Downright HI-sterical that Tim made no mention of Heyman's take on the Roberts-to-Cubs non-trade. Didn't want to start another Roberts riot, Tim?! Can't say I blame you.
As an O's fan, I can't say the thought hadn't crossed my mind, though I think it's a little early to start saying the club screwed up by not taking one of the Cubs' offers. For one thing, no one seems to be sure what the Cubs were offering or O's were asking, exactly.
Cedeno has looked good at the bat so far, but I can't say it's made me any more of a believer. Maybe I'm just stubborn. That whole lineup is playing out of their minds (gotta give a lot of credit to Fuku there, though; his patience seems to be contagious). Ronny may well turn out to be a stud SS, but I still doubt Baltimore regrets missing out.
Marshall has looked good in middle relief, but that's really not a pressing need for Baltimore in the rebuilding stages and, like Matt Albers (for us), I'm not sold on his ability to translate that success into similar numbers as a starter.
Veal's ERA is nice, but his peripherals give pause, as his control still leaves something to be desired (17 K's to 14 BB's). That said- and taking into account Gallagher's rough start last night- I DO think those two give cause for pause. Gallagher's ceiling hasn't risen as a result of his performance, but his likelihood of reaching it may have and his K rates are promising. Veal, for all his walks, seems to be a different pitcher than the guy who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in '07. NOW, I could see them forming two-thirds of a solid package for Roberts.
It's easy to say that Baltimore missed out with 20/20 hindsight, but Veal in particular was a huge question mark and his start might be just the thing to re-engage the O's, rather than cause to lament a missed opportunity; however it's also true that, because of the Cubs' fast start, Hendry and Co. may just feel they're sitting pretty and need no upgrades. Should be an interesting summer.
I'd still like to see if the O's and Rockies could figure something out- a package of Greg Reynolds, Hector Gomez, and Jhoulys Chacin for Roberts provides the O's with solid value, a nice middle-infield prospect, and a couple more interesting arms, without depleting the Rockies system or taking any critical components (like Morales, Jimenez, Stewart, or Fowler). Gomez is really blocked and Reynolds has an upside much like Gallagher's without the inflated cost/value created by a fast start. Roberts fits in with the Rockies in terms of window (he's around the same age as Holliday, Hawpe, and Atkins and would help the Rox win while Helton can still contribute), comes at a reasonable price, and is under contract through this year and next (and could be re-signed or offered arbitration and allowed to walk for draft picks as a Type A) and fills two holes as both a 2B who can contribute (as opposed to Nix, who was re-assigned), and a leadoff hitter with a good OBP in place of Taveras (who could be moved down in the order; maybe to the nine hole a la Milwaukee). Just an idea.
An O's/Cubs deal seems that much more unlikely now that Chicago is off to such a strong start and Gallagher and Veal have inflated values. Whereas I would've liked to have seen a three man deal in the range of Gallagher, Veal, and Tony Thomas (nice bat, but can he play 2B defensively in the show?), that's out of the question at this point. The O's have lost considerable leverage with the Cubs' record where it is and Hendry will point to the performances of Gallagher and Veal as demonstrating increased worth. I doubt McPhail will agree; the only way to save face is to get a BETTER return that the previous offer or turn elsewhere. (With Colvin struggling, he'd fit better than Thomas, but again, with Gallagher and Veal playing so well, Hendry is unlikely to relent.) I cannot see the former happening; maybe the latter, though the number of suitors would be limited.
...Which I guess, is Heyman's point. Still, though it may turn out that the O's and McPhail made a mistake, it's a mistake I can live with and one I would've made myself. Strong starts aside, I still see Cedeno as a utility/platoon infielder, Gallagher as a mid-rotation starter (which is actually pretty nice to have, but I never had a problem with that part of the deal), and Veal as a solid LH reliever (I like BA's characterization of Veal as a future Arthur Rhodes-type). Is that enough for Roberts? Perhaps, but I'd rather take my chances and see what kind of effect he can have on the young guys we already have. I'm not foolish enough to believe we'll remain in first place, but I'd be happy with a shift in the clubhouse culture. There are some nice kids in the system and the future now looks brighter than it has in a decade. There's no reason to regret keeping a positive influence who could potentially help that along; at least, not for the players discussed.
Then again, I could be whistling another tune if Gallagher keeps doing what he's doing in Triple A, on the big stage and Veal turns into a frontline southpaw rather than the power reliever I project. That's the beauty of baseball in general and prospects, specifically.
Either way... unless the Cubs' play drops off, Roberts to Chicago ain't gonna happen. There are too many factors to overcome and neither GM is going to blink at this point in the staring contest.
Sorry for the long post, but it's been a while since I've gotten to remark on this long-gestating rumor.
I hate idiots like DM that make somebody feel stupid for posting a solid, informative and factual post, just because they have the mental capacity of a 7 year old that gets nervous when he has to read 3 or 4 paragraphs. If you dont like the long posts then go read some Dr Suess. He only puts a couple of sentences on each page and theres pictures everywhere, so you really dont have to think. You should love it.
And that, Tim, seems to be why the deal was doomed from the start: Hendry probably thought along the same lines as you, while McPhail's conception of value was likely closer to my own. In hindsight, and regardless of how the two clubs matched up, the result now reeks of inevitability. Oh well.
Just a side note, how can you say something like 'That is not the Cubs fan in me talking'? I love your site, Tim, and think you do an excellent job, overall, but to claim yourself free of bias is a bit ingenuous. Frankly, as frustrating as it can be, I think your professed fan-dom is part of your appeal; an acknowledgment that marks you as both honest and 'one of us.'
Claiming yourself free from any such predilection here seems out of character and assumes an ability to disconnect from preconceived partiality when it's time for objectivity. I can only speak for myself, but as someone who has dealt with similar issues in a professional capacity very closely associated to your own chosen field, I've found it impossible- oxymoronic, almost- to voice a truly impartial opinion. Where does the emotional self end and the rational self begin? As easy as it is to call oneself objective, it's funny how often the 'obvious, rational, and reasoned' response matches up with our personal tastes. Furthermore, when you combine passion for a particular subject with the inevitable wealth of knowledge that tends to accrue as a result of that passion, it's easier to argue a case that leans in the same direction that you lean. This isn't a bad thing; it's simply natural. Acceptance and acknowledgment is, in my experience, the best policy. For the most part, I think you've been great about this, which is why it seems so disorienting to read a qualification so...at odds with prior disclaimers celebrating your preference for the Cubs and out of step with the reality of objectivity.
Then again...maybe I'm just nitpicking. Keep up the good work.
BTW-
Didn't see DM's post before I wrote this last one. LOL. Much as I try, I always wind up going on and on... Still, you can just skip the post if you want, dude.
Good looking out, nrmax. Thanks for having my back.
Dayton Daily News may want to hire a sports savvy proofreader.
"Well, hey, now that we’ve seen Toronto eat about $10 million to dump Frank Howard ..."
Posted by: Not Joe Morgan | April 29, 2008 at 03:00 PM
Downright HI-sterical that Tim made no mention of Heyman's take on the Roberts-to-Cubs non-trade. Didn't want to start another Roberts riot, Tim?! Can't say I blame you.
As an O's fan, I can't say the thought hadn't crossed my mind, though I think it's a little early to start saying the club screwed up by not taking one of the Cubs' offers. For one thing, no one seems to be sure what the Cubs were offering or O's were asking, exactly.
Cedeno has looked good at the bat so far, but I can't say it's made me any more of a believer. Maybe I'm just stubborn. That whole lineup is playing out of their minds (gotta give a lot of credit to Fuku there, though; his patience seems to be contagious). Ronny may well turn out to be a stud SS, but I still doubt Baltimore regrets missing out.
Marshall has looked good in middle relief, but that's really not a pressing need for Baltimore in the rebuilding stages and, like Matt Albers (for us), I'm not sold on his ability to translate that success into similar numbers as a starter.
Veal's ERA is nice, but his peripherals give pause, as his control still leaves something to be desired (17 K's to 14 BB's). That said- and taking into account Gallagher's rough start last night- I DO think those two give cause for pause. Gallagher's ceiling hasn't risen as a result of his performance, but his likelihood of reaching it may have and his K rates are promising. Veal, for all his walks, seems to be a different pitcher than the guy who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in '07. NOW, I could see them forming two-thirds of a solid package for Roberts.
It's easy to say that Baltimore missed out with 20/20 hindsight, but Veal in particular was a huge question mark and his start might be just the thing to re-engage the O's, rather than cause to lament a missed opportunity; however it's also true that, because of the Cubs' fast start, Hendry and Co. may just feel they're sitting pretty and need no upgrades. Should be an interesting summer.
I'd still like to see if the O's and Rockies could figure something out- a package of Greg Reynolds, Hector Gomez, and Jhoulys Chacin for Roberts provides the O's with solid value, a nice middle-infield prospect, and a couple more interesting arms, without depleting the Rockies system or taking any critical components (like Morales, Jimenez, Stewart, or Fowler). Gomez is really blocked and Reynolds has an upside much like Gallagher's without the inflated cost/value created by a fast start. Roberts fits in with the Rockies in terms of window (he's around the same age as Holliday, Hawpe, and Atkins and would help the Rox win while Helton can still contribute), comes at a reasonable price, and is under contract through this year and next (and could be re-signed or offered arbitration and allowed to walk for draft picks as a Type A) and fills two holes as both a 2B who can contribute (as opposed to Nix, who was re-assigned), and a leadoff hitter with a good OBP in place of Taveras (who could be moved down in the order; maybe to the nine hole a la Milwaukee). Just an idea.
An O's/Cubs deal seems that much more unlikely now that Chicago is off to such a strong start and Gallagher and Veal have inflated values. Whereas I would've liked to have seen a three man deal in the range of Gallagher, Veal, and Tony Thomas (nice bat, but can he play 2B defensively in the show?), that's out of the question at this point. The O's have lost considerable leverage with the Cubs' record where it is and Hendry will point to the performances of Gallagher and Veal as demonstrating increased worth. I doubt McPhail will agree; the only way to save face is to get a BETTER return that the previous offer or turn elsewhere. (With Colvin struggling, he'd fit better than Thomas, but again, with Gallagher and Veal playing so well, Hendry is unlikely to relent.) I cannot see the former happening; maybe the latter, though the number of suitors would be limited.
...Which I guess, is Heyman's point. Still, though it may turn out that the O's and McPhail made a mistake, it's a mistake I can live with and one I would've made myself. Strong starts aside, I still see Cedeno as a utility/platoon infielder, Gallagher as a mid-rotation starter (which is actually pretty nice to have, but I never had a problem with that part of the deal), and Veal as a solid LH reliever (I like BA's characterization of Veal as a future Arthur Rhodes-type). Is that enough for Roberts? Perhaps, but I'd rather take my chances and see what kind of effect he can have on the young guys we already have. I'm not foolish enough to believe we'll remain in first place, but I'd be happy with a shift in the clubhouse culture. There are some nice kids in the system and the future now looks brighter than it has in a decade. There's no reason to regret keeping a positive influence who could potentially help that along; at least, not for the players discussed.
Then again, I could be whistling another tune if Gallagher keeps doing what he's doing in Triple A, on the big stage and Veal turns into a frontline southpaw rather than the power reliever I project. That's the beauty of baseball in general and prospects, specifically.
Either way... unless the Cubs' play drops off, Roberts to Chicago ain't gonna happen. There are too many factors to overcome and neither GM is going to blink at this point in the staring contest.
Sorry for the long post, but it's been a while since I've gotten to remark on this long-gestating rumor.
Posted by: milehigh78 | April 29, 2008 at 04:40 PM
I was thinking even in the winter that Cedeno, Gallagher, and another player was giving up too much. That is not the Cubs fan in me talking.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | April 29, 2008 at 05:04 PM
Milehigh... chill out. Try brevity. Otherwise you are a thread-killer.
Posted by: DM . | April 30, 2008 at 08:56 AM
I hate idiots like DM that make somebody feel stupid for posting a solid, informative and factual post, just because they have the mental capacity of a 7 year old that gets nervous when he has to read 3 or 4 paragraphs. If you dont like the long posts then go read some Dr Suess. He only puts a couple of sentences on each page and theres pictures everywhere, so you really dont have to think. You should love it.
Posted by: nrmax88 | April 30, 2008 at 10:01 AM
And that, Tim, seems to be why the deal was doomed from the start: Hendry probably thought along the same lines as you, while McPhail's conception of value was likely closer to my own. In hindsight, and regardless of how the two clubs matched up, the result now reeks of inevitability. Oh well.
Just a side note, how can you say something like 'That is not the Cubs fan in me talking'? I love your site, Tim, and think you do an excellent job, overall, but to claim yourself free of bias is a bit ingenuous. Frankly, as frustrating as it can be, I think your professed fan-dom is part of your appeal; an acknowledgment that marks you as both honest and 'one of us.'
Claiming yourself free from any such predilection here seems out of character and assumes an ability to disconnect from preconceived partiality when it's time for objectivity. I can only speak for myself, but as someone who has dealt with similar issues in a professional capacity very closely associated to your own chosen field, I've found it impossible- oxymoronic, almost- to voice a truly impartial opinion. Where does the emotional self end and the rational self begin? As easy as it is to call oneself objective, it's funny how often the 'obvious, rational, and reasoned' response matches up with our personal tastes. Furthermore, when you combine passion for a particular subject with the inevitable wealth of knowledge that tends to accrue as a result of that passion, it's easier to argue a case that leans in the same direction that you lean. This isn't a bad thing; it's simply natural. Acceptance and acknowledgment is, in my experience, the best policy. For the most part, I think you've been great about this, which is why it seems so disorienting to read a qualification so...at odds with prior disclaimers celebrating your preference for the Cubs and out of step with the reality of objectivity.
Then again...maybe I'm just nitpicking. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: milehigh78 | April 30, 2008 at 10:20 AM
BTW-
Didn't see DM's post before I wrote this last one. LOL. Much as I try, I always wind up going on and on... Still, you can just skip the post if you want, dude.
Good looking out, nrmax. Thanks for having my back.
Posted by: milehigh78 | April 30, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Will do, nrmax. Thanks for the tip. Looks like good stuff.
Posted by: DM . | April 30, 2008 at 10:34 AM