BigbadB

It would be a rather horrific offseason.

The Indians have a pretty good collection of young arms in the low minors. Obviously, Adam Miller won't be coming back in this trade, I don't think. But I think David Huff is the type of guy that San Diego would be enamored with. Huff was just drafted and signed during the '08 June draft, making him ineligible to be part of a package now, I believe. I thought it was 06 I suppose I could be wrong about that. ETA: He was drafted in '06.

The Indians have a pretty good collection of young arms in the low minors. Obviously, Adam Miller won't be coming back in this trade, I don't think. But I think David Huff is the type of guy that San Diego would be enamored with. Huff was just drafted and signed during the '08 June draft, making him ineligible to be part of a package now, I believe.

Guess I can get that jersey with my name on it now. Better hurry. Those are sure to sell like hotcakes.

The amount of money he is getting is what alarms me. I'm fine with him as a back up as a percursor to a Peavy deal. If all of this is not for Peavy, then I'm pissed.

Here we go.........

That's the thing. I only like Bradley as an option if they have someone like DeRosa to fill in WHEN Bradley is hurt. When Bradley is hurt without DeRosa, now you have Gathright playing CF and Johnson/Fukudome playing RF, along with Fontenot playing 2nd everyday. I suppose that would be more tolerable if Jake Peavy was in the rotation every 5th day. Marshall has a lot of value to this team right now as Harden's insurance policy. I'm not sure the Cubs would actually have a viable 6th starter as the roster currently stands if Marshall had to be in the rotation. I can't say that I would rather have Derosa, because Bradley's a better player. But I'd rather keep Derosa if the Cubs get Bradley moreso than if the Cubs were to get a player like Dunn. I think the everyday offense may be upgraded going from Derosa/RF to Bradley/Fontenot, but the dropoff from Bradley to Johnson/Gathright and Fontenot to the new backup 2B (which the Cubs don't have right now) is greatly increased. You quoted the wrong person. I never said I'd rather have DeRosa. I'd rather have Bradley AND DeRosa AND Peavy. But, if we have to lose DeRosa to get Peavy, I can live with it.

That's the thing. I only like Bradley as an option if they have someone like DeRosa to fill in WHEN Bradley is hurt. When Bradley is hurt without DeRosa, now you have Gathright playing CF and Johnson/Fukudome playing RF, along with Fontenot playing 2nd everyday. I suppose that would be more tolerable if Jake Peavy was in the rotation every 5th day. Marshall has a lot of value to this team right now as Harden's insurance policy. I'm not sure the Cubs would actually have a viable 6th starter as the roster currently stands if Marshall had to be in the rotation. Plus if you move Marshall into a bigger role you have to have an insurance policy for him as well. That would leave the Cubs with 2 big risks for injury in the rotation (Harden, Marshall), one moderate risk (Z), and two low risks (Dempster, Lilly). If the Cubs trade Marquis they almost certainly will have to find another starter as that situation is a recipe for disaster. Yep. These deals don't make a lot of sense without something bigger happening. The only other guys I can think of that Hendry has looked at this offseason (beyond Peavy), is Sheets and RJ. Although, I'm not sure whether I'd rather see the Cubs trade DeRosa for the prospects necessary to facilitate a deal for Hermida, and then just sign Sheets. Nah. I'd still rather have Peavy.

There is no market for Soriano. He's been hurt/playing hurt for the past two seasons. His contract doesn't mesh well with the current economic climate.

That's the thing. I only like Bradley as an option if they have someone like DeRosa to fill in WHEN Bradley is hurt. When Bradley is hurt without DeRosa, now you have Gathright playing CF and Johnson/Fukudome playing RF, along with Fontenot playing 2nd everyday. I suppose that would be more tolerable if Jake Peavy was in the rotation every 5th day. Marshall has a lot of value to this team right now as Harden's insurance policy. I'm not sure the Cubs would actually have a viable 6th starter as the roster currently stands if Marshall had to be in the rotation.

There really was no reason to trade Marquis and/or DeRosa unless the Cubs feel like these deals will get the necessary parts to acquire Peavy. Trading Marquis weakens the back end of the rotation, and quite possibly the bullpen as well, since one of the bullpen guys might be needed to fill the rotation spot. Signing Bradley, while losing DeRosa, weakens the depth at 2b and OF, especially if Bradley gets hurt. I just don't see making these trades unless a deal for Peavy is still on the table. I think Hendry walked away originally, because the Padres were making the dealings way too public for Hendry's liking, as well as being too ridiculous on the demands. It's as if Towers was dictating/directing the entire deal. Towers still needs to deal Peavy. His job may be on the line if he doesn't. With limited places to trade him to, Hendry might still be able to swing a deal if he: a) frees up the rotation spot by trading Marquis b) gets the necessary trade chips by trading DeRosa c) frees up enough money between Marquis and DeRosa to afford Peavy. All indications early on were that the Cubs had money to spend to upgrade RF, if they did nothing else. Use that money for Bradley and then trade Marquis and DeRosa for the necessary money to afford Peavy.

I never thought it was completely dead. But, I also fully expected to see many more teams trying to get in on the action.

Soriano was on pace to drive in more than 100 RBI in 2008 (75 RBI in 109 games). That's great production for a top of the order hitter. Not all of Soriano's hits are HR's. He's typically right around 40 doubles a year also, which allows the other guys to drive him in. Derrek Lee had too many GIDP's, but that's because Theriot is too one dimensional. Theriot would be the ideal #8 hitter in the Cubs line up. He can draw the walk or stroke a base hit, steal 2nd or get to second on the sacrifice by the pitcher and be in scoring position for Soriano. I think Soriano's stolen base rate would actually improve from that lower spot in the order. Soriano was also on pace to score 100 runs, something he's done several times in his career. Keeping him healthy is what the Cubs need from Soriano more than anything. A switch to another spot in the order isn't necessary at all.

Sure would have been nice to have Clady drop two more places in the draft last year. That's the guy this team needed.

I wanted to touch on the Bears takeaway discussion a few pages back. I'm sort of under the impression that the Bears are constantly in the top percent of teams in takeaways because the offense sucks. When the offense is only on the field for 3 plays at a time, that puts the defense on the field much more than they should be. When your defense is on the field as much as the Bears defense is, isn't it somewhat of a given that the defense will eventually get more opportunities for takeaways than other teams? Where did the Bears fall in actual interceptions? Where do the Bears fall on takeaways if you exclude special teams?

The Bears need help on both lines. They need to replace Rashied Davis and Marty Booker at WR, and they could probably use some help at safety now that Brown won't be back. Maybe Bennett can fill one of the holes, but they do need someone who can spread the field and make quality catches from poorly thrown balls. The Bears also need a franchise qb. This is nothing new. Realistically, they aren't going to get one this offseason, so the focus should be on all the other holes. Missing the playoffs, in the big picture, was probably for the best. Winning a playoff game or two would have just been enough to make people think they were among the elite teams in the league when they clearly weren't.

Who is their back up qb?

I'm going to the bar. I'll be there early to claim a seat where I can have the Vikings and Bears game side by side, while also peaking over at some of the other meaningful games on the other tv's. Go Giants!

I happened upon the MLB network while browsing channels last night.

I believe it's Jeremy Brown. Meh, must have been thinking of the former Gov. and Presidential candidate. That's closer, but there is no "e" at the end of Brown for the former California politician. Okay, now I'm just being argumentative for no apparent reason. :hello:

This will be a great week for me to get to the bar early so that I can watch the Vikings lose and the Bears win. Even if the Bears are one of my featured games, I don't think I could stand to not be able to watch both the Bears and Vikings games.

Definitely not. He's the definition of untouchable for the O's. If Tampa called and said they would trade David Price straight up for him I am sure the O's would do it. I doubt it. Seems like they severely overvalue their players. They'd probably ask for Upton too This may be true, but an argument can be made that Tampa overvalues theirs even more. And probably for good reason. This doesn't make sense. It's not an over-evaluation if it's justified. For the record, I think Hermida is overvalued and should be traded to us for spare parts :ninja: Sure it makes sense. It just depends on how you perceive it. The Cubs were interested in Carl Crawford at one point, but the asking price was ridiculous. I don't remember the specifics now, and maybe that asking price isn't nearly as ridiculous now as it seemed then. But, when the asking price is ridiculous, then you are still overvaluing your player even if they happen to be a good player that warrants a nice return. David Price would be a good example. Right now, he's worth a ton. If a team called Tampa for Price, the asking price would be ridiculous rather than fair, hence my inclusion of "and probably for good reason". While the OP did say that Baltimore would probably ask for Upton, too, in a deal between Price and Markakis, I'm sure Tampa would counter with something even more preposterous like Price for Markakis, Wieters and some other top Orioles prospect that I'm currently unfamiliar with.

Thayer was saying first round OL second or third round reciever I dont think we have to draft OL the 1st round, but one of 1-3 rds needs to be oline. I think we can be more selective then locking in @ 1st rd oline. Not to downplay the need, but the OL the Bears need would only be a RT. The guys w/ 1st round grades are typically LTs or stud guards. However, if the Bears can find a stud in the 20s, they should take him. Chris Williams hasn't exactly shown he can be a LT in the league yet. But I think the Bears should look at DE, FS, OL in that order. If you have 3 evenly graded players, go w/ defense. If you can get an OL that is graded higher, definitely pick him. LOL. You are fine with the group of WR's that are on the team now? I'm not. But, is TJ the only receiver that will be available this offseason? I think the Bears need to get a top tier free agent at that position. We have no idea if Bennett will be any good since the Bears decided to wait too long to get him some reps. I don't mind Lloyd and Hester. Booker can go away now. Rashied Davis will be the next former Bears receiver to wait until he leaves to actually be good. If they can get a good receiver, then the combination of Hester, Lloyd, Bennett and a decent undrafted receiver or two or six, that can fight it out in training camp, should be a fairly decent enough corps for next year. With the solid depth at TE and Forte's abilities to catch out of the backfield, I don't think the Bears need a HOF caliber receiver. But someone who can get open and make things happen enough to spread the field should improve the offense enough to allow the draft picks to be spent where it is much more needed.

Definitely not. He's the definition of untouchable for the O's. If Tampa called and said they would trade David Price straight up for him I am sure the O's would do it. I doubt it. Seems like they severely overvalue their players. They'd probably ask for Upton too This may be true, but an argument can be made that Tampa overvalues theirs even more. And probably for good reason.

Technically, I think there is a limit, and the Yankees have reached it, of 3 type A free agents. I can never remember this particular rule, so maybe someone else can chime in that actually does know it. But, I don't think there is a written rule of just 3. What if you lose 5 type "A" free agents? Maybe it's +3 type "A" free agents beyond however many you lose? Pettitte and Abreu are probably both type "A" free agents. Not sure where the others fall.