killthegoat06

That makes two pitchers that the Cubs and Cards have missed out on together (Wolf). I think Schmidt will be 3. I think for us to get him Hendry would've had to swoop in and steal him early like with Soriano.

Me like.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061204&content_id=1750311&vkey=hotstove2006&fext=.jsp

IBL

Rotoworld 4 years for Meche but not Schmidt? Hendry deserves to lose his job.

All 1 of them? :D 2 - Padilla and Maddux Plus it was in about 15 minutes. Here comes the wave...

CUBS NOT CLOSE!!!! more speculation from mlb-rumors.blogspot.com: (who knows if it's reliable; I'm just in need of good news.)

co-sign I've heard people say that, but what does co-sign mean? You completly disagree with the poster's opinion uh...co-sign? :lol: :oops: I thought it had some connotation.

co-sign I've heard people say that, but what does co-sign mean?

If the Yankees stole him from Hendry..Hendry would have a nervous breakdown...Im all for it if it means hell push harder to sign Schimt or trade for Jennings or Westbrook Or sign Meche.

Come on, use that money! Although if we use Lilly, Hendry will probably go after Meche ... :cry:

I, for one, don't mind this method too much. If you miss something in a 40-page thread it's hard to get caught up. THis is why I turn away from this site more often...I like information and rumors etc...I hate the fact that this turns into a chat site....40 page threads.....time to go!!!!!!!!! That is what a forum is...

So Lilly's moving closer to signing even though his agent isn't there and so we haven't been talking? There are cell phones and fax machines in the world. Lilly's agent doesn't have to be there to have contract negotiations close to completion. You just have to ruin it don't you? :roll: :lol:

Jerry Crasnick adds another Lilly to Cubs mention... So Lilly's moving closer to signing even though his agent isn't there and so we haven't been talking?

So Lilly's moving closer to signing even though his agent isn't there and so we haven't been talking?

FLIGHT DELAY

:twisted:

:twisted:

Didn't ITI say that we'd only sign one starter and then trade for one? Or was that only speculation?

PLEASE make your avatar smaller Better?

I, for one, don't mind this method too much. If you miss something in a 40-page thread it's hard to get caught up. Well, it's a concise 11 in premium format.

I, for one, don't mind this method too much. If you miss something in a 40-page thread it's hard to get caught up. Yeah that's true. Let's hope there's about to be something worth updating...(today-ish)...

Can we just reply to this in the general winter meetings thread? Otherwise we're quickly going to rack up a bunch of new threads when updates are available.

I'm moving this from the CBS Reporting ... thread.

In many ways, Padilla reminds me of Jaime Navarro, and we know how that one turned out. None of these guys are really turning me on at all, especially for the money. Rather than pursue diluted and debatable talent, I think Hendry should just suck it up and get genuine quality, spend the extra $$ for someone that can actually help the Cubs get better. The only guy I see that can do that via the FA route is Schmidt. Do that, and then get your #4 starter via trade, team would be better for it. Just say no to signing two middling FA starters at a combined $20MM/year, please. Don't. Do. It. I don't really buy the Navarro comparison. By this time is his career, Navarro had already had 2 disastrous seasons that Padilla has thus far avoided. Plus, Navarro actually had two good seasons for the Cubs. I'm all for Schmidt and somebody else, but I'm fine with Padilla and Lilly, or something similar. I want max production for the $$. Padilla and Lilly are going to cost you $20MM/year. Schmidt will cost $15MM, maybe $16MM tops. With that $4MM to $5MM, you can snag a Jon Lieber (Philly will cover part of his $$ to move him), or move some talent for a Westbrook or Jennings, which would likely involve a net increment of salary around the $5MM mark. Schmidt + anyone like that > Padilla + Lilly, for equal $$. We need a #2 starter, not four #4's. Exactly.