Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[17 Seconds]

Anyways, we're basing this off oss the guy he talked to, and that guy said they'd trade Lee to free up payroll and then sign a cheaper guy. If you believe one you kind of have to believe the other.

 

Pretty much. I don't see Hoffpauir being good enough to merit playing every day, so the Cubs will have to look for someone in FA. However, there don't appear to be many decent guys out there who will be cheap. Eric Hinske, Sean Casey, and Richie Sexson don't exactly sound like good options.

 

I wonder what it would take to get Nick Johnson. He's a huge injury risk but he's been pretty money when he's on the field. Plus he hits from the left side.

[CP_414]

If Lee was used in a 3 team Peavy deal they could sign Ibanez for 1st and then try to get a Hermida/Roberts/Scott and work out 2b/RF. If Lee is in the trade, you would think we'll still have some of our minor league trade chips left. Dunn would be better than Ibanez, but money would be an issue if they want someone cheaper than Lee.

[Clem Fandango]

Quick question, didn't feel like starting a topic about it.

 

What's the different between a "No Trade Clause" and a "Full No Trade Clause"? They don't seem to be any different from one another but they are used separately for specific players. And while we're on the topic, whats the difference between a "Limited No Trade Clause" and "No Trade Protection"?

 

Just curious.

[BCVM22]

What's the different between a "No Trade Clause" and a "Full No Trade Clause"? They don't seem to be any different from one another but they are used separately for specific players. And while we're on the topic, whats the difference between a "Limited No Trade Clause" and "No Trade Protection"?

 

Generally, a limited no-trade clause grants the player the right to determine where he is traded if he is traded to varying degrees, i.e. he can't outright say "I won't permit you to trade me" but he does have a significant say in where he is traded. Players with this manner of protection usually specify a list of teams to whom they are/are not willing to be traded.

 

A full no-trade clause gives the player complete control over whether he is traded or not. The front office can engage in the discussions and machinations of trading the player all they like, but any potential deal cannot be consummated without the express approval of the player, accomplished by convincing the player to consent to waive his no-trade clause. Often, teams have to sweeten the pot for the player with the clause by guaranteeing a monetary option in the contract in exchange for the player waiving the clause and consenting to being traded.

[CubFanPhilly]

I think the main reason they'd trade Lee would be to dump payroll so they could afford Peavy. I don't see how they could afford to get Peavy and then sign Teixeira. That's why Churchill said the guy told him they'd look for a cheaper/lesser 1B.

 

Lee + Marquis + a couple million of the 10-15 million likely remaining in a budget = Peavy + Teixeira

 

I think it's more like $0-8 mil. left in the budget, and you'd see a trade of Lee, Marshall, Pie, Theriot, & Marquis (plus ~$4 mil. in cash).

 

Soriano

Fontenot /DeRosa

Ramirez

Soto

Ibanez/DeRosa

Fukudome/Johnson

Greene

Hoffpauir/Aurilia/DeRosa

 

Peavy, Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, Harden

Wuertz, Cotts, Guzman, Gaudin, Samardzija, Marmol, Gregg

DeRosa, Johnson, Aurilia, Cedeno, & Blanco

 

~$143 mil.

 

I'm skeptical of moving Marquis and Lee in the same deal. So it's probably more like Lee to a third team, Marshall, Pie & Hart/Veal/Hill to the Padres for Peavy.

[Backtobanks]

From Churchill-

 

I heard this morning that the Cubs are "desperately" looking for a third team that could supply San Diego with the young players it would require to land Peavy.

 

So far, according to one of the Cubs' assistants, they have spoken to Tampa, Texas, Minnesota, Oakland and the Angels.

 

Chicago is willing to trade any arm on their roster outside of Z, Harden, Dempster and Marmol, as well as any regular not named Soto. Upon hearing that, I immediately asked about Ramirez and Lee, and at least this particular exec said "we'd look at that."

 

Seems like there is still just a remote chance it happens, but if it does it might just be more than Peavy to Chicago. It might include Lee going out, too, and the Cubs going out and signing or trading for a slightly lesser first baseman.

 

If this is true, it is great news. Lilly would be a nice pitcher/with a decent contract and should attract any of those teams named. Lee should have some decent value also.

 

As loaded as the Rangers are, I wonder if we can work out anything with them. Though I have no clue as to what.

 

With Lee being a 10/5 player with a NTC, I don't see how Tampa, Texas, and Minnesota fit into the equation. Lee might waive his NTC to go to the West Coast. If Sabathia signed with the Angels, they certainly would have pitching to trade. Also, I worry about signing a "slightly lesser 1B than Lee". Contrary to what a lot of you seem to think, a step down from Lee might look pretty ugly (Hinske, Aurilia, etc.).

[RedFlash]

With Lee being a 10/5 player with a NTC, I don't see how Tampa, Texas, and Minnesota fit into the equation. Lee might waive his NTC to go to the West Coast. If Sabathia signed with the Angels, they certainly would have pitching to trade. Also, I worry about signing a "slightly lesser 1B than Lee". Contrary to what a lot of you seem to think, a step down from Lee might look pretty ugly (Hinske, Aurilia, etc.).

 

I think the Cubs would do a 1b platoon of DeRo/Hoffpauir over acquiring those numbskulls.

[erik316wttn]

From Churchill-

 

I heard this morning that the Cubs are "desperately" looking for a third team that could supply San Diego with the young players it would require to land Peavy.

 

So far, according to one of the Cubs' assistants, they have spoken to Tampa, Texas, Minnesota, Oakland and the Angels.

 

Chicago is willing to trade any arm on their roster outside of Z, Harden, Dempster and Marmol, as well as any regular not named Soto. Upon hearing that, I immediately asked about Ramirez and Lee, and at least this particular exec said "we'd look at that."

 

Seems like there is still just a remote chance it happens, but if it does it might just be more than Peavy to Chicago. It might include Lee going out, too, and the Cubs going out and signing or trading for a slightly lesser first baseman.

 

Would Lee and Marshall possibly get it done?

[Cubswin11]

The Angels make sense they got surplus pitching and OFer's

 

Cubs Get: Peavy, Reggie Willits

Angels Get: Vitters, Lee and Padres prospect

Padres: One of Santana/Saunders/Weaver, Marshall, Pie, Macier Izturis

[rawaction]

The Angels only make sense if they sign Sabathia first. If they have the prospects the Padres want for Peavy, why wouldn't they just get Peavy and re-sign Teixeira.

 

I'd imagine if the Cubs traded DLee, they would look at Ibanez for 1B and Bradley for RF, unless they were able to get a cheap guy like Hermida which would be unlikely with the few remaining prospects.

[JeffH]

The Angels only make sense if they sign Sabathia first. If they have the prospects the Padres want for Peavy, why wouldn't they just get Peavy and re-sign Teixeira.

 

That sounds great, unless Peavy won't go there.

[RammyFanny]

Gammons:

2. The Braves, Cubs and seemingly everyone else claims they're not in on Jake Peavy. What's going on?

The Padres absolutely believe Cubs GM Jim Hendry can make this a three-way trade to get the Padres the pitching they need in addition to third base prospect Josh Vitters. The Braves were not going to have to surrender any of their five-best prospects, but have hesitated over Single-A level pitching. Peavy is a Cy Young winner, in case anyone's forgotten.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3732933&name=gammons_peter

[rawaction]

The Angels only make sense if they sign Sabathia first. If they have the prospects the Padres want for Peavy, why wouldn't they just get Peavy and re-sign Teixeira.

 

That sounds great, unless Peavy won't go there.

 

That's true. Forgot about that aspect. I don't know what else the Angels would want in return though for giving up prospects for the Cubs to get Peavy.

 

Cubs get: Peavy, maybe Willets (leadoff option, CF)

 

Padres get: Marshall, Pie and ? maybe Adenhart and Napoli or a MIF (Rodriguez, Wood, Izturis) assuming Aybar and Kendrick are the MIFs to stay. Adenhart's a good prospect, but he can be expendable if they get CC along w/ Lackey, Saunders, Weaver, Santana.

 

Angels get: DLee and ? The Angels could use bullpen help w/ K-Rod leaving. Cubs aren't trading Marmol or Samardzija. Ceda is gone. Do they trade Gregg right after trading for him? What about Cotts? Angels could use a LHR. I guess Vitters would work as their future 3B, if Brandon Wood doesn't figure it out.

[LetsPlayTwo1679629188]

The Angels make sense they got surplus pitching and OFer's

 

Cubs Get: Peavy, Reggie Willits

Angels Get: Vitters, Lee and Padres prospect

Padres: One of Santana/Saunders/Weaver, Marshall, Pie, Macier Izturis

The Angels only make sense if they sign Sabathia first. If they have the prospects the Padres want for Peavy, why wouldn't they just get Peavy and re-sign Teixeira.

 

I'd imagine if the Cubs traded DLee, they would look at Ibanez for 1B and Bradley for RF, unless they were able to get a cheap guy like Hermida which would be unlikely with the few remaining prospects.

 

I don't think the Angels have enough that they are willing to part with to trade for Peavy. A 3-way with the Cubs gives the Padres a better chance of getting what they want for Peavy.

 

Maybe something like:

 

Cubs get: Peavy, Kendry Morales

Angels get: Lee

Padres get: Pie, Harden, Hill, Nick Adenhart, Dustin Moseley

 

This seems to meet the needs of all 3 teams. The Angels get their big bat at 1B without breaking the bank for Teixeira. The Padres have shown interest in Pie in the past and get 4 young SPs. This is a very strong 5-for-1 deal for Peavy for San Diego. Perhaps extending Harden can be a condition of the deal. Morales is a switch hitter, which helps address our lineup problems vs. RHP. This gets us Peavy and still leaves the Cubs with some decent trading chips in Vitters, Marshall, Cedeno, and Marquis to address RF/2B.

[Bote McBoteface]

The Padres are cutting payroll. They do not want to add Harden's 7 million. The deal doesnt really do anything if we include Harden anyways. Well, except for take away two very good prospects, plus our 1st baseman.

[CP_414]

If Lee is moved (which I doubt), I wonder how much Giambi would want. His D is awful, but he can hit. He is getting old, so it would have to be a 1 or 2 year deal.

 

.373 obp, .502 slg, 32 HR's last year.

OPS+ the last 4 years: 161,148, 108 (only 83 games), 128

[LetsPlayTwo1679629188]

The Padres are cutting payroll. They do not want to add Harden's 7 million. The deal doesnt really do anything if we include Harden anyways. Well, except for take away two very good prospects, plus our 1st baseman.

 

Peavy is signed thru 2012 at 14.5m, 15m, 16m, 17m, with a club option for 22m in 2013. Harden's 7m is nowhere near that expensive. All 5 players SD would get in this deal total less than $9m, a big savings from $14.5m for just one player. Harden does, however, give them reasonably fair talent return for Peavy. This is not a pure salary dump, the Padres need a decent return, or the Peavy trade would have already been made to either us or the Braves.

 

From our perspective, Harden is signed only thru 2009, whereas Peavy is locked up 4 or 5 more years. How can you value 1 year of Harden as being equal to 4-5 years of Peavy? We also are not giving up nearly all of our prospects as you claim. Oh wait, I see you have edited that. Glad to see that you recognize that we are not giving up a lot of prospects in this proposal. The issue is trying to trade for Peavy. San Diego has passed on our efforts to get him for Vitters and the usual suspects. We have to give up something substantial to get a guy like Peavy, don't you think?

 

If you want to just pass on the Peavy idea rather than consider trading players like Lee and/or Harden, OK, but I think we need to face the fact that we aren't going to get a Peavy if we are unwilling to trade a big chip or 2. If you think San Diego would do the deal with Marshall and/or Wells substituted for Harden, great, lets try it. I just doubt if that would get it done.

[nolanwood]

The Padres are cutting payroll. They do not want to add Harden's 7 million. The deal doesnt really do anything if we include Harden anyways. Well, except for take away two very good prospects, plus our 1st baseman.

 

Peavy is signed thru 2012 at 14.5m, 15m, 16m, 17m, with a club option for 22m in 2013. Harden's 7m is nowhere near that expensive. All 5 players SD would get in this deal total less than $9m, a big savings from $14.5m for just one player. Harden does, however, give them reasonably fair talent return for Peavy. This is not a pure salary dump, the Padres need a decent return, or the Peavy trade would have already been made to either us or the Braves.

 

From our perspective, Harden is signed only thru 2009, whereas Peavy is locked up 4 or 5 more years. How can you value 1 year of Harden as being equal to 4-5 years of Peavy? We also are not giving up nearly all of our prospects as you claim. Oh wait, I see you have edited that. Glad to see that you recognize that we are not giving up a lot of prospects in this proposal. The issue is trying to trade for Peavy. San Diego has passed on our efforts to get him for Vitters and the usual suspects. We have to give up something substantial to get a guy like Peavy, don't you think?

 

If you want to just pass on the Peavy idea rather than consider trading players like Lee and/or Harden, OK, but I think we need to face the fact that we aren't going to get a Peavy if we are unwilling to trade a big chip or 2. If you think San Diego would do the deal with Marshall and/or Wells substituted for Harden, great, lets try it. I just doubt if that would get it done.

 

Unloading Lee and Harden to get Peavy and Morales is absurd.

 

Let's put this into perspective - the Mets gave up Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey, and Deolis Guerra for Santana.

[LetsPlayTwo1679629188]

The Padres are cutting payroll. They do not want to add Harden's 7 million. The deal doesnt really do anything if we include Harden anyways. Well, except for take away two very good prospects, plus our 1st baseman.

 

Peavy is signed thru 2012 at 14.5m, 15m, 16m, 17m, with a club option for 22m in 2013. Harden's 7m is nowhere near that expensive. All 5 players SD would get in this deal total less than $9m, a big savings from $14.5m for just one player. Harden does, however, give them reasonably fair talent return for Peavy. This is not a pure salary dump, the Padres need a decent return, or the Peavy trade would have already been made to either us or the Braves.

 

From our perspective, Harden is signed only thru 2009, whereas Peavy is locked up 4 or 5 more years. How can you value 1 year of Harden as being equal to 4-5 years of Peavy? We also are not giving up nearly all of our prospects as you claim. Oh wait, I see you have edited that. Glad to see that you recognize that we are not giving up a lot of prospects in this proposal. The issue is trying to trade for Peavy. San Diego has passed on our efforts to get him for Vitters and the usual suspects. We have to give up something substantial to get a guy like Peavy, don't you think?

 

If you want to just pass on the Peavy idea rather than consider trading players like Lee and/or Harden, OK, but I think we need to face the fact that we aren't going to get a Peavy if we are unwilling to trade a big chip or 2. If you think San Diego would do the deal with Marshall and/or Wells substituted for Harden, great, lets try it. I just doubt if that would get it done.

 

Unloading Lee and Harden to get Peavy and Morales is absurd.

 

Let's put this into perspective - the Mets gave up Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey, and Deolis Guerra for Santana.

 

 

The Peavy situation is nothing like the Santana situation. Santana was signed thru only last year and the Twins were not going to resign him. Peavy is signed thru 2012, with team option for 2013. No comparison.

 

San Diego has turned us down on our offers and it is clear that we aren't getting Peavy without giving up something. If that means we forget Peavy and move on, fine, but if we do still want Peavy, we need to face the fact that its going to cost us.

[CP_414]

The Padres are cutting payroll. They do not want to add Harden's 7 million. The deal doesnt really do anything if we include Harden anyways. Well, except for take away two very good prospects, plus our 1st baseman.

 

Peavy is signed thru 2012 at 14.5m, 15m, 16m, 17m, with a club option for 22m in 2013. Harden's 7m is nowhere near that expensive. All 5 players SD would get in this deal total less than $9m, a big savings from $14.5m for just one player. Harden does, however, give them reasonably fair talent return for Peavy. This is not a pure salary dump, the Padres need a decent return, or the Peavy trade would have already been made to either us or the Braves.

 

From our perspective, Harden is signed only thru 2009, whereas Peavy is locked up 4 or 5 more years. How can you value 1 year of Harden as being equal to 4-5 years of Peavy? We also are not giving up nearly all of our prospects as you claim. Oh wait, I see you have edited that. Glad to see that you recognize that we are not giving up a lot of prospects in this proposal. The issue is trying to trade for Peavy. San Diego has passed on our efforts to get him for Vitters and the usual suspects. We have to give up something substantial to get a guy like Peavy, don't you think?

 

If you want to just pass on the Peavy idea rather than consider trading players like Lee and/or Harden, OK, but I think we need to face the fact that we aren't going to get a Peavy if we are unwilling to trade a big chip or 2. If you think San Diego would do the deal with Marshall and/or Wells substituted for Harden, great, lets try it. I just doubt if that would get it done.

 

Unloading Lee and Harden to get Peavy and Morales is absurd.

 

Let's put this into perspective - the Mets gave up Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey, and Deolis Guerra for Santana.

 

 

The Peavy situation is nothing like the Santana situation. Santana was signed thru only last year and the Twins were not going to resign him. Peavy is signed thru 2012, with team option for 2013. No comparison.

 

San Diego has turned us down on our offers and it is clear that we aren't getting Peavy without giving up something. If that means we forget Peavy and move on, fine, but if we do still want Peavy, we need to face the fact that its going to cost us.

 

Peavy will cost players of value, but not Lee and Harden. You didn't include Vitters in your trade, and I would think he is the most valuable "available" trade chip we have to San Diego. If this happens with the Cubs it sounds like it will look something like this:

 

Cubs get Peavy

Team X gets Vitters or Lee (probably Vitters)

Padres get very good pitching prospect from team X/a few other Cubs players in the Pie, Cedeno, Marshall group or prospects

 

The trade you proposed doesn't really work for anyone. The Cubs give up too much to have a significant improvment, the Padres don't shed any 2009 salary, so they can't make any more moves this offseason, the Angels would be much better served paying Tex than giving up a bunch of players for Lee.

[SweetZombieJesus]

 

The Peavy situation is nothing like the Santana situation. Santana was signed thru only last year and the Twins were not going to resign him. Peavy is signed thru 2012, with team option for 2013. No comparison.

 

San Diego has turned us down on our offers and it is clear that we aren't getting Peavy without giving up something. If that means we forget Peavy and move on, fine, but if we do still want Peavy, we need to face the fact that its going to cost us.

 

Except for the fact. That the Padres really can't afford to keep him and Peavy is really directing this trade via his NTC.

 

The M's offer was stronger than the Mets but he rejected the idea of going to seattle.

[Post Count Padder]

I wouldn't trade A-Ram. It's hard to find a good third baseman these days. Lee I wouldn't want to trade but if it meant getting Peavy and we'd be able to find a way to get another outfielder and replace Lee without hurting the offense, I'd go for it. That said, it may be hard to pull off.

[italianocubsfan7]

Just wondering, who is this Churchill guy? Some writer on yahoo!?

[Post Count Padder]

Just wondering, who is this Churchill guy? Some writer on yahoo!?

He's a beat writer for the Mariners I believe. But he has connections/ sources within other organizations.

[Clem Fandango]

I'm all for trading Vitters for Peavy, but if we're sending a guy like Lee to another team and we get one other player in return from that team, I'd rather we get another mid-to-upper tier 3B prospect in return to replace Vitters in the situation where Aramis' contract is up and we have to decide between letting him go or letting our prospect in the system take over. I thought the whole point of drafting Vitters was to let him develop and by the time he's ready would be by the time Aramis' contract was over. Getting rid of Vitters and not getting an adequate replacement in the system in this deal for Peavy will really handcuff us in the future with the 3B situation. Unless there's some way we can finagle a 3B prospect away in alternative trades in the future that would be nice, but it seems if we have to go big and trade a guy like Lee to a team like the Angels, this would be our best shot at replacing Vitters with a player of acceptable value to our system. Oh and the reason I bring this up is because Aramis has another opt out clause after 2010, which he'll likely take since his 2011 player option is less money than he'll make in 2010, so we'll have to resign him if we don't have a good replacement from within, during a year when 4 players will make over a combined $60 million in 2011 (Z, Fuku, Soriano, Demp). It would be nice to have an internal option to replace Aramis if he opts out to save some major money