17 Seconds

Yeah you're right aobut Safeco, but that doesn't cange anything. He's an elite defender and an average to slightly above average offensive player. The point is that he's not even remotely close to his 2004 self, which is what he got paid for. It was for the people saying"Dempster was awesome in 2008! Didn't you watch?". Yeah, well beltre was awesome in 2004 and hasn't come close to duplicating it. He literally said right in his post that he's earned his contract.

That they decided to arbitrarily trade him doesn't make the trade good. It made the team worse overall, so it was bad. You keep repeating this over and over as if the fact that Bradley and whoever the fifth starter will be (Gaudin/Marshall) will automatically be worse than DeRosa and Marquis. Personally I would rather have Bradley in RF and Gaudin in the rotation if it comes to that than have DeRosa in RF and Marquis in the rotation. The fact that the move potentially opens the door for the Cubs to get Peavy if everything works just right with the Padres makes me more willing to do it since without moving DeRosa and Marquis we know there definitely is not enough salary room for Bradley and Peavy. If they can't close the deal with the Padres then Hendry should have some wiggle room come the trading deadline to make a move to improve the team. There are injury risks with Bradley but when he is healthy he puts up all star caliber offensive numbers. With DeRosa there are significant regression risks considering his age and the fact he is coming off a career year but his upside is not as great. I think Hoff showed enough last year for me to think that if Lou picks his spots well he will combine with Bradley to give the Cubs a very good offensive RF. Marquis has been flamed here for 2 seasons and now that he is going to be gone it is amazing to me that suddenly people act like it is going to be a significant loss. I think the Cubs got the best they could hope from him the last two seasons and are smart to get rid of him now while there is still some value. If anything I'd say the DeRosa trade makes Peavy less likely since now we can't flip him for prospects they want later on.

Have you watched Dempster pitch? He's so much better than those guys. I don't understand the people who don't think that Dempster is good. Watch his stuff; it's filthy! He was mis-cast as a reliever and still wasn't terrible. He will continue to put up 15+ win seasons for the Cubs. Wow, a "use your eyes" AND using wins as a measurement in the same post. That was a gritty post. You can use any measurement you like, Dempster was awesome last year and it should continue. Remember how awesome Adrian Beltre was in 2004? Man, he was so awesome. he still is i really hope Dempster earns his entire contract like Beltre has Beltre is awesome? Beltre has not come even remotely close to matching his 2004 season in any year since then. Adrian Beltre is not "aqwesome". He's a good defender and a crappy hitter. 1.017 .716 .793 .801 .784 Those are his yearly OPSs over the last 5 seasons. Beltre was awesome in 2004 and hasn't come anywhere near that level again.

Marshall had injury issues almost every season of his minor league career, 16 starts and 94 IP was his high despite being exclusively a starter. That doesn't mean he can't pitch 150 innings

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. I hope this all leads to Peavy, but even if it really is just a money thing I agree with the move. I would rather have Fontenot / Bradley / Fukudome at 2B/RF/CF than the alternative of DeRosa / Fukudome / Pie. It is just a bit of a shock to the system if that is the way it turns out because the Cubs have not done anything other than add payroll for the last couple years so a move like the DeRosa trade primarily to dump salary takes some getting used to. That's not the choice the Cubs would have likely gone with. The two options would have either been: Fontenot at 2nd, DeRosa at RF, Fukudome in CF or Fontenot at 2nd, Bradley+Johnson in RF (Johnson for the 40-80 games that Bradley doesn't play, Fukudome in CF Would you rather have DeRosa for 140 games in RF and Marquis in the 5th spot or Bradley for 100, Vizcaino in the bullpen, and 3 decent pitching prospects? Personally I think the Cubs are better off with the former. If the Cubs get another upgrade other than Bradley it makes more sense. But is Bradley really a more valuable RF than DeRosa this year? Plus if you kept DeRosa you could have kept an extra OF bat for the bench that could hit instead of having to pay Miles to be a backup IF (because DeRosa would essentially be your 2nd backup IF even while starting in the OF). So with DeRosa you have about the same offense over the course of the year, a better starting rotation, a better bench, and possibly a better bullpen (because it could be argued that Vizcaino hurts the pen more than helps it). Trading him should only have been done to get talent that could be used to upgrade somewhere else. Removing DeRosa's salary isn't much of a help because DeRosa was being underpaid so much. Cmon now, we are now counting the loss of Marquis from the rotation as a downgrade? And we are assuming DeRosa repeats his '08 career year but Bradley will be hurt for a significant portion? It is just as easy to say Marquis would wind up in long relief and DeRosa would wind up regressing and hurt overall RF production. I'm actually not assuming that DeRosa repeats his 08. I'm looking at around an .800 OPS next year for him (or somewhere between his 06 and 07). Yes, the loss of Marquis would hurt the rotation. 180-200 innings of mediocre pitching becomes more valuable the more injury prone the rest of your starting rotation is. If Marquis is gone, that means Marshall is starting. It is unlikely that Marshall throws over 150 innings between his injury history, a tendency to have a dead arm, and the fact that he's never done it before, not even in the minor leagues. Harden could throw anywhere between 50-160 innings (I see anything over 160 as unlikely as the Cubs are going to back up him at times, skip a couple starts, take him out early etc. to protect his arm). Those innings would go to Marshall but now have to go to somebody else. Then of course you have Z who has a decent shot of missing 2-3 starts over the season. So that's somewhere between 90-260 innings that you have to make up. The Cubs have options for starters behind Marshall, but the further you go the more you're both hurting the bullpen by taking them out of there, and also you have an increasing possibility they'll blow up and be absolutely terrible out of the rotation. It's just not as simple as comparing Marquis and Marshall. Marquis leaving pushes everybody a slot up and makes the rotation more injury prone while removing pitching depth from the system at the same time. That's a bad combination, and the depth would very likely not be sufficient. Bingo! Marquis' value to our team as it's currently constructed is so much higher than some people realize. We need 6 starting pitchers with Harden in the rotation, and as you said about Marshall, he's never thrown 150 innings at any level and he's not going to all of a sudden do that now. This would absolutely kill the bullpen. As for Harden, yeah, no way he throws 160 innings. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they just put him on the shelf until July, I'm serious. Our only concern should be getting him to October at 100%, and he certainly wasn't near that this past October. Great post. The main reason Marshall's never pitched 150 innings is because he's never been asked to. I've seen no evidence that leads me to believe he's not capable of throwing that many innings. I don't understand where the "Marshall can't pitch a full season" stuff comes from.

Hendry was upset with all of the "leaks" about the Peavy trade speculation, so he probably told Towers to keep any discussions private. I remember an article maybe 2 weeks ago where Towers said that if Peavy was traded nobody would hear about it and it wouldn't be as public as it got at the winter meetings, It's probably somewhere in this thread but I didn't feel like going through 30+ pages trying to find it, I think it was from Yahoo. I find it hard to believe that we had to trade DeRosa and Marquis to get just Bradley and we either needed to find pitchers to replace what we would trade for Peavy or find other pitchers to throw into the deal. Why is it hard to believe? Hendry can't add payroll until the ownership thing is worked out and he felt he couldn't afford to wait until then to add the guy he wanted (Bradley) so he had to dump DeRosa's salary.

I recall some people saying that about Theriot a year ago, and they didn't believe he could improve and Hendry did. Lets not forget the team that starts the season on opening day isn't the final team. I recall a year ago some people being concerned about Pie in CF Theirot at SS, and if Soto would be as good. Many were concerned about potentially having 3 easy outs in the line-up. Well Theriot/Soto were better then anyone expected, and after Pie struggled, they picked up Edmonds to replace him and it ended up being a great move. If Fontenot does struggle, or Fukudome still isn't hitting or something else happens. We can always find replacements for players at those postions in trades, minors or off waivers, just like we did a year ago. At some point you gotta go with your young players, especially when their hitting at the big league level. Just because we lucked out last year with many guys performing way above what was expected doesn't mean we can count on that happening again this season. Edmonds was lightning in a bottle. It's not that easy to just pick up guys like that on the wire

How is the pitching depth gonna be worse then last year? We had Rich Harden for 12 starts last year, and I'm confident he will start at least 12 games if not more. When Harden wasn't starting we had a bad Rich Hill, below average Gallagher and Sean Marshall, in the rotation with Jason Marquis. Gaudin had a 4.43 era in 34 starts in 07, and 3.75 era in 6 starts last year. I'm pretty confident he can do what pretty much Marquis did the last two years, if he has to start. But Sean Marshall has also been very solid when given the chance to start the last two seasons. I'm not really expecting much from Samardzija but I think it's possible he could step in and pitch like Gallagher did last season at some point. The only issue with this rotation will be if Dempster is ALOT worse then last season. But all signs right now point to Dempster at least being a solid 2-3 next year. But even if Dempster isn't that good, 25-27 starts from Harden, and maybe a little better year from Zambrano would put our rotation right back were it was last year. you can't expect 25-27 starts out of harden. i'd be thrilled with 20

he said it's a guy in another nl front office so it's not a big deal anyways. they probably wouldn't know any more aobut it than the writers do.

except you're missing the most significant factor: milton bradley. he's pretty much a lock to miss significant time. when he goes down, it would have been derosa moving to right and Fontenot getting significant playing time in place of Bradley. now, instead of more at-bats, a bradley injury means more at-bats for much less attractive options

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. I didn't catch that before. Hmm. Well hopefully if he's getting 3 guaranteed years then it will be less than 10 a year. Mayube 3/25 of somethingl ike that... hwich wouldn't be that awufl Been celebrating the new year again? :wink: I do hope we give him less than 10 a year, but somehow I doubt it. wow that was like the worst typo ever

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. I didn't catch that before. Hmm. Well hopefully if he's getting 3 guaranteed years then it will be less than 10 a year. Mayube 3/25 of somethingl ike that... hwich wouldn't be that awufl

Bradleys games by year 42 77 98 101 141 75 96 61 126 (DH) Obviously some of those early years are skewed because I don't know when he was given a full time job, but you get the point. 2 of the last 3 seasons he's played the field, he's played less than half the year. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm being realistic. I never said he WOULD play less than half the season, I said it's possible. I'd expect about 80-90 games out of him

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

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?

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

why are we thinking it's 3/30 now?

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. I hope this all leads to Peavy, but even if it really is just a money thing I agree with the move. I would rather have Fontenot / Bradley / Fukudome at 2B/RF/CF than the alternative of DeRosa / Fukudome / Pie. It is just a bit of a shock to the system if that is the way it turns out because the Cubs have not done anything other than add payroll for the last couple years so a move like the DeRosa trade primarily to dump salary takes some getting used to. well they've added payroll this year as well

so he's replacing him for half the time

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.

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.

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.

That's true, but I don't you think can call trading a 34 year .800 OPS 2B/utility player in te last year of his contract "terrible". I lvoe DeRosa and I agree that I don't like the trade if it doesn't lead to Peavy (and I doubt it does), but I wouldn't call it "terrible". We're selling high and getting a few halfway decent pitching prospects. Ultimately, an .800 OPS guy (albeit valuable because of flexibility) should not be the difference in whether or not we win the World Series next year. It's not like we traded a stud hitter with multiple years left on his deal. We dumped a good-but-not-great 34 year old with one year left on his deal.

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.

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.