MacPhail: Deal is dead (p. 297), stop posting, go outside

[Ryno is God 23]

BTW, I hope the trade is Marshall out and Murton in. It makes much more sense for the Cubs to trade Murton rather than Marshall and I would assume they are comparable in value to most teams. I love Murt but JH has made it so there is no place on the team for him.

 

How is a left handed 25 year old starting pitcher comparable to Murton?

The upside on Marshall is way more than Murton.

[Bull]

Chicagosports.com has the Roberts trade on the front page but the link doesnt work.

NOt working for me either, but it was literally 5 minutes ago...and to be clear the headline doesn't say it happened but that its likely.

 

Not to quote myself, but they've changed the title. It no longer says likely. But the article itself still says "almost certainly going to happen"

[DenverCubs]

What if Roberts can actually play reasonably well at short...

[jersey cubs fan]

While I agree that I'd rather have the better second baseman than the better "leadoff hitter", leadoff is not artificial.

 

It may be a real thing, but it's value is artificially inflated. Guys who "can leadoff" are given greater market value, for no good reason. Roberts' value lies in his production numbers, not in his supposed ability to hit leadoff. There's nothing wrong with going after a player like Roberts, there is something wrong with going after a guy like Roberts because he can leadoff and thus paying a premium for that arbitrary qualification.

[BigbadB]

Even Phil Rogers sees the potential downside of trading Gallagher and Marshall.

 

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/01/looking-like-a.html

 

With Ryan Dempster moving to the starting rotation, the Cubs can arguably afford to give up on Marshall, who compiled an impressive 3.92 ERA in 103 innings last season. But having already non-tendered Mark Prior and expressed a willingness to include Gallagher in this deal, the addition of Marshall to the package would further erode the depth of starting pitching in the system.

 

Jason Marquis and Dempster project at the most likely 4-5 starters for Lou Piniella. If Marshall and Gallagher were both traded to Baltimore, the cast behind them would be headed by the fragile Angels Guzman and unproven prospects Donald Veal, Jeff Samardzija, Adam Harben and Jose Ascanio. There are still some serviceable free-agent pitchers on the market, including Josh Fogg, Livan Hernandez, Bartolo Colon, Kyle Lohse and Jason Jennings.

 

Rogers is behind the times. You can't include Guzman since he's out for the year after surgery. Where's Kevin Hart? I'd have to think he'd be ahead of all of the guys listed. And of all the guys listed as still available on the market, the only one that might interest me is Hernandez, and he'd be too expensive for the value he provides.

[Bull]

What if Roberts can actually play reasonably well at short...

 

He played 413 innings there in 2001. That year his defense was bad at 2B and SS

[UMFan83]

Even Phil Rogers sees the potential downside of trading Gallagher and Marshall.

 

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/01/looking-like-a.html

 

With Ryan Dempster moving to the starting rotation, the Cubs can arguably afford to give up on Marshall, who compiled an impressive 3.92 ERA in 103 innings last season. But having already non-tendered Mark Prior and expressed a willingness to include Gallagher in this deal, the addition of Marshall to the package would further erode the depth of starting pitching in the system.

 

Jason Marquis and Dempster project at the most likely 4-5 starters for Lou Piniella. If Marshall and Gallagher were both traded to Baltimore, the cast behind them would be headed by the fragile Angels Guzman and unproven prospects Donald Veal, Jeff Samardzija, Adam Harben and Jose Ascanio. There are still some serviceable free-agent pitchers on the market, including Josh Fogg, Livan Hernandez, Bartolo Colon, Kyle Lohse and Jason Jennings.

 

And then he goes on to suggest Theriot hit in the 2 spot!

[DenverCubs]

Even Phil Rogers sees the potential downside of trading Gallagher and Marshall.

 

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/01/looking-like-a.html

 

With Ryan Dempster moving to the starting rotation, the Cubs can arguably afford to give up on Marshall, who compiled an impressive 3.92 ERA in 103 innings last season. But having already non-tendered Mark Prior and expressed a willingness to include Gallagher in this deal, the addition of Marshall to the package would further erode the depth of starting pitching in the system.

 

Jason Marquis and Dempster project at the most likely 4-5 starters for Lou Piniella. If Marshall and Gallagher were both traded to Baltimore, the cast behind them would be headed by the fragile Angels Guzman and unproven prospects Donald Veal, Jeff Samardzija, Adam Harben and Jose Ascanio. There are still some serviceable free-agent pitchers on the market, including Josh Fogg, Livan Hernandez, Bartolo Colon, Kyle Lohse and Jason Jennings.

 

Rogers is behind the times. You can't include Guzman since he's out for the year after surgery. Where's Kevin Hart? I'd have to think he'd be ahead of all of the guys listed. And of all the guys listed as still available on the market, the only one that might interest me is Hernandez, and he'd be too expensive for the value he provides.

 

Rogers did mention Hart...maybe he made an edit. Did anyone else get a little kick out of his potential line-up?

[UMFan83]

BTW, I hope the trade is Marshall out and Murton in. It makes much more sense for the Cubs to trade Murton rather than Marshall and I would assume they are comparable in value to most teams. I love Murt but JH has made it so there is no place on the team for him.

 

How is a left handed 25 year old starting pitcher comparable to Murton?

The upside on Marshall is way more than Murton.

 

Because maybe the 25 year old starting pitcher doesn't have an upside of more than #4 starter.

[Bull]

Rogers did mention Hart...maybe he made an edit. Did anyone else get a little kick out of his potential line-up?

 

 

And then he goes on to suggest Theriot hit in the 2 spot!

 

yeah...about that...

[98navigator]

BTW, one of the insiders who rarely posts just chimed in, and he leads support to what navigator said on the previous page along with why MacPhail might have said that it was "very inaccurate"

 

I just got an email that the names coming in might not be what has been reported.

 

Once again, put a lot of credence in this or none at all. It's certainly subject to change, as this whole strange process has a few times.

 

Crap, Hendry bid against himself again. Zambrano and Pie going over to the O's

 

Edit: Oh and some credit for Nav please. He posted this a half hour ago and no one really said anything. Do you have a source Nav or was that just an educated guess?

 

Yes, but my source is media not within either organization (although, I know he has contacts within the Cubs). He told me this morning that the names were wrong; to paraphrase, he said that two of the "original" names may still be included (but he didn't want to elaborate further--this was after disputing the deal altogether only to call me back and say that the deal is true but the names were not all accurate).

 

My educated guess is that Murton is included.

[Post Count Padder]

So it's close? Wow, that's a relief.

[BigbadB]

Even Phil Rogers sees the potential downside of trading Gallagher and Marshall.

 

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/01/looking-like-a.html

 

With Ryan Dempster moving to the starting rotation, the Cubs can arguably afford to give up on Marshall, who compiled an impressive 3.92 ERA in 103 innings last season. But having already non-tendered Mark Prior and expressed a willingness to include Gallagher in this deal, the addition of Marshall to the package would further erode the depth of starting pitching in the system.

 

Jason Marquis and Dempster project at the most likely 4-5 starters for Lou Piniella. If Marshall and Gallagher were both traded to Baltimore, the cast behind them would be headed by the fragile Angels Guzman and unproven prospects Donald Veal, Jeff Samardzija, Adam Harben and Jose Ascanio. There are still some serviceable free-agent pitchers on the market, including Josh Fogg, Livan Hernandez, Bartolo Colon, Kyle Lohse and Jason Jennings.

 

Rogers is behind the times. You can't include Guzman since he's out for the year after surgery. Where's Kevin Hart? I'd have to think he'd be ahead of all of the guys listed. And of all the guys listed as still available on the market, the only one that might interest me is Hernandez, and he'd be too expensive for the value he provides.

 

Rogers did mention Hart...maybe he made an edit. Did anyone else get a little kick out of his potential line-up?

 

I stand corrected. I read the article and he did list him, so my apologies to Rogers for that. But, his line up was rather amusing. Heck, why stop at 6th for Lee. Why not just imagine him in the 8 hole? :roll:

[ConstableRabbit]

Rogers did mention Hart...maybe he made an edit. Did anyone else get a little kick out of his potential line-up?

Derrek Lee batting 6th? Soriano 3rd? Ew.

[umpunk]

Regardless if he comes here or not, I personally believe NSB should rename this board the "Brian Roberts' Transactions Message Board" in honor of this thread - which is equal parts informative, mind numbing, and laughable.

[ThePenguin11]

While I agree that I'd rather have the better second baseman than the better "leadoff hitter", leadoff is not artificial.

 

It may be a real thing, but it's value is artificially inflated. Guys who "can leadoff" are given greater market value, for no good reason. Roberts' value lies in his production numbers, not in his supposed ability to hit leadoff. There's nothing wrong with going after a player like Roberts, there is something wrong with going after a guy like Roberts because he can leadoff and thus paying a premium for that arbitrary qualification.

 

I think people overstate the fact that a leadoff hitter only leads off once and forget the fact that he always bats before a teams heart of the order (unless the inning starts with the 2-3-4-5 hitters). What's lost on the whole lineup discussion is that your leadoff hitter and your 2-hitter are table-setters for your heart-of-the-order hitters. If lineup position was completely irrelevant, your best power hitters would not bat 3-4-5, they would be 1 or 2 or whereever (Soriano's ridiculous wishes excluded). Maybe, for semantics sake, we should call the leadoff hitter the: "sometimes-top-of-the-order, but-usually-table-setter-for-the-heart-of-the-order-guy". Maybe we'll need an acronym. STOTOBUTSFTHOTOG?

[Dr. Cub]

But theyre not, this board needs to realize this. Marshall and Gallagher in the rotation together at the same time, is in fact worse than Dempster and Marquis. Good lord at some of you people.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Yes, people on this board need to take the blue tinted sunglasses off and realize this deal is a steal for us. We getting one of the best leadoff men in baseball, an all-star and another great club house guy for pretty much nothing. You guys are blowing your loads over the 2 pitching prospects that have showed us NOTHING.

 

You really have no business making this claim.

 

Sean Marshall had a 119 ERA+ last year. That is a quantifiable "thing"... not a no"thing"

 

 

I'm not a big fan of the trade, but Marshall had a 5.84 K/9 last year, Demp a 7.43. That surely isn't a conclusive stat by any means, but I think it hints at Marshall not being able to sustain any real success in the majors. I just don't believe in his ability at this level.

[BigbadB]

I think people overstate the fact that a leadoff hitter only leads off once and forget the fact that he always bats before a teams heart of the order (unless the inning starts with the 3-4-5 hitters). What's lost on the whole lineup discussion is that your leadoff hitter and your 2-hitter are table-setters for your heart-of-the-order hitters. If lineup position was completely irrelevant, your best power hitters would not bat 3-4-5, they would be 1 or 2 or whereever (Soriano's ridiculous wishes excluded). Maybe, for semantics sake, we should call the leadoff hitter the: "sometimes-top-of-the-order, but-usually-table-setter-for-the-heart-of-the-order-guy". Maybe we'll need an acronym. STOTOBUTSFTHOTOG?

 

Not a bad argument, but I still see nothing wrong with Soriano leading off. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if a really good hitter is batting lead off. The lead off hitter doesn't have to be just a table setter. Soriano has had 100 RBI seasons as a lead off hitter. If you have solid hitters throughout the line up, everyone can expect a boost in overall production, because the whole team will see more at bats over the course of a season, because more runs are scoring and more guys are getting on base.

 

Soriano was productive as the lead off hitter last year.

[Ryno12]

While I agree that I'd rather have the better second baseman than the better "leadoff hitter", leadoff is not artificial.

 

It may be a real thing, but it's value is artificially inflated. Guys who "can leadoff" are given greater market value, for no good reason. Roberts' value lies in his production numbers, not in his supposed ability to hit leadoff. There's nothing wrong with going after a player like Roberts, there is something wrong with going after a guy like Roberts because he can leadoff and thus paying a premium for that arbitrary qualification.

 

I think people overstate the fact that a leadoff hitter only leads off once and forget the fact that he always bats before a teams heart of the order (unless the inning starts with the 3-4-5 hitters). What's lost on the whole lineup discussion is that your leadoff hitter and your 2-hitter are table-setters for your heart-of-the-order hitters. If lineup position was completely irrelevant, your best power hitters would not bat 3-4-5, they would be 1 or 2 or whereever (Soriano's ridiculous wishes excluded). Maybe, for semantics sake, we should call the leadoff hitter the: "sometimes-top-of-the-order, but-usually-table-setter-for-the-heart-of-the-order-guy". Maybe we'll need an acronym. STOTOBUTSFTHOTOG?

 

Exactly, leadoff hitter is an arbitrary title, however, the fact remains that you want guys on base when your best hitters come to the plate. Therefore, since your best hitters generally hit 3-4-5, it make sense to put high OBP guys in front of them at the top of the order.

 

That being said, guys like Brian Roberts should be valued for getting on base, along with his other attributes (speed, decent power, good defense), instead of for just being a leadoff hitter. However, it is those skills that make people call him "a legitimate leadoff hitter" that make him valuable.

[YearofDaCubs]

If we really do trade for Roberts I'd rather see Roberts leadoff then at the very least move Soriano to 2nd. That makes a lot more sense than having Soriano leadoff and Roberts 2nd, even though we all know Soriano would be better as our 5th hitter.

[ThePenguin11]

I think people overstate the fact that a leadoff hitter only leads off once and forget the fact that he always bats before a teams heart of the order (unless the inning starts with the 3-4-5 hitters). What's lost on the whole lineup discussion is that your leadoff hitter and your 2-hitter are table-setters for your heart-of-the-order hitters. If lineup position was completely irrelevant, your best power hitters would not bat 3-4-5, they would be 1 or 2 or whereever (Soriano's ridiculous wishes excluded). Maybe, for semantics sake, we should call the leadoff hitter the: "sometimes-top-of-the-order, but-usually-table-setter-for-the-heart-of-the-order-guy". Maybe we'll need an acronym. STOTOBUTSFTHOTOG?

 

Not a bad argument, but I still see nothing wrong with Soriano leading off. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if a really good hitter is batting lead off. The lead off hitter doesn't have to be just a table setter. Soriano has had 100 RBI seasons as a lead off hitter. If you have solid hitters throughout the line up, everyone can expect a boost in overall production, because the whole team will see more at bats over the course of a season, because more runs are scoring and more guys are getting on base.

 

Soriano was productive as the lead off hitter last year.

 

I can't really argue with that. I guess having a great 1-8 lineup is going to yeild great results regardless. Let's hope we can at least get a great 1-7 or even 1-6 hitters. The jury will still be out on Soto and Theriot for a little while.

[fromthestretch]

I'm not a big fan of the trade, but Marshall had a 5.84 K/9 last year, Demp a 7.43. That surely isn't a conclusive stat by any means, but I think it hints at Marshall not being able to sustain any real success in the majors. I just don't believe in his ability at this level.

 

Dempster's career numbers as a starter:

 

988.2 IP

4.99 ERA

1.57 WHIP

.808 Opponent's OPS

1.11 HR/9

4.71 BB/9

9.39 H/9

 

There is nothing in there that gives me any faith that he'll do anything good as a starter.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I'm not a big fan of the trade, but Marshall had a 5.84 K/9 last year, Demp a 7.43. That surely isn't a conclusive stat by any means, but I think it hints at Marshall not being able to sustain any real success in the majors. I just don't believe in his ability at this level.

 

Dempster's career numbers as a starter:

 

988.2 IP

4.99 ERA

1.57 WHIP

.808 Opponent's OPS

1.11 HR/9

4.71 BB/9

9.39 H/9

 

There is nothing in there that gives me any faith that he'll do anything good as a starter.

he'll be really good at sucking

[DenverCubs]

I'm not a big fan of the trade, but Marshall had a 5.84 K/9 last year, Demp a 7.43. That surely isn't a conclusive stat by any means, but I think it hints at Marshall not being able to sustain any real success in the majors. I just don't believe in his ability at this level.

 

Dempster's career numbers as a starter:

 

988.2 IP

4.99 ERA

1.57 WHIP

.808 Opponent's OPS

1.11 HR/9

4.71 BB/9

9.39 H/9

 

There is nothing in there that gives me any faith that he'll do anything good as a starter.

he'll be really good at sucking

If we time his starts right, the Central might score enough runs to not be the laughing stock of baseball anymore.

[fromthestretch]

I'm not a big fan of the trade, but Marshall had a 5.84 K/9 last year, Demp a 7.43. That surely isn't a conclusive stat by any means, but I think it hints at Marshall not being able to sustain any real success in the majors. I just don't believe in his ability at this level.

 

Dempster's career numbers as a starter:

 

988.2 IP

4.99 ERA

1.57 WHIP

.808 Opponent's OPS

1.11 HR/9

4.71 BB/9

9.39 H/9

 

There is nothing in there that gives me any faith that he'll do anything good as a starter.

he'll be really good at sucking

 

Ah yes. I did overlook that.