Sever82

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-08-mitchelljan08,0,1130535.column Nothing new but just some quotes from Axelrod, Moorad and Towers. Basicallty to sum up the article, the peavy trade seems possible but will depend heavily on the ownership situations on both franchises. Axelrod gives Hendry plenty of compliments and just notes that hendry is the type of GM that makes things work. Towers sounded like he wasn't sure if the new SD owner group would keep peavy or not. So its starting to look in my opinion that the peavy situation depends more on who the new owner of the padres is than who the new owner of the cubs is.

Wow this is the second time today you posted an article that someone else had already posted. Is your internet just that slow that you can't refresh and it takes you 15-30 minutes to get an update?

That seems optimistic to me. Last I read the Padres weren't even putting Peavy on the market anymore. This article makes it seems like the market is closing but they are still listening to offers and will discuss things with teams like the Cubs. Well i mean there is a report out there that supposedly it wasn't the cubs who pulled out but the Padres back in the winter meetings. So maybe the cubs were willing to make the deal, I mean before it was reported that the padres and cubs couldn't come to an agreement cause the cubs didnt want to trade marshall and derosa. Turn two weeks later, they trade derosa away, do you honestly think they wouldn't have parted with a package of Vitters, Derosa, Marshall, Pie and Hart/Guzman for Peavy ? I honestly feel the situation the cubs are in is almost identical to the roberts situation. I dont buy the cutting payroll argument and how the padres need to move peavy because if they were intent on moving peavy because of payroll reasons they wouldn't done it by now. I think the cubs chances are slim to none now because what makes people think a new ownership in SD would trade their Top player, most marketable player and fan favorite. Like i said the only way they trade peavy is if the cubs offer the farm system for him or if peavy forces their hand. Not to be dic* here, I think a strong argument can be made on either side here. But The same thing could be said about the new Cubs ownership coming in. What better way to win over the fans and show them you are committed to winning/spending than to trade for one of top pitchers in all of baseball. Doesn't work that way buddy, i'm pretty sure the new ownership would probably love to trade for peavy or bring peavy in and whatever. But we dont hold peavy, the padres do and must be willing to part with him. So no, the same thing can not be said because just because an owner wants a player, doesn't mean he'll get him.

That seems optimistic to me. Last I read the Padres weren't even putting Peavy on the market anymore. This article makes it seems like the market is closing but they are still listening to offers and will discuss things with teams like the Cubs. If new ownership isn't changing their position, wasn't their "position" to move Peavy to keep payroll around $40 mi.? So why would they all of the sudden keep him now if they aren't changing their "position"? I dont believe that statement at all, what new ownership would introduce themselves to the fans of SD by trading away their favorite player, not going to happen. Just look at it this way, in 2001, let say the Tribune company sold the Cubs to the Ricketts family and the cubs were struggling financially, do you honestly think they would trade away Kerry Wood to free up money or better yet, would they trade away Sammy Sosa?

That seems optimistic to me. Last I read the Padres weren't even putting Peavy on the market anymore. This article makes it seems like the market is closing but they are still listening to offers and will discuss things with teams like the Cubs. Well i mean there is a report out there that supposedly it wasn't the cubs who pulled out but the Padres back in the winter meetings. So maybe the cubs were willing to make the deal, I mean before it was reported that the padres and cubs couldn't come to an agreement cause the cubs didnt want to trade marshall and derosa. Turn two weeks later, they trade derosa away, do you honestly think they wouldn't have parted with a package of Vitters, Derosa, Marshall, Pie and Hart/Guzman for Peavy ? I honestly feel the situation the cubs are in is almost identical to the roberts situation. I dont buy the cutting payroll argument and how the padres need to move peavy because if they were intent on moving peavy because of payroll reasons they wouldn't done it by now. I think the cubs chances are slim to none now because what makes people think a new ownership in SD would trade their Top player, most marketable player and fan favorite. Like i said the only way they trade peavy is if the cubs offer the farm system for him or if peavy forces their hand.

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/hot_stove/posts/38701-padres-ceo-pessimistic-about-peavy-deal I'm starting to think we were never really close to a Peavy deal and i think there is about a 10% chance we get Peavy. From the above article and the ownership situation in SD i doubt Peavy is even put out there as trade bait anymore. The only way i see peavy being moved is if Peavy is so frustrated about almost being a cub that he forces a trade from the padres by expressing his dissapointment in the organization.

It seems so easy. There has to be more to it, because I can't see why this hasn't been done yet. It could be the two teams weren't exactly close to completing the trade. It just seems too simple to be this hard. Then again, this is the Cubs. And about Cain, what would it take to get him? Obviously less than Peavy but if we still have to give up a lot I'd prefer Peavy. Why would it take less to acquire dirt cheap Matt Cain than to acquire ultra expensive Jake Peavy? Seeing as how the Giants want a middle of the order bat and have a opening at 1B probably Lee+ a prospect or two for Cain. The only problem with that trade is that who plays 1B for us? Hoffpauir probably shouldn't be getting 500+ ab's and the rest of the FA aren't great options Nomar/Millar/Mientkiewicz/Aurillia/Sweeney/Sexson. I suppose we could then sign Dunn to play 1B, but he might not want to play there, has been reported that he wants to stay in the OF, and then there is that whole defense thing... Those had better be a couple of awesome prospects. Oh, and, the Giants would likely have to be willing to extend Lee's contract to get him to waive his NTC (in the extremely unlikely event that he would do so at all). No it wouldn't have to be awesome prospects. DLee still has value and i'm pretty sure the Giants would jump at the chance to acquire him and DLee would probably waive his NTC to go to San Fran. I would trade DLee, Cedeno, Pie. The Giants would probably do it because it would give them offense and fill in some of the holes they have on their lineup. You could probably then try and convince dunn to play first and sign him. You may lost Defense but you gain a ton of offense

It seems so easy. There has to be more to it, because I can't see why this hasn't been done yet. It could be the two teams weren't exactly close to completing the trade. It just seems too simple to be this hard. Then again, this is the Cubs. And about Cain, what would it take to get him? Obviously less than Peavy but if we still have to give up a lot I'd prefer Peavy. Yeah I feel the same way, its either two things, the Cubs and Padres are already and have been working on a deal without anyone knowing (towers was quoted as saying that if a deal was in the works no one will know this time). Or the Tribune doesnt want to add any additional payroll to further complicate the dealings. As far as Cain goes, i think it would take Pie, Cedeno, Vitters and possible a fourth prospects, so basically slightly less than the peavy deal. I would no doubt prefer Peavy but if you could get Cain i would do that too.

I still dont understand why they dont just to a webconference or send out email to the three prospective buyers and ask them if they're fine with taking on Peavy's contract instead of waiting for one of them to win the bid. At the end of the day though, i dont think peavy will be a Cub because i think the new owners of the Padres will keep him. If i were the cubs i would try and pry Matt Cain from the giants, he'll probably demand less than Peavy.

What in the world are you talking about, who else did he give a no trade or overpay for other than Soriano and Samardizja. I mean i dont feel Lee, ramirez, Zambrano are overpayed. I dont think Dempster got a no trade, the befor mentioned three are still fairly young and will probably still be productive once they hit their final years. You make it sounds as if everyone on the cubs roster is overpayed and has a NTC

I think there are probably plenty of options, you have to look at teams with Offensive needs since thats what the Cubs Provide. I would probably consider trading DLee and one or two of the Cleveland Pitching Prospects to the Giants for Matt Cain and then signing Adam Dunn to Play 1B. I mean you lose defense but gain more offense and a stud pitcher. As far as the Lilly thing, i would rather have Perez than Lilly in my opinion both because of youth and stuff.

If we dont get Peavy or even if we do, would anybody be unwilling to trade Lilly away to clear up the cap space and sign Perez as your LH starter?

As much as i hate Kaplan please dont miss quote the guy just to make him sound like a moron. I watched CTL and Kaplan never said this. Kaplan simply responded to want David Haugh asked. Haugh made a comment toward Kaplan and said that he assumed the prospects they got in the Derosa would be moved in a peavy trade and all Kaplan said was that it was a possibility that they would be part of the trade. So no, he never said that those prospects alone would net peavy as this quote suggests. So yeah dont twist the words to your liking, anyone with half a brain would know that the three prospects the cubs got for derosa won't come close to enough for peavy.

Wow this has to be one of the dumbest posts. I think I stopped reading after you mentioned Fukudome as a bust, I guess all you need is one year to come to that conclusion. Anybody who calls Fukudome a bust already is a moron and knows nothing about baseball. And no i'm not drinking any Kool Aid because I do feel that Hendry has failed if he doesn't go out an get peavy or another starting pitcher. I still feel he needs one more big move and i feel the Bradley signing was a mistake. But again this is a pretty dumb post, this smells of a 13yr old with internet access to jump on this board.

It might be Gaubs, dont know how to spell his last name. It came out of Levines mouth that the deal was done. I doubt the Cubs are going to sit on these prospects so not to jinx it but i think Peavy is heading to the cubs, no way the cubs trade away Derosa for cap space to sign bradley when they ended up signing Miles. Like i said i'd hate to say we're getting peavy and jinx it but it definitely looks like it.

Levine reports that Derosa was just traded to the indians for pitching prospects Jeff Stevens, Chris Archer and John Gobbs.

Not sure if they are doing a rerun of the 11am show or if the 11am show runs until 1pm but Jonathan Hood on Espn1000 just said that coming up on the show more breaking news from Bruce Levine on the Cubs.

Just to confirm this, i wasn't sure at first but i heard the sportscenter update again and it said the Indians were close to aquiring Derosa for pitching prospects. If this doesn't signal peavy to the cubs i dont know what does.

Of course, if Derosa goes, he'll be traded for prospect for the peavy deal. Any chance the cubs could ship Theriot, Derosa and Cedeno for Peralta and the necessary prospects for the peavy deal.

Not sure if anybody posted this but there was a sportscenter update on ESPN1000 that the indians were close to aquiring Derosa from the Cubs for 2-3 pitching prospects. I find this interesting since they're pitching prospects and the Padres want pitching prospects.

Does someone need to link in the old Soriano thread? Because the general reaction was very, very negative about the signing at that dollar amount, though many were hopeful that Soriano would provide good (but probably not great) offense for the first half of the contract. It also amazes me to see how often people fall into the trap of ascribing positions from many different people to "the board". I'm sorry would rather me listed the members on the board that said it one by one. Relax saying "the board" is only a term on the saying you specifically so calm down buddy. All I can say is, lol. Ha ha my bad, i posted it with my iphone, sorry about the confusion.

Would you rather him sign Orlando Hudson and not have any money left for Bradley or Peavy? Its a decent move if derosa is indeed gone, what else would you have done to replace derosa and get a utility man. Too many wanna be GMs on this board. Give Jim some slack if its a move toward peavy. If its not than i'll eat my words and apologize.

He's owed 106m ($17.7m per year). Yes, it is that bad of a deal, no he's not "very" productive and no, he's not "probably" going to have his best year as a Cub next year. There could be a market if they ate a big chunk, but I don't see the point in that. There are 150+ free agents still out on the market because nobody outside the Yankees is committing any money this offseason. How is Soriano not productive? And how do you know he's not going to have his best year as a Cub? If Soriano plays 140+ games he will no doubt have his best year as a Cub. That is a big "if" but its possible. Its just surprising how many people on this board jumped for joy when Soriano was signed, then get all geeked when he has a good game and goes on one of his hot streaks but then turn their back on him and say he's worthless when the season is over. So i'm guessing if soriano hits over .300 40hr 100+ RBIs with 20+SB .360OBP next yr that contract is till not good for you. Oh wait maybe you'll use the excuse that he's old at 32yrs old or past his prime, or maybe that he's just not good anymore. Does someone need to link in the old Soriano thread? Because the general reaction was very, very negative about the signing at that dollar amount, though many were hopeful that Soriano would provide good (but probably not great) offense for the first half of the contract. It also amazes me to see how often people fall into the trap of ascribing positions from many different people to "the board". I'm sorry would rather me listed the members on the board that said it one by one. Relax saying "the board" is only a term on the saying you specifically so calm down buddy.

I'd rather have Manny or Dunn than Soriano in LF. Since that's not going to happen, I'll just resign myself to the fact that we have Soriano being overpaid on this team for a long time. Really? I would agree with Manny but not Dunn.

Wow, you seriously believe that could happen? Why wouldn't I, since he's been with the Cubs he's only played 135 and 109 games. In those two seasons his numbers were .299 33/70/19/.337 and .280/29/75/19/.344 respectively. If he would've have played full seasons both those years he would have possibly put up the numbers i suggested. So why would you not believe he can put up those numbers if he played a full season?