Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[imb]

so when is the rule V

[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?

 

holy [expletive], are you really worried about who the cubs' third righty out of the pen is going to be when we're talking about getting jake peavy?

 

i dunno man, peavy would be great, but i'm a little more worried about who we're gonna call on to get that third out in the 6th inning of a 5-4 game.

 

come on.

[abuck1220]

so when is the rule V

 

well, the rule U draft was yesterday, so today maybe?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

But there are holes deeper than Jason Marquis.

[Garwilly]

so when is the rule V

 

well, the rule U draft was yesterday, so today maybe?

 

Its on Thursday

[Hairyducked Idiot]

so when is the rule V

 

well, the rule U draft was yesterday, so today maybe?

 

5.0

[erik316wttn]

Has it been revealed yet why the deal died?

 

Like I said... never believe anything about the Cubs until you actually see it with your own eyes.

 

I didn't want to go back to work ticked off, but it looks like that's going to happen now. I wish this perpetual believer inside me would just die. My life would be easier.

[nilodnayr]

 

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.

 

Gee, I wonder why you are picking out the worst guys of the proposed package as your example? Could it be because you have a crap argument?

 

Hart is what our 8th starter? You are absolutely correct, losing him would not hurt this team. However, unfortunately for the validity of your point, and for the Cubs, the Padres are asking for more than just Kevin Hart.

 

Losing DeRosa would be a big blow to the team. He was exceptionally good offensively last year, and very good the two prior years. Additionally, his versatility gives the Cubs a lot of options. We don't need to get a guy who can play 3B, incase ARam goes down. We can sign Bradley and not have to worry about him getting injured because DeRo could replace him. Fontenot had a great year last year, but it was in limited time and when he was put in situations to succeed. I like him, but to think he'd be a lock to approach DeRos #s is foolish. Additionally, moving him from the bench to starting 2b takes away one of your better pinch hitters and your middle infield depth, so you'd have to replace that too.

 

Losing Marshall would be a big blow to the depth of the pitching. He has shown that he can be successful out of the pen or in the rotation. With an injury risk like Harden in the rotation, losing our 6th starter would mean instead of going from a top 5 starter in Harden to an average starter in Marshall, we'd (skipping over Hart and Guzman because they were traded too) have to rely on Gaudin, Shark and God knows who after him.

 

Pie and Cedeno I don't mind losing one bit. I don't think they'll be big contributors to the major league team (even if there are injuries) and have long lost their prospect luster. You can sign a back up SS for a mil or so that can replicate Cedeno's production and we already have Johnson to back up CF.

 

Vitters I also don't mind losing. He obviously has a lot of value and is a great prospect, but his value to the Cubs is really as a trading chip, and thats what he'd be used for here.

 

Not long ago we were talking about this deal without DeRosa and things sounded like they were progressing pretty well, even to the point where the "general framework" of the deal was in place. Frankly, that means to me that its not DeRosa as a player that is the issue, its DeRosa's paycheck that is. In that case, I'd much rather trade Kevin Gregg and retain DeRosa (or go back in time and never have traded for Gregg in the first place). Losing Marshall hurts, but I think its palatable, however losing DeRosa isn't.

[erik316wttn]

Well, I hope we get used to seeing Randy Johnson past his prime on the mound next year. Yay!

[Monco]

The 4/52 they gave Dempster has affected this. The money wouldn't have been an issue with Peavy without the Dempster signing. They could have let Dempster go ,get the draft picks,and had money for the Peavy trade and probably sign Bradley.

[CubinNY]

 

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.

 

Gee, I wonder why you are picking out the worst guys of the proposed package as your example? Could it be because you have a crap argument?

 

Hart is what our 8th starter? You are absolutely correct, losing him would not hurt this team. However, unfortunately for the validity of your point, and for the Cubs, the Padres are asking for more than just Kevin Hart.

 

Losing DeRosa would be a big blow to the team. He was exceptionally good offensively last year, and very good the two prior years. Additionally, his versatility gives the Cubs a lot of options. We don't need to get a guy who can play 3B, incase ARam goes down. We can sign Bradley and not have to worry about him getting injured because DeRo could replace him. Fontenot had a great year last year, but it was in limited time and when he was put in situations to succeed. I like him, but to think he'd be a lock to approach DeRos #s is foolish. Additionally, moving him from the bench to starting 2b takes away one of your better pinch hitters and your middle infield depth, so you'd have to replace that too.

 

Losing Marshall would be a big blow to the depth of the pitching. He has shown that he can be successful out of the pen or in the rotation. With an injury risk like Harden in the rotation, losing our 6th starter would mean instead of going from a top 5 starter in Harden to an average starter in Marshall, we'd (skipping over Hart and Guzman because they were traded too) have to rely on Gaudin, Shark and God knows who after him.

 

Pie and Cedeno I don't mind losing one bit. I don't think they'll be big contributors to the major league team (even if there are injuries) and have long lost their prospect luster. You can sign a back up SS for a mil or so that can replicate Cedeno's production and we already have Johnson to back up CF.

 

Vitters I also don't mind losing. He obviously has a lot of value and is a great prospect, but his value to the Cubs is really as a trading chip, and thats what he'd be used for here.

 

Not long ago we were talking about this deal without DeRosa and things sounded like they were progressing pretty well, even to the point where the "general framework" of the deal was in place. Frankly, that means to me that its not DeRosa as a player that is the issue, its DeRosa's paycheck that is. In that case, I'd much rather trade Kevin Gregg and retain DeRosa (or go back in time and never have traded for Gregg in the first place). Losing Marshall hurts, but I think its palatable, however losing DeRosa isn't.

So your hang up is Mark DeRosa ? Do you know how crazy that is?

 

DeRosa and Marshall for Peavey, forget the rest since they don't matter.

 

That's a crap argument.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Funny how people can come to the same conclusions and disagree on so much.

 

Losing DeRosa doesn't bother me, a Fontenot-based platoon can match his projected 2009 production, maybe even improve on it when you include defense.

 

Losing Marshall doesn't bother me, Marquis and Samardzija is plenty.

 

Losing Vitters bothers me, and the payroll commitment to Peavy bothers me.

[erik316wttn]

The 4/52 they gave Dempster has affected this. The money wouldn't have been an issue with Peavy without the Dempster signing. They could have let Dempster go ,get the draft picks,and had money for the Peavy trade and probably sign Bradley.

 

Jim Hendry strikes again.

 

I'll be so glad in June when it's clear Dempster has regressed, and Peavy is lights out in SD driving his trade value way out of our price range. That'll be awesome.

[YearofDaCubs]

The 4/52 they gave Dempster has affected this. The money wouldn't have been an issue with Peavy without the Dempster signing. They could have let Dempster go ,get the draft picks,and had money for the Peavy trade and probably sign Bradley.

That's why i wanted this trade to have been completed before we resigned Dempster. Like it or not we gave big money to Dempster and because of this we already have a lot of money tied up in the rotation.

[RammyFanny]

The 4/52 they gave Dempster has affected this. The money wouldn't have been an issue with Peavy without the Dempster signing. They could have let Dempster go ,get the draft picks,and had money for the Peavy trade and probably sign Bradley.

 

Jim Hendry strikes again.

 

I'll be so glad in June when it's clear Dempster has regressed, and Peavy is lights out in SD driving his trade value way out of our price range. That'll be awesome.

Everything is saying that the Padres were asking for way too much. I really don't think money is the main issue, especially when Kenney went out of his way to say that our "plan" fits the budget (amidst all of the Peavy rumors).

[illiniguy]

The 4/52 they gave Dempster has affected this. The money wouldn't have been an issue with Peavy without the Dempster signing. They could have let Dempster go ,get the draft picks,and had money for the Peavy trade and probably sign Bradley.

 

Jim Hendry strikes again.

 

I'll be so glad in June when it's clear Dempster has regressed, and Peavy is lights out in SD driving his trade value way out of our price range. That'll be awesome.

All in all Jim's had a great offseason. After the crap that was the playoffs he let our most popular player walk, got everyone excited about adding Jake Peavy(admittedly it was more the papers and Towers), and way overpaid for Dempster. I hope he has time to get one more good kick in the balls in before the season starts.

 

Edit: oh yeah he also gave up a decent prospect for Kevin Gregg and didn't offer Wood arbitration.

Edited December 11, 2008 by illiniguy

[davearm2]

The 4/52 they gave Dempster has affected this. The money wouldn't have been an issue with Peavy without the Dempster signing. They could have let Dempster go ,get the draft picks,and had money for the Peavy trade and probably sign Bradley.

Good gravy people. I can understand the disappointment but keep your brains switched on here.

 

Dempster or no Dempster, Towers was asking too much. It's that simple. In fact he probably would've asked for even more if Dempster had walked. The Cubs would've been more needy of his asset then.

 

Hendry felt he'd be able to make the $$$ work even with Dempster, or else this thing never would've gotten this far.

Edited December 11, 2008 by davearm2

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Granted it wasn't this board, but I remember about a decade ago when the consensus was "give him whatever he wants, it's Mike Piazza for goodness sake!", and Kerry Wood was the hangup.

[illiniguy]

Granted it wasn't this board, but I remember about a decade ago when the consensus was "give him whatever he wants, it's Mike Piazza for goodness sake!", and Kerry Wood was the hangup.

At that point though Piazza wasn't going to push us over the edge. Peavy probably is that piece.

[PrimeTime]

Agent Barry Meister said Thursday that Randy Johnson is "really interested" in playing for the Giants.

"We made a check list of everything that's important, and San Francisco checks off on every box," Meister said. "They're in the National League. They'll be competitive. They train in Arizona. San Francisco has a lot of appeal."

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Granted it wasn't this board, but I remember about a decade ago when the consensus was "give him whatever he wants, it's Mike Piazza for goodness sake!", and Kerry Wood was the hangup.

At that point though Piazza wasn't going to push us over the edge. Peavy probably is that piece.

 

That's where we disagree. For all the regression to the mean I expect from next year's Cubs, they are still the best team in the Central division.

 

And if there is something inherent to this team that keeps them from winning in the playoffs, lack of a superstar starter isn't it.

[carolinacubbie]

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.

 

You can play the IF game all you want, and I can play it right back. Yes maybe Fontenot, Theriot, and DeRosa will be worse. But maybe Lee will regain some power. Aramis actually had a down year this past year, maybe he will improve a little more. Maybe Soriano will stay healthy all year. Soto should only improve. Fukudome can't get much worse. You can play the game both ways.

[Garwilly]

Since this thread has all sorts of other garbae, and I really don't care where this goes......

 

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bDlpl0FJuUcBpeyjzbkF/SIG=137i7fiml/EXP=1229121769/**http%3A//newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/10/marmolmug_2.jpg

 

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/08/04/obama_dnc_interview.jpg

[cubsfan26]

The 4/52 they gave Dempster has affected this. The money wouldn't have been an issue with Peavy without the Dempster signing. They could have let Dempster go ,get the draft picks,and had money for the Peavy trade and probably sign Bradley.

 

Jim Hendry strikes again.

 

I'll be so glad in June when it's clear Dempster has regressed, and Peavy is lights out in SD driving his trade value way out of our price range. That'll be awesome.

Everything is saying that the Padres were asking for way too much. I really don't think money is the main issue, especially when Kenney went out of his way to say that our "plan" fits the budget (amidst all of the Peavy rumors).

 

 

I agree it's more then a money issue, it's the amount of talent and what it does to our roster as well. Also keep in mind at the time we resigned Dempster, the Cubs weren't the only team in on Peavy. So you don't wait around hoping to get a player in a trade, when you can have a pitcher now. Especially when you don't really have the prospects alone to get a deal done. But if the Padres were more reasonable with their demands, in their situation, this deal would be done. So it's not just a money situation, and having Dempster on the roster isn't the main reason this deal isn't done.

[17 Seconds]

Granted it wasn't this board, but I remember about a decade ago when the consensus was "give him whatever he wants, it's Mike Piazza for goodness sake!", and Kerry Wood was the hangup.

At that point though Piazza wasn't going to push us over the edge. Peavy probably is that piece.

 

How is Peavy the piece that pushes us over the edge? We won 97 games last year. I'm pretty sure that's "over the edge". It all comes down to the playoffs. If we don't hit there it doesn't matter. Plus Peavy has been awufl in all of his playoff starts.

 

I'm not saying I don't want Peavy, but this "he is the final piece" stuff is silly.