Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If Hendry performed a staredown to keep Vitters out of the deal, then that is a masterstroke.

 

With Vitters I'm mixed on the deal. Without him, it's a strong move for the Cubs.

[Old Style]

Oh and if this rumor is true and Hendry can swing a deal for Peavy without giving up Vitters, then holy crap I'll crap myself

Go pick up some Depends, just in case.

[Electron Blue]

A lot of people are praising the possibility of JH not needing to include Vitters in the deal. But it needs to be noted that Mark DeRosa might have essentially been traded in this deal, too, something that some posters on here weren't so sure about (myself included).

 

If it all goes down like this, I will certainly like the deal. It jus shouldn't be forgotten that eventually (knock on wood) getting Peavy probably necessitated losing not only the players we might trade for him, but also Derosa, Wood, and Marquis.

[Little Slide Rooter]

A lot of people are praising the possibility of JH not needing to include Vitters in the deal. But it needs to be noted that Mark DeRosa might have essentially been traded in this deal, too, something that some posters on here weren't so sure about (myself included).

 

If it all goes down like this, I will certainly like the deal. It jus shouldn't be forgotten that eventually (knock on wood) getting Peavy probably necessitated losing not only the players we might trade for him, but also Derosa, Wood, and Marquis.

 

It also needs to be noted that no deal has been made, nor is one close as far as we know. Hell, Ihe can offer Mark Pawalek, Sam Fuld, and Luis Vizcaino for Peavy, but that doesnt mean that it wont end with milk spraying out of Kevin Towers' nose.

[RynoRules]

If Marshall is indeed part of this deal, it explains why Lou came out and named him the 5th starter. Gives him a bit more perceived value, perhaps, than being thought of as a LOOGY or swing guy.

[cubsfan26]

I don't believe any rumor of Peavy coming to the Cubs without Vitters. Olson probably has number 3 starter potential, Marshall has 3 or 4 starter potential, Cedeno might be a average starting SS, if he improves at the plate. Kevin Hart might be a 5th starter or 7th inning reliever one day. Stevens will probably be a good 7th or 8th inning set up guy. Then Archer has front of the rotation potential, but he's still very young raw with control issues. The Padres are gonna want at least one potential stud player, mixed with a bunch of nice pieces. Not just a bunch of nice pieces for a guy like Peavy. Even with them being in a bad spot with his salary issues.

[cubbinalltheway]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

[tfarks]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

 

In other words, what's the big deal about keeping the best prospect in the system because there may or may not be a position for him in 3 years? Not smart thinking.

[Backtobanks]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

 

Vitters is still very young and a few years away from the majors. It never hurts to have the depth to have options in the future. If ARam is still very productive, maybe Vitters might be taught a different position.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

 

1) I doubt Ramirez will be around for "awhile." I know I take a harder position than most on this, but you simply can't make long-term plans around players who are already on the wrong side of 28.

 

2) Vitters could move to other positions.

[jersey cubs fan]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

 

Well, he's on the wrong side of 30, already past his prime, and his health suggests a decline could come sooner than hoped. It would be much more foolish to discount the value of a prospect who is years away from hitting the majors just because a 30 year old vet is currently at his position. If he voids his contract after 2010, it would be nice to have a replacement so they don't feel pressured to foolishly sign him to an extension through his mid-30's that will likely see him produce a heck of a lot less than he has to date.

[Backtobanks]

A lot of people are praising the possibility of JH not needing to include Vitters in the deal. But it needs to be noted that Mark DeRosa might have essentially been traded in this deal, too, something that some posters on here weren't so sure about (myself included).

 

If it all goes down like this, I will certainly like the deal. It jus shouldn't be forgotten that eventually (knock on wood) getting Peavy probably necessitated losing not only the players we might trade for him, but also Derosa, Wood, and Marquis.

 

You can't add these guys to whoever we trade for Peavy. If you're going to do that you would have to say Stevens, Hart, Marshall, Olsen, Derosa, Marquis, and Wood for Peavy, Viscaino, Gregg, the minor league pitcher we got from the O's, and the other two pitchers we got from Cleveland

[swordsman]

A lot of people are praising the possibility of JH not needing to include Vitters in the deal. But it needs to be noted that Mark DeRosa might have essentially been traded in this deal, too, something that some posters on here weren't so sure about (myself included).

 

If it all goes down like this, I will certainly like the deal. It jus shouldn't be forgotten that eventually (knock on wood) getting Peavy probably necessitated losing not only the players we might trade for him, but also Derosa, Wood, and Marquis.

 

You can't add these guys to whoever we trade for Peavy. If you're going to do that you would have to say Stevens, Hart, Marshall, Olsen, Derosa, Marquis, and Wood for Peavy, Viscaino, Gregg, the minor league pitcher we got from the O's, and the other two pitchers we got from Cleveland

 

Did some of those folks clear salary for Milton Bradley too or not?

[Old Style]

So Woody's and DeRo's salaries weren't allocated to the Milton Bradley signing?

 

Damn, too slow on the Blackberry. :(

[BigbadB]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

 

Well, he's on the wrong side of 30, already past his prime, and his health suggests a decline could come sooner than hoped. It would be much more foolish to discount the value of a prospect who is years away from hitting the majors just because a 30 year old vet is currently at his position. If he voids his contract after 2010, it would be nice to have a replacement so they don't feel pressured to foolishly sign him to an extension through his mid-30's that will likely see him produce a heck of a lot less than he has to date.

 

Isn't there an opt out clause in Aramis' contract, also?

[jersey cubs fan]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

 

Well, he's on the wrong side of 30, already past his prime, and his health suggests a decline could come sooner than hoped. It would be much more foolish to discount the value of a prospect who is years away from hitting the majors just because a 30 year old vet is currently at his position. If he voids his contract after 2010, it would be nice to have a replacement so they don't feel pressured to foolishly sign him to an extension through his mid-30's that will likely see him produce a heck of a lot less than he has to date.

 

Isn't there an opt out clause in Aramis' contract, also?

 

I'm not sure of the exact language, but that's what I was referring to in the bolded section. Aramis can choose to be a free agent after 2010. I would hate to sign him to a long extension for his age 33-37/38 seasons if we don't have to.

[Clem Fandango]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

 

Well, he's on the wrong side of 30, already past his prime, and his health suggests a decline could come sooner than hoped. It would be much more foolish to discount the value of a prospect who is years away from hitting the majors just because a 30 year old vet is currently at his position. If he voids his contract after 2010, it would be nice to have a replacement so they don't feel pressured to foolishly sign him to an extension through his mid-30's that will likely see him produce a heck of a lot less than he has to date.

 

Isn't there an opt out clause in Aramis' contract, also?

 

Yup. He can opt out after the 2010 season

[17 Seconds]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

 

it's not like vitters is already 23 or something. he's a long way away. by the time he's ready ramirez will be probably be expendable..... if not sooner

 

think about it. when vitters is 25 and getting ready to enter his prime, aramis will be 37 and about done... if he isn't before then. depending on who you believe, a hitter's prime is either 25-29 or 27-32.. something like that. statistically, ramirez is already getting ready to exit his prime and vitters is still only 19

 

i don't really see the conflict between vitters and ramirez. if anything, vitters might not be ready by the time aramis' run is over.

[BigbadB]

i guess i dont understand something about the "keep vitters" camp. he's a 3B. last i checked, we've got a pretty good one there for awhile. sure his contract is up in a few yeasr but he's, arguably, THE fixture in our lineup. if he keeps performing at this level it'd be foolish to let him walk.

 

Well, he's on the wrong side of 30, already past his prime, and his health suggests a decline could come sooner than hoped. It would be much more foolish to discount the value of a prospect who is years away from hitting the majors just because a 30 year old vet is currently at his position. If he voids his contract after 2010, it would be nice to have a replacement so they don't feel pressured to foolishly sign him to an extension through his mid-30's that will likely see him produce a heck of a lot less than he has to date.

 

Isn't there an opt out clause in Aramis' contract, also?

 

I'm not sure of the exact language, but that's what I was referring to in the bolded section. Aramis can choose to be a free agent after 2010. I would hate to sign him to a long extension for his age 33-37/38 seasons if we don't have to.

 

Whoops. But, hey. If you would have bolded it the first time, I wouldn't have missed it the first time. :hello:

[inari]

The only thing that confuses me is what suggests that Aramis is in decline. He had an excellent year last year. He'll slow down eventually, but I'm not sure what indicates that it's going to come "sooner than expected."

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The only thing that confuses me is what suggests that Aramis is in decline. He had an excellent year last year. He'll slow down eventually, but I'm not sure what indicates that it's going to come "sooner than expected."

 

He's had a history of injuries, he plays a position that historically has high attrition rates, and he's already two years past the average statistical prime of most players.

[squally1313]

Alright I know this is way off topic, but I couldn't find a specific one that worked, and since this one has pretty much morphed into general offseason discussion, I figured I'd throw it in here....

 

Even with the addition of Bradley, it's always good to look for ways to upgrade the offense, and in this offseason, cut down on salary. There's an article in the Washington Post today, and found by MLBTR, that has an agent saying he would be shocked if Adam Dunn got more than $5 million a year. He says Dunn has no big name suitors, and will almost certainly end up with the Nationals because of this. I couldn't find Derrek's 2009 salary, but I know he made $13.2 last year, and I think most people here believe Dunn would be an upgrade over Lee.

 

We know Lee has a no-trade clause, and for a variety of reasons might be unwilling to waive it. But at the risk of sounding too harsh, upgrading from Lee to Dunn at first while paying significantly less (Maybe a 4 year, $30 million deal, plus the incentive of playing for a contender would be enough to get him) would help this team a lot. Additionally, trading Lee for prospects, possibly to the Giants, who could contend in the West and desperately need a first baseman, would go a long way to restocking a farm system that would be pretty bare if the Peavy trade happens. The defense would take a hit, but I think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

 

Again, sorry for being off-topic...searched a while for a Dunn topic and couldn't find any recent one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2009/01/the_market_for_adam_dunn.html?wprss=nationalsjournal

[CubColtPacer]

Alright I know this is way off topic, but I couldn't find a specific one that worked, and since this one has pretty much morphed into general offseason discussion, I figured I'd throw it in here....

 

Even with the addition of Bradley, it's always good to look for ways to upgrade the offense, and in this offseason, cut down on salary. There's an article in the Washington Post today, and found by MLBTR, that has an agent saying he would be shocked if Adam Dunn got more than $5 million a year. He says Dunn has no big name suitors, and will almost certainly end up with the Nationals because of this. I couldn't find Derrek's 2009 salary, but I know he made $13.2 last year, and I think most people here believe Dunn would be an upgrade over Lee.

 

We know Lee has a no-trade clause, and for a variety of reasons might be unwilling to waive it. But at the risk of sounding too harsh, upgrading from Lee to Dunn at first while paying significantly less (Maybe a 4 year, $30 million deal, plus the incentive of playing for a contender would be enough to get him) would help this team a lot. Additionally, trading Lee for prospects, possibly to the Giants, who could contend in the West and desperately need a first baseman, would go a long way to restocking a farm system that would be pretty bare if the Peavy trade happens. The defense would take a hit, but I think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

 

Again, sorry for being off-topic...searched a while for a Dunn topic and couldn't find any recent one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2009/01/the_market_for_adam_dunn.html?wprss=nationalsjournal

 

One reason that Dunn is getting so few offers is that he wants to play the OF. Some teams had interest in him as either a first baseman or DH, but Dunn wasn't particularly interested in that.

[davell]

I think there's at least a fairly good possibility that Aramis moves to 1B after Lee is gone after the 2010 season. There's at least a chance Vitters could be ready to take over 3B by then, if he's still on the team obviously.

[shnsajax]

Alright I know this is way off topic, but I couldn't find a specific one that worked, and since this one has pretty much morphed into general offseason discussion, I figured I'd throw it in here....

 

Even with the addition of Bradley, it's always good to look for ways to upgrade the offense, and in this offseason, cut down on salary. There's an article in the Washington Post today, and found by MLBTR, that has an agent saying he would be shocked if Adam Dunn got more than $5 million a year. He says Dunn has no big name suitors, and will almost certainly end up with the Nationals because of this. I couldn't find Derrek's 2009 salary, but I know he made $13.2 last year, and I think most people here believe Dunn would be an upgrade over Lee.

 

We know Lee has a no-trade clause, and for a variety of reasons might be unwilling to waive it. But at the risk of sounding too harsh, upgrading from Lee to Dunn at first while paying significantly less (Maybe a 4 year, $30 million deal, plus the incentive of playing for a contender would be enough to get him) would help this team a lot. Additionally, trading Lee for prospects, possibly to the Giants, who could contend in the West and desperately need a first baseman, would go a long way to restocking a farm system that would be pretty bare if the Peavy trade happens. The defense would take a hit, but I think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

 

Again, sorry for being off-topic...searched a while for a Dunn topic and couldn't find any recent one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2009/01/the_market_for_adam_dunn.html?wprss=nationalsjournal

 

One reason that Dunn is getting so few offers is that he wants to play the OF. Some teams had interest in him as either a first baseman or DH, but Dunn wasn't particularly interested in that.

 

I don't think Dunn is really an upgrade over Lee, and he isn't going to take a 4 year deal that only pays him 7.5 mil a season.