CubinNY

I like that deal much better. I'd probably do a Sean M., Sean G., Matt M. trade.

Leadoff hitter is not a position in the game of baseball. what is your problem, I made a mistake on saying that if thats your best comeback on trying to make me look bad then u obviously have no case in that argument Ok, now it's on. Matt Murton is a pre-prime, cheap OF who's proven he can be a decent, cheap OF. We currently have no RF. Brian Roberts is a 32 year old 2B who's marginally better than our current 2B and makes $4.2m. He would cost the Cubs 2 or 3 good trading chips. Thus, Matt Murton has more value to the Cubs than this trade for Brian Roberts. Second, leadoff hitter isn't a position. It's an old timey way of looking at a lineup's composition (which really doesn't matter much when you look at it). Offense is offense, regardless if it is hitting 1st, 6th or 8th. Finally, baseballs don't travel differently in the minors as opposed to the majors. Pie's minor league career is a perfectly justified method of evaluating his defensive ability. And for what it's worth, 40 ML games isn't that small of a sample size. psst, Roberts will be 30 next year.

Cripes, not another painfully long and agonizing thread... What would you do as a moderator to shorten them?

Am I thinking of a different Brian Roberts? That's awfully steep. Done without a second thought. I must be thinking of a different Brian Roberts too, because that is one lopsided trade. He's basically Matt Murton playing 2nd. That is basically a ridiculous statement. .281 .351 .409 Roberts .296 .365 .455 Murton Sorry, a tad bit worse than Murton. I disagree. Those three statistics aren't the only three you can use to make blanket judgements with. Murton is also a butcher defensively in my opinion. Plus you are comparing statistics of players who play positions with drastically different offensive positions. I don't see Murton as ever being an above average everyday outfielder. He's a nice 4th outfielder type. He doesn't project for power and I don't think he's got enough speed in the field or on the paths to make up for his warning track power. Your opinion means a lot more than the numbers. Here's the deal for me, it doesn't matter where you get the offense it matters how much offense you get. I'd love to see the Cubs upgrade in RF. Hopefully they get Fukudome. However, nothing happens in a vacuum. Currently, the Cubs have a hole in RF, SS, and CF. Brian Roberts plays none of those positions and, if the rumors are true will take three tradable players to get. So, if they don't get Fukudome and Roberts moves DeRosa all over the diamond and they lose Cedeno, Murton, and another players. They've upgraded slightly at 2nd and have "shot their wad" so to speak.

You are making far too much sense for this discussion. uh huh

My guess Marshall, Murton, and Cedeno.... though it could be Marmol, Murton, Cedeno....or Patterson, Marmol Cedeno. I sure hope Marmol isn't in the deal. Marshall, Cedeno, and Murton? And I think it is a bad trade, but Cedeno and Murton are done for with the Cubs so they might as well get someone for them.

Am I thinking of a different Brian Roberts? That's awfully steep. Done without a second thought. I must be thinking of a different Brian Roberts too, because that is one lopsided trade. He's basically Matt Murton playing 2nd. That is basically a ridiculous statement. .281 .351 .409 Roberts .296 .365 .455 Murton Sorry, a tad bit worse than Murton.

Am I thinking of a different Brian Roberts? That's awfully steep. Done without a second thought. I must be thinking of a different Brian Roberts too, because that is one lopsided trade. He's basically Matt Murton playing 2nd.

Getting caught up myself. Listened to our old friend Dusty this morning. Had a lunch session with Lou. Lou then did his media thing. Chased down the Murton-Teahen thing for you guys. :lol: And we'll see Jim at 5:30. So in other words, no. I know it's not the Cubs, but what do you think about the Det. Florida trade? Pretty amazing.

Wow, that's an interesting story. Especially, the "different type of cat" comment. I stand corrected. Even so the Barrett that Hendry got wasn't the established player that he traded away. It was good trade. Thanks Bruce.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff. Stole Barrett, that's a good one. Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year. Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee. Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted. Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting. You are obviously trying to play devil's advocate here. Actually, the real story is that Hendry initiated this trade and used Beane as the conduit because Hendry couldn't get a deal done one on one with Minaya, who was the Expos GM at the time. Hendry had tried for two years to get Barrett, to no avail. Did Beane not care who he was getting, or did he want Miller?

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff. Stole Barrett, that's a good one. Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year. Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee. Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted. Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting. So Beane "knew" he had a catcher who had three future seasons of .800+ OPS, and the best he could get in return was Damian Miller and a little cash? Wow, now that's a stupid trade. No, he wanted Miller to handle his pitching staff. It is not rocket science here. And yes Beane values defense. Not just defense, but "handling pitchers" to the point where he'll knowingly give up three consecutive seasons of .820+ OPS from the catcher just for one year of "handling pitchers". That's absolutely Dusty-Bakerian. How did he "knowingly give up...". That statement is just moronic as. Up to the point that Barrett was traded he'd never put up number like that as a catcher. He was a washed out 3rd baseman when Hendry got him.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff. Stole Barrett, that's a good one. Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year. Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee. Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted. Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting. So Beane "knew" he had a catcher who had three future seasons of .800+ OPS, and the best he could get in return was Damian Miller and a little cash? Wow, now that's a stupid trade. No, no one knows what the future holds. He wanted Miller to handle his pitching staff. It is not rocket science here. And yes Beane values defense.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff. Stole Barrett, that's a good one. Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year. Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee. Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted. Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting. You are obviously trying to play devil's advocate here.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff. Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

Anyone could have made those trades. Baltimore failed to come to terms on a long term contract for Lee after he was traded by the Marlins. I supposed Hendry gets credit for the first person to say, "I'll take him". Aramis was traded after questions about his "make up" and ability to play defense. Two things that still haunt him today. Hendry should get credit for the Nomar deal, but again Boston couldn't get rid of him fast enough. But all that is beside the point, Hendry has demonstrated repeatedly that he's real good at putting together mediocre to terrible teams, year in and year out. Frankly, I want more. Funny how those deals became hindsight "no brainers" that anyone could have made, but the board nearly melted down when they were made going on and on about how badly we were fleeced. Because we gave up Bobby Hill and Hee Seop Choi who were "just as good, but cheaper". Who gives a crap about what "the board" thinks? I wasn't here when Lee was traded. I think the Aramis trade was not universally panned. But it is all completely beside the point.

Anyone could have made those trades. Baltimore failed to come to terms on a long term contract for Lee after he was traded by the Marlins. I supposed Hendry gets credit for the first person to say, "I'll take him". Aramis was traded after questions about his "make up" and ability to play defense. Two things that still haunt him today. Hendry should get credit for the Nomar deal, but again Boston couldn't get rid of him fast enough. But all that is beside the point, Hendry has demonstrated repeatedly that he's real good at putting together mediocre to terrible teams, year in and year out. Frankly, I want more. Huh? Aramis Ramirez was one of the best defensive 3B in MLB last season. We think that, and it probably is true, but ask Barry Rozner and the average fan about that.

Anyone could have made those trades. Baltimore failed to come to terms on a long term contract for Lee after he was traded by the Marlins. I supposed Hendry gets credit for the first person to say, "I'll take him". Aramis was traded after questions about his "make up" and ability to play defense. Two things that still haunt him today. Hendry should get credit for the Nomar deal, but again Boston couldn't get rid of him fast enough. But all that is beside the point, Hendry has demonstrated repeatedly that he's real good at putting together mediocre to terrible teams, year in and year out. Frankly, I want more.

Good to have the voice of sanity check in every once and a while. :D I agree, however at the same time I think it shows how piss poor of a GM Hendry is.

I agree. If not better, just as good. But I think the same thing about Murton too.

Jim is playing chess while they're playing checkers. Step 1: Increase Fuld's trade value by making him "untouchable". Step 2: Step 3: Reap the rewards.

But only the Golden Dome gets ****** star players.

This entire off-season has been about that, so far. It makes absolutely no friggen' sense what-so-ever.

Teahan has a higher ceiling. That and two-fiddy gets you a Java Chip Frappuccino at Starbucks.

3/4 of Old Prior > 2/3 of all pitchers in the bigs, and he's relatively cheap. $3MM for no production is not cheap. The Cubs are no desperate for starting pitching this year, there is no need to potentially throw $3MM down the drain on wishful thinking. Wow, just... wow.