nolanwood

I did tell you about this on April 4th, 2008. And then I brought it up again on May 26th, 2008. That's odd... When I search your posts it shows a gap between Sun, Mar 01 2008 and Sun, Jul 20 2008.

What a classless combo: Boras & Manny. They should've just tried to get some bailout money with Larry Flynt and Joe Francis.

Awesome. :sick:

It is truly a relief that Uribe won't be here next season.

Loss: Wood, DeRosa, Edmonds, Cedeno, Pie, Marquis, Blanco, Ceda, Ward, Olson, Howry, Gain: Gregg, Miles, Bradley(for what, 80 games?), Heilman, Vizcaino, Stevens, Gaub, Archer

=D> I think we have plenty of pitching to absorb the loss and compete in the NL Central. PLENTY. That's not saying much I think it says enough.

=D> I think we have plenty of pitching to absorb the loss and compete in the NL Central. PLENTY.

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine? The difference is that Zambrano and Harden getting hurt is much more likely than most teams 1/2 starters. Did Santana have shoulder problems last year? Is Maine a lock to miss significant time? And the Cards were without Carp all last year and they still won 86 games. True. Also, name either of those teams that has a calibre #3 and #4 as Dempster and Lilly? Depends on what Dempster we're talking about and which Dempster we're going to get in 2009 THis isn't the point though. I never said we didn't have depth. I was saying we didn't have "plenty of depth" or whatever was said Name me a team whose rotation would be better in that situation than if it were to happen to the Cubs. I really don't understand what you're trying to get at. I could just as easily ask "name teams whose top 2 starters are as big of an injury risk as Zambrano and Harden". It's irrelevant My point was that we don't "certainly have plenty of depth". You never do, especially when your top 2 starters are injury risks. How is it irrelevant, when it is the basis for your complaint: But we're talking about depth that is actually good, not depth with crappy players. If Zambrano gets hurt during a period where Harden is also out,how are we looking? Not only is our rotation a mess, but the bullpen is weakened significantly because you're taking guys from that to replace (or attempt to replace) the injured starters. It's irrelevant that you keep trying to compare it to other team's situations, when I can't think of a contender whose top 2 starers are that much of a risk And I can't think of one who'd have the capabilities of sliding in as good of a substitute in their place.

If we gave up Olson and Cedeno for Heilman, Hendry has officially lost his marbles.

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine? The difference is that Zambrano and Harden getting hurt is much more likely than most teams 1/2 starters. Did Santana have shoulder problems last year? Is Maine a lock to miss significant time? And the Cards were without Carp all last year and they still won 86 games. True. Also, name either of those teams that has a calibre #3 and #4 as Dempster and Lilly? Depends on what Dempster we're talking about and which Dempster we're going to get in 2009 THis isn't the point though. I never said we didn't have depth. I was saying we didn't have "plenty of depth" or whatever was said Name me a team whose rotation would be better in that situation than if it were to happen to the Cubs. I really don't understand what you're trying to get at. I could just as easily ask "name teams whose top 2 starters are as big of an injury risk as Zambrano and Harden". It's irrelevant My point was that we don't "certainly have plenty of depth". You never do, especially when your top 2 starters are injury risks. How is it irrelevant, when it is the basis for your complaint: But we're talking about depth that is actually good, not depth with crappy players. If Zambrano gets hurt during a period where Harden is also out,how are we looking? Not only is our rotation a mess, but the bullpen is weakened significantly because you're taking guys from that to replace (or attempt to replace) the injured starters.

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine? The difference is that Zambrano and Harden getting hurt is much more likely than most teams 1/2 starters. Did Santana have shoulder problems last year? Is Maine a lock to miss significant time? And the Cards were without Carp all last year and they still won 86 games. True. Also, name either of those teams that has a calibre #3 and #4 as Dempster and Lilly? Depends on what Dempster we're talking about and which Dempster we're going to get in 2009 THis isn't the point though. I never said we didn't have depth. I was saying we didn't have "plenty of depth" or whatever was said Name me a team whose rotation would be better in that situation than if it were to happen to the Cubs.

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine? The difference is that Zambrano and Harden getting hurt is much more likely than most teams 1/2 starters. Did Santana have shoulder problems last year? Is Maine a lock to miss significant time? And the Cards were without Carp all last year and they still won 86 games. True. Also, name either of those teams have a #3 and #4 remotely comparable to Dempster and Lilly...

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine?

Putz I'd gladly take Heilman, and if he fails as a starter, he'd be an excellent long man or even late inning guy.

What does the amount he paid have to do with his commitment to winning?

Yes, Z was a Boras client before he dropped him prior to contract negotiations.

No kidding... I'd make that swap in a heartbeat.

I have trouble believing that the Cubs would trade Soriano since they are trying to add offense. Obviously it would make sense to try to get out from under his contract, but the Cubs are in a win-now mode and getting good youngsters for a big piece of your current offense doesn't help in 2009. As for the Peavy deal, I do think it will happen and I'm hoping we can exclude Vitters. Soriano is a problem that has a huge contract. He plays poor D, but that would be less of a problem in Boston where most hard hit balls are going off the wall anyway. He also has a mental block about hitting someplace in the lineup other than leadoff, and the Cubs can NOT win deep into the playoffs with him hitting leadoff because he is an all or nothing type hitter. All of this gives Lou a GIANT headache! When you put his contract, mental block and D along side the Cubs need for LH power, a true leadoff hitter (L or S), and perhaps another OF to play L or R, Hendry will jump at the opportunity to move him, especially if he could get Ellsbury and a couple of pitching prospects for Towers in return. Ellsbury is not only a great leadoff hitter, he plays CF, AND his salary is so low and will remain relatively so, long enough that the Cubs could actually afford to sign Bradley to play RF and Dunn to play LF with backloaded contracts. That would make Fukudome & Johnson the 4th and 5th OFrs, with NO NEED to negotiate at all with MacPhail, and the Cubs would have a perfectly balanced lineup of: Ellsbury L, Theriot R, Bradley S, Ramirez R, Dunn L, Lee R, Fontenot L and Soto R. Does anyone think that Jim and Lou aren't "drooling" over even the slightest possibility of this happening? Fukudome would be a 4th OF'er making 50 mill...

So... we trade Marquis to free up money to sign Aaron Miles who is replacing DeRosa who was traded to free up money for 100 games (at best) of Bradley?

Maybe we already had the players to get it done in-house, and Hendry picked up these guys to replace what we'll lose? I have no clue what Hendry is doing...

Puke. :sick: Aaron Piles? For once I'd like to see us field a team w/out Cardinal rejects...

I hope he gets a chance to close out every game in the WS for the Tribe, and I'll be right there cheering him on.

I could see the Phils wanting Marquis...

=D> I agree!

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.