davearm2

If Hendry doesn't have a contingency plan to come up with $5 million in an unlikely scenario at this point in the offseason, he is much worse at his job than almost anyone on here suspects. Isn't it obvious that Hendry's already busy working those "contingency plans" to come up with an extra $5M (or whatever the number is) so that he can trade for Peavy and/or sign a desirable RF? Now you've got him having to come up with another $5M on top of that.

I'd rather have the first. There would be basically zero difference between the players in terms of merchandising revenue, or just about any other revenue. The only revenue difference would come if one guy delivered an additional postseason series or two.

This all works if you ignore the two draft picks on the table, and the cost we are paying for Gregg (and that he probably wouldn't have gotten $10 million in arbitration). I'm not ignoring the picks. I simply realize that the upside of the picks is overshadowed by the downside of leaving other more pressing needs unaddressed because you had no money left after Wood accepted arb.

Thanks for the voice of reason. I don't think that's a false choice whatsoever. I think it's absolutely dead on, actually. All appearances suggest that the Cubs can afford only one additional player in the $10M range. That makes it Peavy OR rightfielder OR Wood OR Brian Roberts OR (fill in the blank). And IMO the above already factors in recouping say $6M on Marquis. If you want two of the above, then you'll have to find a way to dump Derrek Lee and his NTC. So in a very real sense, retaining Kerry Wood would indeed have precluded all of the other potential impact adds.

I seem to recall a time when many intelligent, clear-thinking, saber-savvy folks posted here. These folks would often argue quite convincingly that unless perhaps you're the NYY and can sustain a $200M payroll, then spending $10M on a closer is a poor allocation of resources. Now here we have our GM applying that very same logic by essentially saying, "we're not going to run the risk of having to spend $10M on a reliever, especially not when money's already tight and we've got two other higher priorities (SP and RF) left to address," and people are going ape#$%& on him. How about we just be thankful that Kerry Wood pitched so well for us last year that he's priced himself out of what good GMs pay for players in his role?

The Peavy situation is nothing like the Santana situation. Santana was signed thru only last year and the Twins were not going to resign him. Peavy is signed thru 2012, with team option for 2013. No comparison. San Diego has turned us down on our offers and it is clear that we aren't getting Peavy without giving up something. If that means we forget Peavy and move on, fine, but if we do still want Peavy, we need to face the fact that its going to cost us. The Peavy situation is very much like the Santana situation. They are both situations where the player's current club can't afford to keep him. The fact that Peavy has already signed an unaffordable contract, while Santana was simply on the verge of doing so, is pretty irrelevant. Furthermore in both situations, the player had leverage to limit the teams he could be traded to, and that leverage worked to suppress the asking price. Very similar situations, actually. Not at all. Santana was not on the verge of signing an unaffordable contract with the Twins. He was on the verge of walking. The Twins were looking at 2 draft picks. Anything above that was an improvement. They blew it by not taking the Yankees' offer before it was withdrawn. Of course, it could be argued that the Yankees blew it by withdrawing the offer. While the Padres would like to move Peavy, they are not nearly in the same position as the Twins were, and their dealings with both the Cubs and Braves have shown that. Yes, Peavy's no trade clause is a hindrance for them, and could help us get Peavy for a good price if we take advantage, but the Padres will not accept miscellaneous filler for him. I'd hate to lose out to the Braves or perhaps a team like the Dodgers while we sit back thinking that the Padres are more desperate than they really are. Heck, I wouldn't put it past the Yankees to dangle so many dollars in front of Peavy's face to get him to waive his no trade clause if they don't land Sabathia. We are talking about one of the top aces in the game and we want to talk about a package of a prospect third baseman (albeit a very good one), spot starters,and utility infielders. Yet many fans here seem to think it is "absurd" to offer even one starting player. My goodness. One poster referred to Peavy as a "luxury." Well, yeah, if you consider having the most dominant staff in the game and winning the pennant a "luxury." What player other than Peavy that is available to the Cubs right now is more likely than Peavy to put us over the top? Would we be more likely to be able to sign or trade for a first baseman that comes reasonably close to Lee or finding a SP like Peavy? We all know the answer. If Lee can get a trade done through a third team and Vitters can't, the question becomes, "Do we keep Lee and walk away from the opportunity to land Peavy?" You're splitting hairs. Santana was on the verge of walking because the Twins couldn't afford the contract he was in line for. It's really no different than the Padres not being able to afford the contract Peavy's already got.

The Peavy situation is nothing like the Santana situation. Santana was signed thru only last year and the Twins were not going to resign him. Peavy is signed thru 2012, with team option for 2013. No comparison. San Diego has turned us down on our offers and it is clear that we aren't getting Peavy without giving up something. If that means we forget Peavy and move on, fine, but if we do still want Peavy, we need to face the fact that its going to cost us. The Peavy situation is very much like the Santana situation. They are both situations where the player's current club can't afford to keep him. The fact that Peavy has already signed an unaffordable contract, while Santana was simply on the verge of doing so, is pretty irrelevant. Furthermore in both situations, the player had leverage to limit the teams he could be traded to, and that leverage worked to suppress the asking price. Very similar situations, actually.

Can we just say that A-Rod sucks and Albert Pujols is either average or just below? Can we? Greene season by season OPS+ (leaving out his 64 AB 2003)- 114 95 97 100 64 Career- 95 Theriot (leaving out his 14 AB 2005)- 135 (134 AB) 72 93 Career- 88 Greene had a flukishly bad season last year, but his other 4 full seasons were all better than Theriot's best full season. Greene's career OPS+ is better than Theriot's one good full season. When you take into account the enormous difference in defense, I don't think you can even try to argue that Theriot is better. I also don't like the chances of Theriot coming close to his 2008 production again. He's a slap hitter who relies on a lot of luck. I think you meant to say the enormous difference in defensive reputation. Everyone seems comfortable assuming Greene is a wizard and Theriot sucks. Advanced defensive metrics disagree. In fact IIRC PMR had Theriot > Greene in 07 and 08. But, as Izturis proved to Cub fans, once an awesome defensive SS, always an awesome defensive SS. Right?

"Hypothetical" budget? Seems pretty real to me.

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. Jim Hendry's priority list: 1) trade for Peavy 2) sign Ibanez/Abreu 3) retain Wood 1) and 2) could be flip-flopped, but 3) is clearly behind the other two. Since Hendry's got the budget to pursue one, and only one of the above options, it should be easy to see the problem with offering Wood arbitration -- if he accepts, he's immediately blocked from making either of the other, more impactful moves.

Less money than what? Less than what he was hoping/asking for, or less than was actually offered to him? The reason I ask is, I haven't heard anything about what is actually being offered to him. Those rumors seem to be virtually nonexistent. Less than the reported 4/50 million monster contract that caused nearly everyone to say we should cut him loose because it's too much money. Which team offered 4/50 million?

Less money than what? Less than what he was hoping/asking for, or less than was actually offered to him? The reason I ask is, I haven't heard anything about what is actually being offered to him. Those rumors seem to be virtually nonexistent.

Illini Iceman makes an excellent point: Hey Kerry, if you really truly will take anything to stay, up to and including a 1-year deal, then just accept arbitration and you're golden. The ball will be in your court once arbitration is offered, which I presume is just a formality. (Technically that wouldn't preclude Hendry from trading you though, I suppose.)

Why would you say that? Peavy has 5 years and $81M left on his deal (assuming he would insist on the option year being guaranteed to waive the NTC), and Hendry's seemingly working his butt off to try and trade for him. Burnett is reportedly looking for a 5-year deal in the $80M range (and so far the hangup seems to be that nobody's willing to go 5 years). Sounds to me like if Hendry would be willing to give Burnett the same contract Peavy's already got, then he'd probably have himself a deal.

I'm pretty certain that re-signing your own guy doesn't count against you.

yes Really? Weren't you the one that said, "WHIP is a much worse statistic than ERA+"? There's a heckuva lot more noise in runs allowed than baserunners allowed.

Does anyone participating in this discussion realize that ERA+ is simply ERA normalized to league average? So ERA+ is just ERA with a base of 100. Bottom line, if you don't like ERA, then you shouldn't like ERA+ for all of the same reasons.

Wow, talk about gutting the farm system .. I heard an interview with Gary Hughes on XM yesterday. He said the Cubs are in all out win now mode. I guess they figure the new owner will give them the money they need to rebuild the farm down the road. Of course the fallacy there is that money is what's needed to rebuild a farm system. Buying up the guys that fall in the draft due to signability can only get you so far, and often that backfires. What's really needed is superior amateur scouting, drafting, and player development. And time. Not to be a smart a$$ but that does cost money. That's exactly why the Cubs are where they are now. They've shifted their allocation of resources from player development to salaries for the Major League team. Most teams - even the Yankees- can't afford both a high payroll and player development. I have no way to prove it, but I really think you guys are overstating the role that money plays in player development. Do teams with highly-rated farm systems pay their A-ball coaching staffs significantly more than the teams with poor systems? Doubtful. Do they have more coaches and roving instructors? Also doubtful, besides you could add a handful of of these guys at $60K a year and still not really make a meaningful dent in the grand scheme of things. Do they have access to some expensive cutting-edge technical gadgetry that the other teams are too cheap buy? Hard to imagine that, either. Are there major differences in expenditures for facilities, or training/conditioning/rehab, or equipment, etc.? I'd assume no there, too. I bet you'd find that teams spend pretty similar amounts of money on their minor league operations, so the difference between the good and the bad farm systems doesn't really come down to money, IMO.

Wow, talk about gutting the farm system .. I heard an interview with Gary Hughes on XM yesterday. He said the Cubs are in all out win now mode. I guess they figure the new owner will give them the money they need to rebuild the farm down the road. Of course the fallacy there is that money is what's needed to rebuild a farm system. Buying up the guys that fall in the draft due to signability can only get you so far, and often that backfires. What's really needed is superior amateur scouting, drafting, and player development. And time.

Waiting until the deadline has a few downsides: 1) the risk of Peavy suffering injury or underperformance 2) the whole paying him for half the year thing 3) teams at the deadline would be less likely to part with key contributors to the bigleague team, but they might in the offseason, when replacements figure to be easier to find 4) an already limited list of acceptable suitors could only get shorter if one or two teams are having a down season

Most likely. The Cubs just don't have the talent to get this done without completely raping their farm system. I dunno. I get the sense that if the Cubs could find a third team willing to give up the sort of good young pitcher that the Cubs don't have to offer, then this could get done. The impact acquiring said good young pitcher would have on the Cubs' farm system is surely open to debate, of course. I'd put a call in to Tampa and see how they feel about the many candidates for their '09 rotation. A guy like Andy Sonnanstine might be just what the Dr. ordered here. Sonnanstine could have the sort of success moving from the AL to SD that Chris Young had.

It's just internet bravado schtick. The guy's got a lot of knowledge and plenty of interesting ideas, but his insufferably arrogant attitude makes him borderline unreadable. It's a shame, but most here are resigned to it.

The Soriano/Nationals standoff is exactly what I was going to mention.

After having read that the Marlins are looking for a big package for Hermida I've resigned myself to the fact that the Cubs are going to be unable to trade for him. It's too bad for, he perfectly fits the mold of what Lou wants next season - young, athletic and a LHB - I don't doubt he'd have a big season playing half his game in Wrigley. That leaves FA options of Bradley, Abreu and Ibanez, Bradley, I believe, is the best choice followed by Abreu and Ibanez - I hope we don't see him in RF next season, why do I keeping thinking this is who Hendry' going to ink? All of these guys are atrocious in the field, except for perhaps Bradley, who is difficult to gauge since he never plays defense because he's such a risk to get hurt. It's amazing to me that this little detail is just swept under the rug, especially considering the dollars and years that are involved here. We're looking at winding up with a $12M/yr DH here, fellas.

My first thought is that chasing Lowe right out of the gate might burn bridges with Dempster. Probably doesn't make sense, considering the Cubs probably pushed to get Dempster signed before the opening of FA, but still it could easily create the impression with Dempster that the ship has sailed on a return to the Cubs. Then we run the real risk of missing out on both guys.