be about a 700ops. He will be average next year. In three or four years, his defense will be in decline. His bat looks circumspect. We will have traded for a league average 2B who probably has no worth in terms of compensation or trade value when he is done. That is throwing money away. We would be trading for him just to have someone there. If we just want a filler . . . put Donnie Murphey there or Ryan Freel. Why do we need to trade for an average 2B who will not be average when we are ready to compete. This just seems like throwing money away in the same vein as extending Roberts though with less total cash involved.

Ok with all that being said, how could Roberts net us a better return?

He is 31 years old and only available for a one year rental.

[TonySoprano]

This makes no sense to me.

Brob is more than likely gone after this season so we can either make a trade were we get young talent to provide depth or we wait and get two draft picks.

I would rather take the ready to go young talent than the longshot of two draft picks working out for us.

Having Scott is no reason for us not to try and get Pie. Scott can slide to DH and Pie can improve our outfield defense.

We are a team in a rebuild mode, the perfect team to take Hill Cedeno and Pie and let them play everyday ( hill every five) and see what happens.

And also we have a second baseman for this season no longer, how about looking at the big picture here and trying to build for the future not just this season.

Looking at the big picture, how much of an upgrade is Pie and Cedeno? The Cubs traded DeRosa, did this open up a spot for Cedeno? No. Get back Fontenot and you have my attention.

Maybe the draft is a longshot? But just maybe we'll get something good out of it. The Cubs know what they have with Cedeno and Pie and are looking elsewhere. We should as well.

[crawdad]

How do you know the Cubs have no interest in Roberts?

This redundacy thing makes no sense. We have several holes granted but that doesnt mean you can't get Pie and slide Scott to DH. Where is the redundacy there?

Reimold is still more than likely one season away from being up here, and by then maybe Scott shines playing everyday as a DH and we can move him by deadline.

If Cedeno pans out as a second baseman thats just fine because we do not have any second basemans.

And you say we will have abundance of bullpen arms in three years, thats fine if it happens. Wuertz would allow us to consider moving Sherrill towards the deadline to fill a hole or two.

Its rare to be able to trade your players for exactly the prospects you need. There is nothing wrong with adding several young players that free you up to deal from an area of redundancy or depth whatever you want to call it to fill those holes.

I will explain why you want to avoid redundancy. Trading for Pie results in Scott being worth less. A guy in the field is worth more at the get go than a guy at DH. With Scott and Reimold we have LF covered for the forseeable future. We have something of value (Roberts). Why trade for something we do not need when if what we have is valuable there may be more suitable prospects for us to acquire.

We have arms good enough to replace Sherrill now. No sense getting Wuertz in the present or in the future.

We are in the special case where it is not rare for us to trade for prospects that we need. Why? We have so many needs.

[Sports Guy]

But where does Cedeno get us? He would be fine at second base for us this year. I do not argue that. You have read my work on aging. Cedeno goes into his age 26 year . . . his defense will probably be the best it will be next year and then decrease. He probably can probably save 10 runs next year there. His bat would have to be about a 700ops. He will be average next year. In three or four years, his defense will be in decline. His bat looks circumspect. We will have traded for a league average 2B who probably has no worth in terms of compensation or trade value when he is done. That is throwing money away. We would be trading for him just to have someone there. If we just want a filler . . . put Donnie Murphey there or Ryan Freel. Why do we need to trade for an average 2B who will not be average when we are ready to compete. This just seems like throwing money away in the same vein as extending Roberts though with less total cash involved.

Who is to say Cedeno, with more playing time, doesn't get better?

Who is to say that he doesn't end up with a 720-740 OPS in a few years, os if his glove declines slightly, the upswing in offense makes up for that?

Again, this deal is better than picks and better than extending Roberts and that is all that matters.

If we can get a better deal, great...If we get some IF prospects, great...I am all for it and would prefer it.

But I don't see it happening at this time.

We may be able to get Floyd and Getz but I am doubting it.

[RShack]

Last year, Mark Ellis had an OPS of under 700 and his OPS+ was 90.

Now, as I showed, Tom Tango says if you play GG caliber defense and have an OPS+ of 68 at second base, you are league average.

I do not think Cedeno is GG caliber but I do think he is above average. So, what does that mean his OPS needs to be at to be a league average player?

CHONE projects Cedeno to have a 744 OPS next year..Bill James is at 717 and MARCEL is at 687...Let's throw CHONE out the windown and take the average of the other 2..That is a 702 OPS...If he can do that and play above average defense, I would guess that he would either be league average or close to league average.

Cedeno is no world beater and really, I agree with Crawdad that he is likely to be a UTI guy BUT I think it is also important to acknowledge that on a bad team, giving a player like him 500 at bats makes a lot of sense and hey, maybe we end up with a cheap second baseman for the next 3-4 years while we wait on a guy like Hoes or someone like that.

I think Cedeno could magically turn into a very good 2Bman (really), and has way more chance to do that than play SS.

So, just like last year, I'd be happy if we could get him for spare change.

But counting on him to come through is like standing at the craps table and placing chips on those dumb bets in the middle.

[crawdad]

Ok with all that being said, how could Roberts net us a better return?

He is 31 years old and only available for a one year rental.

Ok, IF Roberts is worth a prospect like Pie THEN he is probably worth a prospect in a position that we need (the entire infield). Therefore, it is better to get that value in something we actually need than just accruing talent in general.

Now, redundancy is less of a problem if you are dealing with it at the minor league level, but at the Major League level . . . it is not something you should design to do.

[SHAWN555]

I think Cedeno could magically turn into a very good 2Bman (really), and has way more chance to do that than play SS.

So, just like last year, I'd be happy if we could get him for spare change.

But counting on him to come through is like standing at the craps table and placing chips on those dumb bets in the middle.

But we are not putting all our chips on one player.

We would be getting four players back in this trade.

The bigger risk would be taking the draft picks.

[crawdad]

Who is to say Cedeno, with more playing time, doesn't get better?

Who is to say that he doesn't end up with a 720-740 OPS in a few years, os if his glove declines slightly, the upswing in offense makes up for that?

Again, this deal is better than picks and better than extending Roberts and that is all that matters.

If we can get a better deal, great...If we get some IF prospects, great...I am all for it and would prefer it.

But I don't see it happening at this time.

We may be able to get Floyd and Getz but I am doubting it.

Roberts is not worth Floyd. I have no idea why you think I have some strange great valuation of Roberts. This is just so weird. It is like you refuse to see that. Eh.

[RShack]

Brob is more than likely gone after this season.

Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see.

Unless/until that's somehow firm knowledge, I'm not interested in trading him for nobodies.

This idea that we need to trade guys for the best available offer is goofy.

Well run franchises don't behave that way. They just don't.

[SHAWN555]

Ok, IF Roberts is worth a prospect like Pie THEN he is probably worth a prospect in a position that we need (the entire infield). Therefore, it is better to get that value in something we actually need than just accruing talent in general.

Now, redundancy is less of a problem if you are dealing with it at the minor league level, but at the Major League level . . . it is not something you should design to do.

Ok please show me teams with infield prospects that have showed interest in BRob.

I am trying to be realistic about our return for Roberts.

The white sox are a solid match with us and have no problems with a deal involving Getz or Lillibridge and Floyd but do not think the white sox will do it.

I am all for getting a great shortstop or third base prospect for Roberts but I am realistic about the market.

[SHAWN555]

Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see.

Unless/until that's somehow firm knowledge, I'm not interested in trading him for nobodies.

This idea that we need to trade guys for the best available offer is goofy.

Well run franchises don't behave that way. They just don't.

First of all who said we are trading them for nobodies. Just because you do not like the players being mentioned does not mean it is a solid deal.

And our franchise has done a great job of not taking the best offers and just letting the players walk. It has gotten us to where we are now huh.

[RShack]

But we are not putting all our chips on one player.

We would be getting four players back in this trade.

OK, we'd be standing at the craps table and placing chips on FOUR of those dumb bets in the middle.

No thanks.

[crawdad]

Ok please show me teams with infield prospects that have showed interest in BRob.

I am trying to be realistic about our return for Roberts.

The white sox are a solid match with us and have no problems with a deal involving Getz or Lillibridge and Floyd but do not think the white sox will do it.

I am all for getting a great shortstop or third base prospect for Roberts but I am realistic about the market.

Other teams that have stated an interest. None. Teams where discussions have happened, but we do not know who was the interested party: Indians, Cubs, and White Sox. The Cubs last showed an interest in Roberts back in October via Gordan Whittenmeyer or whatever his last name is. Nothing since. Nothing at all in the media. The White Sox have shown slightly more interest in that the Orioles were actually talking to them about Roberts. All indications out of the Cubs front office is that they have a money crunch and that they think Mike Fontenot is an improvement over what DeRosa gave them last year. The Indians interest was rebuffed when the Orioles asked for Carmona and Cabrera.

No one else has inquired this offseason as far as internet and print suggests.

We know next to nothing.

All of this is conjecture.

Me suggesting the Angels is pretty much as reasonable as you suggesting the Cubs in that we have reason to think neither of them want Roberts.