Bedard and Roberts to the Cubs back on?

[David]

There's no doubt in my mind that Bedard still ends up in Seattle.

 

I know it's against the religion of this board to say anything positive about Andy MacPhail, but perhaps this Bedard thing with Seattle has been drawn out because the Orioles wanted to see what the Twins got for Santana. My thinking is that MacPhail was tipped off by somebody in the league office over the weekend that the Santana trade would be going down soon, so he decided to wait it out.

 

I think we'll see Bedard dealt in the next 48 hours. My gut says Seattle too, but I wouldn't rule out a NL contender seeing as the Mets just improved themselves.

 

What NL contender?

 

Maybe Cincy? Perhaps Philly? The Dodgers are out after the Japanese guy they signed. Astros don't have enough to pry loose a Mike Hampton much less Bedard. Maybe St. Louis. The ONLY 3 NL contenders (or possible contenders) for Bedard would be Cubs/Cards/Reds. So, I agree with a couple of other guys, and say Bedard stays in the AL.

 

The Cardinals and Reds are contenders?

 

Can you name an "NL Contender" that would be interested in acquiring Bedard?

 

I think Hoops was alluding mainly to the Cubs, considering the topic of the thread. I think he's implying that because the Mets just got Santana, the Cubs might feel inclined to go for Bedard. I could be wrong, though.

[CubbieSouthpaw II]

ok, this is what happend

 

Andy MacPhail orginally knew the Cubs wanted Roberts, but he wanted Hill so Hendry refused and then he offered Hill but wanted Bedard then MacPhail refused, so then Hendry tossed in Pie and Veal so this time time MacPhail agreed, but by that time Angelo's had veto'd the orginal deal that did not include Pie and Veal, so MacPhail had to go back to Angelo's with the updated deal from Hendry and Angelo's signed off, but then by that time they got another deal from Seattle, Andy got this deal together with Seatlle and it was all good to go and he brought it back to Angelo's who veto'd it because he was confused at this point and really didn't know what was going on, but Andy kept at Angelo's and after hours upon hours of explaining he finally got him to agree to the trade but by that time Seattle saw that the Mets got Santana for less so they balked at this trade offer, so now Andy is back and square one with Henry and the Cubs

 

So who's on 1st?

[RedFlash]

There's no doubt in my mind that Bedard still ends up in Seattle.

 

I know it's against the religion of this board to say anything positive about Andy MacPhail, but perhaps this Bedard thing with Seattle has been drawn out because the Orioles wanted to see what the Twins got for Santana. My thinking is that MacPhail was tipped off by somebody in the league office over the weekend that the Santana trade would be going down soon, so he decided to wait it out.

 

I think we'll see Bedard dealt in the next 48 hours. My gut says Seattle too, but I wouldn't rule out a NL contender seeing as the Mets just improved themselves.

 

What NL contender?

 

Maybe Cincy? Perhaps Philly? The Dodgers are out after the Japanese guy they signed. Astros don't have enough to pry loose a Mike Hampton much less Bedard. Maybe St. Louis. The ONLY 3 NL contenders (or possible contenders) for Bedard would be Cubs/Cards/Reds. So, I agree with a couple of other guys, and say Bedard stays in the AL.

 

The Cardinals and Reds are contenders?

 

Can you name an "NL Contender" that would be interested in acquiring Bedard?

 

I think Hoops was alluding mainly to the Cubs, considering the topic of the thread. I think he's implying that because the Mets just got Santana, the Cubs might feel inclined to go for Bedard. I could be wrong, though.

 

That is the feeling I got, but I wanted to play out what other "NL Contenders" could have been Hoops alluding too.

[NCCubFan]

ANOTHER multi-page Roberts thread. Oh joy.

[Guest]

Is there even any conceivable way we could get Bedard and Roberts without giving up Hill?

 

I can't really see it at all. But Meph did propose an idea before (not remembering what the deal was right now).

 

I might have made an idea for Bedard but without Roberts. I don't recall coming up with one with Bedard and Roberts.

 

We'd probably have to go something like Felix Pie, Carlos Marmol, Sean Marshall/Sean Gallagher, Ronny Cedeno, Matt Murton and on of {Veal, Gallagher/Marshall, anyone else in the system}. Still in the end lots of spare parts for Bedard and Roberts.

 

 

I know I remember something... lemme see.

 

 

Oh, it was including Hill, my bad.

 

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=45628&p=1651723#p1651723

 

fine trade for brian roberts and erik bedard allowing hill and pie to go, but then trade for khalil greene with murton +, sign kenny lofton and ill be happy. i could care less about getting roberts and bedard, it's probably a wash trade but man oh man it's worth getting a real SS.

 

 

One alternative is a trade of Matt Murton to the Padres in exchange for a B prospect, like Will Inman. Inman and Tillman are fairly interchangeable (Tillman's better, Inmans more of a sure thing and Inman is an example it could be Matt Latos if we sent a decent prospect (say Chris Huseby)). We then turn around and package Felix Pie who is comparable to Adam Jones, Will Inman/Matt Latos who is comparable to Chris Tillman, Donald Veal who is comparable to Tony Butler, and then we can throw in Sean Gallagher and I guess Cedeno to beat their deal and add Roberts.

 

It's contingent on the Padres liking Murton enough to pry (hopefully) Matt Latos out of them.

 

Padres Get:

Matt Murton, OF

 

Cubs Get:

Erik Bedard, LHP

Brian Roberts, 2B

 

Orioles Get:

Felix Pie, OF

Matt Latos, RHP

Sean Gallagher, RHP

Sean Marshall, LHP

Donald Veal, LHP

Ronny Cedeno, SS

 

I guess it's possible. The Cubs system would be basically Geovany Soto and a bunch of decent guys under 21 or under but given the Cubs commitments to Zambrano, Lilly, and Hill and now Bedard, they won't need a quality pitcher from the system until 2010. They can draft that guy this year and he ought to be ready by then (Tyson Ross, etc). The Cubs have similar commitments across the outfield outside of CF. Which would be a glaring hole, but Colvin's still there (and pretty much the only decent prospect above A ball). We have lots of commitments around the infield. Our near term farm system would be thinned out completely, but we really don't need it. Why not trade it? Most of the guys are blocked anyway.

 

It'd be nicer to just get Bedard with taking out Cedeno and Latos and adding say Chris Huseby or whoever and then hoping Murton and Cedeno is enough for Khalil (it isn't), but we're not even on Khalil's tail

 

I just don't see the Padres liking Murton enough to trade Latos.

[Mephistopheles]

neither do i, i was just exploring options.

[Rob]

I don't suppose I can get a Latos analysis? I've let my BA subscription expire, expecting my book to be here already... it isn't.

[Mephistopheles]

You should remember Latos from the 2006 draft!

 

You'll get no such favors from me.

[Rob]

You should remember Latos from the 2006 draft!

 

You'll get no such favors from me.

 

I don't remember what I had for breakfast this morning.

 

At any rate, I demand repayment of the debt for wasting my time getting you a FFIX save.

[Mephistopheles]

I don't suppose I can get a Latos analysis? I've let my BA subscription expire, expecting my book to be here already... it isn't.

 

I was only kidding...

 

Latos has a mid 90s fastball, good curve, good change. Big and projectable. Injury risk though (bc of age). Top of the rotation potential with 2 plus pitches, maybe a third in a perfect scenario. He was an 11th round pick in 06 (first round talent) and signed for over a mil as a DFA. Would have easily gone in the first this year had he gone back in. He signed quick enough to get 11 starts in SS this year. He had 74 Ks in 56 innings with 22 walks. Hes got loads of potential, but his ETA is probably 2011.

[Rob]

I don't suppose I can get a Latos analysis? I've let my BA subscription expire, expecting my book to be here already... it isn't.

 

I was only kidding...

 

Latos has a mid 90s fastball, good curve, good change. Big and projectable. Injury risk though (bc of age). Top of the rotation potential with 2 plus pitches, maybe a third in a perfect scenario. He was an 11th round pick in 06 (first round talent) and signed for over a mil as a DFA. Would have easily gone in the first this year had he gone back in. He signed quick enough to get 11 starts in SS this year. He had 74 Ks in 56 innings with 22 walks. Hes got loads of potential, but his ETA is probably 2011.

 

And I've ever been serious?

 

Wow... real interesting guy. Only problem is, looks like he didn't sign til May 31st, 2007. That means he'd have to be a PTBNL... which isn't going to happen.

[Mephistopheles]

actually i made that reply without knowing you replied to me.

[Rob]

actually i made that reply without knowing you replied to me.

 

Touche, fate.

[Mephistopheles]

I don't suppose I can get a Latos analysis? I've let my BA subscription expire, expecting my book to be here already... it isn't.

 

I was only kidding...

 

Latos has a mid 90s fastball, good curve, good change. Big and projectable. Injury risk though (bc of age). Top of the rotation potential with 2 plus pitches, maybe a third in a perfect scenario. He was an 11th round pick in 06 (first round talent) and signed for over a mil as a DFA. Would have easily gone in the first this year had he gone back in. He signed quick enough to get 11 starts in SS this year. He had 74 Ks in 56 innings with 22 walks. Hes got loads of potential, but his ETA is probably 2011.

 

And I've ever been serious?

 

Wow... real interesting guy. Only problem is, looks like he didn't sign til May 31st, 2007. That means he'd have to be a PTBNL... which isn't going to happen.

 

No, he was drafted in 2006. I believe the rule is one year from the day he was drafted, not signed. The rule is there to ensure that teams don't circumvent the trading draft picks rule.

[Rob]

I don't suppose I can get a Latos analysis? I've let my BA subscription expire, expecting my book to be here already... it isn't.

 

I was only kidding...

 

Latos has a mid 90s fastball, good curve, good change. Big and projectable. Injury risk though (bc of age). Top of the rotation potential with 2 plus pitches, maybe a third in a perfect scenario. He was an 11th round pick in 06 (first round talent) and signed for over a mil as a DFA. Would have easily gone in the first this year had he gone back in. He signed quick enough to get 11 starts in SS this year. He had 74 Ks in 56 innings with 22 walks. Hes got loads of potential, but his ETA is probably 2011.

 

And I've ever been serious?

 

Wow... real interesting guy. Only problem is, looks like he didn't sign til May 31st, 2007. That means he'd have to be a PTBNL... which isn't going to happen.

 

No, he was drafted in 2006. I believe the rule is one year from the day he was drafted, not signed. The rule is there to ensure that teams don't circumvent the trading draft picks rule.

 

I seem to recall reading recently that it's the date of signing, not the day he was drafted.

[Mephistopheles]

You are correct.

 

Q: My understanding is that a player drafted in the Rule 4 Draft (First-Year Player Draft) in June cannot be traded for one year after that draft -- or is it signing date? Is this the "Incaviglia Rule?" Please explain.

-- Rob M., Greenwich, Conn.

 

A: Yes, that's the Incaviglia Rule, which is codified at Rule 3(b)(7). A club can't trade a player it has drafted until one year has elapsed from the date he first signs a pro contract.

 

Montreal drafted Pete Incaviglia after his legendary Oklahoma State career with the eighth pick in the first round of the 1985 draft, but he refused to sign with the Expos. Rather than get nothing out of the pick, the Expos made what amounted to a sign-and-trade, meeting Incaviglia's terms and immediately trading him to the Rangers for right-hander Bob Sebra and infielder Jim Anderson.

 

Two years earlier, John Elway had essentially forced the Colts to trade him when he was drafted out of Stanford. Major League Baseball didn't want to set a similar precedent, particularly since baseball teams -- unlike teams in other sports -- can't trade out of their draft positions. So the Inky Rule was instituted, preventing teams from trading a drafted player for a year after signing him.

 

http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?c_id=tex&content_id=1443421&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_tex&ymd=20060508

 

you are correct.

 

the cubs traded for kyler burke a year and four days after he signed

[Rob]

You are correct.

 

Q: My understanding is that a player drafted in the Rule 4 Draft (First-Year Player Draft) in June cannot be traded for one year after that draft -- or is it signing date? Is this the "Incaviglia Rule?" Please explain.

-- Rob M., Greenwich, Conn.

 

A: Yes, that's the Incaviglia Rule, which is codified at Rule 3(b)(7). A club can't trade a player it has drafted until one year has elapsed from the date he first signs a pro contract.

 

Montreal drafted Pete Incaviglia after his legendary Oklahoma State career with the eighth pick in the first round of the 1985 draft, but he refused to sign with the Expos. Rather than get nothing out of the pick, the Expos made what amounted to a sign-and-trade, meeting Incaviglia's terms and immediately trading him to the Rangers for right-hander Bob Sebra and infielder Jim Anderson.

 

Two years earlier, John Elway had essentially forced the Colts to trade him when he was drafted out of Stanford. Major League Baseball didn't want to set a similar precedent, particularly since baseball teams -- unlike teams in other sports -- can't trade out of their draft positions. So the Inky Rule was instituted, preventing teams from trading a drafted player for a year after signing him.

 

http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?c_id=tex&content_id=1443421&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_tex&ymd=20060508

 

you are correct.

 

the cubs traded for kyler burke a year and four days after he signed

 

Well that's settled, then...

 

It's still technically feasible that Latos comes back as a PTBNL, but I'm not sure that we can make a trade with the O's that would include a player on the "PTBNL list" that isn't actually in our system at the time of the trade.

[CuseCubFan69]

ANOTHER multi-page Roberts thread. Oh joy.

 

It's the trade that wouldn't end. It just went on and on my friend. Some people started trading not knowing what it was was but they'll just continue trading it just because it's the trade that doesn't end. It just goes on and on my friend......

[RammyFanny]

Ughh, that Latos thing ruined my morning. I know it wasn't likely we got him, but that's who i've been hoping for all along.

[DenverCubs]

I just daydreamed for like an hour about trading for Bedard and Roberts while keeping Hill, signing Kenny Lofton, DeRosa starting 100 games at SS with average defense, Soto and Fuku sharing the ROY honors and A-Ram, Sori and Lee all having 35 HR's and close to 900 OPS's. Damn I'm a sucker.

[Soul]

The rumor mill is hilarious this year. "The *REAL* deal is just how *I* reported it *WEEKS* ago!!!!"

 

LOL.

 

 

LOL.

[HoopsCubs]

That is the feeling I got, but I wanted to play out what other "NL Contenders" could have been Hoops alluding too.

 

I was thinking about 3 teams: Cubs, Phillies, Rockies.

[BigbadB]

I have to believe the Diamondbacks will be a team to deal with all season as well. They are young, but that's a pretty lively pitching staff they have

 

Chris Young, Justin Upton, Eric Byrnes, Chad Tracy, Stephen Drew, Orlando Hudson, Conor Jackson, Miguel Montero

 

Bench: Chris Burke, Mark Reynolds, Augie

 

SP: Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, Randy Johnson, Micah Owings, Doug Davis

[UMFan83]

I have to believe the Diamondbacks will be a team to deal with all season as well. They are young, but that's a pretty lively pitching staff they have

 

Chris Young, Justin Upton, Eric Byrnes, Chad Tracy, Stephen Drew, Orlando Hudson, Conor Jackson, Miguel Montero

 

Bench: Chris Burke, Mark Reynolds, Augie

 

SP: Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, Randy Johnson, Micah Owings, Doug Davis

 

Yup, I think as it stands now this is the "power ranking" of NL teams:

 

1. Mets

2. Diamondbacks

3. Dodgers

4. Rockies

5. Phillies

6. Padres

7. Brewers (just being a pessimist)

8. Cubs

9. Braves

10. Reds

----------------------------------Realistic Contender Line----------------------------------

11. Astros

12. Cardinals

13. Nationals

14. Giants

15. Pirates

16. Marlins

Edited January 30, 2008 by UMFan83

[Post Count Padder]

I have to believe the Diamondbacks will be a team to deal with all season as well. They are young, but that's a pretty lively pitching staff they have

 

Chris Young, Justin Upton, Eric Byrnes, Chad Tracy, Stephen Drew, Orlando Hudson, Conor Jackson, Miguel Montero

 

Bench: Chris Burke, Mark Reynolds, Augie

 

SP: Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, Randy Johnson, Micah Owings, Doug Davis

Wow, I forgot they got Haren. They could get to the playoffs again.