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

[badnews]

People argue that whatever flavor of the month they're jazzed about is essential to a championship. Looking at the 2006 Cardinals, it's stupid to say anything is essential to a championship. It's a blatant lie people tell themselves to justify stupid trades. Like "Yeah, the Steve Trachsel deal might suck, but if we catch lightning in a bottle with him and win the World Series, it'll all be worth it!"

 

Roberts is not a big change to the current team. A good starting pitcher would make us the frontline, not Roberts.

 

I don't really care what Renteria pulled in as trade.

 

A convenient reply, considering it shows we'd be getting fleeced in this deal.

 

Versatility is just a useless buzzword, like grit or whatever.

 

And trading 3 non-essential pieces for 2008 to try to win it all in 2008 is worth the price.

 

No, it isn't. Because Roberts doesn't bring this team any closer, and if you've noticed being a long time reader, the crappiest trades are justified by "Finally going for it." We made bad trades all the time under the auspices of "going for it." Trading Garland was going for it, trading Willis was going for it, trading for Pierre was going for it, trading for Trachsel was going for it, it didn't work out badly but trading Garciaparra was going for it, I don't get, 100 years of futility is not a free pass for making every crap trade out there. That's a good way to keep the streak going to 200 years. That's the problem with this organization, every time they get even remotely close to anything, they blow their load entirely and surprise, surprise, success can't be sustained.

 

The idea that Brian Roberts takes this team from an "also-ran" to "the feared frontrunner" is laughable.

Edited January 7, 2008 by badnews

[inari]

Thanks guys for welcoming me.

 

I would argue that Roberts is an essential piece of the championship puzzle. I would say that if we acquire Roberts, we are at 2004 level of expectations as the National League favorite. We would have the best balance of pitching and hitting in the NL - disagree? With the Mets, Phillies, Rockies and Dbacks right behind us with obvious deficiencies.

 

I don't think we have too many left handed hitting table setters that could deliver 50 steals and play good defense. That is our need. I don't really care what Renteria pulled in as trade. We are not the Braves nor the Detroit Tigers. The Chicago Cubs need more versatility in their lineup and Brian Roberts is a very solid solution. And trading 3 non-essential pieces for 2008 to try to win it all in 2008 is worth the price.

 

How much of an upgrade over Mark DeRosa is Brian Roberts, though? And Roberts doesn't make our very bad back end of the rotation any better. And he certainly doesn't make our glaring hole at short go away.

[badnews]

Not to mention a Roberts trade robs us of our most valuable trade chips, robs the Cubs of their best chances for quality starters to replace Marquis and Dempster, and robs us of our best option from when Theriot inevitably plays himself out of a job.

 

But let's rally around some "Hey, it's been 100 years since we won a World Series, so let's make any poor trade that involves anyone who ever made an All-Star team, because you can't have 100 years of futility without futilely bad trades" kind of reasoning.

 

On that note I say we trade Felix Pie, Josh Vitters, and Donald Veal for David DeJesus because they're 3 non-essential guys and we haven't won a World Series in 100 years so let's do something bold.

[YearofDaCubs]

I'd be pumped if Burnett and Roberts were the rest of our off season.

 

Ugh. Just say no to Burnett.

 

If we're going to get an arm, let's go after Blanton.

No way. I'd take Burnett over Blanton and it's not even close.

[cbbryan]

Thanks guys for welcoming me.

 

I would argue that Roberts is an essential piece of the championship puzzle. I would say that if we acquire Roberts, we are at 2004 level of expectations as the National League favorite. We would have the best balance of pitching and hitting in the NL - disagree? With the Mets, Phillies, Rockies and Dbacks right behind us with obvious deficiencies.

 

I don't think we have too many left handed hitting table setters that could deliver 50 steals and play good defense. That is our need. I don't really care what Renteria pulled in as trade. We are not the Braves nor the Detroit Tigers. The Chicago Cubs need more versatility in their lineup and Brian Roberts is a very solid solution. And trading 3 non-essential pieces for 2008 to try to win it all in 2008 is worth the price.

 

How much of an upgrade over Mark DeRosa is Brian Roberts, though? And Roberts doesn't make our very bad back end of the rotation any better. And he certainly doesn't make our glaring hole at short go away.

 

 

Has anyone thought that maybe that's why this trade hasn't been done! I don't see Roberts vastly improving the Cubs. I'd like to see a SS acquired, or SP depth.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'd be pumped if Burnett and Roberts were the rest of our off season.

 

Ugh. Just say no to Burnett.

 

If we're going to get an arm, let's go after Blanton.

No way. I'd take Burnett over Blanton and it's not even close.

 

I used to be an enormous Burnett fan, but the guy can't stay healthy at all. There's no question that he's a great pitcher when he's healthy. And of course a move back to the NL would probably help him out - when he's healthy.

 

I think Blanton would fit in very well here, but maybe I'm in the minority.

[Rob]

That Trachsel deal is really coming back to bite us in the ass right about now.

 

If we still had Scott Moore, we could afford to trade either him or DeRosa in a follow-up deal for another pitcher or (ideally) a new SS, and we'd still have an adequate backup for when Aramis gets gimpy.

 

If we still had Rocky Cherry, we could stick him in the pen, keep Hart stretched out in the rotation at AAA, and not feel the sting as much from dealing Gallagher and Marshall in this ill-advised deal.

 

It may not seem like it at the time, but all these little "let's just go for it" deals that don't make much of a difference on the overall talent level of the team can have far-reaching implications for the next season, or the season after that, or the one after that, etc...

 

The trick has always been pretty simple... put a product on the field that is fairly likely to get you into the playoffs, and then cross your fingers. Pissing away all our tradeable assets for marginal upgrades (Marshall to Trachsel, Murton to Monroe, DeRosa to Roberts, etc...) is simply not going to help us. Can you imagine how much easier our lives would be with guys like Moore, Cherry, Blevins, Rapada, etc... in our system while we try to make trades that are real upgrades? We still might not have the pieces to bring in Santanas or Cabreras, but we'd be able to get guys like Burnett without freaking out about how we have no depth left in the system. We'd be able to take risks on real difference makers, and that's what well-managed clubs do.

[C.C.]

I'd be pumped if Burnett and Roberts were the rest of our off season.

 

Ugh. Just say no to Burnett.

 

If we're going to get an arm, let's go after Blanton.

No way. I'd take Burnett over Blanton and it's not even close.

 

I'd rather role the dice on Burnett then get Blanton. He'll fill the heathly anxiety void we missed last year.

[rawaction]

Burnett will cost a lot less to acquire in terms of prospects for the Cubs. That could be huge, considering what the Cubs are rumored to be giving up for Roberts and still having interest in Figgins.

[Backtobanks]

These latest rumors being kicked around (Gallagher, Cedeno, Marshall, and Fuld for Roberts or add Murton and receive Payton) are getting ridiculous. (Warning - If the Cubs get Payton, there goes Pie's playing time.) I would love to get Roberts, but the upgrade from DeRosa would be minimal. I still insist that trading that many players could get us Greene, Peralta, Furcal, or a good starting pitcher, which would help more than Roberts. If some of these rumors are true, Hendry must be preparing for a job in Baltimore with his former boss.

[Guest]

My interpretation of these rumors is that the Cubs are interested in Payton as a CF that could be insurance for Pie and play against either the tough lefties or as a full-blown platoon partner for him. That makes a lot of sense to me and without consideration of the cash would definitely increase the value of the deal from the Cubs side. So it seems to me that the original deal structure was along the lines of Gallagher + Murton + Patterson/Cedeno for Roberts alone. I surmise that the current deal is along the lines of Gallagher + Marshall + Cedeno for Roberts + Payton or Gallagher + Marshall + Cedeno + Murton for Roberts + Payton + cash.

 

Payton would indeed be a nice option to have in CF versus lefties while Pie adjusts to the majors. He has a career .803 OPS against left handers in 1171 at bats (.739 vs righties in 2919 ab's). I actually like the idea of him coming in addition to Roberts if we can get some salary relief from the $11.3M Roberts + Payton would cost us. If we can act like a big market team and hold onto Murton and do the deal without salary relief while still acquiring another pitcher, I like the deal even more.

 

Giving up Marshall in addition to Gallagher hurts for the reasons many have stated. And I'd also rather have used those assets to get a SS instead of a 2B. But who knows if ATL or SD were / are interested in that particular package of guys in return for their SS. The key to making this work out would be the ability to still go out and get another quality option for the rotation instead of counting on both Marquis and Dempster in 2008.

[Soul]

I can't believe we're going to give up 2 good pitching prospects for this guy and Cedeno.

 

I think it's likely to turn out just horrible for us.

[St.Paul Cub]

I can't believe we're going to give up 2 good pitching prospects for this guy and Cedeno.

 

I think it's likely to turn out just horrible for us.

 

My feelings exactly. It's a minimal upgrade. For that kind of upgrade you sign a FA or give up some lesser prospects.

 

Burnett on the other hand interests me because his cost might be less, but his potential upside could be a huge upgrade.

[BigbadB]

That Trachsel deal is really coming back to bite us in the ass right about now.

 

If we still had Scott Moore, we could afford to trade either him or DeRosa in a follow-up deal for another pitcher or (ideally) a new SS, and we'd still have an adequate backup for when Aramis gets gimpy.

 

If we still had Rocky Cherry, we could stick him in the pen, keep Hart stretched out in the rotation at AAA, and not feel the sting as much from dealing Gallagher and Marshall in this ill-advised deal.

 

It may not seem like it at the time, but all these little "let's just go for it" deals that don't make much of a difference on the overall talent level of the team can have far-reaching implications for the next season, or the season after that, or the one after that, etc...

 

The trick has always been pretty simple... put a product on the field that is fairly likely to get you into the playoffs, and then cross your fingers. Pissing away all our tradeable assets for marginal upgrades (Marshall to Trachsel, Murton to Monroe, DeRosa to Roberts, etc...) is simply not going to help us. Can you imagine how much easier our lives would be with guys like Moore, Cherry, Blevins, Rapada, etc... in our system while we try to make trades that are real upgrades? We still might not have the pieces to bring in Santanas or Cabreras, but we'd be able to get guys like Burnett without freaking out about how we have no depth left in the system. We'd be able to take risks on real difference makers, and that's what well-managed clubs do.

 

Very well stated. While you mentioned deals where the Cubs continue giving up young talent that depletes the farm system, I would also add that other similar deals where they didn't get young talent in return is also an example of poor management. I know everyone hates to see this in print, but Greg Maddux for Cesar Izturis is exactly what I'm talking about. If or when you are giving up on the season, you trade your assets (players who other teams find valuable that aren't necessarily in future plans) for players who have some potential rather than for a guy you know is going to suck.

[UMFan83]

FWIW, we are not the only ones that value our prospects highly. The people on the Orioles board are currently comparing Sam Fuld to Reggie Willits

[CubColtPacer]

FWIW, we are not the only ones that value our prospects highly. The people on the Orioles board are currently comparing Sam Fuld to Reggie Willits

 

At the same time, they can't stand Cedeno or Marshall. Most of the Orioles fans over there do not like the deal nearly as much because Murton and Patterson were taken out and in their opinion two substantially inferior prospects were put in instead.

[jersey cubs fan]

That Trachsel deal is really coming back to bite us in the ass right about now.

 

If we still had Scott Moore, we could afford to trade either him or DeRosa in a follow-up deal for another pitcher or (ideally) a new SS, and we'd still have an adequate backup for when Aramis gets gimpy.

 

If we still had Rocky Cherry, we could stick him in the pen, keep Hart stretched out in the rotation at AAA, and not feel the sting as much from dealing Gallagher and Marshall in this ill-advised deal.

 

It may not seem like it at the time, but all these little "let's just go for it" deals that don't make much of a difference on the overall talent level of the team can have far-reaching implications for the next season, or the season after that, or the one after that, etc...

 

The trick has always been pretty simple... put a product on the field that is fairly likely to get you into the playoffs, and then cross your fingers. Pissing away all our tradeable assets for marginal upgrades (Marshall to Trachsel, Murton to Monroe, DeRosa to Roberts, etc...) is simply not going to help us. Can you imagine how much easier our lives would be with guys like Moore, Cherry, Blevins, Rapada, etc... in our system while we try to make trades that are real upgrades? We still might not have the pieces to bring in Santanas or Cabreras, but we'd be able to get guys like Burnett without freaking out about how we have no depth left in the system. We'd be able to take risks on real difference makers, and that's what well-managed clubs do.

 

The Trachsel deal was trouble from day 1. They gave up talent for no good reason. Even if those guys weren't very good, they were tradable assets, or competent bodies to have as backup plans for the future. Plus, Trachsel on the team makes them worse. It was so painfully obvious from the time it was first rumored to be a deal to the time he threw his last (hopefully this time) pitch as a Cub.

[The Voice of Reason]

The Trachsel deal was the direct result of a lame duck GM trying to "win now" at all costs in an effort to save his skin and at the expense of the long term future of his club.

[CUBBIEblue16]

Thanks guys for welcoming me.

 

I would argue that Roberts is an essential piece of the championship puzzle. I would say that if we acquire Roberts, we are at 2004 level of expectations as the National League favorite. We would have the best balance of pitching and hitting in the NL - disagree? With the Mets, Phillies, Rockies and Dbacks right behind us with obvious deficiencies.

 

I don't think we have too many left handed hitting table setters that could deliver 50 steals and play good defense. That is our need. I don't really care what Renteria pulled in as trade. We are not the Braves nor the Detroit Tigers. The Chicago Cubs need more versatility in their lineup and Brian Roberts is a very solid solution. And trading 3 non-essential pieces for 2008 to try to win it all in 2008 is worth the price.

 

How much of an upgrade over Mark DeRosa is Brian Roberts, though? And Roberts doesn't make our very bad back end of the rotation any better. And he certainly doesn't make our glaring hole at short go away.

 

 

What has the cubs one glaring need been forever?

 

Heres the answer..... a prototypical lead-off hitter, and it just so happens that Brian Roberts is one. He is an upgrade over DeRosa is every asset of playing 2B and hitting. I love DeRosa, and I want him on this team still more than anyone here, but we need to put our man crushes on him aside and think about winning a World Series, regardless what someone you people here think, he does in fact bring us closer to a World Series.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Trachsel deal was the direct result of a lame duck GM trying to "win now" at all costs in an effort to save his skin and at the expense of the long term future of his club.

 

I think it has a lot more to do with Hendry's whacked out value system for baseball assets. He places value on things that don't deserve to have value, such as a players veteranness, or the fact that somebody was once good a long time ago, or achieved some level of perceived success for any duration, no matter how short. Hendry views pitcher's wins as a very telling stat, which is troubling in and of itself. But he does so without paying attention to losses. A 15 win pitcher is a 15 win pitcher regardless of whether he's 15-16 or 15-6. Somebody who is pitching like crap, not striking anybody out, but "finding ways to win" a handful of games despite horrible peripherals (ie, he's lucky) is a pitcher who "just gets the job done" to somebody like Hendry.

[jersey cubs fan]

What has the cubs one glaring need been forever?

 

Heres the answer..... a prototypical lead-off hitter,

 

No. No it has not been the one glaring need. Leadoff hitter is not a position, it's just a spot in the order that any of the 8 position players can fill. This team's most glaring need for a very long time has been walks, and players who are both willing and capable of taking them. A little more generally, they've lacked OBP. And to the extent that a new hitter can significantly improve the OBP by replacing somebody who is already here, that player would have considerable value to the Cubs.

[craig]

My interpretation of these rumors is that the Cubs are interested in Payton as a CF that could be insurance for Pie and play against either the tough lefties or as a full-blown platoon partner for him. That makes a lot of sense to me and without consideration of the cash would definitely increase the value of the deal from the Cubs side. So it seems to me that the original deal structure was along the lines of Gallagher + Murton + Patterson/Cedeno for Roberts alone. I surmise that the current deal is along the lines of Gallagher + Marshall + Cedeno for Roberts + Payton or Gallagher + Marshall + Cedeno + Murton for Roberts + Payton + cash.

 

Payton would indeed be a nice option to have in CF versus lefties while Pie adjusts to the majors. He has a career .803 OPS against left handers in 1171 at bats (.739 vs righties in 2919 ab's). I actually like the idea of him coming in addition to Roberts if we can get some salary relief from the $11.3M Roberts + Payton would cost us. If we can act like a big market team and hold onto Murton and do the deal without salary relief while still acquiring another pitcher, I like the deal even more.

 

Giving up Marshall in addition to Gallagher hurts for the reasons many have stated. And I'd also rather have used those assets to get a SS instead of a 2B. But who knows if ATL or SD were / are interested in that particular package of guys in return for their SS. The key to making this work out would be the ability to still go out and get another quality option for the rotation instead of counting on both Marquis and Dempster in 2008.

 

Tim, I agree. None of the rumors have been very clear about what's been the holdup. When there is mutual interest in a trade but it's not happening, there is always one side or the other who wants it changed.

 

The O's sources earlier were claiming Gallagher-Murton-Patterson. That looked fair and Cub-sensible to me, since patterson has no value to us and Murton is blocked. I'd guess Orioles wanted more. I'd guess that when they asked to switch in Marshall or Cedeno, we didn't like it, felt it imbalanced on their side. So we ask them to add in Payton to balance. Then they think that's imbalanced on our side, so they ask for Murton, we say no way. Maybe we counter with Fox or Fuld, or maybe they back off on Murton and they ask for Fuld, and it's harder for Hendry to say no way.

 

Seems to me that if the two sides mutually want to trade, it's a matter of balancing and leveling. It's not that difficult to add or subtract little increments of value to eventually settle on a level balance. Maybe Fuld is a leveler. Maybe we need to improve our leveling piece to Roquet, or add in a Welington Castillo or Atkins or Josh Lansford. Maybe it's unbalanced in their favor and they'll need to add some prospect they have that we like.

 

If the centerpieces of a trade are in place, the key is having both sides view the balance similarly. If both sides agree that it's imbalanced in their favor and they need to add a prospect to level it, it can work. But if Andy thinks a given layout is imbalanced in our favor, and he wants a significant added value from us, while we think the same layout is imbalanced in their favor and want extra value added from them, then things freeze.

[UMFan83]

What has the cubs one glaring need been forever?

 

Heres the answer..... a prototypical lead-off hitter,

 

 

Did you post this in 2005?

[Soul]

What has the cubs one glaring need been forever?

 

Heres the answer..... a prototypical lead-off hitter,

 

No. No it has not been the one glaring need. Leadoff hitter is not a position, it's just a spot in the order that any of the 8 position players can fill. This team's most glaring need for a very long time has been walks, and players who are both willing and capable of taking them. A little more generally, they've lacked OBP. And to the extent that a new hitter can significantly improve the OBP by replacing somebody who is already here, that player would have considerable value to the Cubs.

 

Yeah, I'm not so sure the "prototypical leadoff hitter" is this holy grail of making a World Series, either. Plenty of teams have done it without one. I'm more concerned with the overall OBP now -- and I'm still leery that Roberts is going to suffer a drop in production.

 

I wouldn't mind getting the guy, but the back of our rotation is suddenly going to look mighty shaky. And wasn't SP a big advantage that eventually lifted us over the Crew last year?

[craig]

With due respect, I think the trade value of Scott Moore is so small that it's insignificant. (Obvious, given that Moore alone wasn't able to get even one month of Trachsel) Having Moore available now would have had no significant bearing on the current trade discussions. Moore doesn't have the kind of value wherein adding him to a package persuades a GM who won't trade Roberts to say yes. Or where a GM who doesn't like your offer for Burnett will suddenly say yes.