cbbryan

You're giving up young pitching (have you seen the price of pitching lately) for a slight upgrade at 2B. Then on top of that you're trading an OF that could start on your team. More then a few Cub fans have given Hendry flack in the past for selling low and trading Murton in a Roberts deal would be even worse then selling low. The flip-side to your argument is that most Cubs fans don't practically believe in selling high, only in theory. If the Cubs have any prospect of value (say top 50 or even top 100 overall), they act like those prospects can only be dealt for elite MLB quality players, like Cabrera (or elite saber-inclined players, like Dunn). Gallagher is a Cubs prospect with a buzz. He is not a head turner or elite prospect in the scope of all teams' prospects, but is someone worth noting from the Cubs system. This is a time in his career to sell high on him while he has a buzz, but before he has really showcased his MLB stuff. And so naturally few Cubs fans want to include him in a deal. If the Cubs keep him and use him in the 2008 rotation, he'll either dramatically increase his value, or diminish it to the point of sell low status. In either situation, folks would not want to trade him still. Gallagher being included isn't necessarily my only problem. If it where Gallagher and one other player then I'd be okay with it. What is being floated around is some variation of these players Gallagher, Veal, EPatt, Cedeno, Ceda, Marquis, and Murton. If you include 4 of those players you're overpaying for Roberts. 4 of those players is better then what the O's got for Tejada. That's my point. It's too much value for Roberts, IMO.

Trading a prospect is not giving up on a prospect, nor is it giving away a prospect. Value such as what Roberts brings requires losing something of value. The Cubs do not have a lot of trade value at the major league level, and must resort to trading prospects for value. Gallagher is not regarded as a sure thing or can't miss prospect by anyone in the business of grading prospects, so if anything, the Orioles take the greater risk in a deal with Cubs by trading away their best MLB player for no sure-fire MLB talent and no can't miss prospects. Roberts is better then Nick Markakis now?

You're giving up young pitching (have you seen the price of pitching lately) for a slight upgrade at 2B. Then on top of that you're trading an OF that could start on your team. More then a few Cub fans have given Hendry flack in the past for selling low and trading Murton in a Roberts deal would be even worse then selling low. I don't care if Marquis is traded because of his contract, but why take back Payton? He's awful and you have a better player (Murton) to come of the bench. I'd be fine w/ a 2 for 1 for Roberts. Maybe even a 3 for 1, but 1 of those players will be an A baller. when aramis needs a spell day we have derosa...same for roberts...maybe even theriot...and even dlee... i mean...having derosa fill the super sub role will play HUGE dividends on this ballclub this year... if we don't acquire roberts...then will will have cedeno to spell aramis and theriot and then fontenot... i really see it as more than a marginal upgrade when all of the factors are placed side by side I'm not denying the Cubs would be a better team. That doesn't mean that you trade 4 MLB players for one. Murton has value. Young pitching has value. Minor league players w/ MLB experience have value. I don't even mind giving a little more then the value you're getting back, but I view that trade report as much more value going back to the O's then coming to the Cubs.

WSCR is reporting that Brian Greise will be released tomorrow. Just a note.

You're giving up young pitching (have you seen the price of pitching lately) for a slight upgrade at 2B. Then on top of that you're trading an OF that could start on your team. More then a few Cub fans have given Hendry flack in the past for selling low and trading Murton in a Roberts deal would be even worse then selling low. I don't care if Marquis is traded because of his contract, but why take back Payton? He's awful and you have a better player (Murton) to come of the bench. I'd be fine w/ a 2 for 1 for Roberts. Maybe even a 3 for 1, but 1 of those players will be an A baller.

i love it personally get it done already That would be a GREAT deal for the O's.

LaDanian Tomlinson could be available and the Bears still shouldn't make that pick. With the passing game eroding and the offensive line coming off a relatively weak 2007 performance, defenses will be keying in on the Bears running game. The team should focus on solidifying the offensive line before any other offensive moves. I wouldn't go that far. You have to look at the value of the pick. I'm not convinced that with this OL fixed that Benson is the answer at RB. He has flashes where he looks, but the majority of the time he doesn't look good. There seems to be more depth in this draft at OL then play maker positions. If you have the opportunity to add a play maker to the offense and still add depth in later rounds I think you have to think about it.

I'd maintain the last good RB the Bears drafted was Neal Anderson back in 1986. I also maintain he is one of the most underrated RBs in recent NFL history. I loved Neal Anderson. http://www.mariontractor.com/index_files/image4291.jpg I believe he's still the 2nd leading rusher of all-time for the Bears.

I heard it too. From radarluv1

I'd prefer Hackett to Johnson anyways. Brandon Lloyd is available!

I didn't like the Salaam or Benson picks at the time they where made. Enis was really the only one that disappointed me.

I think it was CBS that was talking about the Falcons taking Matt Ryan?!?! I'll see if I can find a link, but I'm sure that was the speculation on their pick.

Some would consider Martin the #1 catcher. Hes not close to a #1 catcher on your team though since you are going to be losing steals every week. I'd try and trade him for VMart. On the converse, if you are punting steals, Tulo gains value. I really like the balance and depth on the team even though. Like I said, it's H2H w/ no starts max. In roto I would have drafted differently.

it's straight points and no limits on starts so I went without any closers.

If George isn't dead by then I think both his sons have proven to be worthy of the Steinbrenner name.

You know that these things have to be said. I didn't expect it to get any worse then it was. Lou should be the one apologizing though? That's stupid. Marquis should apologize for thinking anyone cares what his opinion is. He hasn't built up the cache to make statements about who should be starting and who shouldn't. Lou was completely in line with what he said. True. But if it was "overblown" and Marquis didn't say in essence "start me or trade me" then it would be categorized as a rush to judgment by Lou before knowing all the facts. I don't really agree with Lou having to apologize, but I'm sure that's the perception. I still think he'll be traded and thought there was a good chance of it before his comments.

I wouldn't normally advocate a RB at #14 for the Bears, but if Mendenhall is available there I would support them drafting him. I don't know that they can get anything for Benson, though?!?!? Maybe another pick that they could use for OL help.

reckonize. LOL Thanks for the clarification Laura. I thought that was what the deal was, but I wasn't sure.

I saw that topic but didn't know what it was about. Title could have been a bit clearer! Feel free to merge or lock though.

So no particular order includes the same guy twice? #-o LOL. Yeah, I cloned him so I could change out right arms. I'll change that.

Well they're in no particular order.

Dusty Baker in the Conservatory with the Candlestick!

And Jim Hendry wasn't mentioned in correlation with either of them! Good job! I would expect Milwaukee to do a bit better for Prince though. I can see why he'd be angry, but on the other hand if he keeps performing he'll make plenty of money. That probably won't come from Milwaukee either!

Trade Marquis for him! And pay him 1 million a year!

Doesn't seem to serious.