17 Seconds

if that's the case, aren't you a little concerned about him sucking ass in every playoff game he's started?

Yes and jake Peavy is a god and worth every player known to man who cares about anything else. WE'D HAVE JAKE PEAVY

Because Cabrera isn't good? They'd be better off keeping Cameron and letting him walk next offseason.

Also I think it's funny when people whine about owners when we have an enormous payroll

It doesn't matter how good Peavy is. If you're giving up too much, you're giving up too much. Also I don't know why you're talking about money when it had nothing to do with this. Vitters/Pie/Marshall/Derosa/Marquis/Hart or something similar to that would have been a bad trade...no doubt about it. Put you emotions aside and try to understand that.

Yeah but Towers is getting desperate right now. He might start begging to Peavy/Axelrod that he can accept a trade to LAA so that at least he has some negotiating room. Towers/Axelrod: Hey Jake, can you accept a trade to the Angels? Peavy: Nope Towers/Axelrod: Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaassssssseeeeeee Peavy: Okay, fine Seems reasonable

If Towers had a potentially better option than the Cubs it would have been looked at already. Seriously, you need to stop. Hendry did the right thing.

hahah

from mlbtr

His splits aren't really matching up though. He's been better at home than on the road in 5 of the last 6 seasons (didn't look past that) and he's often been significantly better at home

I didn't realize Safeco was a pitcher's park

But you'd be okay with them trading 7 guys for a closer?

If not the NL is in trouble. Yes that rotation is terrifying

Umm. All of 'em. Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress. Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance. So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right" Well played. I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM. That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer. Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster. Just one Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work. I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm. The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good. Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs. Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs. Here's why it is relevant. The Cubs were what, like 7 wins better than the Phillies last season? We should be trying to widen that gap, not close it. We got lucky last year with a lot of things. I think the offense is likely to lose more than just the Edmonds production. I think we're going to lose some production from DeRosa, Theriot, and Fontenot. Also, the Phillies bullpen is looking a lot better than our as wll. The point is that you build a team based on what you have. When what you have has the potential to fall apart, it can screw a lot of things up. The Phillies showedlast year they could succeed with that mediocre rotation. That doesn't automatically mean we will too. You can play the IF game all you want, and I can play it right back. Yes maybe Fontenot, Theriot, and DeRosa will be worse. But maybe Lee will regain some power. Aramis actually had a down year this past year, maybe he will improve a little more. Maybe Soriano will stay healthy all year. Soto should only improve. Fukudome can't get much worse. You can play the game both ways. Except the examples I gave are very likely, while the ones you gave aren't

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen? So maybe it helps the bulpen in one out of 5 games That's also myopic. The extra rest -- or at least extra rest from high leverage innings -- has a trickle-down effect for every reliever. Getting better starters is the single best remedy for the bullpen. You're acting like Peavy is some kind of huge innings eater or something

At that point though Piazza wasn't going to push us over the edge. Peavy probably is that piece. How is Peavy the piece that pushes us over the edge? We won 97 games last year. I'm pretty sure that's "over the edge". It all comes down to the playoffs. If we don't hit there it doesn't matter. Plus Peavy has been awufl in all of his playoff starts. I'm not saying I don't want Peavy, but this "he is the final piece" stuff is silly.

It probably has to do with his asking price and his horrible defense. A) We haveno idea what his asking price is B) His defense isn't worse than most of the other candidates we've been hearing about

Last 2 seasons .291/.351/.480 (.831) .293/.358/.479 (.837) Yeah, for a corner outfielder I find that to be extremely mediocre, especially when he'll get a multi-year deal at about 10 mil per.

Umm. All of 'em. Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress. Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance. So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right" Well played. I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM. That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer. Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster. Just one Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work. I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm. The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good. Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs. Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs. Here's why it is relevant. The Cubs were what, like 7 wins better than the Phillies last season? We should be trying to widen that gap, not close it. We got lucky last year with a lot of things. I think the offense is likely to lose more than just the Edmonds production. I think we're going to lose some production from DeRosa, Theriot, and Fontenot. Also, the Phillies bullpen is looking a lot better than our as wll. The point is that you build a team based on what you have. When what you have has the potential to fall apart, it can screw a lot of things up. The Phillies showedlast year they could succeed with that mediocre rotation. That doesn't automatically mean we will too. I thought your point was to prove that no contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are as big of a question mark as the Cubs' allegedly are. My point was to show that no contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are as likely to not meet expectations (Harden staying healhy, Dempster being good) as the Cubs' are.

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen? So maybe it helps the bulpen in one out of 5 games

Interesting quote from Hendry that pretty much sums up what I'm saying. Keep in mind I am not saying we should overpay for Peavy if it would have taken the package that Rob speculated. Which is what UI have been saying. We're counting on Harden and Dempster to be 2008 versions of themselves. The Phillies aren't counting on Maine and Pelfrey to be mid-high 2's ERA pitchers.

Derosa is a nice player but he's not nearly good enough to hold up a trade for far better player. He's replacable, and just because you don't care about his age doesn't mean that it's not an issue. No, that production is not replaceable at 2B. Now if you tell me you are working on a Furcal deal after DeRo gets moved for Peavy, then we'll talk. But let's not make it seem that DeRo is some scrub player that can be easily replaced by a Fontenot or old ass veteran. Yeah, DeRosa really showed up in the playoffs when he fumbled an easy DP in Game 2 (opening the floodgates) and then went 0-4 in Game 3. Furthermore, why does DeRosa seem to skate by with mistakes while someone like Soriano never does? I can remember a few times during the season he made dumb defensive or baserunning plays, and nothing was mentioned. Because it was an aberration for DeRosa and not a once a week occurrence like it seems to be for Soriano. And it's not like he didn't get a few hits in the post season. Was it disappointing? Yeah, but they were physical mistakes and not mental errors like other players make. And as others have mentioned, he's making $4 million, not $14 million. Actualkly DeRos'a numbers in the last 2 postseasons are quite good.

Umm. All of 'em. Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress. Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance. So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right" Well played. I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM. That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer. Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster. Just one Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work. I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm. The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good. Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs. Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs. Here's why it is relevant. The Cubs were what, like 7 wins better than the Phillies last season? We should be trying to widen that gap, not close it. We got lucky last year with a lot of things. I think the offense is likely to lose more than just the Edmonds production. I think we're going to lose some production from DeRosa, Theriot, and Fontenot. Also, the Phillies bullpen is looking a lot better than our as wll. The point is that you build a team based on what you have. When what you have has the potential to fall apart, it can screw a lot of things up. The Phillies showedlast year they could succeed with that mediocre rotation. That doesn't automatically mean we will too.

Umm. All of 'em. Certainly most, anyway. All of the NL Central for sure. Brett Myers as a #2 is surely a questionmark. As are John Maine and Javier Vazquez. Is Kershaw the Dodgers #2 now behind Billingsley, with Lowe and Penny gone? Huge upside but definitely a questionmark. I'm not talking about question marks, I'm talking about injury and regression. With those teams you're pretty know what you're getting and aren't really counting on those guys to be great. We're counting on that from Harden and Dempster. The bottom line is that if Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, the rotation is not good. That is relevant because there is a pretty good chance both of those things happen. If Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, then Lilly and Marquis/Marshall/Johnson move up the ladder and instead of being a vastly better rotation, it's a similar rotation. I really don't think you've had a look at what some of these teams have going on right now. There are still FAs yet to sign, but it's not pretty a lot of places. Just to give an example, the Mets now show Santana, Maine, Pelfrey, Niese, Knight. Ugh. The Cubs could lose two guys and still beat that 2-5. Yes but the Mets will likely have a better offense and bullpen. Plus the Mets aren't that great. We're trying to be better than everybody else, not comparable. You asked for an example and now that you have one (of many available, mind you), you want to try and redirect the conversation from rotations to offense and bullpen? That's really weak man. The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that. I've already explained to you that I find that example weak, and I already explained it. You just are choosing not to listen. I didn't say "find a team who has question marks as big as Harden and Dempster". I asked who is as likely to get hurt or regress....not suck. The mets aren't expecting John maine to be Rich Harden, and they're not expecting Mike Pelfrey to be 2008 Dempster. Do you not get that? Actually... Well played. That was just a poor choice of words, but in the context that I had already established, you know what I meant

Umm. All of 'em. Certainly most, anyway. All of the NL Central for sure. Brett Myers as a #2 is surely a questionmark. As are John Maine and Javier Vazquez. Is Kershaw the Dodgers #2 now behind Billingsley, with Lowe and Penny gone? Huge upside but definitely a questionmark. I'm not talking about question marks, I'm talking about injury and regression. With those teams you're pretty know what you're getting and aren't really counting on those guys to be great. We're counting on that from Harden and Dempster. The bottom line is that if Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, the rotation is not good. That is relevant because there is a pretty good chance both of those things happen. If Harden and Dempster get injured and suck, then Lilly and Marquis/Marshall/Johnson move up the ladder and instead of being a vastly better rotation, it's a similar rotation. I really don't think you've had a look at what some of these teams have going on right now. There are still FAs yet to sign, but it's not pretty a lot of places. Just to give an example, the Mets now show Santana, Maine, Pelfrey, Niese, Knight. Ugh. The Cubs could lose two guys and still beat that 2-5. Yes but the Mets will likely have a better offense and bullpen. Plus the Mets aren't that great. We're trying to be better than everybody else, not comparable. You asked for an example and now that you have one (of many available, mind you), you want to try and redirect the conversation from rotations to offense and bullpen? That's really weak man. The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that. I've already explained to you that I find that example weak, and I already explained it. You just are choosing not to listen. I didn't say "find a team who has question marks as big as Harden and Dempster". I asked who is as likely to get hurt or regress....not suck. The mets aren't expecting John maine to be Rich Harden, and they're not expecting Mike Pelfrey to be 2008 Dempster. Do you not get that? It is fine to expect maine and Pelfrey to perofmr like they did last season. I don't think it's fine to expect Harden to make as many starts as he did last season and to expect Dempster to pitch like he did last season.