Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[dew1679666265]

In 2003, Cintron's best year, he was being paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He's never made more than $1.9 million.

 

In 2004, the year I cited for Womack, he was making $300,000. That was his best season in the majors.

 

 

Thats because Cintron was a young player, and not making any money yet. Womack was a bargin in 2004, but thats because he was bad in 03(we had him that season to). I'm not saying you can't find bargins with scrubs sometimes, but alot of the time you just get crap, and it hurts your roster if you have injuries. Just like we did in 2004-2006 when we had injury problems.

 

And I'd rather have crap for nearly free than crap for $2.5 million dollars. I'd say it's less likely that Aaron Miles turns into Mark DeRosa than Alex Cintron repeating a year he's already had. Thus, I would have preferred grabbing Cintron for cheap rather than signing Miles.

 

Aaron Miles simply isn't a good contributor to a team. He's a guy who will hit a single 30% of the time that he steps to the plate. He doesn't hit for power, he's only shown the ability to get on base at a decent clip if he's in a strict platoon and if he continues having career years at 32. He really is a dime a dozen type player.

 

That $2.5 million could have not gone to Miles and instead been put together with the $10 million we're paying Bradley and come really close to signing Dunn. That would have been a better move.

 

The Cubs can't count on Cedeno being part of a platoon with Fontenot, or a quality fill in guy if we have a big injury. I would have been very upset if we traded DeRosa, and didn't bring in any infield depth, or someone to platoon with Fontenot. The Cubs might be able to sign Dunn for 10m, there isn't much of a market for him. But the fact is they don't want Dunn defense in the outfield, and would rather have Bradley over Dunn. If Bradley is even healthy for 120 games he's the better move IMO, when you factor in defense. But his injury history is a big concern of course. I will agree with you that some of these moves look questionable. But like I said yesturday I believe Hendry deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

 

There are very, very few GM's in any sport who I will trust without ever questioning them. Bill Polian (Colts) is one, John Schuerholz (Braves) was another. Jim Hendry isn't nearly there. I'm not calling him a bad GM - heck, I like him more than a lot of posters on this board. But if I see moves that don't make logical sense to me and appear to be making the team worse, I will complain.

 

That's how I see weakening the team's depth by trading DeRosa and then signing a guy who pretty much demands that we have depth readily available. Dunn might have been a better choice when we had DeRosa, he definitely is now that we don't have DeRo.

 

A few years ago many were freaking out about signing DeRosa and Lilly, both moves worked out very well. People thought signing Jason Marquis was gonna be an awful contract, and trading for Jason Kendall was awful. For the most part both of those moves ended up working out pretty decent. Last offseason some were mad we gave away Jacque Jones for nothing. After the way Jones went in the tank, that looks like a great move now. Nobody thought Dempster would be even a decent starter, very few thought Wood could stay healthy enough to be the closer, and very few thought Theriot could improve at the plate. Some were even worried about Soto, and thought we needed a better back up catcher in Blanco as insurance. All those moves worked out very well for us. Then pretty much this whole board hated the idea of signing Jim Edmonds, and it was a great move. Yeah I know signing Fukudome looks bad so far, and trades for Craig Monroe and Steve Trachsel for crap don't look great. But Fukudome still might bounce back, and the other trades ended up being crap for crap. So with his track record the last two years, I'm willing to bet that some of these questionable moves work out better then expected. I know Hendry doesn't have a great track record over six years, but over the last two years it's pretty darn good, and he's shown signs of improvements as a GM.

 

That's what bothers me the most in this offseason. These moves look like the Hendry of old (when he wasn't very good) rearing its ugly head.

 

The utter infatuation with lefties no matter how good they are and no matter what good players it costs us is vintage Hendry from a few years ago. That worries me a lot.

[haltz]

LF of the future.

 

I was wrong. The other UZR has him at +3/150.

[NonProfitCow]

Eh, if anything Pujols would hurt Kennedy by being so aggressive to his right.

 

When the Cardinals got him, Miles was basically a trade throw-in that looked like he was headed to triple-A so I'm not sure how much his defensive projections really had to do with it. STATs UZR doesn't like him either IIRC.

I'm up in the air on this theory. Pujols range could allow him to play deeper and shade toward 2b which would help him make more out of zone plays.

[mcgoobs]

Article in the San Diego Union Tribune that's full of conjecture but has one quote from Moorad:

 

When asked if it could be assumed his involvement would mean Peavy would be removed from the trade market, Moorad replied, “You should assume nothing of the sort. John and Becky (Moores) remain the primary owners of the Padres. I have no influence at all, nor will I have any influence on any of their personnel decisions.”

[RammyFanny]

Didn't hear it myself but this is what Levine said today (according to another board):

Levine just said that the names he is hearing could go to the padres in a Peavy deal are :

 

 

A) Vitters

 

B) W. Castillo

 

C) K Hart

 

D) Stevens

 

 

 

He puts the chances of this deal happening at 80 percent FWIW but they need aproval from the new owners . Also expects the sale to be completed by the end of january. Again take this FWIW

[EnduringFaith]

o brother! not again.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

:doh:

[CUBZ99]

Didn't hear it myself but this is what Levine said today (according to another board):

Levine just said that the names he is hearing could go to the padres in a Peavy deal are :

 

 

A) Vitters

 

B) W. Castillo

 

C) K Hart

 

D) Stevens

 

 

 

He puts the chances of this deal happening at 80 percent FWIW but they need aproval from the new owners . Also expects the sale to be completed by the end of january. Again take this FWIW

 

That would be an excellent trade for the Cubs. Although, I would hate to see Vitters and Castillo go.

[CUBZ99]

:doh:

 

Did you break all your fingers? :-)) All of your posts have been smilies lately.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

:?

[cubsfan26]

I think Pie would also probably be in the deal. I can't see the Padres taking that deal unless their getting a SP in return. So maybe Pie(and Cedeno) to another team for a SP, and the rest of those guys will go to the Padres.

[Backtobanks]

This could be bad news:

 

From MLBTR:

Buster Olney looks at the fallout for the Padres now that former D'Backs CEO Jeff Moorad has agreed in principle to buy the club with the help of some investors.

 

Will the new ownership retain Kevin Towers? Moorad once interviewed the Padres GM for a job with the D'Backs and, as Olney points out, Towers has an "excellent reputation within the industry" so his chances of keeping his job seem good.

The sale could give the Padres the financial stability to take Jake Peavy off the market. Peter Gammons wrote today that Cubs GM Jim Hendry "hasn't given up" on Peavy.

 

New owners might decide to keep Peavy.

[CP_414]

Didn't hear it myself but this is what Levine said today (according to another board):

Levine just said that the names he is hearing could go to the padres in a Peavy deal are :

 

 

A) Vitters

 

B) W. Castillo

 

C) K Hart

 

D) Stevens

 

 

 

He puts the chances of this deal happening at 80 percent FWIW but they need aproval from the new owners . Also expects the sale to be completed by the end of january. Again take this FWIW

 

 

Which board?

[Bull]

This could be bad news:

 

From MLBTR:

Buster Olney looks at the fallout for the Padres now that former D'Backs CEO Jeff Moorad has agreed in principle to buy the club with the help of some investors.

 

Will the new ownership retain Kevin Towers? Moorad once interviewed the Padres GM for a job with the D'Backs and, as Olney points out, Towers has an "excellent reputation within the industry" so his chances of keeping his job seem good.

The sale could give the Padres the financial stability to take Jake Peavy off the market. Peter Gammons wrote today that Cubs GM Jim Hendry "hasn't given up" on Peavy.

 

New owners might decide to keep Peavy.

 

If Gammons thinks its on...its off.

[The Other 15]

Moorad declined comment when asked how he would shape the Padres operations.

 

He said he would have no influence on the club's decision either to trade ace Jake Peavy or take him off the market. The Padres have talked of reducing their payroll by some 40 percent, and they have shopped Peavy, who can block a trade and is guaranteed $63 million over the next four years.

 

Peavy and Axelrod were pissed the deal with the Cubs fell through. He wants out now and one way or another he will be wearing another uniform by spring training or June.

[cubswin2009]

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/cubsrumors1309.php#more

Bruce Levine reported the players the Cubs received in the Mark DeRosa trade would allow them to make another run at Jake Peavy. Levine is convinced Jake Peavy is back on the Cubs radar. He added the recent announcement that Jeff Moorad is near a deal to buy the Padres from John Moores will not affect them dealing Jake Peavy.

 

Levine is hearing Josh Vitters, Jeff Stevens, Welington Castillo and Kevin Hart would go to San Diego in return for Jake Peavy. Levine thinks there is an 80% chance that the Peavy deal to the Cubs will get done.

 

Levine stuck to his reports last week that the Cubs new ownership will have to be in place for the Cubs to trade for Peavy and add his contract. He thinks the new owner could be in place in the next month.

[17 Seconds]

Levine is pretty reliable but I just can't buy this. How is he literally the only one who has heard anything remotely close to this? You'd think at least one other person would be reporting something similar if true. Instead, they're all reporting the complete opposite. It just feels really hard to believe.

[Irrelevant Dude]

Levine is pretty reliable

I don't know if he is more or less reliable than any other source, but I do know that he sure is wrong a lot.

[cubsfan26]

Well to be fair, Levine usually has been right about the Peavy talks. When other sources said the Cubs didn't have a chance to get Peavy, or Piniella came out said our rotation is set. Levine has always been saying since day one that the Cubs want Peavy and have a good chance to get Peavy. Even when things looked pretty unlikely earlier in the offseason. So I tend to believe him more then other sources. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other guys are just going off Towers comments saying the chance of reopening talks appear doubtful. Yes reopening serious talks now does appear doubtful, because the Cubs can't afford Peavy. But getting a nice payroll boost from the new ownership, could change that.

[BigbadB]

The really awkward thing about this whole Peavy fiasco is that the Padres would essentially have some spending money once Peavy is moved. However, the Padres need to make upgrades before all the players are plucked up off the market.

 

Their roster as it is currently assembled is:

 

LF- Chase Headley

CF- Jody Gerut/Scott Hairston

RF- Brian Giles

3b- Kevin Kouzmanoff

SS- Luis Rodriguez

2b- Matt Antonelli

1b- Adrian Gonzalez

C- Nick Hundley/Luke Carlin

 

CF, SS, 2b and C are all huge issues for this team right now. And that's not even bringing the starting rotation into the discussion.

 

Even if Peavy were to be traded, this team has a lot of work to do.

[17 Seconds]

Here's just another reason why I can't buy what Levine is selling

 

From Churchill-

 

 

Mike said Tuesday there's no active conversation and that it was all left in SD's court last month. Since then, I find it hard to believe that one member of the media has the inside info on it and that Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city haven't picked up a single thing.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Here's just another reason why I can't buy what Levine is selling

 

From Churchill-

 

 

Mike said Tuesday there's no active conversation and that it was all left in SD's court last month. Since then, I find it hard to believe that one member of the media has the inside info on it and that Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city haven't picked up a single thing.

 

While I agree with what he's saying, and while I don't believe Levine, I'd believe what Levine had to say every single time over Olney.

[17 Seconds]

Here's just another reason why I can't buy what Levine is selling

 

From Churchill-

 

 

Mike said Tuesday there's no active conversation and that it was all left in SD's court last month. Since then, I find it hard to believe that one member of the media has the inside info on it and that Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city haven't picked up a single thing.

 

While I agree with what he's saying, and while I don't believe Levine, I'd believe what Levine had to say every single time over Olney.

 

I don't get what Olney has to do with any of this.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Here's just another reason why I can't buy what Levine is selling

 

From Churchill-

 

 

Mike said Tuesday there's no active conversation and that it was all left in SD's court last month. Since then, I find it hard to believe that one member of the media has the inside info on it and that Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city haven't picked up a single thing.

 

While I agree with what he's saying, and while I don't believe Levine, I'd believe what Levine had to say every single time over Olney.

 

I don't get what Olney has to do with any of this.

 

Did you not read the whole e-mail? He says it's hard to believe that Levine would have info over "Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city." While I agree that I don't think Levine has any info here, if Levine came out with a report that no one else had, or Olney came out with a report that no one else had, I'd believe Levine every time over guys like Olney. Just because Levine isn't a "big time" ESPN guy doesn't mean he can't have info.

[CUBZ99]

Here's just another reason why I can't buy what Levine is selling

 

From Churchill-

 

 

Mike said Tuesday there's no active conversation and that it was all left in SD's court last month. Since then, I find it hard to believe that one member of the media has the inside info on it and that Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city haven't picked up a single thing.

 

While I agree with what he's saying, and while I don't believe Levine, I'd believe what Levine had to say every single time over Olney.

 

I don't get what Olney has to do with any of this.

 

Did you not read the whole e-mail? He says it's hard to believe that Levine would have info over "Rosenthal, Olney, Heyman, and the beat guy from each city." While I agree that I don't think Levine has any info here, if Levine came out with a report that no one else had, or Olney came out with a report that no one else had, I'd believe Levine every time over guys like Olney. Just because Levine isn't a "big time" ESPN guy doesn't mean he can't have info.

 

When is the last time that Churchill ever got a scoop over any of the above mentioned?