Some info

[TheBee]

What is the problem? If you don't like what he has to say or if you don't believe him, just put him on ignor. There are many here that want to hear what he has to say.

I agree. As long as the insiders post their disclaimers, readers have been given fair warning. Some insiders have ABSOLUTELY proven themselves others are at worst offering speculation - the same thing that MANY media members do. No need for attacks. The journalists who have been just as wrong and have been contradicted by GMS will be believed by many if they publish something new tomorrow.

[Jik]

Really, I'm not going to keep arguing, as there is no point, but usually when you have a source, you might not be allowed to share certain stuff. Sometimes when the things are getting really hot, you have to keep your mouth shut, as you can't leak anything, and before New Years, a trade was really, really close.

joey if it makes you feel better I am grateful that you share the information with us and hope you don't pay attention to the scrooges around here.

[Del34]

What is the problem? If you don't like what he has to say or if you don't believe him, just put him on ignor. There are many here that want to hear what he has to say.

Agreed. I'm not sure why so many people here are so quick to strike at the insiders.

I tend to think all our insiders are pretty legit, despite the Roberts trade screw up earlier this month.

I know a lot of them keep their info to their self now, and part of the reason I'm sure is because of all their "critics" here at OH. But it is nice to hear things...even if they are just rumors.

[davearm]

IMO its easier for a guy to pitch with a 3 run lead then a tie game.... You know the old phrase " Trying to be to perfect" .

Sorry ... The ignorant thing was just a general statement from Reading the Cubbie boards from other sights. They have talked at great lengths about how they wouldn't trade Hill for Bedard. Again Sorry No hard feelings Eh!

I not sure either but so far their is no signs in his performance that say he will immediately decline!

Actually it may be you who's ignorant, not the Cubs fans you mock.

Hill had better stats than Bedard at the same age.

Both guys hit the bigleagues at age 25. From ages 25-27:

Bedard shows: 475.1 IP, 7.9 K/9, 3.73 BB/9, 2.12 K/BB, 0.74 HR/9, 1.43 WHIP

Hill shows: 318 IP, 8.32 K/9, 3.37 BB/9, 2.47 K/BB, 1.30 HR/9, 1.25 WHIP

All Bedard did better was prevent HRs. Hill struck out more, walked fewer, and allowed fewer baserunners.

So it's clear to see that at the same age, statistically Hill was the better pitcher.

And that's not even accounting for Bedard's injury history, and the 2 years vs. 4 years to free agency. Naturally I'm sure you will fixate on league differences, which is valid but often overblown.

Now it remains to be seen if Hill can take the kind of huge jump at age 28 that Bedard did, but by the same token, it also remains to be seen whether said jump by Bedard was a fluke or not. Bedard's strikeout rate spiked from ~8 to ~11 per 9, which is obviously remarkable, but is it sustainable?

Regardless, not wanting to trade Hill for Bedard is a very logical and easily defensible position. How ironic that you would accuse those that can grasp what you obviously have missed of being ignorant.

[Mike B]

Cedeno makes a lot of E's and doesn't look like he can handle MLB pitching. I may be wrong but I'd rather have Veal as the third guy from the Cubs.

I agree trade for Lillibridge or Brignac if they can ... Chen is a 2B and might turn out to be a pretty good leadoff hitter.

I can't imagine who would leadoff if they do what you have suggested?

Adam Jones would be my guess.

[rolliefingers]

The point of my post was to say if you want to get our untouchable than offer up your untouchable otherwise there's no point.

The difference is that Markakis has already excelled in MLB at a young age, whereas Triunfel is still all potential. To compare the two is ludicrous.

[33rdst]

Agreed. I'm not sure why so many people here are so quick to strike at the insiders.

I tend to think all our insiders are pretty legit, despite the Roberts trade screw up earlier this month.

I know a lot of them keep their info to their self now, and part of the reason I'm sure is because of all their "critics" here at OH. But it is nice to hear things...even if they are just rumors.

I sure as heck prefer reaing insider info to yet another trade scenerio from you know who:D

[Mike B]

If I were Bavasi the talk on Triunfel would have stopped the first day. I would have said - ok - if you want Triunfel than include Markakis in the deal as well. AM would not have mentioned Triunfel ever again, lol.

I am not sure how you equate Triunfel with Markakis. Nick is an established and young major leaguer and Triunfel is a 17 year old prospect in A ball. How is the weather out there in Seattle?

[Mike B]

You're right on this one... I find it funny how many guys are untouchable when their team is in negotiations for a #1 that their GM says he doesn't have on the roster. Bavasi couldn't mention Bedard specifically it would be tampering.

And Snell couldn't be considered a #1 .... If besides Bedard, Snell is the best he can do as a upgrade ...Then he must really be desperate!

Exactly correct on Snell. He had a decent year (9-12, 1.33 whip and 3.76 ERA) in 08 but for his career he is a below .500 pitcher with an ERA well over 4 and a 1.44 whip. In addition he is an NL pitcher so you would expect his #'s to go up. More of a 3 than a #1 IMO.

[Del34]

I sure as heck prefer reaing insider info to yet another trade scenerio from you know who:D

Hahah, are you implying you don't enjoy his endless trade proposals?!?

Just kiddin, but the insider info definitely is much appreciated...especially since everyone's lips seem to be a lot tighter now...

[Roll Tide]

Actually it may be you who's ignorant, not the Cubs fans you mock.

Hill had better stats than Bedard at the same age.

Both guys hit the bigleagues at age 25. From ages 25-27:

Bedard shows: 475.1 IP, 7.9 K/9, 3.73 BB/9, 2.12 K/BB, 0.74 HR/9, 1.43 WHIP

Hill shows: 318 IP, 8.32 K/9, 3.37 BB/9, 2.47 K/BB, 1.30 HR/9, 1.25 WHIP

All Bedard did better was prevent HRs. Hill struck out more, walked fewer, and allowed fewer baserunners.

So it's clear to see that at the same age, statistically Hill was the better pitcher.

And that's not even accounting for Bedard's injury history, and the 2 years vs. 4 years to free agency. Naturally I'm sure you will fixate on league differences, which is valid but often overblown.

Now it remains to be seen if Hill can take the kind of huge jump at age 28 that Bedard did, but by the same token, it also remains to be seen whether said jump by Bedard was a fluke or not. Bedard's strikeout rate spiked from ~8 to ~11 per 9, which is obviously remarkable, but is it sustainable?

Regardless, not wanting to trade Hill for Bedard is a very logical and easily defensible position. How ironic that you would accuse those that can grasp what you obviously have missed of being ignorant.

I'll take the same bet I offered the other guy with YOU~! Bedard's 2008 will be better than Hill's if you wanna put your money where your Mouth/Keyboard is!

In 2008

Hill ERA 3.92(4.17 in06) IP 195 Hits 170 HR 27 SO 183 8.45 per 9 BB9 2.91

EB ERA 3.16 (3.76 in 06) IP 182 Hits 140 HR 19 SO 221 10.93 per9 BB9 2.82

In every stat Bedard had better numbers except IP's ... Bedard was a better pitcher in both years & that doesn't count the league diff that I mentioned before now. The 27 Hr's allowed by Hill in 2007 would be much worse IMO in the AL East.

Your Opinion as a NL Analyst doesn't automatically right!

So put up or shut up!

[OsLuvrInKy]

Put Hill in the AL East facing Boston and NY. Now what are his numbers.

Put Bedard in the NL Central. What are his numbers.

I honestly would like to hear some of your projections.

[davearm]

I'll take the same bet I offered the other guy with YOU~! Bedard's 2008 will be better than Hill's if you wanna put your money where your Mouth/Keyboard is!

In 2008

Hill ERA 3.92(4.17 in06) IP 195 Hits 170 HR 27 SO 183 8.45 per 9 BB9 2.91

EB ERA 3.16 (3.76 in 06) IP 182 Hits 140 HR 19 SO 221 10.93 per9 BB9 2.82

In every stat Bedard had better numbers except IP's ... Bedard was a better pitcher in both years & that doesn't count the league diff that I mentioned before now. The 27 Hr's allowed by Hill in 2007 would be much worse IMO in the AL East.

Your Opinion as a NL Analyst doesn't automatically right!

So put up or shut up!

I'm not sure why you're struggling with this so much.

For you to sit here arguing that Bedard will be better than Hill in 2008 does very little to address the trade issue, which is what you accused others of being ignorant about in the first place.

It's perfectly consistent to believe Bedard will have better stats than Hill (although that's debateable, and at least one projection model disagrees), but still not want to trade Hill for Bedard. Hill is younger, cheaper, under team control for two additional years, doesn't have an injury history, and, as I showed, was the better pitcher at the same age and stage of development.

The fact that it's even open for debate which guy will be better in 2008 tells you that trading Hill for Bedard is a stupid move, considering all of the other factors I just listed in Hill's favor.

[Guest rochester]

Actually it may be you who's ignorant, not the Cubs fans you mock.

Hill had better stats than Bedard at the same age.

Both guys hit the bigleagues at age 25. From ages 25-27:

Bedard shows: 475.1 IP, 7.9 K/9, 3.73 BB/9, 2.12 K/BB, 0.74 HR/9, 1.43 WHIP

Hill shows: 318 IP, 8.32 K/9, 3.37 BB/9, 2.47 K/BB, 1.30 HR/9, 1.25 WHIP

All Bedard did better was prevent HRs. Hill struck out more, walked fewer, and allowed fewer baserunners.

So it's clear to see that at the same age, statistically Hill was the better pitcher.

And that's not even accounting for Bedard's injury history, and the 2 years vs. 4 years to free agency. Naturally I'm sure you will fixate on league differences, which is valid but often overblown.

Now it remains to be seen if Hill can take the kind of huge jump at age 28 that Bedard did, but by the same token, it also remains to be seen whether said jump by Bedard was a fluke or not. Bedard's strikeout rate spiked from ~8 to ~11 per 9, which is obviously remarkable, but is it sustainable?

Regardless, not wanting to trade Hill for Bedard is a very logical and easily defensible position. How ironic that you would accuse those that can grasp what you obviously have missed of being ignorant.

Dave is right that keeping Hill is defensible - And any of us that calls any other fan of being ignorant is, well, ignorant.

I also believe that there is league specific and, especially, a huge gap in divisional-specific differences....but I can not say that Hill would be killed in the AL East. What I can say is that Bedard's injury history is more overblown than league differences. Now, if the discussion surrounds passion for getting/keeping the ball well, yes, that would be a concern of mine if looking to trade for him.

Overall, I would take EB over Hill anytime....there is a much greater risk of Hill getting lit up in the AL East than EBedard as he has proven that he can compete. I do not agree whatsoever with the EB's 2007 was a fluke...2006 was not a bad year (he also threw 196 inn) considering the team he is on - but I am not sure Dave gets to see EB pitch every game like we can...

The bottom line is that (I believe) that Hill may be way more overrated than EB is...and until he shows that he can reach that level he is much more of a question mayk. After all, Dave says EBs 2007 may be a fluke - what if Hill's mediocre 2007 was?

[ChaosLex]

Was the consensus that if the deal doesn't happen today, it's not going to happen? Or is it by the middle of this week?