PDA

View Full Version : Buster Olney: O's and Cubs to complete Roberts trade.


It's Time
02-05-2008, 12:07 PM
Buster Olney:

Sources involved in Baltimore's trade talks with Chicago expressed confidence that at some point, the Orioles and Cubs will finish the proposed Brian Roberts deal.

Olney says Sean Gallagher would be the centerpiece of the deal. On February 3rd, ESPN's Jayson Stark said Gallagher or Sean Marshall would be included, but beyond that nothing has been decided.

The O's board is also saying they are going to flip George Sherrill (coming to the O's from the M's) to the Cubs in some sort of 6-8 player trade.

I really think KW should get involved here. :cool: He can steal the thunder away from the Cubs and put the White Sox in a position to REALLY threaten in the central.

alohafri
02-05-2008, 12:11 PM
Didn't Buster Olney "confirm" this trade about three weeks ago? Sounds like he believes if he repeats it enough, it will come true.

btrain929
02-05-2008, 12:16 PM
Buster Olney:

Sources involved in Baltimore's trade talks with Chicago expressed confidence that at some point, the Orioles and Cubs will finish the proposed Brian Roberts deal.

Olney says Sean Gallagher would be the centerpiece of the deal. On February 3rd, ESPN's Jayson Stark said Gallagher or Sean Marshall would be included, but beyond that nothing has been decided.

The O's board is also saying they are going to flip George Sherrill (coming to the O's from the M's) to the Cubs in some sort of 6-8 player trade.

I really think KW should get involved here. :cool: He can steal the thunder away from the Cubs and put the White Sox in a position to REALLY threaten in the central.

The Orioles aren't the ones who need to add more to the package, it's the Cubs that have to....

thomas35forever
02-05-2008, 12:17 PM
If this is true, how long will it take for Trixies to declare Roberts the cutest guy on the team?

D. TODD
02-05-2008, 12:46 PM
Too much smoke around this one for too long. With Bedard going it shouldn't be long until Roberts is gone as well. Good move for the Cubs no doubt if they ever do pull this one off.

oeo
02-05-2008, 04:30 PM
I really think KW should get involved here. :cool: He can steal the thunder away from the Cubs and put the White Sox in a position to REALLY threaten in the central.

Can Roberts pitch? :?:

Not worth it.

SoxNation05
02-05-2008, 04:33 PM
Can Roberts pitch? :?:

Not worth it.
Can Roberts leadoff?

Worth it.

batmanZoSo
02-05-2008, 04:34 PM
On an unrelated but important note, Buster Olney just sounds like a stupid name. They could've named Barney Rubble that easily.

oeo
02-05-2008, 04:36 PM
Can Roberts leadoff?

Worth it.

Tell me who we're going to give up, #1. We have options, but it's either too little (guys like Masset, Broadway, McCulloch), or too much (Danks).

Secondly, how does a leadoff hitter all of a sudden make us a major threat? Our rotation will make or break the season, not our leadoff hitter...we have 3 or 4 options there.

Also, I'm sticking by my prediction that with the steroid cloud around Roberts, he will flop.

Hokiesox
02-05-2008, 04:41 PM
If he didn't have the steroid cloud hanging over him, I'd give KW a pass if he traded Danks. Not saying I'd like the deal, but I'd give him a pass.

SoxNation05
02-05-2008, 04:43 PM
On an unrelated but important note, Buster Olney just sounds like a stupid name. They could've named Barney Rubble that easily.
or Mugsy Jones.

oeo
02-05-2008, 04:43 PM
If he didn't have the steroid cloud hanging over him, I'd give KW a pass if he traded Danks. Not saying I'd like the deal, but I'd give him a pass.

How does that make us better? Losing a starting pitcher, when we need starting pitching makes us better? :?:

Tragg
02-05-2008, 05:32 PM
Tell me who we're going to give up, #1. We have options, but it's either too little (guys like Masset, Broadway, McCulloch), or too much (Danks).


I agree with that.
Now you could send danks for Roberts + to equalize. But to heck with Roberts- roids and he's not that great anyway.

Hokiesox
02-05-2008, 05:43 PM
How does that make us better? Losing a starting pitcher, when we need starting pitching makes us better? :?:

I'm not the one to make a convincing argument, but having a true lead off hitter is not a bad thing. Pitchers can't win games without an offense that produces runs. See: 2007 White Sox.

oeo
02-05-2008, 05:55 PM
I'm not the one to make a convincing argument, but having a true lead off hitter is not a bad thing. Pitchers can't win games without an offense that produces runs. See: 2007 White Sox.

You're not going to win many games when you need an infinite supply of runs.

This offense as it stands will score plenty of runs; I'm not worried about it one bit.

And actually, if the Flubs were smart, they would be thinking the same thing. Their offense will score plenty of runs...what they're going to need is starting pitching, as well.

russ99
02-05-2008, 06:40 PM
Do I have to call B.S. on this non-deal yet again?

I don't care how many marginal players/semi-prospects like Murton, Gallagher, Marshall, Cedeno, etc. Buster Olney thinks the Cubs can foist off for a All-Star player the cailber of Roberts, the only way Baltimore will make this deal is if the Cubs part with a real prospect or two, like Colvin, Fuld, Veal or Pie.

oeo
02-05-2008, 06:48 PM
Do I have to call B.S. on this non-deal yet again?

I don't care how many marginal players/semi-prospects like Murton, Gallagher, Marshall, Cedeno, etc. Buster Olney thinks the Cubs can foist off for a All-Star player the cailber of Roberts, the only way Baltimore will make this deal is if the Cubs part with a real prospect or two, like Colvin, Fuld, Veal or Pie.

Oh God, Flub position players? Yeek!

RadioheadRocks
02-05-2008, 07:39 PM
Didn't Buster Olney "confirm" this trade about three weeks ago? Sounds like he believes if he repeats it enough, it will come true.

Only if he clicks his heels three times first and has Glinda the Good Witch hovering over him. :rolling:

champagne030
02-05-2008, 08:20 PM
How does that make us better? Losing a starting pitcher, when we need starting pitching makes us better? :?:

Exactly what I was thinking when we dealt Garland for Cabrera and replaced his spot in the rotation with Floyd. :o:

oeo
02-05-2008, 08:23 PM
Exactly what I was thinking when we dealt Garland for Cabrera and replaced his spot in the rotation with Floyd. :o:

The situations are not the same at all. Nice try, though.

sircaffey1
02-05-2008, 09:12 PM
How does that make us better? Losing a starting pitcher, when we need starting pitching makes us better? :?:

Just because Danks is a SP doesn't mean losing him makes us worse. He's not a good major league SP at this time. His future appears bright, but losing him for next year does not necessarily make us worse. If KW spins Crede off to SF for Lowry, turning around and dealing Danks for Roberts would make us a significantly better team for 2008. Too many people are crowning Danks as an effective SP. His value lays mainly in his future and not his present.

champagne030
02-05-2008, 10:22 PM
The situations are not the same at all. Nice try, though.

Exactly the same, but continue to stick your head in the sand. I'd rather have Garland, Roberts and Uribe than Floyd, Richar and Cabrera. :cool:

It was a nice try on your part, though.......

Tragg
02-05-2008, 10:52 PM
Just because Danks is a SP doesn't mean losing him makes us worse. He's not a good major league SP at this time. His future appears bright, but losing him for next year does not necessarily make us worse. If KW spins Crede off to SF for Lowry, turning around and dealing Danks for Roberts would make us a significantly better team for 2008. Too many people are crowning Danks as an effective SP. His value lays mainly in his future and not his present.
Okay - but he's still worth more than Roberts in a trade market.
Just because we may have used Crede to get a mediocre pitcher like Lowry (which I hope we don't do) doesn't mean we should trade Danks for less than he's worth.
And it's not all about this year.

Tragg
02-05-2008, 11:00 PM
Exactly the same, but continue to stick your head in the sand. I'd rather have Garland, Roberts and Uribe than Floyd, Richar and Cabrera. :cool:

It was a nice try on your part, though.......
Just following along here - Cunningham/Richar and Floyd would bring Roberts? Maybe so, I don't know. Uribe belongs on both sides of the equation, although he's a backup on the right side (he's who I really want to trade - necessary to prevent ozzie from playing him every day). You should also add a number 1 draft choice to the right side of the equation (the only reason that Garland trade made any sense).
What the Sox really need to do is get some young players (good prospcts) back for Crede, Uribe (who was paid $4.5 million this year) and whoever else they want to deal.

oeo
02-05-2008, 11:33 PM
Exactly the same, but continue to stick your head in the sand. I'd rather have Garland, Roberts and Uribe than Floyd, Richar and Cabrera. :cool:

It was a nice try on your part, though.......

No, it's not the same. We were going to lose Garland after this season, so he was dealt for a)A need and b)Someone who we had a better shot at re-signing. Trading Danks, a 22-year-old southpaw who is going to go nowhere but up, for a 30-year-old roider is just plain stupid.

santo=dorf
02-06-2008, 01:03 AM
No, it's not the same. We were going to lose Garland after this season, so he was dealt for a)A need and b)Someone who we had a better shot at re-signing. Trading Danks, a 22-year-old southpaw who is going to go nowhere but up, for a 30-year-old roider is just plain stupid.
Prove it. You say we have a better shot at re-signing Cabrera, but that doesn't mean he's a lock to stay here. If he leaves doesn't that put us in the same situation as the one you are picturing for Garland? Do we really need to lock up Cabrera? Wouldn't make more sense to lock up a starting pitcher than a shortstop?

the1tab
02-06-2008, 09:12 AM
My biggest problem w/ the Garland-Cabrera deal is that we gave Uribe a contract and Kenny said he liked Richar just a week or two before the deal went down. If we're going to deal Garland, let's not make it redundant. Our middle infield is crowded now, and I'm really not thrilled w/ 2nd base.

Also, we haven't replaced Garland in the rotation yet. Gavin Floyd has EVERYTHING to prove still. Danks is nice, and I think he'll be a serviceable 4th starter this year w/ a nice career ahead of him, but having Floyd & Grandpa Jose both in the rotation makes me clench. We need another starter.

Finally, to the question of "how does a leadoff man get us over the top"... Pods did for the first 3 months in the Championship season. If I remember, the legs and bats carried us until the All Star Break and only then did the rotation start killing people. Is Roberts going to do the same? I can't say that. But would I prefer to see Cabrera hitting 2nd every day instead of leadoff? Absolutely. In the league today, any time you can add 50 stolen bases to the top of an order w/ .385+ OBP guys hitting 2-4, you're scaring the guy on the mound the minute he leaves the bullpen.

Taliesinrk
02-06-2008, 09:45 AM
In the league today, any time you can add 50 stolen bases to the top of an order w/ .385+ OBP guys hitting 2-4, you're scaring the guy on the mound the minute he leaves the bullpen.

Are you speaking of the potential that Jerry Owens possesses?

the1tab
02-06-2008, 09:50 AM
Are you speaking of the potential that Jerry Owens possesses?

NO.