davearm2

It's not confusing. If any team in MLB wants to keep Patton on their 25-man roster for the duration of the season, that's what will happen. If nobody does, then either the Rox will take him back, decline to take him back, or a trade will be worked out in which the Rox get someone other than Patton back (or cash). That was the original question that I responded to - whether Patton would have to pass through waivers if the Rockies and Cubs worked out a trade. I said no waivers would be involved in a trade, you disagreed. Patton would have to first pass through waivers before the Cubs and Rox could discuss such a trade.

With no mention of that player going through waivers. The only mention of the waiver process is returning the player back to the original team. Read the preceding paragraph. The only way the Cubs and Rox will be discussing Patton's immediate future is if no other team in baseball wants him under the Rule 5 restrictions, which that team would assume if they claimed the guy off of waivers.

It's not confusing. If any team in MLB wants to keep Patton on their 25-man roster for the duration of the season, that's what will happen. If nobody does, then either the Rox will take him back, decline to take him back, or a trade will be worked out in which the Rox get someone other than Patton back (or cash).

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions. That would only be correct if Patton has passed through waivers. Otherwise another club can put in a waiver claim on Patton, and assume the Rule 5 restrictions themselves. So no, it's not accurate to say that the Cubs could flip a player to the Rox and then be free of the Rule 5 restrictions, UNLESS he's already passed through waivers. Do you have a link for that? Nothing I've seen indicates you have to pass the player through waivers to trade him. http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/s/transanctionsprimer.html And the Cubs wouldn't be trying to trade Patton. They'd be trying to keep him, but option him to the minors.

If the Cubs wanted to option Patton to the minors this season, here's what would have to happen: FIRST, Patton would have to pass through waivers. SECOND, Patton would have to be offered back to the Rockies OR the Cubs and Rox would have to work out a trade that kept Patton on the Cubs.

To my understanding, that is correct. Nope that's incorrect.

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions. That would only be correct if Patton has passed through waivers. Otherwise another club can put in a waiver claim on Patton, and assume the Rule 5 restrictions themselves. So no, it's not accurate to say that the Cubs could flip a player to the Rox and then be free of the Rule 5 restrictions, UNLESS he's already passed through waivers.

You do realize who else is a rookie, right?

FWIW, someone on the minor leagues board mentioned that Al Albuquerque has been traded to the Rockies.

I'm surprised nobody's suggested resolving the Patton situation by including him in a package to a cash-strapped, out-of-contention team like SD. Not straight up for Bell of course, but he could plug in to the SD 'pen with Bell vacating. Hard to imagine SD would have any problems with the Rule 5 stipulations that come with Patton, provided they think he's got an arm worth adding to their system. There's a win-win for ya.

Exactly. The Red Sox are the model here. Homegrown guys like Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Papelbon, etc coupled with marquee vets like Beckett, Ortiz, Drew, Bay, Lowell, etc. That's the recipe for a club like the Cubs.

DeRosa's Type A/B status is irrelevant to the discussion. For one thing, the Cubs wouldn't have the $$$ to risk offering arb. See Wood, Kerry. With no significant money coming off the books after 2009, the situation won't be any better this winter than it was last winter. For another, if arb was offered, DeRosa would accept. The free agent marketplace is so depressed that quality guys like Bobby Abreu, Adam Dunn and Orlando Hudson are having to settle for cheap 1 year deals, while the Pedros and Edmondses are unemployed. That situation also won't be any better this winter than it was last. Besides, DeRosa has said he loved playing for the Cubs. He'd jump at an arb offer from Hendry.

This describes the DeRosa/Indians trade to a Tee. Who knows. Maybe the Royals have their own version of the Cubs' wanting to get more lefthanded. Heck everyone seems to be down on the Pirates for the McLouth trade too. Point being you never know what the other side might say yes to.

How bout, Huntington's an idiot, he values tools goofs like Gorkys Hernandez and guys who throw hard and can't control it like the A-ball guy. What constitutes more depends on what the individual values. When Dave Littlefield traded Rajai Davis for Matt Morris and his awful contract could he not gotten more for Rajai Davis.(Yes, he could've just released him) When Jim Duquette(Or Jeff Wilpon or Rick Peterson or Al Leiter or whoever pushed that trade through) traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano, was that the best deal he could get for Kazmir, or did whoever pushed for the trade irrationally overvalue Victor Zambrano/irrationally hate Kazmir. Look let's say Huntington sold McLouth for the baseball equivalent of $1. It's been suggested in this thread that some other team would've gladly offered him more than $1, which strikes me as foolish and naive. There's no need to argue whether the actual players involved are actually worth $2 or 2 cents. The Pirates rated them at $1, and more to the point, they didn't have another offer over $1 out there, or else they would've taken it.

Just to be clear, if someone wants to make the argument, "Huntington's an idiot: he should've held onto McLouth if that's all he could get for him", then I'll certainly listen to that. What sounds foolish (IMO) is the argument, "Huntington's an idiot: he could've gotten more for McLouth."

I trust you won't be offended that given the choice between you and Neil Huntington, I'm going to go ahead and assume that Huntington has a better pulse on the value Pirates players have around MLB. He gets to actually talk with other GMs, and stuff. Conceivably anyway, he might have a better handle on where things stand, what other teams are interested in McLouth, what they're willing to give up, etc. etc. Just spitballing of course. Maybe I'm wrong and you're the better authority. :D) the whole "he's a gm and you're not" argument is the biggest copout ever. as if the fact that he's a gm means you can't criticize the move. a gm that knows more than us gave p juanna pierre 5/50. a gm gave GMJ 5/50. andruw jones got 2/40. barry zito got 126. a gm traded scott kazmir for victor zambrano. were we supposed to shut up and give the gm's that made those moves the benefit of the doubt? i mean, they're gms! we're just internet posters. gm's make awful moves all the time....awful moves that look awful even right when they're made. to give a horrible organization like the pirates any benefit of the doubt when talking about a trade that looks crappy is pretty foolish. Try to keep up here, dexter. I trotted out the whole "he's a gm and you're not" argument in response to the notion that anyone on this board has better information about McLouth's trade value than does the Pirates' GM. That has nothing at all to do with making good moves or bad moves.

I don't know that his value is clearly reflected in the return the Pirates received here. My guess is it is, but it's quite possible they settled for less than what they could have gotten in another deal, especially if they waited until the deadline. Well there are three possible explanations here: a) this deal accurately reflects the trade value McLouth has around baseball; b) Huntington didn't perform the due diligence necessary to gauge the trade value McLouth has around baseball, and a better deal was out there that he didn't discover; c) Huntington knowingly took less than the best offer for his player. C) is laughable, and b) is highly unlikely IMO, especially when we're talking about the Pirates' marquee player. Huntington himself said it was a very difficult decision to trade McLouth, so I doubt he went about the process haphazardly. Trading McLouth now limits the pool of players they could get for him significantly, there are many more teams actively seeking an outfielder in mid to late July than there are at the beginning of June. Not to mention that those additional teams would drive the price up for him. In a sense you can say they got decent value for him, it is after all two Top 10 prospects in Atlanta's system plus a ML ready starter. Problem is that Gorkys Hernandez is a particularly terrible Top 10 prospect, and the other arm isn't stellar either. That's why waiting until another team entered the fray would've been a smarter move. That deal isn't likely to go away by waiting, and if it does, who cares? It was awful to begin with. I trust you won't be offended that given the choice between you and Neil Huntington, I'm going to go ahead and assume that Huntington has a better pulse on the value Pirates players have around MLB. He gets to actually talk with other GMs, and stuff. Conceivably anyway, he might have a better handle on where things stand, what other teams are interested in McLouth, what they're willing to give up, etc. etc. Just spitballing of course. Maybe I'm wrong and you're the better authority. :D)

I like how you leave out the most obvious choice, which is that the Pirates FO are poor at their jobs and don't know how to correctly evaluate talent The fact that you're here posting on a messageboard rather than working in a MLB FO just boggles the mind, since obviously you're much better at evaluating talent, and would do a better job than the current Pirates GM.

Interesting contradiction. How do you figure? They had a great chance to add talent to the system by taking advantage of McLouth's inflated reputation coming off last year, and they squandered it by not getting a very good deal, especially considering it's only June 4th. The contradiction is, the conclusion proves the premise faulty (McLouth's reputation far exceeds his actual value right now). McLouth's reputation/trade value is clearly reflected in the return the Pirates received here, thus disproving the "inflated reputation" theory. I don't know that his value is clearly reflected in the return the Pirates received here. My guess is it is, but it's quite possible they settled for less than what they could have gotten in another deal, especially if they waited until the deadline. Well there are three possible explanations here: a) this deal accurately reflects the trade value McLouth has around baseball; b) Huntington didn't perform the due diligence necessary to gauge the trade value McLouth has around baseball, and a better deal was out there that he didn't discover; c) Huntington knowingly took less than the best offer for his player. C) is laughable, and b) is highly unlikely IMO, especially when we're talking about the Pirates' marquee player. Huntington himself said it was a very difficult decision to trade McLouth, so I doubt he went about the process haphazardly.

Interesting contradiction. How do you figure? They had a great chance to add talent to the system by taking advantage of McLouth's inflated reputation coming off last year, and they squandered it by not getting a very good deal, especially considering it's only June 4th. The contradiction is, the conclusion proves the premise faulty (McLouth's reputation far exceeds his actual value right now). McLouth's reputation/trade value is clearly reflected in the return the Pirates received here, thus disproving the "inflated reputation" theory.

What makes you think this team is capable of playing .600 ball like they did last year? Is Dempster going to have an ERA under 3 the rest of the way like last season? Are we going to trade for DeRosa and get an .857 OPS from him again? Is Fontenot going to OPS over .900 again? Is Wood going to come back and be the closer again? Is Edmonds going to sign and give us like a .950 OPS again? Is Soto going to put up an .870 OPS again? Is Ramirez going to come back tomorrow and start mashing again? This is not 2008. It's 2009. This is a completely different team. Also stop comparing them to the 2004 Cardinals. It's pointless. That team was way better. Way to miss the point. What a team is in the first two months doesn't set in stone what they'll be the whole season. I could've cited several recent Astros teams to illustrate this same point.

St. Louis Cardinals on May 25, 2004: 23-22, .511, 5th place, 3.5 games behind St. Louis Cardinals on Oct 3, 2004: 105-57, .648, 1st place, 13.0 games ahead Chicago Cubs on June 3, 2007: 23-31, .426, 4th place, 7.5 games behind Chicago Cubs on October 3, 2007: 85-77, .525, 1st place, 2.0 games ahead Lots of baseball left, fellas. If the Cubs can get back to playing .600 ball like they did in 2008, they'd finish 92-70. That'll get you into the NL postseason.

Then you'll probably be surprised to learn that the Cubs' fill-in starters over the last two seasons (since Marquis and Lilly arrived) have combined for an even 6.00 ERA (Gallagher, Guzman, Trachsel, Miller, and Lieber).

Better to use median than mean, so as not to skew the results with outliers. As I've illustrated with the rank data, a 4.45 would've been in the upper half of the league in one of the last 5 years.

Puts me ahead of you, anyway. I'm not the one making a positive assertion. I was simply denying yours. Burden of proof is on you. You used career numbers for Lilly and Harden, both of whom spent significant time in the AL, then compared the average to the NL teams. That alone cost the theoretical rotation a couple of spots. So you don't like me using the career ERA numbers heh? Well then let's see what PECOTA projected for your rotation in 2009. I'll even bump up Lilly to 32 starts like you wanted. Marshall 4.29 17 Lilly 4.26 32 Zambrano 4.12 32 Harden 3.04 17 Marquis 5.23 32 Fillin 5.00 32 That works out to a collective 4.45 ERA for the rotation. Shall we examine where a 4.45 ERA ranks in the NL over the last 5 years? 2008 11th 2007 10th 2006 6th 2005 14th 2004 13th That works out to an average ranking of 10.8 out of 16. Looks like maybe "mediocre" is being kind. Let's take things a step further. Last year the Cubs' starters ranked 3rd in the NL with a 3.87 ERA in 1450.2 IP. That's 624 earned runs. A 4.45 ERA in the same number of innings yields 717 earned runs, or a difference of 93. Using the rule 10 runs = 1 win, your rotation has the Cubs roughly 9 games worse in the standings than they were last year.