BigbadB

That's impossible to answer at this point, IMO. If I had to guess, Hendry isn't going to get a very impressive return for Marquis. Heck, he's been dabbling Marquis on the market practically since the day he signed him. Besides that, teams aren't real willing to give up quality talent for a 1 year rental unless they are making a playoff push at the trade deadline.

I'm not going to get excited about it yet. Reading that signonsandiego site from a link this morning, someone threw together an Angels/Padres package that looks way better for the Padres than the assumed Cub package. It was something along the lines of Willits, Aybar, Brandon Wood, Jered Weaver and a prospect for Peavy and Kouzmanoff. Peavy would still have to approve a trade to the AL, but if I was Towers, I'd be all over that. We just need for Peavy to hold off on going anywhere but Chicago.

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with ownership at all. Hendry has his budget and he knows what he can spend. I think he just needs to move Marquis, 1) to free up money and 2) complete the package for Peavy. We also know that Hendry doesn't like leaks. It certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Marquis has to go if Peavy is coming here. Besides that, Hendry has acknowledged that teams have expressed interest in Marquis. Hendry is generally recognized as a straight shooter. Towers knows that Hendry is offering up the best package he possibly can and Towers is pretty much stuck and will have to take it. At the same time, Hendry isn't going to shortchange Towers. Hendry likes to be able to negotiate with these same guys in future deals, so this will probably end up being a deal where everyone walks away about as happy as they can be given the situation. I'm still pretty convinced that a deal is already in place and Hendry just needs to find a taker for Marquis. That's pretty much how I feel there may be a player or two that are yet to be determined but the main pieces are probably set in place it is just a matter of time before Hendry makes it a go. I fully expect Marquis to be gone within the first 2 days of the winter meetings next week, and a Peavy deal short after. Marquis really isn't going to be that hard to move if we eat about 3 million of his salary and make the base around 6 million. Hendry loses some leverage if he trades for Peavy first. Granted, most of us would probably take a sack of balls for Marquis, but Hendry isn't so dumb to recognize that he can probably get more for Marquis if he doesn't necessarily "have to be traded".

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with ownership at all. Hendry has his budget and he knows what he can spend. I think he just needs to move Marquis, 1) to free up money and 2) complete the package for Peavy. We also know that Hendry doesn't like leaks. It certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Marquis has to go if Peavy is coming here. Besides that, Hendry has acknowledged that teams have expressed interest in Marquis. Hendry is generally recognized as a straight shooter. Towers knows that Hendry is offering up the best package he possibly can and Towers is pretty much stuck and will have to take it. At the same time, Hendry isn't going to shortchange Towers. Hendry likes to be able to negotiate with these same guys in future deals, so this will probably end up being a deal where everyone walks away about as happy as they can be given the situation. I'm still pretty convinced that a deal is already in place and Hendry just needs to find a taker for Marquis.

nearly every argument that you made in this paragraph is completely irrelevant This guy is brand new to the board and this is the best you have to offer? Why don't you explain yourself in a little more detail as a way to encourage friendly discussion?

It's in the insider portion, so you have to be an ESPN insider to view it. This is the link to the start of the article but you can't access the Peavy portion/the whole thing without an insider account. http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3744124&name=olney_buster&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3744124%26name%3dolney_buster Can you copy and paste the relevent portion? We probably shouldn't be copying and pasting that kind of information. The relevant portion has already basically been posted. Olney is saying that the talks are on hold at this point because there is essentially a deal in place (probably in the sense of a handshake agreement), but the Cubs need to wait until the ownership situation clears up, and that the deal will center around Josh Vitters. There really isn't much more to add.

Well, to begin with, regression to the mean is almost always a good assumption. Then add in age, difference in workload, etc. and it becomes an even even better one in this case. What exactly is his "mean" though? Prior to this season, he was a 1 inning pitcher for 4 years. Before that, he was a young abused starter who had numbers that continued to regress until he finally went under the knife. Yes, his WHIP was significantly better in '08 than it's ever been. The HR's were down. The walks were down and the K rate appears to be up a bit. I'm not saying we should expect him to repeat last year's numbers. Most of what I'm reading here is that he will regress badly and not be an effective pitcher. And what I'm saying is that with the adjustments he made last year, I don't see any reason why he couldn't still be a solid 3.25/3.50 starter this coming year and in future seasons. Who's to say he can't be to the Cubs what Chris Carpenter was to the Cardinals before he went under the knife? Very similar careers, except that Carpenter has never spent any time in the bullpen.

I'm interested in knowing why Dempster is bound to regress from his 2008 season. Was it the full season workload that he hasn't experienced in years? Is it the fact that the ink is now dry on his long term deal? I suppose these can be legitimate concerns, but I don't understand the assumption attached to Dempster's future as a starter as one that will regress. If he went out there and had a few good outings in '08, I could be more understanding. Instead, he had many, many good outings. There comes a point where it's no longer a fluke. I'm not penciling him in as the top starter on a team with a long list of potential #1 starters. But, why is everyone so convinced Dempster is going to tank this year?

Fun with arbitrary endpoints. 2003: 4.59 2002: 6.23 I'm much more inclined to say 04, 05, and 07 are the "flukes" (if we must cherrypick) than 02, 03, 06 and 08. The career totals tell a story that can't be brushed off as easily as rumors of arm problems. I didn't include 2002 and 2003 because they were the first 2 years in his career, one of which he made only 17 starts, and they weren't played at Petco Park, nullifying any H/R comparison not because they didn't fit my argument. Besides, in 2002 he had a 3.57 ERA at home and a 4.59 ERA on the road in 2003 and 2.56 ERA at home and a 6.23 ERA on the road in 2002, without the benefit of cozy dimensions and marine layer. So is the problem that he can't pitch on the road in general then? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Padres were not playing at Petco Park in 2002.

It really doesn't have to be an argument at all. Agree to disagree and move on. You won't ever hear me claim to be Meph's biggest fan, but if he believes Greene has the capacity to be a top ML shortstop, it's his fantasy, let him live it. It's a discussion board. Differing opinions are the backbone of a discussion board. If we all held the same beliefs and values, there really wouldn't be much to discuss now, would there? If nothing else, the merits of Khalil Greene's baseball abilities have at least detracted the constant page refreshments of the Jake Peavy thread, which is perfectly fine by me.

Hello. Have you forgotten about Chad "I Just Signed a Lifetime Contract to be a Cub until I die" Fox?

Yes, but you lose points for starting another Dunn thread. ;)

Your thread won only because yours was more asthetically pleasing.

There is already a Dunn thread open.

Even if Vitters ends up being Chipper Jones caliber, all the Cubs will need to do is wait until Vitters starts to get expensive and then trade for him. The Padres are not a team that are expected to pay that kind of money for their players. Realistically, you get the best years of Peavy, and potentially the best years of Vitters, as well. Win/win.

The Padres will have a nice stockpile of 3b's. Of course, Kouzmanoff will be too pricey for them in another year, so he'll be nontendered when Baltimore won't offer Garrett Olson for him.

Greene will be a free agent after the '09 season. For some mysterious reason, many players tend to put up pretty good seasons right before their walk year. Not always, but it does seem to happen more often than not. I'm sure Anaheim wishes that Gary Matthews Jr. didn't have that flukish season the year before they signed him. This will be there year that Greene will need to prove that his bat belongs at the major league level. I'd rather it be with a team not named the Cardinals, but oh well. Defensively, Greene will bring back memories of Ozzie Smith. There probably hasn't been a shortstop with more web gems on Sportscenter during Greene's tenure. Most of his errors actually come from the simplest of plays, where he seems to lack focus. He's excellent at preventing hits and turning routine outs into double plays. I won't predict that Greene will have a Ryan Ludwick like resurgence with the Cardinals, but I wouldn't completely bet against it. I live in San Diego and I cannot explain why Greene was so bad last year. If I had to make a guess, he plays the way he feels. If he is playing on a bad team, he will play bad. If he is playing on a good team, he'll play good. All in all, he's a very strange dude. He is very quiet, keeps to himself and doesn't say much of anything, on or off the field. Moving to the NL Central is exactly what Greene needs. His flyball tendencies should generate a lot more home runs playing most of his games in all of the hitter friendly parks in that division compared to playing most of his games in Petco, Dodger Stadium, Giants Stadium, and the BOB. Not to mention that the NL West featured a lot of really good starters, like Lincecum, Cain, Billingsley, Lowe, Webb and Haren. Outside of the Cubs, there won't be a significant amoun of dominant starters who make even the best hitters in the league look mediocre at best.

You can't suck and go 10-6. This team isn't great by any stretch. But teams that go 10-6 in the NFL are absolutely legit playoff teams and going 4-0 down the stretch is in no way shape or form "backing into" the playoffs. You can't suck, but you can be mediocre and be 10-6. See 2007 Cleveland Browns. They won over: Bengals (7-9) Ravens (5-11) Dolphins (1-15) Rams (3-13) Seahawks (10-6) Ravens (5-11) Texans (8-8) Jets (4-12) Bills (7-9) 49ers (5-11) Winning % of teams they beat: .343 (55-105) Bears have beat: Colts (8-4) Eagles (6-5-1) Lions (0-12) Vikings (7-5) Lions (0-12) Rams (2-10) Winning % of teams they beat: .326 (23.5-48.5) If they won out that would include a 4-8 team, a 6-6 team, a 5-7 team and another 5-7 team. I'm not doubting their deficiencies. I'm saying it's absurd to say that a 10-6 Bears team sucks, if they end up 10-6. And winning 4 straight to end the season isn't backing into the playoffs. Take a look at the AFC East teams who have fattened up on incredibly weak divisions. Arizona is going to have the benefit of having nobody in their division, and whoever the heck wins the AFC West will have benefitted as well. The competition is the competition, if the Bears win 10 games they will be a legit playoff team. If they lose some more games and still win because Minnesota falls apart, then that would be backing in. But that's a different story. You're right. Your previous comment just caused me to think about and create a comparison between the 2007 Browns and this years Bears. In the NFC, I can only definitively say that the Giants, Cowboys, Redskins, Panthers, and Buccaneers have better rosters top to bottom than the Bears. There might be a few more (Eagles, Vikings, Packers, Cardinals, Saints are up there). Did you forget about the Falcons or do you think it's all been smoke and mirrors?

That's odd. I probably wouldn't rank Jeter in the top 53 offensive players for 2008, let alone all time.

This is right on point. You don't just give up on a guy like Peavy. My personal feelings on this is that a deal is already in place for Peavy to go to the Cubs. The Padres are just waiting now for Hendry to: A) Finish a deal with a 3rd team that will give San Diego a major league ready starter to complete the package B) Move Marquis I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if both of those events happen within minutes of each other.

west coast not-withstanding, I can't imagine Lee lifting his NTC to go to that crap team He lives in the bay area. i know this. I still don't think he'll trade sleeping in his own bed for playing for a last place team They will be better than the Padres.

Absolutely. But, it wouldn't hurt to ask. The Giants front office could probably use a good laugh about now. Good call. They're gonna need to get their laughs in before the season starts Nah. They'll still be able to laugh at the Padres.

I've wanted him for years, although he continues to prove the naysayers right about never being healthy. I finally turned myself off on him as the offseason began, but looking at the current outfield situation, I actually like Bradley a lot once again. If you can go into the '09 season with Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley, Johnson and Hoffpauir, with DeRosa as a spot starter on occasion as well, I think you have all the depth you really need and you don't have to count on Bradley to be healthy for the full year. When he's in there, he sure can produce. He's now another full season removed from his knee injury, so maybe you can get a solid 120-130 games out of him. That might be all you can expect from the aging guys like Ibanez or Abreu as well. Actually, Ibanez is completely off my radar since Seattle offered him arbitration. He only played 20 games in the field last year. But, it sounded like he wasn't happy to be DHing as often as he was. Texas just wanted to make sure he didn't reinjure that knee. Bradley did steal 5 bases last year, which is a sign that the knee felt good enough to run.

Absolutely. But, it wouldn't hurt to ask. The Giants front office could probably use a good laugh about now.

Who will the Giants be trading Howry to for that to happen? Back to the Cubs, obviously. More obvious would be the team playing the Cubs in the '09 NLDS since the Cubs don't win games in the NLDS very often.