dew1679666265

why are we thinking it's 3/30 now? Thats what i've seen mentioned. If not, what ? The only place I've seen 3/30 mentioned was the chicagocubsonline.com post, and that was just the guy guessing. Everything I've seen has been more along the line of 2 years with maybe an option on a 3rd year Your man Churchill seems to be under the assumption we're going three years. The bolded makes it sound like the Rays would have to go three years guaranteed to match the Cubs offer. I could be reading it wrong and he may be implying incorrectly, but that's what I'm seeing.

Which I think the Cubs are actually ok with. I think they believe Hoffpauir can be productive in a limited role, facing mostly RH pitching. Then you have Reed Johnson who is very good against LH pitching. But that puts alot of faith in Fukudome being the first half Fukudome and not the second half guy. In all honestly there's not a huge difference from 06-07 DeRosa to Reed Johnson starting in the outfield if we have a injury. But you need to be able to get some offense from Fukudome then. I think the problem with this DeRosa stuff people are thinking he will be the 850s OPS 20 HR guy next year. But his power numbers were most likely a fluke thing and he will be a 790-800 OPS guy and 10-12 HR hitter. Having guys like Fontenot/Miles at 2b and Johnson/Hoffpauir filling in the outfield instead of 06-07 DeRosa isn't a major difference. Of course even 06-07 DeRosa is better, but not alot better then the depth we have. The depth on this team made DeRosa expandable in their eyes. I still don't think we can only count Milton Bradley for 80-90 games either, yes a full season is very unlikely. But 100-120 games isn't out of the question at all if the Cubs baby him right. There's extremely little evidence to support this. It's possible, but unlikely. And maybe, just maybe, those guys will give us the same numbers but it's a big gamble. We seem to be gambling a whole lot after winning 97 games last year.

Entertaining the thought that a full season of DeRosa is more valuable than a half season (of less) of Bradley means we're overvaluing him? Exactly. If we knew we could get 120 games - maybe even just 100 - from Bradley, I'd be ok with this. But we're very unlikely to.

It's an upgrade, but if we're that cash strapped is it worth it? If we're now going to be playing a whole lot of Aaron Miles, Micah Hoffpauir and Joey Gathright have we really improved that much? Bradley's injured far too often for this to be a big improvement.

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade. Obviously he likes Fontenot and feels better trading DeRosa and taking a chance on Fontenot being able to make the leap from backup to starter than he feels about the chances of Fukudome or Hoff being able to put up respectable numbers in RF.[/quote And I disagree with him. I think it's a bad move. It's not just Fontenot/Bradley/Fukudome, though. It's Fontenot/Bradley, Hoffpauir, Reed, Gathright/Fukudome. Unless we get very lucky, Bradley is extremely unlikely to play 100 games. That's a lot of ABs DeRosa could have had that Hoff/Reed/Gathright will get. Well it's at bats that Fontenot would have gotten since DeRosa would have always been in there, but your point remains That's a good point. Thanks for clarifying.

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade. Obviously he likes Fontenot and feels better trading DeRosa and taking a chance on Fontenot being able to make the leap from backup to starter than he feels about the chances of Fukudome or Hoff being able to put up respectable numbers in RF. And I disagree with him. I think it's a bad move. It's not just Fontenot/Bradley/Fukudome, though. It's Fontenot/Bradley, Hoffpauir, Reed, Gathright/Fukudome. Unless we get very lucky, Bradley is extremely unlikely to play 100 games. That's a lot of ABs DeRosa could have had that Hoff/Reed/Gathright will get.

You would be right.

Nice answer by Penn State.

Correct, though, without the DeRosa trade you could add him to the options (thus making that group look a good bit better). Gathright/Reed/Hoffpauir are going to get plenty of RF ABs sadly.

Apparently Hendry/Piniella don't share your opinion. To me Dunn was a "backup" in case the Cubs couldn't sign Bradley. i think he was much lower on the list than that... if he was even on the list at all. I think he was on the list, and he might have been top two (there were rumors we were interested in him and I didn't hear rumors about any other RF). He wasn't likely though.

I wouldn't call it a "bad deal" if he doesn't acquire Peavy, but I would call it a "unnecessary move." It wouldn't simply be unnecessary, though. It's a move that makes us worse. Simply signing Aaron Miles with DeRosa still here would've been unnecessary. Trading DeRo and not greatly upgrading elsewhere is bad. I can't disagree, as I much rather have had the draft picks then the prospects, seeing as DeRosa would likely been a Type B FA, with a chance to be a Type A. With the off chance (and HIGHLY unlikely) and wishful thinking the Cubs could land Peavy and Roberts (I know I laugh at the scenerio also, but hey one can dream) plus Bradley and the Cubs clearly are much improved after trading DeRosa. With that said, I think the Cubs have to trade for Peavy to justify the DeRosa trade. If we could get Roberts without giving up the moon, the DeRosa trade could be a good to great one. Like you said, though, that's not happening. If we acquire Bradley and not Peavy, then this was a bad trade at best. If we get Peavy, then I'm ok with it.

The thing is.....Milton Bradley isn't replacing Fukudome int he lineup, he's replacing Edmonds/Johnson in the lineup. we're not talking about guys from last year or last year's production. we're talking about right now and how are team would look going into spring training. edmonds is not part of the picture in 2009 either way. that's in the past. you'tre right though that he's not fully replacing fukudome since he'll still play a lot on center. really he's replacing some sort of fukudome/johnson/gathright/miles/hoffauir combination. And he's not even really replacing it. Just taking about half of those at bats.

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade. I'm hopeful that we can acquire Mark Teahen from the Royals. We could use the depth that he would provide, and he would fill out the bench nicely. Gathright-Johnson-Miles-Teahen-Bako I'd much rather we pursue Dunn than Bradley instead of getting Teahen as well.

This offense is still gonna score alot of runs, we still have hitters like Lee, Ramirez, Soto, Soriano, and if you add Bradley to that mix thats five good to very good hitters. Mixing in guys like Theriot, Fukudome/Johnson and Fontenot/Miles isn't change things a ton. I do think we lost some power, but we will still get on base alot and will still have one of the top offenses in the NL. Because even our three so-so hitters in our line-up all should get on base at a good rate, which will put our big five in a postion to drive them in alot. The pitching depth will be non-existant, though. With Marquis gone, we have Z/Harden/Lilly/Dempster/?(Marshall, Gaudin, Shark to fight it out I guess). Harden will likely be hurt and we don't have the depth we once did to replace him. Add to that the loss of DeRosa, and we'll have Hoff/Reed/Gathright playing half the games in right field. For many games that gives us a lineup that includes Miles, Gathright, Theriot and Fuku. That worries me with less pitching depth. We need a Peavy, badly.

For a guy like DeRosa you're probably gonna get a good to average prospect at best. Hendry decided to take a good relief prospect, and two low level guys with good arms and high upside. Instead a good or average prospect who might be in Double A or Triple A, but don't have high celing. In a year or two Gaub or Archer might be one of our better prospects like Ceda was. So to say things guys are all more then likely to flame out is a bit unfair. I understand what your saying about taking to win a championship, and trading good players away. But you gotta look at the big picture, of improving the team as a whole. The production gained from Bradley and possibly another good starter, is greater then the production lost from going with Fontenot/Miles over DeRosa. Again, when you look at Bradley's production you have to take it as only probably 80-90 games. The rest will be numbers produced by Gathright, Reed and Hoffpauir - that makes the upgrade much less than getting a guy who can stay healthy. And the other starter is completely up in the air. Maybe we can afford a Peavy, Sheets, etc. when we get a new owner, but apparently we can't now. I'd have preferred to keep DeRosa until we knew we could get the improved starter. Which will also be a nice upgrade when Bradley is healthy. I know the key word is if healthy, but from what I heard the Cubs have put Bradley through many test, and he's passed them all with flying colors. So the guy is currently 100 percent healthy, and had no major health issues last year. How long that will last who knows, but it's not a sure thing he will miss 70 games, just likely he will miss some. He played in 117 games last year - mostly as a DH. The last time he played most of his games in the field (07) he played 61 games. He played 96 games in 06 and 75 games in 05. It's a really good bet that he won't play 100 and more likely that we'll get half a season out of him.

Then don't get Bradley. If you have to downgrade in one spot to moderately upgrade in another, it's not worth it. Pursue a Hermida or Scott or Sammy Sosa, but don't trade a valuable chip in order to moderately upgrade.

I wouldn't call it a "bad deal" if he doesn't acquire Peavy, but I would call it a "unnecessary move." It wouldn't simply be unnecessary, though. It's a move that makes us worse. Simply signing Aaron Miles with DeRosa still here would've been unnecessary. Trading DeRo and not greatly upgrading elsewhere is bad.

Miles part of the platoon is gonna get 120 AB's or so. Miles had a 738, 704 and 755 OPS against LH pitching the last three years. So his lack of power isn't gonna weigh down the platoon that much, because of how much less AB's he gets. If Fontenot hits 280/360/810 getting 400 AB's, mix with say Miles 290/360/730 numbers against LH pitching, it will be simliar to what DeRosa did in 07. I think giving Fontenot this role is a little risky as well, but I also think he deserves this chance. The guy had 924,825 and 807 OPS in his last three years in the minors, and has hit well in the majors when he's gotten a chance to play. I'll live with the platoon if trading DeRosa leads to Peavy. Otherwise, I'm going to be very worried about the offense dropping off significantly. I just hope you're right and I'm wrong here.

For prospects who are more likely than not to flame out. When your intent is to win now (which is the assumption I'm working under), you don't trade a key part of your team for guys who may or may not help you out a few years from now. It's a great trade if we're rebuilding, but we're not. Our stated goal is to win a championship this year. How does trading DeRosa for high risk prospects who may help 2-3 years from now help us achieve that goal?

Unless we end up with Peavy, I sure wish the Cubs hadn't traded DeRosa. Seconded. There was no reason to get rid of DeRo unless a Peavy trade was imminent. yea there is. he had to trade peavy to afford bradley. you might not like that, but there was a reason for it. There was no good reason to trade DeRo unless a Peavy trade was extremely likely/imminent. like i said, you ight not agree with the reason, but there was one. it's not like hendry jusat said "i feel like dumping derosa today. im gonna do it". he did it because he had to to get what he wanted. It's a reason, but not a good one. If Hendry doesn't acquire Peavy - or someone similar - the DeRosa trade was a bad deal.

Unless we end up with Peavy, I sure wish the Cubs hadn't traded DeRosa. Seconded. There was no reason to get rid of DeRo unless a Peavy trade was imminent. yea there is. he had to trade peavy to afford bradley. you might not like that, but there was a reason for it. There was no good reason to trade DeRo unless a Peavy trade was extremely likely/imminent. Yes there is. Money What I'm trying to say is that this deal is not good - it is in fact very, very bad - if we don't acquire Peavy. Simply bringing in Bradley is not enough to make the DeRosa deal a good one. If Hendry made the deal because he had to shave payroll, then that's a completely different matter altogether.

DeRosa career OPS is 770, so if you're gonna go by career numbers then it's pretty even to. DeRosa is most likely going to be a around 800 OPS guy like he was in 06-07. Here's what DeRosa did the last two years, and what the Fontenot/Miles platoon would have done. DeRosa 285/376/857 -08 293/371/791 -07 Fontenot/Miles platoon 307/387/858 -08 292/364/752 -07 So honestly the numbers aren't that far off, and the only difference in 07 is really the power. But keep in mind that was also Fontenot rookie season. Fontenot has always shown pretty good power when facing RH pitching, as he proved last year. Yes there's little chance Fontenot/Miles platoon will come close to 08 DeRosa, when getting a combined 500 AB's. But there's a very good chance that combo could come close to putting up simliar to 06-07 DeRosa numbers. Keep in mind Fontenot often put up DeRosa type numbers in the minors, and facing mostly righties should help do that in the majors. Miles' 08 was an anomaly, while DeRosa has posted three straight years of OPS+'s better than Miles' career year. The chances are that Miles will regress quite a bit, while Fontenot will likely be a little worse. Even if DeRosa drops back to 06-07 levels, he'll still be far better than the Miles half of the platoon. Fontenot might make up for it, but that's too risky of a bet for me.

The DeRo trade is terrible if we don't end up with Peavy. i wouldn't call it terrible. i'd sall the miles contract terrible. the derosa trade is kinda "eh". We were downgrading no matter who we signed once we traded DeRo. If you're not moving him to be able to vastly upgrade elsewhere, then trading him is a terrible decision. Bradley is not a vast upgrade, Peavy is. when healthy, bradley is a vast upgrade to fukudome. And he might - might - be healthy half the year. The rest of the time we have Gathright/Hoffpauir/Reed to look forward to. Those numbers have to be factored in to the right field situation.

Unless we end up with Peavy, I sure wish the Cubs hadn't traded DeRosa. Seconded. There was no reason to get rid of DeRo unless a Peavy trade was imminent. yea there is. he had to trade peavy to afford bradley. you might not like that, but there was a reason for it. There was no good reason to trade DeRo unless a Peavy trade was extremely likely/imminent.

The DeRo trade is terrible if we don't end up with Peavy. i wouldn't call it terrible. i'd sall the miles contract terrible. the derosa trade is kinda "eh". We were downgrading no matter who we signed once we traded DeRo. If you're not moving him to be able to vastly upgrade elsewhere, then trading him is a terrible decision. Bradley is not a vast upgrade, Peavy is.