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

[Bote McBoteface]

Why is everybody making such a huge deal about Sean Marshall being in on this trade? He is a non prospect, and he's the same guy that everybody wanted replaced last season, and the same guy that WAS replaced...with Steven Trachsel of all people. That right there should show you how much Hendry and Lou trust him. The only somewhat bad part about dealing him is that we have no backup when Demp and Marquis suck...but Marshall really isn't much better than those two anyways. Hendry can find another backup option, that shouldn't be much of a concern.

 

Losing Gallagher sucks, definitely. Cedeno is iffy. His time to prove himself has come and gone in the organization's book. He deserves another shot, but he probably won't get one. May as well trade him while he has some value. The only way this becomes a bad deal is if they include Murton, who is young and good, for Payton, who is old and sucks.

 

 

The bold is exactly what everyone has been arguing. Not that he's untouchable, just that you are trading your top 2 odds on favorite for the 5th starter in the same trade for a hitter at a non-need position. And I disagree that Marshall isn't any better than Marquis/Dempster.

 

I do understand that argument, although I'd prefer not to say anything about it until the offseason is complete, for all we know DeRosa is headed off in a trade for a starting pitcher.

 

I did a quick check just to make sure I was not too off base with my "Marshall isn't much better than Marquis" line, I actually screwed up and was looking at the wrong line and thought that Marquis had better stats :oops: But, they had comparable whips last season, Sean's ERA+ was significantly better. It's tough to go off of career numbers because Sean only has two years service and his first year was terrible, so it wouldn't really be fair to him.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why is everybody making such a huge deal about Sean Marshall being in on this trade? He is a non prospect, and he's the same guy that everybody wanted replaced last season, and the same guy that WAS replaced...with Steven Trachsel of all people. That right there should show you how much Hendry and Lou trust him. The only somewhat bad part about dealing him is that we have no backup when Demp and Marquis suck...but Marshall really isn't much better than those two anyways. Hendry can find another backup option, that shouldn't be much of a concern.

 

Losing Gallagher sucks, definitely. Cedeno is iffy. His time to prove himself has come and gone in the organization's book. He deserves another shot, but he probably won't get one. May as well trade him while he has some value. The only way this becomes a bad deal is if they include Murton, who is young and good, for Payton, who is old and sucks.

 

 

The bold is exactly what everyone has been arguing. Not that he's untouchable, just that you are trading your top 2 odds on favorite for the 5th starter in the same trade for a hitter at a non-need position. And I disagree that Marshall isn't any better than Marquis/Dempster.

 

I do understand that argument, although I'd prefer not to say anything about it until the offseason is complete, for all we know DeRosa is headed off in a trade for a starting pitcher.

 

I did a quick check just to make sure I was not too off base with my "Marshall isn't much better than Marquis" line, I actually screwed up and was looking at the wrong line and thought that Marquis had better stats :oops: But, they had comparable whips last season, Sean's ERA+ was significantly better. It's tough to go off of career numbers because Sean only has two years service and his first year was terrible, so it wouldn't really be fair to him.

 

Who are all these people that wanted Marshall replaced? Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella wanted to replace him with Steve Trachsel, I don't know of many who thought that was a wise decision, and I don't recall much of an outcry for replacing Marshall in the first place.

[anabiono]

giving up two young arms for roberts...especially gallagher seems a bit too much to me

 

whatever...i am not running the club...

[Guest]

Burnett & Marquis/Dempster > Marquis, Dempster, Gallagher, Marshall

 

No?

Assuming you're talking about a healthy Burnett I'd agree; when healthy he's a very effective pitcher. Unfortunately he's had pronounced tendency over the past several years to miss significant chunks of time. Couple that with the fact that we'd have little acceptable depth to our rotation in your scenario and it's a gamble I'm not comfortable making. (Keep in mind that if Dempster isn't put in the rotation from the outset he's unlikely to be used as a spot starter/backup for the rotation immediately following an injury; it would take time for his arm to get stretched out and adjusted to the higher pitch counts.)

 

Another issue with this series of moves is cost. In addition to the prospect cost, Roberts + Burnett would add $18 to $20 million to the Cubs payroll in '08 and '09. Even if you assume Derosa is part of any Burnett deal we're still adding nearly $14 million in salary commitments. It would be great if the payroll was bumped to the $130-$135 million range, but I'm not convinced it will happen.

 

For the record, I like Roberts. He's a fine 2B and I'd be happy to have him on the Cubs. I just think the proposed pieces we're giving up are needed more than the extra value Roberts provides over Derosa given the holes as SS and #4/#5 starter. That, and I'm of the opinion that Gallagher is one of (if not the) most valuable players in our system. There's just something about a pitcher who performs very, very well at every stage of the minors while being young for his league that excites me. He may never be a marquee pitcher, but I'm willing to bet he'll provide someone several years of quality, cheap production.

[Backtobanks]

I still think the phrase "marginal upgrade" is pretty accurate. Looking at the stats, the only clear cut advantages that Roberts has is more speed and switch hitting. If you look at the last two years for DeRosa (when he was a starter), his stats are much better than Roberts' career averages (except for stolen bases).

 

Roberts career avg: 10 hr, 61 rbi, .281, .351, .409, .760

DeRosa (as a starter): 12 hr, 73 rbi, .295, .374, .438, .802

 

I'd rather have Roberts but again the stats aren't overwhelming, so we shouldn't give up 4 players for him.

[YearofDaCubs]

Burnett & Marquis/Dempster > Marquis, Dempster, Gallagher, Marshall

 

No?

Assuming you're talking about a healthy Burnett I'd agree; when healthy he's a very effective pitcher. Unfortunately he's had pronounced tendency over the past several years to miss significant chunks of time. Couple that with the fact that we'd have little acceptable depth to our rotation in your scenario and it's a gamble I'm not comfortable making. (Keep in mind that if Dempster isn't put in the rotation from the outset he's unlikely to be used as a spot starter/backup for the rotation immediately following an injury; it would take time for his arm to get stretched out and adjusted to the higher pitch counts.)

 

Another issue with this series of moves is cost. In addition to the prospect cost, Roberts + Burnett would add $18 to $20 million to the Cubs payroll in '08 and '09. Even if you assume Derosa is part of any Burnett deal we're still adding nearly $14 million in salary commitments. It would be great if the payroll was bumped to the $130-$135 million range, but I'm not convinced it will happen.

 

For the record, I like Roberts. He's a fine 2B and I'd be happy to have him on the Cubs. I just think the proposed pieces we're giving up are needed more than the extra value Roberts provides over Derosa given the holes as SS and #4/#5 starter. That, and I'm of the opinion that Gallagher is one of (if not the) most valuable players in our system. There's just something about a pitcher who performs very, very well at every stage of the minors while being young for his league that excites me. He may never be a marquee pitcher, but I'm willing to bet he'll provide someone several years of quality, cheap production.

When I see people calling Burnett an injury risk how is he any different than Bedard? Both are injury risks but I'd rather take my chances with those two than having Marquis or Dempster as our starters. Would you rather us take a risk on Lieber or Colon? I wouldn't. I'd be happy with Burnett or Bedard and it seems that Burnett will come much cheaper.

[BigbadB]

I still think the phrase "marginal upgrade" is pretty accurate. Looking at the stats, the only clear cut advantages that Roberts has is more speed and switch hitting. If you look at the last two years for DeRosa (when he was a starter), his stats are much better than Roberts' career averages (except for stolen bases).

 

Roberts career avg: 10 hr, 61 rbi, .281, .351, .409, .760

DeRosa (as a starter): 12 hr, 73 rbi, .295, .374, .438, .802

 

I'd rather have Roberts but again the stats aren't overwhelming, so we shouldn't give up 4 players for him.

 

Marginal upgrade is a rather accurate description of Roberts replacing DeRosa at 2nd base. But, that is not where the comparisons should stop, necessarily. DeRosa as a bench player is a significant upgrade to the bench. DeRosa playing SS is a significant upgrade at SS. DeRosa in PH situations is a significant upgrade to the guy who would currently occupy that spot if we didn't get Roberts, say Cedeno.

 

Yes, it's marginal from one aspect, but it's significant in other aspects. But, not marginal or siginificant enough to clean out the back half of the rotation, and likely not marginal enough or significant enough to trade away your best SS option (Cedeno) if DeRosa is not an option to play SS.

 

But, it is marginal and significant enough to trade what will likely be a little used 4th outfielder (Murton), 1 of 2 potential end of the rotation starters (Gallagher or Marshall) and a non factor CF prospect (Patterson).

[Post Count Padder]

Anything new or are we still arguing over whether or not Brian Roberts should be on this team?

[BigbadB]

When I see people calling Burnett an injury risk how is he any different than Bedard? Both are injury risks but I'd rather take my chances with those two than having Marquis or Dempster as our starters. Would you rather us take a risk on Lieber or Colon? I wouldn't. I'd be happy with Burnett or Bedard and it seems that Burnett will come much cheaper.

 

This team more than any other team in baseball should be concerned with rotation health risks. I do like Burnett, but he's a health risk. Plain and simple.

[CubColtPacer]

When I see people calling Burnett an injury risk how is he any different than Bedard? Both are injury risks but I'd rather take my chances with those two than having Marquis or Dempster as our starters. Would you rather us take a risk on Lieber or Colon? I wouldn't. I'd be happy with Burnett or Bedard and it seems that Burnett will come much cheaper.

 

This team more than any other team in baseball should be concerned with rotation health risks. I do like Burnett, but he's a health risk. Plain and simple.

 

A team that should be worried about acquiring pitchers with health risks are those who already have pitchers who have health risks. The Cubs aren't that team. If Burnett was acquired, he'd be the only pitcher in the Cubs rotation who has pitched less than 180 innings in either of the last 2 years. That's a great durability rating for a rotation.

 

Sure, the remaining innings probably won't be great production (either Dempster, Hart, or Mateo would be the next ones in line) but there's a shot that Dempster won the starting job anyway if a starter isn't acquired. If Burnett puts up 150 innings next year (which is reasonable) than the last 50 innings would have to be absolutely awful for the overall spot to be worse than league average. The replacement pitcher would probably have to have an ERA around 6 just to make the overall rotation spot as league average.

Edited January 7, 2008 by CubColtPacer

[Mephistopheles]

When I see people calling Burnett an injury risk how is he any different than Bedard? Both are injury risks but I'd rather take my chances with those two than having Marquis or Dempster as our starters. Would you rather us take a risk on Lieber or Colon? I wouldn't. I'd be happy with Burnett or Bedard and it seems that Burnett will come much cheaper.

 

This team more than any other team in baseball should be concerned with rotation health risks. I do like Burnett, but he's a health risk. Plain and simple.

 

ironically enough burnett has thrown 200 innings twice and has never thrown 200 innings.

[Yestheydo]

Anything new or are we still arguing over whether or not Brian Roberts should be on this team?

Consensus on the Orioles board is that MacPhail wants to wait til Bedard is traded, at which point the return will determine what they'll ask for Roberts. But Hendry is getting antsy and wants the deal to happen now. So no news is probably good news.

[RynoHawk23]

I still think we are dealing from organizational strength. If anything, we have proven that we can find pitching. And with Marshall being a non-prospect and Gallagher being the meat of the deal, do the deed. Cedeno hurts depth wise, but is a non-entity to the Cubs, right or wrong. Dempster & Marquis are solid options at #4 & #5, with Hart in the wings.

 

Roberts improves the top of the lineup, generates runs, and creates a deeper bench. And if we don't address SS, I'm betting Theriot/DeRosa forces the issue of DeRosa playing SS everyday and Theriot being the supersub - thus, the "marginal upgrade" IS really transfering to SS, which should be exciting more people I would think.

[jersey cubs fan]

When I see people calling Burnett an injury risk how is he any different than Bedard? Both are injury risks but I'd rather take my chances with those two than having Marquis or Dempster as our starters. Would you rather us take a risk on Lieber or Colon? I wouldn't. I'd be happy with Burnett or Bedard and it seems that Burnett will come much cheaper.

 

This team more than any other team in baseball should be concerned with rotation health risks. I do like Burnett, but he's a health risk. Plain and simple.

 

ironically enough burnett has thrown 200 innings twice and has never thrown 200 innings.

 

I am very confused.

[Mephistopheles]

my god i cant type. i completely forgot to type ...bedard has never ....

[The Voice of Reason]

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.

 

 

Trachsel is just one example of Hendry's ineptness. How's the Juan Pierre trade look these days?

[jersey cubs fan]

my god i cant type. i completely forgot to type ...bedard has never ....

 

 

I thought it was some complex riddle.

[David]

For freak's sake...Roberts is NOT only a marginal upgrade over DeRosa, unless I have a very different definition of marginal than some of you guys. To me, marginal upgrade means he's barely/slightly better.

 

I'll say it again, you can't just assume DeRosa is going to repeat 2007, which was one of the best years of his career, and even if he does, he's barely better than Roberts worst season in recent years. There's a decent possibility that Roberts will outperform DeRo by 3-4 wins next year. That's fairly significant, IMO.

 

Why some people are just assuming DeRosa will be that good again next year is beyond me. I'd like to think he will, but I wouldn't just count on it.

 

People are letting the fact that we have bigger needs to address elsewhere in the lineup cloud their judgment of just how much of an upgrade Roberts is over DeRosa.

[David]

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.

 

 

Trachsel is just one example of Hendry's ineptness. How's the Juan Pierre trade look these days?

 

 

I think it looked a lot worse when it was made than it does these days.

[SouthSideRyan]

Can we stop treating Sean Marshall like Les Walrond. He was an above average starter last year.

[Guest]

I wonder if the Cubs are willing to include two starters because they feel one or two of the prospects are more ready than we might. Maybe they like Hart enough that they feel really good about slotting him into the 5th starter role. Maybe they like Holliman much more than I do. Perhaps they feel that Mateo & Petrick are past their injury issues and ready for prime time. I don't see how they could feel confident that Veal or Samardzija have figured things out, but maybe they've seen something we haven't. Perhaps Harben has just been killer in workouts since coming back from his surgery and they feel really good that he's ready for prime time.

 

Personally, I don't feel good about ANY of those guys being able to contribute 160+ quality innings, but I'm not seeing them everyday and mainly have stats and written scouting reports as the only source. Pitchers can learn a new pitch, heal from injury or improve command with a mechanical tweak overnight sometimes. Lacking that, however, I am nervous going into the year with only Marquis, Dempster & Hart as the realistic options for the final two spots. I like Marshall as an immediate option better than those guys and I like Gallagher as a longer term option best of all.

 

That said, IF Hendry was able to get a Burnett to soak up 150+ innings with Hart taking up the remainder while adding the upgrade to Roberts to the lineup...I'd be greatly in favor of that if we can afford it.

[Guest]

One more point here...

 

Hendry, for all his faults, has been really good at not trading away players we miss later on. Other than Willis, there's really nobody that he's traded that went on to much success with other teams. Certainly none that caused me to regret dealing them after a couple years. Even the guys I really hated trading such as Justin Jones haven't done anything with their new teams. He has consistently erred on the side of holding onto prospects too long instead of giving up guys that end up hurting us.

 

I guess I'm saying that in this one area, perhaps he has earned some credibility.

[The Voice of Reason]

One more point here...

 

Hendry, for all his faults, has been really good at not trading away players we miss later on. Other than Willis, there's really nobody that he's traded that went on to much success with other teams. Certainly none that caused me to regret dealing them after a couple years. Even the guys I really hated trading such as Justin Jones haven't done anything with their new teams. He has consistently erred on the side of holding onto prospects too long instead of giving up guys that end up hurting us.

 

I guess I'm saying that in this one area, perhaps he has earned some credibility.

 

I'd still rather have mediocre pitchers like Mitre and Nolasco than one year of Juan Pierre.

[craig]

I wonder if the Cubs are willing to include two starters because they feel one or two of the prospects are more ready than we might. Maybe ....

 

Personally, I don't feel good about ANY of those guys being able to contribute 160+ quality innings, but I'm not seeing them everyday and mainly have stats and written scouting reports as the only source..... Lacking that, however, I am nervous going into the year with only Marquis, Dempster & Hart as the realistic options for the final two spots.....

 

That said, IF Hendry was able to get a Burnett to soak up 150+ innings with Hart taking up the remainder while adding the upgrade to Roberts to the lineup...I'd be greatly in favor of that if we can afford it.

 

Well said, Tim. I'd be very nervous with Dempster/marquis as 4+5, hart as alternative #6, and #7 coming from Holliman/Samardz/Veal/Harben. I'd be much more content with those alternatives if Burnett was #4. And I'd be much more content with Dempster/Marquis as 4/5 if we kept at least two of the Hart/Marshall/Gallagher trio as insurance.

 

Hendry is in a much better position than me to process some of this. He's talked plenty with Andy, and knows what Andy wants. And he's talked with Toronto and Oakland about what Burnett or Blanton would cost. Is it plausible that some kind of Marquis/Murton/DeRosa package could get Burnett? Hendry knows if that is ludicrously inadequate, or whether Burnett is available for less.

[Guest]

One more point here...

 

Hendry, for all his faults, has been really good at not trading away players we miss later on. Other than Willis, there's really nobody that he's traded that went on to much success with other teams. Certainly none that caused me to regret dealing them after a couple years. Even the guys I really hated trading such as Justin Jones haven't done anything with their new teams. He has consistently erred on the side of holding onto prospects too long instead of giving up guys that end up hurting us.

 

I guess I'm saying that in this one area, perhaps he has earned some credibility.

 

I'd still rather have mediocre pitchers like Mitre and Nolasco than one year of Juan Pierre.

And at this point, I might rather have Josh Donaldson than any of them.