badnews

I've seen you post equally as outrageous things in total seriousness so you'll have to excuse me if I take what you say to mean what you say.

I wouldn't go that far. Daisuke was supposed to be a shoe in for 2007. Bruce will put up better numbers than Fukudome. Towles will win. It's a done deal sealed. A done deal sealed? Nothing is that easy in baseball. I think people said the same thing about Hermida too, it was a done deal. People said the same thing about Stephen Drew, I remember one prominent blogger said "Stephen Drew will be the best player in the NL West in 2007, and it's not going to be close." He could get injured. Anything could happen. Towles is definitely a frontrunner, but the game's played on the field, not on paper.

You didn't answer my question. I don't mind if you point out the flaws in my reasoning because then I learn something, but I don't care for when you just make some wise-ass quip and don't actually shed any light on why I came to the wrong conclusion.

I don't think it's being snotty or prickish. I think the fact that if you doubt these guys you get bum-rushed with thousand word essays about they are infalliable oracles is more like what you're thinking. Your advice can work for you as well. If you don't like what I have to say about them, or the behavior of their group of followers and staunch defenders that gang up on you with an 8 post tirade, then don't read what I have to write. Basically I've lost my patience with all the condescending lectures coming from people in here about how we should be falling at the feet of these people and their amazing knowledge. I'm not up to date on all the rumors. I haven't even read all the posts in this topic or since I last logged on. But what I see is that now a lot of other sites were citing these guys and it looks like another "done" declaration turned out to be wrong, and I'm sure there's yet another hogwash excuse about how it doesn't really count or whatever. I don't care. Propping these guys up is not my pasttime. I read somewhere Kaplan wrote that the Orioles were holding out for Pie, or Colvin, or Hill, someone like that. If that were true then it would seem they've been totally wrong all along.

What makes you think I'm going to bother to track down entries and articles that old? I didn't ask you for links to prove what you said. Where's the thread that said the exact amount? It shouldn't be amazing even if they did know the exact amount, exact amounts were posted because other prospects were announced in the past, this isn't great mysticism here. It looks very weird to me that every time someone says something about those guys, after every single post, there's a reply. That's being strangely over-defensive. You think you guys could let one skeptical post slide by without launching into a 1,000 word defense of... what? Guys you don't even know? That's bizarre to me. Anyway, Roberts, yay, we got bilked, Hendry got cheated again, we can all post the lineups and drool and not be bored. The Insiders can be glad on the 45th try they got it right and hopefully we don't have to see the word "Orioles" on here again.

From what I'm seeing now I fully expect to this topic to be 134 pages the next time I log on. Rip-off.

Only a slighter higher ceiling? That's disappointing.

Why, what's happening with Fields that he won't be able to play in more than 100 games in 2008? At 3rd base they gave away 72 .365 OPS ABs to Andy Gonzalez, 163 .578 OPS ABs to Joe Crede, 50 .629 OPS ABs to Cintron, and 24 .612 OPS ABs to Ozuna. Those are some pretty pitiful numbers, you'd figure Fields playing at 3b full time can improve upon their aggregate .641 OPS even if he's a strikeout prone lefty masher at best.

More time for Fields is probably a good thing for that team in 2008 as well.

Why do people say "3 of the top 10 White Sox prospects" anyway? What does that mean? Baseball America rated the White Sox farm system 29th in baseball, didn't they? Except for Gonzalez, those guys wouldn't be in the top of most team's systems. Who were the Sox's top prospects 3 years ago? Their list was something like Brian Anderson, Robert Valido, Ray Liotta, Ryan Sweeney, Sean Tracey, Pedro Lopez, and Kris Honel. This reminds me of when people predicted doom for the White Sox for trading Brandon McCarthy. Who cares. They got a great deal. It's possible if Gio Gonzalez is good in a few years he'll be making more than Nick Swisher anyway, that's how good Swisher's contract is. It wouldn't surprise me if Swisher puts up a .900+ OPS in 2008. And then people will say "No one saw it coming."

Like I said, a lot of blogs predicted similar things for different rumors in the past. The Wieters thing was no mystery on the sources I was reading at the time. To me that's being impressed by someone predicting the Cubs would draft Vitters. Maybe you read different things that I did, that's not what I read. As for equating these guys with Bruce-worship, if people give these guys a lot of faith as you say, then they're gulliable, easy trusting, and too easily impressed. David, I don't trust you because you come off as way too defensive to me. Every time someone posts that they don't trust the Oriole Insiders, you have to write an essay as to why they should be trusted. As far as I can tell you don't let a single questioning post slide. That strikes me as very strange. If someone was questioning a source I found reliable, I wouldn't be waging such a campaign for it. It looks weird to me that you have so much emotionally invested in the message board reputations of these guys. The jerking around remains - people are assured one deal or one day is the day. Then we hear "Oh no, this wasn't the *official* Insiders." Well then, why bother posting it? Anyway, I'll duck out of this topic now. The rumors are frustrated and I am frustrated by my fellow fans, who feel like they have to be The Great Defenders of some message board attention whores masquerading as oracles, dropping hints here and there. The fact that it's the Orioles just rankles more. Even if they *do* know their stuff, which I doubt, despite the exaggerated and in some cases, fabricated, claims to the contrary, I'd rather be a skeptic than a blind believer. Sorry if I've been rude. The situation has been obnoxious.

He was a better fielder in the majors than this, wasn't he? He was good enough in 2006 as a 23 year old, and you thought he could just get better, but instead he seems to be getting worse.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I don't think "I'm bored" is a good reason to do a trade. And I wonder about the people who say they'd be "very, very happy" to get Roberts at this price, what price they would be unhappy with? Rich Hill, Carlos Marmol, and $20 million in cash? It's clear looking at Swisher and Renteria were traded for the Cubs are getting ripped off. But since they haven't won the World Series in a long time, it's okay to get ripped off, right? Like the Cleveland Indians. They haven't won a World Series in a long time, and they let themselves get ripped off all of the time, right? Oh wait... With Marshall, Cedeno, and Gallagher gone, what is there left to trade for A. J. Burnett even? I don't even see why A. J. Burnett is contingent on Roberts. Even if he's injured he's going to opt out because of the crazy market, doesn't he have 3/33 left on his contract or something? If he's injured he could be a Type B free agent then.

Uh, you'd be wrong. I've had plenty of doubts. I don't think it's smart to give everyone on there or even the one guy in question a free pass because of one rumor that was correct like 3 hours before it was posted. I've seen other blogs do that for other trades. And frankly I'm a little embarrassed at the way people in this topic are kissing the insider's asses and hanging on their every word. Since when did people on here become the papparazzi and the Orioles Insiders movie stars? The Miguel Tejada thing has been posted in here 20 times. Enough already. You'd think the guy parted the Red Sea or something. Let's stop acting like sycophants, this starry-eyed worship of some Orioles fans is undignified and silly. Everybody was instructed like good little boys and girls to take the Eric Patterson-Sean Gallagher-Matt Murton deal as fact, pffft. I also remember the Insiders saying Corey Patterson for Chris Britton and Bryan Bass was a done deal, instead we got Nate Spears and a lump of coal. So yeah, I have doubt. And even if they are right, this amount of sucking up and attention might be appropriate for a guy who singlehandedly handed the Cubs the World Series on a silver platter. Not otherwise. Sorry if that's rude, but I don't think The Pope commands this kind of undying faith.

How good is it to get rid of Angel Pagan if Jim Hendry is just going to trade for a guy just as crappy? What is he doing apparently talking to the Orioles about Jay Payton? Angel Pagan is probably a better CF at this point than Payton. Pagan slugged pretty well against lefties last year, to make his OPS against lefties about as good as Payton's. Jay Payton makes $5 million in 2008. Are you kidding me? Why is everyone so gung-ho about trading Marquis and Dempster and clearing salary? Clearing salary for what? Jay Payton? Puts a nice spin on the Jacque Jones trade - we had to pay the Tigers to take him and got nothing in return, meanwhile words are wasted on Jay Payton. That makes sense to me. This is why I don't applaud money-saving moves yet. If this money is being saved for guys like Jay Payton, to heck with these moves.

Not to mention a Roberts trade robs us of our most valuable trade chips, robs the Cubs of their best chances for quality starters to replace Marquis and Dempster, and robs us of our best option from when Theriot inevitably plays himself out of a job. But let's rally around some "Hey, it's been 100 years since we won a World Series, so let's make any poor trade that involves anyone who ever made an All-Star team, because you can't have 100 years of futility without futilely bad trades" kind of reasoning. On that note I say we trade Felix Pie, Josh Vitters, and Donald Veal for David DeJesus because they're 3 non-essential guys and we haven't won a World Series in 100 years so let's do something bold.

People argue that whatever flavor of the month they're jazzed about is essential to a championship. Looking at the 2006 Cardinals, it's stupid to say anything is essential to a championship. It's a blatant lie people tell themselves to justify stupid trades. Like "Yeah, the Steve Trachsel deal might suck, but if we catch lightning in a bottle with him and win the World Series, it'll all be worth it!" Roberts is not a big change to the current team. A good starting pitcher would make us the frontline, not Roberts. A convenient reply, considering it shows we'd be getting fleeced in this deal. Versatility is just a useless buzzword, like grit or whatever. No, it isn't. Because Roberts doesn't bring this team any closer, and if you've noticed being a long time reader, the crappiest trades are justified by "Finally going for it." We made bad trades all the time under the auspices of "going for it." Trading Garland was going for it, trading Willis was going for it, trading for Pierre was going for it, trading for Trachsel was going for it, it didn't work out badly but trading Garciaparra was going for it, I don't get, 100 years of futility is not a free pass for making every crap trade out there. That's a good way to keep the streak going to 200 years. That's the problem with this organization, every time they get even remotely close to anything, they blow their load entirely and surprise, surprise, success can't be sustained. The idea that Brian Roberts takes this team from an "also-ran" to "the feared frontrunner" is laughable.

100% of the time when people say "This is a trade that has to get done" it is NOT a trade that has to get done. I'm still waiting for a logical, reasonable explanation as to why Brian Roberts should be worth more in trade than Renteria. Price was mentioned - Renteria's price for a shortstop is more reasonable than Roberts' price for a 2b.

If we're going to pay these kinds of prices we'd have been better off getting Swisher or Renteria. I notice other teams don't necessarily just give guys away because they're lost in the organizational shuffle. For example, the Phillies and Astros used Mike Constanzo, a guy pretty much going nowhere, as a chip in actually *useful* trades. While the Cubs used Scott Moore, a superior player to Constanzo, as one of three players in an utterly useless 1 month trade. This organization is just gettng exponentially dumber. I wouldn't be surprised if the final proposal was Gallagher, Colvin, Ceda, and somebody like Wellington Castillo or Mitch Atkins, and we get some of those wonderful 5,000 word essays in which the trade is championed because "we didn't give up anyone we really need." Which was the benchmark used by some people for the Trachsel trade, or the Kendall trade. Instead of this benchmark, how about an alternative one: Trades that don't look like crap compared to good trades other teams are making? Trades that don't just look good compared to Brian Sabean's history?

By all means, let us equivocate how (business as usual) compared to the good trades other teams are making, this proposal doesn't suck.

I am going to be pissed that we fiddled while the White Sox got Swisher, while we bumbled around and ended up paying more for Roberts, an inferior 2b, than the Tigers did for Renteria, the superior player and a shortstop to boot. I think I am going to need blood pressure medication when 99% of people think the deal is like Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano (Devil Rays side).

These arguments are frustratingly short-sighted to me. People are essentially saying "If you're not going to contend this year, there's no point in improving the team." One post said "He's cleared the farm system of value." So what? Before the Nick Swisher trade, the farm system was 29th in baseball anyway. Do they get a trophy for holding on to those guys or something? Ryan Sweeney was pretty much declared done as a prospect this season. De Los Santos had one good season at the lower levels in the minors. Gonzalez is a nice pitching prospect. But I ask yet again, since when do you get a guy like Swisher for that cheap? Swisher is worth more than Brad Hawpe or Alex Rios with his contract, did you think you could get a guy like either? How does keeping Gio Gonzalez and De Los Santos help the White Sox more than Swisher? They don't. The point people are missing: This trade would've made sense for virtually any team in baseball. For the Marlins, for the Royals, well, maybe not the Devil Rays, but it's good value. Any time Swisher's name was brought up in the past, the idea was "He'll cost way too much." There was a Swisher topic earlier where it was said "Swisher would cost the Cubs Hill, Marmol, and another prospect." Oh, we've dropped a long way from that! This deal isn't even crazy different from what the Phillies gave up for Freddy Garcia. And that's a joke considering Swisher's salary the next few years: 2008: 3.5 m 2009: 5.3 m 2010: 6.75 m 2011: 9 m 2012: option: 10.5m or 1m buyout At the end of the 2012 season he'll be 31. For a 35 home run, 100 walk good defensive outfielder. Yeah, who gives a crap about Gio Gonzalez then? In 2010 6th inning pitchers will be making more than Nick Swisher does. And getting out of that park in Oakland and into a better lineup should do nothing but help, not hurt. I just can't believe anyone is arguing against this, plus I'm angry because the Cubs should've been in this deal. Look at how much he's making over the next five years. You have got to be kidding me. That contract ranks up there with David Wright and Tim Wakefield. Heck, it could be better. That's just crazy. I consider Ryan Sweeney worthless, so they essentially gave up a guy with good numbers but just one year and a good prospect in Gonzalez. The Braves would've been MUCH smarter to make this trade than the Teixeira one. For a guy who can probably put up an .850 OPS every year, is in his prime years, and is making dirt cheap money? And people think the White Sox should be wringing their hands over losing Gonzalez? Ugh. Meanwhile, people turn cartwheels over a proposed Sean Marshall, Sean Gallagher, and Ronny Cedeno for Brian Roberts trade. Vomit. Think back on this moment at the 2008 trade deadline. The Cubs blew it here. Absolutely blew it if they go ahead with getting Roberts. Nobody seems to realize this so I'll bold it. They'll probably end up paying as much for two years of Brian Roberts as the White Sox do for five years of Swisher, a far superior player.

Oh come on. How did this deal go from Gallagher, Murton, and Patterson to Gallagher, Cedeno, and Marshall? That deal sucks.

Why are people congratulating this as a good move? Do we give Hendry applause now for putting on his own socks? This is a move, not much to it. I just hope that this doesn't mean at the trade deadline Jim Hendry decides he has to have a guy exactly like Pagan or something. "I want a switch-hitting 4th outfielder." Personally I liked Pagan better than a lot of the crappy reserve outfielders that have come through Chicago in the past few years.

Then I ask those people: what is to stop Williams from turning around and flipping Swisher for a better package in two years if that's the case? He's under contract for so long these arguments don't hold water.