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

[DiamondMind]

Player B owns.

[manbearcub]

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.

 

 

that was way too complex for a thread like this.

[17 Seconds]

I wonder if the people who are trashing badnews for "patting himself on the back" are the same people that wanted to blow resources on Roberts. Hmm.

[nilodnayr]

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?"

 

How 'bout wOBA?

DeRo=375

Roberts=359

[Sammy Sofa]

I wonder if the people who are trashing badnews for "patting himself on the back" are the same people that wanted to blow resources on Roberts. Hmm.

 

"Blowing resources" implies that Roberts is a bad player and that anyone would have been able to predict that the Cubs would have been able to trade for Harden like they did AND that DeRosa would have a career year.

 

And most people here thought the Orioles were expecting/asking for way too much for Roberts even when they just waned to see the deal done.

[17 Seconds]

I wonder if the people who are trashing badnews for "patting himself on the back" are the same people that wanted to blow resources on Roberts. Hmm.

 

"Blowing resources" implies that Roberts is a bad player and that anyone would have been able to predict that the Cubs would have been able to trade for Harden like they did AND that DeRosa would have a career year.

 

No, it doesn't. The rumored offer was Gallagher/Veal/Ceda/Cedeno and one other (can't remember who...Patterson?) Trading your top 3 pitching prospects plus 2 others for a minimal upgrade at a position that doesn't need it is a waste of resources, especially when you consider that those parts would be needed later on to upgrade positions that actually need upgrading. Of course we didn't know we'd be able to get Harden, but I think it was pretty much understood around here that we needed another frontline starter and trading 5 guys for Roberts would hurt our chances of getting that done at any point during the season.

[TruffleShuffle]

i guess badnews also predicted that derosa would have a career year at age 33? kudos for that, pal.

 

if derosa had performed at his 2006-07 levels - which were still pretty good - brian roberts would have represented a significant upgrade at 2B.

[CubColtPacer]

I wonder if the people who are trashing badnews for "patting himself on the back" are the same people that wanted to blow resources on Roberts. Hmm.

 

"Blowing resources" implies that Roberts is a bad player and that anyone would have been able to predict that the Cubs would have been able to trade for Harden like they did AND that DeRosa would have a career year.

 

No, it doesn't. The rumored offer was Gallagher/Veal/Ceda/Cedeno and one other (can't remember who...Patterson?) Trading your top 3 pitching prospects plus 2 others for a minimal upgrade at a position that doesn't need it is a waste of resources, especially when you consider that those parts would be needed later on to upgrade positions that actually need upgrading. Of course we didn't know we'd be able to get Harden, but I think it was pretty much understood around here that we needed another frontline starter and trading 5 guys for Roberts would hurt our chances of getting that done at any point during the season.

 

The deal never got quite that hot. The original deal that people liked was Gallagher/Murton/Patterson. In December, when most of the discussion of the deal took place, the deal was Gallagher/Cedeno/Marshall. People were mostly ok with this deal, but not quite as happy as the first one.

 

Then, it morphed into Gallagher/Cedeno/Murton/Veal,or sometimes instead Gallagher/Cedeno/Murton/Patterson. Those 2 deals received at best lukewarm support from the board. Some jumped ship then, and others stayed in but said absolutely no more. I remember the thought of 5 players, and Orioles fans wanting that, but I don't think there was a lot of serious consideration on this board for a deal of 5.

 

As for the frontline starter, I don't think the need was as apparent as you make it sound during the offseason. Most people thought that Hill would make another step up and be that #2 starter. Lilly was fine as #3, Marquis is ok as a #4, and people thought one of Lieber/Dempster/Marshall could fill the #5 slot. The pitching was considered to be in a lot better of shape than the offense. It wasn't until the hot start by the offense and Hill blowing up for suddenly the need to shift very quickly to a frontline starter.

[Sammy Sofa]

I wonder if the people who are trashing badnews for "patting himself on the back" are the same people that wanted to blow resources on Roberts. Hmm.

 

"Blowing resources" implies that Roberts is a bad player and that anyone would have been able to predict that the Cubs would have been able to trade for Harden like they did AND that DeRosa would have a career year.

 

No, it doesn't. The rumored offer was Gallagher/Veal/Ceda/Cedeno and one other (can't remember who...Patterson?) Trading your top 3 pitching prospects plus 2 others for a minimal upgrade at a position that doesn't need it is a waste of resources, especially when you consider that those parts would be needed later on to upgrade positions that actually need upgrading. Of course we didn't know we'd be able to get Harden, but I think it was pretty much understood around here that we needed another frontline starter and trading 5 guys for Roberts would hurt our chances of getting that done at any point during the season.

 

The deal never got quite that hot. The original deal that people liked was Gallagher/Murton/Patterson. In December, when most of the discussion of the deal took place, the deal was Gallagher/Cedeno/Marshall. People were mostly ok with this deal, but not quite as happy as the first one.

 

Then, it morphed into Gallagher/Cedeno/Murton/Veal,or sometimes instead Gallagher/Cedeno/Murton/Patterson. Those 2 deals received at best lukewarm support from the board. Some jumped ship then, and others stayed in but said absolutely no more. I remember the thought of 5 players, and Orioles fans wanting that, but I don't think there was a lot of serious consideration on this board for a deal of 5.

 

As for the frontline starter, I don't think the need was as apparent as you make it sound during the offseason. Most people thought that Hill would make another step up and be that #2 starter. Lilly was fine as #3, Marquis is ok as a #4, and people thought one of Lieber/Dempster/Marshall could fill the #5 slot. The pitching was considered to be in a lot better of shape than the offense. It wasn't until the hot start by the offense and Hill blowing up for suddenly the need to shift very quickly to a frontline starter.

 

You're being way too rational for this thread.

[Derwood]

i think it's safe to say that if you plugged Roberts into this lineup all year that he'd have significantly better counting stats, including probably leading the team in runs scored

[abuck1220]

i guess badnews also predicted that derosa would have a career year at age 33? kudos for that, pal.

 

and he knew that the cubs would trade the very chips they were going to use for roberts to get harden, who badnews also knew would stay healthy. all in all, very impressive work by badnews.

[Amie]

I wonder if the people who are trashing badnews for "patting himself on the back" are the same people that wanted to blow resources on Roberts. Hmm.

 

"Blowing resources" implies that Roberts is a bad player and that anyone would have been able to predict that the Cubs would have been able to trade for Harden like they did AND that DeRosa would have a career year.

 

And most people here thought the Orioles were expecting/asking for way too much for Roberts even when they just waned to see the deal done.

 

 

Not trashing anyone here. But I wonder if anyone here realizes that this may have been the first year in DeRosa's career that he's really been truly healthy? If you recall he had a heart arrhythmia since he was 16 years old. A problem he finally had surgically corrected with the Ablation surgery he had during spring training.

 

Rather then this being a career year for DeRosa we may find out this is more like the real guy, the healthy guy.

 

As far as team chemistry goes, and to me that means a lot. I think Mark having a spot at 2nd base, even though he doesn't mind playing anywhere to help out, is a winner for this team.

That way it keeps Fontenot's bat fresh, and allow him playing time to.

[biittner77]

If Gallagher had been included in a Roberts trade, whose to say that the A's wouldn't have taken someone else in the deal? They held out for Gallagher because he was there and available. It seems like the A's were trying to get what they could for Harden.

[rocket]

too bad you all aren't like me, who wanted to put roberts at 2B and move derosa to RF before the season even started. now that would have been the best thing for the cubs.

[twothousandfive]

Didn't one version of the trade (maybe when there was talk Bedard could be included) include Rich Hill as the centerpiece? Had it been Hill, Cedeno, Pie for Roberts, that would have been a terrific deal -- and I think Harden would still be on the team, but there would be a different back-up shortstop and they wouldn't have been able to wait to get Edmonds.

 

If DeRosa plays poorly in the post-season, will those in favor of Roberts over DeRosa start a thread of there own?