Backtobanks

Chill out people, it's Paul Sullivan for goodness sakes. Next thing you know, you'll believe what Phil Rogers has written too.

He seems to have moved past those issues. Take his numbers on a bad KC team in the AL (with DH) and translate those into a good team in the NL (without DH) and you might be talking about a great young pitcher.

For all of the rumored names that we're trading for Peavy and HOF-bound Garrett Olsen, maybe Hendry ought to look at some other pitchers. The two rumors below would bring outstanding, young, cheap pitchers. I'm not comparing Greinke or Sanchez to Peavy, but taking into consideration their ages and contracts, they could have nearly the same impact. With the money saved, Hendry could sign Ibanez or re-sign Wood (assuming he wants to). If nothing else, leaking the fact Hendry is looking elsewhere might make Towers and MacPhail get off their rear ends and make something happen. From Foxsports: Royals Greinke to Texas? Yes, I've also heard the Royals have no interest in moving right-hander Zack Greinke. But I also know the economy is making everybody think real hard about every big contract. The Royals have multiple holes to fill. The Rangers have lots of farm-talent depth. At one point, there was some thought the teams would be the best possible match - if Kansas City was willing to deal. It's worth checking back in with Dayton Moore. -- Dallas Morning News From MLBTR: From MLBTR: Brown also says the Giants have discussed trading Jonathan Sanchez to the Marlins for Jorge Cantu.

I've tried to be patient and have listened to all of the arguments defending MacPhail, but at some point we need to tell him to stick it. I don't mind trading some of these players to the O's, but MacPhail acts like we need to give him 2-3 starting players for Garrett Olsen. I understand Olsen helps in the Peavy deal, but these rumors are ridiculous. The rumor about AM asking for Headley and Greene in the deal is so absurd, it has to be true.

I don't dislike MacPhail at all, but you must admit that his slow moving pace and his overvaluing his players can be really annoying. I think he might be the wrong man for the job to rebuild the O's if you are an impatient O's fan. He might get it done, but it won't be done quickly.

It's not 4 for 1, Boone Logan going to the Braves.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8882368/Sources:-Braves-look-to-deal-for-ChiSox's-Vazquez?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=49 hopefully this offically takes the Braves out and moves this Peavy thing along. Ramirez moving to SS and now they add Lillibridge to Getz and Nix at 2B?

Sifting through Hendry's individual transactions and picking out the good ones (I would even be willing to stipulate that there are more good than bad - it's irrelevant) is not meaningful. With the resources this organization has, there is no reason that the Chicago Cubs should be anything but a perennial powerhouse, winning 90+ games a minimum of six out of every ten seasons, with a couple of 85-90 win seasons in there also. There is also no reason that the Chicago Cubs should have anything but one of the very best farm systems in all of baseball, producing a consistent stream of top major league talent. Just because Jim Hendry is better than the ridiculous collection of knuckleheads who have held the title of Cubs GM over the past 30+ years doesn't make him good. He has some fine qualities, but he has demonstrated that he can't get the job done. "Having the resources" should describe just about an major city baseball team (Yankees, Mets, Angels, Dodgers, White Sox, Red Sox, Phillies, Tigers, etc.), so how many of those teams have perrenial powerhouses and top notch farm systems? Let's not forget our friends in Baltimore that have a billionaire for an owner.

With that rotation, we would probably get swept 1-0, 2-1, 1-0. :grin:

It's always interesting to read the Hendry-bashing rants. What if the Cubs offered arbitration and Wood accepted $9 million for one year. The Cubs then trade Gregg for a mid-level prospect. Meanwhile, the Cubs can't afford Peavy and a veteran RF. Harden and Wood have their usual problems with injuries and guess what happens - Hendry gets bashed for spending money on Wood, not getting Peavy, not filling RF adequately, giving away Ceda for nothing, etc. In other words, Hendry is bashed either way. Also, for all of the "pretend" GMs out there, we have a thread going about spending money on Renteria. The GM's job sure looks easier from this side of the computer screen.

We can't afford a 1-year deal for Kerry Wood, but we're going to signed Renteria?

Gregg Sucks even compared to Howry. And Hendry is not a good GM. http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=1793&playerid2=237&playerid3=&position=P&page=3&type=full so K/BB is the best way to judge pitchers now? I missed the memo You miss a lot of things. It's one of the more important stats when judging a relief pitchers. However, Howry's been better than Gregg in almost every category save for last year. I don't like Howry, but Gregg is terrible. Howry was a good pitcher before last season, but he no longer can throw 95 plus. I don't think you realize how much GM's value ERA and saves. I'm not saying I agree with it, but thats now things work in baseball. The Hendry is a bad GM stuff is just stupid, name me the last GM who's won 3 division titles in his first 6 years? Or worse signings are guys like Glendon Rusch and Neifi Perez. We could do alot worse then Hendry, and he's far from a terrible GM or even one of the worse in the league. Anybody who thinks Hendry is terrible wouldn't be happy with any GM. Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Obviously some posters just want to be negative, whether there's a reason or not.

I think at this point, Hendry is going to do whatever it takes (well at least, I hope so). For the RF thing, would we be content with Luke Scott? He's cheap, but put up some alright numbers last year. He's the left-handed bat we're looking for. I don't know...we'll see what Jimbo can do. I'm all for acquiring Scott as part of this deal. The local favorite seems to be Ibanez, but he'll add $8+ million per year. Scott/DeRosa/Johnson in RF with DeRosa/Fontenot at 2B would offset the loss of Edmonds' 2008 production.

Backtobanks Post subject: Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish ListPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:49 pm All-Star Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:32 pm Posts: 3259 West Side Rooter wrote: Im just curious as to who the mystery team is. Im assuming its a perenial non contender. Marlins: they're always open to moving any player for the right prospect package Royals: could Greinke, and maybe Teahen be involved somehow? Rays: they have young talent to spare Seattle: they need help any way they can get it. Minnesotta: they're trying to re stock. Delmon Young would likely be involved. Toronto? Baltimore? Washington? Then again, it could be a last ditch attempt to pry Tommy Hanson away from the Braves. Everything I read sounds like the Padres want young pitching. Possibly the Marlins. It won't be the Royals because Greinke is unavailable and if he was he would cost (in players) almost as much as Peavy. I'm not sure what we could offer the Rays for young pitching. Minnesota's young pitching would cost too much (in players). I offered a trade suggestion at OH: Marquis + Vitters + Wells for Scott and 2 of Mikolo/Olsen/Tillman/Arrieta. Cubs flip the 2 young pitchers with Pie, Marshall, and Hart for Peavy. Cubs end up with Scott and Peavy. Possibly we could get Cedeno (to Padres) and Greene (to the O's) involved. Looks like I scooped the media about the O's being the 3rd team.

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. I agree that some of this discussion is getting absurd. As much as we would all like to acquire Peavy, he is a luxury and not a necessity. If we're talking about trading Vitters, Cedeno, Marshall, Pie, etc. that's one thing, but if you're talking about downgrading 2 positions ( from Edmonds/Johnson in CF to Willits/Johnson and from Lee to DeRosa/Hoffpauir at 1B) that's something else.

If this is true, it is great news. Lilly would be a nice pitcher/with a decent contract and should attract any of those teams named. Lee should have some decent value also. As loaded as the Rangers are, I wonder if we can work out anything with them. Though I have no clue as to what. With Lee being a 10/5 player with a NTC, I don't see how Tampa, Texas, and Minnesota fit into the equation. Lee might waive his NTC to go to the West Coast. If Sabathia signed with the Angels, they certainly would have pitching to trade. Also, I worry about signing a "slightly lesser 1B than Lee". Contrary to what a lot of you seem to think, a step down from Lee might look pretty ugly (Hinske, Aurilia, etc.).

Everything I read sounds like the Padres want young pitching. Possibly the Marlins. It won't be the Royals because Greinke is unavailable and if he was he would cost (in players) almost as much as Peavy. I'm not sure what we could offer the Rays for young pitching. Minnesota's young pitching would cost too much (in players). I offered a trade suggestion at OH: Marquis + Vitters + Wells for Scott and 2 of Mikolo/Olsen/Tillman/Arrieta. Cubs flip the 2 young pitchers with Pie, Marshall, and Hart for Peavy. Cubs end up with Scott and Peavy. Possibly we could get Cedeno (to Padres) and Greene (to the O's) involved. More likely, The Cubs are sending Marquis as part of the deal and Towers found a team that will give him some very young arms for him. That team may very well be the O's though not for any of the players mentioned. If Towers got Pie, Marshall, Hart, Marquis and Vitters for Peavy and then flipped Marquis to someone for 2 players that were currently in Low A that would be a respectable deal, particularly since he has only one bidder and must make the deal. From what I've read, the Padres want young ML-ready pitching, so they wouldn't want Low A ball pitchers and I doubt they want the hassle of trading Marquis. I'm not sure the O's will do that, but I do know that they drool over Vitters, that they have a ton of young pitching, and they can use a veteran innings-eater like Marquis. Scott has no long-term future with the O's. The O's might really get involved if we added Cedeno (to the Padres) and Greene (to the O's) because they need a SS bad.

Everything I read sounds like the Padres want young pitching. Possibly the Marlins. It won't be the Royals because Greinke is unavailable and if he was he would cost (in players) almost as much as Peavy. I'm not sure what we could offer the Rays for young pitching. Minnesota's young pitching would cost too much (in players). I offered a trade suggestion at OH: Marquis + Vitters + Wells for Scott and 2 of Mikolo/Olsen/Tillman/Arrieta. Cubs flip the 2 young pitchers with Pie, Marshall, and Hart for Peavy. Cubs end up with Scott and Peavy. Possibly we could get Cedeno (to Padres) and Greene (to the O's) involved.

I could certainly live with Baldelli, but as I stated earlier the Cubs are looking for a LH RF.

If Wood accepts and brings him much closer to that budget, he couldn't afford any of those players, which would be the problem. No necessarily, it just means he might have to trade Marquis to pay for Wood's contract. If he does have a firm budget, I still can't see how they're looking at Peavy, Abreu, or Ibanez regardless of Wood's situation. A) You can't just decide to trade Marquis. Odds are you'll have to pick up a huge chunk of his salary. B) If he's got, let's say, $12-14m left, he can look at any of those guys. But if Wood accepts he can't. I really don't understand why you are having trouble understanding the limitations of a budget. I understand the limitations of a budget, but if he has $12-$14 million left (your example), he can't afford any of those guys with raises due to certain players. Also, with how much he has spent since the team has been for sale, I have trouble believing that any bigshot is going to shoot down a chance to get Peavy and re-sign Wood because it will go a few million over budget.

If Wood accepts and brings him much closer to that budget, he couldn't afford any of those players, which would be the problem. No necessarily, it just means he might have to trade Marquis to pay for Wood's contract. If he does have a firm budget, I still can't see how they're looking at Peavy, Abreu, or Ibanez regardless of Wood's situation.

I wouldn't be surprised, only depressed. Can someone tell me please: Why would the Cubs be disincented to offer arby? Is someone (who is theoretically sober) really thinking that Wood isn't worth the likely arb-awarded $? If Hendry is really up against a 100% firm budget limit, Wood accepting an arb offer may consume all or most of the remaining money he has to address what he and Lou consider higher priority issues. He may be unwilling to take that risk, in which case he could decline to offer. In such a scenario, he should be fired immediately. Well, he should be fired immediately anyway, but that's a separate discussion. How can Hendry be up against a 100% firm budget when he's flirting with names like Peavy, Abreu, and Ibanez all of which will command more money than Wood will get in arbitration.

Assuming we don't make a deal involving the rotation, how is the 2009 rotation worse than the 2008 rotation that won the NL Central? Zambrano, Harden (part time), Dempster, Lilly, Marquis, + Marshall >>>>>>> Zambrano, Dempster, Lilly, Marquis, Gallagher/Marshall Why is Harden not a part of the 2008 rotation that won the NL Central? I was comparing starters going into each season, so the 2009 rotation going into the season looks more promising than the 2008 rotation did. There seems to be a lot of nay-saying about Dempster for 2009, but with this rotation he only needs to perform like a #3 or #4 starter. Of course that's assuming Zambrano, Harden (when healthy), and Lilly do as expected.

Assuming we don't make a deal involving the rotation, how is the 2009 rotation worse than the 2008 rotation that won the NL Central? Zambrano, Harden (part time), Dempster, Lilly, Marquis, + Marshall >>>>>>> Zambrano, Dempster, Lilly, Marquis, Gallagher/Marshall

We've the shift in recent years by some players. Many of them want long-term deals for security, and that has been the push and standard. But in the last two years we've seen several players opt out of lucrative deals, only to sign more lucrative deals because the salary inflation is so rapid, such that the back end of a 4 or 5 year deal may not maximize value. You end up with possibilities where you could argue someone was underpaid at the back-end of his contract. Wood is 31. A one-year arbitration does nothing to hurt his value next off-season at age 32, unless a season-ending injury occurs. So as Goony points out, it's not crazy at all. 3/24 this off-season or next, there is little Wood could do to damage that value, again barring a season-ending injury. If he makes it through the season healthy, thus showing he can handle the bullpen workload 2 years in a row, 5/50-60 wouldn't be out of the question next offseason. And if he hurts his arm, his future contracts would be zero. It's a gamble, but he's at a point that he needs to think about long-range security. Also, this discussion was based on him being offered 3/24. What if there's a 3/32 or 4/40 offer this year?