jersey cubs fan

If I could lock in that Pie production I would.

That is one of the weirdest things I've ever read, specifically the part about 11 years. They aren't signed for the next 11 years, they are signed for the next 4 years. There is presumably only one spot available for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. I feel like the current management team likely has more faith in Colvin than Pie, and may even be willing to push Colvin a bit, so that he may play some in 2009.

I'm not saying I'm right, but when I think about the subject of player upgrades, I think about it in terms of performance by position on the field, not batting order. I like Brian Roberts. And if you told me that acquiring him would mean that Mark DeRosa was shifting to SS, I'd be all over the deal. But everything we have heard to date suggests that the only thing a Roberts acquisition does is make DeRosa a "super-sub." That means Ryan Theriot is still starting at SS, and I (like many others here) have a huge problem with that coupled with Felix Pie starting in CF. Their OBPs suggest we will have near 3 automatic outs everytime through the line-up. That's unacceptable for a team spending $125M. Roberts may be better that DeRosa, but the difference is slight in my opinion. The real opportunity is to upgrade at SS and/or CF. The trade focus should be on those positions and a #2 starter. Finally, someone that totally agrees with me. Using Cedeno, Marshall, Gallagher, Murton, Dempster, Marquis, Patterson, plus whatever other youngsters should have been enough to get a decent SS/CF and starting pitcher instead of a marginal upgrade at 2B. I agree with the sentiment. The problem, as I see it, is they aren't going to upgrade SS regardless. So, it's either further upgrade the lineup with the move to Roberts, or don't upgrade the lineup. I'm always looking for this team to improve. And I'm fairly certain Hendry is too (we just disagree on the best way to do go about it). I already know that Hendry is incapable of efficiently increasing the expected win total of this team. Not that I excuse the problem, it's just I'd rather see them improve than stay stagnant.

It may be a real thing, but it's value is artificially inflated. Guys who "can leadoff" are given greater market value, for no good reason. Roberts' value lies in his production numbers, not in his supposed ability to hit leadoff. There's nothing wrong with going after a player like Roberts, there is something wrong with going after a guy like Roberts because he can leadoff and thus paying a premium for that arbitrary qualification.

Care to elaborate? Yes, people on this board need to take the blue tinted sunglasses off and realize this deal is a steal for us. We getting one of the best leadoff men in baseball, an all-star and another great club house guy for pretty much nothing. You guys are blowing your loads over the 2 pitching prospects that have showed us NOTHING. You really have no business making this claim.

I think Gallagher goes in any deal..he's the centerpiece of it all. Orioles fans think that at most a name might be wrong. Other than that, they believe that MacPhail is just bluffing saying that the deal isn't official, which of course it's not. But they believe it is complete. The administrator of the site has checked with 2 different of his own sources and confirmed the deal (both sources said 100%) and he apparently doesn't post anything unless he's completely sure he won't be wrong, unlike the other insiders. Alright, so his neck is on the line. I really don't care either way, I hope this thing just ends one way or the other now. In what way shape or form is his neck on the line? This isn't some journalist who runs the risk of losing credibility if he's wrong. So a handful of Cubs fans on a message board are going to think about maybe stop believing this guy is all that great a source of information. I don't see how that equates to putting his neck on the line.

Will the offense be nice? They were the worst in the AL last year. Are Swisher and Cabrera really going to make up that much of a difference?

how can someone write that article and never once type out "Southern Methodist University'"? What if a casual fan thinks this is Southern Miss? Dumb Isn't Southern Miss USM? maybe. it's just a pet peeve when writers use the acronym seven times in an article and never spell it out. it's lazy But it's SMU. It's practically the name. SMU and USC are the two schools that are most readily indentifiable by their acronyms. I really don't think it's lazy. By the way, first paragraph:

That phone call has me starting to wonder if Roger might be telling the truth. Not me, sounds like a hastily put together and poorly orchestrated plan to play a little scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Rogers is looking to find his own Greg Anderson fall guy.

Don't kid yourself about "3 B prospects". They were 3 of the top 8 in the Sox farm system. Being 3 of of the best in a bad bunch doesn't make them blue chippers. And a .251 hitter isn't ARod either. Swisher is a good acquisition by the White Sox with very good power numbers for a CF. If he moves to LF, RF, or 1B, his numbers are okay but not great. As you (and others) have pointed out, he is under team control at a fair price for several years which makes this a good deal. Seriously? His batting average?

Shocking that Clemens taped the phone call. I just caught a second of that one.

Who isn't an everyday 2B, and will be playing a fair amount of time at other positions, regardless of whether Roberts is here. The upgrade is simply not a straight up comparison of Roberts to DeRosa, even though Roberts has the clear advantage there. The upgrade is Roberts + DeRosa being significantly better than DeRosa + whomever. We aren't talking about trading one for the other.

Sorry man, but you're wrong. You said you don't need to look at WARP and their ages, even though both are very valid data points to consider for the discussion that was taking place. That's not out of context, it's what you said.

Jesus Christ, dude. Whatever. I'm done with this. There is a 3 year old girl missing in my neighborhood right now and you want to win a pissing contest I really never should have bothered entering. ROBERTS IS A MARGINAL UPGRADE OVER DEROSA regardless of the 3 year difference in age, the difference in their WARP, OPS+, the length of their hair and any other stat you want to throw out there. I'm done with this. Geez man, ease up. Was he supposed to know about this girl? How does that have anything to do with anything? And how is he any more guilty of pissing contests than you, or anybody else? He's laid out an argument that I don't completely agree with, but that I believe if fairly constructed and defended. That's exactly what this site is about at its best.

Then basically what you are saying is that you weren't paying attention to the whole conversation and probably shouldn't have said what you said. No I'm not saying that. What you wrote in that post was Morganish. I didn't quote everything you wrote in the thread, and I'm not saying your entire opinion is as valid as a Joe Morgan opinion. I'm saying the part about not needing to look at the numbers being very reminicsent of the type of talk Joe Morgan would use. OPS is nice, but flawed. OPS+ is probably nicer, but also flawed. Don't you see the value in looking at the deeper numbers, when possible? It may not be as easy to find, but when it's there, why not use it as part of the discussion? When Roberts' name surfaced in the beginning of the offseason, I was not excited. I thought at the time there were much better opportunities to improve the team than by going after a second baseman. However, it's January now, and the 2008 Chicago Cubs lineup looks far to similar to the mediocre Chicago Cubs lineup that ended 2007 (with Fukudome replacing Floyd/Murton's decent OBP and somewhat lacking power). I don't see any realistic SS options on the horizon, but if I did, I'd take those over Roberts in a heartbeat. The Cubs still need to get better. Roberts is not the ideal way to go about getting better, but he would very definitely make them better.

One mans marginalizing is another mans rationalizing. We aren't talking about taking some way above average starting pitcher and moving him to the bullpen. We aren't even talking about an everyday player. DeRosa, even when he plays more than he's ever played in the majors, is not an everyday guy. He is a sub 600 PA player who has shown some tendencies to decline with lots of playing time, albeit in just two years of actually playing a lot. He's 33, well past any sort of prime age, and we've probably seen the best he has to offer. He can still be pretty useful, but he's not anything close to an irreplacable cog. I've been touting the importance of improving SS for a very long time. I would much rather see the Cubs improve SS than fiddle with 2B. But even in his solid 2007, DeRosa wasn't even the Cubs everyday 2B, and the Cubs got nothing more than average production from the position. If I have to take away 150-200 PA from DeRosa in order to give 90%+ of the 2B playing time to Brian Roberts, I'm betting I'll be more than happy with the end result. Brian Roberts, with a little Mark DeRosa mixed in is going to be much better than DeRosa, with a fair amount of God knows what mixed in. Furthermore, DeRosa as the versatile utility guy should make people ecstatic when compared with the versatile players they used to employ. DeRosa wouldn't be the new Macias, DeRosa would be the fill-in Macias (and others) never stood a chance of being. I don't like all the emphasis on looking for versatility, but at least when you have DeRosa filling that role, you put a stop to Hendry looking for others and possibly filling it with incompetence.

Oh, so because I think Roberts is only a marginal upgrade to DeRosa, I'm Morganish? Wow. Have I not heard you say the same exact thing or are you of the impression that Roberts is a significant upgrade to DeRosa? No, the Morganish part is saying you don't have to look at the numbers or their ages. I think all these subjective terms, significant, marginal, minimal, really muddy the waters when discussing exactly what Roberts would mean. I happen to believe he'll be a marginally significant upgrade.......

I don't have to look at their WARP's or their ages. You can't justify that one guy is likely to regress and say they other won't. You just can't do it. It's a marginal upgrade no matter how you slice it. There is POTENTIAL for it to be a significant upgrade if Roberts were to repeat his career year 4 years ago, but I don't think we should assume that anymore than we should assume Mark DeRosa will all of a sudden forget everything he accomplished in the last 2 years. Wait, what? I don't have to look at WARPs or their ages? Sounds a little Morganish to me. Their ages matter, especially when talking about the likelihood of a guy regressing. DeRosa is about to turn 33. Roberts just turned 30. Roberts has a much better resume from which to judge his ability to maintain a certain level of production. Any projection of the two has to assume DeRosa will decline first.

Hmm. Money seems like a good one. "One more summer under the sun" seems like another. Or the chance to be a part of one of the most exciting young rosters in baseball, getting known as a great mentor late in your career to set yourself up with a career as a coach could be another. Mons Venus is the only one that matters.

I think it should be pointed out that DeRosa will be playing the next two years at 33 and 34, while Roberts will be 31 and 32. The fact that DeRosa has been consistently productive the last two years getting the first regular playing time of his career, might suggest that his numbers the next two years will be closer to his 2006/2007 numbers, than his career averages. However, it's also quite possible those seasons will wind up being the exceptions to the rule of his career, when all is said and done. He regressed significantly in the 2nd half each season, and still only managed 572 and 574 PA, less than what a starter normally accumulates. Roberts has easily surpassed the 600 PA mark 4 years running without the type of horrible "off-year" that DeRosa had in 2005. While it's possible Roberts may provide nothing more than a minimal upgrade over DeRosa the next two years, I think it's far more likely that he will be significantly better, as DeRosa is likely to decline sooner due to age, and his lesser resume to-date.

You just can't put a price tag on the value of Macias's versatility.

I thought it was some complex riddle.

This team more than any other team in baseball should be concerned with rotation health risks. I do like Burnett, but he's a health risk. Plain and simple. ironically enough burnett has thrown 200 innings twice and has never thrown 200 innings. I am very confused.

I'm still holding out hope that Jacksonville can find a way to physically beat up on Brady, Moss and a couple others. The Patriots will probably win big, but I'm going to pretend otherwise.

The bold is exactly what everyone has been arguing. Not that he's untouchable, just that you are trading your top 2 odds on favorite for the 5th starter in the same trade for a hitter at a non-need position. And I disagree that Marshall isn't any better than Marquis/Dempster. I do understand that argument, although I'd prefer not to say anything about it until the offseason is complete, for all we know DeRosa is headed off in a trade for a starting pitcher. I did a quick check just to make sure I was not too off base with my "Marshall isn't much better than Marquis" line, I actually screwed up and was looking at the wrong line and thought that Marquis had better stats :oops: But, they had comparable whips last season, Sean's ERA+ was significantly better. It's tough to go off of career numbers because Sean only has two years service and his first year was terrible, so it wouldn't really be fair to him. Who are all these people that wanted Marshall replaced? Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella wanted to replace him with Steve Trachsel, I don't know of many who thought that was a wise decision, and I don't recall much of an outcry for replacing Marshall in the first place.