abuck1220

the mind of cubbiebum i hate Texas Tech now because Shonn Greene was way more deserving of 5th place than Crabtree. Yeah cause that is what I said. Most sports fans dislike rivals of their team/favorite players. I dislike Heupel because he finished second in a Heisman vote with a 20-14 td-int ratio just as most of us dislike certain Cardinals players. yes, the vaunted purdue-oklahoma rivalry Seriously IMB do you read or just see what you want and then post about it without fully knowing what the person posted? I said rivals of your team/favorite players. In college Heupel was a rival of Brees' because they were both highly considered for the Heisman. I can remember watching Oklahoma games in 2000 routing for them to lose so Heupel would fall out. Same goes for Florida State and Weinke. i was agreeing with you. i remember the heated arguments i had with my friends when we were playing pick up games. "I get to be heupel!" "I get to be brees!" "No I want to be brees!" "NO IM BREES!" you couldn't go anywhere without hearing the question pop up, "who do you like better, brees or heupel?" it's a question that very nearly tore this nation asunder Ok my bad then I took that purdue/oklahoma rivalry post as you saying it didn't exist thus there's no reason for me to dislike Heupel. glad you guys cleared that up.

man, isu athletics are in the toilet. with chizik leaving they have to be one of the biggest messes in college football. i knew chizik would use this job as a stepping stone, but i thought it would a) take longer than two years and b) come with a little success. oops.

berroa/burke could replace cedeno, redding/hensley/james could replace marshall, wigginton could replace derosa the infielder, gomes could replace derosa the OF, taveras could replace pie, belisle/brazoban/proctor could replace hart. told you all those guys could be replaced.

No because our payroll is like $150 million and we can afford to not have to trade one of our SPs for young players who may or may not pan out. that doesn't matter. you wouldn't like that return if the cubs were forced to trade z for whatever reason, but you think it's ridiculous to give up that package to get peavy. obviously it's not that great of an offer.

I think you're right. Wasn't Peavy's agent the one that referred to what he was asking for comparable to the Herschel Walker deal? the cubs simply could not give the padres the talent they wanted (and, frankly, deserved). they had to make up for the lack of talent by going for quantity.

if the cubs were trading carlos zambrano, would you guys be happy with getting sean marshall, kevin hart, josh vitters, cedeno, etc in return?

i'm not making those sarcastic posts in response to hendry walking away from the deal, i'm making them in response to people who really are concerned about losing the swing man. there could, in fact, be really good reasons why hendry didn't do it. i don't think concerns over replacing the 6th starter is one of them.

I haven't seen anyone that said that. Not one. the post i quoted pretty much says that. Who said it. What do the rest of their posts say about this particular topic? I challenge you to find one person on this site or anywhere in Cubbyville that would not like to see a Jason Marquis and Sean Marshall straight up swap for Jake Peavy. like i said the first time, the post right above yours. i guess i'll have to quote it again... that sure as Veterans Committee sounds like someone who is concerned about swapping two pitchers for one. And I'll ask it again. Who said it? And what do the rest of their posts say about trading for Peavy? If I had to guess, you are simply taking their post out of context and they are not really saying that they wouldn't trade Marquis and Marshall for Peavy. i don't remember and i don't really care. you're the one making a federal case out of it...scroll back a few pages if you're that worried about it.

I haven't seen anyone that said that. Not one. the post i quoted pretty much says that. Who said it. What do the rest of their posts say about this particular topic? I challenge you to find one person on this site or anywhere in Cubbyville that would not like to see a Jason Marquis and Sean Marshall straight up swap for Jake Peavy. like i said the first time, the post right above yours. i guess i'll have to quote it again... that sure as [expletive] sounds like someone who is concerned about swapping two pitchers for one.

I haven't seen anyone that said that. Not one. the post i quoted pretty much says that.

And our top prospect, starting 2b/depth, and most of our trading chips, seriously just stop. Hey who cares if it weakens our team, and we only win 87 games next year, we have JAKE PEAVY! i can't see how getting jake peavy is going to knock 10 wins off the cubs 2007 total, but my post was in response to this... people seem to be concerned about losing two pitchers (marshall and marquis) and replacing them with one.

And Rich Hill too. They're all wildcards as starters at the ML level though, which is the point. as opposed to jason marquis and sean marshall who are rock solid locks to be healthy, awesome major league pitchers.

oh my heavens, we can't give up our SWING MAN! NOT OUR SWING MAN!

Please tell me that Sean Marshall wasnt one of the main obstacles in this deal? While I can see Hendry not wanting let let DeRosa go, I would give up Marshall for Peavy in a heartbeat. i don't know about that...we would have needed to part ways with marquis and marshall is our swing man since we aren't keeping gaudin around... would else would we use in absence of marshall? JAKE PEAVY.

If Harden's healthy, I'm pretty sure they'll resign him. When he's on point, Harden is one of the best pitchers on the league. He'd be worth the money. one healthy season, and you want to give him 4/$48 or something? i kind of want harden for '09 and that's it. That's not what I said. I said he'd be worth that money IF he'd remain healthy. If they resign Dempster after one good season, why wouldn't they resign Harden? because he's going to command a huge deal if he stays healthy in '09 and he's very likely to miss a bunch of time during the course of this hypothetical new deal.

If Harden's healthy, I'm pretty sure they'll resign him. When he's on point, Harden is one of the best pitchers on the league. He'd be worth the money. one healthy season, and you want to give him 4/$48 or something? i kind of want harden for '09 and that's it.

the cubs will probably be fine w/o peavy in '09, but their '10 rotation could have been tightened up with peavy. if harden is hurt in '09, the cubs likely won't re-sign him/count on him beyond '09. if he's healthy/effective, he may be looking for a big deal which i'm not sure the cubs will want to give him. would have been nice to have z + peavy in your pocket for the next four seasons.

if that's the case, aren't you a little concerned about him sucking ass in every playoff game he's started? all 9 2/3 innings? no.

yeah, i'm not as concerned about going from 97 wins to 103...the cubs probably win the division w/o peavy. i want peavy for games 163 and beyond.

if the difference between marquis and peavy is three wins, then the difference between gaudin and marshall is like .04 wins.

Gee, I wonder why you are picking out the worst guys of the proposed package as your example? Could it be because you have a crap argument? Hart is what our 8th starter? You are absolutely correct, losing him would not hurt this team. However, unfortunately for the validity of your point, and for the Cubs, the Padres are asking for more than just Kevin Hart. Losing DeRosa would be a big blow to the team. He was exceptionally good offensively last year, and very good the two prior years. Additionally, his versatility gives the Cubs a lot of options. We don't need to get a guy who can play 3B, incase ARam goes down. We can sign Bradley and not have to worry about him getting injured because DeRo could replace him. Fontenot had a great year last year, but it was in limited time and when he was put in situations to succeed. I like him, but to think he'd be a lock to approach DeRos #s is foolish. Additionally, moving him from the bench to starting 2b takes away one of your better pinch hitters and your middle infield depth, so you'd have to replace that too. Losing Marshall would be a big blow to the depth of the pitching. He has shown that he can be successful out of the pen or in the rotation. With an injury risk like Harden in the rotation, losing our 6th starter would mean instead of going from a top 5 starter in Harden to an average starter in Marshall, we'd (skipping over Hart and Guzman because they were traded too) have to rely on Gaudin, Shark and God knows who after him. Pie and Cedeno I don't mind losing one bit. I don't think they'll be big contributors to the major league team (even if there are injuries) and have long lost their prospect luster. You can sign a back up SS for a mil or so that can replicate Cedeno's production and we already have Johnson to back up CF. Vitters I also don't mind losing. He obviously has a lot of value and is a great prospect, but his value to the Cubs is really as a trading chip, and thats what he'd be used for here. Not long ago we were talking about this deal without DeRosa and things sounded like they were progressing pretty well, even to the point where the "general framework" of the deal was in place. Frankly, that means to me that its not DeRosa as a player that is the issue, its DeRosa's paycheck that is. In that case, I'd much rather trade Kevin Gregg and retain DeRosa (or go back in time and never have traded for Gregg in the first place). Losing Marshall hurts, but I think its palatable, however losing DeRosa isn't. AND WE WOULD HAVE JAKE PEAVY. you're not going to get jake peavy w/o sacrificing something from your current team. losing derosa would hurt, but, again, WE WOULD HAVE JAKE PEAVY.

well, the rule U draft was yesterday, so today maybe?

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level. This is correct. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen or the offense. It does make both weaker, with DeRo and Marshall both being involved. Unless everyone plans on all five of Z, Lilly, Peavy, Demp and Harden starting 32 games and pitching into the 7th or 8th every game, and Marmol, Shark and Gaudin being the only relievers used. do you not realize the upgrade of marquis to peavy is worth much more than the downgrade from kevin hart to atkins? yes, the bullpen gets worse if you trade marshall or whatever. but the rotation gets much, much better. and you can't just assume the rotation boost is equal to the bullpen loss because that's insane. And having a crappy bullpen is going to help how? holy [expletive], are you really worried about who the cubs' third righty out of the pen is going to be when we're talking about getting jake peavy? i dunno man, peavy would be great, but i'm a little more worried about who we're gonna call on to get that third out in the 6th inning of a 5-4 game. come on.

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level. This is correct. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen or the offense. It does make both weaker, with DeRo and Marshall both being involved. Unless everyone plans on all five of Z, Lilly, Peavy, Demp and Harden starting 32 games and pitching into the 7th or 8th every game, and Marmol, Shark and Gaudin being the only relievers used. do you not realize the upgrade of marquis to peavy is worth much more than the downgrade from kevin hart to atkins? yes, the bullpen gets worse if you trade marshall or whatever. but the rotation gets much, much better. and you can't just assume the rotation boost is equal to the bullpen loss because that's insane. And having a crappy bullpen is going to help how? Plus, what about the offense? They've already got at least one hole(with CF maybe 2), this would make two, maybe three. And how healthy is everyone going to stay? And how about any possible deals later in the year. Without Peavy the Cubs are still going to be favorites to win the Central. They can make moves other than this that will help improve upon that more than Peavy. If it was just Cedeno/Hart/Vitters types they are losing, I could easily go for it, but when you start throwing in pretty important pieces like DeRo and Marshall, not so much. Then you have limited resources to get 3-4 other holes filled. I'd be thrilled if the could get Peavy, I'd be more thrilled if they could get a couple of extra hitters to get the offense to where it was last year. and if there was a hitter that filled a hole that was of peavy's quality available in a trade, i would probably prefer to use these resources on that guy. but there's not.

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level. This is correct. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen or the offense. It does make both weaker, with DeRo and Marshall both being involved. Unless everyone plans on all five of Z, Lilly, Peavy, Demp and Harden starting 32 games and pitching into the 7th or 8th every game, and Marmol, Shark and Gaudin being the only relievers used. do you not realize the upgrade of marquis to peavy is worth much more than the downgrade from kevin hart to atkins? yes, the bullpen gets worse if you trade marshall or whatever. but the rotation gets much, much better. and you can't just assume the rotation boost is equal to the bullpen loss because that's insane.