Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[jersey cubs fan]

I really dont like Lou for that reason alone. He has such a short leash on young player its ridiculous, the only exception is theriot, who Lou probably wouldn't replace even if he had just trade for Ramirez at short. He'd probably still make it an open competition because of how much man love he has for theriot. His Leash on Pie was way too short and also for Hill. I very highly doubt Samardizja, Marshall, or Gaudin become the 5th starter. I'm pretty sure Heilman will because according to Lou " He's a proven veteran."

 

I don't really think its Lou prefering "proven veterans" as much as it is Lou choosing his favorites and stubbornly sticking with his first impression. When the Cubs won the division in 2008, Lou was lauded for winning with players from the farm system who weren't exactly regarded highly. Theriot, Soto, Fontenot, Marmol, Samardzija, even Gallagher all played key roles. He just traded his .860+ OPS second baseman to make more ABs for Fontenot.

 

However, the other side of the coin is players that he seems to not favor from the start for whatever reason. Players like Pie, Hill and Murton for whatever reason were out of favor from the start and Lou just never gave them the chance they deserved.

 

Lou gave Hill every shot possible, including letting him start in the playoffs. For some reason or another Hill just completely lost it. I seem to recall Lou liking Pie very much his first year, but you are right his leash was very short and eventually Pie got into Lou's doghouse. Gallagher had a couple of rough outings, but Lou continued to give him chances. Overall, Lou plays whoever is producing. He wasn't shy about giving Hill the start over Marquis in the playoffs, simply because Marquis was a "proven veteran." He wasn't shy about benching Kendall for Soto. He wasn't shy about benching Izturis for Theriot. He wasn't shy about benching Fukudome at the end of last year.

 

Lou is nowhere near as bad as Dusty used to be in regard to veterans.

 

I agree, for the most part. But it's much more about first impressions with Lou than proven veteran.

 

Also, yes, he was shy, and almost apologetic about starting Soto over Kendall. He had every intention of sticking with Kendall down the stretch until Soto made that option virtually impossible with a huge breakout. It's troubling that people have to be great from the outset in order to unseat such mediocre players as Kendall.

 

I guess to hurt my first point, starting Tracshel over Marshall down the stretch in 2007 was pretty inexcusable, but then again so was even have Steve Trachsel to begin with.

 

But he won a game.

[CUBZ99]

I really dont like Lou for that reason alone. He has such a short leash on young player its ridiculous, the only exception is theriot, who Lou probably wouldn't replace even if he had just trade for Ramirez at short. He'd probably still make it an open competition because of how much man love he has for theriot. His Leash on Pie was way too short and also for Hill. I very highly doubt Samardizja, Marshall, or Gaudin become the 5th starter. I'm pretty sure Heilman will because according to Lou " He's a proven veteran."

 

I don't really think its Lou prefering "proven veterans" as much as it is Lou choosing his favorites and stubbornly sticking with his first impression. When the Cubs won the division in 2008, Lou was lauded for winning with players from the farm system who weren't exactly regarded highly. Theriot, Soto, Fontenot, Marmol, Samardzija, even Gallagher all played key roles. He just traded his .860+ OPS second baseman to make more ABs for Fontenot.

 

However, the other side of the coin is players that he seems to not favor from the start for whatever reason. Players like Pie, Hill and Murton for whatever reason were out of favor from the start and Lou just never gave them the chance they deserved.

 

Lou gave Hill every shot possible, including letting him start in the playoffs. For some reason or another Hill just completely lost it. I seem to recall Lou liking Pie very much his first year, but you are right his leash was very short and eventually Pie got into Lou's doghouse. Gallagher had a couple of rough outings, but Lou continued to give him chances. Overall, Lou plays whoever is producing. He wasn't shy about giving Hill the start over Marquis in the playoffs, simply because Marquis was a "proven veteran." He wasn't shy about benching Kendall for Soto. He wasn't shy about benching Izturis for Theriot. He wasn't shy about benching Fukudome at the end of last year.

 

Lou is nowhere near as bad as Dusty used to be in regard to veterans.

 

I agree, for the most part. But it's much more about first impressions with Lou than proven veteran.

 

Also, yes, he was shy, and almost apologetic about starting Soto over Kendall. He had every intention of sticking with Kendall down the stretch until Soto made that option virtually impossible with a huge breakout. It's troubling that people have to be great from the outset in order to unseat such mediocre players as Kendall.

 

I guess to hurt my first point, starting Tracshel over Marshall down the stretch in 2007 was pretty inexcusable, but then again so was even have Steve Trachsel to begin with.

 

But he won a game.

 

=D> I forgot all about that move. Another example of Hendry over GM'ing.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I guess we should just be thankful that none of the other teams in our division have done anything to improve themselves. Maybe we'll win a game in the NLDS.

[UMFan83]

Not much news but worth reading:

 

Pet Peave Dept.: Jake Peavy to the Cubs? Oh, it may seem as if the arrows are all pointing in that direction again. But not so fast.

 

Jake Peavy

Peavy

 

Are the Cubs still interested? Of course. Have they laid groundwork to make a potential deal for Peavy by creating payroll space with the exits of Mark DeRosa and Jason Marquis, and by adding pitching-prospect inventory with the trade of Felix Pie? Absolutely.

 

But does that mean this deal can get revived sometime soon? Not necessarily, because there are still major ownership issues. And no matter how much the folks at MLB might want to get the Cubs' sale approved by Opening Day, the timetable isn't solely in its hands.

 

"I don't think we're anywhere near as close to resolving the ownership situation as it looks," said one baseball man with knowledge of those machinations. "You have to remember [the seller, the Tribune Company] is in bankruptcy court. So if somebody comes along and says, 'We offered more money,' the court can say, 'You have to take the most money.' So there's no way of saying right now whether this gets resolved in two to three months or six to eight months."

 

So why does that matter? Because the Cubs can't add a $63 million contract without ownership approval. And there's still no assurance they'll have an owner before Opening Day. So how can they move forward on a deal?

 

Right now, they can't even get a tentative go-ahead from prospective owner Thomas Ricketts because he's still, technically, negotiating. And even after those negotiations are completed, the court still has to sign off.

 

That means the earliest those Peavy talks could be revived is probably the middle of spring training -- but possibly much later. So even if the baseball pieces now fit, the odds of this trade's getting finished before Opening Day are still longer than they appear.

 

From Starks most recent column.

[KingCubsFan]

Not much news but worth reading:

 

Pet Peave Dept.: Jake Peavy to the Cubs? Oh, it may seem as if the arrows are all pointing in that direction again. But not so fast.

 

Jake Peavy

Peavy

 

Are the Cubs still interested? Of course. Have they laid groundwork to make a potential deal for Peavy by creating payroll space with the exits of Mark DeRosa and Jason Marquis, and by adding pitching-prospect inventory with the trade of Felix Pie? Absolutely.

 

But does that mean this deal can get revived sometime soon? Not necessarily, because there are still major ownership issues. And no matter how much the folks at MLB might want to get the Cubs' sale approved by Opening Day, the timetable isn't solely in its hands.

 

"I don't think we're anywhere near as close to resolving the ownership situation as it looks," said one baseball man with knowledge of those machinations. "You have to remember [the seller, the Tribune Company] is in bankruptcy court. So if somebody comes along and says, 'We offered more money,' the court can say, 'You have to take the most money.' So there's no way of saying right now whether this gets resolved in two to three months or six to eight months."

 

So why does that matter? Because the Cubs can't add a $63 million contract without ownership approval. And there's still no assurance they'll have an owner before Opening Day. So how can they move forward on a deal?

 

Right now, they can't even get a tentative go-ahead from prospective owner Thomas Ricketts because he's still, technically, negotiating. And even after those negotiations are completed, the court still has to sign off.

 

That means the earliest those Peavy talks could be revived is probably the middle of spring training -- but possibly much later. So even if the baseball pieces now fit, the odds of this trade's getting finished before Opening Day are still longer than they appear.

 

From Starks most recent column.

Not sure how plausible that really is. The Cubs weren't part of the bankruptcy filing, and all the articles indicate the bankruptcy process is pretty friendly so far. So I doubt the bankruptcy proceedings will be involved much. Not to mention this is something that was obviously contemplated beforehand.

[UMFan83]

Not much news but worth reading:

 

Pet Peave Dept.: Jake Peavy to the Cubs? Oh, it may seem as if the arrows are all pointing in that direction again. But not so fast.

 

Jake Peavy

Peavy

 

Are the Cubs still interested? Of course. Have they laid groundwork to make a potential deal for Peavy by creating payroll space with the exits of Mark DeRosa and Jason Marquis, and by adding pitching-prospect inventory with the trade of Felix Pie? Absolutely.

 

But does that mean this deal can get revived sometime soon? Not necessarily, because there are still major ownership issues. And no matter how much the folks at MLB might want to get the Cubs' sale approved by Opening Day, the timetable isn't solely in its hands.

 

"I don't think we're anywhere near as close to resolving the ownership situation as it looks," said one baseball man with knowledge of those machinations. "You have to remember [the seller, the Tribune Company] is in bankruptcy court. So if somebody comes along and says, 'We offered more money,' the court can say, 'You have to take the most money.' So there's no way of saying right now whether this gets resolved in two to three months or six to eight months."

 

So why does that matter? Because the Cubs can't add a $63 million contract without ownership approval. And there's still no assurance they'll have an owner before Opening Day. So how can they move forward on a deal?

 

Right now, they can't even get a tentative go-ahead from prospective owner Thomas Ricketts because he's still, technically, negotiating. And even after those negotiations are completed, the court still has to sign off.

 

That means the earliest those Peavy talks could be revived is probably the middle of spring training -- but possibly much later. So even if the baseball pieces now fit, the odds of this trade's getting finished before Opening Day are still longer than they appear.

 

From Starks most recent column.

Not sure how plausible that really is. The Cubs weren't part of the bankruptcy filing, and all the articles indicate the bankruptcy process is pretty friendly so far. So I doubt the bankruptcy proceedings will be involved much. Not to mention this is something that was obviously contemplated beforehand.

 

Shouldn't it still matter even if the Cubs weren't in the bankruptcy filing? They are still an asset for the Tribune Company and likely the powers that be want the sale to the person whose offer is the most beneficial to the TribCo. But then again, as we've read, the Trib chose Ricketts likely because he was able to offer the most cash up front, which I'm sure is something they want too.

[Tarver]

Not sure if this has been posted:

 

With the acquisition Wednesday of Aaron Heilman from Seattle, the Chicago Cubs seemingly will end their at times very public interest in San Diego's Jake Peavy.

 

They want to convert Heilman back to a starting pitcher, and the two players used to acquire him — infielder Ronny Cedeno and left-handed pitcher Garrett Olson — were part of a package that it was believed might have gone to the Padres.

 

Cubs management acted quickly after Tribune Co. determined the Tom Ricketts-led group as the winning bidder to buy the ballclub, and it is possible Ricketts would oppose any deal involving Peavy and his $63 million price tag.

 

"We've had no talks about Jake Peavy since they were well-documented during the winter meetings," assistant general manager Randy Bush said. "I don't anticipate anything happening."

 

Ronny Cedeno's statistics While Bush wouldn't close the door on adding a free-agent pitcher before camp opens in 15 days, Heilman becomes part of a growing mix for the fifth starter's role, which Jason Marquis filled before he was traded. Heilman will join Jeff Samardzija, Chad Gaudin and lefty Sean Marshall as relievers being stretched out to start.

 

"We're ready to go to camp," said Bush, filling in for general manager Jim Hendry, who is out of the country. "We feel really, really good about the way our rotation sets up."

 

Heilman, who grew up in Logansport, Ind., attended Notre Dame and now lives in Chicago, welcomes the opportunity to realize "a dream come true" pitching for the Cubs and to join a rotation after a disappointing season in the Mets' bullpen. He was traded to the Mariners this off-season.

 

Source: Chicago Tribune

[nolanwood]

Not sure if this has been posted:

 

With the acquisition Wednesday of Aaron Heilman from Seattle, the Chicago Cubs seemingly will end their at times very public interest in San Diego's Jake Peavy.

 

They want to convert Heilman back to a starting pitcher, and the two players used to acquire him — infielder Ronny Cedeno and left-handed pitcher Garrett Olson — were part of a package that it was believed might have gone to the Padres.

 

Cubs management acted quickly after Tribune Co. determined the Tom Ricketts-led group as the winning bidder to buy the ballclub, and it is possible Ricketts would oppose any deal involving Peavy and his $63 million price tag.

 

"We've had no talks about Jake Peavy since they were well-documented during the winter meetings," assistant general manager Randy Bush said. "I don't anticipate anything happening."

 

Ronny Cedeno's statistics While Bush wouldn't close the door on adding a free-agent pitcher before camp opens in 15 days, Heilman becomes part of a growing mix for the fifth starter's role, which Jason Marquis filled before he was traded. Heilman will join Jeff Samardzija, Chad Gaudin and lefty Sean Marshall as relievers being stretched out to start.

 

"We're ready to go to camp," said Bush, filling in for general manager Jim Hendry, who is out of the country. "We feel really, really good about the way our rotation sets up."

 

Heilman, who grew up in Logansport, Ind., attended Notre Dame and now lives in Chicago, welcomes the opportunity to realize "a dream come true" pitching for the Cubs and to join a rotation after a disappointing season in the Mets' bullpen. He was traded to the Mariners this off-season.

 

Source: Chicago Tribune

 

Awesome. :sick:

[cubswin2009]

Not sure if this has been posted:

 

With the acquisition Wednesday of Aaron Heilman from Seattle, the Chicago Cubs seemingly will end their at times very public interest in San Diego's Jake Peavy.

 

They want to convert Heilman back to a starting pitcher, and the two players used to acquire him — infielder Ronny Cedeno and left-handed pitcher Garrett Olson — were part of a package that it was believed might have gone to the Padres.

 

Cubs management acted quickly after Tribune Co. determined the Tom Ricketts-led group as the winning bidder to buy the ballclub, and it is possible Ricketts would oppose any deal involving Peavy and his $63 million price tag.

 

"We've had no talks about Jake Peavy since they were well-documented during the winter meetings," assistant general manager Randy Bush said. "I don't anticipate anything happening."

 

Ronny Cedeno's statistics While Bush wouldn't close the door on adding a free-agent pitcher before camp opens in 15 days, Heilman becomes part of a growing mix for the fifth starter's role, which Jason Marquis filled before he was traded. Heilman will join Jeff Samardzija, Chad Gaudin and lefty Sean Marshall as relievers being stretched out to start.

 

"We're ready to go to camp," said Bush, filling in for general manager Jim Hendry, who is out of the country. "We feel really, really good about the way our rotation sets up."

 

Heilman, who grew up in Logansport, Ind., attended Notre Dame and now lives in Chicago, welcomes the opportunity to realize "a dream come true" pitching for the Cubs and to join a rotation after a disappointing season in the Mets' bullpen. He was traded to the Mariners this off-season.

 

Source: Chicago Tribune

Good to know they switched Jeff to Jake.

[Cubswin11]

Even if it's not true, but it gets spun that Ricketts and his group were the reason Peavy wasn't traded for he/they might never be supported or trusted by Cubs fans for a very long time. Un-[expletive] believable if it's true, I thought we had a owner that wanted to win and was willing to do everything possible to do so. :cry: :cry:

[PrimeTime]

About Heilman from the Sun-Times

 

''He's somebody we've had on our radar for a while,'' Bush said. ''We really like his versatility.''

 

Awesome knowing they seek and love mediocre pitching. Why go for Peavy and trading your chips when you finally land your mediocre pitcher that you desire. This offseason sucks.

[illiniguy]

Eh we might as well not win 97 games again and get swept in the first round. might as well just win 85 this year and then get swept in the first round. Nice job Jim. =D>

[UMFan83]

Eh we might as well not win 97 games again and get swept in the first round. might as well just win 85 this year and then get swept in the first round. Nice job Jim. =D>

 

Winning less games while still making the playoffs seemed to work for the Cardinals.

[illiniguy]

Eh we might as well not win 97 games again and get swept in the first round. might as well just win 85 this year and then get swept in the first round. Nice job Jim. =D>

 

Winning less games while still making the playoffs seemed to work for the Cardinals.

Yeah we aren't the Cardinals. Case in point, Mark Prior isn't jacking 30 homers a year for us in centerfield either.

[cubswin2009]

Good to know the real Jim Hendry is back. Not the one that made good move after good move last year. We're going to win 80 this year.

[The Other 15]

Eh we might as well not win 97 games again and get swept in the first round. might as well just win 85 this year and then get swept in the first round. Nice job Jim. =D>

 

Winning less games while still making the playoffs seemed to work for the Cardinals.

Yeah we aren't the Cardinals. Case in point, Mark Prior isn't jacking 30 homers a year for us in centerfield either.

You're right, we're not the Cardinals. Prior won't be hitting 30 hr's and the Cubs will be in first place instead of third.

[anabiono]

big whoopee

 

ownership is in flux and a deadline deal is more probable at this stage

 

not saying it is going to be peavy, but at least we can hang onto our core prospects for the deadline, since something else may need to be acquired then or available

[The Other 15]

Good to know the real Jim Hendry is back. Not the one that made good move after good move last year. We're going to win 80 this year.

Ok, what were the good moves after good moves last year? How many moves does the Harden trade account for in the "good move after good move" quote?

 

Name the rest of these good moves that were popular at the time he made them? Dempster starting? Yeah, that was met with excitement. Edmonds? My, oh my, how we clamored for him before he was signed.

[17 Seconds]

Good to know the real Jim Hendry is back. Not the one that made good move after good move last year. We're going to win 80 this year.

Ok, what were the good moves after good moves last year? How many moves does the Harden trade account for in the "good move after good move" quote?

 

Name the rest of these good moves that were popular at the time he made them? Dempster starting? Yeah, that was met with excitement. Edmonds? My, oh my, how we clamored for him before he was signed.

 

So in order for a move to end up being good, it has to be popular at the time it's made?

[anabiono]

i don't think he said anything about them being popular, most of them weren't

 

maybe it will work out again

 

honestly, my main concern this season is going to be how much, if anything, the team gets out of harden

 

i like the offense

 

kosuke will have a bounce back campaign

our bullpen is better than last year

our lineup is more balanced

 

this team actually looks pretty rockin'...harden is only thing making me a bit nervous

[SouthSideRyan]

Good to know the real Jim Hendry is back. Not the one that made good move after good move last year. We're going to win 80 this year.

Ok, what were the good moves after good moves last year? How many moves does the Harden trade account for in the "good move after good move" quote?

 

Name the rest of these good moves that were popular at the time he made them? Dempster starting? Yeah, that was met with excitement. Edmonds? My, oh my, how we clamored for him before he was signed.

 

So in order for a move to end up being good, it has to be popular at the time it's made?

 

No it's the standard defense for stupid moves. Bring up old unpopular moves(to varying degrees) that worked out, and call everyone morons for doubting Jim Hendry.

[17 Seconds]

i don't think he said anything about them being popular, most of them weren't

 

?

 

Name the rest of these good moves that were popular at the time he made them?

[17 Seconds]

Good to know the real Jim Hendry is back. Not the one that made good move after good move last year. We're going to win 80 this year.

Ok, what were the good moves after good moves last year? How many moves does the Harden trade account for in the "good move after good move" quote?

 

Name the rest of these good moves that were popular at the time he made them? Dempster starting? Yeah, that was met with excitement. Edmonds? My, oh my, how we clamored for him before he was signed.

 

So in order for a move to end up being good, it has to be popular at the time it's made?

 

No it's the standard defense for stupid moves. Bring up old unpopular moves(to varying degrees) that worked out, and call everyone morons for doubting Jim Hendry.

 

No, I agree with that, to an extent. I don't give hendry much credit for stuff like Edmonds because obviously it was a lightning in a bottle type thing, but you still can't completely discredit the fact that he brought him in.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

kosuke will have a bounce back campaign

 

I agree with this, but it's far from a fact.

 

our bullpen is better than last year

 

Why? Unless Gooz breaks out, I don't see it.

our lineup is more balanced

 

No, it definitely is not.

[imb]

i dont think the edmonds signing can be called anything other than genius