17 Seconds

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

That's the premium you're going to have to pay. Given Affeldt's situation, it's not a terrible gamble. If you want a proven reliever, then you're going to be paying upwards of 8 figures over 3-4 years for someone like Fuentes, and a contract like that to a reliever might make you bleed out your ears given your posts in this thread. At least Fuentes has shown results

No, I read it and I understand. Mostly I just don't like giving out multi-year contracts to relievers, especially unproven ones. It rarely works out. Affeldt signed for 2 years, if you're terrified of anything more than a 1 year deal to any reliever, then you're going to end up with a poor bullpen, especially with what the Cubs currently have to work with. Not terrified, I just think it's dumb. Once Affeldt starts showing better results we'll talk. I think you're going to be awfully disappointed with the ability of relievers that will sign a one year deal. Again, given the Cubs' position they need to add a bullpen arm, and considering how happy you were with the Gregg trade, I'm guessing you're even less of a fan of trading any useful assets for one. Hoping for the best out of Gaudin/Wuertz/Samardzija/etc isn't a very good way to go about it. Signing someone with Affeldt's peripherals with no loss other than 4 million and a guaranteed spot in 2010 is about as small a price as you can ask for. Again, I don't like giving 4 mil a year to unproven relievers.

No, I read it and I understand. Mostly I just don't like giving out multi-year contracts to relievers, especially unproven ones. It rarely works out. Affeldt signed for 2 years, if you're terrified of anything more than a 1 year deal to any reliever, then you're going to end up with a poor bullpen, especially with what the Cubs currently have to work with. Not terrified, I just think it's dumb. Once Affeldt starts showing better results we'll talk.

No, I read it and I understand. Mostly I just don't like giving out multi-year contracts to relievers, especially unproven ones. It rarely works out.

lol What's funny about that? Affeldt is a good RP. I would have liked him here. He's not really good at all. Last season was the only one you could count as "good" in his last 5, and even then he had a 1.31 WHIP. No thanks. He was mediocre in 2007 and awful the previous 3 years. And for 8 million? We have better options that are much cheaper. Have we not learned that it's dumb to give out big contracts to relievers? http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/free-agent-bargain-jeremy-affeldt So you're citing someone else's stats anbd work. That's cool, but I'm looking at his results and they are not there. Come on, the guy has never even posted a WHIP under 1.30 and we want to give him 8 mil.

It just seems unrealistic. Take Greene out of the trade and it still seems unrealistic. That sounds like a package the Cubs would be offering to get just Peavy. You mean take Greene out and it seems more unrealistic. Again, you said yourself that he has negative value.

lol What's funny about that? Affeldt is a good RP. I would have liked him here. He's not really good at all. Last season was the only one you could count as "good" in his last 5, and even then he had a 1.31 WHIP. No thanks. He was mediocre in 2007 and awful the previous 3 years. And for 8 million? We have better options that are much cheaper. Have we not learned that it's dumb to give out big contracts to relievers?

lol

LOLOL GIANTS

Well he said it's "an idea that has been bandied about" so it wouldn't be a surprise if those weren't the exact players changing teams, especially when you consider he heard from a guy who heard from someone else. A lot can be lost in translation. Plus weren't there rumors that the White Sox want to dump Dye? Really he's only had 2 good season in the last 8 and a couple of mediocre ones. He's also about to turn 35. He's much more likely to be an .800 OPS guy next season than he is a .900 OPS guy, so it's not far fetched to think the Sox might want to dump him and get what they can. Plus I don't get why you mention the fact that it seems more unrealistc because we'd get those 2 guys "and Greene?!?" when you go on to mention in the very next sentence that he has negative trade value.

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.

He mainly covers the Mariners but he claims to have other contacts, including one with the Cubs.

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.

He owns this site- http://prospectinsider.com/

I got an e-mail from Churchill today. Who knows if there's any truth to this, but it's still interesting. I'd be more likely to believe the Peavy/Greene/Dye thing if Dye wasn't mentioned. I can't imagine Hendry/Lou filling RF with a righty when they seem so obsessed with getting a lefty.

It's my understanding that Peavy doesn't wish/need to be traded. It's the Padres who have to get rid of him. He's going to get traded, it just matters to whom and for what. Both the Braves and the Cubs know this and so does every other team too. For the life of me I cannot understand why Towers didn't pull the trigger with the Braves unless Peavy really did tell them he wouldn't go (DonnieD's info). Anyway, The Cubs offer is pretty bad for a pitcher of his calibre, but if they're patient they just might get him, at least I'm hoping so. Not necessarily. If speculation that he really values a contender (i.e. Cubs over the Braves) is true, than he most certainly does want to get away from SD. Well I think if he could stay in the home he just built and not have to moveh is family, that would be more important than winning. I think the "go to a contender" thing is just if he MUST be traded

I bet they hang onto Peavy until the deadline.

who said oliver perez was as good as RJ? and can people PLEASE stop using the phrase "and it's not particularly close"? that's right up there with "been there, done that" and "too much information".