There have been a tremendous number of digital bytes spilled on this page about Jake Peavy. As of this morning, he's still a San Diego Padre, and I happen to agree today with the Sun-Times' Chris DeLuca, who says Peavy, though a great pitcher, is a luxury item the Cubs couldn't afford. Herewith the biggest issue:
[Kevin] Towers kept putting left-hander Sean Marshall on the table. Never did the Cubs give a nod of approval to Marshall being part of the package. Then the Cubs' brain trust considered all of the money they would be taking on in a Peavy deal. Financially, they could make the right-hander fit in 2009. Even 2011 and beyond. But 2010 was a real sticking point.
The Cubs' payroll will be supersized in 2010 without Peavy. Adding him creates a lot of stress. It was the kind of stress the Cubs would endure if this were a true need -- say for a Brian Roberts-style leadoff hitter. But this was a luxury item.
I could even see it as a sticking point in 2009, if you want to have any room for that LH-hitting outfielder that Lou's obsessing about (and thank heavens it's NOT going to be Raul Ibanez, who signed a three-year, $30 million deal with the Phillies. Would YOU want to be on the hook for $10 million to Ibanez when he's 40? I wouldn't), or for a midseason acquisition.
Who could still be Peavy. Or maybe Towers, who has made this proposed deal in the media perhaps more than any GM has made any past deal that I've ever heard of, will move on to another team (the Angels are a rumored player).
In any case, the Cubs won 97 games last year -- despite missing Carlos Zambrano for a few starts, losing their closer for a month, having Alfonso Soriano miss more than 40 games and having Kosuke Fukudome disappear in the second half. I'd be perfectly happy if Fukudome became the player he was in Japan (or a reasonable facsimile) and have Felix Pie platoon with Reed Johnson in CF.
If Lou's insistent on a lefthanded hitting outfielder, go out and make a smaller deal for Jeremy Hermida or Jason Kubel, both of whom will cost prospects and other players (but not as many as Peavy would have), but less dollars. Why spend huge dollars on Milton Bradley and get the huge headaches that come with him? His 2008 numbers are an outlier to most of his career and were put up mostly as a DH in a launching pad (he hit 16 HR at home and only 6 on the road last year).
We are also told this morning that the chairman of the Illinois Finance Authority still wants to make a deal to buy Wrigley Field, despite all the controversy swirling after the revelations regarding the shakedown Gov. Blagojevich was trying to make with Tribune Co. Further, William Brandt, the IFA chairman, says it won't involve any tax dollars (claiming it would all be funded by a bond sale) -- I'm skeptical -- and further:
William Brandt Jr. said he's asked for three conditions from Tribune Co., owner of Wrigley and the Chicago Cubs. One is a Tribune guarantee for the bonds, and Brandt said that may be impossible now that the media company is in bankruptcy.
The other conditions, he said, would be limits on ticket price increases and an agreement on who would own the park once the bonds were paid off in perhaps 30 years. Brandt said a government agency, perhaps the Chicago Park District, could be the right owner.
I cannot put into words how bad an idea this is. For an example of the Chicago Park District owning a stadium and the shenanigans that go on there, just look approximately eight miles south of Wrigley Field to Soldier Field.
0 recs | 139 comments
Couldn't agree more...
Especially when it comes to signing a RF. Trades can be made later. I don’t think the FA out there will bring that much to this team. Great work, Al. Thanks for the respite from the craziness of work. Uh oh… here come my boss! (Lousy Dodgers fan!)
socalicubsfan - December 12, 2008
I'm on board, too...
Excellent points – we have other, more important fish to fry. Bruce Levine stated Towers was asking 6-7 players – and there’s the salary. IF the team did not have the inventory – as you mention – its one thing (let’s HOPE the staff stays HEALTHY, dudes!) – but the request – if true is absurd.
I am OK with Bradley on a short deal – but 3/30, if this is now the benchmark – fagetaboutit!
Our biggest needs are the LH bat – and someone in the 1 slot that would FORCE Lou to put Soriano down in the lineup.
FINALLY, Rashid Davis belongs in the Arena League. How is he an NFL player?
The E-Man - December 12, 2008
I'm thinking Lovie Smith belongs in the Arena League, too.
He has made some monumentally bad coaching decisions this year.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
Since there won't be an Arena League in 2009
does that mean Lovie and Rashid go to afl2 – the developmental Arena Football League?
Bill Potter - December 12, 2008
Don't forget the UFL
side note, but the UFL is starting up. Not that I expect it to stick, but it should be around in 2009.;
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
Isn't the UFL still looking for owners for 2 of their 6 teams?
Bill Potter - December 12, 2008
Actually, I think this is the Chicago team that Peavy wanted to be traded to
Chicago Bliss
Lovie & Rashid wish they could coach/play in this league…
ballhawk - December 12, 2008
Bradley will not get 3 years, I would expect 2/18
As for Rashid, the AFL doesn’t like drops either. If Davis is active the remaining games, it’s on special teams.
Almost threw up when I realized the Bears were faking the punt from their own 45, up by 4.
N Oakley - December 12, 2008
Give me Earl Bennett.
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 12, 2008
side note on the bears for 2009-2010
What’s interesting about the Bears is that, well, there are a lot of areas that need strengthening, but there are few needs that demand a top pick, as of right now.
The one major need is at WR, where a guy like DHB could be there when the Bears pick. The Bears need a big, downfield target. Here’s the problem … if DHB goes earlier, that means DHB/Crabtree and perhaps Maclin (assuming all come out) are likely off, leaving the options as a guy like Harvin (if he comes out), who is unnecessary as his skillset is that of Devin Hester (who has really improved as a WR this year … people keep mentioning his lack of returns, but the improvement he’s made at WR more than compensates).
So, if not WR, what else are needs? On the OL, Williams will get a chance at LT. Drafting a first round OL seems unlikely. A better backup RB is needed, but that’s not a first round focus, and TE is a no. The one question the Bears had this year was whether or not they could win with Orton, and the answer is … probably, so they won’t draft a QB early. Defensively, a couple young DL pieces need to be added later (ugh, that 2nd round pick on Dan Bazuin. Anderson’s still there, but he’s really a specialist; Dvoracek can’t stay healthy so adding DT depth for the rotation is needed considering Tommie Harris needs to be protected). LB is certainly an area that could use a young piece (ugh, the undersized, and yet, not that quick, Michael Okwo was a wasted 3rd round pick). They could probably use another big DB, the type of guy that can play CB or S, particularly because I wonder if the Bears may lop Vasher off with Graham and McBride there.
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
And maybe a new coach.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
i doubt it
I doubt they let Lovie go. Keep in mind the expectations, nationally, were quite low entering this year. An unknown line, no threat at WR, unknown RB situation, unknown QB situation, some health question. I entered the year thinking 6-8 wins would be a solid season.
I’m not defending Lovie, who I think has been overrated as a coach. I think promoting Babich to DC was a huge mistake. I don’t think Lovie is much better than, say, Dick Jauron, but rather, Lovie was Angelo’s guy and Angelo worked harder to fit Lovie’s personnel desires.
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
Gee.
Sounds like another GM we know.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
Coaches
I personally feel Lovie Smith has been good for the Bears, I mean, we’ve enjoyed some of the best Bears years in recent history with Smith at the helm, I mean just taking into account the Bears/Packers rivarly, I’m pretty sure up until this year’s game at Lambeau, Lovie was undeafted up there.
But I do agree that since Babich as been DC the defense has just been horribly inconsistent, which makes this years team one of the most frustrating to watch, take last night for instance, a 21-7 lead and boom, right out the gates the Saints just start converting on third down and long, it was only through the play of Ogunleye they didn’t score on that drive.
and whose call is it to throw the ball with a lead with about 5 mins left in the game? we should have kept the ball on the ground and tried to sustain a drive and eat up the clock, but thats just my opinion
BCB1987 - December 12, 2008
the bears could easily be
11-3 or 5-9 so its a tough call as to where the issues are. With hesters speed he will always draw downfield coverage so I think we need a wes welker type that just catches anything thrown at him.
it would also be nice to see us RUN the ball when you have a lead……………….
cubsfaninkc - December 12, 2008
RE: "Type that just catches anything..."
They have him. Mike Hass and he can’t escape the practice squad. All this guy does is catch the ball. No Wes Welker turning a 3 yard catch into a 70 yard TD, but more of a Tom Waddle/Wayne Chrebet type.
N Oakley - December 12, 2008
tough for Haas
because, well, his inability to really separate is something that teams will always be down on. I think he could be useful as a possession guy, 4th/5th receiver, but I can also understand not going to him when he doesn’t bring a key dimension to the skillset at WR.
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
because Davis’ ability to separate is helping. Davis looks like a low budget David Terrel. Good routes with the ball on the ground.
N Oakley - December 12, 2008
don't get me wrong
i wouldn’t mind swapping out Davis for … well, almost anyone right now. I’m just saying, I can see the coaches asking themselves
a) What would Haas bring?
b) Would they use Haas? 5th WR’s don’t get on the field that much.
Also, I think Rideau might better fit the Bears current needs if we swapped out a WR (having another big target could be helpful).
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
the issues
Whether the Bears are 11-3 or 5-9 doesn’t really change that much, imo, about the personnel needs for 2009-2010, with particular regards to the top of the draft.
OL – Chris Williams will get a shot. Kreutz is on the decline, but he’ll still start, as with Garza/Tait and probably Beekman. That means that the chances of drafting an OL high is quite slim. Now, in the midrounds, sure I see it. But if the Bears draft an OT early, I’ll be surprised as that’d be an indictment of Chris Williams.
RB – Forte’s the man. A better backup is needed, but that’s for later.
QB – Orton will continue to start. A young QB may be added later (I’d give Cullen Harper a look late or as a UDFA).
TE/FB – No need there to draft early.
WR – Definite need here to draft early. I actually think somewhat differently from you. I think the ideal situation is for Hester to develop into a Wes Welker type, except with downfield speed. I think the Bears are better off utilizing his quickness. Earl Bennett is a guy I like, and I think he can develop into a Marty Booker type, with perhaps a bit better speed. The Bears need a guy with “number 1” type threat potential, and in terms of skillset, they need a big downfield target besides Greg Olsen, a guy that can go get the jump balls on fade routes.
DE – With Brown/Ogun/Anderson, DE won’t be drafted high.
DT – Harrison looks good enough for the Bears to not draft a DT high, although this is an area I’d watch. That said, the DT value at the top of the draft is rather pedestrian, even if some juniors come out.
LB – No way a first round LB gets added, due to the 2 contracts and the scheme.
CB – I doubt a first round CB gets looked at. Even if you slash Vasher, something I think could happen, Graham has done enough this year to warrant not adding a CB early, imo. Graham was a good athlete coming out of college, but just raw.
S – Doubt we look at S early, although a guy like Taylor Mays would be attractive. That said, Payne is solid, and Brown likely comes back.
I would say, first round type needs:
WR
OL – If the Bears decide to lop off, say, Garza (unlikely, but if), they could draft an OL guy early to start inside and eventually slide out to RT (say someone like Phil Loadholt).
and some insanely great value that falls into our lap.
Another thought would be trading down, but with the DVC still in play, that’s easier said than done.
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
defensive backfield
i agree with almost everything you are saying. I think the D-line could be improved, but Anthony Adams really should be the starter with Tommie going forward, with Idonoje and DD as the backups. O-line is fine at the guard positions, good to see that Beekman has become a solid starter in the league. DHB would be perfect…I dont see the Bears going wide out first round though. Has to be a DB, there are the two safties with first round projections right now, blanking on their names but the guy from USC and the other from Missouri. Take one of them, or move Peanut to safety and draft the best available corner. The Bears absolutely NEED a stronger secondary.
kylejo - December 12, 2008
DB's and Tampa 2
Taylor Mays and William Moore are the two guys you are thinking about. There are a couple more possibilities, but those would be the elite guys. I think Mays may be good enough that, if we get a chance at him, you pull the trigger. That said, I think Mays is off by the mid-first. I’m not quite sold that Moore is good enough to warrant pulling the trigger for the Bears.
I’m not sold the Bears go DB early unless it’s a good value pick like Mays Some other thoughts:
a) Unless I’ve missed something, the staff is fairly high on Payne and for justifiable reasons. He was underrated coming out of ULM, with good range to go with good size. He’s had a fairly solid season, so unless Brown gets moved, I don’t know if a safety is needed early.
b) The scheme doesn’t warrant early DB picks unless that is the only need. Add in Corey Graham’s improvement (and if he develops, he could be a better version of Peanut at CB since he has better athletic ability), and I’m just not sure we pop a CB early. We haven’t popped a first round DB under Angelo.
c) DB’s for the scheme can be found later if good scouting occurs. The CB depth should be alright in the 2nd. We’ll miss Jenkins, and I don’t love guys like Mickens/Smith enough for us to think they warrant a grab in the first.
That said, as noted, I think Mays is good enough that, if he slips, you pop him in the first.
_____________________
Other comments:
a) If we add another DT this offseason, I wouldn’t be surprised if we let Adams or Dvoracek go. Not both, but one of them, I could see. I don’t think Idonije factors fully into the DT rotation, as he’s our swing guy.
b) Beekman, I think, is going to replace Kreutz at C eventually. He has the ideal C build, but is a bit undersized at guard.
c) One interesting statistic about the Bears Pass D – The average yd per pass given up is 10.5, 5th best in the NFL. The overall pass D is 4th worst in terms of yardage per game, but they’ve only given up 17 pass TD’s, middle of the pack in the NFl. Short of it is, I don’t think the pass D is as bad as some have suggested. It’s not good, but if you think about the scheme, the numbers play out the way you’d want a Tampa-2 team defense to play – We’re getting pressure on the QB, the gap control is there, and the pass D is forcing teams to work their way downfield. The Tampa 2 is a “bend, don’t break” defense after all.
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
good points
interesting note on Beekman, and I do remember them saying he could play center when he came out, so you’re right that is probably the plan with him. I love Graham and Peanut, but Mike Brown likely isnt going to be playing for a lot longer….maybe I’m wrong. I’d like a center fielder like safety who is going to be good in coverage, with this Tampa 2, too many times our safeties are late getting over to their zones once the wideout is past the corner.
Agree on the pash rush that is needed…I just love Alex Brown and Goony has been stepping it up as of late, drafting his replacement would be a good idea though. There doesn’t seem to be an ideal position to strengthen on D with the 1st round pick….my choice stays DHB if he’s available.
Also, I really do not see them letting Adams go. His big mass is perfect next to Tommie’s slighter DT build, and he has been a monster ever since getting back in the rotation. The past two weeks he’s been arguably our best defender.
kylejo - December 12, 2008
Good lord. The current admin
couldn’t identify a 1st round offensive talent if their jobs depend on it. I almost want them to use the 1st round exclusively on D, bucause if all that $$$ has to be tied up, might as well be with a good player.
N Oakley - December 12, 2008
i had a big issue
with them passing on Albert last year. I like Chris Williams … but for a passing offense. For a coordinator like Ron Turner? Albert has much better upside and is a more physical presence. Sure, he would’ve been a gamble on adjusting to tackle, but it was a gamble most felt he could make.
I was hoping for Clady last year, but alas, the Broncos took him.
That said, I’d give Williams a bit more time. He’s a good talent that could be decent in the run game.
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
Jury is out on CW, but they took him and knew he had an existing back injury.
N Oakley - December 12, 2008
RF Options
Of all the options for RF, I think giving Fukudome a shot at the job first is my favorite. It opens up a chance for Pie to play CF and platoon with Johnson, which I think gives the Cubs their best OF defense. Plus, Fukudome has 3 years left on his deal, which is untradable at this point.
If the Cubs are going to make a signing, Bradley would probably be the best of the bunch, IMO, if it’s on a 2-year deal with a vesting option (based on PAs) for a third year. Dunn would be second on my list of FAs, with Abreu 3rd.
Kubel and Hermida are both solid trade targets, but I think DeRosa would need to be moved in either case.
Bill Potter - December 12, 2008
The first option is likely irrelevant...
I don’t see any way we go into next year with Fukudome in RF and Pie/Johnson in CF. I think Piniella has ruled out Pie and I think both Hendry and Piniella lack confidence in Fukudome based on last year. Frankly, I’m not overly confident in Pie or Fukudome either right now. Moreover, I think that even if Fukudome rebounds he won’t be the LH power bat they thought they were getting and now want again. I think he’s more of a #2 hitter with decent doubles power and maybe 10-15 HR power.
Assuming the Peavy deal is gone for good, I’d be most interested in a deal for Hermida. He’s better defensively and much cheaper than Bradley or Abreu. That said, I don’t know if the Marlins are interested in moving Hermida, and if they are, I don’t know if we have the pieces to make it work.
I’m not terribly excited about Abreu defensively or Bradley in terms of health and attitude.
SouthernCub - December 12, 2008
i think the marlins
will listen, but want a huge return. They asked the Rays for 2 of the following 4 pitchers: Wade Davis, Jeremy Hellickson, Jeff Niemann, and Mitch Talbot. Put it this way – if you take the top two values of that foursome (Davis/Hellickson, imo), I can make a decent case that those 2 guys hold close value, on their own, to the rumored package for Peavy, whatever it was. Two top 50 prospects in the minors (MiLB list and the community list on minorleagueball right now … and I agree that those two guys are both top 50, if not top 40) is a huge return. If you take the two lowest values (Niemann and Talbot), that’s arguably a package that we can’t match at this point with prospects without doing something ridiculous.
Of course, the Rays turned them down, and the Marlins may lower their price a bit. But, considering that
a) Hermida’s upside is still there, so his value is at a low
b) They would have an OF need if they dealt for Hermida
c) They can afford Hermida’s contract
I don’t think they would drop the price all that much. Just my guess.
If we can net him, I would prefer Hermida’s talent to the FA options and to some of the possible trade ideas that have been floated around (Kubel, perhaps Fred Lewis). He was my first option this offseason (this was before I posted regularly here and was posting more at cubs.com). That said, I wouldn’t give up too much to net Hermida, as there are very fair questions on him right now.
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
Well, who would you offer?
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
I'm not sure the Cubs have a package
without the 3rd and 4th team options again. They’d probably have to move DeRosa to get more prospects to send.
rlpete - December 12, 2008
i had this in the other thread
but a possible idea i was mulling over would be
1. Cubs send DeRosa to the Indians for a couple prospects, working with the Marlins to identify who. Indians are still looking for another middle infielder, as Luis Valbuena needs more time (and I’m still not sold he’s a starter). I think Adam Miller might be a pipedream, but if you can net Miller, than I think the Marlins would have interest. Kelvin de la Cruz is a thought, and they have some positional depth that the Fish could look at, although the Marlins have a deep pool of positional options, along with some pen possibilities, with Tony Sipp working his way back as a guy to keep in mind.
2. Send 3 guys from Pie/Castillo and whoever we get from the Indians for Hermida.
To be honest, I’m not sure this is enough. We don’t know how much they like Castillo either (they want a ready guy, and they might not view Castillo as that).
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
I'm in favor of any deal that means both A. Millers will be on the same team.
DGU - December 12, 2008
The only flaw in your plan
is that the Indians have a general rule against trading for guys in the last year of their contracts. I’m not sure if they are desperate enough to bend that rule for DeRo.
DeRoMyHero - December 12, 2008
that and I doubt the Indians would give up Adam Miller
ballhawk - December 12, 2008
I think the price on Hermida would be significantly higher than for Kubel
and I hope that when the Cubs and Twins started talking about DeRosa, Kubel’s name came up.
You could honestly make the case that Kubel’s health is less of a risk than Hermida’s and Kubel, at least, looks capable of putting up a .475 SLG w/o figuring in any upside hopes.
DGU - December 12, 2008
as noted in the other thread
my issue with Kubel is that I’m not sure he’s a regular and more a platoon guy, and if we are looking for platoon options, I think we can find some cheaper possibilities.
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
I'm surprised to see that Hermida had no L/R split worth speaking about last year.
Anyway, I still think Kubel could hit lefties well enough to play against them, but I see your point.
DGU - December 12, 2008
Hermida really has a good swing
Kubel has some obvious holes that make it likely that, unless he adjusts, he can get exploited against lefties. For Hermida, the holes aren’t as big with his swing. If, and it’s a big if, but if he put it together, he could be the monster some expected. Discipline has to improve, though.
toonsterwu - December 12, 2008
Agreed.
He has hit four HR in 27 AB at Wrigley Field — granted, small sample size. He also hits better in day games than night games — .275/.355/.517 in day games, so perhaps visibility is an issue with him (there are, I believe, a lot of players who need glasses or contacts who won’t admit it or who don’t even think this would help them hit better). He’s hit almost as many career HR (21) in day games than in night games (23) in 1/3 the number of AB.
With the large number of day games the Cubs play, this might be what puts a guy like Hermida over the top to be a superstar.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
Yep, I love Dome and Pie
but both are total question marks. I understand Lou’s need to get someone more proven. This is essentially to perform the function that Jedmonds fulfilled last year, at minimum, and with potential for more upside. Both Dome and Pie have plenty of upside but neither can come close to guaranteeing they’ll match the minimum output from our old LH OF.
JohnM - December 12, 2008
I understand the reservations behind Pie/Fukudome
but the options there for the Cubs trade-wise will probably be there in May or June. The Cubs could at least see if Pie and Fukudome can handle their roles before moving in a different direction.
While Fukudome isn’t necessarily the power option the Cubs seek, the offense did work pretty well when he was hitting. Plus, if Fukudome and Pie are both in the lineup, that puts two LH bats in the lineup as well.
Bill Potter - December 12, 2008
I'm behind Fukudome in RF
Also, our big need IMHO is not a thumper in RF, but a top of the order guy. Focus on that JH!
digitalbenjamin - December 12, 2008
well that's nice and we thank you for your offer, but...
…where we really could use you is behind Dunn in RF. You’d see more action that way… ;-)
ballhawk - December 12, 2008
Yep. That'll be me in the full body Ivy camoflauge outfit... hiding in RF.
digitalbenjamin - December 12, 2008
LOL
Pat: Here’s a ball to right, well hit, and Dunn is moving back, and — something has come out of the ivy! And the ball is — wait, the ball went into the ivy monster, for lack of a better term, and then popped back out and was caught by Dunn! The first base umpire is signalling an out, and LaRussa is out of the dugout and screaming!
Ron: He sure is, Pat! I’ve never seen anything like that before! Uh, I think maybe the grounds crew has been spraying the fertilizer a little heavy….
znohitter - December 12, 2008
If Peavy was going to be...
…a huge financial strain the prohibited the Cubs from filling holes more glaring, than why did Hendry expend so much energy on this? They knew all along what the financial price would have been, so I tend to think it was the current price tag (in players) that bagged the deal for now.
MPH73 - December 12, 2008
Agreed.
But the combination of the players and the financial strain is probably what made this collapse.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
Could be...
…that Hendry needed one of the pieces that Towers was insisting on, to add the lefty bat or even leadoff man.
MPH73 - December 12, 2008
Very possible.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
I think that the "financial strain"
is something of a smokescreen, but there is still a bit of truth to it. The Cubs will likely need an inexpensive pitching solution or two in 2010 to balance out the budget, so spending both the cash now, and essentially the cash later to free agents is problematic.
Damen Jackson - December 12, 2008
Lilly could be traded next off season
Problem of too much dollars in rotation solved. And, he could bring a good return if he has another good year.
JohnM - December 12, 2008
And if he has another good year, why would you trade him?
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
Well,
it would be the last year of his deal, the Cubs probably won’t sign him to another long-term contract, and his return — assuming an adequate replacement — probably outweighs the lost production. I’d hope the Cubs would give it serious consideration.
Selling high is a good thing.
Damen Jackson - December 12, 2008
Selling high is a good thing for a rebuilding team.
Selling high for a contending team might mean giving up an important piece of the puzzle for winning in 2009.
IOW, the Cubs can “sell high” on DeRo, but if they have to trade for Figgins to fill his role, what have they gained?
DeRoMyHero - December 12, 2008
Because
to accomodate a Cy Young pitcher’s salary, and because of the reasons Damen provided?
JohnM - December 12, 2008
That's my point...
If a Peavy acquisition requires all your financial assets, as well as all your personnel assets, where do you go? You can — and should — trade Lilly after next season, but who do you replace him with?
Damen Jackson - December 12, 2008
He has a limited no trade clause
and besides he is my favorite Cub.
Doggie Stalker - December 12, 2008
Theoretically
Marquis will be gone in 2010, which could put Marshall in the rotation, saving the team roughly $9 million.
Bill Potter - December 12, 2008
I really think Hendry is...
counting on freeing himself of Marquis’s contract now. I don’t think he can count on Marquis to save his escalating salary situation.
Damen Jackson - December 12, 2008
I don't think he can count on it
But if the Cubs stand pat (which it appears they could do), then Marquis does become a $9 million savings in 2010.
I, however, think that Marquis will be gone by spring training. Though paying nearly half of his salary just to get rid of him doesn’t sit too well with me.
Bill Potter - December 12, 2008
I Disagree...
… Marquis will be pushed this off season.
initram - December 12, 2008
I agree...
Hendry knew from the beginning what Peavy’s salary was and what it would take financially to bring him in. I think it either has to do with the amount of pieces San Diego wanted to get in return or not being able to make the right peripheral deals to free up salary and get address the RF spot.
SouthernCub - December 12, 2008
Marshall may have been the key
With a rotation of both Harden and Peavy the Cubs would need a good #6 starting option. That’s Marshall. If either of those guys get hurt, there really isn’t anyone else since Gaudin seems to be out the door. I don’t see how Hendry could give him up.
rlpete - December 12, 2008
The price for Peavy will go down during the season
When the Padres are 25 games below .500 by June, be damn sure John Moores will want Peavy gone, in any way possible.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - December 12, 2008
Every post-mortem article on this deal lists a different excuse
It’s almost as if Hendry told his assistants, when grilled by the press, to give different, random reasons why it didn’t happen. Didn’t want to give up Marhsall. Asked for too many players. Too complicated. Didn’t want to give up Vitters. Didn’t like the way they were public with Cub names on the table. We have other things going on right now. The salary for 2010 won’t fit. Etc.
JohnM - December 12, 2008
Well Hendry doesn't seem to like to negotiate in public
He probably didn’t like the Towers approach. I don’t see him giving the press a run-down on the reasons for the collapse.
rlpete - December 12, 2008
Rec'd.
And maybe ALL of those were reasons.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
I think the financial strain was heigtened when the Pads kept asking for Marshall, Guzman, etc.
It’s one thing to take on Peavy’s salary. It’s another to give up all your min-salary guys and take on his salary. If we lost Marshall, we’d have to replace him with a free agent, which adds, min 1 M to the budget and more likely 4-6 M.
DGU - December 12, 2008
Is there any reason why contracts
cant be front loaded. it always seems that the issue are in the last year or two of a contract when the player may be on the down side and there are owed a stupid amount of money.
why not sign a someone to a deal where you pay 30 million in the first year and then by the last two years you are ONLY paying 8 to 10 instead of 20 to 24 million in year 6 after the guy has been hurt or has lost some of his ability would this not at least give a club some protection in being able to move a guy who has been very good or great but has lost something. A club might take a chance on someone for a year or two at below market then paying trading for a guy who wants an a billzion dollar option picked up.
just a thought
cubsfaninkc - December 12, 2008
Because teams don't want to frontload their payrolls.
What you are suggesting is to have payrolls go DOWN in future years, and teams don’t do that. If the Cubs had done that with, say, Soriano, they would have had a HUGE payroll in 2007, probably not affordable.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
not really down
you still have to field a team. what i am saying is if you sign a guy to a 6 year 140 million contract why not pay it more in the front end then in the back end. you cant back end everyone. its the pay me now or later game. most guys are not as good in the last year of the contracts and no one wants to take them in a trade because they are costing too much or you have to eat so much of the contract you cant go out and get a quality guy.
is it not 2010 that our payroll gets stupid becuase of all these back loaded deals. at some point they all get paid. I just think that in terms of a superstar pay them up front when you believe they will be the most productive.
cubsfaninkc - December 12, 2008
If a team is signing a big ticket FA, and
had a ton of room left in the budget, and had no other needs, and still had room to maneuver during the season, there is nothing prohibiting a team from doing that. However, all the other issues plus simple dollar and contract inflation make stepping contracts up as they age more beneficial to the budget.
N Oakley - December 12, 2008
It's actually been tried in other venues...
the Bulls did it a two summers ago with Ben Wallace and Kirk Hinrich. It has been widely panned. Granted, there are reasons why it was panned, largely to do with the fact that they overpaid for mediocre/bad players, but also due to the fact that expiring contracts are a much more relevant issue as trade commodities, and by frontloading the Bulls reduced the value of the expiring contracts.
But yeah, with regard to baseball, there’s no reason it couldn’t happen. It’s just that most teams prefer to slightly backload a deal to allow more current financial flexibility and to soften the financial impact of the contract by considering inflation on the back end years.
The “win now” idea has something to do with it too. If you frontload, you make it harder to bring in talent now. Considering that there’s no guarantee a GM will be around to see the back end years, they’d rather more flexibility to bring in talent today than to bring in talent in 4-5 years when it’s possible that another GM will be reaping the benefits of the added flexibility.
SouthernCub - December 12, 2008
Inflation makes it cost more to frontload than to backload.
DGU - December 12, 2008
There is also what economists call the "present value of money" which is a little more than just
inflation. For example, if you are offered a thousand dollars now, it is more important to you than if you get a thousand dollars in ten years. This is true even if inflation was at zero. (BTW, this also allows you to put the cash in a bank and make money on the interest….)
zevkalman - December 12, 2008
This interest you are talking about...
Is it still available today? I’d like to put my 200 and 1/2k account into one of those.
N Oakley - December 12, 2008
Agents like some backloading as well...
For instance, if the Cubs had given DeRo a $1M bonus and $4M per season for three seasons he would have had a slightly “frontloaded” contract. He would also be known in the 2009 FA pool as a “$4M player”. A team could offer him a “raise” to $5M. With the backloading, he will be known as a “$5.5M player” and will be looking for at least $6M per season so that he will get a “raise”. Thus, he will be more likely to get a 2/$12M offer than a $2/$10M offer — assuming he has a good year in 2009.
DeRoMyHero - December 12, 2008
Al, are you telling us....
…..you don’t want Wrigley to look like a giant spaceship landed on top of it (like Soldier’s Field)?
carmen_fanzone - December 12, 2008
About hermida..
don’t we have some marlin credits left from the ceda trade?
xene - December 12, 2008
That's what I'm thinking.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
well, if that's true...
…then I think we owe Pittsburgh a Soto or Marmol. ;-)
ballhawk - December 12, 2008
true, but considering that pittsburgh is a mess...
i wouldn’t be surprised if they lost the rolls of cubs tickets to cash in..
xene - December 12, 2008
Littlefield works for the Cubs now...
DeRoMyHero - December 12, 2008
Apparently Al is okay with mediocrity...
Hermida would be a decent option I suppose but i’d rather go get Milton Bradley who would cost us any prospects and at this point is a better player than Hermida. Jason Kubel sucks…He would be a horrible pickup.
illini23 - December 12, 2008
wouldnt*
illini23 - December 12, 2008
I think I've explained why Bradley isn't a good fit.
His 2008 numbers are far above his career norms, and were put up DH’ing in a launching pad of a ballpark.
Add that to his anger problems and the fact that Jeremy Hermida is 24 and has considerable upside… I’ll take Hermida.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
I Look At It This Way...
… what would the incremental gain be between Hermida and Bradley? Obviously, it is impossible to tell, but that’s what the scouts are there to answer. Consider everything into this equation, i.e., defense, offense, club house presence, club house leadership, playoff experience, players that are given up for them for a trade, etc. Then answer, is that incremental gain of getting Bradley worth spending $6M more?
Then, you do the same thing between Bradley and, say, Abreu. Is the incremental gain of getting Abreu worth spending $6M more than Bradley?
My point is, we are dealing with different tiers of player financially that I don’t think are differential tiers talent-wise. That said, I’d go for Hermida.
initram - December 12, 2008
Yeah, but ...
You have to consider the financial savings of Hermidia along with the players it would take to get him.
I think that’s what’s being forgotten by a lot of posters. Bradley (despite his obvious issues) won’t cost Marshall, Guzman, Vitters, etc. In fact, he won’t cost anything besides money and draft picks.
elgato - December 12, 2008
I Mentioned That In My Comment...
…at the end, it comes down to the value you get for the money you’re paying. To me, given the players that are out there that have been discussed, going with Hermida for the $ would outweigh Bradley for the $/years he would command as well as outweigh Abreu for the $/years he would command.
initram - December 12, 2008
I think you're rationalizing
I know the reason that you don’t want Bradley—he’s got a serious anger management problem and he’s a potential clubhouse problem. That’s a valid reason not to want him. The fact that he can’t stay healthy is another valid reason not to want him.
But his problem isn’t his production. Sure, last season was above his norm, but last season he was the best hitter in the American League. He had the highest OPS+ in the league, and that’s adjusted for the ballpark in Arlington.
His career OPS+ is 118 and that’s low because of his first two seasons in Montreal when he was promoted before he was ready. His career line, normalized for 162 games, is .280 with a .370 OBP and 20 HRs. It’s even higher if you just count the past five seasons.
He only DH’d last season because of the injury the year before. Most people didn’t think he’d even play until after the all-star break last year, but he pushed himself into the lineup in April. He used to be a great defensive CF and he’s likely still a good right fielder.
There are lots of valid reasons not to want Milton Bradley. His projected production is not one of them,
Josh Timmers - December 12, 2008
Well said
In terms of on-field production, on both sides of the ball, Bradley is the only perfect fit on the market.
I personally don’t think we would be able to afford Hermida without involving another team, and even then I think the cost would be too high for such an unproven commodity.
I’m of the opinion that Bradley’s bad wrap is somewhat undeserved. My only concern with him is how the fans would receive him.
Wreckard - December 12, 2008
Rec'd
DGU - December 12, 2008
Agreed
Let’s face it, both of these guys have their flaws or both would be comfortably out of the news this offseason in the case of Hermida, or signed to a deal already in the case of Bradley. Bradley is indeed the better player and you generally know what you’re going to get with him. Hermida is far less predictable and the way the Cubs are built to “win now” it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to bet on the come with Hermida, particularly when his cost is prohibitive. Comparing apples to apples, if the propsed group of players was too high for Peavy, you can put any Hermida talks away based on what they apparently asked for from Tampa Bay.
krummy12 - December 12, 2008
Hermida is hardly a mediocrity.
DGU - December 12, 2008
Question: when rumors are spread such as the Cubs are "interested" in this player
who states that the Cubs are interested? From where do they get their sources. Hell they could even be making up that the Cubs are interested in someone in hopes of people reading. I mean you hear reports like the Cubs were “interested” in Kaz Matsui last year, but that ultimately proved to be false. Does the media just take a stab at who they think fits best and puts it into an article that has their views from the Cub’s perspective?
Chanman25 - December 12, 2008
It varies
Some of it can come from agents, trying to create a market for their client. In trying to bring a big-market team into a negotiation, they can theoretically drive up the contract for their client.
Sometimes it comes from sources close to the team who go on the record under the condition of anonymity.
Some reporters will ask a manager or someone in management about a specific player and then use those comments to create a mountain out of a mole hill.
Bill Potter - December 12, 2008
The interest in Kaz Matsui was real.
The Cubs did tender him an offer; he just decided that he liked the ‘Stros’ offer better. Hendry himself admitted that he had made the offer. The reports were true; you can’t blame the media on that one.
DeRoMyHero - December 12, 2008
Not a Bradley fan either.
Seems the interest in DeRosa is one of the reasons why Hendry drug his feet on the Peavy talks, as he may be able to get a good RF without having to shell out big money for Bradley or Abreu… However, I have a feeling Bradley will sign with the Cubs next week…
CubFaninCA - December 12, 2008
Ugh.
I still don’t know why we need an angry DH.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
Oh, I don't know,
To help the Cubs win?
lamentir - December 12, 2008
Cause Lou needs another lefty
Not sure what Lou will blame when they collapse in the playoffs in 2009..
CubFaninCA - December 12, 2008
Well
Do you want a guy that lead the league in OBP last year who just so happens to be able to play a competent RF and CF…and just so happens to hit from both sides of the plate? I say absolutely. There are a lot of guys with clubhouse issues, more than anyone knows and more than anyone publicly reports. Yes, Bradley has been linked to that type of stuff, and has exhibited it on the field. Big deal. He’s not going to derail what the Cubs already have no matter how surly he may have the potential to be. I would guess he’s simply a front-runner like a lot of guys and would fit in just fine.
krummy12 - December 12, 2008
Bradley only played 20 games in the OF and still managed to find the DL.
How many times will the Cubs need a DH next season, nine?
DeRoMyHero - December 12, 2008
And...
… Bradley’s numbers in Texas were far above anything he had done anywhere else. His road numbers last year were good, closer to his career norms.
He’s not that good, not deserving of a huge free-agent contract, even if you ignore all the off-field nonsense.
To the poster above who said “to help the Cubs win”, hmm. They won 97 games last year without him. If the argument is that he’s the difference that will win a postseason series, I beg to differ.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
Because we didn't have enough guys on the DL last year and Mark O'Neal felt lonely...
DeRoMyHero - December 12, 2008
on that note...
read somewhere that Mark O’Neal and rest of Cubs training staff was voted best in the NL (or maybe all of MLB?) by their peers.
I guess practice does make perfect…
ballhawk - December 12, 2008
Peavy
I haven’t been around here much the last few months so if this has been said I apologize. If the Peavy deal is dead, then the Cubs dodged a bullet. Picking him up for prospects is one thing (which won’t happen) but to give up what has been discussed is another. Peavy is an arm injury waiting to happen. Many people familiar with the Padres will say so, and no less than a certain current ESPN broadcaster who does fantasy camps and likes his beer will tell you that as well. This guy also presented Peavy will his Cy Young. Loves him to death, thinks of him as a son, but is critical of his arm motion. In other words, there’s a good chance his best years have already happened, even at age 27.
BeerCub - December 12, 2008
What I Don't Understand...
… is how Towers can walk away? I thought he had to get to the $35M – $40M range. What are they at now? Whatever it is, they will have to be prepared to eat a full-year’s salary for Peavy if it is truly dead. In addition to that they now have to pay more to fill in the holes they have! They are moving further and further away from their desired range!
I am still of the opinion that the real issue here was not the number of player but rather Marquis being in the deal. I can hear Towers saying, “oh, you need me to take Marquis and more than half of his salary? well, I don’t want to do that, but if you sweeten the pot more with other players, then I may be able to swing that”.
I think this deal still gets done if Hendry is able to unilaterally deal Marquis to the Mets. We have some guys (Pie, Hill, Cedeno) that Piniella can do without that are perfect matches for the Padres. Throw in Vitters and that should get it done, once Marquis is pushed. One can argue, “I am sick and tire of people thinking that our crap is worth something”. In this case, however, I think the Padres are really interested in our “crap” – enough to land a deal.
initram - December 12, 2008
One More Thing...
… Pie and Hill are out of options. Do we really think they will be on the 25-man roster? If not, they need to be pushed.
initram - December 12, 2008
Rich Hill?
Who would take him?
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
Is he available
For next years’ Homerun Derby?
StevenABQ - December 12, 2008
LOL
You mean to pitch to the hitters, right? We could ask Howry, too.
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
At least Howry could throw strikes
The HR Derby is long enough without Rich Hill’s inability to find the strike zone.
Bill Potter - December 12, 2008
And Hill walks another Derby contestant...
znohitter - December 12, 2008
A dumb person
There’s still some of those who remain among baseball’s GMs. Kevin Towers comes to mind pretty quickly
lamentir - December 12, 2008
The Pads...
… they love our leftover pitching.
initram - December 12, 2008
Apparently not enough...
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 12, 2008
...yet.
initram - December 12, 2008
He won't walk away. He's bluffing.
Towers is a blowhard, who loves attention.. I’ve heard him often on LA radio. Towers is in love with himself.
CubFaninCA - December 12, 2008
Eventually, the Padres
will take Al in a deal….
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - December 12, 2008
Would you buy him dinner in that case?
DeRoMyHero - December 12, 2008
Jake Peavy would have to buy him dinner.
znohitter - December 13, 2008
Jake Peavy can afford to buy me MANY dinners.
Al Yellon - December 13, 2008
Towers v. Hendry
It really did surprise me how “vocal” Towers was in the media about possible landing places for Peavy. Most GM’s seem to prefer working quietly behind the scenes and letting the media do all the speculation.
I know at times it drives people around here nuts that Hendry isn’t “doing more”. I don’t think there’s a GM that works harder than Hendry at making deals happen. It’s just that we don’t hear about them until they are finalized.
Thinking back to last year with Roberts, as well as this situation with Peavy, not once has Jim Hendry mentioned their names, or the names of specific players on the Cubs’ roster that could be changing zip codes. It’s always been speculation from reporters, or other GM’s like Towers that are blabbing.
I for one love the way Hendry works. Is his track record perfect? No. But nobody is.
I have faith that he will do what’s best for the team, and will make the necessary tweaks to this 97 win team, and give them the best possible chance to win.
Just one guy’s opinion.
Canadian Cubs Fan - December 12, 2008
+1 and rec'd
znohitter - December 12, 2008
Hendry goes about...
…his business (trades, FA signings) the right way and I compliment him on that. Towers, is a goofball and I think just likes to hear himself talk.
MPH73 - December 12, 2008
Rec'd
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
I imagine
that Towers was throwing the “Peavy to the Cubs” story everywhere because he wanted us, the Cubs nation, to put pressure on Hendry to make the trade. I think he felt we’d all go ga-ga over a former Cy Young Award winner and that Hendry would have to make the trade or risk a backlash.
Well, he was right about us all going ga-ga over it, but he was wrong in thinking that we could pressure Jim Hendry into doing something that he didn’t want to do. And he was wrong in thinking that we’d all be calling for Hendry’s head if the deal fell apart.
Josh Timmers - December 12, 2008
Rec'd
Al Yellon - December 12, 2008
Interesting take
I don’t know what to make of how this deal has played out. Particularly interesting to me was Axelrod coming out and saying Towers asked too much. Hearing a quote like that was a surprise, especially since Towers and Axelrod are supposed to be friends.
If the Cubs and Pads do come back to the table, I’ll wonder if “Towers asking too much” was a stunt to help prepare the SD fans and/or Alderson for the inevitable underwhelming package.
For now, I’m just scratching my head.
DGU - December 12, 2008
Just guessin'...
If KT would have “settled” for Marquis + $3M + DeRo (to be flipped) + Pie + Hart, Peavy would be a Cub right now.
That would have given him Hart, 2 pitchers from Philly, Pie, and Marquis — and Marquis at $6M could be flipped for a prospect when the market dries up in January.
Now, KT has egg on his face — and I’m glad — and he is going to have to go groveling back to JH after Axelrod says Cubs or nowhere. He can’t take a chance of Peavy opening the season in SD and landing on the DL, so he will have to “settle” for Hart, Pie, Cedeño, and Atkins.
DeRoMyHero - December 12, 2008
axelrod
sent signals out afterwards that other teams were viable. namely, he pointed out the giants.
as i’ve said before, the idea that public negotiations is necessarily a flawed strategy is a flawed concept in some respects. from a theoretical negotations analysis, to an academic perspective, to a practical analysis, there is very little to suggest that the notion of public negotiations automatically causes the side to initiate it to suffer. in this situation, towers started out with a short deck. he made missteps along the way, but he, imo, made the most viable play possible to establish any sort of leverage. i don’t like towers, i think he’s done poorly in some moves, but i also think he’s been hamstrung by his ownership and his bosses.
i still think, though, that peavy will get moved. I do, though, expect towers to try and establish some more leverage over the situation. how? well
a) I think Giles gets moved sooner than later. Giles won’t net a huge return … but he could increase the Peavy return by enhancing the argument that this will be a baseball decision and not a financial decision.
b) I expect to hear about other teams getting involved. It was quite noticeable how the Angels package was floated out there real quick. Either the Angels were sitting and waiting … or this was an intentional leak.
The one problem with public negotiations is that it has the potential to engender bad feelings, but that shouldn’t be the priority for Towers right now. To compare this to the Santana situation would be somewhat flawed. Bill Smith limited his own market last year, by most accounts, whereas in this situation, Towers had the short deck to start with.
Now, how it finally plays out will interest me. There’s been so many different rumors about what is going on in this that I think some college kid could write a term paper on it if they could interview all parties involved.
What will interest me the most, from a theoretical, academic perspective, is how Axelrod and Towers’s relationship might have impacted this process. I ask this because everyone is automatically assuming that Axelrod called out Towers by saying the Padres asked for too much. The assumption being, once again, that going public implies something negative. One of the counters to the above assumption, though, would be that Axelrod is helping Towers lower expectations, either to lessen the backlash from the fan base or to make Towers look better with whatever the end result turns out to be. Keep in mind the mixed signals that have been sent throughout this process, with rumors and suggestions that Towers and Axelrod, if not coordinating, knew what each other’s moves were. In short, considering the complexity of the process, could Towers have simply been participating in a good faith gesture to Peavy by negotiating with us? It’s difficult to make a full analysis of this without knowing what the actual parameters for a deal were. Could it be that he goes to Peavy now and says, “hey, I tried my best to keep you in the NL. If you want out, you’ll have to look to another league”? At the end of the day, if the only option to getting out is out of the soft top 5, Peavy probably takes it, imo.
some random guesses:
by next week’s end (around the 20th), we’ll see some dominoes fall in the OF market. Before Christmas, we’ll see the Braves reluctantly crawl back into the Peavy negotiations despite the current stance right now. B/w Christmas and New Year’s, Brian Giles will be shipped out somewhere. Sometime after the New Year, Jake Peavy will be on a different team. My bet as of now? Anaheim will miss on Tex, causing them to run to another option, say, Adam Dunn, leaving them enough leeway to make a Peavy deal.
toonsterwu - December 13, 2008
well that was far quicker than i expected
I expected that we would soon here that the early rumors of Peavy being amenable to considering other destinations would come up again. This, though, is far quicker and far more than I expected. Axelrod has opened the door ever so slightly. Rather than having to create any tiny hole, there’s finally a small opening for Towers, but it’s a hole that can close fast.
Since I think most people are probably thinking I’m a Towers apologist right now (and I’m not … I think his failure to build the organization the last few years is hurting now … although part of that does lie on the change in leadership)
a) Make it as loud and public as you can. This means playing, basically, the 3 AL teams (and any NL team that might still have interest). Get the Red Sox, who are pondering one more starter (and making Masterson their fulltime setup arm), to get in the game. Force the Angels to make a quick assessment now on their chances at Tex. The Angels want to make a big play. If Peavy goes by the wayside and then they lose Tex, they are left in a much tougher situation. And then there’s those Yankees. Everyone understands the Yankees came into the offseason looking for 3 starters. Pettite has waffled on coming back, and there’s an opening right now despite the fact that they signed CC and AJ. The Yankees have the chips to put together a decent-solid package that better fits their needs than what the Cubs/Braves offered without really hurting their system that badly. The risk in this? The house of cards falls – The Yankees sign a starter (Pettite probably … although they could go after two more starters and shift Joba back to the pen, which would address a pen issue that exists right now, imo, but that seems unlikely), the Angels or Red Sox land Tex.
b) Wait and let the Yankees go by the wayside. Deal Giles. In this situation, they’d be playing a game of chicken with Frank Wren and any other team that misses. Atlanta has a credibility issue they must deal with soon. The longer they get away from their winning past, the longer their rebuilding likely takes. The perfect storm of talent development quickly building a core (and that’s the key – core) that can quickly compete is still the exception and not the rule. Wait on the Angels or Red Sox. See if Milwaukee wants to get in on it, or perhaps the Giants.
I’m very surprised that Axelrod has ever so slightly opened the door this quickly. He’s potentially sending the signal that, push comes to shove, Peavy would rather go than try and stay put in San Diego, which is the first time in this process that Towers has had anything in his deck to really play with. He’ll still have to bluff his way to the win, but it is a very interesting turn of events after the last few weeks.
This has me very curious what the package was that Towers thought he had in the 3 way.
toonsterwu - December 13, 2008
Except Giles.....
….. keeps vetoing trades.
BeerCub - December 13, 2008
The way I read that Axelrod statement
was that Jake would have to get paid by an AL team above his current contract to consider it.
Which means Towers is less likely to get a better package than the Cubs/Braves offered.
I really don’t know what’s going on here.
DGU - December 13, 2008
Nice take!
znohitter - December 12, 2008
Double Rec'd
MPH73 - December 12, 2008
Let's see .. The Chicago Park District Owning Cubs' Park
Makes sense to me. And Hizzoner’s star chamber program for awarding advertising contracts ..
After all, the well researched standard of preservation used by the city to maintain its field houses and ball fields, for example, will certainly keep Wrigley’s classic retro aged beauty in line.
Renovations will be carefully executed and tastefully done to enhance the architectural scope of the old cathedral.
cubnational - December 13, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.