17 Seconds

You know that runs allowed doesn't tell the whole story with relievers

It still depends on what else they do, Heilman makes their bullpen better. I would say right now that Gaudin, Guzman, Vizcaino, Wuertz, Heilman, Gregg and Marmol is a better pen then we had last year. Trading one of those relievers seems likely, and we still have money and prospects to get another SP. Adding a SP better then Marquis, having a better bullpen, and swapping DeRosa/Edmonds for Bradley/Fontenot or Miles makes me still believe that this team is better. Everyone just has their heart set on Peavy, but I'll really take any pitcher on a one year deal better then Marquis and be happy. They didn't replace DeRosa with Fontenot. Fontenot was already on the team. And I don't really see how you can say this team is better, especially considering all the flukey production we were going to lose even if we kept the same team

Ronny Cedeno has very little value, the Cubs would be lucky to get a mediocre minor league reliever for him. I knew from day one that the Cubs weren't gonna get Cedeno for Heilman straight up. Olson obviously is the guy with the value in this trade, but I don't think he has a ton of value either. People are just pissed off because they thought Olson was part of a Peavy deal. But nobody ever said we had to have Olson to get Peavy. Not true. People are pissed because this is a bad trade and a waste of resources.

Huh? I think you're mixing up Olson with Gregg

Heilman is a dime a dozen reliever who does nothing particularly well. yeah, thats not true. its already been shown that he's very effective against right handed hitters. Didn't you just call him a "terrible swingman"?

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