BigbadB

Are you kidding me? Nope. Not at all. Marshall and Pie would be a nice package for Hermida. Maybe even Marshall and Vitters. Maybe it's not enough. If so, look elsewhere. I'm just baffled that anyone would think you just keep throwing more and more names at someone in hopes that it will be enough when it is obviously clear that the other team has zero leverage. How the hell is Vitters the 7th and 8th player in that deal? I'm baffled by how unrealistic people view the quantity aspect of this deal. They are worthless. Worthless in your eyes, but not necessarily worthless to other teams. If Baltimore would have traded Garrett Olson for Pie, and then Olson was part of the deal for Peavy, that is not worthless. These talks were close to being done without Marquis or DeRosa being added to the discussions. Once DeRosa became part of the equation, someone else should be removed, and more than likely Marshall, if not Pie as well.

Umm. All of 'em. Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress. Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance. So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right" Well played. I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM.

Are you kidding me? Nope. Not at all. Marshall and Pie would be a nice package for Hermida. Maybe even Marshall and Vitters. Maybe it's not enough. If so, look elsewhere. I'm just baffled that anyone would think you just keep throwing more and more names at someone in hopes that it will be enough when it is obviously clear that the other team has zero leverage.

Umm. All of 'em. Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress.

Umm. All of 'em. Didn't the Phillies just win a World Series with that rotation? Yup. I rest my case.

i would not miss any of those players. Well, if that's the case, why don't we go ahead and throw in 10 more guys as well and REALLY make sure we get this deal done? Why are you so hung up on quantity? They aren't good players. If you are offering the core, what difference does it make who the 7th and 8th guys are. Because the 7th and 8th guys might be the guys who could acquire someone like Hermida instead of paying big bucks for Bradley, which in turn could allow you to spend those big bucks on someone like Furcal.

Umm. All of 'em.

i would not miss any of those players. Well, if that's the case, why don't we go ahead and throw in 10 more guys as well and REALLY make sure we get this deal done?

#-o lol so basically it's like... if two of our 3 best starters suck and/or get hurt, our rotation is questionable. cool.. Except one is a lock to get hurt and the other is a very good bet to take a significant step backward. Are you advocating the 8 for 1 trade of Peavy? I don't know what 8 for 1 trade was on the table, but I couldn't care less if somebody wanted quantity from this organization. Take it. They aren't going to be difference makers. What I am advocating is the Cubs actually improving their team, which they have not yet done. Why trade 8 when you can trade 5 or 6, and then use the 7th and 8th players in trade to improve elsewhere? Why give in to a GM that has basically no leverage?

#-o lol so basically it's like... if two of our 3 best starters suck and/or get hurt, our rotation is questionable. cool.. Except one is a lock to get hurt and the other is a very good bet to take a significant step backward. Are you advocating the 8 for 1 trade of Peavy?

#-o

Yes, because Fontenot's career 68 OPS+ against LHP borders on Mark DeRosa production.

No one would rather have Randy Johnson than Jake Peavy. But a rotation of Zambrano, Harden, Lilly, Dempster, Johnson with Marshall as the 6th starter looks pretty good to me.

The last rumor before the deal died was that Towers wanted 8 players for Peavy. DeRosa probably would have netted 2 from the Phillies or Twins, and Towers STILL wanted Marshall added in. That equals 8 players. I'm sorry, but Towers can't have 8 players. Period. It's one thing to overvalue your own prospects, but it's another to ignore the value of your prospects. Hendry played it smart. And he'll probably still be in on Peavy once Towers realizes Hendry is serious about not trading 7 or even 8 players for Peavy.

Melvin probably sobered up and realized what he was about to do. Cameron may not be a great contact hitter, but you don't trade him just for the sake of making a move and getting your perceived leadoff hitter (switch hitter + fast + centerfielder = leadoff hitter, apparently) without getting something else back in return. Cabrera would be a bad return for Bill Hall. For Cameron it's lunacy. It's a pure salary dump in an effort to clear a starting pitcher, IMO, and I'm terrified that it means Ollie Perez is coming to Milwaukee for like $15 million a year. Gotta stay away from those yard tall drinks downtown. They put everclear in 'em.

Wow this is a shallow way to look at things. Peavy has only had one GM and thats Towers. We dont know what kind of relationship he has with Towers. The way you are describing the situation its like saying if Wood wanted to go to the Yankees when he was a FA, do you honestly think Wood would've told Hendry screw this trade me to the yankees. Unlike some people, Peavy probably feels he owes it to the Padres to help them out a little. Just because Peavy doesn't speak up and say screw this trade me, doesn't me he wants to be a Cub. Its not a question about Loyalty, its a question about professionalism and respect. No, that is not how things work in the real world. Peavy signed his extension with the impression the Padres would build a team that had a chance to contend every year. The Padres failed miserably with that. Then, they decided that Peavy needed to be traded to meet a restricted payroll. Peavy owes nothing to the Padres organization and he should have zero reason to show professionalism or respect to the team that failed to meet their end of the bargain. No that is not how things work in the real world, not all of us are a-holes. Kerry Wood, Zambrano, Dempster, Ramirez showed some kind of loyalty. And how in the world do you know what was promised to Peavy? How do you know PEavy signed with the Padres because the Padres gave him the impression they would build around him? Maybe he just signed with SD because he was brought up in there system and because he lived in the area. "He should have Zero Reason" Wow talk about jumping to conclusions. This isn't the Kobe Bryant Situation where Kobe came out and said what was promised .People like you are missing the point that peavy never asked for a trade, he signed a contract when the padres were an average team, he never requested a trade this summer when the padres are coming off a horrible year. If it was such an issue for peavy he would've stood up and said something but he didnt, dont assume and act like you were part of the negotiations. Check again. The Padres were not an "average team" when he signed that extension. They finished 1st, 1st and then got beat out in a one game playoff for the wild card in their last 3 seasons prior to signing that extension. If Peavy knew they were going to have a fire sale, I'm sure he wouldn't have signed the extension. And what do you mean, "people like me"? I know an awful lot about Peavy, since I watch him pitch pretty regularly and listen to local sports radio. He's equal to Zambrano in fire and intensity. Peavy wants to win and it was expected that the Padres wanted to win when they offered him that extension. Peavy got duped by the Padres. He has zero reason to be loyal at this point. And I think he's already proven that he doesn't owe the Padres anything by limiting the amount of teams he's willing to be traded to, to basically just one.

All I read into that is that Hendry doesn't want Towers to believe Hendry is bluffing. Towers is currently sitting there with mud on his face by demanding the world. Hendry will listen to him if he backs off the demands.

If I had to guess, Bradley will prefer an NL team. Texas kind of hosed Bradley last year by making him DH most of the year, when he preferred to play in the field. By going to an NL team, he takes that DH option out of the hands of the team that signs him. That's just my hunch.

Wow this is a shallow way to look at things. Peavy has only had one GM and thats Towers. We dont know what kind of relationship he has with Towers. The way you are describing the situation its like saying if Wood wanted to go to the Yankees when he was a FA, do you honestly think Wood would've told Hendry screw this trade me to the yankees. Unlike some people, Peavy probably feels he owes it to the Padres to help them out a little. Just because Peavy doesn't speak up and say screw this trade me, doesn't me he wants to be a Cub. Its not a question about Loyalty, its a question about professionalism and respect. No, that is not how things work in the real world. Peavy signed his extension with the impression the Padres would build a team that had a chance to contend every year. The Padres failed miserably with that. Then, they decided that Peavy needed to be traded to meet a restricted payroll. Peavy owes nothing to the Padres organization and he should have zero reason to show professionalism or respect to the team that failed to meet their end of the bargain.

he's under contract. his "loyalty" is in honoring his commitment to the team. Except for the fact that it wasn't Peavy demanding a trade, but rather the other way around. That kind of shoots loyalty in the ass.

If the Padres trade is dead forever, trade DeRosa to the Twins for the pitching package they are offering. Trade that package to Florida for Hermida. Trade Marquis to anyone who will take him and then sign Furcal. Trade Pie for relief help. Done.

Do you really believe all that? I have no idea honestly. Actually, I do. The Roberts rumors last year were dead a few times, as well. And it was a joy seeing Roberts play 2B for us last year. I wouldn't be surprised if Hendry is using his leverage, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it actually was dead. Hopefully we can get Bradley signed soon. For all intents and purposes, Roberts would have been a Cub if it weren't for the owner nixing the deal. Moores isn't going to interfere with a deal that reduces payroll.

Unless Towers reconsiders. I'm not really sure what Towers was thinking publicly excluding them and further minimizing his leverage in this situation. Why be so open about it? Towers took a hatchet to the offseason plans from day 1. This is his mess. Well, I suppose he shares it with Moores, but Moores won't be taking responsibility. There was little reason for them to lay all their cards on the table. Towers very easily could have went to Peavy and his agent and requested to keep things mum about a trade. Towers then could have come back with "we have about 10 teams interested in Peavy" to gain some leverage. Instead, they were very open about what teams Peavy might have interest in, which eliminated most of the teams from expressing interest. Look at the DeRosa interest right now. There might really only be 2 or 3 teams interested, but the Cubs have it up to 10 teams. That's called leverage and working up a guys value to get as much return as necessary. Towers blew it from the get go. I'm not sure how interested he is in staying on board a sinking ship, but he can't be winning many points for future jobs right now. Their minor league team is a joke. The major league team is a joke. The trade of David Freese for Jim Edmonds is going to bite them in the behind. And then not meeting budget could be the final straw.

Do you really believe all that? I have no idea honestly. Actually, I do. The Roberts rumors last year were dead a few times, as well.

I would imagine that Towers has to fear losing his job if he doesn't get a deal done. That's not saying his job is on the line, but when the owner tells you that payroll needs to be 40m or less and you don't meet that one requirement, you have to wonder what that means to your future with the organization.