Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[CUBZ99]

Bruce in his latest blog indicates the Cubs are still interested in Peavy, but trading for him may not be the top priority.

 

Link.

 

I still remember the hue and cry a few years ago when the Cubs lost lefty Andy Sisco to the Royals in the Rule 5. As it turned out, that didn’t hurt the Cubs at all.

 

You all know who you are.

 

i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?"

 

We shouldn't really be laughing at anybody, people on here thought Matt Murton was good. Choi was destined for greatness. Bobby Hill for Aramis Rameriz WTF?? Signing Mark DeRosa for 3/14MM is Hendry crazy? Lilly at 4/$44MM what a waste of money, we should have signed Schmidt instead. Cubs should push hard to sign Fukudome........

[inari]

Okay, no one in the world was saying Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez was a bad idea. No one.

[Derwood]

Okay, no one in the world was saying Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez was a bad idea. No one.

 

oh yeah they did

[inari]

Okay, no one in the world was saying Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez was a bad idea. No one.

 

oh yeah they did

 

I wasn't here, but that's just so hard to believe. Really?

[Derwood]

Okay, no one in the world was saying Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez was a bad idea. No one.

 

oh yeah they did

 

I wasn't here, but that's just so hard to believe. Really?

 

a vocal minority

[imb]

Okay, no one in the world was saying Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez was a bad idea. No one.

 

oh yeah they did

 

I wasn't here, but that's just so hard to believe. Really?

 

a vocal minority

 

I think my reaction when I realized bobby hill was included was "this makes me like the deal a whole lot less."

[imb]

Bruce in his latest blog indicates the Cubs are still interested in Peavy, but trading for him may not be the top priority.

 

Link.

 

I still remember the hue and cry a few years ago when the Cubs lost lefty Andy Sisco to the Royals in the Rule 5. As it turned out, that didn’t hurt the Cubs at all.

 

You all know who you are.

 

i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?"

 

We shouldn't really be laughing at anybody, people on here thought Matt Murton was good. Choi was destined for greatness. Bobby Hill for Aramis Rameriz WTF?? Signing Mark DeRosa for 3/14MM is Hendry crazy? Lilly at 4/$44MM what a waste of money, we should have signed Schmidt instead. Cubs should push hard to sign Fukudome........

 

oh, im not making fun of them. i'd imagine about 99 percent of cubs fans had the same reaction. "who is this fat catching idiot that can't hit???"

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Okay, no one in the world was saying Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez was a bad idea. No one.

 

oh yeah they did

 

I wasn't here, but that's just so hard to believe. Really?

 

Guilty.

[Soul]

Okay, no one in the world was saying Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez was a bad idea. No one.

 

oh yeah they did

 

I wasn't here, but that's just so hard to believe. Really?

 

Guilty.

 

I think it's natural for fans to overvalue their team's prospects sometimes. At the time there was hope that Hill would be a big part of our future.

 

Let's remember that as a Cub ARam has made significant improvements -- especially with the glove.

[BigbadB]

Okay, no one in the world was saying Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez was a bad idea. No one.

 

oh yeah they did

 

I wasn't here, but that's just so hard to believe. Really?

 

I don't think it's that black and white. I was very hopeful that Bobby Hill was going to be the answer at 2b. You have to remember that the Cubs were running a whole host of crappy 2b's out there on a regular basis.

 

I didn't want Bobby Hill included in the trade. But, it was more to the fact that the Cubs gave the Pirates 3 guys to pick from as the PTBNL, and Hill was just one of the rumored 3 choices. I want to say that the other two were Steve Smyth and the third was Francis Beltran. Brownie points for me for remembering if those were the actual 3.

 

I also want to say that the Pirates already had Freddie Sanchez (and another 2b prospect that was considered a top prospect at the time) and their pitching was a disaster, so the hope was that Steve Smyth would be the PTBNL.

 

I was enamored with Aramis in Pittsburgh, and was thrilled we got him so cheap. It sucked that it costed Bobby Hill, but Aramis>>>>>>>>Bobby Hill then, and Aramis>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bobby Hill now.

 

ETA: Sanchez was traded to the Pirates on July 31, '03. The Aramis trade was made a week before that. However, the PTBNL (Hill) didn't go to Pittsburgh until August 15th. Looks like Jose Castillo was the prospect at the time.

[Jehrico]

Bruce in his latest blog indicates the Cubs are still interested in Peavy, but trading for him may not be the top priority.

 

Link.

 

I still remember the hue and cry a few years ago when the Cubs lost lefty Andy Sisco to the Royals in the Rule 5. As it turned out, that didn’t hurt the Cubs at all.

 

You all know who you are.

 

i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?"

That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both.

[BigbadB]

I really hate being a conspiracy theorist, but I do have to wonder why there has been absolutely no talk about Jake Peavy lately.

 

The Braves seem to be talking to the Rangers about Padilla and Millwood.

 

I was reading an Oakland A's blog (clicked a link on MLBTR) and it was a pretty well documented article that explained (in the eyes of the blogger) how poorly Kevin Towers has handled this whole Peavy fiasco.

 

Granted, Peavy has tied the hands of Padres ownership with this NTC, but because everyone knows this, everyone is walking on egg shells as far as what they are willing to offer.

 

At the same time all of this is going on, Padres ownership spit in the face of their HOF closer Trevor Hoffman with their poorly executed negotiations. The latest rumor I've heard was that the Padres may now put the originally offered contract back on the table for Hoffman as a way to save face with that relationship.

 

Meanwhile part deaux, The Padres picked up the option for Brian Giles, the biggest contract the Padres were shelling out for the '09 season. The Padres could try to trade Giles, but Giles has already stated that he will not waive his NTC to go ANYWHERE.

 

To trim the payroll in half as Moores has pretty much eluded to, Giles, Hoffman, Greene and Peavy needed to be traded or let go. Peavy was the only one with a guaranteed contract of the 3 for 2009.

 

Giles did hint that he might be willing to go to a team that has a chance to win, but it sounded more like he was talking about 2010 rather than 2009.

 

So, just for fun, I offer this crazy little trade, since it doesn't appear as though the Padres will get anything significant for Greene or Giles, and not enough for Peavy.

 

Cubs get Peavy, Greene and Giles (approximately 25m in payroll for 2009)

Padres get Marquis, Theriot, Pie, Marshall, Castillo and Hart (Cubs pick up 3m of Marquis' contract).

 

Soriano

Giles

Lee

Ramirez

Soto

DeRosa

Fukudome

Greene

 

Bench:

Johnson, Fontenot, Cedeno, Hoffpauir, Blanco/other backup C

 

SP

 

Peavy

Zambrano

Harden

Dempster

Lilly

 

With this trade, the Padres fill all their roster holes.

 

LF Headley

CF Pie

RF Gerut

3b Kouzmanoff

SS Theriot

2b E. Gonzalez/Antonelli

1b Gonzalez

C Hundley

 

SP: Young, Marquis, Marshall, Baek, 5th starter from a plethora of choices within their crappy system.

 

Cubs add 20m to payroll and Padres skim 20m from payroll. And the savings from last year's payroll of Edmonds, Maddux, Iguchi, Hoffman, Wolf, Bard and Barrett, they should reach their goal and they'd actually have some money to spend to fill a hole or two where it is warranted.

 

If Greene and Peavy were going to be traded, it's possible that Giles might be willing to waive his NTC to be a part of the trade.

 

The Orioles turned down Khalil Greene for Garrett Olson. In other words, Towers has played all of his cards and no one is taking them seriously. But, from everything we have read, Hendry has been the one guy who has continued to show interest, even if it appears as though he too has started to move on.

 

Cubs don't seem to be big players for Furcal. Nor do they seem to be enthralled with any of the FA lefty hitting outfielders, especially if they cost draft picks. Wood has already been shown the door, and Peavy has been rumored to favor pitching for the Cubs.

 

Do the Cubs have 20m lying around? I'm guessing they do if they move Marquis. Greene and Giles only have contracts through this next season.

 

That's my crazy trade thought of the day. I'm sure I'll sour on it in an hour or two.

[Backtobanks]

I really hate being a conspiracy theorist, but I do have to wonder why there has been absolutely no talk about Jake Peavy lately.

 

The Braves seem to be talking to the Rangers about Padilla and Millwood.

 

I was reading an Oakland A's blog (clicked a link on MLBTR) and it was a pretty well documented article that explained (in the eyes of the blogger) how poorly Kevin Towers has handled this whole Peavy fiasco.

 

Granted, Peavy has tied the hands of Padres ownership with this NTC, but because everyone knows this, everyone is walking on egg shells as far as what they are willing to offer.

 

At the same time all of this is going on, Padres ownership spit in the face of their HOF closer Trevor Hoffman with their poorly executed negotiations. The latest rumor I've heard was that the Padres may now put the originally offered contract back on the table for Hoffman as a way to save face with that relationship.

 

Meanwhile part deaux, The Padres picked up the option for Brian Giles, the biggest contract the Padres were shelling out for the '09 season. The Padres could try to trade Giles, but Giles has already stated that he will not waive his NTC to go ANYWHERE.

 

To trim the payroll in half as Moores has pretty much eluded to, Giles, Hoffman, Greene and Peavy needed to be traded or let go. Peavy was the only one with a guaranteed contract of the 3 for 2009.

 

Giles did hint that he might be willing to go to a team that has a chance to win, but it sounded more like he was talking about 2010 rather than 2009.

 

So, just for fun, I offer this crazy little trade, since it doesn't appear as though the Padres will get anything significant for Greene or Giles, and not enough for Peavy.

 

Cubs get Peavy, Greene and Giles (approximately 25m in payroll for 2009)

Padres get Marquis, Theriot, Pie, Marshall, Castillo and Hart (Cubs pick up 3m of Marquis' contract).

 

Soriano

Giles

Lee

Ramirez

Soto

DeRosa

Fukudome

Greene

 

Bench:

Johnson, Fontenot, Cedeno, Hoffpauir, Blanco/other backup C

 

SP

 

Peavy

Zambrano

Harden

Dempster

Lilly

 

With this trade, the Padres fill all their roster holes.

 

LF Headley

CF Pie

RF Gerut

3b Kouzmanoff

SS Theriot

2b E. Gonzalez/Antonelli

1b Gonzalez

C Hundley

 

SP: Young, Marquis, Marshall, Baek, 5th starter from a plethora of choices within their crappy system.

 

Cubs add 20m to payroll and Padres skim 20m from payroll. And the savings from last year's payroll of Edmonds, Maddux, Iguchi, Hoffman, Wolf, Bard and Barrett, they should reach their goal and they'd actually have some money to spend to fill a hole or two where it is warranted.

 

If Greene and Peavy were going to be traded, it's possible that Giles might be willing to waive his NTC to be a part of the trade.

 

The Orioles turned down Khalil Greene for Garrett Olson. In other words, Towers has played all of his cards and no one is taking them seriously. But, from everything we have read, Hendry has been the one guy who has continued to show interest, even if it appears as though he too has started to move on.

 

Cubs don't seem to be big players for Furcal. Nor do they seem to be enthralled with any of the FA lefty hitting outfielders, especially if they cost draft picks. Wood has already been shown the door, and Peavy has been rumored to favor pitching for the Cubs.

 

Do the Cubs have 20m lying around? I'm guessing they do if they move Marquis. Greene and Giles only have contracts through this next season.

 

That's my crazy trade thought of the day. I'm sure I'll sour on it in an hour or two.

 

Towers is finding out that many teams are now at the point that they don't want to give up their top prospects. Hopefully, the Cubs will be the last team standing and he will have to trade Peavy for less than what he wants. I'm not a big fan of Greene, but Giles could be an okay pickup. I'm sure we would all prefer a younger LH RF with more power (Hermida). If we reduce the trade, maybe we could flip Marquis (plus cash) and Greene to the O's for Scott instead of getting Giles.

[cubsfan26]

Bruce in his latest blog indicates the Cubs are still interested in Peavy, but trading for him may not be the top priority.

 

Link.

 

I still remember the hue and cry a few years ago when the Cubs lost lefty Andy Sisco to the Royals in the Rule 5. As it turned out, that didn’t hurt the Cubs at all.

 

You all know who you are.

 

i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?"

That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both.

 

 

I think the perceive value of a player, causes fans to overrate these guys. Personally I was upset when they let Sisco go for nothing. But I don't think Hendry is an idiot or most Gm's are in this situation. We as fans think we know how valueable these players are, but the GM's know how valueable these guys are. I'm sure months before Hendry even allowed Sisco to be in the rule 5 draft, he tried to trade him for something worth wide.

 

 

 

I think he's in a simliar situation with Donald Veal this offseason. Too me it would seem like Veal would have some value still, since he was a high thought of prospect just a few years ago and still has good stuff. But I'm sure by now Hendry has shopped Veal name around alot, and knows he probably can't get anything of good value in return for him. So it's then up to a GM to decide, do I keep this guy on the roster. Even though he is probably less likely to make it to the majors then others, even though he has more upside? Do I just trade him for whatever I can get for him? Or do I take my chances he either won't get drafted or won't stick on a major league roster next year, and I have him back?

 

 

 

In the Soto/Sisco(I know those weren't the only options) situation it worked out good. Just imagine if we let Soto go in the Rule 5, and some team decided to keep him as a cheap back up catcher for a year. Soto being ROY on another team, and the Cubs not making the playoffs this year(Soto not on the team would have made it alot tougher), could have caused Hendry to lose his job. Thats why sometimes with trade and other things us fans should sometimes just wait and see, before we start to chew out the GM.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Sisco had a ton of value at one point, but it certainly wasn't when he was taken in Rule 5. He was coming off a mediocre year at Daytona, and had questions about his weight and his attitude(breaking his hand in a stupid argument with Ryu the previous year).

[imb]

Bruce in his latest blog indicates the Cubs are still interested in Peavy, but trading for him may not be the top priority.

 

Link.

 

I still remember the hue and cry a few years ago when the Cubs lost lefty Andy Sisco to the Royals in the Rule 5. As it turned out, that didn’t hurt the Cubs at all.

 

You all know who you are.

 

i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?"

That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both.

 

 

I think the perceive value of a player, causes fans to overrate these guys. Personally I was upset when they let Sisco go for nothing. But I don't think Hendry is an idiot or most Gm's are in this situation. We as fans think we know how valueable these players are, but the GM's know how valueable these guys are. I'm sure months before Hendry even allowed Sisco to be in the rule 5 draft, he tried to trade him for something worth wide.

 

 

 

I think he's in a simliar situation with Donald Veal this offseason. Too me it would seem like Veal would have some value still, since he was a high thought of prospect just a few years ago and still has good stuff. But I'm sure by now Hendry has shopped Veal name around alot, and knows he probably can't get anything of good value in return for him. So it's then up to a GM to decide, do I keep this guy on the roster. Even though he is probably less likely to make it to the majors then others, even though he has more upside? Do I just trade him for whatever I can get for him? Or do I take my chances he either won't get drafted or won't stick on a major league roster next year, and I have him back?

 

 

 

In the Soto/Sisco(I know those weren't the only options) situation it worked out good. Just imagine if we let Soto go in the Rule 5, and some team decided to keep him as a cheap back up catcher for a year. Soto being ROY on another team, and the Cubs not making the playoffs this year(Soto not on the team would have made it alot tougher), could have caused Hendry to lose his job. Thats why sometimes with trade and other things us fans should sometimes just wait and see, before we start to chew out the GM.

 

is this redflash in disguise?

[Bull]

Bruce in his latest blog indicates the Cubs are still interested in Peavy, but trading for him may not be the top priority.

 

Link.

 

I still remember the hue and cry a few years ago when the Cubs lost lefty Andy Sisco to the Royals in the Rule 5. As it turned out, that didn’t hurt the Cubs at all.

 

You all know who you are.

 

i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?"

That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both.

 

 

I think the perceive value of a player, causes fans to overrate these guys. Personally I was upset when they let Sisco go for nothing. But I don't think Hendry is an idiot or most Gm's are in this situation. We as fans think we know how valueable these players are, but the GM's know how valueable these guys are. I'm sure months before Hendry even allowed Sisco to be in the rule 5 draft, he tried to trade him for something worth wide.

 

 

 

I think he's in a simliar situation with Donald Veal this offseason. Too me it would seem like Veal would have some value still, since he was a high thought of prospect just a few years ago and still has good stuff. But I'm sure by now Hendry has shopped Veal name around alot, and knows he probably can't get anything of good value in return for him. So it's then up to a GM to decide, do I keep this guy on the roster. Even though he is probably less likely to make it to the majors then others, even though he has more upside? Do I just trade him for whatever I can get for him? Or do I take my chances he either won't get drafted or won't stick on a major league roster next year, and I have him back?

 

 

 

In the Soto/Sisco(I know those weren't the only options) situation it worked out good. Just imagine if we let Soto go in the Rule 5, and some team decided to keep him as a cheap back up catcher for a year. Soto being ROY on another team, and the Cubs not making the playoffs this year(Soto not on the team would have made it alot tougher), could have caused Hendry to lose his job. Thats why sometimes with trade and other things us fans should sometimes just wait and see, before we start to chew out the GM.

 

Its happened the other way too. Eric Hinske anyone?

[Guest]

I think I like Greene more than Theriot - basically for defense. He would hit many more homeruns as a cub than he does in San Diego.

[RedFlash]

Bruce in his latest blog indicates the Cubs are still interested in Peavy, but trading for him may not be the top priority.

 

Link.

 

I still remember the hue and cry a few years ago when the Cubs lost lefty Andy Sisco to the Royals in the Rule 5. As it turned out, that didn’t hurt the Cubs at all.

 

You all know who you are.

 

i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?"

That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both.

 

 

I think the perceive value of a player, causes fans to overrate these guys. Personally I was upset when they let Sisco go for nothing. But I don't think Hendry is an idiot or most Gm's are in this situation. We as fans think we know how valueable these players are, but the GM's know how valueable these guys are. I'm sure months before Hendry even allowed Sisco to be in the rule 5 draft, he tried to trade him for something worth wide.

 

 

 

I think he's in a simliar situation with Donald Veal this offseason. Too me it would seem like Veal would have some value still, since he was a high thought of prospect just a few years ago and still has good stuff. But I'm sure by now Hendry has shopped Veal name around alot, and knows he probably can't get anything of good value in return for him. So it's then up to a GM to decide, do I keep this guy on the roster. Even though he is probably less likely to make it to the majors then others, even though he has more upside? Do I just trade him for whatever I can get for him? Or do I take my chances he either won't get drafted or won't stick on a major league roster next year, and I have him back?

 

 

 

In the Soto/Sisco(I know those weren't the only options) situation it worked out good. Just imagine if we let Soto go in the Rule 5, and some team decided to keep him as a cheap back up catcher for a year. Soto being ROY on another team, and the Cubs not making the playoffs this year(Soto not on the team would have made it alot tougher), could have caused Hendry to lose his job. Thats why sometimes with trade and other things us fans should sometimes just wait and see, before we start to chew out the GM.

 

is this redflash in disguise?

 

No.

[Guest]

Frankly, I don't think Hendry knew anything about Soto but he knew he didn't like Sisco.

[mul21]

Bruce in his latest blog indicates the Cubs are still interested in Peavy, but trading for him may not be the top priority.

 

Link.

 

I still remember the hue and cry a few years ago when the Cubs lost lefty Andy Sisco to the Royals in the Rule 5. As it turned out, that didn’t hurt the Cubs at all.

 

You all know who you are.

 

i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?"

That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both.

 

 

I think the perceive value of a player, causes fans to overrate these guys. Personally I was upset when they let Sisco go for nothing. But I don't think Hendry is an idiot or most Gm's are in this situation. We as fans think we know how valueable these players are, but the GM's know how valueable these guys are. I'm sure months before Hendry even allowed Sisco to be in the rule 5 draft, he tried to trade him for something worth wide.

 

 

 

I think he's in a simliar situation with Donald Veal this offseason. Too me it would seem like Veal would have some value still, since he was a high thought of prospect just a few years ago and still has good stuff. But I'm sure by now Hendry has shopped Veal name around alot, and knows he probably can't get anything of good value in return for him. So it's then up to a GM to decide, do I keep this guy on the roster. Even though he is probably less likely to make it to the majors then others, even though he has more upside? Do I just trade him for whatever I can get for him? Or do I take my chances he either won't get drafted or won't stick on a major league roster next year, and I have him back?

 

 

 

In the Soto/Sisco(I know those weren't the only options) situation it worked out good. Just imagine if we let Soto go in the Rule 5, and some team decided to keep him as a cheap back up catcher for a year. Soto being ROY on another team, and the Cubs not making the playoffs this year(Soto not on the team would have made it alot tougher), could have caused Hendry to lose his job. Thats why sometimes with trade and other things us fans should sometimes just wait and see, before we start to chew out the GM.

 

is this redflash in disguise?

 

Nah, way too coherent.

[RedFlash]

Bruce in his latest blog indicates the Cubs are still interested in Peavy, but trading for him may not be the top priority.

 

Link.

 

I still remember the hue and cry a few years ago when the Cubs lost lefty Andy Sisco to the Royals in the Rule 5. As it turned out, that didn’t hurt the Cubs at all.

 

You all know who you are.

 

i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?"

That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both.

 

 

I think the perceive value of a player, causes fans to overrate these guys. Personally I was upset when they let Sisco go for nothing. But I don't think Hendry is an idiot or most Gm's are in this situation. We as fans think we know how valueable these players are, but the GM's know how valueable these guys are. I'm sure months before Hendry even allowed Sisco to be in the rule 5 draft, he tried to trade him for something worth wide.

 

 

 

I think he's in a simliar situation with Donald Veal this offseason. Too me it would seem like Veal would have some value still, since he was a high thought of prospect just a few years ago and still has good stuff. But I'm sure by now Hendry has shopped Veal name around alot, and knows he probably can't get anything of good value in return for him. So it's then up to a GM to decide, do I keep this guy on the roster. Even though he is probably less likely to make it to the majors then others, even though he has more upside? Do I just trade him for whatever I can get for him? Or do I take my chances he either won't get drafted or won't stick on a major league roster next year, and I have him back?

 

 

 

In the Soto/Sisco(I know those weren't the only options) situation it worked out good. Just imagine if we let Soto go in the Rule 5, and some team decided to keep him as a cheap back up catcher for a year. Soto being ROY on another team, and the Cubs not making the playoffs this year(Soto not on the team would have made it alot tougher), could have caused Hendry to lose his job. Thats why sometimes with trade and other things us fans should sometimes just wait and see, before we start to chew out the GM.

 

is this redflash in disguise?

 

Nah, way too coherent.

 

:read: :old_givebeer:

[cubsfan26]

According to Bruce Levine both sides have agreed to table the discussions for the next 10 days. That time frame would mean the talks would resume a week before the Winter Meetings, December 2nd. It sounds like the Cubs are trying to focus on what their going to do in RF for the this week. So I wouldn't expect any updates on Peavy this week. Levine did say the Cubs still are the only team in the running for Peavy though.

[Butterscup1679666578]

According to Bruce Levine both sides have agreed to table the discussions for the next 10 days. That time frame would mean the talks would resume a week before the Winter Meetings, December 2nd. It sounds like the Cubs are trying to focus on what their going to do in RF for the this week. So I wouldn't expect any updates on Peavy this week. Levine did say the Cubs still are the only team in the running for Peavy though.

 

i bet they just cut it off for thanksgiving so people could spend time with their families so they stopped worrying about it.

[mdwilla]

10 days? It happens before t-day.