David

I do too, but I have no idea how they'd acquire all three. Say they do trade the Seans and Cedeno for Roberts. What is left of value to offer for Figgins and Burnett? Pie, Colvin ... what else? Guys like Murton and DeRosa are tradeable MLB assets. Pie might be. I'm not really sure they'll go after Figgins if they don't have to give up Pie, but who knows. My guess would be that if Hendry can get another SP without giving up Pie, he'll consider his work done, although I wouldn't totally mind Figgins in CF.

This is exactly how I feel about it. Wait it out and see. If we do open up the season with a rotation of Z, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, Dempster, then I'm disappointed. There's still plenty of time to change that, though.

You don't trust me? I'm not even sure what that means. I've been posting on this board for what, 4 years, and lurking it for almost 5... I just have a tendency to correct people when I think they're wrong or misinformed, i.e. when people were attributing that Joey dude's reports to the other "insiders." I'm really not sure what your whole deal is with the O's guys. It's beyond skepticism in these last two posts. It's just odd. Personally, I think the skepticism is implied and inherent in the nature of the whole thing. There's no need to constantly point things like that out and I just think it's cool that we have access to some information we otherwise wouldn't.

Steve Stone can tell you what pitch the pitcher should throw next. Thats about all he can do. So can I. A slider, low and away.

Keep in mind that the guy who reported that it was to go down today wasn't one of the supposed Orioles insiders but just some guy who signed up at that forum this month and claims to have Cubs sources. The O's insiders have only been saying "soon" and today they said in the next week or so. I don't believe any of Peace, Belkast, or Bigbird said that it would go down today. Just that new guy who has no history there and isn't somebody we've even heard from before. Jan 08 signup date.

I think it makes a difference when they've shown to be credible sources of information before. Credible? They called the Tejada trade before it was done but after it was in every paper this side of the Weekly World News. I think some of you are having your chain yanked. What are you talking about?

Jac Jone?

I think it makes a difference when they've shown to be credible sources of information before.

Definitely a joke.

EqA, OBP, and a few other things. It doesn't matter if its dempster or not, hart sucks. who ever we put there would be at least 20 runs worse than marshall. i didnt project RA, just RS. A trade for Burnett would probably keep our pitching production near its 2007 level (~700 RA). A trade for Bedard w/o Hill would do about the same. Theyre interchangeable. Id prefer Burnett myself. Can't argue with any of that. What I will say is that if DeRosa is subsequently flipped in a deal for a SP that can at least make up the difference in projected RA between Marshall and Dempster, it's (obviously) a series of deals that is worth making. I'm not saying anything groundbreaking there, but we really don't have any way of knowing how realistic that is. Hell, maybe Hendry will keep DeRosa and still get a SP that will accomplish that. Then you have the upgrade of DeRosa taking the bench AB's from Fontenot and the like and you get good enough pitching to allow 700 runs.

You do realize, BTW, that Roberts is just as good of an offensive player as Swisher, right? Factor in things like age and contract status, and Swisher looks really good. Factor in position, though, and Roberts looks a bit better. Taking the age and contract into account (and the fact that Swisher is about to enter his prime years while Roberts is toward the middle-end of his), I'd rather the Cubs pick up Swisher (if they were willing to find a position for him by either playing him in CF or moving Soriano over), but it isn't the landslide you seem to seem to suggest it is in this thread and the Swisher trade thread. Look at their WARPs and/or their EQA's... Consider that Roberts has (at age 27) put up better EQAs as a 2B than Swisher, a LFer, has in his best season (age 26).. In his most recent season, Roberts EQA was right in the neighborhood of Swisher's age 26 season. Also, as far as I know, EQA doesn't normalize for position, but I might be wrong on that. Maybe I'm mis-characterizing your position, though. I don't know. Again, I know and understand that the age and contract situations make Swisher a more attractive and more valuable piece. IMO, it's not really at the point where you can say the proposed Cubs trade is a rip off and the Sox deal is good, though. In fact, IMO, it's only even close to being a ripoff because of the Cubs SP situation. If they addressed that, or if, hypothetically, the Cubs bottom end of rotation were strong, say in 2004 shape, I wouldn't value Marshall and Gallagher nearly as highly (I'll miss Cedeno, because I'd rather see him play next year than Theriot, but I won't be heartbroken if he's gone). Then again, it seems like I'm starting another argument centered on subjective/arbitrary terms. FWIW, the Orioles fans, by and large, are unhappy with the deal too and feel like they're being ripped off. The only ones who seem happy about it are the ones who just want to see a move made to prove that MacPhail has autonomy from Angelos. Also, to address the point about the Roberts trade and the Burnett trades, it seems like DeRosa would be shipped off in any trade with the Blue Jays. At least, that's what some have said on that board. Take that for what it's worth, which I know isn't a lot to you and many others. For me, it's just fun to think about/talk about what they might do. We have no say and really no way of knowing what is really going to happen or what Hendry hopes to do. I appreciate that there are a few guys over there who may or may not be able to give us some message board fodder, which is all it is. Now I feel like I just ranted... Hope most of it makes sense in the morning.

Uh, you'd be wrong. I've had plenty of doubts. I don't think it's smart to give everyone on there or even the one guy in question a free pass because of one rumor that was correct like 3 hours before it was posted. I've seen other blogs do that for other trades. And frankly I'm a little embarrassed at the way people in this topic are kissing the insider's asses and hanging on their every word. Since when did people on here become the papparazzi and the Orioles Insiders movie stars? The Miguel Tejada thing has been posted in here 20 times. Enough already. You'd think the guy parted the Red Sea or something. Let's stop acting like sycophants, this starry-eyed worship of some Orioles fans is undignified and silly. Everybody was instructed like good little boys and girls to take the Eric Patterson-Sean Gallagher-Matt Murton deal as fact, pffft. I also remember the Insiders saying Corey Patterson for Chris Britton and Bryan Bass was a done deal, instead we got Nate Spears and a lump of coal. So yeah, I have doubt. And even if they are right, this amount of sucking up and attention might be appropriate for a guy who singlehandedly handed the Cubs the World Series on a silver platter. Not otherwise. Sorry if that's rude, but I don't think The Pope commands this kind of undying faith. This is a bit of a surprisingly rantish response. There is no question in my mind that they're legit. That doesn't mean I have no doubt that what they report will turn out to be true. They're obviously going to hear things that wind up being untrue, just like the sources that journalists have. They'll get bad info sometimes. Things will fall through other times. What I do mean is that I have no doubt in my mind that they have legitimate ties. You don't just predict a trade exactly as it is hours before it's announced by happenstance or luck or coincidence. I'm not even sure what to say about the rest of this crazy diatribe.

Well played.

Another guy on there who has been updating them on the trade and claims to have a Cubs source (claims to be hearing the same thing as the O's guys) posted this... well, I've said all along that tomorrow is the day it happens, but you never know these days. But my prediction has always been tuesday. We will see. Jim Hendry, the Cubs GM wants this done so he can move onto A.J. Burnett. This Joey guy has only been on there since this month, so take it FWIW, but he has been "reporting" the same thing as the other insiders. Could just be a Sox or Cards fan trying to pull our legs too, though.

A couple of things... What stat or stats are your run scored projections based on? You also can't really assume that this trade would mean having Dempster as the 5th starter. It's one among many possibilities. Even as it stands, it might be that way, or who knows, Lou might go with Kevin Hart or someone else. More importantly, there's still the realistic possibility that they go after another starter, i.e. Burnett. Roberts allows them to include DeRosa in a trade to the Blue Jays. What would a trade for Burnett do for your RA and then overall win projections? EDIT - This was directed at Meph's post

I think there is zero doubt that the insiders are legit. Was it Peace or Belkast that 100% called the Tejada trade and the players involved hours before any media outlet picked it up? That's not luck. He didn't just guess and then it all happened to be 100% true on the same day he said it. Obviously, there are real ties there. They're not always going to be right, but I think it's fair to say that if we hear one of these "reports," there is something to them.

It's fairly realistic to think that 3 Cubs starting OFs could be on those lists next year.

To me, significant = substantive. A substantial improvement. There is substance to the improvement. Non-negligible. It doesn't mean huge or massive or major or anything like that. But yea, this is an argument of semantics.

I don't see how calling Roberts a modest upgrade is belittling him. Other people may perceive his value to the Cubs differently than you do, but that doesn't make them mean-spirited or irrational. Otherwise one could make a similar argument in your case when you say that Gallagher/Marshall have little to no value other than as insurance policies against poor performances by Marquis/Dempster. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Welcome back, BTW. I think what is lost is that what one person considers marginal may not be the same as someone else's marginal. So, let me put this another way and maybe this will be more clear. Marginal isn't really measurable. Brian Roberts is a significant upgrade over crappy 2b's. Brian Roberts is a marginal upgrade over decent 2b's. Brian Roberts is not as good as that dude in Philadelphia, period. Mark DeRosa is a decent 2b. Roberts has averaged 1 win less than Chase the last 3 years. That one might be a marginal upgrade. (I'm kidding...............sort of) :wink: Roberts, at his best, can hang with Chase, though.

That's really not the argument, BBB. In fact, I've said (and backed up) several times that DeRosa could have an up year and he'd only be barely better than Roberts in a down year (i.e. DeRosa's 2007 vs. Roberts's 2006). That said, due to their ages, I would say it is more likely that DeRo would have a down 2008 than Roberts, but we obviously won't know that until they play. But I really don't want to keep going in circles about it like this anymore.

I don't see how calling Roberts a modest upgrade is belittling him. Other people may perceive his value to the Cubs differently than you do, but that doesn't make them mean-spirited or irrational. Otherwise one could make a similar argument in your case when you say that Gallagher/Marshall have little to no value other than as insurance policies against poor performances by Marquis/Dempster. There BK goes introducing another of these awesome subjective words to the discussion. :wink: FWIW, I think modest is better than marginal. :lol: Also, FWIW, I'd start both Marshall and Gallagher over Marquis and Dempster. The Cubs never would, though. They might start one of them over Dempster, though. Or they might start someone else over them. Too early to say.

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. Um, ok? How was I even to know this, and why is it at all relevant? It's not. I hope she's found and gets home safe, though.

The reason it is only a marginal upgrade is because Roberts isn't that much of a better player than DeRosa. A significant upgrade is Derrek Lee over Eric Karros, Hee Seop Choi and Randall Simon. A significant upgrade is Aramis Ramirez over Jose Hernandez, Mark Bellhorn and Lenny Harris. A significant upgrade is Alfonso Soriano over Todd Hollandsworth and Jason Dubois. Significant is when you are not getting valuable production at a particular position and you acquire some who gives you valuable production at a particular position. Significant is when you are getting average production at a particular position and you acquire someone who gives you astronomical production at that particular position. Right now, this Cub team is only looking at a marginal improvement offensively with the addition of Fukudome. If Soto and Fukudome are better than advertised, DeRosa plays SS and Roberts is at 2b, then I would upgrade marginal to significant improvement. Maybe you are just putting too much emphasis on the word marginal? It's inherently an ambiguous and arbitrary label. That said, I don't see how you can say that a guy who will at worst be slightly worse than DeRosa (and I mean MARGINALLY worse if DeRosa is at his reasonable best and Roberts is at his reasonable worst), at best will be 6 or 7 wins better (if DeRo really regresses and Roberts at his best, which, FWIW, I believe to be more likely than the former scenario due to their ages), and probably winds up being ~3 wins better (if both perform to reasonable expectations) a "marginal" improvement. 3 wins is a lot in itself. 6 or 7 would be huge.

And if all I ever did was ignore extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics, then I might agree that I was being Morganish. However, I'm not ignoring extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics. I just don't place as much weight on the difference between a 30 year old and a 33 year old. And I place more weight on OPS+ than I do WARP. It's a marginal upgrade. Period. I want to hear Goony tell me it's more than that. You said..."I don't have to look at their WARP's or their ages." BTW, 3 years, especially at that point in their careers, is a pretty significant difference in the span of a major leaguer's career.

And if all I ever did was ignore extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics, then I might agree that I was being Morganish. However, I'm not ignoring extremely relevant facts like their ages and overall statistics. I just don't place as much weight on the difference between a 30 year old and a 33 year old. And I place more weight on OPS+ than I do WARP. It's a marginal upgrade. Period. I want to hear Goony tell me it's more than that. Care to explain why you'd place more weight on the stat that encompasses less than the other?