SCCubbieFAN

what if DeRo agreed to an extention for 2010 as part of any deal for him? would that change your minds about what you are willing to give up to get him back?

Jake, you will love Pearce. He played his college ball down here and is a good kid w/a lot of potential.

Thats less than a run per game Fred. How about runs against w & w/o??

did a rooftop game 2 yrs ago with a group of 15 others, and there were other parties going on with other groups at the same time. Bob Avellini was with one group and J. Noah was with another. My daughter who was 8 at the time had a blast catering to Noah and getting him to sign authographs for other people. It was great time and an awesome place to see a game. It cost our group $150/person so this $79-$99/person is really a good deal

The Indians are obviously in salary dump mode re this yet they are looking for major league ready pitching in return according to that article/report. They most likely won't take back a bad contract, like Miles, unless the Cubs pay enough of that bad contract so they save some coin.

Perhaps, but IMO JH would bring him back if the Indians took back another bad contract or agreed to pay half of the remainder of DeRo's contract. Hendry then ends up with DeRo back plus the 3 somewhat decent prospects the Cubs got from the Indians when they traded him. That puts more egg on the face of the Indians' GM than it does on JH's.

And as I mentioned in another thread discussing DeRo, he adjusted just fine to NL pitching when the Cubs acquired him. So the question still remains, is he on the decline or is this just a slow start? And the next question is do the Cubs try and get him back and who would the Indians realistically take to do it?

I think it can be a problem. Batters have a scouting report on pitchers, but if you haven't seen them you don't know exactly how much their breaking pitches break, their tendencies, etc. It's definitely easier for a batter most of the time the more he sees a pitcher. That's a good point on being there in 2006, but there's been some pretty good turnover I'd say. And DeRo did not seem to have any problem adjusting from AL pitching to NL pitching after the Cubs signed him.

As far as DeRo goes, we know he's going to hit. Don't try to act like part of the reason he was traded was because he was a question mark. He's a proven hitter. Fontenot is not a proven hitter. There were several on this board that said the Cubs were making a mistake by signing DeRo after he had a great season in a contract year, that he was on the wrong side of 30, etc, etc.. There are also many on this board that have the opinion the Cubs are bad at not selling high. DeRo ended up being a great sign, and with him approaching 34 and in the last year of his current deal, there were many again saying it was a good time to try and sell high on him since it was likely he would start to regress. I did not like to see him go b/c I thought he had at least one more good season in him, b/c of his value to the team being able to play multiple positions, and b/c he is just a great clubhouse guy. It was also obvious he enjoyed being a Cub. Yes he is a proven hitter but his stats so far this year do suggest his better seasons might be behind him: 235/.309/.412. I know he also has 4 hr and 17 rbi. Did the Cubs get enough for him? No. This was Hendry's chance to sell high and get good value for a player with 3 solid seasons behind him, but DeRo is in the final year of his deal so who knows what else the Cubs "could" have received for him. And if they had kept him and he left via FA, they would not have gotten 3 for 1 for him. I don't compare DeRo with Fontenot in this discussion b/c both were on the team last year, so the comparison is DeRo to Bradley since Bradley is technically the one who replaced DeRo, and Bradley is sucking so far. But he too can be called a "proven hitter" so we will just have to wait and see if he will eventually turn it around.

"I had sex with Josh Hancock's wife!" "His wife is in a coma."

"The jerk store called and....."

yes, that was quite a head scratcher, esp after Milton rolled his ankle earlier. :?

It's actually 7: Wells, Hart, Johnson, Blanco, Germain, Snyder, and Taguchi. And a Mark Peel sighting on Bruce's blog. Cubsfan26 asked about the possibility of sending Gaudin down. The first reply to that was from mlp, which I'm fairly certain is Peel because the response has the detail about the waivers process that Mark had here. Yeh, that is vintage Mark Peel style & substance.

I love this new look however, the site asked me to log in and when I tried, I kept getting a failed message, and then the site could not recognize my username, my email address, nor my password. I sent you and 1908 an email re this. but then when I clicked on the link for the message boards, it logged me in automatically. very strange

the game is not showing up on gameday audio

has the game today been rained out? Its not coming up on gameday audio

can Pudge play any position other than catcher? Could he back-up right field adequately?

The ability of a GM and his scout staff to have the foresight to know when to sell high on a prospect or young player or keep that player hoping his success will be sustained long term is probably the most difficult task a GM faces. Hendry's and his scouts' failure in this regard is my biggest criticism of his administration.

Huh? I think you're mixing up Olson with Gregg you're right. my bad :oops: but Olson has not had a stellar career with the exception of his k/bb ratio.

I'm not crazy about this trade either unless it eventually leads to something better, but many of you on this board were not all that enamored with Olson and his $4mil+ salary to begin with, nor with the possibility that he would replace Wood as the closer. So now he and his hefty salary are gone. I guess the bigger question is who is going to close? Marmol??

I don't think he's said anything but I wouldn't be surprised if he took the year off/retired after what happened to his brother. Sad story, what a shame. I missed this. what happened?

There are several issues with his post, but you seriously think the Wood and Bradley situations are identical? You think you can just look at say "each costs $10m a year and has a high likelihood of injury. Thus, you must either like both deals or hate both deals." There's obviously more to it than that. Wood in a RP. If he goes down for a week or even the whole year, we have a couple of options to replace him: Marmol and Gregg (maybe others). He's also a huge fan favorite, he's been a great citizen of Chicago and seemed to want to play here. From what I know, teammates liked him. Bradley is the starting RF. If he goes down for an extended period of time, which is likely, we get Reed or Gathright full time (maybe Pie, but that seems unlikely). Neither of whom is likely to come close to the OPS we're hoping to get from Bradley. He's got a pretty bad reputation as a teammate as well. You can certainly like both deals or hate both deals, but a reasonable person can like one and hate the other. So it appears you are saying if Wood goes down, he is easily replaced by other in house choices who can perform as well as he, and who btw, cost less than he, whereas if Bradley goes down, he is not as easily replaceable with ANY in house options who can provide similar performance?

If the Bradley deal doesn't go down but the Cubs are able to trade for Hermidia (or Scott from the Os), will trading DeRo be worth it?

And if they get swept out again, it'll still be rather anticlimactic and ultimately, meaningless. I'd still take that over 5-10 year droughts between playoff appearances. If they can keep getting to the playoffs with a high level of frequency, sooner or later they are bound to get hot at the right time. At least that is how I look at it. Exactly. I'll take regular or semi-regular playoff heartbreaks like we've had 3 times in the last 5 years (and just barely missed a 4th) than the huge droughts that Cubs had since their last WS appearance. Hell, 5-10 years would have been nice compared to some of the gaps. The more often they go, sure, the more often we could see collapses...but it also drastically increases the odds of them breaking through and winning it all. "Meaningless" implies there's little to no difference between a Cubs team that wins 97 games or 57 games. If the playoffs are all that matters, why even watch or follow baseball before September? You misunderstand. I'm not saying it's meaningless that they had a good season. I'm saying it's not going to have any further meaning unless they actually break through. Nobody's going to care in 20 years if the Cubs made the playoffs 3 years in a row if they got swept out each time. They will care if they do something once they get there, if only in one of those 3 years. And I do agree, the more you make it the more you give yourself a chance. I'm just saying, let's cash in here at some point. It may be meaningless how they did during the regular season once they bow out of the playoffs in the sense that the season is over for them at that point, but from a fan's point of view, at least this fan, when the Cubs are winning and having a good season and making a run for the post season, a long hot summer is so much more enjoyable than knowing in May or June that its just another "wait again till next year" season. I want to see the Cubs make it to the WS just as much as anyone on this board, but I'll take them making it to the post season and bowing out in the first round every time over them being out of it by the summer solstice.

back on thread topic, does anyone know how the Cubs could be so involved in trying to get Peavy if in fact they are "maxed out" spending-wise as Olney opines?