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.

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.

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*

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

(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.

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

Neither do I.

Neither do I.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

good grief

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

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. 

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.