It's midweek at the Winter Meetings and as of yet, the Cubs have made no deals. Tomorrow is the Rule 5 draft and since the Cubs have, at the moment, four open 40-man roster spots, it wouldn't surprise me if they picked someone.
In the meantime, here's a quick update on the hottest Cub (and a couple of other) rumors.
Jake Peavy? Maybe. First, Marquis has to go, no easy task. In any case, Bruce Miles says, don't expect this to happen this week. Jayson Stark agrees. Oh, and that "Go Cubs Go" Peavy story? Nonsense. No mention of that here:
While in Vegas, Peavy had more fun than the people trying to work out his trade. He saw two country music concerts, went to the rodeo and attended Greg Maddux's retirement announcement.
Milton Bradley? Possibly. (Ugh.) Also from that link, the "Cubs might trade Z" rumor mentioned there is false, as is the Mark DeRosa to the Phillies talk, and Rafael Furcal might become a Royal. (!) Or a Blue Jay. (Or is that just a negotiating ploy?)
Kerry Wood? His soon-to-be-signed two-year deal with the Indians might include a third option year.
CC Sabathia? Despite all the talk that he wanted to stay in the NL because he likes to hit, he's apparently going to sign with the Yankees.
0 recs | 325 comments
I'd rather Sabathia go to the AL so we don't have to face him
during the season (maybe once in a blue moon during interleague play)
I’d like to keep DeRosa but if he goes in a deal for Peavy that’s a good deal, it’d probably be worth it. Rather trade for DeJesus or pick up Abreu than get Bradley or Teahan.
Let the days rumormongering begin! Woo Woo
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
Please don't say "Woo Woo" here.
I’m sure you understand why.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
agreed
you can drink yoohoo, check your yahoo, cry boohoo over (pick one) Maddog retiring, Wood leaving, Santo getting screwed…
heck, even the politically correct crowd would rather hear a cheer for Chief Wahoo than to see any mention of “W— W—”.
ballhawk - December 10, 2008
Which brings me to one of my favourite
Big Dogs T-shirts:
“If you You Tube myspace I’ll Google your Yahoo!”
blackhawk24 - December 10, 2008
Because that would be a boo-boo!
Shanghai Badger - December 10, 2008
whats the deal
with the woo woo thing if I may ask. I dont get it just asking please dont flame me!
cubsluver22 - December 10, 2008
he's the worst embodiment of cubdom
and on a fundamental level i feel like he’s being taken advantage of.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
No, he's not being taken advantage of.
He’s a self-promoter who’s “all about him”. Don’t EVER feel sorry for that idiot.
Al Yellon - December 11, 2008
who
are yall talking about??
cubsluver22 - December 11, 2008
This guy.
linky
znohitter - December 11, 2008
why are you
calling him an "idiot""
cubsluver22 - December 11, 2008
Because he’s loud and obnoxious and gives the rest of Cubdom a bad public image. Here. Or here. Or here. FOR HOURS AND HOURS ON END.
Now please excuse me. I need to clean my ears out with an icepick.
znohitter - December 11, 2008
Sorry, it was not intentional...
…just an appellation of excitement for the coming days festivities.
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
BTW, SBNation should
add a function so users can go back and edit their posts. Just a thought.
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
Not being able to edit comments is intentional.
They’re supposed to be “in the moment” ideas or thoughts. FanPosts — those, you can edit (or delete).
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
I think you should have a time limit.
1 or 5 minutes. It would make replying to yourself for spelling or other errors much, much easier.
dtpollitt - December 10, 2008
That's why there's a preview button.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
Preview button didn't help with my first post
Must have been because the dang coffee machine is broken here. A bunch of zombies walking around the office….
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
the face of evil was at the bears game
they showed him in the freezing wind against the jags whispering to himself.
it was hilarioius.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
speaking of which...
did you see Ronnie at the Bears game on Sunday? They showed him at least once with a Cubs jersey over his coat.
digitalbenjamin - December 10, 2008
when i saw him
he was whispering “bears woo” to himself.
it was hi-larry-us.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
If this Peavy deal doesn't get done i'll be extremely upset.
Not so much because I think he is neccessary to win next year, but because of the countless hours of life I have wasted over the past week pressing refresh on my computer.
Juiceboxjerry - December 10, 2008
Now, here's someone with the right perspective on this deal.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
So says the man...
Posting daily Peavy updates.
Damen Jackson - December 10, 2008
Me?
Since when do I post daily Peavy updates?
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
Well, at a quick glance..
You reference the latest Peavy rumors here, parodied the Peavy rumors yesterday, he was brought up in the Kenney interview, and I believe you’ve posted at least two Fan Posts yourself within the last week discussing the rumors explicitly.
So, perhaps not daily, but quite frequently, to be sure.
Damen Jackson - December 10, 2008
Well, let's see.
That’s one post about rumors (today), one post where Crane Kenney (not me) mentioned him (in passing), two posts “within the last week”, and one parody.
That’s hardly “daily updates”.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
Well, that WOULD be five posts within the last week...
I’d call that pretty regular (or quite frequently) as DJ rephrased. And I’d say it’s pretty close to daily as well.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
And actually, it's not.
Yesterday’s humor post was mostly about Hendry, mentioned Peavy in passing.
The Kenney interview contained ONE mention of Peavy, in passing.
Over the six days before I mentioned Peavy once, in last Friday’s “Christmas” post. I hardly think that’s overdoing it.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
I think you're parcing here...
as I definitely took the Hendry post to be a reference to the ongoing Peavy discussions (otherwise why else would it be funny?).
And no one said you’re overdoing it. Just that you’ve brought it up frequently.
But whatever, it’s not that big a deal to me.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
I've tried to post about it only when I see new information...
… or, as you say, to make fun of how much it’s been discussed.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
That's fine...
but that does contradict the idea of arguing that it is overdiscussed, as poking fun at it encourages more discussion.
Again, I don’t really care. I think it provides a nice outlet for talking about the Cubs during the winter months.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
/Scratching head
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
What's confusing about that?
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
Hey, it's no matter to me...
either way. It’s just you’ve now shared your opinion on Peavy in some form for four straight days, while at the same time describing the topic as overdiscussed.
Damen Jackson - December 10, 2008
And that's from the same man
who said to put the rumors to rest because “It’s not happening.”
lamentir - December 10, 2008
A better perspective would be...
1) not wasting so much time worrying about whether or not the deal happens; or
2) realizing that you actually ENJOY discussing these things (otherwise you wouldn’t waste so much time).
If the deal would help the Cubs and doesn’t go down, I’ll be more upset that it didn’t go down. If it wouldn’t help the Cubs, I would be happy it didn’t go down. Either way, I’m getting to speculate about my Cubs.
Granted, I wouldn’t recommend swaying breathlessly with every rumor. But I think it’s fun to actually discuss the possibilities and don’t understand why people get so worked up about the length of the talks. It’s the offseason – if the talks didn’t linger, we’d just find other inane ways to waste time talking about the Cubs.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
It's definitely a way to pass the time
while the S-N-O-W is outside!
cowsarecool220 - December 10, 2008
7 years, $160 million
That’s what ESPN is reporting as the deal CC is signing with the Yankees. Good luck with that deal boys, especially when he needs Tommy John surgery this year or next.
Ned Yost will be laughing…wherever he is when that happens.
Canadian Cubs Fan - December 10, 2008
Why would Ned Yost be laughing?
Did anyone truly think Milwaukee had a chance to resign him? Sabathia did what Milwaukee needed him to do last year—pitched them to the playoffs. Playoffs that Ned Yost only saw on TV.
carmen_fanzone - December 10, 2008
Because Ned Yost is laughing all the time...Or smirking at least...Like a jagbag.
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
The Steinbrenners never learn....
To the best that I can tell, they were bidding against themselves — again.
He wasn’t going to stay in Milwaukee, the California clubs weren’t biting, so what? You give the most overwworked pitcher in baseball a seven-year deal.
Crazy.
Damen Jackson - December 10, 2008
...and they're asking the taxpayers
to foot even more cash for their new stadium. Beautiful….
blackhawk24 - December 10, 2008
Welcome to the new age of the Steinbrenners!
What recession?
lamentir - December 10, 2008
Meh -
The one team where a contract of this size will not Schmidt/Zito the payroll. The better question is how much better will Sabathia be than Mussina’s 2008. Can’t be too great considering the year Mussina had, so CC’s addition doesn’t radically improve the Yankees. I’m okay with that.
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
Milton Bradley
He can’t play the field anymore. His knees are shot. Regardless of anything else — his attitude, his inability to stay healthy — putting him right field with Soriano in left will be a disaster.
3744nsheffield - December 10, 2008
Rec'd
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
I struggle with the three big ticket options being discussed for RF.
Bradley – All true as outlined by 3744. The positive is his bat when healthy and less cost than..
Ibanez – Older, more of a DH, terrible in the field, expensive, will cost a high draft pick.
Dunn – Horrible in LF, let alone RF, requires large multi-year commitment.
I, for one, don’t believe Hoffpauer or Pie have proven they can hit in the majors, but given their cost structure and the other options, am starting to believe they are a better opening day solution than the three above. Other moves could always be made later.
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
You may be right...
But Piniella doesn’t agree with you and Hendry won’t stand up to Piniella on Pie. So it’s a moot point. We’re going to get one of those other guys.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
My take
Jim wants Ibanez.
Lou wants Abreu.
They’d be glad if Hermida was available.
Bradley’s a fall-back option if they need to go cheaper.
Dunn’s not really on the radar.
Because there are so many options here, I think the way to do this is to keep a healthy trade rumor going about someone, and wait for the other three to sign – see if there’s still a market for the last one and see if you can get a good deal.
DGU - December 10, 2008
Hoff?
You want Hoff to be the opening day RF? I might rather have Michael Tucker…
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
What I want? That has nothing to do with Winter Meetings.
I want to start the season with a RJ/Pie platoon in CF, a winter re-worked Dome in RF and Hoff on the Bench. DeRosa at 2b and money spent on a quality field/bat SS.
I thought 2008 starting pitching was more than good enough and would prefer better bullpen options than Gregg/Shark to get to Marmol.
Pie/Dome can be re-thought after the season gets going.
Like at home, what I want doesn’t usually matter.
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
But you would prefer Hoff to Ibanez/Bradley/Dunn...
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
I would be okay with a gamble on the health/age of
Ibanez/Bradley with a short contract, if so much wasn’t already tied up in Soriano and Dome or would be okay with the defense of Dunn if LF was open. The Cubs already have a multi-year expensive, poor fielding (good throwing) guy in LF. There is no need for Dunn to be the mirror image in RF.
I want a team in annual contention and believe the combination of one dimensional players, big dollar commitments, aging players, 10/5 rights and no trade clauses, and a talent depleted farm system is a recipe for long boring summers.
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
But as we are experiencing now,
they can make for rumor-filled, repetitive, frustrating offseasons!!! I think we can both agree on that :)
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
rec'd
We HAVE enough outfielders.
drewishdrewid - December 10, 2008
I want Fukudome in RF on opening day...
after he’s torn up Spring Training. (then RJ and Pie mixin’ it up in CF)
digitalbenjamin - December 10, 2008
I totally agree with this plan.
deadcatbounce - December 10, 2008
Especially if Johnson/Fukudome is in CF...
That’s an average defensive CF with two below-average defensive corner OF.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
BCB is the only place ...
where Bradley’s ability to play right is being strongly questioned. At least, I haven’t seen such questioning anywhere else.
I agree that there’s no great option out there (though a lot of us were wrong in thinking that Fukudome was a great option a year ago). I’ll grant the point that Bradley isn’t going to be very good in right, but the other options (Abreu, Ibanez, Dunn) wouldn’t be, either.
Given that Hoff and Pie are not serious options in the minds of Lou and Hendry, I’m OK with Bradley among the free-agent possibilities — mainly because he’ll be the cheapest option.
elgato - December 10, 2008
I live in Dallas. ...
… and I watched Bradley butcher the outfield last year. He can’t get to anything anymore. You think Soriano lets balls drop in front of him? Wait until you see Bradley do it.
3744nsheffield - December 10, 2008
assuming you're right ...
and I’m not questioning YOU, why isn’t this point being mentioned in ANY news stories — Sun-Times, Trib, ESPN …
elgato - December 10, 2008
Yeah
One of them, I think it was either Sullivan or Miles, was saying Bradley could even play CF for the Cubs.
JohnM - December 10, 2008
It was Sullivan
Now, that doesn’t mean squat because Sullivan might be the least insightful of the Cubs beat writers. But the concern hasn’t been mentioned by Gordo or Bruce.
elgato - December 10, 2008
I assumed he was running with a hint from a Cubs source
that Bradley could platoon with RJ in center and Dome in right. Not that he thought it up all by himself. But, he might have.
JohnM - December 10, 2008
I have a hard time believing Bradley could play center
But that’s based mostly on the things I’ve heard on BCB. Who knows?
elgato - December 10, 2008
I have a hard time believing Bradley can stay healthy enough...
I think he’d be a capable RF if he could stay healthy. But he’s never come close to staying healthy.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
Per Baseball Reference
Milton played 19 games in right and one in left last year. He was DH in 97. He hasn’t played center field since regularly since 2005. I’d find the links in the Dallas-area papers, but I actually have work to do today.
3744nsheffield - December 10, 2008
two points
1) Just because he didn’t play much right doesn’t mean he couldn’t play right better than Abreu, Ibanez, etc.
2) I ask this not to be a jerk, but out of curiosity. Would the Dallas papers talk about his defensive problems, or just that he wasn’t the best option to play the field given the Rangers’ other players?
elgato - December 10, 2008
In spring training,
the Rangers were going to try and use Bradley in the outfield. They weren’t sure what Hamilton could do, given his health, and the rest of the outfield was David Murphy, Frank Cattalantto, Marlon Byrd and Brandon Boggs. But Bradley showed up late because of the knees, and that was that. Whether he is worse than Ibanez, etc. is like trying to figure out if a broken arm is worth than a broken leg. They’re both bad.
3744nsheffield - December 10, 2008
I'm wondering about the health of his knee.
He’s now a year removed from the reconstructive surgery and I wonder if his mobility for next season will be better than last year. I’m not sure how the recovery from knee surgery works.
I’ve never had any major leg problems or know anyone else that has so I was wondering for any insight anyone else has.
cowsarecool220 - December 10, 2008
Gameboard has actually had more problems with his "other" knee.
DeRoMyHero - December 10, 2008
yeah....
I’d hate it if the cubs added the guy who led the AL in OBP last year and nearly won the batting title, while stealing bases and hitting homers, who happens to be left handed, while we have felix pie on the bench waiting to replace him if he gets injured…………………………
kylejo - December 10, 2008
yes because offense is the only thing that matters
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
Bradley's 2008 numbers were far above his career norms.
And most of them were put up as a DH. We don’t need a DH.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
All these options seem suited to DH
Bradley, Dunn, Ibanez and Abreu all have significant issues. Trying to fit the square peg in the round hole might not work in this instance.
If another option can’t be found (i.e., the Cubs can’t trade for Hermida), I’m fine starting the year with Soriano-Johnson/Pie-Fukudome across the outfield.
Bill Potter - December 10, 2008
I'm fine with that too.
Now, all we have to do is convince Lou.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
Hopefully Pie could do that
this winter and if he’s still around in the spring.
Or walk around with signs asking for this during the Cubs Convention.
Bill Potter - December 10, 2008
If we can find someone available at the trade deadline
that’d be fine with me too.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
Bradley is exactly what we need
OK so he won’t make anyone forget Roberto Clemente out in right field. But that’s true of virtually all of the Cubs other options as well. Abreu, Hawpe, Dunn (especially in right), Ibanez…they all play poor defense. Bradley can hit the damn baseball, he’s a switch-hitter, and he actually has a personality and life to him. Hopefully, his violent, troubled days are past him. If so, he’d be worth a 2-3 year gamble. True, he may have had his best year and Rangers ballpark is a hitters paradise…but that .370 career OBP is for real.
rememberthecoop - December 10, 2008
Bradley is actually an above average fielder when healthy
but don’t tell anyone else that- they use player character heavily in their defensive metrics
philadelphiacub - December 10, 2008
however
that’s two straight years of and average over .300, on-base over .400 and slugging over .500 and its also the third time he’s done it in his career. There is no reason to suggest that after coming into his prime he’s all of a sudden going to drop down to what, his 2005 numbers of .290 .350 .484 OPS+ of 118. Even if he drops to his career numbers, those are still solid at .280 .370 .457 118. We have fallback options, and he perfectly fits our needs.
kylejo - December 10, 2008
nah
get pie outa there!
kylejo - December 10, 2008
Bradley
I really hope that we don’t pick up Bradley. He was a head case when he played out here on the West Coast and he still is a head case. That would be a mistake.
wccubfan - December 10, 2008
Now that CC's signed, this pitchers market will start to move.
And that only helps us in trying to unload Marquis.
However, what if we kept Marquis and traded Zambrano (assuming a Peavy acquisition first)? Yes, the rumor was debunked but smoke may mean fire. Z has a NTC and will want to play in the NL for a team that seems likely to win.
I like what we could get from the Dodgers – but how much wider would Z’s market be? Maybe we could talk a Z-Beltran swap.
DGU - December 10, 2008
Why would the pitchers market "start to move" because of this?
This isn’t a fantasy league draft where you have a run on closers or something. This is reality, where a lot of teams don’t have $100 million plus to spend this year. There’s a economic meltdown going on, if you hadn’t noticed. Even the NFL had to lay off some workers yesterday.
Apart from CC, this is going to be a sloooooooooow offseason.
Oh, and the Cubs aren’t trading Z.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
I love the fantasty football run on
TE’s…
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
Two reasons
Most importantly, other pitchers were waiting for CC to sign and set the market.
Some clubs were looking at CC; they now move to other options.
DGU - December 10, 2008
I still maintain this market is different from previous years because of the economy.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
When I looked at the K-Rod deal
I thought – “He got as much money as I’d expect if there wasn’t the specter of economic crisis; it was the year that got knocked off his deal.”
Anyway, I wasn’t predicting a run or anything. It’s just that CC signing is what was necessary before the rest of the pitchers started moving themselves.
DGU - December 10, 2008
Yea, it's strange cause you don't even hear about offers being made this year
Juiceboxjerry - December 10, 2008
I think the market does start to move a bit...
…because guys like Burnett and Lowe will know they’re not going to the Yankees and will find the next-best offer they can get.
cwyers - December 10, 2008
NY might go after both
According to Crasnick:
Source
This Heyman article seems to agree…
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
I've seen the same thing
They will likely go after Burnett and Lowe with the goal of getting one of them. There might be a bit of pressure now on the pitchers knowing that only one will get a big Yankee contract. Each pitcher has other options like Burnett and the Braves but the Yankees offer will probably be the highest.
rlpete - December 10, 2008
I think it'd be harder to upgrade the roster...
if you’re moving Zambrano. Hendry’s MO has seemed to be "make improvements where possible without taking steps backwards elsewhere. He’s dealt marginal players to make upgrades. It minimizes the negative risk. Trading Marquis to clear salary space would follow that same line of thinking. Trading Zambrano, on the other hand, would be a big risk of the negative side. That hasn’t been Hendry’s style.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
Good point.
However, if you look at trading for Peavy and trading away Z as a wash, or as a small upgrade for the Cubs, then the improvement comes from the other balances of that trade. i.e. let’s say we can trade Z for Beltran – would you trade Vitters, Pie, Marshall, Cedeno, and Hart for Beltran and 6 M?
DGU - December 10, 2008
I probably would, but...
That would require a lot of shuffling. I doubt Hendry would want to make that much change to a team that won 97 games last year (for whatever that’s worth).
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
The Cubs could have good motivation to move Zambrano
given his declining peripherals, if only they could replace him with another ace.
Yeah, it’s a lot of shuffling as we’re seeing.
DGU - December 10, 2008
We haven't seen any shuffling...
that would be shuffling KEY pieces. The discussion to this point is shuffling MARGINAL pieces. That’s a big difference.
And what makes you think Piniella and Hendry are cognizant of Zambrano’s declining peripherals and how they matter?
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
We haven't seen the shuffling
but we’ve seen how hard it is to organize a 3/4 team trade while you also have to dump Marquis. I’m suggesting this might actually get easier if you don’t have to dump Marquis, but instead, swap Z.
DGU - December 10, 2008
But it doesn't necessarily make you any better off...
and it requires just as much willingness from the other teams involved. I think it’s six of one, half dozen of the other.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
I just don't see that happening
If the Peavy deal has proven anything, it’s that it’s insanely hard to move expensive pitchers with no-trade clauses.
And besides, what’s the marginal benefit of getting Peavy and then dumping Z?
Wreckard - December 10, 2008
Keeping in mind this is all baseless speculation anyway...
um, the benefit would be adding Carlos Beltran instead of Raul Ibanez. The benefit would be swapping an ace who appears to be on the decline for a lower-priced ace.
I’m talking about doing this:
Big Vittery (no DeRosa) package for Peavy
Zambrano for Beltan
So basically, I’m saying, “Maybe this is how we get our lefty thumper.”
DGU - December 10, 2008
I'm sorry DGU, but
any offseason outfield roster work that adds speed, defense, power, and average to the roster has no place during these winter meeting threads.
This space is reserved for high priced talent with huge flaws.
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
If you look at an aging curve and think about it for a second...
…it should become apparent why you can’t get a lot of speed on the free agent market.
cwyers - December 10, 2008
I'm witch ya.
I actually like DGU’s concept.
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
With obnoxious agents that have bad attitudes.
willie mays hayes' gloves - December 10, 2008
You're going off the deep end again
Beltran isn’t available. And if the Mets wanted a high-priced starting pitcher they’d just go out and get one on the free agent market, the opportunity cost would be lower.
You wouldn’t get a Beltran-like bounty for Z anyway, given his salary. You’re overestimating his trade value.
Wreckard - December 10, 2008
So, if DeRosa's not going to Philly...
what might Philly get from us to get them to move their pitching prospect?
DGU - December 10, 2008
they can have Theriot.
drewishdrewid - December 10, 2008
Quick Question
a topic of discussion this morning in my office: Would you rather have the Cubs win a World Series with a team full of people with character issues (i.e Milton Bradley) but win one anyhow or continue to wait for the stars to align with some homegrown talent and solid inserts like the DeRosas of the world?
I know this is totally hypothetical but the thought of signing a Milton Bradley to a team with no DeRosa (due to trade rumors involving a certain pitcher) got me to thinking about what is the true value of a Cubs World Series winner to the fans out there.
cubbot - December 10, 2008
Of course we all want to win.
Beyond the obvious problems of Bradley, I don’t see him as “the answer” to the question, “What player(s) can win the WS for the Cubs?”
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
Umm....I would like them to win. No matter what.
As far as Bradley is concerned, according to the Trib this morning:
So honestly, he may not be a GREAT guy, but who says the Cubs would have a “team full of character issues.” I don’t think anyone wants to “wait for the stars to align.” Win. Now. Period.
But who says Bradley gets the Cubs there- a LH bat is only one piece of the puzzle. That doesn’t guarantee success.
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
"Another scout".
Does that mean the rest of the scouts agree that he’d be a cancer?
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
No, but it's a perspective against the generalization that
bringing in Bradley (or any player with a checkered past) would lead to the DEMISE of the team. Look at Rodman with the Bulls- he got out of San Antonio, and, barring a few bumps along the road, was embraced by the city. And was a big part of the Bulls success. Someone like Bradley (although I wish it wasn’t HIM because of his limitations and injury history) might not be the WORST thing in the world for this team.
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
+1
Lets also not forget that communication and building relationships on a team takes both sides. A guy might be a negative influence with one group of guys and flourish with another. If he is signed, while I’m not a big fan, I would hope that the group of players we have on the team would make “being a clubhouse cancer” difficult. Heck if anything maybe he can channel some of that passion into positive results.
StevenABQ - December 10, 2008
Also, none of his troubles have been with teammates
Only with fans and umpires. The Cubs have a lot of veterans to keep him in check, if it’s even needed.
dr stabbingworth - December 10, 2008
He had trouble with Jeff Kent.
But Kent had his own troubles with other players.
DGU - December 10, 2008
I wouldn't use Kent as a measuring stick
he’s a DH, and I don’t mean the AL roster holder…
blackhawk24 - December 10, 2008
drewishdrewid - December 10, 2008
Jeff Kent
has had troubles with a lot of teammates. I think the problem there is Jeff Kent.
Josh Timmers - December 10, 2008
Agreed.
DGU - December 10, 2008
I wasn't necessarily
trying to target Bradley but the rumors of bringing him in got me thinking as to what kind of squad would we be willing to support in order to win a World Series? Imagine Randy Johnson as the winning pitcher in a Cub uniform after the years of despising him for whatever reason…
cubbot - December 10, 2008
I think
Edmonds is a good example…former Cardinal — but eventually embraced by the fans.
StevenABQ - December 10, 2008
PERFECT example.
I love me some Jimmy Ballgame.
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
great point.
cubbot - December 10, 2008
That's the nature of professional sports.
Players change teams. You make moves to remain competitive. It doesn’t often help you to hold a grudge as a professional sports fan, especially at the rate these guys turn over…
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
Whatever his problems are
I can’t say I’ve ever seen any complaints from his teammates about him.
Wreckard - December 10, 2008
indeed
they tend to stand up for him.
drewishdrewid - December 10, 2008
Speaking of scouts...
Why don’t they actually go do their job, and start looking for next year’s Ryan Ludwick, instead of agreeing with the front office to throw big gobs of money at guys like Bradley or Dunn.
SackMan - December 10, 2008
Yeah, who do those scouts think they are?
It’s like they think their job is to evaluate talent or something.
Wreckard - December 10, 2008
Ha!
Beat me to it
lamentir - December 10, 2008
Maybe because there aren't a lot of H.S. and College games to watch in December in the U.S.?
DeRoMyHero - December 10, 2008
Um... you guys completely missed my point.
Every year, there’s an “unknown” on somebody’s roster who suddenly develops and has a career year…
So, instead of overpaying for some old, near over the hill, veteran who doesn’t fit anyway… do some friggin scouting and find someone ready for a “breakout” year.
SackMan - December 10, 2008
Randy Bush did his scouting on DeRo during the Rangers' season...
By October, it was him convincing Hendry and Lou to sign DeRo rather than Adam Kennedy. Is that what you mean?
That would have nothing to do with whether or not Bush was “hanging around” the hotel at the Winter Meetings — or whether Hendry did or did not take his advice. The scouts may have done their job to perfection only to have their advice ignored or to have Hendry find that the price tag is too hight.
For all we know, a Cubs’ scout has given Hendry glowing reports on David Murphy, but Lou (and/or Hendry and/or Bush) ignored them because “he isn’t a power bat”.
It’s easy to blame the scouts, but they can only recommend — they can’t sign a FA or make a trade. The key question is: Does Hendry trust his scouts?
DeRoMyHero - December 10, 2008
Put this point on that question -
What if the Cubs had signed Barry Bonds last summer when Dome went into his slump?
I think there is little doubt that adding Bonds to the middle of the lineup would have done all Lou said we wanted to do AND MORE. His patience would have slowed down games that spiralled away from us.
But I doubt there will be many here who would want Bonds to end his career in Cubbie Blue and several who will say something to the effect of “I’m glad the Cubs didn’t sign Bonds; I’d rather be swept next year, too, than have let Bonds back in baseball.”
DGU - December 10, 2008
Hmmm
But geez, He may be alot of things but, Milton Bradley is harding a steroid injecting ego maniac. Is this a valid comparison?
StevenABQ - December 10, 2008
harding = hardly
StevenABQ - December 10, 2008
The question was
Would you want to win the WS if it meant having players on your team you didn’t like? Bonds is the supreme villain, but also a supreme talent. If we were going to put Bradley or Ibanez in RF, why wouldn’t we put Bonds in RF (from just a baseball standpoint)?
DGU - December 10, 2008
Because Bradley and Ibanez are both not 44.
Besides obvious physical limitations that Bonds has because of his age and being out of baseball last year, there is also the fact that he goes on trial for perjury and obstruction of justice this spring. Probably not gonna be available…Which IS a baseball standpoint because even if he doesn’t get prison time, I doubt he will be anywhere near a ballpark…
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
I was talking about last year, though.
Bonds has been out of baseball for a year now. He’s not coming back for 2009. But last season, he wanted back in. He could have played for us. His presence could have gotten us to the Series.
DGU - December 10, 2008
Well
Your right in the sense that from a “baseball standpoint” it would have probably benefitted alot of teams to move on Bonds. But, this case clearly had alot more to do with his personal and legal issues. I mean, how many teams could of used Shoeless Joe back in the day? Similar situation only a somewhat informal ban by team owners, mgt, etc.
StevenABQ - December 10, 2008
besides ...
I don’t really think Bonds would have been the answer. His health likely would have been an issue, and I doubt the circus environment that he would have brought would have been good for the team. And could Bonds have played right field every day? I doubt it.
Bradley has issues, but he’s not Bonds.
elgato - December 10, 2008
Bonds was ready to go last summer. He said he'd play for the league min.
And not having played most of the year, his health would have been no more a concern that Bradley’s. Bonds could play RF every other day and all three games of the playoffs. The decision against Bonds was not a gameplay decision.
DGU - December 10, 2008
"Bonds could play RF every other day"?
With those knees? In Wrigley?
elgato - December 10, 2008
He played 126 games in 2007.
Yes, he’s old. Yes, he’s banged up.
No, he wasn’t incapable of playing the field after sitting half a season.
DGU - December 10, 2008
yes -- 144 games in LEFT
n/t
elgato - December 10, 2008
Sorry -- 126
elgato - December 10, 2008
And it wasn't 126, it was 110.
The rest were as PH or DH.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
How much difference is there between LF and RF
if it’s really a big deal, slide Soriano over to RF. There’s no way Soriano refuses to move to RF for Barry Bonds.
DGU - December 10, 2008
There's a BIG difference.
You need a better arm, for one thing. For another, WF’s right field is a tough field due to the sun.
Barry Bonds would have made a horrible RF. And Soriano wouldn’t have been much better.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
Physically though...
The question was whether Bonds could withstand playing RF given his knees. RF is no worse on the knees than LF.
Now, I’d argue that the fact that he could only SORT OF play LF for 110 games over a year ago would suggest he can’t play RF regularly now. But in terms of wear and tear on the knees, RF isn’t really different than LF.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
Ibanez will be a horrible RF.
But Bonds’ bat would have been better than Ibanez’ will be.
DGU - December 10, 2008
Since Bonds no longer has the ability to play
9 innings in the outfield every day, I disagree with that.
A player can’t put up stats when they’re sitting on the bench and Bonds would need lots of days off and also would need to be taken out of any game with the lead for defense.
cowsarecool220 - December 10, 2008
I've asked this a lot in the past two years
Sori has a great arm, but the Cubs seem unwilling to move him to right. What I can’t figure out is why they ever thought he could play center!
It’s a moot point, though. Bonds isn’t coming to the Cubs (ever), and Soriano is our leftfielder for the near future.
elgato - December 10, 2008
Yes, it's a moot point going forward.
But the point of the question is about where the line is on how much you’d rather be a lovable loser than a WS winner if the WS came at the price of a disliked player. I posited THE BEST LH hitter in baseball as a possible 2007 addition to our lineup, since, you know, the reason we lost in the playoffs, according to Lou-and-six was lefty-lack.
People can pretend that Bonds couldn’t play RF for 3 days (when we threw a hobbling DeRosa out there), or that we couldn’t move Sori, because they don’t want to answer the question. They don’t want to admit that Bonds would have changed our fortunes, because they don’t want to admit that there are some lines we don’t want to cross to win.
DGU - December 10, 2008
you keep referencing "change" in only the positive sense
do you not accept that this change also has a negative side? If you really want to analyze this, you’d have to figure out a way to measure both the positive and negative impact and then figure out the net result. And I’m not even talking about clubhouse chemistry. Just on-field performance.
ballhawk - December 10, 2008
Do you think Barry Bonds was any good in 2007?
DGU - December 10, 2008
yes
ballhawk - December 10, 2008
See, I think Bonds was one of the best OFs in the game in 2007
when he was on the field, defense included, so it’s hard for me to see where there’s a debate on “change in only the positive sense.” Yes, he brings down the OF defense, but is it really so much more than Raul Ibanez would have?
DGU - December 10, 2008
and you don't think there'd be any impact (good and bad)
on the other players’ perfomance? That’s what I’m getting at. There is so much more to Bonds than just putting him out in RF. There’s bound to be a ripple/wave effect on everything associated with the team. Even if you just focus on on-field numbers, there’s a lot to chew on and digest to contemplate what would have been with Bonds in 2007.
You, we, BCB may have time to ponder such things, but I doubt JimLou do.
ballhawk - December 10, 2008
sorry - 2008.
ballhawk - December 10, 2008
Well, I don't have a problem with arguing
that Bonds wouldn’t be wanted because the media would crucify your team for signing him.
Anyway, the whole reason I brought this up was to put a fine point on the question of how far people’d be willing to go to win.
For my part, I don’t want Bonds, and I say that believing him to be good enough to make a difference for our team (this past year).
DGU - December 10, 2008
The point is, he was 44 years old (in July).
The sum total of games he played in RF in his career is 1.
And you think he could have played it on a semi-regular basis in 2008? Get real.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
He'd be a terrible RF
as he was a terrible LF in his last season, and I doubt his arm is strong enough.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
No one is arguing Bonds would be good in the field.
The argument is that the Cubs’ 2008 post-mortem came to the conclusion that we’ll put a defensive liability in RF just to get a LH Thumper.
Lets grant that Bonds’ defense in RF (or LF with Sori in RF) would have been worse than Ibanez and Dunn’s will be. Would it really have been worse than how much better his bat would have been?
DGU - December 10, 2008
Do we KNOW how much better his bat would have been?
He was 43 last year, and the body was breaking down rapidly. He had managed to remain very productive offensively for two years, but at some point the dropoff would be drastic.
If Bonds performed at his age-42 level at age 43, yes, he’d have been useful.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
We don't KNOW.
But he said he’d play at the league min, and he was a better bet than Jim Edmonds.
DGU - December 10, 2008
And Edmonds was a longshot...
so I’m not sure I see your point. Because Edmonds greatly defied expectations, it’s reasonable to assume Bonds would as well?
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
The point is that the Cubs were looking at trading for Raul Ibanez last year
to play RF, when we could have signed Barry Bonds for 400 K.
Fwiw, Bonds’ PECOTA was .248/.419/.478.
DGU - December 10, 2008
It's not worth much...
PECOTA had some of our prospects rated pretty high too, as well as Fukudome.
And I still don’t see the point about Ibanez. We didn’t get him. We got Edmonds, and he (shockingly) worked out for us, right?
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
I don't care how badly I want the Cubs to win
I’d rather take a hot poker to the eye than have Bonds on the team.
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
Postseason
No one mentioned that as awesome as Bonds was in his career, we all know that he took a dump in the playoffs many times over.
What makes you think that he would have risen to the occasion on this team last year?
Career postseason: 2-7 W-L series’ record; .245 BA; .433 OBP; .503 SLG.
The only series he stepped up in was the WS in ’02 (4 HR 6 RBI 13 BB .471 BA .700 OBP 1.294 SLG). Looks pretty good, but:
1) He had 6 RBI off 4 HR, not so hot. While I don’t know if his outs were with men on or not, I can’t extrapolate whether he hit with no one on and got out with men on. Overall though, the numbers are not that impressive
2) the Giants lost the WS. Is that Bonds fault, maybe not. Dusty’s? The point is even with how well Bonds performed, his team still didn’t win. He is not a team guy, his overall postseason performances were average at best (crap-tacular most of the time) and he would not have brought this team a WS.
Would he have been better than Dome, I say a wash with defense and offense factored in.
The Ryno and I Know - December 10, 2008
Right.
He was never a right fielder to begin with, and for anyone to think he could be anything but a statue out there at age 44… well, that’s just plain wrong.
IF anyone had been willing to take a chance on him in 2008, it’d have been as a DH.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
Bonds' defensive deficiencies are real, but way, way overblown.
In 2007, he played as well, if not better than Ibanez, Dunn, etc – guys we’re looking at now.
DGU - December 10, 2008
I want to win the WS. Period. I don't care who is on the team that does it.
Rick B - December 10, 2008
Agreed...
Can Charles Manson hit the curveball? Sign him up.
Bonds, Bradley, who-the-frick-ever.
Just win, baby. Have character on your own time. Win and I don’t much care how.
Worf - December 10, 2008
Ha
They can class it up on the repeat win.
dr stabbingworth - December 10, 2008
Wow
You may have uncovered a smorgasbord of untapped talent – solitary from our U.S. prisons.
StevenABQ - December 10, 2008
Hope so...
So long as they don’t violate parole by going on road games, I’m cool with it.
Worf - December 10, 2008
HAHA!!!
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
It has the potential
to be a killer lineup
StevenABQ - December 10, 2008
baDUM tsss
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
Our generations
Murderers Row?
StevenABQ - December 10, 2008
theres a governor joke in there somewhere
i’d make it, but no caffeine yet.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
There's always Rick Vaughn
He helped the Indians win the pennant. :-)
Josh Timmers - December 10, 2008
The California Penal League
always has prospects who are ready to deal.
drewishdrewid - December 10, 2008
Yeah, but their unis suck.
znohitter - December 10, 2008
Oh my god!
C.C. would rather have money than hit in the N.L. How SHOCKING!
People like money. Money is GOOD.
Worf - December 10, 2008
+1
How shocking…he took the cash.
Everyone has a price.
blackhawk24 - December 10, 2008
7 years 160 million
who needs a left arm??
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
Ask the Rockies About Brad Hawpe ----
Hawpe is the guy the Cubs are looking for — left-handed hitting outfielder with good pop. His numbers over the past 3 years are darn good.
Looked just today at one of the Rockies blogs and it indicated that they have shown interest in Marquis but do not like the salary numbers (who does?). So why not ‘eat" some of Marquis’ dollars and add a couple of guys to the pot. Pitching prospects along with someone like Wellington Castillo seeing that the Rockies do not have any long term solution behind the plate.
Hawpe’s salary could make up for what we have to thrown in with Marquis and the Cubs would not have to be looking at adding excessive dollars for guys who have no upside defensively like Abreu or Ibanez. Plus we gain quite a bit in long term viability when it comes to the age factor.
ceegeewow - December 10, 2008
I like the idea, but after all of AA and the cream of AAA
is sent to the Padres, what’s left for the Rockies?
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
Cream at AA and AAA
From what has been thrown out — none of the AA or AAA guys have been mentioned. It’s only been Cedeno, DeRose, Pie, Marshall. Vitters name has come up — and I only hope that he is not included — but no one else so far.
Maybe I missed a name along the way — if so, who else has been mentioned?
ceegeewow - December 10, 2008
Ceda was already traded, I've seen Castillo mentioned plus Vitters. Who else is there?
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
I doubt the Rockies would do that.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
Hawpe is going to cost a lot more
Also Iannetta looked pretty good behind the plate last season. .264 / .390 / .505 is pretty good for a catcher.
rlpete - December 10, 2008
So What Would the Costs Be?
The Rockies do need pitching — aren’t they always in need?
Why not give up someone like Atkins at AAA or Veal at AA? Why not Colvin?
I am sure there are others but Brad Hawpe makes a lot more sense than Abreu or Ibanez or Bradley.
ceegeewow - December 10, 2008
Because Atkins and Veal have minimal value
If you want to get the Rockies to move Hawpe who isn’t on the market, you are going to have to wow them. I think the Cubs would have to offer Marmol who the Rockies would like after losing Fuentes.
rlpete - December 10, 2008
I don't get the whole Peavy thing in the first place...
We have arms (Z, Dempster, Harden, Lilly, Marquis)… and we’ve developed an arm that SHOULD be a good piece in any major league rotation (Sean Marshall).
So, why do we need to deal half a line-up for a top of the rotation starter? I don’t friggin get it. I especially don’t get the asking price, considering nobody else is bidding for him…
DEAR JIM HENDRY,
Please use the arms you have… and focus on improving your lousy defense up the middle, and left-handed hitting.
SackMan - December 10, 2008
They are!
They’re going to upgrade defense up the middle by replacing DeRosa with Fontenot!
* ducks *
cwyers - December 10, 2008
What do you think the price of Peavy is?
DGU - December 10, 2008
Twins could play a role in the Jake Peavy sweepstakes
LINK HERE
They seem to be interested in DeRosa and may give up some pitching that the Fathers are interested in.
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
I hope this goes the way of last year's Brian Roberts saga
We were better off for not making any deal for Roberts… and we’ll be better off for not making a deal for Peavy.
SackMan - December 10, 2008
rec'd
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
It's impossible to say that until we know what we have to give up to get him
If it’s one year of Derosa and one or two other prospects then I think it’s worth it.
Wreckard - December 10, 2008
Fair enough.
However, I believe the current rumor is: DeRosa to Phillies for young arms. Those young arms plus Marquis, plus $5M, plus Cedeno, Pie & Vitters.
DeRosa, payroll, Vitters, and giving up on Pie seems like too much to me.
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
Vitters might possibly be the best hitting prospect we've had since Mark Grace
And considering how long it’s been since we actually developed a potent bat, I would absolutely HATE to see Vitters in any deal.
SackMan - December 10, 2008
If the system was stocked with young talent, giving up on any single prospect wouldn't matter.
With the cupboards bare, giving up the best prospect is tough to swallow.
N Oakley - December 10, 2008
Can I pull up these comments and point them out next fall
if Jake Peavy leads the Cubs to a World Series victory?
philadelphiacub - December 10, 2008
Furcal
I’d still be interested in this guy as a true leadoff hitter and shortstop. Move Theriot to 2nd where he can platoon with Fontenot, and shift DeRosa permanently to right field.
I know Lou is obsessed with the lefty/balance thing in the lineup, but I think we have almost all of what we need in-house. Adding Furcal, IMO, would complete the picture, and would move Soriano where he belongs in the linuep, 5th or 6th.
This is a team that won 97 games – we can’t forget that. Tweaking is all they need, assuming decent health through the season.
Canadian Cubs Fan - December 10, 2008
Furcal might be the ONE middle infielder on the market
That could be a difference maker for this team.
SackMan - December 10, 2008
Furcal is the one free agent
who is the biggest upgrade over our current starting roster.
DGU - December 10, 2008
The only reason that statement is true is because Jake Peavy is not a FA
Peavy over Marquis is a more significant upgrade, as would have been CC Sabathia
philadelphiacub - December 10, 2008
that's not to say I wouldn't enjoy seeing Furcal in the home dugout a Wrigley,
I just don’t think he’s part of the plan at this point
philadelphiacub - December 10, 2008
I should have clarified "position player,"
but the fact that he’s not part of the plan (assuming that’s true) when he’s the biggest upgrade is disappointing.
DGU - December 10, 2008
I'm still holding out for that myself
Furcal is a key piece. 10,000 times upgrade defensively, and I like the Fontenot/Theriot platoon
lamentir - December 10, 2008
There's room for this hope.
Furcal turned down the A’s offer and then all these other teams got in on Furcal, wondering if he’d overplayed the market. Furcal didn’t overplay the market. There’s a reason he keeps pushing back his deadlines.
DGU - December 10, 2008
and that is?
ballhawk - December 10, 2008
he wants to become a legend
by winning here?
:she said hopeful:
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
The reason is that there is some team that's showing a lot of interest
but hasn’t made any public offers yet. That team doesn’t have to be the Cubs. It could be the Royals. But the Cubs fit that mold.
DGU - December 10, 2008
Al, will you feel dumb
when we sign Peavy? You’ve said numerous times that there’s NO WAY we’ll get Peavy. I’m glad you aren’t the GM!
Cubs and Hawks fan - December 10, 2008
Just a nitpick...
We wouldn’t sign him…we would acquire him…
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
Nitpick accepted.
Hey, if I’m wrong, I’ll say so. I still don’t think it happens until maybe, MAYBE July 31.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
right
Cubs and Hawks fan - December 10, 2008
left
digitalbenjamin - December 10, 2008
Ok, now the Trib says it could be the Phillies again
With Marquis going to SD instead of Marshall.
LINKY
Also has a few bits about Bradley.
I wonder how many other stories will be out there today about the Peavy deal.
Over/Under is set at 10.
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
While acquiring Peavy would be cool
(thats a pretty awesome rotation when Lilly could be your 4.)
But I keep having that little know-it-all voice that says if its a trade we’re hearing about: its not gonna happen. Hendry likes to deal on the downlow all this public he said/he said never seems to equal success.
At least, IMHO.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
A thief never tips off his target...
See: Pittsburgh, 2003… :)
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
I've tried to make this same point, but I keep getting shouted down. I'll
go over in the corner and be quiet now.
willie mays hayes' gloves - December 10, 2008
Peavy would be a great add but...
…there are other, higher, priorities for the Cubs. They really just need a bit of tweaking, not an overhaul. Dumping Marquis would be nice, though, even considering he wasn’t awful (just really bad).
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
Lilly would actually be the number 4
Peavy
Zambrano
Harden
Dempster
Lilly
Imtrejo - December 10, 2008
I mean 5
Imtrejo - December 10, 2008
Harden will probably be the "#5".
That way, it will be easier to skip him periodically.
DeRoMyHero - December 10, 2008
Well, I don't think Dempster repeats his career year
I think he goes 5.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
Would this upset the apple cart...
….Dempster seems to have been a big clubhouse plus in 2008 in addition to pitching well. If he suddenly feels his spot in the rotation is threatened, does it hurt the whole team? I always like a little competition to bring out the most in guys, but Dempster doesn’t seem to need that.
TXCub - December 10, 2008
I doubt it
Dempster seems plyable to whatever will help the club win. If I’m not mistaken, he was quoted as saying it’d be great to pitch in a rotation with Peavy just after he re-signed
philadelphiacub - December 10, 2008
Levine on ESPN 1000
says it’d be: DeRosa to Phillies for Happ & LHP whose name I didn’t catch and then Marquis, Vitters, Happ & Hart to Padres and Peavy to us.
“Not done but getting hotter”
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
Sounds like a description of a woman I tried to pick up in a bar.
willie mays hayes' gloves - December 10, 2008
ZIIIIIIIIIING!
What you did there- I see it.
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
It took you a while to catch that one.
willie mays hayes' gloves - December 10, 2008
So we'd keep Marshall, Pie AND Cedeno?
We’d still have a bench, for one thing.
cwyers - December 10, 2008
Thats what Levine says
(TWLS?) Who knows.
For those interested: Brenly will be on Waddle & Silvy momentarily.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
If Hendry could pull off that deal, he should be voted Executive of the Century.
willie mays hayes' gloves - December 10, 2008
if he ends the other thing typically associated with a century
i concur.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
If he wins a WS... then you can name him Exec of the Century.
Until then… nada… zero… zelch.
SackMan - December 10, 2008
Until Cedeño is non-tendered...
DeRoMyHero - December 10, 2008
Why would they non-tender him?
Seems like they’d trade him or keep him, as he’s not going to be much more expensive via arbitration.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
Apparently, Lou doesn't want him back.
There were reports about him mouthing off to Mark O’Neal toward the end of the season and Lou not liking it. I think that the non-tender deadline is Dec. 12th, so they have to make a quick decision if KT doesn’t want him.
Why do you think that Lou keeps hallucinating about playing LBR at SS?
DeRoMyHero - December 10, 2008
But not a minor league system
Is there any way to not give up Vitters?
Josh Timmers - December 10, 2008
Nope, if we get Peavy
Vitters will be traded.
cowsarecool220 - December 10, 2008
What happened to that LHP whose name you didn't catch?
Is there any chance that LHP is Joe Savery and he comes to us?
DGU - December 10, 2008
No he goes to the fathers too
all we get is peavy.
if levine breaks back in, I’ll update.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
I think I heard Carrasco, but I'd be very surprised.
He’s supposed to be one of their best prospects
philadelphiacub - December 10, 2008
So...
DeRosa, Marquis, Vitters and Hart for Peavy?
That would be an incredible trade for the Cubs!
kanderber - December 10, 2008
Don't know if it's possible or not...
but that is the kind of deal I envision Hendry making. One player of immediate value (DeRosa) and a bunch of players on the margins (or distant prospects) for a player of more immediate value.
Granted, the “if” is pretty big: who knows if a deal like that is realistic?
That said, a deal like that would give us flexibility to explore other trades for the RF option or the LH reliever.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
Yeah.
I don’t know it sounded a little hinky to me. But if it ends all the Peavy talk, I’ll take it.
I hate trade season.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
Oh come on, it's like baseball Christmas!
cwyers - December 10, 2008
I mean, it's better than
paying attention to the NBA.
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
The what?
dr stabbingworth - December 10, 2008
Yeah. I'm not feeling very Christmas-y either
but truly, trade season (winter meetings and the last week or so before the trade deadline) are my least favorite parts of the year.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
Trade deadline is AWESOME.
Come on…
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
I hate it
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
seems like
an awful lot.
drewishdrewid - December 10, 2008
Why?
Hart is nothing. Marquis and DeRosa have one year left. Vitters is a maybe.
I’m not saying the Cubs need to do it and I’m a little concerned about giving 2B to Fontenot but the price seems reasonable to me.
rlpete - December 10, 2008
I think Mark DeRosa
is a very valuable player.
drewishdrewid - December 10, 2008
agreed.
If we needed starting pitching, I could easily see giving up DeRosa for Peavy. But given the rotation we already have, I think losing DeRosa weakens us in the (primarily) infield, not to mention offense.
Now if this gives us flexibility to either get Furcal or finally pull off a trade for a certain switch hitting 2B from Baltimore, then my concerns would quickly vanish. Peavy and Furcal/Roberts is definitely worth DeRosa and cleaning out our farm system.
ballhawk - December 10, 2008
I'd add another caveat...
if it increases the likelihood we can make a trade for a RF, that’s a plus too. I don’t think the current free agent options are all that enticing.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
keep in mind that you're trading one year of Mark Derosa
for 4 years of Jake Peavy in this scenario
philadelphiacub - December 10, 2008
I am
but I’m also trying to win next year too. And for next year, I think DeRosa’s bat is more valuable to the Cubs than Peavy’s arm. Again, if we can get Peavy and somehow replace DeRosa’s bat at the same time, I’m cool with that. But it’s got to be more than LBR. A lot more.
ballhawk - December 10, 2008
I almost feel bashful saying this...
…but if DeRo is gone, I’m going to miss what he brings to this club almost as much as I miss what Wood brought to this club.
Dan
dtpollitt - December 10, 2008
+1
It’s just different between the two, though. Wood was a fixture for so long. DeRo is valued for how he plays the game. It’s hard to describe, because it’s not as if Wood wasn’t an awesome pitcher to see fool hitters, too.
DGU - December 10, 2008
I like DeRo quite a bit too...
But you don’t a player like him stop you from getting a player of Peavy’s caliber.
Besides, DeRosa is far from a lock to repeat his career year last year.
kanderber - December 10, 2008
true
but he was lou’s security blanket when things got hinky last year… without that some VERY strange things could happen.
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
ha i think
you have to give up something of mucho value to grab a former Cy young winner in his prime on a very below market contract.
kylejo - December 10, 2008
Note that we'd still have
Marshall, Pie, and Cedeno who could be used as trade pieces else where. There should be enough in there to help us get Hermida.
DGU - December 10, 2008
After a Peavy deal
I’d actually prefer getting Furcal for SS so Fonty and Theriot handle 2nd base. Going alone with Fontenot scares me.
For RF, they could wait to see who might be available after the FA dust settles and/or go cheap. Finding a mid-season RF upgrade would be easier than fixing middle infield.
rlpete - December 10, 2008
We won't go alone with Fontenot.
And besides Furcal, there are other switch-hitting middle IFs the Cubs could pursue.
DGU - December 10, 2008
I think Lou secretly wants Fontenot to get the 2B job
The best way to do that diplomatically is to trade DeRo. Also, his value will never be higher. And we get to keep Pie.
dr stabbingworth - December 10, 2008
I Think What's Missing Here...
… is that $4.5M goes to the Pads, too.
I did the math. If I did it correctly, financially, the Cubs actually shed a couple hundred thousand if this deal is done.
What’s also interesting is that Cedeno (who has been out of options), Pie (who is out of options), Rich Hill (who is out of options) and Weurtz are not in that deal. Weren’t several permutations of these guys on the list for a Roberts deal?
Things that make you go, “Hmmmmm”.
initram - December 10, 2008
I think that one of the reasons that KT doesn't want Hill, Pie, or Wuertz
(at least right now) is that he has 40 man roster problems — especially if he takes someone in the Rule 5 draft. He is getting two or three 40-man pieces (Hart, Happ, ?) while giving up only one. It’s possible that the Cubs will non-tender Cedeño and KT will sign him later after clearing up his 40 man roster.
DeRoMyHero - December 10, 2008
Jon Heyman reporting....
Wood’s deal with Cleveland is 2yr/20million.
Wow. I apologize to the BCB member who I told Wood would IN NO WAY get 10 mill a year from some team.
A bit shocking, but good for him.
carmen_fanzone - December 10, 2008
Good for Woody.
He deserves a big deal. I wish him luck.
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
I imagine Towers and Axelrod in a Brokeback Mountain-esque scene...
I WISH I COULD QUIT YOU, BARRY!
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 10, 2008
TMI
DGU - December 10, 2008
More I, less T
dr stabbingworth - December 10, 2008
about the rule 5 draft...
I would love to see the Cubs buy a top pick and take the pitcher Jeff Allison from Florida. Was a former first rounder, had drug problems (just liek Hamilton). Has good stuff
Rezze21 - December 10, 2008
Forget it
For the same reason the Cubs wouldn’t keep Hamilton, they will not draft Allison. The Cubs are trying to win. They are not going to dedicate a season long spot to a project. Yes, Hamilton worked out but many many players don’t.
If anything the Cubs might consider drafting a Rule 5 bullpen guy that can help them this year. They aren’t taking someone who needs kid gloves. Lou does own a pair.
rlpete - December 10, 2008
but this time
there is room on their 40 man roster
Rezze21 - December 10, 2008
If a team takes a player in the rule 5 draft,
they have to keep them on their 25 man roster for the entire season to keep them.
cowsarecool220 - December 10, 2008
They can put them on the DL
but yes, when the player is active, they must be on the 25-man roster.
I think the Cubs should take a flyer on J. Brent Cox – he’s coming off of Tommy John and is the kind of reliever who could make a difference when healthy. Plus, he’d start the year on the DL, so he won’t occupy a roster spot immediately.
Bill Potter - December 10, 2008
What do you know about him?
What team is he with now and was he a HS or College pitcher?
cowsarecool220 - December 10, 2008
He is in the Yankees organization
but left unprotected for the Rule 5. He was Texas’ primary reliever in college, helping the Longhorns to the College World Series.
From Baseball Analysts:
Here’s a FanPost on some Rule 5 possibilities.
Bill Potter - December 10, 2008
Trey
Cox is an interesting player. Wondering where you see him fitting in with the Cubs. Middle relief once he gets off the DL?
Tangled Up In Blue - December 10, 2008
That's my thought
Put him on the DL coming out of spring training or leave him in extended spring training (if roster rules allow), then some minor league rehab and then make him the last man in the bullpen until he shows he’s gotten his stuff back.
When he is on, he has excellent stuff and could be another power arm in the bullpen.
Bill Potter - December 10, 2008
Interesting thought.
I’ve heard his name floating around, but never thought much about him and the Cubs. I would welcome the Cubs picking him tomorrow. Seems like a way to get a decent prospect without being forced to have him on your roster right away.
As we all know, there is no such thing as having too many young arms on your roster.
Tangled Up In Blue - December 10, 2008
Looking at some of the names
That’s the one that stuck with me. Since the Cubs have 4 spots open on the 40-man, it’s a low-risk, high-reward move. If they can pick him up, it would be a solid move, in my opinion.
Bill Potter - December 10, 2008
A few more names from Baseball America
A few interesting lefty bullpen guys plus a 7 foot pitcher.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=1818
rlpete - December 10, 2008
Sounds intriguing.
cowsarecool220 - December 10, 2008
J. Brent Cox
Drafted in the second round in 2005 out of the University of Texas. Big kid, I think he’s 24 or 25. Had a pretty good year in AA. The Yankees expect him to be ready this sometime this summer.
Tangled Up In Blue - December 10, 2008
correction
Big kid = he’s around 6’3" 210. Age=24 or 25
Tangled Up In Blue - December 10, 2008
Remember...
If a Rule 5 player spends less than 90 days on the active roster (including September) during the season in which he is drafted, his “Rule 5 Limitations” carry on to the succeeding year.
DeRoMyHero - December 10, 2008
doesn't own a pair
rlpete - December 10, 2008
I have been a critic of Marquis,
but I’m surprised there aren’t a lot of teams interesting in his services. I had a hard time admitting it, but he is a good number 5. He eats inning, is really good in stretches, really bad in others, and is in the last year of his contract.
I hope I’m wrong about Peavy, but I still think Lilly will have a comprable year to Peavy if the Cubs swing a deal for him.
Sad day, Wood no longer a Cub….now Marmol’s arm will probably fall off in June. Eyre and Wood should still be apart of this bullpen.
slocs55 - December 10, 2008
I agree about Kerry Wood.
Everything that happens for the rest of the Winter and Spring will be colored with my disappointment that Kerry Wood is no longer a Cub.
zevkalman - December 10, 2008
If Marmol is the closer his arm'll be safe
if he’s the bridge to the 9th inning… well, i hope his insurance covers multiple MRIs…
halfblindcubbiegirl - December 10, 2008
Agreed...
The closer role would actually reduce Marmol’s workload substantially.
SouthernCub - December 10, 2008
or it might
bring back the days when the closer came in to pitch in the 8th.
Lou is old school…
drewishdrewid - December 10, 2008
OT: Olympics
I don’t want to make a fan post on this. I suppose I could do a fan shot and still might.
The IOC has delayed taking bids from US Broadcasters for the Olympics until after the vote on the 2016 Summer Games in October. The only reason to do this (other than sheer incompetence, I guess) is because they expect Chicago to be the winning bid.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2008/12/olympic-tv-bids.html
Josh Timmers - December 10, 2008
I'm guessing after yesterday's events here in Illinois...
… this might change. (Chicago getting the bid.)
It seems more related to economic conditions (i.e. the TV bids would be lower now) than who gets the 2016 Olympics.
Al Yellon - December 10, 2008
Change of Subject: Trade Soriano to the Angels
Teix says he wants to go East. CC just did. Those were the two Angels top targets. Does anyone think we can swoop in and offer them a player that is just their kind of player, Alfonso Soriano?
Imagine we get nothing back in the trade, we could use the remainder of our budget to get a LH bat and put him in LF where those FAs belong. We could also get a leadoff hitter SS in Furcal.
Then imagine if the return for Soriano was Howie Kendrick.
DGU - December 10, 2008
How do you get Fonzie
to waive his full no-trade clause?
Josh Timmers - December 10, 2008
Ask him nice.
And tell him that the Scioscia is the greatest manager in the world to play for.
DGU - December 10, 2008
$2M????
Money talks.
DeRoMyHero - December 10, 2008
Agreed...
People act like those NTCs mean that players want to be where they’re at for the life of the contract. What they really want is control over their own situation, and leverage for compensation.
Damen Jackson - December 10, 2008
Rec'd
I’m thinking of changing my sig line to: “Yes I know he has a NTC.”
DGU - December 10, 2008
Please do. It would cut down on my scrolling... ;-)
ballhawk - December 10, 2008
Hasn't Howie been perpetually injured the last few years?
He’s a tantalizing talent, but I’m not sure he’ll reach the projections he was given as a minor leaguer.
Bill Potter - December 10, 2008
The Angels have their batters stand over the plate.
Howie has been hit by a number of pitches. Back him off the plate and hopefully he should be fine.
DGU - December 10, 2008
Fair enough.
I could live with Kendrick at 2B and one of the FAs in LF, I suppose.
Bill Potter - December 10, 2008
Rec'd
n/t
chilango2 - December 10, 2008
A few things here...
Does anyone else think that this deal is not going to get done? This has been going on for over a month now, and the Cubs haven’t developed another prospect to throw in the mix in the last month. Everyone has known what everyone has, and for the most part is willing to give up. I tend to agree with Al that the trades we hear about all the time, are the one’s that never happen. I think a large part of that, is the fact its clear there is some hesitation when a potential deal drags on.
Also, I do think some people are not seeing the possibility of Peavy actually becoming a need for the Cubs. We have Zambrano, and do I really need to tell everyone how you absolutely cannot count on him. Then there is Dempster, who did have a fine season, but do you really expect that again? There’s also Harden. Enough said. That to me seems like a pretty formidable rotation, however its not exactly all that reliable in my book. I know Jake Peavy has spent some time on the DL, but its a not a habitual occurrence, and he isn’t exactly 250lbs. of pure lunatic. I think he’s more reliable (in terms of health) than any arm we have, save Ted Lilly.
I believe if a trade happens (which I really think it won’t), and we give up the rumored players, its well worth it. There is no way, in my mind, that a grease fire pitcher (Marquis), a dramatic let down (Pie), a joke like Cedeno, a complete unknown in Vitters (which if its true they think he may need to move to the OF, scares the hell out of me. Say it outloud: the Cubs’ best prospect may need a new position.), and a valuable, yet replaceable player who will walk at the end of this year (DeRosa) is too much to give up for a 27 year old pitcher, who is without question a premier arm.
TCobb1911 - December 10, 2008
Mega-Trade to land Peavy proposed.
…Latest from the Muskrat
Mega-Trade to land Peavy proposed.
Phillies
Get: DeRosa
Give: either Minor League pitcher J.A. Happ or Carlos Carrasco plus shortstop Jason Donald
Padres
Get: the two young Phillies players along with Jason Marquis, Felix Pie and Josh Vitters.
Give: Jake Peavy
Cubs
Get: Jake Peavy
Give: Jason Marquis, Felix Pie, Mark DeRosa and Josh Vitters
Too expensive unless the Cubs could keep Jason Donald instead of sending him to the Fathers.
Jettero2112 - December 10, 2008
Somewhere..
Theriot is in a sweat.
Damen Jackson - December 10, 2008
I dunno where to post this...
…but the mets are about to trade for Putz in a 3 team deal with the Indians. Just go over to Mets Blog:
http://www.metsblog.com/
dtpollitt - December 10, 2008
Is Giles off limits?
I know the Pads picked up his option and he’s on record saying he wants to stay out West. But was that 100% for sure? He’s a lefty hitter, plays RF, hits for high average and OBP (and my favorite: more BB than K), and he’s a top of the order hitter. His defence can’t be any worse than some of the guys we’ve been talking about.
Could it be just possible, that the hangup is really centered around even more players the Cubs would have to deal for both those guys? Maybe why it’s not only a 3rd team but a 4th as well?
Obviously this is loooooong-shot but think how Giles fits all the Cubs RF/lineup needs at one time. If the Cubs are truly in the position of power during this barganing, could it be that Hendry is trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone?
blackhawk24 - December 11, 2008
Giles isn't leaving San Diego.
Haven’t we been over this before?
Al Yellon - December 11, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.