davearm2

He obviously has both. He has other teams well, or at least claims to Has Churchill indicated to you what the package being offered to Hendry is? Have you asked him? And how about Hendry's offer?

I don't think that's leverage, since Churchill is not a reporter and doesn't post this anywhere. They'd have no reason to lie/posture to him. He's just a friend. Who knows how legit that source is, though. Somehow word got to Churchill through some sort of media connection that the Padres say that there was 20% chance of a trade happening. How is that not trying to get leverage? Not sure why you'd assume Churchill's Padre info is coming "through some sort of media connection" rather than from someone within the SD org. DISCLAIMER: I have no earthly clue where Churchill's getting his info, except for a mention a long while ago that he knows/communicates with someone in CHC's front office.

What do you expect the Pads to say? They aren't motivated to be honest here. Their motivation is to say whatever helps gain them leverage so they can get more. Right now, their only leverage is their ability to keep Peavy. It's a much more pessimistic tone than they've been taking for the last week. Everything coming from Towers to this point has been positive/optimistic/encouraging.

I'm beginning to get the feeling either Towers is going to cave and take Marquis + $3-4M as part of the deal, or the deal isn't going to happen.

Hendry hasn't done anything wrong. In fact, I don't know that I have even heard him say DeRosa's name once. You haven't heard him say Peavy's name once, either.

Bradley's career numbers are what they are, but you'd have to consider the fact that he's blown them away the last two seasons. His OPS hitting lefty has exceeded .900 in each.

i don't know if you meant it that way, but holy hell that sounded racist. Not sure right now who their No. 1 priority is for RF. I'm not sure they know, given the market and who might want what. As far as Bradley goes, I've never met the man. Well as you probably know, the story circulated last summer about Bradley venturing up to the press box to "introduce himself" to some media member who had either said or written something less than flattering about him. So, you know, if you ever feel like making the acquaintance...

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up? Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million. Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration? Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know. Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him? I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take. If Marquis is traded, it certainly would set the stage for a Peavy deal. The Cubs are one half or even one third of the equation still. If they couldn't get Peavy, they appear comfortable with Marshall in the rotation instead of Marquis. The Padres and/or another team would have to agree to something. The first priority is the left-handed bat. Ibanez, Abreu and Bradley all are names the Cubs are looking at, but they're willing to see if the price drops with guys like Ibanez and Abreu. I suggested Bradley in my blog the other day. As of now, nothing is close. That could change over the weekend and certainly by the time we all get to Vegas Sunday night. I just looked it up out of curiosity... in 2005 they signed Burnitz on the 5th of Feb... in 2006 they signed Jones on the 10th of Jan. If the Cubs are hoping to find a bargain for RF, there's probably going to be a lot of waiting around required.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up? Because none of this is true. I was at Wrigley today along with the other reporters. There is no deal in place with San Diego. Hendry asked us what the deal was. And the Cubs are not cutting payroll. I expect it to be between $140 million and $145 million. Then why the hell didn't they offer Kerry Wood arbitration? Because they didn't want to pay him $10 million a year, even for one year. From what I've been told, Wood and his agent made it pretty clear they wanted a three year deal, going all the way back into this past season. Wood never came to the Cubs and said he'd take a one year deal. When he was pressed during the press conference, he said, in effect, "Sure, I'd take a one year." And if he doesn't get the three year deal he wants from the right team, my guess is he'd explore it with the Cubs. For how much, I don't know. That's only my speculation. Maybe they'd do something for $6-7 million with incentives. Who knows? But the Cubs still want their left-handed bat, and they're going to try to move Marquis. If Wood were to have accepted arbitration, it definitely would have put a crimp in things. But all this talk about it being "officially" over between Wood and the Cubs in some sectors of the media made me laugh. That's not true at all, as you well know, because you guys know the rules. In effect, it might be over, and I don't think he's coming back, but you never know. Bruce do you think the Cubs will be comfortable with the state of the rotation if Marquis is traded to free up payroll, but no new starter is brought in to replace him? I find that a rather unlikely scenario myself, and I figure if Marquis is dealt that it is a significant indication Peavy is a go, but I'd be curious to hear your take.

If taking on Peavy's contract is being held up by the new owners needing to approve it, then why wasn't Dempster's deal also held up?

OK gotcha. I assumed the other interpretation since IMO it's a foregone conclusion that the Cubs wouldn't re-up DeRosa if they could land Roberts.

If the choice is either one or the other, there's a strong (IMO) case to be made for Soriano over Roberts. I don't think anyone would debate the point that the Cubs would be better with both, although at that point it becomes a cost/benefit issue. There I'd argue that the smart choice would be to wait a year for the cost (in players) to fall from astronomical to a single second-round draft pick, while also avoiding the redundancy problem that you'd have with both Roberts and DeRosa on the same roster. Except for the fact that DeRosa probably wouldn't be retained if the Cubs went after Roberts, unless DeRosa was being kept to play OF. I assume you're talking about acquiring Roberts in a trade, and then shipping DeRosa out in a subsequent trade, all this winter. It's certainly a plausible scenario, but it's both more costly and more complicated to achieve than simply waiting a year to sign Roberts as a FA and let DeRosa walk. Maybe you endure the extra cost and effort to get the upgrade done a year early (provided the payroll implications aren't too severe in terms of what else you can and can't do if you're paying Roberts $8M instead of paying DeRosa $5.5M). That's an easy thing to argue for. IMO it's just as easy to argue for doing it the easy way by simply waiting a year.

If the choice is either one or the other, there's a strong (IMO) case to be made for Soriano over Roberts. I don't think anyone would debate the point that the Cubs would be better with both, although at that point it becomes a cost/benefit issue. There I'd argue that the smart choice would be to wait a year for the cost (in players) to fall from astronomical to a single second-round draft pick, while also avoiding the redundancy problem that you'd have with both Roberts and DeRosa on the same roster.

VORP: Roberts - 47.8 DeRosa - 36.2 EqA: Roberts - .295 DeRosa - .291 Now these measures are not perfect (for one defensive value isn't measured) but its not clear at all that DeRosa had a better year than Roberts. FWIW, Roberts had a higher VORP than anyone on the Cubs last year. Some other pertinent stats: Roberts -- free agent after 2009 DeRosa -- free agent after 2009 See where I'm headed here? I'd rather have the younger 2nd baseman that we could sign long term....All that aside though I know we'd have no shot at getting both of them. Just wanted to here a proposal from someone So you sign the younger 2nd baseman longterm once he becomes a free agent (and the only slightly less productive older 2nd baseman's contract is up), is the point. As long as Roberts doesn't extend before this time next year, the timing is perfect.

VORP: Roberts - 47.8 DeRosa - 36.2 EqA: Roberts - .295 DeRosa - .291 Now these measures are not perfect (for one defensive value isn't measured) but its not clear at all that DeRosa had a better year than Roberts. FWIW, Roberts had a higher VORP than anyone on the Cubs last year. Some other pertinent stats: Roberts -- free agent after 2009 DeRosa -- free agent after 2009 See where I'm headed here?

You forgot the enormous 100-point font asterisk that discloses all of the above assumes Greene can boost his OPS back up to the .800 range.

Names, names, names. Yes, it's got pretty names. And it's definitely a good rotation if everything goes right. But with an injury problem, a guy with declining peripherals, a home-hero who is losing his favorable park and guy who went from mediocre to awesome quite suddenly at an advanced age, I think the odds of many things going wrong are at least as likely. But you said it "lacks dominance". We would have 5 pitchers who can dominate on any given night. 3 in particular who have some of the best "stuff" in baseball And the chances of none of them having an era under 3.6 and making 25 starts is very, very small. We're getting into semantics one "dominance." All pitchers have a chance to be dominant on any given night. I think there's a good chance this rotation lacks any pitchers with dominant 2009 seasons. The fact that you think the 3.6/25 start thing is "very, very small" is exactly the sort of overrating I'm arguing Cubs fans are doing. In terms of sum value, I expect that rotation to be the best in the NL, but it's not going to go down into the annals of history or anything. Setting aside the semantics of the term "dominant", I'd like to hear how you think that rotation would compare to the rest of MLB last year (I suggest comparing to last year since next year is still very unsettled with so many free agents still unsigned). What teams out there had a better 1 through 5 that could match up with Peavy Z Harden Lilly Dempster? Keep in mind even without Peavy and only a half-year of Harden, there was only one team whose starters posted a lower ERA, by .03 (Toronto 3.72 vs. the Cubs' 3.75). I have a hard time seeing how adding Peavy and the extra half-year of Harden doesn't vault that fivesome decisively to the top. So regardless of which, if any, guys meet the standard of "dominant," there should be no question that it'd be the best collection of 5 in baseball.

It definitely sounds like it or else it would have been done already IMO. They are probably looking for one more starting pitcher that they feel is a fit for them in the future and apparently they don't feel Marshall is the guy for that and frankly, I'm surprised about that. I'm thinking Hendry might be saying no to Marshall in the trade due to them wanting him as the swingman and put Shark in the minors to start. From the Padres perspective what you said makes sense though. Actually I've been operating under the presumption that SD wanted two ML-ready SPs: Marshall is the first, and the Cubs need to source the second from another team since they don't have another of their own to put with Marshall. Now conceivably, Hendry is offering only one of Marshall and Vitters. That's certainly a possibility. I wonder how far off of Marshall Towers views Gaudin... Actually that was my first thought too, upon reading this Gaudin nontender business. He could potentially fit nicely into this SD framework.

It definitely sounds like it or else it would have been done already IMO. They are probably looking for one more starting pitcher that they feel is a fit for them in the future and apparently they don't feel Marshall is the guy for that and frankly, I'm surprised about that. I'm thinking Hendry might be saying no to Marshall in the trade due to them wanting him as the swingman and put Shark in the minors to start. From the Padres perspective what you said makes sense though. Actually I've been operating under the presumption that SD wanted two ML-ready SPs: Marshall is the first, and the Cubs need to source the second from another team since they don't have another of their own to put with Marshall. Now conceivably, Hendry is offering only one of Marshall and Vitters. That's certainly a possibility.

I don't really buy this mumbo-jumbo about waiting for the ownership situation to be resolved. Crane Kenney has said the Cubs are proceeding with business as usual. I take that to mean that the Cubs' brass has huddled up and emerged with a payroll number for Hendry to work within, just like they do every year. The complication is, Hendry's probably very close to that figure already. So it isn't the ownership situation holding things up. It's Hendry moving a contract or two out of town to free up space for Peavy's $11M. Put it this way, the Cubs ownership situation has been in limbo for quite a while now. That didn't prevent the Dempster signing for $52M. IMO it wouldn't prevent this Peavy trade either, provided Hendry can manage to fit it into the budget he's been handed. In fact if Towers was satisfied with what the Cubs had on the table and a taker for Marquis was identified easily, this thing might've been done a month ago.

I think this trade will happen just as soon as the sides can get the pieces to fit. There's no particular reason to believe that process couldn't have been finalized before next week. Obviously now it looks like it won't, but that doesn't mean it never had a chance. Other teams are completing deals, after all. Both teams have other issues to tend to this offseason, so they absolutely have an incentive to wrap this thing up ASAP -- it obviously has large implications for the next several moves. I also disagree that the Cubs are waiting for the price to come down, or that the Padres are hoping that another team jumps in. On the former, Hendry doesn't really put the squeeze to other GMs -- not his style. On the latter, I'm of the opinion that behind the scenes Peavy has made it clear to Towers that it's Cubs or nothing.

The quote was, "The move could improve the club's chances of retaining ace pitcher Jake Peavy" If those chances just went from 1% to 5%, then he's right.

If you view the projections in the proper context, maybe they won't seem so funny. Nobody's predicting the Cubs will win 88 games exactly. It's more like an over/under. Vegas never predicts a football team to score half a point either, but there are those +3 1/2 lines every week.

And we're all doing this in our head. I don't think it's shifted the tail of it at all. I think it has just taken some of the lower percentiles down. It's flattened the lower end, if anything. His expected level of production going into last season was probably an .830 or so OPS, with a fairly good chance of hitting .850 or higher. His expected level of production going into this season is probably a little lower, around .800 with a fairly good chance of hitting .850 or higher. Not as likely as it was before 2008, but it's still significant. I'm with TT on this one. Having a 200 point boost in OPS from one year to the next as the expectation just doesn't pass the smell test. That sort of jump would certainly be within the range of possible outcomes, but the expectation (mean) has to be much lower than that, to give proper weight to the most recent sample point. It will be interesting to see what PECOTA has to say. Last year their weighted mean was .261/ .318/.474/.792 (equivalents). Seeing that drop down into the .750 range this year would be no surprise at all to me. Meanwhile your .800 figure obviously represents a slight increase from the PECOTA 08 projection. Fire away with the anti-PECOTA rant if you must.

It's not. I just like watching a stats guy defend someone with a negative VORP that is being paid 5 million+ It's not that hard. Everything that made him a good risk before this season is still there... it's just somewhat less likely to manifest after last year. Well if the argument is, Greene's ceiling still is still X despite his 2008, that's fine. It's kind of a silly way to view the situation though, but sure, his ceiling hasn't changed. A better way to view the situation would be to consider how his expected level of production has changed (or even better, how the frequency distribution of a range of output levels now looks). That expectation had sure better be taking a big hit, and that frequency distribution had better be shifting left. Simply saying the tail of the distribution (i.e., Greene's ceiling) hasn't moved doesn't tell us a whole lot.