jersey cubs fan

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.

no

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.

I wouldn't characterize it as everybody thinks is only a marginal upgrade. I believe it's likely to be fairly sizable. As you say, not as significant as replacing the glaring hole at SS with even average production, but valuable nonetheless. I'm not overly excited about Roberts, but I think he would be a very solid addition to the lineup. True, not everyone. I sort of fell into that trap of attributing the opinions of a few vocal posters to the whole board, but it sure does seem like a lot of posters are just brushing off Roberts like he's nothing. I think very few people are brushing him aside as nothing. It appears to me that most people who don't like the potential trade are far more concerned in the cost of that upgrade, rather than the upgrade itself. Most people seem to be acknowledging he would be a significant asset, but many of them don't like the idea of emptying out the back end of the already questionable rotation in order to get him. I don't like the idea of just trading guys because they may appear to be blocked or not worth much to the Cubs.

I wouldn't characterize it as everybody thinks is only a marginal upgrade. I believe it's likely to be fairly sizable. As you say, not as significant as replacing the glaring hole at SS with even average production, but valuable nonetheless. I'm not overly excited about Roberts, but I think he would be a very solid addition to the lineup.

I don't know, but isn't a significant amount of this eating into already existing camera/photog areas that are fenced off from the field and essentially out of play anyway?

No. No it has not been the one glaring need. Leadoff hitter is not a position, it's just a spot in the order that any of the 8 position players can fill. This team's most glaring need for a very long time has been walks, and players who are both willing and capable of taking them. A little more generally, they've lacked OBP. And to the extent that a new hitter can significantly improve the OBP by replacing somebody who is already here, that player would have considerable value to the Cubs.

I think it has a lot more to do with Hendry's whacked out value system for baseball assets. He places value on things that don't deserve to have value, such as a players veteranness, or the fact that somebody was once good a long time ago, or achieved some level of perceived success for any duration, no matter how short. Hendry views pitcher's wins as a very telling stat, which is troubling in and of itself. But he does so without paying attention to losses. A 15 win pitcher is a 15 win pitcher regardless of whether he's 15-16 or 15-6. Somebody who is pitching like crap, not striking anybody out, but "finding ways to win" a handful of games despite horrible peripherals (ie, he's lucky) is a pitcher who "just gets the job done" to somebody like Hendry.

The Trachsel deal was trouble from day 1. They gave up talent for no good reason. Even if those guys weren't very good, they were tradable assets, or competent bodies to have as backup plans for the future. Plus, Trachsel on the team makes them worse. It was so painfully obvious from the time it was first rumored to be a deal to the time he threw his last (hopefully this time) pitch as a Cub.

I don't get the complaints about the move for the White Sox. Sure, it doesn't much affect their playoffs chances in 2008, but it's not solely a 2008 story. I'd be very happy to turn 3 B prospects into a solid young major leaguer who is under team control at a fair price for several years.

The Blackhawks season, much like this thread, is coming dangerously close to ending early. 6 points out of a playoff spot, 13th place in the west (closer to last than 8th). They may be in the middle of a free-fall, losing 5 straight, and 11 of their previous 16. The Blackhawks are now sub .500 on the road, and the toughest part of the road schedule is yet to come, with 16 road games in their next 23, through the end of February. While I understand that this organization may feel pressured to do all it can to capitalize on the renewed fan interest, I hope Tallon doesn't do anything stupid by giving up promising youth to acquire some fringe veterans in hopes of fighting for that 8th spot. The playoffs would be nice, but the Stanley Cup is the ultimate goal. I just don't see a likely first round knockout being all that beneficial in the long run. Sure, it might be nice to give the kids playoff experience, but I don't see fan interest in 2009 and beyond being the least bit affected by whether or not they qualify in 2008. Other than the money they'd make from a few home playoff games, it's just not all that important to the future. This isn't to say I don't want them to make the playoffs, or make any deals. I just don't want to see the hockey equivalent of Garland for Karchner because the GM is desperate. Hopefully they can start to tread water and not lose anymore ground, then get back their injured stars and make a last minute run.

Go ahead and keep thinking that. Kendall had one month where he was something other than completely worthless. He sucked the rest of the time. He's a 33 year old catcher with a ton of miles on him already, who will turn 34 next year. He's had some horrible injuries in his career and is a completely useless catcher behind the plate. He sucks. It would be difficult for Soto to be as bad.

I would agree, I just see no way it happens, until, or unless Blanco's season ends.

Yes, the guy who took fewer pitches than anyone else on the team has a "good eye at the plate." never let facts get in the way of a good argument They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Theriot can have a very discriminating eye, but at the same time not see too many pitches because he doesn't have the pop to make pitchers pay, so they pound the strike zone against him. And at the same time, you can have a discriminating eye, but still employ an overly aggressive approach at the plate. Weak hitters with patience can still see multiple pitches. Pitchers may not be afraid of him, but they are still going to try to get the guy out on their pitches, and he lets them.

As a non 40-man roster guy who is a long way away from ever making any money, and who seemingly turned his career around (if only a little) as a 19-year old in A ball, I could see Beane having interest. If Burke was overvalued, and therefore unattractive to Beane, because he was highly touted for physical tools and due money he probably wasn't worth at draft time, maybe now he's more properly valued. Now that he's just another low-paid prospect whose star has faded, Beane might find it attractive to get a guy like Burke thrown into a trade. Even if he doesn't envision him playing for the A's in the future, Beane knows Hendry is playing for 2008, while Oakland is not. Burke does nothing for the 2008/2009 Cubs, unless he's traded. If he's worth 35 cents, maybe Beane can get him for a quarter and trade him 2-3 years from now for a dollar. You mean Low A ball, Boise---LD%=10.45, BABIP=.317 And in Hawaii IIRC he finished with a BABIP around 600 Sure, Beane might take Burke, but hes nothing more than a throw in until he can prove that his #s are real. Yeah, I was trying to think of names that could be throw-ins after the better prospects who have actually done stuff. I don't really see a match myself, but if somebody is trying to find a deal for Blanton and Street.

Click the quote button on this post, then put your cursor at the end of this text, after [ /quote] and start writing there.

So did I.

I could see where it could be construed as a diss to Cub fans. But, the guy's job is to make the Blackhawks look good and build some hype. I guess the "meathead" fans. Personally, I take no offense. I don't know if the perceived diss is supposed to be that Cubs fans wouldn't stand out in the cold for Prior or Wood's autograph, even when they were at the height of their popularity, or if it's saying Prior and Wood wouldn't lower themselves to signing autographs out in the cold. Nevermind that hockey is a cold weather sport played in the winter, which invariably means public appearances are going to involve cold weather, whereas baseball is a warm weather summer sport and players are going to be in demand for appearances during the warmer weather. Either way, it's a meaningless statement. It's a marketing man doing what he does best blowing smoke and BS. It's inconsequential, just like this exec who moved to the Blackhawks. Cubs fans shouldn't think twice about it. It's nice for the Blackhawks to move into the 20th century and actually try to sell their product (where marketing people have some value), but the Cubs are way beyond that stage of the game.