Bruce Miles

Well there's one outfielder taken care of. Is anything else going on? Same. Try to trade Marquis. Try to sign Bradley, who's their No. 1 choice for OF.

One year, $3 mil

Deal looks dead for now: http://blogs.dailyherald.com/blog/18

They've been talking about him for a while: http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1094

As most of you probably know, the Cubs are in no way, shape or form trading Carlos Zambrano. Jim Hendry laughed this one off, as did Z's agent, whom I saw in the lobby yesterday afternoon. No-trade-clauses DO mean something. In Zambrano's case, he took many millions of dollars less from the Cubs to get the NTC. Now, how much do you think it would cost the Cubs to get him to waive it? It's money they don't have. This might be the biggest non-story rumor I've heard. No, it's not CIA stuff or any matter of world importance. But it's foolish just the same.

Zambrano is not being traded. He has complete no-trade, and he took less money to get it than he could have gotten on the open market. Peavy wants to stay in the NL. He wants to go to the Cubs. Towers was being honest yesterday when he said it was down to one team. The Cubs continue to say the left-handed bat is their top priority. But there doesn't seem to be a rush on that because the market isn't moving. The prices for Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley and whoever else will only come down as time drags on.

So what type of deadline do you think were looking for for some kind of closure on this thing? Is the Thursday deadline still in play before Towers ends the talks? Too much is being made of this "deadline." Towers never used the word "deadline." He just said he wanted to see some progress made. You can define that to mean anything you want. If the two GMs actually sit down and talk today or tomorrow, they can always define that as progress. Realistically, Towers is in no position to be issuing deadlines anyway. If ownership tells him he's got to move the guy, then he's got to move him. I saw both GMs a little while ago. They were coming out of the GM meetings. I didn't detect any sense of urgency.

So what type of deadline do you think were looking for for some kind of closure on this thing? Is the Thursday deadline still in play before Towers ends the talks? Too much is being made of this "deadline." Towers never used the word "deadline." He just said he wanted to see some progress made. You can define that to mean anything you want. If the two GMs actually sit down and talk today or tomorrow, they can always define that as progress. Realistically, Towers is in no position to be issuing deadlines anyway. If ownership tells him he's got to move the guy, then he's got to move him. I saw both GMs a little while ago. They were coming out of the GM meetings. I didn't detect any sense of urgency.

The GMs all have been in meetings this morning talking about procedurual stuff. Nothing is imminent with any trade. There is no press conference. The Cubs are not in a payroll dump to get Abreu. I still think Bradley is the more doable candidate. Randy Johnson is in play, but not on the front burner. The DeRosa talk has not originated with the Cubs.

I can confirm Cubs spoke with Bradley's agent today. Blogged it. See you guys in the morning.

From my perspective, Hendry is as honest as they get. He can't always tell you everything, but he'll steer you in the right direction. The two teams have NOT sat down and talked here seriously. That's from Hendry and SD people. He said what he could about Harden last summer and about Ramirez in '03. Like I said before, a lot of trades come out of nowhere: Gregg and even Derrek Lee. As far as honesty goes, Hendry gets an A-plus. And he's not much for the "posturing" game either. Now, Towers goes about things differently, but he seems to have been pretty honest, too. Hendry is that way with players, too. I asked Koyie Hill last spring why he came back again as a non-roster guy. He said it was because Hendry and Fleita shot straight with him and didn't make any false promises.

Not a thing to it.

That's not quite what Towers said. http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1077 He basically said if "progress" wasn't made by the end of the meetings, he'd have to stop the talks. There is nothing serious going on yet between these two teams. I'm blogging like a crazy man, if you want to stop by at the Daily Herald. I'll do the best I can to check in here.

I believe that rule was changed at the same time they stopped charging teams compensation for "B" level players. It was changed. You can bring anybody back at any time even if you didn't offer arbitration. Thank Andy MacPhail for that sensible rule. He got it changed during one of the CBA negotiations. He and the key player reps also averted a strike in 2002. That still doesn't change the fact that he's a very unreasonable trade negotiator. j/k. Well, I'm not kidding, but yeah that was a joke You would be right. When he was with the Cubs, I used to write that he'd stand in line at the grocery story mulling the choice between paper and plastic while the line would back up behind him. Great, great human being. Frustrating as heck to deal with as far as getting anything done.

I believe that rule was changed at the same time they stopped charging teams compensation for "B" level players. It was changed. You can bring anybody back at any time even if you didn't offer arbitration. Thank Andy MacPhail for that sensible rule. He got it changed during one of the CBA negotiations. He and the key player reps also averted a strike in 2002.

The Cubs haven't rule out bringing Blanco back. Right now, Koyie Hill has the inside track as the backup. He also helped Soto quite a bit, at Iowa in '07. They'll bring in some veteran guys as non-roster men to camp. I think Mark Johnson will be there. Hey, how 'bout Bako?

i don't know if you meant it that way, but holy hell that sounded racist. Not sure right now who their No. 1 priority is for RF. I'm not sure they know, given the market and who might want what. As far as Bradley goes, I've never met the man. Well as you probably know, the story circulated last summer about Bradley venturing up to the press box to "introduce himself" to some media member who had either said or written something less than flattering about him. So, you know, if you ever feel like making the acquaintance... Yeah, I remember that. Ah, but it's too long of a walk to the Wrigley press box. :grin:

Something definitely can get done. It'll be a lot of talk, to be sure. A lot of times deals come out of nowhere, liked the Gregg deal, which nobody predicted. I suspect they'll talk seriously with the agents for the hitters while keeping an eye on the San Diego situation. As someone else pointed out, there still could be a fair amount of players left well into the new year. Burnitz was signed the day the Cubs traded Sosa. Maddux signed in '04 on the day before players reported. Never been to Vegas before, and I'm not a gambler. But the hotel bar(s) are full of baseball people. It's a good place to be. Realistically, I wouldn't expect a lot to get done in Vegas. It's the worst place for a convention. We conduct our conventions in Vegas, and everyone is off to see shows, eat at good restaraunts, take in the sights, and gamble. I'd expect a lot of the dealings to be done over the phone, and phones don't work very well on the casino floor. Nashville is lousy, too, because the Opryland complex is so huge there's no easy way for people to congregate. Could be more of the same, plus all the other distractions, in Vegas. Vegas is pretty bad for meeting in general, unless you can actually get people into the meeting rooms. The bars aren't designed for people to just casually relax and rub elbows. They are either very loud with music or have table top video games or some other form of distraction. It's also very difficult getting everyone to agree on a particular place to meet, since there are so many different places. It's not like when you go into the Adam's Mark in St. Louis and everyone knows where everyone will be. If you are having that problem, may I recommend you grab a taxi or two with the group you wish to socialize with, and take it to the Firefly on Paradise. It's a very casual atmosphere that serves drinks and appetizer foods in a laid back, comtemporary setting. It's a very short cab ride away from the VH and they serve amazing Tapas. There's a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in the same complex. Thanks. That sounds like a plan. Orlando was pretty good for getting stuff done. I still remember Ted Lilly's agent holding court right next to this huge Christmas tree on the same night Jim Hendry was having his heart procedure. Dallas was OK for the winter meetings. In Nashville, you have to walk a half-mile inside the Opryland to get anyplace. I'm sure you're right about Vegas. Other reporters have said about the same thing.

i don't know if you meant it that way, but holy hell that sounded racist. Not sure right now who their No. 1 priority is for RF. I'm not sure they know, given the market and who might want what. As far as Bradley goes, I've never met the man.

Something definitely can get done. It'll be a lot of talk, to be sure. A lot of times deals come out of nowhere, liked the Gregg deal, which nobody predicted. I suspect they'll talk seriously with the agents for the hitters while keeping an eye on the San Diego situation. As someone else pointed out, there still could be a fair amount of players left well into the new year. Burnitz was signed the day the Cubs traded Sosa. Maddux signed in '04 on the day before players reported. Never been to Vegas before, and I'm not a gambler. But the hotel bar(s) are full of baseball people. It's a good place to be. Realistically, I wouldn't expect a lot to get done in Vegas. It's the worst place for a convention. We conduct our conventions in Vegas, and everyone is off to see shows, eat at good restaraunts, take in the sights, and gamble. I'd expect a lot of the dealings to be done over the phone, and phones don't work very well on the casino floor. Nashville is lousy, too, because the Opryland complex is so huge there's no easy way for people to congregate. Could be more of the same, plus all the other distractions, in Vegas.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up? Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million. Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration? Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know. Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him? I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take. If Marquis is traded, it certainly would set the stage for a Peavy deal. The Cubs are one half or even one third of the equation still. If they couldn't get Peavy, they appear comfortable with Marshall in the rotation instead of Marquis. The Padres and/or another team would have to agree to something. The first priority is the left-handed bat. Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley all are names the Cubs are looking at, but they're willing to see if the price drops with guys like Ibanez and Abreu. I suggested Bradley in my blog the other day. As of now, nothing is close. That could change over the weekend and certainly by the time we all get to Vegas Sunday night. I just looked it up out of curiosity... in 2005 they signed Burnitz on the 5th of Feb... in 2006 they signed Jones on the 10th of Jan. If the Cubs are hoping to find a bargain for RF, there's probably going to be a lot of waiting around required. Actually Jones was signed in mid December And Burnitz wasn't exactly a target. More like a consolation prize. At that time, yes. Hendry was pretty upset at the all-star break in '03 when he couldn't make a trade for Burnitz. Turns out that was OK. They were able to get Lofton (along with Ramirez) instead.

Something definitely can get done. It'll be a lot of talk, to be sure. A lot of times deals come out of nowhere, liked the Gregg deal, which nobody predicted. I suspect they'll talk seriously with the agents for the hitters while keeping an eye on the San Diego situation. As someone else pointed out, there still could be a fair amount of players left well into the new year. Burnitz was signed the day the Cubs traded Sosa. Maddux signed in '04 on the day before players reported. Never been to Vegas before, and I'm not a gambler. But the hotel bar(s) are full of baseball people. It's a good place to be.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up? Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million. Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration? Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know. Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him? I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take. If Marquis is traded, it certainly would set the stage for a Peavy deal. The Cubs are one half or even one third of the equation still. If they couldn't get Peavy, they appear comfortable with Marshall in the rotation instead of Marquis. The Padres and/or another team would have to agree to something. The first priority is the left-handed bat. Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley all are names the Cubs are looking at, but they're willing to see if the price drops with guys like Ibanez and Abreu. I suggested Bradley in my blog the other day. As of now, nothing is close. That could change over the weekend and certainly by the time we all get to Vegas Sunday night.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up? Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million. Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration? Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up? Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million.