David

Guilty.

What? BTW, the fact that he was replaced by Steve Trachsel means nothing because it was an idiotic move in the first place. I agree with the rest of the post, though.

I think we're stuck with that anyway if we don't pick up someone else. Those two would have to be Wade Miller-esque to lose their jobs to the kids, IMO. Hell, we had Steve Trachsel taking Marshall's starts in the middle of a pennant race.

Count me in. I plan to carry over my 2007 success (even though I sucked in the playoffs...)

Yea, I sort of did a ninja edit there... You caught me, goony.

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. Pretty well sums it up. If Roberts was SS, this board would be exploding with excitement. He is the right target for Hendry (in terms of player value) at the wrong position. Yes and no. He's still a very significant upgrade over DeRosa in terms of expected production, which is the point I'm trying to get at. The problem is, like we've all said, SS is a more glaring hole and that seems to make a big difference in perception.

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 just "meh." Some even seem to talk like he's a mediocre or average player.

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. Yeah, I'm not so sure the "prototypical leadoff hitter" is this holy grail of making a World Series, either. Plenty of teams have done it without one. I'm more concerned with the overall OBP now -- and I'm still leery that Roberts is going to suffer a drop in production. I wouldn't mind getting the guy, but the back of our rotation is suddenly going to look mighty shaky. And wasn't SP a big advantage that eventually lifted us over the Crew last year? Why? They've been testing for steroids for a few years now, and the Mitchell report has nothing to do with baseball's testing or the last few seasons, or anything, really. The Mitchell Report is just a joke, actually, but that's a separate argument. Even if Roberts was still on steroids the last few years (which, to me, is doubtful in itself), it would mean that he has found some way to beat the testing. The Mitchell Report wouldn't really change this. If he wasn't, then his production from the last few years is legit anyway.

I still don't understand why everyone thinks Roberts is only a "marginal" upgrade over DeRo. It's like everyone just assumes DeRosa is going to repeat last year. Even if he did, that's about the average we can expect from Roberts. Roberts had a WARP of 7.1 last year (DeRo's was 4.5, FWIW). That's a fairly big difference. In 2006, Roberts had an off year at 4.2, which is still right in line with what DeRosa did for us last year. In 2005, Roberts had a WARP of 9.4. So, in the last few years, BRob's least productive year was worth .3 wins less than DeRosa's 2007, which exceeded most of our expectations and left us all pretty happy. I'm not really sure either way whether we can expect DeRosa to produce the way he did last year. On the one hand, he made some adjustments to his swing and since has made clear improvements in his production. Ask some of the resident experts, though, and they'll still tell you that 2007 was flukish and he probably won't be able to repeat that next year. I'm sort of on the fence, but I'm usually optimistic so I tend to lean toward the former. That aside, it's still far from a sure thing. To me, Roberts over DeRosa in itself is more than a marginal upgrade. Couple it with the fact that you either have DeRosa taking the bench ABs away from the likes of Fontenot and others or you're flipping DeRosa for another SP (i.e. Burnett), and it's a clear cut upgrade. I seriously don't understand why people are so willingly brushing Roberts aside like he's nothing special while at the same time overvaluing DeRo. Sure, I wish they'd address SS instead, as it's a more obvious hole, but that doesn't make this acquisition any less palatable.

I'm not sure trading for a Burnett-type pitcher would be the wisest follow-up to the proposed Roberts trade. As you point out, Gallagher and Marshall are currently quite valuable to the Cubs as options/depth for the back end of the rotation. If those two leave we'll have few (if any) attractive options to fill in the rotation if/when one of our starters goes down, and in Burnett's case "when" is probably a better bet than "if." (Burnett has only exceeded 180 IP once in the past five years.) As it stands, I just see Cedeno/Gallagher/Marshall having more combined value for the 2008 Cubs than Roberts does. If the Cubs can work out a couple deals beforehand that would push Marquis/Dempster out of the rotation or Theriot out of the lineup I'd be much more open to giving up the proposed package. Until that happens, however, I'm just not comfortable making the team's (arguably) biggest holes even bigger on the hope we can work out deals to fill them in after the fact Burnett & Marquis/Dempster > Marquis, Dempster, Gallagher, Marshall No? In other words, if dealing Marshall and Gallagher for Roberts allows us to deal DeRo in a trade for Burnett, we're left with Burnett in the 4 spot, and then either Marquis (most likely) or Dempster for the 5th spot. If, and only if, (and I suppose when) Burnett gets hurt, you'll see the other of the two (most likely Dempster) in the rotation. I'd rather have Burnett and Marquis with Dempster backing them up than what would inevitably turn out to be Marquis and Dempster with Marshall and Gallagher in the wings (the slightly more than marginal upgrade at 2B that this series of deals brings doesn't hurt, either). I think it's doubtful that if the roster were to stay as it is, Marshall or Gallagher would have much of a shot to take Dempster's rotation spot, and there's no way they'd take Marquis's. As much as Lou isn't in love with the idea of Demp as a starter, I don't think he's too high on Marshall either. I'm really not sure where they stand with Gallagher.

I'm pretty sure I'd take Burnett over Blanton seven days a week, injury risks be damned.

Whether the proposed deal for Roberts is crappy really depends on what we would do thereafter. Marshall and Gallagher only have that much value to us because we're rounding out the rotation with Marquis and Dempster if we get rid of them. If we pick up another starter, i.e. Burnett (possibly using DeRosa, who would become expendable because of a Roberts trade), then that changes everything.

Agreed. It was pretty annoying clicking this thread thinking there might be something new and finding that stuff.

Does anyone else wish Soriano hadn't gotten hurt and had stuck in CF? Then we could go Murton, Soriano, Fuku this year. Sori's bat would be much more valuable as a CF. Oh, well.

They do. At Wrigley? I don't think so. They do. EDIT - Didn't see Jon's reply. What he said.

Didn't they just gain some by lowering the field?

They do.

Does she still follow him around after they divorced? I'm pretty sure they're not divorced.

There are plenty of valid explanations for the step he took.

Actually, Barrett would be a pretty nice fit on this team as a backup. Could play behind the plate when resting Geo and would be a really strong bat off the bench for PH situations. Could probably play a couple other positions, too. I could see him as a better Tyler Houston. Never would happen, since, aside from other obvious reasons, Barrett has become another of the notorious scapegoats of the Hendry era, but yea.

Fluff piece on our favorite catcher... http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080103&content_id=2338345&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc This part got me :-k ... I would've guessed that Geo was a hell of a lot leaner than Z.

Was it the same time the Roberts rumors were flying? If yes, there's your answer. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other (the Lou encounter was a random O's fan that happens to be a member of the forum, not an insider), and the Roberts rumors were and are legit. The insiders are completely legit. In fact, the "leg pulling" that happened had to do with the Reds offer for Bedard and little really to do with the Cubs/Roberts stuff.

Does anyone else not have the foggiest idea of what this means?

That really would've made more sense if it had been on the same page as wrigley23's post.

Ah. So what makes Greene a strikeout machine instead of a strikeout king like the guys on the Cubs?