17 Seconds

Oh man, I'd love to see the Orioles lose Teixeira to the Nats.

I'd start him, but if he performs like he did last season I could see him not being a starter. I've liked him for awhile and I think he'll rebound, but he was pretty awful last year.

If we don't get Peavy, a deal for Hermida and Olson could end up being a good deal depending on the cost. Take Olsen and flip him to the O's in a deal for BRob. Assuming Pie and Cedeno would be part of a trade: 1B - Lee 2B - BRob SS - Theriot 3B - ARam LF - Soriano CF - Fukudome/Johnson RF - Hermida/Derosa C - Soto Bench: Johnson/Fukudome, Fontenot, Hoffpair, Derosa/Hermida, MI sub, Blanco/Hill MacPhail said Roberts isn't available. They're trying to lock him up.

Well it's going right along with what Olney just said. And Olney's track record should tell you he's wrong, so what does that say about Churchills info? I suspect that you're only saying Olney's track record is bad because you don't like what he's saying. The reality is that most of these guys are wrong a lot because they predict so many things and write so many articles. When multiple people are hearing the same thing (and I highly doub Churchill is piggy backing Olney) that's when I tend to start paying attention. You can believe what you want about this Churchill guy, I don't really care, but don't act like he's just blwing smoke up my ass for no reason. He's been right in the past so he's not making it up. That doesn't mean he can't be wrong. Thease guys are wrong all the time.

IMO, I don't think the Peavy to the Braves deal is as close as Churchill is claiming. I think this is Churchill trying to excite Braves fans into buying the newpaper that has his article. What article? He didn't write that on a website.... he e-mailed it to me because I ask him about Cubs stuff a lot. Anyways, if that was his motive wouldn't he want to excite Cubs fans instead of Braves fans? Which proves my post in that what he wrote to you is pure rumor and can't really substantiate it and was just giving you an opinion based on what is already out there. So unless Churchill works for the Braves or have a source inside the organization ( :roll: ) all he is doing is reciting his own opinion. Where did I say it wasn't rumor? Of course it's rumor. It's not just his opinion though, he has a contact in the Cubs FO (which is why I e-mail him in the first place) and he has e-mailed me things h'es heard in the past before I read it anywhere else and has been right. He's not just guessing or sharing his opinions. You can be skeptical of how reliable his info is, but he def. hears it from someone. The fact that Olney just said the Braves and Pads have made progress coupled with what Churchill told me leads me to believe that there's probably some truth to it. Obviously it's just rumors at this point, so there's no need for the eye rolling.

IMO, I don't think the Peavy to the Braves deal is as close as Churchill is claiming. I think this is Churchill trying to excite Braves fans into buying the newpaper that has his article. What article? He didn't write that on a website.... he e-mailed it to me because I ask him about Cubs stuff a lot. Anyways, if that was his motive wouldn't he want to excite Cubs fans instead of Braves fans?

Which is why I'm thinking that the Cubs never really had a realistic shot and Towers was just using us as leverage. In reality, the Padres would be stupid to trade Peavy to us. He's a top 5 pitcher and we don't have a legit centerpiece for a guy like that. Hendry got something out of it, too -- the fan base is excited again. Yeah....for a couple weeks. If we lose him to the Braves then the fan base will be even more depressed than when the rumors started. Now settling for re-signing Dempster is going to seem like a big failure. Disappointed, yes. Depressed? Not so sure. Hendry is collecting all kinds of credit for nearly pulling this off. Wouldn't it be funny if he and Towers were just doing each other a favor? Regardless, I'd say the Cubs are better off with the Peavy buzz than without it, regardless of the outcome. If Peavy goes to the Braves I don't see how any good could possibly have come of all this. I know I'll personally feel worse about the Cubs than I did 2 weeks ago. I wasn't expecting much at all this offseason then I got sucked into the Peavy talk. Anything else will be a letdown. Where is all this credit that hendry has gotten? If we lose Peavy to ATL for their 37th best package then I think that would look pretty bad. I just don't see how the Peavy buzz could be looked at as a postivie if we lose him. I'd think the fanbase would be even more bummed. It's like "we won 97 and got swept in the playoffs again....but we're getting Peavy so we'll have a super-rotation! Oh wait, nevermind.... we'll have to get Scott Olsen instead." It seems like a cruel joke.

Bleh. Olsen is not really good and going from Dolphin Stadium to Wrigley wouldn't help.I'm starting to get worried about what our rotation might look like next season.

Bleh. Olsen is not really good and going from Dolphin Stadium to Wrigley wouldn't help.I'm starting to get worried about what our rotation might look like next season.

There was nothing in that article that resembled the 2 things you said about Vitters ad Samardzija. In fact, it said that Samardzija would certainly not be offered by the Cubs.

Which is why I'm thinking that the Cubs never really had a realistic shot and Towers was just using us as leverage. In reality, the Padres would be stupid to trade Peavy to us. He's a top 5 pitcher and we don't have a legit centerpiece for a guy like that. If Peavy wants to win he should nix the trade and wait until after the ASB. The Braves aren't winning with him and they will be in real bad shape without their SS. I'm kind of thinking that the Braves will get both Greene and Peavy. I wish Peavy was more of an a-hole and just told Towers "trade me to the Cubs or I'm staying."

Which is why I'm thinking that the Cubs never really had a realistic shot and Towers was just using us as leverage. In reality, the Padres would be stupid to trade Peavy to us. He's a top 5 pitcher and we don't have a legit centerpiece for a guy like that. Hendry got something out of it, too -- the fan base is excited again. Yeah....for a couple weeks. If we lose him to the Braves then the fan base will be even more depressed than when the rumors started. Now settling for re-signing Dempster is going to seem like a big failure.

Yeah, I don't want any part of kevin Gregg unless we can basically get him for free. Even when he was closing out games it was always an adventure. He's not really good.

Which is why I'm thinking that the Cubs never really had a realistic shot and Towers was just using us as leverage. In reality, the Padres would be stupid to trade Peavy to us. He's a top 5 pitcher and we don't have a legit centerpiece for a guy like that.

Samardzija's agent already said that he'll undr no circumstances accept a trade. He's staying. I feel like it was kind of a pipe dream getting Peavy. The Braves are offering up like their 10th best package and they're still in it.

Well it's going right along with what Olney just said.

Just got an e-mail from Churchill- I can't wait until we pay Dempster 60 million to have a 4.30 ERA.

And the actual info in it is much older than that.

Pretty funny that Kerry Collins is passing all over the Bears d. He's on pace for a 34-46 360 yard game.

So what's a good way to get rid of the sting of another postseason choke? Immediately get our hopes up for Peavy only tp get crushed again.

That would leave our bullpen in trouble. Plus I don't think we could afford all 3 of those guys.

The problem is that Dempster is very unlikely to duplicate his 2008, so Peavy would be necessary just to match what we got out of Demp last year. And you're missing the key point..which is that we wouldn't be able to re-sign Wood if we had Peavy and Dempster, not to mention any other free agents. So 2009 Peavy might not make us that much better than a 2008 Dempster would, but the loss of Wood make our bullpen significantly worse. If we lose Wood then our bullpen could be in serious trouble. I'd rather have a really good rotation and a good bullpen than a mega rotation with a crappy pen. Bottom line is that Dempster would not be even remotely necessary.... Wood would. Plus it's very possible that Dempster isn't even much of an upgrade over Marquis next season. I'm not counting on Dempster. How bad do you expect Dempster to be? I'm not expecting what he did last year, but I still think he can give a solid 3.40 with a 1.30 WHIP or so. I can't say the same for Marquis. I just think it's easier to find a solid and cheap(er) bullpen guy than a Dempster like starter who will give you 200+ innings of well pitched baseball. Do we really want to be paying 8-10 millionish for Woody, instead of 12 million for Dempster, for 1 inning every few games(not to mention the injury history..not even including his blister problems)? I mean i've got man love for the guy, but i'd rather allocate the money to a quality starter and get a decent bullpen arm who you think can have a good season through trade or FA. I can see where your coming from though, but I guess i'm just thinking different. I wouldn't go 5 years, though. Well I didn't say I expected Dempster to be as bad as Marquis, I just said it's possible. I expect him to have an ERA around 4. And yes, if we got Peavy I feel like it would be a no-brainer to use the rest of the money on Wood and not Dempster. You build you club based on needs and holes. With Peavy the rotation would be the absolute last thing that needed an upgrade, The bullpen without Wood is in big time need of an upgrade. Let's say Marmol steps into the closers role and does well (which isn't a guarantee anyways). Who pitches the 8th? The 7th? Now instead of having Marmol as the fireman/8th inning guy..we're going to Chad Gaudin? Samardzija? Cotts? Every game would be an adventure because we spent money on something we didn't need. It doesn't really matter how good your starting pitching is if you don't have guys to finish it. It's kind of like the Rangers continuing to use resources on hitting instead of pitching and then wondering why they score 9 runs every night but still lose. Fair enough, but Wood is asking for 3 or 4 years at a good chunk of money. I'd be skeptical, considering we found out (last offseason I think) that he's pitching with a small tear in his shoulder that he won't have surgery on. Well it depends on the contract. I think it will take a bad contract to get either of those guys....I'd just rather take a risk on a guy we actually need. Really I'd rather have Fuentes than either of those guys (if we get Peavy).

The problem is that Dempster is very unlikely to duplicate his 2008, so Peavy would be necessary just to match what we got out of Demp last year. And you're missing the key point..which is that we wouldn't be able to re-sign Wood if we had Peavy and Dempster, not to mention any other free agents. So 2009 Peavy might not make us that much better than a 2008 Dempster would, but the loss of Wood make our bullpen significantly worse. If we lose Wood then our bullpen could be in serious trouble. I'd rather have a really good rotation and a good bullpen than a mega rotation with a crappy pen. Bottom line is that Dempster would not be even remotely necessary.... Wood would. Plus it's very possible that Dempster isn't even much of an upgrade over Marquis next season. I'm not counting on Dempster. Just to be clear: Are you saying you'd rather have Peavy+Wood or Dempster+Wood over Peavy+Dempster? Even if both Peavy and Dempster decline, having above average to excellent starting pitchers is far more valuable to having one above average to excellent starting pitcher and bullpen arm. This is aside from the fact that Wood, while great last year, has significant injury history which continued last year. I want Peavy and Wood or another closer/proven reliever (Fuentes).

The problem is that Dempster is very unlikely to duplicate his 2008, so Peavy would be necessary just to match what we got out of Demp last year. And you're missing the key point..which is that we wouldn't be able to re-sign Wood if we had Peavy and Dempster, not to mention any other free agents. So 2009 Peavy might not make us that much better than a 2008 Dempster would, but the loss of Wood make our bullpen significantly worse. If we lose Wood then our bullpen could be in serious trouble. I'd rather have a really good rotation and a good bullpen than a mega rotation with a crappy pen. Bottom line is that Dempster would not be even remotely necessary.... Wood would. Plus it's very possible that Dempster isn't even much of an upgrade over Marquis next season. I'm not counting on Dempster. How bad do you expect Dempster to be? I'm not expecting what he did last year, but I still think he can give a solid 3.40 with a 1.30 WHIP or so. I can't say the same for Marquis. I just think it's easier to find a solid and cheap(er) bullpen guy than a Dempster like starter who will give you 200+ innings of well pitched baseball. Do we really want to be paying 8-10 millionish for Woody, instead of 12 million for Dempster, for 1 inning every few games(not to mention the injury history..not even including his blister problems)? I mean i've got man love for the guy, but i'd rather allocate the money to a quality starter and get a decent bullpen arm who you think can have a good season through trade or FA. I can see where your coming from though, but I guess i'm just thinking different. I wouldn't go 5 years, though. Well I didn't say I expected Dempster to be as bad as Marquis, I just said it's possible. I expect him to have an ERA around 4. And yes, if we got Peavy I feel like it would be a no-brainer to use the rest of the money on Wood and not Dempster. You build you club based on needs and holes. With Peavy the rotation would be the absolute last thing that needed an upgrade, The bullpen without Wood is in big time need of an upgrade. Let's say Marmol steps into the closers role and does well (which isn't a guarantee anyways). Who pitches the 8th? The 7th? Now instead of having Marmol as the fireman/8th inning guy..we're going to Chad Gaudin? Samardzija? Cotts? Every game would be an adventure because we spent money on something we didn't need. It doesn't really matter how good your starting pitching is if you don't have guys to finish it. It's kind of like the Rangers continuing to use resources on hitting instead of pitching and then wondering why they score 9 runs every night but still lose.

I was thinking the same thing. It's kind of weird that there hasn't really been anything new reported in the past 2 days.