| Register | Forgot password?
Advanced Search

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett

Levine update

Posted by MB21 on 01/05/09 at 02:12 PM • 41 Comments

Need a new thread and this is the best I have.  Bruce Levine gave an update earlier this morning.  Marquis deal will be finalized tomorrow.  Bradley signing will happen by the end of the week.  Cubs need ownership approval in order to get Peavy.

Pat Burrell signed with the Rays for 2 years.

Save This Entry

 


Tags:

Related Entries

COMMENTS
Page 1 of 1 pages


1. (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:20 PM

Ownership approval?  When he said that is he referring to the new owners?  I wasn’t aware they knew who the new owners are just yet.

2. (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:22 PM

If Levine is not talking out of his ass concerning Peavy, how could new ownership not approve a deal?

Not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself to your new rabid fan base by crying poor right out of the shoot.

I’m thinking the Padres take Peavy off the market as Moorad and co finish ramrodding that sale through.

3. (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:24 PM

So is a deal in place for Peavy and they just need owners approval?

4. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:24 PM

If Levine is not talking out of his ass concerning Peavy, how could new ownership not approve a deal?

You wouldn’t think they would, but I think by saying it you are saying that it’s no sure thing and that new owners (if they are ever identified and some think it won’t be until after 2009) have to approve it.  That means that the current ownership cannot add any payroll above what the currently have.

5. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:25 PM

No, Mucker.  No deal in place.  Just that the Cubs would like to finish it, but it’s not really up to them.

6. Jame Gumb ® (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:25 PM

but I don’t think that can get done with the current ownership mess.

I don’t think so either, but it’s still the kind of deal Hendry makes.

Re: Vitters—Typical ex-addict, statfag bullshit. Plain and simple, you’re wrong. Period. Done deal sealed. *stares*

7. ccd (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:25 PM

I don’t think a Peavy deal happens at all MD. This has nothing to do with the Cubs nor their ownership situation. New ownership in San Diego will not allow Peavy to walk.

That’s just my opinion and I have more…

8. Mercurial Outfielder (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:25 PM

That was quite a special entry from GROTA, there, MD.  Ye gods.

9. ccd (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:26 PM

That means that the current ownership cannot add any payroll above what the currently have.

Yep, nothing new with that. We’ve been speculating that was the case for quite sometime now.

10. (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:26 PM

(if they are ever identified and some think it won’t be until after 2009)

If that were the case, I have a hard time believing the Cubs, in full win-now mode, would have traded DeRosa for what they got.

11. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:28 PM

Someone pointed out the other day that even if the Padres are sold they’re likely to find themselves in the same financial issues that the team is currently in because of this market.  And Moorad did say he will have nothing to do with what the Padres do for some time.  I don’t know.  I’d say it’s highly unlikely the Padres end up getting traded soon enough to not trade Peavy.

12. Jame Gumb ® (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:29 PM

I don’t think a Peavy deal happens at all MD.

Neither do I.

13. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:30 PM

If that were the case, I have a hard time believing the Cubs, in full win-now mode, would have traded DeRosa for what they got.

If the team didn’t trade DeRosa then what do they do with the outfield?  You couldn’t keep him and add an outfielder.  As has been said here and elsewhere, trading DeRosa and Marquis wasn’t to get Peavy, but done just so the club can get an outfielder—Milton Bradley.  The DeRosa trade, however, was made with sights set on completing a deal with the Padres after new ownership is identified.  But as of right now, it was either DeRosa (Fontenot on the bench despite being just as good) and Gathright in CF with Fukudome in RF or Fontenot at 2B, Fukudome/Johnson in CF and Bradley in RF.

14. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:31 PM

Neither do I.

Yeah, but you don’t think the Cubs have any chance at all to win the World Series this year so…

15. Jame Gumb ® (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:32 PM

This [signing Burrell] is…
EXACTLY how a good team gets better…

Not by trading your MVP from the season before for 3 minor leaguers.

Gotta love the Ragin’ Cajun!
by TheRiot4Life on Jan 5, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

(dying laughing)

16. Jame Gumb ® (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:33 PM

Yeah, but you don’t think the Cubs have any chance at all to win the World Series this year so…

That’s true. 2012 is their year.

17. ccd (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:34 PM

Someone pointed out the other day that even if the Padres are sold they’re likely to find themselves in the same financial issues that the team is currently in because of this market.  And Moorad did say he will have nothing to do with what the Padres do for some time.  I don’t know.  I’d say it’s highly unlikely the Padres end up getting traded soon enough to not trade Peavy.

I hope I’m wrong on this MD, I want the Cubulas to get Peavy. I thought there was a real good chance of this happening until Moorad got involved. He may say he has no say, but at some point you stop the fire sale if you have a deal in principle.

Neither do I.

It’s just not realistic at this point jg.

18. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:34 PM

I don’t know if a Peavy deal gets done or not.  I think based on what we know right now there’s still an expectation that it will get done, but as I’ve said many times, these deals are always unlikely simply because it involves so many pieces.  If the new owners are in place soon, and I knew this for sure, I’d feel confident a deal will get done, but the sale doesn’t seem to be moving along at all.

19. ccd (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:35 PM

Not by trading your MVP from the season before for 3 minor leaguers.

somebody make this madness stop…

20. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:35 PM

That’s true. 2012 is their year.

I figure they have as good a chance in 2012 and they’ll have in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, etc.  You’d think sooner or later one of those years will be right.  What’s up with the 2012 thing anyway?

21. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:36 PM

somebody make this madness stop…

Why?  It’s hilarious and passing the time between now and whenever the next thing the Cubs do that pisses Cubs fans off.

22. Jame Gumb ® (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:36 PM

It’s just not realistic at this point jg.

It just doesn’t…feel right. Trading for Nomar and sending Sammy to BAL felt right. That’s all I got.

23. Jame Gumb ® (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:37 PM

What’s up with the 2012 thing anyway?

Nostradamus (I think) predicted the world would end in December of 2012. That gives Cubs fans about six weeks to enjoy the World Series victory before the media runs with the story of the impending Armageddon.

24. Horny Goat (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:38 PM

Gotta love the Ragin’ Cajun!
by TheRiot4Life on Jan 5, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

good grief

25. ccd (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:38 PM

but the sale doesn’t seem to be moving along at all.

Zell is cooking up a new set of books so he can get that $1.3 billion

26. Mercurial Outfielder (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:39 PM

MD, I think we need to put together a “The Myth of Mark Derosa” article. This guy’s legend is growing by the minute.

27. ccd (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:39 PM

Trading for Nomar and sending Sammy to BAL felt right. That’s all I got.

ahhh the good ole days…

28. (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:43 PM

29. ccd (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:43 PM

It’s hilarious and passing the time between now and whenever the next thing the Cubs do that pisses Cubs fans off.

Mouthbreathers, each and every fucking Cubs fan that mourns the loss of the Great Mark DeRosa.

Where did DeRosa finish in the NL MVP balloting?

30. Horny Goat (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:43 PM

I think we need to put together a “The Myth of Mark Derosa” article. This guy’s legend is growing by the minute.

When will they put his flag up there with Sandberg, Banks, Williams, and Santo? 2012?

31. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:43 PM

MD, I think we need to put together a “The Myth of Mark Derosa” article. This guy’s legend is growing by the minute.

You got something in mind?  I was thinking about it earlier when you mentioned it.  I’m out of here for a few hours, but will send some thoughts to you later on.  Will that work?

32. MB21 (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:45 PM

Not sure if it’s been discussed(probably has) but I just read this article on Miles’ and how he will kick your ass if you put a gun to his head. 

Now if we can just get some pitchers to point a gun at him while on the mound, he might be a force offensively.

33. (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:45 PM

FWIW, Olney’s article about the Burrell signing says that is expected Bradley will agree to a deal with the Cubs within 24 hours  Should make for an entertaining day as Cub fans go apeshit over the signing

34. (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:48 PM

If the team didn’t trade DeRosa then what do they do with the outfield?  You couldn’t keep him and add an outfielder.  As has been said here and elsewhere, trading DeRosa and Marquis wasn’t to get Peavy, but done just so the club can get an outfielder—Milton Bradley

All right, I’m probably the friggin’ idiot on this, but the Cubs’ need to clear both DeRosa and Marquis in order to just afford Milton Bradley, didn’t seem, to me at least, to be necessary during the Winter Meetings when the Peavy deal was soooo close. It always appeared that the Cubs were trying to get both Bradley and Peavy as they could not afford both by themselves (not to mention the SP clusterfuck with Marquis still around). From what I read DeRosa entered the equation late, and was being moved in order to get more prospects to make the Peavy deal more palatable to the Padres, not necessarily to free up more money. As far as the aftermath it has seemed, to me anyway, that the Cubs have delayed on inking Bradley because the deal for Peavy was never as dead as stated and Hendry didn’t want to commit to just Bradley if Peavy was still a possibility, as, in case it came to a situation where it was Peavy or Bradley, I’m sure he would have picked Peavy (and rightly so).

With all the conflicting reports and misinformation out there and the, generally, poor speculation on the part of the sportswriters covering these things, I try as much as possible to just go off what a team does or tries to do. If the Cubs could only have afforded Bradley by moving Marquis and DeRosa, it seems to me they would have spent the beginning of the offseason and the winter meetings aggressively trying to move both right out of the gate. Granted, just about every report since the winter meetings has the Cubs maxed out before the Marquis and DeRosa deals, I just find it curious that that would be the case when the Cubs’ actions during the winter meetings seemed to suggest otherwise.

35. Mercurial Outfielder (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:52 PM

You got something in mind?  I was thinking about it earlier when you mentioned it.  I’m out of here for a few hours, but will send some thoughts to you later on.  Will that work?

Sounds good. I’ve got a few ideas.

36. Jame Gumb ® (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:53 PM

I need to make a confession. I totally agree with BCBers about an issue. New thread up.

37. Horny Goat (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 03:59 PM

I think Hendry played this just right. Towers ended up wanting too many players for Peavy, Hendry wanted Bradley anyway and had to clear Marquis no matter what. He traded DeRosa as BOTH a salary dump AND prospects in case the Peavy talks would be revived (or for the purpose of acquiring another pitcher down the road)

And he got Miles as a decent back-up. I think he’s done good. There’s still a decent shot at getting Peavy, and if not, the Cubs now have lots of chips to trade.

38. (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 04:02 PM

MD, I think we need to put together a “The Myth of Mark Derosa” article. This guy’s legend is growing by the minute.

While I agree that some of those comments about DeRosa are absurb in the context that they’re being used, I don’t think it’s far off to consider DeRosa one of the most valuable players of the 2008 team.  Whether you consider his role as the full-time 2nd baseman, or as a utility/temp at other positions he was certainly very valuable (keep in mind that Aaron Miles now gets the duties of sitting in for an injured Ramirez or Soriano or Lee or whomever), and you even argued that he had an unrepeatable year.

Just because he’s been traded doesn’t mean you have to justify the trade by undervaluing what he contributed to last year’s team.  I’m also not saying it was a bad trade, though I seem to be among the minority that thinks it will be if those prospects aren’t used to acquire Peavy.

39. Mercurial Outfielder (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 04:06 PM

I don’t think it’s far off to consider DeRosa one of the most valuable players of the 2008 team.  Whether you consider his role as the full-time 2nd baseman, or as a utility/temp at other positions he was certainly very valuable (keep in mind that Aaron Miles now gets the duties of sitting in for an injured Ramirez or Soriano or Lee or whomever), and you even argued that he had an unrepeatable year.

And we’ll mention that in the article. I’m not out to diminish what Derosa did, just to put it in context. I hope you realize that while we may be vitriolic around here, we can approach things rationally and analyze them objectively.

40. BellwetherMeltdown (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 04:08 PM

A friend of mine who gets ESPN text messages alerts just got a message saying the cubs agreed to a 3 year 30 MM deal with Bradley.

41. Mercurial Outfielder (view all comments) — Jan 05, 2009 @ 04:09 PM

We’re talking about in the new thread, BM.

Page 1 of 1 pages


Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:



Next entry: I must admit, BCB has swayed me

Previous entry: Derrek Lee vs. Adam Dunn

ACB HOME, Previous Posts