TheDude

How can you say that when the names in the deal have changed often and the list includes about a dozen people? It looks like you're seriously reaching.

Far from a given. And if he's gonna hit .260-.270 and only get on base 31-33% of the time, there's a good chance that if Pie can't do that, he'll at least be in the ballpark. You get cheap production that likely reaps you more reward in 2009 and beyond. I'm not defending a possible Crisp acquisition, merely commenting on this point. From what we have seen with hand and wrist injuries in recent years (as Cubs fans we've had our share of hand injuries), if you take past examples as a model, return to form seems likely for a hitter that was a solid contact guy before the injury. Contact and gap capability seem to come back just fine after a half-to-whole year of lower production. Look to the 2nd year back for players who have suffered wrist/hand injuries. Power is different story, but with Crisp there is no reason to even to take the discussion that direction. It is also possible that hand/wrist is simply a unique case for every hitter, and past players' returns can't be used as baselines for comparison. But if you do want to look for comparable past injuries in active players, most have returned to form with regards to the contact aspect of their games.

Roberts hgh use was in 2003 wasn't it? The admission came in 2005, but the use was in 2003, if I understand it correctly. if I am remembering correctly, the point is moot again.

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.

i don't want a sullen Crisp on this team I don't think he'd be a good influence on Pie as he'd want to play 150 games or so but I'm sure his injuries would reduce that to 110 or less. Since when do people care about clubhouse presence on this board? I thought that was a clear railing point.

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.

Including Marshall would be even worse!!!! Unless by some odd chance, that means we keep Gallagher With the recent flare-up of Lou over the Marquis ultimatum, it would not surprise me to see Marquis, Gallagher or Marshall, Cedeno, and Murton get moved for Roberts and Payton. The Cubs will not move more than two pitchers that project as starters for 2008.

The Astros gave up 5 players to get Tejada, including 3 pitchers. Luke Scott is better than Murton on paper, but I'm not certain given the ages if Murton couldn't catch up. I do not know enough about the 3 pitchers Houston gave up to grade them relative to the names the Cubs are considering, but the pitchers in that deal were all 26 and under in age, and each had at least a cup of coffee in Houston. I really don't see any of the proposed deals for Roberts as 'better than' what the O's got for Tejada. From a purely objective standpoint, I would argue the O's didn't get enough value from either deal (if you assume both as complete), as quantity doesn't usually equate to quality. In other words, neither deal nets a sure thing top 10 starter-for-position player at the big league level, which is what both Roberts and Tejada are.

Trading a prospect is not giving up on a prospect, nor is it giving away a prospect. Value such as what Roberts brings requires losing something of value. The Cubs do not have a lot of trade value at the major league level, and must resort to trading prospects for value. Gallagher is not regarded as a sure thing or can't miss prospect by anyone in the business of grading prospects, so if anything, the Orioles take the greater risk in a deal with Cubs by trading away their best MLB player for no sure-fire MLB talent and no can't miss prospects. Roberts is better then Nick Markakis now? No he is not, both in terms of potential and long-term value. Markakis is clearly the future of that franchise. No matter how unlikely though, Markakis is still young enough to be a bust. My choice of the word 'best' may have poor in the context used, perhaps 'proven' or 'consistent' would have been better, but I think the point was clear regardless.

You're giving up young pitching (have you seen the price of pitching lately) for a slight upgrade at 2B. Then on top of that you're trading an OF that could start on your team. More then a few Cub fans have given Hendry flack in the past for selling low and trading Murton in a Roberts deal would be even worse then selling low. The flip-side to your argument is that most Cubs fans don't practically believe in selling high, only in theory. If the Cubs have any prospect of value (say top 50 or even top 100 overall), they act like those prospects can only be dealt for elite MLB quality players, like Cabrera (or elite saber-inclined players, like Dunn). Gallagher is a Cubs prospect with a buzz. He is not a head turner or elite prospect in the scope of all teams' prospects, but is someone worth noting from the Cubs system. This is a time in his career to sell high on him while he has a buzz, but before he has really showcased his MLB stuff. And so naturally few Cubs fans want to include him in a deal. If the Cubs keep him and use him in the 2008 rotation, he'll either dramatically increase his value, or diminish it to the point of sell low status. In either situation, folks would not want to trade him still.

Trading a prospect is not giving up on a prospect, nor is it giving away a prospect. Value such as what Roberts brings requires losing something of value. The Cubs do not have a lot of trade value at the major league level, and must resort to trading prospects for value. Gallagher is not regarded as a sure thing or can't miss prospect by anyone in the business of grading prospects, so if anything, the Orioles take the greater risk in a deal with Cubs by trading away their best MLB player for no sure-fire MLB talent and no can't miss prospects.

Against the Braves too right... He hit 99 on a fastball then made, I think Marcus Giles, knees buckle with that ridiculous breaking ball of his. My favorite knee-buckler came against the Pirates. Can't remember the year (might have 03 or 04), but his curve was so sharp the hitter actually buckled until he was almost sitting in the box...and it was a strike.

It's not curious because it's not reality. Someone around here spun a quote into stone, folks on this board echoed the opinion, and after a few days it turned into NSBB reality (which is not actual reality). Go back to direct quotes from Piniella or Hendry and show me the one that says Dempster is definitively penciled in as a #3 (or any slot) starter. All I've seen is quotes that state Dempster will be tried/stretched in ST as a potential starter.

Why? Is this blanket pessimism, or do you actually have a reason for believing this?

I'm sorry.. your "sources" called the Choi Lee trade. I mean everyone and their grandma knew the Cubs were interested in upgrading the slop from 03 at 1B. I mean everyone and their grandma knew the Marlins were cleaning house. I mean even Peter Gammons said it was a possibility days before it went down, but you and your "sources" came up with it. My ass. My god don't play semantic games with me. There "may be some discussion." This is similar to me saying that the Cubs are discussing the potential profit increase by raising ticket prices. Yeah, it may or may not be going on. There may be discussion is even an understatement of what miles said. He said lukewarm, at best. To be lukewarm is to be indifferent. To have solid interest is not to be indifferent. so yeah... miles pretty much said you were wrong. not to mention every other "rumor" you have ever come up with is either A: written on the wall, B: already known, or C: too dumb to be true. So you're 1 for 1000. Outstanding. Keep em coming. And please dont ever analyze a thing about baseball, mmkay pumpkin? besides i trust my sources more than i do yours. then again i dont leak my inside information You're absurd. You may know a thing or two about statistical analysis, but you know bunk about business, particularly the business of baseball. Stick to your corner.

Nope. Not even close. None of the players the Cubs are considering moving are near the prospect level that Ramirez was at the time, and certainly none will become what he has become. There are no sure-fire above-average everyday players in the rumored packages going to the O's. Murton has the best shot at it, but his lack of power at a power position hurts his chances in all but an Orioles-type franchise rebuilding. Gallagher is still prospect level and you never how pitching prospects work out. You don't move Gallagher for unknown return, but Roberts return value is known, predictable, and needed, so the gamble surrounding the deal is almost entirely in the Orioles corner. They could end up with nothing 'real' in value. They could end up with a quality regular rotation starter and a serviceable everyday player on the cheap for a few years. The inclusion of Payton in the deal doesn't make sense, but otherwise the reaction of Gallagher + Murton + Cedeno for Roberts is way overblown. Hendry would not be getting fleeced as advertised - he would be doing something people also bitch about him never doing, selling high. But that's the way people are around here; there is no concept of sell high on this board because the Cubs prospects of value are treated as gods.

because he can play other fields as well and strengthen the bench, not much but he seems to be a clutch hitter in the playoffs. I would like to acquire him in Late July Putting Lofton in a corner OF spot destroys his value. That is a bad idea.

Why would you split time with two left-handed hitters at the same position? Why would you assume Cubs management even has Lofton on their radar at this point in time? The only way Lofton even enters the picture is if Pie gets traded, or the organization has lost confidence in Pie as the future CF for the franchise. Neither is imminent at the moment.

Exactly. And Nomar. Wrist/hand injuries that are serious take more one year to recover from. Crisp is a quality CF. Not elite, but quality.

Yes please.

This move is completely meaningless by Clemens. It has been demonstrated time and again that results on the field do not with any certainty indicate drug use. There are hundreds of examples of minor leaguers busted in the last 4 years who weren't miraculously big leaguers because of 'enhancers'. There are big league examples too, like Alex Sanchez and this boards favorite whipping boy Neifi. It's laughable that anyone in Clemens' camp could possibly believe statistical analysis would disprove use of an enhancer. If anything, as Rob Neyer points out in his blog today, dig beyond the full-spin abstract of the statistical analysis and you'll find greater deviation in Clemens' reported usage years than that of his self-appointed 'peer group'.

MacPhail new who the owner was when he took the job. That invalidates your point.

Hendry never even offered Pierre a return contract. He was out the door without question. Now that his cost is significantly greater in dollars, and he is older, and he is coming off a drop in production between 2006 and 2007, why in the world would Hendry suddenly covet him?

I think this is dead-on. He's not a lefty, he's not a top of the order hitter, and he has a low batting average. Hendry won't be interested, even though he should be. Yes but in Hendry's mind shortstops are suppose to be poor to mediocre hitters with "moxy" "spunk" "grit" ect... I dont think we've had a good shortstop since Dunston. We talk every year about the glaring hole at SS when Hendry simple doesnt see it. He's happy with fielding crap at that possition for some reason. Hendry wants a defensive shortstop, the other terms you throw out are superfluous. Greene is outstanding defensively. Combine that with the fact that Hendry already tried to trade for Greene last season, and your reasoning quickly falls apart. Theriot is not that great of a defensive SS Hendry didn't target Theriot for the job. Theriot fell into the job under Lou's management. The people Hendry have targeted have been the weak-hitting defensive SSs.

I think this is dead-on. He's not a lefty, he's not a top of the order hitter, and he has a low batting average. Hendry won't be interested, even though he should be. Yes but in Hendry's mind shortstops are suppose to be poor to mediocre hitters with "moxy" "spunk" "grit" ect... I dont think we've had a good shortstop since Dunston. We talk every year about the glaring hole at SS when Hendry simple doesnt see it. He's happy with fielding crap at that possition for some reason. Hendry wants a defensive shortstop, the other terms you throw out are superfluous. Greene is outstanding defensively. Combine that with the fact that Hendry already tried to trade for Greene last season, and your reasoning quickly falls apart.