jersey cubs fan

Derosa is a nice player but he's not nearly good enough to hold up a trade for far better player. He's replacable, and just because you don't care about his age doesn't mean that it's not an issue.

i would not miss any of those players. The point is, why buy at full price when you can pick it up discounted later? This is a poker game, and Hendry is gambling that he can get Peavy cheaper, and I imagine he's right. Except the only reason he's even able to be in this discussion is becasue Peavy's inexplicable Cubs only demand. Imagine that fades? Then you've got no leverage. When have the Cubs ever been in a position to be the only team a star player would accept a trade to? It's a gift from the heavens that they had a month to bargain with that chip.

Are you kidding me?

Umm. All of 'em. Didn't the Phillies just win a World Series with that rotation? Yup. I rest my case. Give the Cubs hitters in the class of philly and you'd have a point.

Not much. Most of those guys are just going to fade into oblivion. If you can use them as trade bait for quality, you do it.

Yeah unless were hit with a ton of injuries, this team is a 90 plus win team again. Bradley production or whoever will be better then Edmonds when you factor in AB's and games. Plus lets not forget Soriano missed 50 games last year, with mostly a freak injury. Having him for more games will also help, and make up some for DeRosa dropping off some power wise. As for Theriot I don't see a major decline I still think he hits 290s, 350s-360s with 720s or so OPS. This team might not be 33 games above 500 again next year, but I think we will easily be 18-20 games above 500. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Umm. All of 'em. No way. Harden and Dempster are special cases. Harden is a guaranteed injury and Dempster had as shocking a good year as anybody out there.

i would not miss any of those players. Well, if that's the case, why don't we go ahead and throw in 10 more guys as well and REALLY make sure we get this deal done? Why are you so hung up on quantity? They aren't good players. If you are offering the core, what difference does it make who the 7th and 8th guys are.

I have my doubts that any improvement in RF will offset what will surely be a significant decrease in CF.

#-o lol so basically it's like... if two of our 3 best starters suck and/or get hurt, our rotation is questionable. cool.. Except one is a lock to get hurt and the other is a very good bet to take a significant step backward. Are you advocating the 8 for 1 trade of Peavy? I don't know what 8 for 1 trade was on the table, but I couldn't care less if somebody wanted quantity from this organization. Take it. They aren't going to be difference makers. What I am advocating is the Cubs actually improving their team, which they have not yet done.

#-o lol so basically it's like... if two of our 3 best starters suck and/or get hurt, our rotation is questionable. cool.. Except one is a lock to get hurt and the other is a very good bet to take a significant step backward.

I would love to trade Derosa this year to get younger. He's a 34 year old coming off a career year and while the manager is willing to play him everywhere, he's not particularly good at any of his positions (the Macias effect). Plus, he's about the most replacable starter on the team.

It wasn't 7 for 1, but regardless, giving up quantity doesn't really matter to me. I don't know a single one of those players. Anybody who wants quantity from the Cubs system can go right ahead and take it.

If those two things happen (with Marshall sliding in for Harden for over 1/2 the season and Dempster pitching just as an average starter) the rotation would still be well above average. Well above is a pretty vague statement. My guess is the lineup takes a step back, and if the rotation does to this team could easily miss the playoffs. I'm not sold on anything about this team yet. The only thing they've done so far is take a step back.

It doesn't really matter what Bradley is asking for, it's what he can get offered that matters. 4/40 would be absurd.

Except it became pretty clear that they matched up perfectly fine for what SD wanted.

What are your thoughts on Jason Kendall destroying his bone stepping on first?

Not sure if it's been mentioned but Bears are 3 point favorites. Also, while it may be dry tomorrow night, that's been a crappy field recently and didn't it rain/snow/sleet for a couple days already?

I'll add a Saints fans stamp of approval onto this post. Saints are pretty much fried toast in games in those elements. Only consolation is that Reggie looks to be back from the DL playing very well and Pierre Thomas has never played as good as he has recently. Bears win. The Saints are going to stomp the Bears. Cold weather, unless accompanied by snow or rain, doesn't mean a thing. It is much harder to run a vertical passing game in the cold. Need to wear gloves or lose feeling in your hands, the football is hard, tougher to stay loose for the receivers. Not saying it is impossible, just that it would be crazy to think the Saints wouldn't much rather be playing in their dome than outdoors in Chicago. Fine but its irrational to think that the Bears passing defensive ranking jumps 20 spots if the temp at game time is 20 degrees or cooler. No more irrational than dismissing the Saints being 1-5 on the road. The outdoor cold night clearly plays in the Bears advantage in a game againt the dome-homed Saints. Yes, actually, its much more irrational. The Saints 6 road games were played against teams not named the Chicago Bears, who now currently have the 28th ranked passing defense. The cold might be an advantage, but not like the advantage of having the number one ranked passing offense versus the 28th ranked passing defense. Well they did lose to the 23rd and 27th rated pass defense on the road this season...(Atlanta and Denver) And Minnesota at hime (20). Pretending the only thing that matters is the Saints are good through the air and the Bears are bad defending it doesn't make much sense.

I'll add a Saints fans stamp of approval onto this post. Saints are pretty much fried toast in games in those elements. Only consolation is that Reggie looks to be back from the DL playing very well and Pierre Thomas has never played as good as he has recently. Bears win. The Saints are going to stomp the Bears. Cold weather, unless accompanied by snow or rain, doesn't mean a thing. It is much harder to run a vertical passing game in the cold. Need to wear gloves or lose feeling in your hands, the football is hard, tougher to stay loose for the receivers. Not saying it is impossible, just that it would be crazy to think the Saints wouldn't much rather be playing in their dome than outdoors in Chicago. Fine but its irrational to think that the Bears passing defensive ranking jumps 20 spots if the temp at game time is 20 degrees or cooler. No more irrational than dismissing the Saints being 1-5 on the road. The outdoor cold night clearly plays in the Bears advantage in a game againt the dome-homed Saints.

I don't know. With the economy the way it is, the trend is for top of the line performers getting their money, while the second tier people take the hit. The fact that CC got what he got while Rodriguez settled for what he got makes me think GMs are reprioritizing. The demand for aces hasn't taken a hit. But the demand for others? Clearly it's not high enough to have set off bidding wars yet, which is fairly late in the game for movement to just be starting. Bradley fits the Cubs needs, but how many other teams can afford to spend millions on a guy they know won't play a full season? NY is paying CC because they expect 35 starts and 250 innings (plus nobody else even put their pole in the water there). But I don't see teams going gaga over a guy when they are hoping for 100 starts if things work out. Anyway, I don't think the money being paid/offered to CC and other #1 starter types is really all that indicative of where the market lies for the rest of the crowd.

How could people not be willing to trade Marmol for Peavy straight up? I wouldn't trade Ramirez because he's the Cubs best hitter and probably irreplacable for several years. Wouldn't trade Soto either. I'd deal Zambrano because I think Peavy is better than him and we're talking similar dollar figures coming and going.

I think there's a hell of a lot more people who are indifferent than you think. Personally, I think the HOF arguments are stupid and pointless. I couldn't care less about it and I don't really care if Santo gets in or not. I'm sure his constant campaigning for the call works against him with the voters. I don't care about individual awards or recognition. I care about how well the Cubs do. I don't know a single friend who puts an ounce of thought into things like MVP, All Star and HOF voting. The only time I discuss it is when I'm bored and on this site, but I usually try and avoid those threads.

What free agent offers to take a 1-year deal? Hendry pushed Wood out the door. He didn't want him on a 1-year deal. And he shouldn't have. If this was a player with the same history and his name wasn't Kerry Wood people wouldn't want him even on a 1 year 10 million deal. Better off giving Wuertz, Shark, Guzman, etc a chance to fill the role at lower cost. Look at Boston - management there doesn't get hung up on the emotional issues of letting a long time player go if it doesn't make sense in the overall team financial picture. IMO that is how to build long term success, not by re-signing veterans at high cost because they happen to be fan favorites. Wood's negative history is that he can't stay healthy as a starting pitcher. He'd have troubles in the 4th and 5th innings of games. He was perfectly fine as a reliever and an excellent performer. And now he's being replaced with a lesser guy who is probably going to make $6+ million.

If that's what it takes to insert Marquis in a trade for someone instead of Marshall, it's a sacrifice I'm gladly willing to make. I'd much rather indirectly pay Marshall 4 million than Marquis 9 million. fair point, though i'm dubious that one year of marquis at $5-6M has much value to anybody. Truffle, your two posts in this quote seem contradictory to me. You'd rather keep him than pay him to play elsewhere because he's got some value but you don't think he's got much value to anybody at $5-6m.