Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[RyneDawson]

Lee will not be traded. Nor will any of the other Cub starters. It will be something like Vitters for a team's top pitching prospect. Then we trade that pitching prospect, Marshall, Pie, and someone like Veal for Peavy.

[Backtobanks]

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.

 

I agree that some of this discussion is getting absurd. As much as we would all like to acquire Peavy, he is a luxury and not a necessity. If we're talking about trading Vitters, Cedeno, Marshall, Pie, etc. that's one thing, but if you're talking about downgrading 2 positions ( from Edmonds/Johnson in CF to Willits/Johnson and from Lee to DeRosa/Hoffpauir at 1B) that's something else.

[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.

 

I agree that some of this discussion is getting absurd. As much as we would all like to acquire Peavy, he is a luxury and not a necessity. If we're talking about trading Vitters, Cedeno, Marshall, Pie, etc. that's one thing, but if you're talking about downgrading 2 positions ( from Edmonds/Johnson in CF to Willits/Johnson and from Lee to DeRosa/Hoffpauir at 1B) that's something else.

 

The centerfield situation has nothing to do with this discussion. Edmonds is totally separate and unrelated to any Peavy trade. The Padres have turned us down on Vitters, Cedeno, Marshall, Pie, etc. If we want Peavy, we have to look at something else. If Peavy is, as you say, only a luxury unworthy of trading a starting player for, fine, but we really shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that the Padres agree.

[davearm2]

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.

The Peavy situation is very much like the Santana situation.

 

They are both situations where the player's current club can't afford to keep him. The fact that Peavy has already signed an unaffordable contract, while Santana was simply on the verge of doing so, is pretty irrelevant.

 

Furthermore in both situations, the player had leverage to limit the teams he could be traded to, and that leverage worked to suppress the asking price.

 

Very similar situations, actually.

[17 Seconds]

Lee will not be traded. Nor will any of the other Cub starters. It will be something like Vitters for a team's top pitching prospect. Then we trade that pitching prospect, Marshall, Pie, and someone like Veal for Peavy.

 

Why do you act like you know for sure? You don't, none of us do. If the Cubs FO feels that Lee is on the way down, like many of us here do, then it wouldn't surprise me at all if they dealt him. Anyways, I think that would be more about dumping salary, rather than including him in a Peavy trade.

[LetsPlayTwo1679629188]

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.

The Peavy situation is very much like the Santana situation.

 

They are both situations where the player's current club can't afford to keep him. The fact that Peavy has already signed an unaffordable contract, while Santana was simply on the verge of doing so, is pretty irrelevant.

 

Furthermore in both situations, the player had leverage to limit the teams he could be traded to, and that leverage worked to suppress the asking price.

 

Very similar situations, actually.

 

 

Not at all.

 

Santana was not on the verge of signing an unaffordable contract with the Twins. He was on the verge of walking. The Twins were looking at 2 draft picks. Anything above that was an improvement. They blew it by not taking the Yankees' offer before it was withdrawn. Of course, it could be argued that the Yankees blew it by withdrawing the offer. While the Padres would like to move Peavy, they are not nearly in the same position as the Twins were, and their dealings with both the Cubs and Braves have shown that.

 

Yes, Peavy's no trade clause is a hindrance for them, and could help us get Peavy for a good price if we take advantage, but the Padres will not accept miscellaneous filler for him. I'd hate to lose out to the Braves or perhaps a team like the Dodgers while we sit back thinking that the Padres are more desperate than they really are. Heck, I wouldn't put it past the Yankees to dangle so many dollars in front of Peavy's face to get him to waive his no trade clause if they don't land Sabathia. We are talking about one of the top aces in the game and we want to talk about a package of a prospect third baseman (albeit a very good one), spot starters,and utility infielders. Yet many fans here seem to think it is "absurd" to offer even one starting player. My goodness. One poster referred to Peavy as a "luxury." Well, yeah, if you consider having the most dominant staff in the game and winning the pennant a "luxury." What player other than Peavy that is available to the Cubs right now is more likely than Peavy to put us over the top?

 

Would we be more likely to be able to sign or trade for a first baseman that comes reasonably close to Lee or finding a SP like Peavy? We all know the answer. If Lee can get a trade done through a third team and Vitters can't, the question becomes, "Do we keep Lee and walk away from the opportunity to land Peavy?"

[davearm2]

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.

The Peavy situation is very much like the Santana situation.

 

They are both situations where the player's current club can't afford to keep him. The fact that Peavy has already signed an unaffordable contract, while Santana was simply on the verge of doing so, is pretty irrelevant.

 

Furthermore in both situations, the player had leverage to limit the teams he could be traded to, and that leverage worked to suppress the asking price.

 

Very similar situations, actually.

 

 

Not at all.

 

Santana was not on the verge of signing an unaffordable contract with the Twins. He was on the verge of walking. The Twins were looking at 2 draft picks. Anything above that was an improvement. They blew it by not taking the Yankees' offer before it was withdrawn. Of course, it could be argued that the Yankees blew it by withdrawing the offer. While the Padres would like to move Peavy, they are not nearly in the same position as the Twins were, and their dealings with both the Cubs and Braves have shown that.

 

Yes, Peavy's no trade clause is a hindrance for them, and could help us get Peavy for a good price if we take advantage, but the Padres will not accept miscellaneous filler for him. I'd hate to lose out to the Braves or perhaps a team like the Dodgers while we sit back thinking that the Padres are more desperate than they really are. Heck, I wouldn't put it past the Yankees to dangle so many dollars in front of Peavy's face to get him to waive his no trade clause if they don't land Sabathia. We are talking about one of the top aces in the game and we want to talk about a package of a prospect third baseman (albeit a very good one), spot starters,and utility infielders. Yet many fans here seem to think it is "absurd" to offer even one starting player. My goodness. One poster referred to Peavy as a "luxury." Well, yeah, if you consider having the most dominant staff in the game and winning the pennant a "luxury." What player other than Peavy that is available to the Cubs right now is more likely than Peavy to put us over the top?

 

Would we be more likely to be able to sign or trade for a first baseman that comes reasonably close to Lee or finding a SP like Peavy? We all know the answer. If Lee can get a trade done through a third team and Vitters can't, the question becomes, "Do we keep Lee and walk away from the opportunity to land Peavy?"

You're splitting hairs.

 

Santana was on the verge of walking because the Twins couldn't afford the contract he was in line for.

 

It's really no different than the Padres not being able to afford the contract Peavy's already got.

[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.

 

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.

 

Yeah I saw a big list of prospects and assumed they were from our system. I realized the mistake pretty much instantly and edited it out, I was hoping nobody saw it.

 

Still though, I'd much prefer to keep Harden, and although Harden's deal is small compared to Peavy, it still is 7 mil while Peavy is making, what, 9 mil this year? Long term though, yes youre right it is saving them significant money. I'd prefer to keep Lee, too, if possible. But I'd be much more willing to part with him than Harden. (Although Lee has a NTC and I'm not quite sure he'd be happy to waive it.)

[JWCUB]

The Orioles have revisited trade talks with the Chicago Cubs about multi-tool outfielder Felix Pie, according to industry sources, and could end up as the third team in a three-way deal that would send marquee right-hander Jake Peavy from the San Diego Padres to Chicago.

 

Sources said that the Cubs are looking for a young pitcher in return with one possible scenario being the Orioles sending starter Garrett Olson to Chicago, who then could trade the left-hander to the Padres as part of a package for Peavy. Orioles president of baseball operations Andy MacPhail is reluctant to trade his young pitching, but the Orioles have long been enamored by Pie's potential and tools.

 

 

The Padres and Cubs have been looking for a third team to get involved in the Peavy trade talks because Chicago reportedly doesn't have all the y oung, major league-ready pieces that San Diego is seeking. Padres general manager Kevin Towers told Yahoo Sports on Wednesday that he might have found a third team to finish the deal with Cubs, but he declined to identify the club. The Orioles appear to be that third team, but getting a deal done probably won't be a simple process. Since the Cubs would be picking up a huge contract, it's fair to speculate that they'll have to wait to finalize the deal at least until after the Dec. 1 deadline for bids to buy the franchise from the Tribune Company.

 

 

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-orioles1129,0,3629851.story

 

Very interesting.

[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.

 

Yeah I saw a big list of prospects and assumed they were from our system. I realized the mistake pretty much instantly and edited it out, I was hoping nobody saw it.

 

Still though, I'd much prefer to keep Harden, and although Harden's deal is small compared to Peavy, it still is 7 mil while Peavy is making, what, 9 mil this year? Long term though, yes youre right it is saving them significant money. I'd prefer to keep Lee, too, if possible. But I'd be much more willing to part with him than Harden. (Although Lee has a NTC and I'm not quite sure he'd be happy to waive it.)

 

Good point about Lee's NTC. From a competitive standpoint, the Angels are attractive, since they are the heavy favorites to win their division. And Southern California is considered to be a relatively attractive region by many ball players. I really don't know what Lee would think about this, though.

[RyneDawson]

Would Olson, Vitters, and Marshall be enough for Peavy?

[RammyFanny]

Time for more Orioles Hangout rumors!

 

One thing though, why would they want him with Adam Jones? Did they move him to a corner spot or something? Seems like both guy's values would take a little hit if they aren't in center,

[CP_414]

The Orioles have revisited trade talks with the Chicago Cubs about multi-tool outfielder Felix Pie, according to industry sources, and could end up as the third team in a three-way deal that would send marquee right-hander Jake Peavy from the San Diego Padres to Chicago.

 

Sources said that the Cubs are looking for a young pitcher in return with one possible scenario being the Orioles sending starter Garrett Olson to Chicago, who then could trade the left-hander to the Padres as part of a package for Peavy. Orioles president of baseball operations Andy MacPhail is reluctant to trade his young pitching, but the Orioles have long been enamored by Pie's potential and tools.

 

 

The Padres and Cubs have been looking for a third team to get involved in the Peavy trade talks because Chicago reportedly doesn't have all the y oung, major league-ready pieces that San Diego is seeking. Padres general manager Kevin Towers told Yahoo Sports on Wednesday that he might have found a third team to finish the deal with Cubs, but he declined to identify the club. The Orioles appear to be that third team, but getting a deal done probably won't be a simple process. Since the Cubs would be picking up a huge contract, it's fair to speculate that they'll have to wait to finalize the deal at least until after the Dec. 1 deadline for bids to buy the franchise from the Tribune Company.

 

 

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-orioles1129,0,3629851.story

 

Very interesting.

 

Oh God. Another winter with Bigbird and company. Hopefully this is real and Hendry can get it done by the meetings.

[JWCUB]

I wonder if Hendry could really work his magic and get both Peavy and Roberts. That would be one hell of a blockbuster.

[LetsPlayTwo1679629188]

Would Olson, Vitters, and Marshall be enough for Peavy?

 

I'm thinking those three plus Cedeno goes to San Diego, Marquis and Hill go with Pie to Baltimore, San Diego sends Greene to Baltimore, and Baltimore sends us Scott. We get Peavy and Scott! We lose Marquis' salary and both Hill and Pie are out of options anyway. That would be fantastic IMO. San Diego loses Peavy and Greene's salary, gets Cedeno to replace Greene at SS, and gets the 2 young ML-ready SPs they're looking for, plus a great prospect in Vitters. Baltimore gets 1 year of Greene and Marquis and can extend them if they do well for them, and Hill and Pie are who they wanted last year. I hope there is something to this.

[CUBZ99]

The Orioles have revisited trade talks with the Chicago Cubs about multi-tool outfielder Felix Pie, according to industry sources, and could end up as the third team in a three-way deal that would send marquee right-hander Jake Peavy from the San Diego Padres to Chicago.

 

Sources said that the Cubs are looking for a young pitcher in return with one possible scenario being the Orioles sending starter Garrett Olson to Chicago, who then could trade the left-hander to the Padres as part of a package for Peavy. Orioles president of baseball operations Andy MacPhail is reluctant to trade his young pitching, but the Orioles have long been enamored by Pie's potential and tools.

 

 

The Padres and Cubs have been looking for a third team to get involved in the Peavy trade talks because Chicago reportedly doesn't have all the y oung, major league-ready pieces that San Diego is seeking. Padres general manager Kevin Towers told Yahoo Sports on Wednesday that he might have found a third team to finish the deal with Cubs, but he declined to identify the club. The Orioles appear to be that third team, but getting a deal done probably won't be a simple process. Since the Cubs would be picking up a huge contract, it's fair to speculate that they'll have to wait to finalize the deal at least until after the Dec. 1 deadline for bids to buy the franchise from the Tribune Company.

 

 

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-orioles1129,0,3629851.story

 

Very interesting.

 

Oh God. Another winter with Bigbird and company. Hopefully this is real and Hendry can get it done by the meetings.

 

OH seems to think the O's would be happy getting Pie, Hill and Marquis in the deal. If that is the case let's get this thing done.

[17 Seconds]

In those proposed deals, we basically get no value whatsoever for Hill. I'd rather keep him if we're just giving him away.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

In those proposed deals, we basically get no value whatsoever for Hill. I'd rather keep him if we're just giving him away.

 

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived.

[17 Seconds]

In those proposed deals, we basically get no value whatsoever for Hill. I'd rather keep him if we're just giving him away.

 

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived.

 

I'd rather give him a shot in ST and see if he can pull it together. It's unlikely, but I'd rather do that instead of just basically giving him away as an extra piece that doesn't really make or break the deal in any way. If one of those teams is high on him and they thing he's a key part of the deal that's fine, but I think they'd see him as a throw in type guy. Last year he was basically untouchable and now we're talking about giving him away as like the 5th piece in a trade.

[haubrich91]

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72777

 

I am having fun reading what they have to say.

[LetsPlayTwo1679629188]

In those proposed deals, we basically get no value whatsoever for Hill. I'd rather keep him if we're just giving him away.

 

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived.

 

I'd rather give him a shot in ST and see if he can pull it together. It's unlikely, but I'd rather do that instead of just basically giving him away as an extra piece that doesn't really make or break the deal in any way. If one of those teams is high on him and they thing he's a key part of the deal that's fine, but I think they'd see him as a throw in type guy. Last year he was basically untouchable and now we're talking about giving him away as like the 5th piece in a trade.

 

 

I doubt if we could get Scott out of the deal without Hill being included. Marquis is more of a salary dump for us than a positive piece for Baltimore, don't you think? If you don't want Scott, we could probably keep both Hill and Marquis, but why do that?

[17 Seconds]

In those proposed deals, we basically get no value whatsoever for Hill. I'd rather keep him if we're just giving him away.

 

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived.

 

I'd rather give him a shot in ST and see if he can pull it together. It's unlikely, but I'd rather do that instead of just basically giving him away as an extra piece that doesn't really make or break the deal in any way. If one of those teams is high on him and they thing he's a key part of the deal that's fine, but I think they'd see him as a throw in type guy. Last year he was basically untouchable and now we're talking about giving him away as like the 5th piece in a trade.

 

 

I doubt if we could get Scott out of the deal without Hill being included. Marquis is more of a salary dump for us than a positive piece for Baltimore, don't you think? If you don't want Scott, we could probably keep both Hill and Marquis, but why do that?

 

I'm just saying that I get the impression that Hill owuld not be a deal breaker and that we could get the same package with another guy. I could be wrong, I'm just getting that feeling.

[CUBZ99]

In those proposed deals, we basically get no value whatsoever for Hill. I'd rather keep him if we're just giving him away.

 

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived.

 

I'd rather give him a shot in ST and see if he can pull it together. It's unlikely, but I'd rather do that instead of just basically giving him away as an extra piece that doesn't really make or break the deal in any way. If one of those teams is high on him and they thing he's a key part of the deal that's fine, but I think they'd see him as a throw in type guy. Last year he was basically untouchable and now we're talking about giving him away as like the 5th piece in a trade.

 

 

I doubt if we could get Scott out of the deal without Hill being included. Marquis is more of a salary dump for us than a positive piece for Baltimore, don't you think? If you don't want Scott, we could probably keep both Hill and Marquis, but why do that?

 

I'm just saying that I get the impression that Hill owuld not be a deal breaker and that we could get the same package with another guy. I could be wrong, I'm just getting that feeling.

 

If the Cubs could get anything for Hill at this point it would be amazing. He is about to get booted off the roster on the winter league team that he is playing with.

[Schwarber Fan]

LOL, you know MacPhail won't do anything

 

we might as well ask for Roberts

 

Edit: M a c F a i l is filtered to his actual name?

 

Lame

[JeffH]

LOL, you know MacPhail won't do anything

 

we might as well ask for Roberts

 

Edit: M a c F a i l is filtered to his actual name?

 

Lame

 

May I suggest "The Sweater Vest Kid"?