Cubs acquire Jody Gerut from Cleveland for Jason Dubois

[ZZ Thorn]

For the same reason they wanted an even more mediocre Jason Lane???

 

Look, i'm not saying the idea is fool proof. It has a million ways it could come undone, but it makes sense based on the info we have.

 

That's only because you lack all the necessary information to figure this move out as part of the Dunn trade. An absence of contrary information is not confirmation of a poor hypothesis. Unless you're able to provide some actual reason behind these moves rather than simply shoving them into a loosely-fit framework, you haven't developed a logical trade proposal.

 

Isn't that what I said with the Cheerios?

 

It's an obsession that will fortunately be cured on Aug. 1.

 

So can Gerut leadoff? Doesn't seem like he has much speed, tho he can work the count.

[TXCubsFan]

I really dont understand this.

 

 

Unless this is part of something bigger (ala Jose Hernandez in 03)

 

Plz be dunn.

 

Could be a trade that stands on its own in Hendry's mind. Hendry is a compulsive optimizer with no improvement too small to make. Remember the Darren Lewis / Chad Hermansen trade?

[brinoch]

Something just doesnt stack up. I'm almost certain one of our OFs will be good as gone, who and when and how remains to be seen.

 

Well, technically speaking, Dubois would count as one of our OF's. :P

[Roast]

Unless you're able to provide some actual reason behind these moves .

 

I have been doing that for the last half hour. You just refuse to beleive that something of the sort could happen. Look, i never said this hypothesis was fool proof. You act like i have to be 100 percent sure of something before i may speculate.

 

The information i have peiced together, is done so in a logical manner, if we cannot agree on that, then there is no way we can agree on anything in this discussion.

[FloridaCubbie]

 

Most things in this game don't make sense.

 

I believe that is what Cpatterson20 was getting at.

 

And I was adding on. Is it okay for me to do that?

 

It is a message forum after all.

 

Wow, tonight is not a good PR night for me.

Rap Sucks. :)

[Roast]

 

Most things in this game don't make sense.

 

I believe that is what Cpatterson20 was getting at.

 

And I was adding on. Is it okay for me to do that?

 

It is a message forum after all.

 

Wow, tonight is not a good PR night for me.

 

Can't be a bad PR night for a guy with Farnsy and 2Pac anywhere near their post.

 

:-s

[brinoch]

 

It's just a lot of guessing combined with baseless hopes.

 

No, its bits and peices of information that have been peiced together in a logical manner to come to a conclusion.

 

This, in science, is called a hypothesis. In the tearms we speak in now, it is speculation.

 

Now, no doubt it has holes. but when you put it all together, it does make sense.

 

It makes no sense at all. Why would Cinci actively seek out and desire a mediocre outfielder as part of this trade?

 

Because the source said so.

 

Vance is a highly respected member of this forum, and we have no reason to beleive what he says is untrue.

 

I don't know that I'm respected....prolific maybe...but respected?!?! :P

 

[peg knocker]Fear not. You aren't respected. We merely tolerate you.[/peg knocker]

[YearofDaCubs]

Something just doesnt stack up. I'm almost certain one of our OFs will be good as gone, who and when and how remains to be seen.

 

Well, technically speaking, Dubois would count as one of our OF's. :P

Yes, but we just added one. You can only play 3 OF and we have:

 

Burnitz

Hairston/Corey

Hollandworth

Gerut

Grieve

Murton

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think what Roast and I have speculated makes sense. Do I think it's likely? Hell no. I give it at best a 10% of happening.

 

On the other hand, given what I know it is logical speculation.

[Geech]

I have been doing that for the last half hour.

 

But you haven't. You've stuck the moves together in a pattern that results in the Cubs getting Dunn, but you haven't considered the reasoning behind the individual pieces, and you've simply eschewed more plausible and far less complicated explanations.

[Roast]

I think what Roast and I have speculated makes sense. Do I think it's likely? Hell no. I give it at best a 10% of happening.

 

On the other hand, given what I know it is logical speculation.

 

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEExactly.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

It's just a lot of guessing combined with baseless hopes.

 

No, its bits and peices of information that have been peiced together in a logical manner to come to a conclusion.

 

This, in science, is called a hypothesis. In the tearms we speak in now, it is speculation.

 

Now, no doubt it has holes. but when you put it all together, it does make sense.

 

It makes no sense at all. Why would Cinci actively seek out and desire a mediocre outfielder as part of this trade?

 

Because the source said so.

 

Vance is a highly respected member of this forum, and we have no reason to beleive what he says is untrue.

 

I don't know that I'm respected....prolific maybe...but respected?!?! :P

 

[peg knocker]Fear not. You aren't respected. We merely tolerate you.[/peg knocker]

 

Ouch! And from a mod too. I think I may have to call upon the panel of experts for backup. :ninja:

[Geech]

I think what Roast and I have speculated makes sense. Do I think it's likely? Hell no. I give it at best a 10% of happening.

 

On the other hand, given what I know it is logical speculation.

 

If it's logical then why is it patently so unlikely?

Edited July 19, 2005 by Geech

[FloridaCubbie]

Gerut in AAA '05:

48AB 3HR 6BB 7K

.438/.518/.729

 

At least that is encouraging as far as his power returning.

 

 

If he can manage a .450 or so SLG to go with his OPB, I will say it's an ok trade, otherwise I don't feel like we've improved the club.

[brinoch]

Something just doesnt stack up. I'm almost certain one of our OFs will be good as gone, who and when and how remains to be seen.

 

Well, technically speaking, Dubois would count as one of our OF's. :P

Yes, but we just added one. You can only play 3 OF and we have:

 

Burnitz

Hairston/Corey

Hollandworth

Gerut

Grieve

Murton

 

Oh I agree. I was messing with you a little. I think this is a terrible move in and of itself. If it is a part of a larger move, then it may make sense. In the mean time, I will reserve judgment.

 

Although, if it sends Mitre to AAA, at least it has the ancillary benefit of reducing the number of pitchers to a reasonable level.

[Roast]

I think what Roast and I have speculated makes sense. Do I think it's likely? Hell no. I give it at best a 10% of happening.

 

On the other hand, given what I know it is logical speculation.

 

If it's logical then why is it patently so unlikely?

 

Just because somethign is logical, does not mean it is 100% going to happen.

 

Let me reitterate, if htey wanted jason lane, then isnt it at least logical they want a similar player, who is slightly better, in Jody Gerut.

 

If you do not see the logic there, Then like i said, we will simply just have to agree to disagree.

 

Is it likely that its going to happen, no. Based on what we know, is it at least a logical jump, yes.

[Hacking Out Machine]

Jumping in late on this, and I'm not sure if this is the consensus, but to me it looks like Jody Gerut will be our CF against righties. He's only played 26 games in his career in center, but it sure looks like this is the plan.

 

The organization doesn't like Hairston. Maybe Dusty is tired of dodging his foul balls in the 3rd base dugout. If they think Hairston is "dumb", then they are definitely getting the antithesis of dumb with Gerut. He's Stanford educated, and known to be one of the most articluate guys around, kind of like Doug Glanville in that regard. I'm still trying to figure out if I like the move. I can say this: I sure hope he doesn't get any ABs against lefties. Righties, ok, since he has put up about a .290 .360 .455 line against them in his career. We'll see what happens, but my guess is that this move effects Hairston the most. Well, Greenberg too I guess. Come to think of it, Patterson too. I have no clue what they will do if they have plans on bringing Patterson back up. Maybe this signifies that they don't have any such plans at all?

[VVMattVV]

How many teams besides the A's make trades and use the newly acquired players to turn around and make another trade? I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm genuinely curious how many times in recent history its been done (discluding the Oakland A's though).

[brinoch]

I don't know that I'm respected....prolific maybe...but respected?!?! :P

 

[peg knocker]Fear not. You aren't respected. We merely tolerate you.[/peg knocker]

 

Ouch! And from a mod too. I think I may have to call upon the panel of experts for backup. :ninja:

 

You pretty much asked for it. ;)

[frostwyrm]

I actually wanted Dubois traded because I considered him useless so long as Dusty Baker is here, but I don't understand the attraction to Gerut. How is he different from Hollandsworth? He is just another below average lefty-hitting corner outfielder. This only makes sense if Hollandsworth is traded. And couldn't we get more for Dubois than Gerut? Guys like Gerut grow on trees. We shouldn't have had to give up anything other than mid-level prospects. Edited July 19, 2005 by frostwyrm

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think what Roast and I have speculated makes sense. Do I think it's likely? Hell no. I give it at best a 10% of happening.

 

On the other hand, given what I know it is logical speculation.

 

If it's logical then why is it patently so unlikely?

 

It's logical in that Gerut fits the player that the Reds were asking from the Astros.

 

On the other hand, the Reds could want a completely different set of players from the Cubs. I discussed that in the thread that I first revealed the information. I still believe that is most likely.

 

But since I only have one side of the discussion...the part of what the Astros rejected, I can't rule out that a similar set of players from the Cubs would get the deal done.

 

It's logical...but entirely circumstantial. It's also assuming that the Cubs have interest in Dunn and paying the price to get him. That's something I don't know. Since there's so much I don't know, I give it a very low percentage of happening.

[Roast]

How many teams besides the A's make trades and use the newly acquired players to turn around and make another trade? I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm genuinely curious how many times in recent history its been done (discluding the Oakland A's though).

 

Jose Hernandez, 2003, CHicago cubs.

 

They aquired him, he played 23 games, then we turned around and traded him to the Pittsburgh Pirates along with Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez and Kenny Lofton.

[treebird]

Ouch! And from a mod too. I think I may have to call upon the panel of experts for backup. :ninja:

 

1 vote for vance is cool

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

How many teams besides the A's make trades and use the newly acquired players to turn around and make another trade? I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm genuinely curious how many times in recent history its been done (discluding the Oakland A's though).

 

We technically did when we acquired Mienkyalphabet and sent him to Boston as part of the Nomar deal.

[Geech]

On the other hand, the Reds could want a completely different set of players from the Cubs. I discussed that in the thread that I first revealed the information. I still believe that is most likely.

 

See, I agree with you here. They may have asked for a similar player, but it doesn't make sense for them to actively desire and seek out that type of player, which means that acquiring such a player does not necessarily make it more likely the Cubs will acquire Dunn.

 

It's not logical to ignore a better interpretation simply to achieve your desired results.