DeRosa Traded to Indians

[kbwsb]

Aaron Miles career OPS+
77
He's 32 years old.
A complete fucking waste of 5 million dollars.

[rok]

Makes me a little uneasy the more I read about it.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Among big league second basemen last season, DeRosa ranked third with a .376 on base percentage behind Philadelphia's Chase Utley at .380 and Baltimore's Brian Roberts at .378.

Besides playing 95 games at second, DeRosa appeared in 38 games in right field, 27 games in left field, 22 games at third base and 10 games each at first and shortstop. A source close to the Cubs said third base is his best defensive position.

"The acquisition of Mark DeRosa gives our club an experienced, high character infielder who complements our team perfectly with his professional, right-handed bat and defensive versatility," said GM Mark Shapiro.

The Cubs are a busy team. Before sending DeRosa to the Tribe, they signed infielder Aaron Miles today to a two-year $4.9 million deal to take DeRosa's spot at second base. They are also in negotiations with free agent Milton Bradley and in the process of trading right-hander Jason Marquis to Colorado.

Besides redoing their roster, the Cubs have played a big role in Shapiro's remodeling of the Indians this offseason. He signed former Cubs closer Kerry Wood just after the winter meetings to a two-year $20.5 million contract.

DeRosa could join new teammate Grady Sizemore on Team USA for the World Baseball Classic that begins in March. They have both accepted invitations to represent their country in the 16-team tournament.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[rok]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->By moving Marquis and replacing DeRosa with Miles – freeing up $8.3 million in 2009 payroll – the Cubs also set the stage for renewing talks with San Diego over ace pitcher Jake Peavy.

Just before Peavy trade talks broke down during the winter meetings two weeks ago, one Cubs officials said DeRosa would only be traded as one piece of the Peavy acquisition.

And since the meetings, the San Francisco Giants signed free agent pitcher Randy Johnson – taking the Cubs’ top alternative to Peavy (assuming the Marquis vacancy on the staff).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=8023:date=Dec 31 2008, 03:48 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Dec 31 2008, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->By moving Marquis and replacing DeRosa with Miles – freeing up $8.3 million in 2009 payroll – the Cubs also set the stage for renewing talks with San Diego over ace pitcher Jake Peavy.

Just before Peavy trade talks broke down during the winter meetings two weeks ago, one Cubs officials said DeRosa would only be traded as one piece of the Peavy acquisition.

And since the meetings, the San Francisco Giants signed free agent pitcher Randy Johnson – taking the Cubs’ top alternative to Peavy (assuming the Marquis vacancy on the staff).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who wrote that?

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=8018:date=Dec 31 2008, 04:33 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 31 2008, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->When is Hendry addressing the media?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Probably hoping he can do it in conjunction with another announcement - like the Bradley signing, for example, so he can say see, we need to save money to get Milton.

[Clapp]

Hendry's going to sign Dayman, I know it.

<object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/OmvkZdxrmS8relCUlmHiFg"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/OmvkZdxrmS8relCUlmHiFg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>

Sorry, this thread needed some good vibes.

[Clapp]

So are we going to introduce Miles at center ice tomorrow?

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=8024:date=Dec 31 2008, 03:51 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 31 2008, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=8023:date=Dec 31 2008, 03:48 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Dec 31 2008, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->By moving Marquis and replacing DeRosa with Miles – freeing up $8.3 million in 2009 payroll – the Cubs also set the stage for renewing talks with San Diego over ace pitcher Jake Peavy.

Just before Peavy trade talks broke down during the winter meetings two weeks ago, one Cubs officials said DeRosa would only be traded as one piece of the Peavy acquisition.

And since the meetings, the San Francisco Giants signed free agent pitcher Randy Johnson – taking the Cubs’ top alternative to Peavy (assuming the Marquis vacancy on the staff).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who wrote that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gordo
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cu...miles31.article

[kbwsb]

Caution... Blind-eyed <!--coloro:#4B0082--><!--/coloro-->Optimist's<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--> viewpoint ahead:

Ok, we won 97 games last year, and the Cubs provided me with one of my favorite seasons ever. So I'm gonna look at things through rose-colored glasses, for now:

Perhaps the Cubs are stockpiling young pitching prospects for the Peavy trade. That is the one and only explanation for the DeRo axing. Perhaps the Padres, having been badly burned because of their loudmouthed gabbing about trading Peavy earlier this year, have learned their lesson, and are simply being totally tight-lipped about trying to work something out with the Cubs this time.

Perhaps, in a few days, we'll be pleasantly surprised with a New Year's present (Peavy), and by trading DeRo for young arms, it means that we don't have to include Vitters in a Peavy swap.

1. the Pads do like young K pitchers (although only one of the 3 guys is "young," prospect-wise).
2. the Pads have publicly stated that they aren't going to discuss any Peavy machinations with the media anymore, so there is a good reason why we haven't heard of any rumblings.
3. Jim sees Miles as "Derosa-lite," despite all indications that he's actually "Neifi-with-slightly more patience."
4. Jim assumes (correctly) that if we land Peavy and sign Bradley, all this other horrid stuff will be forgotten.
5. we are definitely getting Peavy for this, because otherwise, today's 2 moves make <i>zero</i> sense.

So, yeah. Awesome moves!

[Clapp]

If the report that we can't do the Peavy deal until the ownership is settled is true, we probably won't know for at least a month, unless the info's leaked that they have an agreement in place.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=8030:date=Dec 31 2008, 04:01 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 31 2008, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If the report that we can't do the Peavy deal until the ownership is settled is true, we probably won't know for at least a month, unless the info's leaked that they have an agreement in place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder about those reports. I mean, we signed Dempster long-term, Miles to a 2 year deal and probably will need to go 3 years on Bradley. Why would we need special approval on Peavy and not the others?

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=8031:date=Dec 31 2008, 05:04 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Dec 31 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=8030:date=Dec 31 2008, 04:01 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 31 2008, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If the report that we can't do the Peavy deal until the ownership is settled is true, we probably won't know for at least a month, unless the info's leaked that they have an agreement in place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder about those reports. I mean, we signed Dempster long-term, Miles to a 2 year deal and probably will need to go 3 years on Bradley. Why would we need special approval on Peavy and not the others?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point... I don't know. Just going by what they're saying. It seems like we'd be have the financial ability to make it happen without much of a problem now.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=8032:date=Dec 31 2008, 04:09 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 31 2008, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=8031:date=Dec 31 2008, 05:04 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Dec 31 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=8030:date=Dec 31 2008, 04:01 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 31 2008, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If the report that we can't do the Peavy deal until the ownership is settled is true, we probably won't know for at least a month, unless the info's leaked that they have an agreement in place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder about those reports. I mean, we signed Dempster long-term, Miles to a 2 year deal and probably will need to go 3 years on Bradley. Why would we need special approval on Peavy and not the others?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point... I don't know. Just going by what they're saying. It seems like we'd be have the financial ability to make it happen without much of a problem now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would think so. The only other issues that make Peavy unique are his NTC and the backloaded nature of his contract. That might bother a new owner, but we should have plenty of payroll space available for him now.

[cigar]

Didn't the Padres want some average prospect from the O's when those rumors were flying around? It seemed like he was also a high K rate guy with control problems.

[HTC]

Yeah they wanted Garrett Olson.