17 Seconds

I think at this point, Hendry is going to do whatever it takes (well at least, I hope so). For the RF thing, would we be content with Luke Scott? He's cheap, but put up some alright numbers last year. He's the left-handed bat we're looking for. I don't know...we'll see what Jimbo can do. I would personally not like to see Luke Scott in a Cubs uniform. I don't know who else we could get, but Scott played LF last year with a poor AVG and OBP. He also was worse during Day games and on the Road. I see him, at best, as a platoon partner with Mark DeRosa in right, which makes Fontenot a starter versus LHP's. Luke Scott is also 30 years old with "lukewarm" numbers over his career. I would rather see Hoffpauir platoon there if we can't afford someone better. And I realize his defense in right will be bad. .257/.336/.472/.807 ^^^^^^^ Those are Scott's numbers in 2008 and while they are not great numbers, but they are certainly serviceable numbers and they are definately better then "poor average and OBP." I'm not saying he's great, but for his cost (less then a $1 million dollars) I would say they could be a decent under the radar move for the Cubs. Well to be fair, that's definitely a poor average (which doesn't really matter) and a poor OBP. I think he's a bit better than that though. He was pretty streaky last year.

I think at this point, Hendry is going to do whatever it takes (well at least, I hope so). For the RF thing, would we be content with Luke Scott? He's cheap, but put up some alright numbers last year. He's the left-handed bat we're looking for. I don't know...we'll see what Jimbo can do. I would personally not like to see Luke Scott in a Cubs uniform. I don't know who else we could get, but Scott played LF last year with a poor AVG and OBP. He also was worse during Day games and on the Road. I see him, at best, as a platoon partner with Mark DeRosa in right, which makes Fontenot a starter versus LHP's. Luke Scott is also 30 years old with "lukewarm" numbers over his career. I would rather see Hoffpauir platoon there if we can't afford someone better. And I realize his defense in right will be bad. Scott isn't great but he's better than you're making him out to be. His OPS+ for the last 3 season are 165, 119, and 109. His career OPS+ is 119. He's like an .850 OPS guy and that would be better than what we have.

Sounds like Wood was full of isht when he said he'd accept a one year deal.

This is probably the first Bears game I've actually been excited about since the Super Bowl

So you're saying that things are setting up perfectly for Hill? He's saying that it would be better to hang onto him for a while longer just in case... as opposed to just giving him away.

ahhhh well played

Sorry if it's a repost. It's from this... http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-orioles1129,0,3629851.story It was posted earlier Go kill somebody, jerk. Wait what? I don't understand what that means. If it's hostile, why? I was just giving you more information. I'm confused

Sorry if it's a repost. It's from this... http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-orioles1129,0,3629851.story It was posted earlier

Because Hill has no value. Which is my exactly point. Why give him up if it's just as a throw in? I think it would be better to just hang onto him and see if he can do anything at all in ST. It's pretty unlikely, but there's a shot. I don't see the point in giving him away, which is exactly what we're doing if he has no value like you say.

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived. I'd rather give him a shot in ST and see if he can pull it together. It's unlikely, but I'd rather do that instead of just basically giving him away as an extra piece that doesn't really make or break the deal in any way. If one of those teams is high on him and they thing he's a key part of the deal that's fine, but I think they'd see him as a throw in type guy. Last year he was basically untouchable and now we're talking about giving him away as like the 5th piece in a trade. I doubt if we could get Scott out of the deal without Hill being included. Marquis is more of a salary dump for us than a positive piece for Baltimore, don't you think? If you don't want Scott, we could probably keep both Hill and Marquis, but why do that? I'm just saying that I get the impression that Hill owuld not be a deal breaker and that we could get the same package with another guy. I could be wrong, I'm just getting that feeling.

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived. I'd rather give him a shot in ST and see if he can pull it together. It's unlikely, but I'd rather do that instead of just basically giving him away as an extra piece that doesn't really make or break the deal in any way. If one of those teams is high on him and they thing he's a key part of the deal that's fine, but I think they'd see him as a throw in type guy. Last year he was basically untouchable and now we're talking about giving him away as like the 5th piece in a trade.

In those proposed deals, we basically get no value whatsoever for Hill. I'd rather keep him if we're just giving him away.

Why do you act like you know for sure? You don't, none of us do. If the Cubs FO feels that Lee is on the way down, like many of us here do, then it wouldn't surprise me at all if they dealt him. Anyways, I think that would be more about dumping salary, rather than including him in a Peavy trade.

Can we just say that A-Rod sucks and Albert Pujols is either average or just below? Can we? Greene season by season OPS+ (leaving out his 64 AB 2003)- 114 95 97 100 64 Career- 95 Theriot (leaving out his 14 AB 2005)- 135 (134 AB) 72 93 Career- 88 Greene had a flukishly bad season last year, but his other 4 full seasons were all better than Theriot's best full season. Greene's career OPS+ is better than Theriot's one good full season. When you take into account the enormous difference in defense, I don't think you can even try to argue that Theriot is better. I also don't like the chances of Theriot coming close to his 2008 production again. He's a slap hitter who relies on a lot of luck.

Thew reason for the Padres trading Peavy is to dump salary, something they are desperately trying to do. Why the hell would they want to take on Marquis'? They want major league talent that is good, cheap, and can be part of their future. They don't want to pay 10 mil for a guy to suck for one year and then leave. They would kind of defeat the purpose of trading Peavy.

Giles refused to waive his NTC to both the Red Sox and Cubs during the 2008 season. You know that this is a job for these guys, right? When guys have made a home in a city for years, it's not as black and white as "play for a contender or play for a loser". There is much more in play. Oh and RBIs are never an important stat. They are a team stat.

Pretty much. I don't see Hoffpauir being good enough to merit playing every day, so the Cubs will have to look for someone in FA. However, there don't appear to be many decent guys out there who will be cheap. Eric Hinske, Sean Casey, and Richie Sexson don't exactly sound like good options. I wonder what it would take to get Nick Johnson. He's a huge injury risk but he's been pretty money when he's on the field. Plus he hits from the left side.

isn't lee a 10/5 player now? Doesn't matter.... he has a NTC. I have a feeling Lee wouldn't mind leaving Chicago if he liked the team he was going to.

Lee + Marquis + a couple million of the 10-15 million likely remaining in a budget = Peavy + Teixeira I don't see who is going to take on Marquis' salary, and it's questionable if anyone would take on Lee's. The Cubs ould have to eat a huge chunk of that. Plus where are you seeing that there is 10-15 million left? I thought it was a lot tighter than that. Anyways, we're basing this off oss the guy he talked to, and that guy said they'd trade Lee to free up payroll and then sign a cheaper guy. If you believe one you kind of have to believe the other.

I think the main reason they'd trade Lee would be to dump payroll so they could afford Peavy. I don't see how they could afford to get Peavy and then sign Teixeira. That's why Churchill said the guy told him they'd look for a cheaper/lesser 1B.

Oh HELL no. That would never happen. Ramirez is not replacable right now

From Churchill-

Then again, these OT losses need to stop

So from an insiders perspective, what are the chances that we aquire a decent lefty? Depends what you mean by decent. Those Teahen reports were greatly exaggerated, as were those regarding Furcal. The still like Ibanez, but right now, his price is probably too high. Not being a smart alec, I always say the chances are 50-50. Either they will or they won't. They look at a lot of things that never make the media. The Ceda-for-Gregg trade was one such thing. There aren't a whole lot of good left-handed hitters out there who fit the Cubs' needs and budget. I still say Abreu is the best fit. Problem is, hes 36 and reportedly wants a 4 year deal. A low .800's RF doesn't seem that much of a great idea to me. Plus he's terrible defensively.

Awesome to get a point. Anything more is just gravy