Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[SouthSideRyan]

Thats a interesting thought, would you guys trade Harden to a contender in a three way deal, if it means getting Peavy?

 

 

Based on expected return vs. real value, I think Rich Harden would be the last player in the organization I would trade.

[JWCUB]

By Tim Dierkes [November 19 at 10:42am CST]

Dan Hayes of the North County Times talked to Jake Peavy's agent Barry Axelrod, who said there are "probably six or eight more teams we'd be willing to look at" beyond Peavy's initial preferred five.

 

It sounds like the Cubs are still in play, but no other team is generating buzz. The Braves certainly have the goods, if they're willing to up their offer (and give Peavy a full no-trade clause).

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

[UMFan83]

By Tim Dierkes [November 19 at 10:42am CST]

Dan Hayes of the North County Times talked to Jake Peavy's agent Barry Axelrod, who said there are "probably six or eight more teams we'd be willing to look at" beyond Peavy's initial preferred five.

 

It sounds like the Cubs are still in play, but no other team is generating buzz. The Braves certainly have the goods, if they're willing to up their offer (and give Peavy a full no-trade clause).

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

I was waiting for that.

[Electron Blue]

By Tim Dierkes [November 19 at 10:42am CST]

Dan Hayes of the North County Times talked to Jake Peavy's agent Barry Axelrod, who said there are "probably six or eight more teams we'd be willing to look at" beyond Peavy's initial preferred five.

 

It sounds like the Cubs are still in play, but no other team is generating buzz. The Braves certainly have the goods, if they're willing to up their offer (and give Peavy a full no-trade clause).

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

 

I was waiting for that.

 

Well, it's good that we're still supposedly in the running. Unfortunately our biggest advantage this entire time has been the fact that we were one of few (maybe at times, the only) team able to negotiate...

 

Who knows, though. Obviously we need a third or fourth team involved, maybe with that it hand, we still stand a chance.

[JeffH]

I assume that Hendry knows what Towers says he needs to get for Peavy.

 

My guess is that Hendry has spoken to some of the "third and fourth" teams about what it would take to get the additional part(s) and, as of now, has deemed the overall cost in talent too great to continue pursuing Peavy.

 

If, for whatever reason, the price comes down, I assume Hendry will listen, if his budget allows.

[mdwilla]

Rumor has it the Yankees have been involved in talks, but at what price? Brian Cashman wouldn't trade Phil Hughes last year for Johan Santana, a lefty ace who is proven in the American League. So why part with the same player for a pitcher who spends half his time in the league's most pitcher-friendly park in the league's worst division? If we're to believe Fox Sports' Ken Rosenthal, the Yankees might be able to get a deal done without including the 22-year-old righty.

 

Still, a deal doesn't seem likely. At the very least, it would involve exercising Peavy's $22 million option for 2013. It might even involve a further extension. While we have heard, again from Rosenthal, that Towers and Cashman have had "numerous talks," they might not be directly for Peavy. Tom Krasovic of the San Diego Union-Tribune suggests a third team might get involved. Could Cashman be positioning himself as that third team, a la Billy Beane in the Jeff Weaver trade of 2002?

 

Perhaps the third wheel is the best place for the Yankees at this point. Yes, it would be nice to acquire Peavy to pair with (hopefully) CC Sabathia at the top of the rotation. However, if Cashman can bring home a few useful parts while sending Peavy to the Cubs or Braves, Yankees fans should be happy.

 

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/blog/2008/11/yankees_to_play_third_wheel_in.html

 

 

I don't know who we have that would interest the Yankees.

[anabiono]

interesting indeed

 

:-k

[EhDubya]

If a 3rd team is involved, that cuts the available teams in half, because if I'm the GM of a NL team, theres not way I help the Cubs add Peavey to that rotation. No chance.

[Garwilly]

If a 3rd team is involved, that cuts the available teams in half, because if I'm the GM of a NL team, theres not way I help the Cubs add Peavey to that rotation. No chance.

 

 

What do the Floridas, Washingtons, San Franciscos, hell even the Pittsburghs really care?

[CubinNY]

If a 3rd team is involved, that cuts the available teams in half, because if I'm the GM of a NL team, theres not way I help the Cubs add Peavey to that rotation. No chance.

 

 

What do the Floridas, Washingtons, San Franciscos, hell even the Pittsburghs really care?

Even a good team in the NL shouldn't care if the GM is making the deal to make his team better.

[BigbadB]

If a 3rd team is involved, that cuts the available teams in half, because if I'm the GM of a NL team, theres not way I help the Cubs add Peavey to that rotation. No chance.

 

Yes. Damn those Cubs and their rotten fans for winning the World Series every year.

 

If a trade makes a team better, they shouldn't let the division or league they play in get in the way of making that trade.

[Backtobanks]

If the Yankees are indeed the third team in the Peavy talks maybe it might involve some of these players:

 

Damon (Bad Contract) to the Cubs for salary relief

Kennedy to SD

Marquis to Yankees or with cash to SD

Lilly to the Yankees (there was talk about this last year)

Gerut to the Yankees (Cheap LH versatile OF)

Peavy to the Cubs

Pie, Cedeno, Marshall, Hart, Wuertz, Veal, etc. (all the usual suspects) going one way or another.

 

It looks a little too complicated for me to get more specific, but some of the veteran names (Damon, Lilly, Marquis) could be involved because of contract issues or as an incentive to get involved in the deal.

[rawaction]

If the Yankees are indeed the third team in the Peavy talks maybe it might involve some of these players:

 

Damon (Bad Contract) to the Cubs for salary relief

Kennedy to SD

Marquis to Yankees or with cash to SD

Lilly to the Yankees (there was talk about this last year)

Gerut to the Yankees (Cheap LH versatile OF)

Peavy to the Cubs

Pie, Cedeno, Marshall, Hart, Wuertz, Veal, etc. (all the usual suspects) going one way or another.

 

It looks a little too complicated for me to get more specific, but some of the veteran names (Damon, Lilly, Marquis) could be involved because of contract issues or as an incentive to get involved in the deal.

 

That could be pretty interesting. Damon could interest the Cubs because he is a leadoff hitter.

 

Cubs get Peavy and Damon (Yanks eat 5.5Mil)

Yankees get Lilly, Gerut, Wuertz, Cubs prospect

Padres get Kennedy, Pie, Hill, Cedeno

 

I wonder if the Yanks would take Fukudome. As a Soriano, Damon, Fukudome OF wouldn't be too great to me.

[17 Seconds]

If the Yankees are indeed the third team in the Peavy talks maybe it might involve some of these players:

 

Damon (Bad Contract) to the Cubs for salary relief

Kennedy to SD

Marquis to Yankees or with cash to SD

Lilly to the Yankees (there was talk about this last year)

Gerut to the Yankees (Cheap LH versatile OF)

Peavy to the Cubs

Pie, Cedeno, Marshall, Hart, Wuertz, Veal, etc. (all the usual suspects) going one way or another.

 

It looks a little too complicated for me to get more specific, but some of the veteran names (Damon, Lilly, Marquis) could be involved because of contract issues or as an incentive to get involved in the deal.

 

That could be pretty interesting. Damon could interest the Cubs because he is a leadoff hitter.

 

Cubs get Peavy and Damon (Yanks eat 5.5Mil)

Yankees get Lilly, Gerut, Wuertz, Cubs prospect

Padres get Kennedy, Pie, Hill, Cedeno

 

I wonder if the Yanks would take Fukudome. As a Soriano, Damon, Fukudome OF wouldn't be too great to me.

 

Would it really be worth it to go after Peavy if we had to give up prospects AND Lilly?

[BCVM22]

Everyone's favorite Cubs.com writer chimes in:

 

You know how Padres GM Kevin Towers says he's still taking to the Cubs about a possible deal for Jake Peavy? Well, a Cubs source told MLB.com on Wednesday that those talks have ended. The Cubs could either sign Ryan Dempster or add Peavy in a trade, but can't afford both. With Dempster agreeing to a four-year contract on Tuesday, that pretty much ends discussions with the Padres about the right-hander.

[anabiono]

[expletive] that [expletive]

[Clem Fandango]

Everyone's favorite Cubs.com writer chimes in:

 

You know how Padres GM Kevin Towers says he's still taking to the Cubs about a possible deal for Jake Peavy? Well, a Cubs source told MLB.com on Wednesday that those talks have ended. The Cubs could either sign Ryan Dempster or add Peavy in a trade, but can't afford both. With Dempster agreeing to a four-year contract on Tuesday, that pretty much ends discussions with the Padres about the right-hander.

 

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CARRIE MUSKAT BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[17 Seconds]

No surprise there

 

yay for paying dempster 52 million for a 4.35 era

[anabiono]

all i have to say is since we aren't going for peavy, then hendry better damn well get us an impact bat

 

god dammit

 

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhghghghghghghhgh

 

dsafj;sjd;lgasdfgjafsgj

 

sdfak;ldsjflzkscgasdgads;lkgjasdfgadfsgkj;jadsladsfihadsgjadsg

 

poop

[17 Seconds]

if it's really true that we're out of the Peavy talks then I think it's only a matter of time before a Brian Roberts rumor surfaces

[SaorsaDaonnan]

Would it really be worth it to go after Peavy if we had to give up prospects AND Lilly?

 

 

of course it would.

 

 

Lilly is under contract for two more years at 12M each

 

Peavy is under contract for four more years at 8--15--16--17 with a 22/4 club option for 2013

 

trading Peavy for Lilly straight up, just as a thought experiment, would save us four million this year, while

adding three million in fixed costs to next year's payroll. even with the pessimistic assumption that the time value

of money is zero, the trade would be a salary wash. since Peavy is a better pitcher than Lilly, the trade would be

a performance boost at no (financial) cost.

 

obviously, though, we need to include the value of the prospects we'd lose in the deal as well. start by imagining

a quantitative system that assigns dollar values to performance increments above league average (or, if you prefer,

above replacement level). now, use that system to calculate the value of the prospects we'd be giving up: first,

make predictions about the likely contributions of our prospects to the major league team in 2009 and 2010, the

period in which we're directly comparing Peavy and Lilly...then, plug the expected contributions into your dollar

evaluator. finally, plug Peavy and Lilly into your calculator in order to get a number for the Peavy-for-Lilly bump.

I think you'll find that none of our prospects are likely to make 2009/2010 contributions that exceed the value

of the 09-10 Peavy-Lilly bump.

 

if you'll agree to that, then we already have a strong argument for doing the deal, especially since the Cubs are at

the peak of the contention cycle and thus should place a strong premium on immediate results. but wait, there's

more!

 

given the magnitude of the contracts that baseball's best pitchers have been signing recently, there is plenty of

reason to believe that Peavy's contract in the post-2010 time period will be a significant bargain. pitchers

like Santana and Sabathia are looking at paydays in excess of 20M/year, and it is not hard to imagine that many

major league executives will see Peavy as an equivalently talented pitcher. it is obvious that a Peavy-like talent

on the 2009 free agent market would pull in far more than 16/17/22 in the first three years of a new deal, and

while the economic downturn might raise questions about baseball's ability to sustain giant contracts, it is hard to

imagine that marquee contracts will decline by 20 or 25 percent.

 

so, if you agree to both parts --that the Peavy bump has more immediate value than our prospects, and that Peavy's

contract is probably going to remain a bargain after 2010- you've got a great case for pulling the trigger even if Lilly

must go as part of the deal...and, really, just one of those two arguments should be enough to convince you

[CUBSSorianoWS]

If we can't get Peavy, then Hendry better do something.

 

Im talking about signing Furcal AND Bradley + Randy Johnson.

[17 Seconds]

Would it really be worth it to go after Peavy if we had to give up prospects AND Lilly?

 

 

of course it would.

 

 

Lilly is under contract for two more years at 12M each

 

Peavy is under contract for four more years at 8--15--16--17 with a 22/4 club option for 2013

 

trading Peavy for Lilly straight up, just as a thought experiment, would save us four million this year, while

adding three million in fixed costs to next year's payroll. even with the pessimistic assumption that the time value

of money is zero, the trade would be a salary wash. since Peavy is a better pitcher than Lilly, the trade would be

a performance boost at no (financial) cost.

 

obviously, though, we need to include the value of the prospects we'd lose in the deal as well. start by imagining

a quantitative system that assigns dollar values to performance increments above league average (or, if you prefer,

above replacement level). now, use that system to calculate the value of the prospects we'd be giving up: first,

make predictions about the likely contributions of our prospects to the major league team in 2009 and 2010, the

period in which we're directly comparing Peavy and Lilly...then, plug the expected contributions into your dollar

evaluator. finally, plug Peavy and Lilly into your calculator in order to get a number for the Peavy-for-Lilly bump.

I think you'll find that none of our prospects are likely to make 2009/2010 contributions that exceed the value

of the 09-10 Peavy-Lilly bump.

 

if you'll agree to that, then we already have a strong argument for doing the deal, especially since the Cubs are at

the peak of the contention cycle and thus should place a strong premium on immediate results. but wait, there's

more!

 

given the magnitude of the contracts that baseball's best pitchers have been signing recently, there is plenty of

reason to believe that Peavy's contract in the post-2010 time period will be a significant bargain. pitchers

like Santana and Sabathia are looking at paydays in excess of 20M/year, and it is not hard to imagine that many

major league executives will see Peavy as an equivalently talented pitcher. it is obvious that a Peavy-like talent

on the 2009 free agent market would pull in far more than 16/17/22 in the first three years of a new deal, and

while the economic downturn might raise questions about baseball's ability to sustain giant contracts, it is hard to

imagine that marquee contracts will decline by 20 or 25 percent.

 

so, if you agree to both parts --that the Peavy bump has more immediate value than our prospects, and that Peavy's

contract is probably going to remain a bargain after 2010- you've got a great case for pulling the trigger even if Lilly

must go as part of the deal...and, really, just one of those two arguments should be enough to convince you

 

I don't know, I'm just worried about 2 things with peavy- how he would perform without getting half his games at Petco and most of his games vs the NL West, and also his injury concerns. I'd ultimately give up Lilly+ for him, but I just have a feeling that it would backfire.

[17 Seconds]

If we can't get Peavy, then Hendry better do something.

 

Im talking about signing Furcal AND Bradley + Randy Johnson.

 

you're going to be really disappointed then. i don't think hendry has enough money to sign 2 of those guys let alone all 3.

[BigbadB]

Everyone's favorite Cubs.com writer chimes in:

 

You know how Padres GM Kevin Towers says he's still taking to the Cubs about a possible deal for Jake Peavy? Well, a Cubs source told MLB.com on Wednesday that those talks have ended. The Cubs could either sign Ryan Dempster or add Peavy in a trade, but can't afford both. With Dempster agreeing to a four-year contract on Tuesday, that pretty much ends discussions with the Padres about the right-hander.

 

I'm not giving up, and I would hope Hendry wouldn't, either. I can appreciate a comment like "we can't afford Milton Bradley, or Bobby Abreu". But when a guy like Peavy is available, you make room in your budget, even if it means someone has to go. The rumors that have floated around was that the Cubs could get Dempster AND Peavy, and another one was the Cubs could get Dempster and Randy Johnson. Hendry was quoted directly as still having interest in Peavy, so I'm not going to take much stock in anything Muskat writes on the subject.