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

[BudHouse]

I believe this discussion is quite relevant, Tim. The Hendry regime has been quite awful. Hendry has overall approval of the draft, so he OK'ed these players selected. Plus, he hired these organizational people who conducted the draft and their minor league development. The Cubs have had high picks in the draft and they have not worked out. Hendry can't skate on this.

 

We haven't developed a quality everyday player in more than 10 years-that's terrible. We keep the same old philosophy and with the same old results.

[Outshined_One]

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.

 

It also depends on which side of things you're looking at. In terms of pitchers, the Cubs have done an outstanding job of spotting and developing pitching prospects. When it comes to hitting prospects, the Cubs have done pretty poorly.

[Shilzzz]

It will be a mistake to get rid of Gallagher. I just have an odd feeling about it.

[17 Seconds]

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.

 

Huh? That's not even close to the same thing. The fact that they're arguably our 3 best pitching prospects is extremely relevant. That means we're going up our 3 most valuable trading assets (pitching wise) in one trade. How can you possibly compare those 2 things?

[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.

 

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.

Well, I like Von Joshua and Gerald Perry quite a bit. Now we just have to improve our development going down from there.

[Guest]

I believe this discussion is quite relevant, Tim. The Hendry regime has been quite awful. Hendry has overall approval of the draft, so he OK'ed these players selected. Plus, he hired these organizational people who conducted the draft and their minor league development. The Cubs have had high picks in the draft and they have not worked out. Hendry can't skate on this.

 

We haven't developed a quality everyday player in more than 10 years-that's terrible. We keep the same old philosophy and with the same old results.

I said:

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.

How is my statement that everything prior to 2000 is irrelevant wrong?

 

I'm not going to defend our track record on developing hitters over the past 10 years - it's not possible. However, listing every 1st round pick since 1965 is most certainly not relevant to the discussion.

[Guest]

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.

 

Huh? That's not even close to the same thing. The fact that they're arguably our 3 best pitching prospects is extremely relevant. That means we're going up our 3 most valuable trading assets (pitching wise) in one trade. How can you possibly compare those 2 things?

Each point of view has some merit. Each has an absolute value associated with them as prospects that is independent of organization. That means they will only bring so much value whether it is used now or later.

 

However, being three of our more valuable trading chips means that by giving up those three right now, we are leaving the cupboard a bit bare for later moves.

[17 Seconds]

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.

 

Huh? That's not even close to the same thing. The fact that they're arguably our 3 best pitching prospects is extremely relevant. That means we're going up our 3 most valuable trading assets (pitching wise) in one trade. How can you possibly compare those 2 things?

Each point of view has some merit. Each has an absolute value associated with them as prospects that is independent of organization. That means they will only bring so much value whether it is used now or later.

 

However, being three of our more valuable trading chips means that by giving up those three right now, we are leaving the cupboard a bit bare for later moves.

 

That's what I'm saying. I'm not using the "they're out 3 best pitching prospects" argument to validate their worth (as he was doing by saying Roberts is an all-star). I was saying it because they are our 3 best trading assets (pitching wise), which is extremely relevant. Even if you think those 3 guys suck, they're still our 3 best assets.

[Backtobanks]

I believe this discussion is quite relevant, Tim. The Hendry regime has been quite awful. Hendry has overall approval of the draft, so he OK'ed these players selected. Plus, he hired these organizational people who conducted the draft and their minor league development. The Cubs have had high picks in the draft and they have not worked out. Hendry can't skate on this.

 

We haven't developed a quality everyday player in more than 10 years-that's terrible. We keep the same old philosophy and with the same old results.

I said:

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.

How is my statement that everything prior to 2000 is irrelevant wrong?

 

I'm not going to defend our track record on developing hitters over the past 10 years - it's not possible. However, listing every 1st round pick since 1965 is most certainly not relevant to the discussion.

 

You can use the 1st round draft picks in the 1965-1980 to trade to the Giants or send to the Reds (Dusty will find a place for them).

[mul21]

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.

 

You can't pull fat.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's what I'm saying. I'm not using the "they're out 3 best pitching prospects" argument to validate their worth (as he was doing by saying Roberts is an all-star). I was saying it because they are our 3 best trading assets (pitching wise), which is extremely relevant. Even if you think those 3 guys suck, they're still our 3 best assets.

 

Right now. But whose to say they will be valued as high in July? And who is to say there will be something out there we'd rather have in July? I don't like waiting until the deadline to make your moves. I want the best team possible ASAP. I'm not dying to trade these guys, but their value is not guaranteed over time. I don't see any realistic deals on the horizon that they would be better used for. Is there going to be some solid SS, or ace starter that comes available to fill the needs? And would those guys be the difference in getting it done?

 

Possibly. But we don't know. And what we do know (or think) is that these guys could get the Cubs a very good offensive player now - something they definitely need.

[RedFlash]

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

 

I got the feeling that Veal/Ceda is the 2008 versions of Felix Sanchez/Francis Beltran. If that is the case, then move them now before people get wise.

[Tyrant]

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?

 

a) No

b) Because Cedeno sucks at baseball, and Ceda and Veal can't throw strikes.

[Elrhino]

I love how "All Star" is a meaningless term, but we can freely use terms like "Top Pitching Prospects" like it has any relevant meaning. It doesn't enhance your value any because you're the "top pitching prospect" in a minor league system void of pitching talent at the moment.

 

Also, when did people completely start throwing out the concepts of OBP and sample sizes? Because DeRosa had one good healthy year in his career, we can count on him reproducing the exact same production in 2008, therefore Roberts is at best a minimal upgrade?

Edited March 14, 2008 by Elrhino

[Electron Blue]

Three of those players are three of their top pitching prospects.

 

I love how "All Star" is a meaningless term, but we can freely use terms like "Top Pitching Prospects" like it has any relevant meaning. It doesn't enhance your value any because you're the "top pitching prospect" in a minor league system void of pitching talent at the moment.

 

lol, not a bad point. Not completely comparable though. As I think Tim mentioned, it is important to note that these are 3 of our top prospects since it is relative to our amount and depth of trading chips. Being a all-star on the other hand means nothing without looking at the stats (for at least that year) and if he was a "pity participant."

[17 Seconds]

I agree with the sentiment that "Top Pitching Prospects" is every bit a meaningless label as "All Star". It doesn't enhance your value any because you're the "top pitching prospect" in a minor league system void of pitching talent at the moment.

 

Ugh, you're completely missing the point. I don't think anybody used the term "top pitching prospect" to make it sound like that player has more value. It's relevant because if they are our top 3 pitching prospects, then that means they are our 3 most valuable trading assets and it's not a good idea to just toss them away like it's nothing.

[17 Seconds]

Oh, and for the record, Derosa has had 2 straight good years.

[jersey cubs fan]

Oh, and for the record, Derosa has had 2 straight good years.

 

Yep. Although he's yet to ever exceed 575 PA in a season, and has never been an everyday second baseman or starter. Plus, he's 33, not old, but old enough that a step back could be possible.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I was probably being too generalistic, I know a lot of you have lived the pain. :) The ones calling for a a walk away from the table were the ones I was referring to.

 

 

I remember 1984. I was 11 that summer. I was just beginning to enjoy baseball as a spectator and the Cubs were my favorite team.

 

In 1989, I was in my senior year in high school. My girlfriend at the time didn't comprehend why I was so pissed off.

 

I'm seen it all, and yet, I still wouldn't make the deal for Roberts if the cost is Gallagher, Cedeno, Veal, and Ceda. Roberts isn't that much better than DeRosa. Is he better? Certainly. But not so much that I'd be willing to pay that price.

 

As constructed, we likely have the best team in the division. At the very least, we'll be good enough to stay close.

 

If 2b is a weak spot, revisit this at the deadline. At that point, we may need something other than Roberts. If that's the price we have to pay for what is obviously the missing piece at the deadline, the so be it. But, right now, I'm not convinced that's what we must pay or should pay considering second base isn't a hole for us.

[17 Seconds]

Oh, and for the record, Derosa has had 2 straight good years.

 

Yep. Although he's yet to ever exceed 575 PA in a season, and has never been an everyday second baseman or starter. Plus, he's 33, not old, but old enough that a step back could be possible.

 

It's possible, but what he said was complately innacurate. He's had 2 straight good years. Those were his only 2 full years also, so it could very well be that he's one of those guys that needs to play every day to hit.

[jersey cubs fan]

Oh, and for the record, Derosa has had 2 straight good years.

 

Yep. Although he's yet to ever exceed 575 PA in a season, and has never been an everyday second baseman or starter. Plus, he's 33, not old, but old enough that a step back could be possible.

 

It's possible, but what he said was complately innacurate. He's had 2 straight good years. Those were his only 2 full years also, so it could very well be that he's one of those guys that needs to play every day to hit.

 

But he didn't actually play a full year in either of those two seasons. He's never been an everyday guy. Perhaps he actually needs rest to stay solid. And really, that's all he is, solid, nothing more. He's far from irreplacable.

 

A starting SS would be much more palatable. I would love to have a real starting SS. However, I don't think the Cubs have any interest in improving there, and I don't think there's a realistic chance they can/will improve there. So I'll take my upgrades where I can get them. Not at any cost, but the names being throw around are within the reasonable range of negotiation.

[Chocolate Milk]

it's not a good idea to just toss them away like it's nothing.

Is that what's happening here?

[ctcf]

it's not a good idea to just toss them away like it's nothing.

Is that what's happening here?

 

Yea come on. While the deal may be lopsided a little, you're getting Roberts in return. Thats hardly "throwing away".

[Backtobanks]

We can argue about giving up our 3 top pitching prospects for Roberts, but that won't upset me half as much as giving up any pitching in this deal:

 

Cubs Still Talking To Rangers About Byrd

MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan writes today that the Cubs' talks for Marlon Byrd still have some life. Not much has changed - the Cubs would give up Matt Murton, but the Rangers want young pitching.

[JGalt73]

Ken Rosenthal[/url]"]Orioles second baseman Brian Roberts remains a much higher priority for the Cubs than Red Sox center fielder Coco Crisp. Trading for both would result in too large a payroll increase, even if the Cubs found a taker for right-hander Jason Marquis. Roberts and Crisp will earn a combined $24.8 million over the next two seasons, or $8.55 million more than Marquis.

 

The Cubs' minor leaguers begin playing games on Friday, and the Orioles want time to see them before reviving the Roberts talks. Crisp, meanwhile, can't be moved until he recovers from a groin injury. And frankly, he doesn't make much sense for the Cubs at all.