davearm2

My point was to show that no contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are as likely to not meet expectations (Harden staying healhy, Dempster being good) as the Cubs' are. And my response is, so what if the next guys in line are already as good as the other teams' second and third starters already. Those other teams need the roof to fall in on the Cubs just to be even with them. That's a good position to be in. Now do the Cubs need to have solid contingency plans? Sure, but so does every team.

Umm. All of 'em. Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress. Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance. So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right" Well played. I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM. That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer. Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster. Just one Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work. I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm. The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good. Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs. Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs. Here's why it is relevant. The Cubs were what, like 7 wins better than the Phillies last season? We should be trying to widen that gap, not close it. We got lucky last year with a lot of things. I think the offense is likely to lose more than just the Edmonds production. I think we're going to lose some production from DeRosa, Theriot, and Fontenot. Also, the Phillies bullpen is looking a lot better than our as wll. The point is that you build a team based on what you have. When what you have has the potential to fall apart, it can screw a lot of things up. The Phillies showedlast year they could succeed with that mediocre rotation. That doesn't automatically mean we will too. I thought your point was to prove that no contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are as big of a question mark as the Cubs' allegedly are.

Yes because the Angels are always so eager to trade away all of their promising young players.

Umm. All of 'em. Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress. Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance. So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right" Well played. I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM. That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer. Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster. Just one Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work. I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm. The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good. Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs. Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs.

Umm. All of 'em. Certainly most, anyway. All of the NL Central for sure. Brett Myers as a #2 is surely a questionmark. As are John Maine and Javier Vazquez. Is Kershaw the Dodgers #2 now behind Billingsley, with Lowe and Penny gone? Huge upside but definitely a questionmark. I'm not talking about question marks, I'm talking about injury and regression. With those teams you're pretty know what you're getting and aren't really counting on those guys to be great. We're counting on that from Harden and Dempster. The bottom line is that if Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, the rotation is not good. That is relevant because there is a pretty good chance both of those things happen. If Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, then Lilly and Marquis/Marshall/Johnson move up the ladder and instead of being a vastly better rotation, it's a similar rotation. I really don't think you've had a look at what some of these teams have going on right now. There are still FAs yet to sign, but it's not pretty a lot of places. Just to give an example, the Mets now show Santana, Maine, Pelfrey, Niese, Knight. Ugh. The Cubs could lose two guys and still beat that 2-5. Yes but the Mets will likely have a better offense and bullpen. Plus the Mets aren't that great. We're trying to be better than everybody else, not comparable. You asked for an example and now that you have one (of many available, mind you), you want to try and redirect the conversation from rotations to offense and bullpen? That's really weak man. The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

Umm. All of 'em. Certainly most, anyway. All of the NL Central for sure. Brett Myers as a #2 is surely a questionmark. As are John Maine and Javier Vazquez. Is Kershaw the Dodgers #2 now behind Billingsley, with Lowe and Penny gone? Huge upside but definitely a questionmark. I'm not talking about question marks, I'm talking about injury and regression. With those teams you're pretty know what you're getting and aren't really counting on those guys to be great. We're counting on that from Harden and Dempster. The bottom line is that if Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, the rotation is not good. That is relevant because there is a pretty good chance both of those things happen. If Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, then Lilly and Marquis/Marshall/Johnson move up the ladder and instead of being a vastly better rotation, it's a similar rotation. I really don't think you've had a look at what some of these teams have going on right now. There are still FAs yet to sign, but it's not pretty a lot of places. Just to give an example, the Mets now show Santana, Maine, Pelfrey, Niese, Knight. Ugh. The Cubs could lose two guys and still beat that 2-5.

Umm. All of 'em. Certainly most, anyway. All of the NL Central for sure. Brett Myers as a #2 is surely a questionmark. As are John Maine and Javier Vazquez. Is Kershaw the Dodgers #2 now behind Billingsley, with Lowe and Penny gone? Huge upside but definitely a questionmark.

If he could turn DeRosa into Hermida, that'd be a great trade. Could happen, depending on a few things.

You may have missed my question yesterday when I asked if Churchill had provided you with specifics regarding player combinations asked for and offered. Anything you can share on that? He never said anything about that Dude you're going to lose your messenger job unless you start asking the right questions ;)

You may have missed my question yesterday when I asked if Churchill had provided you with specifics regarding player combinations asked for and offered. Anything you can share on that?

It seems abundantly clear that the Cubs wouldn't be this far down the road with Bradley if the above were true.

The complexity of the deal isn't what killed it. Third and fourth teams were identified, and many sources indicated they were onboard. As I see it, Hendry and Towers just never got on the same page in terms of the talent changing hands. It seems Towers wants 6 or 7 guys and the Cubs want to give 4 (which could become 5; DeRosa = 2 Phils).

The chance to DH to preserve his health could be a reason for Bradley to prefer TB to the Cubs. Or maybe he likes the warmer weather down there. You never know what matters to these guys. Besides money, of course ;)

I'm not buying the leverage theory either. It's not Hendry's style. He's built this straight-shooter reputation so it seems pretty silly to think all of a sudden he's started playing games. If Hendry says he's out, then that probably means he's out. Now Towers could come back begging, but I wouldn't count on that, either.

With all the hand-wringing going on right now, it seems a good time to remind everyone that the principals to this deal were saying way back on Tuesday that nothing would be finished on this until after the Rule 5 draft. So nobody should be surprised that things are still unresolved.

This is a new wrinkle that's been overlooked. If DeRosa's available, then there becomes a lot of additional legwork to do finding the best deal for him. That's going to take some time.

This probably won't materialize until a decision is made on Peavy. You could be right, but the Cubs sure seem to be singing the opposite tune this week (RF then Peavy). With Marquis now potentiall being a part of the Peavy deal, Hendry needs to know how much of his contract he will have to eat to know how much he can spend on a RF AND Peavy. You can spin that logic either way though. If the RF thing happens first, and that cost becomes known, then you've got a clearer picture of how the Marquis/DeRosa/Peavy thing has to fit together monetarily. If Peavy goes first, then you know what's left to spend on RF. Given the Cubs have been pretty consistent in saying RF is their top priority, I tend to think the first sequence is the one they prefer.

Who says he can't? He may be willing and able to do just that if he has to in order to do the deal, but it's probably not his most preferred course of action. Everyone is acting like Hendry should have made the deal days ago because they think time is running out. He probably has at least another week or so before Towers will really disengage. He may have all offseason for all we know. Hendry knows what kind of timeline he's working with. There's no reason for him to take a less favorable course of action if he's not pushing a deadline yet that would force his hand. He's got time and he's in the drivers seat. Does everyone here really want him to not keep plugging away at this and not see if he can get a better deal just solely for the purpose of ending the drama? If he did that, he wouldn't be doing his job. Not saying you were one of them necessarily, but lots of folks were pretty furious at MacPhail last year for taking pretty much the same stance you're advocating here.

This probably won't materialize until a decision is made on Peavy. You could be right, but the Cubs sure seem to be singing the opposite tune this week (RF then Peavy).

C'mon Jim let's get this Bradley deal put to bed!

Hendry doesn't want to put himself in such a disadvantaged position if he doesn't have to. And he's betting he doesn't have to. His leverage in that scenario would be godawful, almost like it was when he had to move Sosa.

This is very well said. It's a lot easier to work around losing a key guy like DeRosa in December than it is in July. In July what's available from a contender is almost exclusively prospects and nonessential ML parts.

Seems pretty likely to me that if DeRosa goes, Cedeno will be staying. And actually it seems like SD isn't particularly interested in Cedeno to begin with. So there's your backup MI right there.

No way. If Bradley misses a month or whatever, then you just slide Fukudome over to RF and play the Johnson/Pie tandem in CF. Heck Hoffpauir could pick up some slack too, if Pie goes in a Peavy deal. The Cubs' depth makes Bradley the first priority even given his injury history. If he's the cheapest of the three, then all the better.

Wait you're saying there's something you don't know? STOP THE PRESSES