Jake Peavy: Available.

[rawaction]

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

 

I'd probably take Halladay and Lincecum over Peavy, but that's it on that list and they all would be close....as would Santana. But if you take into consideration age, contract, and ability. I'd probably only take Lincecum.

[erik316wttn]

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.

 

I've liked Ibanez for a long time and would love to have him in the middle of the lineup.

[shnsajax]

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

 

I'd probably take Halladay and Lincecum over Peavy, but that's it on that list and they all would be close....as would Santana. But if you take into consideration age, contract, and ability. I'd probably only take Lincecum.

 

I would take Halladay over Peavy too. Then again, I think he is the most unappreciated pitcher in baseball.

[BigbadB]

I'd just like to go on record as saying there's no pitcher in baseball I'd take over Jake Peavy.

 

Brandon Webb's ground ball rate and low pitch counts make me drool. I think I'd probably go with Halladay next. But, neither of those guys are available and Peavy is, and he's #3 on my list.

 

How mad would an opposing team (Milwaukee, St. Louis, Houston) be if they came into Chicago for a 3 game set and had to face Peavy, Harden and Zambrano?

[Mephistopheles]

Well happier than they would be if they had to play us in a four game series with Lilly, Zambrano, Harden and Peavy lined up.

[17 Seconds]

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.

 

You're not understanding. Just because those guys mught not fit into the team's plans doesn't mean they don't have value. You only have so many pieces top use for trades and you want to blow them all.

[Rob]

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.

 

You're not understanding. Just because those guys mught not fit into the team's plans doesn't mean they don't have value. You only have so many pieces top use for trades and you want to blow them all.

 

The idea is that trading some players now allows us to let Dempster and Wood walk. If they walk, we get 4 top picks and our farm system might not be any worse for the wear...

[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.

 

- 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.

 

You're not understanding. Just because those guys mught not fit into the team's plans doesn't mean they don't have value. You only have so many pieces top use for trades and you want to blow them all.

 

The idea is that trading some players now allows us to let Dempster and Wood walk. If they walk, we get 4 top picks and our farm system might not be any worse for the wear...

 

Seems disingenuous to include Wood's 2 comp picks because we get Peavy.

[17 Seconds]

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.

 

You're not understanding. Just because those guys mught not fit into the team's plans doesn't mean they don't have value. You only have so many pieces top use for trades and you want to blow them all.

 

The idea is that trading some players now allows us to let Dempster and Wood walk. If they walk, we get 4 top picks and our farm system might not be any worse for the wear...

 

Ik now, I'm just saying that it's not okay to overpay with guys just because they don't fit into the team's plans.

[Post Count Padder]

The Cubs may have overtaken the Braves as the favorites to land Jake Peavy, according to FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal.

 

Felix Pie would seem to be pretty close to a lock to be included in a Peavy deal with the Cubs. Other possibilities include Rich Hill, Sean Marshall, Ronny Cedeno, Mike Fontenot and Donald Veal. Rosenthal believes the Cubs could possibly acquire Peavy and re-sign Ryan Dempster, but that it would cost them a chance of retaining Kerry Wood.

Source: FOXSports.com

[cubsfan26]

If we do somehow get Jake Peavy(still think it's a long shot), there's no reason to resign Dempster. The rotation would be just fine with Peavy, Zambrano, Harden, Lilly and Marquis/Marshall(if he's not traded). It makes alot more sense to use the money that would have went to Dempster on other parts to improve the team.

[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.

 

You're not understanding. Just because those guys mught not fit into the team's plans doesn't mean they don't have value. You only have so many pieces top use for trades and you want to blow them all.

 

The idea is that trading some players now allows us to let Dempster and Wood walk. If they walk, we get 4 top picks and our farm system might not be any worse for the wear...

 

Ik now, I'm just saying that it's not okay to overpay with guys just because they don't fit into the team's plans.

 

I never suggested we give up ALL of those guys for Peavy, I was just using their names as the ones who were being tossed around as the pieces used to make a trade, and only two of them really were "future pieces" (Ceda, Vitters) while the others have MLB service time and have become expendable based on other options from within (Theriot goes, Cedeno takes over, etc).

[aeathin2]

I know that a lot of people will think I'm stupid, but If the Cubs could acquire Peavy by trading Pie, Cedeno, Marshall, Hill, Fontenot, and Veal, I would ask where to sign to get the trade done.

 

For the Cubs to potentially have 3 of the top 10 pitchers in baseball, you don't pass that up.

[RammyFanny]

This would almost be too good to be true. Come on Jim!

 

Going "cheap" in RF could still be Hermida. Imagine that team.

[aeathin2]

This would almost be too good to be true. Come on Jim!

 

Going "cheap" in RF could still be Hermida. Imagine that team.

 

I would prefer Hermida to Abreu in right field. Even though he only hit .249 last year, he was knicked up a bit. I think the kid has big time potential and would really take off in Wrigley. I mean he is younger, cheaper, bats lefty, plays a solid right field. I think he is the perfect fit. And if you acquire Olsen to create a deal of Olsen, Marshall, Pie and Cedeno for Peavy, that would easily get it done.

[AlwaysaCub]

The Cubs may have overtaken the Braves as the favorites to land Jake Peavy, according to FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal.

 

Felix Pie would seem to be pretty close to a lock to be included in a Peavy deal with the Cubs. Other possibilities include Rich Hill, Sean Marshall, Ronny Cedeno, Mike Fontenot and Donald Veal. Rosenthal believes the Cubs could possibly acquire Peavy and re-sign Ryan Dempster, but that it would cost them a chance of retaining Kerry Wood.

Source: FOXSports.com

 

In this scenario we'd move our set-up guy to closer. We'd then have five quality guys, including an injury risk and a workhorse. We'd have traded for a Marlins regular. We'd be playing a center fielder carrying very high expectations.

 

I'm not saying its a bad thing, but this is me just pointing out how that sounds similar to 2003 offseason.

[aeathin2]

The Cubs may have overtaken the Braves as the favorites to land Jake Peavy, according to FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal.

 

Felix Pie would seem to be pretty close to a lock to be included in a Peavy deal with the Cubs. Other possibilities include Rich Hill, Sean Marshall, Ronny Cedeno, Mike Fontenot and Donald Veal. Rosenthal believes the Cubs could possibly acquire Peavy and re-sign Ryan Dempster, but that it would cost them a chance of retaining Kerry Wood.

Source: FOXSports.com

 

In this scenario we'd move our set-up guy to closer. We'd then have five quality guys, including an injury risk and a workhorse. We'd have traded for a Marlins regular. We'd be playing a center fielder carrying very high expectations.

 

I'm not saying its a bad thing, but this is me just pointing out how that sounds similar to 2003 offseason.

 

and Dusty Baker was the Cubs manager.

[Mephistopheles]

I don't know about you guys, but I would go to war with a rotation of Jake Peavy, Carlos Zambrano, Rich Harden, Ted Lilly and Ryan Dempster. In fact, I can't think of more than two or three teams that would have a #2 significantly better than our #5.

[David]

That rotation beats the 2003/2004 rotations. Even on paper (ergo injuries not in play).

 

Absolutely disgusting.

[ConstableRabbit]

I don't know about you guys, but I would go to war with a rotation of Jake Peavy, Carlos Zambrano, Rich Harden, Ted Lilly and Ryan Dempster. In fact, I can't think of more than two or three teams that would have a #2 significantly better than our #5.

/drool

[cubsfan26]

It sounds like Hendry is offering some type of package of Pie, Ceda, Marshall and Cedeno. To me that doesn't sound like it would be nearly enough. But with Peavy no-trade limiting the Padres in trade talks, this could end up being a Mets/Twins type situation with Santana last year. A package of Pie, Ceda, Marshall and Cedeno doesn't seem that much different then what the Mets gave up for Santana. But who knows if the Padres are dead set on trading Peavy like the Twins were last offseason. If the Padres don't get what they want they might just hold on to him for a little while.

[17 Seconds]

The Cubs may have overtaken the Braves as the favorites to land Jake Peavy, according to FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal.

 

Felix Pie would seem to be pretty close to a lock to be included in a Peavy deal with the Cubs. Other possibilities include Rich Hill, Sean Marshall, Ronny Cedeno, Mike Fontenot and Donald Veal. Rosenthal believes the Cubs could possibly acquire Peavy and re-sign Ryan Dempster, but that it would cost them a chance of retaining Kerry Wood.

Source: FOXSports.com

 

Oh god...is this actually possible? I'm finally starting to believe that there is actually a realistic chance of this happening.

 

I don't like how they (according to Rosenthal, anyways) would rather keep Dempster and Let Wood walk. If we got Peavy I'd say Wood would be 43324x more necessary than Dempster. I'm worried about the bullpen as it is.

[RedFlash]

Hyperthetically speaking, if the Cubs do acquire Peavy, what makes people think the Cubs will re-sign Ryan Dempster? Quite frankly, I'm not that high on having 1/3 or so of the payroll tied up with the rotation. I understand Marquis would be dealt to make room, but personally if the Cubs got Peavy I much rather let Dempster walk and bring back Wood, instead of bring back Dempster and let Wood walk.

 

What I am saying is....I doubt this is a case of get Peavy and keep Dempster. I think this is a case of either Peavy OR keeping Dempster. And I believe Dempster has made that decision for the Cubs.

[imb]

Hyperthetically

[RammyFanny]

Hyperthetically speaking, if the Cubs do acquire Peavy, what makes people think the Cubs will re-sign Ryan Dempster? .

The sources who've said that resigning Demp and trading for Peavy would be our preference, with the new addition of us being willing to go 4 years.