Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[mdwilla]

Kaplan has a man crush on Figgins or his source does because Figgins comes up a lot with Kaplan.

[BigbadB]

If Hendry somehow screws up this Peavy deal, he will officially be dead to me.

 

How can he screw up something that was never clsoe to happening? Peavy to the Cubs has always been a long shot. You're acting like he could have him right now if he wanted, which is not true.

 

Something that was not close to happening? Let me see..... The Cubs were one of 5 teams that had a chance at Peavy. Then they were one of 4 teams. Then they were one of 3 teams. Then they were one of 2 teams. Then they were one of 1 teams.

 

But, yeah, you're right. It was never close to happening. :roll:

 

Umm, wasn't "not close to happening" an exact quote from Towers multiple times? He just said in that radio interview a couple days ago that the Cubs don't have the pieces and that it would take a 3rd or 4th team, and that it would be very complicated and would take a while. So that is close? Riigghhhhhhhtttt. The fact that the Cubs were one of the few teams talking with Towers about Peavy does in no way mean something was close. Come on.

 

Excuse me. But let's not change your exact quote of "never close to happening" to "not close to happening".

 

When you were the only team bargaining with the Padres, you cannot toss around the term "never close to happening".

[17 Seconds]

Kaplan has a man crush on Figgins or his source does because Figgins comes up a lot with Kaplan.

 

That's true...I remember last offseason he kept saying how the Cubs were after him... only for that to be denied by the Cubs (and other souces) later on.

 

I really wouldn't put too much stock into what Dave Kaplan says.

 

Really at this point I listen to the 2 Bruces and that's it. Mostly Miles but Levine seems pretty accurate too.

[17 Seconds]

If Hendry somehow screws up this Peavy deal, he will officially be dead to me.

 

How can he screw up something that was never clsoe to happening? Peavy to the Cubs has always been a long shot. You're acting like he could have him right now if he wanted, which is not true.

 

Something that was not close to happening? Let me see..... The Cubs were one of 5 teams that had a chance at Peavy. Then they were one of 4 teams. Then they were one of 3 teams. Then they were one of 2 teams. Then they were one of 1 teams.

 

But, yeah, you're right. It was never close to happening. :roll:

 

Umm, wasn't "not close to happening" an exact quote from Towers multiple times? He just said in that radio interview a couple days ago that the Cubs don't have the pieces and that it would take a 3rd or 4th team, and that it would be very complicated and would take a while. So that is close? Riigghhhhhhhtttt. The fact that the Cubs were one of the few teams talking with Towers about Peavy does in no way mean something was close. Come on.

 

Excuse me. But let's not change your exact quote of "never close to happening" to "not close to happening".

 

When you were the only team bargaining with the Padres, you cannot toss around the term "never close to happening".

 

I really don't see the difference between those 2 different things. If you're interpreting those differently then you're mistaken, I use them both the same way.

 

There is close to happening, and there is not close to happening. "Never" close to happening means simply that it never got the point where it was close to happening. Pretty simple. By you saying "don't screw this up Hendry" you're implying that Hendry has the option of getting Peavy and all he has to do is take care of business, which is not at all true.

 

"Never close to happening" doesn't mean that it couldn't have quickly gotten close to happening. It just never did.

[BigbadB]

"Never close to happening" doesn't mean that it couldn't have quickly gotten close to happening. It just never did.

 

Forget it. There is obviously no reasoning with you.

[Clem Fandango]

FWIW Kaplan also said he thinks Ryan Dempster will win 20 games next year.

 

He would've been a 20 game winner this year had the bullpen not blown some of the leads he left the game with. This does not even include games where he got crummy run support that the Cubs later won after he was pulled

[Guancous]

Chone Figgins put up the following OPS+ stats over the last five years: 103, 101, 85, 117, 82. The good news is that he should be cheap. The bad news is that Figgins turns 31 this year. Juan Pierre was 29 when he started to suck.

[Cubswin11]

FWIW Kaplan also said he thinks Ryan Dempster will win 20 games next year.

 

He would've been a 20 game winner this year had the bullpen not blown some of the leads he left the game with. This does not even include games where he got crummy run support that the Cubs later won after he was pulled

Yeah for like the first month and a half he didn't win on the road and it had nothing to do with how he pitched, his number were virtually the same home/away except the bullpen always blew up on him or the offense didn't support him.

[17 Seconds]

"Never close to happening" doesn't mean that it couldn't have quickly gotten close to happening. It just never did.

 

Forget it. There is obviously no reasoning with you.

 

Are you joking? Nice copout there.

 

I'll make this simple

 

"Not close to happening" - current tense

 

"Was never close to happening" aka "never got close to happening"- past tense

 

At this time, it was not close to happening. Since we're talking abbut the past, it's now "never was close to happening"

 

Do you really not understand this? It's not my fault you're misinterpreting things and then rolling your eyes when you don't understand basic reading comprehension. The bottom line is that you acted as though the ball is in Hendry's court and all he has to do is "not screw it up" when that is not even close to being true.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

jersey and I never really settled this a while back. did his parents spell "Shawn" wrong, or do they not know how to pronounce "Chone"?

 

anywho, Kaplan's a bumbling fool and I wish he posted here so I could add him to my foes list

[Hall7810]

In his article posted at 10:31PM, Paul Sullivan--(I know) makes it sound like the Cubs are still after Peavy.

 

Hendry is still trying to find a way to fit Padres ace Jake Peavy into the picture. The Cubs are the sole remaining bidders for Peavy, who could be the final piece of a dream rotation that already includes Dempster, Carlos Zambrano, Rich Harden and Ted Lilly.

[SweetZombieJesus]

I'd assume one of those guys would not be here if the cubs are still after Peavy.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd assume one of those guys would not be here if the cubs are still after Peavy.

 

What, Harden or Lilly? Why? Harden makes less than Marquis, and IIRC the difference between Lilly and Marquis is like 1M. With the obsession with handedness there's no way they deal Lilly and go with an all righty rotation. With the franchise leaning towards not being incompetent bumbling fools of late, there's no way they'd trade Harden.

[SweetZombieJesus]

I'd assume one of those guys would not be here if the cubs are still after Peavy.

 

What, Harden or Lilly? Why? Harden makes less than Marquis, and IIRC the difference between Lilly and Marquis is like 1M. With the obsession with handedness there's no way they deal Lilly and go with an all righty rotation. With the franchise leaning towards not being incompetent bumbling fools of late, there's no way they'd trade Harden.

 

My guess would be Harden because Marquis wouldn't get the necessary piece to get peavy unless they ate his entire salary and even then it's debatable.

[cubsfan26]

Thats a interesting thought, would you guys trade Harden to a contender in a three way deal, if it means getting Peavy?

[Clem Fandango]

Thats a interesting thought, would you guys trade Harden to a contender in a three way deal, if it means getting Peavy?

 

I brought that idea up in the old Peavy thread, just to throw it out there.

 

My answer is no. I think Harden is one of the Top 5 best pitchers in all of baseball when he's healthy, and his numbers when he's healthy are hard to dispute that idea. If he stays healthy this year, he has the ability to be one of the 3 best pitchers in the NL. The other two being Johan Santana and Jake Peavy. Now imagine having one of them in our rotation as well. I would dare say Harden is better than Peavy, but Harden's injury history puts him out of most discussions about the best pitcher in baseball, even though his stuff is absurdly good and worthy of the recognition.

 

I wouldn't want Peavy if it means we lose Harden. Especially when all signs point to use making a deal for Peavy without losing him. Harden is costing us $7 million next year. He's the lowest paid starting pitcher in the rotation, and he's the best pitcher on the team. If we got Peavy, I'd go so far as to say Harden would still be the best pitcher in the rotation... if he remains healthy.

 

Having Peavy without Harden in our rotation wouldn't have as much foam-at-the-mouth appeal to it. If we got Peavy we'd have the greatest 1-5 rotation in all of baseball, and perhaps one of the best in the recent history of the game if they can remain healthy and fulfill their expectations

[Cubsfan8910]

Is the Peavy deal close? Was it not close? Was it never close? Can someone clear this up for us?

 

:banghead:

[Rob]

Is the Peavy deal close? Was it not close? Was it never close? Can someone clear this up for us?

 

:banghead:

 

The Cubs are currently the only team in serious negotiations for Peavy. However, due to our lack of pitching prospects, we're trying to get a third (or maybe even fourth) team involved to facilitate a deal. No other team is making a serious bid at Peavy right now though, so we're taking our sweet time getting a deal worked out. It could be a while yet.

[17 Seconds]

Is the Peavy deal close? Was it not close? Was it never close? Can someone clear this up for us?

 

:banghead:

 

The Cubs are currently the only team in serious negotiations for Peavy. However, due to our lack of pitching prospects, we're trying to get a third (or maybe even fourth) team involved to facilitate a deal. No other team is making a serious bid at Peavy right now though, so we're taking our sweet time getting a deal worked out. It could be a while yet.

 

No, the Braves are back in.

 

Towers wouldn't rule out the possibility of circling back around to the Braves, who last week said they were moving on after a deal couldn't be reached.

 

"You never know ... we certainly made more progress with them," Towers said. "We were able to ID and agree upon a large part of the package."

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081118&content_id=3683690&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp

 

Edit: Actually, wait a second. That was posted earlier but I think I may have interpreted wrong. He says "we certainly made more progress with them". By "more" is he saying that he made more progress with the Braves since they supposedly dropped out of talks last week, or is he saying that they made more progress with the Braves previously than they have with the Cubs?

[17 Seconds]

I saw this over on braves-nation.com. The first part of the post doesn't really have to do with Peavy but it's not really worthy of it's own thread so I'll just post it in here.

 

Here's what was said on the San Diego Sports talk station today. The Cubs are shopping Derek Lee and Jason Marquis and Kerry Wood is done with the Cubs. I'm sure what this means offer than dropping salaries.

 

The best offer for Peavy is the Braves deal but it seems that Peavy has not be asked to approve of the trade. Possible hang up is the no trade clause. Peavy's agent wants it and the braves policy is not to give them.

 

This would be kind of an interesting spin on the Peavy/ATL stuff and might make DonnieD's story make more sense. I read this on another article too. The Braves don't want Peavy's NTC but Peavy doesn't want to give it up. Maybe this is why Peavy told Donnie he wouldn't be going to Atlanta.

 

http://www.braves-nation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13039&page=128

[17 Seconds]

Another small note from Gammons yesterday.

 

• The Braves' deal for Jake Peavy is not dead. Sending Jose Ceda to Florida lessened the Cubs' chances. The Yankees are not in the running at all. Frank Wren still believes the Braves will get this trade done.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3709231&name=gammons_peter

[RedFlash]

Another small note from Gammons yesterday.

 

• The Braves' deal for Jake Peavy is not dead. Sending Jose Ceda to Florida lessened the Cubs' chances. The Yankees are not in the running at all. Frank Wren still believes the Braves will get this trade done.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3709231&name=gammons_peter

 

Losing Ceda doesn't hurt the Cubs chances all that much to be honest. Besides how much value does a relief prospect truly have? I just don't get how some people think losing Ceda matter all that much? If the Padres were asking for a middle relief prospect in a deal for Peavy then they truly don't value Peavy at all. One more thing if the Padres truly were asking for Ceda in any deal then why did the Cubs trade him to the Marlins? My opinion is the Padres/Cubs never discussed Ceda in any deal, or the Cubs would have kept Ceda. So again, I don't see losing Ceda hurts as much as some think.

[mikeyt34]

Another small note from Gammons yesterday.

 

• The Braves' deal for Jake Peavy is not dead. Sending Jose Ceda to Florida lessened the Cubs' chances. The Yankees are not in the running at all. Frank Wren still believes the Braves will get this trade done.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3709231&name=gammons_peter

 

And then Gammons commenting on the Dempster signing mentioned he still thought a deal with the Braves and Padres for Peavy would still happen eventually. Gammons is assuming Peavy would accept the deal to go to Atlanta? Guess this will test DonnieD's statements.

 

Video of Gammons comments about Dempster's signing, and Peavy's chances of going to the Braves...

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3711171&categoryId=2521705

[Banedon]

Wasn't it David Kaplan that was all but proclaiming Pudge was a Cub a few years back?

[biittner77]

Losing Ceda doesn't hurt the Cubs chances all that much to be honest. Besides how much value does a relief prospect truly have? I just don't get how some people think losing Ceda matter all that much? If the Padres were asking for a middle relief prospect in a deal for Peavy then they truly don't value Peavy at all. One more thing if the Padres truly were asking for Ceda in any deal then why did the Cubs trade him to the Marlins? My opinion is the Padres/Cubs never discussed Ceda in any deal, or the Cubs would have kept Ceda. So again, I don't see losing Ceda hurts as much as some think.

 

Didn't the Cubs get Ceda from the Padres for Walker? Seems like if they gave him away once, it's hard to believe he'd be a deal breaker now.