Your 2009 Chicago Cubs

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=4193:date=Dec 12 2008, 09:10 AM:name=sleepyhead)-->QUOTE (sleepyhead @ Dec 12 2008, 09:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=4192:date=Dec 12 2008, 09:05 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 12 2008, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=4180:date=Dec 12 2008, 08:05 AM:name=sleepyhead)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sleepyhead @ Dec 12 2008, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have no problem with one year of Johnson. My bigger problem is that in not getting Peavy, you are putting yourself in a rough situation next year when Harden and either Marquis or Johnson are gone. Having Peavy locked up would have guaranteed 3 all star caliber pitchers in your rotation for the foreseeable future. Not so much now.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


But that's not a "problem", that's a luxury. Of course having Peavy would make things easier, but how many teams can complain they have "only" 2 all star caliber pitchers in their rotation? I might also add that Ted Lilly was an all star, and has won at least 15 games the last three years, so I think you could classify him as an all star. And we have him through 2010.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It's a problem because they'll need to replace them with pitchers as good or better, or the team is worse
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Not necessarily. We are going to lose Wood. If we don't replace him, but sign a solid power hitting left fielder, we could be better.

Besides, that's a logical fallacy. If we eventually did trade for Peavy, that would mean we would have to have 5 all-star/cy young candidates in our rotation in perpetuity, or we would get worse.