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

[MADD_DOG_31]

Ugh. The Sun-Times says the Cubs have an offer of Gallagher/Ceda/Veal/Cedeno on the table.

 

IF this is true, then

 

a)Hendry is a complete moron, and

b)Why hasn't this been accepted yet?

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/842384,CST-SPT-brian14.article

 

just do it and get it done....its basically roberts for gallagher from what ive seen and ive seen veal and ceda at least 10 times a piece....both have live arms but cant throw strikes nor do they have any major league pitches besides a fastball....cedeno is nothing more than a reserve....gally could be a 4 or 5 and maybe even a #3 in the future but i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B

 

just my .02

[MADD_DOG_31]

I would make this trade because it makes the end of our bench better. DeRosa would be a GREAT pinch hitter and bench player. He can easily eclipse 400 at bats with some of the fragile pieces of our roster. It will also keep a fringe Dusty Baker type player off the active roster.

 

That sounds like smart baseball to me. Every team trades their three best pitching prospects plus more "to strengthen their bench." I also doubt DeRosa is going to hit 400 ABs.

 

most teams have better pitching prospects tho

[17 Seconds]

Ugh. The Sun-Times says the Cubs have an offer of Gallagher/Ceda/Veal/Cedeno on the table.

 

IF this is true, then

 

a)Hendry is a complete moron, and

b)Why hasn't this been accepted yet?

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/842384,CST-SPT-brian14.article

 

i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B

 

Mark Loretta is an all-star 2B. Do you want him to?

[MADD_DOG_31]

Ugh. The Sun-Times says the Cubs have an offer of Gallagher/Ceda/Veal/Cedeno on the table.

 

IF this is true, then

 

a)Hendry is a complete moron, and

b)Why hasn't this been accepted yet?

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/842384,CST-SPT-brian14.article

 

i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B

 

Mark Loretta is an all-star 2B. Do you want him to?

 

not a good comparison....loretta is almost 40

[Post Count Padder]

Ugh. The Sun-Times says the Cubs have an offer of Gallagher/Ceda/Veal/Cedeno on the table.

 

IF this is true, then

 

a)Hendry is a complete moron, and

b)Why hasn't this been accepted yet?

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/842384,CST-SPT-brian14.article

 

i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B

 

Mark Loretta is an all-star 2B. Do you want him to?

Wasn't Neifi an All-Star?

[17 Seconds]

Ugh. The Sun-Times says the Cubs have an offer of Gallagher/Ceda/Veal/Cedeno on the table.

 

IF this is true, then

 

a)Hendry is a complete moron, and

b)Why hasn't this been accepted yet?

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/842384,CST-SPT-brian14.article

 

i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B

 

Mark Loretta is an all-star 2B. Do you want him to?

 

not a good comparison....loretta is almost 40

 

You're missing the point. I'm not saying Loretta is as good as Roberts. I'm just sick of people using the "all-star" thing to validate the Roberts trade. We get it, he's good. Pointing out that he's an all-star just makes you look desperate. Being an all-star is meaningless when looking at trades. Absolutely meaningless.

[shnsajax]

Ugh. The Sun-Times says the Cubs have an offer of Gallagher/Ceda/Veal/Cedeno on the table.

 

IF this is true, then

 

a)Hendry is a complete moron, and

b)Why hasn't this been accepted yet?

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/842384,CST-SPT-brian14.article

 

i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B

 

Mark Loretta is an all-star 2B. Do you want him to?

 

not a good comparison....loretta is almost 40

 

You're missing the point. I'm not saying Loretta is as good as Roberts. I'm just sick of people using the "all-star" thing to validate the Roberts trade. We get it, he's good. Pointing out that he's an all-star just makes you look desperate. Being an all-star is meaningless when looking at trades. Absolutely meaningless.

 

Especially when its the lone pitty All-Star every team has.

[Post Count Padder]

Ugh. The Sun-Times says the Cubs have an offer of Gallagher/Ceda/Veal/Cedeno on the table.

 

IF this is true, then

 

a)Hendry is a complete moron, and

b)Why hasn't this been accepted yet?

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/842384,CST-SPT-brian14.article

 

i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B

 

Mark Loretta is an all-star 2B. Do you want him to?

 

not a good comparison....loretta is almost 40

 

You're missing the point. I'm not saying Loretta is as good as Roberts. I'm just sick of people using the "all-star" thing to validate the Roberts trade. We get it, he's good. Pointing out that he's an all-star just makes you look desperate. Being an all-star is meaningless when looking at trades. Absolutely meaningless.

 

Especially when its the lone pitty All-Star every team has.

Mark Redman says hi.

[CubColtPacer]

Ugh. The Sun-Times says the Cubs have an offer of Gallagher/Ceda/Veal/Cedeno on the table.

 

IF this is true, then

 

a)Hendry is a complete moron, and

b)Why hasn't this been accepted yet?

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/842384,CST-SPT-brian14.article

 

i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B

 

Mark Loretta is an all-star 2B. Do you want him to?

 

not a good comparison....loretta is almost 40

 

You're missing the point. I'm not saying Loretta is as good as Roberts. I'm just sick of people using the "all-star" thing to validate the Roberts trade. We get it, he's good. Pointing out that he's an all-star just makes you look desperate. Being an all-star is meaningless when looking at trades. Absolutely meaningless.

 

Especially when its the lone pitty All-Star every team has.

 

I agree the all-star moniker is meaningless. Roberts has legitimately made the All-Star team both times though. He would have made it even if he wasn't the Orioles only representative.

[ter]

I get confused easily. :?

 

For years Cub fans complained that Cubs' management places little value on OBP. They just do not realize the importance of getting men on base in order to score more runs.

 

Now they are going after one of the best OBP players and lead off hitters in the game and we say, we are giving up too much>>>>even though none of the players invloved is guaranteed to be a meaningful player on any 25 man roster.

 

The four players that are rumored to be traded are all prospects with the "potential" to be starters on a team. In reality if 1 of the 4 become important to an organization's major league roster, that organization would be very pleased. In the case of Baltimore, I bet if Andy MacPhail was asked if the trade of Tejada, Bedard and Roberts gave him 4, or a maximum of 5, good major league players, he would be thrilled. There are too many unknowns in determining which player or players will be successful. No matter how much data you review or how many times you scout the player, it still is a crap shoot.

 

Yes, there is a lot of potential that the Cubs may be sending to Baltimore but there is no guarantee who will make it and who will not. Meanwhile, the Cubs are guaranteed they will be getting a player who is at the peak of his game, who is one of the best (if not the best) lead-off hitters today and a player that has a history of providing good to excellent OBP with excellent speed.

 

Is there a risk in trading four potential future major leaguers for Roberts? Anyone would obviously have to say "yes" but is a risk that should greatly improve this team's chances to score runs. If there is a chance to get such a player, I say the Cubs would be foolish not to!

[Sammy Sofa]

Stop generalizing like they're only giving up "four position players." Three of those players are three of their top pitching prospects...pitching prospects who very well may be needed given how crappy/old our last two starting pitching spots look this year, or i injuris hit the other starters.

[Burtonbell]

Stop generalizing like they're only giving up "four position players." Three of those players are three of their top pitching prospects...pitching prospects who very well may be needed given how crappy/old our last two starting pitching spots look this year, or injuries hit the other starters.

 

Agreed 100%.

[anabiono]

Stop generalizing like they're only giving up "four position players." Three of those players are three of their top pitching prospects...pitching prospects who very well may be needed given how crappy/old our last two starting pitching spots look this year, or i injuris hit the other starters.

 

dude...it is time to roll the dice

[KingCubsFan]

Stop generalizing like they're only giving up "four position players." Three of those players are three of their top pitching prospects...pitching prospects who very well may be needed given how crappy/old our last two starting pitching spots look this year, or i injuris hit the other starters.

Calling them our three "top" pitching prospects is the same as calling Roberts an "all star." It's all contextual and doesnt' really matter. What matters is how they grade out as prospects. They're only "top" prospects because they're in our system. In reality, none of them are A prospects.

[Sammy Sofa]

Stop generalizing like they're only giving up "four position players." Three of those players are three of their top pitching prospects...pitching prospects who very well may be needed given how crappy/old our last two starting pitching spots look this year, or i injuris hit the other starters.

Calling them our three "top" pitching prospects is the same as calling Roberts an "all star." It's all contextual and doesnt' really matter. What matters is how they grade out as prospects. They're only "top" prospects because they're in our system. In reality, none of them are A prospects.

 

Yeah, but it's all we really have, in terms of prospects potentially able to step in relatively soon OR prospects that are going to hae some trade value. Trading them now on a good player who is arguably very redundant and doesn't address the teams major holes could very easily leave the team damn near crippled if the precarious starting pitching balance falls apart AND if they need to make key trades by the deadline.

[nolanwood]

There's way too much love and overvaluing of our prospects on this board....

 

I don't think we need to be including all three of our top pitching prospects, either. Fortunately, none of those prospects impress me that much anyways.

[Derwood]

i long for the days at cubs.com when the Dynacrats argued with the Nowacans or whatever their stupid nicknames were

[jersey cubs fan]

Stop generalizing like they're only giving up "four position players." Three of those players are three of their top pitching prospects...pitching prospects who very well may be needed given how crappy/old our last two starting pitching spots look this year, or i injuris hit the other starters.

Calling them our three "top" pitching prospects is the same as calling Roberts an "all star." It's all contextual and doesnt' really matter. What matters is how they grade out as prospects. They're only "top" prospects because they're in our system. In reality, none of them are A prospects.

 

Yeah, but it's all we really have, in terms of prospects potentially able to step in relatively soon OR prospects that are going to hae some trade value. Trading them now on a good player who is arguably very redundant and doesn't address the teams major holes could very easily leave the team damn near crippled if the precarious starting pitching balance falls apart AND if they need to make key trades by the deadline.

 

I think the concept that this leaves the cupboard bare is a bit overblown. The Cubs one advantage over most teams remains money. And with money, it is quite possible, and rather easy, to restock a farm quickly.

[KingCubsFan]

Stop generalizing like they're only giving up "four position players." Three of those players are three of their top pitching prospects...pitching prospects who very well may be needed given how crappy/old our last two starting pitching spots look this year, or i injuris hit the other starters.

Calling them our three "top" pitching prospects is the same as calling Roberts an "all star." It's all contextual and doesnt' really matter. What matters is how they grade out as prospects. They're only "top" prospects because they're in our system. In reality, none of them are A prospects.

 

Yeah, but it's all we really have, in terms of prospects potentially able to step in relatively soon OR prospects that are going to hae some trade value. Trading them now on a good player who is arguably very redundant and doesn't address the teams major holes could very easily leave the team damn near crippled if the precarious starting pitching balance falls apart AND if they need to make key trades by the deadline.

 

I think the concept that this leaves the cupboard bare is a bit overblown. The Cubs one advantage over most teams remains money. And with money, it is quite possible, and rather easy, to restock a farm quickly.

I'm not worried about restocking the farm system. I don't think any of those prospects are particuarly that good (Gallagher is pretty good, but I think a bit overrated on this board). But they are all close to the majors, and when Dempster inevitably sucks, and Lieber goes down, we're not going to have a lot of SP depth.

[YearofDaCubs]

Stop generalizing like they're only giving up "four position players." Three of those players are three of their top pitching prospects...pitching prospects who very well may be needed given how crappy/old our last two starting pitching spots look this year, or i injuris hit the other starters.

Calling them our three "top" pitching prospects is the same as calling Roberts an "all star." It's all contextual and doesnt' really matter. What matters is how they grade out as prospects. They're only "top" prospects because they're in our system. In reality, none of them are A prospects.

 

Yeah, but it's all we really have, in terms of prospects potentially able to step in relatively soon OR prospects that are going to hae some trade value. Trading them now on a good player who is arguably very redundant and doesn't address the teams major holes could very easily leave the team damn near crippled if the precarious starting pitching balance falls apart AND if they need to make key trades by the deadline.

 

I think the concept that this leaves the cupboard bare is a bit overblown. The Cubs one advantage over most teams remains money. And with money, it is quite possible, and rather easy, to restock a farm quickly.

I'm not worried about restocking the farm system. I don't think any of those prospects are particuarly that good (Gallagher is pretty good, but I think a bit overrated on this board). But they are all close to the majors, and when Dempster inevitably sucks, and Lieber goes down, we're not going to have a lot of SP depth.

And that's pretty much the biggest reason why I don't want to see Gallagher traded for a 2B when we already have a pretty good one.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not worried about restocking the farm system. I don't think any of those prospects are particuarly that good (Gallagher is pretty good, but I think a bit overrated on this board). But they are all close to the majors, and when Dempster inevitably sucks, and Lieber goes down, we're not going to have a lot of SP depth.

 

If Dempster implodes and Lieber pulls a fat that still leaves the Cubs with the same exact rotation they had last year, Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, Marquis and Marshall. They also have a couple other guys who could probably make some emergency starts and give you typical emergency start type performance.

[ottawacubbie]

Just an unbiased question. I like Roberts, but don't think he helps the Cubs THAT much. However, my question is:

 

When was the last time a Cubs prospect that we drafted turned out to be ANYTHING more than a mediocre bench player or a flash in the pan? When was the last time a player camu up through the farm system and amounted to anything? I am hoping for Soto and it seems like maybe: however, at this point it is still a maybe.

 

Zambrano?

 

 

If we can develop a player every 11-12 years are our prospects worth that much?

 

 

In terms of first round picks we haven't seen much:

 

Year--Player--Pick No.

2006--Tyler Colvin, LF--13

2005--Mark Pawelek, lhp--20

2003--Ryan Harvey, cf--6

2002--Bobby Brownlie, rhp--21

2001--Mark Prior, rhp--2 (could turn things around)

2000--Luis Montanez, ss--3

1999--Ben Christensen, rhp--26

1998--Corey Patterson, of--3

1997--Jon Garland, rhp--10

1996--Todd Noel, rhp--17

1995--Kerry Wood, rhp--4 (still in progress)

1994--Jayson Peterson, rhp--15

1993--Brooks Kieschnick, of--10

1993--Jon Ratliff, rhp--24

1993--Kevin Orie, ss--29

1992--Derek Wallace, rhp--11

1991--Doug Glanville, of--12 (played for a while at least)

1990--Lance Dickson, lhp--23

1989--Earl Cunningham, of--8

1988--Ty Griffin, 2b--9

1987--Mike Harkey, rhp--4

1986--Derrick May, of--9

1985--Rafael Palmeiro, 1b--22 ; Dave Masters, rhp--24

1984--Drew Hall, lhp--3

1983--Jackie Davidson, rhp--6

1982--Shawon Dunston, ss--1 ; Tony Woods, ss--17 ; Stan Boderick, of--27

1981--Joe Carter, of--2

1980--Don Schulze, rhp--11

1979--Jon Perlman, rhp--12

1978--Bill Hayes, c--13

1977--Randy Martz, rhp--12

1976--Herman Segelke, rhp--7

1975--Brian Rosinski, of--4

1974--Scot Thompson, of--7

1973--Jerry Tabb, 1b--16

1972--Brian Vernoy, p--15

1971--Jeff Wehmeier, p--16

1970--Gene Hisler, of--19

1969--Roger Metzger, ss--16

1968--Ralph Rickey, of--15

1967--Terry Hughes, ss--2

1966--Dean Burk, rhp--5

1965--Dick James, rhp--6

 

Who am I forgetting?

[Guest]

Everything prior to 2000 is completely irrelevant to the discussion. different people doing the drafting, different people doing the developing. Heck, a strong argument could be made that anything prior to about 2005 or 2006 is irrelevant for the same reason.

 

But if you're looking for additional picks, there's quite a few out there in later rounds that have turned out pretty good. In fact, I seem to remember a BA or BP study that showed the Cubs farm system to have been one of the top 5 most productive over the last decade.

[ottawacubbie]

Everything prior to 2000 is completely irrelevant to the discussion. different people doing the drafting, different people doing the developing. Heck, a strong argument could be made that anything prior to about 2005 or 2006 is irrelevant for the same reason.

 

But if you're looking for additional picks, there's quite a few out there in later rounds that have turned out pretty good. In fact, I seem to remember a BA or BP study that showed the Cubs farm system to have been one of the top 5 most productive over the last decade.

 

That is a good point, however, I really wonder if the Cubs current structure is set up to develop talent. I don't have anything to back that up, but it seems although we are destined to aquire our most productive players via trades and free agency.

 

The two main problems in my opinion since becoming a Cubs fan in 2002 (I cheered for the Expos until MLB took ownership). Integrating prospects productivly and maintaining the health of pitchers. Then again coming from the Expos they would field a team of prospects and couldn't keep their positional players healthy on the artificial turf.

[Post Count Padder]

That list makes me sad.