17 Seconds

DeRosa probably doesn't have a lot of value but that's like the least valid reason why No its not. He's not a valuable barganing chip because its unlikely that he would be a long term solution for any team he gets traded to. Maybe if the third team was a contender we could discuss it, but its definitely a valid reason why. i think the fact that he only has one year left on his contract kind of made it a given that he wouldn't be a long term solution for anyone. do you think i'm talking about trading him to san diego? i'm not. i was talking about trading him to a contender in need of a 2B and then flipping the piece they get back to sd.

I don't like giving that $ to middle relievers who just so happen to get an "S" next to their name in the boxscore....ohh and trading one of our best prospects as well. This signing made the Cubs look like idiots. Well yeah I'd still have preffered this to the gregg trade

DeRosa probably doesn't have a lot of value but that's like the least valid reason why

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis. He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years. ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats. That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons. Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career. To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky. First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks. I never said anything about his injuries or wanting to sign him, so I don't know why you're talking about that. I'm just saying that it's silly to say he was "particularly bad" in 2006 and ever sillier to say he was worse than Marquis. Obviously ERA+ puts too much emphasis on ERA alone, because there is no other reason for his ERA+ to be that low. He was NOT bad in 2006. You can tell this very simply by looking at his stats. They are all good.....except for ERA, which means that he was unlucky and guys got a lot of hits with RISP and the home runs came with guys on base. I never downplayed his home run total more than it deserevd to be. He's always given up home runs...even when he was dominating he was giving up home runs, so that's nothing new and doesn't show anything. Anyways, 28 home runs isn't that big of a deal when your WHIP is that low. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007 numbers. Would you say Rich Hill was bad in 2007? WHIP is a much worse statistic than ERA+ Any stat is bad when you look at it by itself. Luckily for me, I didn't use WHIP by itself, so I'm not sure I see what the point of your post is. WHIP is an important stat as long as you look at the big picture. Are you saying that total baserunners allowed isn't relevant? from what i can see, WHIP is the only stat you showed that was good. Yea..except for all the other ones. I think you need to pay more attention because what you just said isn't even close to being true. Not a lot of hits given up Not a lot of walks given up Missed bats Good K/BB Actually it's the other way around. The only stat that you show is bad is ERA Really it's very simple to look at his stats and understand that his ERA was flukey. I really don't get why it's hard for you to understand. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007

Reading comprehension is killing you

What? I posted DeRosa in this thread because the reason for doing so owuld be to get that extra necessary piece to get Peavy. Why would the mods lock it?

please sign somewhere else please sign somewhere else please sign somewhere else

this is giving derwood's "minnesota twins might be the worst organization in pro sports" a run for its money in the "dumbest post of the year" contest. Either that or you just don't watch Eagles games. you got me, i am an eagles fan living in a market that shows just about every eagles game, but i don't watch any of their games. That makes even more sense then. You're biased and in denial about Andy Reid. There really is no other explanation. right, or it could be that you're judging a coach solely on his decisions at the end of close games, which is just a small part of being an nfl head coach. my favorite thing is all the bitching about his calls on short-yardage plays on 3rd or 4th down. for years everyone has been whining that the eagles can't get over the hump because they can't run the ball when they need to grind down the clock or convert on short yardage situations. they complain that reid is too pass happy. now this year, he runs the ball on 4th and goal from the 1, or 4th and short from midfield late in the game, and everyone complains that he's going away from the strength of his team. can't have it both ways, idiots. I'm judging it solely on clock management? Okay. Maybe you should read the Simmons stuff I posted. You sound pretty defensive and angry. Just sayin

this is giving derwood's "minnesota twins might be the worst organization in pro sports" a run for its money in the "dumbest post of the year" contest. Either that or you just don't watch Eagles games. you got me, i am an eagles fan living in a market that shows just about every eagles game, but i don't watch any of their games. That makes even more sense then. You're biased and in denial about Andy Reid. There really is no other explanation.

Bill Simmons says is far better than I ever could. Simmons pretty much calls out Reid in every article he writes

this is giving derwood's "minnesota twins might be the worst organization in pro sports" a run for its money in the "dumbest post of the year" contest. Either that or you just don't watch Eagles games.

Wow what is Braylon Edwards' deal?

Does anybody else keep getting a weird metallic sound on the ESPN broadcast?

I challenge anyone to name a coach who is worse than Andy Reid. Watching that guy coach a relatively close game is just painful. It's ming boggling that he still has a head coaching job.

What do you guys think we could get for DeRosa? DeRosa is one of my favorite players but if we could get a piece that gets us closer to a Peavy trade I'd be open to it. I kind of want to see what Fontenot can do over a full season. If he can give us a .750-.800 OPS then that would be fine and would also give Lou another lefty in the lineup, which he's so obsessed with. Plus it would shed a little payroll and make things a little easier next season.

Towers- "we've had very little discussions with the Angels and Yankees"

Churchill's guy may put the Cubs at 5% chance of landing Peavy, but I put the Yankees less then that at getting Peavy. Which means it still comes down to the Braves or the Cubs. The Yankees are strictly used for negotiation tatics, imo. I think it depends on CC.

minus the massive contract though Actually in 2009 Gregg will make close to what Gagne made in 2007

simardzilla is what he turns into when you piss him off

I'd trade Cedeno, Veal, and Marquis for Scott in a heartbeat. Id take a flyer out on that deal, however, I wouldnt be surprised if we could get Scott for Marquis alone, as desperate as the O's are for starting pitching, seemingly every year. Hes always been an >.800 OPSer and could possibly capitilize on Wrigley. You serious? Marquis has negative trade value and they're going to trade Scott (a guy who, by all accounts, the Orioles organization is in love with) for him? Come on. They're desperate for starting pitching that is actually good and helps them in the future. Not a crappy pitcher who is under contract for one year and owed over 10 mil.

By the way, I asked Churchill how confident his guy was that Peavy ends up with the Cubs and he said "5 percent confidence". He then said his guy told him he'll probably go to the Braves or Yankees.

I don't buy it, but not because of the reasons mentioned. I just can't imagine Hendry and Lou filling RF with a righty when they're so obsessed with a lefty.

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis. He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years. ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats. That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons. Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career. To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky. First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks. I never said anything about his injuries or wanting to sign him, so I don't know why you're talking about that. I'm just saying that it's silly to say he was "particularly bad" in 2006 and ever sillier to say he was worse than Marquis. Obviously ERA+ puts too much emphasis on ERA alone, because there is no other reason for his ERA+ to be that low. He was NOT bad in 2006. You can tell this very simply by looking at his stats. They are all good.....except for ERA, which means that he was unlucky and guys got a lot of hits with RISP and the home runs came with guys on base. I never downplayed his home run total more than it deserevd to be. He's always given up home runs...even when he was dominating he was giving up home runs, so that's nothing new and doesn't show anything. Anyways, 28 home runs isn't that big of a deal when your WHIP is that low. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007 numbers. Would you say Rich Hill was bad in 2007? WHIP is a much worse statistic than ERA+ Any stat is bad when you look at it by itself. Luckily for me, I didn't use WHIP by itself, so I'm not sure I see what the point of your post is. WHIP is an important stat as long as you look at the big picture. Are you saying that total baserunners allowed isn't relevant?

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis. He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years. ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats. That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons. Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career. To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky. First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks. I never said anything about his injuries or wanting to sign him, so I don't know why you're talking about that. I'm just saying that it's silly to say he was "particularly bad" in 2006 and ever sillier to say he was worse than Marquis. Obviously ERA+ puts too much emphasis on ERA alone, because there is no other reason for his ERA+ to be that low. He was NOT bad in 2006. You can tell this very simply by looking at his stats. They are all good.....except for ERA, which means that he was unlucky and guys got a lot of hits with RISP and the home runs came with guys on base. I never downplayed his home run total more than it deserevd to be. He's always given up home runs...even when he was dominating he was giving up home runs, so that's nothing new and doesn't show anything. Anyways, 28 home runs isn't that big of a deal when your WHIP is that low. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007 numbers. Would you say Rich Hill was bad in 2007?

As soon as Braun figures out what ball 4 means we can start talking about potential MVPs. Until then.... no. He didn't deserve to be anywhere near 3rd