17 Seconds

If they aren't giving up DeRosa for Peavey why would they give him up for anyone else? It's mindbottling It's mind boggling. And it's not that they were giving up DeRosa, it's that they were going to give up DeRosa and everyone in the organization with more than one vowel in their last name. Mindbottling is from Blades of Glory. Peavey> spare parts. Peavy

If they aren't giving up DeRosa for Peavey why would they give him up for anyone else? It's mindbottling They were willing to give up DeRosa

From what I've read, there's almost no chance Tex stays with the Angels

why do we have to get stuck dealing with a [expletive] gm/organization every season?

haha this team is painful to watch

Because Cabrera isn't good? They'd be better off keeping Cameron and letting him walk next offseason. Eh, I'd rather take a chance that Melky could maybe find his bat (not that he was ever great, but you never know) than sticking with Cameron, knowing either way, we were gonna win 75 games. Maybe getting out of New York will do him some good. I'd rather take the draft pick for Cameron than Melky. Seriously, he's not at all good.

hahah i don't think i've ever seen a kick returner literally run completely backwards without looking over his shoulder or anything.that was hilariously awful

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.