About A Certain San Diego Padres Pitcher

The Cubs

absolutely should not ship Vitters at this point. They possess a very adequate rotation, and easily could begin the season with Marshall, Olson, or Gaudin in the 5th spot. I too really like the way Hendry is handling this off season, methodically amassing some nice depth for the club. I was surprised at the value Pie brought, and would like to see what Olson can do in spring training. If Peavy comes our way w/out Vitters leaving, Hendry has essentially traded Derosa and Pie for Peavy… impressive.

"Chicago Cubs fans are ninety percent scar tissue." - George F. Will

by Slakkr on Jan 19, 2009 8:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

If Hendry can pull off a deal like I outlined (and I think that would be fair for SD, too), it’s well worth all his offseason moves.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 8:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

First I think this proposed trade is above the 75% probability and only needs sign off

I think SD told Hendry to go out and get these level of players…..(Stevens, Olson), for in all reality they do not fit in Piniella’s vision to get over the top with this club. Yet I think the trade is Vitters for Peavy.

Timing is always everything in business and acquisitions, the perceived values and the financials…
The thing is what makes a trade is you have what I want and I have what you want.

SD is having a garage sale, the ownership said no more cash….even meaning no guarantee at the banks in bankrolling liabilities….meaning $40M is their budget. To make this happen Towers probably has to trade Peavy (only taker is Cubs) and Greene or Giles or both but probably during the mid season.

Now I don’t think a good LH young starter, good RH reliever, LH throw in, arb eligible utility middle infielder, a couple non-top 100 prospects will do it——maybe I am wrong but a Cy Young and still young pitcher is worth more than that even in a salary dump—-I think Vitters is the cornerstone.

Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."

by Ivy Walls on Jan 19, 2009 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is more than just a "salary dump".

This is almost a mandate. In other words, take what you can get and save us the money.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 9:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It is...

a mandate. Salary dumps usually result in mandates like this.

It’s just a coincidence Olson happened to be traded to the Cubs, while Pie – out of options – went the other way all the while SD wanted Olson as p/o a 3-way trade back in Nov/Dec; just a coincidence.

Hendry is trying to fortify the lower levels of the organization while prepping for a possible Peavy deal. Harden’s issue, possibly severe – he hasn’t even thrown off a mound yet – is yet another reason to consider Peavy.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 19, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're making assumptions about Harden.

How many pitchers have thrown off a mound at this stage in the winter? I’d guess the answer is zero. You say Harden’s issue is “possibly severe” — what evidence do you have for that claim?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 11:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

CSN this morning

when they quoted Rothschild. While he was very happy about Rich’s motion he stated Rich hasn’t thrown off the mound yet.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 19, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You didn't answer my question.

How many pitchers do you think have thrown off a mound as of January 19?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Most haven't...

…that is if they are smart. With Harden, as long as he has been doing the right stretching and strengthening for his shoulder, there is no need to throw off of a mound until a couple weeks before ST starts.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Jan 19, 2009 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is exactly why this isn't any cause for concern.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

None with a history of injury issues

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 19, 2009 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno

I just don’t think that that’s a major concern at this point. As Al mentioned, how many guys really are throwing off the mound right now? Based on Rich’s own words, he’s right where he wants to be. He actually sounded very pleased with where he is right now, and how his rigorous conditioning is paying off.

"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." ~Alvin Dark

by DamonBerryhillsMitt on Jan 19, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The quote I was basing that on:

’’I’m on a set program, and I’m not behind at all,‘’ Harden said. ’’I’m right on schedule and feeling great. I’ll be ready for the start of the season for sure. There’s no doubt in my mind. Nobody has any doubts whether I’ll be ready or not. I will.’’

From Gordo’s piece in yesterday’s Times.

"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." ~Alvin Dark

by DamonBerryhillsMitt on Jan 19, 2009 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

PLUSSSSSSS

Everyone is forgetting Peavy has a NO TRADE CLAUSE as does Giles, which actually makes this ten times more complex. I cut and pasted this from mlbtraderumors.com

Your 2009 San Diego Padres:

C – Josh Bard – $2.2375MM+
C – Nick Hundley – $400K
1B – Adrian Gonzalez – $3MM
2B – Matt Antonelli – $400K
SS – Khalil Greene – $6.5MM
3B – Kevin Kouzmanoff – $410K
IF – Edgar Gonzalez – $400K
IF – Brian Myrow – $400K
LF – Chase Headley – $400K
CF – Jody Gerut – $700K+
RF – Brian Giles – $9MM or $3MM buyout
OF – Scott Hairston – $406K+
OF – Will Venable – $400K

SP – Jake Peavy – $11MM
SP – Chris Young – $4.5MM
SP – Cha Seung Baek – $400K
SP – Josh Banks – $400K
SP – Wade LeBlanc – $400K

RP – Heath Bell – $420K+
RP – Cla Meredith – $415K
RP – Clay Hensley – $410K+
RP – Justin Hampson – $403K
RP – Joe Thatcher – $400K
RP – Mike Adams – $400K
RP – Kevin Cameron – $400K

That’s $44.2MM committed, plus arbitration raises for Bard, Gerut, Hairston, and Hensley. Maybe that’ll bring commitments to around $49MM. This estimate includes them retaining Giles at $9MM.

From what I’ve read the mandate is 40Million. As you can there are 4 players making over 4.5 million. Young 4.5 Greene at 6.5 Giles at 9 and Peavy at 11. Greene is gone and Giles is refusing to waive any and all trades

This brings me to my eventual point. PEAVY is the only salary that would make you reach that number! You have to replace Greene and Peavy plus meet your other obligations and stay within the budget. Which makes me ask which teams has he approved a trade to and which teams actually have the goods? The Yankee’s don’t have the talent. The BoSox have 12 (lol) starters under contract. The Dodgers are in their division and teams don’t like trading within their divison. How many other teams can afford a pitcher for 11Mil this year and 15 next plus has the prospects? This is my opinion and this why I believe Peavy will be a CUB by opening day. A trade after that would mean prorating his salary. It’s interesting a NTC and big contract plus a mandated dump equals FUN FUN FUN

by Grace17 on Jan 19, 2009 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hang on....

They only have $32.05M for 8 players thus far in 2009. All other salaries are yet to be determined. Go to:

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/19/1s20padres-projected-payroll-over-target/?padres

Keep in mind the MLB minimum for 2009 is $400k.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 20, 2009 6:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Greene

is a Cardinal now, no?

"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella

by drewishdrewid on Jan 20, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Greene is a Cardinal already

as of 12/4

by bison on Jan 19, 2009 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's highly likely Giles will exercise his NTC

just like he did last August, thus putting all the marbles back into the Cubs’ basket with Peavy, who also has the same NTC and is leveraging the Pads to send him to the Cubs.

Nice summary. Take a look at the numbers of the Pads with and w/o Peavy’s salary; staggering difference.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 19, 2009 11:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Peavy may re-evaluate which teams he will allow a trade to

Just imagine a Padres team that’s on its way to 110-120 losses. He may realize that getting out is better than going where he wants to go.

by dr stabbingworth on Jan 19, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It was about 2 week ago

you said, “the peavey deal is done”. Clearly annoyed when responding to my post about the moves Hendry made (Derosa, Marquis, ect.), because I thought he was gearing up to make another run at Peavy, I guess it wasn’t such crazy talk after all.

I said it then and I will say it now, unless we get Peavy a lot of the moves Hendry made this off-season are terrible. I also said from the beginning that I wasn’t the biggest supporter of getting Peavy because I came into the off-season thinking there were other areas of concern for this team. I feel the Cubs pitching depth has been compromised due to the moves Hendry has made, but at least if we get Peavy it will in some ways improve my feelings regarding the transactions of this winter. Not sure if that is right or wrong, but I will at least feel we got something indirectly for Derosa, Wood, Marquis. At this point I feel we gave up on those guys for nothing.

I'm finally moving on...

by slocs55 on Jan 19, 2009 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Our pitching depth has been compromised?

Pitchers we have lost: Howry, Wood, Marquis
Pitchers we have gained: Gregg, Stevens, Olson, Williamson, Vizcaino, Gaub, Archer

Do you mean that if we send some of those new pitchers to SD, cause in that case we could possibly lose some depth…..but gain talent.

by nick_reny on Jan 19, 2009 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't confuse surface area with depth

Those are a lot more pitchers, but they’re not all good. We’ll see.

A friend of mine had a conversation with Tim Wilken and he made it sound like the Cubs feel the Pads will be interested in at least two of the prospects acquired from Cleveland. Stay tuned . . .

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Jan 19, 2009 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes I know so if you

by nick_reny on Jan 19, 2009 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoops..to continue what I was saying...

..so if you wanna just compare the major league ready acquisitions and losses.
Lost: Wood, Marquis, Howry
Major League Ready : Gregg, Stevens, Olson, Vizciano.

Gregg is considerably cheaper than Wood with stats that aren’t to much worse. Who knows what we will get out of Olson and Stevens. Vizcaino stats(from last year) although not to great are better than Howry. Marquis seems to be the player will have the hardest time replacing, but it again depends on the production of Olson if he is slotted in the 5th spot or Marshall.

by nick_reny on Jan 19, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

Vizaino is gawd-awful against lefties, but Howry was against everyone. Gregg is serviceable, and less likely to land on the DL than Wood.

I’m not sold on the prospects, nor am I convinced that the Cubs got max. value for DeRosa or Pie, but rotoworld.com isn’t always right, either.

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Jan 19, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ya I agree

quality wise we may have lost a bit, once again depending on the prospects. But when it come to sheer depth I feel we gained. We have added another option for the 5th spot and 1-2 capable relievers. Or as i hope they will be used, we gained trade parts.

by nick_reny on Jan 19, 2009 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Quality > Quanity

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No,

I meant we have lost quality pitching depth. We can stock pile all of the pitchers we want, but I want guys that are ready to pitch that have a proven track record.

Wood did better than Gregg in his first year as a closer, Wood is going to get better in that role. I say it all the time but I have been a huge critic of Marquis, the bottom line is he pitched every 5 days and every so often put a streak together of good performances. Best 5th starter I can think of last year. Losing him not only causes Marhsall to be our number 5, which to me is a downgrade, but it also means we have to replace that 6th starter and long man in the bullpen. Marshall was solid in that role last year, which is more important when you have glass arm as a starter.

Unless we get Peavy, I think the quality pitching depth has declined.

I'm finally moving on...

by slocs55 on Jan 19, 2009 8:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The only real 'depth' the Cubs lost was Wood

Marquis can be replaced. There are plenty of innings-eater pitchers out there (even in the Cubs’ system) and that’s what he was good for. Howry…I have no idea what’s wrong with him, but something happened to make him lose his ability to throw the ball more than 89 mph consistently.

As far as what he picked up…Gregg doesn’t impress, but maybe he’s not supposed to. He’s been effective, if not dominant, in most of his appearances. Olson is still young, but as was mentioned in other places, has drawn the interest of Kevin Towers. He could be used as a swingman in the pen at worst. Vizcaino could bounce back if he’s in the right situation. None of this, obviously, amounts to what Kerry Wood provided us at the end of games. The transfer of dominance from our starters to Samardzija/Marmol to Wood was something that cannot be replaced.

If Hendry sends some of the arms he has worked to bring in in a trade for Peavy, how is the team any worse off? Wood is a big loss, but we really cant do anything about that. The possibility of having a pitching rotation that is 4 solid (by which I mean they can go more than 6 innings most of the time) arms deep is very much a boon.

In the end…things have a way of working themselves out.

by northernsails on Jan 20, 2009 7:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Personally

I’m not glad that Wood is gone or anything, but i feel that Marmol’s arm is way more electric and stands as a better option at closer. Yes Kerry did a great job last year but when you have a pitcher of Marmol’s caliber and ability to be absolutely unhittable at times i want him in the 9th. Marmol’s stats are better in almost every category except for HR allowed, BB, and K/BB. IMO A Shark/Gregg combination will do just fine in the lead setup role for Carlos I’m not to worried about that. Hate me if you want but I feel that as loyal and awesome Wood was letting him walk was the right situation. We get younger, save money, and hopefully develop one of the most dominate closers of the future.

Actually comparing Wood to Gregg although i did it doesn’t seem to fair seeing as how Gregg won’t be replacing him.

I agree we lost quality depth……..but really that remains to be seen. Who knows maybe Marshall or Olson will excel in the 5th spot. Is it likely that they will be as good as Marquis? Doubtful, but they will be way cheaper and hopefully they are able to provide similar production. We will just have to wait and find out.

by nick_reny on Jan 20, 2009 8:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Some would argue...

that the 7th and 8th innings are a much more critical time to douse the proverbial potential fires, and thus, the perfect place to have Marmol. Gregg would actually be under much more pressure coming into these situations than Marmol, who has been there, done that before.

by northernsails on Jan 21, 2009 3:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

But what about in high pressure situations why not bring Marmol in for the 8th and 9th. I know this could amount to lots of innings but he has proven durable pitching 87 innings last year 69 in 07 and 77 in 06. Of course this would require Lou to decide when to use him and when not to.

At least if you lose a lead in the 7th or 8th inning you will for sure have a chance to regain the lead, the same can not be said for the 9th. The reported competition in spring training will be nice.

by nick_reny on Jan 22, 2009 8:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Al, Hopefully by Feb. 1

the Cubs will have Peavy and still have Vitters in their system. Especially with the uncertainty with Harden’s shoulder.

by cubdreamer on Jan 19, 2009 8:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I just want some closure

either way, Ive been on both sides of this argument at various times this offseason, but just end the drama already!

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 19, 2009 8:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

same here

by sue369 on Jan 19, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here we go...

with the World Series guarantee stuff again. Maybe if the subject was theoretical physics or something we could talk about things that don’t exist.

"This field, this game...it reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again." ~ Terence Mann

by chr15 on Jan 19, 2009 8:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not the one who said that.

But others have.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 8:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Getting Peavy would make this year's team...

better than last year’s team. Without him, it’s certainly debatable. I hope it happens. It would provide insurance for the injury risks of Harden and Zambrano, and for the possibility of a return to mediocrity for Dempster.

Just curious: what were the particulars of the bet you had about Peavy, Al?

by SouthernCub on Jan 19, 2009 8:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Hmm.

Can’t remember. Would have to go back and look through the comments. I think it had to be before spring training, but I could be wrong.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 8:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So does this trade of Felix Pie

make my “Felix Pie” bobblehead (in a Lansing Lugnut uniform) MORE or LESS valuable?

Does it go up on the shelf with my Cory Patterson and Andrew Sisco bobbleheads?

Yeah, that’s what I figured. Nuts.

Go Green! Go White! GO STATE! (Now #12,966 on the Cubs season ticket waiting list- UP from 13,031...WHOO HOO!)

by Zeke on Jan 19, 2009 8:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

LOL

Well… if Pie DOES become a major league star, you’ve got something there. Otherwise, you could start your Collection Of Failed Cub Prospect Bobbleheads.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 9:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah- and unfortunately, the collection is getting larger all the time...

…sigh…;(

Go Green! Go White! GO STATE! (Now #12,966 on the Cubs season ticket waiting list- UP from 13,031...WHOO HOO!)

by Zeke on Jan 19, 2009 9:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The funny things we find later...

I have a Lansing Lugnuts team ball autographed by the entire team (in 1999 I think). The sweet spot has Cory Patterson on it- so surprise there since he was that year’s “bonus baby”. Lost among the other signatures: Carlos Zambrano.

Go figure.

Go Green! Go White! GO STATE! (Now #12,966 on the Cubs season ticket waiting list- UP from 13,031...WHOO HOO!)

by Zeke on Jan 19, 2009 9:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Who else was on that team that made the majors? Anyone?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 9:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's who I could find on a quick look Al. There could be others...

From 1999-
Luis Montanez
Corey Patterson
Carlos Zambrano
Michael Wuertz
Hee Seop Choi
David Kelton
Matt Bruback

Not to be outdone…

In 2000-
Ronnie Cedeno
Jose Cueto
Jason DuBois
Carlos Marmol
Pete Zoccolillo

and this Lugnut team had two re-hab players:
Ryan Dempster and some fellow named Mark Prior.

I wonder what ever happened to them…

Go Green! Go White! GO STATE! (Now #12,966 on the Cubs season ticket waiting list- UP from 13,031...WHOO HOO!)

by Zeke on Jan 19, 2009 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Matt Bruback never pitched in the majors.

here’s his minor league record.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 11:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How did Ryan Dempster rehab with the Lugnuts in 2000?

That must have been 2004 – some of those other players weren’t around yet either.

"Who's Bob Brenly? The guy that used to be the manager for Arizona?" ~ Alfonso Guilleard Soriano

by JohnM on Jan 20, 2009 4:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

David Kelton!

I remember him! That guy could flat-out Rake…in the minors, I mean.

by northernsails on Jan 20, 2009 8:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a Lugnuts Hall of Fame link- aka luggies who made "The Show"

www.lansinglugnut.com/history/halloffame.html

Go Green! Go White! GO STATE! (Now #12,966 on the Cubs season ticket waiting list- UP from 13,031...WHOO HOO!)

by Zeke on Jan 19, 2009 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

arg. add an "s" to lugnuts...

Go Green! Go White! GO STATE! (Now #12,966 on the Cubs season ticket waiting list- UP from 13,031...WHOO HOO!)

by Zeke on Jan 19, 2009 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This link works

www.lansinglugnuts.com/history/halloffame.html

Go Green! Go White! GO STATE! (Now #12,966 on the Cubs season ticket waiting list- UP from 13,031...WHOO HOO!)

by Zeke on Jan 19, 2009 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What happened to Billy Petrick?

He went from AAA to A and only pitched in 8 games. Was he injured?

by dr stabbingworth on Jan 19, 2009 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He was injured in Sprint Training last year.

I think he’s had injuries thoroughout his professional career.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 19, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Is Sprint Training a subset of Spring Training?

I suppose it would be…

Go Green! Go White! GO STATE! (Now #12,966 on the Cubs season ticket waiting list- UP from 13,031...WHOO HOO!)

by Zeke on Jan 19, 2009 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Faster version

Just like wind sprints, only less painful.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just my bad typing skills......

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 19, 2009 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He needs a better agent

If he is getting injured training at Sprint

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's what they do for certain cellular phone company employees.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pie bobblehead

I’ll buy it if you are interested in selling it.

by turnerstorm on Feb 6, 2009 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Vitters

I don’t think San Diego trades Peavy for a package that doesn’t include Vitters. That’s my opinion anyways.

by Luis on Jan 19, 2009 9:17 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think that depends on the needs.

We all know Towers will try to force both Vitters and Marshall. But, as Al stated, Hendry is in aposition of strength. He can leave the deal on the table, and walk away. If Towers HAS to shed payroll, as many have speculated, it would be better for him to take the best offer fromthe Cubs, than to try and play the waiting game and run the risk of Peavy getting injured and loosing all of his trade value.
Even a missed start would lower Peavy’s value, so for Towers, the sooner the better, regardless of his posturing.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 9:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

This is a buyer’s deal. Hendry holds the cards. He doesn’t HAVE to make this trade (and, likely, can’t until a new owner signs off on any payroll increase). If this deal happens it’ll be on Hendry’s terms, not Towers’.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 9:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You keep saying this, but

it seems to me that the likelihood is that, if the Peavy deal will happen, Towers and Hendry have a framework in place already. It would surprise me if Jim Hendry moved all these players for pieces that don’t so much help our club right now, hoping that maybe they’ll match up with what Towers wants.

Either this has been a plan to get Peavy from the beginning, which means Hendry is not still working Towers for a lower price, or it’s not. That’s my take, at least.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree.

Remember, Hendry walked away the last time. The ball is in Towers’ court.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hendry made a big show of "walking away."

And then rumors trickled out that the deal may still be out there, just waiting for owner approval; eventually we heard that Hendry was “confident” he’d land Peavy.

I think, that if this deal happens, and that’s still a decent sized “if” in my mind, Hendry and Towers were tired of the media scrutiny, knowing that it would take a long time to get this deal done, and they put on a show.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

See, that's why I've hesitated talking about this.

You say Hendry made a “show”. How do you know it was a show? How do we know all the stuff people here claimed was “posturing” actually was?

It does appear Hendry was tired of Towers’ hourly media updates on this. As for the rest, not one of us can know exactly what was going on in Hendry and Towers’ heads, and if you say you do, I think you’re just plain wrong.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know.

Of course I don’t know. I’m just saying what it looks like to me.

I ask myself – what is more believable -
1) that Jim Hendry and Kevin Towers got tired of the media questions and decided to tell the media the deal was dead
or
2) that Jim Hendry walked away from a deal and then proceeded to make all the minor deals the rumors had said would be necessary to make the major deal without having worked that deal out with KT?

Keep in mind I still think it’s possible that
3) Jim Hendry really did walk away from the deal, deciding he liked all the pitchers he got from the Marquis-DeRosa-Pie trades on their own merits.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

National media

reported that Towers walked away as well. When there’s so much conflicting information, the reality usually lies somewhere in between, more often than not. The ball’s in the new owner’s hands.

by toonsterwu on Jan 19, 2009 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

btw

the article I am referring to was Gordon Edes’ article, along with a Heyman blurb somewhere from an interview he did with Alderson where Alderson said that they never had a deal finished to be able to say yes or no to. Too tired of digging for that blurb right now, although it might be on mlbtr somewhere or cnnsi.

by toonsterwu on Jan 19, 2009 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Al, what kind of spenders do you think...

…the potential new owners could be? All I’ve heard about them is their background and how they made their money; I haven’t read much about what kind of owners they might be, or what kind of $$$ they’d spend.

Also, is Canning still in the running? I thought I remember reading he was a personal favorite of Selig but I haven’t heard his name recently.

"I never drink water because of the disgusting things fish do in it" -W.C. Fields

by calicubfan on Jan 19, 2009 2:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Canning is out.

My guess is that the Ricketts group would be the freest spenders, as Tom Ricketts grew up here and is a Cubs fan.

Klaff, not so much.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That argument

Works both ways you know. I’m sure that another team can offer a blue ship prospects later on, and it can be worked out with the NTC. Believe me, we all would want not to trade Vitters, I just don’t see it.

by Luis on Jan 19, 2009 9:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But there aren't many teams...

… that can both afford Peavy AND that he’d agree to go to (remember that NTC).

Peavy and the Padres are backed into a corner here. It’s not their call who they get, if they really want to deal him.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 9:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That would be a dream

If we get Peavy without trading Vitters then we need to have a party.

We shall see.

by Luis on Jan 19, 2009 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It would make up for Ceda and DeRosa, at least

by dr stabbingworth on Jan 19, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Every GM,

even Kevin (Loose Bowel Lips) Towers, has to take the best deal available.
Key Word being “Available”, I think Jim has done a good job of ammasing the best deal “available” from a team that Peavy will waive his NTC for.
So if Hendry leaves a good deal on the table, it would be a foolish GM who ignores it for a great deal. Especially when there are so many different factors at play here for the Pads.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldnt care so much about keeping him had Peavy not been hurt last year

Now his durability isnt such a sure thing anymore, so we might not be getting the best of Peavy

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 19, 2009 9:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Peavy rumors.......

When did this all start? Is he any good??

by plenz on Jan 19, 2009 9:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Never heard of him.

by Hawks08 on Jan 19, 2009 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

meh...

he’s alright

by northernsails on Jan 20, 2009 8:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That argument

Works both ways you know. I’m sure that another team can offer a blue ship prospects later on, and it can be worked out with the NTC. Believe me, we all would want not to trade Vitters, I just don’t see it.

by Luis on Jan 19, 2009 9:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Again, as I (and chrisw95) pointed out...

… Hendry doesn’t HAVE to make this deal. Towers might HAVE to make it.

That being the case, if Towers insists on Vitters, Hendry walks away.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 9:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And

If we keep Vitters and he turns into the next short coming, how many will complain here about how we should have traded him to get Peavy “X” years ago, and blame Hendry for not making it happen.

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 9:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And...

… if we keep Vitters, and win the World Series without Peavy, maybe that doesn’t matter.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 9:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True

but still, if he flops, even with a WS, people will be calling Hendry a GM who cannot evaluate talent, even though most are worried about losing an unproven minor league player in order to being in a former Cy Young pitcher (high contract and all).

that being said, but what looks better

Zambrano, Peavy, Dempster, Lilly, Harden
Zambrano, Dempster, Lilly, Harden, Olson/Marshall (Vitters somewhere in the minors)

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 10:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said in another post

You could see the failings on the other Cubs prospects, which were hyped, but had nowhere near the offensive skills as Vitters. I don’t think people should blame Hendry if he wanted to hang on to him. He is definitely not a Patteson/Pie, we are talking about a whole different player here.

by Luis on Jan 19, 2009 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

short coming?

Everyone keeps referring to Hendry’s prospects in this way. What about Carlos Marmol and Big Z? Ryan Theriot? Kerry Wood? Geovany Soto? They all came to this team under Hendry’s watch. Sure there are going to be a lot of prospects who dont pan out, some of them in the top-caliber, “Cant miss” variety. But for each of those, there will be a bunch of really good prospects that a team can build around.

by northernsails on Jan 20, 2009 8:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Its the same issue thats been going on all year....

Peavy seemingly only wants to play for the Cubs, so what other teams can offer is moot so long as Peavy sticks to his guns…if indeed chicago is the only place he wants to go

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 19, 2009 9:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What if they offer Yellow Submarine prospects?

Besides, after Choi, Patterson, B. Hill, R. Hill, Pie, et al, can we really say that any Cub prospects are blue chips?

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Jan 19, 2009 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You realize that...

…if and when we get Peavy (especially if we manage to keep Vitters), that will leave us with nothing to obsess about except for a possible trade for Brian Roberts?

by jdb-44 on Jan 19, 2009 9:39 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wait a minute

Who is this Brian Roberts fellow?

by salparadise23 on Jan 19, 2009 9:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I really think after the Cubs get Peavey .. The Cubs should go after Brian Roberts in a strong aggressive way to land a speedy switch hitting pure leadoff hitter .. I just don’t like our batting order without a pure leadoff guy .. Don’t get me wrong … The Cubs have some good hitters , but Soriano is a leadoff guy .. With his power he should be batting 3 / 4/ or 5th …

by CUBFANINAZ on Jan 19, 2009 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There's ALWAYS something to obsess about!

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 19, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

TRUE

by CUBFANINAZ on Jan 19, 2009 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What are the chances of Peavy dropping the last year of his deal?

I don’t follow the Peavy saga as religeously as others, but I thought part of the hang up might be that he has an extra year on the end of his contract that bumps it from $60 million something, to around $80 million. If Hendry is dealing from strength, and Peavy really wants out he’ll need to drop that.
Good trade for Hendry, though. Pie had some chances, maybe not enough for some posters, but he got some chances. He just didn’t show consistency at the plate. Moreover, when sent back to the minors he could never produce concrete improvements needed to get back to the majors. When he came back up he’d show the same flaws in his swing. We got two arms for him. Good deal considering Pie was out of options, and wasn’t going to start for us.

by Nibbles on Jan 19, 2009 9:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ok........ this is getting out of hand

First you trade for Peavy without giving up Vitters, and then you get Peavy to drop 20 million?

I think a dose of reality is in order here.

by Luis on Jan 19, 2009 9:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think,

if indeed that is a factual amount on his contract, he may require it in order to wave his NTC, although he hasn’t mentioned it.
But then again, he could just want to play for a winner.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 9:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't expect Peavy dropping anything

At the end of the day, Towers has some leverage due to the fact that he can fit payroll by making other moves, Hendry has some leverage because there really isn’t a market … but in the end, Peavy has the most leverage of the three parties due to his NTC. The union won’t let him do anything that’ll look bad (and good for them).

by toonsterwu on Jan 19, 2009 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Players Union

(or PU) sees very little more than dollar signs anymore. So, with the Boras mentality being what it is in the PU, I really can’t see Peavy dropping, or even modifying anything to be traded.
That is one of the weaknesses that KT has in trading Peavy.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Vitters

Is an unproven, minor league player who is hyped. We have been there done that enough times. If it takes a minor leaguer with potential to get a Cy Young winner, go for it IMO.

Are we trying to win this season, or a few years from now when Vitters is ready for MLB games, and has gone thru the adjustments of a longer season, better quality of pitching, etc.

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 9:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Vitters is not

Like the other Cubs prospects. For one, I don’t think I’ve ever read the word “toolsy” to describe him!

Vitters is an anomaly in the Cubs system.

by Luis on Jan 19, 2009 9:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He is no different

than any other minor league player who is hyped and unproven. He has shown a lot of talent at low A ball, which is a far cry from Wrigley.

Can he make the climb and be productive, sure, but what are the chances? If it takes a low A ball player to get a Cy Young winner, why would you not do it? I am not saying I am right or wrong, but I do not see the advantage to turning down a Cy Young winner to keep a low A ball player with promise. That is putting a lot of faith into not only him to continue to develop, but the minor league coaches and instructors to not try and tinker with him too much.

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If Peavy made

The league minimum then of course it’s a no brainer. But his salary is significant. I remember when people didn’t care how much money Soriano got. I hope they realize by now that eventually the payroll reaches a limit and then you can’t do much to improve.

by Luis on Jan 19, 2009 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

but since it is not my checkbook, I can bitch and moan all day about it, but have no control. Same with trades, the line up, everything on the field. I know his contract gets nasty fast, and with the additional back loaded contracts about to explode, sure it will become harder and harder.

I got a couple crazy ideas about how to offset the salaries.
1. charge fans a membership fee to allow them to buy tickets before tickets are on sale
2. continue to raise ticket prices
3. buy your own tickets, using a ticket broker you own, and sell them at an inflated price

wait, i think that has happened somewhere before…

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 10:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure he's a different type of prospect

but prospects is prospects. Anything can happen to any prospect. There were plenty who thought Andy Marte was a can’t miss prospect and every team in baseball passed on drafting Albert Pujols many, many times.

The fact that there is risk with prospects doesn’t change the other fact that the consensus opinions of scouts are right more often than they are wrong.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure but

anything can happen to Cy Young award winning pitchers too. Like they can blow their arm out—and it isn’t like Peavy hasn’t had arm troubles.

Sometimes they just get worse and worse—like Barry Zito.

What if the Cubs had traded for Cy Young award winner Chris Carpenter after the 2006 season? Or Bartolo Colon? Or Eric Gagne?

I’m tired of everyone thinking Vitters is a risk and Peavy is some sort of sure thing.

by Josh77 on Jan 19, 2009 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs

Rec'd

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sec'nRec'd

I agree completely with what you’ve said here, even though it’s a response to me.

The difference in risk for Vitters and Peavy, though, corresponds to how far they are from being impact players for the 2009 Cubs. The Lou Piniella Cubs are about winning immediately and the decision has been made to decrease the length of time we will be able to contend in order to reach that goal. So, of what value to a team like that is Vitters other than to trade him?

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Last I checked, the only "sure things" were death and taxes...

and not necessarily in that order.

Or was it death and Texas? I can never keep those two thing straight. Maybe that’s why I’m always getting audied by the IRS…

…kidding…

Go Green! Go White! GO STATE! (Now #12,966 on the Cubs season ticket waiting list- UP from 13,031...WHOO HOO!)

by Zeke on Jan 19, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Vitters

Are we trying to win this season, or a few years from now when Vitters is ready for MLB games, and has gone thru the adjustments of a longer season, better quality of pitching, etc.

The Cubs hopefully are trying to do both.

Might Vitters be the next in a line of failed prospects… sure. But you don’t give up on prospects because of past failures. Prospects are still a very necessary part of the future and what they hold is the potential to give you phenominal output at below-market salary for several years.

With the Cubs lacking any other difference maker prospects they cannot trade Vitters.

by dmlichte on Jan 19, 2009 9:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Vitters has a great swing,

and has worked hard on his defensive abilities.
From what I have read, he also seems to listen to his coaches, something our past prospects have had troubles doing in practice.
I think Vitters is worth keeping, especially since Peavy will be a salary dump, that is not being called a salary dump.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And...

He strikes out quite a bit, can’t run and his doubles have yet to translate into legitimate HR power. Sure, he’s young but if you can read into the crystal ball and see him hitting going .300, 30-100 with regularity, there are a few other things I’d like for you to answer.

If the Cubs deal Vitters the song and dance will be that “you’ve got to give up something to get something” but the reality will be loud and clear….they would have soured on him as an elite prospect. I’m not so sure they haven’t done that already. I believe he’ll be a major league player some day, but an impact major leaguer….I’m not so sure about that.

Who needs a stinkin' tag line? What are they for anyway?

by krummy12 on Jan 19, 2009 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I see

the worst he becomes is a failed prospect or a DH. Does that mean we should keep him if its a deal breaker?? Probably not, but with the Pads in turmoil, and Peavy’s salary, I think its possible to leave him out and see what he becomes.
However, the Cubs don’t have a great track record with prospects, so in reality, I would prefer to keep Vitters, but its solely based on the fact that we would be trading away the farm.
Now would I trade him in a package for a really good CF, Sizemore style, etc, absolutely.
But I woudl rather keep him and see what the kid can do.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"The would have soured on him as an elite prospect."

That’s just not true. We know that Jim Hendry has traded young players he respected in the past – just go back and read what he’s said about Dontrelle Willis.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Disagreement

I believe we disagree on what an “elite” prospect is. If Vitters can do what Ramirez does right now at the plate and can field his position equally well, I’d say to keep him. If his projection is to be better, there is no question he should be kept. The disagreement lies in the fact that I don’t believe he’ll ever put up the numbers Ramirez does and as such, he’s replaceable and not considered an “elite” prospect.

Who needs a stinkin' tag line? What are they for anyway?

by krummy12 on Jan 19, 2009 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Josh Vitters can't do what Aramis can do right now

but that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to do that in several years.

Vitters was labelled a 5-star prospect (or something like that) by most prospect mavens; I don’t know what “elite” means if that’s not elite.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Projection

When do you see him making the bigs, and how productive? Do you see him being a bigger piece of a teams winning than a Cy Young winner?

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 10:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Vitters

There are people here who are much more knowledgeable about Vitters and can project his time frame for arrival (likely 2011-2012) and forcast his output. However if he reaches his potential, yes, an every day position player can be a bigger piece of the team than a Cy Young winner.

You forget to add to the equation, first of all, that the Cubs currently have two starters in Zambrano and Dempster who have been in the running for Cy Young awards. Starting pitching is not the Cubs big need. Further Peavy is not without question marks.

by dmlichte on Jan 19, 2009 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Personally

I don’t think he’ll be as good as David Wright.

That’s about the worst thing I can say about him right now.

Although if you want to get into it, Vitters stats at the same age are about the same as David Wright’s.

by Josh77 on Jan 19, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is cause

to be cautious on trading him. Not saying he WILL be the next David Wright, but I think, if its possible to make the trade for Peavy without loosing Vitters, we look into it.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As I said

I think he’ll come up a little short of David Wright. He lacks Wright’s speed and glove. His hitting style is more reminiscent of Vlad Guerrero than David Wright. Incredible plate coverage and quick hands through the zone. Even though he doesn’t walk much, Vitters also doesn’t swing at many pitches he can’t reach. A lot of pitches outside the strike zone are within his hitting zone so he swings at them, much like Guerrero. But I did see him walk in a situation where he was clearly being pitched around—he didn’t fish at balls in the dirt.

He doesn’t walk much, but he’s not a wild, free-swinger either.

by Josh77 on Jan 19, 2009 2:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

So basically our future left fielder?

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Truthfully

I think he is a keeper for now, you can teach some things to a talented kid, providing he will listen. I just hope KT won’t insist on him if Jim goes teh Peavy route.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 2:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs are not trying to both.

The Cubs have made multiple moves to heighten the odds of winning immediately at the cost of narrowing our window of contention.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

cannot trade Vitters?

I remember when they couldn’t trade Pie and Hill. You can trade anyone for the right deal. Vitters is disposable if the GM can get back value that he believes will help his team win a World Series. No player in any organization should be considered untouchable. Prospects soon turn to suspects.

by Acapulco Taco Pie on Jan 19, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and

hindsight is always 20/20 as well. If the Cubs had known, they would have gotten peak value for all prospects before they bombed out. But by the same token, we would have Tejada to deal with now as well, and I think he is starting to show that overpaid decline phase.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and

instead of throwing money at Soriano, we could have had Beltran roaming our CF.

None of this changes the fact that Vitters, a low A ball player, should be available in a trade.

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and I agree

we’ve had a need for a CF for longer than we have had a need for a LF.
But there again, we thought Felix was the next great, and the Sori would have another couple of 40/40 years.
However, what more do we have in the minors, I think if he is so tradeable, then he should also not be that big of a deal if we don’t trade him.
Regardless, I think he will be gone if we get Peavy, and we can watch from the outside looking in if he lives up to the hype.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are the rumors and whisperings that Peavy loves Chicago, wants to come here, sung TMOTTBG at a bar, etc. true? Cuz if they are, maybe that could play in at a bit.

Also, Jake looks awesome in that pic.

Evey Hammond: Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. V: By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

by dtpollitt on Jan 19, 2009 9:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

That sounds like a bit of a man crush.

by Damen Jackson on Jan 19, 2009 9:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It must be

The cost of living, weather, or honesty in politics that he is attracted to in Chicago.

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 9:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Here, Here

good one.

"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"

by Grockcubs on Jan 19, 2009 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Timing

You mentioned that the Hendry has the upper hand in both what he gives up and when the deal is made, even up to the trade deadline. Just wondering how MLB salaries work—are players paid year round, or only during the season? And if during the season, when would Peavey get his first check for the season—spring training, or opening day?

If San Diego is in such a cash crunch, the timing of the salaries may make a difference, ie, they may not even want to pay his salary until the trade deadline.

by TC Cubby on Jan 19, 2009 9:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

That may come into play

especially if they cannot get Giles to waive his NTC.

by chrisw95 on Jan 19, 2009 10:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

WHAT A TEASE AL!

I thought he was here already! Oh well. I can wait too.

Kwa...Ki...Sur...Pee...Nee...Ku?

by Kinky Reggae on Jan 19, 2009 10:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

About Peavy

I have some concerns that San Diego wants to trade Peavy because of health concerns.

That is the only drawback I see to a deal for Peavy, including one that offers Vitters. I’d rather not offer Vitters, and would be disappointed if Jim Hendry ended up trading what amounted to DeRosa, Pie, Cedeno, Vitters, Hart, and potentially more for Peavy. But Peavy is one of the best pitchers in baseball.

Those who say “We have pitching” are, in my view, overestimating the stability of ML pitching. There’s always a risk that one or two of our front four are not viable post-season pitchers. Maybe we can wait to trade for Peavy at the deadline, but the likelihood seems to me that we cannot wait. If we pass on Peavy now, our mid-season starting pitcher options may prove disappointing – do you want Kevin Millwood and Paul Byrd?

The odds are very good that out of Peavy, Harden, Dempster, and Zambrano – two of those are going to be top-tier post-season pitchers. There’s a decent chance that three of those will be.

And that is the best way to improve your odds of winning a short series,

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 11:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

You could have said that last year about Lilly, Harden, Dempster and Zambrano.

And it didn’t happen.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Right (sort of)

I’m talking odds. The fact that we rolled a 12 this time doesn’t make a 7 less likely the next time we roll the dice.

But, and this is not insignificant, I wouldn’t have said that about Lilly and Dempster last year.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 11:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Couple of things

First, unless you’re willing to assume that every pitcher in MLB currently has some sort of injury, either minor or major, then it doesn’t make any sense throwing the injury card into the analysis. And for the sake of that point, I will make that injury assumption concerning a very large percentage of pitchers in MLB for various unstated reasons.

On top of it, if San Diego knows about an injury to Peavy and they deal him, they will not be doing business with anyone in the future. The Cubs will be fully informed medically if they approach a deal for Peavy and worrying that they would be getting damaged goods is needless.

Who needs a stinkin' tag line? What are they for anyway?

by krummy12 on Jan 19, 2009 1:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

San Diego isn't going to foist damaged goods off on us as if they weren't damaged.

That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying there’s something suspicious to me about a team signing a guy to a below-market long-term contract and then wanting to turn around and deal him. Yes, it’s possible it’s just about the money. I’m still suspicious.

I think it’s possible that in dealing with Jake’s injuries last year the SD front office may have been convinced that he’s going to be suffering more injuries in the future. I’m not saying it’s definite.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

A Zambrano, Dempster, Lilly, Gaudin, Marshall rotation (If Harden somehow continues with his shoulder issue) isn’t exactly a guarantee of a division title.

I like the idea of getting Peavy for so many reasons: insurance, and if insurance winds up not being needed, outright dominance at SP.

I’m still hoping it happens, and that Harden starts 28 games….

"Bite my shiny metal ass!" -- Bender Bending Rodriguez

"Life is just one crushing defeat after another until you just wish Flanders was dead."

by The Jade Scorpion on Jan 19, 2009 11:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm all for trading Vitters

but only for a player that the Cubs need. Peavy would be an excellent to have, but he isn’t filling a need. Trading away Vitters now would also meant that the best bargaining chip the Cubs have would not be availible to trade come the July 31 trade deadline if there was a player then that the Cubs needed.

One name that I haven’t seen mentioned is Fontenot. I’m wondering how he would fit into any potential trade.

by jerry morales rules on Jan 19, 2009 11:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I doubt Fontenot would fit into any deal, because....

… that would leave Aaron Miles as the Cubs’ starting 2B.

Basically, what you’d have accomplished then is getting rid of Mark DeRosa and replacing him with a worse right-handed hitter.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 19, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope he's not involved

as, yes, that would make 2B and the whole infield take quite a hit. I could see San Diego wanting him though.

by jerry morales rules on Jan 19, 2009 11:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fontenot

Doesn’t make much sense for the Padres. With Eckstein, Antonelli, Denker, Sogard, they have enough options at 2nd from the big leagues to AA.

by toonsterwu on Jan 19, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

For Jim Hendry to get an okay on fitting in a cotract like Peavy

Would a New owner just have to be named or does the ownership process have to be complete?

by Jayjayblue on Jan 19, 2009 11:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Comes down to Josh Vitters

Right now as things stand I DO NOT trade Josh Vitters for Jake Peavy. All the other names bandied about I’m fine with. The problem San Diego will insist on Vitters as the centerpiece.

The Cubs on paper are the clear team to beat in the NL Central. Lets see how the first couple months of the season play out. Peavy will still be a Padre unless he expands the list of teams he is willing to be traded to, which frankly if he hasn’t done by now I’m not sure what is wrong inside his head.

by BLou on Jan 19, 2009 11:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wait until San Diego is losing 3 out of every 4 games

Peavy may change his mind pretty quick.

by dr stabbingworth on Jan 19, 2009 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It looks like...

…Hendry is going with a lineup that is a little more versatile (more left handed and more speed) and also would like to strengthen the pitching staff as much as possible (who wouldn’t). Peavy would be a good acquisiton, not doubt and I hope he can pull it off. We don’t know what could happen (injury wise) with Zambrano, Harden or anyone else and you just can’t have too many good starters.

I hope everything works out and they can land him. At that point, my concerns of still being abscent a legit leadoff hitter will calm down a bit.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Jan 19, 2009 12:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Lets save Vitters . add in Fontenot , Hill , and some other Prospects and go after Brian Roberts . A legit basestealer and leadoff hitter . and versatile being a switchitter

by CUBFANINAZ on Jan 19, 2009 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Much as I would like Peavy without giving up Vitters

I think that is rather unrealistic. The problem is that people assume the Padres need to deal Peavy. That isn’t the case. There are different methods they can use to achieve their payroll … and keep Peavy. Dealing Peavy, though, allows them to make their best baseball move and to cut payroll, which is why it holds such value to them.

If we can get Peavy without Vitters (highly unlikely, but if), I’ll be glad to be wrong. I imagine the framework to a deal is something that’s been speculated – Garrett Olson, Kevin Hart, Josh Vitters. I imagine one or two more assets would be needed to make the deal happen, maybe a Jeff Stevens and another arm perhaps. At the end of the day, it’ll come down to new ownership, perhaps on both sides, signing off. I think that the framework of a deal is in place, it’s just a matter of having owners sign off. That’s my guess. Like the Pie for Olson trade, everyone knew it was going to happen as it was leaked all over the place. I think people believe that Hendry has a deal in place and it’s just a matter of will he be allowed to do it.

Btw, I’ve said this before, but while I think they might have some interest in Ronny Cedeno, but I don’t know if they’d have huge interest. They did just draft Everth Cabrera, a guy that they feel will potentially be like Rafael Furcal, and Everth will have to be on the roster all year.

by toonsterwu on Jan 19, 2009 12:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Did I miss something about Kevin Hart?

I thought he was a run of the mill bullpen arm. Does he project to be something better?

by dr stabbingworth on Jan 19, 2009 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You didn't really miss much

There are some folks that think he might be a decent end of the rotation starter, and some spec that he might make a late inning arm, but I still expect that he’s a middle reliever. That said, the Padres are rumored to be quite high on him.

by toonsterwu on Jan 19, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Jim Hendry

Is approaching all this the best way he can….. if we dont land Peavy… there is a diamond in the rough out there that I feel he will grab eventually… you dont acquire all these minor leaguers without a plan of reaching for the stars.

WOW WHAT A SEASON!

by SouthsideCUBSfan on Jan 19, 2009 1:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Like or Dislike The Moves

I have to give Hendry credit for shaking things up after two post season sweeps.

"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic

by Cubbie-Tim on Jan 19, 2009 1:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

If you have to trade a prospect... namely Vitters,

to acquire a pitcher with Cy Young stuff and a pedigree; do it without question. Pitching is key on any major league team, and adding Peavy to a rotation that already features Z, Harden, Dempster & Lilly is really a no-brainer. Now I know everyone seems to think that Vitters is a can’t miss prospect, but in reality the book is still out on him. I’ve seem many, many “can’t miss” prospects come and go. Vitters could go either way. The objective is clearly to get to, and win the WS, not to bolster the farm system and play for down the road. Chicago Cubs 2009- Next year is not an option…

Jimmyeatworld

by Jimmyeatworld on Jan 19, 2009 2:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Personally

this is a tough call. Trade the chip that most would agree is the best hitter, or potentialy the best hitter in our system, for a top pitcher who did have some arm issues last year.
I mean the Cubs track record for offensive players in the system is poor to say the least. But really no one knows if Vitters is the deal, except maybe Vitters.
What if Dempster struggles this year, Z has lingering arm issues, and Hardens history of arm problems. Yes to many freaking IF’s, but that is the nature of pitching and injuries.
60/40 shot in my book, land Peavy to solidify a strong rotation and give up the one top prospect in the Cubs system. Giving the Cubs history in the system I would lean towards making the deal, with Vitters in it.
As mentioned by others, Hendry needs to sit in the position of “hand”, Towers needs to make the move. And I would not include Vitters in the several rounds of trade options.

"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"

by Grockcubs on Jan 19, 2009 2:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I have a Vitters question

How much more of a ‘sure thing’ is he than Corey Patterson, Felix Pie, Bobby Hill, Hee Seop Choi and all the other #1-like ’can’t miss’ prospects?

Sure it’s easy to look back at those guys now and “see” all the issues. But what about at that time, when each of these players were big time prospects?

I’m sorry but I can’t use the excuse of this can’t miss prospect as a reason for not getting a starting pitcher who could really help out the team – especially if Harden is truly injured. The Cubs have been notorious for holding on to these can’t miss guys until their stock is worth as much as Enron. It’s why these guys are called ‘prospects’ and players such as Jake Peavy are called ‘Cy Young Award Winners’.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 19, 2009 3:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

There's no such thing as a 'can't miss' prospect.

Phil Hughes, for example, seemed like such a good bet to be a top level pitcher that the Yankees refused to trade him to get Johan. He may still become a top-level pitcher, but his stock has taken a hit these past two years.

But there’s no such thing as a ’can’t miss’ veteran either. People keep lumping Hee Seop Choi in with the Cubs failed prospects, ignoring that Choi had several good years. He failed as a veteran, just like, for example, Andruw Jones has recently.

Baseball’s a hard sport where success at hitting means failing 2/3 of the time. That’s just one reason why it’s hard to predict which players will be blue-chippers and which will never make it.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 19, 2009 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Choi had several good years?

Where? Not in MLB. In his time with the Cubs, once MLB pitchers found out they could run him inside and low, he was done. He didn’t adjust and didn’t recover. There is absolutely no way Choi can be compared to Andruw Jones. A.Jones 5 year span from the late 90’s to early 00’s is something Choi would likely never attain.

The reason I used the term “can’t miss” is that it appears to me several folks here regard Vitters so highly as they wouldn’t move him for a former Cy Young winner.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 20, 2009 6:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Choi

2003 OPS+ 100
2004 OPS+ 116
2005 OPS+ 107

That’s one year of average hitting and two years of above average hitting.

In a what-might-have-been exercise, we can also split out Choi pre-injury in Chicago: .244/.389/.496 and pre-trade in FL: .270/.388/.495. You say Choi never recovered but he managed to have two good years after his time in Chicago.

I compared Choi and Andruw because they are two very different players – Andruw was once thought a can’t-miss HoFer. Anyone can fall apart at any time in the highest level of competitive baseball. It’s that hard to play at this level.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 20, 2009 7:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Egg friggin xactly!

Corey Patterson, Bobby Hill & Hee-Seop were never touted as “can’t miss.” Each of them had the tools to do the job, but never put it all together. “Can’t miss” prospects are guys like Pujols. I almost threw up when I heard Pie described as a “can’t miss” prospect on the news last night, as though the Cubs had done something wrong. If prospects were all “can’t miss”, then there would never be a need for trades. Look at the MLs, how many teams are constructed of all home grown players? Of the teams with more home grown talent, how many of those had to ‘put it together’ over a number of seasons? As I stated before, I know of only one guy who truly was a can’t miss prospect, and his name is J. Albert Pujols. Once he was recognized for his talent by STL, it was a short ride to the Majors, and he sustained it all along.

Jimmyeatworld

by Jimmyeatworld on Jan 19, 2009 3:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I knew you'd come around, Al.

SD SportsTalkers are now saying this Cubs deal means an eventual Peavy trade — one talker has just proclaimed…“within a month…”

Maybe not that soon, but eventually.

As I said in another post, this ain’t the “Roberts” deal. The dynamics, which I have stated so many times…I’m tired of repeating them…..are so different……the two “deals” cannot be compared.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Jan 19, 2009 4:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs