17 Seconds

I don't see how Hendry has earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt this offseason. Also, whether ot nor he makes other moves doesn't really excuse some of the other dumb things he's done. Getting as little as he did for DeRosa is basd. Giving Miles the contract he did is bad. Giving Bradley what he didis bad. Trading Cedeno and Olson for Heilman is bad. Those are bad moves, regardless of what follows them. that's awfully myopic. one man's trash is another's treasure. if the "little" he got for dero turns around and nets something better than dero, that's a good trade. etc. Okay let's pretend for a second that these most recent trades are setting up for something bigger (which seems pretty unlikely What about the Miles signing? The Bradley signing? Ceda for Gregg? Not offering Wood arbitration? Dempster's contract? None of those things are leading to anything else.

I thought it was kind of naive to begin with

I don't see how Hendry has earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt this offseason. Also, whether ot nor he makes other moves doesn't really excuse some of the other dumb things he's done. Getting as little as he did for DeRosa is basd. Giving Miles the contract he did is bad. Giving Bradley what he didis bad. Trading Cedeno and Olson for Heilman is bad. Those are bad moves, regardless of what follows them.

We really need Bruce to weigh in and tell us WTF is going on, since he has been saying that Hendry will go hard after Peavy as soon as he has the go ahead from ownership. SO what has changed? Either the Padres are no longer shopping Peavy, the Cubs are no longer interested in Peavy, or the Padres are no longer interested in Olson. Which is it?

It's funny how over the past couple season Hendry was actually making a lot of good moves and people that doubted him (me) were starting to think "maybe he's not really that bad". It seems like this offseason he's trying as hard as he can to erase everything good he's done over the past couple years... like he's on a mission to prove once and for all that he really is bad. Well played Jim.

I can't wait until Hendry is flabergasted when we're only 3 games over .500 at the break

Olson

I can't believe this. Absoltely pathetic. Just when you think Hendry can't butcher an offseason any worse, he comes out of nowhere with another stupid ass trade. We just traded Pie/Cedeno/Williamson for Aaron Heilman. Aaron Heilman. THis whole offseason has been a complete joke. First we trade away good players so we can "get more left handed" by signing crappy left handed hitters, then we overpay and give 30 million to a guy who is constantly hurt when nobody else is getting anything close to that.

=D> I think we have plenty of pitching to absorb the loss and compete in the NL Central. PLENTY. That's not saying much

If this is true then I'd say the chance of him actually trying to get Peavy just went down the toilet... considering Towers is in love with Olson

Money. With the money it cost us to sign Aaron Miles and the trade for Heilman we would have been better off not making those moves and keeping DeRo, especially now that we're looking to sign more bench players. But they had to "get more left handed"!

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine? The difference is that Zambrano and Harden getting hurt is much more likely than most teams 1/2 starters. Did Santana have shoulder problems last year? Is Maine a lock to miss significant time? And the Cards were without Carp all last year and they still won 86 games. True. Also, name either of those teams that has a calibre #3 and #4 as Dempster and Lilly? Depends on what Dempster we're talking about and which Dempster we're going to get in 2009 THis isn't the point though. I never said we didn't have depth. I was saying we didn't have "plenty of depth" or whatever was said Name me a team whose rotation would be better in that situation than if it were to happen to the Cubs. I really don't understand what you're trying to get at. I could just as easily ask "name teams whose top 2 starters are as big of an injury risk as Zambrano and Harden". It's irrelevant My point was that we don't "certainly have plenty of depth". You never do, especially when your top 2 starters are injury risks. How is it irrelevant, when it is the basis for your complaint: But we're talking about depth that is actually good, not depth with crappy players. If Zambrano gets hurt during a period where Harden is also out,how are we looking? Not only is our rotation a mess, but the bullpen is weakened significantly because you're taking guys from that to replace (or attempt to replace) the injured starters. It's irrelevant that you keep trying to compare it to other team's situations, when I can't think of a contender whose top 2 starers are that much of a risk And I can't think of one who'd have the capabilities of sliding in as good of a substitute in their place. You mean to replace the injury-risk-filled 1/2 starters of a contender that doesn't exist?

If Olson is really going to Seattle then Jim bettr just come out and say he's done chasing Peavy so we can stop talking about it

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine? The difference is that Zambrano and Harden getting hurt is much more likely than most teams 1/2 starters. Did Santana have shoulder problems last year? Is Maine a lock to miss significant time? And the Cards were without Carp all last year and they still won 86 games. True. Also, name either of those teams that has a calibre #3 and #4 as Dempster and Lilly? Depends on what Dempster we're talking about and which Dempster we're going to get in 2009 THis isn't the point though. I never said we didn't have depth. I was saying we didn't have "plenty of depth" or whatever was said Name me a team whose rotation would be better in that situation than if it were to happen to the Cubs. I really don't understand what you're trying to get at. I could just as easily ask "name teams whose top 2 starters are as big of an injury risk as Zambrano and Harden". It's irrelevant My point was that we don't "certainly have plenty of depth". You never do, especially when your top 2 starters are injury risks. How is it irrelevant, when it is the basis for your complaint: But we're talking about depth that is actually good, not depth with crappy players. If Zambrano gets hurt during a period where Harden is also out,how are we looking? Not only is our rotation a mess, but the bullpen is weakened significantly because you're taking guys from that to replace (or attempt to replace) the injured starters. It's irrelevant that you keep trying to compare it to other team's situations, when I can't think of a contender whose top 2 starers are that much of a risk

If this is true then this is seriously a nightmarish offseason

Sounds like BS. It has to be. Hendry isn't THAT bad

WTF. ESPN.com is saying it's for Cedeno and Olson http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3866647 That better not be true

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine? The difference is that Zambrano and Harden getting hurt is much more likely than most teams 1/2 starters. Did Santana have shoulder problems last year? Is Maine a lock to miss significant time? And the Cards were without Carp all last year and they still won 86 games. True. Also, name either of those teams that has a calibre #3 and #4 as Dempster and Lilly? Depends on what Dempster we're talking about and which Dempster we're going to get in 2009 THis isn't the point though. I never said we didn't have depth. I was saying we didn't have "plenty of depth" or whatever was said Name me a team whose rotation would be better in that situation than if it were to happen to the Cubs. I really don't understand what you're trying to get at. I could just as easily ask "name teams whose top 2 starters are as big of an injury risk as Zambrano and Harden". It's irrelevant My point was that we don't "certainly have plenty of depth". You never do, especially when your top 2 starters are injury risks.

I believe so, but I'm always surprised by things that many people say (ahem, Kevin Towers)... so I'm not really confident on what the rules are. Towers can say whatever he wants about Peavy. It's his player. Towers mentions players of other teams by name all the time. I've heard writers call him "Tampering Towers"

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine? The difference is that Zambrano and Harden getting hurt is much more likely than most teams 1/2 starters. Did Santana have shoulder problems last year? Is Maine a lock to miss significant time? And the Cards were without Carp all last year and they still won 86 games. True. Also, name either of those teams that has a calibre #3 and #4 as Dempster and Lilly? Depends on what Dempster we're talking about and which Dempster we're going to get in 2009 THis isn't the point though. I never said we didn't have depth. I was saying we didn't have "plenty of depth" or whatever was said

How do the Cardinals look without Carp and Wainwright? How about the Mets without Santana and Maine? The difference is that Zambrano and Harden getting hurt is much more likely than most teams 1/2 starters. Did Santana have shoulder problems last year? Is Maine a lock to miss significant time? And the Cards were without Carp all last year and they still won 86 games.

But we're talking about depth that is actually good, not depth with crappy players. If Zambrano gets hurt during a period where Harden is also out,how are we looking? Not only is our rotation a mess, but the bullpen is weakened significantly because you're taking guys from that to replace (or attempt to replace) the injured starters. I'd say right with Heilman we'd have pretty decent depth but not "plenty"

He has definitely said in the past that he'd prefer not to move from leadoff. That's not what I'm talking about. He's said he doesn;t prefer it, but he always has said he would.... which is why they've tried it already since he's been here. It doesn't really matter what he wants. He'll do what he's told

That's exactly my thought on this potential deal. That, or the Padres may prefer taking Heilman instead of Marshall in a Peavy deal. it's gotta be one of the two. the cubs certainly have enough pitching depth as it is. there's no reason to add heilman and not make a corresponding move. I don't know if they have all that much pitching depth as it is. I'd say they have an overabundance if they make this move. If a Peavy deal is in the works and actually happens, then they would take a pretty big hit to the pitching staff. Without Peavy: Zambrano, Harden, Dempster, Lilly, Marshall Pen: Olson, Heilman*, Gaudin, Wuertz, Vizcaino, Guzman, Marmol, Gregg, Samardzija, Cotts, Hill, Hart, Ascanio. But how many of those guys are actually decent? decent enough to be the 5th starter? i'd say quite a few of them. olson, heilman, marshall, guzman, shark, at least. We have no idea if Olson is good enough. He certainly wasn't good enough last season and we can't just count on the "changing leagues" stuff to suddenly make him good right away. I'm not sold on Samardzija, and we can't count on Guzman for anything. Plus Heilman has never been good as a starter.

That's exactly my thought on this potential deal. That, or the Padres may prefer taking Heilman instead of Marshall in a Peavy deal. it's gotta be one of the two. the cubs certainly have enough pitching depth as it is. there's no reason to add heilman and not make a corresponding move. I don't know if they have all that much pitching depth as it is. I'd say they have an overabundance if they make this move. If a Peavy deal is in the works and actually happens, then they would take a pretty big hit to the pitching staff. Without Peavy: Zambrano, Harden, Dempster, Lilly, Marshall Pen: Olson, Heilman*, Gaudin, Wuertz, Vizcaino, Guzman, Marmol, Gregg, Samardzija, Cotts, Hill, Hart, Ascanio. But how many of those guys are actually decent?