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

[craig]

I strongly doubt that the Cubs are much interested in Cabrera. Even more so that we'd be even faintly interested in sacrificing Colvin to get him. That's not us, I don't think.

[Post Count Padder]

One interesting point to mention. One of the people on our favorite Orioles website mentioned this. He is not one of the 3 insiders I'm aware of, but he mentioned that he exchanged some emails, presumably with someone in the know:

 

There is a good likelihood one or two deals may happen in the next few days. One of the key players currently on the Orioles has requested through his agent that something gets done soon to end the drama.

 

Roberts?

 

Whether you like him or not...one team has offered a highly regarded hitter drafted in 2006 for Daniel Cabrera. I was told that deal appears unlikely because they think Cabrera still can be a very dominant pitcher if the light comes on.

 

Could that hitter be Tyler Colvin? Could the Cubs be trying to go after Roberts + Cabrera? Just pure speculation on my part, but it's been really slow here lately, so I want something to talk about.

I just want something to happen. I'm bored.

[swordsman]

One interesting point to mention. One of the people on our favorite Orioles website mentioned this. He is not one of the 3 insiders I'm aware of, but he mentioned that he exchanged some emails, presumably with someone in the know:

 

There is a good likelihood one or two deals may happen in the next few days. One of the key players currently on the Orioles has requested through his agent that something gets done soon to end the drama.

 

Roberts?

 

Whether you like him or not...one team has offered a highly regarded hitter drafted in 2006 for Daniel Cabrera. I was told that deal appears unlikely because they think Cabrera still can be a very dominant pitcher if the light comes on.

 

Could that hitter be Tyler Colvin? Could the Cubs be trying to go after Roberts + Cabrera? Just pure speculation on my part, but it's been really slow here lately, so I want something to talk about.

I just want something to happen. I'm bored.

1

 

Be careful what you wish for...

 

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/8595/perezhp7.jpg

[RammyFanny]

One interesting point to mention. One of the people on our favorite Orioles website mentioned this. He is not one of the 3 insiders I'm aware of, but he mentioned that he exchanged some emails, presumably with someone in the know:

There is a good likelihood one or two deals may happen in the next few days. One of the key players currently on the Orioles has requested through his agent that something gets done soon to end the drama.

 

Roberts?

 

Whether you like him or not...one team has offered a highly regarded hitter drafted in 2006 for Daniel Cabrera. I was told that deal appears unlikely because they think Cabrera still can be a very dominant pitcher if the light comes on.

 

Could that hitter be Tyler Colvin? Could the Cubs be trying to go after Roberts + Cabrera? Just pure speculation on my part, but it's been really slow here lately, so I want something to talk about.

 

Sonny is legit. The insiders are Peace21, Belkast, BigBird, Sonny, and DiggetyDon, though he rarely posts anything. Peace is the one who called the Tejada trade that morning, at least 3 or 4 hours before any media picked it up, and named the exact players.

[nilodnayr]

I strongly doubt that the Cubs are much interested in Cabrera. Even more so that we'd be even faintly interested in sacrificing Colvin to get him. That's not us, I don't think.

 

I agree with the Colvin part, but high K high BB is right up the cubs alley. I would think they would be quite interested in Cabrera, but I agree, they seem to be really in love with Colvin and I can't see them dealing him.

[badnews]

Does anyone think these proposals are a rip-off for the Cubs? What was that one I just read, Sean Gallagher, Eric Patterson, and two more prospects for Brian Roberts? Heck, why don't we just throw $20 million into the deal.

 

I'd like to know why we should give up anything close to equal value as to what the Tigers gave up to Renteria. Hey, I wasn't a fan of getting Renteria, but I didn't know we'd be seeing these proposals for Roberts either.

 

Let's see, Renteria has better rate numbers than Roberts in each of the past two years. Renteria plays a position of *much* more value, one a lot more difficult to fill with offense and defense than Roberts' position. Oh yes, Renteria also doesn't have a cloud of steroids hanging over him.

 

I prefer Gallagher to Jurrjens, though Gallagher doesn't blow Jurrjens out of the water. Add that mismatch in with Eric Patterson and two other prospects, who unless they are Jamal Spearman and Jesse Estrada, probably through sheer numbers equal the value of Gorkys Hernandez, and you have the makings of a deal that looks like it stinks.

[St.Paul Cub]

Agreed. I have a feeling a deal for Roberts is going to look like the Pierre deal.

[craig]

Agreed. I have a feeling a deal for Roberts is going to look like the Pierre deal.

 

Nolasco had a 5+ ERA this year, Mitre 4.65, in a pitcher's park. Pinto was actually the best of the three, and with his 1.31 WHIP and 7 HR/48 innings he wasn't all that hot either. Pierre was turned into Donaldson. Unclear how he'll turn out, but he's got a chance to be better than any of Nolasco, Mitre, or Pinto. At present, I don't think I'd trade him for any of those three. And if I had those three back, not sure I'd have any but Pinto very safe to make our roster.

 

I'm not trying to argue that Pierre was a good trade. But I think it may have a reputation for being legendarily bad, and the legend may be much darker than the reality. Especially considering Donaldson.

 

On reputed Roberts deal, none such has happened. I haven't heard much about 4 prospects being involved. But if adding in Jake Fox is the extra piece that gets you a guy you want, I don't object to adding in Fox. I could care less. Who cares if you add in an AAA DH/1B who can't field and isn't a good enough offensive player to help an NL team with Lee and Ward at 1B already anyway.

 

There is a general trade principle: more often than not, the team that gets the best player ends up being the happiest. If you make the trade and Gallagher ends up better than Roberts, it's likely to go down as a regrettable deal. But if it happens, I doubt we'll be crying over Jake Fox or Eric patterson. I guess I don't see much point in stressing a lot over the possible loss of DH/LFer/1B types like Patterson, Fox, and Murton, given that Lee and Soriano have 1B and LF kind of tied down. Patterson, obviously it's a scouting decision. The majority view isn't always right, of course, so perhaps the majority view that patterson can't play big-league 2B will be proved invalid. But more often than not the majority view is correct. So my guess is that if most scouts don't think Patterson can play 2nd, it's more likely that they are right than that Eric is going to go on to a long and successful career as a big-league 2b.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

A couple miscellaneous points.

 

Renteria is two years older than Roberts, that's a big deal when you're trading for a 31 year old v. a 29 year old. Renteria is 10M this year with a 11M club option for '09, Roberts is 6.3M this year, 8M next year with free agency in '10.

 

Regardless of Mitre, Nolasco, and Pinto's performance after the trade, they had significantly more value than Pierre when the deal was made. It was an epically bad deal.

[badnews]

That really seems like splitting hairs to me. A few million and 2 years of age (I see people referring to Brian Roberts stealing bases for Alfonso Soriano because he's getting older and "slowing down," how old do most people think Roberts is, anyway?), means a lot less to me, and most intelligent organizations I'd suspect, then playing a position of much more value (it's like getting a center fielder over a 3rd baseman or something), producing more, and not having the ugly steroids stigma.

 

I know we all want to pretend that Roberts admitting to steroids and suddenly breaking out after years of mediocrity in 2005 means nothing. Maybe it does mean nothing. If he was a Cardinal though I wouldn't be inclined to cut him the benefit of the doubt. But here we do. We're paying for him like this steroids thing never happened. Do you think that would happen if he were a Cub? No, we'd probably have to sell for 50 cents on the dollar.

 

Oh well. Maybe it's worth it to quiet people about leadoff men and stealing bases and blah blah blah. But the costlier proposals mentioned on here look like we're getting rooked.

[Soul]

I'm still not convinced Roberts won't simply suck post-Mitchell report. What assurances do we have that he isn't the product of PEDs? His word?

 

And we're going to give up the farm for this guy?

 

Why?

 

 

I wouldn't be upset if this thing simply dies a quiet death.

[CubColtPacer]

I'm still not convinced Roberts won't simply suck post-Mitchell report. What assurances do we have that he isn't the product of PEDs? His word?

 

And we're going to give up the farm for this guy?

 

Why?

 

 

I wouldn't be upset if this thing simply dies a quiet death.

 

His word is the thing that landed him on the Mitchell report in the first place. What reason would he have to lie to his friend that he tried them once and then stopped? I can understand why he would lie to the press, but he told another ballplayer that he had stopped them back in 2004. If he wanted to lie, he didn't have to admit to the guy that he used steroids at all.

 

It seems likely that whatever his other faults, right now it is only reasonable to believe Roberts at his word that he stopped taking steroids several years ago. The evidence doesn't make sense if you believe he's lying.

[TheDude]

That really seems like splitting hairs to me. A few million and 2 years of age (I see people referring to Brian Roberts stealing bases for Alfonso Soriano because he's getting older and "slowing down," how old do most people think Roberts is, anyway?), means a lot less to me, and most intelligent organizations I'd suspect, then playing a position of much more value (it's like getting a center fielder over a 3rd baseman or something), producing more, and not having the ugly steroids stigma.

 

It's hard to believe you would suppose to speak for 'intelligent organizations', but it's likely you're suspecting wrong. The 'ugly' steriods stigma is irrelevant, as these ballplayers are still getting market value deals and offers from more than one team. The age bell curve in a non-steriods, non-HGH environment is entirely relevant, and of great consideration in evaluation. The only catch at this point is baseball isn't HGH-free, so you couldn't rule that out of the analysis. Though I'd think Roberts a grade A moran to be on HGH right now. Renteria is unknown.

 

If we can presume a non-drug environment, the top of that curve is age 27/28, and so getting the player closer to that apex matters. The drop-off into the early 30s is noticeable and significant. Only the 'freakish' players sustain productivity into the mid-30s and this is demonstrated over decades of data (it's also convenient to the model that many of the 90s/00s labeled 'freakish' guys are now under a cloud of drug suspicion, hinting that perhaps their longevity wasn't natural after all). It's not just conjecture or 'baseball wisdom', it's a straight-up bell curve.

 

You have a point when it comes to position of value, but for whatever reason, by all appearances, Hendry is sold is on Theriot at SS, but not DeRosa everyday at 2B. So from his perspective, 2B is the position of need. I don't agree with the perspective necessarily, but through his goggles, your argument doesn't apply. And on top of that, Theriot will be age 28 for the 2008 season, and while he has never had numbers of note at any level, you'd expect those modest numbers to be at career highs next year, which might factor into Hendry's thinking.

[anabiono]

hendry is a moron

 

sorry...

 

i woke up with this on my tongue this morning and i just had to say it

 

:mrgreen:

[RammyFanny]

I'm still not convinced Roberts won't simply suck post-Mitchell report. What assurances do we have that he isn't the product of PEDs? His word?

 

And we're going to give up the farm for this guy?

 

Why?

 

 

I wouldn't be upset if this thing simply dies a quiet death.

Well, he's put up over an .800 OPS since he's stopped, including a .900 OPS season. And you honestly consider "the farm", Gallagher and Ptterson? I don't want to lose Gallagher, but you have to give something to get something. I could really care less about Patterson, considering we have Thomas in the organization who I believe is a better prospect than EPatt anyways. Then it comes down to Murton, who won't get any playingtime whatsoever this year, so it depends on how you perceive his trade value, and the reality is nobody knows. It might not be that much. For a team wanting to win, giving up a grand total of one player who would probably help you next year (Gallagher...and you don't even know how good he'll be) for a legit 2nd baseman who allows less at bats for the rest of our sucky players via DeRosa, I think it's alright, and certainly not giving up the farm. If there's any way to keep Gally, sign me up, but if it hinges on him being the main piece in the deal, i'll still take it.

[Soul]

I'm still not convinced Roberts won't simply suck post-Mitchell report. What assurances do we have that he isn't the product of PEDs? His word?

 

And we're going to give up the farm for this guy?

 

Why?

 

 

I wouldn't be upset if this thing simply dies a quiet death.

 

His word is the thing that landed him on the Mitchell report in the first place. What reason would he have to lie to his friend that he tried them once and then stopped? I can understand why he would lie to the press, but he told another ballplayer that he had stopped them back in 2004. If he wanted to lie, he didn't have to admit to the guy that he used steroids at all.

 

It seems likely that whatever his other faults, right now it is only reasonable to believe Roberts at his word that he stopped taking steroids several years ago. The evidence doesn't make sense if you believe he's lying.

 

What difference does it make if you are lying to a friend or the press? The end goal is the same: to save face by making others believe you stopped when you may actually not have. I don't see how telling it to another ballplayer somehow makes it truthful. I find it far more likely that a guy who used PEDs in the past kept using them, regardless of what he said.

 

Again, though. I'm not condemning the guy. I'm just saying -- he's a known user. That elevates the risk considerably. I don't see any way an argument can be made against that. We're talking about giving up quite a load of prospects right now. Given the guy's past, I don't see why the price isn't now lower.

[Soul]

I'm still not convinced Roberts won't simply suck post-Mitchell report. What assurances do we have that he isn't the product of PEDs? His word?

 

And we're going to give up the farm for this guy?

 

Why?

 

 

I wouldn't be upset if this thing simply dies a quiet death.

Well, he's put up over an .800 OPS since he's stopped, including a .900 OPS season. And you honestly consider "the farm", Gallagher and Ptterson? I don't want to lose Gallagher, but you have to give something to get something. I could really care less about Patterson, considering we have Thomas in the organization who I believe is a better prospect than EPatt anyways. Then it comes down to Murton, who won't get any playingtime whatsoever this year, so it depends on how you perceive his trade value, and the reality is nobody knows. It might not be that much. For a team wanting to win, giving up a grand total of one player who would probably help you next year (Gallagher...and you don't even know how good he'll be) for a legit 2nd baseman who allows less at bats for the rest of our sucky players via DeRosa, I think it's alright, and certainly not giving up the farm. If there's any way to keep Gally, sign me up, but if it hinges on him being the main piece in the deal, i'll still take it.

 

Alright, so I engaged in a little hyperbole. My point is, how can we be sure what we're really getting? And how do we actually know he stopped and got those numbers clean? We don't.

[CubColtPacer]

I'm still not convinced Roberts won't simply suck post-Mitchell report. What assurances do we have that he isn't the product of PEDs? His word?

 

And we're going to give up the farm for this guy?

 

Why?

 

 

I wouldn't be upset if this thing simply dies a quiet death.

 

His word is the thing that landed him on the Mitchell report in the first place. What reason would he have to lie to his friend that he tried them once and then stopped? I can understand why he would lie to the press, but he told another ballplayer that he had stopped them back in 2004. If he wanted to lie, he didn't have to admit to the guy that he used steroids at all.

 

It seems likely that whatever his other faults, right now it is only reasonable to believe Roberts at his word that he stopped taking steroids several years ago. The evidence doesn't make sense if you believe he's lying.

 

What difference does it make if you are lying to a friend or the press? The end goal is the same: to save face by making others believe you stopped when you may actually not have. I don't see how telling it to another ballplayer somehow makes it truthful. I find it far more likely that a guy who used PEDs in the past kept using them, regardless of what he said.

 

Again, though. I'm not condemning the guy. I'm just saying -- he's a known user. That elevates the risk considerably. I don't see any way an argument can be made against that. We're talking about giving up quite a load of prospects right now. Given the guy's past, I don't see why the price isn't now lower.

 

Roberts didn't have to save fact though. There was absolutely no accusation or evidence against him at the time he made his admission. Why would Roberts admit to steroids at all? Why wouldn't he just keep quiet? It doesn't make sense why he would admit something like steroid use in a conversation, and then say he stopped if it was a lie. If he wanted to lie, he could have never brought it up, and nobody would have ever known he took steroids.

 

Plus, the difference between a private and a public conversation is a huge one. He was talking to another steroid user at that time. There was absolutely no pressure of condemnation, and so there was absolutely no need for Roberts to save face.

[craig]

...Maybe it's worth it to quiet people about leadoff men and stealing bases and blah blah blah. But the costlier proposals mentioned on here look like we're getting rooked.

 

Not sure what costlier proposals you've heard, I probably missed them. But the worst one I've seen has been Gallagher, Murton, Patterson, and Fox. That could work out great for O's, were it to happen.

 

To me that looks like Gallagher for Roberts, with three misfits who we won't miss thrown in.

 

I view EPatt as a guy who'se played a handful of games in CF and doesn't have a big arm; I think it's presumptuous to think he's going to be a high-grade CFer. And I think there have been so many negative reports on his 2B defense that my premise is that he's not going to be a quality regular 2B for us. And I'm not assuming the Cubs are dumb or wrong to see it that way. So if he's not viable for 2B, then he has negligible value to me.

 

So I see:

1) Patterson as a DH/OF. Since we don't have DH I wouldn't see trading him as any meaningful loss.

2) Fox is a DH/1B, a hacker whose offense is unlikely to ever be enough to be a regular DH or 1B. And since we don't have DH and Lee is pretty good and entrenched long-term, I don't see giving up Fox as any meaningful loss whatsoever.

3) Murton is LF/DH. We don't have DH, and Soriano is both better and locked in forever. So while I think Murton is likely to become a solid big-league hitter, perhaps a sustainable .800+ OPS guy, he simply isn't going to be as valuable to us as a PH/backup LF as he might be to many other teams, especially AL teams with DH possibilities.

 

So if those three are 3/4 or 2/3 of a trade, I don't see that as being that costly. We won't miss Fox or EPatt, and missing Murton as a PH/backup-LF won't hurt that badly.

 

So to me a package like that looks like Gallagher and 3 won't-be-missed misfits. To me it would pretty much hinge on Gallagher and Roberts, from the Cub view. Those players might well serve some useful function for Baltimore. But for me, it would basically be Roberts for Gallagher, the only other sacrifice being giving up the trade value that Murton has. (Even though he has limited performance value to us with Soriano blocking him, I think he has meaningful value to other teams, particularly AL teams, so I'm not eager to give his trade value away for nothing.)

 

If Gallagher does great, Gallagher for Roberts will be regrettable. If Roberts performs as an asset regular 2B for a while, and Gallagher does not perform as an asset rotation pitcher, then I'd have to say a deal like that would be good for the Cubs. It might be even more advantageous for the Orioles. But I just don't see the cubs future built on Jake Fox at 1B, Eric Patterson in CF, and matt murton as a pinch hitter.

[Elrhino]

Agreed. I have a feeling a deal for Roberts is going to look like the Pierre deal.

 

Three overvalued (by Cub fans) garbage pieces for a bad player? Well, I don't know what assurances we have of Roberts continuing to produce post Mitchell report (other than there's no reliable test for HGH), but he's significantly better than Pierre. However, guys like Eric Patterson and Jake Fox do appear to fit into the overvalued garbage prospects criteria ... and likely Gallagher as well.

[Backtobanks]

I still think the Cubs could use the players mentioned in the Roberts trade to pry loose either Greene from SD or Peralta from Cleveland and have a SS, which is a position of need. Secondly, you don't have the steroid problem hanging over your team. There are a few threads going about trades for these players (some involve 3-way trades) which make better use of our resources (trade bait) than replacing a productive 2B with a slightly more productive 2B.

[TruffleShuffle]

Agreed. I have a feeling a deal for Roberts is going to look like the Pierre deal.

 

Three overvalued (by Cub fans) garbage pieces for a bad player? Well, I don't know what assurances we have of Roberts continuing to produce post Mitchell report (other than there's no reliable test for HGH), but he's significantly better than Pierre. However, guys like Eric Patterson and Jake Fox do appear to fit into the overvalued garbage prospects criteria ... and likely Gallagher as well.

 

i'm sure some people said that about the guys they gave up in the pierre deal as well

[JeffH]

I still think the Cubs could use the players mentioned in the Roberts trade to pry loose either Greene from SD or Peralta from Cleveland

 

In the extremely unlikely event you can make that happen, do it.

[CubColtPacer]

I still think the Cubs could use the players mentioned in the Roberts trade to pry loose either Greene from SD or Peralta from Cleveland

 

In the extremely unlikely event you can make that happen, do it.

 

That's about the way I feel. Of course I'd love to have Greene or Peralta more than Roberts. San Diego and Cleveland are going to demand a lot more talent than what is being offered in the Roberts deal though. The only reason the Cubs can get Roberts for that price is that Baltimore can afford to play all 3 players and see if they develop. That adds value to all of them, while in San Diego and Cleveland they'd be role players and only 1-2 of them might have a chance to develop.

[wrigley23]

Greene is a strikeout machine & beyond that, we are in dire need of players that get on base instead of strikeout. Soriano is needed much more down in the order & Roberts is a great leadoff hitter from getting on to stealing bases. Theriot is another guy that finds a way to get on base. DeRosa is a great utility player & makes the Cub better.