Jake Peavy: Available.

[davearm2]

Cubs Rumors: Peavy, Sabathia, Hill, Roberts

By Tim Dierkes [November 5 at 9:36am CST]

Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times has fresh Cubs rumors this morning.

 

De Luca's sources describe the Cubs' interest in Jake Peavy as "limited." Instead, the Cubs have "deep interest" in C.C. Sabathia. De Luca also wonders if the Cubs will entertain A.J. Burnett. The Cubs' payroll room will depend on free agents Ryan Dempster and Kerry Wood, plus their ability to move Jason Marquis.

Rich Hill's lost 2008 season killed his trade value. He'll be out of options next spring.

De Luca's sources say the Cubs continue to pursue Brian Roberts and Raul Ibanez. Ibanez would play right field for the Cubs, even though he allowed 18 more bases than the average left fielder this year.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

 

Deep interest in C.C.? First I have seen this. They would have to trade Marquis and have a HUGE increase in payroll. Limited interst in Peavy. More Roberts. Sounds like a fun offseason.

 

I'd rather have Peavy. We don't need another backloaded contract killing this club in the future, which a deal to Sabathia likely would be. Peavy would be cheaper, slightly younger, and arguably just as good as Sabathia would be. Plus I thought Piniella said we don't have the luxury of going balls to the wall crazy with free agents because of the ownership change in limbo and we have to fix ourselves through trades?

 

I don't think Peavy is close to as good as Sabathia right now. I'd be worried about how Peavy would do without playing half his games in Petco. Plus he was very Kazmiresque this season with his high pitch counts causing him to leave the game early all the time. Meanwhile Sabathia is an innings eating mahcine.

 

I agree with you that I'd probably rather have Peavy at the price each owuld cost, but I don't think there's any way you could say Peavy is as good as Sabathia right now.

 

Who is to say Sabathia will still be as good? Sabathia pitches 9 innings, yeah. But at what cost? High pitch counts each time out? Future arm issues? Who knows. Maybe he is a freak of nature. But the fact remains that Peavy is still an ace on almost any staff, and he will cost $8 mil (or $9, don't remember) this year, while Sabathia will cost someone $20 million. I'll still take Peavy. That gap between ability and payroll savings is too much to ignore, IMO

Peavy's primary cost is in players traded, and you're leaving that part out of your equation completely.

[Blue W]

If Peavy can be a done deal soon (as in, the next 2-3 weeks) then I say take the bird in the hand. I wouldn't want to get into a prolonged bidding war over Sabathia onlyto lose out to the Yankees in January once all the other good FA pitchers are signed.

 

Hermidia (love the upside of this LH-er plus he'd come cheaply)

Furcal (Switch hitting speed at the top of the lineup)

Peavy (Solidifies Cubs as best rotation in the NL)

 

That's a nice off season IMHO.

[BigbadB]

Cubs Rumors: Peavy, Sabathia, Hill, Roberts

By Tim Dierkes [November 5 at 9:36am CST]

Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times has fresh Cubs rumors this morning.

 

De Luca's sources describe the Cubs' interest in Jake Peavy as "limited." Instead, the Cubs have "deep interest" in C.C. Sabathia. De Luca also wonders if the Cubs will entertain A.J. Burnett. The Cubs' payroll room will depend on free agents Ryan Dempster and Kerry Wood, plus their ability to move Jason Marquis.

Rich Hill's lost 2008 season killed his trade value. He'll be out of options next spring.

De Luca's sources say the Cubs continue to pursue Brian Roberts and Raul Ibanez. Ibanez would play right field for the Cubs, even though he allowed 18 more bases than the average left fielder this year.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

 

Deep interest in C.C.? First I have seen this. They would have to trade Marquis and have a HUGE increase in payroll. Limited interst in Peavy. More Roberts. Sounds like a fun offseason.

 

I'd rather have Peavy. We don't need another backloaded contract killing this club in the future, which a deal to Sabathia likely would be. Peavy would be cheaper, slightly younger, and arguably just as good as Sabathia would be. Plus I thought Piniella said we don't have the luxury of going balls to the wall crazy with free agents because of the ownership change in limbo and we have to fix ourselves through trades?

 

I don't think Peavy is close to as good as Sabathia right now. I'd be worried about how Peavy would do without playing half his games in Petco. Plus he was very Kazmiresque this season with his high pitch counts causing him to leave the game early all the time. Meanwhile Sabathia is an innings eating mahcine.

 

I agree with you that I'd probably rather have Peavy at the price each owuld cost, but I don't think there's any way you could say Peavy is as good as Sabathia right now.

 

Who is to say Sabathia will still be as good? Sabathia pitches 9 innings, yeah. But at what cost? High pitch counts each time out? Future arm issues? Who knows. Maybe he is a freak of nature. But the fact remains that Peavy is still an ace on almost any staff, and he will cost $8 mil (or $9, don't remember) this year, while Sabathia will cost someone $20 million. I'll still take Peavy. That gap between ability and payroll savings is too much to ignore, IMO

Peavy's primary cost is in players traded, and you're leaving that part out of your equation completely.

 

Agreed. Not to mention the fact that teams like NYY and LAD along with nearly every other team in MLB will be interested in floating offers at Sabathia. How confident are you that the Cubs can outbid the Yankees for Sabathia? The current market for Peavy is 3 teams, and all you have to do to win that bid is offer the most talent.

 

There is no one in the Cubs minor league system that I could honestly say I value more than Jake Peavy. I'm not sure if there is any combination of 3 or 4 prospects that I would say I value more than Peavy.

 

The Cubs should always be looking for ways to win each year, which includes not stripping the entire farm system for mediocre talent. Peavy is not mediocre talent. He's the type of player you should be willing to part with prospects to improve your team.

 

If we had guys like Jay Bruce or Cameron Maybin in our system, it might be hard to consider pulling the trigger on a deal. But, the truth of the matter is that none of our prospects (including Vitters) is so valuable that you should nix a deal for a guy of Peavy's talent.

 

As bad as the farm system is right now, it's possible that Towers would view any sort of trade as not enough to swing a deal. If that's the case, oh well. But, Hendry should be exploring every opportunity (excluding Soto) to make a deal happen.

[MSG T]

Cubs Rumors: Peavy, Sabathia, Hill, Roberts

By Tim Dierkes [November 5 at 9:36am CST]

Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times has fresh Cubs rumors this morning.

 

De Luca's sources describe the Cubs' interest in Jake Peavy as "limited." Instead, the Cubs have "deep interest" in C.C. Sabathia. De Luca also wonders if the Cubs will entertain A.J. Burnett. The Cubs' payroll room will depend on free agents Ryan Dempster and Kerry Wood, plus their ability to move Jason Marquis.

Rich Hill's lost 2008 season killed his trade value. He'll be out of options next spring.

De Luca's sources say the Cubs continue to pursue Brian Roberts and Raul Ibanez. Ibanez would play right field for the Cubs, even though he allowed 18 more bases than the average left fielder this year.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

 

Deep interest in C.C.? First I have seen this. They would have to trade Marquis and have a HUGE increase in payroll. Limited interst in Peavy. More Roberts. Sounds like a fun offseason.

 

I'd rather have Peavy. We don't need another backloaded contract killing this club in the future, which a deal to Sabathia likely would be. Peavy would be cheaper, slightly younger, and arguably just as good as Sabathia would be. Plus I thought Piniella said we don't have the luxury of going balls to the wall crazy with free agents because of the ownership change in limbo and we have to fix ourselves through trades?

 

I don't think Peavy is close to as good as Sabathia right now. I'd be worried about how Peavy would do without playing half his games in Petco. Plus he was very Kazmiresque this season with his high pitch counts causing him to leave the game early all the time. Meanwhile Sabathia is an innings eating mahcine.

 

I agree with you that I'd probably rather have Peavy at the price each owuld cost, but I don't think there's any way you could say Peavy is as good as Sabathia right now.

 

Who is to say Sabathia will still be as good? Sabathia pitches 9 innings, yeah. But at what cost? High pitch counts each time out? Future arm issues? Who knows. Maybe he is a freak of nature. But the fact remains that Peavy is still an ace on almost any staff, and he will cost $8 mil (or $9, don't remember) this year, while Sabathia will cost someone $20 million. I'll still take Peavy. That gap between ability and payroll savings is too much to ignore, IMO

Peavy's primary cost is in players traded, and you're leaving that part out of your equation completely.

 

Assuming getting CC is a realistic possibility, hopefully trading Marquis is part of that to clear some money, I'd prefer that to Peavy. They can then use some of those players they would have used on Peavy to go get someone to fill RF through trade, ex. Hermida.

 

To be honest, I don't know what the comparison in cost( both money and players) is with a CC/Hermida vs a Peavy/Ibanez. Those are just examples using names I've seen thrown around on here so don't blast me. Basically what I'd like to see compared is a big FA signing/smaller trade as opposed to a smaller FA signing/big trade. If those two possibilities come out in similar costs in terms of money and talent, I'd rather they get the bigger FA. They can then use any other tradeable assets later to fill any more minor holes.

 

If a Peavy/Ibanez type combo is markedly cheaper, and they can't increase the payroll that much, I'd prefer that deal. But in a perfect world, CC would be a Cub.

 

Hell, why not this?

 

#1 CC

#2 Peavy

#3 Harden

#4 Z

#5 Lilly

;)

[MSG T]

BTW, I'm joking about the last part. I know they can't get both.

[Cubswin11]

If Peavy can be a done deal soon (as in, the next 2-3 weeks) then I say take the bird in the hand. I wouldn't want to get into a prolonged bidding war over Sabathia onlyto lose out to the Yankees in January once all the other good FA pitchers are signed.

 

Hermidia (love the upside of this LH-er plus he'd come cheaply)

Furcal (Switch hitting speed at the top of the lineup)

Peavy (Solidifies Cubs as best rotation in the NL)

 

That's a nice off season IMHO.

 

If we trade for Peavy I doubt we have enough left to trade for Hermida, I would guess we would sign Raul Ibanez. I like the idea of Furcal, another possibility is Orlando Hudson. We also need to find a relief pitcher or two somewhere.

[17 Seconds]

Cubs Rumors: Peavy, Sabathia, Hill, Roberts

By Tim Dierkes [November 5 at 9:36am CST]

Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times has fresh Cubs rumors this morning.

 

De Luca's sources describe the Cubs' interest in Jake Peavy as "limited." Instead, the Cubs have "deep interest" in C.C. Sabathia. De Luca also wonders if the Cubs will entertain A.J. Burnett. The Cubs' payroll room will depend on free agents Ryan Dempster and Kerry Wood, plus their ability to move Jason Marquis.

Rich Hill's lost 2008 season killed his trade value. He'll be out of options next spring.

De Luca's sources say the Cubs continue to pursue Brian Roberts and Raul Ibanez. Ibanez would play right field for the Cubs, even though he allowed 18 more bases than the average left fielder this year.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

 

Deep interest in C.C.? First I have seen this. They would have to trade Marquis and have a HUGE increase in payroll. Limited interst in Peavy. More Roberts. Sounds like a fun offseason.

 

I'd rather have Peavy. We don't need another backloaded contract killing this club in the future, which a deal to Sabathia likely would be. Peavy would be cheaper, slightly younger, and arguably just as good as Sabathia would be. Plus I thought Piniella said we don't have the luxury of going balls to the wall crazy with free agents because of the ownership change in limbo and we have to fix ourselves through trades?

 

I don't think Peavy is close to as good as Sabathia right now. I'd be worried about how Peavy would do without playing half his games in Petco. Plus he was very Kazmiresque this season with his high pitch counts causing him to leave the game early all the time. Meanwhile Sabathia is an innings eating mahcine.

 

I agree with you that I'd probably rather have Peavy at the price each owuld cost, but I don't think there's any way you could say Peavy is as good as Sabathia right now.

 

Who is to say Sabathia will still be as good? Sabathia pitches 9 innings, yeah. But at what cost? High pitch counts each time out? Future arm issues? Who knows. Maybe he is a freak of nature. But the fact remains that Peavy is still an ace on almost any staff, and he will cost $8 mil (or $9, don't remember) this year, while Sabathia will cost someone $20 million. I'll still take Peavy. That gap between ability and payroll savings is too much to ignore, IMO

 

I'm agreeing with you, and I would also rather have Peavy for all the reasons you mentioned. I'm just saying that right now Sabathia is better.

[17 Seconds]

If Peavy can be a done deal soon (as in, the next 2-3 weeks) then I say take the bird in the hand. I wouldn't want to get into a prolonged bidding war over Sabathia onlyto lose out to the Yankees in January once all the other good FA pitchers are signed.

 

Hermidia (love the upside of this LH-er plus he'd come cheaply)

Furcal (Switch hitting speed at the top of the lineup)

Peavy (Solidifies Cubs as best rotation in the NL)

 

That's a nice off season IMHO.

 

I'd be completely shocked if any of those 3 guys ended up with the Cubs, or any players of that caliber at all.

[shnsajax]

Cubs Rumors: Peavy, Sabathia, Hill, Roberts

By Tim Dierkes [November 5 at 9:36am CST]

Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times has fresh Cubs rumors this morning.

 

De Luca's sources describe the Cubs' interest in Jake Peavy as "limited." Instead, the Cubs have "deep interest" in C.C. Sabathia. De Luca also wonders if the Cubs will entertain A.J. Burnett. The Cubs' payroll room will depend on free agents Ryan Dempster and Kerry Wood, plus their ability to move Jason Marquis.

Rich Hill's lost 2008 season killed his trade value. He'll be out of options next spring.

De Luca's sources say the Cubs continue to pursue Brian Roberts and Raul Ibanez. Ibanez would play right field for the Cubs, even though he allowed 18 more bases than the average left fielder this year.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

 

Deep interest in C.C.? First I have seen this. They would have to trade Marquis and have a HUGE increase in payroll. Limited interst in Peavy. More Roberts. Sounds like a fun offseason.

 

I'd rather have Peavy. We don't need another backloaded contract killing this club in the future, which a deal to Sabathia likely would be. Peavy would be cheaper, slightly younger, and arguably just as good as Sabathia would be. Plus I thought Piniella said we don't have the luxury of going balls to the wall crazy with free agents because of the ownership change in limbo and we have to fix ourselves through trades?

 

I don't think Peavy is close to as good as Sabathia right now. I'd be worried about how Peavy would do without playing half his games in Petco. Plus he was very Kazmiresque this season with his high pitch counts causing him to leave the game early all the time. Meanwhile Sabathia is an innings eating mahcine.

 

I agree with you that I'd probably rather have Peavy at the price each owuld cost, but I don't think there's any way you could say Peavy is as good as Sabathia right now.

 

Who is to say Sabathia will still be as good? Sabathia pitches 9 innings, yeah. But at what cost? High pitch counts each time out? Future arm issues? Who knows. Maybe he is a freak of nature. But the fact remains that Peavy is still an ace on almost any staff, and he will cost $8 mil (or $9, don't remember) this year, while Sabathia will cost someone $20 million. I'll still take Peavy. That gap between ability and payroll savings is too much to ignore, IMO

Peavy's primary cost is in players traded, and you're leaving that part out of your equation completely.

 

Peavy's contract is backloaded as well.

 

Peavy will make $6.5 million in 2008 and $11 million in 2009.

 

The new money kicks in in 2010, when he'll make $15 million. He'll earn $16 million in 2011 and $17 million in 2012. The club holds a $22 million option for 2013, or a $4 million buyout.

[JWCUB]

In the latest update on ESPN 1000 Levine reported the Cubs were "seriously interested" in Peavy. Nothing new, just counterdicts what De Luca wrote.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Peavy's contract is backloaded as well.

 

Peavy will make $6.5 million in 2008 and $11 million in 2009.

 

The new money kicks in in 2010, when he'll make $15 million. He'll earn $16 million in 2011 and $17 million in 2012. The club holds a $22 million option for 2013, or a $4 million buyout.

 

Backloaded, but reasonable. It's not like Soriano's deal or what CC is going to get.

[Clem Fandango]

 

Peavy's contract is backloaded as well.

 

Peavy will make $6.5 million in 2008 and $11 million in 2009.

 

The new money kicks in in 2010, when he'll make $15 million. He'll earn $16 million in 2011 and $17 million in 2012. The club holds a $22 million option for 2013, or a $4 million buyout.

 

Backloaded, but reasonable. It's not like Soriano's deal or what CC is going to get.

 

It's actually not backloaded, that was a contract extension. His original contract ends next year and the extension kicks in in 2010, and even then, that contract is still favorable for his skillset compared to a lot of other contracts out there.

 

And when it comes to the players we give up... of the names being kicked around in a trade for him, who exactly are we giving up that is going to be a detrimental loss to our current team and our future team? Pie? Hill? Marshall? Cedeno? Ceda? Theriot? Vitters?

 

Really? These are the mammoth players that will hurt us if we trade for Peavy? The Cubs minus a mix-match of those players plus Jake Peavy at $9 million next year and $15 million in 2010 is still greater than C.C. Sabathia at $20 million a year for the next 4-5 years in my opinion. While Peavy will be getting paid more in 2010 and beyond, it will still be less than Soriano and Zambrano, and similar/close to Aramis's paycheck (although Aramis has another opt out clause in 2010 and he may opt out for more money again depending on his numbers).

 

There's $50 million committed to three players next yea (Soriano, Z, A-Ram). Throw in Sabathia and we got $70 million to four players. Is that REALLY what this team needs right now? Remember when we signed Soriano and people were up in arms about backloading contracts and hurting the team financially for the future? That future starts next year, and adding Sabathia to the mix will only cause more damage to that.

 

Granted this is all contingent on who the next owner will be, but it's still a lot of money to commit to just 4 players

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Peavy's contract is backloaded as well.

 

Peavy will make $6.5 million in 2008 and $11 million in 2009.

 

The new money kicks in in 2010, when he'll make $15 million. He'll earn $16 million in 2011 and $17 million in 2012. The club holds a $22 million option for 2013, or a $4 million buyout.

 

Backloaded, but reasonable. It's not like Soriano's deal or what CC is going to get.

 

It's actually not backloaded, that was a contract extension. His original contract ends next year and the extension kicks in in 2010, and even then, that contract is still favorable for his skillset compared to a lot of other contracts out there.

 

Regardless, his current contract is backloaded, he makes relatively little now but will make significantly more down the road. The important point is that it's still reasonable for the performance you can expect.

[Clem Fandango]

 

Peavy's contract is backloaded as well.

 

Peavy will make $6.5 million in 2008 and $11 million in 2009.

 

The new money kicks in in 2010, when he'll make $15 million. He'll earn $16 million in 2011 and $17 million in 2012. The club holds a $22 million option for 2013, or a $4 million buyout.

 

Backloaded, but reasonable. It's not like Soriano's deal or what CC is going to get.

 

It's actually not backloaded, that was a contract extension. His original contract ends next year and the extension kicks in in 2010, and even then, that contract is still favorable for his skillset compared to a lot of other contracts out there.

 

Regardless, his current contract is backloaded, he makes relatively little now but will make significantly more down the road. The important point is that it's still reasonable for the performance you can expect.

 

Truth. Which is another reason to me why he should be the proper target

[SouthSideRyan]

Pie? Hill? Marshall? Cedeno? Ceda? Theriot? Vitters?

 

Really? These are the mammoth players that will hurt us if we trade for Peavy?

 

I'm really sick of seeing this logic(and the usual accompiniment of IT'S BEEN 100 YEARS GO FOR IT ALL NOW) as if there is no limit to the amount of young players you should give up to try for it all in one season. Let's say we give up all of our best tradeable assets for Peavy. Then Soto goes down and we need a stopgap to catch the rest of the way. What are we gonna give up for that rental? James Adduci? Every player in a system has some sort of value attached to them. Every time one is given up there is an opportunity cost at stake as to what else that player could acquire now, what they could acquire later, what they could contribute now, and what they could contribute later. Throwing the kitchen sink at a team because we've got a chance at it all is a good way to guarantee that you have only a few chances to win it all.

[Clem Fandango]

Pie? Hill? Marshall? Cedeno? Ceda? Theriot? Vitters?

 

Really? These are the mammoth players that will hurt us if we trade for Peavy?

 

I'm really sick of seeing this logic(and the usual accompiniment of IT'S BEEN 100 YEARS GO FOR IT ALL NOW) as if there is no limit to the amount of young players you should give up to try for it all in one season. Let's say we give up all of our best tradeable assets for Peavy. Then Soto goes down and we need a stopgap to catch the rest of the way. What are we gonna give up for that rental? James Adduci? Every player in a system has some sort of value attached to them. Every time one is given up there is an opportunity cost at stake as to what else that player could acquire now, what they could acquire later, what they could contribute now, and what they could contribute later. Throwing the kitchen sink at a team because we've got a chance at it all is a good way to guarantee that you have only a few chances to win it all.

 

- Pie is obviously no longer apart of this team's future plans.

- Hill is obviously no longer the pitcher he once was and has already been rumored to be used in this potential deal

- Marshall would be replaced with Peavy, advantage Cubs

- Cedeno is battling it out with Theriot, and in all likelihood will probably be a bench player next year if Theriot is around

- Ceda would be a useful piece for the Cubs in the future, but would his loss outweigh the gain of Peavy?

- If Theriot goes, Cedeno probably stays and hopefully he doesn't crap it up like the last time he was given the starting job

- Vitters, I would like to keep, but when will he be ready? 3 years from now? 4 years? It's still very early to determine whether or not he'll be a bust or a great signing.

 

It's only a "GO FOR IT ALL NOW" situation if we'd be giving all this up for one year of Peavy, but we'd be giving it all up for 4 years of Peavy (5 if we were to decide to pick up his $22 million 2014 option, which we probably wouldn't).

 

And despite all of this, even when discussing these trading pieces, does anyone really think a mix-match of these players would even get the job done? I'd love to have Peavy, but even I don't think these players will get him on the Cubs. When we start hearing rumors of us giving up valuable players (as in players who will be on our MLB team next year and will be above average contributers), then it gets serious, but if these are the players we're rumored to be kicking around should this really be much of a debate (even though they probably couldn't get us Peavy)?

[YearofDaCubs]

If Peavy can be a done deal soon (as in, the next 2-3 weeks) then I say take the bird in the hand. I wouldn't want to get into a prolonged bidding war over Sabathia onlyto lose out to the Yankees in January once all the other good FA pitchers are signed.

 

Hermidia (love the upside of this LH-er plus he'd come cheaply)

Furcal (Switch hitting speed at the top of the lineup)

Peavy (Solidifies Cubs as best rotation in the NL)

 

That's a nice off season IMHO.

If we can get those 3 guys I would go nuts.

[MSG T]

Pie? Hill? Marshall? Cedeno? Ceda? Theriot? Vitters?

 

Really? These are the mammoth players that will hurt us if we trade for Peavy?

 

I'm really sick of seeing this logic(and the usual accompiniment of IT'S BEEN 100 YEARS GO FOR IT ALL NOW) as if there is no limit to the amount of young players you should give up to try for it all in one season. Let's say we give up all of our best tradeable assets for Peavy. Then Soto goes down and we need a stopgap to catch the rest of the way. What are we gonna give up for that rental? James Adduci? Every player in a system has some sort of value attached to them. Every time one is given up there is an opportunity cost at stake as to what else that player could acquire now, what they could acquire later, what they could contribute now, and what they could contribute later. Throwing the kitchen sink at a team because we've got a chance at it all is a good way to guarantee that you have only a few chances to win it all.

 

Which is exactly why I brought up the CC/trade for RF vs Peavy/FA RF thought. If the combined monetary cost for both possibilities is the same, go for the one that leaves you the most talent in your system.

 

How much payroll would either combination cost? How much would the trades cost in terms of talent?

 

I don't think there is enough difference in talent between Peavy and CC to warrant that kind of difference in money, assuming there's only a modest payroll increase. But, how much would have to be given up to aquire Peavy? If a deal can be made without affecting their ability to make other trades later, that's another bonus. Also, would that trade force them to go FA to fill RF? Or would they have enough left to trade for a corner OF?

 

I'll be honest, I don't know as much about the particulars as others on here, which is why I'm asking. Given the current payroll situation, I'd probably prefer Peavy and Hermida, and call it an offseason. But I doubt they have enough to get both and have anything left for a contingency like you layed out( Soto getting hurt). Which forces them to go the FA route for RF. Ibanez wouldn't be horrid, if he came relatively cheaply and short term. But the guys I'd prefer are going to cost way more money, which is why I'd prefer Hermida if possible.

[Abe Frohman]

Peavy's contract scares the hell out of me. I don't care how good of a pitcher he is, one blown out elbow and we are eating a hell of a salary for a LONG time.

[rawaction]

Peavy's contract scares the hell out of me. I don't care how good of a pitcher he is, one blown out elbow and we are eating a hell of a salary for a LONG time.

 

So, is pretty much every pitcher that has a multi-year contract.

[Clem Fandango]

Peavy's contract scares the hell out of me. I don't care how good of a pitcher he is, one blown out elbow and we are eating a hell of a salary for a LONG time.

 

Can't that be said of any pitcher with a large contract, though? That same statement can be applied to Zambrano, Santana, Sabathia (when he signs). I would say Zito but it'd almost be worth it to pay him to not pitch

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Peavy's contract scares the hell out of me. I don't care how good of a pitcher he is, one blown out elbow and we are eating a hell of a salary for a LONG time.

 

So, is pretty much every pitcher that has a multi-year contract.

 

While that's true, injury worries aren't exactly overwrought worrying when it comes to Peavy, and I've seen more than one opinion that his max effort delivery and reliance on his slider could cause him some serious problems.

[BigbadB]

Pie? Hill? Marshall? Cedeno? Ceda? Theriot? Vitters?

 

Really? These are the mammoth players that will hurt us if we trade for Peavy?

 

I'm really sick of seeing this logic(and the usual accompiniment of IT'S BEEN 100 YEARS GO FOR IT ALL NOW) as if there is no limit to the amount of young players you should give up to try for it all in one season. Let's say we give up all of our best tradeable assets for Peavy. Then Soto goes down and we need a stopgap to catch the rest of the way. What are we gonna give up for that rental? James Adduci? Every player in a system has some sort of value attached to them. Every time one is given up there is an opportunity cost at stake as to what else that player could acquire now, what they could acquire later, what they could contribute now, and what they could contribute later. Throwing the kitchen sink at a team because we've got a chance at it all is a good way to guarantee that you have only a few chances to win it all.

 

If Peavy was coming over with 1 year remaining on his contract, I'd probably agree with you. But, you'd have him for at least 4 years. I wouldn't call that selling out to win it all this year.

 

As has been pointed out, if Dempster were to sign a deal elsewhere, the Cubs would be receiving 2 picks in next year's draft. Those two players could end up being better than any of the players we are talking about dealing for Peavy.

 

This is hardly an absurd discussion. This also isn't the Cubs of yesteryear. With the payroll they are currently sporting, they could very easily stay competitive for the next umpteen years just by having advantages over small market teams in signing free agents.

 

I wouldn't trade the farm for Jeremy Hermida. But I would trade the farm for someone as significant as Jake Peavy.

[Abe Frohman]

Peavy's contract scares the hell out of me. I don't care how good of a pitcher he is, one blown out elbow and we are eating a hell of a salary for a LONG time.

 

Can't that be said of any pitcher with a large contract, though? That same statement can be applied to Zambrano, Santana, Sabathia (when he signs). I would say Zito but it'd almost be worth it to pay him to not pitch

 

Pretty much, yeah. I wish it were the norm for teams to offer decent base contracts for pitchers LOADED with incentives that could make them rich dependant on performance & durability.

[Mephistopheles]

I'd just like to go on record as saying there's no pitcher in baseball I'd take over Jake Peavy. Maybe Roy Halladay. No to Tim Lincecum, no to Rich Harden, no to CC Sabathia, no to Roy Oswalt, no to Josh Beckett, no to Johan Santana, no to Cole Hamels, no to Carlos Zambrano.

 

Well yes to Kerry Wood