17 Seconds

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.

It's almost comical how low this team's confidence is in the 4th quarter.

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.

I want to hear it too. I looked for it but I can't find it.

2 years younger. Zero major league service time. Young for his league. What do you mean he doesn't walk? His OBP in '08 was more than 100 points better than his AVG. Over a full season, that equates to more than 100 walks. Yeah, worst comparison ever. I'm not sure where that "doesn't walk" stuff is coming from either.

I'm loving these Brewers hirings

I think you have an extra syllable in line 2 You must be one of those people who says Ko-soo-kay

Probably just posturing by Towers to get the Braves to cave.

No offense to Dallas, but did anyone else hear this? I find it rather hard to believe that Towers would say that. Yeah, that doesn't sound right. I don't think Dallas was lying, but he probably paraphrased poorly or misunderstood.

Ask the 2004 Red Sox if they've heard of Mark Bellhorn. BoSox could name you everybody from that team from Martinez to Papelbon to Mueller to Youk. So that proves nothing. The point is that Bellhorn had more than one good year. Yeah.. he had 2. Dude's a stud Way to parse that out from absolutely nothing resembling that sentiment. Obviously I was being sarcastic but my point was pretty clear. The guy said he thought Ludwick would be a one-year wonder like Bellhorn. You implied that Bellhorn was far from being a one-year wonder, when really he wasn't. The comparison he made was fine. He really only had one great season.

I like that! I'd just as soon stay away from this rumor stuff, too, since most of it's untrue. My take on it is that where there's smoke, there's usually fire. I think that a lot of times the details of rumors get messed up/made up/etc., but that the basic rumor (i.e. Cubs have interest in such and such player) usually comes from truth. I pay attention to the player they are after and that's about it. I never pay any attention to the rumored "offers" and "names could include" stuff because that's usually just speculation and never ends up being right.

Last I checked, the Padres play in a pitcher's park too. 92 ERA+ for a career. Yuck. He's 25. And he's been over 100 three out of four years. And he's got a fantastic minor league track record. His minor league numbers aren't bad but I certainly wouldn't call them fantastic.

I give Hendry a lot of crap but it would be pretty amazing if he traded for Harden and Peavy in a span of about 4 months, especially with our farm system.

Ask the 2004 Red Sox if they've heard of Mark Bellhorn. BoSox could name you everybody from that team from Martinez to Papelbon to Mueller to Youk. So that proves nothing. The point is that Bellhorn had more than one good year. Yeah.. he had 2. Dude's a stud

1) Harden costs nearly as much as Peavy this coming year 2) Harden would leave as a free agent after next year but he heard it

Haha. The Mets giving Dempster a big contract sounds like an absolute disaster. let's hope that happens. What's more likely to happen? The Mets... A) Give Ryan Dempster a ridiculous 5 year contract B) Give Francisco Rodriguez a ridiculous 5 year contract C) Give both players ridiculous 5 year contracts I choose C. Anything over what Hendry has already proposed to Demp is overpaying since Dempster can't hack it in pressure situations. I can't imagine him faring any better in NY with the way things have gone over there the last few seasons. He'd have to be nuts to sign with the Mets. I was with you right up until there. Last I recall he couldn't handle 9th inning closer pressure in 2007, You mean when he saved 28 of 31 opps?

And all I'm saying is that (strictly from a competitive standpoint) is that it is. The Braves aren't anywhere close to the Cubs setup men injuries or not. Wait, what? I don't understand that statement. And I never said anything that you're saying. I simply said that it's not crazy to think a guy might not think his best chance to win a championship is with the Chicago Cubs. That's all. I'm sure if he could choose he'd still pick the Cubs.

It would make no sense whatsoever for the Padres to want harden as part of the trade.

I'm pretty sure most people across the league think he is. People love tools. They might also love him for his performance in AAA. In 2007

Didn't I just say the window was 2-3 years? And come on... you're really counting on Harden long term? Really I'm terrified about the offense. Every key player other than Soto is old and many of them have shown signs of decline. So Peavy wants to go to Atlanta cause he thinks they'll be better in 2012. Yeah, because that's exactly what I said, right? Reading comprehension can do wonders. Where did I even say he'd rather go to Atlanta? All I said was that it's not crazy to think he might feel better about going to the Braves than the Cubs.

Thanks for stopping by, Bruce. What percentage would you give to this getting done? 50/50...better than 50/50? I think the chances are better than 50/50. Unlike the Orioles, the Padres must move Peavy. They'd also like to get it done before the free-agent market opens. It's pretty much in the Padres' court now. It all depends on whose offer Towers likes. Wait... better than 50/50 that he gets traded to the Cubs, or better than 50/50 that he gets traded period? It is 100% he gets traded...better than 50/50 he goes to the Cubs. Are you sure? It was hard to tell and I didn't think the odds were actually in favor of the Cubs getting him.