So... how much of an upgrade is Brian Roberts over DeRosa?

[badnews]

I just felt like we all needed to touch base on this issue.

 

Also, I put all those euphemistic uses of the phrase "supersub" by the curb for the trashman to take away.

[manbearcub]

im not seeing your pt here.

[Schwarber Fan]

Player A: .297, 9 HRs, 53 RBI

Player B: .290, 20 HRs, 80 RBI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A is Roberts, B is DeRosa ;)

[badnews]

Sorry guys, this was a topic that really got my frustration level up during the offseason. So many people argued *so hard* about how Roberts would be this big upgrade over DeRosa, and the part that always annoyed me was, hey, it was okay, because DeRosa could be a "supersub" and get a number of ABs that was never going to happen. It's like as long as you slapped the "supersub" tag on DeRosa it meant he could somehow get 600 ABs from the bench. And people ran complex mathematical models to show how Roberts was going to be enough of an upgrade to justify giving up 5 players.

 

I probably shouldn't have held onto this for so long, but others can attest that it was one of the most acrimonious debates ever on here. And now I feel 5 years old. My side was right, your Brian Roberts-lovin' side was wrong ha ha ha PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.

 

Another segment of that debate I hated "Uhhhh it's been 100 years since we wons a World Serues dude lets jsut give them whatever tehy want AND GO FOR IT."

 

Long story short that was obnoxious topic where the Roberts people were certain they were right and I just felt being Nelson from The Simpsons. Ha ha!

[manbearcub]

give yourself a pat on the back

[imb]

I just felt like we all needed to touch base on this issue.

 

Also, I put all those euphemistic uses of the phrase "supersub" by the curb for the trashman to take away.

 

He would be a decent upgrade over derosa.

[sneakypower]

a better point would revolve around Roberts = no Harden

[badnews]

give yourself a pat on the back

 

C'mon. I as much as acknowledged I'm just venting over an old debate and by doing so forfeited any moral high ground.

 

But still. "Let's give up Sean Gallagher and Ronny Cedeno and Jose Ceda and Jeff Samardzija and Betty Rubble for Roberts, I mean damn, it's been 100 years so why not?"

[badnews]

a better point would revolve around Roberts = no Harden

 

An astute point indeed.

Edited September 7, 2008 by badnews

[imb]

is no one going to mention that roberts out-vorps derosa by like 12 points?

 

the distance from roberts>>>derosa is twice as big as it is from derosa>>>christian guzman

[UMFan83]

Sorry guys, this was a topic that really got my frustration level up during the offseason. So many people argued *so hard* about how Roberts would be this big upgrade over DeRosa, and the part that always annoyed me was, hey, it was okay, because DeRosa could be a "supersub" and get a number of ABs that was never going to happen. It's like as long as you slapped the "supersub" tag on DeRosa it meant he could somehow get 600 ABs from the bench. And people ran complex mathematical models to show how Roberts was going to be enough of an upgrade to justify giving up 5 players.

 

I probably shouldn't have held onto this for so long, but others can attest that it was one of the most acrimonious debates ever on here. And now I feel 5 years old. My side was right, your Brian Roberts-lovin' side was wrong ha ha ha PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.

 

Another segment of that debate I hated "Uhhhh it's been 100 years since we wons a World Serues dude lets jsut give them whatever tehy want AND GO FOR IT."

 

Long story short that was obnoxious topic where the Roberts people were certain they were right and I just felt being Nelson from The Simpsons. Ha ha!

 

True. DeRosa would probably be the everyday RF right about now over Fukudome though. *shrugs*

[badnews]

Roberts probably means no surprise love-love party for Fontenot. And no trade bait for Harden. Plus VORP isn't everything.

[sneakypower]

is no one going to mention that roberts out-vorps derosa by like 12 points?

 

the distance from roberts>>>derosa is twice as big as it is from derosa>>>christian guzman

i don't think that's entirely fair to derosa, as roberts has an 88 PA advantage

[imb]

is no one going to mention that roberts out-vorps derosa by like 12 points?

 

the distance from roberts>>>derosa is twice as big as it is from derosa>>>christian guzman

i don't think that's entirely fair to derosa, as roberts has a ~100 PA advantage

 

even if you equal it up, it's not going to cover a 12point difference, will it?

 

one-to-one, i'd take roberts over derosa. but i'm glad we didn't make the deal

[badnews]

Can't we use some other statistic that blatantly favors my side of the argument?

 

Brian Roberts has a WARP3 of 9.1, Mark DeRosa has a WARP3 of 9.0. And that's not counting his big night tonight. Can we not touch on the foolishness of squandering resources just to make a 9.0 WARP3 guy a (snort of derision) supersub? Or mock in an Oscar Wildean fashion the idea that the Brian Roberts trade had to be made so we could, quote "Go for it?"

[sneakypower]

i'm guessing Derosa's hurt in the VORP comparison by his OF, 3B time

 

roberts

121 ops+

.297 eqa

7.6 warp

 

derosa

123 ops+

.295 eqa

7.6 warp

 

these two guys are twins this year

also deserving mention is that we dont seem to be suffering from the void of a true leadoff hitter

[sneakypower]

Can't we use some other statistic that blatantly favors my side of the argument?

 

Brian Roberts has a WARP3 of 9.1, Mark DeRosa has a WARP3 of 9.0. And that's not counting his big night tonight. Can we not touch on the foolishness of squandering resources just to make a 9.0 WARP3 guy a (snort of derision) supersub? Or mock in an Oscar Wildean fashion the idea that the Brian Roberts trade had to be made so we could, quote "Go for it?"

wait why use warp3 for the same season?

[badnews]

Plus I think you have to acknowledge that Fontenot's production would not exist if the Cubs had Roberts.

 

The Chicago Cubs are 3rd in OPS from the aggregate 2nd base position in baseball. Behind Philadelphia, and behind Boston. That takes in DeRosa and Fontenot. It seems insane to blow all your resources to improve a position that is 3rd best in the majors. Cubs' 2b are out OPS-ing Texas Rangers 2b.

[abuck1220]

just to be clear...at the time the trade rumors were going on, you argued that roberts wasn't going to be a big upgrade over derosa. and now that he's shown to, in fact, be an upgrade (but not a huge upgrade), you want some kind of congratulations (?) about knowing the degree to which he was going to be an upgrade over derosa?

 

good job?

[sneakypower]

he's actually hit his worst at 2B

 

2B: 280 PA - 823 OPS

3B: 52 - 996

LF: 88 - 913

RF: 96 - 896

[JimSorgi]

Player A: .297, 9 HRs, 53 RBI

Player B: .290, 20 HRs, 80 RBI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A is Roberts, B is DeRosa ;)

 

Those are some pretty bad stats to use.

[erik316wttn]

Plus I think you have to acknowledge that Fontenot's production would not exist if the Cubs had Roberts.

 

The Chicago Cubs are 3rd in OPS from the aggregate 2nd base position in baseball. Behind Philadelphia, and behind Boston. That takes in DeRosa and Fontenot. It seems insane to blow all your resources to improve a position that is 3rd best in the majors. Cubs' 2b are out OPS-ing Texas Rangers 2b.

 

3rd behind Utley and Pedroia is nothing to be ashamed of.

[BigbadB]

just to be clear...at the time the trade rumors were going on, you argued that roberts wasn't going to be a big upgrade over derosa. and now that he's shown to, in fact, be an upgrade (but not a huge upgrade), you want some kind of congratulations (?) about knowing the degree to which he was going to be an upgrade over derosa?

 

good job?

 

Yeah, don't we all just love a hindsight argument? Must have just been chomping at the bit to toss that one out there. If only DeRo could have hit that 20th homer sooner, so we could have all been ridiculed and laughed at much sooner.

 

Of course, my proposal for Roberts still had DeRosa playing everyday. But, Theriot has more than fooled me, and I'm thankful.

 

Still, I'm left with nothing more to add to this thread other than.....

 

:roll:

[Little Slide Rooter]

welcome to 5 months ago.

[CubColtPacer]

I'm pretty sure the people who were arguing that Roberts wasn't much of an upgrade over DeRosa were doing so because they saw Roberts as a question mark to put up big numbers. I'd love to see the posts where somebody thought that DeRosa would put up the season of his life, and so that's why Roberts wouldn't be a big upgrade. They might have been right in the level of the upgrade, but they were for absolutely the wrong reason.

 

Of course, things magically worked out for the Cubs this year. But DeRosa would have had plenty of at-bats this year. In fact, the likely scenario is that after Pie busted out, Fukudome and Johnson would have likely platooned in center and DeRosa would have been the full-time RF at least until Soriano went down.

 

Even with the way it played out, DeRosa has more than 200 AB's at a position other than 2nd base this year, and looking through the lineups I could easily find another 80-100 more that would have happened if Roberts were here (mostly when Soriano was out), and probably find even more than that if I took a 2nd look. Plus then you add in another 30 at-bats or so from 2nd base. He would have gotten 350 at-bats or so this year even if the Cubs had kept Fukudome in RF and acquired Edmonds, and more if they didn't.

 

If the Cubs had traded for Roberts, we would have been saying how it was a really good move. Roberts is having a very good year. The people we would have traded for him are having bad years (with the exception of Gallagher, who has been fine for how young he is, but definitely a rocky year). It would have been one of Hendry's praised deals.

 

The fact that everything has worked out to the absolute best case scenario (DeRosa has a year out of line with the rest of his career, Cubs pick up a great OF off the scrap heap, the Cubs manage to luck their way into a great trade that was almost universally labeled as a steal that couldn't have been predicted that they would have to pay so little, the Cubs backup second baseman also has an absolutely outstanding year getting some of the at-bats that DeRosa would have gotten off of the bench) shouldn't change that fact. It should make us happy we didn't do the deal of course. It's obviously worked out better for the Cubs this way. But that's not a reasonable way to evaluate a trade or a non-trade. Most of those were things that nobody predicted.

 

A Roberts trade backer could come back and say the Cubs should have traded for Roberts using the original rumor (Rich Hill and Felix Pie). That would have only helped the 2008 Cubs and the future if they did that. It doesn't make it right though because the reasons for it being a good trade (Hill completely collapsing) weren't really predictable, and nobody did predict it. In the same way, DeRosa being so unbelievable and everything else wasn't able to be predicted either.

 

Roberts has done exactly what the people who wanted to trade for him expected, and what the people who said he wasn't much of an upgrade said he wouldn't do. The other players in the trade also played badly just like the trade backers predicted. It's just that the rest of the puzzle changed dramatically and unexpectedly.