Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[BigbadB]

people seem to be concerned about losing two pitchers (marshall and marquis) and replacing them with one.

 

I haven't seen anyone that said that. Not one.

 

the post i quoted pretty much says that.

 

Who said it. What do the rest of their posts say about this particular topic?

 

I challenge you to find one person on this site or anywhere in Cubbyville that would not like to see a Jason Marquis and Sean Marshall straight up swap for Jake Peavy.

 

like i said the first time, the post right above yours. i guess i'll have to quote it again...

 

i don't know about that...we would have needed to part ways with marquis and marshall is our swing man since we aren't keeping gaudin around...

 

would else would we use in absence of marshall?

 

that sure as Veterans Committee sounds like someone who is concerned about swapping two pitchers for one.

 

And I'll ask it again. Who said it? And what do the rest of their posts say about trading for Peavy? If I had to guess, you are simply taking their post out of context and they are not really saying that they wouldn't trade Marquis and Marshall for Peavy.

[BigbadB]

I probably missed it somewhere in the long thread, but part of Towers' demands that might have been deemed to much by Hendry could be the taking on of the salary in its entirety.

 

Am I nuts, or do the teams looking to get out from under a contract that's too big for them usually offer to take on some of the money to get better prospects in return? Towers wanted the Cubs to take the whole contract and offer up a lot of guys.

 

I guess I'm thinking of the Rangers paying part of A-Rod's salary in their trade, Rockies and Hampton, etc. Maybe if Towers ate 4 or 5 off the last year or two, when it really escalates, Hendry would have been more likely to trade the extra players.

 

Yep.

[sneakypower]

4/63 is not an onerous contract for a pitcher of Peavy's caliber. my god, look at what CC's about to sign.

 

the Pads have special circumstances which are prompting them to get rid of him; it's not comparable to A-Rod or Hampton in any way shape or form.

[imb]

i'm not too thrilled about people over dramatizing the "7 for 1" thing

 

Fair enough. That's why this message board exists. To share your opinions and argue with people who don't agree with them.

 

i don't think it's overdramatizing to not let trade terms be dictated to you by a guy with his back to the wall

 

we'd have to say bye to pie, vitters, marquis, derosa and marshall + assorted filler to facilitate this trade. i'm not saying that peavy isn't worth it, i'm saying we should be able to get him for less.

 

obviously im not privy to what all went down, but it seemed like the further along the trade talks went, the more elaborate the demands got. i would have told towers to f himself, too.

[cubsfan26]

4/63 is not an onerous contract for a pitcher of Peavy's caliber. my god, look at what CC's about to sign.

 

 

Peavy is demanding to pick up the 5th year at 22m, so the deal ends up being 5y/85m.That still averages out to be 17m per year over 5 years. Thats not Sabathia or Santana money, but it's alot when you factor in you're also giving up 6-7 players for him.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Here's what it comes down to for me.

 

DeRosa is pretty much a shoo-in for 400 PAs due to some combination of:

 

-getting no one better for RF

-whoever we get for RF sucking

-whoever we get for RF being hurt

-Fontenot sucking/needing a platoon partner/getting hurt

-Ramirez getting hurt

 

Going from DeRosa to replacement level is something you can probably cover in the starting 9 to start out with, but it's a significant drop off.

 

Marshall is pretty much a shoo-in for 10-15 starts due to some combination of starters being hurt. Going from his 115 ERA+ to Gaudin or Samardzija being 100 ERA+ with a chance to be better or (more likely) worse over ~100 innings is not a small thing either.

 

Even with that, Peavy is still a net improvement on the club. However, I don't think that mitigated improvement is worth Vitters, Pie, plus two more of the Hart/Atkins/Cedeno/etc brigade, plus paying 5 million dollars of Marquis' contract to send him as well. There's easier ways to get that smaller improvement without completely draining your organization of tradeable assets. Depending on how you value it, you can maybe get that improvement by adding someone like Juan Cruz to the back end of the bullpen. There's also Peavy's history of arm troubles to consider, and there's some who think he's on the brink of big problems with his mechanics.

 

That said, if you think Peavy will make us more dominating in the playoffs, think he solidifies the rotation with Harden and Lilly set to leave within the next two years, and/or think we can replace the losses in the trade easier than I or others think, that's fine. It's not an outrageous position by any stretch, Peavy is really good. But I don't think either side is worthy of the sarcastic histrionics of "WE CAN'T LOSE OUR SWING MAN" or "IT'S JAKE PEAVY" in response to that rumored deal that Hendry walked away from.

[abuck1220]

people seem to be concerned about losing two pitchers (marshall and marquis) and replacing them with one.

 

I haven't seen anyone that said that. Not one.

 

the post i quoted pretty much says that.

 

Who said it. What do the rest of their posts say about this particular topic?

 

I challenge you to find one person on this site or anywhere in Cubbyville that would not like to see a Jason Marquis and Sean Marshall straight up swap for Jake Peavy.

 

like i said the first time, the post right above yours. i guess i'll have to quote it again...

 

i don't know about that...we would have needed to part ways with marquis and marshall is our swing man since we aren't keeping gaudin around...

 

would else would we use in absence of marshall?

 

that sure as Veterans Committee sounds like someone who is concerned about swapping two pitchers for one.

 

And I'll ask it again. Who said it? And what do the rest of their posts say about trading for Peavy? If I had to guess, you are simply taking their post out of context and they are not really saying that they wouldn't trade Marquis and Marshall for Peavy.

 

i don't remember and i don't really care. you're the one making a federal case out of it...scroll back a few pages if you're that worried about it.

[cbbryan]

i'm not too thrilled about people over dramatizing the "7 for 1" thing

 

Fair enough. That's why this message board exists. To share your opinions and argue with people who don't agree with them.

 

i don't think it's overdramatizing to not let trade terms be dictated to you by a guy with his back to the wall

 

we'd have to say bye to pie, vitters, marquis, derosa and marshall + assorted filler to facilitate this trade. i'm not saying that peavy isn't worth it, i'm saying we should be able to get him for less.

 

obviously im not privy to what all went down, but it seemed like the further along the trade talks went, the more elaborate the demands got. i would have told towers to f himself, too.

 

 

From what I understand on this trade the Cubs would have to take on all of Peavy's contract and part of Marquis while still including all those guys in a deal. I think that's a bit too much to ask when everyone knows you have to trade him and you've said publicly that the Cubs are the only suitor.

[wade]

4/63 is not an onerous contract for a pitcher of Peavy's caliber. my god, look at what CC's about to sign.

 

the Pads have special circumstances which are prompting them to get rid of him; it's not comparable to A-Rod or Hampton in any way shape or form.

 

It's not an onerous contract, but it's one that San Diego wants out of. The pressure is on them, not the team they're trading him to. If they have special circumstances, perhaps the Cubs felt like taking all the money and getting them out of that (as opposed to many other deals, where some salary is paid by the team trading, or they take back salary in return) meant giving up less in talent.

[abuck1220]

 

That said, if you think Peavy will make us more dominating in the playoffs, think he solidifies the rotation with Harden and Lilly set to leave within the next two years, and/or think we can replace the losses in the trade easier than I or others think, that's fine. It's not an outrageous position by any stretch, Peavy is really good. But I don't think either side is worthy of the sarcastic histrionics of "WE CAN'T LOSE OUR SWING MAN" or "IT'S JAKE PEAVY" in response to that rumored deal that Hendry walked away from.

 

i'm not making those sarcastic posts in response to hendry walking away from the deal, i'm making them in response to people who really are concerned about losing the swing man. there could, in fact, be really good reasons why hendry didn't do it. i don't think concerns over replacing the 6th starter is one of them.

[cbbryan]

4/63 is not an onerous contract for a pitcher of Peavy's caliber. my god, look at what CC's about to sign.

 

the Pads have special circumstances which are prompting them to get rid of him; it's not comparable to A-Rod or Hampton in any way shape or form.

 

It's not an onerous contract, but it's one that San Diego wants out of. The pressure is on them, not the team they're trading him to. If they have special circumstances, perhaps the Cubs felt like taking all the money and getting them out of that (as opposed to many other deals, where some salary is paid by the team trading, or they take back salary in return) meant giving up less in talent.

 

I would say in most cases this theory applies.

[CubinNY]

From what I understand on this trade the Cubs would have to take on all of Peavy's contract and part of Marquis while still including all those guys in a deal. I think that's a bit too much to ask when everyone knows you have to trade him and you've said publicly that the Cubs are the only suitor.

I don't get this? Who cares what the circumstances are here? Peavy has a lot of value and his value doesn't suddenly disappear just because Towers is only dealing with the Cubs. The players (that were rumored) that Towers was asking for aren't significant enough to worry about outside of DeRosa.

 

The current makeup of this team suggests to me that time is of the essence in terms of being a legitimate WS contender. Not getting Peavy for what was rumored is really bad.

 

My guess is that Hendry couldn't find a taker for Marquis (at his salary) so he couldn't afford Peavy's salary. If true, whose fault is that?

[imb]

im usually not one to get upset as trade/free agent negotiations drag on, because we actually get so little real information about what goes on behind the scenes. but this was sort of frustrating because it's been the better part of two months, and look at what we've gotten.

 

"the deal could center around pie, vitters or sean marshall"

 

"make that all three of them"

 

"hey jim, we need more than that, get a third team involved."

 

"hmm, youll have to move marquis? i guess you need to find a fourth team"

 

"oh, yeah, go ahead of put derosa in the deal, too"

 

if you're hendry, how long do you let that go on? better part of two months and you're further away than you were at the beginning and the deal just keeps getting more and more complicated. In a month it would be a 6-team deal with half our roster getting turned over. Not to mention he's still working on getting rid of marquis and signing bradley...how much more time can he waste on an idiot gm who keeps sabotaging a trade he has to make?

[wekse]

people seem to be concerned about losing two pitchers (marshall and marquis) and replacing them with one.

 

I haven't seen anyone that said that. Not one.

 

the post i quoted pretty much says that.

 

Who said it. What do the rest of their posts say about this particular topic?

 

I challenge you to find one person on this site or anywhere in Cubbyville that would not like to see a Jason Marquis and Sean Marshall straight up swap for Jake Peavy.

 

like i said the first time, the post right above yours. i guess i'll have to quote it again...

 

i don't know about that...we would have needed to part ways with marquis and marshall is our swing man since we aren't keeping gaudin around...

 

would else would we use in absence of marshall?

 

that sure as Veterans Committee sounds like someone who is concerned about swapping two pitchers for one.

 

And I'll ask it again. Who said it? And what do the rest of their posts say about trading for Peavy? If I had to guess, you are simply taking their post out of context and they are not really saying that they wouldn't trade Marquis and Marshall for Peavy.

 

i don't remember and i don't really care. you're the one making a federal case out of it...scroll back a few pages if you're that worried about it.

 

maybe there's another amber alert in the san diego area?

[Jehrico]

i'm not too thrilled about people over dramatizing the "7 for 1" thing

 

Hart, Cedeno, Guzman are all easily replaceable off of the scrap heap. what are Denny Bautista or Yorman Bazardo doing these days? where is Gookie Dawkins these days? they're so insignificant i don't too much care what we throw out there in their stead. Marshall was our loogy last year, uh oh where can i find one of those?? hell, the club can't trust Pie to do anything more than late inning defensive substitution and pinch running. OK, where is Freddy Guzman?

 

you've really got Vitters and Derosa were the only players of any consequence whatsoever in the deal. i can surely part with them for a CY winner

How do you know that package was ever on the table without Marshall and Marquis+ 5 mil or something like that?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

4/63 is not an onerous contract for a pitcher of Peavy's caliber. my god, look at what CC's about to sign.

 

the Pads have special circumstances which are prompting them to get rid of him; it's not comparable to A-Rod or Hampton in any way shape or form.

 

It's not an onerous contract, but it's one that San Diego wants out of. The pressure is on them, not the team they're trading him to. If they have special circumstances, perhaps the Cubs felt like taking all the money and getting them out of that (as opposed to many other deals, where some salary is paid by the team trading, or they take back salary in return) meant giving up less in talent.

 

I find it pretty onerous. The fact that other teams give stupid contracts to pitchers is no reason for us to.

[Guest]

Am I the only one who doesn't think Towers ever had any intention of making this deal unless it was a screw job? I really think this was a whole lot of posturing.

[Jehrico]

Am I the only one who doesn't think Towers ever had any intention of making this deal unless it was a screw job? I really think this was a whole lot of posturing.

I think you're right. Wasn't Peavy's agent the one that referred to what he was asking for comparable to the Herschel Walker deal?

[abuck1220]

if the cubs were trading carlos zambrano, would you guys be happy with getting sean marshall, kevin hart, josh vitters, cedeno, etc in return?

[abuck1220]

Am I the only one who doesn't think Towers ever had any intention of making this deal unless it was a screw job? I really think this was a whole lot of posturing.

I think you're right. Wasn't Peavy's agent the one that referred to what he was asking for comparable to the Herschel Walker deal?

 

the cubs simply could not give the padres the talent they wanted (and, frankly, deserved). they had to make up for the lack of talent by going for quantity.

[UMFan83]

if the cubs were trading carlos zambrano, would you guys be happy with getting sean marshall, kevin hart, josh vitters, cedeno, etc in return?

 

No because our payroll is like $150 million and we can afford to not have to trade one of our SPs for young players who may or may not pan out.

[davearm2]

if the cubs were trading carlos zambrano, would you guys be happy with getting sean marshall, kevin hart, josh vitters, cedeno, etc in return?

Of course not but if you're a Padres fan, the blame rests with the owner, not the GM.

 

Towers doesn't seem to be playing the cards he's been dealt real well here, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the cards were crappy to begin with.

[BigbadB]

people seem to be concerned about losing two pitchers (marshall and marquis) and replacing them with one.

 

I haven't seen anyone that said that. Not one.

 

the post i quoted pretty much says that.

 

Who said it. What do the rest of their posts say about this particular topic?

 

I challenge you to find one person on this site or anywhere in Cubbyville that would not like to see a Jason Marquis and Sean Marshall straight up swap for Jake Peavy.

 

like i said the first time, the post right above yours. i guess i'll have to quote it again...

 

i don't know about that...we would have needed to part ways with marquis and marshall is our swing man since we aren't keeping gaudin around...

 

would else would we use in absence of marshall?

 

that sure as Veterans Committee sounds like someone who is concerned about swapping two pitchers for one.

 

And I'll ask it again. Who said it? And what do the rest of their posts say about trading for Peavy? If I had to guess, you are simply taking their post out of context and they are not really saying that they wouldn't trade Marquis and Marshall for Peavy.

 

i don't remember and i don't really care. you're the one making a federal case out of it...scroll back a few pages if you're that worried about it.

 

maybe there's another amber alert in the san diego area?

 

:roll:

 

Been waiting a whole year to throw that one out there, eh? I feel sorry for you.

[Cubswin11]

I think both Towers and Hendry came into these negotiations with much different expectations and both thinking they had more leverage: Hendry thinking he could get Peavy for less than he assumed if he took on the remaining contract and Towers expecting to get 6-7 players for Peavy. Now both GM's need to go home, maybe take care of a few in-house things, and come back and re-start the negotiations in a week or so and both sides likely need to come down from their expectations/demands and a deal can still possibly get done.

[CUBZ99]

Now the reports are that the Cubs need to dump salary just to get Bradley. If that is true, there is no way that Peavy will fit under the budget.