CP_414

Cubs To Sign Joey Gathright By Tim Dierkes [December 15 at 7:20pm CST] Word from WSCR 670 in Chicago is that the Cubs will sign outfielder Joey Gathright. We've heard the same from a source. Gathright, 28 in April, was non-tendered by the Royals on Friday. Bye bye Pie.

I love Jake Peavy. I hope we can salvage this. You have to like a guy who wants to be here that bad.

All the reporters had lunch with Lou. Today was lunch with the manager day at the winter meetings. Why have none of the other reports said this? I don't know if this is going to happen or not, but the only things that has me concerned tonight is Towers quotes. All these "insiders" have shown how much they know of the last few days/months/years...

Who is this Churchill guy? Is he a writer or a TV/Radio guy? No offense intended, but if he doesn't have enough confidence to print these things he emails you, I don't believe it. I;m glad it sounds like their will be closure soon, but I'd much rather wait a few months for good news than get bad news tomorrow. Hopefully, Hendry gets this done. Peavy is a stud.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3757369 Why does Stark completly ignore the words that acutally came out of Towers mouth tonight. I think he needs a new "source." Not to mention I saw Crane Kenney say that the Cubs can add a big deal to thier budget if they want to. These national reporters stick to their story no matter what is happening, and then never mention it when they are proven wrong. Then they write about something else and everyone believes them again...

According to Steve Phillips, it would be 2 years, 12-14 million. Really? We can't pay that? Skip the Peavy garbage, re-sign Woody, sign Bradley and call it a day. Umm...I like Woody as much as anyone, but I would much prefer the "Peavy garbage" to bringing back Kerry.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3757369 Why does Stark completly ignore the words that acutally came out of Towers mouth tonight. I think he needs a new "source."

irrelevant i think people are making this out as more than it is. never did he say a deal was close. just because he found a package that satisfies him doesn't mean hendry can do it yet, or even that he accepts the supposed deal. i fully expect this to drag on for a while still Well it said he has a deal that satisfies him and also satisfies the 3rd and/or 4th team involved. So we know there is a deal in front of Hendry that only needs his ok to happen. In theory it could be unreasonable, but with as long as they have been at it, I think Towers has a pretty good idea who Hendry is willing to trade for Peavy.

Sweet baby Jesus, get it done Jim.

With so much being unknown about when Utley will return having Derosa would be a huge help to them to start the season, so from that standpoint it makes sense. They also are looking for a RH outfielder to replace Burrell. So DeRosa could be 2 birds with 1 stone for them. He could play 2B until Utley comes back if Donald isn't ready and then move to LF when Utley returns.

Does it make sense that Philly wants Peavy? Sure, everyone should want Peavy. However, does Peavy want Philly? They were not on his list, and it is an awful ballpark to pitch in. Rosenthal and Scott Miller have reported Philly as a 3rd team. The only "report" of Peavy to Philly incorrectly identified Rosenthal as havig reported that (which he did not). I wouldn't worry about it, until there is a legitimate source.

I live in Philly and listen to sports talk radio frequently. I would bet a lot they read that thing on foxsports and are talking about it. I wouldn't trust anything on sports talk radio in general.

Rosenthal wrote this: Someone named Gerry Fraley wrote this: I think he misunderstood what Rosenthal acutally wrote.

So who do we want to waste money on? I don't know of any options that wouldn't equate to wasting money except to stand pat or promote from within. Lou & JH seem intent on not using Hoff or Font or any other current Cub in RF. Seems to me we will waste money on somebody. Like I said, please tell me if you've heard any other names mentioned or have any other ideas. And if we want Peavy, we absolutely have to move Marquis. No way around it. Moving him will mean taking on somebody else's contract because of the economy. The only place to take on a contract is RF or the pen. If we trade Marquis for a reliever, we still can't get Peavy because we still have to sign 1 of these bottom-of-the-barrell FA RF's. What it all comes down to is that if we want Peavy, we will have to settle for a less than spectacular RF via trade. Do you want Teahen? I don't. What other RF are available via trade? I threw Winn out there because he is in his last year of contract and SF isn't gonna go anywhere with him in RF. WE, on the other hand, COULD win with him because the rest of our team is pretty darn good, especially if we have a rotation of Peavy, Demp, Z, Harden & Lilly and a CF of Dome and Reed (& possibly Pie) to make up for the defense of Soriano & Winn. I want Peavy. I have no idea who I would realistically want, because there is no way of me knowing who is avilable. I'm not a GM and I can't talk to other GMs. All I know if that Winn is a lateral move and is not really an upgrade over what we have. Like I said, I'd rather see what Fontenot could do over a full season and put DeRosa in right than pay Winn 8.5 million to put up a .780 OPS. Also, I don't really see what Peavy has to do with this. Winn makes 8.25 million next year. I'd imagine guys like Ibanez and Abreu (who I don't want by the way, but you keep mentioning their names) will get around 10 mil. Is that extra 2 mil or so really going to cost us Peavy? If anything, I'd think you'd NOT want Winn if you think payroll issues will affect getting Peavy. That's 8.25 million spent on a .790 OPS when we could already get that out of Fontenot. The bottom line is that Winn is not very good. If he was making like 2 million next year and we could have him for dirt cheap, then maybe. But 8.25 million? That's a big waste of the rest of our already tight budget. I like the idea of Font playing full time also. Problem is the rumor that Dero would refuse to play RF except occasionally. He signed with us in conjunction with a gentlemen's promise w/ JH to be our full-time 2B. Maybe Font is athletic enough to learn to play RF. I sure would like to find out. I'd rather stay in-house until we see how Dome responds this year, especially if it means allocating resources toward Peavy instead of RF. For all we know, Dome's light bulb could go on & could have an MVP season this year. Also, sure would blow to sign 1 of these FA RF for 3 years when Vlad will be a FA next year. As far as the salary thing with signing/trading for a RF, you are only adding just $2 mil ONLY IF you simultaneously unload Marquis' contract. If you can't trade Marquis, you are adding the entire salary of the RF. If we don't get Peavy, we pretty much have to keep Marquis, wouldn't you agree? Then we are paying Marquis PLUS the RF. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure we can't afford Peavy, Marquis and an $8 - $10 mil RF. So yes, if my understanding of the '09 budget is correct, we have to unload Marquis if we want Peavy (we also need the roster spot). Do you think any team is going to take on his contract w/out giving us a similar one in return? It would effectively be moving 1 bad contract for an average player from the rotation to RF instead of having 2 bad contracts (Marquis AND a RF - like Abreu for 3yrs x $9 mil). It's possible that we could trade Marquis & pick up almost 1/2 of his contract, like is the current rumor, but would it still be possible to bring on Peavy and a RF other than Teahen (which would mean bye-bye Font)? I'm not saying Winn is my first choice for RF. I'm saying trading Marquis for someone like Winn would facilitate the Peavy trade and provide an adequate stop-gap in RF for 1 year until something better comes along or until Dome figures things out. I'd much rather do that instead of be stuck with the alternatives & maybe not get Peavy. The way I see it, there are no good external options for RF at this time, but you have to take off the RF blinders & look at the big picture of the entire team & how making one move will affect everything else. And I keep saying certain names because those are the apparent options on the table. Just cause we don't like those options don't mean they aren't the options. I'm not going to ignore them just cause I don't like them. I'm trying to think of other options & weigh them against the current ones. That's what this thread was meant to be about. What is the lesser of the evils? Not true.

Are we still taking info from Bigbird after the fiasco last offseason? Not seriously, but what else is going on anyway?

Bigbird says Baltimore is still in the mix as the 3rd team with Olsen to SD and Pie/Cubs prospect to Baltimore...so take that to the bank.

The Giants still have to improve their offense alot before they would have a chance at winning the division. Renteria would help,but he's not nearly enough. Remember this team has a middle of the order of Randy Winn, Bengie Molina and Aaron Rowand. If they can add a big bat with Renteria and another SP then it might be possible. Like if they had Derrek Lee?

The Giants might win that division next year...if they can add one big time free agent as they have been rumored to be after. SD will be a mess. Colorado will probably go backwards minus Holliday. The Dodgers were sub .500 before they got Manny and they might lose him, Furcal, and Lowe. I huess Arizona will be favored, but they aren't that impressive.

Oh God. Another winter with Bigbird and company. Hopefully this is real and Hendry can get it done by the meetings.

Peavy is signed thru 2012 at 14.5m, 15m, 16m, 17m, with a club option for 22m in 2013. Harden's 7m is nowhere near that expensive. All 5 players SD would get in this deal total less than $9m, a big savings from $14.5m for just one player. Harden does, however, give them reasonably fair talent return for Peavy. This is not a pure salary dump, the Padres need a decent return, or the Peavy trade would have already been made to either us or the Braves. From our perspective, Harden is signed only thru 2009, whereas Peavy is locked up 4 or 5 more years. How can you value 1 year of Harden as being equal to 4-5 years of Peavy? We also are not giving up nearly all of our prospects as you claim. Oh wait, I see you have edited that. Glad to see that you recognize that we are not giving up a lot of prospects in this proposal. The issue is trying to trade for Peavy. San Diego has passed on our efforts to get him for Vitters and the usual suspects. We have to give up something substantial to get a guy like Peavy, don't you think? If you want to just pass on the Peavy idea rather than consider trading players like Lee and/or Harden, OK, but I think we need to face the fact that we aren't going to get a Peavy if we are unwilling to trade a big chip or 2. If you think San Diego would do the deal with Marshall and/or Wells substituted for Harden, great, lets try it. I just doubt if that would get it done. Unloading Lee and Harden to get Peavy and Morales is absurd. Let's put this into perspective - the Mets gave up Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey, and Deolis Guerra for Santana. The Peavy situation is nothing like the Santana situation. Santana was signed thru only last year and the Twins were not going to resign him. Peavy is signed thru 2012, with team option for 2013. No comparison. San Diego has turned us down on our offers and it is clear that we aren't getting Peavy without giving up something. If that means we forget Peavy and move on, fine, but if we do still want Peavy, we need to face the fact that its going to cost us. Peavy will cost players of value, but not Lee and Harden. You didn't include Vitters in your trade, and I would think he is the most valuable "available" trade chip we have to San Diego. If this happens with the Cubs it sounds like it will look something like this: Cubs get Peavy Team X gets Vitters or Lee (probably Vitters) Padres get very good pitching prospect from team X/a few other Cubs players in the Pie, Cedeno, Marshall group or prospects The trade you proposed doesn't really work for anyone. The Cubs give up too much to have a significant improvment, the Padres don't shed any 2009 salary, so they can't make any more moves this offseason, the Angels would be much better served paying Tex than giving up a bunch of players for Lee.

If Lee is moved (which I doubt), I wonder how much Giambi would want. His D is awful, but he can hit. He is getting old, so it would have to be a 1 or 2 year deal. .373 obp, .502 slg, 32 HR's last year. OPS+ the last 4 years: 161,148, 108 (only 83 games), 128

If Lee was used in a 3 team Peavy deal they could sign Ibanez for 1st and then try to get a Hermida/Roberts/Scott and work out 2b/RF. If Lee is in the trade, you would think we'll still have some of our minor league trade chips left. Dunn would be better than Ibanez, but money would be an issue if they want someone cheaper than Lee.

I'm gonna give you the same response that I did on the previous page of this thread, when you expressed identical concerns. The deal with Peavy isn't gonna magically get solved when our "new owner" approves or disapproves of the payroll status. $$ is not holding the deal up. The deal is held up because we don't have the pieces that the Padres need. It's been stated repeatedly, including by Towers himself on multiple occasions. I'm not so certain that is true. Towers has talked about needing a 3rd or 4th team, but that doesn't mean we don't have what it would take. It could mean are not willing to part with what he wants. It could also mean we need a 3rd or 4th team to take a salary back so we can afford Peavy. I think having a new owner could help the Cubs chances. Maybe Hendry isn't willing to part with what Towers wants because he is saving trade chips for a hitter, and the new owner says he can sign Ibanez and trade for Peavy. Unless you are Hendry all we know is what is reported, so I wouldn't be so absolute about anything. I haven't read anything that states we have the pieces Towers is looking for but are unwilling to give them up. Well I read today we might include Jose Ceda for Peavy, so I wouldn't put that much stock into what we read. All I'm saying is I wouldn't be so absolute. If the Cubs offered Vitters, Marshall, Pie, Atkins, Castillo I would assume that is enough to get it done. It's not impossible to make the trade without a 3rd team, but based on what Towers has said a deal with the Cubs would likley require a 3rd team. That doesn't mean we don't have players to acquire Peavy, just that we have not found a match with them in a straight up trade.

I'm gonna give you the same response that I did on the previous page of this thread, when you expressed identical concerns. The deal with Peavy isn't gonna magically get solved when our "new owner" approves or disapproves of the payroll status. $$ is not holding the deal up. The deal is held up because we don't have the pieces that the Padres need. It's been stated repeatedly, including by Towers himself on multiple occasions. I'm not so certain that is true. Towers has talked about needing a 3rd or 4th team, but that doesn't mean we don't have what it would take. It could mean are not willing to part with what he wants. It could also mean we need a 3rd or 4th team to take a salary back so we can afford Peavy. I think having a new owner could help the Cubs chances. Maybe Hendry isn't willing to part with what Towers wants because he is saving trade chips for a hitter, and the new owner says he can sign Ibanez and trade for Peavy. Unless you are Hendry all we know is what is reported, so I wouldn't be so absolute about anything.

You don't think Indiana got hit hard?