Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[RedFlash]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8926844/Thursday-MLB-winter-meetings-blog

 

Peavy is good as gone. I'm pretty sure he'll approve a trade to the Angels. If this post is right from Rosenthal, then the cubs are done with Peavy.

 

He might approve a trade to the Angels. All indications are that Peavy wants to remain in he NL. Now if it comes down to staying with the Padres or accepting a trade to the Angels, then yeah it's a no brainer. But there is no guarantee he will accept a trade to the Angels, if he feels the Cubs are still in it.

[Garwilly]

What contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are that big of question marks?

 

Umm. All of 'em.

Certainly most, anyway.

 

All of the NL Central for sure.

 

Brett Myers as a #2 is surely a questionmark. As are John Maine and Javier Vazquez.

 

Is Kershaw the Dodgers #2 now behind Billingsley, with Lowe and Penny gone? Huge upside but definitely a questionmark.

 

I'm not talking about question marks, I'm talking about injury and regression. With those teams you're pretty know what you're getting and aren't really counting on those guys to be great. We're counting on that from Harden and Dempster.

 

The bottom line is that if Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, the rotation is not good. That is relevant because there is a pretty good chance both of those things happen.

If Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, then Lilly and Marquis/Marshall/Johnson move up the ladder and instead of being a vastly better rotation, it's a similar rotation.

 

I really don't think you've had a look at what some of these teams have going on right now. There are still FAs yet to sign, but it's not pretty a lot of places.

 

Just to give an example, the Mets now show Santana, Maine, Pelfrey, Niese, Knight. Ugh. The Cubs could lose two guys and still beat that 2-5.

 

Yes but the Mets will likely have a better offense and bullpen. Plus the Mets aren't that great. We're trying to be better than everybody else, not comparable.

You asked for an example and now that you have one (of many available, mind you), you want to try and redirect the conversation from rotations to offense and bullpen?

 

That's really weak man.

 

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

I've already explained to you that I find that example weak, and I already explained it. You just are choosing not to listen. I didn't say "find a team who has question marks as big as Harden and Dempster". I asked who is as likely to get hurt or regress....not suck. The mets aren't expecting John maine to be Rich Harden, and they're not expecting Mike Pelfrey to be 2008 Dempster. Do you not get that?

 

Actually...

 

What contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are that big of question marks?

Edited December 11, 2008 by Garwilly

[davearm2]

What contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are that big of question marks?

 

Umm. All of 'em.

 

Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster

 

Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress.

 

Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance.

 

So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right"

 

Well played.

 

I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM.

 

That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer.

 

Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster.

 

Just one

 

Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work.

 

I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm.

 

The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good.

Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs.

 

Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs.

[cubsfan26]

People aren't looking at the big picture, it's not just what we give up. It's what it does to the team and roster, losing DeRosa and Marshall really hurts team depth. Losing Guzman takes away a reliever with has a bunch of upside in the pen. Trading Pie, Vitters and others takes away all our good trade pieces. Tell me this, what we gonna do if Ramirez or Soriano miss a month or two? Mix that with possibly having Milton Bradley in RF? What we gonna do if Harden makes only 15 starts next year? Who's starting Randy Wells or Mitch Atkins? What if we need to add a player midseason, who do we have to trade? It's not the best interest of the team to trade all of these players for one player. Unless you rather lose with Peavy then win overall.

 

 

Pftttt...

 

Peavy is a difference maker, all the others you listed aren't.

 

You will notice a difference, unless we have perfect health next year, which isn't likely to happen.

[17 Seconds]

What contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are that big of question marks?

 

Umm. All of 'em.

Certainly most, anyway.

 

All of the NL Central for sure.

 

Brett Myers as a #2 is surely a questionmark. As are John Maine and Javier Vazquez.

 

Is Kershaw the Dodgers #2 now behind Billingsley, with Lowe and Penny gone? Huge upside but definitely a questionmark.

 

I'm not talking about question marks, I'm talking about injury and regression. With those teams you're pretty know what you're getting and aren't really counting on those guys to be great. We're counting on that from Harden and Dempster.

 

The bottom line is that if Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, the rotation is not good. That is relevant because there is a pretty good chance both of those things happen.

If Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, then Lilly and Marquis/Marshall/Johnson move up the ladder and instead of being a vastly better rotation, it's a similar rotation.

 

I really don't think you've had a look at what some of these teams have going on right now. There are still FAs yet to sign, but it's not pretty a lot of places.

 

Just to give an example, the Mets now show Santana, Maine, Pelfrey, Niese, Knight. Ugh. The Cubs could lose two guys and still beat that 2-5.

 

Yes but the Mets will likely have a better offense and bullpen. Plus the Mets aren't that great. We're trying to be better than everybody else, not comparable.

You asked for an example and now that you have one (of many available, mind you), you want to try and redirect the conversation from rotations to offense and bullpen?

 

That's really weak man.

 

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

I've already explained to you that I find that example weak, and I already explained it. You just are choosing not to listen. I didn't say "find a team who has question marks as big as Harden and Dempster". I asked who is as likely to get hurt or regress....not suck. The mets aren't expecting John maine to be Rich Harden, and they're not expecting Mike Pelfrey to be 2008 Dempster. Do you not get that?

 

Actually...

 

What contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are that big of question marks?

 

Well played. That was just a poor choice of words, but in the context that I had already established, you know what I meant

[mul21]

I have a problem with DeRosa being included. The last thing we need is to get rid of a good player who happened to show up in the playoffs unlike his other teammates. Who do we replace him with? Fontenot IMO isn't good enough. I don't care what DeRosa's age is. The main focus for the Cubs is to win the world series, how are we going to do that with a lesser offense?

 

Derosa is a nice player but he's not nearly good enough to hold up a trade for far better player. He's replacable, and just because you don't care about his age doesn't mean that it's not an issue.

No, that production is not replaceable at 2B. Now if you tell me you are working on a Furcal deal after DeRo gets moved for Peavy, then we'll talk. But let's not make it seem that DeRo is some scrub player that can be easily replaced by a Fontenot or old ass veteran.

Yeah, DeRosa really showed up in the playoffs when he fumbled an easy DP in Game 2 (opening the floodgates) and then went 0-4 in Game 3. Furthermore, why does DeRosa seem to skate by with mistakes while someone like Soriano never does? I can remember a few times during the season he made dumb defensive or baserunning plays, and nothing was mentioned.

 

Because it was an aberration for DeRosa and not a once a week occurrence like it seems to be for Soriano. And it's not like he didn't get a few hits in the post season. Was it disappointing? Yeah, but they were physical mistakes and not mental errors like other players make. And as others have mentioned, he's making $4 million, not $14 million.

[MSG T]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

This is correct. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen or the offense. It does make both weaker, with DeRo and Marshall both being involved. Unless everyone plans on all five of Z, Lilly, Peavy, Demp and Harden starting 32 games and pitching into the 7th or 8th every game, and Marmol, Shark and Gaudin being the only relievers used.

[Joe_Cub]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8926844/Thursday-MLB-winter-meetings-blog

 

Peavy is good as gone. I'm pretty sure he'll approve a trade to the Angels. If this post is right from Rosenthal, then the cubs are done with Peavy.

 

thank god we still have vitters cedeno and pie

[abuck1220]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

This is correct. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen or the offense. It does make both weaker, with DeRo and Marshall both being involved. Unless everyone plans on all five of Z, Lilly, Peavy, Demp and Harden starting 32 games and pitching into the 7th or 8th every game, and Marmol, Shark and Gaudin being the only relievers used.

 

do you not realize the upgrade of marquis to peavy is worth much more than the downgrade from kevin hart to atkins?

 

yes, the bullpen gets worse if you trade marshall or whatever. but the rotation gets much, much better. and you can't just assume the rotation boost is equal to the bullpen loss because that's insane.

[17 Seconds]

What contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are that big of question marks?

 

Umm. All of 'em.

 

Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster

 

Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress.

 

Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance.

 

So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right"

 

Well played.

 

I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM.

 

That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer.

 

Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster.

 

Just one

 

Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work.

 

I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm.

 

The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good.

Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs.

 

Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs.

 

Here's why it is relevant. The Cubs were what, like 7 wins better than the Phillies last season? We should be trying to widen that gap, not close it. We got lucky last year with a lot of things. I think the offense is likely to lose more than just the Edmonds production. I think we're going to lose some production from DeRosa, Theriot, and Fontenot. Also, the Phillies bullpen is looking a lot better than our as wll.

 

The point is that you build a team based on what you have. When what you have has the potential to fall apart, it can screw a lot of things up. The Phillies showedlast year they could succeed with that mediocre rotation. That doesn't automatically mean we will too.

[17 Seconds]

I have a problem with DeRosa being included. The last thing we need is to get rid of a good player who happened to show up in the playoffs unlike his other teammates. Who do we replace him with? Fontenot IMO isn't good enough. I don't care what DeRosa's age is. The main focus for the Cubs is to win the world series, how are we going to do that with a lesser offense?

 

Derosa is a nice player but he's not nearly good enough to hold up a trade for far better player. He's replacable, and just because you don't care about his age doesn't mean that it's not an issue.

No, that production is not replaceable at 2B. Now if you tell me you are working on a Furcal deal after DeRo gets moved for Peavy, then we'll talk. But let's not make it seem that DeRo is some scrub player that can be easily replaced by a Fontenot or old ass veteran.

Yeah, DeRosa really showed up in the playoffs when he fumbled an easy DP in Game 2 (opening the floodgates) and then went 0-4 in Game 3. Furthermore, why does DeRosa seem to skate by with mistakes while someone like Soriano never does? I can remember a few times during the season he made dumb defensive or baserunning plays, and nothing was mentioned.

 

Because it was an aberration for DeRosa and not a once a week occurrence like it seems to be for Soriano. And it's not like he didn't get a few hits in the post season. Was it disappointing? Yeah, but they were physical mistakes and not mental errors like other players make. And as others have mentioned, he's making $4 million, not $14 million.

 

Actualkly DeRos'a numbers in the last 2 postseasons are quite good.

[cubsfan26]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8926844/Thursday-MLB-winter-meetings-blog

 

Peavy is good as gone. I'm pretty sure he'll approve a trade to the Angels. If this post is right from Rosenthal, then the cubs are done with Peavy.

 

He might approve a trade to the Angels. All indications are that Peavy wants to remain in he NL. Now if it comes down to staying with the Padres or accepting a trade to the Angels, then yeah it's a no brainer. But there is no guarantee he will accept a trade to the Angels, if he feels the Cubs are still in it.

 

 

Plus I don't see the Angels giving into the asking price for Peavy. They have a strong pitching staff much like the Cubs, and have been unwilling to trade top prospects in the past. So I don't see them giving up Vitters, Marshall,(prospects for DeRosa) level of talent to get Peavy either.

[davearm2]

This is exactly what I've been saying from the start. Everyone is like "Oh Hendry has leverage, Peavy only will come to the Cubs, wait it out Jim." While I kept saying "no this is stupid, right now Peavy only wants to come to the Cubs, but if Hendry waits too long and backs out then Peavy will start to reconsider other places, and SD will reconsider other teams and a bunch of other teams will jump in like ANA and offer way better players than we are, and get Peavy." And thats what will happen here. The Angels will offer SD a huge package of young guys, and SD will love it and beg Peavy to go there, and he will just to get off that team.

Yes because the Angels are always so eager to trade away all of their promising young players.

[Exile on Waveland]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen

 

Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen?

[17 Seconds]

Interesting quote from Hendry that pretty much sums up what I'm saying. Keep in mind I am not saying we should overpay for Peavy if it would have taken the package that Rob speculated.

 

If we didn't have two of the five starters we have, we might have taken a different look at it."

 

Which is what UI have been saying. We're counting on Harden and Dempster to be 2008 versions of themselves. The Phillies aren't counting on Maine and Pelfrey to be mid-high 2's ERA pitchers.

[17 Seconds]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen

 

Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen?

 

So maybe it helps the bulpen in one out of 5 games

[cubsfan26]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

This is correct. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen or the offense. It does make both weaker, with DeRo and Marshall both being involved. Unless everyone plans on all five of Z, Lilly, Peavy, Demp and Harden starting 32 games and pitching into the 7th or 8th every game, and Marmol, Shark and Gaudin being the only relievers used.

 

do you not realize the upgrade of marquis to peavy is worth much more than the downgrade from kevin hart to atkins?

 

yes, the bullpen gets worse if you trade marshall or whatever. but the rotation gets much, much better. and you can't just assume the rotation boost is equal to the bullpen loss because that's insane.

 

 

You don't get it, yes the upgrade to Peavy over Marquis is big. But is it bigger then having Cedeno playing 3rd, having a outfield of Hoffpauir, Johnson and Fukudome for a month or longer? Or having Kevin Hart or Mitch Atkins starting when Harden is out instead of Marshall. Having a reliever like Guzman who has the upside to make a difference in the pen. Or having any prospects left to make a deal midseason if any players regress or we have a injury? Peavy over Marquis would be great. But unless you have very good health, making that deal will hurt you overall.

[davearm2]

What contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are that big of question marks?

 

Umm. All of 'em.

 

Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster

 

Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress.

 

Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance.

 

So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right"

 

Well played.

 

I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM.

 

That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer.

 

Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster.

 

Just one

 

Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work.

 

I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm.

 

The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good.

Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs.

 

Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs.

 

Here's why it is relevant. The Cubs were what, like 7 wins better than the Phillies last season? We should be trying to widen that gap, not close it. We got lucky last year with a lot of things. I think the offense is likely to lose more than just the Edmonds production. I think we're going to lose some production from DeRosa, Theriot, and Fontenot. Also, the Phillies bullpen is looking a lot better than our as wll.

 

The point is that you build a team based on what you have. When what you have has the potential to fall apart, it can screw a lot of things up. The Phillies showedlast year they could succeed with that mediocre rotation. That doesn't automatically mean we will too.

I thought your point was to prove that no contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are as big of a question mark as the Cubs' allegedly are.

[cubsfan26]

Interesting quote from Hendry that pretty much sums up what I'm saying. Keep in mind I am not saying we should overpay for Peavy if it would have taken the package that Rob speculated.

 

If we didn't have two of the five starters we have, we might have taken a different look at it."

 

Which is what UI have been saying. We're counting on Harden and Dempster to be 2008 versions of themselves. The Phillies aren't counting on Maine and Pelfrey to be mid-high 2's ERA pitchers.

 

 

I don't think we are either. I think Hendry was talking about Zambrano and Harden.

[MSG T]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

This is correct. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen or the offense. It does make both weaker, with DeRo and Marshall both being involved. Unless everyone plans on all five of Z, Lilly, Peavy, Demp and Harden starting 32 games and pitching into the 7th or 8th every game, and Marmol, Shark and Gaudin being the only relievers used.

 

do you not realize the upgrade of marquis to peavy is worth much more than the downgrade from kevin hart to atkins?

 

yes, the bullpen gets worse if you trade marshall or whatever. but the rotation gets much, much better. and you can't just assume the rotation boost is equal to the bullpen loss because that's insane.

 

And having a crappy bullpen is going to help how? Plus, what about the offense? They've already got at least one hole(with CF maybe 2), this would make two, maybe three. And how healthy is everyone going to stay? And how about any possible deals later in the year.

 

 

Without Peavy the Cubs are still going to be favorites to win the Central. They can make moves other than this that will help improve upon that more than Peavy. If it was just Cedeno/Hart/Vitters types they are losing, I could easily go for it, but when you start throwing in pretty important pieces like DeRo and Marshall, not so much. Then you have limited resources to get 3-4 other holes filled.

 

I'd be thrilled if the could get Peavy, I'd be more thrilled if they could get a couple of extra hitters to get the offense to where it was last year.

[17 Seconds]

What contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are that big of question marks?

 

Umm. All of 'em.

 

Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster

 

Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress.

 

Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance.

 

So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right"

 

Well played.

 

I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM.

 

That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer.

 

Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster.

 

Just one

 

Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work.

 

I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm.

 

The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good.

Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs.

 

Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs.

 

Here's why it is relevant. The Cubs were what, like 7 wins better than the Phillies last season? We should be trying to widen that gap, not close it. We got lucky last year with a lot of things. I think the offense is likely to lose more than just the Edmonds production. I think we're going to lose some production from DeRosa, Theriot, and Fontenot. Also, the Phillies bullpen is looking a lot better than our as wll.

 

The point is that you build a team based on what you have. When what you have has the potential to fall apart, it can screw a lot of things up. The Phillies showedlast year they could succeed with that mediocre rotation. That doesn't automatically mean we will too.

I thought your point was to prove that no contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are as big of a question mark as the Cubs' allegedly are.

 

My point was to show that no contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are as likely to not meet expectations (Harden staying healhy, Dempster being good) as the Cubs' are.

[RammyFanny]

Although this trade is dead for now, major league sources from both the Padres and Cubs didn't deny that it could be revisited in the near future. Towers will meet with agent Barry Axelrod to determine the Padres' and Peavy's course of action from here. The Angels have been mentioned as a possible partner in a deal for Peavy, but at this point Peavy hasn't signed off on a trade to Los Angeles.

http://stations.espn.go.com/stations/espnradio1000/blog?id=3738908&post=3762754

[Derwood]

for those of you who didn't want this to turn into another Brian Roberts thread, you're sure doing a poor job of letting it die

[davearm2]

I thought your point was to prove that no contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are as big of a question mark as the Cubs' allegedly are.

 

My point was to show that no contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are as likely to not meet expectations (Harden staying healhy, Dempster being good) as the Cubs' are.

And my response is, so what if the next guys in line are already as good as the other teams' second and third starters already.

 

Those other teams need the roof to fall in on the Cubs just to be even with them. That's a good position to be in.

 

Now do the Cubs need to have solid contingency plans? Sure, but so does every team.

[abuck1220]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

This is correct. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen or the offense. It does make both weaker, with DeRo and Marshall both being involved. Unless everyone plans on all five of Z, Lilly, Peavy, Demp and Harden starting 32 games and pitching into the 7th or 8th every game, and Marmol, Shark and Gaudin being the only relievers used.

 

do you not realize the upgrade of marquis to peavy is worth much more than the downgrade from kevin hart to atkins?

 

yes, the bullpen gets worse if you trade marshall or whatever. but the rotation gets much, much better. and you can't just assume the rotation boost is equal to the bullpen loss because that's insane.

 

And having a crappy bullpen is going to help how? Plus, what about the offense? They've already got at least one hole(with CF maybe 2), this would make two, maybe three. And how healthy is everyone going to stay? And how about any possible deals later in the year.

 

 

Without Peavy the Cubs are still going to be favorites to win the Central. They can make moves other than this that will help improve upon that more than Peavy. If it was just Cedeno/Hart/Vitters types they are losing, I could easily go for it, but when you start throwing in pretty important pieces like DeRo and Marshall, not so much. Then you have limited resources to get 3-4 other holes filled.

 

I'd be thrilled if the could get Peavy, I'd be more thrilled if they could get a couple of extra hitters to get the offense to where it was last year.

 

and if there was a hitter that filled a hole that was of peavy's quality available in a trade, i would probably prefer to use these resources on that guy. but there's not.