Cubs acquire Kevin Gregg for Jose Ceda

[TheRaven]

 

So is that the argument you would use if you were calling a MLB GM in trade discussions in why they should consider Ceda to be a major piece in a trade?

 

If Ceda can harness his control, he can be a dominant major league reliever? I am sorry, but can't the same be said for 95% of relievers? Or pitchers in general?

 

95% of relievers or pitchers or whomever do not regularly sit in the 94-97 range and often reach 100 and absolutely dominate hitters with a knockout fastball/power slider combo. Starting this year helped him turn a corner as evidenced by his second half of the season in the pen in AA with a respectable 3 BB/9. Its not an "if" Ceda can harness his control, its "if" Ceda can maintain his control or somewhere around it he'll be a dominant closer. "If" he doesn't, he'll be a set up guy. If you are really concerned about his control, then man, I hate to show you Kevin Gregg's (or even Carlos Marmol's) BB rates. And thats my whole point. If you don't like Ceda, then you shouldn't like Gregg.

 

True, not all pitchers can hit that. But there are a lot of bad pitchers that can do that and never make it quite like they should have because they never could learn how to control it.

 

I am not saying that Ceda WILL NOT. I am just not going to go around and talk like he is going to do it for sure. That is what this board is reacting with. And it is ridiculous.

 

No one is going to do anything "for sure".

 

It's not even a high enough percentage to say it is likely. Yet this is a move that is worthy calling Hendry an idiot?

 

A minor league RP that may or may not be good?

 

We're going to pretend that we could have gotten so much more for him?

 

There is no real market for Jose Ceda. There is no justification to come out and say that next year, he would be able to outperform Kevin Gregg.

 

Sample size alert, but...

 

Ceda's MLE for his 2008 relief stats:

FIP=3.68

Average against: 261

BABIP: 346

BB/9: 3.67

K/9: 9.17

 

Gregg's 2008 stats

FIP=3.80

Average against: 208

BABIP: 261

BB/9: 4.85

K/9: 7.60

 

Its not out of the realm of possibility. You act as if I'm saying Larry Suarez could be better than Kevin Gregg next year.

 

The numbers aren't valid for comparison as they were not facing even remotely the same talent pool.

 

It is highly unlikely that Jose Ceda is major league ready next year, and to the point that he is ready to be an above average major league reliever.

[17 Seconds]

Decent move by Hendry. This always seems to be his MO, by taking an unproven and getting something of value. Looking at Gregg's numbers over the last 2 years it is hard to understand the criticism. The only difference in Gregg and Ceda's numbers is that Gregg is producing at the major league level. Sure Ceda may figure it out someday (even next year) and make a decent reliever, but if I had to pick between which one I would want to go into Spring Training with in 2009, I would pick Gregg no doubt.

 

I have a feeling you're only looking at ERA. Kevin Gregg really isn't very good. He's a mediocre reliever who is going to make millions next season. How is he better than Michael Wuertz?

 

Also yuou seem to be forgetting that Ceda's value to the Cubs is not just what he can contribute to our team. He has trade value and we just wasted it on a guy who isn't an upgrade to a lot of guys we already have.

 

Where is Ceda's trade value?

 

And what other stats are you evaluating Gregg on? I am not disagreeing with you, I am just wanting to know.

 

What do you mean by "where is Ceda's trade value"? I don't understand that question.

 

As for Gregg, you can simply look at his stats yourself. He's basically Michael Wuertz. He walks a ton of guys and gives up a lot of baserunners. He's another "hold your breath" reliever. We have enough of those already and they don't make as much as he will this season.

 

You said he has trade value. What is that value? I assume you have some information on what that value is, that it is considerate enough that we made a huge blunder trading away someone with an escalated value such as Ceda?

 

I can look at the stats. I have looked at the stats. The 'stats' is not very specific though. Which ones are you using to measure? If it is a few simple ones, it should be relatively easy to say which ones. Note that I said I didn't disagree with you on Gregg. I still don't. I just am curious as to which ones you are using to make that statement.

 

Are you for real? So a guy only has trade value if I can name what players he can be traded for? wtf? And where did I say he had such escalated trade value? I never acted like he's some stud prospect who wuill be a key part in future trades. However, I do know that he's worth more than a mediocre reliever who will make millions next year and isn't much of an upgrade to a lot of guys we have now.Where did I say it was a "huge blunder"? I said it was a dumb trade, just like almost everybody else in here is saying. I don't even like Ceda. I was hoping he'd get traded this offseason... just not for Kevin Gregg.

 

As for the stats, I don't understand you. Do you not understand how to look at statistics? You can look at them and very easily come to the conclusion of why I think he's a very mediocre reliever. What do you want from me? Over the past 5 seasons he's basically been a 1.30 WHIP guy who walks everybody.

Edited November 13, 2008 by 17 Seconds

[CubColtPacer]

This is a tough deal to evaluate without knowing what the Cubs are planning to do with Gregg.

 

Did the Cubs make this deal knowing they have another closer candidate now in the fold and declare Gregg the closer in March? If so, that adds value to him.

 

Did the Cubs see that Gregg would likely be a type A reliever after the year and essentially see this as a 1 year move? If so, that adds value again.

 

If the Cubs grabbed Gregg to be a setup man or if they give him a long-term contract, this is a pretty bad move. If this is a let's contend in 2009 with another solid reliever and make sure to not move Marmol to the closer role and then let him go for the picks? It's a pretty solid move then.

 

Essentially, the Cubs paid inflated value for Gregg's closer credentials. They better continue to build that inflated value so that when they sell him, they can sell him for a similar price.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I definitely have mixed feelings on this deal.

 

Kevin Gregg is a quality reliever, and defiitely less of an i jury risk than Woody, however, Ceda was one of our best trade chips if we were to aquire a quality lefty bat. Also, Ceda has the potential to be far better than Gregg, who is in his last year under team control.

[Soul]

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

 

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

 

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

 

Wow that is some interesting logic

 

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

 

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

 

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

 

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

 

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

 

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

 

$40 million over 4 years to a guy whose career was an inch away from being done just over a year ago is not change

 

how can you seriously believe yourself

 

BUT TELL ME WHAT PLAYER WE COULD SIGN WITH THAT MONEY THAT MAKES US BETTER. ANSWER ME THAT

 

seriously. i don't get how anyone can think this way. i mean, soul, try and look more than 6 months into the future, man.

 

You are very convinced that Wood's arm is going to fall off. It didn't this year, with full duty. If it's that certain, then no other team should offer him more than a couple years. If they do, and it works out, we'll talk.

 

$4-$5 million per year is just not that much money for this ballclub. That's pretty much Blanco money. In 4 years it will be even less.

[cubsfan26]

I doubt Hendry signs Gregg long term at this point. He would wait to see how he pitches at the end of the season, like he did with Dempster in 05, and Wood this year. Edited November 13, 2008 by cubsfan26

[17 Seconds]

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

 

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

 

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

 

Wow that is some interesting logic

 

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

 

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

 

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

 

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

 

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

 

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

 

$40 million over 4 years to a guy whose career was an inch away from being done just over a year ago is not change

 

how can you seriously believe yourself

 

BUT TELL ME WHAT PLAYER WE COULD SIGN WITH THAT MONEY THAT MAKES US BETTER. ANSWER ME THAT

 

seriously. i don't get how anyone can think this way. i mean, soul, try and look more than 6 months into the future, man.

 

You are very convinced that Wood's arm is going to fall off. It didn't this year, with full duty. If it's that certain, then no other team should offer him more than a couple years. If they do, and it works out, we'll talk.

 

$4-$5 million per year is just not that much money for this ballclub. That's pretty much Blanco money. In 4 years it will be even less.

 

You really think Wood is only going to get 4-5 a year?

[andrew9991]

Come on, the idea that the Cubs *HAD* to let Kerry go so they could save a couple million to upgrade elsewhere is ridiculous nonsense. I expect more from people on this board.

 

The idea that the Cubs should have given Kerry a big dollar multiyear contract just because of the emotional attachment or that is wouldn't have been a bad idea is patently ludicrous. They let Kerry go because giving him a multiyear deal @ 10 million+ would have been moronic, a far poorer decision than any of the recent poor decisions.

 

It isn't a move you make with a payroll of zero.

 

I have been one of Wood's biggest fans for his entire Cubs tenure, but honestly, the lack of objectivity over this is mind boggling.

 

 

I agree completely.

[XZero771679666304]

 

You are very convinced that Wood's arm is going to fall off. It didn't this year, with full duty. If it's that certain, then no other team should offer him more than a couple years. If they do, and it works out, we'll talk.

 

$4-$5 million per year is just not that much money for this ballclub. That's pretty much Blanco money. In 4 years it will be even less.

 

The money + risk + lack of need = not much of a decision.

 

The gap between Marmol/Wood and Gregg/Marmol is not a substantial as the risk of giving Kerry 4/40. It just isn't.

 

If no team offers him big money, he may be back. If one does, Hendry made the right decision.

[imb]

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

 

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

 

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

 

Wow that is some interesting logic

 

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

 

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

 

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

 

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

 

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

 

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

 

$40 million over 4 years to a guy whose career was an inch away from being done just over a year ago is not change

 

how can you seriously believe yourself

 

BUT TELL ME WHAT PLAYER WE COULD SIGN WITH THAT MONEY THAT MAKES US BETTER. ANSWER ME THAT

 

seriously. i don't get how anyone can think this way. i mean, soul, try and look more than 6 months into the future, man.

 

You are very convinced that Wood's arm is going to fall off. It didn't this year, with full duty. If it's that certain, then no other team should offer him more than a couple years. If they do, and it works out, we'll talk.

 

$4-$5 million per year is just not that much money for this ballclub. That's pretty much Blanco money. In 4 years it will be even less.

 

You really think Wood is only going to get 4-5 a year?

 

He's talking about the difference between wood and gregg for this year

 

which is stupid considering wood's contract will run another 3 years or so past this one

[TheRaven]

Decent move by Hendry. This always seems to be his MO, by taking an unproven and getting something of value. Looking at Gregg's numbers over the last 2 years it is hard to understand the criticism. The only difference in Gregg and Ceda's numbers is that Gregg is producing at the major league level. Sure Ceda may figure it out someday (even next year) and make a decent reliever, but if I had to pick between which one I would want to go into Spring Training with in 2009, I would pick Gregg no doubt.

 

I have a feeling you're only looking at ERA. Kevin Gregg really isn't very good. He's a mediocre reliever who is going to make millions next season. How is he better than Michael Wuertz?

 

Also yuou seem to be forgetting that Ceda's value to the Cubs is not just what he can contribute to our team. He has trade value and we just wasted it on a guy who isn't an upgrade to a lot of guys we already have.

 

Where is Ceda's trade value?

 

And what other stats are you evaluating Gregg on? I am not disagreeing with you, I am just wanting to know.

 

What do you mean by "where is Ceda's trade value"? I don't understand that question.

 

As for Gregg, you can simply look at his stats yourself. He's basically Michael Wuertz. He walks a ton of guys and gives up a lot of baserunners. He's another "hold your breath" reliever. We have enough of those already and they don't make as much as he will this season.

 

You said he has trade value. What is that value? I assume you have some information on what that value is, that it is considerate enough that we made a huge blunder trading away someone with an escalated value such as Ceda?

 

I can look at the stats. I have looked at the stats. The 'stats' is not very specific though. Which ones are you using to measure? If it is a few simple ones, it should be relatively easy to say which ones. Note that I said I didn't disagree with you on Gregg. I still don't. I just am curious as to which ones you are using to make that statement.

 

Are you for real? So a guy only has trade value if I can name what players he can be traded for? wtf? And where did I say he had such escalated trade value? I never acted like he's some stud prospect who wuill be a key part in future trades. However, I do know that he's worth more than a mediocre reliever who will make millions next year and isn't much of an upgrade to a lot of guys we have now.

 

As for the stats, I don't understand you. Do you not understand how to look at statistics? You can look at them and very easily come to the conclusion of why I think he's a very mediocre reliever. What do you want from me? Over the past 5 seasons he's basically been a 1.30 WHIP guy who walks everybody.

 

Yes, a guy only has trade value if someone is willing to trade someone for him. But given that he is a minor league relief pitcher, which generally is not a position that holds that much of trade value, you may use other minor league relief options that are similar to Ceda to show how he could have been a part of a key trade. I assume that is your complaint since you said we just wasted his trade value.

 

Escalated trade value would be a trade value higher than Gregg. He must have more, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining. I am wondering what you are basing that off of.

 

Oh, so WHIP is the stat you are looking at. Did you not see Ceda's WHIP of 1.32 in AA last year?

[Soul]

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

 

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

 

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

 

Wow that is some interesting logic

 

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

 

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

 

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

 

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

 

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

 

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

 

$40 million over 4 years to a guy whose career was an inch away from being done just over a year ago is not change

 

how can you seriously believe yourself

 

BUT TELL ME WHAT PLAYER WE COULD SIGN WITH THAT MONEY THAT MAKES US BETTER. ANSWER ME THAT

 

seriously. i don't get how anyone can think this way. i mean, soul, try and look more than 6 months into the future, man.

 

You are very convinced that Wood's arm is going to fall off. It didn't this year, with full duty. If it's that certain, then no other team should offer him more than a couple years. If they do, and it works out, we'll talk.

 

$4-$5 million per year is just not that much money for this ballclub. That's pretty much Blanco money. In 4 years it will be even less.

 

You really think Wood is only going to get 4-5 a year?

 

No, I'm talking about the hypothetical savings difference.

[UMFan83]

I think the bullpen past Wood and Marmol was getting to be a pretty significant problem for the Cubs at the end of the season. And it just got worse. I hope Hendry has something else up his sleeve for the pen, because it needs work now.

[TheRaven]

If it's that certain, then no other team should offer him more than a couple years.

 

You hit the nail on the head.

[nilodnayr]

 

Sample size alert, but...

 

Ceda's MLE for his 2008 relief stats:

FIP=3.68

Average against: 261

BABIP: 346

BB/9: 3.67

K/9: 9.17

 

Gregg's 2008 stats

FIP=3.80

Average against: 208

BABIP: 261

BB/9: 4.85

K/9: 7.60

 

Its not out of the realm of possibility. You act as if I'm saying Larry Suarez could be better than Kevin Gregg next year.

 

The numbers aren't valid for comparison as they were not facing even remotely the same talent pool.

 

It is highly unlikely that Jose Ceda is major league ready next year, and to the point that he is ready to be an above average major league reliever.

 

Those are not his actual numbers, those are his MLE (major league equivalents). Most players make the jump from AA to the majors. It is not highly unlikely that Ceda will pitch in the majors next year by any stretch of the imagination.

[17 Seconds]

Decent move by Hendry. This always seems to be his MO, by taking an unproven and getting something of value. Looking at Gregg's numbers over the last 2 years it is hard to understand the criticism. The only difference in Gregg and Ceda's numbers is that Gregg is producing at the major league level. Sure Ceda may figure it out someday (even next year) and make a decent reliever, but if I had to pick between which one I would want to go into Spring Training with in 2009, I would pick Gregg no doubt.

 

I have a feeling you're only looking at ERA. Kevin Gregg really isn't very good. He's a mediocre reliever who is going to make millions next season. How is he better than Michael Wuertz?

 

Also yuou seem to be forgetting that Ceda's value to the Cubs is not just what he can contribute to our team. He has trade value and we just wasted it on a guy who isn't an upgrade to a lot of guys we already have.

 

Where is Ceda's trade value?

 

And what other stats are you evaluating Gregg on? I am not disagreeing with you, I am just wanting to know.

 

What do you mean by "where is Ceda's trade value"? I don't understand that question.

 

As for Gregg, you can simply look at his stats yourself. He's basically Michael Wuertz. He walks a ton of guys and gives up a lot of baserunners. He's another "hold your breath" reliever. We have enough of those already and they don't make as much as he will this season.

 

You said he has trade value. What is that value? I assume you have some information on what that value is, that it is considerate enough that we made a huge blunder trading away someone with an escalated value such as Ceda?

 

I can look at the stats. I have looked at the stats. The 'stats' is not very specific though. Which ones are you using to measure? If it is a few simple ones, it should be relatively easy to say which ones. Note that I said I didn't disagree with you on Gregg. I still don't. I just am curious as to which ones you are using to make that statement.

 

Are you for real? So a guy only has trade value if I can name what players he can be traded for? wtf? And where did I say he had such escalated trade value? I never acted like he's some stud prospect who wuill be a key part in future trades. However, I do know that he's worth more than a mediocre reliever who will make millions next year and isn't much of an upgrade to a lot of guys we have now.

 

As for the stats, I don't understand you. Do you not understand how to look at statistics? You can look at them and very easily come to the conclusion of why I think he's a very mediocre reliever. What do you want from me? Over the past 5 seasons he's basically been a 1.30 WHIP guy who walks everybody.

 

Yes, a guy only has trade value if someone is willing to trade someone for him. But given that he is a minor league relief pitcher, which generally is not a position that holds that much of trade value, you may use other minor league relief options that are similar to Ceda to show how he could have been a part of a key trade. I assume that is your complaint since you said we just wasted his trade value.

 

Escalated trade value would be a trade value higher than Gregg. He must have more, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining. I am wondering what you are basing that off of.

 

Oh, so WHIP is the stat you are looking at. Did you not see Ceda's WHIP of 1.32 in AA last year?

 

I don't think you understand how mediocre Gregg's value is with his salary, injury concerns, and mediocre performance. Saying that anything better than Gregg would be considered "escalated trade value" is pretty absurd.

 

Baseball America ranked Ceda as our 4th best prospect in 2008. Were they just full of it?

 

Yes I saw Ceda's WHIP at AA. So did BA. I also saw all the strikeouts. I also saw his age. Did you? Besides, comparing his stats at 21 to Gregg's current stats is pretty dumb. Really dumb actually. Can you tell me how Gregg is noticably better than Michael Wuertz?

 

I'm not here to debate how good Ceda is. All we know about what guys value is is what people around baseball say. According to pretty much everybody who is even remotely involved, Ceda has better value than what we just used him for. Stop trying to ct like I think Ceda is some great player who we'll regret getting rid of.

 

Edit: Oh, and WHIP wasn't the only stat I was looking at for Gregg. It was just an example I gave because you kept asking for stats like yopu were unable to find them yourself.

 

HE'S NOT THAT GOOD

[imb]

i'm not a big ceda fan, but i really thought (think?) is value would have been higher as part of a bigger package, instead of a one-for-one for a slightly above average reliever

[Soul]

 

He's talking about the difference between wood and gregg for this year

 

which is stupid considering wood's contract will run another 3 years or so past this one

 

Just wait until Hendry signs Gregg longer term, and Wood winds up somewhere for reasonable dollars.

 

Come on IMB, you've seen this movie before.

[17 Seconds]

 

Sample size alert, but...

 

Ceda's MLE for his 2008 relief stats:

FIP=3.68

Average against: 261

BABIP: 346

BB/9: 3.67

K/9: 9.17

 

Gregg's 2008 stats

FIP=3.80

Average against: 208

BABIP: 261

BB/9: 4.85

K/9: 7.60

 

Its not out of the realm of possibility. You act as if I'm saying Larry Suarez could be better than Kevin Gregg next year.

 

The numbers aren't valid for comparison as they were not facing even remotely the same talent pool.

 

It is highly unlikely that Jose Ceda is major league ready next year, and to the point that he is ready to be an above average major league reliever.

 

Those are not his actual numbers, those are his MLE (major league equivalents). Most players make the jump from AA to the majors. It is not highly unlikely that Ceda will pitch in the majors next year by any stretch of the imagination.

 

MLE is way over that guy's head

[UK1679666180]

I don't know what other moves can be made by saving the 7.5+ mil

 

What does $7.5m have to do with anything?

 

 

Gregg is due a big raise in arbitration and is going to be a free agent soon. You can be certain Hendry has thought long and hard about signing him longterm.

 

That and the years are what Hendry likely had to calculate between Wood and Gregg. They didn't want to bring back Wood for what he's asking and had to replace him.

 

Gregg even with his arby raise isn't going to get close what Wood is going to cost, I'm sure Hendry has thought about locking him up long-term, although I doubt he'll do it this off-season.

 

Ideally, Gregg signs a one year deal, has an outstanding year and puts himself into a Type A FA and the Cubs get a decent draft pick.

[Soul]

If Ceda comes up and performs....

 

I don't even want to think about that.

[17 Seconds]

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

 

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

 

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

 

Wow that is some interesting logic

 

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

 

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

 

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

 

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

 

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

 

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

 

$40 million over 4 years to a guy whose career was an inch away from being done just over a year ago is not change

 

how can you seriously believe yourself

 

BUT TELL ME WHAT PLAYER WE COULD SIGN WITH THAT MONEY THAT MAKES US BETTER. ANSWER ME THAT

 

seriously. i don't get how anyone can think this way. i mean, soul, try and look more than 6 months into the future, man.

 

You are very convinced that Wood's arm is going to fall off. It didn't this year, with full duty. If it's that certain, then no other team should offer him more than a couple years. If they do, and it works out, we'll talk.

 

$4-$5 million per year is just not that much money for this ballclub. That's pretty much Blanco money. In 4 years it will be even less.

 

You really think Wood is only going to get 4-5 a year?

 

No, I'm talking about the hypothetical savings difference.

 

Then why aren't you taking incto account the difference in lengths of contracts? Because you don't want to...because it kills your argument

[windycityfan]

Any intent here to flip Marmol to the Padres in the Peavy negotiations?

[OleMissCub]

This isn't overly relevant but i was just looking at our bullpen stats the last couple of years and I noticed that Marmol's ERA+ in 69 IP in 2007 was 326. That's [expletive].

[nilodnayr]

Someone said something about trading Gregg next year...we can't he'll be a FA.