Backtobanks

I'm sure that had something to do with it, but all the sources were predicting Dempster was going to re-sign with the Cubs from the beginning.

If they're getting Teahen to replace Ward/ Hoffpauir's spot I wouldn't mind him on the team in place of Fontenot as the LH bat off the bench. I'd rather have Fontenot and Hoffpauir as lefties coming off the bench.

I don't really see much reason to discuss Greene because Lou and Hendry seem perfectly satisfied with Theriot. They might have second thoughts if they were serious about Furcal, but they aren't motivated to replace Theriot (at least not with Greene).

The Giants' idea of "going young".

Unfortunately, not one of these guys is any good. I imagine that the Twins are being unreasonable and are asking for effective relief pitching. Marmol for Young + ??? I don't want to trade Marmol, just throwing crap at the wall to spur conversation. However, everyone is tradeable for the right price, including Geo. No to trading Marmol. The Twins are looking more for middle relief.

I mentioned in an another topic that a possible candidate for LH RF could be Jason Kubel. MLBtrade rumors mentioned that the Twins are in the market for relief pitching (mentioning Delmon Young): Delmon Young could be moved by Twins? It remains unclear whether the Twins will be able to move outfielder Delmon Young, but they are intent on trading for bullpen help With Wuertz, Hart, Wells, Ascaino, Cotts, Guzman, etc., all young and cheap, maybe something could be worked out to get Kubel or Young (who we could add to the deal for Peavy). Kubel could be a decent platoon player with DeRosa/Johnson.

I hope Wood comes back too, but no matter what you say about Wood (loves Chicago, money isn't everything, etc.) he would have to be crazy to take the Cubs 1-year deal and leave $16 million on the table (in your example). I'm sure he knows his medical history better than any of us and he should take the most guaranteed money he can find in case his medical problems reappear.

Finally some who realizes that the mentioned names haven't been traded for Teahan. Calm down Hendry-lynchers until a deal is made.

oh yeah they did Yes, I can vouch for this. The Ramirez/Lofton trade was met with a lot of mixed emotions and the overall tone at the time was negative. The Lofton part of the trade excited me at the time. I sure don't remember any mixed emotions. It seems to me that everyone (including the writers) thought that the Cubs were the big winners in the deal.

Towers is finding out that many teams are now at the point that they don't want to give up their top prospects. Hopefully, the Cubs will be the last team standing and he will have to trade Peavy for less than what he wants. I'm not a big fan of Greene, but Giles could be an okay pickup. I'm sure we would all prefer a younger LH RF with more power (Hermida). If we reduce the trade, maybe we could flip Marquis (plus cash) and Greene to the O's for Scott instead of getting Giles.

First, it wasn't my proposal, but I thought it looked interesting. You're entitled to your opinion, but my point is that this trade isn't perfect, but it would improve the 2009 Cubs without giving up anybody of real value. Of course we would all love to get Peavy and Hermida, dump Marquis, and sign Furcal while keeping the core of the team and our best prospects, but it isn't that easy.

I agree with you, but you have to admit Roberts and Scott would make the Cubs much better offensively. Hermida offers youth and potential, but Scott offers more of a sure thing. I agree that Roberts speed would help, but that would also mean we would be taking DeRosa bat out of the line-up. As for Scott is he really much better then Edmonds? He doesn't hit for average, struggles some against LH pitching, and has about 20 HR power. DeRosa numbers were better then both guys last year, and he would either be on the bench or traded then. I would rather use those prospects and get Hermida, and hope Fukudome rebounds and can hit towards the top of the order. But I'm also really high on Hermida, so my opinion on this might not be the best. I would trade any prospect we have not named Vitters to get Hermida right now. DeRosa and Scott would platoon in RF. Soriano and ARam seem to miss some games each year so DeRosa would be available. As for Hermida, I don't have a clue as to what it would take to get him. Unfortunately, he seems to be on a lot of teams' radar as a buy-low candidate.

So we're trading Zambrano, Lee, and Derosa for salary relief to get Peavy and then we're going to sign Tex for $200 million. #-o #-o #-o Once again, nobody said we should trade all those guys so we could get Peavy. DeRosa and Lee were single ideas and the only person who mentioned Zambrano was pretty much saying it tongue in cheek I'm not so sure that you can speak for other posters. After reading the unbridled passion that some posters have for Peavy, I'm not sure some people wouldn't trade a few of these guys. My point is that this trade is very similar to the Roberts talk last year: we would love to have him, but we don't absolutely need him. That's especially true if you are going to impact the starting lineup or gut the farm system to get him. When posters talk about trading Lee or DeRosa with no clue as to who would replace them, that's irrational. This is a team that won 97 games last year. Show me who is saying that we should trade all those guys. No clue who owuld replace them? Actually it has been discussed pretty openly who would replace those guys. Yet again though, noboy is saying we should trade all those guys. They were individual ideas on trading indivudal players. You're being irrational by saying that people want to trade all of them when in reality nobody is saying that. And yeah, this team won 97 games. That was last year. We're building a team for this year. A lot of things will change. We aren't going to get Edmonds freakish summer production. It's highly unlikely Dempster will have an ERA under 3 again. It's unlikely that DeRosa will put up an .857 OPS, Fontenot will put up a .900+ OPS, etc, etc. A lot can change. Really I'm just worried about the rotation. That might sound ridiculous, but think about it. Harden is pretty much a lock to miss significant time, and what is Dempster goes back to being Dempster? It's very possible. Then where are we? Zambano and a bunch of 4-4.50 ERA starters. That worries me. While I agree that Harden will probably miss some starts, I don't think Dempster is going to regress as much as many posters do. Granted he might not have the numbers that he had last year, but I think he will be decent. Zambrano and Lilly should post numbers similar to last year. Unless he's traded, Marshall is a solid replacement for Harden and the #5 spot. As for Marquis, I would assume he will be traded, but the biggest knock on Marquis in the #5 spot is his salary. He's not great, but comparing him to other #5 starters shows that he's not bad (just overpaid). I don't think there's any reason to think DeRosa will regress because his numbers have been consistent ever since he's been a regular. I think the offense will be okay assuming we get a LH RF to platoon with DeRosa and Johnson. Without knowing what deals are going to be made in the next few months, I would expect the Cubs to be over 90 wins and NL Central Champs. All of us would love to add Peavy, but he's a luxury and not a necessity.

Might be true, but might be the GM trying to raise the offers.

I agree with you, but you have to admit Roberts and Scott would make the Cubs much better offensively. Hermida offers youth and potential, but Scott offers more of a sure thing.

Sports Guy at OH posted this proposal: Cubs get: BRob and Scott from O's O's get: Hermida, Marquis, Hill, Cedeno Marlins get: prospect from Cubs (not Vitters), prospect from O's (not top 3 pitchers or Wieters), Hernandez (plus cash). I like the deal. We're not giving up anything vital and we get a leadoff man with speed and a power hitting LH RF. I know the first comments will be about wanting Hermida instead of Scott, but if this deal does make the Cubs much stronger offensively.

So we're trading Zambrano, Lee, and Derosa for salary relief to get Peavy and then we're going to sign Tex for $200 million. #-o #-o #-o Once again, nobody said we should trade all those guys so we could get Peavy. DeRosa and Lee were single ideas and the only person who mentioned Zambrano was pretty much saying it tongue in cheek I'm not so sure that you can speak for other posters. After reading the unbridled passion that some posters have for Peavy, I'm not sure some people wouldn't trade a few of these guys. My point is that this trade is very similar to the Roberts talk last year: we would love to have him, but we don't absolutely need him. That's especially true if you are going to impact the starting lineup or gut the farm system to get him. When posters talk about trading Lee or DeRosa with no clue as to who would replace them, that's irrational. This is a team that won 97 games last year.

5 players for DeJesus and Greinke! Cubs are giving up way too much. :mrgreen:

So we're trading Zambrano, Lee, and Derosa for salary relief to get Peavy and then we're going to sign Tex for $200 million. #-o #-o #-o

For all of you that want to trade Lee, tell me who is going to play 1B with decent numbers, great defense, and a much-cheaper contract and is available. Also, let's not overlook the number of errors Lee saves on throws from ARam and Theriot. As for "selling high" on DeRosa, I think it would be impossible to get equal value for him from any team. Getting prospects to flip for Peavy would give us a fabulous rotation that would lead the league in unearned runs.

As much as I would love to add Peavy, we now have posters suggesting we trade Lee, DeRosa, Wuertz, and Cotts which would open at least 3 new holes on the team. Assuming Marshall is part of a deal, the Cubs would have no lefties in the bullpen with the trade of Cotts. Hoffpauir has a possible future as a pinch hitter/DH, but not as a starter. As for DeRosa, he quite possibly was our 3rd MVP on the team. Let's not forget that the rotation goes into 2009 better than the 2008 rotation which lead the Cubs to over 90 wins. If we can acquire Peavy using spare parts and prospects, fine. If not, move on and fill the other holes on the team. uh oh...you just did it i say we trade Z to the yanks and get back hughes then get peavy i love the Z, but he is frustrating... naw...i really don't know about that...he has actually been our only good pitcher in the playoffs two years running now I guess I didn't realize just how good Peavy is since now we're up to trading Zambrano, Lee, DeRosa, Wuertz, and Cotts to acquire him. Peavy-Mania is unbelievable.

Young, cheap, LH, athletic, good defense, speed, great power, and rumored to be available for the right price, but unfortunately the Cardinals wouldn't trade Ankiel to the Cubs. Maybe we can con some team into trading for him and then flipping him to the Cubs.

As much as I would love to add Peavy, we now have posters suggesting we trade Lee, DeRosa, Wuertz, and Cotts which would open at least 3 new holes on the team. Assuming Marshall is part of a deal, the Cubs would have no lefties in the bullpen with the trade of Cotts. Hoffpauir has a possible future as a pinch hitter/DH, but not as a starter. As for DeRosa, he quite possibly was our 3rd MVP on the team. Let's not forget that the rotation goes into 2009 better than the 2008 rotation which lead the Cubs to over 90 wins. If we can acquire Peavy using spare parts and prospects, fine. If not, move on and fill the other holes on the team.

If the Yankees are indeed the third team in the Peavy talks maybe it might involve some of these players: Damon (Bad Contract) to the Cubs for salary relief Kennedy to SD Marquis to Yankees or with cash to SD Lilly to the Yankees (there was talk about this last year) Gerut to the Yankees (Cheap LH versatile OF) Peavy to the Cubs Pie, Cedeno, Marshall, Hart, Wuertz, Veal, etc. (all the usual suspects) going one way or another. It looks a little too complicated for me to get more specific, but some of the veteran names (Damon, Lilly, Marquis) could be involved because of contract issues or as an incentive to get involved in the deal.

Peavy.