JDsDirtySox Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 http://masnsports.com/2009/01/roberts-to-t...er-chicago.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDsDirtySox Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 I just want to add that I don't like this talk... I want Gavin here for a long long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 According to MASN Sports, the Orioles and White Sox have discussed a trade involving Brian Roberts and Gavin Floyd. Selling high on Floyd wouldn't be a bad move for the White Sox, but it would leave them with just two established starters in Mark Buerhle and John Danks. They'd have to spend quite a lot to land another, making a Roberts acquisition an especially expensive proposition. Jan. 2 - 7:09 pm et  It would depend on an extension for Roberts, IMO. Gavin had a very good year, but who is to say he stays consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) I just wanted to add that would be the dumbest trade in White Sox history....one year of Brian Roberts (and probably Type A compensation) for another hole in the pitching rotation. Â The ONLY way this makes sense is if we have a Dye/Konerko trade already in play for pitching, but that pitcher would probably be a youngish prospect/suspect like Bailey, and then you go into the season with 3 young or rookie pitchers, a 3rd year pitcher perhaps going backwards because of the expanded workload in 2009 and Buehrle. Not exactly a recipe for success. Â Either that, or the Taveras signing and the cost of Floyd is how high the price of a Top 5-7 leadoff hitter has become in the game today. Â And signing Roberts to a long-term extension at his age (middle 30's) just doesn't make much sense either. KW would be buying too high on Roberts, with the likelihood that his best days are probably already behind him. It would make more sense to spend some money on Hudson and not blow up our pitching rotation any further. KW has to remember 2005, and the fact that it was/is/always will be starting pitching that wins championships moreso than any other individual factor. Edited January 3, 2009 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 06:08 PM) It would depend on an extension for Roberts, IMO. Gavin had a very good year, but who is to say he stays consistent. Â Â Yes, but couldn't the same argument be made for trading Danks, too? Yes, there are differences....but the Indians would have looked really smart (then really dumb again) for trading Cliff Lee at different points of his early career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I like the idea of selling high on Gavin, but we are already short on starting pitching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 No way! We already have 2 question marks at 4-5. KW must really have confidence in Marquez for this to be the case.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Some of the crack that this guy was smoking might make my night go by quicker. I'm sure we're eager to go into next season with Buehrle and Danks the only two sure things in the rotation next year to fill in a semi-hole that we've got three guys who could possibly cover. You know, cause there's a ton of 17 game winners out there that made 400k last year. Â Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjm676 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I know this is just a rumor, but - sure deplete the rotation even more, makes sense. Then we can add to our 900 second basemen we already have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowch Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 No thanks. I like the idea of getting Roberts, but not for Gavin. Their ages are the biggest factor for me. I don't think this trade would make us any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 This doesn't seem to be legit, but rather speculation from Baltimore's side about the type of player they should pursue for Roberts. No reason to get worked up over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Man. Roberts is such a monster though. Â Â Â Â Gavin $-wise makes us all want him around awhile, but really how irreplaceable are those skills? We can get middle rotation starters. True leadoff guys though arent around Edited January 3, 2009 by Princess Dye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 06:46 PM) Man. Roberts is such a monster though.    Gavin $-wise makes us all want him around awhile, but really how irreplaceable are those skills? We can get middle rotation starters. True leadoff guys though arent around  How many mid 20's pitchers making under $1,000,000 per season with his stuff are out there on the market today? I mean, we can't even get Bailey for Dye, apparently.  And Bailey hasn't proven anything yet. Gavin was big down the stretch when we needed him, with the exception of his playoff start being so-so.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 04:46 PM) Man. Roberts is such a monster though. Gavin $-wise makes us all want him around awhile, but really how un-replaceable are those skills? We can get middle rotation starters. True leadoff guys though arent around Even as one of G's biggest backers coming in to last year...if it weren't for the Mitchell Report (yes I still hold that against people) and if the team had a semi-infinite budget like the Yankees, this trade would be a no-brainer with the current roster. It solves a number of issues in the lineup and in the field. And while Gavin had a very good season last year and will probably get better, he's not a guy we couldn't replace in the FA market if we had the money.  But right now, we're cutting salary, which means that we need all of the pre-arbitration players we can find. And we have 2 holes already in our starting rotation, which means we need all the innings-eating pitchers we can get out of the other 3 spots. And that also means we wouldn't have the money to extend Roberts. And if we traded for him and we were unable to fix the starting rotation elsewhere, we'd just be lost for next year no matter who we had at leadoff.  It just can't work with our salary constraints now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighurt4life Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 When i read this i threw up a little bit in my mouth. No way would I do that deal, even straight up let alone include more pieces as the article says. Another 3-4 years of Gavin for one of a 30 year old roberts who is about to get really expensive and could start losing his speed at any point now. NO f***ING WAY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaTank Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 07:03 PM) When i read this i threw up a little bit in my mouth. No way would I do that deal, even straight up let alone include more pieces as the article says. Another 3-4 years of Gavin for one of a 30 year old roberts who is about to get really expensive and could start losing his speed at any point now. NO f***ING WAY!!! Exactly what I was thinking. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 QUOTE (JDsDirtySox @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 04:04 PM) http://masnsports.com/2009/01/roberts-to-t...er-chicago.html This would be downright retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 07:49 PM) How many mid 20's pitchers making under $1,000,000 per season with his stuff are out there on the market today? I mean, we can't even get Bailey for Dye, apparently. And Bailey hasn't proven anything yet. Gavin was big down the stretch when we needed him, with the exception of his playoff start being so-so. Floyd had his 2 worst months ERA wise in August and September. He could have been tiring or maybe they were catching up to what he was doing. Danks was awful the second half of 2007 so it could be the former. I'm not sold on Floyd and I like Roberts. If he were a White Sox in 2008 and Ramirez played CF, this team would have been one of the most exciting White Sox teams ever. But even with all that, Floyd for Roberts makes zero sense for the White Sox. They don't have the major league ready pitching depth to give up another 200 innings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.J. Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 This trade would have made a lot of sense a few months ago, but pretty much none now. It would close one hole and open another. Â The lack of MLB ready pitching depth on this team could very quickly destroy it if injury strikes, or if some guys end up being bad at baseball (Marquez). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 You can close this thread, as it's obviously bulls***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 That would be a disaster. Awful idea, and near zero chance of it happening. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 The only way this happens is if Kenny already had another deal in place...like getting Santana from LA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 07:42 PM) The only way this happens is if Kenny already had another deal in place...like getting Santana from LA. I thought about that too - get Roberts for Floyd, get an SP elsewhere. But that is the anti-Kenny - trading cheap talent for expensive talent. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 This guy is the O's main beat writer, so I don't think it should just be dismissed out of hand...especially since I guess in the comments section of the article, a fan asked who the O's would then plug in at 2b, and the writer said "I'll have that name in my next blog." Seems like the guy thinks he has something here... Â I don't like the idea of the trade either, but as others have said, I trust Kenny enough to believe that if he made this deal, there would be other deals forthcoming... Â I guess we just have to wait and see.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.