In the baseball world. Using 3-year splits, do you know how many 2B have put an OPS over .800 besides Roberts? Utley, Kent, Cano, and Polanco (Hudson doesn't have the 2005 to qualify, I think from injury, but he should be there). There are other young guys without 3 years that project over .800 in 2008 such as Johnson, Uggla, and Pedroia. Utley and his .900+ OPS is in a tier by himself. Then you have a 6-10 guys who might give you .800+, which should be considered plus production for that position. In the baseball world a guy that gives you plus production at a position and still close enough to age 30 to be relevant has value. Whether your personal baseball beliefs include steals or not, many in the baseball world tack a 50+ steals rider onto an .800+ OPS as additional value. Honestly, I don't get the problem, unless you've been playing too much PS3. 4 players is a lot only if you consider 'proven' MLB numbers in the package. 4 players is not a lot if all would qualify as unproven talent and none qualify as can't miss prospects, and in this case Murton, Cedeno, Gallagher, and one B prospect constitutes a package of unproven every day talent and it does not include a can't miss prospect. Take out Roberts "roid" year of 2005 which his OPS was .902 and he's not in that .800 OPS club either. In fact, if you look at the last 2 years of production and we are focusing on OPS, DeRosa's avg OPS was .802, whereas Roberts' was .783. I'm not going to argue how valuable Roberts is to ANY team, but I will argue just how much of an upgrade he is to THIS team. I realize that he's an incredible leadoff man, and can steal bases, which the Cubs do need, but not in a 2B. If he played SS, do what it takes to get him. First, welcome to the board. Second, the smack-down. Unfortunately for you, you cannot simply choose to remove a year of player's career to suit your argument and get anywhere, especially around here. And it's a clear overstatement to say 'roid year' when Roberts name has been linked to one usage of hgh publicly. So both sides of your argument really have little relevance and don't contradict anything I previously posted. Thanks for the welcome. While I would normally agree with you as far as picking and choosing our years and sample set to form an argument, in this case, I do not. The facts are, that there is a steroid cloud over Roberts. And in the year in question, he set a career high in OPS. It's a little odd to me, that a guy has a career (to that point) high in OPS of .720, then supposedly one time (right) took steroids and his OPS for that year is .902. And since then hasn't been able to come close to that again. I believe him when he says he took it once. But I think the once is for one season. Regardless, I think that .902 is really skewing his numbers and making him look a little better than he really is, and I do believe he's a great player, but some of the O's fans believe he is a superstar and a baseball savior. I am sorry, but I don't see it. It's not like Roberts hasn't lied before, does anyone else remember the article in ESPN the Magazine back then where Roberts was crediting his contact lenses as the reason for his increased averages? It was right around the time that he would have been using (or used) steroids. I'll try to find that link. Here it is.... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=2134694