Jehrico

In most cases, I'd agree, but we're talking about arguably the best pitcher in all of baseball. You don't balk at one of the very best pitchers in the league because of a prospect that has yet to play at high A. Trading Vitters would smart, but for Peavy, I'd get over it very quickly. If anything, Marshall, Pie, and Vitters for Peavy is highway robbery on our part when you look at it. The only reason we have a chance to pull this off is a) Peavy's NTC and his preference for the NL, and b) Moore's divorce and the Padre's ongoing salary dump.

This doesn't really have anything to do with MLB. Zell has to unload the team as quick as he can, and nobody will ever get financing for the whole team by the time he needs it. I have yet to see anywhere that Cuban can't complete the original bid that he put forth. If you can find a bank that will lend someone a billion dollars for a sports team right now (and payments deferred for a number of years), please call Cuban and Zell because I'm sure they'd both like to get this done. I wasn't under the impression that he needed to finance as big of a chunk of it as the others.

Does he have an official website or MySpace/Facebook page we can flood? I tried to find it in Google but found nothing. Actually, annoyingly enough when I typed in "Jake Peavy Official Website" the #1 return result was the Atlanta Braves Official Site Great, even Google is betting against us. I get Peavy's RotoTimes webpage when I google "Jake Peavy Official Website" and click on "I'm Feeling Lucky."

I agree with you 100%. Even with Peavy the Braves don't have the pieces to compete in the NL East. Now we just need someone to tell Peavy that.

So, you're saying if Soto wasn't Soto....

I dunno. I didn't think they had much of a shot over both Philly and NY. But I guess it's fair to say they were in the conversation. Yeah, that was pre-season for 2008 (a bit early in the offseason for2 009 predictions :D ). If you go back and look at the pre-season predictions, many many many people had the Braves winning the East. Sorry, there wasn't any clear indication in your post you meant pre-2008, so I had assumed you were speaking in the present. And fwiw, anyone pre-2008 that had picked the Braves over the Mets or the Phillies was doing so on reputation, or else drinking. Nearly everything I can remember from the pre-2008 season had the East with two teams making the playoffs, with the other divisions being much weaker. I thought most had Mets and Phillies, but something in my brain tells me the Braves were the popular dark horse pick. I do remember Neyer writing something about the carry-over effect of a dozen (or whatever) division titles in a row by the Braves still impacting pre-season predictions. Especially since the year writers actually did write them off (was it 2005?), they still won it, surprising everyone, and this 'never underestimate the Braves' attitude seems to have forever permeated the baseball writing circles. I think a lot of people picked the Braves before this last season started simply because they got burned on numerous other occasions when they picked against them in the past.

Street is nothing to Beane. His experience is that solid closers grow on trees. Greg Smith, while still just 26, has no control and slightly above average strikeout stuff but gives up quite a few longballs. He's not really a Beane type pitcher. I am not surprised he flipped Gonzalez at all. I figured Gonzalez would get traded. His perceived value is much higher than his actual value (in Beane's eyes). I really don't think Beane makes this deal unless he thinks he has enough money to sign Holliday long term. I honestly don't see him giving up a whole lot Agreed, its the bolded part that surprises me.

And he ends up getting 4th in the ROY voting. What the ish? What is sad is those people will get to vote again next year. It wouldn't surprise me if one of those guys voted for him again next year too.

Very surprising...usually Oakland is on the other end of a trade like this. I wonder if they already have another suitor lined up and are going to reflip him? Doubtful, but it's the only way this would make sense to me. Either way, glad he's not going to the Cards.

Marty Brenneman strikes Cubs fans again! Please don't tell me that biased dolt really has a vote...

This doesn't really have anything to do with MLB. Zell has to unload the team as quick as he can, and nobody will ever get financing for the whole team by the time he needs it. I have yet to see anywhere that Cuban can't complete the original bid that he put forth.

How is it that Geo got 31/32 votes, yet Longoria was unanimous with 28 votes? Did some people abstain from voting on the AL?

I heard that the Cubs might include Derosa in the Peavy trade. I heard it on XM radio and it could have been nothing more than speculation. Still, I could see Hendry including Derosa, sliding Theriot over to 2nd and signing Furcal to play SS. If that were to happen Matt Craig goes from unwanted to having a good chance to make the 25 man roster as the corner sub. Of we get Greene for SS instead of Furcal.

Any idea Dallas as to how they're getting around not selling half the team while still owning part of another club? Anything other than the good ol' boy network?

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. I wasn't acting like he was blowing smoke up your 4th point of contact for no reason. You were acting like Olney's report had any significance on the note you got, and it didn't, which is all I was saying. You're being waaay to sensitive. Don't get mad just because we don't want to put too much stock into your source at this time on this one issue. my "source"? He's a guy with a website who I e-mail sometimes. You could do the same. I never said he's right, all I said is that he's not making it up. You were the one who proclaimed that Olney was surely wrong. I never said anybody was surely right. Neither of us know for sure what's up.. you're the opnly one that claimed you did. Did you even bother reading the post you just replied to?

I can't believe they're doing anything than trying to fix the process to get the buyer they want. I'd like to see Cuban sue to get compensated for lost time and money for all of the effort that went into valuating and bidding on the team.

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/11090240 Now they're saying that Zell may only sell half of the Cubs. I don't understand how he can do this, as he still owns part of the WSox. MLB should be forcing him to sell the whole team since their rules don't allow for anyone to have stakes in more than one team. If he can't sell the team for what he wants because of the economy, he should have thought of that before buying the trib. On the flip side, this should go as evidence that MLB doesn't want Cuban to own the team. I haven't read anything that suggests he's no longer willing to pay the 1B that they're looking for that he already bid earlier. If anything, it should be shaping up so that Cuban is the last man standing. The fact that he's looking to drop the sale down to a 50% share sounds like they're trying to manipulate the situation so that Canning or Ricketts can buy half of the team now, and then buy up the other half down the road when the economy rebounds and they can get the financing that they need. This whole situation reeks of BS to me.

I'd be surprised if the deal actually includes Yunel because Peavy said he'd reject any deal with Yunel. He didn't say that. His agent used it as a hypothetical, and then had to clarify when everyone ran with the "Peavy won't accept a deal where the Braves lose Escobar" story. His agent could have been covering his tracks too, hoping not to stifle other suitors out there. Hard to say what the truth really is.

There's speculation the Braves could close the deal soon, but that's all it is, speculation. Nothing concrete still, and Peavy said he would reject a trade to the Braves if their package ruins the team's chances to compete next year. What makes you think he's going to see your post? ;)

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5641 3.41 ERA/1.28WHIP/29 Saves last year. In the pen, perhaps. At the end of the pen, no thanks. 8 losses (9 blown saves) from the guy at the end of the pen is not what I want to see. The most telling stat to me: 4.88 BB/9 last season. :shock: Bah. He'd be a good option for middle relief. I wouldn't mind him as a 7th inning guy, so long as his cost in a trade was comparable to what a 7th inning guy should get. I doubt FL will move him for that though.

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. I wasn't acting like he was blowing smoke up your 4th point of contact for no reason. You were acting like Olney's report had any significance on the note you got, and it didn't, which is all I was saying. You're being waaay to sensitive. Don't get mad just because we don't want to put too much stock into your source at this time on this one issue.

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? Not much, if anything.

Defeatist...and I couldn't disagree more. edit..hit the submit button too early. We're not going to get Gregg. Maybe Olsen and Hermida, but not all three.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3691653&name=olney_buster Sounds like Buster is a little behind the times, as he neglected to mention that it's possible that Peavy would veto a deal if Escobar is coming back. Doesn't surprise me, as Olney is a horrible hack.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5641 3.41 ERA/1.28WHIP/29 Saves last year. Not a bad option, though I doubt Florida's demands will be reasonable, given the 29 saves and how most GMs overvalue the stat.