umpunk

We are paying Grabow over $3 million a year and yet want to dump Theriot because he is asking for $800,000 more than Hendry is offering?

Depends on what you want confirmed. Did some talking head on some sport show say, "we might trade Fox for a reliever" - probably. Is there any chance of us trading Fox for Grabow straight up? No, Hendry isn't exactly golden when it comes to free agents, but he is fairly good when it comes to making trades...

I'm all for any move that gets Hill out of the everyday line-up...

Man, hindsight's great isn't it? So is foresight Well great, and I'm sure he's missed on more then his fair share as well. Really, I'm not trying to rip on somebody - I just think it's lame to say we shouldn't look at somebody because they "flamed out with another team" - there are clearly examples of people rebounding (just as there are several examples of it not working out). If there is a legit reason for not giving Lugo the shot, then I'm open to discussing it (we have better prospects who's development will be hurt, better uses for the money, etc...). The way I see it - Lugo isn't a horrible hitter in the AL (better then Fontenot's been this season), shifting him to 2B would help with the defensive problems, and (and I'm sure people know more about this than I do, but) I'm not seeing any prospect who we would be holding back.

Man, hindsight's great isn't it?

I really hope not. I think Fox is worth more then a "AL reliever." Let him play out the season to raise his value and then move him to the AL in the offseason. Trading Fox for a "reliever" doesn't improve the tean. Why would we trade him at the peak of his value? My guess will be that Hendry will let every team know we want to trade Fox, play him sporadically for the rest of the year so his numbers dip, constantly send him back to AAA and recall him a week later until he is out of options, and then trade him for a AA relief pitcher next spring.

Surely trading the guy not on our 40 man roster will free up 3 spots on the 25 man. Well two anyway, we would have to make room for the rosin.

Yes, he most certainly was considered a starter. Or more accurately, most of us hoped he would be a decent starter. We now have a lot of evidence to suggest he isn't a very good everyday player. Even if the Pirates thought a change would do him well, he's hardly a prospect as he nears 30 (in 7 days). Fontenot isn't a bad player, he's just not a good player and he's certainly not somebody the Pirates would view as a center piece in trading two of their better chips. You can forget about unloading Heilman or Cotts - there is no reason whatsoever the Pirates would want them. The basic problem in your argument is you are making two incorrect assumptions. First, that the Pirates need to dump salary to the point they are taking $.10 back on the dollar. Second, they only team they could trade with is the Cubs. If this were the case, yeah, your deal would be appealing to them. Of course, in reality many teams would jump at the chance to grab Sanchez or Grabow which would drive the price up.

1. As excited as I"m sure the Pirates would be to get a 25th man, the worst LHRP in the major leagues, and a terrible 30 something middle reliever, I think that prospect would have to be one hell of a player to get Sanchez alone, let alone Sanchez AND Grabow. 2. Wouldn't the Cubs be able to get a bit more for Harden than the Rockies 5th outfielder? I think you are wrong in what it would take to get Sanchez. He is good, but he is being paid $6.2 million and in these tough economic times, not many teams can afford that. I would be surprised if they could get more than 1 good prospect and 1 decent prospect for him. Getting a ML-ready, young, cheap 2B (Fontenot) and a decent prospect would probably be enough. Grabow will probably get 1 decent prospect. Meanwhile, the Pirate team is hurting for pitching and are in the process of going young (again). The point of the two deals being done simultaneously was to try to neutralize the money situation. Harden (1/2 year) for Smith and a prospect (long term) isn't as one-sided as it sounds and would be necessary unless Hendry wins the lottery. So according to your own logic - to get Sanchez and Grabow, it would take 1 "good" prospect and 2 "decent" prospects (I disagree, but let's go with that). So to fill out your named requirements, you are sending an unnamed prospect, Fontenot (a back-up utility "prospect" who turns 30 in a week), Heilman (a 30 year-old middle relief pitcher who hasn't been labeled a "prospect" in about 4 years now), and Cotts (the best part about him is the fact he won't turn 30 until next spring).

Granted we won't know the exact details, but to me this a decent trade -- he does well, we get a good player, if he s*cks, we still get a prospect and he stinks it up for the O's.

Still a very weak argument - the "injury problems since TJ" that you are so quick to dismiss have been a rotator cuff tear, blisters, and shoulder and elbow pain. I'm not sure how those would have, "little impact on the likelihood of being healthy enough to close." The best argument you could make is that he is less likely to get injured as a closer than he is as a starter. Which, of course, goes with out saying - any player is going to be less likely to be injured if you play him less. What you can't say is that Wood isn't a health risk as a closer when compared to other closers. Clearly, Gregg and Marmol (from a health perspective) are more reliable and less risky - neither one have had major injuries, let a lone multiple ones that have caused them to miss time in numerous seasons (as far as I know anyway). I couldn't agree more. Which is my original point, if you viewed the glass as half full the moves don't look that bad. What gets me is people just want to dismiss everything has "horrible" and refuse to see the counterargument. Yeah, I agree replacing a relatively known quality in DeRosa (who won't be as good as last year) with the unknown of Fontenot/Miles is "risky". I also think there is a decent chance Fontenot will put up better numbers than DeRosa this year. I think Bradley, if healthy (major if), will be one of the top right fielders in the National League. Yeah I didn't want to lose Wood or giving up our insurance policy in Marquis, but given the financial situation I certainly understand where Hendry is coming from.

I'm not sure what's more stunning, the fact that I am having to debate the point that Kerry Wood has had a very sketchy injury history or the fact that nobody else finds it the least bit strange that the debate is occurring - I mean if that doesn't sum up northsidebaseball.com, I don't know what does.

you're wrong and naive, so drop it. Oh yeah, perhaps I just imagined the injuries in 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 to Wood. No offense here, but there are plenty of areas to blast holes in my argument (Fontenot has never shown he can do it for a full season, Bradley very likely to get injured, Pie has a ton more upside that what we got), but to try and say Wood doesn't have an injury history (or that it doesn't matter because he managed to stay healthy last season) is very weak.

Very true, I meant the current version of Kotsay....

90 games of a guy with an .827 career OPS is better than DeRosa and Wood by a "wide margin"? I don't know aobut that. Even if he OPSs like .900 next year in 90 games I still wouldn't say that. Well I think the best case scenario we can realistically hope for is that they match DeRosa's production, but that's not the only issue. Bradley is a lock to get hurt. With DeRosa, all that would have meant is more Fontenot in the lineup in place of Bradley (with DeRosa going to right). Now since we're using Fontenot, when Bradley goes down it's suddenly more at-bats for much crappier hitters. That's the main loss of trading away DeRosa and that's why I think the combo of trading DeRosa/signing Bradley was pretty dumb. I guess that's just a matter of how you look at it. I could just as easily argue that Wood doesn't have a great track record either when it comes to injuries or that DeRosa probably isn't going to repeat his numbers from last year or that Fontenot was actually better than DeRosa last season (granted in fewer at bats). I don't want to come off sounding like I blindly support every move, but I'm just failing to see how we are so much worse right now than we would be if we kept Wood, DeRosa, Marquis, and Pie.

If I were to rank those players, I'd put Bradley number 1 (by a fairly wide margin). Plus, I'm not as convinced as the rest of this board that: 1 - A Fontenot/Miles platoon is going to be any worse than what DeRosa would give us 2 - That Gathright is horrible and Pie is somehow going to morph into Willie Mays. Both play great defense, and Gathright (shockingly) is the better hitter right now. 3 - Edmonds was going to keep it up this season and Fukudome wouldn't be a better option platooning in center with Johnson. I'm not saying all these things will happen, but I really don't see how we are that much worse off than before.

Olson indeed has 1 option to use if they need it. I doubt he becomes the 5th starter after his dismal year last year. They'll likely either send him to AAA to start and wait for a pitching injury or let him acclimate to the majors in the bullpen. His upside is probably around Marquis (or maybe slightly better) but to get close to him this year would be a very nice step forward for Olson. I think what you probably mean is his expected outcome (the sum of the probability-weighted outcomes) is Jason Marquis. Since his "upside" (or highest possible value) is much, much higher than Marquis. That's like saying Pie's "upside" is Mark Kotsay. Overall, I suppose Hendry could have done worse. I still think the best option would have been to keep him around as a 5th outfield over Gathright, but hey. Given that Lou and Jim didn't feel that was a good idea, this is probably about as good of trade as we could have gotten.

Other than you wanting it to be so, there is very little evidence that suggests "Cedemo" is better than Miles. Rich Hill had good stuff, but to just assume he is going to get his head on straight is a major, major gamble. Giving up on Pie might be a mistake depending on who we get back.

On a brighter note, at least the conversation about this poster on Cubs.com has something to do with Peavy and the Cubs. Go back a few pages where people decided that the future of the Reds was relevant.

Which goes without saying - I would be willing to bet a good sum of money that most people (if given a choice) would prefer DeRosa as their opening 2nd baseman this year over Miles/Fontenot. Of course, that's not really the question - the main question is do you like DeRosa at 2nd, Johnson in CF, Marquis as a 5th starter, and Fukudome in RF a "helluva lot more" than a Miles/Fontenot platoon at 2nd, Fukudome/Johnson platoon in CF, Bradley in RF, 3 decent minor league prospects, Marshall as your 5ths starter, and 2 million (give or take) in extra cash. That question makes Hendry almost appear to know what he is doing, big "no no" around these parts. So yeah, let's all just assume this babble that Hendry decided he wanted Miles, who could hit left handed, over the right hand hitting DeRosa.

I open the last page to see if there has been anything new on Peavy to Cubs and find that the thread is talking about Dusty and the Reds. I'm not trying to start a fight, but are there rumors floating around someplace about them possibly getting Peavy? Should I be going to back pages to find out or has this thread has wandered?

Just wondering, but what are you basing Gathright not being a good defender on? Do you have any sort of support, cites, facts, etc... to back this claim up? I might not agree with Gathright being better than Abreu, but there was at least some evidence offered supporting the argument.

Bingo - I rarely post on here, but do enjoy reading the board. However, one of the biggest issues on this board (and most message boards) is everything has to be black or white - either it's the greatest move in the world or Gathright s*cks beyond belief. Neither one is really accurate though. I have no problem whatsoever with signing a speedy, good glove centerfielder cheaply and giving him a shot in spring training, and that's all this is (if it actually happens). I just don't see the need for the move, personally. So he's fast, and he can't do much else. There's plenty of fast guys out there who can't do anything else. Why not one of them? Unless you can identify a downside (e.g., his signing prevents us from signing a quality RF, makes us move Pie for next to nothing, etc...), and you really can't at this point, there is no downside here. Granted, there isn't much of an upside either - he simply can't hit and good fielding (while becoming shiek) is only going to mask so much of that. Which is my whole point, the move is simply a "who cares" deal.

Bingo - I rarely post on here, but do enjoy reading the board. However, one of the biggest issues on this board (and most message boards) is everything has to be black or white - either it's the greatest move in the world or Gathright s*cks beyond belief. Neither one is really accurate though. I have no problem whatsoever with signing a speedy, good glove centerfielder cheaply and giving him a shot in spring training, and that's all this is (if it actually happens).

Please tell me that Sean Marshall wasnt one of the main obstacles in this deal? While I can see Hendry not wanting let let DeRosa go, I would give up Marshall for Peavy in a heartbeat. So, you're saying you would trade Marshall for Peavy straight-up? Look, I don't want to be mean to anybody, but trading "DeRosa for Peavy" or "Marshall for Peavy" isn't the issue Hendry had to address. It was trading DeRosa, Pie, Vitters, Marshall, and Marquis (and maybe others) for Peavy. Yes, any one of those pieces alone is a no brainer.