Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[Exile on Waveland]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen

 

Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen?

 

So maybe it helps the bulpen in one out of 5 games

 

That's also myopic. The extra rest -- or at least extra rest from high leverage innings -- has a trickle-down effect for every reliever. Getting better starters is the single best remedy for the bullpen.

[erik316wttn]

Granted it wasn't this board, but I remember about a decade ago when the consensus was "give him whatever he wants, it's Mike Piazza for goodness sake!", and Kerry Wood was the hangup.

At that point though Piazza wasn't going to push us over the edge. Peavy probably is that piece.

 

That's where we disagree. For all the regression to the mean I expect from next year's Cubs, they are still the best team in the Central division.

 

And if there is something inherent to this team that keeps them from winning in the playoffs, lack of a superstar starter isn't it.

 

No, but it never hurts to upgrade, even a strength.

[Monco]

The 4/52 they gave Dempster has affected this. The money wouldn't have been an issue with Peavy without the Dempster signing. They could have let Dempster go ,get the draft picks,and had money for the Peavy trade and probably sign Bradley.

Good gravy people. I can understand the disappointment but keep your brains switched on here.

 

Dempster or no Dempster, Towers was asking too much. It's that simple. In fact he probably would've asked for even more if Dempster had walked. The Cubs would've been more needy of his asset then.

 

Hendry felt he'd be able to make the $$$ work even with Dempster, or else this thing never would've gotten this far.

 

In order to make the money work,he would have had to give up DeRosa and pay most of Marquis' salary.

[17 Seconds]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen

 

Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen?

 

So maybe it helps the bulpen in one out of 5 games

 

That's also myopic. The extra rest -- or at least extra rest from high leverage innings -- has a trickle-down effect for every reliever. Getting better starters is the single best remedy for the bullpen.

 

You're acting like Peavy is some kind of huge innings eater or something

[17 Seconds]

What contenders have a rotation whose second and third starters are that big of question marks?

 

Umm. All of 'em.

 

Okay, so name a contender whose numbers 2 and 3 starters are as likely to get hurt and regress as Harden and Dempster

 

Haha. Yeah, right. I'll get right on that. Any player can get hurt or regress.

 

Uhh yeah, but what players are as likely as Harden and Dempster? It's not jyst a chance, it's a good chance.

 

So you say "all of em" when I ask what teams are that suspect, and then why I ask to give an example you sau "haha, yeah right"

 

Well played.

 

I already gave examples. I said ALL OF THEM.

 

That's not an example, that's a blanket statement because you have no answer.

 

Name one contender who has a number 2 that is as likely to get hurt as Harden and a number 3 who is as likely to add a run and a half onto his ERA as Dempster.

 

Just one

 

Someone already did up above. The World Series winner. And they named a few more as well. I'm done here. I have work to do, and as much as you would like to give me some sort of homework assignment, I'm going to go do my own work.

 

I've never been a big Hendry fan, but I am not complaining about this particular decision to back off on an 8 for 1 deal for Peavy. That's just silly. Not only that, Peavy is no lock to be be the stud in the NL Central that he was in the NL West. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have him. Just not for the entire farm.

 

The phillies are an awful example, and I already explained why. I never said question marks, I said injury and regression. The phillies aren't counting on Brett Myers to be Rich Harden, and they aren't counting on Joe Blanton to be like 2008 Dempster. They know what those guys are, and they're built around that. We're built around Harden being healthy and Dempster being good.

Why are you so hung up on injury and regression? It completely misses the point. Lilly and Marshall/Marquis/whatever is comparable to Myers and Blanton. So the Phils need your worst case just to get to even with the Cubs.

 

Meanwhile, since I'm sure this is where you're headed next, the Cubs outscored the Phils last year, and are having to replace Edmonds while the Phils have to replace Burrell and 2 months of Utley. Advantage Cubs.

 

Here's why it is relevant. The Cubs were what, like 7 wins better than the Phillies last season? We should be trying to widen that gap, not close it. We got lucky last year with a lot of things. I think the offense is likely to lose more than just the Edmonds production. I think we're going to lose some production from DeRosa, Theriot, and Fontenot. Also, the Phillies bullpen is looking a lot better than our as wll.

 

The point is that you build a team based on what you have. When what you have has the potential to fall apart, it can screw a lot of things up. The Phillies showedlast year they could succeed with that mediocre rotation. That doesn't automatically mean we will too.

 

You can play the IF game all you want, and I can play it right back. Yes maybe Fontenot, Theriot, and DeRosa will be worse. But maybe Lee will regain some power. Aramis actually had a down year this past year, maybe he will improve a little more. Maybe Soriano will stay healthy all year. Soto should only improve. Fukudome can't get much worse. You can play the game both ways.

 

Except the examples I gave are very likely, while the ones you gave aren't

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That's also myopic. The extra rest -- or at least extra rest from high leverage innings -- has a trickle-down effect for every reliever. Getting better starters is the single best remedy for the bullpen.

 

I'd say intelligent use is the single best remedy. There aren't too many important innings for a handful of important pitchers, but there are lots of unimportant innings you can slog off on some worthless guy's arm.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's also myopic. The extra rest -- or at least extra rest from high leverage innings -- has a trickle-down effect for every reliever. Getting better starters is the single best remedy for the bullpen.

 

I'd say intelligent use is the single best remedy. There aren't too many important innings for a handful of important pitchers, but there are lots of unimportant innings you can slog off on some worthless guy's arm.

 

Intelligent use is a fairly vague concept. Better starters can have a very material effect on a bullpen.

[Exile on Waveland]

The point remains, on paper the Cubs still have a better rotation than anyone else in the NL, and injury and/or regression would merely bring them back to the pack. So if "comparable" only comes in your worst-case scenario, I'll happily live with that.

 

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level.

 

 

But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen

 

Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen?

 

So maybe it helps the bulpen in one out of 5 games

 

That's also myopic. The extra rest -- or at least extra rest from high leverage innings -- has a trickle-down effect for every reliever. Getting better starters is the single best remedy for the bullpen.

 

You're acting like Peavy is some kind of huge innings eater or something

 

I'm not acting like anything. Peavy has gone over 200 innings three of the last four season; Marquis only twice in his career. Peavy has averaged 215.3 innings in his career; Marquis 189.3. Excepting seasons when either wasn't a full-time starter Peavy has averaged 194 innings per year; Marquis 172. That's not even factoring in the performance issue: Peavy has a career ERA+ of 121; Marquis 96. Replacing Marquis with Peavy would allow the bullpen to not only be better rested as per innings pitched, but also per leverage of such innings.

 

I'm not sure if attaining Peavy is worth what the Cubs would have to trade, but I am sure acquiring him would be a net benefit to the bullpen (barring injury, which is not terribly predictable).

[Backtobanks]

All I can say is thank god Hendry is the GM and not some of the posters advocating trading 8 players plus cash for Peavy.

[nilodnayr]

 

do you not realize the upgrade of marquis to peavy is worth much more than the downgrade from kevin hart to atkins?

 

yes, the bullpen gets worse if you trade marshall or whatever. but the rotation gets much, much better. and you can't just assume the rotation boost is equal to the bullpen loss because that's insane.

 

Gee, I wonder why you are picking out the worst guys of the proposed package as your example? Could it be because you have a crap argument?

 

Hart is what our 8th starter? You are absolutely correct, losing him would not hurt this team. However, unfortunately for the validity of your point, and for the Cubs, the Padres are asking for more than just Kevin Hart.

 

Losing DeRosa would be a big blow to the team. He was exceptionally good offensively last year, and very good the two prior years. Additionally, his versatility gives the Cubs a lot of options. We don't need to get a guy who can play 3B, incase ARam goes down. We can sign Bradley and not have to worry about him getting injured because DeRo could replace him. Fontenot had a great year last year, but it was in limited time and when he was put in situations to succeed. I like him, but to think he'd be a lock to approach DeRos #s is foolish. Additionally, moving him from the bench to starting 2b takes away one of your better pinch hitters and your middle infield depth, so you'd have to replace that too.

 

Losing Marshall would be a big blow to the depth of the pitching. He has shown that he can be successful out of the pen or in the rotation. With an injury risk like Harden in the rotation, losing our 6th starter would mean instead of going from a top 5 starter in Harden to an average starter in Marshall, we'd (skipping over Hart and Guzman because they were traded too) have to rely on Gaudin, Shark and God knows who after him.

 

Pie and Cedeno I don't mind losing one bit. I don't think they'll be big contributors to the major league team (even if there are injuries) and have long lost their prospect luster. You can sign a back up SS for a mil or so that can replicate Cedeno's production and we already have Johnson to back up CF.

 

Vitters I also don't mind losing. He obviously has a lot of value and is a great prospect, but his value to the Cubs is really as a trading chip, and thats what he'd be used for here.

 

Not long ago we were talking about this deal without DeRosa and things sounded like they were progressing pretty well, even to the point where the "general framework" of the deal was in place. Frankly, that means to me that its not DeRosa as a player that is the issue, its DeRosa's paycheck that is. In that case, I'd much rather trade Kevin Gregg and retain DeRosa (or go back in time and never have traded for Gregg in the first place). Losing Marshall hurts, but I think its palatable, however losing DeRosa isn't.

So your hang up is Mark DeRosa ? Do you know how crazy that is?

 

DeRosa and Marshall for Peavey, forget the rest since they don't matter.

 

That's a crap argument.

 

There are a lot of implications beyond just Mark DeRosa in losing Mark DeRosa. Such as big downgrades to the bench and probably moving on from Bradley and looking at someone like Ibanez/Abreu. Thats what I was trying to say.

[Monco]

A top arm for the pen would really help. Is Gregg an upgrade over Wood? Hes more likely an upgrade over Howry. By not making the deal,they can get help in other places. The failure of the Brian Roberts trade helped make the Rich Harden trade.

[17 Seconds]

5:02pm: Talked to a person familiar with the Cubs' thinking...he really could not see the Cubs revisiting a Peavy trade. The Padres need to get Peavy's $63MM off the books soon, yet were trying to swing 6-for-1 or 7-for-1 deals for him. Marshall was never in the mix, by the way.

 

from mlbtr

[JeffH]

5:02pm: Talked to a person familiar with the Cubs' thinking...he really could not see the Cubs revisiting a Peavy trade. The Padres need to get Peavy's $63MM off the books soon, yet were trying to swing 6-for-1 or 7-for-1 deals for him. Marshall was never in the mix, by the way.

 

from mlbtr

 

Towers probably wanted seven of: Vitters, Pie, Hart, Guzman, Cedeno, Wuertz, Marquis+$, and the two guys we'd get for DeRosa.

 

That's ridiculous.

[jersey cubs fan]

All I can say is thank god Hendry is the GM and not some of the posters advocating trading 8 players plus cash for Peavy.

 

8 bodies, not all of them are good enough to be called players.

[17 Seconds]

hahah

[cubsfan26]

Just imagine if next month Towers comes back to Hendry and is willing to accept the deal for Vitters, Olson or another young pitcher(with Pie getting traded), Cedeno, Hart and midlevel prospect. It's not like that didn't happen to the Twins last year, when they were asking for a ton for Santana, and ended up getting probably half of what they asked for. I'm not saying it will happen, but the Cubs are in a good postion. We don't need Peavy, if we can get him sure, but we don't need to mess up the depth of the roster, and get rid of all our trade pieces to do it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Just imagine if next month Towers comes back to Hendry and is willing to accept the deal for Vitters, Olson or another young pitcher(with Pie getting traded), Cedeno, Hart and midlevel prospect. It's not like that didn't happen to the Twins last year, when they were asking for a ton for Santana, and ended up getting probably half of what they asked for. I'm not saying it will happen, but the Cubs are in a good postion. We don't need Peavy, if we can get him sure, but we don't need to mess up the depth of the roster, and get rid of all our trade pieces to do it.

 

Or, just imagine that Peavy realizes he'd be happy in 3-4 other situations and lets Towers negotiate with more teams thus eliminating the only thing Hendry had in his favor.

[cubsfan26]

Just imagine if next month Towers comes back to Hendry and is willing to accept the deal for Vitters, Olson or another young pitcher(with Pie getting traded), Cedeno, Hart and midlevel prospect. It's not like that didn't happen to the Twins last year, when they were asking for a ton for Santana, and ended up getting probably half of what they asked for. I'm not saying it will happen, but the Cubs are in a good postion. We don't need Peavy, if we can get him sure, but we don't need to mess up the depth of the roster, and get rid of all our trade pieces to do it.

 

Or, just imagine that Peavy realizes he'd be happy in 3-4 other situations and lets Towers negotiate with more teams thus eliminating the only thing Hendry had in his favor.

 

Then oh well, we didn't get Peavy. We still have a very good team next season, with a good rotation. It's not like us not getting Peavy doesn't make us good next year. Adding Peavy would be great, but if adding him, makes you weak in other spots it doesn't make sense. You only make the move if you're sure it makes you better, and if you take away depth and all you're trade pieces. Todays deal is very debateable if it makes the Cubs better or not.

Edited December 11, 2008 by cubsfan26

[17 Seconds]

If Towers had a potentially better option than the Cubs it would have been looked at already.

 

Seriously, you need to stop. Hendry did the right thing.

[UMFan83]

If Towers had a potentially better option than the Cubs it would have been looked at already.

 

Seriously, you need to stop. Hendry did the right thing.

 

Yeah but Towers is getting desperate right now. He might start begging to Peavy/Axelrod that he can accept a trade to LAA so that at least he has some negotiating room.

[Cynosure]

Well this is a bunch of Howry Committee.

[imb]

the next time someone tells me that a deal is done and just waiting to be announced or whatever, im going to kick him right in the cuckold

[17 Seconds]

If Towers had a potentially better option than the Cubs it would have been looked at already.

 

Seriously, you need to stop. Hendry did the right thing.

 

Yeah but Towers is getting desperate right now. He might start begging to Peavy/Axelrod that he can accept a trade to LAA so that at least he has some negotiating room.

 

Towers/Axelrod: Hey Jake, can you accept a trade to the Angels?

 

Peavy: Nope

 

Towers/Axelrod: Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaassssssseeeeeee

 

Peavy: Okay, fine

 

 

 

Seems reasonable

[imb]

if the whole issue with the deal falling through was that the padres wanted a 6-for-1 or 7-for-1 or whatever, then the deal is going to fall through with everyone.

 

no one is going to give up seven cuckolding players for jake peavy. it doesn't matter if peavy agrees to waive his ntc in full, he's not going anywhere if towers is demanding 7 players. and if it gets to the point where towers has to lower his demands, well, we're back in front because it's clear that hendry and towers like each other.

[Cubswin11]

So what big name player are we going to be linked to next offseason with a deal being near complete?