Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[Clem Fandango]

Someone posted on another Cubs board that they heard Buster Olney say that the Cubs/Padres have a deal in place. But the Cubs have to trade Marquis and clear his salary before they can do a deal. I dunno how true this is, so take it FWIW.

 

That was posted on here a page or two back, except instead of Marquis having to be traded it was the sale of the Cubs needing to be taken care of as the hold up

[CubsWin]

Someone posted on another Cubs board that they heard Buster Olney say that the Cubs/Padres have a deal in place. But the Cubs have to trade Marquis and clear his salary before they can do a deal. I dunno how true this is, so take it FWIW.

That was also posted earlier in this thread, so take it FWIW. :P

 

We know that Olney wrote it. Whether he knows what he's talking about is another matter...

[cubsfan26]

Someone posted on another Cubs board that they heard Buster Olney say that the Cubs/Padres have a deal in place. But the Cubs have to trade Marquis and clear his salary before they can do a deal. I dunno how true this is, so take it FWIW.

 

That was posted on here a page or two back, except instead of Marquis having to be traded it was the sale of the Cubs needing to be taken care of as the hold up

 

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

[shnsajax]

Someone posted on another Cubs board that they heard Buster Olney say that the Cubs/Padres have a deal in place. But the Cubs have to trade Marquis and clear his salary before they can do a deal. I dunno how true this is, so take it FWIW.

 

That was posted on here a page or two back, except instead of Marquis having to be traded it was the sale of the Cubs needing to be taken care of as the hold up

 

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

 

So basically if Marquis gets traded during the winter meetings this board is going to go on overload waiting for the Peavy trade to follow now.

[cubsfan26]

Someone posted on another Cubs board that they heard Buster Olney say that the Cubs/Padres have a deal in place. But the Cubs have to trade Marquis and clear his salary before they can do a deal. I dunno how true this is, so take it FWIW.

 

That was posted on here a page or two back, except instead of Marquis having to be traded it was the sale of the Cubs needing to be taken care of as the hold up

 

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

 

So basically if Marquis gets traded during the winter meetings this board is going to go on overload waiting for the Peavy trade to follow now.

 

Probably, but even if there wasn't these rumors. I'm pretty sure people would be thinking it was to clear salary for Peavy.

[davearm2]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

[Bruce Miles]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

[USSoccer]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration?

[Bruce Miles]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration?

 

Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know.

[cubsfan26]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Have you heard any updates about Peavy, or LH bats the Cubs are going after?

[17 Seconds]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

So would a potential deal for Peavy have to wait until the ownership situation is resolved or could Hendry do it right now if Marquis is moved?

[davearm2]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration?

 

Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know.

Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him?

 

I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take.

[Bruce Miles]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration?

 

Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know.

Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him?

 

I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take.

 

If Marquis is traded, it certainly would set the stage for a Peavy deal. The Cubs are one half or even one third of the equation still. If they couldn't get Peavy, they appear comfortable with Marshall in the rotation instead of Marquis. The Padres and/or another team would have to agree to something. The first priority is the left-handed bat. Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley all are names the Cubs are looking at, but they're willing to see if the price drops with guys like Ibanez and Abreu. I suggested Bradley in my blog the other day. As of now, nothing is close. That could change over the weekend and certainly by the time we all get to Vegas Sunday night.

[17 Seconds]

Do you think anything could get done at the meetings next week, or is it just likely to be more talk?

[CoolHandLuke]

Maybe I'm a crazy backwards baseball fan, but the off season trade/FA speculation combined with it being prospect list season makes this my favorite time of year.

[gocubs2118]

I really hope Hendry goes hard after Bradley. Plus Ibanez or Abreu don't excite me too much. Ibanez and Abreu are both pretty bad in RF and they are both getting up there in age.

[BigbadB]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration?

 

Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know.

Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him?

 

I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take.

 

If Marquis is traded, it certainly would set the stage for a Peavy deal. The Cubs are one half or even one third of the equation still. If they couldn't get Peavy, they appear comfortable with Marshall in the rotation instead of Marquis. The Padres and/or another team would have to agree to something. The first priority is the left-handed bat. Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley all are names the Cubs are looking at, but they're willing to see if the price drops with guys like Ibanez and Abreu. I suggested Bradley in my blog the other day. As of now, nothing is close. That could change over the weekend and certainly by the time we all get to Vegas Sunday night.

 

Enjoy Vegas, Bruce. I spend a lot of time over at the Vegas Hilton when I'm there. I really like the all girl band that generally plays on stage on the casino's main floor. :shock: And not necessarily for the music.

 

Great get goofy drinks at Quark's. That's probably where you need to take Hendry to get him to loosen his lips.

[davearm2]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration?

 

Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know.

Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him?

 

I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take.

 

If Marquis is traded, it certainly would set the stage for a Peavy deal. The Cubs are one half or even one third of the equation still. If they couldn't get Peavy, they appear comfortable with Marshall in the rotation instead of Marquis. The Padres and/or another team would have to agree to something. The first priority is the left-handed bat. Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley all are names the Cubs are looking at, but they're willing to see if the price drops with guys like Ibanez and Abreu. I suggested Bradley in my blog the other day. As of now, nothing is close. That could change over the weekend and certainly by the time we all get to Vegas Sunday night.

I just looked it up out of curiosity... in 2005 they signed Burnitz on the 5th of Feb... in 2006 they signed Jones on the 10th of Jan.

 

If the Cubs are hoping to find a bargain for RF, there's probably going to be a lot of waiting around required.

[17 Seconds]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration?

 

Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know.

Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him?

 

I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take.

 

If Marquis is traded, it certainly would set the stage for a Peavy deal. The Cubs are one half or even one third of the equation still. If they couldn't get Peavy, they appear comfortable with Marshall in the rotation instead of Marquis. The Padres and/or another team would have to agree to something. The first priority is the left-handed bat. Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley all are names the Cubs are looking at, but they're willing to see if the price drops with guys like Ibanez and Abreu. I suggested Bradley in my blog the other day. As of now, nothing is close. That could change over the weekend and certainly by the time we all get to Vegas Sunday night.

I just looked it up out of curiosity... in 2005 they signed Burnitz on the 5th of Feb... in 2006 they signed Jones on the 10th of Jan.

 

If the Cubs are hoping to find a bargain for RF, there's probably going to be a lot of waiting around required.

 

Actually Jones was signed in mid December

[BigbadB]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration?

 

Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know.

Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him?

 

I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take.

 

If Marquis is traded, it certainly would set the stage for a Peavy deal. The Cubs are one half or even one third of the equation still. If they couldn't get Peavy, they appear comfortable with Marshall in the rotation instead of Marquis. The Padres and/or another team would have to agree to something. The first priority is the left-handed bat. Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley all are names the Cubs are looking at, but they're willing to see if the price drops with guys like Ibanez and Abreu. I suggested Bradley in my blog the other day. As of now, nothing is close. That could change over the weekend and certainly by the time we all get to Vegas Sunday night.

I just looked it up out of curiosity... in 2005 they signed Burnitz on the 5th of Feb... in 2006 they signed Jones on the 10th of Jan.

 

If the Cubs are hoping to find a bargain for RF, there's probably going to be a lot of waiting around required.

 

Actually Jones was signed in mid December

 

And Burnitz wasn't exactly a target. More like a consolation prize.

[Bruce Miles]

Do you think anything could get done at the meetings next week, or is it just likely to be more talk?

 

Something definitely can get done. It'll be a lot of talk, to be sure. A lot of times deals come out of nowhere, liked the Gregg deal, which nobody predicted. I suspect they'll talk seriously with the agents for the hitters while keeping an eye on the San Diego situation. As someone else pointed out, there still could be a fair amount of players left well into the new year. Burnitz was signed the day the Cubs traded Sosa. Maddux signed in '04 on the day before players reported.

 

Never been to Vegas before, and I'm not a gambler. But the hotel bar(s) are full of baseball people. It's a good place to be.

[Bruce Miles]

Yeah I think it's the combo of both. They need the potential new owners to accept his deal long term, but they probably also need to trade Marquis to fit him in the budget for 09.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

 

Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.

 

Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration?

 

Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know.

Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him?

 

I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take.

 

If Marquis is traded, it certainly would set the stage for a Peavy deal. The Cubs are one half or even one third of the equation still. If they couldn't get Peavy, they appear comfortable with Marshall in the rotation instead of Marquis. The Padres and/or another team would have to agree to something. The first priority is the left-handed bat. Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley all are names the Cubs are looking at, but they're willing to see if the price drops with guys like Ibanez and Abreu. I suggested Bradley in my blog the other day. As of now, nothing is close. That could change over the weekend and certainly by the time we all get to Vegas Sunday night.

I just looked it up out of curiosity... in 2005 they signed Burnitz on the 5th of Feb... in 2006 they signed Jones on the 10th of Jan.

 

If the Cubs are hoping to find a bargain for RF, there's probably going to be a lot of waiting around required.

 

Actually Jones was signed in mid December

 

And Burnitz wasn't exactly a target. More like a consolation prize.

 

At that time, yes. Hendry was pretty upset at the all-star break in '03 when he couldn't make a trade for Burnitz. Turns out that was OK. They were able to get Lofton (along with Ramirez) instead.

[The Other 15]

Bruce, why do you believe that a player like Bradley who has a hair trigger on all criticisms of him being rooted in the fact he is black, would be a good fit at Wrigley? That just looks like trouble after a couple of bad slumps

[gocubs2118]

Do you think anything could get done at the meetings next week, or is it just likely to be more talk?

 

Something definitely can get done. It'll be a lot of talk, to be sure. A lot of times deals come out of nowhere, liked the Gregg deal, which nobody predicted. I suspect they'll talk seriously with the agents for the hitters while keeping an eye on the San Diego situation. As someone else pointed out, there still could be a fair amount of players left well into the new year. Burnitz was signed the day the Cubs traded Sosa. Maddux signed in '04 on the day before players reported.

 

Never been to Vegas before, and I'm not a gambler. But the hotel bar(s) are full of baseball people. It's a good place to be.

 

Any clue who his #1 priority is when it comes to RF?

[17 Seconds]

Bruce, why do you believe that a player like Bradley who has a hair trigger on all criticisms of him being rooted in the fact he is black, would be a good fit at Wrigley? That just looks like trouble after a couple of bad slumps

 

i don't know if you meant it that way, but holy hell that sounded racist.